and it starts: Lieberman wants to halt new nuclear plants

[rcpratt]

actually nuclear is cheaper than natural gas

Depends on the cost of natural gas on any given day. Those are currently the two cheapest options, though.

 

[Thump553]

Surprisingly, what Lieberman said makes a whole lot of sense. These were quality designed and built plants in the world's most earthquake sensitive country. Admittedly this was a huge earthquake but if the best prepared country in the world has this sort of problem it is definately common sense to step back and reevaluate the new data that will result.

 

[ShawnD1]

http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/149173-lieberman-stop-new-nuclear-plants-in-us



Well how are people supposed to charge up their Volts now??? Sorry guys, maybe you can strap a windmill to the top of the thing.

He's pandering to the coal barons in Pennsylvania :hmm:

USA has virtually limitless amounts of coal. It actually does make a lot of sense to keep using coal. What yall should really be doing is demanding stricter emissions laws on coal plants.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Surprisingly, what Lieberman said makes a whole lot of sense. These were quality designed and built plants in the world's most earthquake sensitive country. Admittedly this was a huge earthquake but if the best prepared country in the world has this sort of problem it is definately common sense to step back and reevaluate the new data that will result.

Werent these plants in Japan built decades ago? One report I read said at least one of them was 30 years old. Have we not done any research in 30 years?

 

[rudeguy]

Werent these plants in Japan built decades ago? One report I read said at least one of them was 30 years old. Have we not done any research in 30 years?

hey hey HEY

logic is not allowed!

 

[Vette73]

Surprisingly, what Lieberman said makes a whole lot of sense. These were quality designed and built plants in the world's most earthquake sensitive country. Admittedly this was a huge earthquake but if the best prepared country in the world has this sort of problem it is definately common sense to step back and reevaluate the new data that will result.

AGAIN the plants stood up to a almost 9 earthquake. It was the bad placement of the genarators that ahs caused the major issues.

How about this, we won't build nuclear plants at the beach, good? :awe:

 

[Lemon law]

The thing to maybe point out is that earthquake itself did not damage the Japanese reactor, its the tsunami that wiped out its cooling system that caused all the the problems. And once the heat in the reactor gets to a certain point, what was once a reliable system with moving parts, warps into a unrepairable mess that will cost far more to dismantle than it did to build it.

Not an expert here, but I believe some types of reactor designs do not suffer from quick failure if the cooling water fails.

But that is the problem with a nuclear fusion reactor, you can accelerate the heat output by removing the control rods, but there is no total off switch.

 

[werepossum]

AGAIN the plants stood up to a almost 9 earthquake. It was the bad placement of the genarators that ahs caused the major issues.

How about this, we won't build nuclear plants at the beach, good? :awe:

One good thing about the beach, it becomes much easier to winch the thing aboard a barge and tow it out to sea to drop in a nice deep spot once the tsunami hits and it does melt into slag. Although since Japan at this point has experienced a 9.0/9.1 earthquake, 6.9 aftershocks, a tsunami, reactor melt-downs, an oil refinery spill and fire, and a volcano eruption, they may not be so keen on disposing of nuclear waste in the sea. Can you say Godzilla?

The thing to maybe point out is that earthquake itself did not damage the Japanese reactor, its the tsunami that wiped out its cooling system that caused all the the problems. And once the heat in the reactor gets to a certain point, what was once a reliable system with moving parts, warps into a unrepairable mess that will cost far more to dismantle than it did to build it.

Not an expert here, but I believe some types of reactor designs do not suffer from quick failure if the cooling water fails.

But that is the problem with a nuclear fusion reactor, you can accelerate the heat output by removing the control rods, but there is no total off switch.

Pebble bed and I believe the Canadian heavy water reactors are inherently pretty safe. Some of the newer self-contained micronuke plants seem pretty bulletproof as well, but since most of the designs have never faced a major natural disaster it's hard to say for sure.

I don't think we need a moratorium on something that is damned near non-existent, but we could certainly use a national re-evaluation of all existing nuclear plants' known risks and emergency procedures. Another thing we could do is national standardization, as in France. The fewer the reactor designs, the better the go-to-hell plans and the more likely they will be funded and ready to work when needed.

 

[Thump553]

AGAIN the plants stood up to a almost 9 earthquake. It was the bad placement of the genarators that ahs caused the major issues.

How about this, we won't build nuclear plants at the beach, good? :awe:

But we DO build nuclear plants at the beach and on rivers-for access to vast amounts of cooling water. There is one on the beach about 20-30 miles from my house and another on a major river about ten miles away.

Admittedly these plants were 30-40 years old, but so are ours. The last nuclear plant in the US was built in 1976, 35 years ago. Forty years ago would be well AFTER US engineers got us to the moon, it's not like we are talking about the Dark Ages.

I've always been a proponent of nuclear energy and my major concern has been waste disposal. What has happened in Japan clearly shows that design improvements can be made, and should be made.

It greatly distresses me when society demonstrates a MTV type attention span to saftey. We did that last year with the coal mine fire first and especially the gulf oil spill. We should address and correct the shown deficiencies, not poo-poo them.

 

[sandorski]

If you think nuclear energy is cheap think again. The reason we stopped building more plants is because the shit is expensive as hell. Since the Soviet Union collapsed we've had access to relatively cheap nuclear fuel, but it still ain't a bargain as energy sources go. We didn't need to pay more, we didn't need more bombs, so we didn't build more plants. You didn't really think a bunch of politicians would let a little thing like public perception get in the way of making a buck did you?

The Fuel is cheap. The Plants are what is costly.

 

[Capt Caveman]

"I don’t want to stop the building of nuclear power plants, but I think we’ve got to kind of quietly, quickly put the brakes on until we can absorb what has happened in Japan.”

Sounds fairly reasonable even for Lieberman. Sounds like a politician talking. Also, it doesn't mean he's right or Fertel is wrong but it should be up for debate at the very least. Not building them near unstable areas is a good start.

I agree. There will be a lot to learn from this disaster.

 

[Kadarin]

But that is the problem with a nuclear fusion reactor, you can accelerate the heat output by removing the control rods, but there is no total off switch.

Nitpicking here, but these are nuclear fission reactors, not fusion. Slight difference...

 

[MovingTarget]

The thing to maybe point out is that earthquake itself did not damage the Japanese reactor, its the tsunami that wiped out its cooling system that caused all the the problems. And once the heat in the reactor gets to a certain point, what was once a reliable system with moving parts, warps into a unrepairable mess that will cost far more to dismantle than it did to build it.

Not an expert here, but I believe some types of reactor designs do not suffer from quick failure if the cooling water fails.

But that is the problem with a nuclear fusion reactor, you can accelerate the heat output by removing the control rods, but there is no total off switch.

Isn't that the problem with fission plants, not fusion? IIRC, fusion plants do not have the downsides that fission plants do ( cooling systems, control rods, etc).

This is why we should be spending more R&D $ here in the US for our own fusion development process (outside of the NIF and ITER). That is where our clean baseload energy will ultimately come from.

Edit: Damn, Kadarin beat me to it.

 

[drebo]

Surprisingly, what Lieberman said makes a whole lot of sense. These were quality designed and built plants in the world's most earthquake sensitive country. Admittedly this was a huge earthquake but if the best prepared country in the world has this sort of problem it is definately common sense to step back and reevaluate the new data that will result.

So what you're saying is that because there's a slim chance that two gigantic natural disasters might occur within an hour of each other and because one plant had trouble with them, we should stop building and disregard the entire technology as "too dangerous".

Shit, if we had that kind of attitude, we'd have stopped refining oil after Katrina, and certainly after the BP spill last year. I mean, heck...disasters might cause problems, so obviously the entire industry is unsafe.

But, hey, that's OK, because we always have wind and solar...at least until something happens at a wind or solar farm.

Seriously, shit happens...get over it. If anything, this should spur the government into action to allow more, newer nuclear reactors to come online so that the old, unsafe ones can be decomissioned.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

What yall should really be doing is demanding stricter emissions laws on coal plants.

Obviously you haven't been in a coal burning power plant lately. They've already instituted reduced emissions provisions and are in the process of implementing more.

 

[dguy6789]

Indeed. Recommending a halt of all use and production of Nuclear power because of this would be like saying wind power is too dangerous if a wind turbine got hit by a meteor and as a result fell over and killed somebody.

 

[CPA]

Yea lets keep using natural gas that way no one can afford to heat their home.
So many power companies have jumped on the NG bandwagon it has caused prices to rise much faster than normal.
Nuclear power is much better over all as NG is better for heat while nuclear could fill in the electrical area.

What the hell are you talking about? NG prices are still very low.

 

[Throckmorton]

Uranium, Thorium, and Plutonium are naturally occurring elements. Damn mother nature and her deadly poison creating ways.

WTF are you saying? That uranium, thorium, and plutonium are safe because they're natural?

 

[ShawnD1]

WTF are you saying? That uranium, thorium, and plutonium are safe because they're natural?

I don't know wtf Moonbeam is saying most of the time, but I think he was trying to say that natural sources are the best. Radioactive material, coal, and oil are natural, therefore they must the best.

They've already instituted reduced emissions provisions and are in the process of implementing more.

Good. The #1 argument against coal has always been pollution. It's cheap and reliable, but very dirty.

 

[rcpratt]

Good. The #1 argument against coal has always been pollution. It's cheap and reliable, but very dirty.

The problem is that clean coal is not cheap. It's far more expensive than nuclear or natural gas.

 

[Vette73]

The problem is that clean coal is not cheap. It's far more expensive than nuclear or natural gas.

And "clean" coal is still not that clean.

 

[Genx87]

WTF are you saying? That uranium, thorium, and plutonium are safe because they're natural?

Read what Moonbeam said, then read what I said. Where you got I am claiming they are "safe" is beyond me.

 

[Patranus]

The problem is that clean coal is not cheap. It's far more expensive than nuclear or natural gas.

 

[ShawnD1]

The problem is that clean coal is not cheap. It's far more expensive than nuclear or natural gas.

Coal is the cheapest of fire-based fuels
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html

The cheapest fuel is usually the one that is closest. Coastal regions often rely on water power. I'm in a prairie region, so everything here is coal. Places that don't have water or coal are often nuclear. We go with whatever is cost effective.

 

[Hacp]

Don't you hate how people who aren't nuclear engineers or nuclear scientists pretend to be experts on nuclear power plants? Lieberman is a fucking lawyer, he should STFU and stick to suing people.