We need more nuclear power plants..

[gsaldivar]

You're right on the money with this one HS. Next to natural sources - nuclear is the cleanest, most efficient method of generating power to meet the current and future needs of this country.

If the hippies and hand-wringing NIMBYs would wake up to the fact that nuclear power has come a LONG way since Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island, we might have a chance at averting the power shortages that will plague this country if we stick with our current power infrastructure.

 

[adlep]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Assuming you believe in global warming, assuming you believe in the need to reduce carbon emissions, explain to me how we're going to "make things better" without extensive use of Nuclear.

My supposition is that:
1) our energy consumption will increase, not decrease in the future.
2) "solar" "wind" "biomass" and all those other hippie power producing ideas have been around for >40 years, and just are not capable of doing the job.
3) new hydro is not likely.
4) hydrogen? i'll believe it when i can buy it at the corner store...

Nuclear....technology has advanced, France generates nearly all of it's domestic electricity with nukes, as does Japan.

What should we do?
nobody is going to reduce power consumption (trust me, i'm old enough to know this..i "conserve" more than my liberal kids, who leave their computers on 24/7 (if i don't turn them off), turn the a/c down lower whenever possible, leave house lights and fans on,...you get my drift.) Conservation is great, but i don't see anyone from this generation doing it any better than mine, and actually maybe worse!

Well...
I agree...
Edit: HS is a lib then

 

[adlep]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar
You're right on the money with this one HS. Next to natural sources - nuclear is the cleanest, most efficient method of generating power to meet the needs of this country.

Well I agree...

 

[B00ne]

Well I agree that nuclear power should not be written off so fast. However there are lots of problems associated with it - especially in this day and age.

Nuclear power is not as cheap as advertised if the government (taxpayer) wouldnt shoulder part of the costs. Noone is insuring the powerplants - I guess for good reason which means the government is doing it in a case something happens.
Terrorists havent flown planes into a reactor yet but if it happens it would cost many lifes or at least contaminate large areas - This might not be such a huge problem in the US( tha large areas part) but in (westen) Europe this would be a catastrphe of unimaginable proportions.
The waste problem is not solved at all which basically means such powerplants are operating on a credit payable by future generations (again much more troublesome in the crowded lands of w. Europe).
And last but not least: there is less nuclear fuel in the world than oil (comparing the energy retrieved from these fuels)

I dont know how it is in the US but energy companies are reluctant to build new NPPs (especially if the government wont subsidize the building and/or insure they wont be dragged into lengthy legal troubles possibly forcing them to give up the plans eventually). Also in the age of quarterly financial reports, companies do not like amortisation times in decade time frames.

But yes, theoretically new NPPs are a good solution especially when new theoretical designs are built which theoretically solve/lessen the waste problem and theoretically multiply the fuel efficiency.

Edit: Breeders: there are two breeders in the world. One is in Japan and was shut down due to the many problems. The other one is in Germany never started to operate due to legal troubles ( the "problems" off democracy - ppl actually have a say), it is an amusement park now...

I dont want to come off as anti-nuclear, actually I am a proponent. However, nuclear power is not the magic all in one solution as some make it sound.

 

[K1052]

Terrorists havent flown planes into a reactor yet but if it happens it would cost many lifes or at least contaminate large areas - This might not be such a huge problem in the US( tha large areas part) but in (westen) Europe this would be a catastrphe of unimaginable proportions.

Every commercial power reactor in the U.S. has a steel and concrete containment dome. I think it is unlikely that an aircraft could penetrate the containment and do enough damage to cause a serious problem.


I think more reactors should be built. Even though the startup costs are huge, they are extremely reliable and efficent. Not to mention the fact that the U.S. government is sitting on tons of weapons grade uranium and plutonium that could be converted into ten times as much reactor fuel fairly easily.

 

[B00ne]

Yes, they have a containment dome. However, noone knows if the could withstand the impact of a several 100 ton aircraft. Afaik, they were designed to withstand impacts of jet fighters (maybe 10-20 tons).

Edit: yes you are right, apparently the containment would withstand a fully loaded heavy plane impact.

so the above statement is pulled out of my arse

 

[cash1220]

Terrorists havent flown planes into a reactor yet but if it happens it would cost many lifes or at least contaminate large areas - This might not be such a huge problem in the US( tha large areas part) but in (westen) Europe this would be a catastrphe of unimaginable proportions.
The waste problem is not solved at all which basically means such powerplants are operating on a credit payable by future generations (again much more troublesome in the crowded lands of w. Europe).
And last but not least: there is less nuclear fuel in the world than oil (comparing the energy retrieved from these fuels)

all wrong

 

[chrisms]

The dangers of using nuclear power are far less than the advantages.

 

[Moonbeam]

Monsanto genetically altered super corn and gene splicing of hamster DNA into horses will provide all the clean power we need and plenty of fertilizer too.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Monsanto genetically altered super corn and gene splicing of hamster DNA into horses will provide all the clean power we need and plenty of fertilizer too.

:roll:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Monsanto genetically altered super corn and gene splicing of hamster DNA into horses will provide all the clean power we need and plenty of fertilizer too.

:roll:

What happened, forget to wear your boots?

 

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I was reading popular science about some sort of uranium balls covered by graphite and they're supposed to be fool proof...

yeah, if they can find a fesible way to dump nuclear wastes, I'm all for it. maybe build more bombs and use them against aliens when they come visit us

It's called a pebble bed reactor, and it's completely foolproof. Not physically capable of a melt down.

Breeder reactors take the waste from regular reactors and turn it into plutonium while generating power. This reduces waste as well as generating more power from the same amount of fuel. We just need to get over our paranoia about terrorists getting a hold of it.

There's something like 100 years worth of Uranium in the Earth that we can get to. We really should be doing something with that. Running out isn't a worry because by the time that happens we'll have a working fusion reactor.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Assuming you believe in global warming, assuming you believe in the need to reduce carbon emissions, explain to me how we're going to "make things better" without extensive use of Nuclear.

My supposition is that:
1) our energy consumption will increase, not decrease in the future.
2) "solar" "wind" "biomass" and all those other hippie power producing ideas have been around for >40 years, and just are not capable of doing the job.
3) new hydro is not likely.
4) hydrogen? i'll believe it when i can buy it at the corner store...

Nuclear....technology has advanced, France generates nearly all of it's domestic electricity with nukes, as does Japan.

What should we do?
nobody is going to reduce power consumption (trust me, i'm old enough to know this..i "conserve" more than my liberal kids, who leave their computers on 24/7 (if i don't turn them off), turn the a/c down lower whenever possible, leave house lights and fans on,...you get my drift.) Conservation is great, but i don't see anyone from this generation doing it any better than mine, and actually maybe worse!

wow I find myself agreeing with heartsurgeon.... feels weird

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I was reading popular science about some sort of uranium balls covered by graphite and they're supposed to be fool proof...

yeah, if they can find a fesible way to dump nuclear wastes, I'm all for it. maybe build more bombs and use them against aliens when they come visit us

It's called a pebble bed reactor, and it's completely foolproof. Not physically capable of a melt down.

Breeder reactors take the waste from regular reactors and turn it into plutonium while generating power. This reduces waste as well as generating more power from the same amount of fuel. We just need to get over our paranoia about terrorists getting a hold of it.

There's something like 100 years worth of Uranium in the Earth that we can get to. We really should be doing something with that. Running out isn't a worry because by the time that happens we'll have a working fusion reactor.

IIRC the pebble bed design was running into problems with the casings of the pebbles. They were getting damaged by the control rods being inserted. It is a promising design, but still needs more work.

 

[heartsurgeon]

it's completely foolproof

fool's are remarkably resourceful people..becareful of what you say.

 

[Piano Man]

Wind power is a very valid source of energy. North Dakota, South Dakota and Iowa have more than enough space and windy spots to supply the ENTIRE nation with energy from wind. There just needs to be more money put into it.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
Wind power is a very valid source of energy. North Dakota, South Dakota and Iowa have more than enough space and windy spots to supply the ENTIRE nation with energy from wind. There just needs to be more money put into it.

It's also an eyesore and nobody wants it - but it's cheap once started, clean, and finally, there's very little risk of some crazy wacko terrorists crashing planes into it and potentially killing thousands. I believe in Sweden something like 5-10% of the total power is supplied by wind turbines near the coast.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: cash1220

Terrorists havent flown planes into a reactor yet but if it happens it would cost many lifes or at least contaminate large areas - This might not be such a huge problem in the US( tha large areas part) but in (westen) Europe this would be a catastrphe of unimaginable proportions.
The waste problem is not solved at all which basically means such powerplants are operating on a credit payable by future generations (again much more troublesome in the crowded lands of w. Europe).
And last but not least: there is less nuclear fuel in the world than oil (comparing the energy retrieved from these fuels)

all wrong

Well, you certainly provided an alternative suggestion, didn't you?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Strk
It would be nice if we decided to build that fusion reactor that is up for grabs by France or Japan.

the US is pushing for it to be in japan

Originally posted by: SwissArmyBilly
and it does produce pretty nasty biproducts that must be carefully stored.

Billy

frankly i'd rather have all the nasty biproducts be storable rather than what you get with coal plants, which sends all the nasty biproducts (plenty of toxic and even radioactive material comes in those carloads of coal) wherever the wind takes it.

 

[maXroOt]

you guys are forgetting about the amount of coal and oil that is used to mine for the ore needed in these reactors. and the construction of lots of new reactors. there was some study done that when it accounted for all that stuff, making a huge shift to nuclear reactors would hurt the environment more then it would help. i dont necessarily agree with that, but it was interesting none the less (maybe i can dig up the article in my backfiles).

hydrogen fuel cells still have a chance. there are organisms that can produce the hydrogen gas needed. i think the tech is still far away, but we are going to have to ultimately move to something renewable.

 

[Genx87]

We cant possibly build a nuke plant in this country. Because then we would have to stick those rods in a deep cave for a few thousand years.

Instead we should continue to build coal and gas plants that spit emitions into the air

 

[boran]

Originally posted by: B00ne
[...]
Terrorists havent flown planes into a reactor yet but if it happens it would cost many lifes or at least contaminate large areas - This might not be such a huge problem in the US( tha large areas part) but in (westen) Europe this would be a catastrphe of unimaginable proportions.
The waste problem is not solved at all which basically means such powerplants are operating on a credit payable by future generations (again much more troublesome in the crowded lands of w. Europe).
And last but not least: there is less nuclear fuel in the world than oil (comparing the energy retrieved from these fuels)
[...]

the doel nuclear reactor we have is built to withstand a full meltdown and an impact of a 747 AND the first after the second (a meltdown after a 747 crashed into it, which is a likely scenario), so it is definetly feasable to build nuclear ractors that are rather terrorist proof.

when built and maintained correctly a nuclear reactor can produce the chepest and cleanest energy we can currently produce.

wind and solar power take up much more space and are much more expensive than nuclear power, so im'ho nuclear power is the best we can do so far, untill fusion gets going.

 

[heartsurgeon]

since Kerry is calling for "energy independence" do you liberals believe he should embrace Nuclear as a energy source?

if not nuclear, what?

lets have some concrete answers, not the suggestion of a technology that doesn't exist yet..

 

[tnitsuj]

Nuclear power is just too damn expensive in the US. Dollar for dollar, I believe it is the most expensive form of energy we produce.

Japan, France, etc. are all used to paying far more for energy than the average American is which is why they rely on nuclear power more heavily. They also have far less of an energy requirement per person and run a very lean power system compared to the US in terms of excess capacity.

 

[Tab]

I wouldn't care if you bulit a Nuclear Power Plant in my backyard! Out of how many nuclear power plants how many of them have had meltdowns?....