1:50-1:60 that is a blatant lie. i'm pretty sure the 50+ guys with ar15s and bearcats with thermal imaging can protect them just fine :) name a nuclear powerplant in the US that was destroyed by terrorists.
This catastrophe is the result of the criminal incompetence of "throw away society" idiots who designed unsafe nuclear time-bomb reactors without self supporting thermocouple heat-to-electricity battery-elements, vainly electing instead to rely upon unreliable external power to cool them down and likewise fail to store the nuclear fuel safely inside thermocouple heat-to-electricity "racks" that would function as self-supporting "nuclear batteries" to power their own cooling services (pumps).
i feel like i'm reliving my childhood & young adulthood all over again (although in my case i never stopped my protests) between Anti-War activities & Anti-Nuke work it seems to never end! Go to nukefree.org and wand.org and LEARN SOMETHING NOW!!!
What a fucking moron. I've never heard such BS! Nuclear power is safer, cheaper, and cleaner than any coal or gas plant. And it's way cheaper than solar or wind power. Try reading up on the subject before slaming it.
@Pharaoh481 Chernobyl is still uninhabbitable.People not taught the true mediums of clean, reusable energy such as solar,wind,geothermal wave etc.The truth is it should not be about whats cheaper,it should be about whats clean,safe and sustainable and most defenetly abundant.Unfortunatly a outdated monetary world society, where the bottom line has always been profit at all costs, be ithuman or environmental.It is time for a viable solution to deal with asystem hardwired for self destruction.
I did metallurgy on Nuclear reactor parts and as a result of what I learned from that experience, I don't want to live in a country next to a country with N-power
Only 6% of US's energy requirements are met by nuclear energy. We could not possibly afford to convert.
The F4 phantom test at Sandia National Labs was never meant to be a test of a reactor. Nuclear waste will last nearly forever and will get in our ground water. France has had all sorts of nuclear accidents.
Energy independence? United States imports 84% of its Uranium. Going nuclear will just get us hooked on more foreign fuels.
Mr. Wasserman, I respect your intent, but by any chance do you have any qualification in nuclear related field if at all in any engineering? The statements you make put into question what engineering is. Perhaps you shouldn't walk into a building next time? One day it might fall on you based on your views.
All you posting about nuclear being uneconomical now look like dumbasses when lo and behold just a few months later oil is at $140 a barrel. These other technologies (wind, solar) are not rising fast enough to meet the gap and nuclear will a clear alternative energy leader. We have lots of uranium (cameco, dnn)enough to last until better alternatives are found or made practical.Open your eyes hippies! A balanced portfolio of nuke/solar/wind/bio/wave is necessary and all avenues must be explored.
Why don't you open your eyes. Wind is feasible now and growing fast enough to supply as much electricity as nuclear does in about 7-10 years. You won't get the first two nuclear power plants built by then. Geothermal is very viable in much of the US. California is the world leader in Geothermal. Solar-Thermal is being deployed in the southwest and will do very well.
Uranium on the other hand is a finite source on the other hand. Get ready for peak uranium. It's only 10-15 years away.
You're totally missing the point. I fully support all of those alternatives you mentioned and actually own shares in companies who are developing these technologies. Which is more than I can say for you, as hippies don't own stocks. Instead of bashing a realistic opportunity to ween ourselves off of very dirty and expensive coal and oil. It is sensible to pursue nuclear to make your country energy independent and to help the environment.
If better alternatives can be produced or developed that are a more feasible option on a cost/benefit(yield/enviro) basis than nuclear they will be adopted until then please either try and help or at least stop spreading ignorance.
Wind is lower cost per kWh produced than nuclear power right now. The wind industry has had an annual growth rate of over 30% per year for quite a while. Electrical production from wind will overpass nuclear power in less than 10-15 years. In the meantime, the cost of nuclear plants and uranium is increasing. You will see peak uranium when the down-blending of uranium from nuclear weapons ends. This is why I think nuclear power is a very bad decision.
I really don't care for your opinion if you need to hurl the epithet "hippie". It tells me that you have no capacity for thinking and civil discussion. There is nothing sensible to pursue nuclear energy in a rising price environment. The industry has had 55 years to make good on their promise of power so cheap that you don't have to meter it. Any money spent on nuclear power just takes away resources we need to go completely renewable. I'm sure you know this.
Nuke power is uneconomical. You know this. You can't even build a nuclear power plant without massive subsidies even after 55 years of nuclear technology.
Maybe wind and solar power does not work so well in Canada where you claim to live. But they do just well here.
Isn't it ironic that so many "libertarians" will decry taxpayer subsidies, but want the nuclear industry to get ever greater amounts of it? It is the same two-faced "free market" folks who want the unwashed public to undergo "market discipline" while they feast via a nanny state.
The centralized utilities and their "market oriented friends" (NOT) are scared to death of solar and other individual-oriented methods of power production because it will render more and more gratuitous.
The nuclear power industry could not survive in a free market without it's nanny-state feeding trough. Wind is already cheaper per kWh than wind. Why on earth would anyone invest in an industry where the costs are rising. If you don't think so, check what is happening to the uranium prices, construction costs, insurance costs, and operating costs lately.
Wind is cheap... a magnificient form of energy that we should tap, but it is unreliable and takes an enormous amount of land to generate sufficiently. The same is true for solar, though prices are dropping rapidly, the amount land and kWH produced is unfeasible... PLUS you can't use these technologies as a base load for electrical generation because they are unreliable. There will be days that aren't as windy and it will become night. Nuclear is the way to go in combination of these sources.
Wind power is reliable. In fact wind turbines are very low maintenance. I think the term you are looking for is capacity factor. The capacity factor for a nuke plant is high because the plants run 24x7 except for maintenance and refueling. The capacity factor for wind is much lower because wind turbines don't run at full output all the time. They run at about 30-35% of their capacity. Using redundancy across geographically diverse wind farms, wind can even provide a base load.
(con't) In fact, Spain is able to provide 40% of their electricity from wind. Wind farms require some land for the turbine and lots of land for distance between turbines. The land can still be used underneath the turbine for growing crops, trees, or raising cattle. People generally don't live where the wind blows all the time.
In the desert southwest they are building eight solar-thermal plants that will have capacity on the same order as a nuke plant. There is really not a shortage of land
(con't) again, you are confusing the word "reliable" which means the opposite of failure prone with "capacity factor". Solar-thermal is very reliable and can even provide power while it is dark because they are able to store heat. Solar-thermal provides more energy during the day when it's needed.
Base load is a fallacy that renewable energy is unable to contribute significantly to electricity generation. There are many articles to read on this. Google for "base load myth".
A wind turbine produces 3.9 milion kW of electricity in a year. A nuclear power plant produces on average 12.9 gigawats per HOUR. Lets say we stop using nuclear and start using wind and solar. this means as a whole the US would spend more money, there would be less jobs (and almost all the union supports nuclear), ALOT of trees would get cut down, and we would STILL be depending on other countries for parts. Congress is going to back nuclear way before they back solar and wind.
You know, you make an awful lot of mistakes for an alleged UN inspector.
Name one single nuclear plant that can deliver 12.9 gigawatts per hour. You can't. It does not exist. Zip, nada, none.
KW, MW, GW are units of power and kWh, mWh, GWh are units of energy. Basically since you are mixing up units, it's pretty clear you don't know what you are talking about.
your a retard google it. all nuclear plants produce gigawats. Especially Entergy which was last recorded was a 26 gigawatts per hour in Nov 08, Excelon on average does 15 per hour. The Millstone Plant in CT has two active reactors (out of 3)In 2007, Unit 2 generated 7,686 GWh and Unit 3 generated 8,699GWh. Three Mile Island in PA generated 6,645 GWh last year.
OK ... Mr. Director of Engineering, you can talk about capacity (GW) or annual production (GWh). The 26 GW capacity you are quoting is the entire capacity from the entire fleet of Entergy nuclear power plants, not a single one.
Again, there are no single nuclear plants that have a 12.9 GW capacity. There just aren't any. All of the world's nuclear power production is 300 GW.
BTW: Total electricity produced in the world from wind will surpass nuclear power in about 2015.
Its really sad to argue common sense with a grown man who cares so much about the US yet he doesnt even live here, doesnt pay taxes, a self made "billionaire" but yet he spends every waking hour on youtube arguing about Wind power. Wind power is not going to surpass nuclear power. Its a fact that you have to face and deal with. And if we even did use wind, we would still be depending on other countries for materials; especially south ammerica.
The persona is a joke. If you were really an engineering director, you would recognize the character immediately from a TV series called Gilligan's Island.
We can agree to disagree. But the world's production of wind power will be more than nuclear power without a doubt.
It does not surprise me that Entergy's Vermont Yankee cooling tower collapsed on its own knowing that their director of engineering can't even spell America.
Vermont didnt collapse; it tripped twice and was at 100 percent the next day. So if a wind turbine snaps and rolls onto a road, can I go on YouTube and criticize you for petty bullshit? Or will you make another excuse and still presume that wind is the way to go?
On top of that lets say tomorrow we shut down all nuclear plants. It would cost 3 times more to shut down a plant then it cost to build one. Lets not forget all the thousands that would get laid off. lets see what else trees being cut down, endangered animals that get killed every year, and the most important the millions of dollars we would spend on buy them. All of this is just common sense and is sad becuase a jr in college knows more about this then you. You dodge every thing i throw at you.
Of course I dodge everything you throw at me - it's complete ignorant drivel.
Here is your confession - "All of this is just common sense and is sad becuase a jr in college knows more about this then you."
You are not an engineering director, but a 26 year old Jr in college and still don't know how to spell simple words like "because" and know the difference between "then" and "than". Many people finish their PhD at your age. This is the sad but obvious truth isn't it?
I'm not a junior in college, I'm 36 years old. You ran out of arguments so now you have fallen into desperation by criticizing my spelling errors instead of actually doing research to counter argue. Everytime I put you in a corner you make up some bullshit excuse that makes no sense.
you sir, are wrong, wind is very expensive and needs subsydies unlike atom power, I ve lived couple of years in like the most eco-freaky country in the world - Germany, and im know what im talking about, for example the build cost of nuclear and wind pro 1kWh is about the same, but the life span of nuclear is 2-3 longer (50-60years vs 20-25), plus in Germany only 17% of the installed wind power are acctually in use, because this 2MW pro 1 wind power plant are the maximum power
moreover, wind power plants need storage posibilities what is an addition factor, the energetic system needs also free power capacity from gas power plants, there is also the need to reprocess the electricity from wind, because the electricity has to have special qualities, in the end nuclear power with all costs combined is 3-4x times cheaper than the wind power and the EU right forbids every subsydy of nuclear power...
"there is also the need to reprocess the electricity from wind, because the electricity has to have special qualities" What on earth are you talking about? Electricity is electricity. You can't tell that it was produced by wind, coal, gas, oil, hydro, geothermal or nuclear power. Reprocess electricity. ROFL.
The EU does not forbid subsidies for nuclear power. LOL.
I am an Engineer. Connecting wind farms to the grid is well understood. Yes, AC has phase (influenced by capacitance and inductance), amplitude (voltage) and frequency. If you notice wind turbines, they are all synchronized to each other and the grid. The pitch of the blade is adjusted so that the generators are all synchronous. There is no problem in producing a constant voltage out from a wind turbine. Phase or power factor is adjusted at the switch yard with capacitors.
sorry I lack the profesional language, but what I heard is that there is a need to get rid of the multiple signals on each other, while the current in the plug is just a simple, constant signal. Well it isnt a big deal, but still there is no such need in conventional power plants.
It's OK. I think you understand me, you are willing to listen and are not getting hostile...
Conventional power plants and even PV panels on your roof all need to synchronize their AC to the power line. It's really not a problem.
The more challenging problems are how wind turbines deal with transients caused by the grid. These can trip the wind turbine and take it offline. But technology has been developed to override momentary glitches.
Nuclear power after 55 years of development still regularly gets subsidies here in the US. Bush and his cronies in congress eliminated a lot of the subsidies for renewable power in favor of nuclear power and big oil companies.
There are fewer moving parts in a wind turbine than in a nuclear power plant. Also, the wind turbine does not suffer of structural decay from neutrons. So could you please explain why you think why a nuclear power plant would last 60 years and a wind turbine only 25?
i dont know how about USA, but in Europe we do not subsydy nuclear power. I doubt that USA would do the opposite just like subsyding oil companies.
>There are fewer moving parts in a wind turbine than in a nuclear power plant.
- for example the concrete construction suffers huge strains. Thats why we acctual dont build wind power plants where the winds are strong but there where the nearby area is smoothest and the winds are most stabile.
- neutrons wouldnt cause the construction to decay.
papcio, we live in a "capitalistic" country where subsidies are created by government cronies. The nuclear industry here has been very heavily subsidized through insurance waivers, loan guarantees, government research and facilities, etc. for the last 55 years. The oil industry, even though extremely profitable, still gets subsidies.
We build wind turbine where the wind is reliable to raise the capacity factor.
After years of exposure to neutrons metals become brittle and concrete decays.
The biggest "subsidy" for nuclear industry in Europe is the ITER project. It will cost about 10 billions euros in 30 years. But only the European Investment Bank will subsidy the renewables in 2009-2010 with 12 billion euros...
But im happy that also you realise that we dont live in true capitalistic countries. IMHO the market should choose the best and cheapest option.
We supposedly live in a capitalistic country. But look at the $700 Billion bailout for the banks. This would never happen in true capitalism. Subsidies don't happen in pure capitialistic systems either. But they do. And they are handed out for those with the political clout. Plain and simple, it's corruption. The US is full of corruption. This is why Bush, Cheney and the rest of them are not in jail as we speak.
After 20 years it is reasonable to replace rotor blades, gearboxes and generators. Those components are about 20% of the cost of the whole wind turbine. Also, the turbine mast does have a resonant eigenfrequency causing it to move back and forth. The concrete used in foundations for the towers also has a limited lifetime.
There is probably a cost trade-off such that it is simply cheaper to replace the turbine versus to over-engineer it to make it last longer.
oh yeah and i just recently read that germany will subsidy its photovoltaics with 120 billions euros within the next years. While my country is just about to build its first nuclear power plant without any subsydies. With 120 billions of euros it could run on nuclear only... well the coal labor unions wont let it happen though.
I had read that the CDU and the SPD were deeply divided on nuclear power. I guess Germany is going nuke again since Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU party is in at the moment.
Here in BC Canada we use a lot of hydro. That is why we have some of the cheapest power in N.America. In the southern states solar would probably be best. Abundant wind energy is available all over the continent. Here in BC we have tremendous amounts of tidal energy which we have only begun to experiment with.
It is looking very good. Our governments should be turning towards these types of energy with maximum research dollars now.
Our governments are spending huge amounts on research in wind and solar. Germany is spending hundreds of millions. I really don't see further research in Wind power having much of a return. Right now at best wind is getting minor revisions which decrease cost. Research is sadly not something you can just throw money at and get infinite returns. Tidal energy might make sense, worth research sure.
Why in the world do all you people talk about money and returns? Lets talk about safety and lives. Clean safe power is the only chance we have of watching our grandchildren grow old.
We would have low energy prices in Washington if it were not for having to pay for the mistake of investing in nuclear power. WPPS is still costing us rate payers tons of money.
Oh and Harvey Wasserman, my generation has little patience for your supposed concern "not to leave waste behind for future generations." If that were true, why did your generation nothing as hundreds of coal power plants were constructed? We've lost species forever to extinction. Dioxins are all over our ecosystem causing thousands of cancer cases. Global warming is on a rampage. All this could have been lessened if you'd had relied more on nuclear power more. Thanks for nothing.
Scroll down the the bottom. The pentagon was a flat surface lower quality concrete (nuclear plants have problems obtaining high quality concrete). A containment dome is rounded, the force is deflected.
Spent fuel "ponds" could potentially be a target, but there's no method of dispersal. They are below grade, so even if the terrorists flew a plane into it some would splash up, but that's it. No flow out. No explosion. Terrorists have much better targets (refineries!).
Using radioactive poison as energy is akin to a house of 20 people with severe peanut allergies --- the kind that makes your lungs shut down --- keeping a huge quantity of peanuts, peanut butter and peanut oil in the kitchen, with one non-allergic peanut freak living there and eating the stuff 3 meals a day. It's an insanely dangerous situation in which many are endangered for the benefit of a tiny minority who out-shouts anyone who registers alarm or mistrust. This is the story of nuclear power
It just occurred to me that I could be saying in my post, by inference, that the people behind nuke power companies are immune to radioactivity! Let me correct that before someone pounces on it: No one in the house is non-allergic, just as no one, not even power company executives and their promoters, are immune to radioactivity. The "peanut freak" in my sketch could be using the stuff for sale elsewhere. Either way, the point is that he's "playing with fire".
Well, considering that no one in the U.S. has ever died from any nuclear energy related accident, I hardly see your point here. Yes, radiation can be dangerous, but they're spending billions of dollars to make sure it's as safe as possible. There's a reason that there hasn't been any terrorist attacks on a nuc plant, it's because it's a lot easier to bomb an office building or sports stadium. I just don't understand the paranoia.
It might be harder to plant a bomb at a nuke, but it's just as easy to fly a plane into it. ANd I don't believe the corporations know that a 747 wouldn't penetrate the containment vessel. How many times have they tried it? I don't trust their computer models.
~~~no one in the U.S. has ever died from any nuclear energy related accident~~~
The cancer rate around the Chernobyl and THree Mile Island plants have skyrocketed. People die yearly from those disasters.
So what they are telling you is that if you fly a plane into the pentagon there are hardly any parts left on the outside and the 767 flies through 3-4 successive rings of concrete re-enforced walls. There's a 16 ft hole, etc.
And in this case, the plane bounces off and nothing inside gets the shock and vibration of a 7,5 Richter earthquake ... um yah. But they never talk about hitting the spent fuel pond with the 767. (full of highly radioactive spent fuel and has no containment vessel)
No one has died yet. You seem pleased they are spending billions to make nuclear energy safe. Lets spend half on something thats all ready safe. Wind and solar. Nuclear power has never been safe and when you find away to make it that way let me know.
Please pray God this is not all mute. We may have already done enough damage just with the waste alone to kill thousands or more. I think we are all just late for the sky. We have been lucky but our lives are not are own . Face it they can do what ever they want unless we start to get together at last. Let's stop them before it really is to late for any sky. Peace
The coal industry must love you, wasserman, you've been waging your war against nuclear energy these past 30 years, keeping it at a standstill while coal still produces the majority of the energy in the US and solar and wind still around 1 per cent of it.
Figure it our for yourself, churt2. Gvt. support for sustainable energy was snuffed out by Reagan lo those many years ago, while they poured billions of our money into a nuclear industry that still can't turn a decent profit. No Wall St. investor will touch nuke power. That's why they need the Welfare checks.
As opposed to the subsidies that would ABSOLUTELY be necessary to push renewable energy past the marginal point? Just because political pressure from people like wasserman has stymied nuclear development, does not mean it does not work. If that were true France, which is 80% nuclear, would not have the cheapest energy in europe, the cleanest air, and energy independence. France is only nation in Europe that sells power to other nations. This video is hysterical propaganda. Me? An engineer.
You think France is spending less on energy than Germany, which has empowered homeowners (and other bldg. owners) to generate THEIR OWN solar power, the surplus of which they actually SELL TO THE POWER UTILITIES? German citizens are MAKING A PROFIT on their energy technology. No nuke plant does that for anyone, anywhere, and never will. And decentralized power also means no one can bomb one power plant and take out the whole city. They'd have to hit multiple buildings, locations, wind farms, etc
Germany is having to import energy in from France right now, not the other way around, what are you talking about? And you should check your facts, the outside container vessel of a nuclear plant can withstand the straight on impact of 747 plane. And even IF someone got inside, the uranium in the reactor isn't NEARLY as enriched as what would be needed for an actual nuclear bomb, the worst it could do is meltdown the reactor, hence the term "meltdown".
I'm not sure if a reactor can really withstand the head-on impact of a 747. That's a lot of mass. The 747 can crash into the spent fuel pond. Spent fuel is a much better dirty bomb.
Hydrogen gas formed during the meltdown can explode.
You have a point, the spent fuel ponds are a very real danger, though sometimes a bit exaggerated. That's why it would be nice to have Yucca open for business, if only nucfree wasn't protesting that too.
I understand that you mean shutting down the grid, not as easy as you believe. I was a subamarine nuclear engineer, do you honestly believe we did not engineer a backup in case of attack or emergency? Secondly, do not assume that I am an absolutist, I have nothing against alternative energy. If a community can make do with them and score profit I am thrilled. But I am a New Yorker, and if you believe big cities can be powered by windmills you are fooling yourself.
Hey drabarne: google Stanford university, then find the department of civil and environmental engineering. Now find Jacobsen.
He has done excelent research on wind power.
His research shows that there is enough wind power in the continental US to supply 7 times your current needs for all energy types;transportation, residential and industrial. Check it out.
Of course there is enough wind power to supply all of our energy needs. There's enough methane emitted the asses and burps of ruminants to supply most of our natural gas needs, that doesn't mean it's economical to do it though.
When your farting your self to sleep tonight think of all the money wasted on this war. Spending money on saving lives beats the hell out of your burps.
Electricity and gas are supplied by the state-owned Electricité de France/Gaz de France. Since nuclear power is very capital intensive, the interest is the largest portion of the costs. But France loans itself zero percent interest loans for projects of its own power company. This is why France has the lowers electrical costs. In fact, what this means is that the French people are subsidizing other countries' electrical use. Meanwhile France has run out of uranium and must import it all.
A lot more people would die from an attack on an office building or a sports stadium, so by your reasoning we should outlaw them as well? The Yucca facility WOULD be a solution if you weren't protesting it yourself so you could use it as an argument. It CAN pay its own way, it's just afraid that liberals will revoke their licenses so they want a guarantee that they won't get screwed by groups like nucfree!
My point is that it seem like a lot of pro-nukes have a whole lot of independent thoughts. They seem to go by a script that someone handed them, including their childish insults.
I don't think Wasserman is a "dumb ass". Perhaps you should take a closer look at yourself. France built all those nuclear power plants out of nationalistic pride. They were all needed so that the French could have all the plutonium they needed for the cold war. (Yes, all reactors make plutonium. breeders are just more productive at it)
Now France has run out of Uranium and has to import it all. They are by no means fuel independent.
what about chernobyl? that was due to human error. it was in '86 and is only now becoming possible to visit those areas, and even now most are still uninhabitable. thats over 2 decades. nuclear waste aside, there are too many variables in dealing with nuclear energy. too much is liable to go wrong. faulty design and incompetent workers result in a gamble too dangerous to continue their use.
All right people, some quick lessons here. 1.) Nuclear power plants do NOT make the type of fuel needed to create a weapon-as North Korea found out, it requires a specific type of enriched uranium. At best, the bad guys would attempt to create a "dirty" weapon and most likely end up with an extremely fatal and quick acting radiation poisoning.
2.) Many of the worlds navies use nuclear power-and how many "meltdowns" have happened at sea? So, why is this unsafe? Use your head!
leesagrl, where do you think they're burying coal waste? the quantity of coal ash is literally millions of times greater than the corresponding quantity of nuclear waste! do some research of your own and i am convinced there's a 90% chance you'll turn out pro-nuclear. please don't believe this nuclear scare rhetoric!
More coal is certainly not the answer, but nuclear is not either.
Where are you going to get all the uranium for the infinite nuclear expansion projects you guys are proposing. 11 uranium exporting countries have already run out. France, 80% the country you want us to model ourselves after has already run out of uranium and is full dependent on foreign sources. The US is already importing 84% of uranium. What do you suppose will happen when the HEU from the nuclear weapons runs out?
Funny that it should sadden you. It makes me happy as a mother with a new baby in her arms. At least i will know that sweet baby will be safe from this madness.
Wherever you get your FACTS, they make no difference to me, i live in Eastern-Europe. Our country is run on a complex of coal plants, depending on a depleting source of coal. Soon we'll run out, and we'll have to import energy. That will be a major setback for our small country.
Our only logical choice is nuclear power. But because of hippie fearmongers like you, all the voting morons screw everything up.
You can call me a hippie fear monger all you like. Wake up and look around you where do you think this waste is going? Right past your front door i hope. Not mine. Nuke Free!!!!!!!Your the only moron here just one hippies thoughts and dam proud of them!!!
Coal- let it run out. "Our only logical choice is nuclear power" Based on what??? Why don't you explain it to me. Is there something I've missed in years of reading?
No your wrong. Please wake up before it's to late for all of us. Have you done your homework? Because i did my friend.Just another thought from your very own hippie fear monger. Who knows some day you and i could be friends. Stranger things have happened. PEACE....
Batukhan, that's really great. I thought that nuclear power could not give a rats ass about sensible, well constructed argument against nuclear power. I thought their primary motivation was greed - making money using other people's work and other people's money. But maybe you are right. YAY! YIPPIE! We scared them away with the truth! YAY! YIPPIE!
Holding back human progress? I'm for skipping nuclear power - something that has not worked in 55 years and going for time proven renewables.
Batukhan, that's really great. I thought that nuclear power could not give a rats ass about sensible, well constructed argument against nuclear power. I thought their primary motivation was greed - making money using other people's work and other people's money. But maybe you are right. YAY! YIPPIE! We scared them away with the truth! YAY! YIPPIE!
Holding back human progress? I'm for skipping nuclear power - something that has not worked in 55 years and going for time proven renewables.
Let me explain it to you again. France's nuclear power industry in nationalized and heavily subsidized by the French government. The French government hatched and coddled a nuclear industry that has cost an estimated $120 billion. It's cheap because the French Government does not charge itself interest.
It's really not clean either - French plants have been hit by sporadic radiation leaks.
France has no uranium anymore. They have to import it.
Batukhan, that's really great. I thought that nuclear power could not give a rats ass about sensible, well constructed argument against nuclear power. I thought their primary motivation was greed - making money using other people's work and other people's money. But maybe you are right. YAY! YIPPIE! We scared them away with the truth! YAY! YIPPIE!
Holding back human progress? I'm for skipping nuclear power - something that has not worked in 55 years and going for time proven renewables.
Fine. Cut the subsidies as soon as you cut the redundant, extremely expensive and years-long processes of licensing and regulation. the nuclear industry is not nearly as subsidies as the wind or solar industries and it faces HUGE difficulty because of all the redtape the government has put in the way of building reactors.
"all the redtape the government has put in the way of building reactors." ...as they should. Reactors are not toys for foolish people that have no regard for others with their money-extracting scams.
May I quote you on saying that there will never be a solution to high-level nuclear waste? I seem to recall other such statements from past generations being read for amusement. Perhaps powered flight is impossible too?
Please quote me. They've been working on the waste problem for 55 years. Hopefully, I will be around to laugh at all the infinite nuclear power projections and hope to be around when Yucca Mountain becomes a Nevada amusement ride. Maybe someone will understand that nuclear power is a very complicated solution to boiling water and making electricity from it. Perhaps they will drill a bunch of holes 10,000 ft down and get at the geothermal power below us. It's a huge natural reactor.
Speaking of conservation, how about you run the energy balances for your solution (solar, wind) and run them for mine? After you realize the two are not even near the same order of magnitude, then perhaps you should let the engineers do their jobs instead of roadblocking with these senseless fears.
Don't let this guy bother you. We are running out of uranium anyway. The 80 year figure they toss around assumes "given the same level of demand". However, the population is growing at a good clip and so are the needs of developing nations. They won't have fuel left over in 30 years. Maybe someday, they will remember that you can't solve a geometric growth problem with a polynomial solution.
God it is so good to hear from someone thinking about our children and grandchildren. He scares me more then bothers me. I just know if we only work at it there are so many other ways to keep us all safe and healthy. Proud to be a hippie. PEACE.
Thanks so much for your response. I really would like to hear anything else you might have to say.What do you think about soler wind,and all the things we should be putting are energy in. Pardon the pun. From your friendly hippie that wants to keep raising little hippies.
I live in Washington. There is not enough insolation during the winter to make solar to work economically. However, I think wind and geothermal both have great promise here.
I can't wait until the mess at Hanford site gets cleaned up and when the last nuclear power plant in Washington gets entoumbed.
Read up about peak uranium. They will be wishing they invested their money into renewables when uranium runs out.
I am an Engineer with a Masters degree, 9 patents and 8 pending.
Why dose the US have to import 84% of uranium? Why don't you tell us how much uranium France, England and Germany have left over. 11 uranium producing countries have already run out.
As gas prices go up, the cost of mining increases. As mining continues, the quality of the uranium that is being extracted is of a lower quality or enrichment level. How will you solve the energy problem without economically recoverable uranium?
If all spent fuel were to be shipped to the repository by truck in larger-capacity casks, requiring about 46,000 shipments and over 100 million shipment miles, between 70 and 310 accidents and over 1,000 incidents would be expected over the operating life of the repository. Under the DOE base case scenario (88% rail, 12% truck), about 50 to 260 accidents and 250 to 590 incidents would be expected.
But accidents carrying nuclear waste have already happened. On December 29, 2006 there was an accident where a truck carrying spent fuel turned over in North Carolina. May 7, 2006 a truck carrying radioactive waste collided with another in Arizona. There are many, many more of these incidents; too many to post here.
And how many cases of radiation release? Zero--because the shipping containers are specially designed to withstand even the most worst-case scenarios.
I am familiar with Sandia National Labs' development of the casks in the mid 80's. You can't test every scenario. So you have to rely on human engineers.
The NRC does not publicly acknowledge any of the transportation accidents or breaches of their containers. The news articles disappear as quick as they hit the news. How do you know?
PS ... I have seen a few of the tests myself during my lunch breaks at Sandia in the desert south of where I used to work. You see the videos of the success cases. You never see the failure cases. I'm sure they are still nicely packed away in a filing cabinet with red and white candy striping on them, or they are nicely shredded "for national security"
Republicans keep pushing through energy bills that subsidize oil & nuclear companies, but don't give anything to small developers of wind & solar systems!! Then they wail & begrudge their fellow Americans a liveable minimum wage! RePIGlicans (like Deb Pryce) want Americans to be "consumers". If solar & wind become prevalent, people might actually have FREEDOM from dependence on a power company. Big energy couldn't keep ripping us off & charging us for fuel.
High-level nuclear waste (also called irradiated or "spent" fuel) is literally about one million times more radioactive than when the fuel rods were loaded into the reactor. This waste is so lethal that standing near it without shielding would kill you within minutes. This waste will be hazardous for millions of years. No technology exists to keep it isolated this long.
Yes, they go into dry-storage casks after the storage pool is full to the limit. The fuel assemblies have to go back into the pool before they can be shipped anywhere. That storage is only temporary until a solution is found. As an amateur "expert", you should know this.
The growth of the nuclear power industry will lead to nuclear weapon proliferation. Let's not solve the global warming problem by creating another dangerous problem.
Explain how the commercial nuclear power industry has led, in any way, to nuclear proliferation. This is simply empty rhetoric. Nuclear proliferation was accomplished by espionage and rouge scientists. Aside from the need for low-enriched uranium, commercial nuclear power has absolutely nothing to do with the nuclear weapons process.
Well currently the Bush administration is making the same claim about Iran. That their claimed interest in nuclear power is really a cover for developing nuclear weapons. If we are proposing to reduce greenhouse gasses by more developing more nuclear power then why wouldn't Iran be able to do the same thing. Also the newest way to "clean" nuclear waste is to turn it into plutonium the key ingredient in making nuclear weapons.
At that... you can read-up about the extremely dirty PUREX reprocessing process. Spent fuel mixed with chemicals is wonderfully leaking into the Columbia River from the Hanford Site. You ought to see how the government has been cleaning up afer themselves. I wonder if these boys even know to lift the ring on the toilet seat before they pee and remember how to flush. Judging by the mess they left behind it makes you wonder about power and greed.
should we spend our money on a dump that has to be guarded for 10000 years? We should have an energy mix of a lot of diffrent renewable and non renewable source. But if we want to advance as a species we need to move towards renewable low pollution alternatives. Nuclear power for many reasons is not the answer.
So by switching to renewable, the tons of spent fuel being stored on-site at America's 104 nuclear plants is going to magically disappear? Wake up people.
Of course the existing spent fuel is not going to disappear. Why add to it? Nuclear is a proven economic/investment failure, hence the industry going to government subsidies for building plants, private investors are not interested. Building nuclear power plants is not in the interest of the majority, it is in the interest of the few to make more money. Anything said to the contrary is pure propaganda.
How can a nuclear plant be an economic failure, AND make money for a few? This is a contradiction in your statement.
Exactly, how are they economic failures? They provide 80% of France's power--the French have the lowest electric bills in Western Europe.
Exactly what government subsidy is being used to build new plants?
Explain how there are about a dozen privately/publicly owned power utilities in the US interested in building new plants if private investors are not interested?
They can be a net loss for the whole system and yet put money in the pockets of a few both at the same time. Another example of this is war. There has never been a profitable war for anyone, yet war profiteers make plenty of money.
Jill, think about it. A person can sell snake oil to people. The only people benefiting from the transaction is the snake oil salesman. The rest of the people fell prey to the snake oil salesman.
Nuclear power is just like that. Here in Washington, snake oil salesmen ripped-off the entire state with their WPPS project. The Federal government payed all sorts of subsidies. But in the end we got only one nuclear power plant and still have to pay for five of them. Four were never completed.
(con't) 2. France has lots of nuclear power. It's run by the French government. They don't need to make a profit. They don't have to guarantee a profit to any stockholders - there aren't any.
Do you really think profit is what this is about? There are lives in the balance. Your's mine and what about the children? Who's going to save them from our mess?
With France, it's about having loads of power. It's really ironic. They are now totally powerless over their electrical power. France has to import 100% of all uranium they use because their mines are completely mined-out already. So they are completely at the whim of the last few producers of uranium. Electrical energy security - NONE. Breeding does not work and neither does reprocessing.
And now just think. The pro-nukes want us to be just like France! ROFL
Jill, in France, the nuclear power industry is privatized. It's owned by France. So their electricity is very inexpensive because they don't have to pay themselves interest for borrowing the money.
I understand lives are at stake. The snake oil salesmen could care less.
(con't) 3. The President's budget made significant cuts in renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean air, and climate change related-programs. On the other hand, Bush has extended loan guarantees, production tax credits, and federal risk insurance for the builders of new nuclear power plants.
(con't) 4. The private investors are not interested in risky investments that don't promise a high rate of return. They don't put their money into a risky investment unless there are loan guarantees in place. Wall Street would not give them the loan guarantees. So the taxpayer has to pick up the tab for them. This is corporate welfare at best. I thought you right wingers loved free market economics.
It is certainly time to move to a truly clean, reliable power system and get away from centralized power produced by fossil fuels and nuclear fuel. Count me in!
Why should I care about what Bonnie Raitt, Graham Nash, and Ben Harper think of nuclear power...? They are musicians?! I am so tired of these random political campaigns using celebrities as if they have some sort of relevant knowledge. However, Wasserman does have a point about the government paying for the plants, why should they give billions of dollars to private companies?
The relentless, vehement pro-nuke posts are a viral marketing campaign written by the nuke companies. I don't trust the government to handle nuclear waste safely, and I don't want them using my tax money to fund their vain attempts. Posting repeatedly about how safe nuclear power is doesn't make it true. The French are a handy tool -- hate 'em when they disagree with the war, but love 'em when you want to hold French nuclear power plants up as an example of how the U.S. of A. should do things.
Disagreeing with a group of people for one thing doesn't discredit them from everything else. Their stance on Iraq has very little to do with how they power their country.
Are you saying that the text posts are by nuke companies or the video posts? I would think the nuclear power industry has better things to do than post on youtube in hopes to revolutionize the world.
Nuclear power plants are safe, i bet most of you people dont know anything about plants. such as if i were to say the reactor is "critical" you would freak out...when in reality, that is what we want the reactor power range to be in. so go learn about this before you start putting your two sense in. thats all thanks...
Nuclear power plants are safe, i bet most of you people dont know anything about plants. such as if i were to say the reactor is "critical" you would freak out...when in reality, that is what we want the reactor power range to be in. so go learn about this before you start putting your two sense in. thats all thanks...
hahahahaha........haha wow....so he said nuclear power plants are "weapons of mass destruction." yea because that is even close to the truth. I am currently going to school so that I can operate a plant, and when you look at the numbers, I get more radiation from gammas and photons from the sun, than i will get from working at the plant everyday.
So I'm a greedy utility and I want to rape the public on power charges. Let's see. . . I decide to build a nuke for $4 billion and name it after myself that I know will blow up and cost another $4 billion to clean up. And I will need to buy power to make up for what I now cannot produce. GET REAL. NUKES ARE SAFE AND RELIABLE AND EFFICIENT AND COST EFFECTIVE POWER PRODUCERS.
You and I exhale about as much carbon as a nuke discharges. A coal plant puts more radiation out than a larger nuke puts out of it's stack. Most mills use elecricity to operate their motors, and if we used nuke power to run those mills, then there is no global warming. Additionally, if we reprocessed the spent fuel like every other free world country does, we wouldn't need to mine as much.
Your passion is directed wrongly - TO SAVE THE PLANET YOU NEED TO BE PRO NUKE!!
Harvey if you want to speak on this subject I suggest Saturday Night Live. On SNL you can say what you want and people will still laugh at you. Get a real job! Walmart needs Greeters to hand out smiley stickers to kids during the Christmas season.
The French seem to have been able to make Nuclear Energy safe and cost effective.. why can't we just use 3rd or 4th generation reactors and do the same? (All the reactors that we have now are 1st generation.)
I've been to Yucca Mountain, sat on it while listening to geologists & hydrologists and other scientists tell us exactly why the waste burial scheme there is sheer madness . jewishzombie is so sure that this "FREAKING MOUNTAIN" is the perfect place? Go there, jz; see for yourself.
Finally, it's curious that the ranting pro-nukers can't seem to stay civil with their comments. Do I really want such angry, potentially violent folks dictating our future? Yeah, but I'm just a washed-up Old Hippie.
One industry mentioned by Wasserman--the private insurance people--HAVE never, and WILL never, underwrite nuclear power plants. Gee fellas, wonder why that might be? Could it be something about a little principle called risk/benefit ratios? Yes, it's comforting to believe that radioactive technology will save us. But that's all it is: a belief. Kinda like The Rapture. And the risks to unborn generations are just too obscene.
Clearly, respondents like seangreenday and jewishzombie are young; thus, full of extreme & arrogant (and untested, by virtue of limited time on the planet) opinions. Get around the block for a few more decades, lads. Has seangreen ever heard of the Union of Concerned Scientists? Maybe does not want to--it would shake up that neat little world in which technology is always our friend, and only good sense (as opposed to filthy profit-mongering) dictates the decisions of industry and government.
Maybe the person who lives near one has no problem, but who is to say that they won't have problems created by the plants years from now. If our environment cannot naturally dispose of the residue left from nuclear power then the earth does not need them. There is lots of items out there that we shouldn't be creating, but this is the major one.
I have no idea if what he is saying is true or not or even if jewishzombie is correct. I however feel they cannot afford to build nuclear power with the money they make off of creating power then we shouldn't have them. I don't want one in my backyard and I sure don't want my tax dollars going to pay for them.
1:50-1:60 that is a blatant lie. i'm pretty sure the 50+ guys with ar15s and bearcats with thermal imaging can protect them just fine :) name a nuclear powerplant in the US that was destroyed by terrorists.
dman952 7 months ago
This catastrophe is the result of the criminal incompetence of "throw away society" idiots who designed unsafe nuclear time-bomb reactors without self supporting thermocouple heat-to-electricity battery-elements, vainly electing instead to rely upon unreliable external power to cool them down and likewise fail to store the nuclear fuel safely inside thermocouple heat-to-electricity "racks" that would function as self-supporting "nuclear batteries" to power their own cooling services (pumps).
urlborg 9 months ago
i feel like i'm reliving my childhood & young adulthood all over again (although in my case i never stopped my protests) between Anti-War activities & Anti-Nuke work it seems to never end! Go to nukefree.org and wand.org and LEARN SOMETHING NOW!!!
pholly62 10 months ago
What a fucking moron. I've never heard such BS! Nuclear power is safer, cheaper, and cleaner than any coal or gas plant. And it's way cheaper than solar or wind power. Try reading up on the subject before slaming it.
Pharaoh481 1 year ago
@Pharaoh481 Chernobyl is still uninhabbitable.People not taught the true mediums of clean, reusable energy such as solar,wind,geothermal wave etc.The truth is it should not be about whats cheaper,it should be about whats clean,safe and sustainable and most defenetly abundant.Unfortunatly a outdated monetary world society, where the bottom line has always been profit at all costs, be ithuman or environmental.It is time for a viable solution to deal with asystem hardwired for self destruction.
VileMisanthropy 1 year ago
@VileMisanthropy & wadda ya have to say now??????? REALLY!
pholly62 10 months ago
Nuke power cannot pay for itself.
Game over. Stop using taxpayer dollars for loans and the insurance!
samiemma 1 year ago
Politician. Two stars.
m3141592 2 years ago
lol;
celebrities & music videos < science
tehKap0w 3 years ago
I did metallurgy on Nuclear reactor parts and as a result of what I learned from that experience, I don't want to live in a country next to a country with N-power
bimmjim 3 years ago
I agree with Mr. Wasserman. I grew up around
a nuclear weapons facility. I know from experience that nuclear energy is not the way
to go. There were too many human errors and
accidental realeases of tritium into our air
and water. Many people in the area died of all types of cancer. There is no safe way
to dispose of nuclear waste. Bottom line: it is very dangerous. THE WASTE IS THE PROBLEM!
nodlon20 3 years ago
i am not a mean person but
nuclear power plants can survive a
f4 phantom 2 {very fast jet}
even if it went throw it would not make a nuclear bomb explosion
and nuclear waste ok...
we can put it in to the ground and in millions and millions of years it will be regular elaments and france has the cleanist air
in the industrail world and the reson why
78% of its energy is NUCLEAR POWER
that is what i can say now
cowman112 3 years ago
Only 6% of US's energy requirements are met by nuclear energy. We could not possibly afford to convert.
The F4 phantom test at Sandia National Labs was never meant to be a test of a reactor. Nuclear waste will last nearly forever and will get in our ground water. France has had all sorts of nuclear accidents.
Energy independence? United States imports 84% of its Uranium. Going nuclear will just get us hooked on more foreign fuels.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Mr. Wasserman, I respect your intent, but by any chance do you have any qualification in nuclear related field if at all in any engineering? The statements you make put into question what engineering is. Perhaps you shouldn't walk into a building next time? One day it might fall on you based on your views.
hiraku0n 3 years ago
All you posting about nuclear being uneconomical now look like dumbasses when lo and behold just a few months later oil is at $140 a barrel. These other technologies (wind, solar) are not rising fast enough to meet the gap and nuclear will a clear alternative energy leader. We have lots of uranium (cameco, dnn)enough to last until better alternatives are found or made practical.Open your eyes hippies! A balanced portfolio of nuke/solar/wind/bio/wave is necessary and all avenues must be explored.
capslockbandit 3 years ago
Why don't you open your eyes. Wind is feasible now and growing fast enough to supply as much electricity as nuclear does in about 7-10 years. You won't get the first two nuclear power plants built by then. Geothermal is very viable in much of the US. California is the world leader in Geothermal. Solar-Thermal is being deployed in the southwest and will do very well.
Uranium on the other hand is a finite source on the other hand. Get ready for peak uranium. It's only 10-15 years away.
milofonbil 3 years ago
You're totally missing the point. I fully support all of those alternatives you mentioned and actually own shares in companies who are developing these technologies. Which is more than I can say for you, as hippies don't own stocks. Instead of bashing a realistic opportunity to ween ourselves off of very dirty and expensive coal and oil. It is sensible to pursue nuclear to make your country energy independent and to help the environment.
capslockbandit 3 years ago
If better alternatives can be produced or developed that are a more feasible option on a cost/benefit(yield/enviro) basis than nuclear they will be adopted until then please either try and help or at least stop spreading ignorance.
capslockbandit 3 years ago
Wind is lower cost per kWh produced than nuclear power right now. The wind industry has had an annual growth rate of over 30% per year for quite a while. Electrical production from wind will overpass nuclear power in less than 10-15 years. In the meantime, the cost of nuclear plants and uranium is increasing. You will see peak uranium when the down-blending of uranium from nuclear weapons ends. This is why I think nuclear power is a very bad decision.
milofonbil 3 years ago
I really don't care for your opinion if you need to hurl the epithet "hippie". It tells me that you have no capacity for thinking and civil discussion. There is nothing sensible to pursue nuclear energy in a rising price environment. The industry has had 55 years to make good on their promise of power so cheap that you don't have to meter it. Any money spent on nuclear power just takes away resources we need to go completely renewable. I'm sure you know this.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Nuke power is uneconomical. You know this. You can't even build a nuclear power plant without massive subsidies even after 55 years of nuclear technology.
Maybe wind and solar power does not work so well in Canada where you claim to live. But they do just well here.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Right on feely! Have you noticed that the neocons are regressing our socioeconomic systems back towards fuedalism.
bimmjim 3 years ago
Isn't it ironic that so many "libertarians" will decry taxpayer subsidies, but want the nuclear industry to get ever greater amounts of it? It is the same two-faced "free market" folks who want the unwashed public to undergo "market discipline" while they feast via a nanny state.
The centralized utilities and their "market oriented friends" (NOT) are scared to death of solar and other individual-oriented methods of power production because it will render more and more gratuitous.
feelytouchy67 3 years ago
The nuclear power industry could not survive in a free market without it's nanny-state feeding trough. Wind is already cheaper per kWh than wind. Why on earth would anyone invest in an industry where the costs are rising. If you don't think so, check what is happening to the uranium prices, construction costs, insurance costs, and operating costs lately.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Wind is cheap... a magnificient form of energy that we should tap, but it is unreliable and takes an enormous amount of land to generate sufficiently. The same is true for solar, though prices are dropping rapidly, the amount land and kWH produced is unfeasible... PLUS you can't use these technologies as a base load for electrical generation because they are unreliable. There will be days that aren't as windy and it will become night. Nuclear is the way to go in combination of these sources.
RadProX 3 years ago
Wind power is reliable. In fact wind turbines are very low maintenance. I think the term you are looking for is capacity factor. The capacity factor for a nuke plant is high because the plants run 24x7 except for maintenance and refueling. The capacity factor for wind is much lower because wind turbines don't run at full output all the time. They run at about 30-35% of their capacity. Using redundancy across geographically diverse wind farms, wind can even provide a base load.
milofonbil 3 years ago
(con't) In fact, Spain is able to provide 40% of their electricity from wind. Wind farms require some land for the turbine and lots of land for distance between turbines. The land can still be used underneath the turbine for growing crops, trees, or raising cattle. People generally don't live where the wind blows all the time.
In the desert southwest they are building eight solar-thermal plants that will have capacity on the same order as a nuke plant. There is really not a shortage of land
milofonbil 3 years ago
(con't) again, you are confusing the word "reliable" which means the opposite of failure prone with "capacity factor". Solar-thermal is very reliable and can even provide power while it is dark because they are able to store heat. Solar-thermal provides more energy during the day when it's needed.
Base load is a fallacy that renewable energy is unable to contribute significantly to electricity generation. There are many articles to read on this. Google for "base load myth".
milofonbil 3 years ago
A wind turbine produces 3.9 milion kW of electricity in a year. A nuclear power plant produces on average 12.9 gigawats per HOUR. Lets say we stop using nuclear and start using wind and solar. this means as a whole the US would spend more money, there would be less jobs (and almost all the union supports nuclear), ALOT of trees would get cut down, and we would STILL be depending on other countries for parts. Congress is going to back nuclear way before they back solar and wind.
Vegathetruth 3 years ago
You know, you make an awful lot of mistakes for an alleged UN inspector.
Name one single nuclear plant that can deliver 12.9 gigawatts per hour. You can't. It does not exist. Zip, nada, none.
KW, MW, GW are units of power and kWh, mWh, GWh are units of energy. Basically since you are mixing up units, it's pretty clear you don't know what you are talking about.
Pretty careless for an inspector. I don't buy it.
milofonbil 3 years ago
your a retard google it. all nuclear plants produce gigawats. Especially Entergy which was last recorded was a 26 gigawatts per hour in Nov 08, Excelon on average does 15 per hour. The Millstone Plant in CT has two active reactors (out of 3)In 2007, Unit 2 generated 7,686 GWh and Unit 3 generated 8,699GWh. Three Mile Island in PA generated 6,645 GWh last year.
Vegathetruth 3 years ago
OK ... Mr. Director of Engineering, you can talk about capacity (GW) or annual production (GWh). The 26 GW capacity you are quoting is the entire capacity from the entire fleet of Entergy nuclear power plants, not a single one.
Again, there are no single nuclear plants that have a 12.9 GW capacity. There just aren't any. All of the world's nuclear power production is 300 GW.
BTW: Total electricity produced in the world from wind will surpass nuclear power in about 2015.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Its really sad to argue common sense with a grown man who cares so much about the US yet he doesnt even live here, doesnt pay taxes, a self made "billionaire" but yet he spends every waking hour on youtube arguing about Wind power. Wind power is not going to surpass nuclear power. Its a fact that you have to face and deal with. And if we even did use wind, we would still be depending on other countries for materials; especially south ammerica.
Vegathetruth 3 years ago
The persona is a joke. If you were really an engineering director, you would recognize the character immediately from a TV series called Gilligan's Island.
We can agree to disagree. But the world's production of wind power will be more than nuclear power without a doubt.
It does not surprise me that Entergy's Vermont Yankee cooling tower collapsed on its own knowing that their director of engineering can't even spell America.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Vermont didnt collapse; it tripped twice and was at 100 percent the next day. So if a wind turbine snaps and rolls onto a road, can I go on YouTube and criticize you for petty bullshit? Or will you make another excuse and still presume that wind is the way to go?
Vegathetruth 3 years ago
If a wind turbine goes bad, what's the worst that can happen?
Can it pollute or kill millions of people for, uhm, an eternity? or make them very ill..?
There will have to be a number of alternative sources, including wind and solar..
What I'm concerned with is: if nuclear got subsidies, would there still be investement in healthier and environmentally friendlier technologies?
Andreya01 3 years ago
a nuclear power plant can't do that either.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
@Vegathetruth A wind turbine rolling onto the road dont be ridiculous, thats to easy to avoid simple by location, design and the material used.
VileMisanthropy 1 year ago
On top of that lets say tomorrow we shut down all nuclear plants. It would cost 3 times more to shut down a plant then it cost to build one. Lets not forget all the thousands that would get laid off. lets see what else trees being cut down, endangered animals that get killed every year, and the most important the millions of dollars we would spend on buy them. All of this is just common sense and is sad becuase a jr in college knows more about this then you. You dodge every thing i throw at you.
Vegathetruth 3 years ago
Of course I dodge everything you throw at me - it's complete ignorant drivel.
Here is your confession - "All of this is just common sense and is sad becuase a jr in college knows more about this then you."
You are not an engineering director, but a 26 year old Jr in college and still don't know how to spell simple words like "because" and know the difference between "then" and "than". Many people finish their PhD at your age. This is the sad but obvious truth isn't it?
milofonbil 3 years ago
I'm not a junior in college, I'm 36 years old. You ran out of arguments so now you have fallen into desperation by criticizing my spelling errors instead of actually doing research to counter argue. Everytime I put you in a corner you make up some bullshit excuse that makes no sense.
Vegathetruth 3 years ago 2
you sir, are wrong, wind is very expensive and needs subsydies unlike atom power, I ve lived couple of years in like the most eco-freaky country in the world - Germany, and im know what im talking about, for example the build cost of nuclear and wind pro 1kWh is about the same, but the life span of nuclear is 2-3 longer (50-60years vs 20-25), plus in Germany only 17% of the installed wind power are acctually in use, because this 2MW pro 1 wind power plant are the maximum power
papcio 3 years ago
moreover, wind power plants need storage posibilities what is an addition factor, the energetic system needs also free power capacity from gas power plants, there is also the need to reprocess the electricity from wind, because the electricity has to have special qualities, in the end nuclear power with all costs combined is 3-4x times cheaper than the wind power and the EU right forbids every subsydy of nuclear power...
papcio 3 years ago
"there is also the need to reprocess the electricity from wind, because the electricity has to have special qualities" What on earth are you talking about? Electricity is electricity. You can't tell that it was produced by wind, coal, gas, oil, hydro, geothermal or nuclear power. Reprocess electricity. ROFL.
The EU does not forbid subsidies for nuclear power. LOL.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Not acctually reprocess but electricity is not as simple as you think. What we use is the AC and it has such properties as:
- phase
- amplitude
- frequency
but it can also be a mix of multiple signals so its a really complexe thing, and you couldnt use them
papcio 3 years ago
I am an Engineer. Connecting wind farms to the grid is well understood. Yes, AC has phase (influenced by capacitance and inductance), amplitude (voltage) and frequency. If you notice wind turbines, they are all synchronized to each other and the grid. The pitch of the blade is adjusted so that the generators are all synchronous. There is no problem in producing a constant voltage out from a wind turbine. Phase or power factor is adjusted at the switch yard with capacitors.
milofonbil 3 years ago
sorry I lack the profesional language, but what I heard is that there is a need to get rid of the multiple signals on each other, while the current in the plug is just a simple, constant signal. Well it isnt a big deal, but still there is no such need in conventional power plants.
papcio 3 years ago
It's OK. I think you understand me, you are willing to listen and are not getting hostile...
Conventional power plants and even PV panels on your roof all need to synchronize their AC to the power line. It's really not a problem.
The more challenging problems are how wind turbines deal with transients caused by the grid. These can trip the wind turbine and take it offline. But technology has been developed to override momentary glitches.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Nuclear power after 55 years of development still regularly gets subsidies here in the US. Bush and his cronies in congress eliminated a lot of the subsidies for renewable power in favor of nuclear power and big oil companies.
There are fewer moving parts in a wind turbine than in a nuclear power plant. Also, the wind turbine does not suffer of structural decay from neutrons. So could you please explain why you think why a nuclear power plant would last 60 years and a wind turbine only 25?
milofonbil 3 years ago
i dont know how about USA, but in Europe we do not subsydy nuclear power. I doubt that USA would do the opposite just like subsyding oil companies.
>There are fewer moving parts in a wind turbine than in a nuclear power plant.
- for example the concrete construction suffers huge strains. Thats why we acctual dont build wind power plants where the winds are strong but there where the nearby area is smoothest and the winds are most stabile.
- neutrons wouldnt cause the construction to decay.
papcio 3 years ago
papcio, we live in a "capitalistic" country where subsidies are created by government cronies. The nuclear industry here has been very heavily subsidized through insurance waivers, loan guarantees, government research and facilities, etc. for the last 55 years. The oil industry, even though extremely profitable, still gets subsidies.
We build wind turbine where the wind is reliable to raise the capacity factor.
After years of exposure to neutrons metals become brittle and concrete decays.
milofonbil 3 years ago
The biggest "subsidy" for nuclear industry in Europe is the ITER project. It will cost about 10 billions euros in 30 years. But only the European Investment Bank will subsidy the renewables in 2009-2010 with 12 billion euros...
But im happy that also you realise that we dont live in true capitalistic countries. IMHO the market should choose the best and cheapest option.
papcio 3 years ago
We supposedly live in a capitalistic country. But look at the $700 Billion bailout for the banks. This would never happen in true capitalism. Subsidies don't happen in pure capitialistic systems either. But they do. And they are handed out for those with the political clout. Plain and simple, it's corruption. The US is full of corruption. This is why Bush, Cheney and the rest of them are not in jail as we speak.
milofonbil 3 years ago
- its not that i think that nuclear plants would last this and this long and wind turbines only this long - these numbers are given from the producer
just google: wind turbine lifetime
papcio 3 years ago
After 20 years it is reasonable to replace rotor blades, gearboxes and generators. Those components are about 20% of the cost of the whole wind turbine. Also, the turbine mast does have a resonant eigenfrequency causing it to move back and forth. The concrete used in foundations for the towers also has a limited lifetime.
There is probably a cost trade-off such that it is simply cheaper to replace the turbine versus to over-engineer it to make it last longer.
milofonbil 3 years ago
oh yeah and i just recently read that germany will subsidy its photovoltaics with 120 billions euros within the next years. While my country is just about to build its first nuclear power plant without any subsydies. With 120 billions of euros it could run on nuclear only... well the coal labor unions wont let it happen though.
papcio 3 years ago
these 120 billion euros will be spent in the next 20 years.
papcio 3 years ago
I had read that the CDU and the SPD were deeply divided on nuclear power. I guess Germany is going nuke again since Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU party is in at the moment.
milofonbil 3 years ago
There is an over abundance of natural energy.
Here in BC Canada we use a lot of hydro. That is why we have some of the cheapest power in N.America. In the southern states solar would probably be best. Abundant wind energy is available all over the continent. Here in BC we have tremendous amounts of tidal energy which we have only begun to experiment with.
It is looking very good. Our governments should be turning towards these types of energy with maximum research dollars now.
bimmjim 3 years ago
Our governments are spending huge amounts on research in wind and solar. Germany is spending hundreds of millions. I really don't see further research in Wind power having much of a return. Right now at best wind is getting minor revisions which decrease cost. Research is sadly not something you can just throw money at and get infinite returns. Tidal energy might make sense, worth research sure.
NorskeDivision 3 years ago
Why in the world do all you people talk about money and returns? Lets talk about safety and lives. Clean safe power is the only chance we have of watching our grandchildren grow old.
JilBrowne 3 years ago
We would have low energy prices in Washington if it were not for having to pay for the mistake of investing in nuclear power. WPPS is still costing us rate payers tons of money.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Oh and Harvey Wasserman, my generation has little patience for your supposed concern "not to leave waste behind for future generations." If that were true, why did your generation nothing as hundreds of coal power plants were constructed? We've lost species forever to extinction. Dioxins are all over our ecosystem causing thousands of cancer cases. Global warming is on a rampage. All this could have been lessened if you'd had relied more on nuclear power more. Thanks for nothing.
NorskeDivision 3 years ago
You ass we need answers not more pointing fingers.
JilBrowne 3 years ago
tinyurl . com / 5msjwu
Scroll down the the bottom. The pentagon was a flat surface lower quality concrete (nuclear plants have problems obtaining high quality concrete). A containment dome is rounded, the force is deflected.
Spent fuel "ponds" could potentially be a target, but there's no method of dispersal. They are below grade, so even if the terrorists flew a plane into it some would splash up, but that's it. No flow out. No explosion. Terrorists have much better targets (refineries!).
NorskeDivision 3 years ago
Using radioactive poison as energy is akin to a house of 20 people with severe peanut allergies --- the kind that makes your lungs shut down --- keeping a huge quantity of peanuts, peanut butter and peanut oil in the kitchen, with one non-allergic peanut freak living there and eating the stuff 3 meals a day. It's an insanely dangerous situation in which many are endangered for the benefit of a tiny minority who out-shouts anyone who registers alarm or mistrust. This is the story of nuclear power
mutualpea 3 years ago
It just occurred to me that I could be saying in my post, by inference, that the people behind nuke power companies are immune to radioactivity! Let me correct that before someone pounces on it: No one in the house is non-allergic, just as no one, not even power company executives and their promoters, are immune to radioactivity. The "peanut freak" in my sketch could be using the stuff for sale elsewhere. Either way, the point is that he's "playing with fire".
mutualpea 3 years ago
Well, considering that no one in the U.S. has ever died from any nuclear energy related accident, I hardly see your point here. Yes, radiation can be dangerous, but they're spending billions of dollars to make sure it's as safe as possible. There's a reason that there hasn't been any terrorist attacks on a nuc plant, it's because it's a lot easier to bomb an office building or sports stadium. I just don't understand the paranoia.
churt2 3 years ago
It might be harder to plant a bomb at a nuke, but it's just as easy to fly a plane into it. ANd I don't believe the corporations know that a 747 wouldn't penetrate the containment vessel. How many times have they tried it? I don't trust their computer models.
~~~no one in the U.S. has ever died from any nuclear energy related accident~~~
The cancer rate around the Chernobyl and THree Mile Island plants have skyrocketed. People die yearly from those disasters.
mutualpea 3 years ago
So what they are telling you is that if you fly a plane into the pentagon there are hardly any parts left on the outside and the 767 flies through 3-4 successive rings of concrete re-enforced walls. There's a 16 ft hole, etc.
And in this case, the plane bounces off and nothing inside gets the shock and vibration of a 7,5 Richter earthquake ... um yah. But they never talk about hitting the spent fuel pond with the 767. (full of highly radioactive spent fuel and has no containment vessel)
milofonbil 3 years ago
No one has died yet. You seem pleased they are spending billions to make nuclear energy safe. Lets spend half on something thats all ready safe. Wind and solar. Nuclear power has never been safe and when you find away to make it that way let me know.
JilBrowne 3 years ago
Please pray God this is not all mute. We may have already done enough damage just with the waste alone to kill thousands or more. I think we are all just late for the sky. We have been lucky but our lives are not are own . Face it they can do what ever they want unless we start to get together at last. Let's stop them before it really is to late for any sky. Peace
JilBrowne 3 years ago
The coal industry must love you, wasserman, you've been waging your war against nuclear energy these past 30 years, keeping it at a standstill while coal still produces the majority of the energy in the US and solar and wind still around 1 per cent of it.
churt2 3 years ago
Figure it our for yourself, churt2. Gvt. support for sustainable energy was snuffed out by Reagan lo those many years ago, while they poured billions of our money into a nuclear industry that still can't turn a decent profit. No Wall St. investor will touch nuke power. That's why they need the Welfare checks.
mutualpea 3 years ago
As opposed to the subsidies that would ABSOLUTELY be necessary to push renewable energy past the marginal point? Just because political pressure from people like wasserman has stymied nuclear development, does not mean it does not work. If that were true France, which is 80% nuclear, would not have the cheapest energy in europe, the cleanest air, and energy independence. France is only nation in Europe that sells power to other nations. This video is hysterical propaganda. Me? An engineer.
drabarne 3 years ago
You think France is spending less on energy than Germany, which has empowered homeowners (and other bldg. owners) to generate THEIR OWN solar power, the surplus of which they actually SELL TO THE POWER UTILITIES? German citizens are MAKING A PROFIT on their energy technology. No nuke plant does that for anyone, anywhere, and never will. And decentralized power also means no one can bomb one power plant and take out the whole city. They'd have to hit multiple buildings, locations, wind farms, etc
mutualpea 3 years ago
Germany is having to import energy in from France right now, not the other way around, what are you talking about? And you should check your facts, the outside container vessel of a nuclear plant can withstand the straight on impact of 747 plane. And even IF someone got inside, the uranium in the reactor isn't NEARLY as enriched as what would be needed for an actual nuclear bomb, the worst it could do is meltdown the reactor, hence the term "meltdown".
churt2 3 years ago
France has to import all of its uranium.
I'm not sure if a reactor can really withstand the head-on impact of a 747. That's a lot of mass. The 747 can crash into the spent fuel pond. Spent fuel is a much better dirty bomb.
Hydrogen gas formed during the meltdown can explode.
milofonbil 3 years ago
You have a point, the spent fuel ponds are a very real danger, though sometimes a bit exaggerated. That's why it would be nice to have Yucca open for business, if only nucfree wasn't protesting that too.
churt2 3 years ago
Quite right.
drabarne 3 years ago
I understand that you mean shutting down the grid, not as easy as you believe. I was a subamarine nuclear engineer, do you honestly believe we did not engineer a backup in case of attack or emergency? Secondly, do not assume that I am an absolutist, I have nothing against alternative energy. If a community can make do with them and score profit I am thrilled. But I am a New Yorker, and if you believe big cities can be powered by windmills you are fooling yourself.
drabarne 3 years ago
Hey drabarne: google Stanford university, then find the department of civil and environmental engineering. Now find Jacobsen.
He has done excelent research on wind power.
His research shows that there is enough wind power in the continental US to supply 7 times your current needs for all energy types;transportation, residential and industrial. Check it out.
bimmjim 3 years ago
Of course there is enough wind power to supply all of our energy needs. There's enough methane emitted the asses and burps of ruminants to supply most of our natural gas needs, that doesn't mean it's economical to do it though.
NorskeDivision 3 years ago
When your farting your self to sleep tonight think of all the money wasted on this war. Spending money on saving lives beats the hell out of your burps.
JilBrowne 3 years ago
Wind power is now cheaper than legacy hydro power. So what's the problem?
milofonbil 3 years ago
Electricity and gas are supplied by the state-owned Electricité de France/Gaz de France. Since nuclear power is very capital intensive, the interest is the largest portion of the costs. But France loans itself zero percent interest loans for projects of its own power company. This is why France has the lowers electrical costs. In fact, what this means is that the French people are subsidizing other countries' electrical use. Meanwhile France has run out of uranium and must import it all.
milofonbil 3 years ago
While that may be true, my point is still valid. France is independent of foreign oil. That says a lot. Nothing is perfect.
drabarne 3 years ago
A lot more people would die from an attack on an office building or a sports stadium, so by your reasoning we should outlaw them as well? The Yucca facility WOULD be a solution if you weren't protesting it yourself so you could use it as an argument. It CAN pay its own way, it's just afraid that liberals will revoke their licenses so they want a guarantee that they won't get screwed by groups like nucfree!
churt2 3 years ago
You remind me of Hamid Al Ghazali. Anti science and numbers. Monkeys like you make me sick.
braddockakalatis 3 years ago
Hey dumb ass (guy talking). Take a look at France
HypocritesHero 3 years ago
So what is your point?
milofonbil 3 years ago
My point is that it seem like a lot of pro-nukes have a whole lot of independent thoughts. They seem to go by a script that someone handed them, including their childish insults.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Hey dumb ass (guy talking). Take a look at France
HypocritesHero 3 years ago
I don't think Wasserman is a "dumb ass". Perhaps you should take a closer look at yourself. France built all those nuclear power plants out of nationalistic pride. They were all needed so that the French could have all the plutonium they needed for the cold war. (Yes, all reactors make plutonium. breeders are just more productive at it)
Now France has run out of Uranium and has to import it all. They are by no means fuel independent.
milofonbil 3 years ago
what about chernobyl? that was due to human error. it was in '86 and is only now becoming possible to visit those areas, and even now most are still uninhabitable. thats over 2 decades. nuclear waste aside, there are too many variables in dealing with nuclear energy. too much is liable to go wrong. faulty design and incompetent workers result in a gamble too dangerous to continue their use.
zagreus12 4 years ago
All right people, some quick lessons here. 1.) Nuclear power plants do NOT make the type of fuel needed to create a weapon-as North Korea found out, it requires a specific type of enriched uranium. At best, the bad guys would attempt to create a "dirty" weapon and most likely end up with an extremely fatal and quick acting radiation poisoning.
2.) Many of the worlds navies use nuclear power-and how many "meltdowns" have happened at sea? So, why is this unsafe? Use your head!
angelandsaint 4 years ago
I am using my head. Sounds like your's is empty.Wake up and look around you maybe it will shake something free up there.
JilBrowne 4 years ago
this anti-nuclear force deeply saddens me.
leesagrl, where do you think they're burying coal waste? the quantity of coal ash is literally millions of times greater than the corresponding quantity of nuclear waste! do some research of your own and i am convinced there's a 90% chance you'll turn out pro-nuclear. please don't believe this nuclear scare rhetoric!
califomia 4 years ago
More coal is certainly not the answer, but nuclear is not either.
Where are you going to get all the uranium for the infinite nuclear expansion projects you guys are proposing. 11 uranium exporting countries have already run out. France, 80% the country you want us to model ourselves after has already run out of uranium and is full dependent on foreign sources. The US is already importing 84% of uranium. What do you suppose will happen when the HEU from the nuclear weapons runs out?
milofonbil 4 years ago
Funny that it should sadden you. It makes me happy as a mother with a new baby in her arms. At least i will know that sweet baby will be safe from this madness.
JilBrowne 4 years ago
Wherever you get your FACTS, they make no difference to me, i live in Eastern-Europe. Our country is run on a complex of coal plants, depending on a depleting source of coal. Soon we'll run out, and we'll have to import energy. That will be a major setback for our small country.
Our only logical choice is nuclear power. But because of hippie fearmongers like you, all the voting morons screw everything up.
batukhan 4 years ago
You can call me a hippie fear monger all you like. Wake up and look around you where do you think this waste is going? Right past your front door i hope. Not mine. Nuke Free!!!!!!!Your the only moron here just one hippies thoughts and dam proud of them!!!
JilBrowne 4 years ago
Coal- let it run out. "Our only logical choice is nuclear power" Based on what??? Why don't you explain it to me. Is there something I've missed in years of reading?
milofonbil 4 years ago
WRONG! They don't invest into nuclear power because of people like you! You're spreading senseless fears and holding back human progress
batukhan 4 years ago
No your wrong. Please wake up before it's to late for all of us. Have you done your homework? Because i did my friend.Just another thought from your very own hippie fear monger. Who knows some day you and i could be friends. Stranger things have happened. PEACE....
JilBrowne 4 years ago
Batukhan, that's really great. I thought that nuclear power could not give a rats ass about sensible, well constructed argument against nuclear power. I thought their primary motivation was greed - making money using other people's work and other people's money. But maybe you are right. YAY! YIPPIE! We scared them away with the truth! YAY! YIPPIE!
Holding back human progress? I'm for skipping nuclear power - something that has not worked in 55 years and going for time proven renewables.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Batukhan, that's really great. I thought that nuclear power could not give a rats ass about sensible, well constructed argument against nuclear power. I thought their primary motivation was greed - making money using other people's work and other people's money. But maybe you are right. YAY! YIPPIE! We scared them away with the truth! YAY! YIPPIE!
Holding back human progress? I'm for skipping nuclear power - something that has not worked in 55 years and going for time proven renewables.
milofonbil 3 years ago
And sign if you feel it's something that will help
JilBrowne 3 years ago
What a hypocrite. THAT was a sensible, well constructed argument?!
How can you say that nuclear power hasn't worked, when it clearly does work.
In France, almost 80% of their power comes from nuclear. Their electricity is among the cheapest in Europe, while they have very little pollution.
France is an example of nuclear success, which has statistics to back up it's claims, instead of promises.
batukhan 3 years ago
Let me explain it to you again. France's nuclear power industry in nationalized and heavily subsidized by the French government. The French government hatched and coddled a nuclear industry that has cost an estimated $120 billion. It's cheap because the French Government does not charge itself interest.
It's really not clean either - French plants have been hit by sporadic radiation leaks.
France has no uranium anymore. They have to import it.
It all depends on how you define success.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Batukhan, that's really great. I thought that nuclear power could not give a rats ass about sensible, well constructed argument against nuclear power. I thought their primary motivation was greed - making money using other people's work and other people's money. But maybe you are right. YAY! YIPPIE! We scared them away with the truth! YAY! YIPPIE!
Holding back human progress? I'm for skipping nuclear power - something that has not worked in 55 years and going for time proven renewables.
milofonbil 3 years ago
Fine. Cut the subsidies as soon as you cut the redundant, extremely expensive and years-long processes of licensing and regulation. the nuclear industry is not nearly as subsidies as the wind or solar industries and it faces HUGE difficulty because of all the redtape the government has put in the way of building reactors.
DrBuzz0 4 years ago
"all the redtape the government has put in the way of building reactors." ...as they should. Reactors are not toys for foolish people that have no regard for others with their money-extracting scams.
milofonbil 4 years ago
your ass cant be protected from terrorists attack.
toiletwet 4 years ago
May I quote you on saying that there will never be a solution to high-level nuclear waste? I seem to recall other such statements from past generations being read for amusement. Perhaps powered flight is impossible too?
brennakj 4 years ago
Please quote me. They've been working on the waste problem for 55 years. Hopefully, I will be around to laugh at all the infinite nuclear power projections and hope to be around when Yucca Mountain becomes a Nevada amusement ride. Maybe someone will understand that nuclear power is a very complicated solution to boiling water and making electricity from it. Perhaps they will drill a bunch of holes 10,000 ft down and get at the geothermal power below us. It's a huge natural reactor.
milofonbil 4 years ago
Speaking of conservation, how about you run the energy balances for your solution (solar, wind) and run them for mine? After you realize the two are not even near the same order of magnitude, then perhaps you should let the engineers do their jobs instead of roadblocking with these senseless fears.
brennakj 4 years ago
Senseless Fears? God help us all.
JilBrowne 4 years ago
Don't let this guy bother you. We are running out of uranium anyway. The 80 year figure they toss around assumes "given the same level of demand". However, the population is growing at a good clip and so are the needs of developing nations. They won't have fuel left over in 30 years. Maybe someday, they will remember that you can't solve a geometric growth problem with a polynomial solution.
milofonbil 4 years ago
God it is so good to hear from someone thinking about our children and grandchildren. He scares me more then bothers me. I just know if we only work at it there are so many other ways to keep us all safe and healthy. Proud to be a hippie. PEACE.
JilBrowne 4 years ago
Thanks so much for your response. I really would like to hear anything else you might have to say.What do you think about soler wind,and all the things we should be putting are energy in. Pardon the pun. From your friendly hippie that wants to keep raising little hippies.
JilBrowne 3 years ago
I live in Washington. There is not enough insolation during the winter to make solar to work economically. However, I think wind and geothermal both have great promise here.
I can't wait until the mess at Hanford site gets cleaned up and when the last nuclear power plant in Washington gets entoumbed.
Read up about peak uranium. They will be wishing they invested their money into renewables when uranium runs out.
milofonbil 3 years ago
I am an Engineer with a Masters degree, 9 patents and 8 pending.
Why dose the US have to import 84% of uranium? Why don't you tell us how much uranium France, England and Germany have left over. 11 uranium producing countries have already run out.
As gas prices go up, the cost of mining increases. As mining continues, the quality of the uranium that is being extracted is of a lower quality or enrichment level. How will you solve the energy problem without economically recoverable uranium?
milofonbil 4 years ago
If all spent fuel were to be shipped to the repository by truck in larger-capacity casks, requiring about 46,000 shipments and over 100 million shipment miles, between 70 and 310 accidents and over 1,000 incidents would be expected over the operating life of the repository. Under the DOE base case scenario (88% rail, 12% truck), about 50 to 260 accidents and 250 to 590 incidents would be expected.
milofonbil 4 years ago
But accidents carrying nuclear waste have already happened. On December 29, 2006 there was an accident where a truck carrying spent fuel turned over in North Carolina. May 7, 2006 a truck carrying radioactive waste collided with another in Arizona. There are many, many more of these incidents; too many to post here.
milofonbil 4 years ago
And how many cases of radiation release? Zero--because the shipping containers are specially designed to withstand even the most worst-case scenarios.
lwnf360 4 years ago
I am familiar with Sandia National Labs' development of the casks in the mid 80's. You can't test every scenario. So you have to rely on human engineers.
The NRC does not publicly acknowledge any of the transportation accidents or breaches of their containers. The news articles disappear as quick as they hit the news. How do you know?
milofonbil 4 years ago
PS ... I have seen a few of the tests myself during my lunch breaks at Sandia in the desert south of where I used to work. You see the videos of the success cases. You never see the failure cases. I'm sure they are still nicely packed away in a filing cabinet with red and white candy striping on them, or they are nicely shredded "for national security"
milofonbil 4 years ago
Republicans keep pushing through energy bills that subsidize oil & nuclear companies, but don't give anything to small developers of wind & solar systems!! Then they wail & begrudge their fellow Americans a liveable minimum wage! RePIGlicans (like Deb Pryce) want Americans to be "consumers". If solar & wind become prevalent, people might actually have FREEDOM from dependence on a power company. Big energy couldn't keep ripping us off & charging us for fuel.
KatchooFrancine 4 years ago
High-level nuclear waste (also called irradiated or "spent" fuel) is literally about one million times more radioactive than when the fuel rods were loaded into the reactor. This waste is so lethal that standing near it without shielding would kill you within minutes. This waste will be hazardous for millions of years. No technology exists to keep it isolated this long.
Cr8Joi 4 years ago
They are stored quite safely in thick stainless steel dry-storage casks on-site at America's 104 nuclear power plants.
lwnf360 4 years ago
Yes, they go into dry-storage casks after the storage pool is full to the limit. The fuel assemblies have to go back into the pool before they can be shipped anywhere. That storage is only temporary until a solution is found. As an amateur "expert", you should know this.
milofonbil 4 years ago
For how long? Do you know? Do you care? Sleep on that.
JilBrowne 4 years ago
The growth of the nuclear power industry will lead to nuclear weapon proliferation. Let's not solve the global warming problem by creating another dangerous problem.
doctari1 4 years ago
Explain how the commercial nuclear power industry has led, in any way, to nuclear proliferation. This is simply empty rhetoric. Nuclear proliferation was accomplished by espionage and rouge scientists. Aside from the need for low-enriched uranium, commercial nuclear power has absolutely nothing to do with the nuclear weapons process.
lwnf360 4 years ago
Well currently the Bush administration is making the same claim about Iran. That their claimed interest in nuclear power is really a cover for developing nuclear weapons. If we are proposing to reduce greenhouse gasses by more developing more nuclear power then why wouldn't Iran be able to do the same thing. Also the newest way to "clean" nuclear waste is to turn it into plutonium the key ingredient in making nuclear weapons.
doctari1 4 years ago
At that... you can read-up about the extremely dirty PUREX reprocessing process. Spent fuel mixed with chemicals is wonderfully leaking into the Columbia River from the Hanford Site. You ought to see how the government has been cleaning up afer themselves. I wonder if these boys even know to lift the ring on the toilet seat before they pee and remember how to flush. Judging by the mess they left behind it makes you wonder about power and greed.
milofonbil 4 years ago
should we spend our money on a dump that has to be guarded for 10000 years? We should have an energy mix of a lot of diffrent renewable and non renewable source. But if we want to advance as a species we need to move towards renewable low pollution alternatives. Nuclear power for many reasons is not the answer.
doctari1 4 years ago
So by switching to renewable, the tons of spent fuel being stored on-site at America's 104 nuclear plants is going to magically disappear? Wake up people.
lwnf360 4 years ago
Of course the existing spent fuel is not going to disappear. Why add to it? Nuclear is a proven economic/investment failure, hence the industry going to government subsidies for building plants, private investors are not interested. Building nuclear power plants is not in the interest of the majority, it is in the interest of the few to make more money. Anything said to the contrary is pure propaganda.
Cr8Joi 4 years ago 2
How can a nuclear plant be an economic failure, AND make money for a few? This is a contradiction in your statement.
Exactly, how are they economic failures? They provide 80% of France's power--the French have the lowest electric bills in Western Europe.
Exactly what government subsidy is being used to build new plants?
Explain how there are about a dozen privately/publicly owned power utilities in the US interested in building new plants if private investors are not interested?
lwnf360 4 years ago
They can be a net loss for the whole system and yet put money in the pockets of a few both at the same time. Another example of this is war. There has never been a profitable war for anyone, yet war profiteers make plenty of money.
milofonbil 4 years ago
What the hell does that even mean?
JilBrowne 4 years ago
Jill, think about it. A person can sell snake oil to people. The only people benefiting from the transaction is the snake oil salesman. The rest of the people fell prey to the snake oil salesman.
Nuclear power is just like that. Here in Washington, snake oil salesmen ripped-off the entire state with their WPPS project. The Federal government payed all sorts of subsidies. But in the end we got only one nuclear power plant and still have to pay for five of them. Four were never completed.
milofonbil 3 years ago
(con't) 2. France has lots of nuclear power. It's run by the French government. They don't need to make a profit. They don't have to guarantee a profit to any stockholders - there aren't any.
milofonbil 4 years ago
Do you really think profit is what this is about? There are lives in the balance. Your's mine and what about the children? Who's going to save them from our mess?
JilBrowne 4 years ago
With France, it's about having loads of power. It's really ironic. They are now totally powerless over their electrical power. France has to import 100% of all uranium they use because their mines are completely mined-out already. So they are completely at the whim of the last few producers of uranium. Electrical energy security - NONE. Breeding does not work and neither does reprocessing.
And now just think. The pro-nukes want us to be just like France! ROFL
milofonbil 4 years ago
Jill, in France, the nuclear power industry is privatized. It's owned by France. So their electricity is very inexpensive because they don't have to pay themselves interest for borrowing the money.
I understand lives are at stake. The snake oil salesmen could care less.
milofonbil 3 years ago
(con't) 3. The President's budget made significant cuts in renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean air, and climate change related-programs. On the other hand, Bush has extended loan guarantees, production tax credits, and federal risk insurance for the builders of new nuclear power plants.
milofonbil 4 years ago
(con't) 4. The private investors are not interested in risky investments that don't promise a high rate of return. They don't put their money into a risky investment unless there are loan guarantees in place. Wall Street would not give them the loan guarantees. So the taxpayer has to pick up the tab for them. This is corporate welfare at best. I thought you right wingers loved free market economics.
milofonbil 4 years ago
It is certainly time to move to a truly clean, reliable power system and get away from centralized power produced by fossil fuels and nuclear fuel. Count me in!
dozer9292 4 years ago 2
Oh, I want to verify that I am a real person! Not viral marketing (stop making stuff up)
machi4velli 4 years ago
Why should I care about what Bonnie Raitt, Graham Nash, and Ben Harper think of nuclear power...? They are musicians?! I am so tired of these random political campaigns using celebrities as if they have some sort of relevant knowledge. However, Wasserman does have a point about the government paying for the plants, why should they give billions of dollars to private companies?
machi4velli 4 years ago
This guy is lost... I don't find him to be credible at all.
rhassinger12 4 years ago
The relentless, vehement pro-nuke posts are a viral marketing campaign written by the nuke companies. I don't trust the government to handle nuclear waste safely, and I don't want them using my tax money to fund their vain attempts. Posting repeatedly about how safe nuclear power is doesn't make it true. The French are a handy tool -- hate 'em when they disagree with the war, but love 'em when you want to hold French nuclear power plants up as an example of how the U.S. of A. should do things.
Pookster70 4 years ago 2
Disagreeing with a group of people for one thing doesn't discredit them from everything else. Their stance on Iraq has very little to do with how they power their country.
Are you saying that the text posts are by nuke companies or the video posts? I would think the nuclear power industry has better things to do than post on youtube in hopes to revolutionize the world.
Governmentman7 4 years ago
Nuclear power plants are safe, i bet most of you people dont know anything about plants. such as if i were to say the reactor is "critical" you would freak out...when in reality, that is what we want the reactor power range to be in. so go learn about this before you start putting your two sense in. thats all thanks...
consealsk8 4 years ago
Nuclear power plants are safe, i bet most of you people dont know anything about plants. such as if i were to say the reactor is "critical" you would freak out...when in reality, that is what we want the reactor power range to be in. so go learn about this before you start putting your two sense in. thats all thanks...
consealsk8 4 years ago
hahahahaha........haha wow....so he said nuclear power plants are "weapons of mass destruction." yea because that is even close to the truth. I am currently going to school so that I can operate a plant, and when you look at the numbers, I get more radiation from gammas and photons from the sun, than i will get from working at the plant everyday.
consealsk8 4 years ago
I don't want one in my backyard and since I stand by the Golden Rule I don't want one in your back yard either.
remember2bkind 4 years ago 3
Hey people, get this . . .
So I'm a greedy utility and I want to rape the public on power charges. Let's see. . . I decide to build a nuke for $4 billion and name it after myself that I know will blow up and cost another $4 billion to clean up. And I will need to buy power to make up for what I now cannot produce. GET REAL. NUKES ARE SAFE AND RELIABLE AND EFFICIENT AND COST EFFECTIVE POWER PRODUCERS.
Yougottabeshttinme 4 years ago
You and I exhale about as much carbon as a nuke discharges. A coal plant puts more radiation out than a larger nuke puts out of it's stack. Most mills use elecricity to operate their motors, and if we used nuke power to run those mills, then there is no global warming. Additionally, if we reprocessed the spent fuel like every other free world country does, we wouldn't need to mine as much.
Your passion is directed wrongly - TO SAVE THE PLANET YOU NEED TO BE PRO NUKE!!
Yougottabeshttinme 4 years ago
Harvey if you want to speak on this subject I suggest Saturday Night Live. On SNL you can say what you want and people will still laugh at you. Get a real job! Walmart needs Greeters to hand out smiley stickers to kids during the Christmas season.
pronukeprocountry 4 years ago
The French seem to have been able to make Nuclear Energy safe and cost effective.. why can't we just use 3rd or 4th generation reactors and do the same? (All the reactors that we have now are 1st generation.)
yodadude007 4 years ago
I've been to Yucca Mountain, sat on it while listening to geologists & hydrologists and other scientists tell us exactly why the waste burial scheme there is sheer madness . jewishzombie is so sure that this "FREAKING MOUNTAIN" is the perfect place? Go there, jz; see for yourself.
Finally, it's curious that the ranting pro-nukers can't seem to stay civil with their comments. Do I really want such angry, potentially violent folks dictating our future? Yeah, but I'm just a washed-up Old Hippie.
StashPenumbra 4 years ago
One industry mentioned by Wasserman--the private insurance people--HAVE never, and WILL never, underwrite nuclear power plants. Gee fellas, wonder why that might be? Could it be something about a little principle called risk/benefit ratios? Yes, it's comforting to believe that radioactive technology will save us. But that's all it is: a belief. Kinda like The Rapture. And the risks to unborn generations are just too obscene.
StashPenumbra 4 years ago
Clearly, respondents like seangreenday and jewishzombie are young; thus, full of extreme & arrogant (and untested, by virtue of limited time on the planet) opinions. Get around the block for a few more decades, lads. Has seangreen ever heard of the Union of Concerned Scientists? Maybe does not want to--it would shake up that neat little world in which technology is always our friend, and only good sense (as opposed to filthy profit-mongering) dictates the decisions of industry and government.
StashPenumbra 4 years ago 2
Hahaha, There's a reason why this campaign doesn't interview scientists. Because only un-informed citizens would go against nuclear power.
seangreenday 4 years ago
Maybe the person who lives near one has no problem, but who is to say that they won't have problems created by the plants years from now. If our environment cannot naturally dispose of the residue left from nuclear power then the earth does not need them. There is lots of items out there that we shouldn't be creating, but this is the major one.
joelteha 4 years ago
I have no idea if what he is saying is true or not or even if jewishzombie is correct. I however feel they cannot afford to build nuclear power with the money they make off of creating power then we shouldn't have them. I don't want one in my backyard and I sure don't want my tax dollars going to pay for them.
joelteha 4 years ago