Nuclear Energy

[dwagner88]

I just applied for an internship at TVA working at the Bellefonte plant in north Alabama. It isn't functional right now, but they were anticipating have 2 units up by 2014. Bet that doesn't happen now. I know of a few students that work at the Sequoyah plant in north Hamilton county. That would be a huge mess if it ever had a leakage. Upwards of 500,000 people in SE TN and N GA. would need to be evacuated.

[toastido]

I just applied for an internship at TVA working at the Bellefonte plant in north Alabama. It isn't functional right now, but they were anticipating have 2 units up by 2014. Bet that doesn't happen now. I know of a few students that work at the Sequoyah plant in north Hamilton county. That would be a huge mess if it ever had a leakage. Upwards of 500,000 people in SE TN and N GA. would need to be evacuated.

According to local officials, the Bellefonte plant is still on schedule.  That will make two Nuclear power plants in N AL when all is said and done (within 75 miles of each other), and 4 plants within 200 miles of each other in the Tennessee Valley.

[ajatwister]

According to local officials, the Bellefonte plant is still on schedule.  That will make two Nuclear power plants in N AL when all is said and done (within 75 miles of each other), and 4 plants within 200 miles of each other in the Tennessee Valley.

I personally have a huge issue with nuclear power. Its just way to complex and isn't safe, nor helpful for the environment. We really need to get our $#@! together and move to green power.

And as for CNN and other cable news, i woulnt take them to seriously but keep in mind whats happening and could happen. They sometimes exaggerate issues such as this.

[bugalou]

I personally have a huge issue with nuclear power. Its just way to complex and isn't safe, nor helpful for the environment. We really need to get our $#@! together and move to green power.

And as for CNN and other cable news, i woulnt take them to seriously but keep in mind whats happening and could happen. They sometimes exaggerate issues such as this.

I disagree.  Solar/wind/hydro just can't produce the amount of energy that nuclear can when you compare initial investment as well as energy produced per square foot.  I do think that we need to look at better ways of utilizing nuclear energy though.  Our fear of nuclear has stifled innovation in this field and we are basically using the same technology we had 30+ years ago.  Short of a full blown anti-matter solution (which is waaaaaay far off), nuclear is our only real way to get continuous, high yield and relatively clean energy (when done right).

Bill Gates did a TED talk on a new type of nuclear reactor his charity is investing in that actually utilizes the spent fuel from existing nuclear technology and its much cleaner and more safe.  I recommend that everyone check it out:

TED Talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/bill_gates.html

Wikipedia Article on the technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

[JayCee]

Until we learn how to make splitting the atom safe and reduce the waste left behind (like the rods that were in reactor #4 in Japan), I think the nuclear option should be pulled off the table altogether.  Yes, we need energy, but perhaps the problem isn't that we can't make enough with current technology, but that we simply consume too much.  Humans are energy hogs.    Yeah, I know, I know...I sound like a hippie, but I'm not of that generation.  I simply believe that the earth can't sustain our level of consumption.  I mean, come on...have you ever seen Las Vegas at night?  Wassup with that?  Why does a city in the desert need to leave all the lights on all the time, and have fountains of water in every hotel, and green lawns in the suburbs?  Just one example of our blatant misuse of energy.  We don't put enough effort into conserving, so before I listen to an argument stating that we NEED nuclear power to meet our BASIC energy needs, someone needs to turn off the lights in Sin City.  

[bugalou]

Until we learn how to make splitting the atom safe and reduce the waste left behind (like the rods that were in reactor #4 in Japan), I think the nuclear option should be pulled off the table altogether.  Yes, we need energy, but perhaps the problem isn't that we can't make enough with current technology, but that we simply consume too much.  Humans are energy hogs.    Yeah, I know, I know...I sound like a hippie, but I'm not of that generation.  I simply believe that the earth can't sustain our level of consumption.  I mean, come on...have you ever seen Las Vegas at night?  Wassup with that?  Why does a city in the desert need to leave all the lights on all the time, and have fountains of water in every hotel, and green lawns in the suburbs?  Just one example of our blatant misuse of energy.  We don't put enough effort into conserving, so before I listen to an argument stating that we NEED nuclear power to meet our BASIC energy needs, someone needs to turn off the lights in Sin City.  

Sure, but then you get into the argument about "I bought the energy, I can do whatever the **** I want to do with it."  I mean just look at the bill Michelle Bachmann is sponsoring a bill that would lift the upcoming ban on old style incandescent light bulbs.  I don't buy into that school of thought personally and completely agree we need to do a better job conserving.  My money is where my mouth is as well as I have just installed motion sensor light switches, timer switches, and CFLs all over my house and also plan on getting a tank less water heater in the near future.  With that said, nuclear can't just go away and one can not deny the positives of it versus other forms of energy production.  We just need to put more effort and money into research and stop using largely 30 year old technology.

I suppose this thread could be one of it's own over in politics if a mod feels like splitting it off.

[Charles L.]

This thread is where the discussion over nuclear power will take place, it will keep the other thread from getting clogged up as more reports are posted today concerning Japan.

[toastido]

This thread is where the discussion over nuclear power will take place, it will keep the other thread from getting clogged up as more reports are posted today concerning Japan.

Good idea.  There were a couple posts you mised, so I moved them, too.  I'll link this thread into the other thread so that people know to post here.

[JayCee]

Sure, but then you get into the argument about "I bought the energy, I can do whatever the **** I want to do with it."  I mean just look at the bill Michelle Bachmann is sponsoring a bill that would lift the upcoming ban on old style incandescent light bulbs.  I don't buy into that school of thought personally and completely agree we need to do a better job conserving.  My money is where my mouth is as well as I have just installed motion sensor light switches, timer switches, and CFLs all over my house and also plan on getting a tank less water heater in the near future.  With that said, nuclear can't just go away and one can not deny the positives of it versus other forms of energy production.  We just need to put more effort and money into research and stop using largely 30 year old technology.

I suppose this thread could be one of it's own over in politics if a mod feels like splitting it off.

I guess it's all about risk vs reward.  Are the risks with nuclear power worth the amount of energy we get from using it?  What percentage of energy used by humans is rec'd from it?  Is it enough to justify the risks?  If the human race is willing to take the gamble using technology that can potentially cause great harm to us and the earth, then fine.  But when it all goes to he** after an accident or disaster happens, then we have to accept the outcome.  I for one, don't think it's worth it.  Just my  
One could argue the same thing concerning coal, oil, or any form of energy.  We have to take some risks, but is the REWARD big enough to justify what can happen if a worst case scenario occurs?  Oil can be cleaned up, or absorbed by nature over time, but radioactive waste lasts thousands of years.
http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/nuclear_waste_body.html

[bugalou]

I guess it's all about risk vs reward.  Are the risks with nuclear power worth the amount of energy we get from using it?  What percentage of energy used by humans is rec'd from it?  Is it enough to justify the risks?  If the human race is willing to take the gamble using technology that can potentially cause great harm to us and the earth, then fine.  But when it all goes to he** after an accident or disaster happens, then we have to accept the outcome.  I for one, don't think it's worth it.  Just my  
One could argue the same thing concerning coal, oil, or any form of energy.  We have to take some risks, but is the REWARD big enough to justify what can happen if a worst case scenario occurs?  Oil can be cleaned up, or absorbed by nature over time, but radioactive waste lasts thousands of years.
http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/nuclear_waste_body.html

Did you read the link about the traveling wave reactor?  It uses the spend nuclear fuel as fuel and the by products are largely inert.  What isn't inert can be reused in the reactor as fuel.
Coal/oil are in limited supply, so that is my biggest argument against them.  I am also not saying we forget about solar, hydro/tidal, or wind either, but those solutions alone cannot sustain our energy demands.  I am also not saying we start churning out new nuke plants all over today.  We need to do further (and well over due) research and make some break throughs in the technology before deploying more plants.  That said, considering the amount of nuclear plants in the world already, we have too many cards on the table to pull the plug on it now.

[dwagner88]

If you want green energy, nuclear is the best option for this area. It isn't windy enough here for windmills, and it isn't sunny enough for solar to work on a widespread level. TVA plan to phase out all of its fossil fuel plants over the coming decades either by converting coal powered plants to nuclear or by replacing those plants with nuclear plants. That started with watts bar coming back online and continues with bellefonte. The danger with nuclear comes when the plants aren't designed properly for their surroundings. Incidents like Chernobyl and three mile island changed the way we operate reactors (realistically it took away a lot of human control to eliminate the human error that caused those two incidents). Building a coastal plant where tsunamis are expected obviously wasn't smart. The plants in the Tennessee valley are not subject to a tsunami threat, and have been designed to withstand the worst earthquake that could happen here (distant effects of new Madrid). The biggest worry for plants here in my mind are wildfires or tornadoes that could damage primary and backup cooling systems. It is unlikely that a tornado would cause leakage of radioactive material. The primary and secondary containment is designed to withstand a direct hit from an f5 tornado. The worry is that, like in japan, the cooling systems would be damaged and a meltdown would occur.

[JayCee]

Did you read the link about the traveling wave reactor?  It uses the spend nuclear fuel as fuel and the by products are largely inert.  What isn't inert can be reused in the reactor as fuel.
Coal/oil are in limited supply, so that is my biggest argument against them.  

Now, if they would develop this technology, I would be less opposed to nuclear power.  I said earlier in the thread that I was opposed to nuclear until we've made it more safe with less waste.  No plant is fool proof, and you have to consider ALL contingencies like acts of terrorism or war.  Yes, it may be a "greener" option, but at what risk?  

The fact is, we use energy like it's never going to run out.  Until recent years, we have not attempted to conserve as we should have.  While we can't go back to the stone age, we are addicted to nonrenewable resources of energy (fossil fuels).  Nuclear may be something we have to turn to in the future, but it will be used at great risk to humans and the environment until we develop ways to reduce the toxic waste it leaves behind, not to mention making reactors safer.  

I'm not an engineer, but is there nothing else that can be used to cool reactors down besides water?  What about liquid nitrogen, or is it so cold an explosion would result?  In any event, it seems the main danger with reactor cores is meltdown, so the first thing I would design is a way to cool it down faster to prevent what is happening now in Japan.  It simply takes too long to cool the dang thing down!  

One final note.  I asked everyone in the office today if they would want to live close to a nuclear reactor, and 100% said no way.  Nuclear power has a bad rep for obvious reasons.  It's scary.  Even someone on this forum talked about ordering items for protection simply because they live close to a reactor of the same design used in Japan.  Who wants to live with that fear or worry every day?  We've got enough stuff to worry about as it is.  

[harlequin]

The whole thing about being afraid of living near a nuclear reactor just doesn't cut it with me. People live on flood plains, earthquake zones, and worst of all - coastlines. I mean, there are people who have lost their homes multiple times on the Gulf Coast.

[bugalou]

The whole thing about being afraid of living near a nuclear reactor just doesn't cut it with me. People live on flood plains, earthquake zones, and worst of all - coastlines. I mean, there are people who have lost their homes multiple times on the Gulf Coast.

None of those dangers have a frighting tag line like "radioactivity" to go along with them.  Ask the same people who are afraid of living close to a nuke plant if they are also frightened by dihydrogen monoxide being close to their home and many of them will say yes.  

[beneficii]

What about switching from uranium to thorium?