Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nuclear energy sure as heck is NOT clean. Strip mining for uranium as well as refining it is extremely dirty and increasingly bad for the environment as uranium becomes harder to find. Just because you see the clean final product does not mean it's actually clean.
Probably coal since it has more potential for being less dirty. Until we invent star trek like teleporters to magically extract uranium from the ground, nuclear will never be clean.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
I'm surprised you would be for them, Kev. I thought you were liberal beyond all hope.
I think we should build them too, but they should be built by the power companies, don't you think? Did the government build the ones already in existance?
Hmmm, to answer my own question, probably the TVA built the Browns Ferry Plant. What about others? ConEd has some. Did they build them? Southern Cal Edison has the San Onofre plants. Who paid for them?
I've been to the ConEd plant in Peekskill N.Y., and also the Browns Ferry Plant in Alabama.
I am liberal which is why I favour this. Nuclear power is clean and does not foul the air. Most power coimpanies would rather build coal. They call it "clean coal" which sounds like BS to me. They may not have the cash to go nuke which is why the government should build them and then wholesale the power to the electric companies who would then retail and distribute it to customers. The government might sell it for 6 cents a KW and it might retail for 12- not as cheap as coal but I am willing to pay a bit more to get the crap out of the air.
Nuclear energy sure as heck is NOT clean. Strip mining for uranium as well as refining it is extremely dirty and increasingly bad for the environment as uranium becomes harder to find. Just because you see the clean final product does not mean it's actually clean.
After awhile you have to ask, where are we going to get all the energy to power our electric cars? I'm not being flip. People don't want coal, they don't want nuclear, they don't want anything natural gas built anywhere near where they live, and dams that generated hydroelectricity are being taken down. We import electricity from Canada, but what's going to happen if something happens with that? There is no new technology that can easily and readily generate the power this country needs. Edit - I'm ranting in general, not at you.
france is a country the size of texas, but it has more nuclear plants the the entire USA
and todays nuclear plants are very safe, and have very little waste as the rods can be reused ( a carter era law prohibits the reuse of rods here in the USA)(we should revoke that law)
also these plants dont need to be supersized, they can be small,,they are 100,000 times cleaner that the coal fired steam plants, and less dangerous
yes build them.
btw...did you know that with all the bailout/stimulas money we could have put a solar electric system on EVERY HOUSE IN AMERICA,,that right there would have reduce the need for electic plants/companies(and the monthly 100-300 dollar electric bill) at least at the residentual level.
Nuclear waste is currently stored in aboveground 100+ton casks on site on powerplant grounds. The casks are not dangerous nor are they subject to terrorist attack. If terrorists had a bomb powerful enough to disperse the mildly-radioactive materials in the casks, they would put them to more effective use blowing up a skyscraper or leveling a city block somewhere.
The nuclear waste could be reprocessed into usable fuel--reducing the need for Uranium mining. France currently integrates reprocessing into their fuel cycle. ALL of French nuclear waste is stored in the floor of a single building about as big as a medium-sized aircraft hangar.
Fast-neutron liquid-metal-cooled "breeder reactor" fission plants could end the need for any further Uranium mining and meet ALL our power needs for the next millennium. Such plants have been demonstrated full-scale but never used for commercial power production. Japan is building such plants. The green party in France has forced the shutdown of their only commercial LMCBR. To be fair, the plant had non-dangerous operating problems which made it not economical.
Three-Mile Island was the only commercial power producing reactor to have a level-3 or higher problem. The partial melt-down was controlled according to the plant's design and is considered a success for demonstrating the safety systems of US reactors. Small amounts of radiation were discharged into the atmosphere after the meltdown during cleanup operations as it was decided it would be more economical to vent the materials than to clean them up and cart them off.
Chernobyl was a gas-cooled reactor design with no secondary containment (a common aspect of soviet-era nuclear reactors). All US powerplants have secondary containment. New powerplants have additional safety features which allow them to operate for several days without human input or SCRAM without using forced-water pumps.
Coal powerplants emit carbon dioxide. The sole idea for "clean coal" consists of capturing CO2 emissions, compressing them to their criticality point, and then pumping them in liquid form into underground reservoirs and hoping that they stay there and stay liquid. The analysis on how long the CO2 will stay underground just hasn't been done. We are currently pumping CO2 into these underground reservoirs at one or two locations and basically crossing our fingers and hoping for the best.
Coal reserves will last about 300 years. Nuclear reserves will last 80 years without reprocessing, 200 years with reprocessing, and 10,000+ years with breeding and reprocessing. All demonstrated technologies.
Coal or Nuclear will make up our baseload electrical capacity for the next 100 years. There are no other economically viable alternatives at this time. Wind, solar, and biomass will make up the top 20% "responsive power" capacity. Hopefully more as technology and implementation improves.
Coal power is cheaper per KWH than nuclear power, but not vastly so. However, only some form of carbon-dioxide penalty will make Nuclear a cheaper option.
Coal powerplants radiation. There are naturally-occuring radioactive elements in coal that, when burned, are turned into aerosols and pumped into the atmosphere.
I think it's safe to say that there won't be 100 new nuclear power plants built in the next 20 years .
And , which energy sources was the good Doctor referring to ?
They use the wording new plants, but, a good chunk of them are just adding new reactors to existing plants.
Clinton Power Station is proposed to build 1 new reactor
Pebble Beach is proposed to build 2 new reactors
3 Mile Island is proposed for 2 new reactors
Limirick is proposed for 4 new reactors
etc...
btw...did you know that with all the bailout/stimulas money we could have put a solar electric system on EVERY HOUSE IN AMERICA,,that right there would have reduce the need for electic plants/companies(and the monthly 100-300 dollar electric bill) at least at the residentual level.
So we could do that and more, easily, with $2-4 trillion and have most left over.
Nuclear energy sure as heck is NOT clean. Strip mining for uranium as well as refining it is extremely dirty and increasingly bad for the environment as uranium becomes harder to find. Just because you see the clean final product does not mean it's actually clean.
As opposed to the resources, environmental impact, and energy it takes for oil, coal, hydroelectric, solar, and wind?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
