What is Digg?198 Comments
- dt40, on 12/02/2007, -3/+104It is unfortunate that "nuclear" has such negative connotations due to mistakes made back in the 60s and 70s. While the waste issue is not an easy one, we should be much more willing to investigate the option. Nuclear obviously has enormous advantages in the dimension of global warming.
- KingGorilla, on 12/02/2007, -0/+51yeah sensors and *****
- rupertmorris, on 12/02/2007, -2/+45'nuclear waste' can be reconcentrated and reused something like 19 times. Nuclear is one of the cleanest, most efficient forms of power. We need to get past the stigma. Especially when so much power is produced from coal.
- arunforce, on 12/02/2007, -2/+42I'm sure it's not just going to be PLANTED in the ground and then left, it probably would be protected by like 5 feet of concrete and sensors and ***** just in case someone "decides" to dig it up.
Uranium is slightly expensive (I looked it up, less than $100 a pound), but I'm sure it's worth the cost versus the same output with Coal.
I'm looking forward to it, but most likely it's not going to happen. - declawedpaw, on 12/02/2007, -1/+39Burning coal releases more radioactive isotopes than nuclear power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal - KingGorilla, on 12/02/2007, -3/+36I prefer a few big plants rather than numerous small ones dotted across the country
- Uranium118, on 12/02/2007, -2/+32Nuclear Launch Detected
- MrWhite7, on 12/02/2007, -1/+28Challenger
Something about a rocket exploding in the stratosphere with 10 tons of nuclear waste sounds problematic - iNunchuk, on 12/02/2007, -3/+25I still don't see why EcoGeeks cringe at Nuclear Power (in a realist point of view). Nuclear power for the next 25 years or so will be the only viable source of energy until we figure out how we can put the power of a flower into solar cells (at same efficiency).
- EdgarVerona, on 12/02/2007, -8/+28Well, that'd be 12,000 Nuclear stations in America alone. 320,000 if you wanted to extend the concept to the world.
Needing to be refueled every 5 years sounds like a good idea, until you think about the fact that it's one of the numbers above (depending on how far you'd like to see the idea implemented) worth of uranium that'd need to be replaced (i.e. the old material discarded) every 5 years.
It sounds like a fantastic idea when you think about just one of these facilities. But if you scale it out to the number needed to cover the country - or the world - you can begin to see where the waste management problem comes in. This ain't no ordinary waste.
You also have to wonder about the level of security needed for those 12,000 (or 320,000) sites. Who's going to stop someone from messing with them? That's a lot of new micro-sites to manage. This is one of the reasons why we tend to build large facilities today. It's easier to defend one large facility than a thousand small ones.
The next question would be "HOW do you replace the fuel?" If it's been buried and encased in Concrete, does that mean that each of these 12,000 (or 320,000) sites is going to have to undergo major construction efforts every 5 years to un-bury and expose the core so that the spent fuel can be removed and new fuel inserted?
This is beginning to sound like a less and less efficient idea. - Lane, on 12/02/2007, -1/+15Meh, I hear good things about alternative power coming from the Black Mesa research facility. Now if only their were some kind of a shower curtain my life would be complete; preferably a man-sized ad-hoc quantum tunnel through physical space with possible applications as a shower curtain.
- UbIwerks, on 12/02/2007, -0/+13Living in fear ROCKS, eh?
- EdgarVerona, on 12/02/2007, -0/+12Damnit, you're right. We'd need a Missile Turret at each of these facilities to detect any nearby ghosts. Hopefully they don't have siege tanks, or we're screwed.
- wolfofwar, on 12/02/2007, -1/+11Maybe if we changed our foreign policy, and didn't incite hatred of the middle eastern world, we wouldn't HAVE to worry about suicide bombers.
I'd rather change our imperialistic ways, then live in false fear. - CompIsMyRx, on 12/02/2007, -1/+11Planes cannot penetrate the outer shield wall of any nuclear power plant. They were all designed to withstand an airliner crash.
- Zera, on 12/02/2007, -0/+8I'm gonna say what they don't want to hear.
"I still don't see why EcoGeeks cringe at Nuclear Power (in a realist point of view)."
Because they're not true environmentalists. JUST US based Coal power plants are responsible for 10% of the WORLDS greenhouse gas emission. That includes wild fires and everyone in the third world that uses wood burning to heat their home. Stupid drops in the bucket like hybrid cars (save maybe a millionth of a percent) and ethanol (which produces literally twice as much greenhouse gas per gallon) are NOTHING compared to what we could accomplish by getting rid of coal. 10% !! That's an amount of greenhouse gas that could actually accomplish something.
Who's to blame for greenhouse gas and global warming? Anyone who opposes Nuclear power. Even Al Gore's movie came to the same conclusion. - thegsa, on 12/02/2007, -0/+7you are crazy
- tehbored, on 12/02/2007, -0/+7"Could I dig one up in the middle of the night and use the materials inside to make a bomb?"
That has got to be the stupidest thing I've read all day. - EdgarVerona, on 12/02/2007, -0/+7Hmm, check out the site that the blog links to:
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
The one thing I do like is that it uses no water (and therefore has no water waste, at least according to them).
If they could resolve the scalability concerns I have above, I wouldn't be opposed to it. But they're not questions that have simple solutions by any stretch of the imagination. - inactive, on 12/02/2007, -0/+6dugg for the idiocy and "you're ***** welcome"
- wolfofwar, on 12/02/2007, -0/+6I like this plan.
Smaller nuclear "plants" means in the rare case of a meltdown, the damage is low and easier to maintain. It's burried and surrounded by concrete, meaning its protected by the enviroment and external damage. And all the effort it takes to remove then every five years actually stimulates the economy. It produces new jobs to help extract the mini-nuke facilities, which allows unemployeed people more job oppurtunities, which gives them money to feed back into the economy. Not to mention, it's clean, and costs less, and most importantly, helps remove our independence on foreign oil. - jonahf, on 12/02/2007, -1/+7I am an environmentalist. Nuclear is the only significant source of greenhouse gas free electricity that is ready right now. The US gets 20% of its electricity from nuclear. Wind? Solar? Combined they make up less than 1%, because they cannot be deployed everywhere, are far from cost competitive.
The waste problem - completely insignificant compared to the pollutants released by fossil fuels and the respiratory impact. Even if there were a Chernobyl disaster every 10 years, it's still less than the human health impact of fossil fuels. Science and engineering has come a long way in the 20 years since the last US nuclear plant went on line and since Chernobyl.
Real problems don't have prefect solutions. Nuclear is by far the best single source to help meet global energy needs. - CompIsMyRx, on 12/02/2007, -0/+6Your Portal joke is esoteric enough for a digg.
- rizzo2008, on 12/02/2007, -1/+7and it takes a crapload more energy to dig up coal. Solar and wind power are too expensive in the short term and need to act now to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear is the future (again)!
- barius, on 12/02/2007, -0/+5Canada is the world leader in civilian nuclear technology. Most of the power plants around the world are of Canadian design. When the U.S. stopped doing civilian nuclear research, we kept going. Keep in mind, of course, that the U.S. never stopped military nuclear research. The U.S. is still the best at building bombs. Well, tied with Russia at any rate.
- KLowD9x, on 12/02/2007, -0/+5Too bad America is completely against reprocessing because the result is plutonium. They say it is because of the fear of proliferation.
Here is my issue with that, uranium can also be enriched to weapons grade concentrations! Either way, if someone were going to do it, they are going to do it. I don't think we need to worry about it happening here, they are going to do it in other countries.
I don't see this changing in a very long time. - spyd3rweb, on 12/02/2007, -2/+7There's no excuse for not using nuclear power everywhere. Its clean, safe, efficient, and doesn't burn fossil fuels.
- minoss, on 12/02/2007, -1/+6Solar, wind, and all these other green energies are NOT the type of energy than can keep your power lines energized 24/7. Yes, they are nice where space and conditions allow, but they will never be the sole or even main source of power for large area. They are intermittent power sources. What happens when it's cloudy or calm for a week straight and you have no power?
If it was possible it would be done already. Maybe not in the US, but in other developed, non-oil countries. However, when you look at those other countries like most of europe you see they using nuclear as their base load power source. They are also managing to drop CO2 emissions by large amounts over oil/coal.
Now look, there are going to be places for solar, wind, hydroelectric and other green power sources. None are suitable for base load power. Only fossil fuels and nuclear are able to do that. The question is, which is better. Dealing with the waste of nuclear is far easier than the emissions of fossil fuels. - tmbrwolf19, on 12/02/2007, -0/+5Lets not forget things compounds that can be directly attributed to human illness and deaths. Wonderful things like sulfur compounds, lead, arsenic, cyanide, and mercury. Plus there are huge questions about the social consequences of coal mining operations in places like South America where the work conditions are extremely unsafe and workers are paid close to nothing. Coal has huge impacts not only on the environment, but also directly on your health, and the lives of the people who sustain the industry.
- barius, on 12/02/2007, -0/+5Uh...that's all they've ever said they wanted. Iran has stated again and again that it's nuclear R&D is targeted only towards civilian power production.
The only question is whether you believe them. - zachshmack, on 12/02/2007, -0/+5Yeah, I agree that it would probably be a logistical nightmare if this were the sole solution, but I think ideally we'd use a combination of wind/solar/geothermal/water/nuclear.
I'm glad you reposted your comment here though so I could digg you up. - Tjalve, on 12/02/2007, -1/+5And lets not to forget deinococcus-thermus bacteria, that can eat nuclear waste.
- Scaryclouds, on 12/02/2007, -0/+4Too man idiots believe a nuclear plant could go well nuclear. It simply is impossible. The uranium used in reactors has about a 3-10% concentration bombs have a 90%+ concentration.
- fakesinatra, on 12/02/2007, -0/+4I think the concept of having one of these per 25,000 people is a little far-fetched. Given the electrical transmission infrastructure that we already have it would be more practical to consolidate these units into "farms" of 4 to 10 units for security purposes. Since they go underground they can put wind turbines or solar panels on the land too.
Put a big ass electric fence around it, install motion detectors, hire security, and power a small city. - barius, on 12/02/2007, -0/+4It is not efficient to have only one mega-mega power plant because the further your power lines run from the source, the more power you lose in transmission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transm ... - EdgarVerona, on 12/02/2007, -0/+4To prevent coal burning for energy. I thought that was the whole idea...?
(We wouldn't provide it. The individual country would have to of course. The "world scaling" idea was to show how many would be needed to have the world fueled by such a solution). - specialk9991, on 12/02/2007, -0/+4Thanks, I'm never going to seep tonight, now that I have to play Starcraft all night.
- Scaryclouds, on 12/02/2007, -0/+4Perhaps the process doesn't scale well, and power is lost in distribution.
- EdgarVerona, on 12/02/2007, -0/+3Ah, you're right! I read the title and didn't notice that it actually was 25,000 HOMES in the article. 6,000's still a lot, but half as much. =)
- EllimistX, on 12/02/2007, -0/+3Actually, it said 25,000 homes, which based on a conservative 2 people per home, would still reduce that number down to 6,000 reactors.
- Ludnix, on 12/02/2007, -1/+4SIMPSON!!!!
- bobbknight, on 12/02/2007, -0/+3I wish people would research current nuclear power plant design before they go and make wild unsubstantiated claims.
This would be a very good technology providing power at a clean affordable rate. Coal plants cause more deaths in one year than all the nuclear plant accidents in history combined. - rizzo2008, on 12/02/2007, -0/+3amen. They are the real enemies of the environment: the smugs who buy a Prius and then say they are eco-friendly. Lets try something that has an impact
- jstone, on 12/02/2007, -0/+3One word: Chernobyl. They're afraid of nuclear power plants because some idiots hosed a poorly-designed one in Russia. Modern nuclear power plants are very safe. Oh, and a lot of the 'enviro-nuts' don't seem to know the difference between a nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb. Seriously. There's a group in my home-town that wants to "keep nukes out of space," and they rant and rave whenever NASA launches a probe with a nuclear battery (often the only viable power-source.) Seriously, WTF?
- zachshmack, on 12/02/2007, -1/+4This is pretty damn cool, though I'm sure everyone will be shouting NIMBY if it ever gets implemented.
- capiCrimm, on 12/02/2007, -0/+3so those voices I've been hearing...
- Riffraffs, on 12/02/2007, -0/+3Oh? when did you get a degree in nuclear physics?
- iamdan1, on 12/02/2007, -3/+6Coal is the cheapest source of electricity that we have. Uranium is expensive, but plants only have to change the fuel every 4 years or so (5 in the case of the proposed reactors in the article), as where coal plants go through thousands of tons of coal a day. America has enough coal to power the country for a couple hundred years. Coal is cheap but pollutes like hell. Can' t wait for green energy
- westlawn, on 12/02/2007, -0/+3I think the steam/water is in a closed system. You don't have to constantly replenish it or dump it.
- specialk9991, on 12/02/2007, -0/+3Really? What kind of airliner? Is is possible that when the towers were designed in the mid 1960's, that they could not even foresee a jet such as the Boeing 767?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 199 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is