Safe energy my butt! What's the half life of that left over crap, 10,000 years? Thinking it takes five years to clear all the evironment problems and about another 20 years before the plant goes on line. Electric rates are sure go up if you talk to someone around a plant and their power grid. Can't give an answer but going Nuck scares the hell out of me. France has had good luck with no accidents but where is the spent fuel going.
Dave
Being scared of nuclear power has absolutely no merit whatsoever. It is safer, cleaner and cheaper than any other source of power available. Including solar. If anyone would like to challenge those facts. Please feel FREE to prove me wrong. I have 9 years experience as a nuclear power plant operator both as active duty military and in a civilian power plant. It's so safe, I used to take naps on top of reactors.
Anyone who is worried about the half life of nuclear fuel need not be worried. Yes it stays around for a long time. However, the fuel rods are the ONLY waste generated by the power plant. No carbon monoxide, no hazardous chemicals. Hell, nuclear power even has a byproduct of diatomic Hydrogen for all you hydrogen power junkies.
The USA has not had a nuclear accident in 30 years now and even in our last one, no one was killed. Chernobyl was a case of the Soviets being utterly STUPID in the type and number of procedures they had open at a single time. Not to mention they were operating a reactor with a positive coefficient of reactivity, so as the reactor got hotter, the more power it put out. That situation will never happen in the USA, I'd bet my life on it.
Once the initial cash outlay of a nuclear power plant is done and over with, that power plant has a life span of 30 years or more. Every day that the reactor is up and running, it can generate up to 3,500 Megawatts of power per hour. If anyone wants to do some quick math, that's enough to send Marty McFly back in time several times each hour.
So please, anyone who thinks they can find the downfall of nuclear power, please present your case. I'll be more than happy to dispell every rumor and false statement you've heard and can reproduce.
__________________
Sometimes I think that government fits that old-fashioned definition of a baby: An alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
- Ronald Reagan
LOL, guys, I'm pretty good at this debating stuff, but I am NOT taking Blue up on this one!
BTW, I KNOW what he says is the truth.
Oh, and the French have their own version of Yucca. But they are also reprocessing old rods into new ones, which the Russians also do, and which WE would be doing more of if we were smart.
Its a moot point. Until 2012, we are stymied. 4 more years for us to fall behind the smart countries...
While we spend OUR trillions trying to package moonbeams.
Ouch.
OH, here's a really cool set of graphs showing unemployment by geographical area (down to the county).
This is of course Obama's way of forcing our hands on the energy issue. He openly says that he'd tax the hell out of any company that uses coal to produce power. Then on the other hand he closes Yucca mountain. All the while, we've got Nancy Pelossi doing everything in her power to prevent drilling for our own oil reserves which are MASSIVE and attainable. All this adds up to moonbeans and fairies blowing into our little wind turbines.
Just flippin peachy.
BTW, I really would love a good debate on the pros and cons of nuclear power honestly. But I don't think there's anyone who can produce accurate data sufficient to support being against it. The biggest thing the con side can come up with is 'what if...'. Well, what if can happen anywhere at any time in any type of power plant.
__________________
Sometimes I think that government fits that old-fashioned definition of a baby: An alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
- Ronald Reagan
I'm really glad to see someone who can support Nuclear so strong windedly. My campus has a large number of environmentalist who believe that all the trees die around any nuclear powered item. It is the most horrific power source ever created, but me being a fan of nuclear power leaves me in a lousy place. As I don't want to debate 25 people by myself. . . I end up having to stay quiet. Though I must say I did learn a few things just off that post of yours.
On a side note though, I'm still waiting for Nuclear Fission, that unicorn power source. Though I'm sure we'll be stuck dealing with the same debate. . .yeah it can cure world hunger and provide power for every person in the world and both poles with little fallout, but what if it loses control. Yeah, what if is right? But sometimes the benefits outway the risks.
__________________
2004 Sonic Blue V6 Performance: Mac CAI/Flowmaster True Dual Exhaust/Goodyear Eagle GT Tires/ BBK Short Tube Headers Appearance: "Mustang" 3rd Brake Light Sticker/Kenwood Stereo/Reverse Glow Gauges/Colored Pony Floormats Next Mod: SCT Tuner and Custom Tune
I'm really glad to see someone who can support Nuclear so strong windedly. My campus has a large number of environmentalist who believe that all the trees die around any nuclear powered item. It is the most horrific power source ever created, but me being a fan of nuclear power leaves me in a lousy place. As I don't want to debate 25 people by myself. . . I end up having to stay quiet. Though I must say I did learn a few things just off that post of yours.
On a side note though, I'm still waiting for Nuclear Fission, that unicorn power source. Though I'm sure we'll be stuck dealing with the same debate. . .yeah it can cure world hunger and provide power for every person in the world and both poles with little fallout, but what if it loses control. Yeah, what if is right? But sometimes the benefits outway the risks.
I think you meant "fusion", but yes, that would be very nice.
__________________
tripleblack
"You can never be free until you let yourself go."
Yes, fusion is the miracle that everyone is hoping to happen. Fission is the proces we use today.
As for trees dying around anything nuclear, that rumor is nothing more than the result of decades of anti-nuclear activism hogwash. The civilian plant I worked at was absolutely inundated by wildlife and nature. Without a doubt some of the most beautiful natural scenery I've ever seen. We had a herd of deer and other moderate size wildlife and even a few bears. The bears scared me though, they liked to prowl around at night and of course I had to do rounds at night which meant I was out there with them.
There's a graph of electrical generation costs compared against each other at the bottom of this post. It reveals some very interesting points.
Now if a logical person were to take a look at the overall cost to society of nuclear power, they would come to a quick conclusion that this is without a doubt the way to go for power generation needs. When coupled with a handful of small gas turbine plants, a nuclear power station can handle the grid easily. This means that you reduce carbon emissions, and just about every other type of emission as well, drastically. You have a plant that provides jobs for over 1000 people. And these are NOT minimum wage burger flipper jobs. The average salary for an entry level operator is 80K a year. Maintenance personnel over 50K and management blows past the 100K mark.
Sure, there is the small risk of a problem at the power plant. I say this is a small risk because the requirements for safe operation and oversight of operations at a nuclear powerplant are incredibly tight. If a light bulb burns out in the wrong place, you may have to shut down a reactor if it's not fixed within 24 hours. The people that scream about not wanting a Chernobyl in their backyard are ignorant at best, complete morons fits most. At least when it comes to that topic.
__________________
Sometimes I think that government fits that old-fashioned definition of a baby: An alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
- Ronald Reagan
You can thank the Libs for our not re-processing nuclear fuel. The peacnik libs ,ie, Jimmay Carter, et al, rational was that one of the byproducts of reprocessing is plutonium which can be used in weapons. He wanted America to set the example to other nations, not to reprocess the fuel.
So while our spent fuel is piling up in temporary (dangerous) storage, the French are getting as much as 60 times the use out of their original nuclear fuel. They simply do not have a waste problem.
The Libs will also tell you that reprocessing is more expensive than mining new material. This may be, but what does that matter to the Libs except to provide another vehicle to further their aims to bring this country down to third world standards.
They ignore the fact of the cost of storage and conviently ignore the ecological damage that mining causes. Using nuclear fuel 60 times over reduces one hell of a lot of mining.
Why anyone subscribes to liberal ideology is beyond me. It is an ideology that is only kept alive by lies and the reliance on the stupid people who believe them.
Well the problem with Plutonium is that it's not the safest type of fuel to use. It's what's known as a 'Fast' fuel which means that the only neutrons that cause Plutonium to fission are 'Fast' neutrons which are the very first neutrons to be ejected upon a fission reaction. Without going into a complete dissertation on reactor theory and particle physics, just take away from this that Plutonium reactors are inherently less stable than Uranium reactors. The difference in the neutrons used for each type of reactor is miniscule when looked at individually. However when you look at the broad scope and long term reactions (long is a relative term here, I'm talking about 400-800 nanoseconds actually) you see that those fractions of seconds lead to a reactor that is slower to respond to changes which makes it much easier for operators to control the reactor.
There are 3 different power ranges defined for nuclear reactors. The lowest of which is the Source Range. In this range of operations, reactors are very touchy. You do not want any surprises in this range and the safeguards in place by reactor control electronics are immense and numerous. There is no real power output from the reactor in this range, the only measurable power is an increase in the number of fission reactions taking place each second. The effect of drawing steam off the powerplant in this range would be immediate and catastrophic even using the slower fuels. Plutonium fuels would only magnify this situation.
The second range is the Intermediate Range. Still, no heat is drawn off of the reactor because it is still not quite stable enough to do so safely. Power is intensely monitored and safeguards numerous. Drawing steam from the powerplant would still lead down roads that no one is interested in taking.
The third range is the Power Range and this is where you begin to draw heat and steam from the reactor plant. There are enough delayed neutrons in the core at this point to offset any reactions caused by fast neutrons and therefore minimize their effects. This is where the reactor is very stable and inherently safe to operate. Power is measured in Megawatts of thermal energy output.
If the ratio of fast fuel to slow fuel were increased in favor of fast fuels such as Plutonium, the reactors would inherently be less stable and less safe to operate, particularly in the Source and Intermediate ranges because the presence of an increased number of fast fuel atoms would yield sharp and drastic changes to core activity at a rate that even the best operator could not stop.
__________________
Sometimes I think that government fits that old-fashioned definition of a baby: An alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
- Ronald Reagan
Right now the US has 1 nuclear plant under construction, but most all of the plants are old and will be shut down at the end of their life.
China has 16 under construction, Russia is building 9, and India has 6 being constructed. We have 1. We need a government that can help, not hinder, with the rapid construction of nuclear power. We are going to find ourselves in the dark if we don't wake up soon.
There is a single NEW nuclear site under construction. However the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did something in 2006-2007 that it has not done in decades. They issued permits to build additional reactors on already existing power plant sites. Dominion's North Anna unit 3 is in the preliminary stages now. I think there was somewhere between 8 and 12 others across the country. At the same time, the NRC is granting permits all over the place for existing plants to be uprated both in thermal output (reactor size) and turbine-generator capacity. Effectively we are expanding our nuclear capacity, but we're still decades behind where we should be.
BTW the single reactor that is being shown as under construction is a tiny little unit somewhere. 1,165 Megawatts is a little more than 1/3 of what a single one of North Anna's 2 existing units will out put. One of their units, 2 I think was just uprated in the past year. I'm not sure what it's output is now, but it was close to 3,000 Megawatts while I was employed there. Once unit 3 is operational, I look for the total output of that plant to be somewhere around 8,000 Megawatts.
__________________
Sometimes I think that government fits that old-fashioned definition of a baby: An alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
- Ronald Reagan
President Obama and Nuclear Power 
