Quote :

"^ He's got far more credibility than, say, you. "

Yes, a complete fabulist and non-expert on the field who regularly manipulates data has more credibility than someone who actually studies this for a living. And the litany of other experts who actually do this research for a living.

Birds of a feather.

Quote :

"^ Do you dispute the oxidizing nature of the environment in question? Note also that the alloy used in the containers has only been around a few decades. As such, its long-term durability under hostile conditions remains uncertain."

If we left the containers sitting out exposed to oxygen and water then sure. But we're not doing that. This is the fundamental point which you are ignoring.

The metal canister is being stored inside a sealed concrete cask. This is the important thing. Furthermore, we are fortunate to have a discipline called "Material science" - amazingly enough, people actually study these issues for a living too! (How amazing!)

2/27/2009 6:25:52 PM

60 years of science doesn't mean anything. Obama says its no good, so its no good.

2/27/2009 6:30:51 PM

Quote :

"Yes, a complete fabulist and non-expert on the field who regularly manipulates data has more credibility than someone who actually studies this for a living."

Evidence? He's an electrical and nuclear engineer with decades of experience. He specifically focuses on disposal of radioactive waste. Debate the legitimacy of credentials all you want. (Personally, I think they're fairly bogus.) Regardless, Makhijani has them.

Given my ideas about the future, I'm not terribly worried about the nuclear waste will do in a hundred years. The Singularity should be in full swing by then anyway. Regardless, living in New Mexico has taught me respect for the anti-nuclear movement. Countless folks here have been hurt by the industry, from mining to weapons testing. This unsavory record justifies any suspicion. I don't see fission as the way forward. It's too centralized and uncertain. (Even if the certainly comes solely from politics, it's a current reality.) Look to clean, distributed power sources instead.

[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 6:44 PM. Reason : given]

2/27/2009 6:35:18 PM

Quote :

"Evidence? He's an electrical and nuclear engineer with decades of experience. He specifically focuses on disposal of radioactive waste. Debate the legitimacy of credentials all you want. (Personally, I think they're fairly bogus.) Regardless, Makhijani has them."

I actually sat through his talk. I was actually there when a fellow grad student questioned him on the fact that his cost estimates for solar fail to account for MTBF, weather damage, etc. They also don't account for manufacturing capacity and assume wildly optimistic projections for efficiency. He also incorrectly estimates the relative land footprints for both in terms of actual space utilization.

Meanwhile, his nuclear numbers relied on wildly pessimistic estimates for Uranium cost (using the highest peak value of the cost over a decade). He misuses the numbers he obtained from OCRWM.

So yes. I do know what I'm talking about. And I know enough to see a bullshit artist when I see one.

2/27/2009 6:46:19 PM

^ Even if true, which I would have to verify, none of that removes his credentials. Right or wrong, he is an expert on the subject.

Also, people should know that France and other countries using lots of nuclear power have problems with waste disposal. See the English Channel controversy. It's not just us backwards Americans.

[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 6:59 PM. Reason : Americans]

2/27/2009 6:54:44 PM

omg, all of these problems with the French nuclear problem are the same problems we face here. That would be people like you.

2/27/2009 7:13:08 PM

^ Again, that's a political reality. It doesn't matter if we're all knuckle-dragging primitivists. Unless public assessment of the dangers of fission power changes suddenly and dramatically, there's no way it can save us from global warming. You're simply not going be able to find the money and support for enough plants to accomplish anything significant. Remember, fission in the country relies on government insurance. Investors worry that their asset could turn into a huge liability overnight.

[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 7:22 PM. Reason : liability]

2/27/2009 7:20:51 PM

regardless of how you feel about nuclear energy and all of the various theories about its storage and decay, doesnt it seem ridiculous to expose the government to billions in damages when we cant afford to wipe our own asses?

2/27/2009 7:58:27 PM

Whether Yucca mountain was suitable or not will probably be debated inconslusively ad nauseum... but I look at it from this standpoint:

They have spent 22 years and $9 billion and not one gram of nuclear waste is stored there, way I see it it was a 'count your losses and dump the whole idea' move because they could just as easily spend another 2 decades and a 10-figure dollar some and still not be ready. Sunk cost theory, cut your losses and run, this project was a sinkhole.

For the record, I am very much for Nuclear Power, as well as recycling waste. I think a better approach would be to make smaller, decentralized, storage areas, not just one *BIG* one. Best not to put all your eggs in one basket, and the cost of the projects wouldn't be too terrible.

The caskets seem good enough to store it in, no reason why each reactor can't develop its own small storage facility off-site, somewhere in the local BFE. Throw it in the caskets and lock it up, but don't throw away the key, one day that 'waste' might be profitable to recycle or in 100years we will have a better permanent solution to the waste problem.

2/27/2009 8:47:35 PM

i just want to make sure that everyone knows that after the spent fuel sits in the pool for a bit it is moved to concrete canisters that sit on a concrete pad exposed to the elements with no fucking problem at every fucking nuclear power plant

hell, one of the sample problems in the new SCALE (SCALE6) is concrete casks on a concrete pad

we know so much about this particular situation, that it is used as a fucking validation problem to ensure that you have complied the software correctly

just want to throw that out there

it is profitable to recycle the waste right now

yucca mtn is appropriate because the water table is the farthest that it can possibly be from the casks at any location in the us

you stupid fucking greenies and your god damn lack of any fucking education and your god damn feel good measures that dont help the current socioeconomic problem

its not like we have monkeys working on this fucking project

its the same thing with the assault weapon ban, it is meaningless because the features banned have nothing to do with the lethality of the weapon

here is a link

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

that describes how coal fired plant actually have a larger radioactive footprint than nuclear power

[Edited on February 27, 2009 at 10:58 PM. Reason : 

2/27/2009 10:51:05 PM

Quote :

" Well, those all have their negatives, but honestly I think that nuclear might be one of the worst."

that's because you don't know much about the subject, George

2/28/2009 1:36:16 AM

Quote :

"coal fired plant actually have a larger radioactive footprint than nuclear power"

Nobody ever believes me when I tell them this

2/28/2009 9:31:19 AM

^I used to not know that either.

It doesn't make a difference at this point, anyway. Even if the greenies and the NIMBY's and the rest of the uneducated masses did finally pull their heads out of their asses, we wouldn't be able to build enough nuclear plants in a reasonable time span to be able to keep up with current energy needs (the numbers I've seen indicate a 1GW nuclear plant per day for the next forty years, and that's assuming that we somehow cut our energy consumption in half). The nuclear industry has been stalled for far too long. So oddly enough, they've already won.

And here's a link for a good discussion about nuclear energy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=131305

2/28/2009 10:11:34 AM

^ That is absurd. Your numbers are rediculous. There is no way that U.S. electricity consumption is going to grow that absurdly fast. 1 GW per day would double U.S. electricity nameplate capacity in less than three years. And this would fail to take into account the continuing output gains at existing plants due to improving efficiency.

2/28/2009 12:07:43 PM

My company had quite a few contractors at this project...they were told the day of inauguration they would be let go soon. Way to keep jerbs Obama.

2/28/2009 12:30:26 PM

Quote :

"I am personally strongly in support of this idea b/c the most different places we bury the stuff, the more likely something is to go wrong,"

you mean, like keeping the waste stored at hundreds of reactors across the country? naaaaaah. that's silly.

but, for the record, the estimate of a 1,000 year time-table for this stuff being "safe" is unrealistic, mrfrog, and you know that. That would only be true if all of the radioactive constituents had half-lives on the order of decades. And they don't.

2/28/2009 2:02:19 PM

Quote :

"but, for the record, the estimate of a 1,000 year time-table for this stuff being "safe" is unrealistic, mrfrog, and you know that. That would only be true if all of the radioactive constituents had half-lives on the order of decades. And they don't."

Actually, 1000 years was the minimum time for any contaminants which managed to make it into the groundwater to reach the 5 km boundary. The actual site characterization was first mandated for 10,000 years - later 1,000,000 years by the courts.

At this point, despite people arguing about how we can't possibly engineer to those timeframes, we're not relying on man-made barriers anymore - this is a characterization of the natural features of the geology. Which people have done studies of.

2/28/2009 2:06:36 PM

exactly, though. Geologically, it's a hell of a lot safer than anywhere else we have that shit stored right now. I'm totally with you on the reprocessing facet, though. Of course, I'm a bit biased, since I work at SRS, but still. We already do reprocessing right now. We fucking KNOW how to do it. No sense in not doing it full scale.

2/28/2009 2:25:40 PM

This isn't a bad move. My geology teacher from many semesters ago said this place is right on a fault line and if an earthquake ever happened the town of Las Vegas would glow.

2/28/2009 3:04:55 PM

Your geology teacher obviously does seem to know a whole lot about how we actually store waste packages, then. Perhaps he should stick to geology.

2/28/2009 3:08:51 PM

really this thread is getting pwnt by DrSteve

2/28/2009 3:52:44 PM

Quote :

"regardless of how you feel about nuclear energy and all of the various theories about its storage and decay, doesnt it seem ridiculous to expose the government to billions in damages when we cant afford to wipe our own asses?"

Makes me think of the libertarian criticism of the industry. I'll link to it, as I know many of y'all have sympathies in that direction.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3134

As the Cato folks say, civilian fission as always been intimately connected to the weapons program. Since I don't worship the market, this worries me at least as much as the lack of economic viability without subsidies. All together, fission power really doesn't have a lot going for it. Unlike other low-carbon sources, it produces a harmful byproduct that fucking scares people. It's limited rather renewable, consuming fuel. Honestly, why bother? Instead of smashing handfuls atoms here on Earth, we should look to the titanic fusion reactor in our neighborhood. More energy falls on the surface of the planet each year than is contained in global uranium reserves. The future lies in fusion.

Quote :

"you stupid fucking greenies and your god damn lack of any fucking education and your god damn feel good measures that dont help the current socioeconomic problem"

As Makhijani shows, it's literally incorrect to claim anti-nuclear activists lack education. Perhaps you should criticize the educational establishment instead.

Quote :

"that describes how coal fired plant actually have a larger radioactive footprint than nuclear power"

Opposing fission doesn't mean supporting coal.

Quote :

"Your geology teacher obviously does seem to know a whole lot about how we actually store waste packages, then."

Here in New Mexico, they're storing nuclear waste in simple metal drums in salt in karst. The wonderful WIPP site. Complex subterranean drainage serves a defining feature of that topography. You're not supposed to store waste in such an environment; groundwater contamination becomes likely. The authorities deny this feature, of course, but reinforcing data continues to come out. It's just one example of why folks mistrust the industry. Countless New Mexicans have been harmed. If you don't believe me, just come to Gallup and ask around. The Navajo didn't place a moratorium on uranium mining for shits and giggles. Miners got lung cancer and died. The radiation killed people. It's not an invented controversy.

(For the record, I learned about the WIPP program from a dude with a PHD in karst geomorphology. More evidence against the notion that activists lack education.)

2/28/2009 5:29:18 PM

Quote :

"Opposing fission doesn't mean supporting coal."

the only other option for base load is hydro and there arent any new rivers being built

2/28/2009 5:32:52 PM

Quote :

"Makes me think of the libertarian criticism of the industry. I'll link to it, as I know many of y'all have sympathies in that direction. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3134 As the Cato folks say, civilian fission as always been intimately connected to the weapons program. Since I don't worship the market, this worries me at least as much as the lack of economic viability without subsidies."

I'd actually be quite fine with ending the subsidies to nuclear - assuming we do the same with solar, wind, coal, and oil. And if we subject solar, wind, coal, and oil to the exact same level of regulatory scrutiny that nuclear has.

"Oh," but folks in the solar and wind, "We need those subsidies to be economically viable!"

So again - I'm all for energy without subsidies. But wind and solar would be economically unviable long before nuclear would.

Quote :

"Here in New Mexico, they're storing nuclear waste in simple metal drums in salt in karst. The wonderful WIPP site. Complex subterranean drainage serves a defining feature of that topography. You're not supposed to store waste in such an environment; groundwater contamination becomes likely. The authorities deny this feature, of course, but reinforcing data continues to come out."

WIPP is not Yucca. Not the same type of waste, not the same geology. The comparison is apples and oranges.

The geology of WIPP isn't suitable for storing the kind of waste Yucca would store. Which means you're not supposed to store high-level waste in such an environment. Fortunately... we're not storing high-level waste in that kind of environment.

Furthermore, a little basic salt geology: salt formations occur due to the historic absence of water within the formation. Salt formations dissolve when water is present. Which means if you have a salt formation, water hasn't been there for thousands of years.

Implying water would get in there would imply that something radical is changing about the geology.

2/28/2009 6:06:41 PM

^^ A multiplicity of other options exist, though they may take a while to get off the ground. Geothermal, space solar, hydrokinetic in the ocean, kite-style wind, and so on.

Quote :

"And if we subject solar, wind, coal, and oil to the exact same level of regulatory scrutiny that nuclear has."

That doesn't make any sense and you know. Other power sources pose different levels of risk.

Quote :

"But wind and solar would be economically unviable long before nuclear would."

I wouldn't bet on that. Nuclear has a special relationship with the government. If needed, the civilian program can serve as backup for military applications.

Quote :

"Implying water would get in there would imply that something radical is changing about the geology."

They've drilled huge holes to access the salt. Richard Hayes Phillips, an expert on the subject, doesn't believe they can successfully seal said holes.

[Edited on February 28, 2009 at 6:15 PM. Reason : WIPP]

2/28/2009 6:08:33 PM

Quote :

"Geothermal"

Good, but limited in applicability depending on location.

Quote :

"space solar"

Miles off in the horizon for development.

Quote :

"hydrokinetic in the ocean"

Great on paper, but full of its own problems - including economics, environmental impact, total generation capacity, and aesthetic impact.

Quote :

"kite-style wind, and so on."

Even less efficient or cost-effective than the current crop of wind turbines.

Quote :

"That doesn't make any sense and you know. Other power sources pose different levels of risk."

Oh really? Do we regulate radioactivity to the same level from coal? (No). Do we apply the same stringent environmental impact regulations to solar and wind? No. Do we factor in the cost of retro-fitting the grid for small, distributed electricity sources like solar and wind? No.

If you want to play this game, be my guest. The numbers aren't there for you.

Quote :

"They've drilled huge holes to access the salt. Richard Hayes Phillips, an expert on the subject, doesn't believe they can successfully seal said holes."

I fail to see a convincing argument as to why. We understand how to make an impermeable barrier from our understanding of natural geology alone - clearly, it's not impossible.


[Edited on February 28, 2009 at 6:21 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2009 6:14:21 PM

Quote :

"Miles off in the horizon for development."

Depends on how much effort we put into it. And what you mean by miles.

Quote :

"Even less efficient or cost-effective than the current crop of wind turbines."

It can generate up to eight times as much power as traditional wind, using less space and producing more consistently. Expect the technology to take off in a decade or less.

2/28/2009 6:21:09 PM

Quote :

"Oh really? Do we regulate radioactivity to the same level from coal? (No)."

I'll give you this one. Coal wins as far negative externalities go. Environmental damage at every level and brutal conditions for workers. I'm no fan of that industry either.

Quote :

"Do we apply the same stringent environmental impact regulations to solar and wind? No."

Wind and solar don't have the same kind of environmental impact.

Quote :

"Do we factor in the cost of retro-fitting the grid for small, distributed electricity sources like solar and wind? No."

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but distributed energy sources have inherent advantages over the current scheme.

Quote :

"If you want to play this game, be my guest. The numbers aren't there for you."

Sure. Poor, pitiful fission, hindered by regulation. If only those evil greenies in the government didn't favor solar and wind so. How does that narrative explain the private sector's choices? Investors have been pouring capital into renewables while avoiding fission as if it were radioactive. Despite the subsidies for nuclear, Wall Street still ain't interested.

Quote :

"I fail to see a convincing argument as to why. We understand how to make an impermeable barrier from our understanding of natural geology alone - clearly, it's not impossible."

According to Phillips, the ability to seal such shafts and boreholes hasn't yet been demonstrated. Note that they had to drill through groundwater aquifers in order to reach the salt beds. Because the topology, there's the potential for contaminating vast amounts of water. Sounds like a big risk for an unproven technique.

2/28/2009 7:19:39 PM

isnt one of biggest arguments against wind energy is how inconsistent it is? based on that, how could it ever be a viable option until we learn how to store the generated energy effectively and distribute it effectively from the middle of nowhere (great plains) to the coasts?

2/28/2009 7:33:07 PM

^ Yes, that's a problem. The kite-style generator accesses steadier winds higher in the atmosphere, but you would still want a backup plan.

For more information on the real cost of nuclear power, see the following report. From 1947 through 1999, fission received $145.4 billion subsidies while wind and solar got $5.7 billion. Because of the capital-intensive nature of nuclear power, looking at only the current cost or subsidy per unit of energy produced slants the numbers.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/FatalFlawsSummary.pdf

2/28/2009 7:46:04 PM

Quote :

"Investors have been pouring capital into renewables while avoiding fission as if it were radioactive. Despite the subsidies for nuclear, Wall Street still ain't interested."

actually, they are

i know for a fact that duke energy's 20 year plan includes more nuclear power, 2 ap1000 units in cherokee sc because of the decrease volatility of fuel prices and the fears of a carbon tax

progress energy is public with their intent to build two new units at sharron harris

just two examples

^ aside from the fact that it is a .org site, do they consider the break down of those subsidies to national laboratories and other government funded projects, not just the private power generation industry

[Edited on February 28, 2009 at 9:25 PM. Reason : 

2/28/2009 9:11:57 PM

Quote :

"Wind and solar don't have the same kind of environmental impact. "

Are you sure of that? Do you really think it is a great idea to sap energy from two of the biggest drivers of climate on our planet? One windmill, not too bad. Hundreds of thousands? Bad fucking plan. And now you want to put kites up into higher level winds? What a BAD IDEA. Shouldn't the "climate scientists" understand the inherent problem in this. Give me a fucking brealk

2/28/2009 9:27:05 PM

^^ A few extra units, okay. But what about new nuclear plants? If they're such a great idea, where's the investment? Renewables continue to get private funding.

^ I don't know if that'll be problem in the near future. Eventually, sure. Beaming solar power from space, for example, creates obvious issues. But we should be able to use the technology responsibly.

[Edited on February 28, 2009 at 9:32 PM. Reason : near future]

2/28/2009 9:28:31 PM

you know why there is no investment in nuclear? Because every time one is proposed, there are about a billion and a half lawsuits against the company. If we could end these frivolous lawsuits, there would be more investment, because then the plant COULD be profitable without sinking tens of billions of dollars into lawyers before a single kW of energy is produced. The fact is that the safety record of the US nuclear industry is fairly good. The worst event you can even mention was practically nothing in its own right. In fact, the safety of the reactors was practically proven in that episode. But no, the anti-nuke fucktards have to scream and cry every time someone even thinks of the word "nuclear"

2/28/2009 9:42:25 PM

Quote :

"But we should be able to use the technology responsibly."

we can use nuclear technology responsibly right now

Quote :

"A few extra units, okay. But what about new nuclear plants? If they're such a great idea, where's the investment?"

lulz, a unit is synonymous with nuclear power plant

NuStart: http://www.nustartenergy.com/Consortium.aspx

Southern Company is putting in two new units at vogtle: http://www.southerncompany.com/aboutus/nuclear.aspx

[Edited on February 28, 2009 at 10:01 PM. Reason : 

2/28/2009 9:52:49 PM

Quote :

"we can use nuclear technology responsibly right now"

Various plants currently operate successfully in the sense that electricity flows into the grid. Waste disposal remains an issue. Building new ones will take years. Based on the historical record, delays have to be expected. For the reasons I've outlined above, I'd rather pursue renewables.

Quote :

"lulz, a unit is synonymous with nuclear power plant"

Expanding existing sites isn't the same as establishing new ones. That's the distinction I was trying to make. Or were you using unit to denote a new site? I know there's some interest and private investment in fission, but, despite the subsidies, it pales in comparison with renewables. Also, plans aren't the same as running generators. The last new reactor in the US became operational over a decade ago.

[Edited on February 28, 2009 at 10:44 PM. Reason : fission]

2/28/2009 10:43:28 PM

Quote :

"For the reasons I've outlined above, I'd rather pursue renewables."

Fine. you make your investments, the rest of us will make ours. We'll see who the consumers prefer to buy their power from.

That said, how is nuclear subsidy being calculated? I suspect most of that is salaries for regulators and inspectors, as that's how such figures tend to be calculated. It is probably from the same people that included all road-building ever when calculating oil subsidies.

2/28/2009 11:01:23 PM

waste disposal is only an issue because of the lack of correct information and how scary people think it is, we can get all the bad stuff out and reduce the amount of material that has to be mined (we are starting to go in circles in this thread)

the licensing procedure has been changed so that there will be no delays this time around. once you get a site license (valid for 30 years), you combine that with an approved design, then there is a 3 year review and all that is left is construction

the reason that utilities are building new units on current sites is because they can avoid having to find a new site, all they have to do is combine that current valid site license with an approved design

gone are the days of building the unit to 98% and getting approval, that was the bulk of the delays

there are already a few designs that are approved (westinghouse ap 1000, ge hitachi nuclear's new bwr)

regardless, i dont see anything other than coal, hydro, or nuclear providing base load for the next 50 years, the energy demands are just too great

and i think that we are going to have to agree to disagree

2/28/2009 11:04:37 PM

Quote :

"Various plants currently operate successfully in the sense that electricity flows into the grid. Waste disposal remains an issue. Building new ones will take years. Based on the historical record, delays have to be expected. For the reasons I've outlined above, I'd rather pursue renewables."

Then compare apples to apples. How much time and cost does it take to build 1 GWe of generating capacity of renewables - factoring in actual capacity factors? How much time and cost does it take to retrofit the electrical grid to handle small, widely dispersed capacity without unacceptable line losses? Apples to apples - let's hear it.

The fact is, we don't have the capacity to roll out 1 GWe of solar or wind in a year - or even two, or three. It would take decades to produce this once you factor in capacity factors. And capital costs? More spread out, but I doubt they compare as favorably as you'd like to claim to one nuclear reactor.

Quote :

"Expanding existing sites isn't the same as establishing ne\w ones. That's the distinction I was trying to make."

Actually, it's remarkably similar. Expanding an existing site means putting down an entirely new core, new generating unit, etc. So, Shearon Harris adding two reactors (as proposed) effectively increases their capacity by 200% - they currently have one unit. That's nearly 2 GWe of additional capacity right there.

Building a "new" reactor site generally involves building 2-4 new reactors. Which makes your distinction rather arbitrary and pointless.

[Edited on February 28, 2009 at 11:43 PM. Reason : Harris]

2/28/2009 11:33:25 PM

Quote :

"delays have to be expected."

The point others are trying to make is that those delays are not technical. They're purely political.

Quote :

"Expanding existing sites isn't the same as establishing new ones."

For all intents and purposes, nearly all new nuclear construction will be new sites, even if the new units are colocated with existing ones. For example, the new units at Harris will be on the same site, but will be completely separate from the existing unit. Progress is also planning to build two new units in Florida. These two will be on a 'fresh' site.

The exception is that some utilities are exploring options to resume construction at plants that were begun, but never finished. TVA at Bellefonte is an example.

-------------------------

^ Harris is a single unit. They're planning to build two more.

[Edited on February 28, 2009 at 11:36 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2009 11:34:50 PM

Quote :

"^ Harris is a single unit. They're planning to build two more."

Ah, you're right. I thought it was 2 for some reason.

Point being, for those unaware, the site was originally designed for 4.

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

2/28/2009 11:39:32 PM

Quote :

"really this thread is getting pwnt by DrSteve"

fuck yeah it is.

2/28/2009 11:57:06 PM

Nationalize energy. Be ready for agressive clean-ups and other works with a new civilian uniformed service just for Environmental stuff. I'm such a communist.

3/1/2009 12:19:32 AM

^ Can the rest of us continue to import our energy from other countries freely after you wreck the energy sector and make America entirely dependent upon foreign energy?

3/1/2009 10:31:38 AM

Quote :

"you know why there is no investment in nuclear? Because every time one is proposed, there are about a billion and a half lawsuits against the company. If we could end these frivolous lawsuits, there would be more investment, because then the plant COULD be profitable without sinking tens of billions of dollars into lawyers before a single kW of energy is produced. The fact is that the safety record of the US nuclear industry is fairly good. The worst event you can even mention was practically nothing in its own right. In fact, the safety of the reactors was practically proven in that episode. But no, the anti-nuke fucktards have to scream and cry every time someone even thinks of the word "nuclear""

I think everyone would like it, but they just don't want it next to their house. It's like city dumps, everyone makes trash, but everyone wants it stored on the other side of town and not next to them. There is also that fear factor because a lot of people don't understand how safe nuclear power is.

3/1/2009 11:13:49 AM

Quote :

"really this thread is getting pwnt by DrSteve"

i would hope so

we have one of the best nuclear engineering programs in the country

3/1/2009 12:07:11 PM

Yes We Can raise utility costs on the middle class to here before unseen levels.

I love the comments in this thread of an almost worshipful nature towards Chu.

Chu is a physicist not a magician. And besides this is entirely about politics, it has nothing to do with finding a real solution. Chu is just a token scientist.

Why would a democrat want to find a solution anyhow? Solving peoples problems doesn't make them depend on you.

[Edited on March 1, 2009 at 1:41 PM. Reason : .n]

3/1/2009 1:40:40 PM

http://Chernobyltruth.ytmnd.com/

3/1/2009 1:45:22 PM

Quote :

"Fine. you make your investments, the rest of us will make ours. We'll see who the consumers prefer to buy their power from."

I don't believe that was ever in question. From the looks of things, renewables will dramatically increase market share while nuclear will maintain current levels or decline.

Quote :

"That said, how is nuclear subsidy being calculated?"

Why don't you investigate the matter? Try to run and hide all you want, but even the Cato Institute recognizes how much the state has helped the nuclear industry. You don't have to be a Cold War historian to grasp why this would be the case. Oppenheimer explicitly noted the military advantages of having a civilian nuclear infrastructure. Libertarians who believe the government has hindered fission power are deluding themselves. If they support the industry's state-sponsored genesis, they're compromising their beliefs to sick it to the hippies. Is that reward worth the cost?

Quote :

"waste disposal is only an issue because of the lack of correct information and how scary people think it is, we can get all the bad stuff out and reduce the amount of material that has to be mined (we are starting to go in circles in this thread)"

I'm not sure about waste, but I know uranium mining has royally fucked entire communities. I believe it could be done safely, yet don't trust claims from the bosses. They'll always say it's safe, that the problems are over, and so on. I'm not strictly opposed to fission technology, I just think it's too risky given the history. Some forms, such as fission-fusion hybrids that destroy waste, might be worth pursuing.

Quote :

"regardless, i dont see anything other than coal, hydro, or nuclear providing base load for the next 50 years, the energy demands are just too great"

I'm more optimistic about technology. The energy's out there, all around us. We need only find ways to harness it.

Quote :

"How much time and cost does it take to build 1 GWe of generating capacity of renewables - factoring in actual capacity factors?"

Let's see what I can find. Nanosolar is building a 430-megawatt plant in California and 620-megawatt one in Germany. We'll see how long that takes. Their funding comes in at the low hundreds of millions, but I don't know how much goes to each project. As you've probably heard, Google promises to generate a gigawatt of renewable energy and sell it cheaper than coal power within years. Yes, those cunning internet capitalists have decided to put their money in solar, wind, and geothermal. Not fission.

Quote :

"Which makes your distinction rather arbitrary and pointless."

I concede this point.

Quote :

"The point others are trying to make is that those delays are not technical. They're purely political."

The industry's existence is political. Regardless of the causes, delays on nuclear plants happen across the world. It's an established trend we can't expect to suddenly disappear.

3/1/2009 11:02:04 PM

lol, did someone really post a pic of 3 Mile Island as an argument against nuclear energy? Talk about the most hyped up incident ever.

3/1/2009 11:06:49 PM