France seeks nuclear answer to climate change problem

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: irwincur
It is about time. This has been a part of the answer for decades, yet the environmentalists have been holding us back. Nuclear waste can be taken care of, and it is much less damaging than the soot and crap that coal produces. Sometimes I think that Three Mile Island was one of the worst things that could have happened to the environment.

Not the leak, but the damage it cause in the minds of the average person.

Without 3 Mile Island and the strict regualtions that resulted in that catastrophe Nuclear Power Plants wouldn't be as safe as they are today.

TMI also killed all prospects for new construction. Now the power companies are running increasingly older plants beyond their lifetimes by recertification.

Much safer, less complicated, reactor designs exist but are likely never to be built in the US do to the stigma of TMI and environmental opposition.

and I wonder, if the US would have taken part in the Kyoto protocol and all they would have done is replace aging coal and oil plants with nuclear ones, would that have been enough?

Since around 65% of our power is generated from coal, it certainly would have put a dent in it. IIRC, very few oil plants operate in the US due the fuel expense and our vast reserves of relatively cheap coal.

Edit: After looking around a bit I guess it is closer to 50% for coal these days.

Switching to nuclear power would make a large dent in co2 emissions, however we have a problem with environuts in this country. These environuts are looking only for a perfect, not a just better solution than we have now.

1. Build more hydro power, they complain that it will upset the breeding grounds of fish.
2. build more wind power(rapidly becoming economical), it kills birds.
3. Build nuclear plants, they complain of the waste(Even though it can be effectivly recycled, greatly reducing the problem).

I dont know what solution they are after, but a perfect solution does not exist today. However nuclear power with waste recycling is a very good option.

Alsothe US is spending a few billion on clean coal technology,including carbon sequestering and developing hydrogen technology(will likely need nuclear power to be possible),

To say we are doing nothing on the subject of c02 emissions would be just false.

Don't forget about evormentalist complaining about waste heat upsetting fish and causing alge bloomes.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: magomago
the only difference is i don't want next to my house

That sentiment is exactly what has killed the expansion of nuclear power in the immediate future for the US.

I'd be fine with living right next to one.
Heck, if it blows up, I'll be dead before I know it, a quick painful death, what more can you ask for? 😛

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: magomago
the only difference is i don't want next to my house

That sentiment is exactly what has killed the expansion of nuclear power in the immediate future for the US.

I'd be fine with living right next to one.
Heck, if it blows up, I'll be dead before I know it, a quick painful death, what more can you ask for? 😛

yeah, but nuclear plants dont blow up 😛

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Nuclear power has obvious 'dangers' but new technology can make sure the worst-case scenario is considerably less dangerous than a 'chernobyl'.

It's definitely a necessary part of the energy equation for the forseeable future.

chernobylshould have never happened. The plant operators were running it out of spec to see what the "real" safety limits were(or something to this effect). Unfortunatly they found out.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: rahvin
FWIW President Carter banned the construction of breeder reactors in the US and the ban has never been lifted.

Figures.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: magomago
the only difference is i don't want next to my house

That sentiment is exactly what has killed the expansion of nuclear power in the immediate future for the US.

I'd be fine with living right next to one.
Heck, if it blows up, I'll be dead before I know it, a quick painful death, what more can you ask for? 😛

yeah, but nuclear plants dont blow up 😛

Quiet you!

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Sunner
Heck, if it blows up, I'll be dead before I know it, a quick painful death, what more can you ask for? 😛

Ummmm, the building next to you not cooking your body?

Originally posted by: Genx87
Advances in design means they are very safe and shouldnt melt down like a Chernobyl

Sure, Just like the "invisible" stealth bombers getting shot down, WMD that they say they know where they are exactly and never appearing, heck they don't even check container ships coming into our ports and you trust them lol! Of course ignoring the fact that cherynobyl and 3 mile island DID happen even though there were extensive precautions they told the local residents. Suuuure.
Go ahead and blindly trust the bungling fools who tell you you are safe, they will profit off your ass whether your dead or alive.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Sunner
Heck, if it blows up, I'll be dead before I know it, a quick painful death, what more can you ask for? 😛

Ummmm, the building next to you not cooking your body?

Originally posted by: Genx87
Advances in design means they are very safe and shouldnt melt down like a Chernobyl

Sure, Just like the "invisible" stealth bombers getting shot down, WMD that they say they know where they are exactly and never appearing, heck they don't even check container ships coming into our ports and you trust them lol! Of course ignoring the fact that cherynobyl and 3 mile island DID happen even though there were extensive precautions they told the local residents. Suuuure.
Go ahead and blindly trust the bungling fools who tell you you are safe, they will profit off your ass whether your dead or alive.

3mile island was properly contained.
chernobly ahppened because the plant was run outside of normal operating parametere. THis accident should not have happened.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Sunner
Heck, if it blows up, I'll be dead before I know it, a quick painful death, what more can you ask for? 😛

Ummmm, the building next to you not cooking your body?

Originally posted by: Genx87
Advances in design means they are very safe and shouldnt melt down like a Chernobyl

Sure, Just like the "invisible" stealth bombers getting shot down, WMD that they say they know where they are exactly and never appearing, heck they don't even check container ships coming into our ports and you trust them lol! Of course ignoring the fact that cherynobyl and 3 mile island DID happen even though there were extensive precautions they told the local residents. Suuuure.
Go ahead and blindly trust the bungling fools who tell you you are safe, they will profit off your ass whether your dead or alive.

What happened at Chernobyl wasn't really a meltdown and can't happen to US reactor designs. It was a result of gross operator error, their lack of education about the reactor design they were operating, and the complete absence of a containment structure that would have kept the core from being blown into the atmosphere. The accident at TMI was contained even though the reactor unit itself was wrecked.

Many other countries are have continued ahead with nuclear power and it is only becoming safer.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Sunner
Heck, if it blows up, I'll be dead before I know it, a quick painful death, what more can you ask for? 😛

Ummmm, the building next to you not cooking your body?

Originally posted by: Genx87
Advances in design means they are very safe and shouldnt melt down like a Chernobyl

Sure, Just like the "invisible" stealth bombers getting shot down, WMD that they say they know where they are exactly and never appearing, heck they don't even check container ships coming into our ports and you trust them lol! Of course ignoring the fact that cherynobyl and 3 mile island DID happen even though there were extensive precautions they told the local residents. Suuuure.
Go ahead and blindly trust the bungling fools who tell you you are safe, they will profit off your ass whether your dead or alive.

3mile island was properly contained.
chernobly ahppened because the plant was run outside of normal operating parametere. THis accident should not have happened.

Weren't quite a few alarms and such triggered as well, but ignored/unnoticed and whatever?
I don't remember off hand, but I remember reading about more than just a little human error occuring there.

And yes, Steeplerot, I would feel perfectly comfortable living close to a Swedish nuclear plant.
I don't know about the US ones, but I'm assuming they're just as safe, in which case I'd have no trouble living near them either.

A Ukranian one on the other hand...

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Sunner
Heck, if it blows up, I'll be dead before I know it, a quick painful death, what more can you ask for? 😛

Ummmm, the building next to you not cooking your body?

Originally posted by: Genx87
Advances in design means they are very safe and shouldnt melt down like a Chernobyl

Sure, Just like the "invisible" stealth bombers getting shot down, WMD that they say they know where they are exactly and never appearing, heck they don't even check container ships coming into our ports and you trust them lol! Of course ignoring the fact that cherynobyl and 3 mile island DID happen even though there were extensive precautions they told the local residents. Suuuure.
Go ahead and blindly trust the bungling fools who tell you you are safe, they will profit off your ass whether your dead or alive.

3mile island was properly contained.
chernobly ahppened because the plant was run outside of normal operating parametere. THis accident should not have happened.

Weren't quite a few alarms and such triggered as well, but ignored/unnoticed and whatever?
I don't remember off hand, but I remember reading about more than just a little human error occuring there.

And yes, Steeplerot, I would feel perfectly comfortable living close to a Swedish nuclear plant.
I don't know about the US ones, but I'm assuming they're just as safe, in which case I'd have no trouble living near them either.

A Ukranian one on the other hand...

TMI was caused by a valve problem, some instrumentation failure, and operator error IIRC.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Sunner
Weren't quite a few alarms and such triggered as well, but ignored/unnoticed and whatever?
I don't remember off hand, but I remember reading about more than just a little human error occuring there.

And yes, Steeplerot, I would feel perfectly comfortable living close to a Swedish nuclear plant.
I don't know about the US ones, but I'm assuming they're just as safe, in which case I'd have no trouble living near them either.

A Ukranian one on the other hand...

TMI was caused by a valve problem, some instrumentation failure, and operator error IIRC.

Maybe I should have specified I was thinking about Chernobyl, too young to remember 🙂

 

[dahunan]

Over the years 70 of the tanks have leaked about one million gallons of waste into the soil. At least some of the leaked tank waste has reached the groundwater, which eventually flows into the river.

http://www.hanfordwatch.org/introduction.htm

 

[dahunan]

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: charrison

Switching to nuclear power would make a large dent in co2 emissions, however we have a problem with environuts in this country. These environuts are looking only for a perfect, not a just better solution than we have now.

1. Build more hydro power, they complain that it will upset the breeding grounds of fish.
2. build more wind power(rapidly becoming economical), it kills birds.
3. Build nuclear plants, they complain of the waste(Even though it can be effectivly recycled, greatly reducing the problem).

I dont know what solution they are after, but a perfect solution does not exist today. However nuclear power with waste recycling is a very good option.

Alsothe US is spending a few billion on clean coal technology,including carbon sequestering and developing hydrogen technology(will likely need nuclear power to be possible),

To say we are doing nothing on the subject of c02 emissions would be just false.

1. not overly concerned with this
2. fvck the birds - they'll learn not to fly into these things
3. is it 100% recycled or is there some waste from that processing as well. there must be something along the way....

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: charrison

Switching to nuclear power would make a large dent in co2 emissions, however we have a problem with environuts in this country. These environuts are looking only for a perfect, not a just better solution than we have now.

1. Build more hydro power, they complain that it will upset the breeding grounds of fish.
2. build more wind power(rapidly becoming economical), it kills birds.
3. Build nuclear plants, they complain of the waste(Even though it can be effectivly recycled, greatly reducing the problem).

I dont know what solution they are after, but a perfect solution does not exist today. However nuclear power with waste recycling is a very good option.

Alsothe US is spending a few billion on clean coal technology,including carbon sequestering and developing hydrogen technology(will likely need nuclear power to be possible),

To say we are doing nothing on the subject of c02 emissions would be just false.

1. not overly concerned with this
2. fvck the birds - they'll learn not to fly into these things
3. is it 100% recycled or is there some waste from that processing as well. there must be something along the way....

Yes there is still waste from recycling nuclear waste, however there is much less of it than when you started.