Should I be in favor of nuclear power?

[sharesunited]

It is enviro-friendly as far as greenhouse gases are concerned. And it is a very cost-effective way of generating a LOT of electric power.

But its potential to self-destruct and its poisonous spent-fuel disposal burden makes me less than enthusiastic about it.

Need help here to arrive at a decisive personal position from which to consider public policy.

[yorgatron]

i think it's brilliant,except for 2 things,

1.what to do with the waste products?
2.it's run by humans.
"to err is human..." and all that :shrug:

[havocmom]

12. takes a lot of water too, doesn't it?

Humans CAN live without a lot of electricity, but there is no substitute for water.

[Tutonic]

53. Waste material is a huge issue.

Need to look at improving efficiencies in the system before allocating resources to Nuclear Energy.

[dkf]

1. I don't understand why we still want to rely on a depletable source of energy.

If everyone converts to nuclear won't we be running short of that eventually too?

[BlooInBloo]

4. Because the laws of physics require it...

Stay tuned next week for another episode of Simple Answers To Simple Questions!

[dkf]

13. When we figure out nuclear fusion maybe...

Will these plants be any good if we can make fusion work?

[BlooInBloo]

18. (shrug) They might be good *now* if we could get the safety costs under control....

Going to "fusion" isn't magic. The laws of physics (thermodynamics in particular) apply to fusion reactions as much as fission. In *all* processes, you "deplete".

[dkf]

28. 85 years of Uranium at current usage...If we all convert we will have problems sooner

In 2005, seventeen countries produced concentrated uranium oxides, with Canada (27.9% of world production) and Australia (22.8%) being the largest producers and Kazakhstan (10.5%), Russia (8.0%), Namibia (7.5%), Niger (7.4%), Uzbekistan (5.5%), the United States (2.5%), Ukraine (1.9%) and China (1.7%) also producing significant amounts.<42> The ultimate supply of uranium is believed to be very large and sufficient for at least the next 85 years<36> although some studies indicate underinvestment in the late twentieth century may produce supply problems in the 21st century.<43>

Some claim that production of uranium will peak similar to peak oil. Kenneth S. Deffeyes and Ian D. MacGregor point out that uranium deposits seem to be log-normal distributed. There is a 300-fold increase in the amount of uranium recoverable for each tenfold decrease in ore grade." <44> In another words, there is very little high grade ore and proportionately much more low grade ore.

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

[Dogmudgeon]

39. The paragraph about estimated amounts

Current economic uranium resources will last for over 100 years at current consumption rates, while it is expected there is twice that amount awaiting discovery. With reprocessing and recycling, the reserves are good for thousands of years. It is estimated that 5.5 million tonnes of uranium ore reserves are economically viable, while 35 million tonnes are classed as mineral resources (reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction). An additional 4.6 billion tonnes of uranium are estimated to be in sea water (Japanese scientists in the 1980s showed that extraction of uranium from sea water using ion exchangers was feasible).

People disbelieve it when they hear that uranium is so common -- but it really is. Oil can only be formed under certain conditions. Uranium was formed when the universe was created, and there is a lot of it in the Earth. That's where the heat from the core comes from. It drives the "continental drift".

When it comes to consumer culture, THAT is what we have to deal with. We need more energy right away -- we need major political and cultural changes in the next few generations. Nuclear, renewable, or any newer, more exotic energy source will only be a resource to be consumed if we keep to our present course. We will still need energy; the safer and more abundant, the better. But without developing a little wisdom along the way, we will be having a very brief future history.

--p!

[dkf]

42. Well I would rather invest in something that will last in perpetuity.

I can see how renewables would do that, and if there is enough Uranium or whatever we need to produce fission, then thats cool too. Just don't waste our time and energy on something that will be a supply problem.

[Dogmudgeon]

46. That's a good rule to follow.

We have a whole lot of problems we have to solve. Energy is one of the largest, but it can also be solved in a straightforward manner.

Eventually, I believe we will have technology that is so efficient that it will seem like magic -- but not anytime soon! For that, we need the natural resource of intelligence. And we have limitless amounts of that.

Unfortunately, we have a tiny little problem mining it ... :)

--p!

[stevedeshazer]

50. Thorium

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

* Thorium is much more abundant in nature than uranium.
* Thorium can also be used as a nuclear fuel through breeding to uranium-233 (U-233).
* When this thorium fuel cycle is used, much less plutonium and other transuranic elements are produced, compared with uranium fuel cycles.
* Several reactor concepts based on thorium fuel cycles are under consideration.

Thorium is a naturally-occurring, slightly radioactive metal discovered in 1828 by the Swedish chemist Jons Jakob Berzelius, who named it after Thor, the Norse god of thunder. It is found in small amounts in most rocks and soils, where it is about three times more abundant than uranium. Soil commonly contains an average of around 6 parts per million (ppm) of thorium.

Thorium occurs in several minerals, the most common source being the rare earth-thorium-phosphate mineral, monazite, which contains up to about 12% thorium oxide, but average 6-7%. Monazite is found in igneous and other rocks but the richest concentrations are in placer deposits, concentrated by wave and current action with other heavy minerals. World monazite resources are estimated to be about 12 million tonnes, two thirds of which are in heavy mineral sands deposits on the south and east coasts of India. There are substantial deposits in several other countries (see table). Thorite is another common mineral. A large vein deposit of thorium and rare earths is in Idaho.Thorium-232 decays very slowly (its half-life is about three times the age of the earth) but other thorium isotopes occur in its and in uranium's decay chains. Most of these are short-lived and hence much more radioactive than Th-232, though on a mass basis they are negligible.

[Dogmudgeon]

22. That will take a long, long, long, long time

Uranium is about as common as tin. It's in nearly everything, including seawater and dirt. The phosphate fertilizer we use to feed our crops with has a whole lot of it mixed in as a natural addition. Several kinds of granite will set a Geiger counter off.

Right now, Uranium is so cheap that we're not developing these other resources -- it's about $60 for a pound of Uranium Oxide "yellowcake". At $250, extracting it from seawater becomes economical.

Thorium is an even better fuel, since it's a lot harder to sustain a runaway reaction and to make into bombs. There is 2-3 times as much thorium as uranium.

Burning coal for energy puts the equivalent of dozens of Chernobyls' radioactive material per year into the atmosphere. It's about 10 metric tons per gigawatt per year. The uranium in coal alone can yield more energy than the coal itself. Not only does burning coal release carbon gases, it causes 1-2 million premature deaths each year. Coal mining kills 4-8 thousand miners each year. Coal energy has been a disaster, but anti-nuclear activists have only recently discovered its dangers. Greenpeace is still recommending a 12-year nuclear phase-out, but will allow 40 more years for coal.

Leftists who support nuclear energy face the kind of peer pressure that made high school so unpleasant for many of us. I must have been called a "paid shill" by close to 25 DUers alone.

Nothing is perfect, or a panacea, but nuclear energy has already been a pretty good deal, even considering Chernobyl.

--p!

[dkf]

29. Wikipedia says 85 years worth at current usage.

[Dogmudgeon]

31. That's at $60+ a pound

(Edited "$130" to read "$60+").

At $300 a pound, it's a lot longer -- thousands of years.

With breeder technology, about 40 times as long as that.

I'm sure that 85 years figure wouldn't be used without qualifications. Which Wikipedia page are you reading?

--p!

[dkf]

32. See my post above.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3502045&mesg_id=3502199

[BlooInBloo]

2. Cost-effective, as long as you don't count all of the costs.

[sharesunited]

8. Head to head with coal fired. Not cheating with any externality whatsoever.

All inclusive. And giving full weight to the inherent risk of radioactivity.

[BlooInBloo]

10. "cost effective" does NOT mean "more cost effective than alternative X"...

They just mean different things.

[sharesunited]

14. Efficient, then. Producing optimum results for the expenditure.

[BlooInBloo]

19. And then we're back to cooking the books in regards to the costs.

[sharesunited]

20. The hard costs are accounting entries. Do you mean intangible costs?

Such as how to quantify vulnerability to, and unwelcome consequences of, error, catastrophe, sabotage?

[BlooInBloo]

26. It simply amazing that lenders and insurance companies are able to value such "intangible" costs...

As well as many others.

[BlooInBloo]

9. self-delete - wrong branch.

[Vincardog]

3. Cost effective? Only if we pay the costs and the PArasitic Corporations take the profits. Fuck That

[cstanleytech]

44. That statement makes little sense to me, I mean unless

we suddenly become some sort of communistic style country/world there will be corporations running businesses, yeah i know its a shocking concept but there it is
/end sarcasm

Just to add, yeah at times I do feel the frustration with them, $400 dollar electric bill this month and thats going to be hard for me to come up with, not impossible but "ouch"

[Vincardog]

55. IF wall street thinks nuclear is such a good idea let them pay for it and accept

all the responsibility. I do not have any problem with corporations as a form of business I am just tired of them running my country. You know socializing all the costs and privatizing all the profits.

[cstanleytech]

58. Hey I understand the part about

them running alot of the country with what amounts to bribes, believe me.
I am pro-banning lobbists paid for by corporations as well as extreme limits on the gifts our elected officials recieve and that includes the latests trick they use of taking speaking arrangments where a company "pays" for the trip to make it look nice, legal and legit.
That aside for some things in this day and age corporations make sense, its a big world and sometimes big business is best, not always and not often but there are times............course I will still cuss them out every time I get a bill in the mail though :P hehe

[Two Americas]

60. red baiting

"Some sort of communistic style world" is not the only alternative to unregulated corporatism. The other poster said WE pay the costs and private interests profit. That is what is happening with a variety of privatization schemes, and we are prudent to be alert to it.

There is nothing wrong with Democrats advocating the old public utility model for managing basic services and protecting public assets and the public welfare. Calling any hint of left wing politics "communistic" and posing two and only two alternatives - privatization and corporate domination or communism - is red baiting and has no legitimate place in a discussion, especially among Democrats.

Sorry to hear you are inconvenienced by your $400 monthly electric bill. That suggests that you are exceptionally fortunate compared to most. But a small price to pay, in your mind I suppose, for making sure we don't go "communistic."

[cstanleytech]

62. That "Inconvience" to you means for me that

I need to decide which of my meds I might need to drop or something else thank you very much for showing your deeper understanding of my life /oozing sarcasm
Anyway, I also know so far I am lucky than some in that atleast so far I still have a roof over my head.

[Two Americas]

63. ok

You didn't make that clear (not that you should have to) and that is horrible. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. I read you as saying it was a relatively minor inconvenience - again I apologize for that - and that combined with your reference to "communistic" alternatives led me to believe you were defending the "free market" concept and opposing the traditional Democratic party positions on matters of public welfare - to include access to energy and medicine.

All the more reason that we should be advocating traditional Democratic party solutions to social problems, to include restoring the regulated public utility model that has been under relentless assault from the right wingers and barely exists anymore, and tight regulation on the market and finance, and expanding the New Deal to include equal access to health care for all and a national energy policy that protects the public welfare and the hopes of future generations, and that would include moving money from the enormous highway funding over to re-building public transportation.

[cstanleytech]

67. apology accepted

I do support better medical care for everyone, it should be a right not a privelange for the wealthy only to recieve good decent care and yeh public regulation of things like gas and electric, moderate one for telephone and cable, they are not needed essentials so they can do with less control.

[Two Americas]

68. very good

We agree then. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. In 1957 Sellafield (Windscale) in the UK had a reactor fire

radiation spread all over the England and Ireland. You know about Chenobyl.

http://www.lakestay.co.uk/1957.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

[applegrove]

6. I am up in the air too. You cannot really say that it "burns clean" when

there is so much dangerous waste to bury. Still it may be a better choice than coal.

[whistle]

7. 4th generational nuclear absolutely, france is planningbuilding them now and these will be producing

...by 2020

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

http://www.eubusiness.com/Rd/france-nuclear.51/

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html

http://www.physorg.com/news8956.html

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/reactors.html

[XOKCowboy]

24. So many studies. Very few words about waste.

Do you work for GE by any chance?

[Dogmudgeon]

33. Since when?

That's all you hear about -- nuclear waste.

If the price of uranium was a little higher, that wouldn't be "waste", it would be recycled.

You want to talk nuclear waste? Burn coal. About ten tons per year per gigawatt. That's like dozens of Chernobyls a year. Maybe hundreds. But I have yet to see a single activist duct-tape him or herself to a cooling tower.

And what is it about people that makes them think, "anyone who disagrees with me is on the take"?

By the way -- GE is the major OEM for wind energy technology.

--p!

[XOKCowboy]

59. 24000 years...

You equate the waste from coal with nuclear waste? Who said anything about coal anyway? Nuclear waste is going to be deadly toxic for thousands of years. Please answer how we're going to deal with it. None of the studies you cited had much to say about it.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

11. Consider how much alternative energy you could build and the

jobs created for the billions of dollars, (some taxpayer subsidized) that nuclear power costs.

[havocmom]

16. And, people could do more co-ops and be free of corporate power

More local sustainable energy means less cost for long transmissions lines AND NO ROOM FOR SPECULATORS!

[Dogmudgeon]

25. Sadly, that is absolutely wrong

Sunlight is free. But who makes the solar cells?

Wind is free. But who makes the turbines?

Gas and oil only produce 5% of our electricity, and that's probably a real high estimate. The speculators will abide.

Transmission costs could be lower, but they have not been. Large-scale solar and wind energy systems are only theoretical. We can, and should, develop them, but we've wasted about 30 years already. The crunch is here, now. It will only get worse.

A lot of people think that nuclear energy is somehow more "corporate" than wind or solar power. But EVERY form of energy production is controlled by corporations. Almost all of the nuke companies are owned by the big conglomerates that also control wind and solar technology. We can't rely on a silver-bullet political fix, because the corporations have their fingers in so many pies. Only public scrutiny and pressure will work.

First we keep the lights on -- then we pull the reins in on corporate power.

There are no magic solutions, and nuclear energy is no exception. But it deserves a new, thorough evaluation.

--p!

[havocmom]

34. Didn't say it would be free. I have no problem paying for solar equipment

made by smaller, innovative companies that hire people (create jobs).

Saw a program on a couple guys who made an old factory into 11 units of housing in a city. Solar on the roof = very little utility costs. If more and more people would go that route, the world would be a better place.

[Dogmudgeon]

47. Sorry if I misread that

Nearly all the money and effort is going into solar PV -- photo-voltaic -- and THAT is highly centralized and corporate. But the idea that "solar is not corporate" is so entrenched that a lot of the corporatization is being overlooked.

"Solar on the roof" is usually "passive" thermal solar heating. It is fairly inexpensive, and mainly just requires a licensed plumber to inspect the work and make sure it's up to code. Although it doesn't allow going off the grid entirely, as you said, it dramatically cuts costs. In most places, it can be used for a survival level of energy.

Brad Pitt is working on a lot of projects like this. Because he is famous, he attracts attention and money to the cause. He sponsors several websites and finances a number of companies, and is concentrating on New Orleans now. I should try to track down his projects online.

--p!

[havocmom]

48. LOL More and more solar on the roof is NOT passive heating but power producing

and innovations in plumbing make it easy for DIY types to do all sorts of better heating systems. Pex rules for plumbing now.

Have seen LOTS of solar pumps going in in my rural county. Much cheaper to make the power you need, where you need it than it is to run power lines that tend to come down anyway when the weather is bad (it is a lot of the time)

Off the (big) grid and onto a smaller, local grid seems much more efficient and takes the damned speculators out of my pocketbook. ;)

[End Of The Road]

15. I was asking myself the same thing earlier today.

Determining a personal political position on the best course for our energy future depends alot on knowing what the real truth is about our present, and there are so many conflicting opinions that the only thing I'm SURE of is that alot of people are lying to one degree or another.

I'm not categorically anti-nuke. But it's not environmentally friendly, that's for sure. And if we start building more of them, the government will provide less support for R&D for sustainable energy development -- the best solution by far, but still alot of bugs to be worked out.

That said, until I know more I'm putting myself in the anti camp.

[floridablue]

17. The big RW sell is France being 80%

of their energy being nuclear. Hear it daily from "Mornin Joe" on MSNBC. But know also that Germany eliminated the need of two Nukes just by the amount of solar they have built. We cannot put the waste of the World in Yucca Mountain. Besides, didn't the mayor of Las Vegas say he would stop all the trains and arrest the crews if they try to move it to Yucca ? All the tracks run through the city limits.

[spoony]

40. Is that the mob lawyer or did they get a new scuzzball?

[anigbrowl]

54. Germany is also subsidizing the hell out of solar

Unfortunately, there's plenty of creative accounting to go around. It's not a sunny country, but they're taking a punt on being able to corner the market for the technology by getting a head start.

[Botany]

21. The costs are too great

In the short run economic and energy costs (mining, milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication, power production, security,
and waste disposal) are too high and only @ power production do you generate electricity ... in the long run
the risk to the environment and human health are too great .... Plutonium is toxic 245,000 years.

(@ T.M.I. (three mile island) we came with in minutes of "killing" Chesapeake Bay for many lifetimes.)

The idea that you can hold a "system" at 100% stability for an infinite period of time and get energy out of it on
a dynamic planet kinda flies in the face of some the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.

Energy conservation, solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen, and other areas need our attention .... after all nuclear
power is just about boiling water and is 1950s technology @ best.

[sharesunited]

23. Great comprehensive reply. Thanks for that!

Also love the depletion reply posted above. The quantity of uranium is finite.

[XOKCowboy]

27. Oh but FRANCE has it all figgered out!!

Encase the "small amount" of really deadly waste (some reports say France produces 8000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste per year) in a new magical glass process that will keep all of that toxicity inside for longer than recorded human history. Then you just bury it in the ground real deep and walk away leaving it to future generations to deal with. Foolproof.

:sarcasm:

[Dogmudgeon]

30. Sorry, you got it wrong

The cost of nuclear energy is only a few percent more expensive than coal -- and the costs have been analyzed exhaustively. You have to do some real mathematical trickery to make it look expensive.

Capital (building) costs are pretty high, as you point out, but the investment is returned. There are start-up costs in any technology.

Plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years. It's not commonly used as nuclear fuel EXCEPT when we burn up plutonium stockpiles that used to be in bombs. I don't think ANY power reactor requires plutonium -- maybe for making medical isotopes.

TMI didn't come within minutes of doing anything to Chesapeake Bay. There was a partial melt, and it shut down. Radioactive gas was released. It deserved thorough investigations and heads should have rolled -- and did. I was in college when it happened, and the first thing I heard on the radio was "there are an unknown number of deaths". That "unknown number" turned out to be zero.

Chesapeake Bay probably contains a hundred times as much uranium and thorium as TMI did. Seawater contains significant amounts of radioactive material. Plain old dirt contains a thousand times more. Our entire planet is radioactive to some degree. And burning coal for energy puts hundreds of tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere each year. Coal is the REAL radiological threat -- but it has been ignored. It took over 25 years of the nuclear energy advocates' nagging to make anyone pay attention to the 1-2 million coal-related deaths per year.

Saying that nuclear technology is 1950s technology is at best just wrong. It's like saying that computers are still designed like ENIAC.

We get about 20% of our electricity from nuclear reactors. That is a lot of coal and natural gas that did NOT get burned, and that much less CO2 put into the greenhouse. The alternatives are well worth developing, but only wind is anywhere near ready for wide-scale deployment; but if you listen to the greenwash, you would think that GE was ready to sell solar power shingles for a dime each.

No solution is perfect, and nuclear energy is no exception. But nuclear energy is the Left's stem cells. We'd better off at least getting rid of the myths and scary campfire stories.

--p!

[Botany]

51. my post was based on facts and has nothing to do w/ left v right

Pu's half life of 24,000 years means that it will be toxic for 245,000 years.

As for it being used as a fuel ... I don't know it has been a while since I have read
up on nuclear power. Do we still have Breeder Reactors?

Capital ..... how much does it cost to decommission 1 plant? and BTW what do we do with
all the left over materials that are now irradiated?

Nothing tricky @ all about running up a huge bill w/ nuclear power .... just the multiple
back up systems that are needed for safety can add tons of costs. And then there is the
little matter of what to do with the wastes and clean up of the many places where weapons
and fuel was made ... Rocky Flats, Piketon, Oak Ridge, Hanford, and that place in South Carolina.

TMI .... if that core had melted down and hit the ground water under the plant all hell would have
broken out .... to say that highly toxic radionuclides would not have gone down the Susquehanna River
and gotten into the food chain in the Bay is pure sophistry .... and to put out the red herring about
the natural background radiation in the Chesapeake Bay somehow would be mitigating factor is bunk.
As per coal .... your are right it is nasty. One might want to look @ the coal fired powered plants
that supply the electricity to enrichment plants :shrug:

As per deaths from the nuclear power industry one only has to look at the morbidity and mortality
studies around certain aspects of the nuclear power cycle .... the people who mined the uranium in
deep mines almost all got a potential lethal dose from radon gas. Which leads to lung cancer ( however
many of the miners smoked too so it is hard to source the trigger of their cancers.)

It still just boils water.

CO2 and greenhouse gases are major problems and yes nuclear power plants don't make any
when producing electricity no argument there.

If we had stayed with solar and other technologies from the 1970s we would not be in near the
mess we are in .... Carter had solar panels on the white house roof ... Reagan took them down.

As per your scary campfire stories.... here is one called, Chernobyl .... radioactive Sr 90
was released over a huge area and if you remember you basic biology / Chemistry Sr is close to
Iodine it wound up in the thyroids of tens of thousands of people and the death toll will >100,000.

[havocmom]

49. that last line would make a great sig line! Mind if some of us steal it?

:applause:

[Botany]

52. take it ... I am sure i stole it from somebody else.

:rofl:

[NNN0LHI]

35. Who told you it is a very cost-effective way of generating a LOT of electric power?

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/NIPSCO-INDUSTRIES-INC-Company-History.html

<snip>In 1974, three years after its original filing date, NIPSCO received a construction permit from the Atomic Energy Commission to build its first nuclear plant at a site adjacent to its Bailly station and to the Cowles Bog, an ecologically unique wetlands area within the recently created Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. An enormously controversial and costly project, Bailly Nuclear One was eventually abandoned in 1981 after $191 million had been spent with only one percent of the construction being completed, according to Robert Barker in Barron's. Despite NIPSCO's eventual triumph in state supreme court litigation over the placement of the facility, new cost projections caused by the delays proved insurmountable. Intensifying NIPSCO's loss was the Indiana high court's later ruling that NIPSCO could not amortize the failed project's costs over a 15-year period, forcing the company in 1985 to declare a net loss of $94.8 million.

[mikehiggins]

36. yes you should

and the sooner the better.

[warren pease]

37. Only if you're OK with...

... burying a few tons of spent fuel rods and a couple dozen leaky 55 gallon drums of radioactive sludge in your backyard. If not, I'd suggest advocating for something else entirely.


wp

[Dogmudgeon]

43. Consider coal

Ten tons of airborne radioactive material --

Each year. Every year.

Per gigawatt.

Coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment leads to radioactive contamination. While these substances are present as very small trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released. A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could release as much as 5.2 tons/year of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons/year of thorium. The radioactive emission from this coal power plant is 100 times greater than a comparable nuclear power plant with the same electrical output; including processing output, the coal power plant's radiation output is over 3 times greater.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant">Wikipedia - Fossil Fuel Power Plant. Bold format is mine.)

Multiply that by about 2000.

Not in your backyard, but in your lungs. And mine. And everyone else's.

Nuclear reactors present a relatively trivial radiological problem. Coal is a dire, ongoing radiological disaster.

--p!

[spoony]

45. Mate you got that right

One can almost picture some of these people, standing around in the brown air, coughing, saying how glad they are that those evil nuclear plants aren't near them.

[bean fidhleir]

38. Drop the expired rods into an abyssal trench, preferably where tectonic activity is going on

Problem solved.

[Terry in Austin]

66. Nah, just throw 'em away

"Away" -- you know, the place we always throw stuff that we don't want any more, don't want to have to think about, couldn't be bothered with.

Oh wait. There's not any such place as "away." Never mind.

[cstanleytech]

41. I think we need to consider it.

Our industry and current civilization depend on energy and you can only get so much out of hydro dams, solar and wind power and as far as I know cold fusion has yet to be discovered, unless of course that story was true a few years ago and the oil companies, government and other powerful people in power managed to hoodwink us all by convincing us it was a hoax.
Anyway back onto nuclear energy, I think it needs to be considered, the disposable worries me as well and the safety factor but we honestly might not have much of a choice.

[two gun sid]

56. It's being sold as the grown-ups version of Green

but it's nothing more than a slick PR campaign run by Hill and Knowlton for the Nuclear Energy Institute. The PR effort is being spearheded by Christine Todd Whitman and corporate shill (and Greenpeace co-founder) Patrick Moore.

Cost benefits are questionable. No nuke plant has ever been built for it's estimated cost or finished on time. It would be years before a new plant could be on line. Even Warren Buffet's MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Company scrapped plans for a plant because it made no sense from an economic standpoint. Companies like Exelon and Entergy want to buy up the old plants and pass off the stranded costs to the consumers, which means you'll have to pay a higher rate for your electricity. Plus these companies buy the old plants for a cut rate increasing their profit again. Then they run them as hard and as long as they can. Almost all of the US plants have received approval for an uprate and are running at greater than 100% output. The Vermont Yankee plant is operating at 120% now. That means 120% flow, temperature and pressure. They would love for people to believe that safety is too stringent and drives the costs up. In reality, Entergy made $100 million in profits in one year.

It's dirty, it's dangerous and we would be farther ahead to start work on new technologies now instead of putting any effort into more nukes. Remember, the industry told us that nuclear power would make electricity so cheap it wouldn't even be worth their while to meter it. They fucking lie.

[Neshanic]

57. This is a real tough one. Right now I am cool by a nuclear complex forty miles away.

Three reactors supplying a huge amount of power to Phoenix and So Cal.

[maxanne]

61. and

in the event of an accident, you'll be picking up the tab.

Read up on the Price Anderson Act, or how we the taxpayers pay for cleanup, since no insurance company will insure a nuke.

Then read up on government subsidies. Any industry that has to be as heavily subsidized as the nuke biz is not going to be a good solution, or a cheap one.

[cloudythescribbler]

64. Nuclear Power -- NO NO NO: uninsurable risk, no solution to waste storage, fabulously expensive

and the NEW IMPROVED REACTORS? they are even MORE vulnerable to terrorist attacks than before. Curious how the RW hawks talk about a 9/10 mindset -- well they GOT that on nuclear energy!

[solinvictus]

65. Yep...

..because coal is a dirty fuel.