What is Digg?108 Comments
- Wonderama, on 07/14/2008, -5/+40Thanks to the hippies and the other rabid eco-zealots, we're 30 years behind where we should be on this one.
- Stevanoski, on 07/12/2008, -4/+35We can only hope they are in the near future.
- cyborgmexican, on 07/14/2008, -7/+25Its really too bad 3 mile island happened because we would be so much more advanced in the nuclear power department. Instead were falling behind Europe due to a worthless scare from properly controlled meltdown.
BTW, its pronounced nu-cue-lur dummies. The s is silent! - orlyfactor, on 07/14/2008, -4/+20Let's hope the Germans approve, because throughout history, having a pissed off Germany is not really a good thing.
- IG64, on 07/14/2008, -1/+17Anyone else getting tired of reading about stuff supposedly happening in the future, then never seeing it get here?
- dacodanelson, on 07/14/2008, -4/+17I am currently training to be a physicist and as much as I love nuclear energy I have to say OH NO! Nuclear energy cannot support today's needs, there are simply too many people. Uranium is difficult to find as it is and could be put to better use in laboratories than in power supplies and weapons. The simple fact of the matter is nuclear energy is good for supplimental power and renewable sources are where we need to be going. The great thing about nuclear, it's safe, clean, extremely powerful. The bad things, it's a great terrorist target and it consumes massive amounts of uranium that CANNOT be renewed. So, after these are built, let them be the last and lets move on to fusion, solar, wind, geo-thermal, and any other sort of ingenious renewable source available.
- Buelldozer, on 07/14/2008, -1/+13Please wikipedia for "Breeder Reactor". This problem was solved long ago.
- Typhoon2009, on 07/14/2008, -0/+11I'm no nuclear engineer so feel free to call me ignorant but:
1) I thought uranium rods took a long while to be completely used up?
2) Isn't France pretty much totally powered by nuclear energy? I've been to France, they've got plenty of electronics to use up power...
3) If I'm not mistaken they've done crash tests of airplanes going at very high speeds into the walls of nuclear reactor containment buildings and cooling towers... didn't penetrate - kcfreels, on 07/14/2008, -0/+11Are you people really worried about running out of uranium? You know, you can recycle the fuel rods over and over again... The amount of waste generated by the French nuclear power program in the last 40 years could fit into two shipping containers. This is due to the recycling of the fuel rods.
- Futurejunior, on 07/14/2008, -1/+11I work as a consultant for a firm that helps tailor safely regulations for nukes, so I'll answer you as best I can.
1) The levels of enrichment in the fuel rods it is set at around 4% Uranium (around 85% less the nuclear weapons BTW) to make sure it can be control. Though uranium rods do take a long time to deplete, they go rather quickly through the specifics for fuel rods. Still refueling cycles are generally multiple years, depending on the exact percentages of enrichment.
2) France is indeed running nearly completely on nuclear power, upwards of 80% coming from around 60 reactors.
3)The cooling towers are basically completely safe (non essential to containing radiation), so unless you drown in the water nothing bad can come from them. They are not built to withstand more than the usual shock (earthquake, high wind etc) The containment shield on the reactive area of the plant is multiple layers, concrete, steel and more concrete. This is the "missile shield" and containment shield. All are build to withstand nuclear blasts as close as a couple miles away. All reactors have auto shutdown procedures that trigger when anything out of the ordinary occurs.
Basically nuclear power is actually safer and cheaper than coal and natural gas power. - InsaneOni, on 07/14/2008, -3/+13I'm very surprised to hear that there are new nuclear projects going on in the United States since people here seem to be so ignorant and fearful of nuclear power. Regardless, I'm very happy to hear this, nuclear is the way to go. Hopefully the US will soon allow the building of breeders as well. With the electric car on the way, we can't afford to produce power the way we do now. I mean, come on, burning things for power is so 1700.
- mweflen, on 07/14/2008, -7/+17Thank f-ing Christ. About time the rabid eco-idiots were silenced in favor of a proven low-emission technology which can actually provide for our needs while not spewing carbon into the atmosphere.
- curtisag, on 07/14/2008, -1/+10Everybody chant it with me now like you're back in the 1960's, MORE NUKES, MORE NUKES, MORE NUKES!
- ToRoE, on 07/14/2008, -0/+8Construction continuing from 20 years ago. not ready for another 5 years.
Unit 2 was about 80% complete when its construction was stopped in 1988. The official reason given for halting construction was a decrease in demand for electricity, but the decision was hailed as a victory by anti-nuclear activists. Unit 2 remains partly completed (several of its parts being cannibalized for use on other TVA units), but on August 1, 2007 the TVA Board approved completion of the unit. Construction resumed on October 15, 2007, with the reactor expected to begin operation in 2013.[1] - kcfreels, on 07/14/2008, -0/+8No one got so much as a cold from 3 Mile Island. If anything, it proved that a meltdown is almost impossible in an American designed and operated reactor. The Navy has been dragging reactors around the planet for more than 40 years and has never had an accident or release of radiation.
When your reactor isn't soviet crap and isn't run by drunk Ukrainians, things go just fine.
Why are people so afraid of nuclear power? - korvan504521, on 07/14/2008, -0/+8Blame government regulations, lack of standardization, and the almost 30 year hiatus in Nuclear construction in the United states for that. The reason gas plants can be built so quick (12-18 months) is that the design is proven and well standardized, and the government regulation is not over the top. Nobody over here has built a nuke plant in 30 years, the designs are going to be a mess, and the regulation and government overwatch is going to be horrifically unorganized and corrupt. And more than likely they'll be required to be trade union, which will empty out every hall within two states of the project with current labor shortages.
- legatus, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7Please elaborate, I hear there is a better way all the time but there seems to be one thing lacking, details.
- garvallagh, on 07/14/2008, -3/+10So... we can drop this ***** about Iran now and let them get on with building theirs as well ? since we all agree that this is a good thing
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -1/+7Liberals grab a book and read up on the definition of Energy.
- takamalak, on 07/14/2008, -1/+7Whoosh!
- rrife, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6They're building (technically finishing) one down the street from me on Watts Bar lake. Supposedly it'll be online in a few years.
- byronm, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5More money than you could dream of goes into fusion research.
- takamalak, on 07/14/2008, -1/+6Agreed, however, not enough research dollars are going into fusion research.
- byronm, on 07/14/2008, -2/+7I tried mentioning that myself but i guess i wasn't explicitly with my history/knowledge of this either. Nuclear energy is a dead end process. The fissible material is called "rare earth" for a reason. Invest in other energies and less this stuff to the scientists.
- Futurejunior, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5Nuclear power is neither of your negative arguments. The massive amount of uranium you are thinking of is only a 4% enrichment on carbon rods. As for a being good terrorist targets? It would be easier for a terrorist to steal a nuclear bomb from the US that to try and blow up a nuclear power plant. They are extremely well protected, and are almost impossible to blow up, the containment shield are designed to take the force of a near direct hit from a nuclear weapon.
I agree that other forms of power are safer (solar, hydroelectric), but just for an example, more people are killed by wind farms every year than by nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is one of the safest, most regulated and cost effective ways of producing energy. - poidh, on 07/14/2008, -1/+5The Germans have found out! Whatever shall we do?
- mweflen, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4A better, more informative article:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.h ... - KLowD9x, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4Well, my job security just went through the roof.
- powerbenny, on 07/14/2008, -1/+5I think cyborgmexican was trying to be funny but maybe I'm just too generous with the benefit of my doubt?
. - blynder, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4I don't know. The only site in this article was from their own web site.
- dacodanelson, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4I agree with you on "burning things for power" and I think Breeder reactors would be great. They still need more research and frankly America is the place to do it. The problem is, well, just look at the next comment on the page. We only have so much Uranium, we need to suppliment it with renewable energy.
- kcfreels, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4I'm from Rockwood, just down the road from the Watts Bar Dam and Nuclear Power Plant and I'm here to tell you it is a much better neighbor than any coal fired plant in the area. We get an awesome lake to drive boats around on and fish in as a bonus!
- elperegrino, on 07/14/2008, -1/+5feed it to the giant cockroaches
- republicker, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4Unless you drive your solar car to your solar house and drink rain water you should shut he ***** up. Oh yea, I think a volcano just erupted.
- dacodanelson, on 07/14/2008, -3/+7Don't worry, you're not an idiot. I'll debate your contentions old-school style:
1) Uranium rods last a good long time, between 8 and 20 years standard, depending on how "Clean" they are. But once they're gone they're gone. They are still very radioactive, but they can't easily create critical mass so they aren't good for anything but polluting. They also cannot be recovered.
2.) I don't know for sure about France, but you have to look at it in terms of population. It's tiny even for Europe, so yes they may be nuclear powered, but if it catches on in America and the UK I guarantee you China's going to need to get their hands on it. This means Uranium is impossible for actual scientists who need it for a lot of things (quantative/qualative analysis, neutron modeling, atom smashing, &c)
3) Airplanes? Haven't heard of that either, but there are more than one way to destroy a reactor. I could build a dirty bomb with cheap uranium I could get in Iran. Then get it near a reactor and you've got a nuclear detonation AND radioactive fissile material floating through the atmosphere. Or a car bomb right through the loading bays. Or just someone working there could sabotage the cooling systems and then you have 3-mile island again.
It's safe enough but there isn't enough Uranium. We can synthesize it but the simple fact is that's a waste of energy that the synthesized material cannot reproduce. It's much too heavy and falls apart too soon, it's not clean enough for weapons grade, all sorts of issues. It's just a science experiment now. - metroidragon, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4Why are you so gung-ho on replacing a clean, effeciant and readily available resource that will last us for centuries to come with... oh wait, you didn't even specify a good replacement energy type. That is because there is none!
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionG.htm#uranium_ ...
In another hundred years or so, when we have the technology to better harness solar or wind power, I'm all for it, but right now nuclear power is the best option we have.
btw, not that I have anything against Natives, but what the hell do their reserves have ANYTHING to do with this? - fhsieh, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4Nuclear plants are designed to be very robust. Unfortunately, the plant itself is just one part of a relatively long chain (from mining ore to refinement and all the transportation that occurs in between). The only place a meltdown can occur is indeed the plant, but an attack could be carried out on a spent-fuel stockyard causing a fair amount of radioactive contamination -- not on the order of a meltdown, but devastating nonetheless.
But if it's any consolation, a terrorist attack on a relatively unguarded stockyard isn't too great of a concern since 1) the cost-benefit doesn't favor terrorist aims, casuality-wise, and 2) spent fuel is radioactive no matter what, so we're already trying to figure out ways to store/dispose of it.
Nuclear is also NOT a clean energy by any means. It might not spew gas into the atmosphere like coal, but it produces an incredible amount of heat that changes the surrounding local ecosystem, as well as produces radioactive byproducts. - Typhoon2009, on 07/14/2008, -4/+7got any other solutions buddy? Or you gonna pull the usual "let's wait X years for more efficient solar panels to be built!"?
- LeeSoong, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3Thorium holds the key to cleaner and safer Nuclear Power:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005 ...
Thorium is widely abundant, 'burns' cleaner than Uranium,
can not be readily made into atomic weapons, and in the long run is far cheaper to use:
http://www.thoriumenergy.com/index.php?option=com_ ...
Of course, Solar Power and Wind and Wave power should and must be #1 for all human needs. Unlimited power as long as Sol shines.
But Thorium can fill the gap on rainy days, and provide small reactors to power ships across the oceans... - Jassman, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3Government mandates are stupid. End does not justify means.
- metroidragon, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3Actually, you mean at the mercy of Canada. Our Uranium is the highest quality in the world, at 200,000 PPM (20%). the rest of the world's "high grade" stadards usually hovers around 20,000 PPM (2%).
Australia has the largest reserves, but Canada is the lead producer, with 33% of worldwide production coming from the Great North.
Uranium is ubiquitous on the Earth. It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea.
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionG.htm#k
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html - Wonderama, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4If you mean being at the mercy of Australia, then you're correct:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_ura_pro_res- ...
If you're worried about another "China Syndrome", you're correct again. Only this time it's probably not what you think:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.htm ...
The world will continue to expand its energy consumption, so pick your pollution poison. I prefer one that can easily be stored. - screamingjoker, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4Nuclear is a part of a possible solution. The US has been running a nuclear Navy for 50 years. One aircraft carrier produces enough power for 100,000 homes. Problem is Navy gets exemptions from regulation. US may want to build many nuke plants, but voters will not agree with where they should go (has to be built on a source of a lot of cool water, and has to be built in the vicinity of populations). And then there's regulatory, which can take as long as a decade. And then there's still the waste. McCain, has openly voiced opposition to the Yucca Mountain Repository? The highest cost of operating a Nuclear plant... the fuel. So Nuclear is much more limited than the article suggests.
My solution is energy sufficiency, any energy using device should produce as much of its own energy as possible, the problem with solar is not so much the panels, but the batteries to store the energy. For example, with painted-on PV cells, your car could be charging itself as it sits in a hot parking lot, but the battery to store it, would be huge and heavy, offsetting the benefit.
Anyway, there is no lack of resources only resourcefulness. Just looking at things in a responsible, post-modern way by looking at the advantages vs. disadvantages. Because, in reality this isn't just a theoretical message-board discussion, it is a policy discussion which we will all have a say in. - NeutrixX, on 07/14/2008, -2/+5Three words...
Pebble Bed Reactor...
get used to it.
And yes ... we should mandate (from the government) a plan to require builders to apply solar panels to all roof tops. - Mazrin67, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4Yes it is.
Despite the stigma, you get less radiation from living next to a modern nuclear plant then you get from using your microwave.
Also, don't call a bunch of people with the opposing view idiots. Not only is it stupid (your online + anonymous.. makes insults worthless) but you were wrong. And you calling other people idiots and turning out to be wrong... well... Also, that "OMG you disagree with me you're an idiot" mentality is the source of most of our cultures problems. Please don't be a part of that problem. - dacodanelson, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4Why?
- THEMACGOD, on 07/14/2008, -3/+6It's about time we go back to nuclear....
Massive amounts of clean energy? Sweet! - nodong, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2NUKE-you-ler. Nukular.
- lebatte, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3Wait, you mean you haven't seen every episode of Family Guy? Let's criticize you for not spending all your free time watching cartoons.
- DestroyFascism, on 07/14/2008, -3/+5Uath...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is