Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!
Mini Reactors Show Promise for Clean Nuclear Power's Future
popularmechanics.com — Higher fuel prices and increased carbon emissions have been giving nuclear energy a boost. So far this year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received licensing requests for 19 new nuclear power plants. That number could increase exponentially, along with the number of suitable sites for a plant
1KrazyKorean- 717 diggs
- digg it
- casspa, on 07/15/2008, -2/+47"Because the steel reactor vessel is only 9 ft. in diameter, it can be made entirely in the U.S., rather than relying on Japan Steel Works, the only manufacturer who can cast today's one-piece, 25-ft.-plus reactor vessels.".....more U.S. jobs, and a more efficient fuel source, does anyone see a problem with this?
- gdehms, on 07/16/2008, -13/+19It's nuclear energy! Nuclear energy = nuclear bombs = dangerous!!1!!1!
- MWeather, on 07/16/2008, -5/+5Yeah, which is why we have such a problem with other countries enriching their own fuel or using breeder reactors.
But hey, I'm sure we base major foreign policy positions and potentially start wars that cut off our nation's lifeblood over unfounded concerns, right? - brettg102, on 07/16/2008, -0/+10Sarcasm is truly lost on digg...you've got to use /sarcasm tags or you'll be buried!
- gdehms, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I had to enhance the sarcasm by sticking in the 1s as well as the !s.. I hate the /sarcasm tag.
- MWeather, on 07/16/2008, -5/+5Yeah, which is why we have such a problem with other countries enriching their own fuel or using breeder reactors.
- Treoinmypocket, on 07/16/2008, -5/+20Yes - The Democratic Party sees a problem with this.
- bobangitanov2, on 07/16/2008, -6/+4that article doesn't say anything about waste. it doesn't solve the waste problem.
- diggydougie, on 07/16/2008, -2/+11A rocket to the sun would solve all of our nuclear waste problems.
- MWeather, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3At $10,000 per pound it still might be cheaper than storage and reprocessing.
- takamalak, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7We can reprocess and reuse most of the waste (it's not waste anymore by definition) by using breeder reactors.
- MWeather, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2So you want third world dictatorships to start manufacturing plutonium on a massive scale, or were you planning on a "do as I say, not as I do" approach?
- kd1s, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2It's true, breeder reactors can burn U238, U235, Plutonium and other elements.
They do it in Australia as well as in other parts of the world so why the hell not here in the U.S.? Granted at the end of it you end up with some pretty toxic stuff but the overall amount is small enough to just hurl into the sun every now and again. - bobangitanov2, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Nuclear waste cannot be really confined. It always eventually leaks. Breeder reactors reduce the amount of waste but they do not eliminate waste. They need to figure out this part. Why not avoid ANY risks and invest in other forms of energy?
- Terr01, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Great idea. Let's launch it into the sun. We can arrange the launch so that if something goes wrong your lawn gets all the fallout.
- Slovenian6474, on 07/16/2008, -2/+8Yes, Japan Steel Works.
- sponeil, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1It said the reactor would be underground. Earthquakes maybe?
- gdehms, on 07/16/2008, -13/+19It's nuclear energy! Nuclear energy = nuclear bombs = dangerous!!1!!1!
- dha07030, on 07/15/2008, -4/+19DO WANT
- fudged71, on 07/16/2008, -3/+20like in Iron Man?
- mjklaser, on 07/16/2008, -7/+9Just PLEASE make 'em SAFE! But, what to do with the r-waste? Fusion will be cleaner...
- doctechnical, on 07/16/2008, -0/+27Making them safe has been done. Making them hippie-friendly is an ongoing problem (not on the reactor side). As far as the waste is concerned fast-breeder reactors get the most use out the fuel and what's left can be put in Yucca mountan or dropped into a subduction zone.
This IS the power of tomorrow.- SteveSgt, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1When you're willing to store the waste in your own suburban back yard, then I'll consider the problem solved. When you're willing to route your vehicle's exhaust pipe back into the passenger compartment, I'll consider the auto pollution problem solved. Until then, they may be necessary evils, but they're still evil.
- mechnoch, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Nuclear Powered Hydrogen Fuel Plant + Subduction Zone + Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle = WIN.
- Chairboy, on 07/16/2008, -0/+24Fusion ain't here, and we need solutions now. Coal power plants eject their waste (including lots of radioactivity) into the air RIGHT NOW.
Perfect is the enemy of the good. - thatspsychotic, on 07/16/2008, -6/+4It is, and there's an ENORMOUS fusion reactor we see every day that has an available capacity of more than 4,000 times greater than what the entire globe consumes. And it'll be around for probably the next few billion years or so.
- Calinthalus, on 07/16/2008, -1/+17Well then, go hook up some electrical wires and tell us how to jack in.
- flaxx, on 07/16/2008, -7/+2easy, smart-ass, it's called a photo-voltaic cell. i agree with "thatspsychotic", we have the gaint fusion reactor pouring energy down on us and meanwhile we're looking at hot boxing our planet with fission. just ridiculously stupid and another way to centralize power and thus CONTROL people. the research should be poured into efficient solar technology and driving manufacturing cost. Even as it is now, it's far cheaper and safer than fission (if you take into account PROPER disposal, which we still have no realistic solution to -- burying it in a mountain, in a location of the earth that hasn't experienced more than 10,000 years of terrain-stability, let alone 50,000 years for the radioactive isotopes to reach predetermined liberal "safe levels", is not a solution).
Bottom line: Wind, Tide, Solar, Cold-Fusion are our future energy sources. Anything else is deception. - Calinthalus, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5In the long run, solar is one of the big players. Right now, it's not. Japan's plan for an orbiting solar array is the way of the future. Right now, well over half the U.S. can use none of the technologies you offer. You might think of them as backwards rednecks in middle America, but don't they need electricity too? Or would you rather we just keep burning coal, because in middle America it's coal, gas or nuclear, everything else is a pipe dream until orbiting solar comes about.
- Fratz, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2I love the idea of solar panels and wind turbines, too, but the price-to-performance ratio needs to improve a lot before they're a good idea financially. I recently did a calculation on a wind turbine for my house, and it'd cost $5,000 and break even in 32 years. Assuming no increase in grid electricity cost, my $5,000 investment would become $10,000 in 64 years. Obviously, the grid cost will go up, but by how much? So much that I'd be better off getting a turbine instead of investing my $5,000 in some mutual funds and seeing how much they're worth in 64 years?
If you buy panels or turbines for environmental or independence reasons, that's fantastic. But don't expect it to make financial sense.
- TheUngod, on 07/16/2008, -0/+9Save the idealism for church. Science is based in reality.
- doctechnical, on 07/16/2008, -0/+27Making them safe has been done. Making them hippie-friendly is an ongoing problem (not on the reactor side). As far as the waste is concerned fast-breeder reactors get the most use out the fuel and what's left can be put in Yucca mountan or dropped into a subduction zone.
- protogenxl, on 07/16/2008, -1/+23A Mr. Fusion powers the electrical system of my 1982 De Lorean DMC-12, it provides well over 1.21 gigawatts of power.
- buddyw, on 07/16/2008, -0/+9That's 1 point 21 jiggawatts.
- Ziggy7273, on 07/16/2008, -6/+2giga is pronounced jigga
- cyberwiz01, on 07/16/2008, -0/+7Jigga? Please.
- drmangrum, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2@ziggy
No. It's not. - cyberwiz01, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3@drmangrum
Actually, you're both right.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gigawatt - sanosuke001, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0Is that OVER 9000?
and yes @cyberwiz01. jigga and giga are interchangeable. just that now, giga is the preferred pronunciation.
- buddyw, on 07/16/2008, -0/+9That's 1 point 21 jiggawatts.
- arpad, on 07/16/2008, -1/+15I wonder how quickly an accelerated deployment schedule could these reactors deployed? The article mentions a 2015 start date for manufacture and that seems like a long way out.
- pweegar, on 07/16/2008, -3/+0You want them built now, or would you rather have them tested to make sure they are as safe as can be??? Personally, I like safe. Let the NRC take as long as needed to make sure they're safe. Yes, we need the energy, but not at the expense of a potential disaster in the making, without the proper testing and safe guards.
- atomicrod, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1I have no problem with safety reviews, but the NRC process is unnecessarily cumbersome and legalistic. There are lengthy delays built into the schedule for environmental impact statements which are not required for any fossil fuel competitor and for anti-trust reviews - an anachronism left over from the original Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
It would also be nice if there was some way to change the fee structure. NuScale is facing a cost of $258 per bureaucrat hour for the required reviews. The last approval for a design license cost more than $60 million.
- atomicrod, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1I have no problem with safety reviews, but the NRC process is unnecessarily cumbersome and legalistic. There are lengthy delays built into the schedule for environmental impact statements which are not required for any fossil fuel competitor and for anti-trust reviews - an anachronism left over from the original Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
- pweegar, on 07/16/2008, -3/+0You want them built now, or would you rather have them tested to make sure they are as safe as can be??? Personally, I like safe. Let the NRC take as long as needed to make sure they're safe. Yes, we need the energy, but not at the expense of a potential disaster in the making, without the proper testing and safe guards.
- Jakeman21co, on 07/16/2008, -1/+20Yes fusion will be cleaner but we are no less than 25 years form having a basic understanding of how to control a fusion reaction. For now i think we need to take what we can get in terms of energy production. Very cool article though...
- dcshiderly, on 07/16/2008, -0/+0It's closer than you think.
http://www.focusfusion.org/
http://www.emc2fusion.org/ - PaulGGraham, on 07/23/2008, -0/+0They have been saying 25 years for the last 35 years. I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, give me a nice clean safe thorium pebble bed reactor...
- dcshiderly, on 07/16/2008, -0/+0It's closer than you think.
- neonlazer, on 07/16/2008, -11/+7I would love to have one!..unless its not very reliable cause i dont need my entire house to be turned into a radioactive bomb :D
- cnosal, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3RTA, pretty much all modern designs are passively cooled, so if something goes wrong, they shut down, no meltdowns.
- leerayIG88, on 07/16/2008, -2/+72012? Sounds like bad news bears to me.
- IphtashuFitz, on 07/16/2008, -4/+2Isn't 2012 when Nostradamus, the Mayans, etc. all claim the world is going to come to an end? Not trying to incite any panic. Just sayin...
- Pronoiac, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2Other than inciting panic, what purpose does acknowledging wackjob end of the world theories have?
- rearlgrant, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Not the Mayans... This is a myth.
The Conquistadors likely started this myth b/c they didn't understand the Mayan calendar and the Mesoamerican cyclical view of time conflicted with Revelations. Sadly, we really will never know b/c the Conquistadors thought their writings were e heretical and destroyed all but 4 Mesoamerican codices.
The twin-pyramid complexes in Tikal and Yaxha were probably built to celebrate the revolution of a katun, and other evidence shows the Mayans and others expected the sun to rise after each katun.
- IphtashuFitz, on 07/16/2008, -4/+2Isn't 2012 when Nostradamus, the Mayans, etc. all claim the world is going to come to an end? Not trying to incite any panic. Just sayin...
- tulanian12, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3moar
- nullcodes, on 07/16/2008, -3/+11Umm why is it only the Japanese can cast 25 ft ples reactor vessels??
We need to fix that like ASAP.- B1663r, on 07/16/2008, -9/+2Because the article is full of *****.
- fuhcough, on 07/16/2008, -1/+8because the molds for casting something that big are TREMENDOUSLY expensive, thus making it CHEAPER to just pay JSW to do it.
- geoffeg, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Can you imagine the 25ft American Apple Pies we could make? Mmmm, I can feel my arteries clogging up just thinking about it.
- doctechnical, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6See "Rust Belt". We've shipped a great deal of manufacturing capability overseas.
- Chairboy, on 07/16/2008, -0/+20Japan is the only country to bother developing that type of capability because they use it for their Gundams.
- Slovenian6474, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5That's the only company with the equipment to do so. And with the slow implementation of nuclear plants...I would guess it's not a worthwhile venture.
- drmangrum, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2There's not exactly a huge market for those parts. There's no need for the competition. There's lots of specialized equipment that is available from only 1 or 2 sources.
- zeitgueist, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1When reactors were not popular, they were the only company with the highly specialized equipment. Now that demand is there, it will still take probably 5 years for other foundries to catch up.
- s0m31john, on 07/16/2008, -5/+26Too bad hippy environmentalists will tell everyone they're not safe, while giving no facts, then we'll be set back another 30 years in nuclear technology.
- MattB123, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7I have hope that we are or will be able to overcome that. The times are changing.
- MorganMghee, on 07/16/2008, -10/+1No one, NO ONE has come up with a safe secure containment for the waste. McCain even stated so in his speech in Nevada this year. And by saying yes, this is secure enough because it is small, you are saying a small nuclear disaster is ok, the lower number of potential casualties is an acceptable risk to you.
- diggydougie, on 07/16/2008, -1/+13More people die from mining coal than anything nuclear. We have this weird psychological fear of the nuke which prevents us from looking at the problem objectively. We need the power dammit. Nuclear power will not overheat the planet even if we dumped the waste in landfills! Get over it.
- wiggles, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5Woah there, buckaroo. How do you go from 'no viable waste containment system' to 'all nuke plants will melt down and kill people'?
- zeitgueist, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4We have safe containment for transport, safe containment for storage, we just have issues finding a spot where people are willing to keep it. Of course, this is ignoring waste-reprocessing.
- MorganMghee, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I don't advocate coal mining or use either. It's not a 'weird psychological fear' :
Alpha Particle Uranium contamination
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vie ...
1945 -- United States drops nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, effectively ending World War II.
1950s -- Desert tests in Nevada clear way for commercial nuclear industry. First U.S. reactor (Shippingport, in Pennsylvania) goes online, in 1957.
1979 -- March 16 The China Syndrome (Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas), about lax safety at nuclear power plants, is released.
March 28 -- Three Mile Island meltdown. No fatalities; studies show “negligible” health risk.
1983 -- Silkwood (Cher, Meryl Streep), about nuclear skulduggery, is released.
1986 -- Chernobyl disaster in the U.S.S.R. kills 31 and spews massive amounts of radioactive dust into the atmosphere. Ultimate death toll from cancer: 4,000 (estimate).
http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-an ...
Nuclear Plants not following Fire Rules http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08747.pdf
Organized Crime penetrates energy sector: http://www.truthout.org/article/organized-crime-pe ...
Whole list of reasons' http://qna.live.com/ShowQuestion.aspx?qid=FB791252 ...
And one of my favorites: http://www.truthout.org/article/the-nuclear-expert ... - MorganMghee, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Wiggles, because I didn't limit my response to just the waste issue, no one should.
Zeitgueist, no we don't.
- Witchboy, on 07/16/2008, -5/+5"Some hippie will freak out about it being dangerous..."
Um, no. More likely, some conservative with tons of money invested in maintaining the oil status quo will shoot it down for some other reason.
Many people concerned about global climate change are advocating nuclear energy. (It has downsides, of course. So does oil, though: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/alberta-oi ...- zacharytelschow, on 07/16/2008, -3/+8"More likely, some conservative with tons of money invested in maintaining the oil status quo will shoot it down for some other reason."
Democrats vote against nuclear power with obscene regularity. You wanna point fingers, take a peak at the other side of the aisle.
- zacharytelschow, on 07/16/2008, -3/+8"More likely, some conservative with tons of money invested in maintaining the oil status quo will shoot it down for some other reason."
- TurboSquid, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1Could we not just wipe them out with small-pox infected blankets or something?
- Borgcube636, on 07/16/2008, -2/+7Area 51 FTW!!!
- drknockrz, on 07/16/2008, -0/+13Yay lets make a bunch of these then reprocess the waste, giving us a France-like clean energy system with only a fistful of nuclear waste per family per year. 400 million fistfuls is a lot, but if we upgrade containment tech, then we don't have to find a place as out-of-the-way as Yucca Mtn. (BTW I am a hippie environmentalist who lives on a small island where everyone is green)
- Erythroxylum, on 07/16/2008, -2/+23Just the whiff of the word 'nuclear' is enough to send the Enviro-weenies - who are very powerful politically - into paroxysms of poo-inducing terror. 'What if a bunch of lay-people decide to prosecute a dangerous experiment on a reactor with a fundamental design flaw and the core melts and catches fire like what happened in Chernobyl?' they opine. 'You're out of your limited, goddamned minds you atavistic, tree-hugging *****' I say.
- dbit483, on 07/16/2008, -0/+17Many people don't realize that these plants can't explode like a nuclear bomb. It'd be like throwing a teaspoon of gun powder into a bucket of dirt and trying to get it to explode. The uranium fuel in plants is different than the enriched plutonium in bombs.
Also the fuel pellets are about half the size of your pinky finger. Storing the waste afterwards is not a problem since it takes up such a small amount of space. The giant glowing drums of radio active waste only exist in Hollywood...
The bottom line is these plants are safe, have zero carbon emissions and create lots of jobs for Americans. Please don't dismiss nuclear power as evil and unsafe just because it has the word 'nuclear' in it. It is really wonderful (and green) technology. - MoralThreat, on 07/16/2008, -0/+8I want a miniaturized arc reactor.
- drmangrum, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3That's pretty damn cool. It would also have the added benefit of dispersing the power plants, allowing for more de-centralization and less attenuation over distances. If one did happen to have a meltdown, it would probably be much easier to contain than a large scale reactor. Hell, this even has some practical usage for the military.
- IphtashuFitz, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Portable reactors (or other small power sources) would make for a huge improvement in the stability of the American power grid. Things like the 1965 northeast blackout or the more recent 2003 blackout would be much less likely to happen if there were more smaller power plants supplying the nations electrical grid rather than a small number of much larger power plants. It would also mean that the effects of a failure at one power plant would be a lot less widespread then they are now. It was a cascade of these fewer larger power plants that caused those wide ranging blackouts.
- MorganMghee, on 07/16/2008, -8/+3No one, NO ONE has come up with a safe secure containment for the waste. McCain even stated so in his speech in Nevada this year. A smaller amount of nuclear waste is not much consolation considering the length of time it will be around and the absolute deadly nature of the stuff. We can't get the waste sites we have now cleaned up, and not just nuclear, http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/showthreaded.php/Cat/0/ ... . And by saying yes, this is secure enough because it is small, you are saying a small nuclear disaster is ok, the lower number of potential casualties is an acceptable risk to you.
- IphtashuFitz, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3True, but I'd much rather have smaller amounts of waste from modern reactors with the latest in safety equipment than the larger amounts currently created by the 30 year old technology currently used in our nuclear plants.
- MorganMghee, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2I'd rather do anything else. Including go without power.
- Calinthalus, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2He says while typing on a computer.
- MorganMghee, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2SHE says while tapping on her laptop - the most energy efficient way to compute. If there were as much backing for alternative energy as there is for oil exploration despite most Americans not wanting to use oil I wouldn't have to worry about it. If fossil fuel energy weren't so available there would be a huge market for human powered home energy units and the price would be affordable. (yes, they already exist) and I wouldn't be hooked up at all. We've had electricity for a very very short portion of our human history, we will not fall apart without it.
- dcshiderly, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2The solution to the problem of waste is to reprocess it. Out of a hundred tons of uranium ore, we're left with 13 tons of waste product. By reprocessing this material, we not only get a thousand times the energy, but reduce the waste total to 1.5 tons. France has been doing this for years and is a net exporter of electrical power.
Unfortunately, nuclear plants take a long time to build, but it's not the only option. T. Boone Pickens' Mesa Energy is building a 4 gigawatt wind farm in the Texas panhandle. His proposal to produce 20% of the country's electrical needs by wind can be completed in five years with a $1trillion investment. We could then free up natural gas for use in transportation (which burns cleaner) and it would give us the breathing room we need to finish building new nuclear plants to produce the electricity needed to drive the push to an all-electric transportation energy model. - Phate8263, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Man I love that block user button, all of a sudden my digg comments are all intelligent and insightful...
- IphtashuFitz, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3True, but I'd much rather have smaller amounts of waste from modern reactors with the latest in safety equipment than the larger amounts currently created by the 30 year old technology currently used in our nuclear plants.
- StanleyKoolPrik, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1A Mr. Fusion in every Delorean.
- Zymophideth, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3I'm all for nuclear energy to help curb C02 emissions. However, we should be using Pebble Bed Reactors instead of pressurized water reactors. They are safer and cleaner:
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/10/ ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor - flaxx, on 07/16/2008, -7/+1i hope everyone realizes this arcticle is talking about fission, NOT fusion. Fusion is very clean because it's taking two hydrogen atoms and harvesting the energy by FUSING them together to make helium, a noble gas that escapes our atmosphere and reacts with NOTHING, so it's EXTREMELY CLEAN. Fission, what this article is talking about is filthy dirty by comparison and takes Uranium (spread throughout the world and has a very long half-life) and breaks it into highly reactive isotopes with far shorter half lives-- but their half lives are still long enough that "safe-disposal" is an oxymoron. Fission is irresponsible as far as I'm concerned. Especially with our own 2*10^30 KG fusion reactor out in space pouring energy down on us.
- Chakat, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4You do realize that we can reprocess that fuel, right? And there are certain designs, like the SSTAR reactor, which make the reprocessed fuel unsuitable for weapons usage. The fearmongering over fission design is patently ridiculous.
- tcpip4lyfe, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2Well you go ahead and invent a cheap solar cell that can produce the same amount of power as nuclear reactors. Or you can create a working fusion plant that can sustain a nuclear fusion reaction long enough to turn it into electricity. Im the mean time nuclear energy is the way to go. The french have their nuclear waste problem solved. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reac ... so I don't really understand how you can say it is irresponsible when the US has never had a nuclear disaster. (3 Mile Island wasn't a disaster. No one even got hurt)
- zeitgueist, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4Fission reactors are irresponsible? How so? Compared to coal which pumps radioactive material in the the air every day, more than Nuclear ever has or ever will?
Also solar is all well and good, but it is unreliable for baseline power. - dcshiderly, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Extracting that power is very expensive and difficult for the moment. If you're worried about fission being irresponsible, then get a nuclear engineering degree, and go work for the NRC as an oversight engineer and make sure nobody cuts corners. You're here on digg, so there's at least the potential that you're bright enough to pull it off. Sitting around discussing to social ramifications is all well and good, but actually making progress is better.
- Nighthawke, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1The study for the application and siting of the Toshiba reactor at Galena should be about completed. The offer was made roughly about 6 or 7 years ago to the Alaskans and they jumped at it. This "pocket reactor" design consisted of a moving reflector that redirects neutrons back at the uranium core, generating more neutrons and heat. The reflector moves faster, more energy is made. The reflector stops, the reactor cools down. It is modular in design and over 95% of the building and reactor is made off-site at the factory.
- mbondr, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Article and comments brought to you by General Electric.
- MorganMghee, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2 don't advocate coal mining or use either. It's not a 'weird psychological fear' :
Alpha Particle Uranium contamination
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vie ...
1945 -- United States drops nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, effectively ending World War II.
1950s -- Desert tests in Nevada clear way for commercial nuclear industry. First U.S. reactor (Shippingport, in Pennsylvania) goes online, in 1957.
1979 -- March 16 The China Syndrome (Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas), about lax safety at nuclear power plants, is released.
March 28 -- Three Mile Island meltdown. No fatalities; studies show “negligible” health risk.
1983 -- Silkwood (Cher, Meryl Streep), about nuclear skulduggery, is released.
1986 -- Chernobyl disaster in the U.S.S.R. kills 31 and spews massive amounts of radioactive dust into the atmosphere. Ultimate death toll from cancer: 4,000 (estimate).
http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-an ...
Nuclear Plants not following Fire Rules http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08747.pdf
Organized Crime penetrates energy sector: http://www.truthout.org/article/organized-crime-pe ...
Whole list of reasons' http://qna.live.com/ShowQuestion.aspx?qid=FB791252 ...
And one of my favorites: http://www.truthout.org/article/the-nuclear-expert ...- topace3000, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2Hmm yes so what you're saying is that not a single person in the US has died as a result of the supposed dangers of nuclear power.
- MorganMghee, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Where do you live, I'll be sure to suggest they build it there if they decide against all logic to do it:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive ...
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/Hanford-Lack-Sa ...
How the government does the right thing without admitting it's dangerous: http://www.dol.gov/esa/owcp/energy/regs/compliance ...
Abstract:
Wealth production within a "risk society" typically depends on production technologies that expose citizens to dangerous substances. Knowledge of such exposure is, more often than not, hidden from the public. Empirical analyses show that citizens' claims of illnesses caused by risky exposures are frequently contested by the institutions that select production technologies and control information: the government, corporations, and physicians. In this article, we use the risk society thesis as a framework for addressing gaps in the environmental illness literature—specifically, the basis for authorities' contestations of illness claims for which the exposure-illness link is scientifically confirmed. Using case methods, including in-depth interviews with 124 citizens, analyses center on the contested illness claims of nuclear weapons workers at the federal Oak Ridge Nuclear Reservation. Results highlight how institutional and organizational resources provided authorities with tactical leverage, and allowed them to manufacture an ambiguous climate for public discourse. This discourse focused on the exposure-illness link for a particular individual and their specific symptoms rather than the established exposure-illness links in general. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for analyses of environmental exposure specifically, but also the seemingly contradictory tension between the risk society's need to restrict information to experts and democracy's need for open discourse.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/20 ...
''They are basically getting a 24-hour crash course in how to run a nuclear power plant,'' Mr. Mangione said. ''The elected officials should be very concerned that Entergy is playing Russian roulette with public safety. No matter what they say, they cannot guarantee the safe operation or the security of Indian Point.''
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0 ... - topace3000, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1"Wealth production within a "risk society" typically depends on production technologies that expose citizens to dangerous substances."
I stopped reading at this point. Enjoy your delusional fear-mongering and endless fossil-fuel dependence.
Clearly a country that depends almost entirely on nuclear power would be a crippled, environmentally devastated wasteland. No, wait, look at France you *****. The amount of dangerous substances produced through nuclear power production is dwarfed by all by wind and solar power, which are both currently infeasible as a means of meeting the massive energy production requirements of the US at anything near a reasonable price.
- MorganMghee, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Where do you live, I'll be sure to suggest they build it there if they decide against all logic to do it:
- topace3000, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2Hmm yes so what you're saying is that not a single person in the US has died as a result of the supposed dangers of nuclear power.
- swaters210, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3I'm all for this but we need to be sure that the waste can be disposed of properly.
Props to my older brother because he is a nuclear engineer at NRC and is currently working on this. He's been doing research at Yucca mountain for quite some time now. - MorganMghee, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Where do you live, I'll be sure to suggest they build it there if they decide against all logic to do it:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive ...
http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/Hanford-Lack-Sa ...
How the government does the right thing without admitting it's dangerous: http://www.dol.gov/esa/owcp/energy/regs/compliance ...
Abstract:
Wealth production within a "risk society" typically depends on production technologies that expose citizens to dangerous substances. Knowledge of such exposure is, more often than not, hidden from the public. Empirical analyses show that citizens' claims of illnesses caused by risky exposures are frequently contested by the institutions that select production technologies and control information: the government, corporations, and physicians. In this article, we use the risk society thesis as a framework for addressing gaps in the environmental illness literature—specifically, the basis for authorities' contestations of illness claims for which the exposure-illness link is scientifically confirmed. Using case methods, including in-depth interviews with 124 citizens, analyses center on the contested illness claims of nuclear weapons workers at the federal Oak Ridge Nuclear Reservation. Results highlight how institutional and organizational resources provided authorities with tactical leverage, and allowed them to manufacture an ambiguous climate for public discourse. This discourse focused on the exposure-illness link for a particular individual and their specific symptoms rather than the established exposure-illness links in general. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for analyses of environmental exposure specifically, but also the seemingly contradictory tension between the risk society's need to restrict information to experts and democracy's need for open discourse.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/20 ...
''They are basically getting a 24-hour crash course in how to run a nuclear power plant,'' Mr. Mangione said. ''The elected officials should be very concerned that Entergy is playing Russian roulette with public safety. No matter what they say, they cannot guarantee the safe operation or the security of Indian Point.''
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0 ... - mrmudgeon, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0We need to do something unless the folks against this dont care if we sink into depression. While Alt-E is coming online, what do you all suggest?
- MorganMghee, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Remove oil from speculation, conserve, flip incentives,subsidies,tax relief and loopholes from oil to Alt-E.
That should bring the price per barrel down to about $50-70.- mamapajamas, on 07/26/2008, -0/+0ROFLMAO! Uh huh. THAT'LL take care of nasty ol' Exxon-Mobil, the 14th largest oil company in the world and an absolutely PIPSQUEAK compared to the subsidized national oil companies like Aramco (Saudi Arabia).
What that will do is-- nothing. The US oil companies have zero influence over the price of oil, and it is ONLY US companies that would be affected by US law.
You can outlaw speculation in the US, but how can you outlaw speculation in Dubai or Moscow? Don't be rediculous!
Tax relief is good, but kick the Democrats on that one, given that they want to RAISE the fuel taxes from 18 cents to 28 cents per gallon.
And then DRILL DRILL DRILL! :) A mini-nuke will NOT run your car for you!
- mamapajamas, on 07/26/2008, -0/+0ROFLMAO! Uh huh. THAT'LL take care of nasty ol' Exxon-Mobil, the 14th largest oil company in the world and an absolutely PIPSQUEAK compared to the subsidized national oil companies like Aramco (Saudi Arabia).
- MorganMghee, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Remove oil from speculation, conserve, flip incentives,subsidies,tax relief and loopholes from oil to Alt-E.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by