What is your opinion on nuclear energy as an "alternative" energy source?

[Clarkie1]

I admit I'm not an expert and I am quite aware of problems in the past with inadequate safegaurds. However, it is my sense of things that alternative fuels excluding nuclear energy will not be enough to end the world's dependence on coal and oil, which is exacerbating global warming.


So by excluding nuclear energy as an option, are progressives contributing to global warming?


STOCKHOLM, Feb. 4 — After he heard President Bush tell Americans they were "addicted to oil," Prime Minister Goran Persson of Sweden said he was relieved that "at last there's one more who understands the problem."

Indeed, in a conversation, he seemed to suggest that Sweden's example might offer what could be termed an American detox.

<snip>

Unlike the United States, it has been blessed with two major sources of energy owing to its geography and recent history: rivers and nuclear power stations, each of which produces nearly half of Sweden's electric power without greenhouse gases.
<snip>

Across Europe, many nations are seeking to reduce their production of greenhouse gases: Denmark now derives nearly 20 percent of its power from windmills. Britain and Germany are reconsidering plans to phase out nuclear power. In Finland, where Europe's first new reactor in 15 years is already under construction, nuclear power seems to be back in favor, as it always has been in France, which relies on nuclear generators for most of its electricity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/international/europe/05swedish.html

I'm looking for informed discussion here, not a shouting match.

[crikkett]

1. I think it's deadly. What's wrong with solar power?

[Clarkie1]

3. Nothing is wrong with solar power, but can it supply all our energy needs?

[One_Life_To_Give]

11. Not ready to go in GigaWatt use

And what we need to effectively combat global warming is to have major plants on line by 2015. Which means facilities have to be submitted to planning/review/financing almost immediately.

We need all the non Greenhouse Gas emitting sources we can get online now. Eventually solar, wind, tidal, etc. will be able to take the burden. But that may not happen for another 30+ years. And we need to commit to construction today.

[Coastie for Truth]

35. Do the physics - or at least the numbers

First read a good semiconductor physics book, my recommendations:

1. Solid State Electronic Devices by Ben Streetman and Sanjay Banerjee

2. Semiconductor Devices: Physics and Technology, 2nd Edition by Simon M. Sze

Most photovoltaic cells are effective at the ultraviolet and the "indigo-violet" wavelengths of the visible spectrum. (My experience is with thin film amorphous silicon. I only worked with compound semiconductors for intensity measurement - not power generation).

When you see high efficiencies, read the article carefully. Is "efficiency" defined as:

Efficiency = (Energy from UV + Indigo-Violet Wavelengths)/All Incident Light

or

Efficiency = (Energy from UV + Indigo-Violet Wavelengths)/(Incident UV + Indigo-Violet)

Second, when you see outputs, are they

Output = (Hours from sunup to sundown) times (Peak high noon output), or

Output = INTEGRAL (Each Hour from sunup to sundown) times (Output at That Hour)

Third, for an integrated photovoltaic + battery system - are they figuring "Tafel Slope" Losses (internal overvoltages and I2R losses in the battery) plus losses in the charger.

I worked in a photovoltaic fab for several years - I have one cell as a car trickle charger, and one "big" cell (12 square feet) as an emergency battery charger.

I don't think PV cells are really ready for base line load service.

Peak load on a hot, humid, August afternoon - yes.

Off the grid living - yes, if you know what you're getting into.

[RC]

49. It gets dark at night??

[Joey Liberal]

2. I'm all for nuclear energy, the problem is......

What to do with nuclear waste and is it really safe? If those two issues are solved, then nuclear energy is the way to go. Clearly, burning fossil fuels is doing too much harm to our environment, and we need to do something better.

[Klapaucius]

32. I wouldn't mind it....

Here's the reasoning.... I was in engineering on a sub. If done *properly*, there should be no problem. The problem lies in the companies trying to squeeze more out of the bottom line, and forgoing safety measures, or not paying sufficiently to keep their workers focused on their job duties. In addition, take a look at all the designs that have been used in the past, both civilian and military, look into their safety records, pick the best *proven* design, and run with it.

Relatively speaking, much less waste to speak of, as opposed to the huge amounts of waste and pollution from coal, oil, etc. Some, if not all, of the waste can be reprocessed to use in different designs, which would further reduce the waste.

In addition.... Given the current economy, and it's current anemic state, make it a massive public works project. Shoot for full employment. Construction, security, engineering, information and energy infrastructure, all of these are things that would be of benefit. In addition, incentives might be made to convert to electric vehicles. Infrastructure for rapid-charging stations, new battery technologies to reduce the weight of vehicles, and extend their range. Have only a small gas/diesel/biodiesel engine and smaller tank ( say, maybe 5 gallons ) to charge the battery in the event that you get stuck out in the middle of nowhere, so you can charge the battery up enough to get you 15-20 miles down the road to the nearest charge point ( heck, you might not even put fuel in to the car more than once every couple of months, just to make sure that it works). Research into superconduction, for lossless or near-lossless transmission of power over long distances. Better mass transit infrastructure. I like the idea of a bullet-train I could hop here in Portland, and be able to haul butt down to visit friends in California, or to visit Seattle, or maybe New York, and places in between. Have them follow major freeways. Joe Sixpack looks over on his commute, stuck in traffic on his way out of L.A., looks over and sees the bullet train speed by about 150-200 or more miles an hour, maybe more, if it's a maglev system ( which could be made more efficient by the superconductor research), and he's gonna start thinking about how much faster he could get home that way....

Electric vehicles with independent wheel motors... Axles and transmissions gone, simpler control systems. One of the wheel motors lock up, flick a switch and let it freewheel while the other motors pick up the slack. Regenerative braking.

Materials research... so you can improve the efficiency of solar, lighter and tougher vehicle materials. There's lots of things that can be done, but here's the problem.... It all depends upon having a government that has the vision to make these things happen. I'm in no way any sort of engineer, or even associated with the energy industry at all, but these are all things that I can see as being positive benefits associated with a switch to nuclear power, at least in the interim, until we find something better or more sustainable.

Ah, and the other thing.... the damn scaremongering about nuclear from the enviro groups has got to stop.... Even the man who started that movement saw that nuclear is what we need, at the very least, until we find something far better, such as fusion, which, by the way, should be another priority research project. In it's own way, the scaremongering has just as much of a deleterious effect on the public psyche as does the war on terror. Scaring people makes money for the more extreme of them, such as ELF and the like. Concerned about waste? Implement draconian measures for improper disposal of the waste. Tag the waste in such a manner as to give it a unique fingerprint in some way which would point back to the offending company or agency. Company disposes of it's waste improperly, the CEO goes to jail for a good long time, the company is disbanded, and it's assets and infrastructure turned over to it's local competitors to run, might be a good example.

This is just off the top of my head in less than an hour. In addition, bolster science education...make being smart something to be proud of again, rather than making it the social stigma that it is currently. I know I admire Stephen Hawking far more than any random pop star or movie actor or actress.

K.

[OxQQme]

64. Question for Klapaucius (previous poster)

I worked with an ex nukeboat sailor. Our conversations led into him telling me about the power generator on their boat (submarine).
The physical size of the reactor chamber was approx a 55 gallon oil barrel, not counting the water cooling/steam re-gen portion. True?
The entire power gen would fit into a small u-haul box van. True?
Once, the Hawaiin Islands got hit by a typhoon that disabled Oahu/Honolulu/Pearl Harbor's electricity. An 'extension cord' was plugged into the island's power grid from the sub's system and supplied emergency power to the island's infrastructure and supplied enough for relief until the island could get itself going again. True?
The naval nuke powered vessels have NEVER had a major meltdown. True?
If all true, then a city the size of Portland (my home city also) could be powered up with a reactor the size of a semi-trailer. True?
Instead of humongous reactors like Hanford that are aimed at supplying power for three or four states, with disastorous consequences in a meltdown, city sized gen station PUD's makes sense.
I'm a mugwump on this issue. (Mug on one side of the fence, Wump on the other side).

[JVS]

36. 2 points

1. Nuclear waste can be recycled, thus it isn't really waste. The reason that they don't recycle it much right now is that it is cheaper to mine more. Keeping it in storage until we need the energy it can produce is wise.

2. We have parts of the country in which we have detonated nuclear weapons. These areas would not be significantly further contaminated by the addition of some storage facilities.

[patrice]

4. My feeling:

Why can't we spend as much money on figuring out what to do with the wastes as we spend on Invading other countries?

I just can't accept that what we have for these wastes is the best we can do. I've always wondered why we can't get it off of Earth somehow, since there is no really acceptable way to store it here, not even state of the art "glassification".

[dysfunctional press]

13. how about the moon?

store it there for awhile, and then when enough accumulates, launch it into the sun from there.

[ret5hd]

19. what percentage of the delivery craft...

are you willing to have explode during liftoff, etc?

remember, even a microscopic speck of that trash in your lungs is 100% fatal.

[stevekatz]

21. ya'll laugh

But if the human race survives there will be massive elavators that you could take into orbit,
Can just throw it on the elavator and load it onto a craft bound for the sun.

Before you laugh,
I'm talking at least a couple of hundred years..

And people laughed years ago about flight, going to the moon, breaking the sound barrier, ect..

[dysfunctional press]

24. the space elevator thing did cross my mind...

but as you said- it's a long ways off just yet.

[stevekatz]

28. energy

Energy production requires us to take the long view of things,

We need to be thinking about 100s of years out and not next quarter,
that is the largest problem with the capitalist system.

Places like Yucca aren't perfect, but good enouph for storage on a span of a few hundred years

[dysfunctional press]

29. there's also pebble bed technology-

where the waste storage is not nearly as big an issue.

[dysfunctional press]

22. I'm more of a pebble bed reactor fan myself...

waste isn't nearly as big an issue.

another thought i've always wondered about re:nuclear waste- would it be possible to find a way to dispose of it in deep-water subduction(?) zones, where it could be taken into the mantle for recycling by ma nature/planet earth...?

[stevekatz]

5. Its the

Only viable alternative energy source that provide with enouph energy right now.

I'd way rather have a barrel of waste then add tons of carbon and other pollutants to the atmosphere.

[dysfunctional press]

6. pebble bed technology could be the way to go.

i think that it's what the chinese are betting on, anyway.

http://www.eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/pebble_bed/pebble_bed.html

[kysrsoze]

56. Yeah, pebble bed is great. China is using it. We invented it but never

used it. This is a potentially huge form of power generation, yet our energy companies still want to build the massive, ridiculously expensive, water-cooled reactors. I have no idea why.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petronius]

33. The global temperature variations of the last century

require both a solar and a GHG explanation; neither one fully explains the temperature pattern. The GHG fingerprint is particularly strong in the last 3-4 decades while solar variability appears to have been the dominant factor in the decades prior to that.

[KittyWampus]

7. It's filthy. Production is filthy and Disposition of it's end products

is filthy.

It's also a finite resource as petroleum.

It also maintains the production and distribution of Energy within a too centralized framework.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

37. I don't know anything about the technology

so forgive my ignorance: why is it finite?

Personally, I think I could deal with living close to one if I was well-acquainted with the safeguards AND all the emergency information necessary to get my family out in case of a problem, and insurance to pay me for my nuked property. Big if's.

And I have to tell you I am talking about something I know nothing about. Which is usually the case.

[KittyWampus]

44. there's only so much uranium, just like petrol

:)

and it has to mined and then disposed of when spent.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. France, Japan, and the UK rely heavily on Nukes.

I much prefer to be burning atoms than exploding them, for one thing. And using natural gas to create electricity has to be the most mindless policy decision imaginable. Coal reserves are huge, but most of them are sulphuric, and messy. Biofuels might take more energy to create than we get from the end product.

The latest generation approaches are efficient, clean, and they fail-safe. If we use the same damned design for each one, the costs drop quickly, and the safety factors increase dramatically. Our current method of designing each plant from scratch is as smart as building an automobile differently each time GM wants to sell a car. That is just plain stupid.

[KittyWampus]

12. Biofuels do not always take more energy-Thermal Depolymerization

Thermal Depolymerization... it works

[Clarkie1]

17. Interesting the "progressive" EU nations are more open to nuclear than we.

These nations are also more concerned with global warming.

The two issues are obviously interrelated.

And although I'm no expert, what you say regarding one design makes obvious sense. Also, it is my understanding that the newer technologies are far, far more fail-safe.

[NewJeffCT]

40. A freeper type I know used that logic...

Basically, if countries like France & the UK used nuclear energy, it must be ok, as they are very conscious of things like that...

He also thought oil should be nationalized until we could build enough nuke plants.

Yes, he is a conservative Republican, but he was smart enough to realize that Big Oil doesn't really have our best interests at heart.

[catabryna]

9. It's funny that you bring this up...

because I had this discussion just a few days ago with a friend of mine. I still have some very grave concerns about the production of nuclear energy, but it's beginning to look a little more appealing to me these days. The problem I have is that, at the moment, I have no trust in anyone to run such plants ~~ our options would be pretty limited when it comes safety oversight issues, corporations or our government. That continues to make the proposition a VERY scary prospect for me and I, therefore, can't give it any sort of endorsement.

[dysfunctional press]

try googling: pebble bed nuclear technology

a much safer form of nuclear power, with safer leftovers too.

[catabryna]

48. Thanks for the tip!

I never attempt to make an informed decision without much research... :-)

[sallyseven]

18. I agree with you three mile island and Pilgrim in Mass. got

me scared. I don't trust our corporations to be careful and put our health and welfare first. Before profits that is.

[catabryna]

47. The safety issue will always be huge for me...

my son was adopted from Ukraine and the town he was born in was a Chernobyl "hot spot". My son is probably alright (does have a birth defect, but probably not related), but it still makes the whole safety issue just a little more "alive" for me, so to speak. There were a whole host of problems with Chernobyl that haven't been experienced elsewhere... but, it's a delicate proposition and process...

[OneBlueSky]

10. if intelligent leaders would actually start using their brains and . . .

putting together a true alternative energy program, nuclear wouldn't be needed . . . between solar, geothermal, tidal, wind, hydo, and whatever else I'm forgetting, there's plenty of "free" energy out there just waiting to be harnessed . . . all it takes is the will and the dollars . . . dollars we're currently pissing away in Iraq, on domestic detention camps, and to cart ice from Louisiana to Maine and back again . . .

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. I'm against it. I would rather see communities using wind, solar, geo-

thermal, and tidal energy in "mini-grids". In other words supply their own power. The trouble comes with trying to supply power for cities. I don't know what the best method would be to ensure they have enough power, but the half-life of radioactive waste tells me that's not the fuel source I want to use.

[Mz Pip]

15. Nuclear technology

has come a long way since Chernobyl. I would much perfer nuclear power than keep relying on oil. Petro chemicals are toxic too and cause way more deaths than nuclear ever did. Fusion would be perfect but we are quite a ways away from that. Perhaps we should be working harder on making that happen.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[no_hypocrisy]

16. Couple of problems with nuclear energy as it exists in the U.S.

1. The business concerns behind the construction and maintenance of nuclear power plants. I went out with a guy who worked in this type of construction. He told me about seeing defective parts that were integral to SAFE operations and how the manufacturer bribed the plant owners to accept and install those parts with full knowledge of their defects.

2. Human error potential cannot be ruled out. Operating a nuclear power plant requires enough compensation to hire and keep the best employees to allow safe transformation of radiation to heat the water that turns the turbines that generate electricity as well as 24/7, 100% safety.

3. Protection. How can a nuclear power plant be built to withstand a missile, an airplane, or a bomb? Tell me how it can be done with 100% reliability. Nothing can be guaranteed, only good and better odds.

4. Reprocessing of spent fuel rods. They have to be transported from the plants to the proposed Yucca Mountain depository in Utah. The irradiated fuel rods will be protected, yet they will be traveling perhaps next to you on an interstate highway or on a freight rail en route to YM. There is an issue about their security against hijacking or their potential spill if the transporter overturns, has a fire, or is violently disabled.

5. I understand (limited albeit) that the American way of processing nuclear energy is nuclear fusion which is more dangerous or wasteful than nuclear fision which the the process that Europe allegedly employs. I would welcome anybody to either confirm or debunk what I heard.

[immoderate]

31. I question that last point.

Nuclear fusion involves light atoms such as hydrogen reacting to form heavier atoms such as helium. I don't think that applies to waste processing. You could be confusing that with proposals such as glassification which traps radioactive substances into chemically inert (relatively speaking) glass like blocks. But I have no detailed knowledge of these processes.

The main problem is that the nuclear energy process produces substances that do not exist in nature, except in stellar processes. Life as we know it cannot exist in this environment.

--IMM

[Fox Mulder]

20. I'm all about wind power.

Why not? There's always wind and there's thousands upon thousands of square miles of land where we could put them on and they produce a lot of energy.

[FloridaPat]

23. Saw a sign in an English store back in 1976. It had a stunning comment.

It said: "If the Romans had used nuclear energy when the were in England, you would still not be able to go anywhere near it." Rome had left England about 200 years before. We don't know what to do with the waste, that will be radioactive for 1000's of years. We don't have the technology to use it safely.

I had some friends that worked at the nuclear plant in Miami. They worked 12 hours shifts for weeks at a time doing maintenance. That isn't safe. 3 Mile Island was a partial meltdown. Had it melted down completely and started a hole in the ground, the ground water for most of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Washington, and Delaware would be radioactive for centuries.

[bananas]

25. It's not a good investment

If it was, there would be no problem finding investors for new plants.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/whoops.asp

[kittynboi]

26. I support it as a stepping stone.

I'm not in favor of permanent use, but temporary, until we can refine solar, tidal, geothermal, wind, etc. and until we begin real research in to fusion, antimatter, zero point, wuantum vacuum, mini black holes, etc.

[immoderate]

27. Nuclear is a dead end.

Effectively dealing with the waste products such as perpetual storage, or blasting them into space takes more energy than they produce. That is without figuring in the costs of security, or the damage from a major accident. These are hidden costs that are externalized.

I once did a rough calculation, (Enrico Fermi math,) that if all the rooftops in the US were covered with solar panels, they would produce energy equivalent to our current energy consumption. Sadly, we were on track to do this before the Reaganites cut the alternate energy budget.

--IMM

[Solo_in_MD]

30. Right Answer for now

It trades seriously toxic residue for greenhouse gases etc. Fair trade for now. Pebble bed plants and others approaches should make it much safer to operate as well. Wind/Solar etc are fine but have no where near the capacity to provide what we need. Simple calculations show that.

We serious need to reevaluate how we build such plants in this country. They tend to turn into jobs programs with massive overkill in many areas. It is possible to build large projects clean and efficiently. We need to find the right incentives to make that happen.

Also there is the NIMBY effects. Those who are unwilling to have a plant near them perhaps should not be given access to nuclear generated power. When the cost of oil/coal/natural gas generated power gets to high, or it is just unavailable, they might reconsider. I consider this a class issue. Those that have money etc keep pushing the industrial areas with the associated issues into poorer neighborhoods.

[JVS]

34. I think it is fantastic. Clean, safe, relatively cheap, no CO2

To the naysayers who say nay and complain about meltdowns etc, you are using the same kind of irrational thinking that leads people to think that it is safer to drive long distances than to take an airplane. Sure Chernobyl was a vivid disaster, but the constant deaths caused by Coal and Oil power-plants are vastly more, although the deaths occur in a far less spectacular manner. It's car crash vs plane crash. The latter is scarier, but the former kills more.

[Coastie for Truth]

38. It's the least bad alternative

I worked in synthane at the school lab and at the DOI Bruceton Lab while in college, Bettis National Lab (West Mifflin PA), the fuel cell program of a large chemical company, and for an alternative/renewable/green energy combined research institute - think tank - incubator - venture fund (photovoltaics, Sabbatier-Peltier, batteries, hydrogen economy, fuel cells)

Check out my append with a link to Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste, Scientific American Dec 2005, William Hannum, Gerald Marsh, George Stanford] (The Adobe Acrobat PDF files is free to "Digital Scientific American" subscribers: $5.00 charge for non-subscribers.)

The gist of the Scientific American article is that fast-neutron reactors could extract much more energy from recycled nuclear fuel, minimize the risks of weapons proliferation and markedly reduce the time nuclear waste must be isolated.

Described is a liquid metal cooled, fast neutron reactor. The author makes the point that if developed sensibly, nuclear power could be truly sustainable and essentially inexhaustible and could operate without contributing to climate change. In particular, a relatively new form of nuclear technology could overcome the principal drawbacks of current methods--;namely, worries about reactor accidents, the potential for diversion of nuclear fuel into highly destructive weapons, the management of dangerous, long-lived radioactive waste, and the depletion of global reserves of economically available uranium. This nuclear fuel cycle would combine two innovations: pyrometallurgical processing (a high-temperature method of recycling reactor waste into fuel) and advanced fast-neutron reactors capable of burning that fuel. With this approach, the radioactivity from the generated waste could drop to safe levels in a few hundred years, thereby eliminating the need to segregate waste for tens of thousands of years.

Some links

What is the alternative ?

More Iraq style wars for oil - see PNAC's , or Michael Klare's books.

The other alternative is the global depression predicted by James Howard Kunstler in his monumental The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century

[Gregorian]

52. That's very interesting.

Thanks for posting that. I've been of the impression that there was no way around the long term isolation of spent radioactive waste. I guess I have to keep an open mind.

It may be the best path we have. I mean, millions of solar cell systems is going to cost in energy and materials, in a big way.

[Posteritatis]

39. I'm profoundly in favor of nuclear power until we figure fusion out. (n/t)

[nemo137]

61. I agree with Posteritatis and Coastie n/t

[Nutmegger]

41. I hate it...

but I'm afraid we're going to have to switch to nuclear energy in the future.

What many don't know is that there are way to recycle the waste. We need to pour more research into this so we're not sitting in the dark. It will cost money, yes, but what's more important???

France (I know, evil) is testing a nuclear fusion plant. Now I've been reading conflicting things about this. Some say it will reduce waste significantly and others say that there will not be a difference. So I don't know...:shrug:

[LWolf]

42. I think that any alternate source needs to be sustainable.

I don't think that any source offering up the risks and toxic leftovers nuclear energy does is "sustainable."

I think that all nuclear powerplants should be decommissioned yesterday.

I think that the American southwest has enough open, high-wind areas to produce much more wind-generated energy than is happening currently.

I think that fuel cells offer another interesting avenue to explore.

I think that if rivers can generate that much power, wave energy ought to generate more.

I think that we should continue to explore solar energy to find better ways to harness the massive amount of energy rolling off of our star into our atmosphere.

[skids]

43. Four words: Mike Brown Ken Lay

Noone on either side of the debate of nuclear power (at least no sane person) denies that running a nuclear reactor has to be done with competance and ethics, or very bad things may happen.

In the Bush-created world of Mike Browns and Ken Lays, we just don't have the "fabric" we need to support nuclear power. We can't even get coal mining right these days.

[Coastie for Truth]

53. I was a low level, anonymous staffie on the Three Mile Island Commission

(the one where Governor Thornburgh was the nominal chair - and Assembly Democratic Whip Ivan Itkin did the grunt work).

The Michael Brown-Ken Lay issue was recognized very very early. It was the subject of a series of meetings between President Carter (a nuclear engineer) and Admiral Rickover.

Rickover and Carter had some interesting ideas.

[Strelnikov_]

45. The Inevitable That Will Probably Never Happen

I am afraid the partial collapse of industrial civilization, due to energy starvation, will place high-tech energy sources requiring complex economic integration out of our reach.

Sorry, but without competent leadership, all the brilliance of our Engineers and Scientists will be of little help.


As our fifth strand, we have to wonder why the kings and nobles failed to recognize and solve these seemingly obvious problems undermining their society. Their attention was evidently focused on their short-term concerns of enriching themselves, waging wars, erecting monuments, competing with each other, and extracting enough food from the human peasants to support all those activities. Like most leaders throughout human history, the Maya kings and nobles did not heed long-term problems, insofar as they perceived them.

. . .

Like Easter Island chiefs erecting ever larger statues, eventually crowned by pukao, and like Anasazi elites treating themselves to necklaces of 2000 turquoise beads, Maya kings sought to outdo each other with more and more impressive temples, covered with thicker and thicker plaster, reminiscent in turn of the extravagant conspicuous consumption by modern American CEO's. The passivity of Easter chiefs and Maya kings in the face of the real big threats to their societies completes our list of disquieting parallels

From Chapt. 5, 'The Maya Collapses', from 'Collapse: How Societies Choose To Fail Or Succeed" by Jared Diamond

[Wind Dancer]

46. There's a ton of info from Dr. Helen Caldicott's site.

"Dr. Helen Caldicott has devoted 35 years of her life to an international campaign to educate the public about the medical hazards of the nuclear age, and the changes in human behavior necessary to stop environmental destruction."

http://www.helencaldicott.com/

More:

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/index.cfm

Bookmark these sites for research and read some of her books on nuclear energy.

[alfredo]

50. My concern with nuclear energy is the honesty of those who

build, maintain, protect, and regulate the facilities.

[Coastie for Truth]

55. See my append 53 - this was the isue that Rickover and Carter raised

again and again.

[alfredo]

60. I never hear of problems at French plants. Either they have

figured it out, or their ability to cover up problems is much better than ours.

Still, there's the waste, security, and decommissioning that doesn't seem to be worked out anywhere.

[Coastie for Truth]

62. What must be put on the balance scales--

1. The world wide recession (depression - worse then Hoover's Great Depression) postulated by James Howard Kunstler (see Kunstler's "The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century") and a lot of others (like Matthew Simmons)

2. The aggressive wars of choice for oil, as postulated by many, such as Michael Klare ("Blood and Oil : The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum" and "Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict") and advocated in PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

The risks associated with nuclear power have to be balanced against Kunstler's world wide mega-depression and PNAC's aggressive wars for oil. IMHO - on my value system, and as an energy engineer - nuclear wins hands down.

[alfredo]

65. But nuclear energy causes other political problems. Look at Iran.

Are they seeking to build a bomb, or are we being sold another war? Is their enrichment just for fuel, or are they enriching uranium to bomb grade?

[Coastie for Truth]

66. The Scientific American article I linked to describes the

difference between weapons grade fuels and power grade fuels. Has to do with the stability of the nucleus and the "neutron flux".

Simple terms - for weapons grade there have to be lots of "unstable nuclei" - that means in excess of 90% uranium "235" and/or plutonium. Less then that, and there are not enough neutrons emitted per unit volume to explode.

The test ban treaty operates - to some extent - on keeping the content of "235" well below 90% (determination of that concentration is 60 year old technology, nothing magic or secret).

Evading the test ban treaty is - to a great extent - surreptitiously enriching (separating) the power grade "238" and "weapons grade" "235". This is non-trivial, easy to detect, etc. As far as I know, this is still the train of 1,000's of uranium hexafluoride centrifuges. (I would like to try a train of ion exchange resin cells - but that's just my bias as a kidney dialysis and fuel cell and battery guy - it has been tried and is not really feasible).

I had a 3 credit course in that narrow area of 235-238 chemistry when I was young, slim, trim, and good looking. Most of my nuclear experience is pre-1977 in what they call "Plant technology" - the "Heat Exchanger" or "Boiler" where the high pressure water reactor coolant heats the high pressure steam that goes to the steam turbines to generate electricity ---- and all sorts of the esoterica of what can fail in the heat exchanger and the predictive maintenance scheduling for the heat exchanger.

[alfredo]

68. The question is, does Iran have the technology and

expertise to refine the 235 into bomb grade uranium? I haven't heard or read where they do. The junta's arguments against Iran have been vague. They have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, so they have to show real evidence, verified by unbiased international groups.

[MadHound]

51. Wind is the answer

In a 1991 US DOE report of our energy resources, the DOE found that there is enough harvestable wind energy in three states, North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas, to supply the entire US electrical demand, with growth factored in, through the year 2030. And remember, this is using '91 tech. Large strides have been taken since then in turbine tech.

And with the Great Plains as a large resevoir of wind energy, we could be exporting to all of the Western Hempisphere.

That wipes out the need for coal, natural gas, heating oil and nuclear right there. With an emphasis on new battery tech and biodiesel hybrids, we could also make a large dent in our oil usage.

Rather than mess with something that is as toxic as nuclear waste is, why bother? With something as dirty as coal and other fossil fuels, why use them? Wind can be the backbone of an energy policy that is better for the enviroment and better for this country.

[markam]

54. Here is a realistic solution for the next 30-50 years

Start building nuclear reactors. Start shutting down all coal and natural gas fired power generation. The gas is then conserved for use in home heating and industry. The coal is then used to produce gasoline and diesel fuel, utilizing carbon sequestration technology.

This allows us to preserve our existing transportation and heating infrastructure, significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions, iminates our need to meddle in the Middle East and cuts the trade deficit in half. Then, assuming that we can develop a better energy storage product than the current battery choices, we can begin implementing renewable energy generation and battery powered transportation.

[SmokingJacket]

57. The waste is too big a problem, and the risk of accidents.

Too bad, because it's nice and clean.

We're smart enough to come up with something better - lots of better technologies - it's happening as we speak.

[Odin2005]

58. Nuclear is an absolute must.

I find it sickening that Germany's so-called "Greens" are anti-nuclear. Anyone who thinks we can get most of our energy needs from renewables is living in La La Land. There is nothing less green than a coal plant being built when a nuclear one was rejected because of nucleophobia. I'll take the miniscule risk of a meltdown over adding more CO2 and polution into the air any day.

[MadHound]

63. Then I guess that the Dept of Energy has been living in such a place

For in a 1991 report on US energy resources, the DOE found that there is enough harvestable wind energy in three states, North and South Dakota along with Texas, to fulfill all of the US electrical needs, including factoring in for growth, through the year 2030. And that leaves such windy states as Oklahoma, and the entire Great Plains states open for expansion and growth. Sounds like a sane energy policy to me friend.

Building more nuke plants, without a sane, safe plan for waste disposal is where the wishful thinking is taking place, not those who favor renewables.

[Clara T]

59. It requires alot of energy

extraction-industrial processes-pollution, what's so alternative about the not very clean nuclear option?

[Greyhound]

67. The only "alternatives" the repukes ever talk about are difficult,

expensive, and closed, systems so that they can continue to hold us hostage to their whims. Nuclear is the only option that fits their requirements, other forms are distributed systems that can be purchased by small communities and even individuals, thus removing the control they can exercise over us.
It is the same with the automobiles, hydrogen is the worst of the alternatives, but allows them to maintain control over the distribution, and therefore the price. That is all they care about!