in light of the recent...um, well, in light of everything, we might want to revisit nuclear power.

Quote :

" The Greening of Nuclear Power New York Times Editorial Not so many years ago, nuclear energy was a hobgoblin to environmentalists, who feared the potential for catastrophic accidents and long-term radiation contamination. But this is a new era, dominated by fears of tight energy supplies and global warming. Suddenly nuclear power is looking better. The nuclear industry recently trotted out two new leaders of its campaign to encourage the building of new reactors. They are Christie Whitman, the former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. This campaign is the latest sign that nuclear power is getting a more welcome reception from some environmentalists who have moved on to bigger worries. True, most environmental organizations remain adamantly opposed to any expansion of nuclear power and instead look to conservation and renewable energy to get us out of the fossil fuel age. But when the ecologist James Lovelock — creator of the Gaia hypothesis, which holds that Earth and all its organisms behave as if they were a single living system — urges his colleagues to drop their "wrongheaded opposition" to nuclear energy, it is clear that fissures are developing. There is good reason to give nuclear power a fresh look. It can diversify our sources of energy with a fuel — uranium — that is both abundant and inexpensive. More important, nuclear energy can replace fossil-fuel power plants for generating electricity, reducing the carbon dioxide emissions that contribute heavily to global warming. That could be important in large developing economies like China's and India's, which would otherwise rely heavily on burning large quantities of dirty coal and oil. But nuclear power should not be given a free pass in our frantic quest for energy and environmental security. Making any real dent in carbon emissions could require building many hundreds or even thousands of new nuclear plants around the world in coming decades, a hugely ambitious undertaking fraught with challenges. As nuclear expertise and technologies spread around the world, so does the risk that they might be used to make bombs. Unfortunately, the Bush administration erred badly when it signed a nuclear pact with India that would undercut the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the cornerstone of international efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. That misguided deal needs to be repudiated by the Senate. We can only hope that it does not undercut a more promising administration plan to keep the most dangerous fuel-making technologies out of circulation by supplying developing nations with uranium and taking the spent fuel rods back. There remains the unsolved problem of what to do with the radioactive waste generated by nuclear plants. Many people are unwilling to see a resurgence in nuclear power without some assurance that the spent fuel can be handled safely. The Energy Department's repeated setbacks in efforts to open an underground waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada do not inspire confidence, but there is no reason why the spent fuel rods can't be stored safely at surface sites for the next 50 to 100 years. More problematic is the administration's long-term solution for waste disposal. It wants to recycle the spent fuel in a new generation of advanced reactors that would use technologies that don't yet exist, following a timetable that many experts think unrealistic. Its current approach is apt to be costly and would leave dangerous plutonium more accessible to terrorists. Nuclear power has a good safety record in this country, and its costs, despite the high initial expense of building the plants, are looking more reasonable now that fossil fuel prices are soaring. How much impact it could really have in slowing carbon emissions has yet to be spelled out, but there is no doubt that nuclear power could serve as a useful bridge to even greener sources of energy. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/13/opinion/13sat1.html "

8/8/2006 8:29:52 PM

It's been clear for years that we need to build some more nuclear power plants. They aren't perfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than most of the alternatives.

8/8/2006 8:32:38 PM

well look who is coming around..

8/8/2006 8:38:49 PM

ive always been pro-nuclear power. and i took some nuclear engineering classes at state.

8/8/2006 8:53:56 PM

if you passed nuclear engineering classes...more power to you...

but yeah...im more talking about the people who are so opposed to it...it could greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil...so im all for nuclear power

8/8/2006 8:58:43 PM

but yeah...im more talking about the people who are so opposed to it...it could greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil coal...so im all for nuclear power

8/8/2006 9:20:08 PM

I still do not think that Nuclear power is safe enough to risk and disposal is still a problem.

Besides, how long would it take to start a Nuclear facility if we started today with all the restrictions? Why isn't that money better spent on Wind, Hydro, Tidal-electric power today?

These forms of energy are more decentralized than a Nuclear power station, they create more jobs in installation and maintenance and pollute even less than Nuclear?

Does Nuclear really have that much of an advantage of using alternative forms of energy?

8/8/2006 10:22:30 PM

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there are no tides, consistent winds, or rivers suitable for hydro here around Raleigh.

8/8/2006 10:39:09 PM

we should be, of course, looking to bring in more hydroelectric, wind, solar, and nuclear power. as long as nuke power is carfully maintained and regulated, its just fine.

8/8/2006 11:03:47 PM

its really not complicated. just bring in nuclear where other renewable forms aren't feasible.

^^for what its worth...http://www.wind.appstate.edu/index.php

of course thats nc, not just raleigh. i don't know enough about the power grid to say how much of that energy would reach here without a lot of line resistance.

8/8/2006 11:28:29 PM

Quote :

"I still do not think that Nuclear power is safe enough to risk and disposal is still a problem."

It's a political problem--not an engineering one. It's nice to see the US is starting to reconsider reprocessing of nuclear fuel. This will help reduce the amount of waste needed for a central repository. As for safety, I'd feel much better living next to a nuclear plant than a coal one if you're concerned about reducing you're exposure to background radiation.

Quote :

" Besides, how long would it take to start a Nuclear facility if we started today with all the restrictions? Why isn't that money better spent on Wind, Hydro, Tidal-electric power today?"

Wind & tidal are niche energy markets. Hydro is only green energy if you think destroying a river's ecosystem is a good idea. See also Hetch Hetchy or Glen Canyon.

8/9/2006 12:28:22 AM

nuke is the way.

Look for construction to begin w/in the next 2-3 years. There's a huge push for new nuke plants to go up, and big cash bonuses are being put up by the Fed. Gov't to the first companies to step up to the plate w/a concrete plan.

That said, we probably won't have any new OPERATIONAL nuke plants until 2011 at the very earliest.


also, wanted to add that disasters at nuke plants are a thing of the past. The new designs that are going to be used are incredibly safe + redundant.
and like someone else said, personally I would rather live near a nuke plant (in fact, I do!) than any kind of coal plant, etc.

[Edited on August 9, 2006 at 9:31 AM. Reason : d]

8/9/2006 9:28:58 AM

we need to go nuclear, but not old-school nuclear, which is the only financially viable option in the USA due to the draconian and protective NRC regulations.

Pebble-bed all the way

8/9/2006 9:41:37 AM

France has been using nuke power for most of its electrical generation needs for years and never had any problem. I think its a really good, reliable (unlike many alternative energy sources) source of abundant power. The other problem with "greener" power generation is they cost a lot more per kW hour used. If you wanted to supplant all power generation with wind/solar for example, you'd probably have to cover most of the state of Texas.

While wind/solar may be very green, they have their own problems. They are costly, only useable part of the time (daylight or windy days) and take up a lot more room, and only able to be used in certain places. Nuclear can generate huge amounts of power, is fairly compact (miles of solar or wind plants versus a few acres of a nuclear plant) and can be located anywhere (though obviously folks don't want it in their backyards). If the liberals are serious about wanting to cut greenhouse emissions drastically then they should authorize nuclear plants so we can close down many of our dirty coal/oil plants that belch tons of emissions in the atmosphere.

8/9/2006 9:56:43 AM

Nuke all the freaking way.

I was listening to Science Friday a while ago, and apparently spent fuel can be reprocessed to the point where it's not that bad to deal with. France makes a pretty penny off of it.

And am I right to think that pebble beds can't melt down?

8/9/2006 10:10:26 AM

I hate it when public opinion and politics decide a matter like energy generation rather than scientists and engineers. And that's exactly what happened with nuclear power.

8/9/2006 3:27:32 PM

I wonder how many conservatives are looking at their screens with this face right now:









Educated hippies want nukes, ppl. Don't be so surprised.

8/9/2006 4:01:58 PM

I read about the solar updraft tower that is going to be built in Australia over the next few years. Sounds like it has a lot of potential. Here's the company's website if you're not familiar with it:

http://www.enviromission.com.au/

8/9/2006 4:18:26 PM

All we are saying...is give nuke a chance....

Look, all the people are rallying together.


(BTW, I <3 nuclear power) , but it suffers from an enormous NIMBY problem from too many people

8/9/2006 4:28:06 PM

wait so does this mean we all get a super power now?

8/9/2006 4:31:12 PM

as someone who lived near a nuclear disaster area and had and uncle work at SL-1

I'm not too sure I'm a fan of going nuclear.

8/9/2006 4:34:47 PM

my grandfather helped design and build alot of nuclear plants around chicago so I grew up thinking it is perfectly safe. I am a little frustrated that we are so far behind because of people that are afraid to wipe their ass.

8/9/2006 4:40:07 PM

Quote :

"http://www.enviromission.com.au/"

that thing is fucking sweet

8/9/2006 8:53:55 PM

The only real nuclear diseaster area is in Russia/Ukraine.

I don't count Three Mile island as that big of a diseaster and if you lived in New Mexico lol@u.

Go nuke.

8/9/2006 9:06:26 PM

im cool with it, as long as terrorist dont fly planes into them and shit

8/9/2006 9:06:29 PM

Quote :

"we need to go nuclear, but not old-school nuclear, which is the only financially viable option in the USA due to the draconian and protective NRC regulations. Pebble-bed all the way"

They are going to be building new ABWRs in South Texas very soon and hopfully the ESBWR will get NRC approval and be started soon.

Really these next gen reactors are a huge step up over the ones out there.

8/9/2006 9:20:11 PM

The main barriers to new nuclear power plants being built are overregulation and exorbitant insurance rates, which makes them ridiculously expensive.

Politicians don't build nuclear power plants, they only prevent them from being built. The best they can do is give incentives for the private industry to build them.

[Edited on August 10, 2006 at 12:34 AM. Reason : 2]

8/10/2006 12:33:38 AM

^^^^

diseaster (dis-EAS-ter):

(1) the common perception that the Easter Bunny never gets any respect from Santa and his Posse, thus bitchslapping the Easter holiday like the secondrate ho it is.

(2) the uncomfortable state of cognitive dissonance brought about by the dilemma of choosing between stale marshmallow peeps, and those nasty-ass chocolate eggs with white and yellow shit oozing out of the center.




[Edited on August 10, 2006 at 12:42 AM. Reason : ]

8/10/2006 12:38:54 AM

^those eggs are awesome

8/10/2006 12:44:50 AM

Quote :

"The best they can do is give incentives for the private industry to build them. "

they are offering these incentives now, as we speak.

They are also renewing operating licenses for a lot of the existing plants (whose licenses are mostly set
to expire b/w now and 2010)

I think it's sad that 50% of this nation's power still comes from Coal plants... The worst offender in terms of pollution.



as for terruristers flying planes into the nuke plants, they are implementing safeguards against this in the next generation of plants.
Walls are missile-proof (dunno about plane-proof though), and the new plants are 4-way redundant, meaning the plant can still function safely even if it takes a MAJOR hit.

8/10/2006 10:52:12 AM

The current gen plants nuclear reactor dome is made of solid concrete that is supposed to be able to take a jumbo jet crashing into it. So a terrorist attack is not a huge issue.

8/10/2006 4:47:53 PM

This reminds me of that nuclear plant out in California that armed its guards with gatling guns.

8/10/2006 4:49:25 PM

That's not a nuclear plant, it's where I work--Lawrence Livermore National Lab and the stuff they're protecting is a bit more valuable then the what you put in your power plant.

8/10/2006 4:56:24 PM

aha, cool

have you seen them used?

8/10/2006 4:59:34 PM

I think the only time I've heard of the guards firing their weapons onsite was when they blew away a mountain lion that was hanging around the perimeter of the Lab a couple years back.

This SF Gate gives a nice rundown of the fire power the guards here have at hand:
http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2006/M134-Gatling-Livermore3feb06.htm
There was a funny picture when they first got the guns of the Lab director smiling like a child with a new
toy as he stood in front of a gatling gun that was armed by a guard that looked like a stormtrooper. Ya, way to set
the community at ease Mr. Director.

8/10/2006 5:27:03 PM

some of your web pics are down. i wanted to see the wetterhorn traverse.

did you summit Rainier? i see her every day as i cross the 520 bridge.

8/11/2006 1:17:06 AM

Shit, the Wetterhorn traverse is a walk in the park (even if class 5) after climbing in the Sierra for awhile:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/96147689@N00/?savedsettings=150178824#photo150178824

But no, I haven't done Ranier yet since my partner bailed on me a month ago. I might try a winter ascent in January in preperation for going to Alaska/Yukon.

[Edited on August 11, 2006 at 2:41 AM. Reason : x]

8/11/2006 2:40:17 AM

Quote :

"I might try a winter ascent in January "

hmm. well, hope you dont have to be rescued and/or die. every year several experienced climbers die on Rainier, and dozens have to be helicoptered off. almost every incident is to weather.

so January should be a perfect time.

8/11/2006 3:19:24 AM

Quote :

"I still do not think that Nuclear power is safe enough to risk and disposal is still a problem."

Then you would be completely wrong. Nuclear power in the US has been safe practically since its inception.

Quote :

"Wind"

Can't have that. It messes with the bats!

Quote :

"Hydro,"

Can't have that, it messes up salmon

Quote :

"Tidal"

Can't have that, it messes up flipper!

Quote :

"they create more jobs in installation and maintenance and pollute even less than Nuclear?"

Creates more jobs = costs more... And the "pollution" from nuclear power would be non-existent if the stupid hippies would actually allow RESEARCH into ways to manage nuclear waste.

Quote :

"as someone who lived near a nuclear disaster area and had and uncle work at SL-1"

Wow, you mean a research reactor's problems from 50 years ago whose lessons we have applied in EVERY MODEL SINCE and actually helped avert a meltdown at TMI should mean that we totally abandon a promising technology that would reduce oil dependence? hmmm...



But seriously, nuke DOES have it's drawbacks in the fission field, namely that the supply of Uranium on earth will likely only provide about 90-130 years of energy at best. We'd just be supplanting one limited fuel for another.

8/12/2006 12:06:37 AM

is that true, about the earths supply of uranium?

i've never heard that. please reference.

8/12/2006 1:54:14 AM

it would take building a nuke plant every week for the next 20 yrs to completely move from fossil fuels to nuke power, assumin the world population doesnt increase and our energy use stays the same, but like ^ mentioned we will run out of uranium too, solar power.....

8/12/2006 2:32:10 AM

Nuke plants run much more efficiently than fossil plants. I am pro nuke but that may be because they are about to start paying me money. My dad has worked in nuclear for almost 30 years and I wasn't born with any extra limbs...although maybe that's why my pen is so large

8/12/2006 1:43:37 PM

So could someone please expound on the running out of uranium thing?

That's depressing as hell.

8/12/2006 7:14:18 PM

Quote :

"Nuke plants run much more efficiently than fossil plants. I am pro nuke but that may be because they are about to start paying me money. My dad has worked in nuclear for almost 30 years and I wasn't born with any extra limbs...although maybe that's why my pen is so large "

the current coal fire steam plants are near 60%

i thought nuke plants are run less efficiently under the "safer" guise

can you provide some reference

[Edited on August 12, 2006 at 7:37 PM. Reason : quote tag]

8/12/2006 7:37:14 PM

The timeline for running out of uranium is model dependent. I've seen estimates from 300 years to 100k+ years so you really have to look at the underlying assumptions people make in estimating the supply of useable uranium. To me it seems these estimates are a lot like Peak Oil estimates and should probably be taken with a large dose of salt.

re: Rainier: Ya, people die. It's part of the game & I saw someone get his head busted open from a 200 foot fall on Shasta last winter. The point is not to do something without experience and to avoid becoming too complacent.

8/12/2006 7:59:40 PM

Quote :

"So could someone please expound on the running out of uranium thing? That's depressing as hell."

ive never heard of htat either and am waiting for a reference.

but dont worry, we'll just go mine the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

8/12/2006 8:00:40 PM

Quote :

"the current coal fire steam plants are near 60% i thought nuke plants are run less efficiently under the "safer" guise can you provide some reference"

Hard reference I do not have. But according to my dad nuclear is what makes all the money and that the entire plant can be run with like 4 people. If it weren't efficient why would power utilities companies want to build more of them? They simply make more money for less money going nuclear.

I just accepted a job offer at Duke Energy, and don't know much about Nuclear but apparently I'll be spending about a year learning about it before I can really do any engineering. So I'm kinda talking out of my ass.

[Edited on August 12, 2006 at 9:28 PM. Reason : b]

8/12/2006 9:17:48 PM

Quote :

"But seriously, nuke DOES have it's drawbacks in the fission field, namely that the supply of Uranium on earth will likely only provide about 90-130 years of energy at best. We'd just be supplanting one limited fuel for another."

We haven't looked for more uranium in 25 years because of the moratorium. The century forecast just covers existing fields we've found. Uranium is common on Earth, and we know there is a lot more than that. Once new plants get built, securing more good mining sites will start to be a priority.

The real drawback is the age of some existing reactors. They're inefficient, and require disproportionate maintenance. We should look into upgrading them if we don't want a really idiotic problem stifling the momentum for more nuclear power.

And to the comment about regulations making nuclear power expensive: that's true to some extent, but without the more egregious provisions, nuclear plants are still quite expensive to start off and require government subsidies. It pays off eventually though, quite a lot. The classic economies of scale situation.

And as far as I know, they run them at 90%, not 50%. There shouldn't be any reason not to.

[Edited on August 14, 2006 at 12:45 AM. Reason : thought of stuff]

8/14/2006 12:42:14 AM

fission is the way of the future

it's best to just accept it

8/14/2006 1:25:20 AM

Quote :

"fission is the way of the future"

yup. and it's been the wave of the future for, oh, bout 60 years or so.

8/14/2006 2:24:39 AM