Comments on: Think Nuclear is the Answer?

By: morphoyle

morphoyle — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:36:04 +0000

The RISK (not certainty) is certainly better until the better alternatives you have mentioned can catch up. With currently available fossil fuel technology, horrible occurrences are a CERTAINTY. Just think about all the damage coal does – and not this CO2 BS the Obama administration is peddling to tax more – mercury(airborne), carbon monoxide (airborne) , lots of mining accidents, fine particulate (airborne) and radioactive elements (also airborne). Oh, and while I’m on the topic, please try not to buy in to the “Clean Coal” BS that is being pushed. Its not feasible at this point (we can’t afford it) and it CO2 is not even close to the worst or most harmful substance to come from burning coal and other fossil fuels.

Even worse, according to the International Energy Agency, power demands are expected to rise by 60 percent by 2030, with 85% of total power coming from fossil fuels. To me, the remote risk of a Chernobyl are better than the certainty of destructive effects put forth by fossil fuel. I don’t feel that nuclear is the greatest solution, only the greatest when you factor in risk, availability, cost, efficiency, and total ability to generate power.

By: sherry

sherry — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:57:46 +0000

I don’t know enough on this. It is true. I am not one to participate in destruction–except of false perceptions. that is where my refusal to participate in nuclear is coming from. Ever heard of the New Madrid fault? Japan’s disaster illuminated many to believe that US not ready for occasions of earthquakes. AS you well know, the soil in this part of the country (Heartland) carries waves all to well, while the west’s soil cushions the shocks making a similar earthquake far less destructive than that of New Madrid. A 6 earthquake at San Andreas would reach thousands of square miles, but a 6 at New Madrid (where there are far less stringent earthquake-related building codes) results in millions of acres bing affected…and woooops! The Perry nuclear facility (located on Lake Eary, isn’t it?) is build directly over the fault line. Hopefully it’s been checked more effectively than the Davis-Besse plant, which, like the Perry plant is also run First Nuclear. also it’s unfortunate that the same government inspecting commission is charge of both.

So, we’ll pray for the best…cause the risk of nuclear disasters are just the ‘best alternative’…

As to “why haven’t we taken to the streets yet?” That is one he double hockey sticks of a good question, and the source of much frustration.

By: morphoyle

morphoyle — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:34:55 +0000

These are all great alternatives, but they each have their own set of problems! Here is a very quick, dirty rundown, having done no additional research before typing this comment – Hemp/Biomass diverts food from people that don’t have enough already, and the efficiency isn’t there. Hydro isn’t terrible, but it does divert rivers and can devastate local wildlife and/or populations. Geothermal is impractical for electrical generation due to inefficiency (it’s much better for lower temp hot water for things like baths or cooking) and that it must be moved from time to time after the “hot spot” the plant relies on cools too much to produce a meaningful amount of electricity. Hydrogen, though efficient, is very inefficient to produce, and ends up costing more in energy than you can get back out of it. Ironically, the most efficient hydrogen production methods utilize a nuclear reactor, from which hydrogen is a by-product.

I’ve done a lot of personal research on this, and I’m a physics nut….

From a basic physics standpoint, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and energy can neither be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. These basic facts must be considered when thinking about what energy policy is best for our country. If those in power can’t be trusted with the responsibility to make sure power plants run safely and efficiently, can they really be trusted to run anything else? If your answer is no, then why haven’t we taken to the streets yet?

By: sherry

sherry — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:02:17 +0000

Alternatives: Utilizing wave motion, hemp, biomass, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, hydrogen production or some admixture thereof…

By: morphoyle

morphoyle — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:25:15 +0000

As far as the government comment goes – they do need to be out of the free market, but I would worry more about the massive subsidies given to banks and wall street before I would worry about which technological developments they encourage.
In the past several decades, they have actually discouraged nuclear power. It is only recently that USNRC has begun to encourage growth and development in this area again. If anything, the government has stood in the way of making nuclear power less wasteful and safer. The current administration put the breaks on an environmental review that would have reduced the mass of our current stockpile of spent nuclear fuel by as much as 30%!
And no, there isn’t an energy crisis at this very moment, but it is defiantly impending, especially given the current hooplah about CO2 emissions. In the UK, there are several power plants that must be shut down because they are old and produce too much air pollution. They face energy deficits in the neighborhood of 20% in the coming decade. It’s only a matter of time before this issue hits home. Why wait until an issue becomes a crisis before we do something about it?

By: morphoyle

morphoyle — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:09:43 +0000

But Sherry, so far, it has turned out pretty well compared to our other “main” energy sources – namely coal, natural gas, and petrol products. So far, alternate energy sources such a solar and wind have not proven efficient enough for the massive amount of power required to support our current lifestyles. Even the most conservative statistics on these methods show that we would need to devote MASSIVE amounts of land to wind and solar power to even come close to meeting power demand. In the future, I’m sure developments will come that will increase the power producing capabilities of these methods, and when that happens, I would be more than happy to see wind and solar be our main means of energy production. In the meantime, we still need a way to meet power demands, reduce dependence on foreign fuels, and stop destroying the environment.
In the meantime, I firmly believe nuclear power should replace coal as our main supplier of electricity, while being supplemented by the current alternatives – like wind and solar. Either that, or people worldwide will have to DRASTICALLY cut consumption. I don’t just mean turning lights off, unplugging devices when not in use, etc. Actions like that have little or no effect on the bottom line, though they might make us feel good. It’s akin to bailing out the titanic with a teaspoon. Much more power goes in to the production of goods and foods. Since the “need” for more – ie human nature – is unlikely to change anytime soon, we need to have a sustainable. clean energy policy.
I just hate the nuclear power is being looked upon as “archaic” when it is anything but that. Modern fission reactors run very safely, efficiently, and contribute ZERO air pollution. Spent fuel has gone from needing tens of thousands of years to completely decay and become harmless, to only needing a few hundred. Granted, that is still a long time, but is a long sight better than the viable fossil fuel based alternatives. If you throw advancements in fusion nuclear reactors in to the mix, then in the next several decades, we will all be looking at cheap power with no pollution and no harmful by-products!

What are your ideas on this? I really am curious. I just have trouble seeing a way for us to reduce our need for foreign oil and domestic coal while still meeting energy demands (while still working within human nature) without nuclear power being used – even if it’s just a stepping stone to something better.

By: sherry

sherry — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:33:40 +0000

A Russian proverb states it well–

Where money is heard, the truth is silent.

On top of my nuclear safety concerns–I mean, yes, there are so many advances, and often it turns out well…but it also doesn’t. Hasn’t. And when that happens the effects are JUST TOO D@MNED BIG to justify the risk…IMHO.

And morphoyle…is the same government that let our current financial crisis develop–if not aided and abetted such a catastrophe–the same one that would ultimately be in charge of regulating expanded nuclear capabilities? That’s just not good enough.

You can glance over the headlines here on the LV for about two secs and see how I might think about that! Like you, I believe in alternative energy sources, and yet believe that nuclear is archaic in its cost and risks.

NEXT! I am sure that there is a better way!

I refuse to believe that there is an energy crisis at all. It’s like saying there is a shortage of mass…

The gov just needs to get out of the way and allow the innovations come forward…stop protecting nuclear, oil and gas through subsidies and other anti-free market maneuvers.

By: Jefferson

Jefferson — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:03:31 +0000

This is why I like this paper. Good debate on a serious subject with both sides well represented. These types of discussions are what’s missing in our society. I seriously doubt either Sherry or Morphoyl have stock in a nuclear plant or a wind turbine company. No financial gain leaves out hypocrisy.

By: morphoyle

morphoyle — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:30:34 +0000

Here is an excellent online book about energy diversification – http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

Note that it is mentioned – “With the exception of Chernobyl, no radiation-related fatalities ever occurred at any commercial nuclear power plant”

By: morphoyle

morphoyle — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 05:00:39 +0000

All I’m saying is that people tend to focus on the negative aspects of nuclear power while ignoring negative aspects of so-called green power technologies. Many people are not aware that large scale generation of power by wind and/or solar would have an enormous impact on our environment as well. For example – too many wind farms would disrupt the transfer of heat from the equator to the northern hemisphere, resulting in a warmer equator and larger ice caps. What do you think the effect of thousands of square miles of solar cells absorbing rays that would otherwise hit – and warm – the earth? These are good technologies, if used in moderation, just as nuclear power generation can be.
Do some research on nuclear power. A properly run, well regulated, modern fission reactor produces much less waste than in previous designs, with improvements occurring frequently. There has also been great progress in reprocessing spent rods and fuels to reduce the amount of waste that must be stored. Abandoning nuclear power ensures that no further progress will be made toward producing waste-free nuclear power.
France currently enjoys the cleanest air and cheapest electricity of any industrialized nation – with few minor accidents and NO major disasters. This does raise an issue with waste, however, reducing the number of plants and supplementing with solar and wind generation could solve this issue, while keeping power cheap and the air clean. If anyone had bothered to read the final paragraph of my first post, you would notice that I advocate a sensible mix of power generation methods, including (heavily regulated) nuclear. Relying on one or two methods, no matter how clean you THINK they are, will have too great an impact on the environment, among other things. Put aside your laymen ignorance for just a second and think logically.