What is Digg?246 Comments
- hahajohnnyb, on 12/20/2007, -22/+81Thats because Texas is not full of a bunch of Luddite anti-nuke nut jobs! We are the pro-energy State! Nuclear, oil, wind, solar, biomass, ethanol, coal or cow turds... If the hippies like it or not, we don't give a damn. If it makes energy, then we will drill it, mine it, burn it, nuke it, or build it.
- inactive, on 12/20/2007, -6/+56If the spent nuclear fuel can be properly contained and if the reactors are safely managed, then nuclear power is the hands-down best source of power on the planet. In a way, I prefer solar, wind, and hydrodynamic better because of their near-zero impact on the planet; but, their power output and efficiency is severely limited compared to nuclear.
If we can overcome the emotion-based reactions of many left-leaning politicians who need to be educated about this subject, then we can start to wean ourselves off foreign sources for power. This would be an excellent thing. - 471776, on 12/20/2007, -4/+40Good for Texas. A step in the right direction.
Until solar and other renewable sources become more economically viable, nuclear is the best we have. Other types of power (wind, solar etc.) simply cannot compete with the energy output of nuclear plants.
It's a damn sight better than coal. - Bukowsky, on 12/20/2007, -9/+40Damn straight, Spoken like a true Texan!!
- thespudmall, on 12/20/2007, -3/+28FINALLY!!!
And before all the waste disposal responses:
Breeder Reactors
Nuclear waste vitrification - mckirkus, on 12/20/2007, -7/+31Why do environmentalists prefer that we burn coal and add to global warming? I've never figured this out.
- mckirkus, on 12/20/2007, -2/+18Nuclear isn't perfectly clean but it will encourage the use of electric vehicles if we build enough reactors. Then we can transition to renewable sources at our leisure without worrying about global warming in the interim.
- d3dm, on 12/20/2007, -4/+19That's funny because some outside the country would say that's the same attitude shared by the US. I guess it all depends on where you're sitting.
In any case, Texas seems like it's getting something done when it comes to dealing with energy issues rather than the continuing the endless debates over what sort of lightbulb is going to save the whales. I'll give them credit for that. - kreatre2007, on 12/20/2007, -2/+17Believe it or not but, nuclear power plants are not as fragile as you think they are.
- doctorfungi, on 12/20/2007, -4/+18Nuclear power is cheaper than solar dude.
- silentphoenix, on 12/20/2007, -2/+15wth is that supposed to mean?
- cjpro, on 12/20/2007, -1/+12Actually, the waste from nuclear reactions is still useful. It's called nuclear reprocessing, in which the used waste can be used as fuel. Unfortuantely, this is the method that is used to create the fuel for nuclear bombs, so President Carter banned it as a method of leading the world into a nuclear-free society as he believed that if the United States started a new movement, the rest of the world would follow. Today, we are still the only country that bans nuclear reprocessing. Yet, if we had nuclear reprocessing in place still, the final waste material would reach its 10th half-life (the point where it is considered safe) in a relatively short amount of time. This way, the waste would not be harmful for such a long period of time and we would get more energy out of the fuel/waste. Unfortunately, due to the still rather strong movement against nuclear power (or anything containing the word "radiation"), it looks like this will be a dream the foreseeable future.
- SiNN4R, on 12/20/2007, -2/+13Hydrodynamic energy has significant impact on the environment.
- YanMan, on 12/20/2007, -1/+11Hydrodynamic has near zero impact? Try telling that to the salmon...
- chripro125, on 12/20/2007, -1/+11France gets over 80% of their electricity from nuclear. Why store the waste when you can recycle it?
"French technocrats had never thought that the waste issue would be much of a problem. From the beginning the French had been recycling their nuclear waste, reclaiming the plutonium and unused uranium and fabricating new fuel elements. This not only gave energy, it reduced the volume and longevity of French radioactive waste. "
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reac ... - jjb123, on 12/20/2007, -3/+13Nuclear is the most efficient, cleanest, option we have right now.
- doctorfungi, on 12/20/2007, -5/+14Because the initial cost is a little high right now. You answered your own question.
- inactive, on 12/20/2007, -3/+12They do. That is why they are the first state to reconsider using what is FAR AND AWAY the best option we have right now.
- ryland2, on 12/20/2007, -3/+11And what the hell are you basing what you just said off of? It is extremely cost effective, and in this day and age if a reactor is properly maintained it is perfectly safe.
- inactive, on 12/20/2007, -2/+10They do have the foresight. They have enough to know that there is already a plan for disposal.
And the initial cost of a solar array for a state the size of Texas is more than "a little hgh". It is prohibitively high. And before you talk baout how hte ocsts will come down with such a big order, they won't. the benefits of mass production will be more htan offset by the scarcity of supply. It is not like there are hundrds of solar cell factories sitting idle. - NatrlSelection, on 12/20/2007, -8/+16How do we know that the Texans aren't using this technology to develop a bomb?
- sonnybobiche, on 12/20/2007, -0/+7We don't have the technology to go that deep.
- cybrguy, on 12/20/2007, -3/+10They are often only against it because they are afraid of it. If they properly understood nuclear technology they wouldn't be making half of their conjectures. I feel embarassed as an American due to all the ignorance on this issue, go to Europe and primarily France, and nuclear power is seen as the pinnacle of power production. The only thing better in their opinion is hydro, but hydro is limited.
- Dumbledorito, on 12/20/2007, -4/+11Funny. When I saw a headline reading "Texas goes nuclear" I was expecting that they'd bombed an Oklahoma football stadium.
- soulpiercer7, on 12/20/2007, -0/+7they need to build one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_re ...
according to wikipedia "The reactor design uses an unmoderated core running on fast neutrons, designed to allow any transuranic isotope to be consumed (and in some cases used as fuel). In addition to the benefits of removing the long half-life transuranics from the waste cycle, the SFR fuel expands when the reactor overheats, and the chain reaction automatically slows down. In this manner, it is passively safe."
sounds awesome. With the high running temperatures, they could use it to efficiently produce hydrogen. build a "supergrid" and you can extremely efficently send all of that energy and hydrogen to wherever it needs to go. - djbon2112, on 12/20/2007, -1/+8Nuclear plants are designed to handle bombs, earthquakes, airplane impacts (they were designed like this long before 9/11), etc. They can handle a tornado.
- markrubi2, on 12/20/2007, -1/+8What to do with the reactor waste?? Export it to China. Let's give some love back to them.
- HUKI365, on 12/20/2007, -2/+9No, you'll just wean yourself off Arab source. You'll be coming to the Australians - IE the people with the largest reserves of uranium in the world.
- Draxius, on 12/20/2007, -1/+7Well, I can't say you are wrong, but we can go a few hundred years.....over a billion with breeder reactors. Even though there are not many of those out there yet because of their cost, eventually the price of uranium will drive the market to them.
We got plenty of time to worry about it... - djbon2112, on 12/20/2007, -1/+7There's about a thousand years worth of mineable uranium on the earth, more if we take it from nuclear weapons. That, and the waste from reactors can be reprocessed to produce new fuel. We've got PLENTY of nuclear fuel.
- djbon2112, on 12/20/2007, -2/+8No, it was because Jimmy Carter was a nuclear-hating lunatic and banned reprocessing in the US. It's currently the only country in the world to ban the process.
- inactive, on 12/20/2007, -4/+10The saddest part is, if we didn't stop with nuclear after Three Mile Island, we would be MUCH closer to having feasible solar and wind capbilities with the money we saved.
- maanwi, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6Solar energy cells charge throughout the sunny part of the day, but that doesn't mean that the lights suddenly go out at dark.
- djbon2112, on 12/20/2007, -0/+6Nuclear reactors tend to be extremely secure, have many layers designed to survive a plane crashing into them, earthquakes, bombs, etc.
They are not environmentally damaging. The nuclear waste can be reprocessed to produce new fuel and the unusable remnants are so small they can be safely thrown into a mine shaft somewhere and forgotten. - blahblah, on 12/20/2007, -2/+7The cost of nuclear vs. coal or any other power can hardly be described as "incredibly cost-ineffective." Working in the nuclear industry for the time I have, I know that nuclear power is one of the most competitive means of producing power there is, and most studies have nuclear running neck-and-neck with coal, depending on how different economic indicators are being weighed. It does not take huge subsidies to -run- nuclear power as much as tax breaks. A lot of the inefficiencies are not physical or economic ones either, but are brought about by the vast oversight that is necessary to keep the industry safe. Refer to the wikipedia article for a simple overview of the economics of nuclear power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nucl ...
I know you had the best intentions when you made the statements you did. Please consider your position and ask yourself whether you are speaking from bias or guesswork or whether you know that what you are saying is truth that can be backed up with facts. Spreading unfounded opinions will damage public knowledge about critical issues. - Buelldozer, on 12/20/2007, -3/+8No, we don't reprocess because Jimmy "I'm a ***** dumbass" Carter made it ILLEGAL for us to build breeder reactors.
- cybrguy, on 12/20/2007, -1/+6but you can keep your child from freezing to death with nuclear power.
- inactive, on 12/20/2007, -3/+8mankind will be dead long before they manifest. And a whole lot sooner if we keep using coal.
- LittleDas, on 12/20/2007, -1/+6I've always been disappointed in my fellow liberals who did not support nuclear power, I mean, the Democratic party is supposed to listen to scientists instead of hushing them up or ignoring them. That's for the Republican party.
- mousky, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5Why does Texas need nuclear plants when it has oil? Wait, I've heard that argument before.
- LemonDefragger, on 12/20/2007, -2/+7nucular?
- sotopheavy, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5We purchased a bunch of windmills recently too.
- mclumber1, on 12/20/2007, -2/+7We actually sent some of it to France. We sell the spent fuel to france, they reprocess it, and use it in their own reactors. We don't reprocess spent fuel because we don't have the facilities to do it, and because of environmental regulations.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 12/20/2007, -3/+8breeder reactors
- bjornski, on 12/20/2007, -0/+5The deepest drilling ever done by mankind is the drilling that has taken place on the Kola Peninsula in Russia. This drilling started in 1970 and had reached a depth of 12,262 meters, in 1994. The drilling itself was done differently in the Kola Peninsula. The entire drill itself was not rotated; only the drill bit was turned by the flow of drilling mud.
--------
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/AdamCassino.sh ... - redoctane, on 12/20/2007, -3/+8Although nuclear power sounds good to most people, we also have to account for the downsides as well. What most people don't realize is that we don't really have any permanent storage facilities for storing this spent nuclear fuel, it's mostly stored onsite. The only site that we have for storing all of these wastes is at Yucca Mountain, in Nevada - but even then, it's stored near a fault line and a volcano. I'm pretty sure it's to be opened in 2015 or so. Moving this waste could also be pretty costly - you can't exactly fly it by airplane due to the potential risk, and shipping it by truck is still going to be pretty expensive. Nuclear power is also a non-renewable resource - one day the uranium will run out just like oil. The methods for harnessing that vast amount of energy and translating that into electricity are also pretty inefficient. Lastly, if you're going to build a plant near a community, it's bound to run into resistance by locals.
The only benefit to nuclear is probably less dependence on foreign oil and less reliance on fossil fuels. But we definitely should be looking more into renewable ways of generating electricity. - Dumbledorito, on 12/20/2007, -2/+7Like many people in the energy industry, future problems go in a big box marked "government bailout."
- sotopheavy, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5About as long as it takes safety scissors to rip through a titanium brick
- cybrguy, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5Again, the safety doubters refuse to look at the examples other countries have already given. France is so easy to point to. Safe, cost efficient, extremely long lasting. If nuclear power is so broken, why are the more mature nations of the world hailing it as the best energy sources for their needs?
- Truegod, on 12/20/2007, -1/+5"There are nuclear accidents every year that go unreported in the media" Where are you getting your info from? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation ... (I know it's not the greatest source, but please list a better one!) shows only 3 since 2000, and none that were worth getting concerned about. Nuclear energy is extremely efficient, much more then wind turbines.
"increase exponentially as the use of nuclear reactors increases exponentially" So your arguing that the number of accidents increases at the same rate as the number of nuclear reactors?! Nuclear energy would be even safer with new nuclear plants. A lot has been learned since the seventies, this is only my opinion, but new plants would probably have less problems then the current ones. -
Show 51 - 100 of 244 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is