i'm pro nuke up to a point (maybe 40-50% of electrical supply would be a good start) and it balances well with solar and wind power which are typically at peak productivity during peak power hours.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
I think what he is referring to is that SOUTH DAKOTA has no effective anti-usery regulation and that allows credit card companies like Citi to operate out of there and charge market rate interest.
The best state for this, however, is Delaware. This is where most U.S. credit card operations are based. It is one of the state's main industries.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
San Onofre nuclear plants sit right near an active fault too. They are designed to withstand up to a 7.0 event. It is unlikely that a quake of that magnitude will occur in that area. I live south of there by, I guess, 45 miles so I'd be involved in a mishap. I think the technology involved to shut them down is pretty good. So, I'd support them adding 10 more to that area.
I like nuclear over any fossil fuel source and over Air and Solar atm after having listened to Boxer's Environment committee workings... I may change when the factors are better defined. Pickens does make a good argument but his is based on Oil Price for the most part.
Acanthus: So you suggest we continue using technologies that certainly kill tons of people and wildlife by directly polluting the air... vs an interim much cleaner solution that makes our standard of living in the information age sustainable and cleaner.
M: No, I suggest a massive government effort to go alternative non-nuclear instead.
A: Uranium and Water are abundant, and in the hands of our allies.
Oil is not, we are slowly eating up coal reserves as well.
M: Water is not abundant, Uranium should be left in the ground, and we have 1000 years of coal which we also should not mine.
A: As others have said, EVs will cause a tremendous boost in our demand for electricity...
M: Solar on the garage
A: Research in Fusion, Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal... etc continues... but it isn't here now, and we need something now.
Fusion, no, the others yes, here now.
Nuclear accidents are far more likely in our 50 year old dinosaur designs than our new reactors loaded with passive fail-safes, and look at the number of accidents we have generated... hell even worldwide where regulation is extremely poor in areas.
Chernobyl was a worst-case scenario. Poorly constructed reactor, safety features removed from the original design, using experimental conditions with all fail-safes disabled.
What happened at Chernobyl cannot happen to a modern reactor, the reaction will literally stop itself passively by design if the reaction gets out of certain parameters.
M: True but not relevant. You need to prevent accidents for a hundred thousand years. It would require a safe space elevator and off earth depository. We have a proven record of building nuclear and a proven record that we never safely deposit our wastes. We only have to look at our past to see our future. Everybody want energy and nobody wants to clean up. It's how we are. Pigs.
M: No, I suggest a massive government effort to go alternative non-nuclear instead.
A: Uranium and Water are abundant, and in the hands of our allies.
Oil is not, we are slowly eating up coal reserves as well.
M: Water is not abundant, Uranium should be left in the ground, and we have 1000 years of coal which we also should not mine.
A: As others have said, EVs will cause a tremendous boost in our demand for electricity...
M: Solar on the garage
A: Research in Fusion, Solar, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal... etc continues... but it isn't here now, and we need something now.
Fusion, no, the others yes, here now.
Nuclear accidents are far more likely in our 50 year old dinosaur designs than our new reactors loaded with passive fail-safes, and look at the number of accidents we have generated... hell even worldwide where regulation is extremely poor in areas.
Chernobyl was a worst-case scenario. Poorly constructed reactor, safety features removed from the original design, using experimental conditions with all fail-safes disabled.
What happened at Chernobyl cannot happen to a modern reactor, the reaction will literally stop itself passively by design if the reaction gets out of certain parameters.
M: True but not relevant. You need to prevent accidents for a hundred thousand years. It would require a safe space elevator and off earth depository. We have a proven record of building nuclear and a proven record that we never safely deposit our wastes. We only have to look at our past to see our future. Everybody want energy and nobody wants to clean up. It's how we are. Pigs.
The problem with nuclear is that its gotten far to political. People see it as a Republican technology (as if technologies were someone politically motivated?!?!). However, given as a nuclear plant takes 10 years from idea to generating its first megawatt it is unlikely that you will have politicians in office for that ensure time that will support it, and what happens if you spend 4 billion dollars and are 80% done and then suddenly a democrat wins the election and cancels your power plant? That big of a loss could bankrupt many utilities. From a cash flow perspective nuclear is the second cheapest solution (behind coal), however politically it is very risky.
That said, these days EVERY energy technology is very risk in some sense due to the fact that the government wants to have its tentacles in everything there is, especially energy production. If you build a coal pant and congress passes a carbon tax then you could lose billions. The same is true for building wind and solar, if congress were to cut the production credit for these sources their owners would also lose billions. This pretty much means that natural gas is the only thing people have the balls to build anymore. It is generally one of the most expensive source of power, but it is the least risk. This means of course that energy prices will be going up considerably given the uncertainly of government regulation stopping pretty much ANY large scale power plant construction.
That said, these days EVERY energy technology is very risk in some sense due to the fact that the government wants to have its tentacles in everything there is, especially energy production. If you build a coal pant and congress passes a carbon tax then you could lose billions. The same is true for building wind and solar, if congress were to cut the production credit for these sources their owners would also lose billions. This pretty much means that natural gas is the only thing people have the balls to build anymore. It is generally one of the most expensive source of power, but it is the least risk. This means of course that energy prices will be going up considerably given the uncertainly of government regulation stopping pretty much ANY large scale power plant construction.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
I sure hope so...
I found Brian Dunning's examination of the "situation" quite informing. Especially the section on modern reactor design:
No more than partisan hackery allows, but yeh... I get that vibe as well. Although there are still plenty of dems that support it (myself included).
It takes about 10 years to build a nuclear power plant so why should we try? Same excuse about drilling for oil off-shore.
ericlp
Diamond Member
- Dec 24, 2000
- 6,137
- 225
- 106
I'm all for it! I think this country should be 90% nuclear power instead of coal power.
The question is, what do we do with all the spent rods? Why can't we recycle them into new ones?
Edit:
If we had super reliable space travel we could send them into space, the rods that is...
The question is, what do we do with all the spent rods? Why can't we recycle them into new ones?
Edit:
If we had super reliable space travel we could send them into space, the rods that is...
Some data the nuclear folk will want to ignore:
Despite its promise more than 50 years ago of energy ?too cheap to meter,? the nuclear power industry continues to be dependent on taxpayer handouts to survive. Since its inception in 1948, this industry has received tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies but remains unable to compete economically on its own.[1] On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed an energy bill that included over $13 billion in tax breaks and subsidies, as well as other incentives, for the nuclear industry. Here?s a rundown of some of the giveaways to the mature, wealthy industry included in the bill:
Expansion of Current Programs
Limited Liability: The Price-Anderson Act, enacted in 1957 as a temporary, 10-year measure to support the fledgling nuclear industry, limits the amount of primary insurance that nuclear operators must carry to $300 million and caps the total liability of nuclear operators in the event of a serious accident or attack to $10.5 billion. A serious nuclear accident could cost more than $600 billion in 2004 dollars[2] - taxpayers would be responsible for covering the vast majority of that sum. Price-Andersonfor commercial nuclear plants had expired as of Jan. 1, 2004for new reactors only. Reauthorizing the Price-Anderson Act to 2025, as the 2005 energy bill does, extends this subsidy to the proposed new generation of nuclear power plants. The nuclear industry claims that the new designs are ?inherently safe.? Inherently safe should mean inherently insurable; therefore, nuclear operators should be able to privately insure them.
License Application Costs: The Nuclear Power 2010 program promotes the building of new nuclear power plants by 2010 by paying for half of the cost to apply for license applications. Through this program, which has received more than $120 million since FY2001, Exelon, Entergy, and Dominion have received funding for three pending Early Site Permit applications to site new reactors in Illinois, Mississippi, and Virginia, respectively. These companies are also part of two of the three consortia that have indicated that they intend to apply for a combined Construction and Operation License (COL) in 2007. DOE has agreed to provide $260 million to the NuStart consortium, and the Dominion-led one has asked for $250 million. The ESP applicants, Entergy, Exelon and Dominion, had combined profits of $4 billion in 2004. The COL consortia members are among the wealthiest corporations in the world, including Bechtel, General Electric, and Duke Power, with more than $27.3 billion in combined profit in 2004.[3] If the nuclear industry believed that the next generation of nuclear plants is a good investment, they would be fully capable of financing both the plants and the research themselves.
Research and Development: The Department of Energy?s Generation IV program provides funding for up to half the cost of the development of new reactor designs. This program has already received more than $92 million since FY2001. The research and development costs for a single design are estimated to range from $610 million to $1 billion, depending on the type of reactor.[4] The nuclear power industry has been given more taxpayer dollars for research and development than all other energy sectors combined. The 2005 energy legislation authorizes another $2.9 billion for nuclear R&D and licensing.
Federal Energy Supply R&D Expenditures, 1948-1998[5]
Energy R&D Program
Total Federal Expenditure (2003 dollars)
Percent
Nuclear Energy
$74 billion
56%
Fossil Fuels
$30.9 billion
24%
Renewables
$14.6 billion
11%
Energy Efficiency
$11.7 billion
9%
Other Subsidies for New Plants
Taxpayer-financed New Plant Construction: Despite the current subsidies, the industry wants taxpayers to pay for building new reactors, too. The bill authorizes another $1.25 billion for a nuclear plant in Idaho to co-generate hydrogen fuel. While hydrogen may one day fuel our cars, using nuclear power to create the hydrogen fails to meet clean energy goals by creating thousands of tons of high-level radioactive waste.License applications for new nuclear reactors are also now exempted from NRC antitrust review.
?Risk Insurance?: The energy bill authorizes $2 billion in ?risk insurance? to pay the industry for any delays in construction and operation licensing for 6 new reactors, including delays due to the NRC or litigation. Not only is this a waste of taxpayer dollars, it will put pressure on the NRC to rush its review of applications, shortchanging the public of its opportunity to participate in the process and jeopardizing public safety. This provision was not in either the House or Senate bill; it was added in the 11th hour during conference report negotiations.
Production Tax Credits: In order to attempt to make new nuclear power plants appear competitive with other sources of energy, the bill authorizes tax credits for the electricity produced by these reactors. According to the Energy Information Administration, a 1.8-cent tax credit for each kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity from new reactors during the first 8 years of operation will cost $5.7 billion in revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury through 2025.[6]
Loan Guarantees and Power Purchase Agreements: To mitigate the high capital costs of building new reactors, the bill authorizes the federal government to provide unlimited loan guarantees for 80% of the cost of new reactors. This will allow the industry to borrow at government treasury bond rates, rather than at rates typically paid by a large utility making a risky investment. The risk of loan default is estimated to be ?well above 50 percent.?[7] The Congressional Research Service estimated that the taxpayer liability for loan guarantees covering up to 50% of the cost of building six new reactors would be $6 billion.[8]
Shutdown Subsidies: The bill changes the rules for funds that are to be used to clean up closed nuclear plant sites, costing taxpayers $1.3 billion.
Anti-Trust Exemption: Exemption of construction and operation license applications for new nuclear reactors from an NRC antitrust review, a potential windfall for energy companies and boondoggle for consumers.
Despite its promise more than 50 years ago of energy ?too cheap to meter,? the nuclear power industry continues to be dependent on taxpayer handouts to survive. Since its inception in 1948, this industry has received tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies but remains unable to compete economically on its own.[1] On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed an energy bill that included over $13 billion in tax breaks and subsidies, as well as other incentives, for the nuclear industry. Here?s a rundown of some of the giveaways to the mature, wealthy industry included in the bill:
Expansion of Current Programs
Limited Liability: The Price-Anderson Act, enacted in 1957 as a temporary, 10-year measure to support the fledgling nuclear industry, limits the amount of primary insurance that nuclear operators must carry to $300 million and caps the total liability of nuclear operators in the event of a serious accident or attack to $10.5 billion. A serious nuclear accident could cost more than $600 billion in 2004 dollars[2] - taxpayers would be responsible for covering the vast majority of that sum. Price-Andersonfor commercial nuclear plants had expired as of Jan. 1, 2004for new reactors only. Reauthorizing the Price-Anderson Act to 2025, as the 2005 energy bill does, extends this subsidy to the proposed new generation of nuclear power plants. The nuclear industry claims that the new designs are ?inherently safe.? Inherently safe should mean inherently insurable; therefore, nuclear operators should be able to privately insure them.
License Application Costs: The Nuclear Power 2010 program promotes the building of new nuclear power plants by 2010 by paying for half of the cost to apply for license applications. Through this program, which has received more than $120 million since FY2001, Exelon, Entergy, and Dominion have received funding for three pending Early Site Permit applications to site new reactors in Illinois, Mississippi, and Virginia, respectively. These companies are also part of two of the three consortia that have indicated that they intend to apply for a combined Construction and Operation License (COL) in 2007. DOE has agreed to provide $260 million to the NuStart consortium, and the Dominion-led one has asked for $250 million. The ESP applicants, Entergy, Exelon and Dominion, had combined profits of $4 billion in 2004. The COL consortia members are among the wealthiest corporations in the world, including Bechtel, General Electric, and Duke Power, with more than $27.3 billion in combined profit in 2004.[3] If the nuclear industry believed that the next generation of nuclear plants is a good investment, they would be fully capable of financing both the plants and the research themselves.
Research and Development: The Department of Energy?s Generation IV program provides funding for up to half the cost of the development of new reactor designs. This program has already received more than $92 million since FY2001. The research and development costs for a single design are estimated to range from $610 million to $1 billion, depending on the type of reactor.[4] The nuclear power industry has been given more taxpayer dollars for research and development than all other energy sectors combined. The 2005 energy legislation authorizes another $2.9 billion for nuclear R&D and licensing.
Federal Energy Supply R&D Expenditures, 1948-1998[5]
Energy R&D Program
Total Federal Expenditure (2003 dollars)
Percent
Nuclear Energy
$74 billion
56%
Fossil Fuels
$30.9 billion
24%
Renewables
$14.6 billion
11%
Energy Efficiency
$11.7 billion
9%
Other Subsidies for New Plants
Taxpayer-financed New Plant Construction: Despite the current subsidies, the industry wants taxpayers to pay for building new reactors, too. The bill authorizes another $1.25 billion for a nuclear plant in Idaho to co-generate hydrogen fuel. While hydrogen may one day fuel our cars, using nuclear power to create the hydrogen fails to meet clean energy goals by creating thousands of tons of high-level radioactive waste.License applications for new nuclear reactors are also now exempted from NRC antitrust review.
?Risk Insurance?: The energy bill authorizes $2 billion in ?risk insurance? to pay the industry for any delays in construction and operation licensing for 6 new reactors, including delays due to the NRC or litigation. Not only is this a waste of taxpayer dollars, it will put pressure on the NRC to rush its review of applications, shortchanging the public of its opportunity to participate in the process and jeopardizing public safety. This provision was not in either the House or Senate bill; it was added in the 11th hour during conference report negotiations.
Production Tax Credits: In order to attempt to make new nuclear power plants appear competitive with other sources of energy, the bill authorizes tax credits for the electricity produced by these reactors. According to the Energy Information Administration, a 1.8-cent tax credit for each kilowatt-hour of nuclear-generated electricity from new reactors during the first 8 years of operation will cost $5.7 billion in revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury through 2025.[6]
Loan Guarantees and Power Purchase Agreements: To mitigate the high capital costs of building new reactors, the bill authorizes the federal government to provide unlimited loan guarantees for 80% of the cost of new reactors. This will allow the industry to borrow at government treasury bond rates, rather than at rates typically paid by a large utility making a risky investment. The risk of loan default is estimated to be ?well above 50 percent.?[7] The Congressional Research Service estimated that the taxpayer liability for loan guarantees covering up to 50% of the cost of building six new reactors would be $6 billion.[8]
Shutdown Subsidies: The bill changes the rules for funds that are to be used to clean up closed nuclear plant sites, costing taxpayers $1.3 billion.
Anti-Trust Exemption: Exemption of construction and operation license applications for new nuclear reactors from an NRC antitrust review, a potential windfall for energy companies and boondoggle for consumers.
Fenixgoon
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2003
- 33,285
- 12,847
- 136
^yeah R&D costs money. you've heard of these things called fusion reactors, right? they're a bit experimental at the moment.
also, the *NATIONAL* output of nuclear waste is currently on the order of a few thousand tons per year (2-3000 tons, IIRC). building breeder reactors could significantly reduce this.
also, the *NATIONAL* output of nuclear waste is currently on the order of a few thousand tons per year (2-3000 tons, IIRC). building breeder reactors could significantly reduce this.
I really think that wind and hydro should be the focus, and then use some nuclear to pick up the slack. The Great Lakes and the Atlantic and Pacific coasts have enormous potential for wind power. The output would probably destroy nuclear in terms of cost, plus it's cleaner.
"Reprocessing, Fast Reactors, and Transmutation
Fast reactors, in combination with reprocessing and transmutation, have recently been proposed by the Bush administration as a way to deal with the waste. Despite this push, these technologies are not a solution to this country?s nuclear waste problem. Reprocessing is the chemical process of extracting uranium, and plutonium from irradiated fuel after it is removed from a reactor. Reprocessing process is extremely expensive, poses a security threat, leads to environmental contamination, and does not eliminate the need for a repository.
Fast neutron reactors ? high temperature reactors that use separated plutonium and have an inert gas or liquid metal as a coolant ? have been put forward as a way to reduce the radioactivity of spent fuel by converting long-lived radionuclides in the waste into shorter-lived radionuclides, a process known as transmutation.
But fast neutron reactors have a terrible track record in safety and are incredibly expensive. These reactor designs also have many remaining technological problems, including the difficulties of using plutonium fuels in operating reactors, low rates of transmutation, unproven fuel fabrication systems, and dangers to workers making the fuel. Even if these problems were addressed, fast-neutron reactors would not eliminate the need for a repository."
Fenixgoon
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2003
- 33,285
- 12,847
- 136
running nuclear power plants tend to be expensive. and you realize that we have shipped thousands of tons of nuclear material without incident whatsoever?
and are you really trying to pull "terrorists are going to steal our nuclear material"? :laugh:
Why would they steal it. One of the 9/11 planes flew over a nuclear reactor and if the pilot and flown into the spent rod storage tanks a nice big piece of important US land would have become a dead zone for hundreds of years. Only assholes create poisons that require millions of years to reach background levels of radiation and then store them above ground. Only true imbeciles favor such a plan. But for folk who hate themselves it seems like a great idea.
Fenixgoon
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2003
- 33,285
- 12,847
- 136
people do want to bury spent fuel rods in places like Yucca Mountain, but someone keeps stopping them...
also, 620,000 people died due to heart disease (CDC 2005), accounting for 22% of all deaths in the US, so i'd be much more worried about heart disease than anything else. that's terrorism if you ask me
(yes, the last part *is* a joke)
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
Hahah, what the hell? As amusing as your complete ignorance on nuclear energy always is, for the sake of other readers let's correct this little bit of Tom Clancy nonsense.
Aircraft Crash Impact Analyses Demonstrate Nuclear Power Plant?s Structural Strength
I am always amazed at how ignorant people who think they know something are. The target won't be the nuclear reactors which are shielded, but the waste fuel that is stored out in the open in tanks of water.
With companies like Enron building nuclear reactors, it's no wonder people don't trust nuclear power. The whole industry is full of corruption. The government money involved is enormous. Here in Ontario the government won't even disclose how much future nuclear reactors will cost. They won't even release an estimate!
Originally posted by: yllus
Even more worthy of amazement: That you keep posting on this topic without the slightest knowledge of it. From the very same document:
What's the next boogeyman in your list to trot out?
That was probably published to discourage the terrorists: This is an excerpt from Congress:
House Report 108-212 - ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2004
Early acceptance of spent nuclear fuel.--Since the last time that Congress considered authorizing the early acceptance of spent fuel, there have been two major changes in national circumstances. First, a majority of Members in both chambers of Congress voted in 2002 to confirm Yucca Mountain as the site of the nuclear repository. Second, the events of September 11, 2001, made clear that facilities we once assumed to be safe from terrorist attack may no longer be so. The Committee believes that the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites around the country, while in compliance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards, poses a greater safety and security risk than previously assumed. The Committee further believes that safety and security would be improved if this spent fuel could be moved to a centralized surface storage facility, located at the Yucca Mountain repository site, at the earliest possible date.
-
Of course Yucca mountain is out. Nevadans don't want it.
ISIS report:
Major hazard involving spent fuel
The spent nuclear fuel now stored on site in nuclear power stations is another source of major hazard. Large amounts are stored under water in pools next to the reactors. Those pools currently use high-density racks to maximise the storage space. Unfortunately this makes cooling less effective especially if water were lost from a pool. Several studies, including one from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) [6] (see Old Nuclear Cash Cows Exposed, SiS 40) have come to the conclusion that loss of pool water could lead to spontaneous ignition of the zirconium alloy cladding of the most recently discharged spent fuel assemblies. The resulting fire would spread to adjacent fuel assemblies and propagate across the pool. It would be difficult if not impossible to extinguish the fire once it had started. Spraying water would make it worse because of an exothermic (heat producing) reaction between steam and zirconium. A fire in the spent fuel storage pool would release huge volumes of radioactive gases to the atmosphere, just as in the case of fire in the reactor core, including a large proportion of the radioactive cesium-137, which is water-soluble and extremely toxic in minute amounts. Loss of pool water could happen in various ways, such as the failure of pumps or valves, piping failures, an ineffective heat sink, a local loss of power, and malevolent acts. According to the NRC Report [7], a fire in the spent fuel pool at a reactor like Vermont Yankee in Pennsylvania, USA, which stores 488 metric tonnes of spent fuel, would cause 25 000 fatalities over a distance of 500 miles if evacuation were 95 percent effective. But that evacuation rate would be almost impossible to achieve.
It gives us little comfort to know that none of the commercial nuclear power plants now operating around the world can resist malevolent attacks, not because it is impossible to design such plants, but because the industry has simply chosen not to do so, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, responsible for among other matters, the development of criteria for the safety and security of nuclear power plants, does not explicitly require plants to be safe against malevolent attacks. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission?s criteria are no better. Neither agency addresses potential releases from stored spent fuel.
Not surprisingly, none of the proposed Generation III nuclear reactor designs in Ontario or elsewhere gives adequate protection against malevolent attacks and may also fail other safety design criteria.
There is practically no defence against a range of ?credible? attacks on existing nuclear plant. Among the possibilities mentioned is [4] ?a small, general aviation aircraft laden with explosive material, perhaps in a tandem configuration in which the first stage is a shaped charge.? A shaped charge is one that is shaped to deliver all the energy of explosion in one direction.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter