Thirst for energy leads U.S. down old path: Nuclear power

[IGBT]

Text


"People are getting comfortable with nuclear," Paul Dabber, a vice president for mergers and acquisitions at J.P. Morgan, told a conference on new reactor technology in February. One reason is that existing nuclear power plants have been making profits, he said.

At the heart of the resurgent interest in nuclear power are the high cost of competing energy sources and improved reactor efficiency. A University of Chicago study concluded that a new fleet of reactors can be expected to produce power as cheaply as coal and natural gas, given's today's prices.


"There is a growing recognition that if we are going to meet our future need for electric energy and also reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases ... we simply must build the next generation of advanced nuclear energy plants," said Marilyn Kray, an Exelon vice president and head of the NuStart consortium.

 

[Amused]

It's about fscking time.

 

[wyvrn]

I wouldn't mind seeing nuclear plants. I know the French use them pretty extensively. But I have some questions about that type of power, like what happens to the waste?

 

[m2kewl]

Originally posted by: Amused
It's about fscking time.

word up! we're already the world's biggest polluter, let's try to do something right for a change.

Originally posted by: wyvrn
I wouldn't mind seeing nuclear plants. I know the French use them pretty extensively. But I have some questions about that type of power, like what happens to the waste?

we pick a state we hate the most, and put it there, how's that? we can start an ATOT poll

 

[IGBT]

..france also produces hydrogen with off peak nuclear power for use in hydrogen vehicles.

 

[m2kewl]

they can bury the waste in my backyard. i'll take one for the team

 

[Pepsi90919]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..france also produces hydrogen with off peak nuclear power for use in hydrogen vehicles.

yeah but france sucks

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Pepsi90919

Originally posted by: IGBT
..france also produces hydrogen with off peak nuclear power for use in hydrogen vehicles.

yeah but france sucks

Yeah, but even assholes like the Frogs can get something right now and then...

 

[JohnCU]

Woo hoo. I work in the engineering department of a nuke plant, I can tell you it is safe. A properly functioning nuclear plant puts out less radiation than a coal plant.

We have so many damn backup systems. And those systems have backup systems.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..france also produces hydrogen with off peak nuclear power for use in hydrogen vehicles.

The only technology that could produce enough hydrogen to be attractive as an alternative fuel, without using fossil fuels, are the HTRs (High Temperature Reactors) now being designed. They produce hydrogen through a thermochemical process using the heat supplied from the reactor. Current reactors and the Gen 3 designs discussed in that article do not operate at a high enough temperature so they use their surplus electricity in electrolytic cells to produce hydrogen, a very inefficient process.

 

[Amused]

The US should have been 100% nuclear and hydro 30 years ago.

There is no reason whatsoever to have any coal or oil fired plants.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Amused
The US should have been 100% nuclear and hydro 30 years ago.

There is no reason whatsoever to have any coal or oil fired plants.

:beer:

Use coal/oil for other things such as transportation, etc. Hell, use Nuclear power and electric cars. Anything to get the Middle East out of the picture.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: m2kewl

Originally posted by: wyvrn
I wouldn't mind seeing nuclear plants. I know the French use them pretty extensively. But I have some questions about that type of power, like what happens to the waste?

we pick a state we hate the most, and put it there, how's that? we can start an ATOT poll

Or we can ship it to Iraq!

 

[jammur21]

That people are more accepting of nuclear power shouldn't be too surprising. THe big question has always been what to do with the waste afterwards. Now that Nevada has been designated as the United States' nuclear waste b!tch, that question has been answered for 47 of the lower 48 states. Its NIMBY, but on a larger level. Sorry Nevada.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Amused
The US should have been 100% nuclear and hydro 30 years ago.

There is no reason whatsoever to have any coal or oil fired plants.

:beer:

Use coal/oil for other things such as transportation, etc. Hell, use Nuclear power and electric cars. Anything to get the Middle East out of the picture.

:thumbsup:

Not only that, but the pollution from coal and oil fired plants is tremendous. That it is the same people who cry over car pollution who keep us from converting to nuclear is the very definition of insane hypocrisy.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: jammur21
That people are more accepting of nuclear power shouldn't be too surprising. THe big question has always been what to do with the waste afterwards. Now that Nevada has been designated as the United States' nuclear waste b!tch, that question has been answered for 47 of the lower 48 states. Its NIMBY, but on a larger level. Sorry Nevada.

There are few better places to put it than on an old nuclear test site under a mountain.

Also, the French have not yet worked out a long term storage plan yet.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jammur21
That people are more accepting of nuclear power shouldn't be too surprising. THe big question has always been what to do with the waste afterwards. Now that Nevada has been designated as the United States' nuclear waste b!tch, that question has been answered for 47 of the lower 48 states. Its NIMBY, but on a larger level. Sorry Nevada.

The only reason ANYONE worries about Yucca Mt just shows how effective the fear mongers can be. I'd gladly live right next door to the facility.

 

[m2kewl]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Amused
The US should have been 100% nuclear and hydro 30 years ago.

There is no reason whatsoever to have any coal or oil fired plants.

:beer:

Use coal/oil for other things such as transportation, etc. Hell, use Nuclear power and electric cars. Anything to get the Middle East out of the picture.

:beer::beer::beer:
it's always the environmental pansies, and our current dumbass lame energy policy :|

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: m2kewl

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Amused
The US should have been 100% nuclear and hydro 30 years ago.

There is no reason whatsoever to have any coal or oil fired plants.

:beer:

Use coal/oil for other things such as transportation, etc. Hell, use Nuclear power and electric cars. Anything to get the Middle East out of the picture.

:beer::beer::beer:
it's always the environmental pansies, and our current dumbass lame energy policy :|

Kind of amazing how it's the libertarians and conservatives calling for the largest single action in history to clean up our air, no?

 

[dartworth]

:thumbsup:

Nothing better than building some new powerhouses I could use the work

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Amused
The US should have been 100% nuclear and hydro 30 years ago.

There is no reason whatsoever to have any coal or oil fired plants.

:beer:

Use coal/oil for other things such as transportation, etc. Hell, use Nuclear power and electric cars. Anything to get the Middle East out of the picture.

:thumbsup:

Not only that, but the pollution from coal and oil fired plants is tremendous. That it is the same people who cry over car pollution who keep us from converting to nuclear is the very definition of insane hypocrisy.

I dont think any oil powered power exist anymore, however oil is still used for heating houses.

And clean coal can get as clean a natural gas. Nuclear still whoops natural gas when it comes to emissions.

 

[StageLeft]

I think many of us saw this coming for a while. Nuclear is good. Stupidity about it has led to fear.

 

[bob4432]

go nukes, go nukes they should be used to power as much as they can. in az solar should be used more since we get ~300 days of sun/year

 

[Anubis]

yea its about fvcking time

there has been what 1 nuke plant melt down and that was in russia and it was because they are moronic

TMI was a lil close but all was good, however after that most if not all plants in the works were stopped and no new ones were planned

 

[marvdmartian]

The cool thing is that back 30 years ago, when a lot of the current (and retired) nuke plants in this country were built, it was pretty much a fact that they built the plant with pretty much any design they could get the energy department to approve, and there was little to no similarities between the plants (other than the obvious ones, like having a reactor in the middle of the mess!! :laugh: ).

Now the energy department has smartened up, and come up with ~4 plans that are fairly straightforward, simple to build, and well designed. Those are the "approved" plans, from what I understand, and any company wishing to build a nuke plant will find it a LOT easier to get it okayed if they go by one of these plans.

Oh, and anyone that thinks that nuke power isn't safe should look at the Navy's safety record. 50+ years building and running nukes, and not ONE serious incident......and this running nuke plants that are using a lot higher quality fuel that can allow you to get into trouble a bit faster than the lower grade fuel the civilian plants use. Plus the fact that they do crazy stuff with their plants, like put 'em on boats that are designed to sink..... :laugh: