Power to save the world
 

Anyone else read this book? It's a great read about how we should be building substantially more nuclear plants, and how, for the foreseeable future, nuclear is our only viable "carbon free" energy source.

Some facts from the book:

The amount of fissile material it takes to provide lifetime power to one person could fit in a soda can

No one, not one person, has died due to a nuclear accident on American soil

Coal fired plants expose employees and nearby residents to far more radiation than a nuclear plant

In any case, a great read, written by a lady who had set out to write a book denouncing nuclear power.

In addition, nuclear scientists are getting the point where they can recycle nuclear fuel such that the bad radiation only lasts about 50 years, instead of tens of thousands.

Yup. If it hadn't become political orthodoxy of the left to opose anything with the words "nuclear" or "radiation" in it the environmental movement would have embraced nuclear power years ago. The best argument against nukes is that there is no permanent central storage for the waste. Why not? Because people who opose nuclear power won't allow it. Circular logic.

On a related note, you know why there is a huge movement against "irradiated" meat? because "irradiated" sounds like radiation. So it must be bad, right? If all our meat was irradiated (disinfected using electricity) it would save thousandsof lives per year. There are NO side effects to irradiating meat. But we can't do something that sounds like it is a naughty word.

To be fair, there are other energy sources that can be used. Wind energy can be harnessed and will eventually be valuable. Solar could become economical when and if the industry can ever reach economies of scale so the cost per unit comes down. Geothermal, tide energy, etc., are all pieces of the puzzle. None of them is going tobe the magic bullet that will replace petroleum, but petroleum doesn't do everything alone, either. Our current energy sources are made up from a hodgepodge of different sources. The answe to safe and economical replacement energy sourceswill be as varied.

Thanks lefties.

Yup... and the company I work for just applied to build two nuclear units.

The biggest problem we face as a power provider with wind, solar, etc. is voltage control. These little wind and solar systems fluctuate too much to maintain system voltage. So a large power plant is forced to adjust its VARs to compensate with no financial compensation. Hopefully the system operators will remedy this, but in the mean time it sucks for us and our share holders.

It takes more energy to build and decommission a nuke plant than it ever produces.

Yup, so true. I worked in the nuclear industry in the 70's and early 80's. Specifically, construction quality assurance. Only those that haven't worked in that mess would ever think it is safely designed, constructed and managed. It is a bzyantine bueracratic (sic?) nightmare. Dream on Righties (just since Sammy HAS to place blame.)

If it isn't safely designed, constructed and managed, how have the nuclear plants managed to operate so safely for so many years? (Honest question).

Despite themselves:D

Seriously though, the process is highly bueracratic. There is layer upon layer of regulations, checks, counterchecks and frankly, stopgaps. Violations of requirements (partly because there are just so damned many) andthe tracking of those violations and the development, review and resolution of those violations is constant It gets hard not to lose perspective when nonconformances are found constantly, to get worked up about them.

Yet, certain types of issues; especially in concert with other seemingly unrelated issues, CAN snowball into a serious event. I have been out of nuclear for a long time but I would have no trouble believing near catastrophies have been averted many times. AND...there is nowhere near the number of nuclear power plants that there WOULD be if a green light was given to the resumption of their use. Not to mention that training people to design, construct and operate many, many nuclear facilities would be creating an even more huge bueracracy and creating many, many times the opportunities for the non-experienced, or lesser-experienced to precipitate a non-reversable event. The fact that we have'nt "China Syndromed" a reactor yet doesn't mean it can't happen and won't with many more opportunities.

I've been in the business and I stand opposed.

Yes, the storage of waste is a rea, an unending challenge. EVERYONE says, NIMBY - Not In My Backard - to this problem.

:D



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1198006227.jpg

How the heck did you dream that up? Total BS. So wrong it makes my head spin. While you wish it were true, it hasn't a shred of truth to it. I'd like to see you try to offer any evidence to back up your claim. The best you could possibly do it to quote some lying enviro-lefty website which would say or do anything to get what they want. It just isn't true at all.

Nuke plants are the most efficent forms of energy producers we've ever come up with. If we built enough of em electricity would cost a fraction of what it costs now.
The cost to build a nuke plant is quite a bit higher than a natural gas powered generating plant (mainly because of the lefty enviro-wackos) but outproduces it significantly and costs a fraction to operate per megawatt. A reactor can outlive a conventional boiler with siginicantly less maintenace cost.

BTW, I've worked in a nuke plant also. I've been in containment, I've seen a reactor up close. I have no idea why Dan would agree with you on that point. It is completely and totally without any merit or basis in fact.
Completely, totally wrong and easy to prove.

Our closest plant is San Onofre. It makes alot of power and it many times more efficient than all the other conventional plants around. That's why So Cal Edison kept it and sold off the rest. It makes a *****load of power and money. And it's safe.
BTW it has never shipped any spent fuel off the premises. All the spent fuel it has ever produced sits in a pool of water that surrounds the decommisioned #1 reactor. The actual volume of spent uranium a reactor produces if very, very small.

Thank you for brightening my day with this! :D :D :D

What on earth could make you think that? (BTW, I deleted what I was really going to reply :rolleyes:)

It's ironic that those screaming about global warming now would be without a cause if they hadn't screamed against nuclear power 30 years ago.

So France has the right idea? I find that hard to believe....

The storage facility is in my Backyard. I am looking forward to the day that electricity is no longer need in my hood as we will all be glowing in the dark. It will really put meaning to the phrase lighting up a room when you walk in.

I don't believe nuclear power is the answer to the country's power needs, but I think it needs to be a part of the answer that includes wind, solar, wave, natural gas, coal and whatever else they come up with. Wind and solar are not the complete answer, we just don't have enough land to make it work. Too bad hurricanes keep us from putting them on the gulf coast.

We're going to have to rely on large turbine power plants for the majority of our needs in the foreseeable future and it seems smart to spread that over nuclear, natural gas, and coal to hedge our bets. It’s not all gloom and doom since most of the old, dirty, inefficient fossil units running today will be phased out as new cleaner and more efficient plants come online, just like what happens with cars.

Who is to say we are going to be able to develope a source of energy that will sustain the global need for energy/power. It is quiet possible that the world population can collapse and a new leaner meaner human society will develope with whats available.

Who says that Human development is linear, or even sustainable the possibility exists that humans will eradicate themselves from being.

Don't know if it's the exact same group of people doing the yelling, but I understand (and agree with) your point. We live in a world where we expect perfect, no consequence solutions. So we don't want to rely on fossil fuels due to global warming (or reliance on the Middle East, or whatever other badness comes from burning stuff all the time). But we don't want nuclear power because it's potentially dangerous. And we don't want wind turbines because they may harm migrating birds (and, they're plain ugly to a lot of us, but we won't dare publically use that as an excuse for our opposition). And solar power is too inefficient/expensive. And hydroelectric power destroys ecosystems. And geothermal power is only available to certain geographic areas. And on and on we find excuses.

Nothing's perfect. Not to stick our heads in the sand, but we need to acknowledge that, and accept whatever negatives come with whatever route(s) we choose to go.

We are already at about 20% nuclear. It is (by far) our safest current energy source. Those who view waste storage as a reason to abandon nuclear technology do not understand the science.

+1. Thank you.

For those who make comments like nuclear plants are inherently unsafe, that we'll all be glowing, etc., you need to read this book.

As someone mentioned above, there are no "no-cost" ways to generate the amount of power we use in this country. Burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases, wind and solar farms take a tremendous amount of land to produce a usable amount of electricity, and obviously there are storage issues to work out with nuclear. But to say that we will only accept a solution that has no costs - well, you're going to have to wait awhile.