Metro Jacksonville

Excellent article (although admittedly from a conservative periodical) on nuclear power in France:

QuoteParlez-Vous Nucleaire?
By William Tucker
Published 5/12/2008 12:08:37 AM

For more than a year I've been giving a speech about nuclear energy that proclaims, "The French keep all their nuclear waste from thirty years of producing 80 percent of their electricity in one room at La Havre."

Last week I got to stand in that room. Somehow I had imagined it was a bit smaller -- maybe the size of a modest visitor's center. Actually it's about the size of a basketball gymnasium. Still, it's one room. Scattered around the concrete floor are about 40 two-and-a-half-foot manhole covers stenciled with the logo of Areva, the French nuclear reactor company. The lids are so tightly sealed, with no visible handles, that I had to wonder whether they could be removed.

"They're magnetized," explained our guide. "There's an overhead crane that lifts them off. Beneath them is another set of seals with screw-tops and handles." Beneath that, stacked vertically in small rings to a depth of about 20 feet are two-foot-long canisters containing fission products, the most intensely radioactive of what is commonly mislabeled "nuclear waste."

You'd think people would be interested in this stuff back in America. While I was touring Areva's major facilities, the French company announced a proposed uranium enrichment plant in Idaho Falls, a $2-billion project that will be an important link in America's nuclear revival. Yet the story didn't even make Associated Press. A couple of Idaho papers ran the press release but inevitably paired it with a manifesto from the Snake River Alliance that such a temple to idolatry will never be built in their Garden of Eden.


SO IT GOES. I've spent almost three years trying to find a publisher for a book on nuclear power and global warming, called Terrestrial Energy. Two publishers -- one conservative, one liberal -- bought the manuscript and then decided they just couldn't publish it -- too touchy a subject, too declasse. Even conservatives have trouble embracing the technology. Just let Ralph Nader have his way on this one and concentrate on debunking global warming. Finally, a small progressive house called Bartleby Press picked it up off this site and will bring it out next September.

After years of trying to convince New York editors that nuclear power has a future, touring France's three-decade-old infrastructure was like a trip through Narnia. One Areva brochure begins: "In a gigantic nuclear explosion, nuclear energy made the curtain rise on the history of the universe. From distant stars to the earth's core, it continues its constructive work. Man has learnt to master one nuclear reaction, fission, taming it into a clean and inexpensive energy."

That's the precise theme of my book. Nuclear energy is a perfectly natural phenomenon. It heats the center of the earth to 7000o F, hotter than the surface of the sun. We're just borrowing it, as we do all things in nature. The crucial difference is that nuclear energy is so highly concentrated -- 2 million times more powerful than burning coal and 20 million times more powerful than solar energy -- that it leaves virtually no environmental footprint -- just a couple of canisters beneath a concrete floor near Cherbourg. This is Greek to sophisticates from New York to New Mexico, all of them wringing their hands about global warming. In France, however, it's boilerplate in marketing brochures.

And that's why the French are sprinting ahead of us in bringing nuclear energy to the world. Areva is in the process of building new plants in Finland, China, and the United States. It is reprocessing all of Japan's spent fuel. Its most spectacular success is at the MELOX plant in Avignon, where we toured Monday. There the French are taking thousands of tons of bomb-grade uranium that the Russians had stockpiled for weapons and "de-enriching" it down to reactor grade to be burned in American power plants. One out of every ten light bulbs in America is now powered by a former Soviet weapon. You'd think people would be dancing in the streets. Instead, all we get is press releases from the Sierra Club announcing how nuclear is a "backward energy policy."


MAKE NO MISTAKE, nuclear material is powerful and dangerous stuff. At La Hague, just before we visited the storage gymnasium, we stood before a foot-thick window watching a 50-foot column of spent nuclear fuel being lifted through the floor of the receiving room like some giant benthic organism being raised from the deep.

"Why is the glass so yellow," I asked our guide in one of those innocent questions that usually leads somewhere.

"It's treated with lead so that it filters out most of the light," he said. "It's for radiation protection."

"What's the radiation coming out of that thing?" I asked, staring at what now looked like a sinister sea creature dangling behind the glass.

He consults for a moment with a nuclear scientist who only speaks French. "Une milliard millirads," the answer comes back. "About a million millirads."

Quick calculation. That's 1,000 rems, about double the exposure you would have gotten by standing next to the atomic bomb when it exploded at Hiroshima. "No one has been in that room for fifteen years and no one will for decades to come," says our guide. "They would be killed instantly."

But we are standing 15 feet away -- with the thick walls and lead-tinted glass between us.

"What happens when something needs repair in there?" I ask.

"Right here," he demonstrates. Next to the window are a pair of handles that manipulate two long mechanical arms that stretch across the room. There are eight windows placed around the 2500-square-foot receiving space so that every remote corner can be reached. Right beneath us, on the other side of the glass, is a set of tools fitted for the mechanical arms, including -- incongruously -- a paintbrush, apparently used for dusting.

"You should see those guys work the handles," says our guide. "It's amazing what they can do. We should have brought someone down to show you."


IN PARIS WE TALKED with Jacques Besnainou, a cheerful vice president of recycling, who modestly claimed that France is only moving ahead with what America originally invented. "Glenn Seaborg [the Nobel Prize winner and one-time head of the Atomic Energy Commission] discovered the solvent that would extract plutonium after a long effort in 1944," Besnainou tells us. "The technology hasn't changed much since."

Still, it's hard to avoid those cat-that-ate-the-canary smiles. When I mention Yucca Mountain, they almost turn sympathetic. "Why would anyone dig a hole in a mountain to bury material that is valuable for recycling?" asks Besnainou. "You recycle household garbage. Why not reprocess spent fuel? We're calling these spent fuel assemblies 'the new uranium mines,' there's so much fuel potential in there."

Face it, the French are now miles ahead of us. Nuclear electricity is the country's third largest export, behind only wine and agricultural products. Natural gas imports are less than half that of Germany and England. Carbon emissions are 20 percent below the rest of the continent. Signs in Paris direct you to recharging stations for electric cars. Nuclear power is keeping the whole economy afloat.

When the French government was selling nuclear power to the public in the 1970s, they had a slogan: "We don't have any oil, but we have plenty of ideas." In America for the past thirty years, we've lived by a different slogan: "We may not have any ideas, but we've got plenty of coal."


William Tucker, a frequent contributor to The American Spectator, is a writer living in Nyack, New York. His latest book, Terrestrial Energy, will be published by Bartleby Press this fall.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13189

Why bother with nuclear power? Expensive and complicated.

Coal fired plants are much cheaper, and since they don't hurt the environment, because as you have already proved beyond any reasonable doubt, global warming is just a hoax, so go with coal.

We have plentiful supplies of coal in this country, and the technology for coal fired generating plants is mature and readily available on short notice.

All that burning coal produces is a little bit of ash and smoke, which the wind just blows away someplace.

And besides, let's take the scenario that nuclear power might be cheaper than coal; in that case the power companies would actually earn less money than if their expenses were higher, because their profit is a percentage of their revenues, and if their costs went down, their revenues would decrease, which in turn would lead to lower profits, which would hurt the widows and orphans that own their stock, as you have previously stated.

So, to sum it up, I just don't understand why you would propose something like this that would be a detriment to industry, widows and orphans.

You must hate America!

Temperature of the Earth's core:

QuoteAsk A Scientist
General Science Archive
   
Temperature of the Earth's core

Question:
How hot is the Earth's core, approximately, and how can it be measured?
kathleen n mecham

Answer:
There is no way to measure the temperature at the Earth's core
directly.  We know from mines and drill holes that, near
the surface of the Earth, the temperature increases by about
1 degree Fahrenheit for every 60 feet in depth.  If this
temperature increase continued to the center of the Earth, the
Earth's core would be 100,000 degrees Celsius!

But nobody believes the Earth is that hot; the temperature increase
must slow down with depth and the core is probably
about 3000 to 5000 degrees Celsius.

This estimate of the temperature is derived from theoretical
modeling and laboratory experiments.  This work is very
difficult (and speculative) since nobody can reproduce
in a laboratory the high temperatures and pressures that
exist in the core.  Also it is not known exactly what
the core is made of.
-Grant

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99256.htm


Temperature of the sun:

QuoteThe Sun is the most prominent feature in our solar system. It is the largest object and contains approximately 98% of the total solar system mass. One hundred and nine Earths would be required to fit across the Sun's disk, and its interior could hold over 1.3 million Earths. The Sun's outer visible layer is called the photosphere and has a temperature of 6,000°C (11,000°F). This layer has a mottled appearance due to the turbulent eruptions of energy at the surface.

Solar energy is created deep within the core of the Sun. It is here that the temperature (15,000,000° C; 27,000,000° F) and pressure (340 billion times Earth's air pressure at sea level) is so intense that nuclear reactions take place. This reaction causes four protons or hydrogen nuclei to fuse together to form one alpha particle or helium nucleus. The alpha particle is about .7 percent less massive than the four protons. The difference in mass is expelled as energy and is carried to the surface of the Sun, through a process known as convection, where it is released as light and heat. Energy generated in the Sun's core takes a million years to reach its surface. Every second 700 million tons of hydrogen are converted into helium ashes. In the process 5 million tons of pure energy is released; therefore, as time goes on the Sun is becoming lighter.

The chromosphere is above the photosphere. Solar energy passes through this region on its way out from the center of the Sun. Faculae and flares arise in the chromosphere. Faculae are bright luminous hydrogen clouds which form above regions where sunspots are about to form. Flares are bright filaments of hot gas emerging from sunspot regions. Sunspots are dark depressions on the photosphere with a typical temperature of 4,000°C (7,000°F).

The corona is the outer part of the Sun's atmosphere. It is in this region that prominences appears. Prominences are immense clouds of glowing gas that erupt from the upper chromosphere. The outer region of the corona stretches far into space and consists of particles traveling slowly away from the Sun. The corona can only be seen during total solar eclipses.

The Sun appears to have been active for 4.6 billion years and has enough fuel to go on for another five billion years or so. At the end of its life, the Sun will start to fuse helium into heavier elements and begin to swell up, ultimately growing so large that it will swallow the Earth. After a billion years as a red giant, it will suddenly collapse into a white dwarf -- the final end product of a star like ours. It may take a trillion years to cool off completely.

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/sun.htm

As is plain to see, the article posted by Mr. Gator gets the temperatures of both the core of the Earth and the surface of the Sun wrong. I guess that the article was written by a historian. I wonder what else is wrong with it? There also seems to be no mention of any nuclear reaction going on in the core of the Earth either. Oh well, thats just a minor omission. Who would be interested about nuclear fission going on at the center of earth, anyway?

Here is the writer's bio:

QuoteWilliam Tucker

Email: editor@spectator.org

WILLIAM TUCKER is a writer in Brooklyn, New York, and a frequent contributor to www.spectator.org.

Sounds qualified to talk about nuclear power to me! He is equally qualified as Mr. Gator.

I think the main thrust of the article is that nuclear power is clean, cheap and safe.  And, I dont believe that the author claimed to be a nuclear physicist.  Are you?  (What was your field again?)  Regarding the accuracy of the article, the questions we should concern ourselves with are:
1)  Is it true that France generates much of its energy from nuclear power?
2)  Is it true that the power generators are safe and operated without serious incident?
3)  Is it true that the nuclear waste can be recycled and the unrecycleable remnants safely stored in a manner that does not harm humanity?

Finally, as to the global warming theory, I have always stated that there is some chance it is true.  If so, nuclear power is the obvious solution.  The fact that liberals have resisted its use tends to indicate that their real goal is not to prevent warming but rather is to thwart progress.  Also, there is clearly such a thing as localized pollution and bad air quality both of which can be made worse by burning coal.  So, nuclear would aid with these problems regardless of the accuracy of the GW theory.

Quote from: Midway on May 12, 2008, 01:20:07 PM
Here is the writer's bio:

QuoteWilliam Tucker

Email: editor@spectator.org

WILLIAM TUCKER is a writer in Brooklyn, New York, and a frequent contributor to www.spectator.org.

Sounds qualified to talk about nuclear power to me! He is equally qualified as Mr. Gator.

Mr. Gator is "equally qualified" as you (until you tell us all what your field is). 

Article from the WSJ re subsidies for various energy producing methods:

QuoteWind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)
May 12, 2008; Page A14

Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new "Manhattan Project" for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That's double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you'd expect given all the money Congress is throwing at "renewables." Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don't get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough.

By contrast, nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other "alternatives."

The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.

All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. That's a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of "green jobs." Those jobs won't come cheap, and you'll be paying for them.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055427930584069.html

Quote from: RiversideGator on May 12, 2008, 03:52:35 PM
I think the main thrust of the article is that nuclear power is clean, cheap and safe.  And, I dont believe that the author claimed to be a nuclear physicist.  Are you?  (What was your field again?)  Regarding the accuracy of the article, the questions we should concern ourselves with are:
1)  Is it true that France generates much of its energy from nuclear power?
2)  Is it true that the power generators are safe and operated without serious incident?
3)  Is it true that the nuclear waste can be recycled and the unrecycleable remnants safely stored in a manner that does not harm humanity?

Finally, as to the global warming theory, I have always stated that there is some chance it is true.  If so, nuclear power is the obvious solution.  The fact that liberals have resisted its use tends to indicate that their real goal is not to prevent warming but rather is to thwart progress.  Also, there is clearly such a thing as localized pollution and bad air quality both of which can be made worse by burning coal.  So, nuclear would aid with these problems regardless of the accuracy of the GW theory.

And the main thrust of my comment is that this guy does not know even the simplest thing, so why should I accept anything in that article as fact?

And furthermore, I am 100% in favor of placing a nuclear power plant in Riverside. Since it is so safe, I'm sure you will have no objections.

Quote from: RiversideGator on May 12, 2008, 04:14:47 PM

Quote from: Midway on May 12, 2008, 01:20:07 PM
Here is the writer's bio:

QuoteWilliam Tucker

Email: editor@spectator.org

WILLIAM TUCKER is a writer in Brooklyn, New York, and a frequent contributor to www.spectator.org.

Sounds qualified to talk about nuclear power to me! He is equally qualified as Mr. Gator.

Mr. Gator is "equally qualified" as you (until you tell us all what your field is). 

Ahh, but the essential difference here is, that I am not writing articles that you are posting, so I don't need to know anything, because I am not the one that is making the prognostications here.

And BTW care to give me an over/under on global warming, since you think it might be true?

Quote from: RiversideGator on May 12, 2008, 04:49:18 PM
Article from the WSJ re subsidies for various energy producing methods:

QuoteWind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents)
May 12, 2008; Page A14

Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new "Manhattan Project" for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That's double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you'd expect given all the money Congress is throwing at "renewables." Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don't get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation. Would it make any difference if the federal subsidy for wind were $50 per megawatt hour, or even $100? Almost certainly not without a technological breakthrough.

By contrast, nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other "alternatives."

The same study also looked at federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production, such as for fuel. It found that ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.

All of this shows that there is a reason fossil fuels continue to dominate American energy production: They are extremely cost-effective. That's a reality to keep in mind the next time you hear a politician talk about creating millions of "green jobs." Those jobs won't come cheap, and you'll be paying for them.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055427930584069.html

The premise of this article is basically insane.

To complain about the renewable energy industry getting "$16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like", is selective cherrypicking at it's very best. The whole premise of the article is both laughable and moronic. 

Look very carefully at this phrase, which the whole article is constructed around: $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. Now tell me how many other things just like that the government is doing that have absolutely no return at all.

This article is simple minded stupidity that would have never have passed muster when the WSJ was owned by the Bancroft family. It's just more graphic proof of how News Corp is destroying the credibility of the WSJ, and turning it into another worthless propaganda rag. It is sickening.

Quote from: Midway on May 13, 2008, 04:44:58 PM
The premise of this article is basically insane.

To complain about the renewable energy industry getting "$16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like", is selective cherrypicking at it's very best. The whole premise of the article is both laughable and moronic. 

Look very carefully at this phrase, which the whole article is constructed around: $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. Now tell me how many other things just like that the government is doing that have absolutely no return at all.

This article is simple minded stupidity that would have never have passed muster when the WSJ was owned by the Bancroft family. It's just more graphic proof of how News Corp is destroying the credibility of the WSJ, and turning it into another worthless propaganda rag. It is sickening.

The words insane, laughable, stupid, sickening and moronic now mean ideas and facts which conflict with midway's preconceived and faulty notions about the world.  It really is amusing to go through and pick out all of the extreme, negative adjectives in each of your posts.   ;)

Back to the topic, are you claiming that "green" energy can go head to head with say coal fired plants and tie or beat them on cost per kilowatt hour?

Well, it's an extremely stupid and uninformed article.

And as I said before, I am 100% in favor of a Nuclear power plant in Riverside. The cost per kilowatt hour is exceedingly low, so it is therefore deemed to be good.

Does that kilowatt per hour include the cost to remediate say a Chernobyl? Basically, the cost for humans to have evacuated the contaminated zone for say 200 million years.

Only need about 50,000 years. And anyway the cleanup would be done by Haliburton, and funded by the Government, so what's the problem?

Oh well, okay then.  Bring...it...on.

Quote from: Midway on May 14, 2008, 07:27:23 PM
And as I said before, I am 100% in favor of a Nuclear power plant in Riverside. The cost per kilowatt hour is exceedingly low, so it is therefore deemed to be good.

I've got some property for rent right now.  I bet I could get some nice rent from Mr. Burns.   ;)

And since nuclear power is now so safe, the Price-Anderson act should be repealed.

Considering industry is still on the hook for the first $10 billion in damages, it is hardly a license to be reckless.  It seems like a good system to me, akin to the workers comp system.

No, it's a subsidy to the nuclear power industry.

If it's as safe as you say, then there should be no problem getting private insurance instead of having the taxpayers foot the bill.

So, why won't private insurers cover this risk? And why should the government subsidize it? Cato is against it.

And it's not at all akin to the worker's comp system in any way shape or form. How you could draw similarities between the two is totally beyond understanding.

maybe I'm missing something here, though.

So, you're saying that some guy who falls off a roof and becomes a paraplegic and requires care for the rest of his life (absolute worst case scenario for workmen's comp) is the same as a reactor going critical and contaminating an area of say 25 miles around the plant? Hmmm... lemme think....how many uninhabitable newly improved little apartment houses could you fit in a circle with a radius of 25 miles around ....say downtown Jacksonville.... and how much do you think it might cost to close all of those little apartment houses down and wall off that circle....do you think it might cost more than say, taking care of that guy that fell off the roof?  Nah, probably not.

And besides, a reactor could never go critical and have the core melt down which would release enough radioactivity to have to evacuate an entire town, could it? Nah, that's never happened, and it couldn't, because of all the built in safety features.

So, I can't see why private insurers don't want to jump right on board this train. I would think they would be lining up to get in on it.

And by the way, better check your HO2 form for that nuclear contamination rider, I hear it's only $2.00 a year, even cheaper than flood insurance. It's found money for the insurance companies, that's why it's so cheap.

There have been no major nuclear accidents in the US since 1979 and even then (Three Mile Island) no one was killed. 

There have been no major nuclear accidents in France ever and they obtain a large majority of their energy from nuclear.

There have been no major incidents in western Europe since the 1960s and no one was killed in that accident either. 

Of course there have been scattered deaths among plant workers but this happens at any place of employment to varying degrees.  The bottom line is nuclear power is a safe and mature technology which should be considered IMO.

Yeah, as I said, there have been no major nuclear accidents anywhere.

And nuclear power is safe.

So why won't the insurance companies write insurance for it, since it's absolutely safe and it's a no brainier way to make a ton of money. They are in business to make money, aren't they?

Do they know something we don't?

Oh, by the way, what was that little thing in Russia.....Can't quite remember the name....was it charmilles....cherobyn.....herbyolyl.....bernoyl.....just can't remember....oh well, not important anyway, just a blip....but really, it's perfectly safe, no chance for error, you're right as rain, as usual.

So, you think that our technology today is comparable to the Soviet Union's in 1986?   :D

Quote from: Midway on May 28, 2008, 12:02:29 AM
Yeah, as I said, there have been no major nuclear accidents anywhere.

Wrong.  3 mile island was major.

Three Mile Island?  What? That was real? I thought that was just a movie.

You mean there really was a Three Mile Island power plant?

Hmmm....I must have spelled it wrong when I looked in Wikipedia.

I'll be damned....you mean nuclear power isn't safe? Is that what you mean?

Well, you're not seriously comparing the technology at TMI with what we use in America are you?

What country was TMI in, anyway? Uzbekistan, I think?

I"m sorry my low 40s IQ doesn't understand most of that.  What is TMI?   Googled it nothing comes back.  Nothing on the wiki so I'm lost. 

Well, I guess that's it then. Of course, unless someone can post some charts and graphs.

Sure. Why don't you find one that shows "no major nuclear accidents anywhere."  Oh wait, does TMI mean 3 mile island?  Get back with us soonest.  thanks.

I thought TMI meant "too much information".   :D

I don't know.  We need Mr. Mitway to clarify that for us. 

Maybe we should look to astrology for our answers until the all knowing Mr. Midway returns. 
While googling off, I ran into this nugget.  You can thank me for it later.

Quote from: Eric Francis Fammed Astrologer
On June 27, at 1:37 pm PDT, a wildfire started at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state, about 120 miles from Seattle. Thousands of people were evacuated, and fire scorched nearly half the 560-square-mile site, destroying 70 homes and buildings as it crept within two miles of some of the most lethal nuclear waste on Earthâ€"waste dating back to the creation of the atomic bomb.

Government sources say no radiation was released into the environment in the Hanford blaze, though the potential for disaster was truly stunning. And this was the third serious nuclear incident since late 1999, when a mishap at a nuclear facility in Japan caused serious problems, followed by the recent fire at Los Alamos National Labs. Astrologers might well inquire whether these kinds of events follow a particular astrological signature.

A Defining Moment

To find a pattern, we need only return to the defining moment of the nuclear age. When the first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction occurred, in a makeshift laboratory on a squash court in Chicago (December 2, 1942, at 3:25 pm CWT), a rare conjunction of Saturn and Uranus in Gemini  was rising. This was closely opposed by a conjunction in Sagittarius, including the Sun and Mercury.

Saturn represents structure; in the chain-reaction chart, it was conjunct Uranus (the planet after which man-made Uranium was named), which represents energy and the breaking of structure. With this stressful conjunction, humanity experienced the irreversible breaking of matter, the release of the nuclear force and the beginnings of a long-term relationship with atomic energy and nuclear crisis.

The Nuclear Axis

Repeated nuclear events over the past 58 years have led some astrologers to describe these degrees across early Gemini-Sagittarius as "the nuclear axis," which is highly sensitive to transits. One critical degree in this axis appears to be Saturn's location at the time of the first chain reaction, 8 degrees 56 minutes of Gemini.

With all of the important nuclear disasters since the first chain reaction, including Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and last year's accident at a uranium processing facility in Tokai, Japan, the nuclear axis has been under transit by slow-moving planets, such as Saturn, Chiron, Uranus and Pluto.

Harrisburg

For example, when the first memorable nuclear disaster occurred on March 27, 1979 (at 3:57 am, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), transiting Saturn was within 20 minutes of an exact square to natal Saturn in the first chain reaction chart, at 8 degrees Virgo and 36 minutes. The Saturn square is often a critical or defining moment within any cycle where Saturn is directly involved.

Chernobyl

The next time Saturn and Uranus formed their rare conjunction, it was 1986, and the world witnessed the terrifying disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine (April 26, 1986, at 1:26 am). Once again, Saturn-Uranus was rising in the east, the most prominent position in a horoscope. Saturn was precisely, that is, within 19 arc minutes of exact opposition to its position at the first chain reaction, located in the Chernobyl chart at 8 degrees 57 minutes Gemini.

In events since last September, the nuclear axis has been strongly aspected by the ongoing Chiron-Pluto conjunction in Sagittarius.

Tokai

When the nuclear accident in Tokai, Japan occurred last year (September 30, 1999, at 10:35 am JST, Tokai, Japan), Pluto (the planet after which Plutonium was named) was at 8 degrees 13 minutes Sagittarius, as well as rising in the due eastâ€"precisely square the Saturn position in the chain reaction chart, again, within arc minutes.

Incredibly, the Moon was at 8 degrees 35 minutes Gemini and setting, exactly in the due west, also square Saturn in the atom split chart. Note the exactitude of these degrees, remembering that there are 360 in the astrological wheel, and all the planets move at very different speeds. Once again, the nuclear axis was prominent, highlighted by the three most important astrological indicators: planetary position, proximity to the horizon and the angle of the Moon, all of which, in this case, were exact.

Los Alamos

Though past its exact aspect, the Chiron-Pluto conjunction in Sagittarius is apparently still well within orb of the nuclear axis, as serious wildfires have threatened two of the most critical nuclear facilities in the United States, Los Alamos National Laboratory, where nuclear bombs are designed, and the Hanford site, where historical nuclear artifacts are disposed of.

Hanford

During last week's fire at Hanford, the Moon crossed the nuclear axis in Gemini, opposing Pluto and Chiron, at the peak of the blaze.

Whatever the ultimate meaning of these aspects may be, one thing is clear: major nuclear events exist in direct relationship to the splitting of the atom, not just because without one the other would have been impossible, but also due to some connection on a hidden level.

Though only astrologers are in a position to see the alignments, the focus is thrown back on the origins of the nuclear crisis, the splitting of the atom. Will astrology ever be in a position to warn those in control of nuclear machinery when we are approaching a danger zone along the nuclear axis? With Saturn currently entering the sign Gemini, and approaching the second return to its position in the chain-reaction chart, we can only hope so.

When Saturn enters Uranus, you'll know something's up.

Repeal the Price-Anderson Act. Stop geovrnment giveaways to the nuclear power industry.

Quote from: RiversideGator on May 27, 2008, 11:44:59 PM
There have been no major nuclear accidents in the US since 1979 and even then (Three Mile Island) no one was killed.  

There have been no major nuclear accidents in France ever and they obtain a large majority of their energy from nuclear.

There have been no major incidents in western Europe since the 1960s and no one was killed in that accident either.  

Of course there have been scattered deaths among plant workers but this happens at any place of employment to varying degrees.  The bottom line is nuclear power is a safe and mature technology which should be considered IMO.

RG's track record is terrifying. He's like a prophet.

Well to give nuclear energy the benefit of the doubt, these reactors were not built to undergo an 8.9 magnitude earthquake, which just happened literally a few miles away from both plants.

Also, a Chernobyl will not happen because there are two barriers within another barrier separating the cores from the outside air.  A thick steel barrier and an 8 ft thick concrete barrier inside of that.  Chernobyl had neither (it was built cheaply by a bunch of communists after all).

This "disaster" will likely not be close to the disaster that the oil spill was in terms of human toll or  environmental toll.

Even if, God forbid, a few people die or become sick from this, nuclear energy will still have a much cleaner, much safer track record than coal or LNG.  This whole thing is a huge anomaly, and will result in one of two things: either all nuclear energy being put on hold (which has been discussed for a few years in Germany and Italy), or all new plants be built to withstand a 10.0 earthquake, a 200 mph hurricane, a 500 mph tornado, a nuclear bomb, a 100 ft tsunami, a volcano, etc etc.  I can tell you that nuclear plants already are built to such high standards (in other developed countries because it has been decades since we built them here) that it's a wonder nuclear energy is still one of the cheapest forms of energy for the consumer!

I love Michiu Kaku, he's brilliant but he's also the Dr. Oz of science- instead of letting him stick to his area of expertise, they ask him to form opinions on things outside his scope and he comes off looking goofy.

Instead of constantly updating the post here, I'm going to link to the source thread on another forum where there's a lot of in-depth technical discussion of the events surrounding the reactors and a pretty good faq about the facts and myths of current nuclear power technology:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3396817

snip

Quote from: thekillingwax on March 13, 2011, 09:16:03 PM
I love Michiu Kaku, he's brilliant but he's also the Dr. Oz of science- instead of letting him stick to his area of expertise, they ask him to form opinions on things outside his scope and he comes off looking goofy. I was going to type out a long explanation of void coefficients and all that but someone else that is an actual expert on nuclear power at a forum I use posted this- it's quite helpful against all the fearmongering the news agencies have been doing:

Speaking of looking goofy.... I swear, late last night CNN had Bill Nye the Science Guy on talking about nuclear meltdowns... Really???? Bill Nye, what, Mr Wizzard was not available??

He was! It's sad. There's so much misinformation out there and literally anyone can be an expert for these stupid news channels. Again- Bill Nye isn't a bad guy but professionally he's a mechanical engineer and has a bachelors in science, I think he worked in aeronautics before the TV gig. He's a good speaker and makes basic science topics interesting but it's like asking your plumber what kind of blood pressure medicine you should take.

There was just another explosion at the site with reactor 3, AP is saying no breach. I know why they're trying to save these reactors but with the continuing aftershocks and other issues going on, I'd be drowning them at the first sign of trouble. That's easy for me to say, I'm sitting in an office on the other side of the globe with running water and electricity but with the amount of continuing seismic and (now) volcanic activity, it's just a really truly horrible thing they're going through over there and I'm still praying for them.

I think nuclear power can be safe.  Safety does come at a price though.  The Fukushima facility is a rather old facility built up to older standards.  I think it was designed for a magnitude 7 something.  We probably have the ability to produce a nuclear facility that can withstand a magnitude 9 earthquake.  If we're going for the end all, a magnitude 10.  For Jacksonville, it doesn't matter too much.  The federal government has already built a nuclear facility just north of us and who knows what will happen there if disaster strikes.

As for future power for America, that depends on a lot of questions.  If I just take safety and only safety, my guess is every for magnitude of disaster we shore up the plants, the more it will cost us.  I'm pretty sure if we shore up a nuke to a magnitude 10, electricity from there will be a whole lot more expensive then the $0.14 kwh that we pay JEA.

The big question is, how much $$$ are we willing to pay for our power.  From then, we can decide what the best options are.  The US is lucky, we have huge natural gas and coal reserves.  We can make choices.  Though remember, no matter what source we choose from, there will always a price to be paid and I don't just mean money.  

Japan?  Well, being an island nation does have it's disadvantages.  Natural resources is one.  So for the most part, they are pretty much stuck with nuclear and whatever alternatives energy technology they can come up with.  

Building to withstand earthquakes are one thing, but you'll never get rid of human error & other natural disasters.

Anytime you have a machine that could potentially kill hundreds of thousands (if not millions with radiating them & then dying young from cancer later in life) if things go wrong, then its safe to say that it probably doesn't need to exist. Eventually things always go wrong. Common sense tells you that if there were more of these in the world (and in our own country), the likelihood of this happening here would go way way up. It would have probably happened by now if we had continued building them over the last decades.

I'd rather put up with dirty coal plants in the meantime, while making great strides towards renewables. Better building practices coupled with great efficient public transportation, along with solar, wind, etc would put us damn close to total energy independence.

BUT, that would leave out the mega powerful energy corporations who'll likely stop at nothing to keep things the way they are & keep us sucking on that juice & coming back for more like a drug fiend. After all, they get no money from someone who's making their own power to run their home & who are taking public transportation that runs on super efficient batteries that were energized by the sun.

If there had been a real effort to push for these things, we would have been there long ago. Don't think we wouldn't have. This is why I really hate the world sometimes. Money, power & greed wins out over basic human compassion & wellbeing every time on this sick, twisted planet. And when you consider money is basically just worthless paper someone somewhere deemed to be worth something, it's even more of a joke. It really is the root of all evil.

Yeah but I'd like to see a comparison of the radiation and pollution leaked from the nuclear facilities versus the burning oil refineries and chemical storage in Japan. Coal power is the easy solution and no one is making strides towards renewable energy.

Thank you thekillingwax!  I enjoyed reading that.  It's sad how much misinformation and scare hype there is about nuclear power.  Aside from Chernobyl, a Commie built crappy nuclear plant that blew because of human error, I can't think of any other incidents of people dying from nuclear power.

There are almost 500 nuclear power plants in the world, each with multiple reactors, and compared to any other major power source, nuclear energy is about as clean and safe as it gets, not to mention it is next to impossible to be any more efficient, especially with newer technology making used U-235 re-usable (from what I understand on a basic level).

The media is really succeeding at spreading enough misinformation about the disaster over there (especially having BILL NYE on of all people...I saw him during the day on another news site), it's no wonder people are freaked out.

peestandingup, I suggest you go back in time and review the human error safety record of modern day nuclear power in developed countries.  Forget about Chernobyl, I wouldn't have expected in less from the Soviets.  Also, the plant to the north of Jacksonville is near Augusta.  I have been there.  They are adding two reactors.  It's called Plant Vogtle.  An 8.9 magnitude earthquake is not going to hit there, nor is a cat 5 hurricane (it's pretty far inland).  One of my best friends went to Georgia Tech undergrad Nuclear and Radiological Engineering (we call it NRE) and he's in grad school there now.  As liberal as he is, if he is not worried about nuclear power and is in fact pursuing a career in it, then I'm not worried.  He's been going out with another friend of mine for a couple years whose sister was the chief engineer at the Port St. Lucie plant and is now working for Duke Energy in Charlotte.  My friend and her sister come from a super lib family and they are big proponents for nuclear power.  I'm not worried; we are in good hands.

Tons tons tons more people die every year for coal power, LNG, etc.  Coal power is dangerous.  Mining coal is dangerous.  The power plants are even more likely to suffer a steam/pressure explosion (and that happens often compared to the two times in history now that it has happened with nuclear power).  Liquified Natural Gas is dangerous to extract, fracking is bad for the environment and bad for drinking water, and LNG is dangerous to transport and very dangerous to use to heat up in power plants.  Coal and LNG plants aren't built to nearly the same standards as nuclear plants and oddly nobody gives a rat's behind.

Easy there KW... Nuclear energy and it's proponents ARE THE DEVIL!

We are shipping plenty of taxpayer funded Green Jobs to China to solve our energy woes!

No need to critique the critique. ;)

Quote from: peestandingup on March 14, 2011, 04:37:46 AM
Anytime you have a machine that could potentially kill hundreds of thousands (if not millions with radiating them & then dying young from cancer later in life) if things go wrong, then its safe to say that it probably doesn't need to exist. Eventually things always go wrong. Common sense tells you that if there were more of these in the world (and in our own country), the likelihood of this happening here would go way way up. It would have probably happened by now if we had continued building them over the last decades.

Great logic. There are inherent risks in all great technological advances.  Look up the DeHavilland Comet, the first jetliner.  When it first came into service there were 6 crashes within two years, 5 of those 6 were because of design faults, 4 of those 5 killed everyone on board.  Do you have a problem flying today?  Valuable lessons were learned in those early years of the jet age, but were would we be without taking those risks?  

3 Mile Island, the worst nuclear accident in US history killed no one, and there isn't much evidence of any negative health effects to people in the area.  Obviously Chernobyl caused some serious issues,  I don't think we will ever know how many people were killed or got radiation poisoning from that disaster.  That number could have been lower if it weren't for some of the decisions made by the Soviets.  That one could very well be in the hundreds of thousands of health issues caused by the fallout.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,750810,00.html

QuoteNuclear Disaster 'Will Have Political Impact as Great as 9/11'
The nuclear disaster in Fukushima makes it hard to ignore the vulnurabilities of the technology. It could spell the end of nuclear power, German commentators argue on Monday. The government in Berlin may now cave in to mounting pressure to suspend its 12-year extension of reactor lifetimes, they say.

The nuclear accident at Japan's Fukushima plant following Friday's earthquake and tsunami has led to anxious questions in Germany about the safety of its own nuclear reactors and is putting the government under intense pressure to rethink its decision to extend plant lifetimes by an average of 12 years.

German media commentators across the political spectrum are saying the accident in a highly developed nation such as Japan is further evidence that nuclear power isn't safe. One commentator in the conservative Die Welt went as far as to liken the global impact of the Fukushima explosions to that of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition of conservatives and the pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP) reversed the planned phaseout of the 17 nuclear reactors by 2021, amending a decision taken by a previous center-left government in 2002 to end nuclear power generation in Germany.

She argued that nuclear power was needed as "bridge technology" to ensure the supply of affordable power as Germany converts to renewable energy generation. She plans to increase the share of renewable generation to 80 percent by 2050, from a current level of only 16 percent.

A majority of Germans are opposed to nuclear power and the Fukushima accident is becoming a campaign issue ahead of state elections, the most important of which is being held in the conservative-ruled and wealthy state of Baden-Württemberg on March 27. Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party has held the state since 1953, and a defeat would be a major psychological blow to the chancellor and her party.

It would also make it harder for her to pass legislation because the opposition parties would gain power in the country's upper legislative chamber, the Bundesrat, which represents the interests of the states and has the right of co-determination on many important laws.

On Monday, support in Merkel's coalition for extending nuclear lifetimes started to crumble. Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, the leader of the FDP, called for a safety review at all German nuclear plants. Power stations whose cooling systems were found to lack multiple safety levels would have to be switched off "until the situation is totally clear."

Other members of the coalition have also been calling for a rethink.

German media commentators say Fukushima may force Merkel to shut German reactors down sooner.

Center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"The events in Japan, which geographically couldn't be much further from Germany, will influence politics in this country. They could soon start changing majorities and make governing even harder for the center-right coalition. The decision it made on nuclear power in September 2010 could be its undoing."

"There are few issues that can fire up people's emotions and mobilize them politically as much as nuclear power can. That's not good news for a government that supports nuclear power. Especially ahead of important regional elections, which won't affect the balance of power in national politics but which could well influence the morale of party workers to preserve that power."

"It's not good news because in the end, for example in Baden-Württemberg, it will only take a few percentage points more or less to determine the election outcome. Doubts among the supporters of the conservatives or the FDP could keep a few thousand voters from the ballot boxes -- or drive them into the arms of the center-left parties."

"For Merkel, it is hard to imagine a greater accident at present than the loss of a CDU governor in Baden-Württemberg."

"The safety precautions (at the Japanese nuclear plant) weren't just insufficient; the operating company TEPCO systematically breached them, as the government ascertained in 2002. TEPCO falsified security reports in more than 200 cases."

"Japan is a democracy, but so far the control of the government by the voters has hardly worked. Things only got a little better after the Democratic Party came to power two years ago. Before that, the often incompetent and corrupt governments were never voted out of office. The perestroika that Japan so urgently needs has scarcely begun."

"The unpopular government of Prime Minister Naoto Kan has been on the brink of collapse in recent weeks. It seemed paralyzed, distracted, disoriented and divided. Now it has to lead the country through what may be its worst disaster since 1945. Can it? In the Soviet Union the Chernobyl disaster accelerated the downfall of a broken, paralyzed political system."

Left-wing Die Tageszeitung writes:

"It was always said that danger only came from rickety old reactors in former Eastern Bloc states -- while conveniently ignoring that Sweden, France or the United States kept on narrowly avoiding maximum credible accidents. The disaster of Fukushima has made clear: There are situations in which even triple safety systems fail."

"The weak argument offered by the nuclear lobby that Germany isn't prone to heavy earthquakes and tsunamis doesn't apply. If a chain of serious events and stupid coincidences cause prolonged power outages, if the access routes are blocked or if the control room is destroyed by a plane crash, German reactors too will overheat. "

Conservative Die Welt writes:

"The earthquake of March 11 was no terrorist attack. But its political and psychological consequences will be as great as 9/11 because it has shown what a terrorist attack on nuclear plants would look like."

"The photos of burning buildings being swept away are disturbing enough, but nuclear power makes the decisive difference. The shockwave that went out from Fukushima may have only reached three kilometers in physical terms. But in mental terms it went around the whole world."

"Chernobyl was a special case. Nuclear energy was viewed with suspicion but it was accepted as long as modern democracies harnessed it with security precautions."

"That is over now. Faith in redundant, coincidence-proof security precautions has been wiped out by Fukushima. The high-tech democracy Japan has shown what could happen if an Internet attack on German or French nuclear reactors were to happen as it did with the 'Stuxnet' program against the Iranian nuclear program. Or if a determined, technologically skilled terrorist group were to seize control of a power station. One knew it before. Seeing it has made the difference."

Conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"It seems inappropriate to criticize the information policy of the Japanese government. Some of its statements may seem a bit overly reticent, but one should allow a government the right not to descend into speculation about all the theoretically possible scenarios. People are already being inundated by enough of such speculation."

"Japan has always been at the forefront of disaster relief efforts in other parts of the world. That is why the country now has at least a moral claim to assistance from its friends. People abroad may find it irritating that the country will probably have to keep on using nuclear power in the future. But this isn't the time for know-it-all advice. One should imagine what would have happened if a reactor in a country with less rigid safety standards had been subjected to such an earthquake."

The mass-circulation Bild tabloid writes:

"The nuclear accident is giving even firm supporters of nuclear power cause for thought, because the unthinkable happened in Fukushima. But even if we wanted to, we couldn't switch off all nuclear reactors overnight. Because the lights would literally go out. The maximum credible accident of Fukushima forces us to check the safety standards of our nuclear power stations. And to think harder about the quickest possible way to get out of nuclear power generation."

"The Japanese tragedy will dramatically change the debate over nuclear power. But the issue is too serious to start fanning people's fears in election campaigns. It may be tempting for campaigners to go out hunting for votes with the suffering of the Japanese. But that would be shabby, pitiful and repellent."

Left-wing Berliner Zeitung writes:

"This hasn't hit a run-down Soviet reactor, a badly constructed Russian plutonium machine which supplied the army with material for their nuclear weapons, as was the case with Chernobyl in 1986. Then and ever since, the builders of nuclear power stations in Europe, North America and Japan boasted that a serious accident could be virtually ruled out thanks to superior Western nuclear technology."

"Every country -- Germany, the US and Japan -- claimed to have the world's best reactors. Everything was secured several times over, all conceivable problems could be handled, all eventualities were prepared for, they said."

"The disaster at Fushima shows: It's simply not true."

"It is unlikely to be a coincidence that it was an old reactor with a design from the 1960s that got into trouble. The technology of this type of plant, which also operates in Germany, is outdated. Its safety level is significantly below that of modern nuclear plants, they wouldn't get construction approval these days. The accident has reinforced the lessons to be drawn from this: The plants that were originally intended for a lifespan of 40 years must not have their lifetimes extended, as is being done everywhere both in the West and the East -- because it yields major profits for the operators."

"On the contrary: the old reactors in particular must be taken off the grid as soon as possible. Germany realized that more than a decade ago, when the center-left government negotiated the nuclear phaseout with the power companies. For the center-right risk prolongers in Berlin, Fukushima is the writing on the wall, whether they're ready to realize that or not."

"The radioactive fallout from Fukushima won't hit Germany, but the political fallout has already arrived. People are alarmed and there is major uncertainty about 'peaceful' nuclear power, not just among diehard anti-nuclear campaigners."

-- David Crossland

Quote from: peestandingup on March 14, 2011, 04:37:46 AM
Building to withstand earthquakes are one thing, but you'll never get rid of human error & other natural disasters.

Anytime you have a machine that could potentially kill hundreds of thousands (if not millions with radiating them & then dying young from cancer later in life) if things go wrong, then its safe to say that it probably doesn't need to exist. Eventually things always go wrong. Common sense tells you that if there were more of these in the world (and in our own country), the likelihood of this happening here would go way way up. It would have probably happened by now if we had continued building them over the last decades.

I think you're living in the wrong area.  Though your not alone, there's quite a lot of people who think the same way.  

There's quite a lot of complex machinery nearby here that can literally kill us and cause major environmental damage that's probably equivalent to a nuclear blast.  As for complex machinery, to the north of us lies Kings Bay Submarine Base.  Inside each one of the submarines stationed in that base is a nuclear reactor.  One major typhoon (extremely rare but neither the less possible) and a submarine in the wrong place at the wrong time (also rare) will sweep the sub into land causing who knows what kind of damage.  Oh, and don't forget, that is the location of a large portion of our nuclear missiles.  Their safety record there isn't perfect either always prone to human error for devices which are purposely designed to actually produce massive amount of damage.  

Let's see, to the east of us is the Atlantic Ocean but before that is Mayport.  There, we're planning on bringing in a nuclear carrier with all the goodies it includes.  To the west of us lies just a good old fashion normal nuclear power plant.  To the south of us lies NASA.  One bit of human error there and the largest rockets known to mankind could come tumbling down into our city causing massive damage.  That isn't too bad compared to the rocket fuel they use there.  Stuff so deadly that it can instantly kill you if you come into contact.  Though not as bad as if you live in someplace called, well, New York City.

That city is near a state called New Jersey.  What's so special about New Jersey?  Chemical plants.  A whole lot of chemical plants which produce chemicals so deadly and so toxic it's like having a chemical weapon in the middle of the most populated city in the country.  Oh, the environmental effects could be quite deadly.  I'm pretty sure some of those chemicals are so deadly they can contaminate the drinking supply to the point that makes it impossible to live in that city for decades.  All you need is either human error, terrorism, or a natural disaster to cause this.

The point I'm trying to make is, unless you plan to move to the middle of Alaska, we're all surrounded by complex machinery that can literally kill us.  The thing is, for the most part, 99.9% of those machinery don't.  But even with that, accidents happen.  Could NYC be wiped off the map due to those chemical plants?  Yes, but that's the risk we take living in a modern society.  Look at coal, just by digging the thing causes major environmental disaster & human life.  If your town happens to be under a coal mine, it might be unlivable due to sink holes and disasters.  Natural gas?  Probably going to be as bad as wide spread drilling occurs.  One major human error and an entire population's drinking water supply will be contaminated.  Nuclear?  Well, instead of the "bad" parts of the power happening elsewhere, it happens near where the plant is build.

No matter what choice we make, a price will be paid and it's up to us as a society to decide who and where is going to pay the price.  At least when we import energy, the price is being paid by others.  In a way, we export misery for our power needs.  As we become more energy independent and more self-sufficient, we'll pay more of the price since well...that's what energy Independence pretty much means.  That is if we are willing to pay it.  

Remember,  there's always NIMBY.  Other countries are more than willing to pay that price for us should we give them truck loads of $$$.  All we have to do is keep covering our ears and our eyes to the gigantic environmental and sometimes human disasters those countries cause.  Yes, that includes Canada (look up "Oil Sands Environmental Cost/Disaster"). 

I still think the scariest thing near us is the lost 1.5MT bomb off the coast of northern Ga. Initially they said it wasn't fully armed and that it had a lead nose but officials testified later that it was fully operational.

Stephen, I mention politics because liberals are often opposed to nuclear energy.  Many of the major environmental groups are also opposed (liberal environmental groups).  I was trying to amplify my point.  I actually testified in front of a committee on behalf of the general student body at Georgia Tech to have Plant Vogtle expanded.  I took polls of the mostly liberal student body for months and found that the overwhelming majority of students were in favor of expanding nuclear energy production in general and abandoning coal power as much as possible (abandoning coal did not surprise me in the least bit).  Most students at Tech at least start off in engineering (I did, for one), and anyone with any sort of scientific/engineering background can more easily see that nuclear/radiation/etc etc is nothing like what is portrayed in the media and in scare movies.

I think both political POVs are a bit off.  The conservatives overly tout coal, a very dangerous and disruptive and ecologically damaging source of energy, and the liberals vehemently oppose nuclear energy (fission and fusion development), a very clean, very safe, and very promising source of energy.

I really like cityimrov's comments, too, on the fact that we are surrounded by dangerous materials, dangerous machines, dangerous processes involving one or both of the above, dangerous people, dangerous everything.  We could all work out and eat right every day and stay as healthy as humanly possible and keel over due to some freak accident just about anywhere at any time (not only that, healthy people still die of freak natural causes...).

I do believe it was a small chemical manufacturing plant on the Northside that violently blew up just a few years ago and put up a large purple cloud, in addition to killing quite a few people.  The product was a gasoline additive that we put in our cars.

Heck, in today's world I would be more afraid of living near a meth manufacturer or a car crash or being struck by lightning than I would of a freak industrial accident (of course I don't work in any sort of plant).

And liquified natural gas is the new hot commodity on the NYMEX, especially after this Japanese incident, yet just in the past year we have had a couple of huge tragedies where gas mains ruptured and literally instantly blew up entire neighborhoods (killing many).  Not to mention the huge drinking water problem in parts of the Northeast due to fracking.  More people have died or been injured in this country from the relatively new LNG industry than the nuclear industry (in which off the top of my head I can't think of anyone who has died or been harmed).  We've had 6 decades of nuclear energy in this country, and you don't hear any trial lawyer commercials telling victims of nuclear plants to call their number.  All you hear about is asbestos/mesothelioma and every other supposed calamity.

From CNBC earlier today....

QuoteNuclear energy companies were lower Monday as Japan continued to struggle with its stricken nuclear reactor after a second hydrogen explosion rocked the facility.

Mad Money's Jim Cramer said on Monday's Stop Trading! That the earthquake had essentially put the nail in the coffin of nuclear power expansion in the United States.

"Is nuclear power dead in this country? Yes," Cramer said, adding that he believes no new nuclear reactors will be approved for a long time in the United States and decommissioning will likely be stepped up. But the most important thing to remember here is there is no incentive to build nuclear plants with politicians like Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., saying we need to pause, he added.

"There's no incentive to build these," he said. "This is going to be a natural gas country."

Things aren't looking too good right now. If the latest explosion was in the suppression pool and it's damaged, there could be a containment leak. Some rumors coming from japanese press is that the drop in pressure and rod exposure possibly came from human error- something as simple as not keeping one of the diesel pumps fueled. That's unconfirmed though. What is glaringly obvious is that TEPCO cannot give a straight answer to any questions asked to them. Once recovery has started, I hope some heads will roll. It's just a sideline opinion but I think some things were handled very poorly from the start but everyone's just trying to do what they think is best during an absolute nightmare scenario- if the epicenter had been further south, I don't even want to think about what might've happened.

I'm certainly not the posterboy for nuclear energy and even I question the use of it in an area that is prone to so many forms of natural catastrophe, I think my main thing is that it shouldn't be written off entirely- there's no one single solution to our energy problem. Personally, I'd love to see more wind-based power but the cost is really high right now, solar is good too, as it evolves it may even reduce the need for toxic metals like mercury and lead for the cells.

Quote from: stephendare on March 14, 2011, 05:31:54 PM
This has more to do with how you view risk, not how you view politics.  Personally I hope that the problems associated with power generation will be solved by taking the majority of our industry offworld---along with most heavy mining and processing.

I like that idea. It seems like a nice way to keep most the earth in pristine condition was outsourcing our dirty stuff to an asteroid somewhere.  It's probably too late for us but not for our great great great grand kids. 

All we need to do is to invest into education and research for space, robotics, science, engineering, mathematics, etc.

I've thought about this in the past but I think we're sooooo far off from anything like that- just imagine how destructive it would be if a ship carrying several hundred tons of highly radioactive toxic waste blew up in the upper atmosphere. Sure, you can put something in nearly-indestructible containers but as we're seeing with the current situation in Japan- sometimes nearly is not enough. I do like the idea of off-world robotic mining though- I don't think it'll happen in our time though.

Quote from: stephendare on March 14, 2011, 11:06:31 AM

Quote from: simms3 on March 14, 2011, 08:36:18 AM
Thank you thekillingwax!  I enjoyed reading that.  It's sad how much misinformation and scare hype there is about nuclear power.  Aside from Chernobyl, a Commie built crappy nuclear plant that blew because of human error, I can't think of any other incidents of people dying from nuclear power.

There are almost 500 nuclear power plants in the world, each with multiple reactors, and compared to any other major power source, nuclear energy is about as clean and safe as it gets, not to mention it is next to impossible to be any more efficient, especially with newer technology making used U-235 re-usable (from what I understand on a basic level).

The media is really succeeding at spreading enough misinformation about the disaster over there (especially having BILL NYE on of all people...I saw him during the day on another news site), it's no wonder people are freaked out.

peestandingup, I suggest you go back in time and review the human error safety record of modern day nuclear power in developed countries. Forget about Chernobyl, I wouldn't have expected in less from the Soviets.  Also, the plant to the north of Jacksonville is near Augusta.  I have been there.  They are adding two reactors.  It's called Plant Vogtle.  An 8.9 magnitude earthquake is not going to hit there, nor is a cat 5 hurricane (it's pretty far inland).  One of my best friends went to Georgia Tech undergrad Nuclear and Radiological Engineering (we call it NRE) and he's in grad school there now.  As liberal as he is, if he is not worried about nuclear power and is in fact pursuing a career in it, then I'm not worried.  He's been going out with another friend of mine for a couple years whose sister was the chief engineer at the Port St. Lucie plant and is now working for Duke Energy in Charlotte.  My friend and her sister come from a super lib family and they are big proponents for nuclear power.  I'm not worried; we are in good hands.

Tons tons tons more people die every year for coal power, LNG, etc.  Coal power is dangerous.  Mining coal is dangerous.  The power plants are even more likely to suffer a steam/pressure explosion (and that happens often compared to the two times in history now that it has happened with nuclear power).  Liquified Natural Gas is dangerous to extract, fracking is bad for the environment and bad for drinking water, and LNG is dangerous to transport and very dangerous to use to heat up in power plants.  Coal and LNG plants aren't built to nearly the same standards as nuclear plants and oddly nobody gives a rat's behind.

Simms.

What on earth are we to make about your comment regarding the politics of your friend from Georgia Tech?  Who cares if he is liberal or conservative?

What is the political angle you seem to be referring to?

For what its worth, the Nuke Rods are exposed to the air at the moment, so it looks like its worse than a few people have already predicted.

Switzerland has suspended all nuclear plant permits.

Yeah, don't you love when people try to turn everything into a political debate. "So your friend is a Liberal AND he's OK with nuclear power?!? Well, Jesus. Now I don't know what to think!" :P Let's not turn these topics into the talking points circus that network news channels are, guys. There's really nothing political about this.

The issue as I see it is potential destruction, and not anything to do with safety records & what has/hasn't happened in the past. Its a moot point. So the "if an airplane somewhere crashes, does that mean I'm terrified of airplanes now?" analogy someone wrote above is not even relevant, and frankly, kind of stupid. If an airplane crashes, it doesn't take the city (and possibly poison half of the country) in the process. And the poison airplane smoke also doesn't sweep across the jet stream & land into other islands/countries either (which IS a possibility from this current crisis, look it up), lasting for many many years.

My point is, these little nuclear devices & plants can have BIG impacts on the world & our surroundings. You just can't simply dismiss something like this, not with the awesome destructive force that nuclear is capable of. In the grand scheme of things, this science is still very much in its infancy & we shouldn't be messing with it unless absolutely necessary. Its incredibly careless & naive to think otherwise.

But hey, give it some time. Its been a while since people have experienced any type of major fallout first hand, all we have now are mostly black & white photos or old degraded video. I bet many proponents will change their tune as this thing progresses & we watch as people start dropping dead in masses, getting cancers, having their offspring mutated & their lands becoming inhabitable, all in HD.

QuoteMy point is, these little nuclear devices & plants can have BIG impacts on the world & our surroundings. You just can't simply dismiss something like this, not with the awesome destructive force that nuclear is capable of. In the grand scheme of things, this science is still very much in its infancy & we shouldn't be messing with it unless absolutely necessary. Its incredibly careless & naive to think otherwise.

In light of what is going on it certainly is easy focus on its "enormous destructive force".  You seem to be doing so without acknowledging its enormous productive force.  When you say we are "careless and naive" to be "messing with" nuclear power what are you saying?  Just how does Japan generate electricity without it?  How about France and most of Europe?  I wonder how many and coal, oil and natural gas, power plants will have to be built to replace these nukes?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 15, 2011, 06:40:39 AM

QuoteMy point is, these little nuclear devices & plants can have BIG impacts on the world & our surroundings. You just can't simply dismiss something like this, not with the awesome destructive force that nuclear is capable of. In the grand scheme of things, this science is still very much in its infancy & we shouldn't be messing with it unless absolutely necessary. Its incredibly careless & naive to think otherwise.

In light of what is going on it certainly is easy focus on its "enormous destructive force".  You seem to be doing so without acknowledging its enormous productive force.  When you say we are "careless and naive" to be "messing with" nuclear power what are you saying?  Just how does Japan generate electricity without it?  How about France and most of Europe?  I wonder how many and coal, oil and natural gas, power plants will have to be built to replace these nukes?

It's only productive if it doesn't end up killing you in the end. How productive can a society be if half a dozen of their nuke plants ends up eating it, making big chunks of their land uninhabitable & poisoning a large amount of their population?

And it's not up to me to decide what's the best way to get power for these countries, as they're all different But I sure as hell know that in this day & age, we could certainly do better than using nukes to heat up water that spins turbines to generate electricity. You'd think an island like Japan would start investing in using hydro to make more electricity.

And look, if we as a people living on the planet can't keep up with our energy needs, then nothing's wrong with scaling back. That would certainly be better than dealing with giant underwater oil gushers & nuclear fallout, no? But not us apparently, we're doing the exact opposite & keep growing bigger & outwards. We gotta keep this train a movin'. Well, great. But just remember, nothing grows forever.

But like I said earlier, this is nothing we can't fix. We know how to live off the grid & live quite well. Look at Brad Pitt's New Orleans relief homes. Those damn things actually add TO the grid. And we know how to fix transportation too with battery technology & using your off the grid home as a charging station. So I'm not gonna sit here & buy this BS that we're all just forced to use these old resources.

Oh you're forced alright, but not for the reasons you think you are. And can all take that one to the bank. All of this stuff is so giant corporations can rule your world & get rich while doing it. If none of you see that, then I don't know what else to tell you.

So the answer is... scale back?  Live off the grid?

Hydro isn't particularly green either- dams must be built. Look at Three Gorges- it's fairly efficient but it also destroyed 400 miles of beautiful, unique land that was covered in thousands of years of relics and archeological sites, it's all pretty much gone forever. Japan doesn't exactly have a lot of land to spare and if a mag 9 earthquake struck something like Three Gorges, I'm terrified to think of the repercussions. There are studies now that suggest that the dam is actually a big contributor to the recent quakes in china because it was built on a fault line.

Like I said, it's about balance- you can make .5GW solar/windfarms but no one would be able to afford it. I'd love it but I have trouble affording my utilities, as dirty as they are. I truly believe that one day we'll strike that right balance through fusion or something else but we have to do the best we can now. It's obvious that there are flaws in the design of the power plant in Japan- the older reactors are way too close to each other but at the same time you have to acknowledge that what happened there is pretty much some of the worst mother nature can throw at someone. Everything has risks and nuclear power is a scary idea- we're harnessing forces that few can comprehend but I think totally ruling it out because of what's going on right now is not the answer. Unfortunately, I think this is a rapidly shrinking line of thought.

As far as living scaled back? All for it, Brad Pitt come and make me a greenhouse! But consider how much of the grid we're using just posting on the internet- datacenters, end users and every step in between is consuming.

I've said it before and ill say it again...scientist around the world have proven that there is enough solar radiation to serve all of our needs...it's just up to us to study it and figure it out...oil and gas and coal are easy but dirty...we've got to get smart and as we can see...Nuclear is dangerous if something happens and can screw a big area up for a very long time.

Energy is a dangerous business. You store vast amounts of energy in a single location and the opportunity for disaster is present.

Coal
Oil
Nukelar :)
Hydrogen
Solar (Don't go to the sun)
Wind (don't piss in the wind, especially a wind exceeding 100 knots)

Some are riskier than others.

Here's the A: NO

Q: Would you support a nuke you lar energy plant being built within a 5 mile radius of your home?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 15, 2011, 07:32:21 AM
So the answer is... scale back?  Live off the grid?

All of the above & then some. People tend to want a single answer (coal? nuclear? wind? what do we use??), but it's gonna be a number of things we need to do & whatever works for your environment & application. And yes, its gonna take scaling back & rethinking things, even our entire cities (just look how bloody inefficient Jacksonville is. Just everyday functioning here is a huge waste of energy).

Like I said, we can do it, our technology is great. But its pretty clear a lot of this stuff is gonna have to start with everyday people just doing it themselves when it ultimately gets cheaper than old school energy methods (which is rapidly approaching). But obviously if we wait for corporations, city officials or big poppa government to do it, it'll never get done. It hasn't yet, and it could have way before now. They'll likely play politics & bicker for decades, all the while the special interest groups & lobbyists get their way again & again.

We have to remember that all we see, everything that surrounds us, was built around this old way of thinking & using old methods, assuming the likes of energy/oil/etc was just gonna stay dirt cheap forever & be easy to acquire. So we got real lazy & just kinda let it go on like this. And thats not just with our technology either. Hell, look what a mess Jacksonville has turned into. It used to be a great, condensed city with stellar public transit & walkable streets. We traded all that for this sprawling energy-hungry mess & cheaply built suburban crap that uses more energy to maintain.

Anyways, that's just one of the types of things I'm talking about. It's a whole host of problems that need addressed & nothing's gonna be a "catch all". Baby steps towards the ultimate goal, which is complete energy independence.

You know what's scary? Knee jerk reactions. Like Buckethead mentioned, the energy business is inherently dangerous. Instead of abandoning a means of producing energy because of a problem â€" why not learn from it and find a solution?

Here’s an article about Thorium as a means for safer, more controlled and more environmentally friendly nuclear energy.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/ (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/)

QuoteBut the book inspired him to pursue an intense study of nuclear energy over the next few years, during which he became convinced that thorium could solve the nuclear power industry’s most intractable problems. After it has been used as fuel for power plants, the element leaves behind minuscule amounts of waste. And that waste needs to be stored for only a few hundred years, not a few hundred thousand like other nuclear byproducts. Because it’s so plentiful in nature, it’s virtually inexhaustible. It’s also one of only a few substances that acts as a thermal breeder, in theory creating enough new fuel as it breaks down to sustain a high-temperature chain reaction indefinitely. And it would be virtually impossible for the byproducts of a thorium reactor to be used by terrorists or anyone else to make nuclear weapons.

QuoteWhen he took over as head of Oak Ridge in 1955, Alvin Weinberg realized that thorium by itself could start to solve these problems. It’s abundant â€" the US has at least 175,000 tons of the stuff â€" and doesn’t require costly processing. It is also extraordinarily efficient as a nuclear fuel. As it decays in a reactor core, its byproducts produce more neutrons per collision than conventional fuel. The more neutrons per collision, the more energy generated, the less total fuel consumed, and the less radioactive nastiness left behind.

QuoteEven better, Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. The design is based on the lab’s finding that thorium dissolves in hot liquid fluoride salts. This fission soup is poured into tubes in the core of the reactor, where the nuclear chain reaction â€" the billiard balls colliding â€" happens. The system makes the reactor self-regulating: When the soup gets too hot it expands and flows out of the tubes â€" slowing fission and eliminating the possibility of another Chernobyl. Any actinide can work in this method, but thorium is particularly well suited because it is so efficient at the high temperatures at which fission occurs in the soup.

http://energyfromthorium.com/ (http://energyfromthorium.com/)

QuoteQ: Is nuclear power unsafe?

A: No. It is far safer than chemical power and renewable power. Look at the burning refineries and gas lines. There are no burning reactors. People are scared of “radiation” and don’t understand what it means. The media makes little attempt to tell them. I am trying to be a resource to help explain because I have had some training in this area. A dam gave way due to the earthquake. That’s not safe either.

Quote from: peestandingup on March 15, 2011, 10:44:01 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on March 15, 2011, 07:32:21 AM
So the answer is... scale back?  Live off the grid?

All of the above & then some. People tend to want a single answer (coal? nuclear? wind? what do we use??), but it's gonna be a number of things we need to do & whatever works for your environment & application. And yes, its gonna take scaling back & rethinking things, even our entire cities (just look how bloody inefficient Jacksonville is. Just everyday functioning here is a huge waste of energy).

Like I said, we can do it, our technology is great. But its pretty clear a lot of this stuff is gonna have to start with everyday people just doing it themselves when it ultimately gets cheaper than old school energy methods (which is rapidly approaching). But obviously if we wait for corporations, city officials or big poppa government to do it, it'll never get done. It hasn't yet, and it could have way before now. They'll likely play politics & bicker for decades, all the while the special interest groups & lobbyists get their way again & again.

We have to remember that all we see, everything that surrounds us, was built around this old way of thinking & using old methods, assuming the likes of energy/oil/etc was just gonna stay dirt cheap forever & be easy to acquire. So we got real lazy & just kinda let it go on like this. And thats not just with our technology either. Hell, look what a mess Jacksonville has turned into. It used to be a great, condensed city with stellar public transit & walkable streets. We traded all that for this sprawling energy-hungry mess & cheaply built suburban crap that uses more energy to maintain.

Anyways, that's just one of the types of things I'm talking about. It's a whole host of problems that need addressed & nothing's gonna be a "catch all". Baby steps towards the ultimate goal, which is complete energy independence.

I don't disagree with anything you have said... Except it addresses a future ten or twenty years from now.  Many populated modern countries get at least 25% of their power from nuclear and many get a much higher percentage.  This is not replaced by "cutting back" nor will it be replaced near term with the "alternatives".  They simply do not provide the power needed.

That said... it seems likely that new nukes will probably never be built... old ones will be decommissioned as they "age out"... conservation and alternatives might pick up some of the deficit... but good ole fossil fuels will be used increasingly until alternatives become viable.

http://www.livescience.com/13240-japan-disaster-sway-perception-nuclear-power.html (http://www.livescience.com/13240-japan-disaster-sway-perception-nuclear-power.html)

QuoteSuch numbers can be frustrating to nuclear industry risk assessors, who argue that nuclear energy is safe and the risk of accidents low. The fossil-fuel alternatives are not without risk, they note: An analysis by the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland found that between 1969 and 2000, fossil fuel extraction and production killed an average of 1,600 people a year. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, between 1970 and 1992 there were 0.01 fatalities per gigawatt, or billion watts, of nuclear power produced. For coal power, that number was 0.32, and for oil it was 0.36. The only other non-fossil fuel evaluated by the IAEA, hydroelectric power, took 0.8 lives per gigawatt of electricity. (All numbers include accidents in which at least five people were killed; if smaller accidents are included, according to the IAEA, the total fatalities are about 10 times higher.)

The debate over nuclear power and heavy industry and the pros and cons of each will last for years.  Fukishima however gave us strong lessons.

Take a look at these before & after photos: Look up "Fukushima"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/japan-quake-2011/beforeafter.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/japan-quake-2011/beforeafter2.htm

You'll notice a few things.  The first thing, I don't think the workers came to work that morning expecting a earthquake and tsunami to ruin their week.   Second, the infrastructure to the plants - roads, power lines, and ports - all gone!  When the earthquake and tsunami hit, the power plant became an island with very little outside help for hours.  Third, all the auxiliary stuff, from the photos is all gone.  Fourth, there were multiple failures at one time - all probably starting out small.  Three Mile Island was a luxury compared to Fukishima - at least they had roads and only one reactor to deal with.  

To me, one of the things all countries need to look at is an "Emergency 911 System" for heavy industry and power.   I think there needs to be a specialized task force with dedicated trained personnel, choppers, boats, ATVs, cranes, cement mixers, back up generators, back up batteries, construction material, etc ready to deal with an industry in case the worse happens.  This idea of making things up on the fly or trying to finding who has a spare generator from 500 different government agencies needs to stop.  Like we have firefighters and police, I think the industry should have the same.  

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,751245,00.html

QuoteFear's Price Tag

The High Price of Merkel's Nuclear About-Face

Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to temporarily shut down seven nuclear reactors could cost the industry more than a half-billion euros and result in Germany not meeting its CO2 emission reduction goals. The rest of the world is taking a wait-and-see approach.

First, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a three-month moratorium on her government's plan to extend the lifespans of German nuclear power plants. Now, the chancellor has elected to shut down seven of the country's oldest reactors. At least one of them is to remain offline permanently.

"Safety is the priority," Merkel said in her announcement on Tuesday. "Those are the criteria by which we acted today."

The move is likely to be an expensive one. According to an estimate produced for SPIEGEL ONLINE by atomic energy expert Wolfgang Pfaffenberger from Jacobs University in Bremen, Germany's energy companies stand to lose up to â,¬575 million ($803 million) as a result of the three-month shutdown. The seven reactors affected -- all of which were constructed prior to 1980 -- generate revenues estimated at â,¬2.3 billion per year.

What that might mean for energy prices in Germany remains unclear. Manuel Frondel, an energy expert with the Rhineland-Westphalia Institute for Economic Research, told the mass-circulation tabloid Bild that consumers may be in for a price increase of up to 10 percent or more.

The German Association of Energy and Water Industries agrees. The group issued a statement on Tuesday saying "when a cheap energy source is phased out more rapidly (than planned), the prices will also climb to a greater degree than expected."

Can Germany Meet Its CO2 Reduction Goals?

Sigmar Gabriel, head of the opposition Social Democrats, fears that Merkel's moratorium could also be expensive for German taxpayers and accused her of making a deal with the country's nuclear power industry. Legally, he said, Germany's reactor operators can demand compensation from Berlin given that the plants are not at accute risk. While Gabriel allowed that the plants likely wouldn't demand such compensation, he said "they will certainly demand recompense for waiving their rights."

Merkel's decision marks a notable about-face for the German chancellor with the conservative Christian Democrats, whose government just last autumn agreed to suspend the nuclear phase-out pushed through by her predecessor in the Chancellery, Gerhard Schröder of the center-left Social Democrats. But Germans, historically nervous about nuclear energy technology, have reacted with fear and concern to the increasingly grim news from Japan, where workers continue trying to avert a complete nuclear meltdown at several reactors belonging to the Fukushima I plant on the country's east coast.

Last autumn, Merkel argued that Germany's nuclear reactors would have to remain online longer to provide a bridge to an era when renewable energies could provide a larger share of the country's energy needs. Her government also intended to use some of additional profits earned by the reactors as a result of the lifespan extensions to fund renewable energy development.

It was also, of course, intended to ensure that Germany met its goal of reducing its emissions of CO2 by 40 percent by 2020 relative to 1990 levels. But should the shutdowns become permanent -- and many assume that they might -- the elimination of 43.6 terawatt hours of annual energy production (the country's consumption was 544.5 terawatt hours in 2008) would mean a greater reliance on coal and natural gas fueled power plants. In addition to emitting more CO2, increased dependency on fossil fuels would also drive up the costs of CO2 emissions certificates, placing further upward pressure on energy prices in the country.

Germany isn't the only country now taking a closer look at atomic energy safety. The European Union on Tuesday agreed to carry out stress tests on all 143 nuclear plants in the bloc. EU energy ministers met in Brussels on Tuesday together with nuclear regulators and industry representatives and said that the tests will be devised in the coming months and applied later this year. Those plants which fail the tests, EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger hopes, will have to be switched off.

Tamping Down the Nuclear Renaissance

"We have to ask ourselves: Can we in Europe, within time, secure our energy needs without nuclear power plants?" Oettinger said on the German public television channel ARD. In reference to the tests, he added: "The authority of the tests must be so high that those responsible will have to live by the consequences."

The issue of nuclear safety is likewise expected to be high on the agenda of the G-20 summit in France at the end of March and at a EU summit in Brussels next week.

Still, it seems unlikely that many countries will follow Germany's precipitate retreat from nuclear power. France, which covers 80 percent of its energy needs with nuclear power, insists that its facilities are safe. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly told senior members of his UMP party that "if we have lost some bids, this is because we are more expensive. And if we are more expensive, this is because we are the safest." Paris did, however, order safety checks on the country's 58 reactors.

Switzerland said it would review existing plans to build new nuclear plants to replace aging facilities and countries have likewise announced safety checks. But Turkey said it would go ahead with plans to build the country's first nuclear reactor with Russian assistance. Moscow also signed a deal with Belarus on Tuesday for the construction of a nuclear power plant there.

Experts in the US expect the Japan disaster to slow a gathering trend toward nuclear renewal there. "This accident has the potential to tamp down any nuclear renaissance that we're poised to experience," Tim Echols, a pro-nuclear utilities official in the state of Georgia, told the Associated Press.

In Germany, meanwhile, it remains unclear what the future of nuclear energy in the country might be once the three-month moratorium expires. Merkel, for her part, had little to say on the subject on Tuesday. "What might follow the moratorium," she said on Tuesday, "will become clear at its end."

The Chinese have plans to build a low temp, atmospheric pressure thorium reactor.  It appears that the Japanese reactors survived the earthquake which was 40 times more powerful than they were designed to handle.  It was the tsunami which killed their diesel backup generators.

Maybe a compromise would be not to build nuclear power plants in earthquake-prone areas.

Florida's Crystal River plant,one of five in Florida (104 total nationwide) was built in 1977 and is nearing the end of it's planned operation.There has been pressure to continue operation well past the initial operation period...

The plant has been off line for the past eighteen months,thanks to cracks found in the containment wall.Additional cracks were recently revealed and an innovative (and $expensive$) fix attempt will keep the reactor off line past the planned April start up.

I do not recall hearing much about this.
See St.Petersburg Times sites.

Quote from: north miami on March 16, 2011, 06:22:33 PM

Florida's Crystal River plant,one of five in Florida (104 total nationwide) was built in 1977 and is nearing the end of it's planned operation.There has been pressure to continue operation well past the initial operation period...

The plant has been off line for the past eighteen months,thanks to cracks found in the containment wall.Additional cracks were recently revealed and an innovative (and $expensive$) fix attempt will keep the reactor off line past the planned April start up.

I do not recall hearing much about this.
See St.Petersburg Times sites.

Usually in industry, when stuff becomes too old and breaks down, new stuff replaces it.  In the nuclear industry, my guess is it's probably cheaper to fix those cracks then to hire a whole bunch of lawyers and wait a few decades for the political process to get a new reactor going.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2009/2009-08-11-091.asp

QuoteFlorida Approves First Nuclear Power Plant in 33 Years

TALLAHASSEE, Florida, August 11, 2009 (ENS) � The Florida Cabinet today approved site certification for Progress Energy Florida's Levy nuclear power plant, the first nuclear facility approved in the state since 1976.

Governor Charlie Crist, Attorney General Bill McCollum and Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, serving as the Siting Board, unanimously approved Progress Energy Florida's site request for construction of a nuclear facility on a 3,105-acre location in Levy County.

"Today's decision proves that Florida is on the right path toward achieving energy diversity and independence," said Governor Crist. "I applaud Progress Energy Florida for its commitment to producing alternative energy options, creating jobs and protecting our environment for future generations."

The site certification application includes a detailed analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed plant, which will consist of two 1,100 megawatt nuclear powered units, and related transmission lines.

On December 18, 2008, Progress Energy announced it will retire the two oldest coal-fired units at the Crystal River Energy Complex in Citrus County after a new, advanced-design nuclear plant is built in Levy County. Doing so will reduce the company's carbon dioxide emissions by more than five million tons per year, which the company says is the equivalent of removing more than 830,000 vehicles from Florida's roads.

The nuclear reactor at Crystal River Energy Complex (Photo courtesy NRC) 
The Crystal River Energy Complex, with four coal-fired units and one nuclear unit, is one of the largest generating facilities in the country.

The Siting Board's approval of the Levy nuclear plant includes a requirement for the coal-fired units to be discontinued by December 31, 2020, assuming timely licensing and construction.

"Today's approval by the Siting Board is a significant step in the process to construct and operate the facility," said Michael Sole, secretary of the state Department of Environmental Protection, DEP. "We are pleased that Florida companies are seeing the value of a clean and diverse energy future and are investing in energy technologies to help preserve and protect our state's valuable natural resources."

Federal approvals and permits required prior to construction include National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, which is an effluent and stormwater discharge permit; Prevention of Significant Deterioration, an air quality permit; approval by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and also by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Today's vote is the second of three major approvals needed before the company can begin building the nuclear plant. In July 2008, the Florida Public Service Commission approved the "needs case" for the plant.

The last remaining major decision is from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is expected by early 2012.

"This is an important milestone for the proposed Levy plant," said Vincent Dolan, Progress Energy Florida's president and chief executive officer.

"Carbon-free nuclear power is a strategic asset in our statewide effort to become energy-independent, to reduce our reliance on more volatile-priced fossil fuels, and to provide a balanced approach to meet the challenges of growth and climate change," Dolan said.

If approved and built, the project would be among the first nuclear plants in the country to be constructed on a greenfield site in more than 30 years, and it would involve development of one of the single largest transmission infrastructure projects in Florida's history, the company says.

Nuclear power plants produce electricity through a heat-generating process known as fission, in which neutrons split uranium atoms to produce large amount of energy. These facilities produce minimal carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to climate change.

In the United States, 104 nuclear reactors supply roughly 20 percent of the nation's electricity.

Florida already has five operating nuclear reactors at three locations, including Crystal river. The others are two reactors at Turkey Point, 25 miles south of Miami, and two at St. Lucie, seven miles southeast of Fort Pierce.

For nuclear power critics the key issues are - nuclear plant safety, the safe disposal of nuclear waste, potential sabotage and attack on facilities, and the risk that nuclear power will help more nations and terrorists acquire nuclear weapons.

The nonprofit Environment Florida is conflicted about permitting more nuclear power in the state. Back in 2007, in advance of Governor Crist's summit to develop a plan for Florida to battle climate change, Environment Florida said, "It's time for the state to take another look at nuclear energy, long a taboo but something that could play a role in the anti-warming cause, providing all safety questions are satisfactorily answered."

But just a year earlier, in 2006, the statewide environmental group said, "A 'nuclear renaissance' would be a bad deal for American consumers, the environment, public safety and national security. Nuclear power is an expensive and risky way to address global warming - especially when compared to alternatives such as improved energy efficiency and the expansion of renewable energy production."

"Moreover," said Environment Florida in 2006, "the nuclear industry's shoddy safety record and insufficient response to the growing threat of terrorism suggest that new nuclear power plants - or the continued operation of aging plants - could cause more problems than they solve."

Thanks to Simms on another thread for this article...

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/16/sjoden.nuclear.japan/?hpt=Sbin#

QuoteWhy nuclear power is a necessity


Editor's note: Glenn E. Sjoden, Ph.D., P.E. is professor of nuclear and radiological engineering at the George W. Woodruff School of Georgia Institute of Technology. For a different point of view, see How vulnerable are U.S. nuclear plants?

(CNN) -- We are all deeply saddened by the news of the terrible devastation, destruction and death that occurred in Japan on March 12 from the incredible destruction brought on by a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and resulting tsunami. As if this were not enough, on the heels of these two events, several large nuclear power plants are in severe peril.

The dire events unfolding stem from a station blackout at the 40-year-old Daiichi nuclear plant in Fukushima initiated because of a tsunami-related failure of a number of redundant backup safety generators to power auxiliary cooling systems.

While the nuclear fission reactions liberating heat for power generation were stopped immediately from a reactor "SCRAM," many of the products of fissioning uranium-235 atoms are nuclides that are radioactive (radioisotopes) and they undergo nuclear decay typically in a chain of progeny that emit radiation that ends up as heat.

This heat from decay of radioisotopes occurs over a protracted period, which could be weeks or months, depending on the reactor's operating history and other factors. While this decay heat is a small percentage of the original fission power, it is not negligible. It must be removed and requires post-shutdown active cooling for the nuclear fuel to remain viable.

At this juncture, it's worth noting that had the reactor plants at Daiichi been modern power reactor designs, no active cooling would be required, and the decay heat would have been removed through an automatic convection cooling mechanism afforded in all modern passively safe reactor designs. Only the older units require active cooling for decay heat removal.

For many reasons related to the initial disaster, as of this writing, at least part of the nuclear fuel in these power plants was "uncovered" for a time, that is, not covered with cooling water.

This resulted in dilapidation and destruction of zirconium-based nuclear fuel cladding, the metal shell making up fuel rods containing stacked uranium oxide fuel pellets. Through melting and degradation in the presence of water/steam, with overheated fuel, hydrogen gas is released due to a zirconium-water reaction under extreme temperatures.

To add further insult, the hydrogen was vented to the outermost containment structure where, mixed with oxygen, it exploded, adding another shock to the reactor system. As a last resort to covering the fuel, the electric power utility faced the reality that pumping in seawater to the crippled reactor cores containing thousands of fuel rods was the only hope to keep the hot fuel intact, since uncovered fuel will melt.

The introduction of seawater meant that the reactors would never again yield useful electricity for Japan, because the "crud" in seawater ultimately introduces corrosion that makes the reactor inoperable as a power generator. Taken as a whole, these events contributed to the compromising of plant systems and the fuel and led to the emission of radioactive fission products.

Subsequently radiation was released into the public in elevated doses downwind, not to mention promotion of massive fear, uncertainty, speculation and panic to rock the foundations of the nuclear world.

I cannot deny the gravity of these events. As a career nuclear engineer, dedicated to public safety and to the advancement of nuclear engineering and nuclear power for the world, this has been devastating -- all for want of some diesel fuel, clean water and decent electrical couplings on backup generators. However, that is the truth. If the backup generating (diesel) sources had been properly sited to operate post-tsunami, I wouldn't have written this article, because the Daiichi reactors would now be stable.

As a result of the events in Japan, some have already begun with grand gestures to call on our lawmakers to rule out new nuclear power development. We need to reflect on the simple truth that we do not have a nonfossil alternative that can make up the substantial power needs of the world other than nuclear power.

Sure, we can use solar, wind, hydroelectric, biomass and the like, but collectively, on a future very good day, using every practical alternative resource to expand these alternative energy sources, they will only amount to a grand sum of 20% of our energy needs. To keep global warming in check, and faced with the concept of rolling blackouts or steady, clean electricity, the gap can and must be made up with modern nuclear power, which is passively safe with the newest design.

The pundits go on to ask, "What about the waste?" I answer this by asking, did you ever wonder why our French colleagues have 40 years of mostly nuclear power and no waste problems?

Like most nations, they recycle their used fuel, since 95% of the fuel can be recycled back into the reactor and used again, making nuclear power the most "green" energy source out there. Burying the waste, as we do in the United States, is completely wasteful, and other nations, including Japan, recycle all of their used fuel.

We do need to take pause, as the events in Japan are certainly immense, and we need to collectively ponder ways to improve at all levels. However, I believe we need to be smart and carry on the mission of nuclear power for a sustainable future, learning from our mistakes. Likewise, I don't stop driving my gasoline powered automobile when I hear about an oil refinery accident. Let us be smart, but let us also be sensible and realistic.

What he doesn't go into is that our "energy needs" are ridiculously high to begin with & practically everything around us & our day to day lives use entirely too much of it. So what he's talking about is to basically stay the course, keep our cities sprawled out to no end, keep building cheap inefficient homes, gas powered cars & to keep sucking from that grid like there's no tomorrow.

"Hey, we gotta get more of that sweet grid-juice flowing! Let's build more safe nuclear plants & do some more tricky drilling in deep water. It's the only way, folks! We'll of course be charging you for it & maybe f'ing up the land, sea & air sometimes. That would be very minor though, and probably won't happen anyway. Yeah, it won't. It's not like there's been any unprecedented oil leaks or nuclear incidents lately. OK, let's do it!"

Sorry, I've read a million of these opinion pieces lately (and that's what they are) & they're pretty much cop-out easy-solution BS. They never address the real problems, and that's that our system is old & broken.

-They never talk about forcing any new homes being built to adhere to super strict energy code (no more cheap cookie cutter's put together with bubble gum & scotch tape).

-They never talk about how installing a modest 3 kilowatt solar system (about $7K total after current incentives) together with energy efficient appliances will basically power your entire home for free & how they could easily add that in to the cost of new homes (and retrofit current ones).

-They never talk about how electric cars could be charged for free from these systems & other roadside charging systems using similar tech.

-They never talk about using simple & modern rainwater catchers to use for most of your watering needs (and even drinkable with the right filters).

-They never talk about how our public transportation is completely busted & basically non-existent.

-They never talk about how in most communities, you're not even allowed to grow your own food.

So, I'm not buying any of this BS. This isn't rocket science & it's not at all hard to do. You know it, I know it, everyone reading this knows it. But for some reason we don't do it. Hmmm.

The reason why none of these guys are rooting for these things is because that means no one gets paid anymore & an entire industry will shrink/eventually go away. There's no money in people being able to live off the grid & growing their own food. Think about all the energy companies in the world, how much money they all generate & how much influence they have over this stuff, law makers, etc. They're really the most powerful people in the world & they'll fight it to the bitter end (and they'll probably win). They've won so far, and its been generations we've known all this stuff & could have fixed it, or been much MUCH further along than we are.

The point is, no one's made a real push for these things. No leaders, no one. They COULD, but they haven't. Jimmy Carter was basically the last one who tried, and you see how that worked out for him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePpMxJaA

So I don't know what it'll take. Either a major energy catastrophe, us simply running out of coal or oil (if that's even possible), who knows. What will probably end up happening is that the private sector will start pumping millions of dollars into this (like Google is now doing) & it'll get so cheap on it's own that it'll be a no-brainer.

Way to inspire!

It's pretty clear the guys in charge of this are lying through their teeth (or at least withholding some major info). I think it's already been confirmed from satellite & independent watchdogs that those spent fuel rods are already exposed & a big chunk of them blew sky high when reactor 3 went up in that mushroom cloud. They obviously knew the rods were being stored there (near the roof), but they didn't say that. Hell, you can see them in the footage of the explosion.

Remember when BP tried to tell us everything was cool & there was only a small bit of oil leaking, only to find out that their little internal estimate there were way WAY underestimated? Remember when they said the Gulf was "clean", but tar balls are still washing up on the beaches to this day (and so are dead marine life)? We seeing a pattern here?? All these guys are the same lowlifes, no matter what country they're in or what type of utility it is. They'd dig up & desecrate the corpse of their own grandmas if it meant getting at some energy to sell to people.

Now, they're pretty much admitting what we've all known for days (or those of us who don't have our heads in the sand & see through the lies): That this thing is outta control.

QuoteJapan Weighs Need To Bury Nuclear Plant

TOKYO (Reuters) â€" Japanese engineers conceded on Friday that burying a crippled nuclear plant in sand and concrete may be a last resort to prevent a catastrophic radiation release, the method used to seal huge leakages from Chernobyl in 1986.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/us-japan-quake-idUSTRE72A0SS20110318

Quote from: peestandingup on March 17, 2011, 04:12:35 PM
What he doesn't go into is that our "energy needs" are ridiculously high to begin with & practically everything around us & our day to day lives use entirely too much of it. So what he's talking about is to basically stay the course, keep our cities sprawled out to no end, keep building cheap inefficient homes, gas powered cars & to keep sucking from that grid like there's no tomorrow.

"Hey, we gotta get more of that sweet grid-juice flowing! Let's build more safe nuclear plants & do some more tricky drilling in deep water. It's the only way, folks! We'll of course be charging you for it & maybe f'ing up the land, sea & air sometimes. That would be very minor though, and probably won't happen anyway. Yeah, it won't. It's not like there's been any unprecedented oil leaks or nuclear incidents lately. OK, let's do it!"

Sorry, I've read a million of these opinion pieces lately (and that's what they are) & they're pretty much cop-out easy-solution BS. They never address the real problems, and that's that our system is old & broken.

-They never talk about forcing any new homes being built to adhere to super strict energy code (no more cheap cookie cutter's put together with bubble gum & scotch tape).

-They never talk about how installing a modest 3 kilowatt solar system (about $7K total after current incentives) together with energy efficient appliances will basically power your entire home for free & how they could easily add that in to the cost of new homes (and retrofit current ones).

-They never talk about how electric cars could be charged for free from these systems & other roadside charging systems using similar tech.

-They never talk about using simple & modern rainwater catchers to use for most of your watering needs (and even drinkable with the right filters).

-They never talk about how our public transportation is completely busted & basically non-existent.

-They never talk about how in most communities, you're not even allowed to grow your own food.

So, I'm not buying any of this BS. This isn't rocket science & it's not at all hard to do. You know it, I know it, everyone reading this knows it. But for some reason we don't do it. Hmmm.

The reason why none of these guys are rooting for these things is because that means no one gets paid anymore & an entire industry will shrink/eventually go away. There's no money in people being able to live off the grid & growing their own food. Think about all the energy companies in the world, how much money they all generate & how much influence they have over this stuff, law makers, etc. They're really the most powerful people in the world & they'll fight it to the bitter end (and they'll probably win). They've won so far, and its been generations we've known all this stuff & could have fixed it, or been much MUCH further along than we are.

The point is, no one's made a real push for these things. No leaders, no one. They COULD, but they haven't. Jimmy Carter was basically the last one who tried, and you see how that worked out for him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePpMxJaA

So I don't know what it'll take. Either a major energy catastrophe, us simply running out of coal or oil (if that's even possible), who knows. What will probably end up happening is that the private sector will start pumping millions of dollars into this (like Google is now doing) & it'll get so cheap on it's own that it'll be a no-brainer.

Thanks for the words...Not until we stop the waist and start thinking forward will our energy issues be under control. I can't believe we are still burning coal!

As much as I am shocked to be in agreement with Pee or GG on most anything, there is much truth to the previous posts.  It really is up to us to control our energy use.  While this may be inconvenient, it bodes well for both our personal finances as well as energy independence for our country.  There really is no reason that our governments, which seem to subsidize every widget and whim, can't provide a substantial tax break for installing solar systems on our homes and businesses.   The same for wind (where applicable).   I'm not a fan of the current crop of hybrids and electric cars due to the (relatively) short life of the batteries,  but our automotive engine technologies can cut our transportation fuel use by 25-40% RIGHT NOW.  Of course, we will still need hydrocarbon fuels and power plants and increased capacity, but we must be efficient.  Government blocking new construction refineries and domestic drilling is just stupid, and plays to fear.  We should step back and take a big look at our systems.  We need to utilize diesel technology and support that use with tax credits.  While I am a supporter of nuclear power and it's future, it cannot currently compete on price with natural gas for electrical power generation in this country.

Quote from: NotNow on March 18, 2011, 11:05:36 AM
As much as I am shocked to be in agreement with Pee or GG on most anything, there is much truth to the previous posts.  It really is up to us to control our energy use.  While this may be inconvenient, it bodes well for both our personal finances as well as energy independence for our country.  There really is no reason that our governments, which seem to subsidize every widget and whim, can't provide a substantial tax break for installing solar systems on our homes and businesses.   The same for wind (where applicable).   I'm not a fan of the current crop of hybrids and electric cars due to the (relatively) short life of the batteries,  but our automotive engine technologies can cut our transportation fuel use by 25-40% RIGHT NOW.  Of course, we will still need hydrocarbon fuels and power plants and increased capacity, but we must be efficient.  Government blocking new construction refineries and domestic drilling is just stupid, and plays to fear.  We should step back and take a big look at our systems.  We need to utilize diesel technology and support that use with tax credits.  While I am a supporter of nuclear power and it's future, it cannot currently compete on price with natural gas for electrical power generation in this country.

Thanks. With problems like these, I tend to take a step back & look at the broad spectrum instead of the just the here & now, or what we could do to put a band-aid on things (cause that's what we've been doing). And it's like you said, this is NOTHING that we can't start making significant impacts to curb. Those things I mentioned are so easy for us to do, but we don't do them. And we should have been for decades now.

And I hate to keep bringing Jimmy carter up. I mean, I don't necessarily think he was even a good President, but my God. He had is SO right with this. 30 years later, it's almost haunting to listen to him talk about this:

His famous "Malaise Speech":

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7ysc1P1sH4
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXvGKJF2XQU
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aOMNgxRF2M
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xivhdO_LbGw

Part 3 & 4 are especially troubling. You can hear in his voice & see in his eyes how much this bothered him & how much he believed we were on the path of self-destruction with our energy consumption, lack of exploring alternatives & crappy public transit options. Seems to me the he was laying it down straight up to the American people, but they didn't wanna hear it.

This is an interesting graph:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/LLNL_US_Energy_Flow_2009.png/800px-LLNL_US_Energy_Flow_2009.png)

Full Size: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/LLNL_US_Energy_Flow_2009.png