Expanding Nuclear Energy

[muon2]

No.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

No.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

fertilizer
h20 car thing
solar
wind
electric.

i just don't like nuclear.

[Associate Justice PiT]

No.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

fertilizer
h20 car thing
solar
wind
electric.

i just don't like nuclear.

     Getting enough energy to fuel a nation with those is difficult. The idea behind nuclear is that it allows us to produce large amounts of energy cleanly & safely.

[Sbane]

No.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

fertilizer
h20 car thing
solar
wind
electric.

i just don't like nuclear.

Umm...what?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Yes (R), but with some reservations.

[dead0man]

No.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

fertilizer
h20 car thing
solar
wind
electric.

i just don't like nuclear.

Umm...what?

Perhaps she has come up with the blueprint for the perpetual motion machine?

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

No.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

fertilizer
h20 car thing
solar
wind
electric.

i just don't like nuclear.

     Getting enough energy to fuel a nation with those is difficult. The idea behind nuclear is that it allows us to produce large amounts of energy cleanly & safely.

It is not safe.

[Franzl]

No.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

fertilizer
h20 car thing
solar
wind
electric.

i just don't like nuclear.

     Getting enough energy to fuel a nation with those is difficult. The idea behind nuclear is that it allows us to produce large amounts of energy cleanly & safely.

It is not safe.

How do you think nuclear compares in safety to other energy forms?

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

No.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

fertilizer
h20 car thing
solar
wind
electric.

i just don't like nuclear.

     Getting enough energy to fuel a nation with those is difficult. The idea behind nuclear is that it allows us to produce large amounts of energy cleanly & safely.

It is not safe.

How do you think nuclear compares in safety to other energy forms?

depends on the form. Nuclear is very risky. Also what will happen to the waste?

[dead0man]

depends on the form. Nuclear is very risky.

How many people die every year getting coal out of the ground and transporting it?  How many tons of sulphur and mercury and worse get dumped into our atmosphere every year when we turn that coal into electricity? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What happens to coal waste?

[Rowan]

France has been pretty much all nuclear for years.

If the French can figure it out, why can't we?

[Ban my account ffs!]

depends on the form. Nuclear is very risky.

How many people die every year getting coal out of the ground and transporting it?  How many tons of sulphur and mercury and worse get dumped into our atmosphere every year when we turn that coal into electricity? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What happens to coal waste?

I do have to say... I'll miss the mile long coal trains that travel through town several times each day on their way from Wyoming... but we can convert those tracks to other freight and passenger use and electrify the lines using clean, cheap nuclear power!

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

ok. But what happens if something goes wrong?

[muon2]

No.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

fertilizer
h20 car thing
solar
wind
electric.

i just don't like nuclear.

We don't have the capacity to store electricity the same way we can store gas and oil. The bulk of our electricity has to come from sources that can generate power at all times. Wind and solar electric generation cannot run at all times so they provide excellent supplements to power, but not the base load. Hydrogen for devices like automotive fuel cells requires electricity to create the hydrogen, and that goes back to primary power sources.

In some regions, non-fuel power generation is possible. The most important is hydroelectric power which requires dams and reservoirs to cover land, and then only where there is enough vertical drop and enough water to generate the power. Geothermal and tidal generation can be used in a few locations that have sufficient natural power to harness.

The fuel-based sources include coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium. The first three are the major contributors to carbon dioxide emissions in the air, and all the preceding sources are not sufficient to replace the total electricity needed. That leaves nuclear power from uranium.

ok. But what happens if something goes wrong?

Of course things can go wrong for any power technology. Oil spills, refinery explosions and and coal mine collapses tragically happen. The response is to improve safety, and nuclear power is no exception. Since the era that gave us Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the world has made major strides in overall design and safety technology. We don't see the improvements in the US because we stopped all public work on nuclear technology 30 years ago, but countries like France and Japan have continued research and engineering. Newer designs lower the possibility of release of radioactive material and limit the amount that would be released.

[12th Doctor]

No.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

fertilizer
h20 car thing
solar
wind
electric.

i just don't like nuclear.

     Getting enough energy to fuel a nation with those is difficult. The idea behind nuclear is that it allows us to produce large amounts of energy cleanly & safely.

It is not safe.

How do you think nuclear compares in safety to other energy forms?

depends on the form. Nuclear is very risky. Also what will happen to the waste?

1) No form of non-fossil fuel energy currently available could ever hope to meet the needs of our countries growing consumption.

2) While huge measures can, and ought to be taken to increase efficiency, it is unrealistic in the extreme to assume that there is any hope of reducing U.S. (forget global) energy demands over the next century.

3) Whether or not you accept global warming, the fact remains that the massive levels of CO2 belched forth from coal plants (and cars) are not good for the environment, and they are not good for people's health.

4) Electric cars, which is something we will need if we are to continue using automobiles in the country (whether or not peak oil has come, it will come, soon).  If you have to hook this car up to a plant powered by fossil fuels, then what is the point?

5) The fact that we will probably have to adopt electric cars anyway is going to put more strain on our energy needs.  Thus, refer back to #1.

6) As an energy source, nuclear power is the least expensive, after coal, to operate.  Nuclear power comes with massive capital costs, but once the reactor gets up and running, it generates power for pennies on the dollar, compared to all other methods, including coal.  However, because of the huge initial costs, deregulation in the United States favors other methods... thus, we ought to reregulate.

7) The incidents that caused Three Mile Island and Chernobyl cannot be repeated.  And I don't mean that it is unlikely, I mean they literally cannot be repeated. 

Chernobyl was the direct result of Soviet lack of concern for human life, and incompetence (the reason the explosion occurred was because the Soviets deliberately turned off all the safety shutdowns).

The design flaw that caused the Three Miles Island incident was immediately fixed in all plants.

8 ) U.S. and Russian nuclear generating facilities lag horribly behind those of the rest of the world.  Japan and France now run off of 3rd generation commercial reactors.  The reactors involved in both the above mentioned incidents, were 1st generation, as are almost all reactors currently functioning in both our countries.  The 3rd generation reactors of far safer, and produce far less waste.

9) A meltdown is what happens when 100 things go wrong, not one.  There has never been a full scale meltdown in the history of nuclear power.  At Chernobyl, there was a reactor steam explosion, which is totally different.  At Three Miles Island, there was a partial meltdown.

10) A nuclear reactor is not an atomic bomb.  The process for the release of energy is totally different.  Even if a full scale meltdown were to occur, what you would basically have is a massive radiation release, but it would not be nearly as devastating as the hype would have you believe.

Even in the partial meltdown at Three Miles Island, in which radiation was intentionally released to vent the reactor core, studies have concluded that cancer rates and birth defects in the region are no higher than normal.

11) Nuclear power releases the most radiation into the environment, right?  I mean, it must, since radiation is part of the process.

Wrong.  In fact, nuclear power releases almost no radiation into the surrounding area, where as oil and coal power release massive amounts of radioactive material for hundreds of miles around.  Radio carbons, radioactive iodine isotopes, and not to mention tons of other carcinogens are only present in trace amounts in coal and oil, but so much of it is burned to generate even small amounts of power, that the release in considerable.

In terms of health, you are far safer living a mile away from a nuclear power plant than you are living within 30 miles of a coal or oil fired plant.

12) Modern reprocessing techniques have led to significant reductions in the already small amount of waste generated by nuclear power.

If you need any proof that coal power causes waste, I invite you to come here to Pittsburgh and see one of any number of slag heaps that surround the city.

Actually, these heaps don't come from coal power, since Pittsburgh was, ironically, the first city in the United States to go nuclear, but rather from steel production.  Same result, though.

Many of these "heaps" are as tall as 500 ft and cover an area of around 5 sq miles.  Recent efforts have been made to "beautify" them but they can't be moved, and will continue to have a massive environmental impact for centuries.



In short, don't buy into the nuclear fear mongering.  There are plenty of good reasons to adopt nuclear power.

[Mint]

depends on the form. Nuclear is very risky.

How many people die every year getting coal out of the ground and transporting it?  How many tons of sulphur and mercury and worse get dumped into our atmosphere every year when we turn that coal into electricity? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What happens to coal waste?

Not to mention that coal waste as stored actually emits more radiation than radioactive waste.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

depends on the form. Nuclear is very risky.

How many people die every year getting coal out of the ground and transporting it?  How many tons of sulphur and mercury and worse get dumped into our atmosphere every year when we turn that coal into electricity? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What happens to coal waste?

Not to mention that coal waste as stored actually emits more radiation than radioactive waste.

nulcear waste will be here forever if we go that way.

[12th Doctor]

depends on the form. Nuclear is very risky.

How many people die every year getting coal out of the ground and transporting it?  How many tons of sulphur and mercury and worse get dumped into our atmosphere every year when we turn that coal into electricity? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What happens to coal waste?

Not to mention that coal waste as stored actually emits more radiation than radioactive waste.

nulcear waste will be here forever if we go that way.

Serious question... I'm not trying to be an asshole:

Do you even read the things we post?

[dead0man]

depends on the form. Nuclear is very risky.

How many people die every year getting coal out of the ground and transporting it?  How many tons of sulphur and mercury and worse get dumped into our atmosphere every year when we turn that coal into electricity? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What happens to coal waste?

Not to mention that coal waste as stored actually emits more radiation than radioactive waste.

nulcear waste will be here forever if we go that way.

From the first several paragraphs of article Mint linked too:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[12th Doctor]

Random Fact:

France is the only non-major-petroleum producing country in the world that is a net energy exporter.  The sole reason being their reliance on nuclear power, which produces enough extra energy to sell to Germany, Belgium, etc.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

France has been pretty much all nuclear for years.

If the French can figure it out, why can't we?

Because you didn't have De Gaulle (FTR that's him who started the big reliance of France on nuclear energy).

Random Fact:

France is the only non-major-petroleum producing country in the world that is a net energy exporter.  The sole reason being their reliance on nuclear power, which produces enough extra energy to sell to Germany, Belgium, etc.

I wonder if the fact that we yet didn't have a significant problem with our big number of nuclear installations would have to see with the fact that this is in the hands of a monopolistic public company, so a one which don't have to care (or less have to care) about profitability, I sincerely wonder...

Well, outside of the safety question, which is a serious question, as far as I know nuclear energy is reliant on some raw materials which are in pretty limited quantity on the planet. So if everybody goes nuclear, it won't last a lot of time...

Personally, I strongly root for nuclear fusion, a technology still in development, but if ever it worked, the perspectives of development could be huge to say the the least...

That said, I also strongly support the renewable energies, and especially sun, the future of this one could be good too...

[muon2]

Random Fact:

France is the only non-major-petroleum producing country in the world that is a net energy exporter.  The sole reason being their reliance on nuclear power, which produces enough extra energy to sell to Germany, Belgium, etc.

I wonder if the fact that we yet didn't have a significant problem with our big number of nuclear installations would have to see with the fact that this is in the hands of a monopolistic public company, so a one which don't have to care (or less have to care) about profitability, I sincerely wonder...

Well, outside of the safety question, which is a serious question, as far as I know nuclear energy is reliant on some raw materials which are in pretty limited quantity on the planet. So if everybody goes nuclear, it won't last a lot of time...

Personally, I strongly root for nuclear fusion, a technology still in development, but if ever it worked, the perspectives of development could be huge to say the the least...

That said, I also strongly support the renewable energies, and especially sun, the future of this one could be good too...

Fusion continues to be some decades off. It's theoretical promise is belied by real and difficult challenges to make it work on a commercial scale. However, there are other materials, particularly thorium, that may be developed into future nuclear fuels.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Random Fact:

France is the only non-major-petroleum producing country in the world that is a net energy exporter.  The sole reason being their reliance on nuclear power, which produces enough extra energy to sell to Germany, Belgium, etc.

I wonder if the fact that we yet didn't have a significant problem with our big number of nuclear installations would have to see with the fact that this is in the hands of a monopolistic public company, so a one which don't have to care (or less have to care) about profitability, I sincerely wonder...

Well, outside of the safety question, which is a serious question, as far as I know nuclear energy is reliant on some raw materials which are in pretty limited quantity on the planet. So if everybody goes nuclear, it won't last a lot of time...

Personally, I strongly root for nuclear fusion, a technology still in development, but if ever it worked, the perspectives of development could be huge to say the the least...

That said, I also strongly support the renewable energies, and especially sun, the future of this one could be good too...

Fusion continues to be some decades off. It's theoretical promise is belied by real and difficult challenges to make it work on a commercial scale. However, there are other materials, particularly thorium, that may be developed into future nuclear fuels.

Actually, somewhat more promising in research into cost effective superconductors.

Its amazing that very few people are aware of how much electricity is lost in transmission.

[Frodo]

I wonder what likelihood there is of a significant expansion of nuclear power in the final energy bill, along the lines of what Sen. Lamar Alexander (R -TN) is proposing:
----------------------------------------------------------------

Key senator calls for 100 new reactors in 20 years

By DUNCAN MANSFIELD – 3 days ago

OAK RIDGE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander called Wednesday for doubling the number of nuclear reactors nationwide, a potentially $700 billion proposal that calls for building 100 more over 20 years.

"It is an aggressive goal, but with presidential leadership it could happen," the third-ranking Senate Republican told an economic and technology conference at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge.

"I am convinced it should happen because conservation and nuclear power are the only real alternatives we have today to produce enough low-cost, reliable, clean energy to clean the air, deal with climate change and keep good jobs from going overseas."

Alexander said he would deliver that message next week speaking on the floor of the Senate, where he said all 40 Republicans and many Democrats support nuclear energy. He said he hopes President Barack Obama's administration would embrace his call under efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama's administration is considering a cap-and-trade program designed to reduce greenhouse gases and to require larger quantities of carbon-free energy production.

The country's 104 commercial nuclear reactors produce 20 percent of the nation's electricity, while most of its energy comes from carbon-producing coal. The last reactor to come online was the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar Unit 1 reactor in Spring City, Tenn., in 1996.

Steve Smith, director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, called Alexander's proposal "reckless."

"Nuclear power is a problem, not a solution," Smith said. "New nuclear reactors are expensive, create significant water use and thermal pollution risks to our communities and produce radioactive waste that after 50 years we still have no long-term solution for."

Smith urged conservation and efficiency improvements instead, but Alexander said they would not be enough to blunt growing energy demand.

Alexander said he also backs renewable energy sources, notably solar power and biomass fuels, yet called those still too expensive and inefficient.

"Today there is a huge energy gap between the renewable electricity we would like to have and the reliable, low-cost electricity we must have," he said.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is spending $2.5 billion to complete a second reactor in Spring City by 2013. Meanwhile, there are 17 proposals for 26 new reactors pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Knoxville-based TVA has two reactors among the proposed projects and is considering completing two others in north Alabama.

Alexander said he would increase federal loan guarantees now being offered for the first four reactors to as many as 12 to "jump start" the nuclear revival.

[12th Doctor]

Random Fact:

France is the only non-major-petroleum producing country in the world that is a net energy exporter.  The sole reason being their reliance on nuclear power, which produces enough extra energy to sell to Germany, Belgium, etc.

I wonder if the fact that we yet didn't have a significant problem with our big number of nuclear installations would have to see with the fact that this is in the hands of a monopolistic public company, so a one which don't have to care (or less have to care) about profitability, I sincerely wonder...

Well, outside of the safety question, which is a serious question, as far as I know nuclear energy is reliant on some raw materials which are in pretty limited quantity on the planet. So if everybody goes nuclear, it won't last a lot of time...

Personally, I strongly root for nuclear fusion, a technology still in development, but if ever it worked, the perspectives of development could be huge to say the the least...

That said, I also strongly support the renewable energies, and especially sun, the future of this one could be good too...

Fusion continues to be some decades off. It's theoretical promise is belied by real and difficult challenges to make it work on a commercial scale. However, there are other materials, particularly thorium, that may be developed into future nuclear fuels.

Actually, somewhat more promising in research into cost effective superconductors.

Its amazing that very few people are aware of how much electricity is lost in transmission.

And here I thought the reason they put plants near populated areas is because big coal/big oil/big nuclear wants to kill us all.