What, exactly, is the argument against nuclear power?

[themusgrat]

What are you talking about? We do have the means to store nuclear waste for reasonable periods of time. And I think that I could argue that letting people sell pizza and sodas could be, based upon statistics, more harmful than letting people build more nuclear reactors. I still don't see this "catastrophy" coming. Being more energy conscious is all great, but that does not lessen the need for better energy sources.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ZeGermans

Originally posted by: techs
Nuclear (newkiller?) power plants are unique in that they are highly complex systems that need massive safeguards to prevent failure. And failure could result in devastation far worse than any nuclear (newkiller?) bomb.
The waste from nuclear (newkiller?) power plants is unique in that it is highly concentrated, highly toxic, remains toxic for thousands of years and is almost impossible to store safely.

Nice wordplay. Obviously nuclear power plants are higher-maintainance than a normal old coal plant. Additionally, like I stated, only 1 plant that was run down by soviet governing has failed in the history of nuclear power. A brand new plant would be even safer than those around today, and they're rock solid. Additionally, that comment about being worse than any nuclear bomb is pure hyperbole. An H-bomb would dwarf any fission explosion. Fission was used on hiroshima and is what is found in reactors. Fusion is too powerful to be controlled and is what's used in modern nuclear weapons.

Finally, nuclear fuel can be reprocessed to reduce it's harmfullness, and it is capable of being stored safely no matter what greenpeace says.

The danger from nuclear reactors is not explosive but radiological. There is on the order of 100 times the radiological material in a nuclear reactor than in a nuclear bomb.
That is where the real danger lies. If Indian Point nuclear reactor had released as much radiation as Chernobyl half of New York City would be dead.
And nuclear fuel cannot be reprocessed to reduce its harmfulness. Only reprocessed to reduce its size and to slightly reduce the total amount of radiation (smaller size, more radioactive). And nuclear waste is highly corrosive and hot. Which is why it is so hard to store. The amount of nuclear fuel in long term storage in world is zero. Which shows how far we have to go.
The Yucca Mountain plan is effectively dead. So we don't even have plan to store this waste at this time.

We don't need to store it long-term. The longest term of storage for nuclear waste I can foresee is 100 years. In 100 years time, I suspect we'll be fully capable of shoving the nuclear waste in a spaceship and dropping it into the Sun.

This will be fine if the launch site is Washington DC and the Senate and House promise to pay any claims arising from an exploding rocket that fails to reach orbit out of their own pockets.

Nuclear power is wonderful till it's in your yard. Nuclear power appeals to people who don't give a sh!t about others.

vs the smoke from the coals plants we breath on a daily basis?

Your argument about waste fails the consistency test.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Meuge
An airplane is a tin can. If would fold exactly like one, against 3 feet of reinforced concrete (and that's only the outer dome).

All the other mechanisms of energy production and storage, such as biofuels, solar and wind, all have a place - it is the synergy of them with nuclear power, that I believe holds the promise for our future energy consumption.

And Dubai owning a seaport will make little difference to the threat of terror but that does not stop the public hysteria. Nor would the assurance of a 3ft wall against a 750,000lb 600mph tincan loaded with jetfuel.

Your hubris gives you overconfidence in the superiority of your ideas. Cheney, supported by Pentagon experts, also promised the Iraqis would greet us as liberators, and scoffed at those cowards who would question his best laid plans. Their progress was well worth other's risk. Such folly often ends in tragedy.

Nuclear power will have some limited role but it is not a panacea, esp. when cheaper, better, safer alternatives lie in the near future. Moonbeam speaks great wisdom in questioning the vision of those blinded by thier own brilliance.

 

[Meuge]

That's cause he doesn't believe one needs to actually have knowledge to form an opinion. Because what really fails any logical test is the fact that he prefers for billions of people to breathe polluted air, and die by the million, to having a tiny risk of a few thousand being hurt in an accident. All this talk about conservation and alternative fuels is well and good, but it's terribly unrealistic. The chances of the U.S. reducing our consumption by 50% through conservation are infinitely small, compared to the chances that we can double the output by using nuclear power. I don't know which world his consciousness resides it, but it is certainly not this one.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ZeGermans

Originally posted by: techs
Nuclear (newkiller?) power plants are unique in that they are highly complex systems that need massive safeguards to prevent failure. And failure could result in devastation far worse than any nuclear (newkiller?) bomb.
The waste from nuclear (newkiller?) power plants is unique in that it is highly concentrated, highly toxic, remains toxic for thousands of years and is almost impossible to store safely.

Nice wordplay. Obviously nuclear power plants are higher-maintainance than a normal old coal plant. Additionally, like I stated, only 1 plant that was run down by soviet governing has failed in the history of nuclear power. A brand new plant would be even safer than those around today, and they're rock solid. Additionally, that comment about being worse than any nuclear bomb is pure hyperbole. An H-bomb would dwarf any fission explosion. Fission was used on hiroshima and is what is found in reactors. Fusion is too powerful to be controlled and is what's used in modern nuclear weapons.

Finally, nuclear fuel can be reprocessed to reduce it's harmfullness, and it is capable of being stored safely no matter what greenpeace says.

The danger from nuclear reactors is not explosive but radiological. There is on the order of 100 times the radiological material in a nuclear reactor than in a nuclear bomb.
That is where the real danger lies. If Indian Point nuclear reactor had released as much radiation as Chernobyl half of New York City would be dead.
And nuclear fuel cannot be reprocessed to reduce its harmfulness. Only reprocessed to reduce its size and to slightly reduce the total amount of radiation (smaller size, more radioactive). And nuclear waste is highly corrosive and hot. Which is why it is so hard to store. The amount of nuclear fuel in long term storage in world is zero. Which shows how far we have to go.
The Yucca Mountain plan is effectively dead. So we don't even have plan to store this waste at this time.

We don't need to store it long-term. The longest term of storage for nuclear waste I can foresee is 100 years. In 100 years time, I suspect we'll be fully capable of shoving the nuclear waste in a spaceship and dropping it into the Sun.

This will be fine if the launch site is Washington DC and the Senate and House promise to pay any claims arising from an exploding rocket that fails to reach orbit out of their own pockets.

Nuclear power is wonderful till it's in your yard. Nuclear power appeals to people who don't give a sh!t about others.

vs the smoke from the coals plants we breath on a daily basis?

Your argument about waste fails the consistency test.

Your comment that my argument fails the consistency test does not rise to the level even of argument but is presented as just your opinion. Please show me where there is inconsistency. I could understand what you are saying if I had somewhere here advocated more burning of coal or intended to obstruct science directed at coal fire emissions.

 

[Moonbeam]

Me: That's cause he doesn't believe one needs to actually have knowledge to form an opinion.

Mo: Hehe, You are deeply confused by the difference between knowledge and information. Please lay off the Asimov and try Frankenstein. Anybody can acquire tons and tons of facts. It's wisdom and judgment that are hard to come by.

Me: Because what really fails any logical test is the fact that he prefers for billions of people to breathe polluted air, and die by the million, to having a tiny risk of a few thousand being hurt in an accident.

Mo: Hehe, yes that the what I have been arguing for all along. But I will save the world if I can get you to stop blowing smoke out of your paper asshole. . Actually I thought all that was your fault since you won't get off the nuclear death band wagon and push something that offers real hope.

Me: All this talk about conservation and alternative fuels is well and good, but it's terribly unrealistic. The chances of the U.S. reducing our consumption by 50% through conservation are infinitely small, compared to the chances that we can double the output by using nuclear power. I don't know which world his consciousness resides it, but it is certainly not this one.

Mo: Oh it is in this one all right, but it looks off from where you are way out there in theoretical space. I say we could way way way more than double output with nuclear power. That is not the point. The point is that that would be a bad idea, a potential huge disaster. You don't open the stupid door when there are unexplored and undeveloped alternatives. That the alternatives look poor to you is of course due to your pathetic lack of knowledge. You would have to have a PhD in alternative energy sources for your opinion to count for much. It is one of those many areas, it seems, where I am vastly more informed than you.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ZeGermans

Originally posted by: techs
Nuclear (newkiller?) power plants are unique in that they are highly complex systems that need massive safeguards to prevent failure. And failure could result in devastation far worse than any nuclear (newkiller?) bomb.
The waste from nuclear (newkiller?) power plants is unique in that it is highly concentrated, highly toxic, remains toxic for thousands of years and is almost impossible to store safely.

Nice wordplay. Obviously nuclear power plants are higher-maintainance than a normal old coal plant. Additionally, like I stated, only 1 plant that was run down by soviet governing has failed in the history of nuclear power. A brand new plant would be even safer than those around today, and they're rock solid. Additionally, that comment about being worse than any nuclear bomb is pure hyperbole. An H-bomb would dwarf any fission explosion. Fission was used on hiroshima and is what is found in reactors. Fusion is too powerful to be controlled and is what's used in modern nuclear weapons.

Finally, nuclear fuel can be reprocessed to reduce it's harmfullness, and it is capable of being stored safely no matter what greenpeace says.

The danger from nuclear reactors is not explosive but radiological. There is on the order of 100 times the radiological material in a nuclear reactor than in a nuclear bomb.
That is where the real danger lies. If Indian Point nuclear reactor had released as much radiation as Chernobyl half of New York City would be dead.
And nuclear fuel cannot be reprocessed to reduce its harmfulness. Only reprocessed to reduce its size and to slightly reduce the total amount of radiation (smaller size, more radioactive). And nuclear waste is highly corrosive and hot. Which is why it is so hard to store. The amount of nuclear fuel in long term storage in world is zero. Which shows how far we have to go.
The Yucca Mountain plan is effectively dead. So we don't even have plan to store this waste at this time.

We don't need to store it long-term. The longest term of storage for nuclear waste I can foresee is 100 years. In 100 years time, I suspect we'll be fully capable of shoving the nuclear waste in a spaceship and dropping it into the Sun.

This will be fine if the launch site is Washington DC and the Senate and House promise to pay any claims arising from an exploding rocket that fails to reach orbit out of their own pockets.

Nuclear power is wonderful till it's in your yard. Nuclear power appeals to people who don't give a sh!t about others.

vs the smoke from the coals plants we breath on a daily basis?

Your argument about waste fails the consistency test.

Your comment that my argument fails the consistency test does not rise to the level even of argument but is presented as just your opinion. Please show me where there is inconsistency. I could understand what you are saying if I had somewhere here advocated more burning of coal or intended to obstruct science directed at coal fire emissions.

Common sense: One makes people die if something goes terribly wrong (nuclear waste leak, even that can be contained in a correctly maintained facility). The other kills people every day (what we use now).

Using energy efficient lightbulbs and stoves made of glass and tin foil wont save enough energy to get us off of fossil fuels.

Nuclear is a far better solution than coal, oil, or NG.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: ZeGermans

Originally posted by: techs
Nuclear (newkiller?) power plants are unique in that they are highly complex systems that need massive safeguards to prevent failure. And failure could result in devastation far worse than any nuclear (newkiller?) bomb.
The waste from nuclear (newkiller?) power plants is unique in that it is highly concentrated, highly toxic, remains toxic for thousands of years and is almost impossible to store safely.

Nice wordplay. Obviously nuclear power plants are higher-maintainance than a normal old coal plant. Additionally, like I stated, only 1 plant that was run down by soviet governing has failed in the history of nuclear power. A brand new plant would be even safer than those around today, and they're rock solid. Additionally, that comment about being worse than any nuclear bomb is pure hyperbole. An H-bomb would dwarf any fission explosion. Fission was used on hiroshima and is what is found in reactors. Fusion is too powerful to be controlled and is what's used in modern nuclear weapons.

Finally, nuclear fuel can be reprocessed to reduce it's harmfullness, and it is capable of being stored safely no matter what greenpeace says.

The danger from nuclear reactors is not explosive but radiological. There is on the order of 100 times the radiological material in a nuclear reactor than in a nuclear bomb.
That is where the real danger lies. If Indian Point nuclear reactor had released as much radiation as Chernobyl half of New York City would be dead.
And nuclear fuel cannot be reprocessed to reduce its harmfulness. Only reprocessed to reduce its size and to slightly reduce the total amount of radiation (smaller size, more radioactive). And nuclear waste is highly corrosive and hot. Which is why it is so hard to store. The amount of nuclear fuel in long term storage in world is zero. Which shows how far we have to go.
The Yucca Mountain plan is effectively dead. So we don't even have plan to store this waste at this time.

We don't need to store it long-term. The longest term of storage for nuclear waste I can foresee is 100 years. In 100 years time, I suspect we'll be fully capable of shoving the nuclear waste in a spaceship and dropping it into the Sun.

This will be fine if the launch site is Washington DC and the Senate and House promise to pay any claims arising from an exploding rocket that fails to reach orbit out of their own pockets.

Nuclear power is wonderful till it's in your yard. Nuclear power appeals to people who don't give a sh!t about others.

vs the smoke from the coals plants we breath on a daily basis?

Your argument about waste fails the consistency test.

Your comment that my argument fails the consistency test does not rise to the level even of argument but is presented as just your opinion. Please show me where there is inconsistency. I could understand what you are saying if I had somewhere here advocated more burning of coal or intended to obstruct science directed at coal fire emissions.

Common sense: One makes people die if something goes terribly wrong (nuclear waste leak, even that can be contained in a correctly maintained facility). The other kills people every day (what we use now).

Using energy efficient lightbulbs and stoves made of glass and tin foil wont save enough energy to get us off of fossil fuels.

Nuclear is a far better solution than coal, oil, or NG.

Hehe, common sense is is not an argument at all. You imagine you know what common sense is and apply that name to yourself. Unfortunately, sense is anything but common.
Fossil and nuclear are both bad ideas. Nothing can change instantly what already is. The problems of fossil fuel are here to stay for quite some time. What is required, in my opinion is a alternative power war on the problem, not going down another psycho path, pardon the pun.

 

[Acanthus]

Moonbeam, you never cease to amaze me with your posts

I do agree that further developing cleaner renewable sources would be better. However that is going to take time, and during that time (50 years?) you need an interim. Fossil fuels for another 50 years is obviously going to make the situation far worse.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Moonbeam, you never cease to amaze me with your posts

I do agree that further developing cleaner renewable sources would be better. However that is going to take time, and during that time (50 years?) you need an interim. Fossil fuels for another 50 years is obviously going to make the situation far worse.

We know not the destination and therefore not the length of the journey. We can't guess at what science devoted intensely to alternatives might discover. There is a magnificent quote is some 1947ish Popular Science about Eniac extolling the arrival in fifty years or something like that of computers far in advance of Eniac, a wonder which instead of containing 30,000 tubes that fills an entire building will have only a thousand tubes and weigh just a ton and a half. And it took ten years to get to the moon. Nuclear power is for pessimists who can't imagine the future. Throw down your crutches and walk, I say. Glory be to thee, oh God of creativity. In you I place my faith. Turn your eyes from the nuclear Devil and use the god of reason and science to create a greener heaven.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Moonbeam, you never cease to amaze me with your posts

I do agree that further developing cleaner renewable sources would be better. However that is going to take time, and during that time (50 years?) you need an interim. Fossil fuels for another 50 years is obviously going to make the situation far worse.

We know not the destination and therefore not the length of the journey. We can't guess at what science devoted intensely to alternatives might discover. There is a magnificent quote is some 1947ish Popular Science about Eniac extolling the arrival in fifty years or something like that of computers far in advance of Eniac, a wonder which instead of containing 30,000 tubes that fills an entire building will have only a thousand tubes and weigh just a ton and a half. And it took ten years to get to the moon. Nuclear power is for pessimists who can't imagine the future. Throw down your crutches and walk, I say. Glory be to thee, oh God of creativity. In you I place my faith. Turn your eyes from the nuclear Devil and use the god of reason and science to create a greener heaven.

are you just trolling or what? that was barely coherant. Im not being the typical "i think im losing an argument so ill call you a troll" argument, im really wondering if youre just bating me here...

We need more power, we need it today. We cant build hyper-futuristic super duper solar plants today. The best option for building new power plants today is nuclear.

 

[Moonbeam]

"We know not the destination and therefore not the length of the journey."

The history of human life has been a serendipitous journey of hand and head. What Australopithecus would have thought that his opposable thumb would lead to the hand ax and a succession of discoveries ever accelerating since. Who could have seen the flames of the rocket in the first domestic fire. Who knew where the wheel would roll. You know nothing about the future and the paradigm shifts that will come that will propel discoveries and inventions you can't even imagine. Realize that the long long slow slow painful human crawl up out of the muck has seem more change in the last few years than in all of previous history, and even the rate of change is increasing. We are about to enter a time when change will be happening at a pace we can't even imagine. All the old paradigms will be out the window. Therefore:

"We can't guess at what science devoted intensely to alternatives might discover."

This gives some of that flavor: "There is a magnificent quote is some 1947ish Popular Science about Eniac extolling the arrival in fifty years or something like that of computers far in advance of Eniac, a wonder which instead of containing 30,000 tubes that fills an entire building will have only a thousand tubes and weigh just a ton and a half. And it took ten years to get to the moon."

So you see, to walk down the path of nuclear toxin is not a path we need to walk at all. The answers to our power needs will arrive from unexpected directions. Therefore:

"Nuclear power is for pessimists who can't imagine the future. Throw down your crutches and walk, I say. Glory be to thee, oh God of creativity. In you I place my faith. Turn your eyes from the nuclear Devil and use the god of reason and science to create a greener heaven."

Try to understand that you know nothing and in particular about what will be.

Also, you need to look up the definition of need. If you keep hyping yourself with worries you're going to get an ulcer.

 

[Meuge]

I bet what you just wrote sounded intelligent to you. Well... sorry to disappoint you, but this diatribe is absolutely worthless.

 

[Stunt]

Moonbeam, I can agree technology will continue to improve and allow for a better life and environment. If we devote infinite resources to anything will can accomplish anything, even attacking our monstorous energy needs. But i've seen you mention all the good humans could do if they were to devote time, energy, money into humane things. Unfortunately resources are limited and we cannot devote so much to so many things. What we can do is continue to develop technology such that we can move forward; making things better than when we came into the world. Today we have nuclear technology, far better than what we inherited...and this will continue.

We must utilize what we can do today...not what we can do tomorrow. A vision for the future is just that...a never ending journey...there will aways be better and smarter.

 

[Bitek]

Oil, coal and CNG are not necc harmful if they can be ofset by reductions in other areas of energy consumption, say in regards to transportation. Coal is not going away anytime soon as it is plentiful, local and cheap (we are the Saudi Arabia of coal) and the coal mining lobby is very strong. A very happy compromise would be increase energy supply while remaining net carbon nuetral.

Some of these alt engery sources are not that far away and acheivable in the span all this extra energy would be needed, provided they are actually funded. See Bush's recent foray into alt Energy, Biofuels and such at the national renewable energy labs.
Nuclear power is more expensive per KWhr than all fossil fuels, and there is no way the public will allow the building of tens ( or more to 2x output) or of nuclear plants around the country. Any proposed nuke facility will be fought vigorously in court and will be delayed many years and at a high cost. California has not built a single power plant in years, let alone a nuke plant. Terror concerns will just accelerate the complaints. There still is not a comprehensive storage solution now that Yucca Mt may have met its end, where do you propose to store all the waste should we fill the country with nukes?

Nuke E still poses considerable hurdles and will not be the panacea. A more comprehensive strat must be considered rather than relying on a single technology to cure all the ills.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Moonbeam, I can agree technology will continue to improve and allow for a better life and environment. If we devote infinite resources to anything will can accomplish anything, even attacking our monstorous energy needs. But i've seen you mention all the good humans could do if they were to devote time, energy, money into humane things. Unfortunately resources are limited and we cannot devote so much to so many things. What we can do is continue to develop technology such that we can move forward; making things better than when we came into the world. Today we have nuclear technology, far better than what we inherited...and this will continue.

We must utilize what we can do today...not what we can do tomorrow. A vision for the future is just that...a never ending journey...there will aways be better and smarter.

Stunt, are you a religious man? Where do you get the certainty in your 'must'? I, for one, do not see a must in, we must produce toxic wastes that can kill our descendent's for thousands of years. As I said, the nuclear proponents need to pass their names to the urinal makers of the future so their names can appear at the bottom of future toilets. You are irresponsible because you can't be held accountable. Perhaps the nuclear folk should be frozen so they can be revived to stand trial.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Meuge
I bet what you just wrote sounded intelligent to you. Well... sorry to disappoint you, but this diatribe is absolutely worthless.

If the past is any indicator, this is Meuge's admission that he has no intelligent rebuttal to a post. You are quite a disappointment, but not in the way that you think.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Stunt
Moonbeam, I can agree technology will continue to improve and allow for a better life and environment. If we devote infinite resources to anything will can accomplish anything, even attacking our monstorous energy needs. But i've seen you mention all the good humans could do if they were to devote time, energy, money into humane things. Unfortunately resources are limited and we cannot devote so much to so many things. What we can do is continue to develop technology such that we can move forward; making things better than when we came into the world. Today we have nuclear technology, far better than what we inherited...and this will continue.

We must utilize what we can do today...not what we can do tomorrow. A vision for the future is just that...a never ending journey...there will aways be better and smarter.

Stunt, are you a religious man? Where do you get the certainty in your 'must'? I, for one, do not see a must in, we must produce toxic wastes that can kill our descendent's for thousands of years. As I said, the nuclear proponents need to pass their names to the urinal makers of the future so their names can appear at the bottom of future toilets. You are irresponsible because you can't be held accountable. Perhaps the nuclear folk should be frozen so they can be revived to stand trial.

Maybe our descendents shouldnt move in next to nuclear waste storage facilities if they are so concerned? Ill take the cheap real estate

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Stunt
Moonbeam, I can agree technology will continue to improve and allow for a better life and environment. If we devote infinite resources to anything will can accomplish anything, even attacking our monstorous energy needs. But i've seen you mention all the good humans could do if they were to devote time, energy, money into humane things. Unfortunately resources are limited and we cannot devote so much to so many things. What we can do is continue to develop technology such that we can move forward; making things better than when we came into the world. Today we have nuclear technology, far better than what we inherited...and this will continue.

We must utilize what we can do today...not what we can do tomorrow. A vision for the future is just that...a never ending journey...there will aways be better and smarter.

Stunt, are you a religious man? Where do you get the certainty in your 'must'? I, for one, do not see a must in, we must produce toxic wastes that can kill our descendent's for thousands of years. As I said, the nuclear proponents need to pass their names to the urinal makers of the future so their names can appear at the bottom of future toilets. You are irresponsible because you can't be held accountable. Perhaps the nuclear folk should be frozen so they can be revived to stand trial.

I'm not religious in the formal sense of the word. See here for my religious views

Nuclear waste while I will not argue is bad...the toxins released into the atmosphere by previous generations are and will be far more destructive than nuclear waste. This waste unlike poisons of the past can be contained and will not affect anybody. Down the road we will have better technology to move on; maybe even burn the nuclear waste of the past. Either way we are both waiting for technology to solve our problems. The difference is; my solution for today can be implemeted today...yours is still a pipedream.

We *MUST* continuously improve and innovate...this will raise our standard of living and create a sustainable lifestyle. This innovation is what has spawned nuclear technology; and will spawn the next step in our progression.

 

[Stunt]

I'd be interested to hear Moonbeam's thoughts on dumps...these pose a far greater problem to human health and lifestyle than nuclear waste ever will.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Stunt
Moonbeam, I can agree technology will continue to improve and allow for a better life and environment. If we devote infinite resources to anything will can accomplish anything, even attacking our monstorous energy needs. But i've seen you mention all the good humans could do if they were to devote time, energy, money into humane things. Unfortunately resources are limited and we cannot devote so much to so many things. What we can do is continue to develop technology such that we can move forward; making things better than when we came into the world. Today we have nuclear technology, far better than what we inherited...and this will continue.

We must utilize what we can do today...not what we can do tomorrow. A vision for the future is just that...a never ending journey...there will aways be better and smarter.

Stunt, are you a religious man? Where do you get the certainty in your 'must'? I, for one, do not see a must in, we must produce toxic wastes that can kill our descendent's for thousands of years. As I said, the nuclear proponents need to pass their names to the urinal makers of the future so their names can appear at the bottom of future toilets. You are irresponsible because you can't be held accountable. Perhaps the nuclear folk should be frozen so they can be revived to stand trial.

Well if you are concerned about toxic waste how about this :

ENERGY

Link to this article
E-mail this article
Subscribe
Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste
Fast-neutron reactors could extract much more energy from recycled nuclear fuel, minimize the risks of weapons proliferation and markedly reduce the time nuclear waste must be isolated
By William H. Hannum, Gerald E. Marsh and George S. Stanford
Despite long-standing public concern about the safety of nuclear energy, more and more people are realizing that it may be the most environmentally friendly way to generate large amounts of electricity. Several nations, including Brazil, China, Egypt, Finland, India, Japan, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea and Vietnam, are building or planning nuclear plants. But this global trend has not as yet extended to the U.S., where work on the last such facility began some 30 years ago.

If developed sensibly, nuclear power could be truly sustainable and essentially inexhaustible and could operate without contributing to climate change. In particular, a relatively new form of nuclear technology could overcome the principal drawbacks of current methods--;namely, worries about reactor accidents, the potential for diversion of nuclear fuel into highly destructive weapons, the management of dangerous, long-lived radioactive waste, and the depletion of global reserves of economically available uranium. This nuclear fuel cycle would combine two innovations: pyrometallurgical processing (a high-temperature method of recycling reactor waste into fuel) and advanced fast-neutron reactors capable of burning that fuel. With this approach, the radioactivity from the generated waste could drop to safe levels in a few hundred years, thereby eliminating the need to segregate waste for tens of thousands of years....continued at Scientific American Digital

Granted this was researched by "pinheaded scientist" but I thougt it looked interesting.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Hafen
Oil, coal and CNG are not necc harmful if they can be ofset by reductions in other areas of energy consumption, say in regards to transportation. Coal is not going away anytime soon as it is plentiful, local and cheap (we are the Saudi Arabia of coal) and the coal mining lobby is very strong. A very happy compromise would be increase energy supply while remaining net carbon nuetral.

Some of these alt engery sources are not that far away and acheivable in the span all this extra energy would be needed, provided they are actually funded. See Bush's recent foray into alt Energy, Biofuels and such at the national renewable energy labs.
Nuclear power is more expensive per KWhr than all fossil fuels, and there is no way the public will allow the building of tens ( or more to 2x output) or of nuclear plants around the country. Any proposed nuke facility will be fought vigorously in court and will be delayed many years and at a high cost. California has not built a single power plant in years, let alone a nuke plant. Terror concerns will just accelerate the complaints. There still is not a comprehensive storage solution now that Yucca Mt may have met its end, where do you propose to store all the waste should we fill the country with nukes?

Nuke E still poses considerable hurdles and will not be the panacea. A more comprehensive strat must be considered rather than relying on a single technology to cure all the ills.

Nuclear plants are becoming more cost competitive as fuel costs (NG) spike and our existing plants are uprated to produce more electricity.

Our current fleet of nuclear reactors are based on military designs that are more than 40 years old. They were expensive to build because they were the first and as a consequence they were overbilt and over complicated. There are now designs available to us that are more cost efficent, safer, and easier to construct. The Japanese and Koreans have already licensed and constructed several of these more advanced reactors.

What is going to happen is that operators will construct additional reactors on existing nuclear plant grounds to minimize opposition and accelerate the licensing proceess Several utilities, mostly in the south, have announced that they plant to submit license applications to the NRC within the next year. These would be the first in decades.

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Moonbeam, you never cease to amaze me with your posts

I do agree that further developing cleaner renewable sources would be better. However that is going to take time, and during that time (50 years?) you need an interim. Fossil fuels for another 50 years is obviously going to make the situation far worse.

We know not the destination and therefore not the length of the journey. We can't guess at what science devoted intensely to alternatives might discover. There is a magnificent quote is some 1947ish Popular Science about Eniac extolling the arrival in fifty years or something like that of computers far in advance of Eniac, a wonder which instead of containing 30,000 tubes that fills an entire building will have only a thousand tubes and weigh just a ton and a half. And it took ten years to get to the moon. Nuclear power is for pessimists who can't imagine the future. Throw down your crutches and walk, I say. Glory be to thee, oh God of creativity. In you I place my faith. Turn your eyes from the nuclear Devil and use the god of reason and science to create a greener heaven.

"We know not the destination and therefore not the length of the journey."

I could say the same about your mom. :laugh:

This post is called trolling.

 

[Moonbeam]

I particularly like the small garage unit that drives your car 11,000 mile a year.

Why pay the nuclear plant for power it produces when you can produce and sell your own. There are plenty of ethical scientists who aren't Doctor Death.

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I particularly like the small garage unit that drives your car 11,000 mile a year.

Why pay the nuclear plant for power it produces when you can produce and sell your own. There are plenty of ethical scientists who aren't Doctor Death.

Solar is fine for distributed power but it will not in the near term replace centralized power stations.

Global damage from FFs are much worse than localized damage from nuclear waste.