nuclear power plants why not?

[alice00141]

Germany just shut down seven of its nuclear power plants. This is astounding!

In my opinion, nuclear energy is the cleanest form of energy production available at this point in time. The output capabilities are astonishing. Nuclear plants are the lowest-cost producer of baseload electricity. The average production cost of 2.14 cents per kilowatt-hour includes the costs of operating and maintaining the plant, purchasing fuel and paying for the management of used fuel.

I'm wondering what everyone else's thoughts are concerning the viability of nuclear energy as an endless source of clean power.

Admittedly, the production of more nuclear power plants will necessarily be taxing in a post-global financial crisis atmosphere. However, as compared with fossil fuel based forms of energy production, nuclear energy is superior because it is cleaner and safer. The recent events in Japan are a testament to this point.

[streetluger06]

Germany just shut down seven of its nuclear power plants. This is astounding!

In my opinion, nuclear energy is the cleanest form of energy production available at this point in time. The output capabilities are astonishing. Nuclear plants are the lowest-cost producer of baseload electricity. The average production cost of 2.14 cents per kilowatt-hour includes the costs of operating and maintaining the plant, purchasing fuel and paying for the management of used fuel.

I'm wondering what everyone else's thoughts are concerning the viability of nuclear energy as an endless source of clean power.

Admittedly, the production of more nuclear power plants will necessarily be taxing in a post-global financial crisis atmosphere. However, as compared with fossil fuel based forms of energy production, nuclear energy is superior because it is cleaner and safer. The recent events in Japan are a testament to this point.

Nuclear waste has an extremely long half life which means we need to store it in a safe location. Currently the procedure is to store spent fuel at the site in a water cooled chamber where they are monitored. The problem is with failures like in japan, the fuel is still at the site and could be triggered into reacting again if the plant has a catastrophic failure and make the situation worse.

The U.S. has been working on an underground storage facility deep in a granite mountain to begin transporting our spent fuel to and begin storing it away from the reactors...but Obama has recently cut funding for that project and caused it to close down so our spent fuel is just as vulnerable as japans.

Aside from all that, there are many more ways to create power that is actually "clean" and doesn't emit radiation. Personally I don't consider nuclear power as clean at all since it creates nuclear waste that is much more dangerous than CO2. At least we know ways of removing excess CO2 from the atmosphere but we can't remove radiation or make radioactive fuel rods less reactive except for with time.

[Savvypro]

Germany just shut down seven of its nuclear power plants. This is astounding!

In my opinion, nuclear energy is the cleanest form of energy production available at this point in time. The output capabilities are astonishing. Nuclear plants are the lowest-cost producer of baseload electricity. The average production cost of 2.14 cents per kilowatt-hour includes the costs of operating and maintaining the plant, purchasing fuel and paying for the management of used fuel.

I'm wondering what everyone else's thoughts are concerning the viability of nuclear energy as an endless source of clean power.

Admittedly, the production of more nuclear power plants will necessarily be taxing in a post-global financial crisis atmosphere. However, as compared with fossil fuel based forms of energy production, nuclear energy is superior because it is cleaner and safer. The recent events in Japan are a testament to this point.

@alice00141

Your a shill.

However, as compared with fossil fuel based forms of energy production, nuclear energy is superior because it is cleaner and safer. The recent events in Japan are a testament to this point.

Bull sh*t - how does Fukushima = cleaner and safer or even prove it. When it's the worst nuclear disaster ever, in history and if that’s not long enough for you - try this -> . <-

A power plant with 40 years worth of spent fuel rods (totalling over 640,000) all stored on site in pools which have to be keeped cool. Let’s assume my memory is like a sieve - didn’t the cooling systems all fail.

Then you have the mox fuel reactor (I believe it was reactor 3) which released radioactive material. This alone puts Fukushima in it’s own category of: the incompetent, inept and corrupt nuclear industry assumed that nothing can go wrong, but reality proves then wrong.

Oh and isn't something similar happening in Nebraska. Involving a nuclear power plant (which also happens to be a spent fuel storage facility) and over flowing rivers, which will lead to flooding.

[StweenyA]

Bad for environment

Don't they dump nuclear waste in containers in the sea? Or is this just some conspi theory I heard, source anyone?

Also where I stay, there is a terrible problem with nuclear waste. It is impacting the environment in a very bad way.

In our area, it has been proved that the nuclear waste is leaking into the aquifers, (and also the dam, I believe) and some farmers who have been using water from the aquifers had their vegetables tested, and found traces of uranium in their vegetables.

On a nature program, they showed an area that had been fenced off because it was radioactive. There were radioactive signs on the fence.
Strangely enough, there was a guards hut inside this fenced area, along with an actual guard (human being). They were shocked to find this. When asking the guard if he knew what the radioactive signs meant, he pointed to his radio, and said it was because the guards were all using radio's

[blackchisel97]

Please check Fukushima thread. If this isn't enough to answer the question "why not" I don't know what may. It has been proven more than once that nuclear power isn't clean, environmentally friendly and it is only safe until something goes wrong. It is cheap in terms of profit vs investment just as human life appear to be cheap for those who build and benefit from technology which should never be employed in the first place.....

V

- "he pointed to his radio, and said it was because the guards were all using radio's"..... first sign of brain damage??

[GreenHornet]

@ alice:
1.Nuclear power plants produce tremendous energy supply with clean-air benefit, better than the new tech like solar energy, etc. - First of all, the tremendous energy supply is a fact indeed, so far you are right, well, clean air benefit is technically true as well, nuclear radiation when leaking is not contaminating the clean air, but all the particles in it, such as the physical environment. Congratulations for seeing the parallels of nuclear and solar energy production. Maybe, if you would start a conversation with somebody, who has profound knowledge about this topic, you would have to struggle with the fact that your approach is simply neglecting significant aspects rather then saying the untruth.
2.Nuclear power plants are the lowest-cost producers of busload electricity - Same point like above, rather then saying the untruth, you disregard future potentials. You should hold on for a moment, and ask yourself, do you only care about the status quo and the present point of view, or do you want to talk about long-term? From an empirical point of view, your presentation of the energy problem has, let's say, some potential to be improved, whereas the word some is rather relative. In case you consider long-term, what did economic science taught us about cost development, and how to reduce prices in the future? Maybe, you should read some books about the fundamentals of economy, and you might notice the inconsistency of your whole approach.

[Savvypro]

@ alice:
1.Nuclear power plants produce tremendous energy supply with clean-air benefit, better than the new tech like solar energy, etc. - First of all, the tremendous energy supply is a fact indeed, so far you are right, well, clean air benefit is technically true as well, nuclear radiation when leaking is not contaminating the clean air, but all the particles in it, such as the physical environment. Congratulations for seeing the parallels of nuclear and solar energy production. Maybe, if you would start a conversation with somebody, who has profound knowledge about this topic, you would have to struggle with the fact that your approach is simply neglecting significant aspects rather then saying the untruth.
2.Nuclear power plants are the lowest-cost producers of busload electricity - Same point like above, rather then saying the untruth, you disregard future potentials. You should hold on for a moment, and ask yourself, do you only care about the status quo and the present point of view, or do you want to talk about long-term? From an empirical point of view, your presentation of the energy problem has, let's say, some potential to be improved, whereas the word some is rather relative. In case you consider long-term, what did economic science taught us about cost development, and how to reduce prices in the future? Maybe, you should read some books about the fundamentals of economy, and you might notice the inconsistency of your whole approach.

Holy cow, it's the invasion of the shills.

Nuclear power as it stands is for one thing only: nuclear fuel production for nuclear weapons. If it was just for power generation then Thorium would have been the fuel of choice. It's cheaper and easier to process, and the spent fuel has shorter half lifes than uranium or plutonium.

[142857]

The waste wouldn't be a problem if profits were not the priority. It is managable. It's dangerous but it's manageable.

I've said it before too but I do believe the waste is a potential alternate energy as well......why wouldn't the waste storage facility not be some kind of big earth battery?

Nuclear energy is powerful and I think worthwhile. Just not so worthwhile for a so called civilized society like us who can't trust one another.

everybody can't have nuclear energy or somebody would blow somebody up. People can't be trusted. Heck, even if you can be trusted.

If I were emperor there would be one nuclear energy agency that builds and controlls all plants around the world.....it would be non-profit.....paying only salaries maintenence and defence. It should hold higher than the highest saftey standards and over-build everything . for everybody . paid for by everybody. nobody gets rich, everybody gets lights. And a good many steady jobs created.

Utopia.

[dR-Green]

it is only safe until something goes wrong.

A guillotine is safe until I drop the blade on my neck

[wizofid]

Well - since I live about 60 miles from one, I guess I will comment that even Einstein was a little surprised at mankind, using fission, to heat water. As he put it, it is overkill on the energy side, to just make steam with it.

[boguslaw]

Is the Sun Emitting a Mystery Particle? : Discovery News

Think how we can use something which we don't understand.

[Savvypro]

Is the Sun Emitting a Mystery Particle? : Discovery News

Think how we can use something which we don't understand.

What that article proves was that Tesla and Le Bon were on the right track about radiation.

[alice00141]

Nuclear waste has an extremely long half life which means we need to store it in a safe location. Currently the procedure is to store spent fuel at the site in a water cooled chamber where they are monitored. The problem is with failures like in japan, the fuel is still at the site and could be triggered into reacting again if the plant has a catastrophic failure and make the situation worse.

The U.S. has been working on an underground storage facility deep in a granite mountain to begin transporting our spent fuel to and begin storing it away from the reactors...but Obama has recently cut funding for that project and caused it to close down so our spent fuel is just as vulnerable as japans.

Aside from all that, there are many more ways to create power that is actually "clean" and doesn't emit radiation. Personally I don't consider nuclear power as clean at all since it creates nuclear waste that is much more dangerous than CO2. At least we know ways of removing excess CO2 from the atmosphere but we can't remove radiation or make radioactive fuel rods less reactive except for with time.

Let me state something about nuclear waste facts: The waste consists of the fission products. They are highly radioactive at first, but the most radioactive isotopes decay the fastest. (That's what being most radioactive amounts to). About one cubic meter of waste per year is generated by a power plant. After 10 years, the fission products are 1,000 times less radioactive, and after 500 years, the fission products will be less radioactive than the uranium ore they are originally derived from. The cubic meter estimate assumes reprocessing, unfortunately not being done in the U.S so far.
Moreover, nuclear power plants do not emit criteria pollutants or greenhouse gases when they generate electricity. Numerous studies demonstrate that nuclear energy’s life-cycle emissions are comparable to renewable forms of generation, such as wind and hydropower, and far less than those of coal- or natural gas-fired power plants. A major advantage of nuclear energy (and also of solar energy) is that it doesn't put carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. How much of an advantage depends on how bad the CO2 problem turns out to be.
One of the major requirements for sustaining human progress is an adequate source of energy. The current largest sources of energy are the combustion of coal, oil and natural gas. They will last quite a while but will probably run out or become harmful in tens to hundreds of years. Solar energy will also work but is not much developed yet except for special applications because of its high cost. This high cost as a main source, e.g. for central station electricity, is likely to continue, and nuclear energy is likely to remain cheaper.
These are the approximate costs to run different types of power stations:
Nuclear 1.72c/kWhr
Coal 2.47c/kWhr
Gas 6.78c/kWhr
Solar 15 c/kWhr

[alice00141]

@alice00141

Your a shill.



Bull sh*t - how does Fukushima = cleaner and safer or even prove it. When it's the worst nuclear disaster ever, in history and if that’s not long enough for you - try this -> . <-

A power plant with 40 years worth of spent fuel rods (totalling over 640,000) all stored on site in pools which have to be keeped cool. Let’s assume my memory is like a sieve - didn’t the cooling systems all fail.

Then you have the mox fuel reactor (I believe it was reactor 3) which released radioactive material. This alone puts Fukushima in it’s own category of: the incompetent, inept and corrupt nuclear industry assumed that nothing can go wrong, but reality proves then wrong.

Oh and isn't something similar happening in Nebraska. Involving a nuclear power plant (which also happens to be a spent fuel storage facility) and over flowing rivers, which will lead to flooding.

The life-cycle emissions of a nuclear plant (including construction, mining/production of fuel, plant operations, fuel storage and decommissioning) are on par with other clean energy supplies including hydro, wind and geothermal. In the U.S., every year, the average nuclear plant prevents the burning of 4 million tons of coal and the emission of 8 million tons of carbon dioxide and thousands of tons of pollutants that harm the environment. (The amount of used nuclear fuel a plant generates each year can fit in the back of a standard long-bed pickup truck.) Currently, nuclear energy produces 70 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. by sources that do not emit greenhouse gases. It is impossible for a Chernobyl or Japaneses type accident to happen at any U.S. nuclear plant.

[Altair]

My goodness ! Did you really have to start this thread ?

Nuclear is absolutely the most UNsafe way to generate electricity, besides the fact that it is extremely polluting thanks to its constant needs for heavy cooling, and the un-availability of safe storage places for spent fuel.
The initial cost of a nuclear reactor is also extremely high, and they get built mainly only for political reasons (stimulate the "economy").

A nuclear reactor can NEVER be made safe, as it constantly needs the following:

A constant supply of electricity for controlling the unit.
A constant supply of water for cooling purposes.
A constant supervision by qualified manpower.

Can anybody absolutely GUARANTEE that in the event of a cataclysm, the 3 conditions above will still be available ?
Nobody can.

And when the unthinkable happens, the reactor will immediately become a liability to the health of the entire planet.

Have you been planted here to start a war, with this ridiculous post ?