No.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

Electricity that is generated by burning of fossil fuels is obviously dangerous.  Pollution, environmental degradation, global warming, etc.  We are possibly already past the point of no return in the regards to the damage that we have caused by burning fossil fuels.

It takes a long period of time to build a nulear power plant from scratch.  We will not be able to get nuclear plants on line in a short period of time. I say the sooner we build any alternative sources of electricity,the better.  Wind, solar, hydro-electric sources have limited capacity at this time.  I hope that the efficiency of these sources can be increased and become more practical.

Chernobyl was the biggest nuclear disaster known to date and so far the environment in the area, devoid of human impact, appears to be in better condition than the environments in the areas of coal burners and the like.

I dont have the answer for the possibility of nuclear WMD's being proliferated because of the increased availability of radioactive materials.

I do believe that we can safely store and recycle radioactive wastes without causing environmental damage if the public demands rigid and continuing safety oversight.

Because of the lack of other efficient electrical sources; I unfortunately believe that nuclear power is our only solution for providing the energy that will be required in the near future.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

There are a number of other issues in regard to the transit of these materials, be it from outside of the State or during intrastate transfers.

(i)                   Consideration and respect needs to be shown to those suburbs, towns, regions and Local Government areas that have declared themselves Nuclear Free and do not wish to have these substances transported across their boundaries.

(ii)                 The method of transfer also needs to be addressed. It is not simply a question of putting this material onto the back of a truck and dispatching it to a destination as with other goods and materials. The storage containers, the safety of those along the route and the security of the shipments will need close scrutiny.

Other means of dealing with the radioactive waste  needs to be investigated. Our consumer orientated society is addicted to the “use once and throw away” mentality. What of the potential for reharnessing the energy contained in the wastes? More emphasis should be placed on recycling nuclear waste to meet future energy needs.

(from SAF Position Statement 2001)

 [ accepted]

scale:

or for low yield electricity generation (ie the equivalent of standard solar collectors or lead-acid battery banks) ... imagine the isolated communities (which already run on 24 volt DC power) having enough to grow into sizable communities ...

I'm pretty sure those absorbers do become radioactive themselves. And they do not absorb all the radiation. A nuclear plant uses two luiquids to transport the heat. The first - a lquid metal I think, absorbs the radiation and heats up and is then cycled to a heat exchanger where it is used to boil water before being sent back into the nuclear reactor bit.

 [ send green star]

and you only need a conducting coil and a magnet ... with one of them rotating ... to get electricity ...

Yes, but you still need to get something rotating. You can't just plug the axle of the generator into a block of radioactive material.

wind power doesn't use steam ...

Because the energy is already in the form of mechanical energy. You can just plug the axle of the generator into the trubine, though a few gears would help.

 [ send green star]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19216232-29277,00.html

AUSTRALIA'S push towards nuclear power generation could heighten the risk of a terrorist attack, Labor [opposition] MP Kelvin Thomson said today.

 [ send green star]

PGE to implode Trojan tower at end of May 03:34 PM PDT on Sunday, May 14, 2006By SARAH SKIDMORE, AP Writer 

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

Bring it down!

 [ accepted]

Oh, be quiet, fish guy.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

Only if you keep up with the South Park references.

That I have respect for.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19337392-23109,00.html

A GREENPEACE activist today flew an ultralight aircraft over a French nuclear plant to highlight its vulnerability to a September 11-style attack from the skies.

"Despite what the authorities say, no one has time to react if someone seeks to attack the plant from the air," he said, adding that the activist had flown within 100 metres of the reactor in the western town of Flamanville.

 [ send green star]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5-2217732,00.html

MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, the former Soviet leader, warned Britain and other countries to “look before you leap” before building more nuclear power stations.

Instead, Western governments and businessmen should pool their efforts in the search for non-traditional sources of energy and make more effort to use energy efficiently, he said.

 [ send green star]

Whoever 'cracks it' on Cold Fusion will be sainted

Does anyone know where current research is on this one?

 [ accepted]

Good Morning Free, et al

Wow, the only thing we need to do with nuclear is to figure out what to do with the waste.  There have been far too many accidents involving the inefficient electric generating plants.  How do you spell Chernoble? Three Mile Island? and how many of these facilities are built on fault lines?

We need to decentralize electric power.  Create local generating plants for the neighborhood...it doesn't have to travel miles to 100's + miles with loss of energy to increase the costs.  How many executives are we paying for when we pay for the centralized power???  How many Enrons are out there? 

Solar, photo-voltaic, wind, electro-magnetic, hydrogen, bio-diesel, and ethanol, etc., are some of the options that should have and can be the focus for our needs now.  Why go down the most dangerous path (nuclear) when there are other non-toxic less expensive opportunities.  We need to advance the use of these other methods for decentralizing the power.  The options could focus on 12-24 volt appliances and lighting. 

Don't let the slick sales people convince you that what they are selling, expensive nuclear waste is their way to go. It is their way to go.  Don't buy into it.  BS!!! Cow poop... dung!  We need to reward (R & D) the newer alternative methods, not the old waste methods.  Buy into their pitch and they'll be laughing all the way to the bank as we are crying in our spoiled soup, nuclear waste. 

Have you checked your radiation level lately???  Chlorophyll will help to neutralize radiation poisoning, xrays, etc. 

It is time to wake up and smell the flowers we do have.  Spencer  Peace!!!

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

There does not appear to be any way to make nuclear energy safe, although the danger can be somewhat minimalized. If we look at actual fatalities related to nuclear energy, we find the number is relatively low, especially when compared to coal-related deaths. (Here we must add the human cost of mining, including both mine accidents and black-lung disease, not to mention global warming and smog).

Nuclear energy does present the POTENTIAL for major disaster, both in the plants themselves (design failure, human error, terrorist attack) and due to wastes. With a half-life of about 90,000,000 years, there is no way we can guarantee that spent uranium can be stored adequately.

Making nuclear power relatively safe also makes it outrageously expensive. It was the expense involved, and not safety issues per se, that caused the nuclear industry in the United States to cease construction of new plants in the 1980s.

As Spencer notes, concentration of power production in huge plants implies centralization. Distribution of electricity over a territory as large as the United States then requires the construction of a costly network of high power lines. Centralized production in the U.S. today is basically a result of Reagan's deregulation of the industry, an industry which still has not invested in improving its distribution network. These two factors are the main cause of the recent power shortages in Queens and California.

Renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, tidal, and geo-thermal tend to be small scale. They do not easily fit into a nation-wide distribution network, but are better suited to addressing local needs.

No method of generating electricity is without its downside, but alternatives to coal, petroleum, and nuclear power offer many advantages over the first three.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

There are already a couple nuclear operation plants that have broke ground in Texas. I think others are approved by NRC but have not broke ground yet.  I think they are waiting to see the response to the Texas plants.   

Here is the question I have for those that oppose nuclear power, what do we do for electricity? 

Is hydro/solar/wind feasible to start building next year, given sufficient capital, to produce profitable facilities that meet the needs to replace nuclear and fossil fuel? 

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

That's an interesting point. I've heard an idea, probably far-fetched, of sending solar panels into space to collect radiation, and then beaming the energy to earth via microwave beams. The point was that solar energy is more concentrated when it hasn't had to go through the atmosphere. It probably wouldn't make sense given the costs (economic and environmental) of getting the solar panels up there and maintaining them. But it may make sense for nuclear. Although if the plant exploded you may still end up with radiactive material getting into the atmosphere, but I would imagine that if you could get it far enough away then even if it did explode it would not end up on earth. And if it broke down and got left up there the radiactivity would decay by the time it fell from the sky.

But it would still be a lot cheaper to find a safe way to do it on earth.

 [ send green star]

Nuclear is not safe.  Coal or any other fossil fuel is not safe.  And so on, they're not safe.  There are no exceptions, everything in life has risks.

The best we can do is minimize the risks and the costs.  And that includes all the "externalized" costs too.  The externalized costs of oil include the massive military expenses - in money and in lives - needed to keep the oil flowing.  Our mideast adventures may result in a devastating war with multi-millions killed and perhaps whole nations destroyed, all traceable back to our use of oil.

Plus of course the spectre of global warming, we have no idea how severe it may affect life on earth as we know it.  It is neither ethical nor moral to for one species - humans - to risk extinction of thousands of other species just so we can keep our gadgets going.

In that light, nuclear may not look so bad.  One, it causes no global warming.  Two, it doesn't impinge on the lives of people on the other side of the earth who get no benefit from our electricity. 

Chernobyl was bad, but tiny compared with a mideast war or even the damage associated with 200 years of coal in this country.

In my view, nuclear is risky but it's the best option.  Doesn't it make sense for those who benefit from the electricity be the ones who take the risk?

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

I've been  in on so many of these discussions, citing articles and evidence that Nuclear Waste Storage is NOT and will NOT ever be safe.  This time I'll just weigh in with my unsupported opinion.

NO

Jim Gagnepain

http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

I just joined the group a few moments ago.  I realize that this was an old topic of discussion, but it is the one I wanted to chime in on.

I grew up in a nuclear family.  My father was the General Manager of one of hte nuclear power plants (and later VP), and I spent a little over 9 years in the Navy as a reactor operator/reactor technician.  I also spect 6 years after that working at OSU with Westinghouse on their latest reactor plant model.

Not all reactor designs are safe...that much is obvious to most everyone.  The design used by the Soviets was an accident waiting to happen, one that the IAEA warned them about, and which ultimately came to pass.  That design used graphite as the moderator (the substance that slows fast neutrons from fission to become thermal neutrons capable of causing another fission, at least for U-235).  The design used a separate medium (a gas) for the removel and transfer of thermal every from the core to the rest of the system.  This alone was inherently unsafe, in that a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) would not in itself shut down the reactor.

The US uses PWR, or Pressurized Light-Water Reactors.  In these, the moderator and the coolant are one in the same.  A LOCA removes the ability to slow down the neutrons and therefore greatly slows the fission rate (it never stops, but it can be slow enough to be negligable).  US plants also have a containment dome made of reinforced concrete that can withstand intense earthquakes and even a direct hit by a 747 (among others).  If the Soviets had used a containment dome (as the IAEA recommended) no one would have been hurt, contaminated, or irradiated by the accident.  Unfortunately for many that was not the case.

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) worked with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to get them to finally stop jerking around the utilities.  All through the 60's and 70's the NRC, at the insistance of the politicians, would constantly make changes to the requirements for the reactor,s team, and associated systems.  These changes caused delays in construction, overruns in budget from redesign, and in many cases, caused the utilities to simply give up (take WPPSS as a prime example).

There is a prevailing, albeit incorrect, assumption that it is possible to make something absolutely safe.  Not possible.  Not with cars, not with airplanes, not even bicycles and bathtubs.  And not with nuclear reactor plants.  It is a reasonable and rational compromise between cost and acceptible risk.  That has been achieved with the reactor plant designs.  Event TMI, though the core was damaged and no longer usable, did not hurt anyone, nor was there any increase in the natural background radiation level anywhere around the plant.  None.

Westinghouse, as well as others like GE, have developed advanced, passive, safety systems.  The plant design we worked on at OSU in the 90's was AP600 (it had a 600 MW output).  The safety systems were all passive, meaning that nothing external had to happen in order for the safety systems to function: no pumps required to turn on, no diesels required to start up, nada.  We tested every conceivable LOCA and not once was the core uncovered or allowed to overheat.  In fact, the operations staff could literally walk away for two weeks and no damage would occur.

Even after we completed the testing required by the NRC for Westinghouse to obtain the license, we did further testing at the request of the NRC to see what it would take to achieve core damage.  We couldn't do it.  Not because we weren't smart or clever enough, but because the system was so well designed that the core always stayed covered with water, and that water always removed the heat generated.

The Westinghouse design also called for a modular construction of the entire site.  This construction could be competed in five years...not the 10-12 that previous sites required.

I urge each of you to check out the new advanced plant designs.  Just Google AP600 (or AP1000, the latest version).  Nuclear power generates no greenhouse gases...just steam (well, water vapor, to be more correct).  Also, the mere fact of mining uranium means that it will not be in the ground decaying into radon, which is a problem.  These palnts have no ill effect on their environment...not like oil and coal plants.

The last problem is the waste.  Storage is not the solution...it never was.  The solution is reprocessing of the fuel material.  The spent fuel is never all spent.  Because of the buildup of other fission products (like Xe-135), it is not possible to actually use up all of the loaded fuel.  Reprocessing will allow for that unspent fuel to be used elsewhere...recycling.

The spent fuel also includes amy useful radioisotopes that can be used in medice and various forms of research.  These can be extracted and sold, helping to defray the cost of the reprocessing.

After reprocessing, the amount of high-level waste material would fit under a card table from one-year's operation of a large reactor plant.  Turn this into glass and store it somewhere.  Being glass it cannot and will not erode or corrode, and therefore will never enter the groundwater system.

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]

yes the  American nuke  navy  has  for  years, but  it  is  very  expensive...and  the  total  costs  IE  long term storage of waste  are  unknown

Z

 [ send green star]

 [ accepted]