Nuclear Power

****

What's your opinion on nuclear power?

My opinion is that is sounds nice on the surface, but I see it as a short term solution that creates many very long term problems... only one of which I'll cover hear due to this article I just read...

Nuclear waste piling up at U.S. hospitals

Quote:

Tubes, capsules and pellets of used radioactive material are piling up in the basements and locked closets of hospitals and research installations around the country, stoking fears they could get lost or, worse, stolen by terrorists and turned into dirty bombs.

Mind you, this is just hospital waste that has no place to go. Where on Earth would we put all the waste generated by nuclear power plants if it's decided that we need more nuclear power plants?!?! (I think there currently is a ban on creating new nuclear plants, but there are many talks about lifting that ban.) I don't know of anyone who would actually volunteer to have garbage stored in their backyard much less nuclear waste, so even if we build the plants, where will we put the waste?

I know the theory is that we'd bury all nuclear waste in a mountain somewhere like Yucca Mountain. Even if we do find a 100% safe place to store the nuclear waste (which isn't possible in the world we live in) that isn't in anyone's back yard, we still have to GET the waste to that storage place. Who wants to be driving down the freeway next to a semi full of spent nuclear fuel rods? Or have a train rolling by that contains nuclear waste? Or a plane flying over head with nuclear waste in it? We all know that cars, planes, and trains crash on occasion or on purpose with the help of sick individuals. Is this a risk we want to take?

Anywho, even though coal power is dirty, we have plenty of coal, it brings business to the railroads (YEAH!) and I think it's a much better idea to think of ways to scrub the exhaust from a coal fired plant than it is to build a very expensive nuclear plant and create a bigger problem for generations to come. Of course, I'd prefer that we get more of our power from alternate sources like the sun, wind, etc., but in the short term, I really don't think nuclear power is the way to go.

Ok... off my soapbox now. :zzzz:

(And a nice photo thrown in for some visual content

)

***

Well, we in the USA should do what the French, whom get over 70% of their electric power from nuclear, do with their spent nuclear power plant fuel assemblies (and what President Carter outlawed in the USA with a MORONIC executive order back in the late 1970s :censor:

) - reprocess them into new fuel assemblies. Since about 98 or so percent of the original fuel isotopes are STILL THERE when it is 'spent' (the two or so percent of the material that is waste isotopes renders the power plant reaction impossible), removing that two percent and then reusing the rest only makes perfect sense and will virtually eliminate that 'waste' issue.

:blowup:

Mike

****½

mgk920 wrote:

Well, we in the USA should do what the French, whom get over 70% of their electric power from nuclear, do with their spent nuclear power plant fuel assemblies (and what President Carter outlawed in the USA with a MORONIC executive order back in the late 1970s :censor:

) - reprocess them into new fuel assemblies. Since about 98 or so percent of the original fuel isotopes are STILL THERE when it is 'spent' (the two or so percent of the material that is waste isotopes renders the power plant reaction impossible), removing that two percent and then reusing the rest only makes perfect sense and will virtually eliminate that 'waste' issue.

:blowup:

Sounds like a good idea to me! Just gotta get rid of that moronic executive order (why??? :banghead:

) -- heck, get rid of just about everything that Carter put in place??!! -- and we're good to go. Recycling is a good thing! And nuclear power could be almost limitless just recycling the current "stash" of "spent" fuel assemblies! Nuclear power -- not unlike most oil drilling -- is considerably safer than some would have you believe, especially considering all current technologies.

As for other power needs, I still like coal. Natural gas seems to be too volatile in price to consider further conversions of existing coal plants, though the transport of coal using diesel (i.e. via rail or barge) is also subject to some cost volatility. Wind and solar power have their limits. Hydroelectric could probably be an option in a few other places, but is probably somewhat inaccessible due to the current regulatory climate.

One way or another, somethin' probably needs to be done... **==

***½

As far as transporting nuclear waste via truck or train...

It's not a big deal. The vessels that the waste is carried in are built better than most anything and have repeatedly stood up to catastrophic damage testing. Both the US and UK have tested them with high speed impact testing, rollovers etc and they haven't been breached.

If anything, I am concerned about the human factor at the plants themselves. The technology and machinery aren't usually the issue...lazy/inept/sleeping humans are :#notworking:

****

Sources: Obama cuts funds for Nevada nuclear dump

Quote:

By cutting the waste program, said Reid in a statement, Obama has taken "a critical first step toward fulfilling his promise to end the Yucca Mountain project ... President Obama recognizes that the proposed dump threatens the health and safety of Nevadans and millions of Americans."

So, if Yucca Mountain wasn't a safe place to put spent nuclear waste, what place is safe????? The moon and the sun are the only two places I can think of and I doubt Obama has plans to use either.

***½

Todd M Taylor wrote:

Sources: Obama cuts funds for Nevada nuclear dump

Quote:

By cutting the waste program, said Reid in a statement, Obama has taken "a critical first step toward fulfilling his promise to end the Yucca Mountain project ... President Obama recognizes that the proposed dump threatens the health and safety of Nevadans and millions of Americans."

So, if Yucca Mountain wasn't a safe place to put spent nuclear waste, what place is safe????? The moon and the sun are the only two places I can think of and I doubt Obama has plans to use either.

It's sad that Obama is cutting funding to Yucca Mountain. It really makes sense to have all of our "spent" nuclear waste in one area. I would think it's much easier to have fairly tough security at one site rather than hundreds of smaller sites.

Really the solution to our nuclear waste problem is to allow us to start to recycle the waste, since if I remember correctly 96 or 98% of the rod is still usable.

****½

KC9FSH wrote:

Really the solution to our nuclear waste problem is to allow us to start to recycle the waste, since if I remember correctly 96 or 98% of the rod is still usable.

****

KC9FSH wrote:

Really the solution to our nuclear waste problem is to allow us to start to recycle the waste, since if I remember correctly 96 or 98% of the rod is still usable.

I've heard recycling spent fuel rods, but I have to wonder how safe this is for the people who have to do it? Is there any 'safe' way to work with radioactive materials all day so that you don't find yourself with cancer because of your job? If I'm not mistaken, mining for radioactive materials is often done at the expense of the worker's health. It's awfully hard to keep the workers from being exposed to radio active elements in a mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mi ... ium_mining

***

Well, recycling that waste will substantially cut down on the demand on mines for new uranium (remember that about 98% of the original fuel isotopes are still there when the fuel rods are 'spent') and fresh power plant fuel rods and pellets or only mildly radioactive (nearly safe enough to handle with bare hands). It's that 2% in the waste that is dangerous and there are plenty of precautions in place to allow for the safe handling of that.

It is incredibly moronic that we are continuing to allow our national leadership to put political and envirnmental wackoism over plain old common sense here.

:blowup:

Mike

***½

mgk920 wrote:

Well, recycling that waste will substantially cut down on the demand on mines for new uranium (remember that about 98% of the original fuel isotopes are still there when the fuel rods are 'spent') and fresh power plant fuel rods and pellets or only mildly radioactive (nearly safe enough to handle with bare hands). It's that 2% in the waste that is dangerous and there are plenty of precautions in place to allow for the safe handling of that.

It is incredibly moronic that we are continuing to allow our national leadership to put political and envirnmental wackoism over plain old common sense here.

:blowup:

Mike

****

It's sad that you can't use the words "common sense" in a positive light with regard to elected officials.

****½

CNW 6000 wrote:

It's sad that you can't use the words "common sense" in a positive light with regard to elected officials.

****

For those of you who think nuclear power is "safe", go to the 5 minute mark of this video:

http://www.tangle.com/view_video.php?vi ... ea1ceb73e4

The entire video is quite scary.

****½

Todd M Taylor wrote:

The entire video is quite scary.

Meh, doesn't sound particularly threatening to me. Rednecks bombing a nuclear power plant? I mean, really??? I also thought that the part about the Koran saying that Israel fighting with the Arabs/Muslims(?) was eternal was kind of enlightening. Maybe Israel just needs to go ahead and start really fighting with them, conquering them, etc. Unfortunately, their track record so far just has them rolling over and giving in, so I don't expect anything more spectacular anytime soon. Boo.

***

If I was president that entire section of the world would be unpopulated right now.

The Fuzzy World 3um

Nuclear Power

Who is online