For all energy needs, we should use nuclear fuel... well, almost all.

 

Pros:

- We have the fundamental technology (lot more R&D is needed)

- We can build a car "engine" using a nuclear "motor"; essentially, all electric cars, no need for batteries except for starting out

- Trains can run on nuclear fuel on the cheap (not Diesel); easily retrofitted (same for long haul trucks)

- Independence from oil and coal, both dirty

- We can have nuclear fuel cells in our backyard to provide energy for the home (electric utilities will still be happy because they can sell us the generating equipment!)

- Abundant fuel right here (we don't have to care about the middle-east)

- Middle east sheiks and terrorist will eventually vanish into useless anachronisms ... no leverage (there is fighting to be done in the meantime, regardless)

- All of above provides true clean energy; we no longer breath fumes from exhausts

- US can be a true scientific and economic powerhouse again! (I came to this country in 1981 and it's gone downhill just in this short time, makes me sad.)

- There will be manufacturing jobs again and we will lead the world!

 

Cons:

- Safety is paramount ... we don't want a three mile island incidence!

- We will have to partner with the French, but they will sell the technology to us for cash

- Public is stupid and safety concerns are exaggerated

- Politicians are stupid and they (sometimes) listen to the public when it suits them

- The coal lobby will fight tooth and nail (and they have big bucks)

- The oil lobby will fight tooth and nail (and they have big bucks)

- Required investment is huge in such endeavor (more than going to the moon) and only the US govt has the money, means and interest to make it happen (private industry has divergent interests, due to reasons above)

- We will lose jobs in the traditional fuel industries, so it wouldn't be popular ... but it must be done. No pain, no gain

- Public is stupid and safety concerns are exaggerated

 

My buddy has a girlfriend who even went to the demonstration against Oyster Creek. I said what do you think we would use as an alternative? She said solar or windmills. I asked her where in NJ does she think we are going to find room for a windfarm or solar panel farm. That's all it took to stump her. Yup, shes an idiot.

- Public is stupid and safety concerns are exaggerated

 

My buddy has a girlfriend who even went to the demonstration against Oyster Creek. I said what do you think we would use as an alternative? She said solar or windmills. I asked her where in NJ does she think we are going to find room for a windfarm or solar panel farm. That's all it took to stump her. Yup, shes an idiot.

 

Indeed! Oil and coal have polluted and become the new religion for survival of humans. Just to compare, a nuclear cell is smaller by a factor of 500:1 (at least). Imagine the efficiency and compact power! It's THE fuel if we choose to harness it, safely.

 

We can stop this nonsense and ridiculousness of wars, and waste of human potential.

 

Of course, I still want my AK and an AR and pistols the world over!

For all energy needs, we should use nuclear fuel... well, almost all.

 

Pros:

- We can build a car "engine" using a nuclear "motor"; essentially, all electric cars, no need for batteries except for starting out

You need to ask yourself WHY the US government only has Nuclear Powered Subs and Ships... Hint: cooling

 

- Trains can run on nuclear fuel on the cheap (not Diesel); easily retrofitted (same for long haul trucks)

You need to ask yourself WHY the US government only has Nuclear Powered Subs and Ships... Hint: cooling

 

- We can have nuclear fuel cells in our backyard to provide energy for the home (electric utilities will still be happy because they can sell us the generating equipment!)

You need to ask yourself WHY the US government only has Nuclear Powered Subs and Ships... Hint: cooling

 

- Abundant fuel right here (we don't have to care about the middle-east)

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html Are you planning on taking over Canada?

 

- All of above provides true clean energy; we no longer breath fumes from exhausts

Fuel rod disposal is neither clean nor appropriately resolved (IMO)

 

Cons:

- We will have to partner with the French, but they will sell the technology to us for cash

http://www.roe.com/power_nuclear.htm Burns and Roe was the leader in Nuclear Engineering back in the 70's. They continue to maintain their commitment to Nuclear Power. Partnering with any European country should be unnecessary unless it is for "political" reasons.

 

For the record, I am pro Nuke. This is the technology prevalent throughout Europe, despite the fact that they look down their nose at us from their "Green Tower". Computer controls and redundant safeties have made the technology quite safe, but as with any safeties, they are only as good as the people operating (over-riding) them.

- I asked her where in NJ does she think we are going to find room for a windfarm or solar panel farm. That's all it took to stump her. Yup, shes an idiot.

 

 

have you ever been to central or southern jersey. have you seen the massive, vast open farm lands. hundreds of acres that are already wide open, nearly flat, easily accessible, all with unblocked east-south-west exposure.

Again with the Three Mile Island

 

Three Mile Island happened because badly trained people made every mistake possible..and the Reactor worked EXACTLY AS IT WAS DESIGNED. When they lost coolant and the core melted, the reaction stopped. YES some small amount of Live steam had been vented, but it was NOWHERE NEAR the disaster that it was hyped up to be in the Media. The Mistakes made at TMI changed the way the entire industry worked, for the good, but it also proved that US designed reactors, which is what are used in Western Europe are incredibly safe. Chernobyl happened because the Soviets failed to steal the CORRECT technology ( Sorry Mak Silly Roooosians ) and patterned their reactors after a type that we abandoned after building only one, and realizing how dangerous it was. Europe gets about 85% of its electricity via Nuclear.....IIRC WE get lesss than 20%

Again with the Three Mile Island

 

Three Mile Island happened because badly trained people made every mistake possible..and the Reactor worked EXACTLY AS IT WAS DESIGNED. When they lost coolant and the core melted, the reaction stopped. YES some small amount of Live steam had been vented, but it was NOWHERE NEAR the disaster that it was hyped up to be in the Media. The Mistakes made at TMI changed the way the entire industry worked, for the good, but it also proved that US designed reactors, which is what are used in Western Europe are incredibly safe. Chernobyl happened because the Soviets failed to steal the CORRECT technology ( Sorry Mak Silly Roooosians ) and patterned their reactors after a type that we abandoned after building only one, and realizing how dangerous it was. Europe gets about 85% of its electricity via Nuclear.....IIRC WE get lesss than 20%

 

 

Well once again KD we agree +1

TMI was a non-event.

TMI was a non-event.

 

If you're referring to it as a nuclear incident, I agree. However, it was an event in that it SHOULD have been used as a learning moment. As I recall, the NRC had no live person or answering service when the techs finally did call. :roll:

- I asked her where in NJ does she think we are going to find room for a windfarm or solar panel farm. That's all it took to stump her. Yup, shes an idiot.

 

 

have you ever been to central or southern jersey. have you seen the massive, vast open farm lands. hundreds of acres that are already wide open, nearly flat, easily accessible, all with unblocked east-south-west exposure.

 

Solar power is so inefficient in most situations that it isn't feasible. To get people to lay out the cost of buying and installing the equipment, the gov't has to offer incentives, ie: subsidies. Without them, very few buy them because of the cost/saving ratio.

 

They may make a little sense in desert areas that get abundance of sunshine.

@ djg0770, I agree with your comments. The technology is there, the heat issue (controlled release) is the thorny one, but necessity is the mother of invention!

 

Of course, operational safety must be bumped up by order of magnitude for civilian use.

 

btw. If we invade Canada they wouldn't mind

the only real problem with nuclear energy is cooling and disposal of the used up fuel rods..right now we bury the shit very deep under ground.. :doh:

we need to figure out a better disposal method or a way to use the old stuff..

the only real problem with nuclear energy is cooling and disposal of the used up fuel rods..right now we bury the **** very deep under ground.. :doh:

we need to figure out a better disposal method or a way to use the old stuff..

 

One idea that's been discussed is to shoot the **** into space using rockets. That makes perfect sense to me. Cost of burying spent fuel underground is huge and simple rockets with payloads will be definitely cheaper.

the only real problem with nuclear energy is cooling and disposal of the used up fuel rods..right now we bury the **** very deep under ground.. :doh:

we need to figure out a better disposal method or a way to use the old stuff..

 

One idea that's been discussed is to shoot the **** into space using rockets. That makes perfect sense to me. Cost of burying spent fuel underground is huge and simple rockets with payloads will be definitely cheaper.

 

 

will it adentualy fall back to earth ?

Nope. The rockets are disposable and the payload is shot out, way out into space, so it has no chance of returning to earth. The trajectory can be designed to go into orbit of some useless mass in space, so its location is controlled/predictable.

Why not shoot it into the sun?

Why not shoot it into the sun?

Too far and expensive rockets!

Why not shoot it into the sun?

Too far and expensive rockets!

 

Why is it too far? Shoot it into space so it can pollute our orbit even more? Our orbit is pretty bad... and what happens if some of that nuclear material collides and then falls back to earth? You never know with all those old busted satellites up there.

Lots of space junk up there.

I'm not an astrophysicists by any means, but I believe materials have to be propelled about 500 miles beyond the exosphere to be "clear" from being pulled back into the Earth's orbit. For reference, the space station is roughly 220 miles up, and sits in only the thermosphere. So, to continuously ferry nuclear materials with the possibility of something going wrong and littering radioactive waste over the span of a couple hundred (or thousand) miles down on the ground... eh. I would say its a decent idea (sending any garbage into space), just not reliable with the tech the agencies have right now.

The original plan was to build two plants at oyster creek, but arguments won out and only one was built.

There is room there for a whole new plant. A new plant would produce more electricity with less waste.

Talk of off shore wind farms gets more press, but it's just ridiculous. It would probably take something just short of an act of god to get common sense to prevail and get some modern power plants built.

Maybe we could put a device on every tree to collect hugging energy....even though, if they really cared about the environment, modern nuclear energy would be the clear clean choice.

the only real problem with nuclear energy is cooling and disposal of the used up fuel rods..right now we bury the **** very deep under ground.. :doh:

we need to figure out a better disposal method or a way to use the old stuff..

 

 

No, we dont. The Majority of used Fuel is stored on site at every pkant in Cooling pools. There was a plan Proposed to create a huge vault in Yucca Mountain NV, whoch is geologically stable for long-term storage, but OBama killed it.

Shooting it into space? No thanks. I really don't want to see what would happen should something malfunction and that rocket explode in mid air. Radioactive debris everywhere.

The original plan was to build two plants at oyster creek, but arguments won out and only one was built.

There is room there for a whole new plant. A new plant would produce more electricity with less waste.

Talk of off shore wind farms gets more press, but it's just ridiculous. It would probably take something just short of an act of god to get common sense to prevail and get some modern power plants built.

Maybe we could put a device on every tree to collect hugging energy....even though, if they really cared about the environment, modern nuclear energy would be the clear clean choice.

 

 

I work for the company that was the owner of OC during the time the "Forked River" site was preparing for then second reactor. I am not a nuke myself, I work in the Line end of the business, but Ive been in OC many times. It's a safe plant and I was happy to see the NRC relicensed the place. Exelon bought the place from JCP&L and now operate it. Exelon also bought TMI at the same time being that both plants were owned by the same parent co. What killed the Forked River II site was TMI. Since TMI no nuke generating facility has come on the line in the USA with the exception of Shorham on LI and that only ran for one day then was decommitioned. TMI happened a long time ago, seems like yesterday as I was working for JCP&L then.....hopefully we'll see a resurgence of the industry in the near future. TMI Killed the nuke generating industry in the nation, piss poor operators and piss poor management.

the only real problem with nuclear energy is cooling and disposal of the used up fuel rods..right now we bury the **** very deep under ground.. :doh:

we need to figure out a better disposal method or a way to use the old stuff..

 

 

No, we dont. The Majority of used Fuel is stored on site at every pkant in Cooling pools. There was a plan Proposed to create a huge vault in Yucca Mountain NV, whoch is geologically stable for long-term storage, but OBama killed it.

 

I didnt know Yucca was killed.....other problem was not many states were happy about spent fuel being transported on rail cars in their backyards.

I think we need something better than a hole in the ground to throw the waste before we start puttin nukes in everything. France actually reuses the majority of its nuclear waste (like 96% or something), where as we dump it in a pool of water for 1000000 years and get new stuff.

I think we need something better than a hole in the ground to throw the waste before we start puttin nukes in everything. France actually reuses the majority of its nuclear waste (like 96% or something), where as we dump it in a pool of water for 1000000 years and get new stuff.

 

+1, that's what I was referring to when I said partner with France. We don't have time to re-invent the wheel. Re-use makes the material progressively less radioactive and if continued, theoretically one could leave inert material at the end ... requires lot more R&D.

 

As for shooting junk in space, it's not the only option, but one of the options. The stuff to shoot off into space would be the material which can't be re-used ("maximally spent"), rest should be on the ground. Of course, certain material is not candidate for space.

 

There are risks in each of the options (even burying it underground or deep ocean, etc.), since it has to be transported by ground to start with! What is the probability of a train / ship / tanker wreck!? Certainly, not zero. Risk will never be zero.

 

Bottom line is to minimize risk and maximize re-use.

the only real problem with nuclear energy is cooling and disposal of the used up fuel rods..right now we bury the **** very deep under ground.. :doh:

we need to figure out a better disposal method or a way to use the old stuff..

I do not recall the exact details, but believe it or not, the French have a system to reuse spent fuel rods for energy. Something like 65% or more of the rods. I remember seeing it a while ago.

I was watching a show recently where they claimed 96% is recycled and reused. Its more costly which is why the US reactors don't do it.

 

Shooting radioactive material into space would be extremely costly and DANGEROUS! We haven't perfected shooting rockets into the space...

I spent 25 years building and working on Nukes. I still believe they are a viable source of energy. But.... boy did we screw up! There have been many years that have gone by since the last nuke was built. In that time span we have lost the opportunity to train and develop the very best work force for construction of these plants. Back when we were building nukes there were companies like Bechtel, United Engineers, Stone and Webster, Brown & Root, Catalytic Const. and others that had staffs to handle the massive amounts of paperwork, management, logistics, and engineering required. Also, there were many American companies that were licensed to produce nuclear related equipment. They had to possess what was called an "N' stamp. These were companies like GE, Westinghouse, and Babcock & Wilcox. Not to mention the scores of companies that produced cable, valves, pipe, pumps, etc. Some might still exist to produce nuclear components for the Navy, but on a much smaller scale. Will these companies jump back on the band wagon to produce these items again? Maybe, but I have doubts. My guess is that we'd be buying from foreign sources and, personally, I find that a bit intimidating.

It's not that power companies gave up on nukes. It's that the business changed for all of the power companies. When they were de-regulated and power could be 'wheeled' across grids, it was far cheaper for them to buy power from plants that sat alongside a coal pit. De-regulation also let them expand their businesses to new and more profitable ventures that didn't require a huge capital investment, like a nuke. They re-structured the companies and it was a seperate part of the business after de-regulation so they didn't have to kick back to the ratepayers. I can tell you that one power company in New Jersey bought into leasing airliners, as an example. They would lease them from a foreign airline, and then lease them back to another foreign airline. Why? Tax breaks. Every time they did that they got a huge tax break for doing business with a foreign country. We still paid the same for power but they got richer.

I have read that PSE&G is planning a new nuke in Salem County. Good luck. I hope they pull it off and can a build a quality plant.

I agree with the others on Three Mile Island. Yes, there were mistakes but the plant worked the way it was supposed to. Same with other incidents that we've heard of. The nukes work with very strict regulations and that includes disclosure to the public.

In all, I believe that nukes can be a viable source of energy but we got royally screwed with the de-regulation.

Well shooting them in to space would be ideal IF they could find a clear lane to shoot it through, but since NASA was changed into Muslim outreach, lets just let them shoot it over to the Middle East. Kill two birds with one stone.