don't compare france and fukujima, they did known that there was a huge treat about tsunami and heartquake, that's not the case in france (only in the alp where there's no nuclear plan)
The Russian BREST nuclear reactor simultaneously recycles it's nuclear fuel indefinitely & CONSUMES IT'S NUCLEAR WASTES AS FUEL as well. No problem concerning long term nuclear waste storage but the U.S is against it for one good reason. Nuclear Waste Storage is a MONEY MAKING INDUSTRY. If you solve the long term nuclear waste problem, then the money making nuclear waste storage industry is made unneeded. The Fast Integral Reactor is one solution but was rejected because of this selfish reason
Fast forward 3 years and France have poisioned the ground water in their biggest champaign grape growing region. One distaster as per Japan and the majority of western Europe are fucked! We already have higher rates of cancer in Northern England thanks to the fallout from the Ukraine in 86.
@22ness0hayden The Champagne wine comes from the Champagne region, in the Northast of the country.
The Tricastin nuclear station (where severalcubic meters of water soiled with uranium was released) is in the Tricastin region, in Provence, the South of the country.
And a Tchernobyl disaster will not happen here, neither a Fukushima disaster, because our reactors are safest than the communists ones and we haven't any tsunami.
@22ness0hayden Unlike the old center in Manche where is store all kind of wastes, Aube center receive only low radioactive wastes (gloves, tools, white coats, steel from dissassembled reactors etc) packaged in barrel and flooded with concrete.
Spent fuel is now vitrified and will be store in a special center, 500m deep, designed to retain radioelements away from the surface for tens of thousands of years.
In EU legal limit of tritium in water is a hundred times lower than the WHO recommandation
@MrBillcale yes certainly, the japan nuclear incident is INEV 4, which is less than three mile island. In other words this has been completely blow out of proportion!
Of the people i know most who oppose nuclear energy don´t have a clue about it while all who understand the process and risks support it. Almost all arguments opposers make can be countered easily. That´s propably the most usefull source of energy before fusion reactors come to reality.
You've got to hand it to the French. Not only can they speak more than one language but they understand the reality of energy. What is the U.S. waiting for. Let's just keep sending our dollars to corrupt and unfriendly oil-producing countries. It's time to wake up America.
@SniperViper1000 in fact if you are so smart you can chack statistics life expectancy infant mortality and gnp per capita growth all sky rocketed up once spain joined the eu
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
~ Winston Churchill
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
@MrWagman11 Could not agree with you more. Some one on here with some common sense. China is investing in two nuke reactors in Idaho. China is scheduled to have 100 nuke plants built by 2020. The US is falling behind the 8 ball. We need to catch up, quick.
obama payed a company alot of money to start up a alternative energy company in my area,which that sells small wind turbines,and solar panels. They did start up...and then fold out once they got their money from the president.
Lets not forget Thorium reactors to use very little uranium and produces waste that is less radioactive than natural uranium ore and is utterly impossible to refine into nuclear weapons. There is NO reason to not go nuclear.
@scythelord It is also recycled. When you burn Thorium with Uranium you end up with more product than when you started. Hence, what is called a "breeder" reactor. You start with 100% fuel load and at some point you'll have 102% useable fuel.
nansy polosi-flys to her home every weekend in california,she can take a small private jet,but noo she has to use a big one as,she doesn't want to refuel once
Canada, Africa & Australia. How can you say much more limited? The entire country is practically powered by nuclear power thats why its the greenest least polluting. Youre right uranium isnt renewable but if you recycle the waste, as they do then its reusable energy. Eventually they wont even be dependent on the mineral. In the 50s they didnt have the technology nor the knowledge to recycle. Using fossil fuels like coal was the easiest way and today we're seeing the damage. Are they still right?
There is a heck of a lot energy per gram (magnitude of tens of thousands) of uranium than coal or natural gas. Not perfectly renewable, but it is now at least recyclable through using the Plutonium waste product. Oil will deplete in about 50 years or less, that's why the emphasis on nuclear power, because it won't run out as quickly.
The shortest estimate I've seen is 85 years of uranium. This is not taking into the account the steady increase in scientific breakthrough. We're becoming ever more efficient in using the uranium. I wouldn't, however, say that uranium is what the future is about...
Liquid Salt Thorium reactors are way better! We have three times as much Th as we have U. :)
I also think terrapower holds a lot of promise. The use of U-238 in a mechanism a lot safer than present day's plants.
@schusterlehrling What do you think the earth's core is made of? You will never run out of uranium. Plus, with new technology, they recycle it. Best fuel for the future.
@TheFluffyDuck The weakness of democracy is about decisions are made by what the majority of people think, but if majority of poeple are ignorant, than wrong decision will be made.
@FeelFree3 yeah hitler and stalin killed what 150 million people between them
6 million jews 20 millions soviets whole nations reduced to rubble yeah dictator ships have SUCH wonderful record, democracy is the worst system except for the others
dont be such a moron democracy isnt perfect but it does have the best record
and jerk off to pictures of the queen that so figures
yeah i agree the average person IS a moron
but democracy still has a much much better record than authoritarian regimes of ANY STRIPEeven with socialists running spain for example spain is much better off now as a constituional social democracy that it was under franco
@MrBillcale Since when did I say Hitler and Stalin is good? I am just just saying there is weakness in democracy, I do belive decision should be made by reasonable reasons than just number of people's agreement.
@TheFluffyDuck perhaps a better answer is to educate the public and elected leaders on scientific matters i find that preferable to a dictatorial elite no matter how technocratically benign absolute power corrupts absolutely
@TheFluffyDuck It sounds technocratic and patronizing in your message : science prevails. But actually the decision was made by politicians : all the French presidents agreed on it. It was a choice for the sake of France on the long run. Electricity in France is a monopoly from the start, everything was planned from the beginning by an elite of highly qualified engineers under the vision of one man. No free market, no competition, only the public interest : a US nightmare but a French dream.
"extracting uranium from mine emits more more more than solar"
So as long as mines are powered by a carbon neutral generator, you're okay with it?
What if the current nuclear power plants were used to provide the energy for building new ones?
The only relevant metric is how much energy a power plant needs for building it and collecting fuel, compared to how much it will produce in it's lifetime.
It is true, though. Under Obama, we will not see a major shift towards nuclear power. Ideology blinds them. Personally, I have reservations against the current crop of nuclear reactors. But those reservations are smaller than the concerns I have about other energy sources. Nuclear reactors can be vastly more efficient, a lot safer in terms of waste and proliferation, and effectively renewable. The practical solution is the Integral Fast Reactor, a project stupidly cancelled by Bill Clinton.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wow, people still want Nuclear Power? You guys know any history?
Yucca Mountain = DEAD. Obama finally killed it. And his position is "No more nuclear until we can solve the waste problem" I'm totally against Nuclear power and I'm proud to see the Democrats have come down solidly anti-nuclear (since thats the status Quo). I hope every one of you nuclear power people join the Republican party, and leave the green energy to the Democratic party. Greatest thing that could EVER happen to us :-)
Five reasons: Radioactivity. Running out of uranium. Danger. Terrorist usage, diversion to nuclear weapons, proliferation.
I'd rather see solar and wind, and that's what Obama and the Democrats have invested billions in. So those ARE the solutions we are going to use. Get used to it. Nuclear is dead under Obama. Certainlly its not being promoted at all so whatever you think of it, not that you should agree with Obama, but it's a moot point because its not the solution we have picked! Obama 12
Five reasons why NOT to use solar and wind: The power they produce fluctuates, will not work on our gird. Expensive. takes vast quantities of land to produce the same amount of power as a Nuclear plant. Kills birds and bats. The manufacture of these structures takes a lot of oil and other hazardous materials to make PV cells.
Solar isnt being invested in to produce power for the grid because it is very expensive and doesnt produce much power. This stuff wont work on our gird caz it fluctuates
We will not run out of uranium for probably as long as humanity lives on earth. Danger is such a vague term I don't know how to respond to it well. If terrorists felt plants were a target why did they hit the WTC? Nuclear weapons existed before the plants and always will. Proliferation is happening already and just because the US stops using the materials doesn't mean that North Korea or another country will as well. the US makes hardly any difference.
@VisitingXenoc133 Im interested in your saying we cant run out of Uranium - if there was 500 plants around the world , we would need 14000 tons of Uranium per year roughly. I was under the impression its a fairly rare metal.
If nuclear is "dead" under Obama... why did he seat Mr. Chu as head of the Department of Energy? He is a huge proponent of nuclear power. I would read the Department of Energy's webpage before you say it is anywhere near "dead".
@Madjacker08 China has invested in two nuke plants in Idaho, Nuke power is on it's way. Just have to get by all the enviornwacks, with their stupid protests and lawsuits.
@ObamaBiden20082012 Scare tactics. You "CAN NOT" produce weapons grade plutonium from the new breeder reactors. That is fact. So, quit trying to scare people. The disinformation is alarming concerning nuke power. Nuke power is not dead. China is investing in two nuke plants in Idaho. In fact , I just bought stock in the company AEHI. Where do you get your info? From comic books?
i totaly agree wat all you nuclear fanatics want to watch is a program called kids of chernobyl that will open ur eyes and all nuclear plants WILL have a melt down at sum point its inevitable
"wat all you nuclear fanatics want to watch is a program called kids of chernobyl"
I've seen it. It didn't compare deaths from nuclear to deaths from traditional fuels. It's completely irrational. About 3500 children starved to death while you were watching that. Get some perspective.
"all nuclear plants WILL have a melt down at sum point its inevitable"
It is inherently impossible for modern designs (eg high temperature gas cooled pebble bed) )to meltdown.
I think its you who speak ignorance, spreading fear around, you are making your country become incompetent in the nuclear field, we all know chernobyl was caused by incompetent engineers.
In France there is no such thing as fear for nuclear, there was never any accidents, because all the French nuclear physycist engineers are highly competent in their fields.
Actually there is quite a lot of cooperation between the French and Americans. I personally know several French citizens who are in the United States to get degrees in Nuclear Engineering. Similarly, I have worked with Americans who have lived in France for years learning their system. I am in the process of interviewing for just such a position myself. It is a global world.
True, the French nuclear engineers are highly competent. Yet another factor helped developing technology as safe as possible: In the 1970s, a strong citizen's environmentalist protest movement obliged the French nuclear establishment to pay more attention to safety and environmental issues.
yes but look how America is now, they are still using coal and gasoline to make electricity, the burning of coal and gas is primitive making the atmosphere unbreathable, emitting large quantity of toxic CO2. The USA using coal and gasoline looks no better than the Sovietik Union with pollution.
Not true! Multiple New Safety systems prevent that! And even if another did happen it wouldn't even be near as bad as TMI, Which has reported no deaths!
@SniperViper1000 you're fucking stupid moron,chernobyl had 49,000 pop,i said due to chernobyl explosion 500,000 died/bad disease not only in chernobyl but in other areas where the radiation spread,fucking moron learn english and shut the fuck up ,fucking kid
@ilias2oo6 you are aware that the french nuclear power industry has a perfect record? zero casualties, compare that with coal or any other practical energy.
@SniperViper1000 if you go to wikipedia you see that if you consult the democracy index the nations that are most democratic are also the nations with the best quality of life
@willz131285 Scare tactics. Won't work anymore. The US does not build reactors like Russia. No accidents with any deaths here in the US. Don't be so paranoid.
This is probably the direction the U.S. will go. Wind & Solar just can't do it. IFR reactors are 100 to 300 times as efficient, and could use nuclear waste as fuel.
Every week nuclear waste is trucked across France to the Champagne site. Once full, the dumpsite will be one of the worlds largest with over 1 million cubic meters of waste, including plutonium and other radionuclides and its already leaking...let's definitely not do it like the French...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
BTW the US is not putting it into the mountain because of local opposition , we are justly stupidly keeping it in our nuclear power plants and all kinds of other unsafe places that will NEVER be able to be used for anything else EVER again - NUCLEAR power destroys PERMANENTLY the land it abuses
"NEVER be able to be used for anything else EVER again - NUCLEAR power destroys PERMANENTLY the land it abuses "
Oh baloney.
The "temporary" storage sites around the United States are nothing more than gravel parking lots enclosed by chain link fence with dozens of steel and concrete containers sitting quietly.
The land is no more "permanently" destroyed than any PARKING LOT you've ever seen.
I am talking about nuclear power plant sites not storage sites , but even so the land under most parking lots can be used for growing edible food , and any number of other normal uses once the asphalt is removed , that can NEVER happen ( in our life times ) with the land nuclear power plants now inhabit - what is the ludicrous in the deadly extreme is your senile promotion of a gratuitous , permanently destructive , and the most extremely resource and cost ineffective industry known to man
"that can NEVER happen ( in our life times ) with the land nuclear power plants now inhabit"
You have no idea what you are talking about.
There is nothing special about the actual buildings that make up a Nuclear Power Plant.
Knock down the concrete buildings, etc., remove the reactor (which is a solid piece of engineering *inside* the concrete containment, BTW) and the land would look just like it did before the first concrete slab was poured.
Frances Champagne is threatened by radioactive contamination leaking from a nuclear waste dumpsite Centre Stockage lAube. Low levels of radioactivity have already been found in underground water less than 10 km from the famous Champagne vineyards. Problems at the dumpsite, include water migration leading to fissures in the storage cells: radioactivity leaking from an ANDRA dumpsite in Normandy was up to 90 times above European safety limits in the underground water used by farmers...
@budnboston "Centre de l'aube" is a deposit for low radioactive wastes, with an half life of less than 30 years. Which means slightly contaminated disposables (workers' caps, white coats, gloves, etc)
All this stuff is packaged in barrels and flooded with concrete, then burried for 300 years.
Long life wastes (spent fuel) will be store in a special underground center (500m deep, under construction) studied so that radioactive elements will not reach the surface before 100,000 years !
hahaha! the plant tried to disguise its releases by tunneling its actual waste water pipe deep in the ocean floor hahaha! but notwithstanding the radiation release into the ocean is still deadly in the extreme hahaha(for those who do not live there) ! it matters not if the water does not come in DIRECT contact with the fuel, exposure to rods' radiation is enough to imbue the water with the radiation (obviously) - one does not have to TOUCH the rods to be affected hahaha! go swim there...
hahaha! its releases of radioactivity into the ocean are WELL documented - the plant tried to hide them under the ocean floor which, though, is porous, obviously, and the radioactivity is very detectable notwithstanding - this ZERO release nonesense is the real fairy tale here
I apologize, I thought you were referring to illegal/illicit releases of radiation.
In fact, La Hague does release an amount of radiation equivalent to less than 20 microsieverts per year, which is equivalent to the dose of solar radiation received during a transatlantic flight.
As we have people flying the transatlantic air routes EVERY DAY and have *yet* to assign a cancer cluster to them, I think we can safely dismiss the doom and gloom claims of Greenpeace (who are the ones making noise).
@budnboston The water ISN'T in direct contact with fuel. The nuclear fuel is always in a zirconium alloy housing which avoid water from the primary circuit of a reactor, or the water from the fuel pool, to become too radioactive, and avoid the fuel from dissolving in water.
The French reprocessing center at La Hague has come under widespread attack for its massive radiation discharges into the English Channel and surrounding atmosphere. The plant has produced over nine thousand containers of extremely high level wastes with no safe place to go. Its by-product of plutonium has complicated global attempts to curb the spread of radioactive materials capable of being turned into nuclear bombs.
10 tons of plutonium is transported through France each year with the extreme potential for an accident or terrorist attack or theft etc. The French government's own investigation has proven that the plutonium transport containers would be destroyed if struck an exploding device such as a rocket propelled grenade etc. The resulting fine plutonium dust particles would pollute the land dozens of miles from the accident site. Not only humane law-abiding folks dwell in France (obviously)....
"plutonium transport containers would be destroyed if struck an exploding device"
Then we need to make damn sure that doesn't happen. However, it is improper to use the *possible* as proof of why we should turn our back on (what could turn out to be) the most profitable, clean source of electricity in human history.
hahaha! what a joke. the La Hague site is completely clean. the "radiation discharges" are non existent. true water is taken from the english channel to help cool the waste but the water never comes in direct contact with the fuel. true when the water leaves the site it is a lot warmer but there is no radioactive waste in it or any other kind of waste.
David Gerard says in the interview, Its certainly accurate that the plants emit no carbon dioxide. He omits the fact that constructing the plants; mining and milling the finite and thinning deposits of uranium; and managing the wastes for thousands of years produce enormous and increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
What about mining aluminum for windmills? Creating lubricants for them? Their maintenance costs? Did YOU know that it takes more concrete to build a wind farm than a nuclear power plant?
Yes, what about it? I did not propose wind turbines as a viable alternative, even though I do have direct experience with them at several scales. There is a beauty and practicality to scalable solutions: yet another aspect where nuclear energy fails on both physical and temporal dimensions.
I certainly do. Nuclear power plants are only viable due to massive government subsidies. The waste problem has never been solved. The waste will be around for millions of years. Meanwhile, there is not enough space in the US for the endless nuclear dumps needed every 25 years. Nuclear power plants produce about twice as much waste heat as they do electricity. The waste heat kills fish. The whole fuel cycle is incredibly damaging to the environment. ... etc etc etc
Call in reprocessing. It will cut down on the half life, but you STUPID environmentalists won't let it happen. The US almost had a reprocessing facility. But Nooooo....
Don't call me STUPID. No half life is cut down. After re-processing all of the elements are still there with their respective half-lives. Some transuranics like Np-237 and Pu-244 have very long half-lives (2 million years and 80 million years). They'll still be there after reprocessing. All that reprocessing does is to pull-out plutonium and unranium. You can't keep reprocessing, so eventually, that becomes waste too. So what's your point?
I understand what you mean. You cant keep reprocessing old uranium because it is going to be just as toxic if not more, however the US has made a burning kettle which can burn nuclear waste, chemicals, warheads, and biological weapons at 10 thousand degrees with ZERO toxic residue. On top of that there are emerging companies that are dedicated to finding ways to recycle nuclear waste. Its only a matter of time. I think that all forms of energy should be used and not just one form.
I have been to both nuclear power plants and several wind farms. As a matter of fact, I've been to a uranium mine, mill, refinery, enrichment plant and a fuel fabrication plant. And your point is?
What about them? There are hundreds of wind turbines scattered over a large geographic area. But only a very small portion of that land requires concrete foundations. For a nuclear power plant, many require close to 1000 acres, of which the plant can take up 25-40 acres. And your point is?
Only a fool, or a nuclear industry shill would claim that nuclear energy is "carbon-free energy." The emmission of greenhouse gases during the life-cycle of nuclear energy production is enormous, and will continue to grow as the quality of remaining uranium deposits degrades: just as the EROEI for nuclear energy will diminish.
"We have no coal. We have no oil." France also has no uranium. Why is no mention made that France imports all of its uranium? Is that energy independence?
hotfusion,The Dems,green peace and other liberal groups have always blocked nuclear power development in the USA.I am a big believer in nuclear power.The public is just starting to warm up to nukes.we have a long way to go.mcCain will push for it.obama will try to block it his party always has.
You said it yourself, "The public is just STARTING to warm up to it".
If they had been for it before (such as during the Clinton Administration, or Carter before him) NEITHER Clinton NOR Carter would attempted to limit it's growth).
History backs my view. President's will lean to where the PUBLIC leans.
Carter put limits on Nuclear Power technology after the public became scared to death after Three Mile Island.
Without Three Mile Island, we would have twice as many active plants today.
McCain (BY HIS OWN ADMISSION) has voted with George Bush 90% of the time, so what does that prove? NOTHING.
You've missed my point completely. It doesn't matter if Obama is against Nuclear Power (Which I do not think he is, aside from demanding safety) or if McCain is for Nuclear Power. The President can do VERY LITTLE to move the issue.
Americans wanting Nuclear Power (which they now do, to their credit) is what will create a Nuclear Renaissance. The Market, NOT POLITICS, will drive it.
U are wrong, I see your point and argee with u .We the people should push for nuclear power.However, at the same time these do nothing politions should stop kickin the energy problem can down the road.
Fortunately, the Nuclear Renaissance seems to really be starting this time. High energy prices and cheaper reactors (such as Westinghouse's AP1000 units) are really driving Nuclear's advantages home.
The Chinese recently signed a deal with Westinghouse to build 4 of the new AP1000 plants in China, with a cost of about $2 Billion a piece.
This is FAR less than the previous generation plants and would most likely be cheaper here in the United States (lower shipping costs, duties, etc.)
Progress energy is spending $17 Billion on two Westinghouse AP1000.
If one 1100-mW nuclear plant and infrastructure costs $8.5 billion, then the installed capacity cost is $7,727/kW. At a 90% capacity factor and 20% for the facility's internal pumps and such, and it was financed at a 9% for a 30 year period, this 12.0 cents/kWh.
This is far more expensive. It looks like the Chinese are getting cut a deal at the expense of US rate payers.
Let's check your math. At a 100% capacity factor, there is no time to refuel - ever. At 99% capacity factor there are only 88 hours to refuel. You have got to be kidding.
The market is very distorted when the same nuclear power plant in China costs far less ($2 bil for four) than its being offered to us in Florida ($17 bil for two) and Texas ($14 bil for two).
What this tells you is that nuclear power plants are not a comodity like corn or wheat. Real businesses sell things by what the buyer is willing to pay. I this case, I think the low prices to China are to get into that market. Monopolies distort markets by dumping in one place and high elsewhere.
As a matter of fact, the rate payers in Florida and Texas are quoted a higher price and are already paying for their nuclear power plants through an electrical price increase even though construction on the nuclear plants has not been started yet.
Also, Greenpeace (Environmentalist in general, really), Religious Groups (on the Right or Left), etc. have no real power.
They certainly make the most noise, but have no real power, even if politicians use them as excuses for making the decisions they make.
Unfortunately, no candidate (Dem or Rep) can get elected by only playing to their bases. There just aren't enough Dems or Reps to put their candidate in office alone.
Presidents must balance EVERY view to get reelected.
Fortunately in this country, the President can not rule the court system. That is the way it has been for over 200 years and that is the way it will remain.
Despite my belief that it is a good technology, the Nuclear Industry does not deserve a free hand. The law is on their side. If they are unable to defend themselves in a court of law, then it is because they are incompetent.
I'm afraid no amount of political support can correct incompetence.
Hot, Did u watch this vid?I mean the french have a very competent nuclear power system. No one said the nuclear industary should have a free hand. However, green peace and others abuse the court system. Ted Kenndy has blocked wind power off the east coast. My only point is we must do something.Nukes could power our homes and cars.
And Ted Kennedy's neighbors have fully supported his position because they are also rich.
You like to blame individual politicians as though they live in a vacuum, they do not.
The people of the United States are to blame for Nuclear taking so long to come back to the forefront, not politics.
If the people support it, so will their leaders. If the people do not support it, their leaders won't either (they really want to keep their jobs, you know).
I'm saying the whole damn island of Nantucket is rich.
There's no one on the island who does not agree with Ted Kennedy's position. If they do not want wind power, then it is no one's place to force it down their throat.
And, BTW, you can blame Greenpeace all you want but if the Nuclear industry had gotten off their asses and really tried to defend themselves (instead of just trying to paint Greenpeace as stupid), they wouldn't be in this mess.
They lost court cases because they didn't try hard enough to win. You don't see any cases stopping the construction of new reactors in places like Texas, do you?
Because Greenpeace doesn't have a leg to stand on,...and they know it.
ITER generator produce water as a waste and is safer than coal and other fossil fuel energy plants. however diversification and individuals producing their own energy could and absolutely would help the country as a whole and the individual
even with Chernobyl (which only happened because the Russkies' design is retarded), cancers resulting from nuclear energy are less than 1% of those caused by burning coal. Guess what folks, not everyone gets lung cancer from smoking. So don't get so afraid of radiation. The nuclear plant down the road, if you were to have one in the area, would likely be improving your health.
don't compare france and fukujima, they did known that there was a huge treat about tsunami and heartquake, that's not the case in france (only in the alp where there's no nuclear plan)
bingofioul 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have a look what the skies above our nuclear waste storage look like:
"HUGE storms over Europe 28 June 2011 update"
There is something seriously wrong! I live 5 miles from the Areva facility in Petten.
and have been noticing and recording the effects for months now.
After seeing that video you'll realise what they are doing.
If you have simular experiences near reactors or nuclear waste storages -you know what I mean if you do- I would like to hear about that.
N3anderthaler 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Have a look what the skies above our nuclear waste storage look like:
"HUGE storms over Europe 28 June 2011 update"
There is something seriously wrong! I live 5 miles from the Areva facility in Petten.
and have been noticing and recording the effects for months now.
After seeing that video you'll realise what they are doing.
If you have simular experiences near reactors or nuclear waste storages -you know what I mean if you do- I would like to hear about that.
N3anderthaler 4 months ago
One word = Fukushima!!!
Meltdowns x 3. Containment breached!
They said that could never happen. They lied.
"Spreadation" of radiation, 'deniable' illness and damaged genetics. That's the real cost. (immeasurable)
Testing of Milk, other foods and manure have proven positive in California as of September 2011.
Nuclear/Unclear Energy has been a folly since day 1. It was a big gamble and we have lost. Do you get it now? You will soon.
Thanks, Atoms for Peace. (said sarcastically)
STOPnukesNOW 4 months ago
The Russian BREST nuclear reactor simultaneously recycles it's nuclear fuel indefinitely & CONSUMES IT'S NUCLEAR WASTES AS FUEL as well. No problem concerning long term nuclear waste storage but the U.S is against it for one good reason. Nuclear Waste Storage is a MONEY MAKING INDUSTRY. If you solve the long term nuclear waste problem, then the money making nuclear waste storage industry is made unneeded. The Fast Integral Reactor is one solution but was rejected because of this selfish reason
darthvader5300 4 months ago
Organic food has killed more people than Nuclear Power
How do you feel now, hippies?
Hairysteed 5 months ago
the french are stupid people
georgel19841 5 months ago
Fast forward 3 years and France have poisioned the ground water in their biggest champaign grape growing region. One distaster as per Japan and the majority of western Europe are fucked! We already have higher rates of cancer in Northern England thanks to the fallout from the Ukraine in 86.
22ness0hayden 8 months ago
@22ness0hayden The Champagne wine comes from the Champagne region, in the Northast of the country.
The Tricastin nuclear station (where severalcubic meters of water soiled with uranium was released) is in the Tricastin region, in Provence, the South of the country.
And a Tchernobyl disaster will not happen here, neither a Fukushima disaster, because our reactors are safest than the communists ones and we haven't any tsunami.
SuperBunkerbuster 7 months ago
@SuperBunkerbuster I was refering to this video, watch?v=NbRP-QfeI-8
22ness0hayden 7 months ago
@22ness0hayden Unlike the old center in Manche where is store all kind of wastes, Aube center receive only low radioactive wastes (gloves, tools, white coats, steel from dissassembled reactors etc) packaged in barrel and flooded with concrete.
Spent fuel is now vitrified and will be store in a special center, 500m deep, designed to retain radioelements away from the surface for tens of thousands of years.
In EU legal limit of tritium in water is a hundred times lower than the WHO recommandation
SuperBunkerbuster 7 months ago
Eight people didn't go to college.
TehShew 9 months ago
@MrBillcale. INES*
TheFluffyDuck 10 months ago
@MrBillcale yes certainly, the japan nuclear incident is INEV 4, which is less than three mile island. In other words this has been completely blow out of proportion!
TheFluffyDuck 10 months ago
@TheFluffyDuck Yeah. It's been completely blown out of proportion, huh? Riiight. Stay tuned for Level 7 next week.
CrudeDude 10 months ago
@TheFluffyDuck Japan incident blown out of proportions? hmm...NO
romaniandays 9 months ago
@TheFluffyDuck You can't be serious? Pull you head out of your arse!
22ness0hayden 8 months ago
Of the people i know most who oppose nuclear energy don´t have a clue about it while all who understand the process and risks support it. Almost all arguments opposers make can be countered easily. That´s propably the most usefull source of energy before fusion reactors come to reality.
leksious 1 year ago 4
News man is inaccurate on Yucca Mt. More scare tactics to delay nuclear power in the US.
faroutadventures 1 year ago
@davew8572
either way, atomic energy is the way
captinseperoth 1 year ago
@davew8572 Hydrogen from what ?
hablerz 1 year ago
sure, nuclear power has it faults, but it sure beasts using fossil fuels which will soon flood our countries and then turn earth into a new Venus
superstrok99 1 year ago
You've got to hand it to the French. Not only can they speak more than one language but they understand the reality of energy. What is the U.S. waiting for. Let's just keep sending our dollars to corrupt and unfriendly oil-producing countries. It's time to wake up America.
MrWagman11 1 year ago
@MrWagman11 You calling Canada corrupt and unfriendly?
Sorry, but last time I checked Canada was better then the US.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
@SniperViper1000 in fact if you are so smart you can chack statistics life expectancy infant mortality and gnp per capita growth all sky rocketed up once spain joined the eu
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
~ Winston Churchill
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
~ Winston Churchill
MrBillcale 1 year ago
@SniperViper1000 and more democratic
11 Canada 9.07 Full democracy Federalism, constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
12 Ireland 9.01 Full democracy Parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
-
18 United States 8.22 Full democracy Federalism, Constitutional republic, presidential system, bicameralism
MrBillcale 1 year ago
@MrWagman11 Could not agree with you more. Some one on here with some common sense. China is investing in two nuke reactors in Idaho. China is scheduled to have 100 nuke plants built by 2020. The US is falling behind the 8 ball. We need to catch up, quick.
faroutadventures 1 year ago
obama payed a company alot of money to start up a alternative energy company in my area,which that sells small wind turbines,and solar panels. They did start up...and then fold out once they got their money from the president.
captinseperoth 1 year ago
Lets not forget Thorium reactors to use very little uranium and produces waste that is less radioactive than natural uranium ore and is utterly impossible to refine into nuclear weapons. There is NO reason to not go nuclear.
scythelord 1 year ago
@scythelord It is also recycled. When you burn Thorium with Uranium you end up with more product than when you started. Hence, what is called a "breeder" reactor. You start with 100% fuel load and at some point you'll have 102% useable fuel.
faroutadventures 1 year ago
wanna start a liberal witch hunt?
nansy polosi-flys to her home every weekend in california,she can take a small private jet,but noo she has to use a big one as,she doesn't want to refuel once
captinseperoth 1 year ago
@davew8572 that had ZERO safety features.cus the soviets so care about safety!
captinseperoth 1 year ago
I'm pro atomic weapons...so
I'll trade a bomb for a power-plant!
captinseperoth 1 year ago
5 years holy shit
geekforlifevandc 1 year ago
Where do you get the Uranium?
Remember, it is a mineral, and not renewable at all.
And much more limited then oil or gas.
That was the reason why ,many scientists saw it sceptical in the 1950's .
I guess they are right.
50 years and Uranium is out and then...?
schusterlehrling 2 years ago
Canada, Africa & Australia. How can you say much more limited? The entire country is practically powered by nuclear power thats why its the greenest least polluting. Youre right uranium isnt renewable but if you recycle the waste, as they do then its reusable energy. Eventually they wont even be dependent on the mineral. In the 50s they didnt have the technology nor the knowledge to recycle. Using fossil fuels like coal was the easiest way and today we're seeing the damage. Are they still right?
anelka09 1 year ago
There is a heck of a lot energy per gram (magnitude of tens of thousands) of uranium than coal or natural gas. Not perfectly renewable, but it is now at least recyclable through using the Plutonium waste product. Oil will deplete in about 50 years or less, that's why the emphasis on nuclear power, because it won't run out as quickly.
suemorphplus2009 1 year ago
The shortest estimate I've seen is 85 years of uranium. This is not taking into the account the steady increase in scientific breakthrough. We're becoming ever more efficient in using the uranium. I wouldn't, however, say that uranium is what the future is about...
Liquid Salt Thorium reactors are way better! We have three times as much Th as we have U. :)
I also think terrapower holds a lot of promise. The use of U-238 in a mechanism a lot safer than present day's plants.
Until FUSION! :D
Thymonico 1 year ago
@schusterlehrling What do you think the earth's core is made of? You will never run out of uranium. Plus, with new technology, they recycle it. Best fuel for the future.
faroutadventures 1 year ago
never forget Chornobyl
CRX35SE 2 years ago
Viva France
CHRIS1974100 2 years ago
Aaa I love english with french accent ( as me when I began has to speak english 11 years ago)... too horrible.
Nuclear is the best energy of the world
farcry69460 2 years ago
go nuclear power
professorradiation 2 years ago 3
Uranium comes from Canada, Niger Kazakhstan in France.
mouna28 2 years ago
@mouna28 Also Australia, US, Congo.
faroutadventures 1 year ago
This is why science and engineering issues should be decided by SCIENTIST AND ENGINEERS!
Not politicians that act on the gut feelings of a scientifically ignorant public.
Im funny that way.
TheFluffyDuck 2 years ago 26
@TheFluffyDuck The weakness of democracy is about decisions are made by what the majority of people think, but if majority of poeple are ignorant, than wrong decision will be made.
FeelFree3 1 year ago
@FeelFree3 yeah hitler and stalin killed what 150 million people between them
6 million jews 20 millions soviets whole nations reduced to rubble yeah dictator ships have SUCH wonderful record, democracy is the worst system except for the others
dont be such a moron democracy isnt perfect but it does have the best record
MrBillcale 1 year ago
@MrBillcale Democracy sucks. In pure form. But should does Autocracy, in pure form.
I'm Autocratic because the average citizen is a retard.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
@SniperViper1000 oh my god your canadian your probably english
and jerk off to pictures of the queen that so figures
yeah i agree the average person IS a moron
but democracy still has a much much better record than authoritarian regimes of ANY STRIPEeven with socialists running spain for example spain is much better off now as a constituional social democracy that it was under franco
MrBillcale 1 year ago
@MrBillcale Since when did I say Hitler and Stalin is good? I am just just saying there is weakness in democracy, I do belive decision should be made by reasonable reasons than just number of people's agreement.
FeelFree3 1 year ago
@TheFluffyDuck Agree. And not let envirnwackos call the shots.
faroutadventures 1 year ago
@TheFluffyDuck any comments on the nuclear plants exploding in japan chicken little
MrBillcale 10 months ago
@TheFluffyDuck perhaps a better answer is to educate the public and elected leaders on scientific matters i find that preferable to a dictatorial elite no matter how technocratically benign absolute power corrupts absolutely
MrBillcale 10 months ago
@TheFluffyDuck It sounds technocratic and patronizing in your message : science prevails. But actually the decision was made by politicians : all the French presidents agreed on it. It was a choice for the sake of France on the long run. Electricity in France is a monopoly from the start, everything was planned from the beginning by an elite of highly qualified engineers under the vision of one man. No free market, no competition, only the public interest : a US nightmare but a French dream.
etbadaboum 9 months ago
For anyone seriously concerned about climate change, nuclear is by far the best option. It emits less CO2 than solar.
adamredwine 2 years ago
wrong ! extracting uranium from mine emits more more more than solar ... your are a moron !
the ore of extracted uranium contains 0.5 % of nuclear fuel !
extraction, concentration, chemical transformation ... you think that this becomes all alone by the will of God ?
acquire some fuel of uranium for nuclear power stations is a chasm has CO ²
after that, yes nuclear energy emits not CO²
make me laugh, MORON !
alpacks 2 years ago
"extracting uranium from mine emits more more more than solar"
So as long as mines are powered by a carbon neutral generator, you're okay with it?
What if the current nuclear power plants were used to provide the energy for building new ones?
The only relevant metric is how much energy a power plant needs for building it and collecting fuel, compared to how much it will produce in it's lifetime.
m3141592 2 years ago
@alpacks It takes no more fuel to extract uranium than coal. Quit with the lies.
faroutadventures 1 year ago
Another more theoretical solution (i.e. more research required) is the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. Google it.
cragwolf 2 years ago
Comment removed
cragwolf 2 years ago
It is true, though. Under Obama, we will not see a major shift towards nuclear power. Ideology blinds them. Personally, I have reservations against the current crop of nuclear reactors. But those reservations are smaller than the concerns I have about other energy sources. Nuclear reactors can be vastly more efficient, a lot safer in terms of waste and proliferation, and effectively renewable. The practical solution is the Integral Fast Reactor, a project stupidly cancelled by Bill Clinton.
cragwolf 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow, people still want Nuclear Power? You guys know any history?
Yucca Mountain = DEAD. Obama finally killed it. And his position is "No more nuclear until we can solve the waste problem" I'm totally against Nuclear power and I'm proud to see the Democrats have come down solidly anti-nuclear (since thats the status Quo). I hope every one of you nuclear power people join the Republican party, and leave the green energy to the Democratic party. Greatest thing that could EVER happen to us :-)
ObamaBiden20082012 2 years ago
You no nothing about nuclear power if you are against it. Give me five reasons you don't like nuclear and what you would rather see.
WarOnWind 2 years ago 3
Yet i get no reply, prof you know nothing about the subject.
WarOnWind 2 years ago
Five reasons: Radioactivity. Running out of uranium. Danger. Terrorist usage, diversion to nuclear weapons, proliferation.
I'd rather see solar and wind, and that's what Obama and the Democrats have invested billions in. So those ARE the solutions we are going to use. Get used to it. Nuclear is dead under Obama. Certainlly its not being promoted at all so whatever you think of it, not that you should agree with Obama, but it's a moot point because its not the solution we have picked! Obama 12
ObamaBiden20082012 2 years ago
Five reasons why NOT to use solar and wind: The power they produce fluctuates, will not work on our gird. Expensive. takes vast quantities of land to produce the same amount of power as a Nuclear plant. Kills birds and bats. The manufacture of these structures takes a lot of oil and other hazardous materials to make PV cells.
Solar isnt being invested in to produce power for the grid because it is very expensive and doesnt produce much power. This stuff wont work on our gird caz it fluctuates
WarOnWind 2 years ago 3
We will not run out of uranium for probably as long as humanity lives on earth. Danger is such a vague term I don't know how to respond to it well. If terrorists felt plants were a target why did they hit the WTC? Nuclear weapons existed before the plants and always will. Proliferation is happening already and just because the US stops using the materials doesn't mean that North Korea or another country will as well. the US makes hardly any difference.
VisitingXenoc133 2 years ago
@VisitingXenoc133 Im interested in your saying we cant run out of Uranium - if there was 500 plants around the world , we would need 14000 tons of Uranium per year roughly. I was under the impression its a fairly rare metal.
hablerz 1 year ago
@hablerz It is recycled with the new technology. What do you think comprises the earths core? You will never run out of uranium fuel.
faroutadventures 1 year ago
If nuclear is "dead" under Obama... why did he seat Mr. Chu as head of the Department of Energy? He is a huge proponent of nuclear power. I would read the Department of Energy's webpage before you say it is anywhere near "dead".
Madjacker08 2 years ago
@Madjacker08 China has invested in two nuke plants in Idaho, Nuke power is on it's way. Just have to get by all the enviornwacks, with their stupid protests and lawsuits.
faroutadventures 1 year ago
@ObamaBiden20082012 Scare tactics. You "CAN NOT" produce weapons grade plutonium from the new breeder reactors. That is fact. So, quit trying to scare people. The disinformation is alarming concerning nuke power. Nuke power is not dead. China is investing in two nuke plants in Idaho. In fact , I just bought stock in the company AEHI. Where do you get your info? From comic books?
faroutadventures 1 year ago
i totaly agree wat all you nuclear fanatics want to watch is a program called kids of chernobyl that will open ur eyes and all nuclear plants WILL have a melt down at sum point its inevitable
i say bring on solar wind an water power
willz131285 2 years ago
"wat all you nuclear fanatics want to watch is a program called kids of chernobyl"
I've seen it. It didn't compare deaths from nuclear to deaths from traditional fuels. It's completely irrational. About 3500 children starved to death while you were watching that. Get some perspective.
"all nuclear plants WILL have a melt down at sum point its inevitable"
It is inherently impossible for modern designs (eg high temperature gas cooled pebble bed) )to meltdown.
You speak out of ignorance.
m3141592 2 years ago 3
I think its you who speak ignorance, spreading fear around, you are making your country become incompetent in the nuclear field, we all know chernobyl was caused by incompetent engineers.
In France there is no such thing as fear for nuclear, there was never any accidents, because all the French nuclear physycist engineers are highly competent in their fields.
alainvig 2 years ago
Actually there is quite a lot of cooperation between the French and Americans. I personally know several French citizens who are in the United States to get degrees in Nuclear Engineering. Similarly, I have worked with Americans who have lived in France for years learning their system. I am in the process of interviewing for just such a position myself. It is a global world.
adamredwine 2 years ago
True, the French nuclear engineers are highly competent. Yet another factor helped developing technology as safe as possible: In the 1970s, a strong citizen's environmentalist protest movement obliged the French nuclear establishment to pay more attention to safety and environmental issues.
Fridomfry 2 years ago 18
@Fridomfry thank you!
MrBillcale 1 year ago
@Fridomfry Smart people, Great nation. much respect for them all.
ayanuhito 10 months ago
@alainvig chernobyl was also a product of inferior design.
faroutadventures 1 year ago
yes but look how America is now, they are still using coal and gasoline to make electricity, the burning of coal and gas is primitive making the atmosphere unbreathable, emitting large quantity of toxic CO2. The USA using coal and gasoline looks no better than the Sovietik Union with pollution.
alainvig 2 years ago
@alainvig Why do you think China is online to have 100 nuke plants built by the year 2020? For the exact reason you state.
faroutadventures 1 year ago
Not true! Multiple New Safety systems prevent that! And even if another did happen it wouldn't even be near as bad as TMI, Which has reported no deaths!
fishontuesday 2 years ago 3
@fishontuesday tchernobyl had 500,000 deaths buddy.
ilias2oo6 2 years ago
where did you get that number?
According to every scientific investigation there were 56 deaths due directly to the accident and maybe at most 1,000 due to cancer years later.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
@ilias2oo6 Chernobyl didn't even have 500,000 citizens retard.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
@SniperViper1000 you're fucking stupid moron,chernobyl had 49,000 pop,i said due to chernobyl explosion 500,000 died/bad disease not only in chernobyl but in other areas where the radiation spread,fucking moron learn english and shut the fuck up ,fucking kid
ilias2oo6 1 year ago
@ilias2oo6 you are aware that the french nuclear power industry has a perfect record? zero casualties, compare that with coal or any other practical energy.
MrBillcale 1 year ago
@SniperViper1000 if you go to wikipedia you see that if you consult the democracy index the nations that are most democratic are also the nations with the best quality of life
MrBillcale 1 year ago
@SniperViper1000 2008 rankings
1 Sweden 9.88 Full democracy Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
2 Norway 9.68 Full democracy Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
3 Iceland 9.65 Full democracy Parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
4 Netherlands 9.53 Full democracy Constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
5 Denmark 9.52 Full democracy
MrBillcale 1 year ago
the amount of radiation people received from TMI is less then one x-ray or even a day on the beach.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
i combined cancer deaths from that year to today.
ilias2oo6 2 years ago
ummm wow. That is just insane. No scientific community would acknowledge that number.
The actual number of cancer caused from Chernobyl is maybe 1,000.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
oh yea my bad the 500,000 are cases combined with death/cancer/disease/malformation etc my bad m8 sry
ilias2oo6 2 years ago
@willz131285 Scare tactics. Won't work anymore. The US does not build reactors like Russia. No accidents with any deaths here in the US. Don't be so paranoid.
faroutadventures 1 year ago
the high grade plutonium will not be stolen, but sold.
Frances3654 2 years ago
@Frances3654 You can't get weapons grade plutonium from the new reactors. That is total bullshit. Quit spreading misinformation.
faroutadventures 1 year ago
This is probably the direction the U.S. will go. Wind & Solar just can't do it. IFR reactors are 100 to 300 times as efficient, and could use nuclear waste as fuel.
dmoitoza 2 years ago
Every week nuclear waste is trucked across France to the Champagne site. Once full, the dumpsite will be one of the worlds largest with over 1 million cubic meters of waste, including plutonium and other radionuclides and its already leaking...let's definitely not do it like the French...
budnboston 2 years ago
yeah, lets put nuclear waste in mountains!
Elitefrr 2 years ago
definitely not buying any Champagne ! keep your nuclear waste in your own bodies
budnboston 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
BTW the US is not putting it into the mountain because of local opposition , we are justly stupidly keeping it in our nuclear power plants and all kinds of other unsafe places that will NEVER be able to be used for anything else EVER again - NUCLEAR power destroys PERMANENTLY the land it abuses
budnboston 2 years ago
"NEVER be able to be used for anything else EVER again - NUCLEAR power destroys PERMANENTLY the land it abuses "
Oh baloney.
The "temporary" storage sites around the United States are nothing more than gravel parking lots enclosed by chain link fence with dozens of steel and concrete containers sitting quietly.
The land is no more "permanently" destroyed than any PARKING LOT you've ever seen.
Ludicrous in the extreme.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
I am talking about nuclear power plant sites not storage sites , but even so the land under most parking lots can be used for growing edible food , and any number of other normal uses once the asphalt is removed , that can NEVER happen ( in our life times ) with the land nuclear power plants now inhabit - what is the ludicrous in the deadly extreme is your senile promotion of a gratuitous , permanently destructive , and the most extremely resource and cost ineffective industry known to man
budnboston 2 years ago
"that can NEVER happen ( in our life times ) with the land nuclear power plants now inhabit"
You have no idea what you are talking about.
There is nothing special about the actual buildings that make up a Nuclear Power Plant.
Knock down the concrete buildings, etc., remove the reactor (which is a solid piece of engineering *inside* the concrete containment, BTW) and the land would look just like it did before the first concrete slab was poured.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
Frances Champagne is threatened by radioactive contamination leaking from a nuclear waste dumpsite Centre Stockage lAube. Low levels of radioactivity have already been found in underground water less than 10 km from the famous Champagne vineyards. Problems at the dumpsite, include water migration leading to fissures in the storage cells: radioactivity leaking from an ANDRA dumpsite in Normandy was up to 90 times above European safety limits in the underground water used by farmers...
budnboston 2 years ago
@budnboston "Centre de l'aube" is a deposit for low radioactive wastes, with an half life of less than 30 years. Which means slightly contaminated disposables (workers' caps, white coats, gloves, etc)
All this stuff is packaged in barrels and flooded with concrete, then burried for 300 years.
Long life wastes (spent fuel) will be store in a special underground center (500m deep, under construction) studied so that radioactive elements will not reach the surface before 100,000 years !
SuperBunkerbuster 7 months ago
hahaha! the plant tried to disguise its releases by tunneling its actual waste water pipe deep in the ocean floor hahaha! but notwithstanding the radiation release into the ocean is still deadly in the extreme hahaha(for those who do not live there) ! it matters not if the water does not come in DIRECT contact with the fuel, exposure to rods' radiation is enough to imbue the water with the radiation (obviously) - one does not have to TOUCH the rods to be affected hahaha! go swim there...
budnboston 2 years ago
"hahaha! the plant tried to disguise its releases"
I guess that makes a perfect reason as to why their is *ZERO* evidence of it's "releases".
I'm afraid this has all the earmarks of a conspiracy theory. Inline with the belief in Bigfoot.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
hahaha! its releases of radioactivity into the ocean are WELL documented - the plant tried to hide them under the ocean floor which, though, is porous, obviously, and the radioactivity is very detectable notwithstanding - this ZERO release nonesense is the real fairy tale here
budnboston 2 years ago
I apologize, I thought you were referring to illegal/illicit releases of radiation.
In fact, La Hague does release an amount of radiation equivalent to less than 20 microsieverts per year, which is equivalent to the dose of solar radiation received during a transatlantic flight.
As we have people flying the transatlantic air routes EVERY DAY and have *yet* to assign a cancer cluster to them, I think we can safely dismiss the doom and gloom claims of Greenpeace (who are the ones making noise).
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
@budnboston The water ISN'T in direct contact with fuel. The nuclear fuel is always in a zirconium alloy housing which avoid water from the primary circuit of a reactor, or the water from the fuel pool, to become too radioactive, and avoid the fuel from dissolving in water.
SuperBunkerbuster 7 months ago
The French reprocessing center at La Hague has come under widespread attack for its massive radiation discharges into the English Channel and surrounding atmosphere. The plant has produced over nine thousand containers of extremely high level wastes with no safe place to go. Its by-product of plutonium has complicated global attempts to curb the spread of radioactive materials capable of being turned into nuclear bombs.
budnboston 2 years ago
"by-product of plutonium has complicated global attempts to curb the spread"
How's that?
Are you saying the French are somehow illegally selling this on the black market?
If you are, then I would say I find that preposterous.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
10 tons of plutonium is transported through France each year with the extreme potential for an accident or terrorist attack or theft etc. The French government's own investigation has proven that the plutonium transport containers would be destroyed if struck an exploding device such as a rocket propelled grenade etc. The resulting fine plutonium dust particles would pollute the land dozens of miles from the accident site. Not only humane law-abiding folks dwell in France (obviously)....
budnboston 2 years ago
"plutonium transport containers would be destroyed if struck an exploding device"
Then we need to make damn sure that doesn't happen. However, it is improper to use the *possible* as proof of why we should turn our back on (what could turn out to be) the most profitable, clean source of electricity in human history.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
hahaha! what a joke. the La Hague site is completely clean. the "radiation discharges" are non existent. true water is taken from the english channel to help cool the waste but the water never comes in direct contact with the fuel. true when the water leaves the site it is a lot warmer but there is no radioactive waste in it or any other kind of waste.
coverchenko 2 years ago
"French reprocessing center at La Hague has come under widespread attack"
I have no doubt. College Students believe anything told them. That' why they are *naive* children and WE are adults.
That is also why *adults* run the world and the majority of *adults* recognize the benefits of Nuclear Energy.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago 2
LOL must you use "college students". wat about college kids?.
college kids: pot smoking hippies, protest about anything ( i mean anything), believe anything they are told,etc
college students: goes to college to learn and hope to get a better future
hellofaname 2 years ago
David Gerard says in the interview, Its certainly accurate that the plants emit no carbon dioxide. He omits the fact that constructing the plants; mining and milling the finite and thinning deposits of uranium; and managing the wastes for thousands of years produce enormous and increasing amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
QuarereAude 3 years ago
And? Getting oil and other such fuels also produce the same, if not more, greenhouse gases.
RojOdio 3 years ago
I invite you to do some research on the energy per mass of material extracted for each energy source. Enjoy!
QuarereAude 3 years ago
Or you can send me links to back up your original claims.
RojOdio 3 years ago
My claim is that Gerard omits the obvious.
QuarereAude 2 years ago
What about mining aluminum for windmills? Creating lubricants for them? Their maintenance costs? Did YOU know that it takes more concrete to build a wind farm than a nuclear power plant?
raptors222222 2 years ago
Yes, what about it? I did not propose wind turbines as a viable alternative, even though I do have direct experience with them at several scales. There is a beauty and practicality to scalable solutions: yet another aspect where nuclear energy fails on both physical and temporal dimensions.
QuarereAude 2 years ago
I certainly do. Nuclear power plants are only viable due to massive government subsidies. The waste problem has never been solved. The waste will be around for millions of years. Meanwhile, there is not enough space in the US for the endless nuclear dumps needed every 25 years. Nuclear power plants produce about twice as much waste heat as they do electricity. The waste heat kills fish. The whole fuel cycle is incredibly damaging to the environment. ... etc etc etc
bogon5dot 2 years ago
Call in reprocessing. It will cut down on the half life, but you STUPID environmentalists won't let it happen. The US almost had a reprocessing facility. But Nooooo....
raptors222222 2 years ago
Ah, when facts, arguments, and thought fails . . . start name calling!
QuarereAude 2 years ago
Don't call me STUPID. No half life is cut down. After re-processing all of the elements are still there with their respective half-lives. Some transuranics like Np-237 and Pu-244 have very long half-lives (2 million years and 80 million years). They'll still be there after reprocessing. All that reprocessing does is to pull-out plutonium and unranium. You can't keep reprocessing, so eventually, that becomes waste too. So what's your point?
bogon5dot 2 years ago
I understand what you mean. You cant keep reprocessing old uranium because it is going to be just as toxic if not more, however the US has made a burning kettle which can burn nuclear waste, chemicals, warheads, and biological weapons at 10 thousand degrees with ZERO toxic residue. On top of that there are emerging companies that are dedicated to finding ways to recycle nuclear waste. Its only a matter of time. I think that all forms of energy should be used and not just one form.
Vegathetruth 2 years ago
We will have oil for lubrication for a long time to come. Peak oil does not mean we have run out of oil.
The maintenance costs of wind turbines is far less than the maintenance of a nuclear power plant the with the same power production.
It takes more concrete to build the nuclear power plant by far.
bogon5dot 2 years ago
What about Concrete foundations. A wind farm is what... 100 square miles? and a nuclear power plant is maybe, MAYBE 20 acres.
raptors222222 2 years ago
I really don't get your point . . . if there is one. Have you ever been on a nuclear plant site or on wind farm?
QuarereAude 2 years ago
I have been to both nuclear power plants and several wind farms. As a matter of fact, I've been to a uranium mine, mill, refinery, enrichment plant and a fuel fabrication plant. And your point is?
bogon5dot 2 years ago
What about them? There are hundreds of wind turbines scattered over a large geographic area. But only a very small portion of that land requires concrete foundations. For a nuclear power plant, many require close to 1000 acres, of which the plant can take up 25-40 acres. And your point is?
bogon5dot 2 years ago
Only a fool, or a nuclear industry shill would claim that nuclear energy is "carbon-free energy." The emmission of greenhouse gases during the life-cycle of nuclear energy production is enormous, and will continue to grow as the quality of remaining uranium deposits degrades: just as the EROEI for nuclear energy will diminish.
"We have no coal. We have no oil." France also has no uranium. Why is no mention made that France imports all of its uranium? Is that energy independence?
QuarereAude 3 years ago
Check the south of France.
raptors222222 2 years ago
I should have been more clear: I was referring to uranium ore supplies, not reprocessing.
QuarereAude 2 years ago
There is no uranium south of France. France ran out of uranium in 2003. Google for UxC World Uranium Production.
France is able to reprocess only 1/10 of their total uranium demand.
bogon5dot 2 years ago
France ran out of uranium in 2003. Everyone knows this.
bogon5dot 2 years ago
McCain wants nuclear power.Obama is aganist it.Vote McCain and save the planet
hooah213 3 years ago
Neither Obama or McCain are for or against Nuclear Energy.
The President (regardless of who he is or what party he belongs too) will vote on issues like this based on the approval of the public.
The public is generally for Nuclear Energy, so I see NO reason why either candidate will specifically attempt to block it.
hotFusionReaction 3 years ago
hotfusion,The Dems,green peace and other liberal groups have always blocked nuclear power development in the USA.I am a big believer in nuclear power.The public is just starting to warm up to nukes.we have a long way to go.mcCain will push for it.obama will try to block it his party always has.
hooah213 3 years ago
You said it yourself, "The public is just STARTING to warm up to it".
If they had been for it before (such as during the Clinton Administration, or Carter before him) NEITHER Clinton NOR Carter would attempted to limit it's growth).
History backs my view. President's will lean to where the PUBLIC leans.
Carter put limits on Nuclear Power technology after the public became scared to death after Three Mile Island.
Without Three Mile Island, we would have twice as many active plants today.
hotFusionReaction 3 years ago
A president should be able to lead the people.
The next president, who ever it is, should lead us to nuclear power.History is not on the democrates side.
I believe McCain will be the best guy for that good because it will not be easy. Obama has NEVER gone up against his own party
hooah213 3 years ago
McCain (BY HIS OWN ADMISSION) has voted with George Bush 90% of the time, so what does that prove? NOTHING.
You've missed my point completely. It doesn't matter if Obama is against Nuclear Power (Which I do not think he is, aside from demanding safety) or if McCain is for Nuclear Power. The President can do VERY LITTLE to move the issue.
Americans wanting Nuclear Power (which they now do, to their credit) is what will create a Nuclear Renaissance. The Market, NOT POLITICS, will drive it.
hotFusionReaction 3 years ago
U are wrong, I see your point and argee with u .We the people should push for nuclear power.However, at the same time these do nothing politions should stop kickin the energy problem can down the road.
hooah213 3 years ago
Indeed.
Fortunately, the Nuclear Renaissance seems to really be starting this time. High energy prices and cheaper reactors (such as Westinghouse's AP1000 units) are really driving Nuclear's advantages home.
The Chinese recently signed a deal with Westinghouse to build 4 of the new AP1000 plants in China, with a cost of about $2 Billion a piece.
This is FAR less than the previous generation plants and would most likely be cheaper here in the United States (lower shipping costs, duties, etc.)
hotFusionReaction 3 years ago
Progress energy is spending $17 Billion on two Westinghouse AP1000.
If one 1100-mW nuclear plant and infrastructure costs $8.5 billion, then the installed capacity cost is $7,727/kW. At a 90% capacity factor and 20% for the facility's internal pumps and such, and it was financed at a 9% for a 30 year period, this 12.0 cents/kWh.
This is far more expensive. It looks like the Chinese are getting cut a deal at the expense of US rate payers.
bogon5dot 3 years ago
US plants tend to run at the 99% to 100%, redo the math.
raptors222222 2 years ago
raptors222222,
Are you part of a disinformation project? US plants don't "tend" to run at anything near 100%. Your claim is ridiculous.
QuarereAude 2 years ago
Let's check your math. At a 100% capacity factor, there is no time to refuel - ever. At 99% capacity factor there are only 88 hours to refuel. You have got to be kidding.
bogon5dot 2 years ago
The market is very distorted when the same nuclear power plant in China costs far less ($2 bil for four) than its being offered to us in Florida ($17 bil for two) and Texas ($14 bil for two).
What this tells you is that nuclear power plants are not a comodity like corn or wheat. Real businesses sell things by what the buyer is willing to pay. I this case, I think the low prices to China are to get into that market. Monopolies distort markets by dumping in one place and high elsewhere.
bogon5dot 3 years ago
This shows that the US has better quality.
raptors222222 2 years ago
Comment removed
QuarereAude 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Better quality" . . . of what? Construction? Operation? Economics? It shows nothing of the sort!
The one obvious similarity is that plants in both countries are insured by the citizens, rather than by private industry: a rather hefty subsidy.
QuarereAude 2 years ago
Operation costs are 3.3 cents per kilowatt hour. Compared to wind's 23.
raptors222222 2 years ago
Please, tell us you got these numbers from the NEI or the Heritage Foundation.
QuarereAude 2 years ago
So you are saying Westinghouse is giving us a higher quality product? You are simply funny.
It's the same Westinghouse AP1000 being sold to China and here in the US. Maybe the metric version is on sale ;)
bogon5dot 2 years ago
As a matter of fact, the rate payers in Florida and Texas are quoted a higher price and are already paying for their nuclear power plants through an electrical price increase even though construction on the nuclear plants has not been started yet.
bogon5dot 2 years ago
Also, Greenpeace (Environmentalist in general, really), Religious Groups (on the Right or Left), etc. have no real power.
They certainly make the most noise, but have no real power, even if politicians use them as excuses for making the decisions they make.
Unfortunately, no candidate (Dem or Rep) can get elected by only playing to their bases. There just aren't enough Dems or Reps to put their candidate in office alone.
Presidents must balance EVERY view to get reelected.
hotFusionReaction 3 years ago
Greenpeace has used the court system to block nuclear power
hooah213 3 years ago 2
Indeed they have, and that is their right.
Fortunately in this country, the President can not rule the court system. That is the way it has been for over 200 years and that is the way it will remain.
Despite my belief that it is a good technology, the Nuclear Industry does not deserve a free hand. The law is on their side. If they are unable to defend themselves in a court of law, then it is because they are incompetent.
I'm afraid no amount of political support can correct incompetence.
hotFusionReaction 3 years ago
Hot, Did u watch this vid?I mean the french have a very competent nuclear power system. No one said the nuclear industary should have a free hand. However, green peace and others abuse the court system. Ted Kenndy has blocked wind power off the east coast. My only point is we must do something.Nukes could power our homes and cars.
hooah213 3 years ago
And Ted Kennedy's neighbors have fully supported his position because they are also rich.
You like to blame individual politicians as though they live in a vacuum, they do not.
The people of the United States are to blame for Nuclear taking so long to come back to the forefront, not politics.
If the people support it, so will their leaders. If the people do not support it, their leaders won't either (they really want to keep their jobs, you know).
hotFusionReaction 3 years ago
So u think it is alright for ted and company to do what they want because they rich??
hooah213 3 years ago
I'm saying the whole damn island of Nantucket is rich.
There's no one on the island who does not agree with Ted Kennedy's position. If they do not want wind power, then it is no one's place to force it down their throat.
hotFusionReaction 3 years ago
And, BTW, you can blame Greenpeace all you want but if the Nuclear industry had gotten off their asses and really tried to defend themselves (instead of just trying to paint Greenpeace as stupid), they wouldn't be in this mess.
They lost court cases because they didn't try hard enough to win. You don't see any cases stopping the construction of new reactors in places like Texas, do you?
Because Greenpeace doesn't have a leg to stand on,...and they know it.
hotFusionReaction 3 years ago
Radio active waste and plutonium! Plus I'll still have to pay a utility for the energy? Nope, I'd rather be using solar and wind made at home.
Shawntbell 3 years ago
ITER generator produce water as a waste and is safer than coal and other fossil fuel energy plants. however diversification and individuals producing their own energy could and absolutely would help the country as a whole and the individual
quecuentas3 3 years ago
even with Chernobyl (which only happened because the Russkies' design is retarded), cancers resulting from nuclear energy are less than 1% of those caused by burning coal. Guess what folks, not everyone gets lung cancer from smoking. So don't get so afraid of radiation. The nuclear plant down the road, if you were to have one in the area, would likely be improving your health.