Nuclear power generation.

[Eric Johnson]

Personally, I'll take contained, controlled waste over unregulated mercury, sulfuric acid, CO2, etc. spewing unrestricted and uncontrolled through the atmosphere, any day of the week.

Human beings won't be on this planet for much longer, anyway, so what are you all worried about?

 

[keyman512us]

"The answer is that we have:
“In the United States alone, the Department of Energy states that there are “millions of gallons of radioactive waste” as well as “thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel and material” and also “huge quantities of contaminated soil and water”

So concentrating on the really bad stuff, the spent fuel, it will need to be stored for about 10,000 years or more - more then double the time of the earliest records of mankind on the earth. "

Millions of gallons. No big deal. I have a 15 million gallon water tank just built near my home. It fit on a tiny lot. Yes, the containment of those millions of gallons must be in a vessel that is designed to last as long as the radiation but that was not a problem with the submarines. The steel hull will last longer than the radiation.

Thousands of tons. Come on now, childs play. A thousand tons is 2,000,000 lbs and a regular old OTR tractor trailer weighs over 100,000.
The solids are the longer lasting waste. The fuel rods last much longer but they don't leak fluid into groundwater. Dig a big hole, use any one of those monster strip mines or other huge holes. Or heck, put it in a mountain. The mountain has been around longer than 10,000 years and will be there 10,000 more.

Huge amounts of contaminated soil and water. Ah yes, the propoganda starts. Sounds like they wanted shock value. I contaminated a large amount of soil in my backyard when I went potty back there. What the heck, a huge amount of soil and water was poisoned with urine.

Jettison the nasty waste into space. Sink it to the bottom of the ocean. It is an extremely small volume of waste.

And yes, I only know what I've been taught about the old style reactors and the hundreds of scrapped reactors, and rods that are setting in the middle of the desert in Hanford awaiting cool off. It is a small amount of waste, our earth is very very large.

I suppose the nuclear debate is as much about emotion as it is about facts since nobody really knows what we will be able to do in 10,000 years or even whether we'll be alive. People fear things they don't know about and most people know about burning oil so it seems safe.

What about your backyard highbeam???

Tell ya what...let me turn your neighborhood into superfund site...and see if you change "your tune"..

"Hey that's perfectly acceptable levels of radiation dosing for trans-uranic waste...why you bitchin' bout' it???"

Or have you changed your mind already?? lol

 

[restorer]

Personally, I'll take contained, controlled waste over unregulated mercury, sulfuric acid, CO2, etc. spewing unrestricted and uncontrolled through the atmosphere, any day of the week.

Human beings won't be on this planet for much longer, anyway, so what are you all worried about?

Eric:
Interesting you mention those things. I assume you are speaking of the toxic fumes from coal and oil fired plants, industrial and power. Well, this new wrinkle if from industry. Not only does Utah have the nations most air polluting facility, Mag-Corp., we have recently re-discovered a ditch filled in over 50 years ago running 17 miles through the, as yet, undeveloped part of the Salt Lake Valley. It is an old canal that carried waste water from a copper precipitation plant operated by the predecessors of Kennecott Copper. Turns out this ditch is buried from a few inches below surface to several feet in places. What is unique is the color of the soil, orange. Orange from deadly levels of arsenic. I'm not a mining engineer, but my Uncle was it's part of the processing by-products of refining copper. The powers that be are now passing the buck on who's responsible. But Kennecott has over 50% of the undeveloped land in the valley. They will win, I'm sure. So if you want to ship some more toxic waste, we can build another canal, maybe.

 

[keyman512us]

Personally, I'll take contained, controlled waste over unregulated mercury, sulfuric acid, CO2, etc. spewing unrestricted and uncontrolled through the atmosphere, any day of the week.

Human beings won't be on this planet for much longer, anyway, so what are you all worried about?

Good points Eric...

But how long after they build 40 or so Nuke plants... till' the lobbyists let them put the waste in say...dog or cat food?

"Here fido...Here fluffy...Time to do your part for our enrgy needs...eat up your 'Glow in the dark Alpo/Fancy Feast.."

Human beings..you're right we won't have to worry about being around much longer the 'self destruct mechanism is already in place...think they call it (un-controlled)CAPITILISM.

Nuke power?? WHY? If nobody cares anymore...just put turbines back on all the rivers in New England! How much (taxpayers') money have the Eco-Nazi's made us spend to tear out century old dam sites..."to protect the fish/eco-system"????

Who cares about the fish..they are going to disapear before human beings anyway! And even if they don't...again..who cares?? They are so polluted now with everything from mercury to PCB's...who the hell would want to eat them anyway? Nobody wants to eat the fish equals no money equalls no value.

 

[Eric Johnson]

I'm not trying to be overly cynical, but I think that too much is made of the half-life issue. As everyone correctly points out, we are surrounded by very toxic substances that can kill many people a lot more quickly than stuff in the general category of "nuclear waste." True, the nuclear waste will still be around in 10,000 years, but I don't think humanity will be around to "enjoy" it. So I think it's an overblown, over-emotionalized, moot point, at least where human beings are concerned.

Doubt the surviving species will be overly concerned about a mine full of nuclear waste in the Nevada desert.

And in the final analysis, I think the technological hurdles of overcoming our dependence on fossil fuels are much, much greater than those involved in safely containing and disposing of nuclear waste. It will be far easier to deal with the waste, in other words, than trying to get by without nuclear power.

Tell me I'm wrong when oil hits $100 or $200 a barrel.

 

[keyman512us]

Personally, I'll take contained, controlled waste over unregulated mercury, sulfuric acid, CO2, etc. spewing unrestricted and uncontrolled through the atmosphere, any day of the week.

Human beings won't be on this planet for much longer, anyway, so what are you all worried about?

Eric:
Interesting you mention those things. I assume you are speaking of the toxic fumes from coal and oil fired plants, industrial and power. Well, this new wrinkle if from industry. Not only does Utah have the nations most air polluting facility, Mag-Corp., we have recently re-discovered a ditch filled in over 50 years ago running 17 miles through the, as yet, undeveloped part of the Salt Lake Valley. It is an old canal that carried waste water from a copper precipitation plant operated by the predecessors of Kennecott Copper. Turns out this ditch is buried from a few inches below surface to several feet in places. What is unique is the color of the soil, orange. Orange from deadly levels of arsenic. I'm not a mining engineer, but my Uncle was it's part of the processing by-products of refining copper. The powers that be are now passing the buck on who's responsible. But Kennecott has over 50% of the undeveloped land in the valley. They will win, I'm sure. So if you want to ship some more toxic waste, we can build another canal, maybe.

Speaking of "Regulated/Controlled waste"??? How far away from the "waste mountain in Utah" are you Uncle Rich???

I worked a cleanup project in Lawrence MA... "GenCorp Main Buildings Demolition" in 1996. The place was so polluted they (LaidLaw Enviromental) knocked it down and shipped EVERYTHING to some "Disposal Facility in UTAH". Place was loaded with PCB's (amongst other things).

Interesting side note...Everyone (working on the site) had to get their "Background PCB levels checked" before and after working the site. Almost a month into working the site, the (subcontractor)company I was working for "Quietly and unexpectedly" moved me to another site without "any explanation".
...Four years later...In the "old neighborhood" the furniture factory behind my childhood home was declared a superfund site...heavily contaminated with PCB's.

Strange coincidence??? Anyone think they know about the history of PCB use? Great example of true capitilism!

Ohh? And BTW...If you think your backyard is safe...Next time you go in for a "check-up" under our lovely HMO system in this country...ask for a "baseline" toxicity test for PCB levels to be performed on yourself...you might be shocked at the results.

Everyone and everything has "background levels"...PCB's are found in the deepest depths of the ocean...to the highest mountaintops'. Modern chemistry "at your service"...Synthesized in a lab in Syracuse NY in the 1920's and found everywhere today.

EcoMagination...brought to you by the company that "Brings good things to life"...They got the track record to prove it...just look at PCB's

 

[keyman512us]

I'm not trying to be overly cynical, but I think that too much is made of the half-life issue. As everyone correctly points out, we are surrounded by very toxic substances that can kill many people a lot more quickly than stuff in the general category of "nuclear waste." True, the nuclear waste will still be around in 10,000 years, but I don't think humanity will be around to "enjoy" it. So I think it's an overblown, over-emotionalized, moot point, at least where human beings are concerned.

Doubt the surviving species will be overly concerned about a mine full of nuclear waste in the Nevada desert.

And in the final analysis, I think the technological hurdles of overcoming our dependence on fossil fuels are much, much greater than those involved in safely containing and disposing of nuclear waste. It will be far easier to deal with the waste, in other words, than trying to get by without nuclear power.

Tell me I'm wrong when oil hits $100 or $200 a barrel.

Don't get me wrong Eric...You got valid points...but here is mine:

"Our Government" goes to great lengths to say there are "acceptable levels" for everything. They have done test after test after test to prove "Substance A or substance X" in small quanities are "harmless"... But have they done any tests to when "XYZ"'s are all combined like in the "real world"??? What the effect is???

Personally I think ("land based")"Nuclear Energy" is a waste of time and money...Putting it on an ocean-going vessel makes sense (there are no 'real' alternatives). But building new Electric Generating Nuclear plants? WHY? It's a waste of time and money. There are alternatives.

$$$$ is the controlling factor. In present day 2007 dollars how much would it cost JUST to build a new plant? 40 billion? Fifty billion? Fifty billion would buy a hell of alot of PV panels or wind turbine's....but wait...that doesn't make financial sense...because big Corporations wouldn't be able to garner "Continious profits" from the other alternatives.

I'm sorry but If they want to "Spout all the BS about a free market/Capitilism and all the other 'Cheerleader Hype'..." let them pay their own damn way. Let them pay for the disposal facilities and all the other associated costs.

Nuclear energy is not in OUR interests...it's in big businesses'...that being the case...let them use their own damn money! But wait...that will never happen...becuase unless some is getting rich...it's not feasible.

I'm sick of paying into a SOCIALIST system and not getting SOCIALIST services.

Bottom line is this...The nuclear industry has shown it's true colors...our safety (your's and mine) takes a back seat to the profit margin...that's a price I'm not willing to pay (even at $200.00 a barrel).

Nuclear energy and Capitilism combined are a recipe for disaster...You know it, I know it...and Americans in General..as a whole know it.

They had their chance... they blew it... "Thank YOU...NEXT"

 

[webbie]

If one thinks we are at the "end of days" (the current Prez has this view, among many others), then it is a perfect excuse NOT to be responsible. After all, why save any resources or purity for a future that will not exist?

However, I take the longer view - since we have been around in one form or another for at least 50,000 years, I would guess that 10,000 more is not a problem. That being the case, for our purposes it would seem prudent to plan for "forever" as opposed to putting a time frame on the future.

On a more technical basis, when it comes to radiation, virtually ANY increase over background causes increases in cancer deaths. The larger the increase of total radiation (airline flights, dental x-rays, medical treatments, etc.), the larger your chance of getting cancer - and worse yet, the larger your chances of passing birth defects on to the first and second generation afterwards. Not good.

But the questions still comes down to a simple one - can the power be produced for a reasonable price when plant construction, insurance, operation and disposal/decommissioning is taken into account? Remember, France and Japan have no oil, very little coal, not a lot of Hydro and all the other good stuff we have here. They don't have anywhere near the solar potential either. So what is good in France is not always right here.

 

[keyman512us]

If one thinks we are at the "end of days" (the current Prez has this view, among many others), then it is a perfect excuse NOT to be responsible. After all, why save any resources or purity for a future that will not exist?

However, I take the longer view - since we have been around in one form or another for at least 50,000 years, I would guess that 10,000 more is not a problem. That being the case, for our purposes it would seem prudent to plan for "forever" as opposed to putting a time frame on the future.

On a more technical basis, when it comes to radiation, virtually ANY increase over background causes increases in cancer deaths. The larger the increase of total radiation (airline flights, dental x-rays, medical treatments, etc.), the larger your chance of getting cancer - and worse yet, the larger your chances of passing birth defects on to the first and second generation afterwards. Not good.

But the questions still comes down to a simple one - can the power be produced for a reasonable price when plant construction, insurance, operation and disposal/decommissioning is taken into account? Remember, France and Japan have no oil, very little coal, not a lot of Hydro and all the other good stuff we have here. They don't have anywhere near the solar potential either. So what is good in France is not always right here.

Well like I said before Web..."Civilization peaked with the 8-track".

All the debate, all the hype, all the media put out is worthless so far. I'm not into conspiracy theories, or into 'causes' or remotely thinking of becoming a "cheerleader" for any particular case,casuse, or movement.

But there is NO WAY i'm going to "entertain" all the BS the "big $$$ powers that be" spoon feed people everyday! 99% of Americans walk around "half asleep" and don't look at the "bigger picture" you or I might at least "think about".

Al Gore is wasting his time...IMHO he needs to make a movie along the story line of the "Terminator Trilogy":

Perhaps you or I as a "grey Haired old man" talking to a five year old grandson on a mountain top "We had the world by the short hairs...At one time this country had factories that actually made things HERE and sold them here and to other parts of the world...There was a time when other nations wanted to be just like the USA...then 50 years of greed brought it all down....that's why you can't drink the water, breathe the air or even feel good about tommorow...thats why you go for medical treatment every month and swallow fistfulls of pills...."

GE??? Ecomagination??? BS Plain and simple...they can put all the spin on it they want...Their track record is no better than Dow Chemical, Union Carbide...or EXXON MOBIL's or any of the other countless big time corporations...just be honest!

"We don't give a rat's ^ss about you, the enviroment or anything else except our bottom line profit margin!..."

Until our so called "Elected officials... of the people... for the people" realize that the hands that feed them have effectively destroyed this country and that the good ole' USA...for over 50 years... We as a nation don't "Stand a chance in hell".

Do you honestly think any other nation on earth looks to the USA as an example of a "Perfect world"???

Maybe it's time for this country to stand back and "take a good hard look at itself".

What has the economy of this nation become? (honestly)?? We have gone from a "land of prosperity" to one of "desparity".



I would rather see a coal plant and steel factory on every street corner...than a nuke plant and a Taco Bell.

 

[webbie]

I agree GE is in it for the bucks- but that does not counter the fact that only large industries can make stuff like efficient jet engines or diesels. GE is making those diesels here, as well as wind machines and jet engines. It's the modern equiv. of the coal plant and steel factory you want.

The give a rats ass if WE give a rats ass. We want cheap airfares. We want lower freight rates. We want wind power - so they do.

That's what scares me most about people just wanting more nuclear or coal plants. While we all give lip service to conservation, we are not moving fast enough in that direction. Energy is an addiction - we never want less. So we think we will be OK if we just build more nuclear or coal plants. But, as you suggest, it is not true.

No doubt this country is scarred....pretty big time - both on a physical level and a mental/spiritual one. IMHO the solution is the same as with individual behavior. If something is not working, you have to throw it out and adopt new behaviors. Change is good. There was really never any such thing as the good ole days.

It's a big cruise ship and it does not turn on a dime. But if we look at the energy replaced by all the wood and pellet stoves, and by the wind farms and current solar systems, it does come to an actual numerical percentage of our energy use.

I see much of this as a failure of leadership. Instead of tackling the problems we are talking about, this country is becoming more militarized - putting untold resources into protecting us against the boogeyman or whoever. Why save energy or build a new economy when you can simply take over the middle east, build more nuclear plants, dig more coal, or whatever?

 

[keyman512us]

I agree GE is in it for the bucks- but that does not counter the fact that only large industries can make stuff like efficient jet engines or diesels. GE is making those diesels here, as well as wind machines and jet engines. It's the modern equiv. of the coal plant and steel factory you want.

The give a rats ass if WE give a rats ass. We want cheap airfares. We want lower freight rates. We want wind power - so they do.

That's what scares me most about people just wanting more nuclear or coal plants. While we all give lip service to conservation, we are not moving fast enough in that direction. Energy is an addiction - we never want less. So we think we will be OK if we just build more nuclear or coal plants. But, as you suggest, it is not true.

No doubt this country is scarred....pretty big time - both on a physical level and a mental/spiritual one. IMHO the solution is the same as with individual behavior. If something is not working, you have to throw it out and adopt new behaviors. Change is good. There was really never any such thing as the good ole days.

It's a big cruise ship and it does not turn on a dime. But if we look at the energy replaced by all the wood and pellet stoves, and by the wind farms and current solar systems, it does come to an actual numerical percentage of our energy use.

I see much of this as a failure of leadership. Instead of tackling the problems we are talking about, this country is becoming more militarized - putting untold resources into protecting us against the boogeyman or whoever. Why save energy or build a new economy when you can simply take over the middle east, build more nuclear plants, dig more coal, or whatever?

Web,
I agree with what you have said above.
GE has a chance..."To break away from the pack". While some of the things they have done in the past "have left egg on their face" (so long as "they" keep that in mind) I would 'applaud' their "business decisions". (Moral)Capitilism can work...but is a long ways away.

Trully, I would like to see a company like GE get into manufacturing EV's and other LSV's etc.

The fact that GE (Transportation Systems) manufactures it's "Ecomagination Locomotive (The Dash-9)" right in Erie PA...and has "market share over GM-EMD" is a pleasant thought.

I just wonder "How Long" is it going to last? And how many other corporations will "follow"???

BTW...I used the "coal plant" reference to simply state...I think this country needs to "turn the clock back a bit" and start off where it "went wrong"...I favor conservation/changing views as opposed to "building new"...unfortunately until "attitudes change" it's all just a pipe dream.

 

[Oregon Fire]

$$$$ is the controlling factor. In present day 2007 dollars how much would it cost JUST to build a new plant? 40 billion? Fifty billion? Fifty billion would buy a hell of alot of PV panels or wind turbine's....but wait...that doesn't make financial sense...because big Corporations wouldn't be able to garner "Continious profits" from the other alternatives.

Well you are only off by a factor of 50. The cost to build nuclear power plants has fallen dramatically since the 1980s, etc. This is due to use of standardized designs (GE and Westinghouse). The cost to build a nuke plant is 1 billion. Time to construct the plant is approximately 3 years. The price to produce electricity using nuclear plants is cheaper than all other alternatives - and yes, this includes the cost of construction, operation, decommissioning and disposal of radioactive waste. Just do search on google on "nuclear plant costs" and educate yourself.

Let's see...

1. Safer nuke plant designs...
2. Dramatically lower construction costs for nuke plants...
3. Does not contribute to global warming - zero CO2 output.
4. Cheapest power generation option.

There's a reason why GE and Westinghouse have spend billions developing these standardized nuke plant designs. They know that basic economics will make them necessary in the future...

Nuclear power is coming and it is coming in a big way...

jeff

 

[keyman512us]

$$$$ is the controlling factor. In present day 2007 dollars how much would it cost JUST to build a new plant? 40 billion? Fifty billion? Fifty billion would buy a hell of alot of PV panels or wind turbine's....but wait...that doesn't make financial sense...because big Corporations wouldn't be able to garner "Continious profits" from the other alternatives.

Well you are only off by a factor of 50. The cost to build nuclear power plants has fallen dramatically since the 1980s, etc. This is due to use of standardized designs (GE and Westinghouse). The cost to build a nuke plant is 1 billion. Time to construct the plant is approximately 3 years. The price to produce electricity using nuclear plants is cheaper than all other alternatives - and yes, this includes the cost of construction, operation, decommissioning and disposal of radioactive waste. Just do search on google on "nuclear plant costs" and educate yourself.

Let's see...

1. Safer nuke plant designs...
2. Dramatically lower construction costs for nuke plants...
3. Does not contribute to global warming - zero CO2 output.
4. Cheapest power generation option.

There's a reason why GE and Westinghouse have spend billions developing these standardized nuke plant designs. They know that basic economics will make them necessary in the future...

Nuclear power is coming and it is coming in a big way...

jeff

Okay...If this is true? When was the last billion dollar plant built (or should I say WHEN is it going to be built)???

..."The proof will be in the pudding"...I'll believe it when I see it.

This "Billion dollar plant" was this the "brain child" of former employees of ENRON/Arthur Anderson by any chance...lol

 

[Oregon Fire]

From a recent speach by Presidential Hopeful John McCain :

The United States needs to overcome its fear of nuclear power and embrace the technology as a way to wean itself from fossil fuels, Sen. John McCain told an audience in Manchester yesterday.

Nuclear power "is safe. The technology is here," McCain said, speaking to a crowd of about 200 at a breakfast hosted by The New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women. "It's a NIMBY (not in my backyard) problem, and a waste-disposal problem. It is not a technological problem."

McCain pointed to France, which draws more than three-quarters of its power from nuclear plants, and Russia, which has plans to build 40 new plants, as examples. "We've got to get over it, get over Three Mile Island," he said, referring to the 1979 accident at a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant.

and...

“I firmly believe that nuclear power is a key technology for addressing climate change. As we develop strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we simply cannot ignore this emission-free technology. While there are other sources of low- or zero-emission power sources, they simply do not have the power density to match that of nuclear power plants.”

“The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our energy mix is an unsustainable and, frankly, irresponsible position, particularly given the urgency and magnitude of the threat posed by global warming. … I strongly believe nuclear energy can and should play and even greater role … for the very simple reason that we must support sustainable, zero-emission alternatives such as nuclear if we are serious about addressing the problem of global warming."

-------

jeff

 

[Oregon Fire]

Okay...If this is true? When was the last billion dollar plant built (or should I say WHEN is it going to be built)???

(broken link removed to http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html)

Czech republic plant was recently built for 1 billion. On average plants have cost about 1.5 billion. Prices are dropping as designs are being standardized and processes streamlined.

Other plants built in the last decade are around 3 billion for two generation plants - co-located at same site. e.g. Korean plants.

Here is a list of upcoming nuclear plants in the u.s.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf


jeff

 

[Eric Johnson]

I've been called a lot of dirty things over the years, Craig, but putting me into the same ideological boat as GWB is a new low. I'm not worried about (or eagerly anticipating) the Second Coming--I'm talking about the guy in his SUV and all his buddies who don't give a rat's ass about anybody but themselves. It's true that "humanity" has been walking the earth for more than 50,000 years, but it's only in the last 200 or so that we've started using the planet's resources at unsustainable levels. It's pretty clear to me that our "civilization" is doomed. I guarantee you that when we're done ruining the environment, a little bit of nuclear waste from power plants won't even be worth mentioning.

I think that roughly half the population of the U.S. (and maybe even more than that) is counting on Divine Intervention to save our silly souls, which basically means they don't have to worry themselves about details like conserving resources. W comes to mind. That leaves the rest of us banking on humankind saving itself. No rational analysis would conclude that we have much of a future on this planet.

Speaking of GE: I'm constantly appalled at the nerve of those guys. Does anybody actually believe that the other creatures on this planet would applaud some minor technological advance in jet engine technology that pollutes just a little bit less than it's predecessor? As in: "the animals are happy, so we must be doing something right!" If the wild animals had any sense (which they probably do) they would want us extinct--like yesterday!

--end of Saturday morning rant--

 

[webbie]

Once again we are talking about the PRICE, not the COST.

The best case price of 1.5 billion in no way includes decommissioning and storage of the spent fuel. It can't, since there is not yet any way to safely store them!

And how about all the existing plants and the thousands of tons of waste? Should the "industry" be responsible for that, or should then get to start from a clean slate?

Another downside of nuclear not mentioned is that it cannot easily be turned up and down. In other words, it cannot vary to meet demand. This means it must be used only for "baseline" demand, or...as with our local plant here, feed into a pumped water storage facility which uses water pumped to the top of a mountain to store the energy.

The great science we are relying on is still "they will find a way to get rid of the waste someday". To discuss simply the construction costs or operating costs of a plant is to miss the point. Also, building something for a good price somewhere else in the world is a totally different thing than doing so in the US. Take a look at the rising cost of metals and other commodities and it will become evident that prices are likely to rise.

I've never thought that the construction cost was the problem - anything south of 4 billion is probably workable...after all, a new Las Vegas Resort costs 2 billion! But the total cost is still not figured in.

We'll see whether the American public and business community accepts the new nuke attempts. There are not a lot of places left in the populated zones (where the power is needed) that these units can be placed at.

Solve the problem of the waste stream and I'll jump on board myself - but replacing relatively short term pollution with 10 to 50,000 year pollution does not seem like the best trade off for our energy needs.

None of the above addresses the reality that more nukes=more bombs..... when the technology spreads and is sold all over the world, it becomes much easier to enrich, etc.

 

[Eric Johnson]

My favorite scenario for the demand swing issue involves all of driving plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles, which we plug in according to some schedule that balances out the load. Not that hard to do for huge gain in efficiency.

I'll concede the point on proliferation, but that's not an insurmountable problem, either. Not compared to some of the challenges posed by some of the alternative energy sources we're either using or trying to figure out how to use.

My bottom line is that, if we insist on keeping our many energy-hungry extravagances (such as casinos in Las Vegas), we don't have the luxury of picking and choosing our energy supplies. We're going to be using them all, so maybe it's a good idea to figure out the best and safest way to do it.

 

[keyman512us]

From a recent speach by Presidential Hopeful John McCain :

The United States needs to overcome its fear of nuclear power and embrace the technology as a way to wean itself from fossil fuels, Sen. John McCain told an audience in Manchester yesterday.

Personally I don't fear nuclear power...What I fear are the greedy, money grubbing SCUMBAGS that run it that put making a $ above the quality and safety of my life AND YOURS.

Nuclear power "is safe. The technology is here," McCain said, speaking to a crowd of about 200 at a breakfast hosted by The New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women. "It's a NIMBY (not in my backyard) problem, and a waste-disposal problem. It is not a technological problem."

Safe? Yeah so long as safety doesn't get in the way of profit. NIMBY problem? Waste problem?

NO! It's a "trust problem"...For too many years the CORPORATE decision making progress has been a "simple equation"...The difference between right and wrong...boils down to profit or loss!

McCain pointed to France, which draws more than three-quarters of its power from nuclear plants, and Russia, which has plans to build 40 new plants, as examples. "We've got to get over it, get over Three Mile Island," he said, referring to the 1979 accident at a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant.

FRANCE??? Quoting what works in (for all intents and purposes) a "Socialist" nation...Don't fly in the "PROFIT ONLY CAPITILIST" type we have here in the good ole' USA!

and...

“I firmly believe that nuclear power is a key technology for addressing climate change. As we develop strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we simply cannot ignore this emission-free technology. While there are other sources of low- or zero-emission power sources, they simply do not have the power density to match that of nuclear power plants.”

“The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our energy mix is an unsustainable and, frankly, irresponsible position, particularly given the urgency and magnitude of the threat posed by global warming. … I strongly believe nuclear energy can and should play and even greater role … for the very simple reason that we must support sustainable, zero-emission alternatives such as nuclear if we are serious about addressing the problem of global warming."

-------

jeff

IRRESPONSIBLE??? You damn right! The nuclear industry in this country has been irresponsible for over 50 YEARS!
Nuclear power has NO PLACE in the current structure...A Nuke Plant is not a "Plastic Shop" to think it can be run like one and put on "every street corner"..is not sustainable.

Tell YA What! You and Sen McCain want to "Sell ME" on the virtues of Nuke Power??? You go get the numbers and tell me How Much $$$ have you and I...John Q. Taxpayer...paid out of our own pockets since the "Dawn of Nuke Power" to "Clean up the loose ends" and then you tell me how you can figure it is "so economical"...

PAAA-LEEZ Try slinging your BS logic on someone that might buy it...

You can try to blame the failure of Nuke power on THE PEOPLE all you want...But the industry has nobody to blame...but itself!

Tell me I'm wrong! How can you? The only way Nuke power COULD work is with more "Corporate Welfare". Until the Corporations are willing to risk THEIR FORTUNES...waste disposal isn't even on the radar scope!

You might want to throw "Good money after bad...but I don't".

 

[webbie]

Sorry, but McCain is a loon - the kind of person where I automatically will look at the opposite of what he thinks about a subject.

Getting shot down is not a prerequisite for wisdom, nor for leadership. Folks use such things as a springboard to politics, but once they get there they have to prove themselves though actions. I know most American disagree with the guy on Iraq, Immigration and lots of other relevant subjects.

It always concerns me when failures (the nuke industry) say "now we know how to do it right". What they are really saying is "we fixed those mistakes, but don't know the next ones until we try - and until then, we want government assistance and assurance".

Read this and think:
"Is nuclear energy enjoying a renaissance? Electrical utilities certainly think so.

No new nuclear plant has been proposed since the 1970s. But now, three companies, Exelon (nyse: EXC - news - people ), Dominion Resources (nyse: D - news - people ) and Entergy (nyse: ETR - news - people ), have filed applications for site permits with the government, and 16 companies have said they're planning to apply for licenses to build and operate up to 25 new plants.

On Wednesday, at Excelon's Limerick nuclear plant outside Philadelphia, President George W. Bush gushed about the joys of nuclear power and trumpeted Nuclear Power 2010, his initiative to get more plants built. That was his second appearance at a nuclear reactor since last June, when he visited a reactor in Maryland. And it was the second time a sitting president has visited a nuclear reactor site since Jimmy Carter's appearance at Three Mile Island.

Utilities famously backed away from nuclear power in the decades after that 1979 accident. But their cold feet weren’t caused so much by environmental concerns as financial ones: Once the massive construction costs are factored in, nuclear plants simply aren't as profitable as their competitors, coal and gas-fired plants.

"It's not as if Greenpeace killed the industry. Guys in pinstripe suits on Wall Street killed the industry," said Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington.

The specter of caps on carbon emissions--which many in the power industry believe are inevitable--certainly increases the appeal of nuclear power, which is emissions-free. But even with the run-up in natural gas and coal prices, nuclear is not profitable without a raft of government subsidies. Still, with the largess it extracted from the government last year, the nuclear industry may have put even the ethanol lobby to shame.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended insurance coverage to the public in case of a reactor accident at any new plant for 20 years. It provided for a generous production tax credit and federal loan guarantees for up to 80% of the project's cost. The government even agreed to step in and eat the cost of any delay in plant construction related to litigation or government red-tape--a huge prize for plant sponsors and investors given the massive capital costs associated with building a nuclear plant.

These new subsidies were lavished on top of old ones, including the biggest one of all: the government's shouldering the problem of nuclear waste. It is little wonder that nuclear is getting a second look. "

----------------------------------------------------

Basically, what it says is that anyone who is for nuclear is for massive corporate welfare - given to these companies BY ME AND YOU.

If they are so safe and if waste and accidents can be figured in, then WHY can't they even consider operating without being excluded from liability?

Talk to me when they are ready to take responsibility. Until then, I'm against it.

 

[BrotherBart]

Ran the calculator again. Looks like I have ten years left so I want Harbor Freight to come out with a backyard home mini-nuke plant to supply power to this joint for the next ten years. We already get around twenty percent of our juice from a nuke thirty miles south of here so why not get it all from one thirty feet to the south of the house.

The neighbors won't need to worry. I will careful. Really. I will. And wood smoke won't even make it to their list of concerns anymore.

 

[babalu87]

Sorry, but McCain is a loon - the kind of person where I automatically will look at the opposite of what he thinks about a subject.

You must hate the immigration bill now that you have slept on it.

Back on topic.

Nuclear is cleaner and has less overall waste than coal.
Nuke plants built today can last twice as long as a coal plant.
Coal produces tons of waste, Nukes produce pounds.
Put the spent Uranium in a lead box and forget about it. Nuclear isnt the BOOGEYMAN

Less than 60 years ago we thought there was more oil than we could possibly use, now we are afraid to go to the next level for fear of what may happen in TEN THOUSAND years? Have any of you even visited a dump? How much trash (pounds) do you throw away in a week? Dont tell me a bag if your using a trash compactor, I want the number in POUNDS.

Until everyone stops thinking Chernobyl, Nukes wont stand a chance.

 

[restorer]

Sorry, but McCain is a loon - the kind of person where I automatically will look at the opposite of what he thinks about a subject.

Until everyone stops thinking Chernobyl, Nukes wont stand a chance.

I don't think about Chernobyl. I think about TMI, I think about Hanford, Wahshington, I think about Skull Valley, Utah, I think about Moab, Utah, I think about Rocky Flats, Colorado.

Can I ask a personal question, do you think the toxic stuff you dump down your sewer isn't a problem??????

 

[babalu87]

Sorry, but McCain is a loon - the kind of person where I automatically will look at the opposite of what he thinks about a subject.

Until everyone stops thinking Chernobyl, Nukes wont stand a chance.

I don't think about Chernobyl. I think about TMI, I think about Hanford, Wahshington, I think about Skull Valley, Utah, I think about Moab, Utah, I think about Rocky Flats, Colorado.

Can I ask a personal question, do you think the toxic stuff you dump down your sewer isn't a problem??????

What is this toxic stuff you refer to?

Three Mile Island

The full details of the accident were not discovered until much later. In the end, the reactor was brought under control. Although approximately 25,000 people lived within five miles of the island at the time of the accident,[2] no identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred, and a government report concluded that "the projected number of excess fatal cancers due to the accident... is approximately one". But the accident had serious economic and public relations consequences,

 

[webbie]

Bab, do some reading on Rocky Flats. Basically, we have already poisoned large areas of the west with this "safe" pounds of waste. I guess you are all for shipping it to Uncle Riches land?

No one is worried about what might happen...it has already happened. The big lie was told that we would figure out a way to get rid of it, and that worked as long as no one knew and we shipped it over the mountains, etc. - but now people live there! Yes, that is NIMBY, and I would rather have a biomass plant with all it's problems - at least I would know that I was not poisoning future generations just to run my TV.

I'll repeat again and again - if they can be responsible for all the costs including disposal until it is safe (and it is NOT simply putting in a lead box!), then I'll gladly be open to changing my mind.