Nuclear energy - safe?

[Kalalau]

Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

All the nuclear waste in the world should be dumped in Texas.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

LOL! Gotta love some of the euphemisms that are being bandied about here re: nuclear energy.

In the meantime, none of the pro-nuclear energy proponents have been able to address the very real issue I brought up in post #9. What the heck are we going to do with all the nuclear waste that continues to accumulate, even as we speak?

Ignoring the issue doesn't make the problem go away, alas.

I'm realistic enough to know that with nuclear providing about 20% of this country's electrical needs, it is not an energy source that can be completely shut down tomorrow. But to expand its use with no firm plan on how to handle waste disposal is just plain ludicrous.

Morally, I find it shameful. The people of today enjoying the benefits of nuclear power, while leaving it up to their children and grandchildren to be burdened with the problem of handling the radioactive waste.

And please,.... spare me the speech about science coming up with safe and peaceful ways to re-process the waste. I've been hearing that same, hollow claptrap from nuclear reactor applicants for over 30 years. It's like a chronic smoker developing emphysema, but continuing to smoke anyway because of a fervent hope that a cure will be found before he dies. Some plan, huh?

Even if the hurdle of NIMBY politics can be overcome to create a permanent storage site for waste, the capacity for such repositories won't be infinite. This will be an ongoing issue and concern.

Until a plan is developed on how to permanently deal with nuclear waste, I say that there should be a moratorium on the building of all new reactors. In addition, aging plants should not have their operating permits extended, particularly if they no longer have the means to safely store depleted rods.

Remember folks: Japan's radiation threat is coming from spent nuclear rods that were supposedly tucked away safely in storage pools.

I repeat: Ignoring the issue of dealing with nuclear waste does not make the problem go away.

[acousticlady]

Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

Although I've voted in the poll, I have been decidedly quiet in this conversation. But Tim's post prompted me to voice my opinion. I want to say first and foremost that just because I believe we shouldn't allow this accident to dismiss nuclear energy all together, that doesn't mean we should ignore all the other forms of alternate energy. Dismissing nuclear energy is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Ignoring other forms of energy production is just as stupid. Wind energy is an excellent alternative energy source - when you live in an area that has sustained winds for most of the time. Solar energy is an excellent form of alternative energy - when you live in an area that has predominately sunny weather. Geothermal energy is an excellent form of alternative energy - when you live in an area that has a large geothermal reserve. All of these methods are excellent - under the right conditions.

My opinion on nuclear energy is not something I take lightly. Back in the day (BC - before college) I was staunchly opposed to nuclear anything. I fell for the media blitz that took over after Three-Mile Island. In its typical "the sky is falling" mentality, the media instilled a deep-seated fear of simply the word NUCLEAR. But I also became curious – what exactly was “radiation”? How did it work? Was all radiation bad? So I decided to find out.

I became so engrossed in the subject that I almost concentrated on this area in grad school. Turns out that nuclear processes are so well understood from a physics perspective (not to be confused with engineering) that it is, in fact, a “dead” subject. We know far more about nuclear reactions than we do about sound.

One of the biggest problems with nuclear processes is the lack of education amongst the public. Fearing nuclear energy is like fearing the ocean. Yes, if you are not careful, you could die from it. However, if you approach it with a keen understanding, it can provide valuable services.

[68-eldo]

Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

Check out FutureNewsNetwork.com to learn about 100 years of suppressed technology.

Wow that page is way too busy for my computer. Took too long to load and scrolling the page was next to impossible.

So I checked Wikipedia for those things you mentioned.

So as not to sidetrack this thread I won’t go into detail, but those technologies don’t seem to be ready yet. They need much more development; maybe new discoveries will make them work.

Back to nuclear plants, if I was designing a plant I would seriously consider underground installations. Much better containment and cooling water could be feed by gravity in emergencies.

Just a thought.

[timkona]

Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

I'll admit this is a shameless plug......but here goes.

Check out FutureNewsNetwork.com to learn about 100 years of suppressed technology. We are talking about power generation technology that folks have been killed over.

If you honestly think Nuclear Energy is the answer, then it clearly shows you do not have all the facts. Stirling, Steorn, and a host of magnetic technologies are here to stay. And in the last 10 years or so, nobody has been killed over these revolutions to the status quo of power supply, so perhaps the government has finally given up on suppression.

All we need now is for consumers to stop acting like sheep.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

'really bad' in common terms would encompass things like the aforementioned boiler explosions that kill, and then are over.
Really bad in nukology means, we have a major problem immediately, then possibly millions die over the years and the huge surrounding region is inhabitable for centuries as is the food/water/etc., and we economically wither in total. It's what we're seeing happen in Japan with this small example. Add to that the widespread PANIC that would occure in less composed/civilized nations, like the US, and you can see how just one nuke mishap and it's repercussions could easily kill a country. But hey, it was so unexpected...

Building a nuke facility to withstand merely a 7.5 quake anywhere is a con game, doing it in quake country is criminal, as is hiding beneficial technology that could have infinitely bettered this country, and that's been going on for at least 100 years.

[GregLee]

Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

I voted with the current majority in the poll: the risks are worth it. But actually, that assumes we've mitigated the risks as best we can. Nuclear power and air travel share the difficulty that overall risks are low and accidents infrequent, but when something bad happens, it can be really bad. The fact that accidents are infrequent leads managers to be complacent about plant safety, and we really can't depend on private companies to handle this well. If your memories stretch back to Three Mile Island, you'll recall that journalists started digging around after the event to find that federal inspectors had been reporting many, many safety violations at nuclear plants which went year after year without being corrected.

[matapule]

Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

I am surprised that all the nuclear plants in Japan are within feet of the ocean..

As well as many of them in the US, especially on the West Coast. That is the cheap place to build them because of the proximity to ocean water to cool the reactor. Nevermind the environmental impact on the ocean habitat nearby because of an increase in the water temperature at the outlet point.

It is easy to dismiss the environmental damage caused by a nuclear meltdown because "it is not in backyard, why should I care, I just want to heat my swimming pool at the lowest possible cost." The reality is that a reactor meltdown on the West Coast will cause a deadzone for hundreds, maybe a thousand miles downwind because of the Westerlies.

It was recently discovered that the emergency shutdown system at Diablo Canyon was turned off through human error during scheduled maintenance. It remained off for 18 months before anyone discovered the error. This incident was within the last two years. It wouldn't have taken a 7.5 scale to cause a meltdown. Even a minor quake could have caused a significant nuclear incident.

But fine, those of you who are staunch supporters of nuclear power at any cost.......let's build the next one in your backyard.

[bjd392]

Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

I also notice nuclear plants in earthquake zones being touted as designed to withstand a 7.5 earthquake. So what happens when an 8.0 earthquake happens?

Looks like we need to design these things better.

Posted in agreement with 68.

All these safety precautions to worry about. It's like buying a car capable of withstanding a 60mph collision into a wall, only to be hit head-on by a 75mph semi truck. The moment we build according to a maximum predicted disaster, something unexpected occurs.

[68-eldo]

Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

Wind power and solar energy by themselves are too variable to be a reliable source of energy. A storage system is needed to smooth out the variations and that is a problem in itself. Batteries are not up to the job yet and the ones that have promise are an environmental horror.

I think nuclear power will eventually become the most common source for power. If you look at the history of steam power you will see many boiler explosions that killed a lot of people. It took a while to learn how to tame that one. We are still in the learning phase of nuclear power, and this tragedy in Japan is one big lesson.

I am surprised that all the nuclear plants in Japan are within feet of the ocean. This in a country that is hit by tsunamis more than any other region. In the words of Jay Leno “What did you think would happen?”

I also notice nuclear plants in earthquake zones being touted as designed to withstand a 7.5 earthquake. So what happens when an 8.0 earthquake happens?

Looks like we need to design these things better.

I would like to know more about what caused the backup cooling system to fail at the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

[timkona]

Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

Nuclear Energy is an instant gratification choice. In terms of dollars/kwh ROI over the long haul, it's an obvious no brainer. But it is NOT the solution. It comes with a disastrous side effect. Really.

The solution is what I have coined "Point Source Generation". All power needs of everybody will be created within a few miles of where you are at using wind, solar, magnetics, etc. etc. Each house or business will have panels, turbines, or some of the more modern power generation devices that are currently in the news. (Steorn, magnetics, etc.) Some use the term 'distibuted power systems'.

If you favor nuclear power perhaps you should open you mind to other solutions.

PS - The "GRID" will die a slow death in my lifetime. Point source generation will become the norm.

Satellite TV + Cellular Telephone + Solar Power = No More GRID

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

Well then..., let's go nukes!

[joshuatree]

Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

...Japan even exists because of a great tsunami that saved them from the Chinese.....

Actually it would be the Mongols as the Asian continent at the time more or less belonged to the Mongol Empire. And it was a typhoon.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

Nuclear power has it's place, and benefits. Point blank, it beats out coal(even "clean burning", lasts longer, and has a higher output.

It really grinds my gears that people wanna put up a stink NOW, after destruction of "Biblical" proportions, to try and say Nuclear is bad, blah blah blah. Ya know what, ANYTHING can go bad, especially when circumstances beyond anyones control goes against it. More people die per year building wind farms then in building/running/maintaining/operating Nuc. Power plants.

Granted, if/when something goes wrong with NP, the potential for something seriously effed up can be severe, but realistically, how often does that happen? This is NOT the norm!

I recall the old adage - Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.
We need to be way more responsible with those things we don't fully know about and are unable to control. Coal is crap, but it's a short term mess in a concentrated are. Nukes are terminal, for centuries at a minimum and there is no containing the spread, wiping out everything we need.

There is nothing happening in Japan that could have been unexpected. They've known forever they sit on highly tenuous fault grounds but put a nuke plant there any way. Japan even exists because of a great tsunami that saved them from the Chinese. Way worse conditions than this can and will happen, this is just a test, of which they are failing dispite the valiant efforts after the case. They blew it with the placement of that plant, along with pathetic backups, and are now exposed as such, plus having been short on 'beyond' emergency tactics and procedures for the inevitable disasters. They are now at a complete loss as to solve the problem, and it's still at low/manageble levels, but it may go truly nuts soon.
We get suckered into thinking there is no problem with nukes because it waits silently, like the best killers do.

I'll bet if it gets worse the Japanese will be saying, once is more than enuf.
Yet, many Americans will watch and deny we have a similar monster waiting to rise and destroy.

[matapule]

Re: Nuclear energy - safe?

I don't disagree with anything you said TAT. But the problem is there were known deficiencies and verbalized safety concerns by the engineers at the Fukushima plant. These concerns were ignored. That is where I have a problem with nuclear power.

The same holds true for the Diablo Canyon plant on the central coast of California. There are known safety concerns right from the beginning and continue today. The plant was built one mile from a known active earthquake fault, the Hosgri Fault. And it is built about 40 miles from the San Andreas Fault, which is VERY active.

Building nuclear power plants is one thing. Building them with known safety issues is yet another. If the Diablo Canyon plant suffers the kind of catastrophe as Fukushima, it will affect everyone across the US because of the prevailing westerlies.

It is time to re-think electric production strategies not only in the US, but around the world. A primary source of electricity for my California fale comes from windmills. It works for me!