Well,

water is made up of some pretty volatile stuff, if we could just make it unstable.........

No sarchasim here, just ideas...

I agree with you that fossil fuel plants are the least sustainable of all - we should be doing anything and everything to get off of those. Nuclear is hardly a silver bullet. I suppose I could stomach some new plant development, but not to be relied upon as a long-term or permanent type of solution. That lies with renewable sources like solar, wind, geothermal, etc.

Nuclear reactors on fault lines. Brilliant!

Nuclear is the only option that will sustain the energy growth rates we forsee. But, we only have about 500-1000 years of nuclear material before we run out.

By that time we'd better have come up with a way to do matter-energy conversion, or we will need an awfully big set of solar arrays around the earth.

NIMBY!

:rolleyes:

"You could stomach" new plant developement? What are the options? No energy? My God man, if we do not do something and soon, we run out of power. Do not believe that this is a viable option. We have to build new power plants and fuel refining sites now, and every day we drag our feet we and our offspring will suffer.

Totally agree with the comment about placement of any nuke reactor plants. You guys in SoCal and theeir being built on fault lines have nothing on us. Some idiot put the largest nuke plant in America 20 miles West of Phoenix. Lets see... accidental discharge of radiation.. what are the prevailing wings ALL YEAR LONG? From West to East, in other words a 6 million person city is directly downwind from the nuke power station. Who the fock signed off on installations like this? Put them in the middle of no-where and run power lines to the cities, duh!

Solar and wind are a no-brainer but for some reason lots of people still do not embrace them. That will change.

I'd never heard that we would run out of nuclear fuel... interesting.

As for fossil fuels, at current consumption rates we have about 500 years of known coal reserves. Of course we'll need to turn it into gas or use some other method to make it cleaner.

We won't. We only will if we utilize U-235, but if we breed U-238 to Pu-239 we can go on literally forever.

Unfortunately Carter shut that approach down as he was afraid of proliferation. But the French and the Canadians will still go that route.

Coal conversion is a nasty process.

And a few decades ago when natural gas got scarce, folks in areas where it was being drilled said the folks in the Northeast could "freeze in the dark". Now that cry will come from outside the country!!

Currently, I don't think the US has any working urainium mines. The fuel that the plants are using now comes from other countries or from decommisioned weapons.
-Chris

Another knee-jerk reaction from someone who does not comprehend.
Go ahead, over-react and see how many sheep follow.
Have you ever been inside a nuclear generating station? I have. Have you ever worked in containment? I have. Do you even know how a nuclear reactor/generating system works? I do.

They are safe.

UselessToday had a piece last week on uranium mining in New Mexico IIRC. Some older fellow was still at the mine waiting for it to start up again. He was bullish on the prospects, but he kind of has an agenda. According to the article, there is a huge amount of recoverable uranium in NM. I've been to Moab, UT a bunch of times and seen the irresponsible side of boom and bust uranium mining. Sure hope they do it better this time.

If you don't like nuclear, what do you like? Wind, solar are great for the home, they won't run steel mills, office buildings etc. Nuclear waste disposal is not a technical issue, its a political issue. Have you ever seen what strip mining for coal does in Tennessee, West Virginia, Colorado and Utah? Its unbelievable the environmental damage.

Actually Chris is correct, but we do have a few that could be started up again in a heartbeat..
The real answer is pretty simple,,, anything in Nevada that's not a ski resort, casino, or bordello, and at least 100 miles from a populated area should be taken over via eminent domain.. a FARM of breeder reactors built ( read that as economies of scale) from there unlimited ( and damn near free) energy created.. either shipped out via the national grid ( needs to be built) AND/OR converted to hydrogen,,( we know that the oil companies have the infrastructure to truck it all around like propane/gasoline..
Next we work on the population problem .....

We won't have a population problem if we have free renewable energy. We will have plenty of resources for everyone. It's called the cornicopia theory.

No brainer indeed as they do not work. Solar is still looking for the big breakthrough. It will come I am sure and the good thing is that it is sunny someplace 24 hours a day.. Wind is nothing but a scam propped up by tax credits and mushy thinking. It simply is not cost effective besides being a blight on many rural communities.

I've always wondered about this. I've worked for the DOE for 13 years at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and at Los Alamos. It seems like even the DOE (home to a lab devoted to renewable energy and ultra-efficient building technologies) doesn't push the envelope on energy efficiency. We spec our office buildings just like all the rest in the private sector. You'd think we'd put our money where our mouth is...

Mike
'78SC

I live 10 miles from a nuke plant, I have for 10 years and never felt concerned.

My sis in law worked there while pregnant and her 9 year old daughter is perfectly healthy.

We have had many cases of cancer in the next town north of us but it seems more related to what the farmers did to the land prior to houses being there.

It doesn't breed forever. If you design the reactor for it, it will produce Plutonium. You need excess U238 and I don't know about plutonium reactors breeding plutonium with U238.

Plutonium has some problems. It is not as easy to control in the critical region as a Uranium reactor.

200 years of Coal at present usage. U235 we have 500-1000 years at present growth rate.

This is an important role of gubmit. Nobody else is situated to do this. This idea actually works. Economics is interesting, and it is both a mathematical science and a social science.

This is one liberal who believes nuclear power is, currently, a good idea. That and battery technology.

And ultimately, I suspect that fusion power is the next quantum leap. So to speak.

Imagine clean, fusion power and battery technology that allows all cars to cruise 400+ miles and refuel in five minutes.

I hate to introduce politics into discussions (no I don't) but I notice that while Dubya accuses everyone opposed to his Iraq War baby to be a "terrorist," I haven't heard him use that same argument in relation to conservation strategies. While alternative energy technologies are fun to discuss, all the experts will quickly tell you that the quickest and by far most profound way we can reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil is to individually conserve. In fact, this would play very well politically. Appealing to Americans' sense of patriotism to burn less gasoline. Of course, the down side of that would be reduced revenue to the oil companies. I'm sure that's got nothing to do with Dubya's conspicuous reluctance to urge the quickest and easiest (not to mention the most environmentally sound) solution.