In order to combat Climate Change...Would you support building more nuclear power plants?

[Matsubara]

Because it won't be long before the powers that be tell us that they are the only workable solution.

What say you?

I'm personally way more scared of nuke waste (or accidents, God forbid) than I am of any of the warming-related calamities being predicted...

[terisan]

1. No. No one can guarantee long-term safety. Empires come and go. We don't

even know how to deal with adverse effects of global climate change, much less long-term syorage of nuclear waste.

The watch word of today is KIS-keep it simple. We have enormous untapped energy in wind, rain, water, sun. Let's put our intelligence to work and figure out how to tap it.

[karlrschneider]

2. I would, BUT I'd rather put the resources into fusion technology.

I'm certain it CAN be figured out...with a sufficient investment. Problem is who would be willing to finance it.

[rwenos]

3. I Always Thought No, But . . .

I've read lately that the French are recycling their spent fuel rods, rather than the (insane) US practice of letting the waste pile up.

For the first time in 30 years, I am willing to consider (read: only after some serious research) the possibility that recycling the spent rods can be safe.

Anyone know anything about recycling fuel rods? (I'd be just as happy if this recycling idea is total were bullshit).

Meanwhile, buy a hybrid.

[Botany]

4. No ....

mining, milling, enrichment, fuel processing, and waste disposal
all add to the net energy cost of nuclear power. It is a fool's bet.

[rwenos]

5. Cost vs Safety

You've given me a cost argument. I'm sensitive to that argument, and agree with it.

But my question was technical, not economic. It remains -- can recycling spent fuel rods be made safe? Why or why not?

[Gregorian]

6. I think there is an implicit problem with the question.

Of all people, I should be able to answer your question. As an engineer who has literally been in many of the power plants, and who studied just this kind of stuff, I should be able to give an intelligent answer. I've been avoiding thinking about nuclear. Even the word nuclear is too much like the word unclear.

The problem I have is that I think the question implies that we solve the problem in order to continue with our lives as they are. And that might be the very thing that we need to change. Not the energy, but the consumption of it.

I don't know the numbers. I have a feeling that the lifespan of a nuclear reactor is pretty long. But having been in the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor I can say that it is enormous. And complex. It's not like a steam turbine facility. It took a hell of a lot of energy to build. And if I recall they almost were defeated at some point. And there is waste heat water. Now that water issue may be the most inhibiting of the factors involved. In fact, I've read there are reactors shut down because of water volume issues. And it's not renewable. Well, that's debatable. But realistically I think it's not renewable. That's where I may be incorrect. Breeder reactors, etc.

I honestly think the most important factor in combating global warming is to simply consume less. And it's instantaneous. And there is no overhead. No need to build anything. Because even the renewable sources are going to have a huge carbon footprint in order to implement. A car takes about 10% of the energy it will use in it's lifetime, just to build. An electric car takes a lot of energy to build. A photovoltaic system takes a lot of energy to produce. It's going to have to be done. And we're starting in on it now. But we've got ourselves in very deep on this one. And when we say "we" we're usually talking about us in America. We are in the minority. There are many times the numbers of people out there just dying to live like Americans. That's where our troubles lie.

But I didn't answer your question. I'm not familiar enough with energy generation of nuclear facilities. I think my answer is no. But I cannot back it up with anything but the obvious one of how to dispose of nuclear waste.

[rwenos]

8. Thanks, I think

You've definitely got some great experience & education. I've already decided my next car is a hbrid, with as high an MPG as I can possibly obtain. I'm COMPLETELY on board with reducing consumption.

However, I've come to the gloomy conclusion that the global energy equation isn't going to change in favor of needing LESS energy anytime soon. Go tell the people in India and China they should be using LESS energy, and see how far you get.

I'll do some research. Your point about nuclear being inherently a form of self-deception is well-taken. But it might also be a bridge to the era of fusion and hydrogen. So I stand by the premise of my question, although your objection to it is valid.

[madeline_con]

7. Nope.

There's a lot of research going on out west. I can't remember which one of the U.S. Attorneys who was fired may have been somehow involved counter to what the Repugs wanted... I read something recently.

Suffice it to say they're gearing up for it. Not enough money to be made by the greedy in solar power apparently. :shrug:

[me b zola]

9. NO

Just no.

[rwenos]

10. Thanks for that Logical Response

*

[me b zola]

12. It was a yes or no question

Thanks for your attempted snark of a reply.

[rucky]

11. Yes, for now. But not forever. n/t

[intaglio]

13. For me it is the other way round

I am more frightened of global warming and the associated environmental collapse tham radiation dangers. Warming and collapse threatens the future of all "higher" species, radiation leaks do not. Radiation leaks must be avoided at all costs because they impact individuals; these may be individuals in large numbers but they are not the whole species.

That said I do NOT support the building of further nuclear reactors because I am certain that renewables can be brought up to speed. Wind, tidal, wave, geothermal and solar can provide all our needs but we need to make them more efficient and find some effective way of storing excesses (such as flow batteries)

[ConsAreLiars]

14. Reducing waste and the mass production/consumption of disposable (designed to be tossed)

crap would make a lot more sense. Of course, that would mean that capitalism would no longer shape our society, but I could live (even better) with that.

(edit typo)

[ComerPerro]

15. If there were something we could do with the waste, then possibly

[girl gone mad]

16. No.

It's a very short term solution, at best. Nuclear fuel is rare. I don't think it's wise to invest in any non-renewable resource. The cost and waste issues complicate its possible use as a transitional energy alternative.

[spoony]

17. Radiophobia has already cost the US many lives

Because people would rather choke on coal than educate themselves about radiation. It's probably too late to build a proper new infrastructure for fuel cycles now, so we'd might as well jump right to renewables.

[jpgray]

18. Not until a convenient, workable disposal method exists for nuclear waste, no.

[MadHound]

19. Having worked in a nuclear reactor, I would have to say no

There are two inherent problems with nuclear power. The first is what do you do with the waste, and this doesn't just include the spent fuel, but everything from swipes to the containment vessel when the reactor reaches the end of its lifetime. We have no good way of getting rid of the waste, and the method that we're using now is simply passing the problem along to our children's children's children.

The second problem is that of human error. No matter how technologically sophisticated a reactor is, you simply cannot make it fool proof. This allows for the factor of human erro to creep in, and human error has let to Chernobyl, TMI, and many smaller incidents and accidents around the world.

Until these two problems are solved, then nuclear is a seriously flawed method for generating electricity. Especially in light of the fact that wind energy can supply all of our energy needs. We've got the necessary grid system to use wind, now all we need to do is start building the wind farms.

[Terri S]

20. absolutely not

and for all the reasons already cited. Geez.... talk about going from the frying pan into the fire!

[Odin2005]

21. Yes.