Obama's position is the latest generation of nuclear reactors are totally safe from the type of accident that occurred in Japan. They probably are safe, but the rallying cry for the opponents will be about the same as the rallying cry against coal fired plants which was "there is no such thing as clean coal". The new cry shouted from the rooftops will be "there is no such thing as safe nuclear energy" I don't care if they are right or wrong, a new plant will not be built in my lifetime. Will they ever be built? Probably!
Japan will probably be the first nation to build new reactors for one very simple reason. They need the energy. At some point in the future, the United States will probably also start building new reactors because with population growth and other factors, we will also need the energy.
Ted
-
alaskagold
- Senior Member
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:12 pm
- Location: Alaska
rbg, I have to disagree with you. O isn't doing anything other than blowing smoke. We won't have any nuke plants built probably even in my life time and I am in my mid 30's.rainbowgardener wrote:Dream on! Obama is pushing hard for new nuclear power plants and continues to do so through the whole Japanese disaster.tedln wrote:Good thought Alex! I don't think you, and I am sure I; don't need to worry about it. They won't be licensing a new nuclear plant in my lifetime.
Ted
O and salazer also said they were going to re-open drilling and the DOE head Chu said they would ... except ANWR. Why not ANWR? It has estimated amounts of oil and gas and already has a couple oil wells there near the little village of Kaktovik.
I have to agree with TEd, shut down DOE. There is no reason for it other than create headaches and statitical reports that do nothing and show nothing as most of the reports are fudged.
Nothing on this earth, can make as much energy as fossil fuels and nuclear energy. It is a fact that many just do not want to believe or think about.
At the moment fossil fuels and nuclear can make the most power, but new discoveries and inventions can change all that, even in a generation.
Computers were nothing more than huge printing machines, one taking up a whole floor of a building (in the 1970's); , today they're on your phone and can do 1000 x more things than those big monstrosities did. It has to start somewhere.
Hopefully, this energy crunch and dependance that we're in again will create the pressure needed to advance society's sources in a wise way.
Computers were nothing more than huge printing machines, one taking up a whole floor of a building (in the 1970's); , today they're on your phone and can do 1000 x more things than those big monstrosities did. It has to start somewhere.
Hopefully, this energy crunch and dependance that we're in again will create the pressure needed to advance society's sources in a wise way.
-
alaskagold
- Senior Member
- Posts: 130
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:12 pm
- Location: Alaska
very true.. but I doubt that anytime in the near future is going to be productive. Oil seeps have been used since the beginning of time... yet never known what it really was. Coal was the wonderful burning rock used for thousands of years to keep warm and melt the metals we thought were rocks and natural gases were considered (all gases really) death as it killed people, even though it was "natural".lily51 wrote:At the moment fossil fuels and nuclear can make the most power, but new discoveries and inventions can change all that, even in a generation.
Computers were nothing more than huge printing machines, one taking up a whole floor of a building (in the 1970's); , today they're on your phone and can do 1000 x more things than those big monstrosities did. It has to start somewhere.
Hopefully, this energy crunch and dependance that we're in again will create the pressure needed to advance society's sources in a wise way.
Until scientists get past the poly-political problems, or stop trying to rely on the government to help them, we will really never find new ways to make our lives easier. The only new things that have been invented or created were done by individuals, not with government handouts.
remember.... energy created now is for our own convienence. When it is gone, we all will revert back to the dark ages, sad as it may be. That is want most environmentalists want. I am a conservatists. I believe is useing only what is needed, and not have it break down right away to better myself. But people like myself are few and most like myself know that being self sufficent is the only way to survive.
-
Charlie MV
- Greener Thumb
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 11:48 pm
My biggest problem is our lack of energy policy. We can only meet about 25% of our energy needs with wind and solar as of today. I can't see a way to get completely off fossil fuels and nuclear at this point. But even discussion of energy policy that involves conservation, alternative renewable energy is so polarized and political that it's just shut down.
Americans seem to be terrified of anything that might be termed socialism. The first instance of socialism occurred when Og and Grok the cavemen hooked up to bag a mastodon. They figured it was safer than going it alone. Nuclear power is possibly the most subsidized, socialized form of business on the planet today. Nuclear power would not be possible without heavy government involvement . The same thing applies to fossil fuels. They are socialist and subsidized.
I'd be happy if wind , solar and wave power along with conservation were given the same subsidies. But the issue is so politicized and the factions so entrenched in their views, we can't seem to make our politicians even sit at the same table to talk about it. And then there's , gasp, socialism.
Americans seem to be terrified of anything that might be termed socialism. The first instance of socialism occurred when Og and Grok the cavemen hooked up to bag a mastodon. They figured it was safer than going it alone. Nuclear power is possibly the most subsidized, socialized form of business on the planet today. Nuclear power would not be possible without heavy government involvement . The same thing applies to fossil fuels. They are socialist and subsidized.
I'd be happy if wind , solar and wave power along with conservation were given the same subsidies. But the issue is so politicized and the factions so entrenched in their views, we can't seem to make our politicians even sit at the same table to talk about it. And then there's , gasp, socialism.
Small world, indeed!rainbowgardener wrote:Hey Kisal! Apparently we used to be more or less neighbors! If you saw my post in the tsunami thread, I mentioned that I was in the San Fernando Valley earthquake in 1971. I was living in Northridge, going to SF Valley State College (which has since become a University).
Small world!
I was living out in Sun Valley at that time. I think that's east of where you were. 
Although Kisal was up on things, I was not; I still processed the idea of radiation exposure in terms of roentgens and rems.
So I did a quick lookup and read the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert to educate myself on this SI-recognized (nay, SI-required!) unit. Here's part of what it says:
"Frequently used SI multiples are the millisievert (1 mSv = 10E−3 Sv = 0.001 Sv) and microsievert (1 μSv = 10E−6 Sv = 0.000001 Sv).
"Equivalent dose is measured in the United States in rem:
* 1 rem = 0.01 Sv = 10 mSv
* 1 mrem = 0.00001 Sv = 0.01 mSv = 10 μSv
* 1 Sv = 100 rem = 100,000 mrem (or millirem)
* 1 mSv = 100 mrem = 0.1 rem
* 1 μSv = 0.1 mrem
"The rem and millirem (abbreviated mrem), as with other customary units in the United States, are in wider use among the general public, many industries, and government. However, SI units such as the sievert are frequently encountered in academic, scientific, and engineering environments."
Thank you, Kisal, for the informative chart and for dragging me a little more into the current SI units! (I mean, I *still* think of energy in terms of joules, and of atmospheric pressure in mm Hg!)
Cynthia
So I did a quick lookup and read the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert to educate myself on this SI-recognized (nay, SI-required!) unit. Here's part of what it says:
"Frequently used SI multiples are the millisievert (1 mSv = 10E−3 Sv = 0.001 Sv) and microsievert (1 μSv = 10E−6 Sv = 0.000001 Sv).
"Equivalent dose is measured in the United States in rem:
* 1 rem = 0.01 Sv = 10 mSv
* 1 mrem = 0.00001 Sv = 0.01 mSv = 10 μSv
* 1 Sv = 100 rem = 100,000 mrem (or millirem)
* 1 mSv = 100 mrem = 0.1 rem
* 1 μSv = 0.1 mrem
"The rem and millirem (abbreviated mrem), as with other customary units in the United States, are in wider use among the general public, many industries, and government. However, SI units such as the sievert are frequently encountered in academic, scientific, and engineering environments."
Thank you, Kisal, for the informative chart and for dragging me a little more into the current SI units! (I mean, I *still* think of energy in terms of joules, and of atmospheric pressure in mm Hg!)
Cynthia
Most people look for facts to support what they think, if they think and if they care about facts at all. Very few people let the facts decide what they think; deductive verses inductive reasoning. Most things are more complicated than we would like so we want simple answers. Often people take the word of someone they look up to as fact even if it is not. If one ignores enough facts they can make any argument . many people will defend a position no mater how wrong it may prove to be and this is why as Lily said Some people would rather fight and suffer themselves than to improve things.
This is of course only part of the story.
We are all ignorant just in different things.
Now back to nukes; I decided I will not have one in my yard.
This is of course only part of the story.
We are all ignorant just in different things.
Now back to nukes; I decided I will not have one in my yard.
Latest news I've seen on the Japanese reactors is that there must be a serious radiation leak, perhaps from plutonium, as some workers are showing radiation sickness/burns; water (not sure what water,if in reactor or for protecting spent fuel rods or even in nature) measuring 10,000 times the accepted amount. (Radiation in water is accetable ?)
Now the residents that were being told to stay inside and they would be safe are being told to evacuate.
This story, unfortunately, is not over.
To reinterate at the risk of being boring, "nuclear energy may be a source for which we do not have the wisdom to use."
Now the residents that were being told to stay inside and they would be safe are being told to evacuate.
This story, unfortunately, is not over.
To reinterate at the risk of being boring, "nuclear energy may be a source for which we do not have the wisdom to use."
-
Charlie MV
- Greener Thumb
- Posts: 1544
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 11:48 pm
In answer to the question in the topic heading, I'll consider nuclear power to be a good option when:
1-It can stand on it's own two feet financially.
2- It doesn't need government security.
3-Last and most importantly, when my insurance company does not exclude my house from nuclear accident coverage. Read your policy, nuclear accident is not covered. Why not?
I can think of no other coverage than war and civil disobedience such as riots that can't be bought. We can pay a premium and buy coverage for earthquake, flood, tornadoes, hurricanes and nearly every other disaster. We can even buy coverage from falling space debris. But neither for love nor money can we buy nuclear coverage. Think about it. Why do insurance companies exclude nuclear coverage?
1-It can stand on it's own two feet financially.
2- It doesn't need government security.
3-Last and most importantly, when my insurance company does not exclude my house from nuclear accident coverage. Read your policy, nuclear accident is not covered. Why not?
I can think of no other coverage than war and civil disobedience such as riots that can't be bought. We can pay a premium and buy coverage for earthquake, flood, tornadoes, hurricanes and nearly every other disaster. We can even buy coverage from falling space debris. But neither for love nor money can we buy nuclear coverage. Think about it. Why do insurance companies exclude nuclear coverage?
-
webmaster
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9478
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:59 pm
- Location: Amherst, MA USDA Zone 5a
2- It doesn't need government security.
For more information about that, visit the Wikipedia page for the
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act]Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act[/url]. Utilities didn't want to build nuke plants because insurance companies didn't want to insure them beyond 60 million dollars, which was about ten percent of the estimated liabilities in the case of an accident. So in order to give the utilities an incentive to build the U.S. government promised to limit their liability and pay the difference out of our pockets. It still guarantees to pay the differnece out of our pockets.
I just did a little reading about this, from the nuke industry and the left side. The nuke industry tries to show how the 3 mile island disaster didn't cost the U.S. public money. The lefty side exagerrates how much it is costing us by calling the value of the insurance a subsidy (even though no money was paid out). I think we can find the truth somewhere in between those two extremes.