http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/entertainment/5240145.html question, why is nuclear power a bad idea? certainly wind is probably a more viable and safe option, but nuclear is cleaner than coal or natural gas. all i could think of was cost to build, and they only last something like 50 years correct? meltdowns are basically a nonfactor. why the big protest?
What are you going to do with the waste, the stuff that will stay around and be radioactive for millions of years after it's not useful anymore? That's really the only bad thing I can think of for nuclear reactors... but it's a big factor since we really have no good way to dispose of nuclear waste. The meltdowns and safety issues get more press... but in the end the main issue IMO is still the waste. We just don't know how to get rid of it in a reasonable manner. Right now they dig very, very deep holes, put in some radiation shielding and stuff the waste there, but what if those leak?
I think this is the easiest solution to our energy problems. The Integral Fast Reactor are much safer, produce much less waste, and if combined with transmutation facilities... no highly dangerous waste would ever leave the site. The drawbacks are cost and a public distrust of anything nuclear. If this sort of thing were actually proposed again, you'd see everyone from the oil cabal to the sierra club trying to stamp it out... and of course politics follows the money.
I am a big supporter of nuclear power and this type of enviro stuff annoys me to no end ~ coal plants emit more nuclear waste directly into the atmosphere than a nuke plant (none). Breeder reactor technology which burns spent nuclear fuel is a great answer to what we could do with all the current and future waste -- reuse it. Current nuke plants in this country (around the world really) are based on old technology -- if we put some serious funding into research and development we could have an extremely efficient process in the next 20 years.
Concur. The pollution factor would not be erased but would be seriously reduced. Also, as the planet ices over a nuclear plant benefits from colder water being piped through. There would be reduced need for dangerous deep earth mining, and no external thermal source would be needed for the ultraviolet farming of the future. I'm being a little cheeky here but the benefits would greatly outweigh the debits.
Nuclear is coming back. A lot of the big electric generation companies are getting permits to expand old or build new nuclear plants. With nuclear, they get some more fuel diversity and dodge the carbon debits. Wind and solar might be safer, but not more efficient. The electric companies like to have every kind of generation they can get in their portfolio though to diversify away some of the market risk.
Nuclear paranoia is all about fear, and people who grew up with 'duck and cover' associating everything nuclear horible stuff that they can't understand. If you want to see what a managable nuclear infrastructure looks like, look at France. 75% of the French power supply is nuclear. They certanly seem to have dealt with all the problems associated with waste, etc. and I can't remember the last time their horrible nuclear reactors melted down and turned all of the French into tentacled zombies. Unreasoning fear. That is what this opposition is all about.
Using the French as a positive role model for anything is always risky! Concur. Our technology for building safe nuclear power plants is miles ahead of where it was when we first started building them. I wish we would put as much money and effort in building nuclear power generation plants as we do in building nuclear power plants for submarines and aircraft carriers.
60 minutes did a report on the French nuclear power program. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R_GNt6MGLfE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R_GNt6MGLfE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/c5iVCgMUlKE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/c5iVCgMUlKE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Some of them knew pleasure And some of them knew pain And for some of them it was only the moment that mattered And on the brave and crazy wings of youth They went flying around in the rain And their feathers, once so fine, grew torn and tattered In the end they traded their tired wings For the resignation that living brings And exchanged loves bright and fragile glow For the glitter and the rouge And in the moment they were swept before the deluge
I've heard both good and bad points about nuclear power from "real" environmentalists. I don't put most musicians in the same category. Judging by how vociferously anti-nuclear some of these types are - I wonder if they equate nuclear power with nuclear weapons. I can respect a real environmentalist. Not these pollution-producing hypocrites in their limos and SUVs who do nothing but wear a ribbon on Earth day.
I saw that episode -- great stuff. Japan has an extensive Nuclear power system as well -- I believe they are second only to the French in capacity, but are still far off at about 30%.
Actually i think they're building two plants in Texas but it'll be around 10 years before we see them. But they've already been approved so they should be coming.
Will they be as big (or bigger) than the Bay City plant? That thing is huge in person -- I was shocked.
I would venture a guess they are built in the most stable areas and are designed to withstand a major quake as are most of their skyscrapers (yeah I know this is obvious). A huge event like the Christmas quake in 2004 would no doubt create a mess, but meltdowns wouldn't be the biggest concern as safety measures are in place for rapid shutdowns. Godzilla is the real worry over there.
Couldn't agree more. I'm waiting on someone or some group, within either political party, to take a stand and put the issue on the front burner. The fear spread by left-wing kooks must be counteracted with facts. The U.S. must take control of it's energy future and nuclear power is a big part of the solution. With what's going on now there is no excuse for inaction. I feel so strongly about this that if either of the presidential nominees comes out strong on the issue next summer (a very doubtful proposition) and spends some serious political putting this on the country's agenda, that might swing my vote.
