Nuclear power question

[JOERM]

How come there is so much resistance for nuclear power on shore but not off shore on our Navy ships? One of those reactors off an aircraft carrier supplies enough power for the whole ship plus 6000 sailors for 50 years before refueling and there has NEVER been an accident, not that I'm aware of anyway.

My guess is that reactor could supply enough power to light up 10,000 homes or more for half a century. It can't be very large so you would not need those monster ugly towers that is normally used for nuke power. And isn't the ones on the Nuke sub's self contained and do not require a huge amount of water flowing for cooling?

How much do you think a reactor cost for that 5 acre boat?

Anyway, just wondering. My guess is that this country will be forced to build a LOT more nuke power plants in the near future but what do I know.

Joe

[nogoodnamesleft]

That's an easy one .... too much money being pumped into the government by oil companies. Oil lobbyists would never let something clean and efficient like nuclear take hold.

[Maximumbob54]

I'm more curious why solar isn't being explored more heavily and with more money in the research. From what I have read the commercial panels available to us only utilize the red spectrum of light but we already know how to build them to use two or three more. So just like how a plasma tv used to cost forty or fifty thousand dollars and now they are in the local Wal-Monster for a couple of hundred, why aren't we doing the same thing for solar? Just as has been said I'm willing to be I don't even have to put on my tin foil hat to believe oil companies do anything they can to keep us hooked up to the mainline of black goo.

[The Big D]

NIMBY, for waaaaaaaaay too many peops.

FTR, you could build one near my 'hood; no objections from me.

BTW, some morons nearby think windmills are bad; seems they kill birds/bats that fly into them. Seems like Darwin's Theory to me...but what do I know?

Be safe.

[Maximumbob54]

I was just going to edit my post with the NIMBY theory as well. Just like how people want more dumps, freeways, and other public utilities but they don't want to pay for them or have them too close to their exclusive gated communities either.

[JOERM]

"BTW, some morons nearby think windmills are bad; seems they kill birds/bats that fly into them. Seems like Darwin's Theory to me...but what do I know?"

All of the new windmills around my neck of the woods the blades turn kind of slow no matter how hard the wind blows. The bird brain birds/bats that might fly into them and die deserve to die. I don't think that would ever happen, birds are not as stupid as those people who say they will die. Those idiots are thinking old style of wind mills that spin at airplane prop speeds. One last thing, these new windmills are NOT loud as some say. I'm not a big windmill fan and not sure how cost effective they are but I do like looking at them and would not mind having one just for fun.

It would take a million or more windmills to produce equal power as a nuke sub reactor and would cost more to produce and maintain, and I think they do require a lot of maintenance.

[NFrameFred]

When people are burning the furniture to stay warm and making home-made candles from animal tallow again they'll get serious about alternative forms of energy.

Seriously, I respectfully submit that I cannot buy into the conspiracy theories of big oil or big coal stymieing all competition. Bottom line is, when someone figures a way to produce it so we can afford it and he can make a buck on it - we'll have it.

The nuclear thing is one of those where the voices of the emotional uninformed are ruling the conversation. And they are smart enough to know how to tie up progress with frivolous lawsuits and injunctions and changing regulations until it becomes too expensive to pursue.

Unless and until a way is found to exponentially increase the efficiency of solar collectors/converters, that is a pie-in-the-sky utopian pipe dream. Same with wind farms. Adjuncts only - not ready to replace the traditional on a large scale.

Folks, we're just unlucky enough to be living in a sorry transitional period in our history between the industrial age to the electronic age to whatever will follow in the next 30 to 100 years. These problems will eventually be solved if the Lord tarries long enough, but these wheels turn slowly. We've just been in the internal combustion engine era for a little over a century, and 100 years is just a 'blip' on the scale of time and the logistical reality of changing the face of how the population of the world lives. The industrial revolution and the progress it brought at light speed compared to the history proceeding it brought with it a new set of problems never before encountered on a global scale. Present day communications, transportation and geo-politics have reduced reaction times but also sped up negative effects.

Not much hope for a "quick fix" for those of us presently in the middle of it. Our grandchildren and their children may see wondrous solutions to what we are experiencing now, but all the clamor for clean, cheap, abundant energy from the wind and the sun ain't gonna cut it for decades, if then. I have no doubt smart folks are working on it and will eventually bring it to pass. But passing ill advised regulations and policies putting such in place before it's economically feasible will only continue to drag us down in to the unsustainable spending quagmire we find ourselves in at present.

[Bruce51]

OK take this FWIW. I have been told that since we can power subs and aircraft carriers with self contained encapsulated nuclear fuel we can and should do the same with our motor vehicles. We've had this technology since the first sub was launched.
The units could be made crash proof, fire proof and would run a car for it's entire usable life on a very small amount of fuel. Just add water because we would all be driving steam engines.

Yeah I know Alqeda would by a bunch of them and chain them together.
Everyone would be afraid of being exposed to radiation in an accident.

Look at it this way how many tanker trucks full of gasoline are on the road at any given moment. Nothing like a truck full of flammables to ruin a person's day. There is a risk with everything and a hesitation to change the way things operate. I'll just say that we are not getting too far with batteries.
Build the cars and in twenty years big oil is broken and our money stays here.
OK flame away but eventually the oil will be very expensive or gone.
I actually prefer drill here, drill now.

Bruce

[Bullseye 2620]

Nuclear power plants on Nimitz class carriers are comprised of two reactors which together generate about 200 megawatts. They have to be refueled every 20 years. An average land-based nuclear power plant for civilian power use will be about 1,000 megawatts. That's why.


Bullseye

[CAJUNLAWYER]

If only Evinrude could make a nuclear powered 150 hp outboard-
Well....one can only dream.

[FTG-05]

Originally Posted by Bruce Lee M

OK take this FWIW. I have been told that since we can power subs and aircraft carriers with self contained encapsulated nuclear fuel we can and should do the same with our motor vehicles. We've had this technology since the first sub was launched.
The units could be made crash proof, fire proof and would run a car for it's entire usable life on a very small amount of fuel. Just add water because we would all be driving steam engines.

Yeah I know Alqeda would by a bunch of them and chain them together.
Everyone would be afraid of being exposed to radiation in an accident.

Look at it this way how many tanker trucks full of gasoline are on the road at any given moment. Nothing like a truck full of flammables to ruin a person's day. There is a risk with everything and a hesitation to change the way things operate. I'll just say that we are not getting too far with batteries.
Build the cars and in twenty years big oil is broken and our money stays here.
OK flame away but eventually the oil will be very expensive or gone.
I actually prefer drill here, drill now.

Bruce

You've been told wrong. Look up Army Nuclear Power Program, the smallest nuclear power plant was a couple hundred kilowatts and weighed hundreds of tons.

What you're probably referring to is a thermionic converter, typically used on satellites. These are self-contained but they don't produce anywhere near the power needed for industrial-level commercial power (i.e. + 1 giga-watt).

[Engineer1911]

Nuclear power plant produce metallic radioactive waste that lasts almost forever. Yucca Mountain, Nevada was supposed to be the storage place for this waste. Utility customers paid millions for this and tax payers additional millions for studies and construction. I believe the total price tag was the usual $1 billion. Obama said NO! Nuc plants have no place to put "old fuel rods" except in cooling pools on site.

Another managed by government mess. There are also tons of toxic and radioactive waste left over from 50 years of nuclear weapons production that still isn't solved.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

TVA (Fed Govt) operates 3 plants in this area for about 6,600 megawatts total. Seems to work okay... nothing glowing in the dark that I have seen so far. I think our electricity rates are lower than many others around the country. Maybe we should have the govt operate the oil industry?

[gregintenn]

I think ignorance is the breeding ground for most opposition to nuclear power. I'd rather live near a nuclear reactor than a bunch of noisy windmills.

[BuckeyeChuck]

Originally Posted by NFrameFred

Seriously, I respectfully submit that I cannot buy into the conspiracy theories of big oil or big coal stymieing all competition. Bottom line is, when someone figures a way to produce it so we can afford it and he can make a buck on it - we'll have it.

I also don't buy the conspiracy theories. However, it is already possible to produce electricity with nuclear power with a competitive production cost. The reason no new nuclear capacity is being constructed is because of the onerous regulatory environment that surrounds plant approval and construction. In terms of costs, this means the start-up costs are so outlandish as to dissuade all entrants from building new plants.

This colossal regulatory system exists *despite* acknowledgement by NERC that modern reactor designs exceed NERC's saftey standards by at least one order of magnitude. That means the current designs don't just meet NERC's requirements; they exceed them by at least a factor of 10.

Originally Posted by NFrameFred

The nuclear thing is one of those where the voices of the emotional uninformed are ruling the conversation. And they are smart enough to know how to tie up progress with frivolous lawsuits and injunctions and changing regulations until it becomes too expensive to pursue.

As noted, the regulations don't need to change at all since they are already so over-the-top that the start-up costs are prohibitive, even for large corporations with sufficient capital to fund the cost. The catch-22 with those corporations is that many of them are unwilling to commit the capital for a multi-year project that would be such a drag on the P&L and the balance sheet. Having a good next-quarter earnings target, and then hitting it, trumps long-term capital investment when there are lower-cost, lower-risk alternatives for adding capacity.

Originally Posted by NFrameFred

Unless and until a way is found to exponentially increase the efficiency of solar collectors/converters, that is a pie-in-the-sky utopian pipe dream. Same with wind farms. Adjuncts only - not ready to replace the traditional on a large scale.

You are right so long as energy consumption remains at its current level. However, all things that seem pie-in-the-sky now become far more realistic alternatives if existing costs skyrocket, say, "When people are burning the furniture to stay warm and making home-made candles from animal tallow." If required, most of us could live on a fraction of our current usage, and if distributed generation (e.g. home-based solar) combined with local storage becomes cost-effective given the alternatives, then you could actually see it on a large scale.

It is the behavior on the margins that matters. If fuel costs skyrocket, then you will see power consumption more carefully judged for its utility, by fuel source. The mighty agricultural output of the United States positively requires massive quantities of petroleum and natural gas; our farm output will fall massively without it. As you noted, industrial sources can not be powered by solar or wind because of their scale; thus, you may see natural gas-, oil-, and coal-based generation diverted for agricultural and industrial uses while residential and minor commercial requirements are satisfied in a much reduced capacity with local generation and storage. Aviation will always require liquid hydrocarbon fuel, so people will simply stop flying unless they can pay the exorbitant fuel surcharge. And we will all travel much less because cars dont' travel far on any non-liquid fuel source that is readily available.

Originally Posted by NFrameFred

Folks, we're just unlucky enough to be living in a sorry transitional period in our history between the industrial age to the electronic age to whatever will follow in the next 30 to 100 years.

The transitional period hasn't started yet. I know that's hard to see, but it's true. The reason has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with basic energy. We are living in an age where the dominant fuel source on the planet produces multiples more energy than is required to unlock it. Heck, some oil wells produced oil simply by drillling a hole into them; the pressure in the oil field was so high that the oil flowed out with no additional work! Even when work is required to retrieve the black gold (e.g. -- the Canadian tar sands), the amount of energy produced vastly outstrips the energy required to get it.

The reason why I say confidently that the transition period hasn't started yet is because supply still meets demand. When physical shortages start to occur *because of production factors not expressly tied to geopolitical disruptions* then the transition period will truly begin. The price rises seen currently are not remarkable and they aren't significant, despite the individual pain we all feel as we gas up our cars. When physical shortages actually start, the price increase will make us all long for the "good old days when prices only increased from $1 to $4 per gallon."

When that transition starts, demand will rapidly crater. Why? Because we lack nuclear power! We have failed to implement the only electrical generation fuel that has sufficient scale to replace 100% of the manner in which we currently generate electricity. Nuclear offers the hope that when the transition period truly starts, we will do away with the overly-regulated and litigious climate that prevents its implementation so as to lower its cost for the benefit of all. However, even if that doesn't happen, the alternative costs may be so high as to make the regulatory burden bearable.

Even if we turn to nuclear, distributed generation like solar and wind will find huge markets. We *will* all find ways to live on less power. And we shall succeed in both supply and demand, of this I am sure.

[JOERM]

Originally Posted by CAJUNLAWYER

If only Evinrude could make a nuclear powered 150 hp outboard-
Well....one can only dream.

What more needs to be said?

[enfield]

I have heard that, since the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow, but the demand for electricity is fairly constant, each 1000 watts of solar/wind generation capability requires 900 watts of backup fossil/nuclear generation capability.

In other words, solar panels and windmills can't replace conventional power sources unless we're prepared to sit in the dark on a regular basis.

[FTG-05]

Originally Posted by Engineer1911

Nuclear power plant produce metallic radioactive waste that lasts almost forever. Yucca Mountain, Nevada was supposed to be the storage place for this waste. Utility customers paid millions for this and tax payers additional millions for studies and construction. I believe the total price tag was the usual $1 billion. Obama said NO! Nuc plants have no place to put "old fuel rods" except in cooling pools on site.

Another managed by government mess. There are also tons of toxic and radioactive waste left over from 50 years of nuclear weapons production that still isn't solved.

Yes, high level nuclear waste lasts millions of years, so what? For example, the amount of high level waste generated by all commercial nuclear power plants in the US since the start of nuclear power would fill one football about 5 meters high. Whoopie-di-do. Nuclear waste is easily contained and stored, despite what the antis will tell you.

Furthermore, the vast majority doesn't need to be stored at all. Japan, France, and other nuclear powers reprocess their high level nuclear waste and reuse it in their power plants - vastly reducing the amount of real waste left over. The US doesn't because of the same people who raise our taxes, want to ban our guns and want us all to drive little itty bitty cars with +$8 per gallon gas.

The reason that the US doesn't reprocess nuclear waste is the same reason that Yucca was shut down: the anti's are trying to kill nuclear power in this country by shutting down the waste stream output. By falsely and deliberately making the waste problem bigger than it is (and hyping it out of all proportion like your statement above), they hope to stop the design and construction of any new power plants in the future. They are using oppressive regulation and lawsuits to do the same thing on the front end of the process.


However, there's something on the horizon that even the anti's should be able to get behind; nuclear power plants that use thorium as the nuclear fuel instead of uranium.

The benefits of thorium are many:

- Thorium is super plentiful. We throw away 13 times as much energy from leftover thorium left in coal slag as we do by burning the coal itself. There's literally thousands of years worth of fuel in the US alone.
- At no time in the nuclear fuel cycle, does the thorium fuel become a nuclear weapons grade material, making nuclear proliferation fears non-existent (the supposed reason the Carter banned nuclear fuel reprocessing in the first place).
- Lastly, high level thorium waste last a couple dozen years instead of thousands or millions of years like uranium and plutonium fuels.

[Maximumbob54]

No, the sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow... But when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing... I'm much more of a fan of solar than wind. I prefer the no moving parts approach. And as for it being a Utopian dream, lets look to other countries that already have invested heavily and get a large amount of power from solar panels. I can look right into my cousin's backyard and see her small solar field that covers half of her electric bill during the day. I would think that if all the solar did was cover the A/C bill during the day then that alone would be nice. Since a large part of the electricity we use is burned during daylight hours then solar could help us with heating or cooling, lighting, mechanical, and anything else. During the night we could rely on existing power sources until an alternate energy can cover the night as well. As long as we keep using fission nuclear power and can't break into fusion I don't personally see a huge reason to invest so heavily into more fission reactors. We may be able to push some money and science into modernizing the existing technology like squeezing some more life out of fissile material in breeder plants or something similar but with the waste both radioactive and chemical coming from them it should be looked at as at best a temporary stopgap to a better plan to a different power source. So until the sun burns out, we can't ask for a better light bulb.

I had forgot about the use of thorium. I'm not sure on the science of it, but from what I have read it really could be an additional source of power.

[LouisianaJoe]

This local commentator said it better than I can.

Garland: Pres. Obama Forgot To Read The Fine Print On Clean Energy - WWL - AM870 | FM105.3 | News | Talk | Sports

[BuckeyeChuck]

Originally Posted by Maximumbob54

No, the sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow... But when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing... I'm much more of a fan of solar than wind. I prefer the no moving parts approach. And as for it being a Utopian dream, lets look to other countries that already have invested heavily and get a large amount of power from solar panels. I can look right into my cousin's backyard and see her small solar field that covers half of her electric bill during the day. I would think that if all the solar did was cover the A/C bill during the day then that alone would be nice. Since a large part of the electricity we use is burned during daylight hours then solar could help us with heating or cooling, lighting, mechanical, and anything else. During the night we could rely on existing power sources until an alternate energy can cover the night as well. As long as we keep using fission nuclear power and can't break into fusion I don't personally see a huge reason to invest so heavily into more fission reactors. We may be able to push some money and science into modernizing the existing technology like squeezing some more life out of fissile material in breeder plants or something similar but with the waste both radioactive and chemical coming from them it should be looked at as at best a temporary stopgap to a better plan to a different power source. So until the sun burns out, we can't ask for a better light bulb.

Respectfully, these comments demonstrate a lack of comprehension of the scale of electrical power generation. Your desire for solar, bolstered by a vision of somebody's back yard, is beyond utopian and straight into fantasy. Here are the U.S. DOE's figures for electrical power generation in the U.S. over the past few years, by fuel source:

Electric Power Monthly - Table 1.1. Net Generation by Energy Source

According to DOE, the U.S. generated 3,758,754 thousand megawatt hours. That's 3,758,754,000 (3.8 billion) megawatt hours. A megawatt hour is itself 1,000,000 watt hours, or 1 million watts for one hour. If you don't speak math, it is difficult to easily convey the magnificent enormity of this energy. The best I can do is to use your favorite alternative source.

If we assume that the U.S. electricity demand is constant 24 hours/day, 365 days per year (which it isn't), then we require 429,000 mW of constant generating capacity. Under ideal conditions, the sun's energy at the ground is 15W/ft2 (Solar Energy Information). If you could convert 100% of that to electricity (a laughable proposition), you would require photovoltaic cells covering an area of 28,605,662,100 square feet. That's 1,026 square miles. Of course, the efficiency of photovoltaic cells is *at best* 30% and most of them aren't even that high. Assuming 30%, you'd need 3,400 square miles. To put this in perspective, the State of Ohio is 41,000 square miles. We're talking about covering 8% of the state with cells to feed the U.S., so long as we get a steady 15W/m 24 hours per day.

Of course, these assumptions are very rosy. The sun doesn't shine 24 hours per day. It doesn't produce 15W/ft2 at most latitudes during most of the year, and weather greatly interferes. Also, photovoltaic cells show a steady decline in their efficiency as they age.

You needn't look at other countries because they aren't doing much better than the U.S., and what a family member's back yard looks like is insufficient to answer this scale. We haven't even discussed power consumption for which electricity is presently unsuited, like transportation, farming, and many industrial uses. If those convert to electricity, the problem worsens.

That DOE chart says that "other alternative" sources comprised 4% of total generation. The resources that would be required to make this a signficant contributor are enormous and unrealistic, in my opinion. Now, I earlier said that the impact of alternatives can be high on the margins when mainstream costs skyrocket. This is true, but I also noted that demand would collapse, which would be necessary to make alternative generation a more significant contributor. It could happen.

Like you, I love the idea of solar power, for the same reasons. But just because the sun burns brightly doesn't mean that our planet's ultimate power source is so easily harnessed at the scale we desire. And you cannot simply wave your hand and dismiss this reality. We use power and we like the lifestyle it provides. I for one wish to continue living as I do now.

Originally Posted by Maximumbob54

We may be able to push some money and science into modernizing the existing technology like squeezing some more life out of fissile material in breeder plants or something similar but with the waste both radioactive and chemical coming from them it should be looked at as at best a temporary stopgap to a better plan to a different power source.

Why? The idea that waste is something that must necessarily be eliminated is a farce. There is nothing inherently wrong with waste; it is a natural byproduct of all energetic processes, whether stellar, planetary, or biological. The immutable nature of waste is baked into our known universe by the laws of thermodynamics.

Since waste elimination is impossible and unnecessary, what should the goal be? I think it should be proper management of that waste. There can and should be discussion about what that is, but so long as you advocate the complete elimination of waste (especially chemical; what's up with THAT?) then you stake out an impossible position.

[m1gunner]

The most practical alternate energy source now is hydro. But, it has just about all been developed in this country, not much more left to tap.

If the roadblocks to Nuke energy weren't around for the last 50 years, we would have the most advanced power grid on Earth, and the cheapest electricity as well.

We also wouldn't be bidding against the power industry to buy gas to heat our homes.

Back to the OP, there have been many Naval nuke power plant accidents. Do a search on nuclear accidents and lost nukes.

[Beemer-mark]

Being in the nuclear industry I just don't see it happening (in the US of A). Here in NC we think a cement plant is too dangerous to operate. The rest of the world is building nuclear power plants right and left. China has about 20 under construction, Brazil & India want to build 10 a year for the next 10 years. One huge difference is the cost of a 1200 MW nulcear power plant, say about 15 Billion a unit. As far as I know the US is the only country in the world that makes it a private enterprize. For all other countries the plants are built and financed by the goverment. Bush pushed for about 30 billion in loan guarentees to help private companies built plants but Obama scaled it back to 8 billion and isn't too keen on actually giving the guarentee to anyone.

Besides. I doubt if we actually need the power. People ain't gonna be able to afford wood to burn and I don't see manufacturing growing. Call me a pessimist.

[Maximumbob54]

Let me do this in a way that I hope doesn't come across as arguing. Fist off, I admitted that the sun doesn't shine 24/7/356 and that it isn't fully practical. And I admit that right now with current technology we can't generate the amount of solar power that we utilize every day to just shut down fuel oil, coal, or nuclear plants. But if I know some one that can cut their utility bill in half with just a small solar field of less than a dozen panels then that isn't so Utopian IMHO. That cuts a big chunk of their bills every month. They are saving up to double it and that may be enough that they sell the electricity back and maybe pocket more than they use even at night. So they would still be on the grid but still be ahead. If step three were to start adding batteries for night time use then they might even be off the grid entirely for usage. And before I get blasted further for panel degradation and battery waste, replacement costs, and more... Please understand that this is all in an infant stage for commercial usage. Ten years ago you would have been laughed at if you said that Harbor Freight was going to stock a little solar in a box kit setup for a couple of hundred bucks. What will we have in ten more years? We have technology that photovoltaic cells can even gather light from the moon's reflection and the stars. Is it practical? Heck no. But if you squint your eyes and look into the future you can see where that might be going. And wow... Way to make me feel like a whale kissing tree hugger. If I'm not big on loading up on more waste from whatever that we have to clean up after then I'[m sorry for that Utopian view as well. No body wants lead and plastic lined steel drums of hot material in their backyard. That's the whole concept of NIMBY. Uranium, Plutonium, nor Thorium burn into ash to be swept out into the alley. The stuff all goes though a break down process that takes a long time with a lot of strings attached in the form of storage, administration of storage, security of storage, upkeep of storage, and all the other little non production type jobs that have to be payroll'ed, pention'ed, benefit'ed, and more. So if I voice an opinion about a little solid state power generation and how nice it could or should be then that is all I am saying. So just like engines had to be designed, updated, modified, and sold, so will motors, generators, and batteries. So until we figure out how to turn some other Star Trek science fiction into reality I just see solar as a more sensible reality sooner than later over more nuclear power plants.

[Hofstet]

Solar would be great if someone could figure out how to make the sun shine more than 120 days a year north of the 45th parallel where I live. I guess we'll all have to move to Florida.

[Skeptic 9c]

The fact remains the FedGov has expanded the nuclear bureaucracy to the level where a license is impossible to get. There are designs proven in France and built by GE which are efficient and effective. We are sitting on our fuel rods because Jimmy Carter banned recycling along with Civil Defense and built a worthless bureaucracy.

There are new designs from Toshiba which can provide a "nuclear battery" which can supply power at various levels and requires no maintenance. Send it back in 20 years and get it refilled. But, little towns in Alaska can't have one of those...too dangerous.

And there have been accidents on nuclear ships, just hard to find information.

DARPA wants to use mini-nuke plants to turn "sewage" into diesel/Jet fuel, making use of materials generated in our military camps in Mesopotamia.

Geoff
Who has long been a nuke advocate.

[Skeptic 9c]

Originally Posted by Hofstet

Solar would be great if someone could figure out how to make the sun shine more than 120 days a year north of the 45th parallel where I live. I guess we'll all have to move to Florida.

And when the solar farm gets hit with a hurricane...ooops no power.

Geoff
Who has power from Florida Power and Light a small portion of which is solar and a small portion is nuke, and a portion is generated from old used car oil et al.

[Skeptic 9c]

How many nuke plants could have been built with the TRILLION and a HALF dollars we have thrown into the Mid-East trying to civilize the natives? Not to mention killing over 4,000 of our folks and wounding many more for questionable goals.

Geoff
Who notes a national government in Afganistan has been a JOKE for 2,000 years...or more.

[Etemmu]

See Buckeye's numbers. The numbers aren't any better for wind. One of the biggest problems for both of these alternatives is the ability to store generated energy. Anyone who thinks wind or solar will replace coal in our lifetime is mistaken- without discovery of major new theory and resulting tech (on par with Gen Theory of Relativity). Nuke is the best available to us right now but too scary for most. It is true that the depleted material is a huge problem...so I now see that I dont have an answer either. Perhaps a nuclear campaign to convert the entire Middle East to The United Arab States of America? Just brainstorming........

[BuckeyeChuck]

Originally Posted by Maximumbob54

Let me do this in a way that I hope doesn't come across as arguing.

I don't mind a good argument! People of good conscience can agree to disagree, especially if their positions are reasoned.

Originally Posted by Maximumbob54

Fist off, I admitted that the sun doesn't shine 24/7/356 and that it isn't fully practical. And I admit that right now with current technology we can't generate the amount of solar power that we utilize every day to just shut down fuel oil, coal, or nuclear plants. But if I know some one that can cut their utility bill in half with just a small solar field of less than a dozen panels then that isn't so Utopian IMHO. That cuts a big chunk of their bills every month. They are saving up to double it and that may be enough that they sell the electricity back and maybe pocket more than they use even at night. So they would still be on the grid but still be ahead. If step three were to start adding batteries for night time use then they might even be off the grid entirely for usage.

Okay, so we've moved from solar as a scaleable technology that can suitably replace our current electricity requirements, to one that can be used locally to augment the grid and/or replace the grid. There is no doubt that what you describe is possible and many homes (especially rural) have done it. But just as math demonstrated that solar is not viable as a mainstream power source, this reduced position should also be accompanied by the simple arithmetic required to judge its viability. I insist that your position is never fully understand (indeed, it is poorly understood) without such a quantitative analysis. Most people have a chronic shortage of money, which is why they work, so cost matters.

Most estimates are that residential solar is $10 to $12/watt to install. Let's use the lower figure and assume that no storage is involved, that excess power (if any) will be sold back to the power company. (This assumption has nasty implications. You will receive a one-to-one credit for generation costs, but you will NOT be refunded any money for transmission costs. This greatly reduces solar's cost-effectiveness.)

A 1 kW system would be $10,000 to install.
A 2 kW system would be $20,000 to install.
A 5 kW system would be $50,000 to install.

Solar Power Cost | Cooler Planet estimates that if you installed a 2 kW system (for the low, low price of $20,000), you could generate about 5 kW/day where I live. Now, I pay about 11 cents/kWh for electricity, but that includes generation *and* transmission charges, and as I noted, even if I sold back the excess to the power company, I wouldn't get all 11 cents back. But let's assume I do just to give the rosiest possible picture.

My annual electrical usage is about 10,000 kWH. We're a normal family of five living in a postage stamp ranch with central A/C and a gas stove. If I could generate 5 kWh/day, every day, I would generate 1825 kWh. That's 18.25% of my annual usage, valued (in the rosiest scenario) at $200.

Think about that. I spent $20,000 to get an annual return of $200. It will take me 100 years to recoup that money at current generation rates, assuming that I need no maintenance and repair on my system, which is absolutely false. Let's say that the Florida estimate is wrong; that I can actually generate 50 kWh/day (not possible). Okay, so my payback period drops to 10 years. For most people, who lack $20,000 in cash to pay for an installation, even a 10 year period is not something they should accept. I admit that the payback period could be greatly recouped if energy costs skyrocket, or especially if the grid were to become unavailable or even unreliable.

There are people who are making the choice to install solar on their homes. Wonderful! But please, please acknolwedge that they do so as a hobby, as something they do because it pleases them, NOT because it is an investment.

Do you have solar on your house? If not, why not? I don't, and the reason is clearly outlined above.

Originally Posted by Maximumbob54

And before I get blasted further for panel degradation and battery waste, replacement costs, and more... Please understand that this is all in an infant stage for commercial usage. Ten years ago you would have been laughed at if you said that Harbor Freight was going to stock a little solar in a box kit setup for a couple of hundred bucks. What will we have in ten more years?

This is an excellent question, but if the point of the question is largely rhetorical, intending to make the reader think that 10 years' progress will make solar competitive, I suggest that a quantitative approach makes dubious such an implication. The cost of solar doesn't need to drop a little bit -- 10%, 20% -- it needs to drop to a tiny fraction of its present cost. Tiny, TINY. Like, it must drop 95% from its current level.

I keep an eye on the solar industry because I am interested in it. In 10 years I don't expect signficant cost reductions or any gains in efficiency. Why? Two reasons:

(1) Right now, much of the demand for solar is driven by public projects or tax subsidies to early adopters. This is not real demand; it is fake demand that would never exist without largesse. If the largesse ceases, and I wish it would, many producers would be bankrupt as demand collapses. It would pick back up over the next 10 years if energy prices go higher (which I think will happen), but I don't expect significant cost reductions because unlike smart phones, the market for solar is fake.

(2) There are new manufacturing methods designed to put photovoltaic cells onto flexible substrates suitable for use on roofs, windows, etc. The problem is that these methods, while they allow for more area and potentially lower material and installation costs, reduce the efficiency. So while the entry cost may be reduced, the cost per unit of power may not really decrease. Long term return is not significantly increased.

Originally Posted by Maximumbob54

If I'm not big on loading up on more waste from whatever that we have to clean up after then I'[m sorry for that Utopian view as well. No body wants lead and plastic lined steel drums of hot material in their backyard. That's the whole concept of NIMBY. Uranium, Plutonium, nor Thorium burn into ash to be swept out into the alley. The stuff all goes though a break down process that takes a long time with a lot of strings attached in the form of storage, administration of storage, security of storage, upkeep of storage, and all the other little non production type jobs that have to be payroll'ed, pention'ed, benefit'ed, and more. So if I voice an opinion about a little solid state power generation and how nice it could or should be then that is all I am saying.

You are certainly entitled to an opinion that you desire no more waste, or even no waste at all. My objection to your previous position of no waste is that it is impossible and therefore unreasoned. Please note this is not a character attack. It is merely an assessment of your opinion, which I do find a little utopian. I'd love to live in utopia, but sadly, I haven't found it yet.

In this case, where you say you wish to have no more nuclear waste than what already exists, I once again wonder why you don't ask "How much waste would nuclear actually generate?" If you say the question is unimportant because the only acceptable quantity is zero, then I find your opinion decidedly unreasoned because I can find no valid premise upon which such a conclusion may be built.

The answer to this question is "Not very much." There are new fuel cycles developed even in the past 10 years that continually reprocess spent fuel until every last usable bit has been wrung out. The waste that remains is truly waste, and while it may be nasty stuff, there won't be very much of it. My opinion is that it can be handled and that costs should be borne directly by the consumers of the power generated by the nuclear fuel.

You can see a recurring theme in what I write. Qualitative analysis, where you only ask "What?" and not "How much?", is hopelessly incapable of delivering a solid understanding of power systems. If you cannot answer the quantitative question, and/or you cannot parse the numbers involved, don't worry -- you're in good company with at least 95% of the population, who also cannot understand a basic mortgage. Plainly put, you cannot adequately understand solar's viability, or nuclear's viability, or any other energy source's viability if you don't speak the numbers.

[RufusG]

I'm just gonna jump in here at the end and challenge a couple things posted previously without directly linking back.

.gov spent I believe $8 Billion on the Yucca Mountain project before Obama paid off Harry Reid by deciding it was a bad idea. This was money collected from electricity ratepayers over the years by Federal mandate.

The capacity factor of your typical wind farn is maybe 30-40% tops. That means if a utility builds a 500 MW wind farm, they have to add 1000 MW of gas turbines to be able to cover their load. This is an actual example provided by a utility executive at a talk I heard. Wind power doen't sound so green when you consider all those turbines backing it up.

And Obama actually has tried to increase the amount of loan guarantees for new nuclear plants. I think last year they ratcheted it up a bit and are trying for more this year, but I don't have those numbers handy.

The biggest reason we are not building nuclear out the wazoo right now is that it's very expensive up front, and takes time, and we have pretty much lost the ability as a society to make the hard decisions and commitments for the future, when we can choose a short-sided immediate gratification option instead.

[dant]

What Buckeyechuck says ( and I totally agree) you sound like the PR man for 'AEP' ( I can say that , my son works for them, in fact helps run a reactor up along Lake Michigan.....)

Yes, the cost has gone through the roof thanks to the tree huggers and all of their ilk..............
Skeptic9 I'm with you too.....

Drill HERE and drill now,cut this **** of reliance on all them 3rd world jerks,we teach 'em, show them how ,spend tons on them and they nationalize it anyway,BOY are WE stupid...........

[BuckeyeChuck]

Originally Posted by RufusG

The capacity factor of your typical wind farn is maybe 30-40% tops. That means if a utility builds a 500 MW wind farm, they have to add 1000 MW of gas turbines to be able to cover their load. This is an actual example provided by a utility executive at a talk I heard. Wind power doen't sound so green when you consider all those turbines backing it up.

I don't quite see how this example works. Wind power would never be considered a primary generation source by any utility because it varies with wind and turbine reliability. It seems to me that the wind power would be used to supplement usual generation capacity, not the other way around. However, if the overarching point is that wind power is unreliable to meet its nominal capacity, then I agree.

The electrical generation industry talks about "base load". Base load is an amount of capacity that the utility must maintain to meet a specific amount of demand. Any load on top of base load will cause the utility to spool up additional turbines to meet that demand. Base load must be reliable, and wind, solar, and tidal are very unreliable.

In the past few years, there has been a lot of battery research, and some interesting innovations have resulted, including batteries with large capacity and massive delivery power. The utilities see this technology as a way to drive down their costs because they can reduce base load, at which point alternative sources may become more viable because any excess energy they produce during peak times could be stored. Some utilities are "beta testers".

What is preventing significant adoption? The usual culprits: it's unproven, and it's veeerry costly right now. It is yet unclear that time and progress will solve those issues because (surprise!) some of the funding for these projects is public, which means the demand is not entirely real.

Disclaimer for dant: I am merely an AEP customer who has done some reading on power generation. It is a topic I understand well, having studied its fundamentals in college. Nuclear power is a topic I particularly enjoy discussing. The average person has no idea what goes on in a nuclear reactor, but they all have an opinion about it. I have never understood why people offer strong opinions on topics when that position would never survive basic scrutiny by somebody with a modicum of knowledge (let alone expertise), but few things make people proffer baseless opinions like nuclear power. (Wait! I can think of two right away! Motor oil, and the proper handgun caliber for personal defense! HA!)

The root cause of popular ignorance about alternative energy is basic innumeracy. You cannot properly understand it simply by reading concepts; you must be able to do the math. It is a crime against humanity if even one person cannot read, but if 250 million cannot do math, this is no concern. The math I provided earlier to analyze solar is simple arithmetic. Now that I am in my fifth decade of life, I no longer expect my fellow citizens to perform even basic math. They refuse, though whether their balking is due to inability or laziness, I don't truly know.

[Maximumbob54]

I'm thinking that I will just classify myself as the crazy guy from back in the day with the horseless carriage but mine is solar.

Y'all have fun now, ya hear.

[BuckeyeChuck]

Originally Posted by Maximumbob54

I'm thinking that I will just classify myself as the crazy guy from back in the day with the horseless carriage but mine is solar.

Those advocating the horseless carriage actually had horseless carriages. Do you have solar power in your house? If not, why not?

[c.marsh]

senator HARRY REID killed the plan to use YUCA MOUNTAIN storage facility for nuclear waste after spending BILLIONS of our money to set-up the mountain in NEVADA...

[RufusG]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeChuck

I don't quite see how this example works. Wind power would never be considered a primary generation source by any utility because it varies with wind and turbine reliability. It seems to me that the wind power would be used to supplement usual generation capacity, not the other way around. .

Wind power makes lousy baseload because the wind doesn't always blow, yet people always want electricity. The problem is it makes even worse peaking power, because when you need it, you really need it, and if the wind isn't blowing, you're stuck. But if it's not considered baseload, you might not be able to use it when the wind starts to blow. So it seems that utilities that want to use wind have to bring it on as "combined baseload" with gas turbines in reserve, as the least ****** use. This will look not as great when gas prices spike the next time, as they have a habit of doing. I don't know everything behind how these decisions are made, but I know this is also not the only example of this kind of arrangement I have heard.

[smith revolver cop]

Originally Posted by Maximumbob54

I'm more curious why solar isn't being explored more heavily and with more money in the research. From what I have read the commercial panels available to us only utilize the red spectrum of light but we already know how to build them to use two or three more. So just like how a plasma tv used to cost forty or fifty thousand dollars and now they are in the local Wal-Monster for a couple of hundred, why aren't we doing the same thing for solar? Just as has been said I'm willing to be I don't even have to put on my tin foil hat to believe oil companies do anything they can to keep us hooked up to the mainline of black goo.

The main advantage of nuclear is that you get the same power output at night or during inclement weather, unless the solar is tied in to a massive series of batteries... the batteries then jack up the cost, and create a whole new hazardous materials disposal issue.

I know NIMBY is a major problem, but when I was a kid, they built a nuclear power plant on Lake Michigan, just up the shoreline from my grandfather's beachfront home (now million-dollar properties!) and practically right next door to a state park. Very little opposition, and it's still running (accident-free) 40 years later. My family's current property on Lake Michigan is now 10-20 miles south, but if they wanted to build a nuclear plant near it, I'd be the first to encourage it.

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Water will run downhill at night...

With all the hype about renewable clean energy, I wonder why ya so seldom hear anyone talking about hydroelectric?

[FTG-05]

Originally Posted by Maximumbob54

I'm thinking that I will just classify myself as the crazy guy from back in the day with the horseless carriage but mine is solar.

Y'all have fun now, ya hear.

No offense, but this is exactly what this sounds like:


"NANANANANANANANANANA - I CAN'T HEAR YOU NANANANANANANA!!!!!"

In other words, typical liberal tree-hugger behavior when faced with the unalterable truth.

Buckeye, excellent discussion, thank you.

[enfield]

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil

Water will run downhill at night...

With all the hype about renewable clean energy, I wonder why ya so seldom hear anyone talking about hydroelectric?

I read recently in an article about the TVA that hydroelectric power has just about reached it's peak in the US, and that it really doesn't provide that much power. The TVA project was as much about creating jobs during the depression as it was about controlling flooding on the Tennessee River. The project was horrendously expensive (construction + litigation costs), and the Tennessee River is dammed from one end to the other. It was completed in the 60's with the Tellico Dam. I'll be fishing for crappie in Tellico Lake tomorrow. If I catch any Snail Darters I'll throw 'em back.

[JOERM]

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil

Water will run downhill at night...

With all the hype about renewable clean energy, I wonder why ya so seldom hear anyone talking about hydroelectric?

We have more then our share of hydro dams here in WA. They are removing some of the very old ones on smaller rivers. I think WA still has one of the lowest power rates in the country.

I thought this post died long ago.

[BuckeyeChuck]

I think the recent events in Japan make this a great time to resurrect this thread, though I dispute that a thread is long dead only eight days after its latest post.

I have been watching/reading headlines with a combination of consternation and amusement. I earlier wrote that the vast majority of people fail to understand what happens in a nuclear reactors; I even said that the vast majority of people lack the ability to comprehend it. Thus, the headlines tend to be sensational because they are written by journalists, who in my experience tend to be the least knowledgeable on any topic about which they write or speak. This works well for them because nearly none of their viewers/readers are more knowledgeable.

How serious is the nuclear situation in Japan? It's *very* serious. Two reactors have lost secondary containment via explosion, along with a release of non-nuclear material and considerable radiation. Please note that the explosions are *not* nuclear blasts; they are the result of massive pressure buildups in the system. (It's sad that this must even be said, but again, basic nuclear literacy is nonexistent.) Also, pumping seawater into reactors is extremely serious because while it might prevent a meltdown, it destroys the reactors.

Three Mile Island was not a serious incident. Chernobyl was the worst possible outcome. Does this incident rate? Oh yes, it rates. It's not Chernobyl bad, but it's nasty.

Can it get worse? Yes, much worse, manifested two ways:

(1) Meltdown. There may already be a partial meltdown in one reactors, but failure to cool the active reactors will surely lead to one or more meltdowns. There are two problems with meltdowns. First, they generate massive radiation and in a system whose containment is breached, this constitutes a serious public health risk if released. Second, it is extremely difficult to clean up a molten core; if not possible, the core must be entombed, a very undesirable outcome.

(2) Physical dispersement of the nuclear reactor cores. This is what happened in the Chernobyl disaster. The explosion that occurred at Chernobyl (which was also *not* a nuclear blast) constituted the worst imaginable disaster: the fuel, control rods, and other materials in the reactor were scattered across a significant area. Thereafter, the remaining material in the reactor melted down, so much so that there was "lava" formation of the materials heated by the destroyed core. Today, investigators are unable to account for all of the mass in Chernobyl's reactor, and most suspect that the material melted and flowed down to chambers below the reactor. Naturally, it is very difficult to actually inspect those chambers.

The reactors used by the Japanese are light-years ahead of Chernobyl. The procedures used by the Japanese are also light years ahead of the Soviets, who were never a paragon of virtue with regard to concern for human life. The failure in Japan, if there is one, is that they failed to foresee the set of circumstances whose combination led to this trouble.

I am surprised to find that they store spent fuel in a spent fuel pool in the vicinity of the main reactor. http://nei.cachefly.net/static/image...lustration.jpg This strikes me as cost-effective but somewhat risky. If this situation devolves into a Cherobyl-esque nightmare, then you may not only scatter the contents of a live reactor, but also the spent fuel sitting right next to it.

I have been using Nuclear Energy Institute - Information on the Japanese Earthquake and Reactors in That Region to keep abreast of the real events in Japan. Please be aware of their goal, which is to serve as a policy and PR arm for the nuclear industry. If this purpose renders you unable to judge their words and ideas based on merit, then you should seek another source. I understand that many people are unable to separate the messenger from the message, a sad reality amplified greatly when nuclear power is the topic.

I have long been a proponent of increased nuclear power in the United States. Have the recent events halfway around the world changed my opinion? Have I had a sudden epiphany that nuclear power is unsafe and that Americans should demand no more nuclear capacity, along with the systematic destruction of our current capacity?

No. I am still comfortable with the risks and issues associated with nuclear power.

[JOERM]

Buckeyechuck, don't know who ya are and know your kind of new here but you are more then welcome. Your Knowledge is something else. Thanks for your input. Now, just how BAD can this monster become?

[Frailer]

Originally Posted by FTG-05

"NANANANANANANANANANA - I CAN'T HEAR YOU NANANANANANANA!!!!!"

In other words, typical liberal tree-hugger behavior when faced with the unalterable truth...

Now *that's* funny.

The ability to fervently deny the truth is one thing that *both* ends of the political spectrum have in spades.

FWIW, and IMHO, the One True Answer is fusion.

[ladder13]

Hamsters, the answer is hamster wheels. Those little buggers just keep runnin', and they breed like crazy.

[BuckeyeChuck]

Originally Posted by JOERM

Buckeyechuck, don't know who ya are and know your kind of new here but you are more then welcome. Your Knowledge is something else. Thanks for your input. Now, just how BAD can this monster become?

Bad. Really bad. It could get Chernobyl bad. If primary containment is breached due to a core explosion, the effects could be hideous. Chernobyl was a relatively uninhabited area in a giant country. Japan has 100 million people crammed onto an island the size of California, much of which is uninhabitable due to terrain. These reactors are where most people there tend to live, which is on the coast.

This reminds of an illness I had as a teenager. For three summers I worked in the back end of a KFC competitor, handling raw chicken, frying chicken, and washing dishes. It was common to scrape your shins on the machinery and tables. One afternoon on a day off I suddenly felt ill. Two hours later I noticed a red line running from my shin, up my inner thigh. Soon I had an area on my shin that was raised, red, and magnificently painful.

The next day, a Saturday, the family doctor opened his office just to see me. His assessment was cellulitus (Cellulitis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). He explained that I had a bacterial infection that had spread to the bloodstream and lymph nodes and that it was nearly gangrenous. He gave me the choice of checking in to the hospital for IV antibiotics or a rigorous treatment of antibiotics and warm compresses at home. I chose the latter and thankfully we got it under control.

How serious was the illness? It was very serious all by itself, and it was nearly calamitous, but we caught it in time such that it is merely an historical note in my medical history. 24 more hours might have cost me limb or life.

The nuclear problem in Japan is like my cellulitis. All by itself, the problem is serious but not a disaster. But they are very, very close to a massive calamity. If they can keep the temperature in the reactors down by pumping/dumping/spraying seawater until they can restore electrical power to the facility and effect some critical repairs, then history will note this as a serious incident, the byproduct of much greater disaster.

[WR Moore]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeChuck

I think the recent events in Japan make this a great time to resurrect this thread,Chernobyl bad, but it's nasty.

Can it get worse? Yes, much worse, manifested two ways:

(1) Meltdown. There may already be a partial meltdown in one reactors, ............, it is extremely difficult to clean up a molten core; if not possible, the core must be entombed, a very undesirable outcome.


I am surprised to find that they store spent fuel in a spent fuel pool in the vicinity of the main reactor. http://nei.cachefly.net/static/image...lustration.jpg This strikes me as cost-effective but somewhat risky.

TMI 2 had a destruction of about 30% of the core and some degradation of the reactor vessel. I don't know what the actual condition at the Japanese reactors are, but filling them with concrete is probably the only (politically) acceptable solution. Especially after sea water flooding.

BTW, those reactors were boiling water reactors, a technology that's more thermally efficient, but environmentally risky. Water is fed into the reactor, where it boils and is then sent to the turbines to generate electricity. Any leak is both a radioactive leak and loss of coolant incident.

The fuel pools are located near the reactors because at least part (and generally all) of the core is unloaded during refueling. The ability to shift fuel assemblies from the reactor to the pool and back as necessary is a requirement, as is the shielding provided by the water in the pool.

Reactor refuelling requires a proportion of new fuel assemblies and a resuffling of the partially used fuel assemblies to achieve a desired neutron flux throughout the core. I'm not a reactor engineer and that's about as far as my competence goes. The spent fuel assemblies stay in the pool until their radiation levels drop to a point that allows dry cask storage at a more remote site.

Wondering why they placed nuke units in such an exposed area is a far better question. (Hint: the land was cheap and there weren't too many people near it when they built it.)

[FTG-05]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeChuck

Bad. Really bad. It could get Chernobyl bad. If primary containment is breached due to a core explosion, the effects could be hideous. Chernobyl was a relatively uninhabited area in a giant country. Japan has 100 million people crammed onto an island the size of California, much of which is uninhabitable due to terrain. These reactors are where most people there tend to live, which is on the coast.

[snip]

I disagree, for a couple reasons.

It's been seven days since the loss of coolant in the active reactors (3 of the 6), if there was going to be some sort of steam explosion inside containment, it would have happened already.

Further, I'm not aware of any breach of containment. Damage to containment, sure; breach, no.

They've been getting water to the reactors, so every day, they get cooler and as they get cooler, the chances of an explosion diminishes.

The reactors are toast regardless, no biggie since they're 40 years and they were within a couple (weeks, months?) from being deactivated anyway. The cleanup will cost millions if not billions, but that's a money problem, not a safety problem. Bottom line: if the reactors were going to blow, that would have happened by now; it hasn't so my bet is they won't.



The Spent Fuel Pools (SPF), however, are another matter. They have no containment and we know that at least two have gone dry. This could be potentially bad, very bad. Not Chernobyl bad, but bad enough.

However bad it is, right now it's as bad as it's going to get.

Here's why:

- Bad case: SPFs went dry and spewed spent fuel out of the pool itself. Whether this happened or not will depend on the racking itself and the racking mechanisms.

So they might have burning spent fuel lying around outside the pools that can't be cooled or shielded spewing all kinds of nasty stuff out into the atmosphere. We do not know if that has happened, but if it has, this is as bad as it gets.

- Not as bad case: The SPFs went dry and the spent fuel stayed in the pool and just started burning. Almost as bad as above, but if they can get the pools refilled with water, you stop the fire and you stop the spewing of the nasties into the air.

The problem here is twofold: getting water to the pools and the possibility that the pools are damaged (i.e. access doors and hatches are leaking water due to the earthquake), hence they could be trying to fill a leaking bucket.

Bottom line: there's no way this is going to be as bad a Chernobyl.

My .02. Have at it.

FTG-05
(Sitting 10 miles east of three ***ushima-like nuclear reactors)

[anoblefox]

Winning Our Energy Independence, by S. David Freeman is a book I just started reading last evening. I worked under this man, and repect his opinion, working 40+ years in the decision making part of the electric utility industry. To hear him speak publically is a real treat and what he says is plain common sense talk. I cannot imagine anyone here who would not like the WAY he speaks. Check out his resume and ask yourself who might be more qualified to speak on this subject. I see that we have posters here with actual nuclear experiance. I worked with a man that worked for the Atomic Energy Commision in the 1950's. When his suit leaked and he soon later decided to get out of that line of work they followed him every place he moved for something like 15 years, talk about big brother watching you!
I admit that I am NOT for nuclear power and the book confims why. The cost to build, the cost for operating insurance, plus the waste problem.
We must start with renewables NOW. The book is full of facts and figures. I do not have the book with me at present, but it is good reading and I wish I could quote some of the figures I read last night.