Sandy Showed Nuke Plants' Vulnerability

[Steeplerot]

lol

We've already had bankrupt solar companies disappear with taxpayer dollars. And you call nuclear a taxpayer subsidized gravy train? At least we get electricity out of it.

What renewable stuff are you referring to using as the baseline power station? No, solar and wind won't cut it. Not at their current output. And where would you propose getting all this money to do this stuff? Oh, the taxpayers, again. And in the end we'd be paying even more in electricity rates than we are now.

We may have an old power grid but at least the majority of the USA doesn't pay an arm and a leg for electricity quite yet. Last I checked Europe's energy costs are far greater than ours. I'm thankful that we don't have those costs, yet some people are hell bent on making us more like Europe like it is some grand thing... NO THANK YOU.

Japan turned off their plants and they are getting along fine building new sources. Germany is already breaking records.

Like I said, 20th century cold war mindset dragging us down.

Nuke power does not/never did provide cheaper electric anyhow, especially when you factor in decommissioning and the inevitable cleanup sooner or later when plants go.

It's only a matter of time before we lose one here. And both of us know it.


Just a few examples in the past quarter century:


2011 Fukushima 5 Japan Reactor shutdown after the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami; failure of emergency cooling caused an explosion
2011 Onagawa Japan Reactor shutdown after the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami caused a fire
2006 Fleurus 4 Belgium Severe health effects for a worker at a commercial irradiation facility as a result of high doses of radiation
2006 Forsmark 2 Sweden Degraded safety functions for common cause failure in the emergency power supply system at nuclear power plant
2006 Erwin US Thirty-five litres of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer
2005 Sellafield 3 UK Release of large quantity of radioactive material, contained within the installation
2005 Atucha 2 Argentina Overexposure of a worker at a power reactor exceeding the annual limit
2005 Braidwood US Nuclear material leak
2003 Paks 3 Hungary Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets
1999 Tokaimura 4 Japan Fatal overexposures of workers following a criticality event at a nuclear facility
1999 Yanangio 3 Peru Incident with radiography source resulting in severe radiation burns
1999 Ikitelli 3 Turkey Loss of a highly radioactive Co-60 source
1999 Ishikawa 2 Japan Control rod malfunction
1993 Tomsk 4 Russia Pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure

 

[Acanthus]

Renewable, like the rest of the civilized world is moving to. Amazing huh?

If you would like the full details and layout of the new decentralized energy grid and distribution sorry comrade. This is classified due to the sensitive nature of "i am not the freaking Energy Department nor is it relevant to the realities of the nuclear situation being discussed"

And...now we have the main distraction when nukies run out of ideas.

If Obama would like to hand me the reigns of the US's energy policy and resources available, sure lets do this. I dont see it happening though for some odd reason.

But to be on the safe side to make you feel better, if for some reason Big O is reading this shoot me a PM. We will hook this shit up.

Besides, Obama owes us commies a favor after that whole cloning him with Kenyan Socialist Pharoh DNA/implanting him into the USA thing.

Sucks cuz he stopped paying his "one big world union" dues. No respect.

You did not answer the question.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Japan turned off their plants and they are getting along fine building new sources. Germany is already breaking records.

Like I said, 20th century cold war mindset dragging us down.

Sometimes, 20th century stuff is better. Cheaper at least. I don't fancy installing a buttload of solar panels at taxpayer expense, to then charge everyone 2x as much for their electricity.

What about France? They're part of your wonderful perfect Europe, and most of their power is from nuclear. And that has nothing to do with cold war either.

Also, see my edit regarding hydro.

Again, I think you've got an extreme and irrational fear of nuclear. Should it be a concern? Yes. There should always be a little concern for stuff like that. But to write it off entirely is ridiculous. We don't have tsunamis in the atlantic like they have in the pacific, yes this hurricane threw a crapload of water and wind at the plants but it didn't have the quake to go along with it, and guess what? The plants are fine. This kind of storm doesn't happen often anyway. They should use this one to look at what might have been an issue, address that, perform some upgrades, etc, and keep going. Next stupid storm we get we'd be in even better shape then, although by the time we get that once in a 100 years storm we'd be on fusion or thorium or something more awesome by then anyway. Yes, maybe even some perfected form of solar.

 

[Steeplerot]

Again, I think you've got an extreme and irrational fear of nuclear.

No, but this is what makes you feel better about your biased and rather careless public view of something that is a serious matter when you don't hear the easy/canned answers. Says a lot about your character/lack of vision really.

 

[SparkyJJO]

No, but this is what makes you feel better about your biased and rather careless public view of something that is a serious matter when you don't hear the easy/canned answers. Says a lot about your character/lack of vision really.

I know you are feeding your family, but this goes beyond one persons livelihood by nature of the beast.

Listen. My brother was a nuclear engineer and operator on a naval aircraft carrier. I'll bet he knows a heck of a lot more about those things than you. Now he lives not too far from a nuclear plant and it doesn't bother him at all. I'd rather formulate my opinions and standing on nuclear based off info from someone who knows the stuff and has actually worked on it rather than someone like yourself.

And I hope by calling me "biased, careless, and lacking character" that you aren't suggesting you aren't biased. Doesn't surprise me that you decided to drag all that into it however, trying to make someone look bad like that is pretty typical of you. You never help your position when you attack someone's character instead of the argument you know.

 

[Steeplerot]

You did not answer the question.

Because you asked me a nonsense question. I am not laying out a 1000 page energy plan for america on P&N because nuclear is unsafe, not that you biased ones would read it anyhow. So go away or stick to the subject matter.

Care to lay out your plan for genetically enhanced eternal life in a thread about medicare for us next time you whine about corruption?

Thinly veiled dishonesty and distraction.

 

[Steeplerot]

And I hope by calling me "biased, careless, and lacking character" that you aren't suggesting you aren't biased.

I already stated I have no problem with responsibly scaled reactors. My "bias" is one of rationality, one the rest of the world is waking up to and fighting back against the status quo.

As I said, you all are on the wrong side of history, it is only a matter of time.

And to say I am coming from a "extreme situation" viewpoint. This is laughable, take your pick of areas of the globe ruined by nuclear. And it isn't getting any better.

And the military as a gauge of educating its people as to work related risks? Yep, they have a great history in this. I am biased? Give me a break. You are being naive.

The military dumps nuke waste shells on smaller countries as a way to dispose of spent fuel the government doesn't want to deal with long term. Yes, they are so unbiased and looking out for us.

Here is a example from just right off our coast of how responsible the US Government is:

From 1946 to 1970, the sea around the Farallones was used as a nuclear dumping site for radioactive waste under the authority of the Atomic Energy Commission at a site known as the Farallon Island Nuclear Waste Dump. Most of the dumping took place before 1960, and all dumping of radioactive wastes by the United States was terminated in 1970. By then, 47,500 55 gallon steel drum containers had been dumped in the vicinity, with a total estimated radioactive activity of 14,500 Ci. The materials dumped were mostly laboratory materials containing traces of contamination.

44,000 containers were dumped at 37°37′N 123°17′W, and another 3,500 at 37°38′N 123°08′W.[21]

The exact location of the containers and the potential hazard the containers pose to the environment are unknown Attempts to remove the barrels would likely produce more of a risk than leaving them undisturbed.

Waste containers were shipped to Hunters Point Shipyard, then loaded onto barges for transportation to the Farallones. Containers were weighted with concrete. Those that floated were sometimes shot with rifles to sink them.




'Merica F yeah! Shooting nuke waste barrels off the coast of a large population area to sink them.

 

[SparkyJJO]

If you truly believe that you're not biased you are lying to yourself. At least I have the honesty to admit where my bias is and not pretend otherwise. You also don't know my brother at all, so your criticism is blind.

Have a good evening. I'm done with wasting my time with you.

 

[Acanthus]

Because you asked me a nonsense question. I am not laying out a 1000 page energy plan for america on P&N because nuclear is unsafe, not that you biased ones would read it anyhow. So go away or stick to the subject matter.

Care to lay out your plan for genetically enhanced eternal life in a thread about medicare for us next time you whine about corruption?

Thinly veiled dishonesty and distraction.

It is not dishonesty if the replacement power sources are worse than nuclear for the general public, or that there aren't any sources in existence that can replace them for baseline power. You are the one taking the defensive stance, sir. You're saying "get rid of nuclear!". I'm saying "and replace it with what?"

There is no viable solution at this juncture.

You also didn't reply to my question about ITER? Do you think a combination of fission/fusion power is more safe?

 

[Steeplerot]

There is no viable solution at this juncture.

Well, except for the other countries who are doing fine without. Do you all live in a propaganda bubble or what? You see what you wish and want to live in a fantasyworld so whatever, get back to me when you can grow up.

Obviously folks in here are dead set on having to find out themselves. The same old ignorant lines of "it cant happen here" so you buy the excuses. As I said, a damn shame and a wasted opportunity to move beyond cold war stupidity before it bites us in the ass.

 

[Acanthus]

Well, except for the other countries who are doing fine without. Do you all live in a propaganda bubble or what? You see what you wish and want to live in a fantasyworld so whatever, get back to me when you can grow up.

Obviously folks in here are dead set on having to find out themselves. The same old ignorant lines of "it cant happen here" so you buy the excuses. As I said, a damn shame and a wasted opportunity to move beyond cold war stupidity before it bites us in the ass.

Which countries are doing fine without?

What solutions are they using for baseline power? Are they simply importing energy or increasing the use of fossil fuels?

 

[Steeplerot]

By the way, I get a good part of my info/learning from Arnie Gunderson, the best Nuke Engineer the USA has got, he pretty much has decommisoned all of the USA's shut down plants under his belt. Far more insightful then some kid in the Navy.

Arnie is pro nuclear, although the Nuke industry is quite displeased with his whistle blowing.

A hero imo. And a voice in the dark with so much BS coming from the industry.

 

[Steeplerot]

What solutions are they using for baseline power?

Very few places but the east coast and south even use nuclear power here in the USA anymore. Times change. Welcome to the 21st century!.

Cali is down to one plant left after our San Onofre NPP literally vibrated itself to pieces from the inside this Jan thanks to "cost cutting" measures by the nuke industry releasing even some radiation to the public.

Guess what? Energy prices are the same. But a lot needs to be done still.

 

[dmcowen674]

Which countries are doing fine without?

http://www.expatify.com/advice/8-good-expat-countries-with-no-nuclear-power-plants.html

1 – Australia

Geographically speaking, Australia is by far the largest country with no nuclear power plants or plans to build them. Its otherwise-remote location also puts it well away from most countries with high concentrations of power plants. Australia’s location thousands of kilometers due south of Japan may cause concern for some, but the prevailing winds never go in that direction, so it would appear to be one of the safest places on earth.
On the other hand, Australia is home to nearly a quarter of the world’s uranium deposits and mines. The primary reason the country has no reactors is that its coal and natural gas reserves are among its greatest resources, so the need for additional power is absent.
2 – New Zealand

While there has been some recent discussions of constructing one or more nuclear power plants in New Zealand, there are currently no firm plans, and the country seems to be generally against it. They currently get more than 50% of their electricity from hydroelectric plants, so they are already fairly “green.”
This makes New Zealand, whose only close upwind neighbor is the nuclear-free Australia, the most remote country on earth regarding possible fallout from a nuclear accident. Sure, you could choose an island in the South Pacific that has even fewer neighbors, but it would almost certainly be closer to the main jet stream that could catch winds from nuclear countries near the equator or in the north.
3 – Colombia

Not only is Colombia suddenly a trendy (and cheap) destination for travelers, it could become desirable for those who want to get as far away from nuclear plants as well. There are currently only four reactors in all of South America (two in Brazil and two in Argentina) and none in Central America at all.
Colombia is the world’s fifth largest coal producer, which seems incentive enough to keep the lights on by burning fossil fuels rather than building expensive nuclear reactors, so the longer-term outlook seems good for the no-nukes crowd.


4 – Cambodia

Those looking for a very cheap country might be happy in Cambodia, which has a busy expat community in its capital of Phnom Penh, plus smaller communities in peaceful Siem Reap and the beach resort of Sihanoukville. There are early discussions of building nuclear plants, but even if those go forward it would likely be nearly 20 years before they’d be online.
Neighboring Vietnam is planning to start building one plant in 2014, and Thailand has 4 plants in their future, so the area might not be so nuclear free in 10 years or so. But for now, Cambodia is about as good as things get in this region, especially for potential expats who aren’t drawn to Thailand for other reasons.
5 – Costa Rica

At the moment, the entirety of Central America is nuclear reactor-free, with only two plants in Mexico to possibly cause concern. Better still for the green types, Costa Rica has no military bases, and over 25% of the country’s land is set aside for national parks.
Costa Rica also gets 90% of its electricity from its 12 hydroelectric plants and some newer wind farms, making it efficient enough to even export electricity to some of its Central American neighbors. It’s no wonder that real estate prices in Costa Rica are holding up relatively well.
6 – Belize

Being a major favorite among expats, it’s worth noting that Belize also has no nuclear power plants, nor any realistic way of ever getting one. This small country and its population of a bit over 300,000 are priced out of the nuclear debate, along with most of its other Central American neighbors.
Unlike Costa Rica, Belize isn’t quite so green, with nearly all of its electricity coming from imported fossil fuels. Still, life is easy, the scenery is beautiful, and at least there won’t be a meltdown in your backyard here.
7 – Nepal

Even though it’s surrounded by countries with nuclear power plants, Nepal itself is nuke-free, and likely to stay that way indefinitely. It’s true that an accident nearby could happen, but most people live in valleys between the awesomely tall peaks of the Himalayas, so there’s no telling exactly what would happen to the fallout.
Nearly all of Nepal’s power is supplied by hydroelectric plants, which sounds nice until you actually visit there during the dry season (October through May) when the levels in the rivers eventually dip so low that there are national rolling blackouts lasting up to 14 hours per day in the depths of winter.
8 – Peru

Another lovely country with no nuclear power plants nor any current plans to build them, Peru also benefits from its only two nuclear neighbors (Brazil and Argentina) being downwind from them. With few other nuclear power plants in their part of the Southern Hemisphere, this would appear to be one of the safer countries in the event of an accident.
Peru currently gets most of its electricity from its hydroelectric plants and its natural gas reserves, with plenty of yet untapped potential for both, so there appears to be almost no appetite for building expensive nuclear reactors anytime in the future.

 

[rchiu]

http://www.expatify.com/advice/8-good-expat-countries-with-no-nuclear-power-plants.html

1 – Australia

Geographically speaking, Australia is by far the largest country with no nuclear power plants or plans to build them. Its otherwise-remote location also puts it well away from most countries with high concentrations of power plants. Australia’s location thousands of kilometers due south of Japan may cause concern for some, but the prevailing winds never go in that direction, so it would appear to be one of the safest places on earth.
On the other hand, Australia is home to nearly a quarter of the world’s uranium deposits and mines. The primary reason the country has no reactors is that its coal and natural gas reserves are among its greatest resources, so the need for additional power is absent.
2 – New Zealand

While there has been some recent discussions of constructing one or more nuclear power plants in New Zealand, there are currently no firm plans, and the country seems to be generally against it. They currently get more than 50% of their electricity from hydroelectric plants, so they are already fairly “green.”
This makes New Zealand, whose only close upwind neighbor is the nuclear-free Australia, the most remote country on earth regarding possible fallout from a nuclear accident. Sure, you could choose an island in the South Pacific that has even fewer neighbors, but it would almost certainly be closer to the main jet stream that could catch winds from nuclear countries near the equator or in the north.
3 – Colombia

Not only is Colombia suddenly a trendy (and cheap) destination for travelers, it could become desirable for those who want to get as far away from nuclear plants as well. There are currently only four reactors in all of South America (two in Brazil and two in Argentina) and none in Central America at all.
Colombia is the world’s fifth largest coal producer, which seems incentive enough to keep the lights on by burning fossil fuels rather than building expensive nuclear reactors, so the longer-term outlook seems good for the no-nukes crowd.


4 – Cambodia

Those looking for a very cheap country might be happy in Cambodia, which has a busy expat community in its capital of Phnom Penh, plus smaller communities in peaceful Siem Reap and the beach resort of Sihanoukville. There are early discussions of building nuclear plants, but even if those go forward it would likely be nearly 20 years before they’d be online.
Neighboring Vietnam is planning to start building one plant in 2014, and Thailand has 4 plants in their future, so the area might not be so nuclear free in 10 years or so. But for now, Cambodia is about as good as things get in this region, especially for potential expats who aren’t drawn to Thailand for other reasons.
5 – Costa Rica

At the moment, the entirety of Central America is nuclear reactor-free, with only two plants in Mexico to possibly cause concern. Better still for the green types, Costa Rica has no military bases, and over 25% of the country’s land is set aside for national parks.
Costa Rica also gets 90% of its electricity from its 12 hydroelectric plants and some newer wind farms, making it efficient enough to even export electricity to some of its Central American neighbors. It’s no wonder that real estate prices in Costa Rica are holding up relatively well.
6 – Belize

Being a major favorite among expats, it’s worth noting that Belize also has no nuclear power plants, nor any realistic way of ever getting one. This small country and its population of a bit over 300,000 are priced out of the nuclear debate, along with most of its other Central American neighbors.
Unlike Costa Rica, Belize isn’t quite so green, with nearly all of its electricity coming from imported fossil fuels. Still, life is easy, the scenery is beautiful, and at least there won’t be a meltdown in your backyard here.
7 – Nepal

Even though it’s surrounded by countries with nuclear power plants, Nepal itself is nuke-free, and likely to stay that way indefinitely. It’s true that an accident nearby could happen, but most people live in valleys between the awesomely tall peaks of the Himalayas, so there’s no telling exactly what would happen to the fallout.
Nearly all of Nepal’s power is supplied by hydroelectric plants, which sounds nice until you actually visit there during the dry season (October through May) when the levels in the rivers eventually dip so low that there are national rolling blackouts lasting up to 14 hours per day in the depths of winter.
8 – Peru

Another lovely country with no nuclear power plants nor any current plans to build them, Peru also benefits from its only two nuclear neighbors (Brazil and Argentina) being downwind from them. With few other nuclear power plants in their part of the Southern Hemisphere, this would appear to be one of the safer countries in the event of an accident.
Peru currently gets most of its electricity from its hydroelectric plants and its natural gas reserves, with plenty of yet untapped potential for both, so there appears to be almost no appetite for building expensive nuclear reactors anytime in the future.

Heh yea, the only country of any significance is Australia, with less than 1/10 of US population.

You treehuggers need to realize that there is cost associated to everything. Is there risk to Nuke plant? Sure, but you think coal and gas generator won't kill you with the co2 emission? Those coal/gas plants generated 1/3 of US greenhouse gas emission. (2010-34% from electricity generation, 27% from transportation, 20% from industrial plants...etc) And other methods like Hydro, Geothermal, Wind require specific location. Solar cost 3x the convention generation.

If the cost of electricity doubles or triples because of you people's fear of nuclear, you think that won't jeopardize people's life? American companies go out of business because of electricity cost, unemployment increase, and people have to pay more for everything. Yeah it's less scary than some nuclear explosion, but those will kill you and your family slowly and the effect will be much more widely spread.

So answer the simple question that smarter poster already ask here.

What is your alternative and how is your alternative better. Don't give us blah blah nucluar baaaaaaaddddddd line.

 

[Steeplerot]

If the cost of electricity doubles or triples because of you people's fear of nuclear, you think that won't jeopardize people's life?

Because people in states without nuke power pay more.

Wait, they dont, if anything nuclear is more expensive.

More parroting of industry talking points.

 

[rchiu]

Because people in states without nuke power pay more.

Wait, they dont, if anything nuclear is more expensive.

More parroting of industry talking points.

Oh you mean those states with like 10,000 people and buys electricity from other states that do have nuclear plant?

 

[Steeplerot]

Oh you mean those states with like 10,000 people and buys electricity from other states that do have nuclear plant?

Nuke power is not even a third of power generation and falling yearly. This is a strawman.

We don't buy nuke power or use it here and get by fine being the economic capital of the west coast and for a good part of the USA. Thanks but no thanks. Hyrdro works fine for our infrastructure, hopefully soon we can shut down the hunters point natural gas turbines since we have so much free tidal power in the SF Bay.

Still waiting on that "green revolution" mr hopey change promised. Maybe in the second term? I am not holding my breath.

 

[rchiu]

Nuke power is not even a third of power generation and falling yearly. This is a strawman.

Like I said, replace by what? More coal and gas plants with more co2 emission?

So nuclear with no incident after a record storm is bad and plants that emits greenhouse gas every second, every minute, every hour, every day is okay?

 

[Steeplerot]

Like I said, replace by what? More coal and gas plants with more co2 emission?

So nuclear with no incident after a record storm is bad and plants that emits greenhouse gas every second, every minute, every hour, every day is okay?

Wait, what nuke industry are you talking about with no record of events?

Our nuke plant in socal (San Onofre) this year started tearing itself apart from the inside of its brand new top of the line tech turbine releasing radioactive steam because they were cutting corners.

100s of millions of dollars that could have gone to renewables....wasted!



Another half-assed regulated plant from 2002. Operators and regulators let this one get a huge hole eaten through it, with only centimeters to go before it worked it way into the high pressure cooling, right inside the control rod mechanism.

A fingers width from a runaway reactor with no control rods to "slow" it down.

We have been DAMN lucky is all it is.

The list: (as far as the nuke industry will tell us, the governments enrichment plants are hush hush)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States

Japan? The model of a responsible and modern (lol!) Nuclear Industry, or so they swore to us.

Tepco Admits It Knew of Problems at Fukushima BEFORE the Earthquake Hit

Tepco Finally Comes Clean … But Tries to Blame Anti-Nuclear Movement

Sad, almost everyone here repeating industry talking points consider yourselves conservatives, yet you are defending the worst of government collusion with a corrupt industry wrapped in secrecy. GJ.

 

[rchiu]

Wait, wait nuke industry are you talking about with no record of events?

The nuke plant in socal this year started tearing itself apart from the inside of its brand new top of the line tech turbine releasing radioactive steam because they were cutting corners.

100s of millions of dollars....wasted!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_accidents_in_the_United_States

Another half-assed regulated plant from 2002. Operators and regulators let this one get a huge hole eaten through it, with only centimeters to go before it worked it way into the high pressure cooling, right inside the control rod mechanism. A fingers width from a runaway reactor with no control rods to "slow" it down.

We have been DAMN lucky is all it is.

So how many people died in the last 20 years? Yeah that's right zero. How much radioactive leaked out of the plant the last 20 years? again, zip. So a few plant problems? which plant run 100% problem free?

You think other type of energy source doesn't kill, you can't be more wrong.

just some random search on Google, here are some stats for you

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

 

[leper84]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8

/mandatory

 

[Paratus]

I already stated I have no problem with responsibly scaled reactors. My "bias" is one of rationality, one the rest of the world is waking up to and fighting back against the status quo.

As I said, you all are on the wrong side of history, it is only a matter of time.

And to say I am coming from a "extreme situation" viewpoint. This is laughable, take your pick of areas of the globe ruined by nuclear. And it isn't getting any better.

And the military as a gauge of educating its people as to work related risks? Yep, they have a great history in this. I am biased? Give me a break. You are being naive.

The military dumps nuke waste shells on smaller countries as a way to dispose of spent fuel the government doesn't want to deal with long term. Yes, they are so unbiased and looking out for us.

Here is a example from just right off our coast of how responsible the US Government is:

From 1946 to 1970, the sea around the Farallones was used as a nuclear dumping site for radioactive waste under the authority of the Atomic Energy Commission at a site known as the Farallon Island Nuclear Waste Dump. Most of the dumping took place before 1960, and all dumping of radioactive wastes by the United States was terminated in 1970. By then, 47,500 55 gallon steel drum containers had been dumped in the vicinity, with a total estimated radioactive activity of 14,500 Ci. The materials dumped were mostly laboratory materials containing traces of contamination.

44,000 containers were dumped at 37°37′N 123°17′W, and another 3,500 at 37°38′N 123°08′W.[21]

The exact location of the containers and the potential hazard the containers pose to the environment are unknown Attempts to remove the barrels would likely produce more of a risk than leaving them undisturbed.

Waste containers were shipped to Hunters Point Shipyard, then loaded onto barges for transportation to the Farallones. Containers were weighted with concrete. Those that floated were sometimes shot with rifles to sink them.




'Merica F yeah! Shooting nuke waste barrels off the coast of a large population area to sink them.

Dude that was the Russians not us.

 

[Agent11]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8

/mandatory

The IAEA should be all over LFTR, it's sad that such good idea's continue to be wasted.
Nuclear power isn't equal, there are many different ways of creating power using nuclear fission.

 

[Exterous]

Japan turned off their plants and they are getting along fine building new sources.

Are they now?

Mr. Noda said the restarting of the reactor was necessary to avoid crippling power shortages in the heavily urbanized Kansai region, which the plant serves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/02/world/asia/japan-restarts-a-nuclear-reactor.html

:hmm:

At best they are talking about phasing out their reactors by 2030. They certainly are not turning off their plants indefinitely.

838TWH of power was created by the Nuclear industry in 2008.

Out of curiosity I did some quick calculations on how large an area a solar plant would need to provide this. I looked at several solar plants in operation and some proposed ones and it seems, on the low end, 5.5 to 6 acres of land area is required to produce 1MWh of power. If we were to replace 838TWH with solar we would need ~4,700,000,000 acres of land

So if we cover Rhode Island, Delaware and Connecticut in solar panels we can get rid of nuclear power