How does the US proceed with nuclear power?

How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/25/2011 3:36:22 PM)
I am in support of nuclear power, even with the problems inherent in the industry, namely nuclear waste. A few facts: Yucca Mountain nuclear repository project was shut down and defunded. This leaves nuclear waste being stored either at the plant or at the Hanford Nuclear site in Washington state, which is at capacity. Even if Yucca Mountain were to be finished this year, or in the next few years, the amount of nuclear waste has already passed capacity. Converting Used Fuel Into New Fuel Through recycling, the separated uranium would become new fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. The long-lived radioactive elements, including plutonium, become fuel that could be used in advanced reactors that would be developed commercially as part of the research and development program. Advanced recycling technologies would reduce the volume, heat and toxicity of used nuclear fuel, but not completely eliminate the byproducts. The recycling byproducts would require disposal in a permanent repository. source So the first problem is what to do with the spent fuel and radioactive waste. Secondly, looking at the disaster in Japan, and considering that nearly every part of the US is subject to seismic events, what should the design parameters be for the plant itself. Currently, most engineers design a structure for the largest RECORDED event in a given area. Thus, a plant built in the New Madrid Seismic Zone would be built to with stand a 8.5 quake, which the area experienced in the early 1800's. The problem is that no one can predict how severe a quake will be on any given fault. The largest quake on record is a 9.5 in Chile in 1960, at least from the research I can find. And I cannot find anything on what the strongest possible quake could be. So should nuclear plants be built to withstand the maximum?

Hillwilliam -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/25/2011 7:02:54 PM)
They should be built in geologically stable areas.

Charles6682 -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/25/2011 8:23:54 PM)
I grew up in Oswego,New York.Which is about 40 miles north of Syracuse.Oswego County has 3 active nuclear power plants that sit directly on Lake Ontario.Neither plant has ever had a serious incident.I personally do support nuclear energy.It produces no Co2 emissions into the air and when it is done right,supplies alot of energy.The trick is to do this in a safe manner.To prevent what is happening in Japan.The power plants should be built to sustain ANY natural disaster.Nuclear power plants gone wrong is a very dangerous event.If it can't be done right,then it shouldn't be done at all.That said,I support SAFE nuclear energy.America already depends on nuclear energy as much as 20% of our entire energy source.They really need to "modernize" the older plants.

TheHeretic -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/25/2011 8:40:47 PM)
It'll be nice when the middle east runs dry of oil. We can just bury the waste there. I wonder how far away we are in the technology, from being able to build an electromagnetic launcher, and firing the crap into the sun.

Brain -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/25/2011 10:11:14 PM)
It depends on how much risk people will take. Here is more research by probably the best physicist. Nuclear power, both sides: the best arguments for and against the most ...By Michio Kaku, Jennifer Trainer http://books.google.ca/books?id=7A9A9BSk0eUC&pg=PA218&lpg=PA218&dq=How+does+to+proceed+with+nuclear&source=bl&ots=Dw4wdxInsh&sig=FEkJhGOJMLhf0E0pv7sBQeen8r4&hl=en&ei=I3KNTay2DYeDgAfT7Ym5DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAQ#

TheHeretic -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/25/2011 10:32:25 PM)
Now here is a crazy idea, Jlf. Instead of trying to build permanent storage far away from seismic zones, what if were to bury it in the trench of a subduction zone, and let the next 10,000 years of massive earthquakes carry it ever deeper into the planet for recycling?

DarkSteven -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/26/2011 7:02:17 AM)
Oh. My. God. I have been screaming for years that we need to recycle nuclear waste (or to be more politically correct, spent nuclear fuel). It would: 1. Reduce the amount of waste to be disposed of. 2. Reduce the amount of new fuel needed. 3. Reduce the size and amount of waste that terrorists could get to. I heard it said (have not confirmed) that it was a Carter decision to NOT recycle. Allegedly because it would somehow pose a terrorist threat. (?) Why a former nuclear engineer would do something that asinine, I don't know... The fact that the Nuclear Energy Institute is raising the possibility is GREAT news for the nuclear power industry. Nuclear energy will become MUCH more feasible once spent fuel recycling is practiced. [:)]

Charles6682 -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/26/2011 7:10:20 AM)
I agree DarkSteven.They should recycle nuclear waste.It is amazing they have not.This is just common sense.

DarkSteven -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/26/2011 7:33:03 AM)
Sadly, Charles, if you call it "spent fuel" instead of "waste", you'll get much farther.

jlf1961 -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/26/2011 2:19:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Oh. My. God. I have been screaming for years that we need to recycle nuclear waste (or to be more politically correct, spent nuclear fuel). It would: 1. Reduce the amount of waste to be disposed of. 2. Reduce the amount of new fuel needed. 3. Reduce the size and amount of waste that terrorists could get to. I heard it said (have not confirmed) that it was a Carter decision to NOT recycle. Allegedly because it would somehow pose a terrorist threat. (?) Why a former nuclear engineer would do something that asinine, I don't know... The fact that the Nuclear Energy Institute is raising the possibility is GREAT news for the nuclear power industry. Nuclear energy will become MUCH more feasible once spent fuel recycling is practiced. [:)] The thing is that you cannot recycle the fuel more than once.

housesub4you -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/26/2011 2:51:06 PM)
All one has to do is follow the money. The utility industry (at least the ones who own Nuclear Power Plants) have poured huge sums of money to get rid of regulations and to limit there financial lose, when a nuke plant ruins say New York City (there are plants not that far away from NYC) There limit is 12 Billion total, which may seem like a lot, but when compared to say the oil spill in the Gulf, where the losses expected to reach 80 Billion. So if they (GE) felt their plants where so safe, why would they spend all that money to limit their losses when the plants fail and destroy, well in this case NYC. We (people, got sold out by those we put in office) As and interesting side note there is one source of power still being supplied in Japan, while the nuke plants are shut down, The Wind Farms swayed with the earthquake and are now still supplying power, I think even the power they are using to try andsave the dam plants from melting down is coming from them

DarkSteven -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/26/2011 4:10:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The thing is that you cannot recycle the fuel more than once. Why not? It should be depleted to the same level every time it gets depleted..

rulemylife -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/26/2011 4:24:54 PM)
For being in favor of nuclear power you sure made a good argument against it. My problem with it is just what you said. We like to call it a clean energy source but it's far from that.

StrikesOut -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/26/2011 4:44:57 PM)
Unfortunately Housesub4you your "facts" are completely wrong. Firstly Nuclear Power in the U.S. is responsible for "0" deaths as opposed to the roughly 30 thousand of miners who lost their lives in coal mining since 1930. Secondly, the only limit of output or operations or indeed the building of new facilities is set by the NRC. Favors from the NRC cannot be bought, trust me I know this first hand. The power companies would love to build more. The cost per wattage is about .01 for nuclear as opposed to dollars for the fossil fuel production. Their (spelled their not there - possessive noun) profits would be substantially higher if they were allowed to build more plants. As for Wind, solar and geothermal production world wide it is estimated at approx. 1.5 %. It is not sustainable as a reliable and comprehensive energy source. By the way neither is fossil fuel nor nuclear. The last two rely on a finite amount of natural resource that will eventually run out. For Nuclear Energy if we used it exclusively it would run out in 80 years. The answer rests somewhere else. We need our best and smartest to work on the answer. For the short run, relying on a foreign commodity that can cripple our national security as well as our economy has to change and change now.

xBullx -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/26/2011 7:08:01 PM)
This stuff with Japan has got me paying attention. And frankly I live about 40 miles from a Nuke Plant. I hope Mr. Obama is putting the guys in the know to work fixing what could be a very bad deal for a great many of us.

xBullx -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/26/2011 7:09:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrikesOut Unfortunately Housesub4you your "facts" are completely wrong. Firstly Nuclear Power in the U.S. is responsible for "0" deaths as opposed to the roughly 30 thousand of miners who lost their lives in coal mining since 1930. Secondly, the only limit of output or operations or indeed the building of new facilities is set by the NRC. Favors from the NRC cannot be bought, trust me I know this first hand. The power companies would love to build more. The cost per wattage is about .01 for nuclear as opposed to dollars for the fossil fuel production. Their (spelled their not there - possessive noun) profits would be substantially higher if they were allowed to build more plants. As for Wind, solar and geothermal production world wide it is estimated at approx. 1.5 %. It is not sustainable as a reliable and comprehensive energy source. By the way neither is fossil fuel nor nuclear. The last two rely on a finite amount of natural resource that will eventually run out. For Nuclear Energy if we used it exclusively it would run out in 80 years. The answer rests somewhere else. We need our best and smartest to work on the answer. For the short run, relying on a foreign commodity that can cripple our national security as well as our economy has to change and change now. Good post. I'm not sure about the numbers but it is thought provoking.

Aylee -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/26/2011 7:16:20 PM)
I thought that I had read somewhere that the nuke plant in Japan is a "2nd generation" while the ones under construction in the US are "3rd generation". Which has an effect on safety and waste.

jlf1961 -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/26/2011 7:18:12 PM)
quote: How long will the supply of nuclear fuel last? The world supply of radioactive material will provide a source of energy well into the next century and beyond. Non-renewable energy resources quote: * Uranium is a relatively common metal, found in rocks and seawater. Economic concentrations of it are not uncommon. * Its availability to supply world energy needs is great both geologically and because of the technology for its use. * Quantities of mineral resources are greater than commonly perceived. * The world's known uranium resources increased 15% in two years to 2007 due to increased mineral exploration. Uranium is ubiquitous on the Earth. It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea. Supply of Uranium While uranium is not renewable, it is plentiful.

Edwynn -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/26/2011 11:56:07 PM)
Yes, let's send our best young minds to the task of ever greater acquisition. How to build bigger nuclear plants better, how to find more oil in harder to find places, how to build high output hydro or gas fueled power plants. Tally all that up and count those as subtracted from the efforts of qualified engineers put to the task of greater efficiency motors of all sorts, gas or electric, materials science to the efforts of lighter and/or cheaper bodies, chassis, and housings across thousands of products, better process engineering and design, better building design, engineering towards "self-sustaining" power-to-use designs, like a simple small solar panel to power a simple attic fan, or the larger scale Israeli piezo-electric road treads to power all the highway lights and illuminated signs. This concept reduces the need for immense fields of solar or wind plants. Efforts such as these would help reduce the need for the next new power plant at all, whatever form of generation. Sorry to throw that stick in front of the "need more power!" arguments. "I hate to inform you, but we have to take you away from that project that is to purpose of designing refrigerators to use 20% less power, because our estimations are that this community will need 20% more power in the next 5 years, so we need to put you at nuclear power plant design." Dog chases tail. Breed dogs with stronger legs and longer tail. That's the response here.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: How does the US proceed with nuclear power? (3/27/2011 12:29:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn Yes, let's send our best young minds to the task of ever greater acquisition. How to build bigger nuclear plants better, how to find more oil in harder to find places, how to build high output hydro or gas fueled power plants. Tally all that up and count those as subtracted from the efforts of qualified engineers put to the task of greater efficiency motors of all sorts, gas or electric, materials science to the efforts of lighter and/or cheaper bodies, chassis, and housings across thousands of products, better process engineering and design, better building design, engineering towards "self-sustaining" power-to-use designs, like a simple small solar panel to power a simple attic fan, or the larger scale Israeli piezo-electric road treads to power all the highway lights and illuminated signs. This concept reduces the need for immense fields of solar or wind plants. Efforts such as these would help reduce the need for the next new power plant at all, whatever form of generation. Sorry to throw that stick in front of the "need more power!" arguments. "I hate to inform you, but we have to take you away from that project that is to purpose of designing refrigerators to use 20% less power, because our estimations are that this community will need 20% more power in the next 5 years, so we need to put you at nuclear power plant design." Dog chases tail. Breed dogs with stronger legs and longer tail. That's the response here. I couldn't agree more. Excellent post. As an example, solar shingles are almost prohibitively expensive right now. The cost will drop as the demand increases. Right now there are shingles which provide around 17 watts per 84" x 5" exposed area. That's enough to run a compact fluorescent bulb. Superinsulating new 2x4 stick construction would reduce energy costs by up to 35% (there's a house near ATL that has done this; unfortunately the link is on my old computer). Solar can heat all the hot water needed for as house. Microwindmills can provide even more power. Earth-coupled heat pumps can provide all the heating and a/c without using fossil fuels. We have the technology to make housing self-sufficient in energy. We don't have the political will. And that is directly the fault of the Repubs. Stupid assholes. That dumb B-movie hack raygun is responsible. If he had continued Carter's lead, we wouldn't need the fucking ME. 9/11 wouldn't have happened. We'd have highspeed rail. We wouldn't be fucking broke. Motherfucking repubs.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125