Energy, that is.

Quote:Today about 20 percent of electricity in America is generated by nuclear power, which is about 20 times the contribution from solar and wind power. Nuclear power also costs less, according to Gilbert Metcalf, an economist at Tufts University. After estimating the costs and factoring out the hefty tax breaks for different forms of low-carbon energy, he estimates that new nuclear plants could produce electricity more cheaply than windmills, solar power or “clean coal” plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/scienc...ref=slogin

Plus a not-so-subtle jab at letting the private sector get engaged

Quote:But then several new “merchant energy” companies began assembling fleets of reactors sold off by local utilities. The new owners standardized operations, retrained workers and brought in human-factor engineers to redesign the famously indecipherable control panels.

Under the old owners, the reactors were balky white elephants operating only 60 percent of the time. By improving maintenance and preventing mistakes, the new owners kept them running 90 percent of the time

Not that you mind too much ;-)

I think this is a great article.

My supervisor got his engineering degree from Ga Tech in the '70s and he headed out to start working on nuclear power plants. What he says is that they killed nuclear by stretching out the regulation time so that companies couldn't afford to build them. The cost of money alone (on such a huge facility) was more than they could make up in ROI. This article seems to corroborate that.

I would like to know what these guys mean by solar power...is that photovoltaics, solar thermal, or all of the above? And how do they calculate costs? Total lifetime costs of nuclear can get pretty high when you consider decommission and disposal.

But, this is a critically important debate, and I'm glad people are putting this at the forefront. Should have been done 20 years ago.

Motown Bronco Wrote:Energy, that is.

Quote:Today about 20 percent of electricity in America is generated by nuclear power, which is about 20 times the contribution from solar and wind power. Nuclear power also costs less, according to Gilbert Metcalf, an economist at Tufts University. After estimating the costs and factoring out the hefty tax breaks for different forms of low-carbon energy, he estimates that new nuclear plants could produce electricity more cheaply than windmills, solar power or “clean coal” plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/scienc...ref=slogin

So where do we store the waste? Shoot it into space? What if the rocket blows up? In a cave? I am not sure we can build a container to store it for the length of time needed? If the answer to the storage problem is solved, I think it would make a nice alternative.

RobertN Wrote:So where do we store the waste? Shoot it into space? What if the rocket blows up? In a cave? I am not sure we can build a container to store it for the length of time needed? If the answer to the storage problem is solved, I think it would make a nice alternative.

Good to see the fear-mongers jump out quickly.

You can recycle the waste. This technology was squelched in the US b/c of fears that people could make plutonium and terrorists could get bombs. Now we know there are other ways of terrorizing people. Plus there is such a thing as security. I believe the French recycle their waste.

Also, a company called Nuclear Solutions used to advertise that their technology of beaming beta particles at the nucleus would change it to a more stable isomer, and thus a much lower radiation rate. Nuclear Solutions doesn't seem to promote this technology anymore, so I can't say for sure of how well this worked. I get the impression that it was due to low sales, rather than ineffective technology.

Others suggest dropping it in the Mariana Trench...this seems like the riskiest to me.

Nevertheless, there are answers to this question. But, it's much easier to throw out the challenge and pretend nothing can be done so we should all go hide in caves, rather than listen to the answers.

DrTorch Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:So where do we store the waste? Shoot it into space? What if the rocket blows up? In a cave? I am not sure we can build a container to store it for the length of time needed? If the answer to the storage problem is solved, I think it would make a nice alternative.

Good to see the fear-mongers jump out quickly.

You can recycle the waste. This technology was squelched in the US b/c of fears that people could make plutonium and terrorists could get bombs. Now we know there are other ways of terrorizing people. Plus there is such a thing as security. I believe the French recycle their waste.

Also, a company called Nuclear Solutions used to advertise that their technology of beaming beta particles at the nucleus would change it to a more stable isomer, and thus a much lower radiation rate. Nuclear Solutions doesn't seem to promote this technology anymore, so I can't say for sure of how well this worked. I get the impression that it was due to low sales, rather than ineffective technology.

Others suggest dropping it in the Mariana Trench...this seems like the riskiest to me.

Nevertheless, there are answers to this question. But, it's much easier to throw out the challenge and pretend nothing can be done so we should all go hide in caves, rather than listen to the answers.

I always thought Yucca Mountain was a good choice to put the waste.

firmbizzle Wrote:I always thought Yucca Mountain was a good choice to put the waste.

I'd vote for where it all started w/ the Manhattan Project...Chicago.

DrTorch Wrote:......... Should have been done 20 years ago.

You're right.....back then everyone was worried about global cooling.

Good article.

DrTorch Wrote:But, this is a critically important debate, and I'm glad people are putting this at the forefront. Should have been done 20 years ago.

More to the point, certain steps should not have been done 30 years ago.

DrTorch Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:So where do we store the waste? Shoot it into space? What if the rocket blows up? In a cave? I am not sure we can build a container to store it for the length of time needed? If the answer to the storage problem is solved, I think it would make a nice alternative.

Good to see the fear-mongers jump out quickly.

You can recycle the waste. This technology was squelched in the US b/c of fears that people could make plutonium and terrorists could get bombs. Now we know there are other ways of terrorizing people. Plus there is such a thing as security. I believe the French recycle their waste.

Also, a company called Nuclear Solutions used to advertise that their technology of beaming beta particles at the nucleus would change it to a more stable isomer, and thus a much lower radiation rate. Nuclear Solutions doesn't seem to promote this technology anymore, so I can't say for sure of how well this worked. I get the impression that it was due to low sales, rather than ineffective technology.

Others suggest dropping it in the Mariana Trench...this seems like the riskiest to me.

Nevertheless, there are answers to this question. But, it's much easier to throw out the challenge and pretend nothing can be done so we should all go hide in caves, rather than listen to the answers.

That's a bit harsh on what is probably the best post I've ever seen by RobertN, insofar as it doesn't assert as fact anything that has not previously be demonstrated to him to be patently false.

Yucca Mountain has turned out to be a horrendous soap opera, exacerbated mainly (1) by the fact that folks in Nevada and Utah had to suffer above and below ground nuclear testing and the associated cancer and (2) that Harry Reid is involved. (The fact that the people in Nevada have had to suffer Harry Reid is probably worse than the nuclear testing, but they brought that on themselves, and it's besides the point).

I45owl Wrote:Yucca Mountain has turned out to be a horrendous soap opera, exacerbated mainly (1) by the fact that folks in Nevada and Utah had to suffer above and below ground nuclear testing and the associated cancer and (2) that Harry Reid is involved. (The fact that the people in Nevada have had to suffer Harry Reid is probably worse than the nuclear testing, but they brought that on themselves, and it's besides the point).

As long as Yucca Mountain is the primary US long term nuclear depository and Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader, the US comemrical nuclear power industry is going nowhere.

If Palin becomes VP perhaps the candidate sites in Alaska would be re-evaluated.

RobertN Wrote:

Motown Bronco Wrote:Energy, that is.

Quote:Today about 20 percent of electricity in America is generated by nuclear power, which is about 20 times the contribution from solar and wind power. Nuclear power also costs less, according to Gilbert Metcalf, an economist at Tufts University. After estimating the costs and factoring out the hefty tax breaks for different forms of low-carbon energy, he estimates that new nuclear plants could produce electricity more cheaply than windmills, solar power or “clean coal” plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/scienc...ref=slogin

So where do we store the waste? Shoot it into space? What if the rocket blows up? In a cave? I am not sure we can build a container to store it for the length of time needed? If the answer to the storage problem is solved, I think it would make a nice alternative.

Right now it's on-site. Even if there were a destination open for business, government efforts (going on 30+ years now) have failed to agree on a transportation plan. Again, see France.

At least the waste is confined and compact. Can't say that about the tons of carbon emissions billowing into the atmosphere from the fossil fuel plants.

DrTorch Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:So where do we store the waste? Shoot it into space? What if the rocket blows up? In a cave? I am not sure we can build a container to store it for the length of time needed? If the answer to the storage problem is solved, I think it would make a nice alternative.

Good to see the fear-mongers jump out quickly.

You can recycle the waste. This technology was squelched in the US b/c of fears that people could make plutonium and terrorists could get bombs. Now we know there are other ways of terrorizing people. Plus there is such a thing as security. I believe the French recycle their waste.

Also, a company called Nuclear Solutions used to advertise that their technology of beaming beta particles at the nucleus would change it to a more stable isomer, and thus a much lower radiation rate. Nuclear Solutions doesn't seem to promote this technology anymore, so I can't say for sure of how well this worked. I get the impression that it was due to low sales, rather than ineffective technology.

Others suggest dropping it in the Mariana Trench...this seems like the riskiest to me.

Nevertheless, there are answers to this question. But, it's much easier to throw out the challenge and pretend nothing can be done so we should all go hide in caves, rather than listen to the answers.

Hey, if there is a way-great.The other question is do we have enough Uranium in this country to keep them running long term or would we have to go offshore to get it?

RobertN Wrote:Hey, if there is a way-great.The other question is do we have enough Uranium in this country to keep them running long term or would we have to go offshore to get it?

We have about a 12 year supply based on US Reserves. Iran has the highest known reserves of Uranium, so do the math...

I45owl Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:Hey, if there is a way-great.The other question is do we have enough Uranium in this country to keep them running long term or would we have to go offshore to get it?

We have about a 12 year supply based on US Reserves. Iran has the highest known reserves of Uranium, so do the math...

We can reprocess the U-238 that is sitting in the exhausted fuel rods sitting in the bottom of these swimming pools at our nuke plants.

And if we have to, CalTech had a hell of a design for a breeder reactor back in the 70's... but ooooh... that means you have to deal with the evil Pu-239, which is over-hyped.