nuclear power plants why not?

[alice00141]

@ 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.

Here are some evidence about what economics benefits that the nuclear power plant will bring to us:

The average nuclear plant generates federal tax payments of roughly $75 million each year. Calculates to $288.0B paid over 60 years from 64,000 MW.
The average nuclear plant generates total state and local tax revenue of almost $20 million each year. Calculates to $76.8B paid over 60 years from 64,000 MW.
Each year, the average nuclear plant generates approximately $430 million in sales of goods and services (economic output) in the local community and nearly $40 million in total labor income. These figures include both direct and
secondary effects. The direct effects reflect the plant’s expenditures for goods, services and labor. The secondary effects include subsequent spending attributable to the presence of the plant and its employees, as plant
expenditures filter through the local economy (such as restaurants and shops buying goods and hiring employees).
Total labor income calculates to $153.6B paid over 60 years from 64,000. Economic value calculates to $1.65T paid over 60 years from 64,000 MW.
The 400 to 700 permanent jobs at a nuclear plant create an equivalent number of additional jobs in the local area to provide the goods and services necessary to support the nuclear plant work force. To get direct and indirect jobs created: 700*2*64.0 = 89,600 jobs. According to NEI’s economic benefits reports, the creation of one direct job at a nuclear plant also creates one indirect job outside the nuclear plant.
Building a 1,000 MW nuclear plant would result in the creation of 1,400 to 1,800 jobs during construction, on average (with peak employment as high as 2,400 jobs at certain times). 2,400*64.0 = 153,600 jobs
64,000 MW would generate 504.6 bkWh each year: 64,000*8,760 (number of hours in a year)*90% capacity
factor.

Besides all that, nuclear power plant produce more energy than any other renewable energy such as wind, solar energy.

Another benefits of nuclear power is that it is an extremely reliable source of power because most nuclear reactors have a life cycle of 40 years which can be easily extended further for 20 more years.

[Farmhand]

Here are some evidence about what economics benefits that the nuclear power plant will bring to us:

The average nuclear plant generates federal tax payments of roughly $75 million each year. Calculates to $288.0B paid over 60 years from 64,000 MW.
The average nuclear plant generates total state and local tax revenue of almost $20 million each year. Calculates to $76.8B paid over 60 years from 64,000 MW.
Each year, the average nuclear plant generates approximately $430 million in sales of goods and services (economic output) in the local community and nearly $40 million in total labor income. These figures include both direct and
secondary effects. The direct effects reflect the plant’s expenditures for goods, services and labor. The secondary effects include subsequent spending attributable to the presence of the plant and its employees, as plant
expenditures filter through the local economy (such as restaurants and shops buying goods and hiring employees).
Total labor income calculates to $153.6B paid over 60 years from 64,000. Economic value calculates to $1.65T paid over 60 years from 64,000 MW.
The 400 to 700 permanent jobs at a nuclear plant create an equivalent number of additional jobs in the local area to provide the goods and services necessary to support the nuclear plant work force. To get direct and indirect jobs created: 700*2*64.0 = 89,600 jobs. According to NEI’s economic benefits reports, the creation of one direct job at a nuclear plant also creates one indirect job outside the nuclear plant.
Building a 1,000 MW nuclear plant would result in the creation of 1,400 to 1,800 jobs during construction, on average (with peak employment as high as 2,400 jobs at certain times). 2,400*64.0 = 153,600 jobs
64,000 MW would generate 504.6 bkWh each year: 64,000*8,760 (number of hours in a year)*90% capacity
factor.

Besides all that, nuclear power plant produce more energy than any other renewable energy such as wind, solar energy.

Another benefits of nuclear power is that it is an extremely reliable source of power because most nuclear reactors have a life cycle of 40 years which can be easily extended further for 20 more years.

All this money that is generated by nuclear power plants. Where does it come from ? The people, it comes from the people buying the power.

It seems with you it is all about the money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money. You are talking voodoo economics. And you sound like a politician. For you progress is nothing more than making more money.

Go eat some Fukishima rice and wash it down with some Fukishima milk then go for a swim in the sea at the Fukishima site, then setup camp at the Fukishima reactor number three site and stay there for about 2 months, then come back here and tell us all about you're excelent adventure and take you're family with you too.

Because unless you can do that nuclear power generation is not safe, which it isn't. Get you're face out of the money trough it is making you sick.

[blackchisel97]

Here are some evidence about what economics benefits that the nuclear power plant will bring to us:

The average nuclear plant generates federal tax payments of roughly $75 million each year. Calculates to $288.0B paid over 60 years from 64,000 MW.
The average nuclear plant generates total state and local tax revenue of almost $20 million each year. Calculates to $76.8B paid over 60 years from 64,000 MW.
Each year, the average nuclear plant generates approximately $430 million in sales of goods and services (economic output) in the local community and nearly $40 million in total labor income. These figures include both direct and
secondary effects. The direct effects reflect the plant’s expenditures for goods, services and labor. The secondary effects include subsequent spending attributable to the presence of the plant and its employees, as plant
expenditures filter through the local economy (such as restaurants and shops buying goods and hiring employees).
Total labor income calculates to $153.6B paid over 60 years from 64,000. Economic value calculates to $1.65T paid over 60 years from 64,000 MW.
The 400 to 700 permanent jobs at a nuclear plant create an equivalent number of additional jobs in the local area to provide the goods and services necessary to support the nuclear plant work force. To get direct and indirect jobs created: 700*2*64.0 = 89,600 jobs. According to NEI’s economic benefits reports, the creation of one direct job at a nuclear plant also creates one indirect job outside the nuclear plant.
Building a 1,000 MW nuclear plant would result in the creation of 1,400 to 1,800 jobs during construction, on average (with peak employment as high as 2,400 jobs at certain times). 2,400*64.0 = 153,600 jobs
64,000 MW would generate 504.6 bkWh each year: 64,000*8,760 (number of hours in a year)*90% capacity
factor.

Besides all that, nuclear power plant produce more energy than any other renewable energy such as wind, solar energy. There are other sources which will become available and make all above laughable.....soon.

Another benefits of nuclear power is that it is an extremely reliable source of power because most nuclear reactors have a life cycle of 40 years which can be easily extended further for 20 more years.

Yes, they were just about to extend the one in Fukushima....Ooups. What about half life cycle of plutonium? Any thoughts

When something goes wrong, the consequences are unmeasurable it terms of human life and environmental damage which seems to be negligible, perhaps?
All I see in above statement are numbers which are correct but they're just numbers. WE are not numbers, WE are natural beings merely considered when the site of future nuclear plant has to be chosen. When something goes wrong environmental impact is so great that computer fails to predict total outcome and we know that things can get out of control. This happened before and it is happening now.
Corporations and shareholders are out of money. Human suffering and damage done to our planet is priceless.
Are you familiar with details of Chernobyl? Are you aware that it was too close (for my comfort, living only couple hundred miles from it) to become catastrophe of unimaginable scale. Most of Europe was about to become uninhabitable for very long time. There is radiation in soil still present and above normal in very large radius from Chernobyl plant. People still develop cancer and die as a direct result. Nothing in the media? There was nothing in the media for 24hrs following explosion. Our dosimeters were collected for recalibration and not returned until government made an official announcement. Every time when something goes wrong it is covered up, distorted, data manipulated. We were being lied about in past and nothing has changed. Most nuclear plants were built in areas not suitable for such because of potential risk from natural and man made sources. Idiocy or lack of imagination?
You did your homework well but this propaganda will not sprout or bear any fruits here and I doubt my voice will be the only one against nuclear energy in hands of irresponsible, greedy psychopaths.

V

[Matthew Jones]

The facts are not portrayed in the public information given on finances around the nuclear industry.
All Nuclear energy is subsidized by government. In fact in the United States its about 60% of the total money spent in Nuclear energy is subsidized by Government.
In the entire history of nuclear energy it has never turned a profit, that was not based on subsidizes. Wall Street Does not invest or sale stock for any company that utilize Nuclear power. This why almost all power companies have both a Non Nuclear and Nuclear Division in the company.
Lloyd's of London will not Insure a Nuclear facility.
Banks will not invest in the construction of a Nuclear facility.
Ect, ect, ect.........

If you think this is the way of the Future, YOU HAVE NOT DONE YOUR HOMEWORK. If the BIG MONEY won't invest there is no future for it. It is NOT profitable, period.

Sickened by this thread.
Matt

[yeron]

Clean ?
I think not and absolutely dangerous
I have been driving through a village called Gorleben Germany.
There is a storrage facility witch is called the Kartoffelscheune .
Not for nothing it means potato shed!
Above ground there is only a passive cooling system .
Meaning open air ventilation.
No water basins!
They spend (1979-2000) over 1.500.000.000 Euro !!!!! on research if it was a suitable solution storing the waste under ground in a salt layer .
The outcome is that they can not so the waste stays in the potato shed.
Even if it was possible it would take an other 1.500.000.000 euro to do so.
Cheap clean nuclear energy isnt it?

Team TTT
Nuclear Baden in Gorleben

And why is it that i get a strange salty taste in my mouth when i am within a radius of 10 kilometres around the facility ????

[Savvypro]

It is impossible for a Chernobyl or Japaneses type accident to happen at any U.S. nuclear plant.

Oh really, the Fukushima Daiichi plant was based on a General Electric design, which is prevalent in American nuke plants. The spent fuel rods are stored on site either above the core or at ground levels in pools. So much time and effort is spent on the core but the storage of the spent fuel rods are just an after thought.

[wizofid]

Fuki plant

was a 1962 or 63 design. Go look at a 62 chevy- Ford, Dodge and ask yourself, if they have changed much in 50 years?

Cheers!

[boguslaw]

MicroFukushima

TerraPower: How The Traveling Wave Nuclear Reactor Works — Cleantech News and Analysis

[Bizzy]

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.

Switzerland has also commited to shutting down thier nuke plants, see my earlier thread...
When I studied in W. Germany almost 30 years ago they were very eager to stop the nuke plants but the alternative energy was not there. So now that solar and wind are better developed and more widely accepted it was actually a no brainer for thier politicians after the Fukushima accident. Look for windmills in the sea and moutains as well as solar panels above every beer garden and hostel in the country.

"In München steht ein Sonnenkollektor, eins, zwo Szufa..."


Bizzy

[Armagdn03]

Is the Sun Emitting a Mystery Particle? : Discovery News

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

Wow, read this article, has huge implications, and then when I think the scientific community finally deserves some credibility, they attribute the changes to Neutrinos???? Wow.

[sebosfato]

This girl can be a uranium producer daughter... or maybe a economist. She is asking

Maybe a physicist like me, with all that data...

well i say this cause in the university you "learn" how "cool" is nuclear energy

so i say yes atomic (mass) energy is very nice, however the way it is used today is the most stupid way it could ever be imagined.

instead of directly generating electricity, it vaporizes water to run a generator... very ineficient and dangerous as was pointed out... it is not controlable, not even inteligent... it contaminate our supply of water and air there are plenty of oxygen and nitrogen atoms that absorbs neutrons liberated becoming isotopes that you breathes, the water contamined is mainly salt water where lives the fishes that you eat and so on

There are plenty of other ways to use safe mass energy but these are not published because of the nuclear combustible and energy lobby...

stanley meyer knew it and there is some other people who knew it too.

The dangerous come from the stupidity of the mankind that only see the money and not the rest...

The main problem is the bourgeoisie

Do we really need any of this progress?

Now i invite you to think about!

What do we really need?

What you need is to have fun with your friends and have a soft life/

love and piece \\

not to give someone the power to drop a nuclear bomb over you


For example there are ways to use the nuclear waste to directly generate electricity without water vaporizing cycle!!! It's well known but is not of economical interest for those who extract and enrich the uranium

The info you receive is partial
again is all about economical interest
there is no real science this days
is all about money and monkeys controling them

this monkeys controling the world with those big nice smilles in their faces

did you understood babe?

sebs

[Allcanadian]

@alice00141
I think you are being overly optimitic here, first the nuclear "fuel" is a finite resource which means it will run out just like oil and gas because these materials do not just grow on tree's. Right now there is heavy investment in uranium mines because the people with anything resembling foresight know the cost of this finite resource is going to skyrocket soon thus the real non-subsidized price advantage will evaporate into thin air leaving us with a big mess someone will have to clean up-- I wonder who that would be?

Next we have the issue concerning storage, disposal and security. Does it sound reasonable that any supposedly responsible adult would create a waste product that they cannot contain or safely store for extended periods or secure without incurring large costs? This is the same kind of stupidity we see with the garbage/landfill problem where not unlike little children the people responsible seem to think we can just continue to bury our problems and they will just magically go away. I think it's time people grow up and start facing reality instead of this non-sensical wishfull thinking that everything will be fine and just take care of itself in time.

Here are the things we know---
We are not perfect and nothing we build will ever be perfect, accidents will happen in the future due to unforseen events inflicting pain and suffering on others due to our actions. Consider the fact that the chance of dying in a plane crash is similar to winning the lottery however every week "someone" wins the lottery somewhere. The difference is "who" wins or rather who will die, so weak minded people find some risks acceptable because they believe they will never be effected, they are immortal --- until they are effected. At this point which usually involves fear, screaming and hysteria the risks now become completely unacceptable. I find this very odd that some people have no problem with many others assuming risk so they may benefit but will not accept this same risk themselves in any way.

I think we should make every person and their families who believe nuclear energy is perfectly safe live right next door to these nuclear facilities then we will see how damn smart they think they are. We could build them houses and playgrounds for their kids right on top of the nuclear storage facilities if what they say is true, lol, and we could start with you . But that's not acceptable is it? So why would you believe it would be for someone else?
Regards
AC

[mbrownn]

It warms my heart to read this thread.

Not only have people begun to wake up to the dangers of nuclear power but to its consequences too. Since its inception no one has had any idea what to do with its byproducts, at first the dumped it into the sea, then they buried it, then stock piled it. Now it is for me to tell you what the preferred method for disposal is today, Depleted Uranium munitions.

The dirtiest and most dangerous pollution that the world has ever seen is used as a weapon against the masses. You may wish to understand that once a depleted uranium round has been fired a significant part of it is burned and another part is broken into dust which again goes airborne. As you have seen from Fukushima, airborne particulates and gasses go global. Maybe you will begin to realize that the true target of the war mongers is not just people of brown skin and Arabs, It is you.

Yes that is right, there is no, and never has been, any political will to deal with the problem of nuclear byproducts. The people that rule most of this planet have no morals or empathy and are driven by greed and power. They have used whatever miens is available to move their agenda forward. They are the ones that paid off governments to allow and subsidize nuclear power when they knew full well that it could destroy the planet.

Connecting the dots. It has reached the point where the debate on nuclear has been clearly won by the people that oppose it. Now is the time where the powers that be are imposing their will by force. They own the banks and are they imposing their will on us, Yes for sure and they are steeling your pensions too. They own the corporations that are poisoning the world and set up a green movement to attack one of the life giving gasses of the planet. The instigator of this thread is probably a good person but has bought into all this false green crap, I challenge you to do the research.

You may ask why would they do this when they will be poisoned too? well go ahead they won't answer that one. Just because we don't have all the answers does not mean we should continue down their path that they have planned for us. We can see the dangers, we can see the consequences and from that we can extrapolate what is the end goal, Mass depopulation. If you read their books, documents and papers the whole thing is in there.

Wake up and stand up to be counted. You can start your research on any topic you like and when you get to the philanthropist (Oligarch) that funded it you will have found one of the controllers. you can do this with almost any subject and you will find that there is only a small group behind everything going on in the world today.

[sucahyo]

Using nuclear would mean we have to rely on operator reliability dealing with nuclear. It is only clean while the greed do not take over. And we know that human is not perfect.

One fukushima already enough to create radiation fallout problem to earth. People don't get smarter each time accident happen. I now hear US Nebraska nuke has problem too.

[Savvypro]

Heres a doozy:

Revealed: British government's plan to play down Fukushima

Internal emails seen by Guardian show PR campaign was launched to protect UK nuclear plans after tsunami in Japan

British government officials approached nuclear companies to draw up a co-ordinated public relations strategy to play down the Fukushima nuclear accident just two days after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan and before the extent of the radiation leak was known.

Internal emails seen by the Guardian show how the business and energy departments worked closely behind the scenes with the multinational companies EDF Energy, Areva and Westinghouse to try to ensure the accident did not derail their plans for a new generation of nuclear stations in the UK.

"This has the potential to set the nuclear industry back globally," wrote one official at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), whose name has been redacted. "We need to ensure the anti-nuclear chaps and chapesses do not gain ground on this. We need to occupy the territory and hold it. We really need to show the safety of nuclear."

Officials stressed the importance of preventing the incident from undermining public support for nuclear power.

The Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith, who sits on the Commons environmental audit committee, condemned the extent of co-ordination between the government and nuclear companies that the emails appear to reveal.

"The government has no business doing PR for the industry and it would be appalling if its departments have played down the impact of Fukushima," he said.

Louise Hutchins, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace, said the emails looked like "scandalous collusion". "This highlights the government's blind obsession with nuclear power and shows neither they, nor the industry, can be trusted when it comes to nuclear," she said.

Full article here: Revealed: British government's plan to play down Fukushima | Environment | The Guardian