Why not nuclear energy?

[question everything]

I am not a nuclear physicist, but I thought that this was going to be a clean way of generating energy. It seems that nuclear waste is the main issue. Or is it?

Without shouting down immediately, can those who are familiar with all aspects of nuclear energy enlighten me?

[MonkeyFunk]

1. waste is a huge issue

and one we haven't resolved, nor is it likely we can resolve it any time soon. When you factor in the cost of dealing with waste, and the cost of decommissioning plants and disposing of them at end-of-life, it's not a very cost-effective solution.

[elocs]

2. Yep, so many want the energy from nuclear.

They just don't want the waste stored anywhere near where they live. They'd rather have it stored in somebody else's backyard.

[Dogmudgeon]

11. You can store it in my back yard

In exchange for a reasonable rent, I'll keep it there. Just put it in "dry casks".

Hey, our food is fertilized with radioactive mineral phosphate, and coal burning puts almost 20 tons of radioactive crap into the air per gigawatt per year. Coal ash is more radioactively hazardous than most spent reactor fuel.

I can't understand all the upset about this. The entire planet is radioactive -- where do people think all the energy for the underground heat and for plate tectonics comes from?

--p!

[Peace Patriot]

51. It's because of the CONCENTRATION of both waste and potential catastrophe.

Of course, a lot of things are radioactive, and a lot of things including coal pollute. But the CONCENTRATION of these hazards in one place is the issue with nuclear energy. Is Chernobyl worth the risk? I don't think so. Yes, we take certain risks all the time. Walking across the street is a risk. Walking across a busy freeway going 70 mph is much greater risk. Taking a class of kindergardners with you across a business freeway going 70 mph is insane. It's the level of CONCENTRATED risk that makes nuclear power nuts. And then there's the waste and the true cost, which the nuclear industry sloughs off on the rest of us.

If you have no other choices, it MIGHT be worth the risk. Why take those risks when you DO have choices? Christalmighty, the sun is FREE! FREE! And the nuke power lobbies and other energy lobbies have been suppressing that technology for decades. That, too, is nuts. NUTS! It's NUTS that we let them do that. We could be 100% free of polluting energy sources by now, if they hadn't suppressed innovation, and lobbied for every goddamned polluting product, transportation system, kind of energy, bad city/suburban plan, war, global market requiring gas guzzling tankers, and unwise decision of our society since the invention of the automobile.

[Duke Newcombe]

3. How have our European friends dealt with the waste issue?

Duke

[MonkeyFunk]

6. They haven't dealt with it

which is why there's a false economy regarding nuclear power. If you factor in the TRUE long-term costs, it's a lot less attractive.

[Duke Newcombe]

10. If Nevadans oppened up Yucca Mountain, we found an incredibly safe way...

...to store nuke waste, and there was heavy regulation involved in the building and running of the n-plants, would you approve of them?

Duke

[Cleita]

17. Oh my and Nevadans are supposed to be happy being the radioactive,

nuclear, waste dump of America. That is such bullshit. Tell me who will regulate the building and running of the plants for let's say the next 50,000 years because that is what it would take. You really don't expect any corporations or governments to last that long do you?

[Duke Newcombe]

19. I'll put you down for "no", then... n/t

Duke

[aspergris]

43. if global warming is 1/2 as bad as it appears to be

It works out just fine on the cost/benefit analysis.

And with future technologies come all sorts of potential ways to get rid of the waste.

For right now, it's a viable source of clean energy.

[Cleita]

46. You know what is going to be a viable source of clean energy?

It's when we, the people, are cut off from energy and have to 'camp out' because what's left of energy resources are going to go to the industries and corporations for their needs. It's time we start putting those solar panels on our roofs because we are going to need them. I don't think for one minute that anyone is concerned about my energy needs. Industry wants those nuclear plants for their needs.

[aspergris]

56. I have no idea

What will be the future source of viable clean energy.

Heck, at one point it was all about whale oil.

Who knows what we will be using 20-50 yrs from now. For now, nuclear power seems a decent option.

[Cleita]

57. It's a last century option like whale oil was a nineteenth century option. n/t

[XOKCowboy]

76. That's a lot of ifs...

Once ONE person shows me ONE scientifically proven plan to store the highly radioactive waste for 10X recorded human history then heck I'll be all for it.

[MonkeyFunk]

88. No

because those things don't solve the inherent problems. Transporting the waste is incredibly risky. Storing it safely for many thousands of years? I don't trust our ability to do that yet.

And none of it addresses the false economy of nuclear power. When you factor in the REAL costs, they're prohibitive.

[jpak]

115. Yucca Mountain was forced on Nevada by the Reagan administration and it is an unacceptable site

Reagan also forced taxpayers to take "custody" of commercial spent fuel because of exorbitant disposal costs - Yucca Mountain will cost taxpayers - not nuclear plant owners - more than $60 billion.

[Mudoria]

104. Don't the French reprocess their waste?

[hendo]

53. The Japanese re-refine it.

or rather, they are going to once they get the technology perfected.

[jpak]

128. That Japanese reprocessing facility cost >$20 billion and is not operational

It's years behind schedule and billions over budget - just like Yucca Mountain.

Earthquake prone Japan currently does not have a spent fuel/HLW repository - and they won't have one for a long time...

[hendo]

157. Once they are operable they will revolutionize nuclear power

If we can take away the waste, and introduce more safeguards to prevent a meltdown everything will be dandy.

[crickets]

92. Here

http://www.google.com/search?q=Europe+nuclear+plant+waste
http://www.google.com/search?q=Europe+nuclear+plant+pollution

[Tulum_Moon]

111. They recycle it!

All we do is recycle our beer cans! By the time they are done each person puts out a tiny little marble size piece of of waste each year. thats small compared to what our plants are putting out right now.

[hendo]

158. Thank you for an intelligent response.

There are too many knee jerk reactions in this thread. Everyone says that it can't be done. I remember when everyone said that fuel cells were a pipe dream.

[izquierdista]

4. It's already resolved

If you build nuke plants in deep underground vaults (e.g. salt, potash, hard rock, or coal mines), you have taken care of the waste and decommissioning problems. Just abandon the facility in place when it reaches the end of its useful life.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. already resolved?

How many plants are now operating in deep underground vaults?

[izquierdista]

12. Waste operations are ongoing

And trucks are hauling waste to New Mexico to put it deep in a salt mine. Unfortunately the waste facility was opened about 30 years after the last nuke plant was built, so that was a bit of cart before the horse.

Now that the underground repository concept is shown to work, the next brilliant idea is to build the nuke plant in one. I'm afraid it's an idea that will be a little long in catching on.

[johnaries]

59. That doesn't sound resolved to me.

Trucks driving cross-country carrying huge amounts of highly radioactive material? That's totally insane!

[izquierdista]

63. That's why we put the nuke plants underground

And use the wires to take the electricity to where it is needed. The trucks will one day be done moving all the waste that is in places where you cannot put a repository. At that time, all the above ground nuke plants should be closed and new ones, when needed, should be built deep underground.

[johnaries]

74. So the waste can leak into the groundwater?

Do you not realize this waste has half-lives ranging from hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years? Do you realize that we have NOT found a "completely safe" and efficient way of storing it underground? At least not according to the IAEA and the DOE:

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1563_web.pdf

http://www.em.doe.gov/PDFs/170016EM_FYP_Final_3-6-06.pdf

[crickets]

95. And there you hit the nail on the head

No matter where the waste is 'stored' it WILL leach into the groundwater every time. There is NO 'storing' of nuclear waste. It is a forever pollutant that cannot be contained.

Even without the inevitable accident due to human error, nuclear energy is a dead end. Literally.

[izquierdista]

102. Below the groundwater

Do you not understand that "ground water" does not extend down to the center of the earth? It sits atop an impermeable geologic layer. Think about it, if there were no impermeable geologic layers, then oil would never be trapped underground to be extracted millions of years later.

The repositories proposed for nuclear wastes are located BELOW the water table, separated by several hundred feet of impermeble layer.

Learn some geology and don't try to sound smart by spouting "ground water" when you don't know what the term means.

[crickets]

106. The prohibitive expense

of building a nuclear power plant in such a substrate that far underground, attempting to convey energy (with inevitable loss) from that far underground, much less trying to safely vent the heat from that far underground, trying to evacuate workers in the event of an accident from that far underground...

Of course all of that digging around down there, and expelling heat, and conveying energy and people back and forth will be completely watertight, right? Everything and everyone except the bad stuff has complete freedom of movement to the surface when necessary, right?

Right. Nice try.

Instead of spending that much money on an energy source so dirty and dangerous that it has to be buried that far underground, why not sensibly try something else that's not so dangerous it has to be buried so far underground?

From which yes, it will escape. By penetrating the impermeable layer to place the poison there, you've automatically dug the poison its own escape route. Once you've drilled a hole in it, the impermeable...isn't.

Learn some geology

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't need a geology degree to figure that out.

[izquierdista]

118. You do need to learn

Trust me....you're ignorant.

[crickets]

153. Trust me....you're unconvincing.

The name calling doesn't help your cause either.

[MonkeyFunk]

89. 30 years ago and it's been "shown to work"?

We're talking tens of thousands of years.

[crickets]

107. Salt is permeable. Water can dissolve it easily.

Well, there's no water in those salt flats now. Apparently there was a whole SEA of water at one time, and who is to say another might not be there in the future?

That's geological info, btw.

The SALT is an important resource, why pollute it?

underground repository concept is shown to work

According to whom?

Once again, water percolates easily through salt. Just because that salt is dry now doesn't mean it's going to stay dry forever. If it was a sea at one time, there's nothing to say it could not be a sea again in the future, and given the half life of plutonium and the current global climate change, odds are the water will be back before the plutonium is gone.

What shortsighted fool decided this was a good idea? Trucking dangerous nuclear waste overland to bury it in an unsafe substrate, thereby polluting another valuable natural resource and providing a potential future waterborne pollutant that could travel untold distances underground and aboveground through water makes no sense at all.

[wuushew]

8. If you factor in the total external costs of coal

nuclear is a bargain.

[MzSerenity]

15. Coal is full of strontium 90 and puts out CO2...bad stuff!

[Cleita]

22. Why is it that all the for nuke energy people always bring up coal as the only other way to go?

No there are many other ways to generate energy and coal is pretty much at the bottom of my list only just above nukes. There are other ways. Las Vegas and all its lights get their energy from Hoover Dam, just water over the dam. However, this is only on my third from the bottom of my list. But you can see how the nuke people want to present you with that or either coal. There are many more choices!

[Dogmudgeon]

27. There are precisely THREE choices

1. Coal.
2. Nuclear.
3. Natural gas.

Natural gas is much more expensive than either coal or nuclear energy.

Hydroelectric energy is not a major source of electricity outside of the Colorado River watershed.

ALL other choices are minor -- oil, geothermal, wind, solar, biofuels. Wind alone might be able to make it to about 20% by 2020. Geothermal has a lot of potential, but if you fear nuclear contamination, you'll hate geothermal. Solar energy provides a drop in the bucket -- it's mainly an intellectual property scam for the semiconductor industry right now.

There is plenty of accurate, audited, peer-reviewed information on energy. The situation isn't as bleak as we rich folks in the USA like to believe, but it's going to require us to stop imposing our wacky ideas on the world. The oil age is over. Nuclear energy isn't possessed by demonic cooties. Cars are a bad idea. PV energy is going to leave a lot of pollution in its wake. And there is no easy solution to the problems of a technologically sophisticated world except aggressively taking responsibility for our actions. It the same for any kind of energy.

--p!

[Cleita]

30. Just THREE?????

Just keep sipping the kool-aid. Thank the goddess the rest of us aren't.

There is plenty of accurate, audited, peer-reviewed information on energy.

Yes, and I'm sure those peers all shake hands in their ivory towers while they put forth their latest plans to fuck mother earth. Oh, I lived pretty much on
solar for about ten years so I'm pretty familiar with it's potential and the fact that you dismiss it as a drop in the bucket tells me where your bread is buttered.

[tchunter]

34. in those 10 years did you ever have to run an aluminum smelter?

[Cleita]

39. I grew up in a copper mine and am very familiar with smelters and

the destruction extraction industries do when they are allowed to operate without oversight. However, all the arsenic poisoning isn't the same as radioactive waste.

[wuushew]

48. The point was to speak to energy usage

20 kWh to reduce a single kilogram of Alumina to Aluminum.

Takes energy to make steel, heat water, split hydrogen, run the AC and to cook dinner. You can't have a civilization without industry. The rate at which we are exhausting fossil fuels should be scaring the shit out of you.


Solar is not being produced at anywhere near the rate just to meet current demand and to that the U.S. idiotically, is still growing.

[Cleita]

52. For all the money you want to throw at the nuclear industry, it

could be thrown at solar, thermal and wind to produce enough energy. The Danes and other European countries have already proved it can be done and efficiently. All we need is a government who isn't beholden to the energy pricks what brung them to the party to help the private sector develop this instead of nuclear and other polluting industries. Sorry, Your talking down to me isn't proving your point.

[anigbrowl]

122. Way to change the subject

This is not about whether we should regulate extraction industries or not. The question was whether you appreciate the huge amounts of energy needed for some useful industrial processes. Pointing out that solar power was adequate for your individual needs for quite a long time is fine, but individual households are not the only legitimate energy consumers. Running electric trains or something like a steel plant requires huge, huge amounts of energy - more in a half hour than a typical household might require in a year. And I don't think we're about to halt production of steel any time soon.

[jpak]

121. US Al smelters use hydroelectricity (Northwest and TVA)

In iceland, Al smelters will use geothermal and hydro.

No need for nuclear to smelt Al....

[anigbrowl]

129. Yep, but you can't just whistle up hydro energy wherever you want it

It depends on geography, as does geothermal to an extent. I'm a huge fan of hydroelectric power, but it's not in infinite supply as some people seem to imagine. Nor is it free of environmental costs - check out the objections to the Three Gorges Dam in China.

[jpak]

131. but you can just whistle up uranium - not

n/t

[anigbrowl]

145. Did I say you could? No. /nt

[Dogmudgeon]

71. How nice for you

If you live entirely on solar power, you are one of about a thousand people who do it -- tops.

And I don't dismiss solar energy at all. I just don't think that six billion people can live on financial and advertising fraud that appeals to the 700 million vain, rich Americans and Europeans who can afford bread and butter -- and trendy crusades.

Yes, and I'm sure those peers all shake hands in their ivory towers while they put forth their latest plans to fuck mother earth.

Sheer poetry. Except that it's bullshit.

If it wasn't for those icky peers, how would you know the Earth isn't flat? Or that cholera can be cured with antibiotics? Or that natural, unbleached fiber makes a fashion statement about the renewability of one's lifestyle?

By the way, how are you getting on-line? If you're using a computer, you're using an electrical device designed in an ivory tower to "fuck mother earth".

If you've already made your mind up and don't need any facts to trouble your beautiful mind, by all means, keep pretending that the world is yours alone, and gloat over your virtue. The rest of the world has a stark choice between coal and uranium. (Gas being too expensive.)

YOU get to preen Green.

--p!

[Cleita]

85. It's proven possible so don't you preen that you and your dirty energy have

the answers. I have facts that don't jive with your "facts". Actually, I have also spent months at a time living in the woods with hardly any energy at all except some batteries and a propane stove. Yes, I know the propane is petroleum, but what I used in a month is hardly what most people spend burning gas to work everyday. I use electricity to get on line now because now I have to rent and my landlady is thinking of solar but hasn't gotten around to it. (I'm working on her and she's as disgusted with the local nuke plant as is everyone around here.) I know people who do their computers on solar though. Some of my aquaintances even publish a little magazine on solar and hydropower that they harness from a nearby creek. If one family can live on alternative energy, it means all families can. There needs to be the will of the people to do it and not listen to snow jobs from energy shills like you.

[wuushew]

38. I wouldn't say there is no hyrdo east of the Mississippi

Niagra Falls pumps out 4.4 GW

[johnaries]

70. Not to mention TVA hydro.

I can drive to several hydro plants within just a couple of hours. 2 of them within 30 minutes. Methinks the poster knows much less than he pretends.

TVA hydroelectric facilities
Hydropower is America’s leading renewable energy resource. Of all the renewable power sources, it’s the most reliable, efficient, and economical. TVA maintains 29 conventional hydroelectric dams throughout the Tennessee River system and one pumped-storage facility for the production of electricity. In addition, four Alcoa dams on the Little Tennessee River and eight U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dams on the Cumberland River contribute to the TVA power system.

http://www.tva.gov/power/hydro.htm

[Dogmudgeon]

77. Hydroelectric is excellent energy. It just isn't a major source.

It only supplies about 7% of the electricity we use in the USA, and the proportion is falling. (Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/">EIA. Spend an hour there. You won't regret it.)

It's mainly a regional resource. If you live in a hydro region, that's great. Otherwise -- Coal or Nukes. Maybe gas, if you have the tax base.

Coal: 45%. Nuclear: 20%. Natural gas: 20%. Hydro: 7%. All the rest: 8% -- and that is probably a high estimate. My other figures are probably pretty close. But the snark was quite inaccurate. This is an important subject to keep up with, since it will probably be driving world politics over the next two or three generations.

--p!

[Terry in Austin]

40. Left out four and five

4. Reduction
5. Getting over it!

[johnaries]

64. WRONG!

You best check your sources.

[JVS]

101. What's wrong with geothermal?

[anigbrowl]

124. Nothing, but it's barely out of the starting gate

Should we invest more in it? Sure. Is it a turnkey solution? Not for a long while yet.

[JVS]

126. Nah, I think there has to be something more that's wrong with it.

the post I responded to said "Geothermal has a lot of potential, but if you fear nuclear contamination, you'll hate geothermal. " I take that to mean that geothermal has some pretty nasty side effects.

[anigbrowl]

140. Oh I see. Well it could lead to massive sinkholes and suchlike.

I'd be reluctant to do it anywhere near a major earthquake zone for example. But that's just off the top of my head.

[JVS]

142. That sounds bad.

[anigbrowl]

144. Well, nothing is 100% easy, safe, and abundant.

I'm all for for geothermal, don't get me wrong. I just don't believe in magic bullets.

[jpak]

120. I guess the 240 GW of global non-hydro renewable electricity capacity doesn't count

yeah that 100,000+ MW of existing wind power capacity doesn't count.

and the 100,000 MW (thermal) of global solar hot water capacity doesn't count

and that multibillion dollar 5000 MW production per year photovoltaic industry doesn't count...

:rofl:

[havocmom]

28. my guess is some nuke proponents posting online have (in)vested interests

or get paid to promote that which should be abandoned in favor of really safe, renewable energy that doesn't produce waste that is dangerous for tens of thousands of years.

[Cleita]

31. Yep, I've noticed the paid operatives are pretty much here beating their

drum on the nuclear BS. It's no different than the health insurance operatives. It's the same M/O trying to make us all think we are stupid and they have all the answers.

[aspergris]

45. Here?

Do you seriously think the nuclear industry pays shills to post in DU of all places on the benefits of nuclear energy?

[Cleita]

47. Get real!!!

Operatives have been shilling here since DU was founded. Those of us who have been here that long pretty much can spot them. However this election year abortion and pro-life has kinda lost it's luster. Time to move on to the next wedge issues, energy and health care.

[aspergris]

54. ok

I assume they'd only do it if it was cost effective. Doesn't sound to me like it would be, but I guess it's possible.

[Cleita]

58. They don't just target DU. They target all website message boards

that can influence public opinion. They pay people like 10 cents a word to post their talking points on websites. These people are not the industries per se but publicists and lobbyists that the industries hire to spread their propaganda. But I'm sure you already knew that.

[pinto]

68. Please don't imply that DU members are "paid operatives" of any interest.

Political or commercial.

If you have an issue or concern about any particular member, use the alert function for moderator and/or Administrator follow up. We'll gladly take a look.

Thanks.

[Cleita]

86. Dear Pinto

I understand your concern, but I'm only answering an accusation of someone who says surely they can't. May I remind you of past operatives who posted and earned money quite freely here on DU until they were tombstoned much, much later and after much, much damage had been done.

[spag68]

69. YES

[spoony]

113. Or, maybe people are being paid to promote coal by hysterical

claims about "glowing in the dark" and all that rubbish.

[havocmom]

114. Tell me, what do you think about people promoting self reliance, solar, wind, water power?

:rofl:

[spoony]

116. Self reliance? What's that, spinning a turbine via exercise bike?

Everything else needs exploration and implementation. Including nuclear, though, because piddling around with inconsistent forces (not all of us live in places with powerful rivers and perpetual sunshine) isn't going to meet demands.

[havocmom]

154. I find it interesting that you are so fond of disparaging real alternative changes

You are getting so predictably snide and hostile that one wonders just how many paid operatives various corporations have on the internets.

[JVS]

97. Because of the issue of scalabilty

The hoover dam is an amazing technological feat, but you can't just toss up a hoover dam every time SOCAL needs more energy. Coal plants and nuclear plants can always be supplemented if the need for another arises.

[jtrockville]

5. Check this out. I found it very enlightening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfzVQwW_8Jk

[question everything]

13. Thank you. Interesting

Still, it appears that the main complaint is that money is spent on nuclear energy instead of on renewal ones. Not attacking nuclear energy on the merit. And the energy being dissipated by the cooling towers can be captured and recycled, I think.

Also, I think that renewable sources may not be as reliable. With what we've seen in this country - extreme weather activities - can we rely on tide and wind and solar to provide energy as needed?

Last, I seems to have heard of people objecting to the wind towers "in their back yards."

Still, a lot of information. I will have to go there at least one more time.

[jtrockville]

82. Not just the money though...

The whole centralized system is flawed (according to the film), and reliability was adequately address - without nukes.

If it came down to having a nuke in your backyard, or having a windmill in your backyard, which would you choose?

[MonkeyFunk]

90. Then you haven't read your own thread

there've been plenty of substantive objections besides it's money not spent on renewable.

[crickets]

103. I'd rather have a forest of wind towers in my back yard than a nuclear plant any day.

Hands down. If you recall, please, who are these "people objecting" that you've heard of, who polled them and when, and did anyone ask them whether they'd rather have a nuclear plant in their back yards instead?

Still, it appears that the main complaint is that money is spent on nuclear energy instead of on renewal (sic) ones. Not attacking nuclear energy on the merit.

No, regardless of the youtube vid, the main complaint with nuclear plants is safety: not only the risk of accident and pollution, but especially waste, and the absolute lack of safe places to put it. That far outweighs any merit.

With what we've seen in this country - extreme weather activities - can we rely on tide and wind and solar to provide energy as needed?

No one is suggesting that wind farms would be a good idea in tornado alley. Conversely, I can't imagine anyone arguing that solar farms would be a bad idea in Death Valley if the equipment could survive the extreme temperature. The problem with massive solar farms in the unpopulated deserts would be impact on wildlife and the transport of energy from the solar collectors to and across the energy grid from there. That is where the research money and effort have been shorted - to the eventual detriment of the energy czars. As for wind farms, the shortfall is much the same. The difficulty is finding a reliable wind source which would not cause undue ecological harm by siting towers in migratory paths, and then carrying that power with minimal loss from the middle of nowhere to your house.

I don't know much about tidal turbines, but given the choice between that and an offshore oil rig, it sounds like a tidal turbine is a passive system that probably causes much less havoc to the ocean ecosystem, if only in lack of petrochem spills/fires alone. That said, it would be nice if they were enclosed in a way that kept larger marine life from harm while not blocking their energy capacity.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tidal+turbine

Working out the kinks with solar and wind power is quite feasible, most likely best dealt with by installing panels on every home/office/apartment building and having a turbine on site if possible rather than looking for a centralized 'farm' solution that comes to your door invisibly. Much as people have a combination of power sources today (coal/nuclear/propane) they could rely on a different combination in the future, one they themselves would oversee.

Possible Concern: They wouldn't want to!

Rebuttal: Yes, they would. People bother to install large, complicated, expensive central heating furnaces and air conditioners that they don't necessarily understand, and have done for years. Unlike the complicated central heating furnaces and air conditioners, with the exception of the photovoltaic cells themselves, it's possible to set up a solar panel/battery array or build and install turbine equipment by hand if desired. Yes, you would want an electrician to check it for safety before flipping the switch, but you could do most of the work yourself without an engineering degree. If you don't want to do it yourself, which most would not - hey! new job market for installation, maintenance and repair - that cannot be sent overseas. Everybody wins. (Except the oil, coal and nuke monopolies, boohoo.) A wind turbine in the back yard and a bank of solar panels on a roof that needs maintaining and occasional replacement anyway is not such a leap from today's norm.

The lack of central control of natural power sources is the main reason why large energy concerns just don't give a damn about the renewable power apparatus that people can build and use and/or buy, install and maintain all by themselves.

That is the key. Large business concerns suck up so much energy it's difficult to say how they will deal with the future, but the way sustainable energy might work individually is that it will be short range and usually on site, owned by and for the homeowner, office building or apartment owner - who can sell excess back to the grid, if the grid chooses to participate, la-la.

Slowly but surely this strategy is starting to catch on, the Oil Crunch Part Deux will only push it more, and likely it will work out very well for single home personal or localized multiple household personal energy use, even business use on a building by building basis, but THERE'S NO MONOPOLY MONEY IN IT. That's why the energy industry isn't investing money for research. That's why the information about its growing use is sporadic at best, and that's why the energy business keeps talking it down whenever and wherever it can. Think about it.

windtourism.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/solargascartoonsmall.jpg : (c)1970-something

(tangent)

Jimmy Carter had the right idea all along about energy conservation and alternative energy. (Back in the seventies, it was "alternative" instead of "renewable" or "sustainable.") By the way, that oil embargo thing that Carter sometimes gets unfairly blamed for was originally Nixon's fault, and the ultimate reasons for the economic fallout - then and to some extent, now - are sobering indeed and still resonate today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis#Yom_Kippur_War.2FRamadan_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis#End_of_Bretton_Woods

Carter was a busy man trying to clean up the many messes, particularly in the ME. By no means was he perfect, but he damn well did better than the fool we have in office now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accord

(nested tangent)
Does anyone else notice how OPEC is rarely mentioned by name in the news these days? And nobody's mentioned the M3 lately either. Ouch.
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Articles/M3_Money_supply.asp

(/tangent)

[question everything]

151. I agree that we should study renewable energy

but am not sure about dismissing nuclear energy.. At least I am not convinced by the con arguments on this thread. There is a lot of emotion and baggage based on unrelated reasons.

I don't think that Chernobyl is a good example. We know how things went in the Soviet Union. And we also know that we got lousy contractors to build them.

I would like to have an office of energy that studies all mode of energy, regardless of the profit motive - as a start. And we should have a citizens panel to look at the way we follow such studies. And encourage whistle blowing. And not pressure anyone to approve anything before we know the outcome.

I'd hate to just make it a government agencies since we have seen too many instances where public workers are very cavalier about the responsibilities entrusted on them.

[crickets]

152. Certainly agreed on the government agencies part.

Especially these days. Yoiks.

[ben_meyers]

9. Someday we will be digging up the so called waste.

Remember in the early days of the petroleum industry a lot of what is used today was considered "waste",
gasoline for one.

[Cleita]

16. So radioactive waste that can cause cancer and worse is okay with you?

You don't mind it leeching into the food and water supply that your grandchildren and great grandchildren will need? You really trust those energy corporations to make sure that they handle that waste safely for oh let's say the next 50,000 years? Hmmm. You and I know it's a fat chance.

[Cleita]

14. The waste it leaves is not clean.

Radioactivity can last millions of years, so if we keep building more nuclear plants, it means more waste and an increasing storage problem for increasing waste that doesn't biodegrade like other waste. It is radioactive and takes forever to break down into something harmless that we might not mind in our soil or water supply.

[Cleita]

20. Also, I need to add that I live near a nuclear plant that supposedly

is providing us with clean, cheap energy. No, it isn't. It's expensive and unreliable. Not only that they are reaching their maximum storage for nuclear waste. We suffer from electric blackouts regularly. Not only that we have to live with alarms and pills that we must take just in case of a meltdown. It's not a good energy solution, but the energy companies like it because the expense fills their Wall Street coffers instead of that of safe alternative energy industries. They call our plant "El Diablo". I wonder why?

[defendandprotect]

23. No private insurance companies will EVER insure these things --- !!!

[Cleita]

24. That's true.

Our homeowners insurance does not cover an accident.

[anigbrowl]

125. A meaningless point. They won't insure the Hoover Dam either.

In general, private insurance doesn't touch large infrastructural projects because they can't absorb the risk. That's why governments are insurers of last resort...which is really not so uncommon.

[wuushew]

26. Would you be receptive to ideas that don't involve isolation of point sources of radioactivity?

I don't claim to have all the answers but I seem to recall reading a fascinating article in National Geographic highlighting Bikini Atoll fifty years after U.S. tested atomic weapons.

What was fascinating was the degree to which the adjacent marine ecosystem had made a recovery not only from the effective diffusion of radioactivity in the water but by the fact that human predation of the ecosystem had largely not returned owing to still dangerous radioactivity in above water soil samples.

[Cleita]

35. Why do we have to produce radioactive waste when we don't have to?

Wikipedia has this on Bikini:

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

I'm sure there is more information that tells us it's not a good idea.

[Speck Tater]

18. Mining uranium is a messy business. Plus, there's "peak uranium"

The world supplies of uranium are quite limited.

Plus look at all the stories in the news recently about contamination near uranium mining and processing sites:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/business/worldbusiness/22pollute.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1214793221-ppEWxY/gh3FVIC/CZg6erw&oref=slogin
http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/062908/hom_20080629032.shtml
http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-jun2608-uranium_water.3efca3b3.html
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/local/88887.php
http://www.moabtimes.com/pages/full_story?hash=comments_99446&article-Nevada-water-authority-raises-concerns-about-new-uranium-mining-on-Colorado-River%20=&page_label=home_top_stories_news&id=99446&widget=push&instance=home_news_1st_left&open=&#comments_99446
http://www.2news.tv/news/local/21585654.html

[Dogmudgeon]

25. Uranium -- limited? Not quite yet!

It's as abundant as tin. And thorium is almost three times as common as uranium. (Plus, it's a better nuclear fuel.)

10 ppb in seawater, 10 ppm in most soils, 10-30 ppm in coal, 50-100 ppm in mineral phosphate that we use for fertilizer. It's in granite. Distilled water itself is radioactive.

As for contamination near mining sites, we should hold ALL mining companies responsible for cleaning up their messes. Uranium mining only gets attention because of the public fear of radiactivity. But coal mining alone kills about 5,000 miners a year. And coal burning kills upards of a million people a year.

About radioactive contamination, coal excels at that, too -- about 20 tons per gigawatt per year when coal is used for energy. Something like 100 Chernobyls per year.

All energy production involves a lot more risk than we are accustomed to bearing. Even solar panels, the symbol of benign Green-ness, require exotic and extremely toxic chemicals. This is one problem that we won't be able to solve cheap and easy anymore.

--p!

[sam sarrha]

37. fissionable uranium is rare and the availability is disappearing the cost astronomical now,

[wuushew]

44. Build heavy water reactors like the Canadians

n/t

[Speck Tater]

60. Better google "heavy water" and find out what you're talking about.

Heavy water is used as a MODERATOR in a uranium reactor, and is used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. The fuel is still uranium.

[wuushew]

62. I know what it is

natural uranium accounts for 98% of total on Earth. To suggest that uranium is running out is inaccurate.

[Speck Tater]

65. If the earth was 98% uranium it would have exploded millions of years ago.

Top elements by percentage in the earth's crust:

Oxygen 45.3%
Silicon 26.7%
Aluminum 8.39%
Iron 7.04%
Calcium 5.27%
Magnesium 3.19%
Sodium 2.29%
Potassium 0.91%
Titanium 0.68%
Nickel 0.011%

To claim that uranium is 98% is nothing short of insane.

Really, Google IS your friend.

[wuushew]

75. try improving your reading comprehension

I assume you know of the difference between the uranium isotopes u238 and u235? Most nukes use U235, which is far scarcer in abundance.



Where do you claim I say the Earth is 98% Uranium?

Let me help you out



for 98% of (the) total (uranium) on Earth

emphasis mine






You have added nothing to the conversation.

[Speck Tater]

78. Whatever.

You leave words out and expect me to read your mind? Sorry, I don't do mind reading.

[anigbrowl]

132. Like he said, reading comprehension

It was perfectly obvious to me what he meant. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

134. Perfectly obvious? Great.

Then you can explain it too me. I've got no idea what he's trying to say.

[anigbrowl]

138. There there is an abundance of uranium

Using current techniques, we're only interested in the < 1% of uranium that is fissile (u-235) and think there is not use for the less raadioactive stuff (u-238), which makes up 98% or 99% of uranium deposits. If we could find a way to use this, then availability is not a big issue.

I agree it was a bit mangled, but how another poster got the idea that he meant '98% of the earth is uranium' is beyond me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

139. There's an abundance of petrolem.

Natural petroleum is 98% is on the earth.

:shrug:

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

The problem is that we've still got a lack of uranium 238. Availability is a big issue.

[anigbrowl]

143. In context, (ie the rest of the thread) I got his point.

I don't argue that nuclear power is an entirely future proof solution. But I do think it has an important role to play as a stopgap solution over a 50-100 year timescale.

[JVS]

96. non-fisionable U-238 can be easily made into PU-239

A U-235 fission reaction can easily be surrounded by U-238, yielding PU-239. A PU-239 reaction can do the same to other collection of U-238.

The U-235 scarcity problem was solved back during the manhattan project. Where do you think they got the plutonium to make the bomb that blew up Nagasaki?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

123. Too bad U-238 is also limited.

[JVS]

130. There is a lot of U-238, we've already created enough fuels to blow up the world many times.

Try doing that with solar.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

133. Yeah, about 60-70 years worth.

Then we'd be in the same situation we are now, with energy dependence on dwindling foreign supply.

Please don't confuse uranium supplies with nuclear warhead yield.

[JVS]

135. that's plenty of time to develop other technologies including fusion.

And warheads are fissionable plutonium that get much more thoroughly consumed in a controlled fission process than in the relatively uncontrolled and inefficient process of exploding.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

136. Great.

Now all we need to do is figure out how to boil water using thermonuclear weapons.

:eyes:

[JVS]

137. beating swords into ploughshares!

energy and disarmament at once! What's not to like?

[jpak]

141. Easily??? No breeder reactor has ever produced more Pu than it consumed

Most of them suffered serious sodium fires

Several suffered meltdowns

Japan and India are the only countries with breeder programs...US, UK, France and Russia all canceled their's

Japan's program was halted after their Monju reactor had a near catastrophic sodium fire.

India wants breeders to build bombs...

No - not "easy"

[JVS]

146. You can use the old method of producing plutonium, which will provide plenty

In fact it might help to put to use the 300,000 kg of plutonium that we currently worry about having stolen. Unless used, it is the most dangerous of nuclear wastes.

[jpak]

149. Ever been to Hanford Reservation or Savannah River Site???

That Old School Pu production methods produced millions of gallons of highly radioactive waste that will cost more than half-a-trillion dollars to clean up and dispose.

Again: easy - not

[jpak]

117. Nonsense- the concentration of uranium in seawater is 3 µg per liter

The US would have to process >7000 cubic kilometers of seawater each year to fuel its current reactors.

clue: the volume of Chesapeake Bay is "only" 51 cubic kilometers...

It would be an epic environmental disaster and would consume more energy than it would produce.

[defendandprotect]

21. Chernobyl . . . Three Mile Island . . . Human error --- terrorists ---

[OwnedByFerrets]

29. No one will insure them. They are completely subsidized

by our tax dollars. They have never made profits. And, they are very dangerous. Why not put that money into things that wont kill millions if something goes wrong.

[Dogmudgeon]

36. You should really check stuff out first.

The private insurance industry is not permitted to insure them. All nuclear power is indemnified by the government, and it's the same in nearly all countries.

They aren't completely subsidized. They are subsidized far LESS per watt than "renewable" energy.

The nuclear industry has made money consistently for years. It provides 20% of our electricity without directly producing greenhouse gas. External costs and risks are far lower than for coal or natural gas energy production. Hundreds of studies, pro and contra, have been done about the costs and returns of nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy kills far fewer people than any other source of energy. Coal kills 5,000 miners, dumps a huge amount of pollutants into the atmosphere, and causes about a million premature deaths per year. And the antis can chant "Chernobyl" until the cows come home, but the accident didn't kill millions of people, and it was about the worst kind of reactor disaster possible.

Where did you get the idea that a nuclear energy accident would kill millions of people, anyway?

--p!

[Cleita]

42. One person or a million?

Exactly what is your limit? One, ten, a hundred? I mean what is your acceptable number of deaths to radiation that says it's okay because it benefits more?

[Dogmudgeon]

61. The same limits we have for ANY energy use

One death from radiation seems to be unacceptable, but a million or more from fossil fuel burning is overlooked by opponents to nuclear energy -- consistently.

We have a good idea of how many people would die in a worst-case nuclear disaster -- Chernobyl. That was about as bad as it can get. About 60 people died quickly, another 100 died over the next year or two, and between 2000 and 25,000 are expected to die prematurely over the next 20 to 100 years.

Yes, it was a disaster, and that's too damn many people. But Ukraine is also a big coal region, and more than 2000 Ukrainians die each year from coal mining and respiratory illnesses like black lung disease.

Is their flesh any less precious?

That's for NORMAL operation, too. I just compared a nuclear disaster to standard operating procedure for fossil fuels. In normal use, civil nuclear energy kills nobody in an average year. External/incidental damage and death rates are much lower than for other energy production, too -- even with the current too-lax oversight of uranium mines.

Before the heat level increases, please realize, I understand that a lot of people are absolutely horrified by nuclear energy. But there is a huge amount of accurate information available. It is easy to avoid the advocacy on both sides. Anyone can see the risks and benefits in black-and-white. Our level of nuclear fear is sustained by superstitions. And, our lack of concern about fossil fuel leads us to ignore far larger risks. Fear could be replaced with accurate understanding; our decisions could be made rationally, not out of fear. All it will take is education.

--p!

[johnaries]

66. I used to be a proponent for Nuclear, too. But the fact is

there is no efficient, safe way to transport and store the waste. Wikipedia quotes an October 2007 document from the IAEA:

"The capacity to model all the effects involved in the dissolution of the waste form, in conditions similar to the disposal site, is the final goal of all the research undertaken by many research groups over many years. As we will see in this report, this kind of investigation is far from being finished"

Further...

"In the United States, the DOE acknowledges much progress in addressing the waste problems of the industry, and successful remediation of some contaminated sites, yet also major uncertainties and sometimes complications and setbacks in handling the issue properly, cost effectively, and in the projected time frame.<2> In other countries with lower ability or will to maintain environmental integrity the issue would be even more problematic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#cite_note-usemdoefyp-1

I know that Wikipedia cannot always be trusted, but these statements are referenced.

And that only addresses the storage. It does even begin to address the problems with transport. That's a whole different issue.

[Cleita]

83. Coal again.

Why in your mind does it have to be either nuke or coal?

[jtrockville]

84. Private insurance IS "permitted" to insure nukes

but no insurers were willing to. So laws were passed to limit the liability of nukes so they could be built.

[Juche]

32. My understanding

My understanding is this. In the US we have about 104 nuclear plants that produce 20% of our grid electricity. THe world at large has about 500 plants that produce 20% of the world's energy. So on the surface it seems to me at least that an extra 2,000 nuke plants could power the world with pure nuclear energy.

However nuclear is deeply expensive to set up. Running a nuke plant isn't too expensive, but building one is, maybe $1-4 billion for a plant and about $4000 per KW installed (a good nuke plant is 1 GW so $4 billion). Geothermal or wind are about $1000-2000 per KW installed.

As far as safety, supposedly the new pebble bed reactors do not undergo meltdown due to the shape of the uranium pebbles prventing them from reaching the temp necessary to have a meltdown. But supposedly even those aren't totally safe.

And like others have said, there is the problem with waste.

[spag68]

72. nuke costs

Shoreham on Long Island NY, cost 8B to build and was shut down without putting one watt into the grid. Also about 1.2B in shut down costs. We here are still paying for it.

[Terry in Austin]

33. The show stoppers for nuclear

Short story for nuclear: costs too much, does too little.

Dealing with radioactive waste is probably the most controversial aspect of the nuclear issue, but I think there are some show-stoppers even before you get there, so I don't even go there.

For me, a convincing case for nuclear has to address two questions:

1. Can enough plants be built?
2. Will there be enough fuel?

First, if the world's only source of energy were nuclear, it would take about 15,000 plants to produce it. (450 EJ/yr, 30 PJ/plant). Not that that's ever going to happen, but just as a numerical starting point. The present count world-wide is 439.

MIT's 2003 study, "The Future of Nuclear Power", sees a best-case for nuclear that's very modest relative to a 450 EJ demand:

...our study postulates a global growth scenario that by mid-century would see 1000 to 1500 reactors of 1000 megawatt-electric (MWe) capacity each deployed worldwide, compared to a capacity equivalent to 366 such reactors now in service.

We believe that the world-wide supply of uranium ore is sufficient to fuel the deployment of 1000 reactors over the next half century and to maintain this level of deployment over a 40 year lifetime of this fleet. This is an important foundation of our study, based upon currently available information and the history of natural resource supply.

Even when reactors were costing $2 - $3 billion apiece, this modest project would still have been hugely expensive. More recently, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece called "It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman" that cites a steep increase in those costs: up to $12 billion a pop.

The question for policy, then, is If we build all the plants we can afford, will it be enough to make a difference? I'm guessing probably, yes, but the difference would be slight enough to make you want to take a hard look at the opportunity costs -- what are the possible better uses we could be putting all that money to?

Second, we know that nuclear fuel is non-renewable. Okay, advocates will come back with a lot about breeder reactors, thorium, and even extracting the uranium molecules out of seawater. Still, a healthy skepticism about the distance between laboratory and production line will serve us well here.

For conventional fuel that we can dig up the regular way, in meaningful quantities, it's another story. Everybody's got their favorite figures about estimated uranium reserves. MIT's figures showed there was enough for 1000-1500 reactors, each consuming about 200 metric tons per year, to run for 50 years. Another study published in Science in Nov 2002 had an estimated maximum of 17 million metric tons of ultimately recoverable uranium reserves.

If there is indeed just a finite amount of the stuff, we'd essentially be trading Peak Oil for Peak Uranium. You'd think we could've learned the frist time around, smart species that we claim to be.

DU member jpak did a good summary a couple of years ago that touched on most of these points.

I am not an engineer, so those deeply into nuclear technology will probably want to weigh in here. However, it's worth keeping in mind the old adage "Never ask a barber if you need a haircut."

[Dogmudgeon]

49. Why are the costs so high?

If you check it out, the reason will scare you.

There is a wave of inflation hitting the heavy and basic manufacturing industries right now. All forms of energy generation are becoming much more expensive, and nuclear energy is not being spared.

This inflation has recently hit agriculture, and of course, consumer energy use.

Your healthy skepticism about nuclear renewability is well-advised (and who is against skepticism, especially on the Internet?), but the cases you cite are poor examples. Breeder reactors and thorium fuel have all been in production for some time, and seawater extraction has progressed to large-scale prototyping. Uranium is about as common as tin, and thorium is about three times as common as that. There is MUCH more radioactive material around than oil, and it has a much higher energy density. The uranium in coal can produce more energy than the coal itself!

The secondary problems caused by any solution, of course, are largely the problems we bring to it. Nuclear energy is very demanding, but it also yields a lot of energy with very little pollution. Compared to what we've been using, it makes sense to re-evaluate using it. We are not going to get a large solar energy industry going for a very long time, and wind energy MAY reach 20% by the 2020s IF there is a crash program that ignores its own problems.

Our energy dilemma is a lot more serious than can be fixed with a haircut. Nuclear phobia has dominated our thinking for over 30 years. It's time to stop imagining it is possessed by demons and cooties and figure out the best way to use its potential.

--p!

[johnaries]

67. But the nuclear phobia is well-deserved.

Despite what you say, the problems with transport and storage of the nuclear waste have NOT been properly addressed. the generation of nuclear energy may be safe enough, but there is no safe efficient way of dealng with the waste according to the IAEA and the DOE.

[Dogmudgeon]

80. I agree with that

I think we've done the exact opposite of what we should. As soon as the price of uranium increases, that "waste" will become a valuable resource. Driving it all around the country is ridiculous and risky.

Actually, "there is no safe efficient way of dealing with the waste" isn't quite accurate, either. Dry-cask on-site storage reduces the health risk to just about zero. (Where statistics are involved, never say never.) That leaves proliferations concerns, the main emphasis of the IAEA. If we were to fully recycle nuclear fuel and denature (or transmutate) the little that was left over, it would be easier for the "evil doers" to mine their own uranium -- which might actually be a problem anyway in a few years. And using 4th generation thorium-based reactors would reduce proliferation dangers on their own.

The Yucca Mountain deal is a fiasco. It's a waste of money, and that's only the start.

My point, though, isn't entirely "nukes or bust". It is that we are in a position where we absolutely must re-evaluate our entire attitude toward nuclear energy. Not just for the production of energy, but because of such concerns as proliferation. The Third World wants and needs the energy the atom can produce, and it's no longer enough to deny them the way the British Empire denied their colonies electricity and telegraphy before WW1. That's another big concern of the IAEA.

We -- the world community -- can either take positive, beneficial control of nuclear energy, or refuse to even deal with it. But if we refuse it, there will be a small number of ruthless individuals who WILL seize the occasion, and ours will be the grief.

--p!

[AndyTiedye]

41. Waste, Accidents, Terrorism

While nuclear power may be great in theory, in practice:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

99. Yep. Radioactivity -- the gift that keeps on giving.

What else really needs to be said?

[crickets]

110. Nothing. The rest is silence.

[PoiBoy]

50. Here's some information to consider...

a good discussion here:
If nuclear power plants are safe as the experts claim, why won't insurance companies insure them?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3509579

If nuclear power plants are as safe as the experts claim, why do insurance companies refuse to underwrite their liability? Both in the U.S. with the Price-Anderson Act, and in Canada with the Nuclear Liability Act.


YuccaMountain.org
http://www.yuccamountain.org/price_anderson_act.htm
a site from Yucca Mountain activists, and Price-Anderson Act Info...


Public Citizen Price-Anderson Act Factsheet (pdf)
http://www.publiccitizen.org/documents/Price%20Anderson%20Factsheet.pdf


a Canadian perspective:
http://www.tarsandswatch.org/whats-wrong-nuclear-power-well-lot-actually
some interesting facts from North of the Border...


and for your consideration:
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/summary.pdf
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
Carbon Free and Nuclear Free - A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy

[Hestia]

55. There isn't enough plutonium in the world to fuel all the plants

they are wanting to build. A scientist (not sure who it is) said there is maybe 30 years of ore in the ground.

I don't have access to the story right now, but I think it was in 2005 there was an article that stated that MIT has developed a cold fusion process that can use ALL the waste and use to generate
energy. Burns it non-radioactive ash. I'm doing a search for the article now. I know the term involves cold, but not sure if it is fission or fusion, but am thinking fusion.

I personally think where Congress f/u is not funding the Supercollidor Superconductor in Waco. Yes, it would have been used for experiments, but superconductors also generate free energy. Congress pulled funding about half way through the project. It is one of the main reasons that our scientists go to CERN to actually have a paying job in their field.

[balantz]

73. Why not solar?

Provide as much solar as possible on as many roofs that will be advantageous for solar collection.

While that is going on put major focus on other research and development.

Oh yeah, I forgot, there's no profit for a huge military industry to fight oil wars.

[diane in sf]

79. More expensive than wind and efficiency, no good way to deal with the waste,

and nuke plants make great terrorist targets as well.

[Dogmudgeon]

81. Where have we heard "Fear the Terrah!" before?

Hmmm ...

--p!

[madokie]

98. I would think its a credible worry

but thats just me. One who feels we should have left the nuclear genie in the bottle. We would still have won the war without them. I also wonder if the use of the two on Japan was more for show than anything else. Show like watch out for us we have the big ones and right here is the proof that we won't hesitate to use them, beware the big bad wolf.

I protested nuclear energy back when it WAS cool. According to what I was being told way back then is that they would figure out what to do with the waste and here it is 40 some odd years later and guess what, still no viable way to deal with the waste other than letting it build up which in my way of thinking is not a good strategy. I would think that in 40 plus years if there was a solution to the problem it would have been found by now. The fact that it hasn't tells me one of two things, one is that there has been no advances made in that regard and the other is that maybe they haven't even been looking all that hard. Either one is not acceptable to me. It wasn't then and it isn't now.

The sad part is we've lost all this time and money on a bankrupt idea when we could have been building alternate energy sources and if we had done that to begin with we would not be here in this place now. I knew that then.

Due to a lack of prior planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part, comes to mind.

I knew it was wrong back then just as I know its wrong now. How did I know that, I have no clue, but time has proven me right so far.

[jpak]

119. Umm...according to the 9/11 Commission, California nukes *were* on AQ's original target list

and the hijacked planes that took down the WTC overflew Indian Point nuclear plant with impunity.

And - oh yeah - War with Iran will be War Over Nuclear Power.

fact.

[NYC_SKP]

87. Here's a previous Nuclear thread with plenty of links.

A recent DU poll long nuclear thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x153958


A few basics:

Nuclear is carbon free energy, new reactor designs create less waste, waste is less dangerous than the greenhouse gases from coal.

Coal is burned to create 50% of US electricity. Carbon Capture and Sequestration is many years away from working, if ever it will.

Conservation is the cheapest thing we can do and may have the greatest impact.


By the way, the USA has 5% of the world's population, uses 25% of the energy, and creates 25% of the world's greenhouse gases and garbage, though China is about to pass us in greenhouse gas emissions.

We all need to use less energy, that's electricity and petroleum, create less waste, be smarter consumers.

:patriot:

[MadHound]

91. Two huge issues that we haven't solved yet

That of what to do with the waste, the other how to completely eliminate human error. Until we solve those two problems, we have no business in dealing with nuclear power.

[spanone]

93. why nuclear energy...enlighten me

[JVS]

94. We need nuclear and plenty of it.

But what we need even more is to figure out fusion reactors.

[harun]

150. Yep, we need a push in every direction. Solar, Nuclear and Wind

All of them.

Then a huge push for full electric commuter class vehicles and we will be getting somewhere.

[BlooInBloo]

100. It's extremely clean. Well, as long as you ignore the dirty parts.

[Toucano]

105. Chernobyl

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

[question everything]

148. I would like to think that we can do better than Chernobyl

I think that with our open communications that no one would be able to get away with bad planning and covering it up.

[Toucano]

155. "No one would be able to get away with bad planning and covering it up"?

Unlike, say, the invasion of Iraq?

I would have liked to think that we could do better than that, but that's what we did.

It's not worth the risk, IMO.

[JVS]

156. Those guys at Chernobyl were practically begging to blow it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#The_accident

[alfredo]

108. It's not just the waste, it is the profit motive that makes it dangerous. Do

you want a nuclear power plant built by the lowest bidder?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

109. too expensive, requires finite natural resources, horrible waste problem.

Nobody's built a nuke plant in thirty years for good reasons.

Wind and solar plants, however, are popping up like mushrooms.

[mdmc]

112. Three things that bother me about Indian Point (my local nuke site)

1. Nuke Waste. Thank God we can ship it somewhere far away.
2. Security. The 9-11-01 WTC terrorists flew right over Indian Point. The CIA claims that Al-Quida decided against striking the nuke site for two reasons - (A) The Twin Towers were a better symbol and would generate more publicity and free press (B) The destruction of Indian Point "would have been too severe" and would have displeased Allah. (Note: Al-Quida never questioned that Indian Point would blow up. They did question that they could bring down either tower.)
Indian Point is too close to NYC.
3. Poor management. Entergy can't run shit, let alone run a nuke plant for profit. They are putting us all at risk.

:shrug:

[davepc]

127. I'm glad for Indian point. (I grew up 15 mins from the Bear Mountain Bridge)

I didn't have to suck in coal burning exhaust all through my childhood.

I'm healthier for it.


How come everybody loves to use TERRAH as an excuse to not do something in this country...right or left.

[mdmc]

147. terrah works

:shrug:

It seems that Indian Point is heating up the river too...