OT: Build new U.S. Nuclear Power Plants? Y/N and why

[TimothyMoulder]

Ignore the greens - they are the embodiment of "you can't please everybody". As was pointed out earlier, you promise them a clean source of never-ending electricity and they scream that you're damming up all the rivers...

In fact, it is simple economics that will drive this. The Iraq war and terror concerns have shown us all how dependent we are on oil, and ironically enough, quashed the debate on Alaska drilling - there isn't enough oil there to help.

Peter is exactly right in his safety concerns - as long as profit is the motivator, everything else - maintenance, training, and safety - will take a back seat to production, no matter how much lip service is paid to the contrary. Socialized power, anyone?

Lastly, with all due respect to Chernyobl and the loss of life it incurred, 20 years have passed and still no superheroes?

TM

 

[ICTechs.com]

Good post Tim

Safey is everyones concern. The NRC does it job trust me. Is there room for improvement..you bet

 

[KevinO]

I'm not familiar with US Nuclear Power Plants but the Canadian Plants are expensive (CANDU Type) to build and maintain.

But they reduce our greenhouse emmissions

Only real problem is the spent fuel issue

I'm pro Nuclear as long as the High security and Safety standards are maintained.

P.S. If you work at the Nuclear plant in the E&I shop the wages are unreal here in New Brunswick close to 31/hr the shop rate.

 

[jimbo3123]

The newest reactors see here are designed to be intrinsically safe (incapable of a meltdown). This is the technology that China is deploying on a very large scale.

There are still the problems of waste disposal and fuel generation/distribution, but I personally think that nuclear will be necessary to produce the large amount of power that we will need for the intermediate future (50-200 years).

I think our demand for alternate (non fossil-fuel) energy will only incerase, especially as vehicles move to hydrogen, etc.

 

[ICTechs.com]

31/hr is the starting rate in I&C

pay rates vary, but are climbing. some are well over 40/hr

 

[Gerry M]

Most of you have pointed out one problem or another with Nuclear power. Many of them are valid points. I think that the U.S. has not put enough effort into solving those problems, so that Nuclear power becomes safer to use.

The newest reactors see here are designed to be intrinsically safe (incapable of a meltdown). This is the technology that China is deploying on a very large scale.

See, other countries have made progress in this area. The U.S. just gave up. I think that is where the U.S. has failed.


I just read an article about fusion in the IEEE SPectrum. They can now sustain a fusion reaction that produces zero power. They are now building a plant that is expected to actually generate power. I forgot who 'they' is. Looks like there is some hope for progress in another 10-20 years.

Getting off of one source of energy, mainly fossil fuels, should be a high priority in the U.S. Nuclear is one way to go for sure.

 

[glenncovington]

I came across this thread about a girl who snuck in to the Chernobyl site and took a lot of pictures. She explains it from her perspective. Just thought you may want to have a look and evaluate the 54 deaths estimate for yourself.

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter1.html

 

[MartB]

Thanks for the link Glenn Covington.

Amazing website - my donation is on it's way.
I'm completely gob smacked.
How easily we forget.
A very very humbling experience to see and read about the tradegy and the ignorance involved.

MartB

 

[Tom Jenkins]

The problems with nuclear power are political, not technical. The technical and economic problems can be solved if the political will is there to do so.

I think it is the only viable answer to long term energy needs. The US needs to learn to conserve, but that only gets us half way. I don't see bio-fuels as long term viable. (How do you replenish all that nitrogen corn takes out of the soil?)

Build nuclear, dissolve the waste in glass, bury it in salt mines.

 

[Leadfoot]

I am all for more Nuclear plants. BUT only if the Navy runs them. There are stringent controls and policies in place and NOBODY deviates from them.

I worked with a retired Chief that was a Nuke. He had the highest nuke papers you can get. When asked why he did not pursue working in a reactor plant, his comment was there were too many greedy types ready to compromise safety for profit.

The South Texas Nuclear Project is a good example. Brown and Root got kicked off the project for excessive shoddy work that left un-checked may have been our Chernobyl.



ICTechs.com, Hi neighbor.

 

[stasis]

The problems with nuclear power are political, not technical. The technical and economic problems can be solved if the political will is there to do so.

this could be said of any endeavor...However, we see the need as an immediate (or intermediate) solution to rising energy costs & crippling dependency on foreign oil. What of the long-term? Think not of the children, but of the great great grandchildren that are left with a legacy of spent fuel rods stuck, and possibly leaking, in the ground.

On the issue of safety, a chain is as strong as it's weakest link. Regardless of control process issues, there still has to be someone in control of the plant.

 

[TimWilborne]

but of the great great grandchildren that are left with a legacy of spent fuel rods

On thing to remember, refining techniques are much better than they were in the 60s. Many of these spent rods are being that are buried are being dug up are reprocessed to be reused in reactors again. Perhaps our children and grandchildren will do the same or find a use for them.

Of the subject but a good example is the element Tantalum(might be mispelling). It was a by product of tin and there was no apparent use for it so it was put in landfills for tin waste. It reacts with hardly any other chemicals including your body. It is now in high demand and very expensive. One major and growing market is the medical industry. They use in as surgical markers among other things in surgery. You body never knows its there so it will not reject it or react to it. Who knows what use they may find for spent fuel rods

 

[Pierre]

Piling a mountain of money to hide a problem is not typicaly American, it's every government easy solution. Only my American friend seem to have more of the stuff than any other countryman.

Evaluate the energy consumed by habitants and realise how much will be enough.

The only way to beat this escalation is through rewable energy sources.

It could be wind or solar or hydro but certainly not Nuclear or should I say Nucular?


Have you notice how seats are being redesign in restaurants. They are made wider.

Big asses! Simple, lets build bigger chairs.

 

[Peter Nachtwey]

Only my American friend seem to have more of the stuff than any other countryman.

I should have a tank, jet or helicopter named after me when I think of the taxes I pay. Why bother, the governement would probably let it sink in the mud next to all the trailers that were never used.

Have you notice how seats are being redesign in restaurants. They are made wider.

Big asses! Simple, lets build bigger chairs.

If only the airlines thought that way.

If I were to make an modification to people I would make them all half sized. We would consume and polute less and be cheaper to move around. It isn't like we are figthing for survival anymore by hunting buffalo with spears or fending off a pack of wolves anymore. It would be hard to reach the pedal though.