dl021
Topic Author
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:34 pm

OK...so the studies show that with a concerted effort the US could be a net energy exporter in 10 years if we decided to start building nuclear powerplants today and continue to develop coal technology (in particular synthetic oil).

So let's hash this thing out a bit. Nuclear power is reliable and efficient, and we don't have to go anywhere else as we have a 500 year supply of uranium. We could go to electric and hybrid automobiles, green up the economy as a matter of economics not of anything else, and we'd reinforce the dollar, and our trade imbalance in major ways.

We could also tell every tinpot dictator and religious whacko to get stuffed. There's not going to be enough oil for the Indians and Chinese in 20 years, let alone the rest of the world. Solar energy plants may work well in movies, but the current and projected levels of technology for the next 20 years in both solar and wind mass power production is nowhere near enough to supplant oil.

The worlds economy runs on oil......what happens if we start to use electricity with the new designs for nuclear powerplants (and China is building them quickly) and get away from oil in 10 or 15 years?

Tell me why that's a bad idea or a great idea.....

[Edited 2007-12-03 08:34:33]
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:42 pm

Mostly a good idea. We can also re-use nuclear fuel by recycling it like they do in France. This adds a lot of energy efficiency to nuclear, and helps nuclear waste become less radioactive too.

One thing we can do is build additional reactors at existing sites. Other countries like Japan and Korea have much more powerful nuke plants than we do -- 8,000 MW and the like. Most of ours are only 2,000 MW and below. So, we could beef up some existing plants and take nuclear from 20% of our electricity to 50%, without too much trouble at all, except hysteria of ignorant TV watchers, many of whom are dying of asthma due to coal dust, as it happens. Nuke plants kill almost nobody. Coal plants kill 100,000s every year.
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:46 pm



Quoting DL021 (Thread starter):
Nuclear power is reliable and efficient, and we don't have to go anywhere else as we have a 500 year supply of uranium.

I've been doing a fair amount of reading on wind power lately, even going so far as to setup a Google news alert on it to stay abreast of the industry, and believe it's a better choice than nuclear. Far cheaper and quicker to build, and there's none of that pesky waste material to dispose of.

I agree that the U.S. should be energy independent, and that should be a top priority for the government to focus upon, even if it means tax credits to help develop fledgling industries in fields we've yet to fully exploit. I don't believe we should be saddling future generations with waste material problems simply because our appetite for energy is greater than what we can currently produce.
International Homo of Mystery
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:53 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 1):
Nuke plants kill almost nobody.

Explain Chernobyl to me.

I do support nuclear energy as a source, but it is not entrirely without risk. So long as the Genie's bottle doesn't get un-corked, we are fine.
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
oly720man
Posts: 5813
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:54 pm



Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 2):
I've been doing a fair amount of reading on wind power lately, even going so far as to setup a Google news alert on it to stay abreast of the industry, and believe it's a better choice than nuclear.

The problem with wind, though, is that you can't turn it on when you need the power - for all those air-cons on a hot windless day for example. And where do you have all the batteries to save the power on a windy day so you can use it when needed? OK for domestic power generation, but not on a city/countrywide scale.
wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
 
User avatar
ManuCH
Head Moderator
Posts: 2679
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:33 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:01 pm



Quoting Miamiair (Reply 3):
Explain Chernobyl to me.

As far as I remember, Chernobyl had several problems which shouldn't repeat themselves in a US-based nuclear power plant. I hope today's technology and coaching are advanced enough not to repeat a similar disaster in a country like the US. I consider nuclear energy to be safe and I wouldn't mind living near one of those plants.
Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1445
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:03 pm

Nuclear fission is off course a viable alternative but as to date (with the use of the best reactors =PWR) there is about 3000.000 tons of uranium available for a mining price under 100$US.
This would last the world about 50 years at the current rate of energy consumption.

If technologies are used to subtract URANIUM (or Thorium for breeder reactors) from seawater, the supply is virtually endless at current energy consumption levels.
This knowledge already exists in Japan but needs to be developed much further to be efficient (this means a price under 1000US$ per pound of U.


Personally I would put my money on solar energy and FUSION energy for large amounts of power supply.
The EU, China, Canada and Japan are currently well on their way to build the worlds first active Fusion reactor in Cadarache ,France.
When Fusion will be available the world will have a real limitless and very low risk energy source available for the first time in history.

http://www.iter.org/pics/ITER_col.jpg

this is how the future might look.

[Edited 2007-12-03 09:07:26]
[edit post]
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:08 pm



Quoting Oly720man (Reply 4):
And where do you have all the batteries to save the power on a windy day so you can use it when needed?

It would be silly to propose wind power being the sole means of electrical generation for any population. But to add raw megawatts to the existing supply, such as a nuclear power plant would do, it makes a lot of sense. There are also windmills being developed which run on the lightest breezes, and more will be coming our way in future years.

Quoting Oly720man (Reply 4):
The problem with wind, though, is that you can't turn it on when you need the power

Your statement could be applied to nuclear power as well, only differently. Where do we come up with the missing megawatts when the nuclear facility is shut down for maintenance or when an accident occurs? There's a downside to every source of electricity, the right solution though is to find the one(s) which may integrate with our current and future needs and supplies the best.
International Homo of Mystery
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:10 pm

I'm all for nuclear power. Clean, relatively cheap, sustainable.

Of course there are dangers . . . there are dangers in every endeavor . . .

Oil is going to run out - or get too expensive to make it a viable energy source.

Nuke power is the way to go.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
yooyoo
Posts: 5684
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 5:01 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:24 pm

I'm for Nuke power, but i would still like to see a huge and contiued push for wind and solar technologies so in a few decades (being optimistic) they can eventually phase out the Nukes. Oil is going and going fast.
I am so smart, i am so smart... S-M-R-T... i mean S-M-A-R-T
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3250
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:34 pm

well lets see here:

Wind Power only works with wind speeds in certain window, too slow or too fast and they windmills are useless. They are also almost twice as maintenance intensive as gas or oil power stations and far less reliable

Fussion power is 50 YEARS minimum from being a viable energy alternative, and it may

Hydroelectric is great but the locations are running out for major projects.

Solar doesnt work much beyond 40* N or S and then the climate affect's it as well

Like it or not, Nuclear Fisson reactors are the only long-term viable option.

A 3 phase system could be used to maximize output and minimize waste fuel:
Phase 1: Highly Enriched Uranium reactors, run the rods for 24-36 months

Phase 2: "rough" fuel reactors (like CANDU), which take the rods, and other radioactive sources and run them 4-5 years,

Phase 3: Recycled pile and/or pebble bed reactors remanufacture the fuel rods from Phase 2 and run them... well.... basically forever.

Also, China is building more energy capacity now then the rest of the world COMBINED. They will be more than ready for when (if) oil becomes unsustainable.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:02 pm



Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7):
Where do we come up with the missing megawatts when the nuclear facility is shut down for maintenance or when an accident occurs?

Build a few more facilities than you need most of the time and ramp up the output from those still on-line when necessary, as presumably happens with conventional stations. For maintenance, you can choose when to do that. Accidents should be very rare.

Quoting ManuCH (Reply 5):
Quoting Miamiair (Reply 3):
Explain Chernobyl to me.

As far as I remember, Chernobyl had several problems which shouldn't repeat themselves in a US-based nuclear power plant.

 checkmark  It was a design that was rejected in the West as being unsuitable.
 
ORFflyer
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:42 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:21 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 1):
One thing we can do is build additional reactors at existing sites.

Dominion Virginia Energy, (Virginia's main electric company) just last week, or the week before applied to the NRC for a permit to build a new reactor on one of their two nuclear power plant sites. They have two reactors in Surry VA, and two at North Anna in Louisa County. I forgot which site they applied to add the third, North Anna I believe. I'll look for a link.

Edit:

Here is a link. Instead of applying for the permit, the NRC approved an early site permit.

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=137828&ran=143142

[Edited 2007-12-03 10:26:09]

[Edited 2007-12-03 10:26:24]
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:35 pm



Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 2):
I've been doing a fair amount of reading on wind power lately, even going so far as to setup a Google news alert on it to stay abreast of the industry, and believe it's a better choice than nuclear. Far cheaper and quicker to build, and there's none of that pesky waste material to dispose of.

Do you know how many windmills will be required to produce the same amount of energy as a Nuke?

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7):
Quoting Oly720man (Reply 4):
The problem with wind, though, is that you can't turn it on when you need the power

Your statement could be applied to nuclear power as well, only differently. Where do we come up with the missing megawatts when the nuclear facility is shut down for maintenance or when an accident occurs?

Its taken care of by concepts called "Base Load", "Peak Load" and "Spinning Reserve"
Step into my office, baby
 
slider
Posts: 7439
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:24 pm

I've been one of the loudest advocates of nuclear power for years. It's absolutely the way to go, and basic--not even complex--education on the subject would be great to get rid of the NIMBY syndrome.

I'm waiting for Klaus to come in and throw his wet blanket on this argument as he has done in the past.
 
ScarletHarlot
Posts: 4251
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 12:15 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:35 pm

What's that noise over there?
Is it the corrogated iron they're hitting?
No, no, it's perfectly normal
It's just the sound of the atom splitting


Sorry, this discussion just reminded me of these lyrics.
But that was when I ruled the world
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:49 pm

Like many things there are pros and cons to it. The pros of nuclear power is it is cheap, the fuel is abundant, and is relatively efficient. It is also cleaner when it comes to air pollution. The cons are obviously the waste and accidents. Also don't forget that nuclear power generating facilities are very expensive to build. Some costed more than a $billion in the late 1970 dollars.

Besides creating new nuclear power generating facilities, I think our electrical infrastructure needs to be overhauled. The great blackout of 2003 provided a wake-up call as to how our ageing infrastructure is loosing its ability to keep up with increasing demand and population...
 
dl021
Topic Author
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:57 pm



Quoting Miamiair (Reply 3):
Explain Chernobyl to me.

Made by USSR with 1950s USSR technology and typical Soviet work ethic and treatment.......... not being a smart ass...that's the answer.

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 6):
Personally I would put my money on solar energy and FUSION energy

Well, that's ok for a hundred years from now perhaps...if they get it figured out and manage to get the grid built around those power supplies (the network of power stations needed for solar is incredible and twice as expensive just to produce as oil or coal. Fusion is still science fiction unless someone's hit that breakthrough they need. It may come tomorrow, but realistic estimates are that it's 50 to 100 years away from being usable in large scale.

Quoting YooYoo (Reply 9):
I'm for Nuke power, but i would still like to see a huge and contiued push for wind and solar technologies so in a few decades (being optimistic) they can eventually phase out the Nukes.

Of course...those are completely renewable sources, and I would hope that technology continues to advance, but we are talking about oil running slap out, and in the meanwhile being the source of incredible tension.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 10):
Like it or not, Nuclear Fisson reactors are the only long-term viable option.

I agree that they're the only mid-term option. Building the plants will take ten years if it's a national priority. I'm shocked that some candidate somewhere is not running on the "independence party" ticket.....energy independence would leave us completely independent of outside sourced materiel....leaving us to trade with the rest of the world on a more favorable basis, and eliminate the need for dealing with the Chavez's and Abachas of the world.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 10):
China is building more energy capacity now then the rest of the world COMBINED. They will be more than ready for when (if) oil becomes unsustainable.

That's one of the reasons I started this thread. China and India alone will increase their middle classes by a couple hundred million over the next 10 years and their (as well as other nations burgeoning populations) consequent oil use will significantly increase rapidly (more rapidly than projected) decrease the amount of petroleum available.

We have to change.....I was expecting more resistance. Are there any serious insurmountables to the idea of nuclear power left? Who's still nervous about spent fuel storage? How depleted can we make the fuel rods?
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:01 pm



Quoting N231YE (Reply 16):
accidents.

What statistics are you looking at? If less-developed countries do not have nuclear accidents evryday - why would you think the US would be more prone to having them?
Step into my office, baby
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:07 pm



Quoting Mt99 (Reply 18):
What statistics are you looking at? If less-developed countries do not have nuclear accidents evryday - why would you think the US would be more prone to having them?

Perfect example: I live less than an hour away from a nuclear power plant, that was temporarily shut down for a few years: a few years ago. Why? Bad management, negligence, and other "misbehaving" allowed for boric acid to dissolve a hole through the stainless steel lid, which was a few weeks away from a major leak.
 
Mir
Posts: 19491
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:08 pm

No reason not to go nuclear, but a good energy policy needs to be diverse. Wind has potential in certain areas, and should be used in those areas. Same thing for solar and hyrdroelectric. The backbone should be nuclear, though, until we can get fusion into a workable form. It's relatively clean, very efficient, and with modern technologies it is more than acceptably safe.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
CastleIsland
Posts: 3212
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:40 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:18 pm



Quoting DL021 (Reply 17):
Who's still nervous about spent fuel storage?

I think I'm more concerned with transport of the spent uranium to its ultimate disposal location than the actual containment and storage itself.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 17):
How depleted can we make the fuel rods?

Uranium is primarily of isotope 238, but it is the 235-isotope that does the work.

"Natural uranium consists of a mixture of three radioactive isotopes which are identified by the mass numbers 238U (99.27% by mass), 235U (0.72%) and 234U (0.0054%). The uranium remaining after removal of the enriched fraction contains about 99.8% 238U, 0.2% 235U and 0.001% 234U by mass; this is referred to as depleted uranium or DU."

Source: World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/
"People don't do what they believe in, they just do what's most convenient, then they repent." - Dylan
 
dl021
Topic Author
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:16 pm



Quoting CastleIsland (Reply 21):
I think I'm more concerned with transport of the spent uranium to its ultimate disposal location than the actual containment and storage itself.

I've seen the test videos of transport trains and trucks where the containment vessels were flung on to walls via rocket sleds at very high speeds....I'm thinking that security is the biggest issue for transport of spent fuel. That's so important that the only Japanese vessels that go on armed missions outside of territorial waters are the nuclear waste ship escorts.

I would think that's an addressable issue. If storage is licked then there's no reason to not press forward with this issue.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:48 pm



Quoting DL021 (Reply 22):
If storage is licked then there's no reason to not press forward with this issue.

Security is another issue. Wackenhut Nuclear has not had a stellar record at the two plants here in Florida.
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
Mike89406
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:05 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 9:56 pm



Quoting Miamiair (Reply 3):
Quoting Flighty (Reply 1):
Nuke plants kill almost nobody.

Explain Chernobyl to me.

I do support nuclear energy as a source, but it is not entrirely without risk. So long as the Genie's bottle doesn't get un-corked, we are fine.



Quoting Flighty (Reply 1):
Mostly a good idea. We can also re-use nuclear fuel by recycling it like they do in France. This adds a lot of energy efficiency to nuclear, and helps nuclear waste become less radioactive too.



Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 2):
and there's none of that pesky waste material to dispose of.

I think Nuke Power is the way to go however one must wonder about Yucca Mountain in Nevada where tons of Nuke waste is tored and more being sent there. To say that its perfectly safe however is naive.
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:26 pm

Nuclear power is an imporant part of a blend of different power sources that should replace oil. If we learn anything from oil, it's that we shouldn't vastly depend on one main source of energy. A mix of nuclear, wind, hydro, and biomass would create clean power, remove energy from a risk to our economy, and make our country greener.

There are about 32 active proposals to build NEW nuclear reactors in the US, so I think many agree that nuclear has a bright future here.

And for the safety nay-sayers...consider this: in the history of the world, there have been only two major nuclear plant events (Chernobyl and Three Mile Island), and the technology has vastly improved since both. Nuclear is just as safe, if not vastly safer, than any other form of energy.
 
Duff44
Posts: 1561
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:48 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:47 pm



Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7):
t would be silly to propose wind power being the sole means of electrical generation for any population.



Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 25):
If we learn anything from oil, it's that we shouldn't vastly depend on one main source of energy.



Quoting Mir (Reply 20):
No reason not to go nuclear, but a good energy policy needs to be diverse. Wind has potential in certain areas, and should be used in those areas. Same thing for solar and hyrdroelectric. The backbone should be nuclear, though, until we can get fusion into a workable form. It's relatively clean, very efficient, and with modern technologies it is more than acceptably safe.

Using anything as the "sole" form of power generation is a bad idea.

Like investing, diversification is necessary. The grid needs to be interconnected and fed by many different forms of power so that when one type is disrupted the grid can continue unaffected.

We need some sort of a blend of solar (either direct conversion or by using the heat to create steam), nuclear, geothermal (if possible?), recycling of landfill gases, 'clean' coal, and wind power. Oil burning and gas-fired plants (other than recycling landfill gases which I mentioned) should be phased out.

Solar and wind power use free 'fuel', so I would concentrate on those first.
I'll rassle ya for a bowl of bacon!
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9262
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:09 pm



Quoting Arniepie (Reply 6):
The EU, China, Canada and Japan are currently well on their way to build the worlds first active Fusion reactor in Cadarache ,France.

Not to accuse you of any bias, but I think you left one very important (perhaps, the most important) nation off that list...

Quoting Duff44 (Reply 26):
Using anything as the "sole" form of power generation is a bad idea.

Like investing, diversification is necessary. The grid needs to be interconnected and fed by many different forms of power so that when one type is disrupted the grid can continue unaffected.

Investment strategies aren't necessarily applicable.

What we need is redundancy in generation and distribution. Our power grid is not very flexible to a sudden loss of generating capacity or a spike in consumption. There's no particular reason we need diversified fuel sources if we can guarantee our fuel supply for centuries.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 25):
And for the safety nay-sayers...consider this: in the history of the world, there have been only two major nuclear plant events (Chernobyl and Three Mile Island), and the technology has vastly improved since both

That still won't convince most people. What I find more useful is to inform them that fossil fuel plants have released more radioactive isotopes into the environment than any nuclear disaster.

Quoting Mike89406 (Reply 24):
I think Nuke Power is the way to go however one must wonder about Yucca Mountain in Nevada where tons of Nuke waste is tored and more being sent there

The need to store our nuclear waste in an underground suppository like Yucca Mountain is due to the backwards energy policy in the United States that has prohibited the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. When "spent" fuel rods are removed from a nuclear reactor, 95-98% of the mass is still good fuel.

Japan, France, the UK, and others recycle their fuel. In doing so, they drastically reduce the volume of waste that needs to be specially isolated. There's some plans to get reprocessing going in the U.S. again, but like anything it will take time.

Quoting Mike89406 (Reply 24):
To say that its perfectly safe however is naive.

Nothing is perfectly safe. But certain technologies can be demonstrated to be safe enough that no rational human being would call them "unsafe." Nuclear power generation is one such technology.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1445
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:23 pm



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 27):
Quoting Arniepie (Reply 6):
The EU, China, Canada and Japan are currently well on their way to build the worlds first active Fusion reactor in Cadarache ,France.

Not to accuse you of any bias, but I think you left one very important (perhaps, the most important) nation off that list...

Ah yes sorry about that, Russia India and S Korea off course.
And The US, how could I forget about that little unknown country all stuck away below your big brother Canada.  blush   bouncy 
[edit post]
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13640
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:30 pm



Quoting ManuCH (Reply 5):
As far as I remember, Chernobyl had several problems which shouldn't repeat themselves in a US-based nuclear power plant.

AFAIK, Chernobyl is a graphite reactor that also lacked several redundancy systems, and while I don't know if such reactors were allowed around the time of the Three Mile incident (because around that year Chernobyl went online), they were definitely banned in Germany for safety reasons.

As for me, even with recent leak issues in nuclear reactors operated by Vattenfall in Germany, I'm all for nuclear power. And we must continue working on improving nuclear power instead of having the treehuggers force us to get out of it and with that, dump lots of nuclear waste that could have been reprocessed to get more fuel out of them. I do hope that in Germany, we stop this current project of getting out of nuke power, which was started by the Greens during the Schröder administration, and keep more nuclear plants online as long as they're safe enough to operate.
Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer. - Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 208
 
dl021
Topic Author
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:42 am



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 27):
Not to accuse you of any bias, but I think you left one very important (perhaps, the most important) nation off that list...

Yeah!

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 28):
course.
And The US, how could I forget about that little unknown country all stuck away below your big brother Canada.

There's a reason that there's no boudin pour les Belges!  Wink
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:48 am



Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 25):
there have been only two major nuclear plant events (Chernobyl and Three Mile Island),

The Three Mile Island incident may have been portrayed by the media as a major event but it simply wasn't. There were safeguards in place that worked well to prevent a major incident.
 
tootallsd
Posts: 494
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:02 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:16 pm



Quoting David L (Reply 31):
Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 25):
there have been only two major nuclear plant events (Chernobyl and Three Mile Island),

The Three Mile Island incident may have been portrayed by the media as a major event but it simply wasn't. There were safeguards in place that worked well to prevent a major incident.

I support additional nuclear power but you simply can not dismiss Three Mile Island as NOT a major incident. When you have to abandon a multi-billion dollar asset as a result of the damage -- it is simply a major incident. No loss of life -- no environmental contamination (or minimal) but still major.

Having said that -- imagine the computing power available to your employer in the 1970s and think about how much has changed since then. That gives you one frame of reference for the control systems that were in both nuclear stations that failed. I would expect that systems could be far more advanced today than could even be conceived at the time the Chernobyl or Three Mile Island were constructed.

Finally, the alternatives, coal or natural gas are not without environmental and safety concerns. How many miners are injured or killed in industrial accidents in a year. How many oil workers? How much dust and natural gas is released into the environment in a given year? How much fossil fuels are consumed to mine and transport either material in a given year? How much pollution is released in the process? How many people suffer serious or debilitating disease as a result of contact with coal dust or industrial byproducts. I think this is a more balanced view of the relative demerits of nuclear vs. other forms of energy. Nothing is free.
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13640
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:37 pm



Quoting Tootallsd (Reply 32):
I support additional nuclear power but you simply can not dismiss Three Mile Island as NOT a major incident.

Still, without diminishing the consequences of TMI, in for me familiar German terms, TMI was only a GAU (Größter anzunehmender Unfall or Biggest Accident Imaginable), while Chernobyl is considered a Super-GAU and thus even worse than TMI. The thing that kept TMI from becoming a Super-GAU was the redundancy systems and safety measures that were immediately implemented, plus the fact that the general population was immediately informed on the matter, even if only through the news. Yes, there may have been some sloppyness during that incident, but if you look at Chernobyl, where redundancies were minimal, safety measures inadequate, other countries, including southwest Russia, Belarus, Scandinavia and even Germany was affected to some degree, and the general population only heard of this issue as a footnote in the papers or in the Bremya news while reporting of the Mayday celebrations in full detail, TMI got lucky.
Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer. - Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 208
 
oldeuropean
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 5:19 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:46 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 8):
I'm all for nuclear power. Clean, relatively cheap, sustainable.

Of course there are dangers . . . there are dangers in every endeavor . . .

Oil is going to run out - or get too expensive to make it a viable energy source.

Nuke power is the way to go.



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 29):
As for me, even with recent leak issues in nuclear reactors operated by Vattenfall in Germany, I'm all for nuclear power. And we must continue working on improving nuclear power instead of having the treehuggers force us to get out of it

Brilliant theories here.

But there is just only enough Uran left for the next 40 - 60 years. And this only, if not more nuclear power plants will be built. The resources of uran are worse than oil!
So, assuming the number of nuclear power plants in the world is just only doubled, you want to produce some hundred thousands tons of waste, which is radioactive and dangerous for some 100,000 years for having some energy for the next 20 - 30 years? (Despite the danger - remember e.g.: Harrisburg!)

Axel

P.S. Half time:
of Uran234 = 245,500 years
of Uran235 = 704,000,000 years

[Edited 2007-12-04 11:07:55]

[Edited 2007-12-04 11:12:38]
Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
 
miamiair
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:42 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:47 pm



Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 34):
But there is just only enough Uran left for the next 40 - 60 years.

Where do you get this information from?
Molon Labe - Proud member of SMASH
 
N1120A
Posts: 26503
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:35 pm



Quoting DL021 (Thread starter):
OK...so the studies show that with a concerted effort the US could be a net energy exporter in 10 years if we decided to start building nuclear powerplants today and continue to develop coal technology (in particular synthetic oil).

Coal needs to go the way of the dodo, just like oil. Non-breeder nuclear, wind and small scale solar are the way to go.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 1):
We can also re-use nuclear fuel by recycling it like they do in France. This adds a lot of energy efficiency to nuclear, and helps nuclear waste become less radioactive too.

That would be key.

Quoting Arniepie (Reply 6):

Personally I would put my money on solar energy and FUSION energy for large amounts of power supply.

Fusion is absolutely something to desire. However, it is not reality yet

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 10):

Wind Power only works with wind speeds in certain window, too slow or too fast and they windmills are useless. They are also almost twice as maintenance intensive as gas or oil power stations and far less reliable

There is likely enough ideal wind farm land in the US to power most, if not all of the country. It would take a piece of land about the size of Connecticut, but that actually isn't a lot when you consider the combination of farms in California, Texas, Kansas and Nevada

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 13):

Do you know how many windmills will be required to produce the same amount of energy as a Nuke?

Windmills are incredibly energy efficient

Quoting DL021 (Reply 17):
and eliminate the need for dealing with the Chavez's and Abachas of the world.

Or, most importantly, the Sauds

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 27):
There's no particular reason we need diversified fuel sources if we can guarantee our fuel supply for centuries.

I think that was the same thinking they had with oil and coal.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
David L
Posts: 8551
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:49 pm



Quoting Tootallsd (Reply 32):
you simply can not dismiss Three Mile Island as NOT a major incident. When you have to abandon a multi-billion dollar asset as a result of the damage -- it is simply a major incident. No loss of life -- no environmental contamination (or minimal) but still major.

I thought it was pretty obvious we were talking about safety, not about economic damage to the property. The safety procedures worked very well to prevent the type of risk to the population that was being implied.
 
dl021
Topic Author
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:22 pm



Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 34):
But there is just only enough Uran left for the next 40 - 60 years

Would you source that and check to see if that's referencing a supply in a region? I have read reports that the US has enough minable uranium to last several hundred years if used properly.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 36):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 17):
and eliminate the need for dealing with the Chavez's and Abachas of the world.


Or, most importantly, the Sauds

Them too.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 36):
Quoting Mt99 (Reply 13):

Do you know how many windmills will be required to produce the same amount of energy as a Nuke?

Windmills are incredibly energy efficient

But still not enough to be economically feasible in the large scale. They make alot of sense if there's free space, and their operation is subsidized, but they aren't there yet for economic large scale. Neither is solar production. If oil went away tomorrow we could make do, but it costs twice what nuclear, oil and coal power costs.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
Arniepie
Posts: 1445
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:00 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:55 pm



Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 34):
of Uran234 = 245,500 years
of Uran235 = 704,000,000 years

It are the isotopes U238 and U235 which make out the bulk of the materials in the fuel rods in Nuclear reactors to be more specific, enriched Uranium has about 97% U238 and 3% U235 IIRC.
U235 = +700 million yrs half-time.
U238 = +4.45 billion yrs half-time.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 38):
Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 34):
But there is just only enough Uran left for the next 40 - 60 years

Would you source that and check to see if that's referencing a supply in a region? I have read reports that the US has enough mineable uranium to last several hundred years if used properly.

like I said before :

Quoting myself (Reply 6):
Nuclear fission is off course a viable alternative but as to date (with the use of the best reactors =PWR) there is about 3000.000 tons of uranium available for a mining price under 100$US.
This would last the world about 50 years at the current rate of energy consumption.

If technologies are used to subtract URANIUM (or Thorium for breeder reactors) from seawater, the supply is virtually endless at current energy consumption levels.
This knowledge already exists in Japan but needs to be developed much further to be efficient (this means a price under 1000US$ per pound of U.

With the mining techniques used today ,supply is very limited but if alternate mining techniques are developed ,supply is guaranteed for millions of years.
Remember it's only the U235 which is best usable as fission matter (to keep it going).
[edit post]
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 9829
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:35 am

We should be putting all of the money being wasted on mindless government nonsense into fusion research without delay. This should have happened 10 years ago but it is more imperative now than ever.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
Mike89406
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:05 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:48 am



Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 27):
Quoting Mike89406 (Reply 24):
I think Nuke Power is the way to go however one must wonder about Yucca Mountain in Nevada where tons of Nuke waste is tored and more being sent there

The need to store our nuclear waste in an underground suppository like Yucca Mountain is due to the backwards energy policy in the United States that has prohibited the reprocessing of nuclear fuel. When "spent" fuel rods are removed from a nuclear reactor, 95-98% of the mass is still good fuel.

Japan, France, the UK, and others recycle their fuel. In doing so, they drastically reduce the volume of waste that needs to be specially isolated. There's some plans to get reprocessing going in the U.S. again, but like anything it will take time.

True

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 27):
Quoting Mike89406 (Reply 24):
To say that its perfectly safe however is naive.

Nothing is perfectly safe. But certain technologies can be demonstrated to be safe enough that no rational human being would call them "unsafe." Nuclear power generation is one such technology.

I agree I actually think Nuke power is one way to go. The isolated incidents Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island well those were freak incidents especially Chernobyl (which I believe was neglect IIRC) I actually talked to physics savy people and that could have been prevented. Anyways technology has advanced since then and safety standards are high in the US.
 
levg79
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 10:59 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:19 am



Quoting ManuCH (Reply 5):
As far as I remember, Chernobyl had several problems which shouldn't repeat themselves in a US-based nuclear power plant.

Never say never.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 17):
Quoting Miamiair (Reply 3):
Explain Chernobyl to me.

Made by USSR with 1950s USSR technology and typical Soviet work ethic and treatment.......... not being a smart ass...that's the answer.

What about TMI? US technology at its best. Between 1979 and 1986 many Soviet scientists were saying how lucky they were that Pennsylvania did not happen in the Soviet Union and how that kind of accident would never happen in the Soviet Union.

Even if the short-term benefits of using nuclear power are there, the long-term effects outweight them about 1000:1. This video proves it:


Reactor unit 4 at the Chernobyl plant has been in operation for a little over two years, yet the aftermath is here to stay for at least 2,500 generations.
A mile of runway takes you to the world. A mile of highway takes you a mile.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:54 am



Quoting ManuCH (Reply 5):
Quoting Miamiair (Reply 3):
Explain Chernobyl to me.

As far as I remember, Chernobyl had several problems which shouldn't repeat themselves in a US-based nuclear power plant. I hope today's technology and coaching are advanced enough not to repeat a similar disaster in a country like the US. I consider nuclear energy to be safe and I wouldn't mind living near one of those plants.

Add to that a couple of yahoo's who decided that it would be a good idea to use the reactor as their own personal science lab.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 25):
, there have been only two major nuclear plant events (Chernobyl and Three Mile Island),

There have been a couple more, both with research facilites and production reactors....just a few I found on the web.

26 July 1959
A clogged coolant channel resulted in a 30% reactor core meltdown at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (now known as the Boeing-Rocketdyne Nuclear Facility) in the Simi Hills area of Ventura County, California. Most of the radioactive fission products were trapped, but gasses were vented which resulted in the release of the third greatest amount of radioactive iodine-131 in nuclear history. The incident was largely covered up until a class-action suit was filed by local residents, who successfully sued for $30 million over cancer and thyroid abnormalities contracted due to their proximity to the facility

3 January 1961
A reactor explosion (attributed by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission source to sabotage) at the National Reactor Testing Station in Arco, Idaho, killed one navy technician and two army technicians, and released radioactivity "largely confined" (words of John A. McCone, Director of the Atomic Energy Commission) to the reactor building. The three men were killed as they moved fuel rods in a "routine" preparation for the reactor start-up. One technician was blown to the ceiling of the containment dome and impaled on a control rod. His body remained there until it was taken down six days later. The men were so heavily exposed to radiation that their hands had to be buried separately with other radioactive waste, and their bodies were interred in lead coffins (I find this one interesting because of the claim that the radioactivity was "Largely Contained" The building was testing reactor for remote operations and didn't have a containment dome)

5 October 1966
A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial core meltdown at Detroit Edison's Enrico Fermi I demonstration breeder reactor near Detroit, Michigan. Radioactive gases leaked into the containment structures, but radiation was reportedly contained

22 March 1975
A technician checking for air leaks with a lighted candle caused $100 million in damage when insulation caught fire at the Browns Ferry reactor in Decatur, Alabama. The fire burned out electrical controls, lowering the cooling water to dangerous levels, before the plant could be shut down.

25 February 1983
A catastrophe at the Salem 1 reactor in New Jersey was averted by just 90 seconds when the plant was shut down manually, following the failure of automatic shutdown systems to act properly. The same automatic systems had failed to respond in an incident three days before, and other problems plagued this plant as well, such as a 3,000 gallon leak of radioactive water in June 1981 at the Salem 2 reactor, a 23,000 gallon leak of "mildly" radioactive water (which splashed onto 16 workers) in February 1982, and radioactive gas leaks in March 1981 and September 1982 from Salem 1.

9 December 1986
A feedwater pipe ruptured at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia, causing 8 workers to be scalded by a release of hot water and steam. Four of the workers later died from their injuries. In addition, water from the sprinkler systems caused a malfunction of the security system, preventing personnel from entering the facility. This was the second time that an incident at the Surry 2 unit resulted in fatal injuries due to scalding [see also 27 July 1972].

Quoting Duff44 (Reply 26):
Like investing, diversification is necessary. The grid needs to be interconnected and fed by many different forms of power so that when one type is disrupted the grid can continue unaffected.

Agree completely.

One of the technologies I am waiting for with baited breath is the day that 3-tab is equiped with solar cells. I think there is a company in Michigan working on that.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 33):
Still, without diminishing the consequences of TMI, in for me familiar German terms, TMI was only a GAU (Größter anzunehmender Unfall or Biggest Accident Imaginable),

Well I should point out that the consequences of TMI where blown pretty far out of the water by the media and by the publicity of the movie, "The China Syndrome" that was released to theatres just days before the accident became public.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
N174UA
Posts: 1010
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:17 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:40 am



Quoting Arniepie (Reply 6):
Personally I would put my money on solar energy

 checkmark  Unfortunately, the problem is that the cost of solar panels (photovoltaic) is going up, up, and up, because of the cost of silicon. It's about $.39/kWh, whereas wind or coal or nuke is substantially less. Right now, solar energy is a great idea, but the economics of it just don't work out. Not every corner of the world gets high levels of solar radiation like Arizona, Spain, Italy, etc. It's one thing to put a solar panel on your roof, but long term, the costs outweigh the benefits.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 17):
Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 10):
China is building more energy capacity now then the rest of the world COMBINED. They will be more than ready for when (if) oil becomes unsustainable.

They're investing in wind and hydro, primarily. In January 2006, China passed a national energy law which (vaguely) outlines their goals for renewable energy. By 2010, 6% of electricity will come from green sources, and by 2020, they want 8% to come from renewable. Their plan is to generate it from hydro. I read recently where they estimate up to 2/3 of China's hydro capacity is yet to be developed. Solar wouldn't work there, because the sun hits mainly in Tibet, but their electrical grid is in such bad shape, that it would be impossible to transmit it all the way to Shanghai and/or Beijing. And how effective would solar panels be in a place that hardly sees the sun because of the pollution?
 
jush
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:10 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:38 am

It's not safe. Did you know that every day something goes wrong in a nuclear power plant?
It may not be serious but it shows that this form of plant has its trouble.
However, I still think we are and will be dependant on nuclear power in the near future.


Regds
jush
There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
 
Mike89406
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:05 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:57 am



Quoting Jush (Reply 45):
It's not safe. Did you know that every day something goes wrong in a nuclear power plant?
It may not be serious but it shows that this form of plant has its trouble.
However, I still think we are and will be dependant on nuclear power in the near future.


Regds
jush

We also dont need to fear Nuke plants like a meltdown is bound to happen. I mean anything could happen but a lot of lessons have been learned since the old days. Nuke plants if safe transmit less radiation than we are exposed to daily anyways so it's actually safer to work around a reactor than walk around in the warm sun unless there safety hazards.
 
sasd209
Posts: 399
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:32 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:25 am



Quoting Jush (Reply 45):

Did you know that every day something goes wrong in a BMW and a Ford vehicle? Surely they cannot be safe!!! I say scrap them all....we should walk.  Yeah sure

Seriously, by 'wrong' do you mean they ran out of toilet paper in the WC or the guy at the alarm panel was asleep? Things go 'wrong' every day with everything ever made. I wouldn't mind a plant in my area, it cannot be any worse than the current situation.
 
QFA380
Posts: 2013
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 4:38 pm

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Wed Dec 05, 2007 7:27 am

I wish Australians weren't so scared about nuclear power. I mean one could argue that John Howards wish of nuclear power in Australia contributed to his loss in our election. People are just so uneducated it scares me, I think alternative power options should be part of all school curriculum's, kids will tell parents what they learnt, so what kids learn parents eventually learn.

Another reason for this is Australia is primarily coal powered, we have millions of asthmatics. Some very severe, clean air for all would go a long way.

I agree though that reliance on a single source of power is an unwise decision. 'Don't put your eggs in one basket', problems may be found with policies in nuclear power prompting a shut down of all of them, then we are screwed. Australia also has an abundance of uranium.
 
jush
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 2:10 am

RE: Time To Go Nuclear, America!

Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:36 am



Quoting SASD209 (Reply 47):
Did you know that every day something goes wrong in a BMW and a Ford vehicle? Surely they cannot be safe!!! I say scrap them all....we should walk. Yeah sure

You didn't read my posting. I don't say they're unsafe, that is just something interesting I read a few weeks ago.
Of course they are as safe as they can be (well at least in Germany). Other states and companies seem to have a different approach on that.

jushin
There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: a320fan, Baidu [Spider], einsteinboricua, Google Adsense [Bot] and 54 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos