Wanna make an omelet...let's scramble some eggs. nuclear energy is for us

[Toots]

When I helped start Greenpeace in the 1970s, said Patrick Moore in The Washington Post "I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust." That view which the public came to share after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 has frozen the nuclear industry n place for the last three decades. I now believe we environmentalists need to take a fresh look at nuclear energy, which "just may be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change." Today the US's 103 nuclear reactors generate just 20% of our electricity. Much of the rest comes from burning coal and oil, creating billions of tons of greenhouse gases that are now warming the planet. Alternative energy sources, such as solar, wind and geothermal, all can contribute, but they can simply can not replace the major baseline plants that keep big metropolitan areas lit and humming. Where does that leave us? With Nuclear Energy. It's cheap, and it's relatively safe. Over 40 years, there's only been one serious accident in the USA.-and at Three Mile Island, no one was killed or injured, and it's containment dome prevented radiation from escaping into the environment.(The chernobyl accident, in the Soviet Union, involved a primitive plant with no containment vessel.) coal, by contrast, kills five thousand miners throughout the world every year, and causes pollution responsible for tens of thousands of additional deaths. Face it: In a world facing global environmental disaster, going nuclear is our least worst option. In fact, it's our only option...Patrick Moore Washington Post

[azurnoir]

1. And just think

no messy clean up no need to dirty a pan or the stove it can happen in the shell:sarcasm:

[xchrom]

2. as a californian -- i wonder at the insanity that is pushing

nuclear power any more.

can you imagine what will happen to the one nuclear reactor we have here -- should it get hit with a severe earth quake?

and it's a question of when not if.

a bad accident with a nuclear power plant never makes them ''relatively'' safe.

[leeroysphitz]

6. Hey, let's have a little faith in human skill and know-how...

Seriously. Is it so implausible? There is no way to use nuclear energy safely? Even if we all got behind it, removed the profit motive and really let our best and brightest tackle the problem of creating and delivering SAFE nuclear energy? No way at all? Could never happen?

Hmmmphh.. I think you underestimate what people can achieve when they put their minds to it.

[xchrom]

13. there is no such thing as perfection.

and less than perfect with nuclear energy is horrifying to conceive.

chernobyl isn't the worst we've seen.

on our little walk with nuclear energy -- we'll see much, much worse.

and it has noting, nothing to do with faith in humans abilities to do anything.

but some things are not worth the journey.

[MadHound]

15. Two major problems that currently can't be solved

And given the state of the nuclear industry, it is highly doubtful that they can be solved in the forseeable future. That is the problems of human error, and what to do with the nuclear waste.

Human error is the largest cause of nuclear accidents and incidents, and though we can build plants that reduce human error, we can't eliminate it since we can't eliminate humans from the process.

And disposing of the waste is a conondrum that has plagued the industry from the beginning. Storing it in Yucca Mt is foolish due to quakes, volcanic activity, and the proximity to vital groundwater. Storing it elsewhere also presents unique problems, not limited to the fact that you've got to absolutely make sure that this material won't escape storage for the next few hundred thousand years.

Shooting the waste into the sun is also problematic, witness the atmospheric burst of the Columbia shuttle, now think if it had nuke waste on board.

We don't need nuclear. Between wind and solar, we can supply all of our electrical needs safely, cleanly, and without resorting to foreign sources of fuel. It is the ideal solution, I suggest we start implementing it.

[leeroysphitz]

28. Let's look to Europe.

They currently generate almost 80% of their electricity with nuclear power. What are they doing with their waste? How have they manged to operate these plants safely for thirty years?

[MadHound]

31. They're either dumping their waste into the ocean

Or they're storing it on site like the US is currently. And no, they haven't managed to operate their plants safely. Chernobyl is the 800 pound gorilla of European nuclear accidents and incidents. Much like us, they have had release of radioactive steam and other radioactive material into their enviroment via, you guessed it, human error.

[leeroysphitz]

32. Not to split hairs but...

Were not talking about antiquated poorly designed and operated soviet era reactors like Chernobyl. I was refering to (and I'm sure you understood this)the modern and safe reactors in use throuout Europe.

I understand that no amount of argument will alter some folks perception of nuclear power so I won't presume to debate you further other than to say that there IS a track record out there that suggests this form of power generation, while not perfect, can be done safely.

[MadHound]

34. The trouble is, as you say, it's not perfect

And when you're dealing with radiation, you have absolutely, positively be perfect. Even a relatively minor leak of radioactive steam can effect the surrounding population for decades.

And the thing is, while the newer reactors in Europe are much safer, they still don't eliminate the possibility of human error, which is the largest source of nuclear accidents and incidents. Also, Europe is still using many older reactors, ones that are starting to become dangerous.

And again, what do you do with the waste?

Wind and solar have none of these drawbacks, and they can fulfill all of our electrical needs. This is off the shelf technology that we can start using now, I would have to say that it would be better to go with something like this than to invest in such a potentially dangerous energy supply as nuclear.

[Beelzebud]

38. What to do with the waste?

Bury it in Yucca Mountain.

Yucca Mountain sits in the Nevada Test Site, which was contaminated with over 300 atmospheric and underground nuclear tests. The area is already a nuclear wasteland.

[MadHound]

41. Oh yeah, that's a bright idea, NOT!

They couldn't have picked a worse place to bury the shit if they had tried.

Yucca Mt. sits astride seven faults, next to an active volcano, and with nice cracks and fissures running throughout the complex, the EPA did dye tests years ago, and found that if any of the containers leaked(and believe me, given the time frame we're talking about, sooner or later they'll leak), radioactive material will be showing up in Las Vegas drinking water within two weeks, and Los Angeles drinking water within a month.

We're talking about storing this material for tens of thousands of years, without leaks, damage or release. It is impossible. So rather than messing around with a technology that is so very unsafe for all of us, and all who come after us, let's go with off the shelf technologies that are safe, clean, renewable, and can provide for all of our eletrical needs now and into the future, solar and wind.

Nuclear power is nothing more than large scale Russian roulette. It is never a matter of if some nuclear disaster is going to happen, it's only a matter of when.

[jpak]

43. The cost of Yucca Mountain is $60 billion and climbing

Taxpayers - not the nuclear industry that made a profit on the spent fuel they created - will pay for most of it.

[sweetheart]

39. France is not europe

Nuclear is nowhere near that high a usage across europe.

Wind, wave and solar are the future. Solar could do most
everything, if the electricity markets allowed micro-generation,
so that each house could be small powerplant.

Then the competition for microproduction will engender innovation.

[leeroysphitz]

45. I once asked why every rooftop in this country isn't covered

with solar and wind power generating units. It seemed to me that it would be the way to at least offset our energy dependence.
I was flooded with replies telling me about how cost prohibitive (to the point of impossibility) it would be...

If I could, even if the initial investment were relatively costly, make my home energy independent I would, tomorrow.

I don't know the answer but I do know that push is rapidly coming to shove with regrades to the worlds energy needs. I think tough choices and sacrifices are ahead and unless we want to drastically alter our way of life nuclear is something we'll be looking at, like it or not.

[MadHound]

46. Long term solar and wind energy costs less for the homeowner

3Kw of solar panels cost aprox 15-20 thousand, a 3Kw wind turbine costs 12-15 thousand. Amatorize this over twenty years, and it costs less for these options. After that twenty year period, everything else is gravy. Most wind turbines and solar panels have a lifespan of forty years.

I'm working towards installing a turbine later on this summer, along with a woodstove.

Wind and solar are both off the shelf technologies, and compared with the costs of both building and operating a nuclear plant, are pretty damn cheap. And wind alone could provide all the electricity this country needs.

[sweetheart]

55. Passive solar at least

Using glass in the right places, the need to "convert" solar
energy can be minimized. I don't think most architects
realize that all houses are solar-temples, machines that
attract light for their inhabitants.

To cover a new roof with full solar electricity would cost
me the house price over again... so i'm betting on passive,
and "maybe" solar water heating if it shows economic... as
it seems that heatpump underground is a very effective heating
system.

I totally agree with you... if they subsidized the solar roof
business, there is enough radiation energy falling on every
single house to serve its needs without transmission or the
efficiency of converting power.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

23. Oregon voters have said no more Nuclear because of the Trojan accident...

same problem with Earthquake worries here.
3 Mile Island was NOT the only one...

In 1978, the plant was closed for nine months while modifications were made to improve its resistance to earthquakes, following discovery both of major building construction errors and of the close proximity of a previously unknown faultline. The operators sued the constructors, and an undisclosed out of court settlement was eventually made.

The Trojan steam generators were designed to last the life of the plant, but it was only four years before trouble was first detected, as premature cracking of the steam tubes. In 1992, rupture of a steam tube finally closed the plant, and it was announced that replacement of the steam generators would be necessary before it could restart.

Environmental opposition dogged Trojan all of its life, including violent clashes both inside and outside the boundary fence. In an Oregon state poll in 1980, a proposal to ban construction of further nuclear power plants in the state was approved by voters. Then in 1986, a proposal by Lloyd Marbet for immediate closure of the Trojan plant was defeated. This proposal was resubmitted in 1990, and again in 1992 when a competing proposal by Jerry and Marilyn Wilson to close the plant was also included. Although all of these closure proposals were defeated, in campaigning against them the plant operators committed to successively earlier closure dates for the plant.

In 1992, PGE spent over $5 million to defeat a statewide ballot measure to close Trojan in what is still the most expensive ballot measure campaign in Oregon history. Then, within a week, the Trojan plant suffered yet another steam generator tube leak of radioactive water and was shut down. In December 1992, documents leaked from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, showing that staff scientists believed that Trojan may be unsafe to operate. In January 1993, PGE announced it would not try to restart Trojan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant

[MadHound]

3. Sorry Patrick, but you're full of shit

Nuclear power has yet to solve the two largest problems that have always plagued it, what to do with the waste and how to eliminate the largest cause of nuclear incidents and accidents, human error. And frankly, at this point in time, we can't solve those problems. And since we can't solve those two problems, we should shun nuclear power, because the risks of even one slip up, one mistake, are too high.

Besides, according to a 1991 Wind Resource Inventory, there is enough harvestable wind energy in three states, Kansas, N. Dakota and Texas, to supply all of our electrical needs, including growth factors, through the year 2030. Not that we should limit our wind farms to these states, America is overflowing with a bounty of wind energy. We can spread our wind farms throughout the country and harvest clean, renewable electrical power for all, without having to resort to such problematic solutions such as nuclear, coal or gas generated plants.

Any other solution than renewables is foolish.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

25. don't forget Hydropower

Oregon gets 70% of it's power from the river.

Dams are built on rivers where the terrain will produce an artificial lake or reservoir above the dam. Today there are about 80,000 dams in the United States, but only three percent have power-generating hydro plants. Most dams are built for flood control and irrigation, not electric power generation.
http://lsa.colorado.edu/essence/texts/hydropower.htm

The costs of adding turbines to these dams that are already there is a fraction of building a nuclear plant, and no toxic leftovers. :)

[Bandit]

29. You don't consider the elimination of salmon stocks as a toxic

leftover. Those turbines grind up the smolt of returning salmon and have led to the rapid decline in salmon stocks. Salmon might just go extinct if more turbines are added...

[Viva_La_Revolution]

33. Yes, they might finally be making some progress there...

Have you heard about the robofish at Bonneville? ..bit of a propaganda piece, (checking the numbers now) but the science is cool.

snip>
Turbine redesign already has paid off. Two new turbines installed at Bonneville Dam last year have smaller gaps between the turbine blade and the turbine housing. Narrower gaps reduce the turbulence, which means that fewer fish are ripped apart.

Tests with live fish show that the narrow gaps halve the death rate of fish killed going through the turbines. Results from the sensor fish program point to another possibility: increasing the survival of fish once they get past the turbine.

In a startling finding, trials have found that dramatic swings in pressure and acceleration continue for minutes beyond the 10 seconds it takes fish to get past the turbine blades. Turbines, it turns out, create turbulence that continues down the concrete tubes that lead from the dam.

When fish finally shoot from the pipe, they've been spinning for minutes. They haven't had a chance to reorient themselves and aren't prepared for the gantlet of predators. Carlson's trials suggest that the answer might be to lengthen the exit tubes. That would smooth out the flow.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/news/oregonian/00/05/lc_61robo05.frame

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. As time passes, more and more people will realise this.

On the other hand, nuclear energy clearly isn't perfect, and I think it likely that in time to come other, still less bad, options will be developed.

But I think it very unlikely that there will not be a period of time between the point when current non-nuclear sources of energy cease to be sufficient, and the time when better new ones are developed, and we're going to need nuclear fission to "tide us over", especially if the energy demand from the third world continues to grow.

[bowens43]

5. I have to agree, it's time for another look.

I spent a good deal of time in the 70's demonstrating against nuclear power. It's quite possible we were wrong. There are tough choices to be made. We are not going to give up electricity. Eliminating green house gasses should be our number one priority.

[Coexist]

7. I am in the 'let's take another look' camp myself.

I am just not certain it is not the answer anymore.

[MadHound]

9. Two questions then, and they're big ones.

1. What are you going to do with all that extra radioactive waste? We don't have a safe or sane plan for dealing with what we have now, and yet you're proposing to add to that?

2. What are you going to do about the leading cause of nuclear incidents and accidents, human error? Making a mistake in a nuke plant is nowhere comparable to making a mistake in a conventional plant. The long term ramifications of such a mistake are horrifying, witness Chernobyl.

[jpak]

44. US uranium supply is another

The US imports >66% of the uranium it uses to generate nuclear electricity.

US nuclear plants use 62 million pounds of uranium oxide per year.

US uranium production peaked in 1980 at 40 million pounds per year.

Current US uranium production is ~2 million pounds per year.

At no time in its entire history did the US uranium mining industry produce enough uranium to satisfy our domestic needs.

France, the UK, Germany, Japan, China, South Korea, Finland, Lithuania, Spain, Mexico et al. import most or all of their uranium.

Global uranium production peaked in 2001 and is declining - were it not for uranium stockpiles accumulated ~20 years ago, global uranium supply could not meet global demand.

The Chinese and Japanese are currently scouring the planet to lock-in uranium supplies and lock everyone else out.

The World Nuclear Organization predicts a significant shortfall in uranium supply (relative to demand) by ~2011.

Who will win and who will lose??????

[Toots]

48. I hear Niger is selling yellowcake.

:shrug:

[Tikki]

10. Of course, you are signing up....

to form an action committee to have a nuclear facility constructed
adjacent to your neighborhood.

You wouldn't want your family and friends to miss out on all the potentials.




Tikki

[dysfunctional press]

8. pebble bed technology is the way to go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

[MadHound]

11. Still doesn't take care of the two large nuclear problems

Disposing of the waste and eliminating the leading source of mistakes in the nuclear industry, human error. And when you have a nuclear mistake, it's a big one, with long term ramifications.

Wind is the much better way to go. No waste to worry about, able to supply all of our electrical needs, and a mistake won't doom an entire region.

[dysfunctional press]

20. NIMBY...

wind farms are way too noisy...i'd much rather live near a pebble-bed nuclear reactor than a wind farm. i'd never vote to support a wind farm in our area.

[MadHound]

21. Tell you what, can we put a waste disposal site in your back yard?

Your characterization of wind farms as "too noisy" is inaccurate. New wind turbines are virtually silent, being as new technology has allowed them to operate much more efficiently and quietly, with lower tip speeds.

And if next you're going to complain about them being an eyesore, well, I hope they aren't building cell phone towers around you:eyes:

Sorry, but I find NIMBYism to be ridiculous when it is unwarranted.

[Gruenemann]

12. What's missing here...

They ran this propoganda in our local paper. At the bottom, it said the writer had formed an organization to promote nukyular energy with the help of none other than Christine Todd Whitman. 'Nuff said.

[Homer Wells]

14. An old argument-and a good one

In the ideal world, nuclear energy sounds like a great idea, but..............
In reality, government either goes with the lowest bidder, or (as seems to be the case today) with insider influence, ala Halliburton.
Either way, the chances of the construction quality being the best possible is hardly on the winning side of the bet.
In an imperfect world, we cannot count on those in charge looking after OUR best interests.
The positives regarding this technology do not outweigh the hazards posed by the near certainty of errors that could happen.
However, if and when they develop successful fusion technology, I would re-consider the nuclear option. From what I have read, (not extensively, I admit), fusion energy poses much less threat to both life and the environment.
My two-cents added to the mix

:think:
:hippie:

[acmejack]

16. Bechtel is the big Nuke builder

Too much money to be made here. Look at how much they managed to soak people for with Nine Mile Point.

Unit #1

Size (Megawatts): 610

Reactor Design: GE Mark I BWR

Commercial Start: 1969

Operating Status: Operating - License expires 2009

Construction Cost: $160 million
Unit #2

Size (Megawatts): 1080

Reactor Design: GE Mark II BWR

Commercial Start: 1988

Operating Status: Operating - License expires 2026

Construction Cost: $6.4 billion

http://www.nukebusters.org/46.0.html

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Theoretically, it's a good idea

In practical terms, there needs to be intensive research in how to render the waste harmless, and I see no indication that that is making any real progress.

That being said, coal and petroleum powered plants are not without their risks, only their bad effects occur in slow motion (air pollution, global climate change) as opposed to all at once, as in Chernobyl.

Human error is inevitable in any enterprise, so that by itself is not a reason to refuse nuclear energy.

[MadHound]

18. Big difference in human error at a conventional plant

And human error at a nuclear plant. Worst case scenario at a conventional plant is a big hole in the ground. Worst case scenario at a nuke plant is a big hole in the ground, surrounded by a dead zone that is uninhabitable for decades, possibly centuries. Also, while the injuries and deaths from a WCS at a conventional plant are limited to the immdiate area surrounding the plant, death and injuries from a nuclear WCS can extend upwards of dozens of miles away, and over the span of decades into the future.

And given that wind, along with solar, can supply all of our electrical needs, why risk nuclear? In fact we could, and should shut down all conventional electrical plants and base our energy strategy on clean, renewable alternatives like wind and solar. Anything else is foolish.

[porphyrian]

19. As long as it's properly funded and regulated...

...it can be a very clean source of energy. The problem is that there are too many people trying to profit on every reactor, and those people cut corners in order to make a buck (Three Mile Island, anyone?). We must also properly fund, plan and regulate the disposal of nuclear waste. These things can't be done by a government that's bought and sold by corporations.

[MadHound]

22. What are you going to do with the waste?

Stick it in a hole in the ground? Dump it into the ocean? Shoot it to the sun? Sorry, but there is no safe long term way to store nuclear waste. It remains a hazard for tens of thousands of years. Do you really think it's right to saddle future generations untold with our mess?

And for your information, TMI was one of the most technologically advanced nukes going at the time, yet it was still laid low by. . . human error. Another problem we can't eliminate, and just another reason why we shouldn't go nuclear.

[porphyrian]

24. How much time and money has been spent on the solution?

You've already given up. I'm sure the practice that probably shaped your opinion was planned no further than the cost it saved and the terms of the elected officials responsible. This isn't what I'm suggesting.

There are plenty of nuclear scientists, engineers and geologists who, if properly organized and funded, could come up with a solution for nuclear waste that everyone can get behind. No one has been willing to bother to do this or to pay for it. I'm convinced that we should, and that they would succeed.

[MadHound]

26. LOL, shows how little you, or the public, truly knows

Go peruse some of the nuclear plant publications, some of the industry journals. There you will find article after article on how the nuclear engineers and scientists have tried to solve the twin problems of waste and human error, and have so far failed miserably.

Besides, we can no longer afford the time to persue some pie in the sky solution. Our energy situation is starting to get dire now, and both wind and solar are off the shelf technologies that we can harness NOW to fulfill all of our electrical needs, cleanly, safely and renewably into the future.

Oh, and that's another problem with nuclear, it requires fuel, and the US has pretty much tapped out all of our domestic sources for uranium due to bomb manufacture. Do you really want to substitute being bent over the oil barrel by the ME with being bent over the uranium rod by the South Africans?

[porphyrian]

35. Shows how much you know.

The nuclear plant publications are done by the industry that doesn't want to spend enough money to do the job correctly, thus what you're reading is cherry picked to support the current procedures. Likewise, anti-nuclear propaganda uses scientists who claim the same angle, though to support their anti-nuclear ideology.

This isn't about a "pie in the sky solution." If you're old enough, you'll recall that's what many said about walking on the moon. They were wrong.

Apparently you only read what you wanted to about nuclear fuel. Breeder reactors create more fuel than they consume. We could produce more than we need domestically.

[MadHound]

36. Sheer speculation on your part friend

What, you don't think that the nuclear industry doesn't want to solve the problems of waste and human error? You think that the nuclear industry likes being under intense scrutiny, and having every single thing that they do criticized? You think that the nuclear industry likes losing money, because further nuclear development(and profits) are being held up by the public concern over waste disposal and safety issues? Yeah, go ahead pal, pull my other leg:eyes: The nuclear industry is desperate to get these monkeys off their back, so why would they publish falsehoods, each and everyone of them, including the independents. Your premise simply makes no sense.

As far as breeder reactors go, you're still going to have to provide the feedstock for them, which is either uranium or thorium, you're not creating this material out of thin air pal, you still have to mine it out and put it into the breeder to get enriched.

And yes, I recall watching the moon landing very well. I also recall a lot of other promises that went unfulfilled too, like nuclear power providing free electricity to all without hurting anybody. Sometimes the promise of technology is just that, a promise. Reality gets in the way many times and those promises simply go unfulfilled.

[porphyrian]

40. I'm not touching your leg.

Your mind's made up, and I don't expect to change it. I still have something you've lost, though, and I stand by what I've said. I don't require your agreement or understanding.

[MadHound]

42. So what do you have that I've lost?

And why are you so hyped up on nuclear power? Especially when wind and solar can provide all of our electrical needs, without exposing our society and our enviroment to so much danger? Wind and solar are cheap, safe, clean energy sources that we can employ now. Just don't get it:shrug:

[porphyrian]

47. Perspective, for one.

I'm not "so hyped up" on nuclear power. I simply stated that, if properly planned, funded and monitored, it would be a safe and clean form of energy. You are the one who attacked my statement and got all emotional about it.

I never said we shouldn't pursue wind and solar energy. You assumed that must be my position because I didn't agree with you about the evils of nuclear power. Not that you bothered to ask, but I think we should pursue all avenues of energy alternatives to fossil fuels.

I think it's sad that you can't even identify what you've lost.

[MadHound]

49. I think it's sad that sans facts,

You are having to resort to strawmen, ad hominems, and cryptic references. Persepective, friend I've got probably some of the best perspective on this issue of most of the posters to this board, and better than probably ninety percent of the general population. I know fully where of I speak, I know the dangers inherent in this industry, and I'm fully cognizant of what the nuclear industry is trying to do to clean up not only its image, but the industry itself. And guess what, despite all of their efforts they cannot, and probably will not solve the twin problems of human error and waste disposal in our lifetimes. And frankly, short of solving those twin problems, nuclear power is a bad bet all the way around.

Meanwhile, up until your last post you haven't mentioned one way or the other about solar or wind. All that you've done is to try and talk up nukes, and never in our conversation have you addressed solar or wind. So what do you think of using solar and wind exclusively to provide our electrical power? It can be done, easily. We have ample wind power, we have a grid to transport it on, it's an off the shelf technology, why not use it now?

Sorry, but the US is nowhere close to getting "safe and clean" nuclear technology, and frankly given the state of the industry and the research being done, we're not going to get "safe and clean" nuclear power in our lifetime. Thus, building new reactors, increasing the chance of both major and minor accidents, creating more waste that we have no good idea what to do with is foolish and unwise. Rather why not go with clean renewable alternatives like wind and solar. They can more than fulfill our electrical needs for the forseeable future, and they don't bring along the drawbacks of nuclear. It only seems logical, but sadly on this issue, like many others today, logic and common sense are taking a backseat to profits and power.

And you want persepective friend, try this on for size. I WORK in a nuclear plant, have for a number of years. That's perspective friend, a view that most people won't ever get.

[porphyrian]

50. Well, thanks for your unsolicited opinion. - n/t

[MadHound]

51. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

Hey friend, you're the one responding to me, remember. Sorry to burst your bubble, and your assumptions, but:shrug:

Perhaps you should take this opportunity and rethink your premises and opinions:shrug:

:evilgrin:

[porphyrian]

52. You haven't burst anything of mine.

Thanks for the unsolicited suggestions, as well. I'll be sure to file them.

P.S. Not to point out that you are wrong or anything, but my initial post was to the OP, who you aren't. You took it upon yourself to try and pick an unprovoked fight with me. I've simply responded to your unwarranted attacks. Enjoy!

[MadHound]

53. Perhaps, perhaps not.

But I find it interesting that when you find out where I work, you all the sudden want to end the conversation we've been having:shrug: Sorry, but I do find it kind of amusing.

Peace:hi:

[porphyrian]

54. I tried to end it before you flashed your "credentials..."

...assuming you aren't just full of shit. However, you insisted, as you continue to do, on hounding me. Frankly, I don't care about you or what you have to say at all. I just have so little else to do that this is helping me kill time.

Would you like to get the last word? I'll let you have it if that's all you're looking for.

[MadHound]

56. LOL, no, you can have it.

But if you're worried whether or not I'm full of shit, I know at least two DUers around here personally, and they can indeed vouch for my place of employment.

Have yourself a good evening, and hey, give a thought to giving up the nukes OK? We don't really need them, and they're too much of a pain in the ass for the return we get.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Of all the money spent on nuclear power plants...

including financing, constructing, maintaining, etc...

roughly 2% goes towards the fuel disposal problem.

Doesn't sound like it's exactly at the top of their priorities.

[realisticphish]

27. I'm in the "keep researching" group

Hydrogen? Yeah, it'd be nice, but it seems a long way off. Wind power? Unreliable. Solar power? more reliable, but still delicate. Hydro power? We may have something there, but that won't work for the whole country unless you create a LOT of dams.

IMHO, the two best alternatives to petroleum, at the moment, are ethenol and nuclear. Neither are even close to being able to provide all power for the country. But refusing nuclear out of hand is a HUGE mistake. Should it be our primary source for power in the near future? No. But it would be worth looking at to help ease our reliance on petroleum.

[MadHound]

30. Currently micro generators, wind and solar, are providing

More power for both the US and the world than nuclear is. Wind and solar both are off the shelf technologies that we can employ now to ease the petroleum crunch. And with our national electrical grid, which can transfer power a thousand miles or more, and our abundant, widespread availability of wind power, we can provide a safe, clean reliable energy solution that doesn't involve nuclear or fossil fuels. I say let's do it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. Cheap?

I suppose that's why nobody's built a reactor in thirty some years, it's too cheap.

[OnionPatch]

58. My first thought is this

We may believe we will use nuclear just until something better comes along and then the nuclear companies get huge and next thing you know we'll have the same sort of cartels running the world because they control all the power that we have now with the oil cartels. They will bulk, as usual, at taking safety measures, especially the kind that we liberals would probably want and try to ignore or cover up environmental concerns. I'm sick of huge corporate cartels controlling us all like puppets with their strings. I want a system with power that's easy for the average person to access. Solar, wind power, etc. Nuclear creeps me out. I can't get behind it.