Nuclear Power - A Solution To America's Energy Needs?

[Shwaz]

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/

But 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.

When 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.

Even 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/

Q: 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.

[BridgeTroll]

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.

[Shwaz]

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

Such 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.)

[cityimrov]

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.  

[BridgeTroll]

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

Fear'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."

[urbanlibertarian]

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.

[finehoe]

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

[north miami]

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.

[cityimrov]

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.

[BridgeTroll]

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

Florida 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."

[BridgeTroll]

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

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

Why 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.

[peestandingup]

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.

[buckethead]

Way to inspire!

[peestandingup]

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.

Japan 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

[Garden guy]

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!