Clinton on Nuclear Energy

[captinseperoth]

why do we bury it on land, WHY!!!?

We could -un-obliviously got out thousands of miles into deep sea

after we get there we send highly over engineered casks

( bundles of spent fuel,in rods form are put in casks or xtreamly built and

engineered containers )

and sink those casks into the deepest parts of oceans,on areas known as subduction zones.

These zones are where the massive tectonic plates of the crust sink under each other.

over time the waste will be adsorbed into crust

[Scientisticsoviet]

A reasonable stance on Nuclear Power, that is refreshing.

[MorganAnsons]

nuclear power makes nuclear waste. and what do we do, get all the people that the GOP find undesirable to cart the uranium away?

maybe all the people in the FEMA camps can do it.

Bush would like that, huh?

in this case, regression would be progression.

We need to get back to the basics.

Stop trying to be supermen.

[quecuentas3]

hydrogen power currently being developed in europe as clinton mensions is clean. but americans are reluctant to invest in this technology I believe out of mere ignorance.

[MorganAnsons]

hydrogen is costly. there will less money for the Capitalist to make off of it.

So therefore, it is not practical to them. The issue on health or cost is an issue they want to invest in.

[quecuentas3]

it might be costly but it pays off, it is way more practical than most or all of the others less health, waste, enviromental issues. it is practical now that the fact that for which they wont invest in them remains a mistery to me.

[MorganAnsons]

there is no mystery, there is not enough money to be made in producing it, so the big Whigs don't want it. They don't want renewable, they don't want safe.

it is only about money here.

Clinton was my choice, BTW.

She is an admirable woman.

[coulterfan2491]

No, there is plenty to be made in nuclear energy. A lot of people will want to buy this significantly cheaper energy source for themselves. BTW, it's much safer than you are suggesting. If want to fix this economy, our next president needs to be pro nuclear power.

McCain Palin 2008

[MorganAnsons]

there is NOT allot of money to make.

And if you think 9/11 was NOT an inside job(which I think it was) you are GIVING THEM NEW TARGETS. Attcking a power plant, think strategically man, and what about radioactive waste? As long as you don't have to haul it out, right?

Leave it where?

We can always make Nuclear Proliferation Act

or something, turn the waste into nuclear weapons...McCain would like that.

Vote Neither!

2008

[coulterfan2491]

Well, I guess you're not aware that by law in this country, nuclear power plants have to be able to withstand a blow from a Boeing 747, and I just think that the issue w/ nuclear waste is overblown since France is eighty percent nuclear, and they have not had any outstanding problems in dealing with their nuclear waste. I see your point about some of the dangers w/ nuc. NRG, but if we carry it out responsibly, there will not be any serious issues. It's definitely necessary to fix the NRG crisis.

[MorganAnsons]

no one is hitting the plants with 47's (the towers weren't hit by 747's either, go ahead and try to research the planes"flight"numbers, try to fine the actual serial #'s of the planes. removed from Boeing records, there is an investigation on that too, now BTW)they will most likely be hit with a vacuum bomb, or something small.

look up Osirak, 1981, when Israel blew up Iraq's only plant. see the damage it cost, not to mention then where will you get your energy? it is killing 3 birds at once.

[coulterfan2491]

What I'm saying is if the plants must be able withstand a blow from a 747, they can withstand almost anything. Our national security is so much more advanced than Iraq's was in 1981, so we won't have to worry about a similar occurence. Again, most of the opposition to nuclear power is weak.

[MorganAnsons]

I am not willing to take that chance. If there is lets say, 2-3 in each state(hypothetical)in 5 years, and they target 1 vacuum bomb or missile that is it. entire country gone almost simultaneously... that is too much or a risk

[coulterfan2491]

No. If terrorists planned to attack nuclear power plants, they would have attacked the ones in Europe already. Europe is mostly nuclear, and they have not had any attacks whatsoever and no serious threats. We have a much stronger national security policy here and the strongest army in the world. Terrorists won't dare to launch any sort of nuclear attack bc/ at this point, most of them do not have capabilities to handle a nuclear war w/ us.

[MorganAnsons]

because Europe doesn't piss people off like USA does.

What army? 1/5 are AWOL, deserters and we only have 2.5 million in the army, that is NOTHING.

Russia, that is the strongest in the world.

(no, I'm not Russian)

That is also what they said about 9/11....so, that means you agree it's an inside job! thanks!:)

(watch the canadian vid where they threaten to tell on the info they know on 7/7 attack in london and 9/11 consipiracy. they just want to make more nukes, and they waste will do just that)

[coulterfan2491]

Great Britain has a strong nuclear energy program, they are our allies, and their nuclear power plants haven't been attacked. The truth is that Europe is considered to be the West which is what Al Qaida hopes to destroy. I hold that these Islamic terrorist groups would not attack our nuclear power plants because it would give us the grounds to use nuclear weapons on them. So nuclear energy is safe. BTW,we do have the strongest army in the world.

[coulterfan2491]

And I never stated that 9/11 was an inside job because it wasn't. There is no serious scientific evidence to prove it was. 9/11 occured because we were too soft on people like OBL in the 1990s. Bush has changed that. As soon as we finish the job in Iraq and install democracy, the Islamic terrorist groups will quickly melt away. Democracy's influence will spread and the terrorist groups will no longer find sympathetic ears in Mid. East govts. since they will all be voted out by popular will.

[MorganAnsons]

there is no proof it wasn't.

do yourself a favor, there is a vid, in my faves called "canada wakes up, your turn usa"

for sake of open minding yourself, cause that is what logical people do, they look at all points before making a decision, watch that, and listen to canada threaten to divulge information proving american architecture in 7/7 in attack in london, and 9/11.

a news report video, not words. good watching.

[coulterfan2491]

I've looked at your side of the argument, and no offense, but I saw absolutely no conclusive proof that America planned 9/11.

[coulterfan2491]

No offense, but you sure do seem adamantly opposed to something that could really help the poor. Nuclear NRG is drastically cheaper than any of the alternative heating sources I've heard of in the debates. It could really help people save money to earn their way out of poverty. Shouldn't you, as a socialist, like that?

[MorganAnsons]

it is a target, you as a war monger supporter seem to not mind that.

Do you even know the power inside on fuel rod? You don't. And cheaper?the plants will be owned by rich,and they will make sure they make money.

Withstand a bomb attack..not if it is brought in.You don't always have TO FIRE A BOMB. Good thing your not in charge of military defense, huh?

If we were socialist,it would be common owned,anything for sale will be controlled, to protect. Learn about socialism,all forms(more than 1)

[coulterfan2491]

I'm definitely not a warmonger. Nuclear power plants are an impossible target. We have such strong nat'l security they won't be able to hit it even if they wanted to. You completely disregard that these people cannot handle nuclear war, and attacking these plants would give us grounds for that. You really seem to hate rich people just because they are successful. That's not how we fix problems by punishing the successful. We fix problems by rewarding them.

[MorganAnsons]

I made 110 a year between my husbands company, and my nursing job, I am fine, I actually donate allot.

What i said was they can bring a bomb in, suitcase bomb. You need to read more, there was just investigation on the plant in Indian Point, 35 miles from Manhattan.

"The bad guys can ... blow a hole in the bottom of it, and when that happens, the water drains and then all of a sudden you get a cesium fire. It will take New York City and one-third of Connecticut, making it uninhabitable."

[coulterfan2491]

It's highly unlikely. Thanks to the Patriot Act it's now virtually impossible for Al Qaeda terror cells to succeed here in America in their goals. Why do you think we haven't had an attack on anything since 9/11 in this country (ex. our standing nuclear power plants)?

[MorganAnsons]

is "highly unlikely" 100%?

NO.

And it might not be AlQaeda.

Might be someone paid allot.

Money buys souls in this country.

And I looked at american evidence, and there is no proof they didn't do it.

And stop acting like Bush did his job, cause there weren't any attacks before 9/11 either.

(only by more crazy americans)

[coulterfan2491]

What? There were numerous terrorist attacks on America before 9/11. The 1993 bombing of the WTC, for example. Or Pan Am flight (i forget the number). Or the seizure of the American embassy in Iran. The only major attack on America I can think of is by Timothy McVeigh and a couple of bombings of abortion clinics. I'll admit they were both wrong but they do not account for the majority of terrorist attacks on our country. The majority have been committed by radical Muslims.

[coulterfan2491]

I repeat, the threat posed by expanding nuclear NRG is almost nonexistant! It's more dangerous not to invest in it. Expanding nuclear NRG will bring down demand for oil and in turn, the price of oil. It will be a huge drop since nuclear along w/ other types of NRG will quickly replace oil as a heating source and a fuel source bc/ their much more efficient and much cheaper. This huge drop in the price of oil will be a huge blow to these terroist groups since they are run off of oil profits!

[Scientisticsoviet]

The problem is perhaps that. Many rich people (very rich is what I'm talking about now, not just your average millionaire) get their money simply through inheritance.

What's worse is today the U.S. government is "rewarding" those institutions that caused the economic crisis by bailing them out.

[coulterfan2491]

I'm not quite sure where you're coming from...

[Scientisticsoviet]

On what particular issue exactly?

[coulterfan2491]

Socialism is evil. Nothing gets done because there is no profit motive. You emphasize how greedy people are in your posts. Do you really think that human nature will take well to a system that allows their hard earned wages to be taken from them by the state who will just use the money to buy themselves wonderful things and leave the people to rot? No. No good can come from socialism.

[MorganAnsons]

that is Authoritarian Socialism.I am a Marxist,and stop focusing on the past ways, why are you opposed to us who are grouping up to start new, there can be the new way, with the old way.And why do you say nothing will get done? The first people in the world can be called "socialists" there was no money to be made,everyone worked,and who says you get nothing? or don't get paid? That is not true.

I believe in equality. Farmer and doctor,Lawyer and teacher,each need each other, equally.

[MorganAnsons]

and welfare handouts to all the fat lazy maericans on SSI, SSDI etc, that is the motive for them to stay bums. Capitalism is the one that kills the only one working hard: the Proletariat.

Now, we are off nuclear energy...

And State Socialism is close to Stalinism, And I am totally against that.

Our idea of it now can be easily read in the Constitution of the Proletariat.

[Scientisticsoviet]

It seems you have fallen pray to a lot of the cold war western propaganda, comrade. You may not realize it, but by fragmenting the left by promulgating their fabrications, the capitalist do well in maintaining their power.

[MorganAnsons]

when answering some comment from one month ago, please tell me exactly what one you are referring to. And no, I don't fall to any propaganda, I study and I also witness it myself.

My city just won the world series 5 minutes ago, and I must go lock up my car before the disillusioned morons stomp the streets as a means of celebration.

[Scientisticsoviet]

Apologies, I didn't look at when your comment was posted. Very sorry about that.

[CreamPie9uy]

it seems to me that clinton doesn't have much of an idea when it comes to nuclear power. these people should be pushing money into fusion research, not fission. if they got the tokamak or the polywell type reactors working to produce enough power, the excess electricity could be used to produce hydrogen which could run cars. this would reduce the demand for fossil fuels massively. it might help quite a lot towards cleaning the air we breathe too.

[MorganAnsons]

I agree.

[Lumpunzik]

Nuclear power is the way of the future. It is just funny the same people who condemned nuclear energy 30 years ago are the same people who are complaining oil problems today. Nuclear energy is clean and safe. But I think that these environmentalists just want us want up to build homes out of solar panels and ride bikes everywhere.

[quecuentas3]

nuclear power has come a long way since then atomic accelerators can produce clean and relatevely safe energy in quite massive amounts. with enogh development this could help solve the energetical crisis at the global scale. in the other side it wouldnt b a bad idea to ride a bike everywhere, good for the helt burns fat and gets u ripped

[AnnieGetYourGang]

The waste? What about the uranium mining? Think this stuff just appears out of nowhere? I've been reading about the new coal-fired power plant being built in Namibia, along with the de-salinization plant, to expand Namibia's uranium mines. Uranium mines and mills usually seem to run on coal,as does USEC, the only nuke enrichment plant operating in this country, in Paducah, KY, and Piketon, OH.

And, remember Chernobyl?

[LightninBoltz]

"And, remember Chernobyl?"

Ah yes, the accident which occured in a fucked-up reactor in a fucked up country, which ultimately killed fewer people than than those who day during a week of coal mining in China alone.

[humexavier]

Nuclear Electrical safety and reducing radiactivity:Sending light as energy source to these devices compared to electrical wires? Now with fiber optical laser light being used a mile long in a reactor is safer.If a fiber optic line is old there is no spark like a copper wire would have.

If you can send energy with fiber optics. As Laser can over distance,then pick up the light with that distant object that obsorbs the light on the other end with a basic solar cell,Nuclear fiber optic wiring/safe

[CreamPie9uy]

fiber optics are for sending binary information, not electrical energy.

[cthulufunk]

Can't believe she pulled the terrorist card. How much more secure can you get than Yucca Mountain? That's like saying terrorists could break into NORAD.

[JohnR22926]

The Greens and Global Warming theorists are going to have to make some hard decisions. If they really want to significantly reduce our carbon footprint, nuclear power is by far the most viable option. All this bs about windmills, solar panels, and ethanol is escapism; they're too costly and can only provide a fraction of our power needs.

[juscurious]

The Witch is wrong AGAIN. We get 20% of our electricity from Nuclear Power not 20% of our energy. The waste disposal is not a problem either. We have solved this problem for a very long time. Nuclear Energy is an absolute necessit for the future prosperity of the United States. Pray that no Democrat wins in November!

[LightninBoltz]

Why do people always assume that the liberal side of politics is oppossed to nuclear power-Obama seems to think the US should explore nuclear power (though I'm not an American citizen, so I could be mistaken).

[link10909]

"explore" is a political word meaning "I dont want to give an answer".

Hillary has been married to a president and been in congress for a long time if she cared she could have asked if she really had questions.

Really the technology has been there for a very long time its a question of do we want to expand our use of it. She and Obama could have gave an answer if they wanted to the question is simple enough.

[LightninBoltz]

That sounds pretty reasonable. Explore could always mean set up a sub-committee to look at the possible uses and benefits of something, for possible consideration in the distant future.

It is annoying when politicians deflect questions with common falsehoods (there are many excelent solutions for valuable nuclear by-products) either out of ignorance, or by appealing to popularity.

[JonThm]

I KNOW, nuclear power kills - US!

[RavnoUK]

in a post 911 world! hahahaa clasic...

[beethovenqueen]

AND THE TITANIC COULD NOT BE SUNK...

THAT COMMENT WAS FOR frellthat WHO THINKS THAT NUCLEAR, NUCLEAR TRANSPORT, ETC IS INFALLIBLE...

[demontebello]

An honest approach would be to highlight to the public the disproportianate tax dollars going to the nuclear industry. We don't know the true cost of nuclear energy without being given a fair accounting of costs. It is not cheap!! The folks near Braidwood are looking at devalued property because of tritium leaking into groundwater.

[milofonbil]

Nuclear power could not compete in a free market.

[zassounotsukushi]

you're right. Take the government out of the equation and nuclear power wouldn't just compete in the free energy market.

It would completely DOMINATE it.

[milofonbil]

How would a world look like where there are no oversight or rules? Don't you think corporations would do pretty much whatever they want. What incentives are there to self-regulate? What would you change from the way things are done now?

[BeondaPale]

"Take the government out of the equation and nuclear power wouldn't just compete in the free energy market. -It would completely DOMINATE it."

No it wouldn't. Not even close. Find me one private insurer willing to take a risk on nuclear - just one. You seem in desperate need of a clue so here's a big one - THERE AREN'T ANY

Nukes DIE without taxpayers footing the bill.

Like big government? Like more taxes?

Like even MORE MONEY going to mostly to defense contractors? ...GO NUKES

[andresfusion]

Nuclear energy is the answer! too bad she changes position in every forum.

[cathanimator]

Do not DARE to compare us to the SHAME of the EU - France! Most EU countries are trying to MOVE AWAY FROM NUCLEAR ENERGY. Of course ENGLAND is as short-sighted as AMERICA and General Electric can't wait to make money on their nuclear power plants...

[milofonbil]

England never had any uraniumm, but they are building more nuclear reactors. I guess energy independence is not a priority.

France did, but they have completely run out. Just think of what a great model of energy independence the 80% nuclear country is. :P

The US already imports 84% of its uranium. When the HEU from the aged nuclear weapons runs out, the demand will be double what can be supplied to the US. They will simply have to import more even with the current number of reactors.

[cathanimator]

OBSCENITY! DECEIT! NUCLEAR ENERGY IS NOT "GREEN!" and it will NEVER BE SAFE! Why is the word "nuclear" nowhere on Hillary's website to be found? Have we forgotten so soon? TSCERHNOBYL see fotos here: thomas-uebelacker(dot)de(for slash)index(dot)php(questionma­rk)paged(equals)41

[nocarsgo23]

out of the top three candidates, who is the only one who is opposed to nuclear energy?

John Edwards with the win!

[milofonbil]

They've had 55 years to figure out what to do about the waste and there is still no answer.

Breeders are terribly inefficient and make plutonium which has to be "poisoned" with curium or neptunium to keep it from falling into terrorist hands. Also breeders make more highly radioactive waste. Why not go renewable and avoid all the trouble?

[bmtimv]

i normally disagree with her views being a libertarian, however I agree that nuclear energy needs a "second chance" companies should be encouraged by politicians (not be forced) to look more toward relatively clean energy sources such as nuclear.

[brewbird14850]

"..relatively clean energy sources such as nuclear.." Are you crazy? GYHOOYA

[weedforchildren]

This guys got the right idea.

(i was talking about heven, not hilary)

[amrgtrs1]

nuclear energy is not the answere. Listen to Dr. Helen Caldicott. Please.........

[jplieges]

Hele Caldicott is either very ignorant or a liar. She, like most anti-nuclear activists don't know what they're talking about.

[milofonbil]

And you do?

[weedforchildren]

She needs to shut up and go make me a sandwitch.

[LordMaalox]

republican, lol

[heven729]

hahaha....she can make me one to!

[microfactory]

With the money needed for one new nuclear power plant one can purchase 15 turnkey high tech and highly automated thinfilm solar module factories with a yearly output of 160 MW per factory from Oerlikon.

So, with these 15 Oerlikon solar module factories one can produce solar modules with a total peak power of 36'000 MW in 15 years, which is actually 22.5 times more peak power than what a new french EPR nuclear reactor delivers.

[bmtimv]

yea but how much land would that take up?

[microfactory]

Actually, most houses can easily be powered with the area available on their roofs.

Also, a solar thermal plant with an area of 100 x 100 miles in the Nevada desert is enough to power the entire US with solar (not taking into account wind, hydro, wave, tidal, geothermal and a more efficient economy).

As far as nuclear goes: Why don't you try to find a private investor? Why does the state always have to foot the bill?

[bmtimv]

No i agree with you more privatization of the industry would bring competition and lower costs into the equation however I don't see solar being an extreamly viable option. Yes solar has advanced much in recent years but it could never be financially viable to the government or private industries to fork up that amount of money to build all that solar.

[microfactory]

Actually, wind is already cheaper than nuclear. And photovoltaics is at least not far from grid parity in California.

It's more a question of whom is currently in control of the power market. This is the main-reason why large inefficient centralized power plants (e.g. coal, nuclear) are still being built.

[bmtimv]

You are forgetting one major thing though, you have to build many of those windmills. Go to Palm Springs or near San Fransisco both of which combined produce very little power and you will see huge fields of wind power perhaps it is cheap to build one but what my main point is it would take up much land and thus much money to equate that power to anything one power plant could produce. Wind requires a lot of land to produce any significant amount of energy.

[microfactory]

Well, windturbines of today have a power-rating of 5 MW. So one turbine can power several thousand homes.

If the turbine sits in the ocean, deserted land or even a cow paddock, it hardly uses up any useful space.

[Deathridesahorse2]

I think you will find 7MW is now the biggest!

[milofonbil]

It's interesting that the pro-nukes always come up with the land issue. It must be part of your marching orders or something. Consider Boone Pickens' project to build a 4,000 MW wind farm. It will "take up" 200,000 acres of land. Now does that render all the land useless?  Can you still grow crops and raise cattle underneath? Please explain.

[bmtimv]

Look I know nuclear has had its bad moments, as many energy sources have and I am not saying nuclear is the end all of power but you have to understand nuclear is far more safe then it was 30 years ago when the last plant in the USA was licensed. Numerous tests have proven the containment and security of these plants to be of the highest standards in the energy industry it is a viable relatively clean energy compared at least to what we are currently using most.. oil and coal.

[microfactory]

I'm not suggesting to stop all nuclear power plants immediately, but it's time for a gradual fade out. Any large centralized power plant is essentially a security risk - even if there's no damage to the reactor. What would the economic blow be, if a few giant power plants are knocked out at the same time and repairing them takes months or even years?

[bmtimv]

What security threats? I am interested to know considering some plants are even rated to withstand an airplane driving into the roof. Can't say the same about other types of energy plants.

[microfactory]

Only the reactor building is protected. E.g. I doubt a cooling tower would withstand an aircraft impact. Besides, I doubt that coal power plants have any serious protection.

Yes, a windturbine won't survive any serious attack either. But it takes a lot more effort to take down 1000 windturbines at once.

[bmtimv]

independent study group NEI concluded that "U.S. nuclear power plants would protect against a release of radiation even if struck by a large commercial jetliner" I don't have enough room to cite the address.

[microfactory]

So what?

If it just hits a few cooling towers, there's few GW missing for one year?

No electricity for a few million people is never a good thing.

[milofonbil]

The NEI is the lobbying arm of the nuclear power industry. Do you really think they are going to give you the straight talk? Sandia National Labs tested an impact of the containment building with an F4 on their 10,000 ft rocket sled track. But they did not test an impact with the spent fuel pool.

[beethovenqueen]

that site is special interest propaganda.

[milofonbil]

To give an indication of protection, one nuclear power plant was given an adequate rating of protection against an aircraft crash into the containment building at 116,000 lbs. at 300 fps.

B-747 ER Impact Mass—850,000 lbs, Speed at impact—720 ft/s Result—breach of reactor vessel.

B-767ER Impact Mass—400,000 lbs, Speed at impact—700 ft/s Result—breach of reactor vessel.

[Dexster916]

With no prior need or thought of someone flying an aircraft into a Nuclear power plant why would they have built them to withstand something so drastic? With knowledge of what can happen now they could build new plants accordingly. It wouldn't be that difficult to build it to withstand the impact... It would just take more distance and steel. Between the potential impact areas and the reactor vessel.

[milofonbil]

You would think the real target would be the un-reinforced fuel handling building. Spent fuel pools at all U.S. nuclear plants are located OUTSIDE the reactor containment structure. Thus, spent fuel is a softer target that could yield graver consequences than an aircraft crashing through the reactor containment structure.

[milofonbil]

But I would imagine that an impact into the cooling tower could be devastating. Even if the tower was not damaged, the reactor would be offline for months until they were sure it is safe. Perhaps they could test the damage to a real cooling tower with a retiring jet or bomber when they implode it as part of the decommissioning process.

[milofonbil]

Who needs to crash into the reactor containment building? It's so much easier for a terrorist hijacked plane to cause a disaster or at least a huge panic by aiming at fuel handling building. It's outside of the re-enforced containment building.  It contains all of the high-level radioactive waste in the spent fuel pool.

[cathanimator]

to bmtimv: the waste is radioactive FOREVER. Why do americans always think "out of sight is out of mind"?????

[frellthat]

Cathanimator, it's true that nuclear waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, but the amount of waste produced by the typical nuclear power plant in a typical year would easily fit in the back seat of your car. There is clearly no comparison with the types of energy we're using now. By all accounts we should have switched entirely from oil to nuclear fifty years ago, and if we had, this whole global warming situation would not exist.

[cathanimator]

The problem is many facetted: the transportation of waste (great terrorist targets & even a highway/train accident would be a nightmare!), plant leaks and accidents (look up fotos of the victims of Chernobyl if you've forgotten), the plants as terrorist targets, nuclear energy in MANY MANY countries(i.e. LOTS of waste), endangering us all (the world turns, remember?). How about LESS CONSUMPTION/CONSUMERISM and more truly green energy research. Btw, do you work for GE?

[frellthat]

"the transportation of waste (great terrorist targets & even a highway/train accident would be a nightmare!)"

Are you kidding? The containers used to transport that stuff are built to withstand a nuclear explosion. They are virtually indestructible. You've clearly never seen those test videos wherein they launch rocket-propelled trains at them just to see if they can make a dent, but can't.

[beethovenqueen]

AND THE TITANIC COULD NOT BE SUNK...

[milofonbil]

"built to withstand a nuclear explosion." NOT

They can't even withstand a DU round from a tank.

[milofonbil]

You must have a back seat big enough to seat 25 people! 25 tonnes of fresh fuel is required each year by a 1000 MWe reactor. The same amount goes out as waste.

w w w. world-nuclear. org/ education/ nfc. htm

What part of wind do you need to bury for 250,000 years?

Nuclear power still depends on a very complex mining, milling, refining, enriching, fabrication process that is very CO2 intensive. Nuclear power is no cleaner than a natural gas plant.

[es7160]

please, talk about MWh and capacity factors

Palo Verde Nuclear Plant = 30 million MWh/year

[milofonbil]

Palo Verde's capacity factor in the first quarter of 2006 was 70.6% Each unit has a 1,243 Mwe output A year has 8766 hours. So 1,243 * 8766 is it's peak capacity, or about 10.9 million MWh per year. Times 3 units is about 32.7 million MWh peak power out. But the reactor is not up all the time, so the actual power produced, assuming a 70.6 capacity factor is about 23 million MWh.

[milofonbil]

The wind farm not far from my house, PSE's Wild Horse, Produced 61,000-megawatt hours with a 39% capacity factor during the past month. The site was picked not for strong winds, but reliable wind. That's an average month. It's rated at 229 MWe. And has 127 wind turbines over 8,600 acres of open range. The wind farm itself takes up only about 165 acres.

[jasbcor]

Furthermore, the uranium contamination released in the burning of coal contains more energy than the coal from which it came. Burning coal releases more radioactive uranium, thorium and radon into the atmosphere than all nuclear power plants ever have or ever will. Clean coal technology is a joke compared to the virtues of nuclear power.

[milofonbil]

the virtues ... cough cough

The contamination released from a coal plant with scrubbers is actually minimal and less than background radiation in most places throughout the country.

If you are worried about putting radioactive uranium, thorium, and radon into the atmosphere, why don't you look closely at your own process. Uranium mills have huge tailing piles associated with them that put plenty of uranium, thorium, and radon into the atmosphere. Clean up your mess in your own back yard.

[jasbcor]

We should be recycling the waste so that the final waste product is 5% of what it would be otherwise. Furthermore, Yucca mountain is a good place to put the waste. While in a beaded glass form and put into welded steel casks, it will not leak, it will not harm anyone, and it would be useless to attempt a terror plot against it.

[milofonbil]

Bush, allowed reprocessing in 2006. But no consortium of utilities wants to build a reprocessing plant. They want the government to build it for them at a cost of $30 billion dollars.

As you can plainly see, nuclear power cannot survive in a free market economy. It's very dependent upon subsidies. It's time the corporate charity ends after 55 years for a very profitable business.

[frellthat]

What utter bullshit. Even if no one wanted to build a reprocessing plant, that would hardly mean nuclear energy was unfeasible. Who says we even have to reprocess spent fuel rods in the first place?

[milofonbil]

It's my understanding that recycling and reprocessing are one and the same thing.

Why don't you tell me how much uranium is left in the world assuming the "current rate of consumption"? Eleven countries, Germany, the Czech Republic, France, Congo, Gabon, Bulgaria, Tadzhikistan, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Portugal and Argentina have already exhausted their uranium. The US already imports 84%.

Who will supply the uranium for new reactors? Breeding depends on reprocessing. "Utter bullshit"?

[Dexster916]

Countries that border the Tian Shan Range (China, Pakastan, India and Kyrgyzstan) have vast supplies of Uranium but most of those counrys would need backing to access it. (the range is very high (like 10k + feet high). Just because countries don't have it as a natural resource doesn't mean there isn't plenty of it out there.