so let me get this straight...

#2
#2
Nuclear will be an important part of our infrastructure...particularly if we can figure out what we want to do with the waste. Here's an interesting stat...if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow AND halved our consumption of energy overnight here in America, we would have to build 400 one gigawatt nuclear power plants (4 times what we have today - to put our total number at 500) to meet demand....crazy huge number.
 
#3
#3
TennTradition said:
Nuclear will be an important part of our infrastructure...particularly if we can figure out what we want to do with the waste. Here's an interesting stat...if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow AND halved our consumption of energy overnight here in America, we would have to build 400 one gigawatt nuclear power plants (4 times what we have today - to put our total number at 500) to meet demand....crazy huge number.
Click to expand...

Admittedly I don't know too much on the subject, but is it not crazy that we didn't provide funds for construction of at least one or two more nuclear power plants with all the stimulus money? That could have provided needed energy and provided a large amount of jobs.
 
#4
#4
vols4sure said:
Admittedly I don't know too much on the subject, but is it not crazy that we didn't provide funds for construction of at least one or two more nuclear power plants with all the stimulus money? That could have provided needed energy and provided a large amount of jobs.
Click to expand...

I am in no way anti-nuclear, but I am against building another nuclear power plant until we commit to the utilities that we will have a licensed repository to store the waste. They have been paying into a black-hole fund for years that is supposed to be for the secure and safe storage of the spent fuel - and we STILL don't have a licensed repository. So, while it would have made sense from an energy standpoint, I don't like the idea. If we would just give them a known place to send the waste and that wasn't hanging over the industry's head, they would be building plants on their own, without stimulus money.

On the other hand, stimulus money will be going to build at least one, maybe two, IGCC natural gas (or possibly coal) plants, likely equipped with carbon sequestration. So, that's at least something.
 
#5
#5
TennTradition said:
I am in no way anti-nuclear, but I am against building another nuclear power plant until we commit to the utilities that we will have a licensed repository to store the waste. They have been paying into a black-hole fund for years that is supposed to be for the secure and safe storage of the spent fuel - and we STILL don't have a licensed repository. So, while it would have made sense from an energy standpoint, I don't like the idea. If we would just give them a known place to send the waste and that wasn't hanging over the industry's head, they would be building plants on their own, without stimulus money.

On the other hand, stimulus money will be going to build at least one, maybe two, IGCC natural gas (or possibly coal) plants, likely equipped with carbon sequestration. So, that's at least something.
Click to expand...

how is a big hole in the middle of nowhere not safe and secure?
 
#6
#6
droski said:
how is a big hole in the middle of nowhere not safe and secure?
Click to expand...

I have asked the same question before....but here is one of the criteria a site is judged against...can it prevent the leakage of "x" concentration of nuclear material over the next 10,000 years. How can any design GUARANTEE performance over the next ten thousand years!! I have no idea how that is possible. I think that we can find a site that is reasonably safe that will protect surrounding citizens within the next 250 years or so and then go from there...I don't really understand what is wrong with Yucca Mountain (not to imply it is only safe for 250 years, which is only an arbitrary number....but the number that matters surely has to be less than 10,000 years).
 
#7
#7
Are y'all saying that nuclear energy is the only viable alternative to fossil fuel running our country? I know there are other stable and cheap energy sources. Somebody just hasn't worked it out so it can power our great nation.
 
#8
#8
hmanvolfan said:
Are y'all saying that nuclear energy is the only viable alternative to fossil fuel running our country? I know there are other stable and cheap energy sources. Somebody just hasn't worked it out so it can power our great nation.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that.....though I do believe that nuclear is the only non-carbon-based fuel that is currently ready for wide-spread deployment at reasonable profit on the energy production. Others will follow...it is certainly not the only fuel...but I do think that it is a key bridge.
 
#11
#11
TennTradition said:
I have asked the same question before....but here is one of the criteria a site is judged against...can it prevent the leakage of "x" concentration of nuclear material over the next 10,000 years. How can any design GUARANTEE performance over the next ten thousand years!! I have no idea how that is possible. I think that we can find a site that is reasonably safe that will protect surrounding citizens within the next 250 years or so and then go from there...I don't really understand what is wrong with Yucca Mountain (not to imply it is only safe for 250 years, which is only an arbitrary number....but the number that matters surely has to be less than 10,000 years).
Click to expand...

who says it has to be guaranteed? would it really be the end of the world if we have to deal with this waste 1000 years from now? do all the benefits really get outweighed by the 1 in 1,000,000 posibility that something horrible happens 50 generations from now?

hmanvolfan said:
Are y'all saying that nuclear energy is the only viable alternative to fossil fuel running our country? I know there are other stable and cheap energy sources. Somebody just hasn't worked it out so it can power our great nation.
Click to expand...

natural gas is the only viable domestic clean fuel source we have for energy production.
 
#12
#12
droski said:
who says it has to be guaranteed? would it really be the end of the world if we have to deal with this waste 1000 years from now? do all the benefits really get outweighed by the 1 in 1,000,000 posibility that something horrible happens 50 generations from now?
Click to expand...

I'm just talking about the existing regulatory framework and how the NRC will look at the design. They have to demonstrate some ridiculous things in their design and analysis of the selected site. I tend to agree with you when it comes to dealing with it if we have to....
 
#13
#13
I will say that BO's admin appears to be anti-nuke. In all his soaring rhetoric he never mentions attempting to solve the waste problem. If he's serious about transforming the energy sector then EVERYTHING should be on the table including more domestic production of dinosaur juice
 
#14
#14
droski said:
who says it has to be guaranteed? would it really be the end of the world if we have to deal with this waste 1000 years from now? do all the benefits really get outweighed by the 1 in 1,000,000 posibility that something horrible happens 50 generations from now?
Click to expand...

I still believe we should just pack it all up and shoot it at the sun. Problem solved
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top