clean and safe energy, huh?

[myronman3]

   many times in discussions with people, nuclear energy is brought up as a way to produce energyy in an efficient and safe manner.   i have always disputed that claim.   people always say that it is a clean energy source, and we have the technology to use it safely.    i have always scoffed at this, and people laugh at me.   
  with the situation in japan what it is, i would say that it isnt as fool proof as people would believe it to be.

[Pat/Rick]

The japanese thing was probably a bit extraordinary to say the least. After the quake took out the primary electrical, a wave took out the secondary. Should they have system redundency by having a portable THIRD system , say....in a small bunker? The military and construction biz uses trailer mounted gensets, why not the nuke energy biz? Water towers to cool the rods when the water mains are taken out by a quake?

 Any system can break, Some just more catastrophic than others.  Seems that emergency supplies of cooling water is the big thing.
 
Maybe building nuke plants in seismically active areas, should be looked at as not entirely safe.

Not really disagreeing with your points, just thinking that there should be just a bit more though at redundancy for nuke plants. I still believe that it is the most viable source.

[mauser98us]

Why we just could rely on solar panels and windfarms. And to supplement that, we could rely on good old fashioned horsepower. Nothing in life is without risks. The safety record of nuke power in the FREE world is pretty darn good.

[Shu]

There has never been a petroleum spill. There is no process in producing a solar panel that has any toxicity. There is no windmill that kills birds. No one has ever been trapped in a coal mine. All of these things do happen, risk mitigation is done to protect lives. Nuclear power can be just as dangerous as any other power source. Petroleum is more dangerous, how many people have been killed by it? Hundreds of thousands, you can't drive a car without using petroleum products. Should there be a ban on oil?
The US Navy operates  alot of reactors daily with no problems. It is clean and safe. A US aircraft carrier will be providing power in northern Japan. It is nuclear powered. The helicopters will be doing some heavy lifting and delivering supplies.

[magooch]

I'm just thankful that the dams on the Columbia River were built back then, because now days they would never be built with the greenies running around stopping virtually everything except windmills and solar stuff.  And sometimes even windmills aren't allowed, such as with the the Kennedys.

On the other hand, I live about 9 miles from a defunct nuclear plant.  It never really paid off like it was supposed to and when it came time to refurbish it after a relatively short lifespan, the owning company just closed it down.  I think there is still nuclear material stored there, because the dipwads like Harry Reid will not allow storage in Nevada after having spent billions on the fascility.  Harry Reid of course is not on his own in that regard.  I believe the majority of Nevadans don't want nuclear waste stored there, but they sure didn't mind all the federal money spent on building the site.

[SHOOTALL]

Not safe ? how many in Japan have died as direct result of the nuke plant self destruct ? How many die in coal mines each year around the world ? In Japan they can move away from the fall out in a mine you are trapped in the fall out/on  and die . Yea and its the guns fault in a shooting and a spoons fault folks are fat ............................................

[Old Syko]

When a dam breaks in eastern Kentucky and a sludge lake rushes over the hill and wipes out a whole town and forever destroys the ground below, it just isn't as press worthy.  It was almost as though those people weren't worthy of notice.  What has taken place in Japan was inevitable due to the history of the fault in the area but nobody actively questioned the intelligence of their placement because there is no viable option to produce power on an island with no other resources.  As others have stated, there are no free lunches.  How you plan for and handle the end result is what matters.

[Dixie Dude]

The navy has about 300 nuke ships and subs.  They have been operating them since the late 60's.  No major problems so far for 50 years.  Nukes in the western world have containment domes and buildings in case of a meltdown.  I agree, they shouldn't be built on or around fault lines.  They do require a lot of water for cooling and steam production. 

Solar isn't economical in the US except the southwest and can only produce about 5-10% of our power economically. 

Wind isn't economical except in the plains states (not many people live there) and can produce about 20% of our power economically.

So that leaves coal, fuel oil, natural gas, and nuclear.  Modern thronium or pebble bed reactors have a much less chance of melt down and the radiation is short lived.  The fuel also cannot be made into bombs.  This is what we are going to.  France produces 85% of it's electricity from nukes, Germany and England about 50%.  We only 20%, Japan was 30%.  Everyone is going nukes faster than us.  Granite rock is 5% uranium.  So we have virtually and unlimited supply of fuel, since it only takes a few pounds to power a nuke plant.  If we go to all hybrid vehicles, we need to increase our electric production by 1/3 to 1/2.  Coal, even though we have an 800 year supply, can be used for synthetics, plastics, ect, that will be needed in the future.  Then there is algae oil. 

We need to stop importing oil and some power plants use fuel oil.  Natural gas is producing electricity in the summer at about 20% of the nations total. 

Natural gas needs to be used as fleet vehicle fuel to cut 40% of our imported oil, not burned to make electricity.  So that means more nukes. 

Build the nukes to navy standards for safety.  Stop using coal, natural gas, and fuel oil.  Use these fuels for transportation. 

[slim rem 7]

anything man makes can fail..

[SHOOTALL]

The navy has about 300 nuke ships and subs.  They have been operating them since the late 60's.  No major problems so far for 50 years.  Nukes in the western world have containment domes and buildings in case of a meltdown.  I agree, they shouldn't be built on or around fault lines.  They do require a lot of water for cooling and steam production. 

Solar isn't economical in the US except the southwest and can only produce about 5-10% of our power economically. 

Wind isn't economical except in the plains states (not many people live there) and can produce about 20% of our power economically.

So that leaves coal, fuel oil, natural gas, and nuclear.  Modern thronium or pebble bed reactors have a much less chance of melt down and the radiation is short lived.  The fuel also cannot be made into bombs.  This is what we are going to.  France produces 85% of it's electricity from nukes, Germany and England about 50%.  We only 20%, Japan was 30%.  Everyone is going nukes faster than us.  Granite rock is 5% uranium.  So we have virtually and unlimited supply of fuel, since it only takes a few pounds to power a nuke plant.  If we go to all hybrid vehicles, we need to increase our electric production by 1/3 to 1/2.  Coal, even though we have an 800 year supply, can be used for synthetics, plastics, ect, that will be needed in the future.  Then there is algae oil. 

We need to stop importing oil and some power plants use fuel oil.  Natural gas is producing electricity in the summer at about 20% of the nations total. 

Natural gas needs to be used as fleet vehicle fuel to cut 40% of our imported oil, not burned to make electricity.  So that means more nukes. 

Build the nukes to navy standards for safety.  Stop using coal, natural gas, and fuel oil.  Use these fuels for transportation.

You must have forgot about the nuke sub we lost !

[SHOOTALL]

Thresher class sub , maybe 2 were lost ?

[no guns here]

Not 300 nuclear vessels in the US Navy.  Only subs and aircraft carriers are nuclear now.  We no longer have nuke powered cruisers.  I think there has only been a total of about 400 nuke vessels world-wide EVER.

NGH

[myronman3]

the horrific gulf oil spill?   gone.     
  coal miners dying?  tradgic yes, but they go in knowing the risk.   
 when reacters go wrong, it is big time and nature has no way of absorbing the excess radiation. 
     i dont like nuclear energy, the stuff scares me silly.   if things can go wrong, they will.   the japanese are smart, and if they can get burned, anyone can get burned.    if you think japan is a faultline waiting for an earthquake and we are immune to them here, you are only fooling yourselves.   the mississippi river is one of the biggest faultlines around, and where are a large percentage of our reactors?  all it takes is for ONE malfunction and the results are horrific.   
  call me a monkey, but this makes me nervous.   

[Conan The Librarian]

You have a better option?

There will be new nuclear plants built in the US by 2020. There are no other options, unless we greatly expand the use of coal, and that aint gonna happen.

The amazing thing about the Japan nuke plants is that they were old technology, yet were able to withstand a tremendous natural disaster while releasing very little radiation.

By the way, there are natural processes that abate radiation. There seems to be a lot of misinformed opinion about nukes.

If you want to fret over nuclear power, don't worry about the plants.They are generally very safe, especially the newer designs. The main hazards have been from military transport of nuclear materials. That's why it suddenly became unusual for military aircraft to carry nukes. If  you look at a history of failures that caused some radioactive contamination to leak, you have to go back to the 1980s. I think there have only been 2 or 3 since then, including the recent Japanese failures.

[SHOOTALL]

Other than medicine nuke power is one of the biggest topice dicussed by people who know little about it. They try to compare a nuke bomb to a power plant .
 Yes coal minners know the risk so do pwwer plant builders and govt.
 Look at America , we want power  but don't want to use resources, no waste , no smoke , use faulty producers etc .

[45-70.gov]

i  once worked in a nuclear power plant

there is some scary stuff there
gun powder is scary to alot of people...but they don't fear gasoline
gasoline is much more  volatile....and many of us load our own bullets

we  had to wear  a dose-meter  to monitor radiation exposure
on the days i work  out in the sun....i deceived the high levels  of radiation exposure

the risk   is  all in our individual perception
none of us  really know enough hard facts to truly asses the risk  or impact to the environment

[Dixie Dude]

The sub we lost in the 60's went too deep I thought and imploded.  It wasn't nuclear related, not that I remember.  Wasn't it the Skipjack.  Also, when I said 300 ships.  I knew at one time we had 100 Polaris-Posiden nuke subs which were replaced with the Tridents and I think we only have about 20-30 of those.  The attack subs I thought were all nuclear and I thought we had about 100 of those.  Then we have built several large aircraft carriers since the Enterprise which was the first nuclear aircraft carrier.  I know we have the Reagan, Bush Sr., Truman, Eisenhower, Enterprise, Teddy Roosevelt, Kennedy, among others.  I know the Reagan has 8 nuclear reactors on board. 

[Conan The Librarian]

There was a nuclear bomb lost by the military in about 1958 off the coast of Georgia. Two nuclear bombs were dropped in a marsh near a farm in South Carolina. The high explosive in one detonated and scattered radioactive waste. The other was never found. A nuclear bomb fell in deep water off the coast of Spain in the early 60s when a US airplane crashed. A US airplane carrying nuclear bombs crashed and burned at an air base in Germany. The explosion scattered nuclear waste over a huge farm field. All of the topsoil from the field was excavated and shipped to the US for disposal. Most of these happened when US military policy was to have nuclear warheads in the air at all times. There were so many accidents that the policy was cancelled.

I believe Clinton cancelled the Yucca Mountain project for nuclear waste. Consequently we have nuclear waste sitting in casks on islands in the geologically active Mississippi river in Minnesota. Short term thinking once again. 

[SHOOTALL]

 the sub - maybe maybe not depends on who theory you believe.

[myronman3]

i have a friend that was big into nuclear power.   he made a career of it and retired.  anyhow, while fishing one day, we started talking about stuff.   he had a report about effects of nuclear accidents, and offered to let me read it.   he said it would really educate me about nuclear power, the benefits, and the negatives.  he also said he spent many a sleepless night after reading it, and sometimes had wished he had not.     i declined his offer, and after talking about it, he said he thought it was a wise choice. 

[Sourdough]

This is a wake up call folks.  We need to make sure we do not build nuclear plants on or near fault lines.  Also we need to make sure we do not build in areas where a Tsunami might hit.  That means along any coast.  We also need to stay away from Volcanos.  OK that leaves the inland western states, and the inland eastern states.  The mid west and states along the Mississippi out, they have the New Medrid fault.  That still leaves a lot of area to build nuclear plants.  Don't even think about putting one here in Alaska, I've felt a 9.0 quake from 250 miles away.  Don't like it and don't want to see it again.  I hate hugging a concreat floor that is jumping up and down.

[Sourdough]

Forget what I said above.  I did a google on Earth Quakes in the US and found out there are earth quakes in most every state.  I was surprised with the numbers in Oklahoma, Texas, and Eastern Tennessee.  Lets just forget about Nuclear till the technology is better.  Lets look for more Natural Gas.

[Dixie Dude]

All the oil used in the US can be grown in greenhouses with algae.  The area covered would be the size of Rhode Island.  This is the smallest state.  Algae is carbon neutral, taking as much carbon dioxide out of the air as put back in burning the fuel created.  So it is better.  It costs right now about $2-2.50 per gallon to grow in greenhouses.  Adding the per gallon tax makes it about $4-4.50 per gallon at the pump.  When gasoline gets that high, you might see more.  I know Exxon spent several million dollars recently to build an algae oil plant somewhere. 

Fracking rock to get natural gas out has caused minor earthquakes in Arkansaw.  However about 1/3 of the natural gas consumed in the US can be made from dairy farm and feed stall recovery of cow manure.  It costs twice as much to make this way as drilling for fracturing shale rock due to more intensive labor.  This could help with unemployment though. 

Wind from the plains states can only produce about 20% of our power and must have transmission lines build east towards the Mississippi and west towards the mountain states to transmit the power. 

Synthetic oil can be made from coal also, but then again it will cost twice as much as the oil we drill. 

Solar power is only efficient in desert states like the southwest and it is only good in the daytime.  To power an entire all-electric home would cost about $30,000 in solar panels and battery backup for nightime.  Still too expensive. 

Hydro-power.  Most hydro power in the US has already been exploited.  It produces about 10% of the total power.  The Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri Rivers can't be dammed because of the flooding of vast areas of habitable areas and farmlands. 

That leaves nuclear power or clean coal. 

Nuclear power plants can be built in abandoned coal mines in the Appalachain mountains east of the Mississippi.  and could serve the most populated areas.  If there is a meltdown, it could be sealed forever. 

There is also a lower efficient pebble bed thromium nuclear reactor in which radiation breaks down in hours or days instead of years that they are proposing to be built.  From what I read it can't meltdown, as it is not as hot as uranium or plutonium. 

Coal can better be saved for future synthetic oil and plastics. 

[Conan The Librarian]

Sourdough:

To add to your pessimism: there are about 3 milliion earth quakes per year worldwide, and about 20% of all nuclear power plants are built near fault lines. 

I do find it intriguing that there is so much concern about something that doesn't even begin to compete with many many other things for danger. Kind of like fear of flying. It's a bit irrational.

I'm very interested in the case in Japan because it's about as catastrophic failure as one can experience with old-technology nuke plants. The situation is definitely unstable, but it will serve as a major test case regardless of how it turns out.

[SHOOTALL]

good points .

[Conan The Librarian]

There is a recent and controversial book by a guy who figured out what the real damage would be in the case of various nuclear attacks on the US. He was challenging the notion that we grew up with that the worst case scenario would be a nuclear bomb dropped on New York City. We were raised to think that it would wipe the whole place out, but he argues scientifically that a bomb like Hiroshima would "only" wipe out about 10% of the place. He goes on to argue that a dirty bomb exploded in a full football stadium would only slightly increase the risk of untimely illness and death to those directly affected. Wish I could remember the title of the book. Very interesting.

I'm not eager to test any of his theories, though. He wasn't some fly-by-night, either. He had some serious credentials in this specific arena.

One of the main topics in the book was the possibility that nefarious people could acquire or build nuclear bombs. He concludes that there are so many places such a plot can go wrong that it doesn't make any sense to try it. It's much "smarter" to use conventional weapons because they are relatively easy to acquire and use.

Not a happy topic, but he was very persuasive.

Modification: Here's a link to that book
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/shortstack/2010/01/exaggerating_the_alarm_over_a.html

[Dixie Dude]

My cousins wife has a degree in microbiology.  She said if we powered the whole country with nuclear power.  It would only have waste to cover 4" on a football field in about 200-300 years.  Not much waste.  With breeder reactors 90% of the waste can be reused as fuel.  Carter killed building breeders because he was afraid nuclear material would get in the hands of rouge nations.  Why can't the navy build the breeder reactors on ships and reuse the spent fuel from the stateside nuke plants?  I also read a good article on another forum that says even if the reactor in Japan completely melts down, it may not release any radioactive material, and if so only a little in the steam which will only be localised, not widespread.  I will try to find the link as it is a long read. 

[Shu]

Fear is the killer. Fear stops rational thought. There are huge benefits to nuclear power. As long as people are afraid it is pointless. It is like being afraid of the dark.

[guzzijohn]

It is understandable that Japanese citizens would be very concerned over the possibilities of radiation over exposure whether  warranted or not. Many have lived with or seen the effects of the A bombs. I am sure just the thought of the possibility could be very scary.
GuzziJohn

[myronman3]

i guess my fear is not so much about me, but my children.   if i die, it aint the end of the world.  but if the world is exposed to massive doses of radiation, and is poisoned for future generations, that bothers me.    when things go right with nuclear, it is a great thing.   my concern is that sooner or later, things go sideways.   and what then?   
   perhaps growing up when i did has instilled an irrational fear of anything nuke related.   i am kinda surprised that most everyone has such a cavalier attitude toward it (not saying anyone is wrong, just that it surprises me).   i did listen to rush yesterday and he brought up some interesting points.    still, the idea of that problem scares the hell out of me.