Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Nuclear Energy- The only emission free baseload power

Posted 1 year ago on Nov. 28, 2012, 1:06 p.m. EST by DanielBarton (1345)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

So i noticed a lot of disinformation about energy and scientific information. I have decided to post some scientific data starting with Nuclear power. I will continue this b posting one on solar and wind. I will also post some are cars space and robot manufacturing. This is just clear up what is know here with some actual facts and information that is very helpful. If you have any questions go and ask them.

Technology The issue

Nuclear energy represents the only fully commercialized greenhouse gas (GHG) emission-free baseload power. There are currently 104 active nuclear plants in 31 states. However, there has been no new nuclear construction in 30 years. In order to meet GHG reduction targets under discussion in federal energy legislation, nuclear power must be part of the solution.

How nuclear power is generated

PRIMARY SYSTEM:

  1. Enriched uranium pellets fill the metal fuel rods. These rods are placed in the reactor core.
  2. The uranium pellets are made of billions of atoms. Each atom contains a nucleus that consists of protons and neutrons. During fission, when a uranium atom splits, it releases neutrons that hit and split other uranium atoms. When more neutrons are released than absorbed in other atoms, the fission becomes self-sustaining. This is called a chain reaction. The energy from the splitting of atoms produces tremendous heat.

  3. Control rods stop and start fission. Control rods are made of materials that absorb neutrons. When they are inserted into the reactor core, they stop the chain reaction by absorbing the extra neutrons. When the control rods are removed, the extra neutrons resume splitting the atoms and the fission process begins again.

  4. Boric acid also controls fission. Boric acid, which is dissolved in the primary system water, also absorbs neutrons. The fission can also be controlled by changing the concentration of boron in the water.
  5. Concrete and steel protect from radiation. Radioactivity is released during the fission process. The containment building’s thick concrete and steel walls shield the public from radiation.
  6. Thousands of gallons of water absorb the heat from the fission. The primary system is pressurized so water flowing through the pipes will not boil. SECONDARY SYSTEM:
  7. Heat transferred from the primary system pipes to the secondary system pipes changes water into steam. Heat, not water or radioactivity, passes between these closed-loop systems.
  8. The steam in the secondary system turns the turbine fan blades. The turbine shafts are connected to the rotor that also turns inside the generator.
  9. Electromagnetism makes electricity. As the generator rotor turns, coils of wire spin in a magnetic field. This produces electricity in an outer set of coils. The electricity flows to a transformer. The transformer increases the voltage so the electricity can travel long distances.

CONDENSING SYSTEM:

  1. Intake pipes draw over a million gallons of water per minute into a condensing system. As the water enters the condenser, heat from the steam in the secondary system transfers to the third system. As the steam in the secondary system cools it changes to water that is pumped back to the steam generator. The clean condensing system water discharges through pipes. This safe, efficient process produces electricity 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Nuclear Plant Employment

• 1,400 – 1,800 jobs during construction on average (with peak employment as high as 2,400 jobs at certain times)

• Approximately 700 permanent jobs when the plant is operating: These jobs pay 36% more than average salaries in the local area.

• The 700 permanent jobs at the nuclear plant create an equivalent number of additional jobs in the local area to provide the goods and services necessary to support the nuclear plant workforce (e.g., car dealers, dry cleaners, food service, etc.).

Nuclear Plant Economic Benefits

• The average nuclear plant generates approximately $430 million a year in total output for the local community, and nearly $40 million per year in total labor income. These figures include both direct and secondary effects. The direct effects include the plant’s spending for goods, services and labor. The secondary effects include the subsequent spending attributable to the plant and its employees, as plant expenditures filter through the local economy. Analysis shows that every dollar spent by the average nuclear plant results in the creation of $1.07 in the local community.

• The average nuclear plant generates approximately $20 million per year in state and local taxes. These tax payments support schools, roads and other state and local infrastructure.

• The average nuclear plant generates approximately $75 million per year in federal taxes.

New Nuclear Plant Construction

• A new nuclear plant represents an investment of $6-8 billion (depending on plant size), including interest during construction. • Construction of a new nuclear power plant will provide a substantial boost to suppliers of commodities like concrete and steel and manufacturers of hundreds of components. For example, a single new nuclear power plant requires approximately: 1. 400,000 cubic yards of concrete—five times as much concrete as in the foundation and floor slabs of the 100-story Sears Tower in Chicago 2. 66,000 tons of steel 3. 44 miles of piping and 300 miles of electric wiring 4. 130,000 electrical components.

Source: Nuclear Energy Institute

266 Comments

266 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

I really doubt if ANY country has the political will and stability to ensure the confinement of high-level radioactive waste for 10,000 years.

There are superfund sites that came into the public ward because the corporations or individuals involved have merged, dissolved, bankrupted, acquired, transferred, moved, died, disappeared, etc. Try assessing liabilities after a few decades -- the accountants and attorneys at law surely come out with their pockets packed with gold and the rest of us will surely pay for the cleaning up and before that for the pushing around of the responsibility for cleaning up.

Uranium/plutonium nuclear power is best left to wind down long and slowly. We should probably use the plutonium from our nuclear weapons to "beat swords into plows" but expansions of uranium-based fission power without 100-century accountability are highly undesirable.

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Progress vs. Malthus

To explain how a valuable resource became “waste,” it’s necessary to look back at the world situation as Atoms for Peace was taking off, and man was headed for the Moon. Scientific optimism and progress were all around. Most people assumed that the next generation would have increasing prosperity.

But after the death of Franklin Roosevelt and the resurgence of the British imperial design, Malthus reared his ugly head. As the first director of UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) in 1945, Sir Julian Huxley euphemized Nazi eugenics into “conservation” and “environmentalism.” Britain’s Prince Philip and the Netherlands’ Prince Bernhard (a former Nazi) organized a royal green movement to preserve raw materials and wildlife for their own pleasure and to remove what they considered to be an excess number of ordinary human beings.

Prince Bernhard established the “1001 Club” in 1971, an exclusive grouping with a $10,000 initiation fee used to bankroll the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and the World Wildlife Fund, which Philip had founded in 1961 (along with Huxley). Prince Philip himself led the World Wildlife Foundation until 1996.

Behind the IUCN and the WWF, and their public relations appeal for cute fuzzies and other critters, is the hatred of proliferating human beings, especially those of color. If you think this is far-fetched, read some of Prince Philip’s own statements. He told People magazine in 1981: “Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed—not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation, and war.”

The Malthusians’ Club of Rome, founded in 1968, campaigned for population control to preserve Earth’s limited resources, eliminating any mention of the fact that advanced technologies could create new resources. In the United States, this anti-people view gained prominence with Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb, launching his message on American campuses: People are raping the Earth and the world population should be cut by two-thirds. Biologist Ehrlich, whose predictions of disaster have all bombed over the past 4 0 years, mentored many of the scientists prominent in environmental causes, including the nation’s new science advisor Dr. John Holdren, who co-authored one of Ehrlich’s books.

Another influential anti-population book was the 1972 Limits to Growth, written by a group of MIT Malthusians, who made dire pronouncements about the future, unless population were cut back. Never mentioned was the idea that advanced technologies could solve these problems and shatter any limits.

To these Malthusians, the development of civilian nuclear power was the enemy, not because it was costly or unsafe, but because they knew it would successfully free human society from poverty, disease, and Dark Age conditions. From the top down, the anti-nuclear leaders today know that this is true. Fear-mongering about the dangers of waste, radiation, and high costs are just cover stories for the well-meaning credulous. The real issue is population control.

http://larouchepac.com/node/14724

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

So do you think those who are pushing for nuclear power are more for expansion race of the human than those who are not in favor

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Yes, energy systems are life-support systems.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Hmm makes sense

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

How is school going?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Its getting close to finals so its getting real intense with design projects on top of regular homework

How is everything with you

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Good luck with it. What kind of project are you designing?

All's fine with me, am living in China, where I teach English.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

I'm designing an off road car then i had to build a trebuchet for my dynamics class

Very cool that is a very important thing to be doing over there Im a little surprised a website like this isnt block

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Wow, so do you have to design every detail of the car?

A lot of what we are told in the US about China isn't true. When I first came here, a few years back, I was apprehensive, but since I've been living here, I've found there was nothing to be worried about.

I think the Chinese government probably recognizes that Wall Street is as much a threat to them, as OWS does.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Its more a buggy i have a team of ten with me so its fine. Look up SAE BAJA

I know that i love china really want to go and visit

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I'm in Guangzhou, south of China. Drop by and visit. Its not so cultural as the north, but the weather's better.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

ok thanks

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8655) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

When girls go to school population growth slows.

[-] 2 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 1 year ago

Total wrong direction. Nuclear wil never be a real option. You can't follow an exponential consumption curve and not prevent the heat death of the universe within linear time. What's your energy source after nuclear?

GAME OVER.

Better: find new sources of value generation through interconnectedness. See the pangaia project.

[-] 2 points by 99time (90) 1 year ago

Yes, this is also the problem with capitalism itself. You can't suck ever more resources and grow forever. Just plain impossible.

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

We do not know what we do not know. Meaning we do not know how to conserve, or we do not know how to commit to doing so.

We need to develop effective and appropriate culture to communicate and develop this need.

Therein is the controversy. The differences between wants and need, or the deep confusion that media is guilty of creating at the behest of profiteering corporations.

Wants are driven by desires, needs by survival.

Desires are of the unconscious. Here is a graphic that should provide an appreciation of the apparently hidden dominance of our unconscious mind.

http://i41.tinypic.com/a15nx3.jpg

Discussion of science and politics without full recognition of the uniform dominance of our unconscious existence lacks cognitive integrity and can only lead to diversions of solution.

Evolution is a series of decisions. So is survival.

[-] 2 points by clamor (-40) from Hopatcong, NJ 1 year ago

What? Common sense, reason and logic? There's no place for that here.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Haha Logic is the only way to go especially on forums when you let emotions rule your judgements

[-] 1 points by hork (40) 1 year ago

Couple of things:

What about Japan's nuclear disaster last year amidst the tsunami and destruction of their power plants and the radioactive fallout that has resulted? Pretty serious stuff.

Why is Germany trying to dismantle its nuclear reactors? Is it not related to the sweeping victory for the Green party there, as they were swept into power on an anti-nuclear campaign in light of the Japanese nuclear disaster brought on by the tsunami. The reactors in Germany and Japan are overwhelmingly of the same build type, and with Chernobyl not too far in Germany's recent memory, they are somewhat cautionary and with good reason.

Then there is Ralph Nader's opinions on the deteriorating conditions of America's nuclear reactors.. and he's a consumer activist for safety in the strictest sense with his legal battles with auto manufacturers to successfully install safer measures.

There's all that and then there's the under-utilized capacity of wind energy, thermal, and solar energy. You also wonder how much wasteful energy is being used in our system, so there is cautiously some sense of producing possibly more for utility and less for making quick environmentally hazardous bucks -- if you're going to pollute, maybe you should pay more for that. On that note, nuclear waste has to be stored for an inordinately long amounts of time, which in and of itself is some manner of kicking the can of humanity's problems later and later into the future.

The combined power of vast projects devoted to environmentally sustainable methods has yet to be seen in any concentrated variety so far. Once people can witness some country that has seriously taken on environmental sustainability on a massive state run scale, we probably will continue to be on the course we are on towards overlooking the environmental liabilities of nuclear power.

This is kind of nuts, especially in the immediate aftermath and ongoing PR cover-up of Japan's nuclear disaster.

'nuff said

[-] 1 points by KevinPotts (363) 1 year ago

Daniel, you are the son of a nuclear engineer, could that possibly have anything to do with the reason WHY you are trying to push this dangerous nuclear energy agenda onto the world? It’s a common thing for sons to wanna be like their daddies, no matter what their daddy does. If you were the son of a military man, you would probably be getting shot at in the desert, blogging on your cell phone, trying to justify/sell the war in Afghanistan.

I noticed something similar in a conversation I had with someone about the idea of solar panel highways to become the new electrical grid, which I thought was a totally brilliant idea. But she was totally dead set against it and at first I couldn’t figure out why. Then I learned that her brother worked for the electrical company. She was more concerned with her brother’s job than she was with the idea of clean, free abundant energy for everyone and the continued survival of our species.

You’re trying to sell this shit as “safe“, “clean” energy, totally ignoring everything that is potentially catastrophic and environmentally devastating about it, which means that you are in denial and you are deceiving the public about something as serious as the survival of life on this planet. I’m sure the advancement of nuclear power would make you and your daddy rich (or richer), it would fatten your bank accounts nicely, but you know what? I don’t give a fuck lol And I’m sure most of the people posting here don’t either.

It only takes 10,000 years for the radioactive waste to become stable, the dangers of nuclear material being used to create a nuclear fucking bomb shouldn’t be an issue either, since The Cold War is over and we all live “safely” now under the protective umbrella of “World Peace“, the constant threat of nuclear annihilation shouldn‘t even be factored into the equation. And given the fact that many of our nuclear power plants are located next to the ocean, the potential threat of another Fukushima disaster contaminating everything, turning us all into radioactive mutants and making the only planet we have to live on un-livable, we shouldn’t have "anything" to worry about. I don't see any red flags. Do you see any red flags?? Sounds like a “smart” enough idea to me :-)

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

first of all my dad is a Nuclear Engineer by he is also an Environmental Engineer back before going green was main stream me and my family were practicing these movements.He specialized in environmental protection and waste management. Its not about pushing my fathers agenda or mine. Its about pushing for a realistic way to a problem. We have a problem in this world where disinformation about types of energies is being put out there.

People are scared of nuclear energy they always have been and always will but ts because they do not understand like some of us do. We do have a code of ethics that we abide to as engineers and as people who are doing things that are above the normal level of intelligence. It still shocks me that people do not understand the difference between nuclear energy and atomic bombs. Atomic bombs are a different grade of fuel than what is used in industry for generating electricity.

To the future of humanity we are not going to do it on wind and solar alone. We are not going to do it with coal either. we are going to do it with Nuclear power the safe clean baseload power. It will take more than theses technologies

to the spent fuel we can breed it and reuse it. If you think that this stuff can be picked up and used as weapons it cant due to it composition. It also cant because it is being guarded in site that have a high level of security.

To Fukushima they didn't have the standards we have here in the united states. Maybe something needs to be done about that and that is something i agree with if the same unit of practice was done there as it was done here the disaster would not have happened. So yes a worldwide standard needs to take precedence of something that can potentially harm the environment.

To fating our pockets i would say no it has made our live easier but that was due to my parents sacrifices and hard work during school and other time that help them get where they are today. I will also say power plants produce a thousand jobs since there is 104 of them that's a 104,000 that are being paid good wages and building a community.

The reason for this post was not to push anything n anyone but to teach people about the technology so they can better understand what is happening. Yes i am the son of a nuclear engineer so i have been reading and taught this at a very young age but others are not so lucky. So what i am doing is sharing information that some would not normally seek out.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Agree with nuclear or not, I appreciate people posting information on how things work, things that we discuss on a regular basis like energy.

You may understand it, but many dont. and this keeps with the educational aspect of what this is. Helps to outweigh the idiocy of a few posters as well.

[-] 1 points by 99time (90) 1 year ago

If there is anything we can be sure about, it is this:

DANGER AND DAMAGES FROM NUCLEAR POWER, NUCLEAR INCIDENTS, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AND RADIATION ITSELF ARE ALWAYS UNDERSTATED.

Always.

In addition to being little more than a cloak for a nuclear weapons program, the nuclear industry has done nothing positive. Nuclear energy does create greenhouse gases. There are frequent incidents, including some significant recent ones at Indian Point and Oyster Creek. Even where nuclear plants run properly, cancer risks are elevated. Then there's Chernobyl, still melting down all these years later, preparing for a certain second wave of disaster. Should I mention Fukushima?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well said. I agree. xfer all nuclear subs to greentech and end thefailed experiment with dangerous, expensive nuclear energy.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

This a good reason to end the failed experiment with Nuclear energy.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13059-whistleblower-nuclear-regulators-suppress-facts-break-law

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So then it's ok to withhold info from the public, & you dismiss the risk the suggest because they didn't use the right terminology.

Ok, Let me say it is NOT ok to withhold info from the public, legal or not.

And let me ask, Is there no risk from a nuclear power plant? You don't have to use any secret club terms but I'd love to hear you tell me what risks nuclear power presents.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I have no problemagreeing to banning net gas, internal combustion cars, cigs, if I must do so to get nuclear power plants banned.

None ofthese are as potentialy dangerous as exploding niclear plants.

I'm mostly interested in banning the power generation that requires a 10 sq mile evacuation plan

I'm ok with that measure.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I think we only have evacuation plans for nuclear plants because ofthe risk of radiation poisoning.

Chem explosions/spills might be very dangerous but we do not require the evacuation plan so I guess we'll have to skip that distraction.

I support some kinda evacuation plan to address chem risks, but we only require evacuation plan for nuclear plants so I'll go with that measure.

Bann anything that requires an evacuation plan!

Ya with us?

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I disagree. And I assure you it is not that "we can" have evacuation plans, It is that we MUST have evacuation plans.

Risk, & danger are immense.

This is why we must ban nuclear energy.

Sorry.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I can't say who else has evac plans I can say I support evac plans for all those you mentioned (as well as dangerous chems you mentioned earlier).

I say further that I support the elimination of all nuclear weapons/power for just that reason.

It is so risky/dangerous to human life as illustrated by the evac plan that we MUST eliminate it all.

Sorry. It's gotta go.

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We do.

And I think we agree that we do not want anyone blown up or irradiated.

I think we only disagree on the level of risk nuclear power plants present in that regard. I think the risk is too great, so they should be banned.

You believe the risk is not too great. Right?

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Perhaps you are partial/biased? Perhaps being in the industry presents a conflict of interest that disqualifies your honest opinion.

And even you are going towards the danger you WOULD have your family leave right?

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

There should be plans in every community emergency response program already. Have you never seen an area evacuated due to spilled chemicals?

[Deleted]

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

How old are you? When was the last time anything was perfect?

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

We probably want stricter control on the chemicals that enter our biosphere without establishing their potentials for causing harms. Some of them are surely far worse than nuclear power reactors because they can come into our homes, cars, pillows, pajamas, toothbrushes, drinking water, etc. which are in very intimate contacts with us. No one for example will deliberately sleep on a nuclear reactor or drink its water.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

There should be all kinds of restriction as to what goes into food drink clothing building materials etc. and NO - No one would "knowingly" drink polluted water or sleep on top of a nuclear waste container or reactor for that mater ( really silly to bring up sleeping on a nuclear reactor ). Pollution has gotta stop and fossil fuel is a big environmental pollution/poison/destruction source.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

It seems that industrial chemistry is not really highly understood or cloaked in terminologies that the general population does not get. There were mishaps such as:

  1. substituting a cheaper iron-based catalyst to cause methylmercury poisoning.

  2. Diethystilbestrol (DES) causing vaginal tumors in females exposed to it in utero.

  3. using tetraethyllead in gasoline to protect against engine knocks.

  4. nearly inert Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) rising to cause continental-sized ozone hole above Antarctica.

The ozone hole could have hit the base of the food web and caused ecological collapse.

[Deleted]

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I understand that thorium reactors would be cleaner and safer all the way around - and much smaller as well.

[Deleted]

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

End the reasons for strife/conflict - be fossil fuel free - cheap clean energy for everyone.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flood+protection+for+nuclear+power+plants+NRC

there are two first documents that state flood protection i read through them yesterday and even though they are old it clearly states the rules and regulations of these plants due to flood protection. So lets see what this case brings up and until then we can sit on our hands and watch.

also told my friends in Nuclear Engineering about you they were not to please when i should them this thread

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Are you & your Nuclear Engineer friends threatening me?

Did Fukushimi have any issues with flooding from the tsunami that resulted from the earthquake?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

also take your time to read the documents since it is a lot to take in

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I can't say I'm much interested in a rejected 'radiation is safe' theory. so It is unlikely i would read the data you linked.

I mean the bits I've already looked at are geared towards the scientific community. And the scientific community has weighed in against the good professor Cohen, so what is the point.?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=flood+protection+for+nuclear+power+plants+NRC

the first two results are by the NRC not Cohen it deals with the subject you linked with flooding

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Wow. Pretty involved, complicated stuff. Again not the kind of reading geared towards a layman.

I also noticed some papers on protection from seismic activity. Again, lotsa scientific mumbo jumbo.

Please take note of the difference in these studies/guidelines & what might be produced for say wind power.

Do we have the same documents for coal powered energy plants?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Well knowledge is power in today's world like i said read a book you might just learn something. This also why my response was delayed because i went through and read through 5 or 6 document like that to see what is the protection code for floods around the world.

We do have similar limitations for most plants,windmills and hydro. these are things that are affecting the environment that they are being place in and protection is placed to make sure that the environment is not taken advantage of

coal is actually worse and given the fact it is harder to build a coal plant than ever before i bet its even harder than nuclear.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh. But there isn't a threat of meltdown from water infiltration in a windfarm right?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

no but if you read in the pdfs you would understand precautionary steps are taken into account. These buildings are sealed no outside water touches the reactor. what would more of a concern is the generators that pump the water to fail. but again these are on a different system. Each plant is slighly different but threats like a flood in flood basins have been taken into account you are safe at night

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"at night"? ok. What it there is an earthquake. that cracks the seal, Or a man made explosion by an anti nuclear zealot.

Windfarms aren't prone to those threats.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

no terrorist attack has been implemented ever in the united states containment domes are made to with stand high level earth quakes, direct plane attacks, and F5 tornadoes these seals are not simply epoxy but highly engineered pieces of art.

wind farms are to equal threat i doubt that they could stand certain criteria that i just mentioned

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So then a breach is impossible? "this ship is unsinkable"?

Do wind farms explode and contaminate hundreds of square miles too?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

From Chernobyl 56 direct; 4,000 cancer

Fukushima: As of September 2012, there were no deaths or serious injuries due to direct radiation exposures. Cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures cannot be ruled out, and according to one expert, might be in the order of 100 cases. A May 2012 United Nations committee report stated that none of the six Fukushima workers who had died since the tsunami had died from radiation exposure.

It is said at around a 1000 people will dues to cancer adding to the total 20,000 killed due to the natural disaster

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

I didnt count them TreeHugger did. Ive been looking really hard for them but i can not find any

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I agree with treehugger. This effort to count every remotely related death shows that the nuclear supporters are getting desperate.

How many died from Chernobyl? Fukushima? And many yet to die?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Yes thats why i thought i would share it with you. Since my sources are no good i decided to one that you would find more enjoyable

None have been kill while transporting nuclear fuel from " More than 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants, government research facilities, universities and industrial facilities have crossed the United States, "without a single death or injury due to the radioactive nature of the cargo.""

source- http://www.thenwsc.org/yucca/transportation_safe.htm

test on the containers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY446h4pZdc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=N_JhruRobRI&feature=endscreen

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Maybe not "due to the radioactive nature of the cargo" but maybe because of car accidents, heart attacks, y'know like the kinda things you counted for the wind energy deaths.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

From the link below; "They haven't told the truth yet about what happened at Three Mile Island," says Randall Thompson. "A lot of people have died because of this accident. A lot." https://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/03-9

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

impossible no highly improbable very much so this is a science of construction these things like there post that this post is a about states that 3 feet of concrete and steel are place above the containment dome ask corium all about it since he worked in one.

No but i have seen them explode if you want to go by deaths wind power kills more people each year than nuclear does.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Wind power generation kills more people annually than nuclear.

Stop! I don't believe it.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

LOL. Entertaining!

You realize though that the article and the source (treehugger is pro wind & anti nuclear)

I wonder how many people died transporting material to nuclear construction sites.

Whatever, any death is unfortunate. Doesn't change my opinion of wind or nuclear energy.

[-] -1 points by shooz (17782) 1 year ago

Giggle.

Compiled by the John Birch Society.

I'm surprised they bothered to print it at treehugger.

They've included highway accidents while transporting parts.

Ice can be dealt with and metal failure can be detected early too.

The fires would be something similar. Safety checks are still being determined.

This post is pretty lame for guy studying engineering.

[-] 0 points by lignite (-303) 1 year ago

The only threat to wind farms is if the funding for them dries up, in which could very well happen

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You said that parrot boy.

[-] 0 points by lignite (-303) 1 year ago

No but there would be a "threat" of shutdown of the wind farms if the funding stopped for them

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Then kick up that funding a notch. BAM that's easy. boss.

"the answer my friend is blowin in the wind" BD

[-] -1 points by lignite (-303) 1 year ago

Wind farm noise causes "clear and significant" damage to people's sleep and mental health, according to the first full peer-reviewed scientific study of the problem. American and British researchers compared two groups of residents in the US state of Maine. One group lived within a mile of a wind farm and the second group did not. Both sets of people were demographically and socially similar, but the researchers found major differences in the quality of sleep the two groups enjoyed.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Aaaaaaaah ha ha ha. That's ridiculous. Don't worry about your mental state. That is clearly gone.

[-] -1 points by lignite (-303) 1 year ago

Wind energy = Unreliable, expensive and utterly impractical

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Wrong, wrong, & utterly wrong.

[-] -1 points by lignite (-303) 1 year ago

A Danish wind turbine company whose subsidiaries received over $50 million in U.S. stimulus dollars announced on Friday it has cut more than 800 jobs in the United States and Canada this year and may be forced to lay off another 800 employees in North America.

This is yet another green energy company that received wasteful stimulus funds and does not even have anything to show for it.
[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Heavans to mergatroid. A company is having trouble during the repub created 'great recession'. Maybe the repub efforts to destroy the industry have something to with it.

transfer all fossil fuel subsidies to greentech corps.

[-] -2 points by janus2 (-387) 1 year ago

same with solar, and all green energy scams.

[-] -2 points by lignite (-303) 1 year ago

very true

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

the plant itself had no problems with flooding it was the generators that did keep in mind they do not have the standards and practices that we have

Threats no but would yelling be involved if you met with us. They have a book they want to give you and once i get the pdf from my friend ill send it to you. It explains everything about Nuclear power, waste and general knowledge.

To my knowledge they do want you to come and visit our offices and have a nice chat with us we could even show you our schools reactor to see the radiation pools

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

things that are specified to be put on in our plants im assuming

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Sounds like it would have been completely different

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

No thanks. I don't even wanna go near that poison.

Why would they yell at me? Can't handle honest disagreements?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

You wouldn't even know what you are looking at most people dont even know its in the building. But its 30 feet below and it has enough power to run a toaster maybe it more for practice.

No for ignorance these are men and woman who have been studying a subject that will be their life work they spend hours on research and homework. These are the top Engineering individuals in one of the most highly ranked program in the world currently in the top 5. To say that their program is dumb and a fail experiment would piss them off but if you chose your words wisely and actually show up with evidence from professors and universities they will be fine.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Not necessary. I am perfectly happy leaving the scientific community to debate your friends about the science.

I will sit back with the majority of the layman who know that nuclear power is the most dangerous, & expensive form of electric generation.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

except we are with the majority when it comes to scientific community. Im still giving you the book once i get it since it is a good read about Nuclear power

stop saying its the most expensive its not price per kilowatt is very competitive

http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/coastal/ocean_policy/documents/te_workshop_cost_compare.pdf

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/08/22/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/

Please show me the source that you say its more expensive

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I reject your suggestion that most scientists agree with you contention that nuclear is safe.

The cost estimates you provide do not include all the govt subsidies, the safety prep that surrounding communities must engage in, or the cost of waste management.

Sorry. I know enough to know that wind & solar power are safer & cheaper.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

you may reject it but i still dont believe you are correct at all

its price per kilowatt thats how industry judges how much power cost the factor that you are talking about are put in just because you dont see it doesn't mean it isnt there

your bending data to fit your needs but not the true needs

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

costs are costs. with nuclear every community around must spend money on evac plans, there are great costs related to added protection, security, and waste maintanence/transport/storage. Also huge insurance costs.

These are costs unique to nuclear. and that is what makes to expensive.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Of course we have been designing new plants my old roommate is designing one for his senior design project. i dont know the specifics ill have looked into it. They could be doing a gen 3 build or perhaps a gen 4. Designs have changed since then i assume the price per kilowatt would go down.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I am glad that the new designs are safer because the existing ones are so old they pose a grave risk.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/13/us-nuclear-safety-iaea-idUSBRE82C0IQ20120313

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Okay

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Yes, but these cost are put into these equations this is a science after all.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Sorry I don't believe it.

Wind & Solar is much safer, cleaner, & cheaper than nuclear.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

its a step closer to a cleaner planet

Construction has change vastly since the last plant was built it changes every 5 to10 years based on design what materials we use, how much is used, and so on.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well we haven't had a new nuclear plant designed sinced the '70's.

Do you know what improvements have made specifically.?

We use GE mainly for planr design?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Then dont believe it but sometimes what you believe isnt true and i know it is hard to accept the truth especially when you dont want to

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I will let the public decide our course. I may agitate for greentech & against nuclear/fossil fuel, but in the end the public will decide..

Hey let me ask you:

Pres Obama approved 2 new Nuclear plants I believe for somewhere in the south.

What is the main physical (construction techniques) difference (improvement) between the new design compared to the old existing plants?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Im reading into it before i respond. also im reading research papers something that i suggest you do before you post

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I've researched plenty. And I will of course continue. My research shows that nuclear power is far too dangerous.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

is yours from actual scientist with degree in related fields

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yes. Why? You disagree nuclear energy is dangerous? You want a special paper written by an actual scientist with a degree in related field.

Do you know so little about nuclear tech you don't know otherwise?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Of course in the wrong hands Nuclear could be seen as dangerous

No its about accreditation and reputation because a high schooler could write a paper and they do not have to worry about weather or not facts are correct or not.

Its something in academia that is required when writing and doing research

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You're not making any sense.

Even the right hands nuclear energy is dangerous. Thats why you need the right hands.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

So still waiting for those papers from scientist

Okay. So in the right hands its dangerous unless its in the right hands?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

It's always dangerous. Any hands. Nuclear energy is inherently dangerously. Obviously, but if you insist on scientific evidence/papers here goes.:

"nuclear energy bad"1

1- and expensive.

Hows that.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

that isnt good at all because that just opinions

still no research like ive ask multiple times and will continue to ask for it

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I've linked to many scientific research documented studies for you. You are just avoiding the reality that nuclear power as it exists today is too dangerous, & expensive.

Clearly we need the Greentech industry to grow & carry the power generation load because nuclear puts us all at risk from radiation risk, & burning fossil fuels are destroying the planetary weather system.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

no you havent you linked one

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Have to! Many! You're pretending 'cause you can't get beyond your blind following of the most dangerous, most expensive energy! Nuclear.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13059-whistleblower-nuclear-regulators-suppress-facts-break-law

that is the only link you have provided to me in this thread.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/index.html

its an older book but still has some great information recommended you read that

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

He is alone in his wacky theories. The UN, Ralph Nader, Most nuclear Physicists reject his ideas on radiation not being as harmful & possibly good for us in low doses.

RIP. And didn't he die from radiation exposure in March

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I provided many links on other threads.

Is this propaganda your pushing.?

[-] 0 points by lignite (-303) 1 year ago

You mention "right hand" more than once. Is that hand your best friend??, just wondering

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I am right handed but still know better than to handle nuclear energy.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8655) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

good morning Daniel not to pick a fight but I was wondering did you write this? and what is your background in the field?

briefly I would say that nuclear power suffers from the same disease that caused Penn St. so many problems lately, arrogance, they are very safe but they generate a lot of income so pushing lines is routine and the higher ups are never held to account because of the revolving door so in spite of how good it looks on paper we have huge systemic problems there.

On your profile it says something about a year or two to build, that seems about five years short to me.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

I wrote this to share information that is public and show it to people like i said there is a lot of confusion on what is nuclear power. I say that because some people on this forum confuse it with fossil fuel where it is a completely different process

for the build time it really depends on the budget and the availability of getting building permits. i know what take the longest is the permits and this delays the process

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

I consider science and technology to be somewhat out of control, like politics and government. Therefor it is very unwise to consider committing to energy technology that can have widespread negative environmental impacts and mutations of nature.

With out free speech, engineers and scientists cannot be reasonably guiding themselves for the betterment of humanity. We need Article V.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

So we should reject advances in technology

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Not necessarily. We cannot generalize here in that way.

What I've said is serious and cannot be dimissed.

widespread negative environmental impacts and mutations of nature.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Ok well lets look at it how it is happening at the present moment we are advancing and evolving it can not be stop it cannot be undone the wheels hae been set in motion. Then lets look at what has been advanced and what has been done in the last few year we have cured many cancers are developing more efficient ways of doing processes, eliminating waste and pollution in the manufacturing world. So if anything i would say we are improving the way we treat the environment.Engineering students today are told to be efficient and not just imaginative.

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Assuming we are advancing because corporate and scientific entities say so is not logical. There is a conflict of interest.

Also those basic same entities stood by why the EPA issued a waiver to California to add MTBE to their fuel. This caused all the streams in high traffic areas to become oxygen depleted. The enviro non profits you would expect to oppose this would not even help to get media to do a story on it.

Then, "global warming" as we know it, whatever it is exactly; was created and went down in full view of science for decades.

Clearly, the integrity that is needed to protect the environment, science and technology do not have.

With a constitutional federal government, corporate abuses can be dealt with and scientists warning will be used to protect us all. After that, lets advance. Currently, we are going backwards because our behaviors with, "whatever technology" are going to cause our extinction or mutation well before they advance us.

We need Article V for science to be safe.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

We are advancing though

MTBE is being phased out of fuel and has been since 2005

Im curious by what you mean by "We need Article V for science"

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Without Article V science will continue to advance with corporate finance into unconstitutional areas, eventually compromising life more and more. It's already happened.

MTBE was banned in 2003 in California. Coastal streams and soils still have not recovered and some species are simply not here anymore.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

So all science in your eyes should be controlled by the government? or what article v are you talking about

MTBE was banned nationally in 2005 since it was we advanced and no longer use it this is why i say we advance. Technology advancing is like evolution trial and error

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Out of control science should be lawfully stopped by the people. Article V is a government function that gives the power to the states. The people of the states need to control their states. If they don't it's because free speech is abridged. Thus preparatory amendment before Article V to assure all amendments are constitutional.

1)End the abridging of free speech 2)Reform campaign finance 3)Secure the vote

There was a MAJOR regression (corruption) in science when a waiver was given to California to burn MTBE. As long as that happens, advances in science are reversed by corrupt politics and WILL not matter in the long run.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Define out of control science. Im still confuse on what you are speaking about because Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification. So what does this have to do with science.

Do I not have the right of freedom in by expressing my mind by reading and designing new machines chemicals and processes.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8655) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I have participated in the construction of these projects, no way you go from ground breaking to breakers closed in two years, but that is a small point.

Having seen how submissive the regulators are to industry executives I would have a very difficult time endorsing new nuclear over say solar multi-point generation.

As far as what the industry puts out, I personally know some of the people who write that crap, they know what their saying is spin.

I think all the people talking about it have a horse in the race and so it's hard to know the best path, but if you look around you do find people having success, nuclear could be a part of the solution, but I would feel better if they were all ran by the government to take the profit/money/promotions out of the equation.

[-] -1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

I want to know what industry guys you were talking to because last night i was drinking with a whole lot of nukes and we were going on and on about how we need more plants and that they are excited about the new build up of potential reactors

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8655) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

nukes are a fun bunch, all the brains in the world and all the understanding of a firefly in most cases...

I didn't say I was talking to them, I said I knew them there's a difference, I haven't spoken to most of them in years, but I still know them, people don't change that much, and I did a lot more than have a few beers with them, I spent two years doing interviews and docs for every screw up at the country's largest that was repeated over a ten year period, that was after I had spent 17 years splitin' atoms myself...

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

i find that all interesting i would like to take a look for if thats ok with you

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8655) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I couldn't care less what you do Daniel, you should know it's the bankers that stopped nuclear power, not the protesters.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

No i mean you said you interviewed them or something so i though you had papers on it.

Only time will tell for the future of that industry

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8655) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

It was an examination of the plant management response to deficiencies, not for the public most of the industry internal reports are not.

Oh but I do have papers, if anyone who matters wants to see.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

thats to bad would like to have read them

thanks for telling me though

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

I still sense some more people need to read this

[-] 1 points by farmer88 (40) 1 year ago

Nuclear fusion is a better (i.e. safer, more efficient, fuel is easily accessable) source. Fission is one of the best we have at the moment however.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

fusion is better but has not been achievable as a power source that we can harness. when we work out fusion that is when things will get very reall and you will see battery tech take off

[-] 1 points by farmer88 (40) 1 year ago

If we put more money into scientific research, then we don't have to talk about "has not been achievable."

[-] 0 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

Money cannot solve really challenging technical problems because there are laws of nature that cannot be breached. It can however help foster innovations or increase the chance that breakthroughs will occur but ultimately it is one or a few superior or perceptive brain(s) which will make the breakthroughs.

"Funny farms" also work well but they are hard to convince those people with no mental lives whatsoever that someone can be doing intense work without any visible signs of hard labor. They work best if they are chained to an organization which needs to solve real-world problems. Applied research and development pay off best but they need brains as well as real problems and be supported by both research as well as material organizations.

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

its a race -
which comes first - a fusion reactor power source - or flying elephants If anyone wants to know, I'll explain why

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

I vote for Dumbo, the flying elephant. I love it better than the biggest doughnut (remember the infamous doughnut hole?)!

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

guess no one cares to much

[-] 1 points by RedDragon (-161) 1 year ago

I'm more curious about thorium.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Thorium is just like uranium based power plants to a T but they use Thorium and Uranium. Its almost like a breeder reactor.

Ill do a post completely on thorium in the near future with much more detail

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Fusion is what powers the sun.
Roughly speaking, if you heat two atoms of hydrogen to 50,000,000 degrees, they will combine into an atom of helium and give off a huge amount of energy. No container can be built to withstand this temperature - but a huge magnetic field can contain a few atoms & lasers or an accelerator can create this reaction and contain it for a tenth of a second.
Such devices are not viable - they are toys for nuclear physicists.
VERY VERY expensive toys. COLD FUSION refers to the wish that this reaction could occur at temperatures that could be contained.
It has be impossible for decades.
There are other technologies that are close to myths - like LENR. That are not "fusion" or "cold fusion".
Without any advanced knowledge, you all understand capitalism.
Companies have invested billions to build a better ED drug.
If there was ANY reality here, can you imagine the energy companies NOT rushing to spend a fortune to develop this technology?


I did come across a LENR post that raved about a NASA project on LENR that was spending $200,000! NASA spends more than that on paper clips.


I wish this could work, but it wont.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I appreciate informative posts like this.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

thank you sir

[-] 0 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

Fukushima. In your backyard. Need I say more?

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Those who know little are afraid those who know the most are not

[-] 2 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

It is interesting Mrs. Angela Merkel directed the shut down of all nuclear power plants in her country after the Fukushima incident. In addition to being the chancellor of Germany, she is also a highly esteemed Doctor in Quantum Nuclear Chemistry.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Drastic Electricity Price Increases in Germany

About 40 utilities in Germany have already announced considerable price increases for household gas, electricity and heating oil for this autumn. The increases are justified by a change in the German law on renewables which aims to guarantee incomes for their producers. The high costs of producing energy from renewables reduces revenues, in many cases generates even losses—which the citizens, taxpayers and consumers, are expected to compensate for.

The average extra burden for a household of four will be above EU100 in 2013, and households' energy bill will thereby increase by almost 10%, against expenses in 2011. But that certainly is only the beginning: More and more leading politicians and industry managers are preparing the population for even more drastic price increases, because the total exit from nuclear power will, if it works at all, be compensated only by expensive investments into inefficient renewables, including at least 3,000 kilometers of new transmission lines which are required, because storage for power from wind and solar is minimal.

The average energy bill for private households may double by 2020. Already now, the energy bill becomes unaffordable for low-income households and small industrial firms (which unlike the big industry cannot benefit from considerable rebates to consumers of large volumes of energy). In the past 12 months, utilities have cut power to no less than 200,000 households, at least temporarily, for nonpayment, because the families could not afford the energy bill.

Generally, for the industry in Germany, which already pays the highest prices for power supplies in Europe, the situation is certain to worsen, with this renewables policy. The biggest utility in Germany, E.ON, is especially vulnerable, with about 40% of electricity produced being nuclear in origin. The company is at least part owner of 11 nuclear power plants, and six of these it operates alone. The entire revenue from the nuclear power sector, several billion euros annually, is continuously shrinking over the coming years and will disappear when the last nuclear power plant will be shut down in Germany, in 2021. Shifting to power generation from renewables would make a loss, if it were not heavily subsidized by the government which passes the energy prices on to the consumer. The net extra cost for renewables in Germany will be EU18-20 billion.

The nuclear exit also has consequences on planned investments in new coal and gas power plants: RWE, Germany's second-biggest utility, will shut down its nuclear power branch entirely, and it will no longer even build nuclear facilities outside of Germany, the company's new CEO Peter Terium announced mid-June. And Matthias Hartung, head of RWE Technology, the company's facility-construction branch, said in mid-July that not even conventional power plants are planned for the near future, because the government's priority funding of renewables makes coal and gas uncompetitive.

In another spectacular retreat from conventional power, Südweststrom, a conglomerate of about 40 utilities in southwest Germany, announced last week that it will scrap the planned construction of a new 1,800 megawatt coal power plant in northern Germany, because the investment will not pay off. The German government's obsession with renewables, unmatched anywhere else in Europe, is a pre-programmed disaster for the country.

http://larouchepac.com/node/23420

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

Perceived disasters when planned for tend not to become real disasters. Germany can lead the charge into renewable energies because it is well qualified technologically, fairly well off financially, and close to France which can probably sell Germany nuclear-generated electricity if Germany's renewable energy effort should fail. If Germany cannot, which country can?

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I suppose only time will tell. To me, German is leading a retreat.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

Or an advance if you turn yourself around -- it is all in your perspective.

I prefer plugging leaks to reduce losses far better than increasing production of electricity. Improved efficiency of doing more with less by thinking and planning ahead are also very much favored. These actions are not very glamorous but they pay off years in and years out.

Sometimes, preparations pay off for the wrong scenario. High gas mileage cars for example came in really handy for the gasoline shortage developed after Sandy/Nor'ester. Who wants to wait in line for hours to gas up? The cut-away curbs to provide access to the disabled people end up speeding the delivery of goods to businesses. Businesses were very much against the Americans with Disabilities Act but eventually everyone's lives became easier, too.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

The direction of progress up to this point in history has been for humans to use smaller amounts of fuel to create greater amounts of energy, which is the direction of nuclear power. Wind and solar use more resources to produce less energy, so in this sense, they are backwards facing.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

You really need to define your "amounts of fuel" well for the statement to make good sense. Nuclear energy's concentration of power generation can also exactly be its fatal flaw. I often see some windmills not turning, apparently without any hoopla in the fashion of Three-Mile-Island/Chernobyl/Fukushima.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

What differentiates humans from animals is the fact that we use fire, of which, nuclear energy is one form. If we wish to continue living as humans, we will inevitably have to come to terms with its use.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

The greatest fire that we have access to easily is our Sun. It gives us the seasons, the light and warmth, and the wind. Solar and wind production of electricity is simply using that natural fusion reactor in the sky that we need not maintain, pay for, or shield from its radioactivity (our Earth's magnetic field does the shielding). Best of all, we do not need any technological breakthroughs straining from our scientists and engineers.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

The most efficient use of solar energy is growing plants for food, not fuel.

If the human race is to survive, we will eventually need to harness more dense forms of energy.

We have to solve the problems of nuclear energy, not ban the technology.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

I did not say banning nuclear energy technology. I said that we needed to find a way out of our energy problem, not necessarily technological or centralized as nuclear energy technology. With a 1kW electricity supply, we can pretty much satisfy the base-load needs of a family of four. That power is readily available in sunlight and wind often.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

The Japanese originally planned to shut down nuclear energy after Fukushima, but found they couldn't go with out it. Similarly, Russia is continuing full speed ahead with nuclear energy, despite all the propaganda about Chernobyl. The Chinese are building as many nuclear plants as they can, as well, despite what happened in Japan.

The developing countries are indeed developing, while the first world continues into deep decline.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

That is a natural law that there are limits and there are limits ...

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Someone needs to implement and export thorium reactor use/technology.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Well, the world is arranging itself into a huge nuclear experiment now. The west in increasingly renouncing the use of nuclear energy, while the developing world, Asia and much of South America, are going full speed ahead with it. This will eventually allow us to evaluate which approach is more beneficial to humanity.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

Needless to say the developing world will surely develop their own versions of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. After all, they ARE developing and they have surely followed the footsteps of our forebears very well. It will be interesting!

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Personally, I think that man has the capacity to expand in an unlimited way throughout the universe.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

There were NEVER any limits aside from the laws of nature. The rest were all of our OWN making, and will lead to Heaven or Hell as we choose. As I remember metaphorically from a movie, the Book of All Wisdom and All Power, when opened shows a mirror. Through what it shows, all limitations and all possibilities ARE revealed.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Efficiency - much overlooked - something like 50% of generated/created electricity - is lost in transmission. Improper delivery and storage ( buffer - reservoir so to speak ) prior to delivery. My Brother's - Father in law quit raising any cattle - because the power utility cutting across his fields refuse to fix a ground fault that kills his cattle.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

The way to get them to fix the ground fault is to show them how much profits they are losing by letting their electricity run loose. They understand profits but not cattle.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You would think so - you would think that the power loss would be their 1st concern ( then perhaps a sad feeling for the loss of the guys cattle ) - but no - to date the ground fault is still in effect killing live critters that come across it. But apparently they are making money - so - No - Big - Deal!

[-] -2 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

I like to point out the case of the Philippines. Some years back, the industrial powers were trying to ram nuclear power down the throats of the folks in that country too. A nuclear plant was built against the wishes of many. After all its volcano country. However, the locals were able to shut it down before it got operational. How do the Filipinnos do it with out nuclear, and without a lot of other power. A lot of work is happily done manually giving new meaning to "People Power".

Many say the Philippines is a "third world" country. I don't think so. The rest of the world has something to learn from them.

[-] 2 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

I wonder if my people, the fattest on the planet Earth ever, can use "People Power," too. We can certainly boast of having the most well-endowed resource in that department.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

I can image how much electricity we can generate by burning the fat obtained from liposuction.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

An estimate: fat yields 9 Cal./g, 1lb. has 454 g, 1 adult perhaps weighs 150 lb., perhaps 20% of adults are obese so they are perhaps 30% overweight, let us say > 50% of the overweight came from fat but we will suck only 50%, 330 million people in the U.S. and maybe 200 million are adults.

Cal. available from U.S. national liposuction of obese adults = 200 million adults * 20% obese adults * (150 lb. * 30% overweight * 50% fat) * 454 g * 9 Cal./g = 1.47096 Trillion Cal.

Assume electricity generation efficiency of 30% and converting to kWh: 1.47096 Trillion Cal. * 30% * 4.184 kJ/Cal. * kWh/3600kJ = 512.87472 million kWh.

So, about 500 million kWh of electricity can be generated by burning the fat obtained from liposuction. At 10 cents per kWh, the electricity will be worth about $50 million.

[+] -8 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

happily?

[-] 0 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

Yes, happily with smiles.

[+] -8 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Yeah - I have seen the smiles - looking into the camera - exhausted - scared.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

Obviously, you've never been to the Philippines.

The saying goes God when I die don't send me to heaven, but send me back to the Philippines.

[+] -8 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Have you? I have seen people happy in their work - they were not looking uncomfortable - they were looking at ease.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

Yes. Many times. I have a house over there.

[-] 0 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

I already read that too. Most Germans though are willing to pay the price for not having a nuclear plant in their backyards.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

If things continue to get worse, they may begin to feel differently about it.

[-] 0 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

Who said things are getting worse? Things are getting better, because the risk of nuclear power is going away. Most Germans expect quality in their products, and are willing to pay for it. As in the cars they drive, like Mercedes, BMWs, Porsches,... To them cost is not the object.

Risking ones quality of life for a few $$$$ is as uncouth as it is stupid.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

The lives of their poorer citizens may be at stake if they make the wrong decisions about energy.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

Remember Germany is a socialist country. They take care of their poor.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Remember most European countries are broke. Germany is probably the best off, this being because of its past industrial prowess. If it continues to undermine its manufacturing base by making the wrong decisions about energy, it could join company with Greece, Italy and Spain.

Energy is a life support system. Without sufficient energy, you can't support life, and just being Socialist isn't going to help.

[-] 0 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

Germany is not broke. It is the country other countries owe money to. Really, they can afford to rebuild their power structure, and once they get rid of nuclear power, they'll be way ahead of everybody else.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

If there is some prosperity left in Germany, its because until now, they had industry and the energy to power it. I don't think wind and solar can provide the power for a first world industrial economy. The Germans are already starting to feel the pinch from their decision to phase out nuclear.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

Only time will tell.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Would anyone build a new plant if the US did not provide disaster insurance - so taxpayers are subsidizing these systems?.
What do you do with the nuclear waste?
What do you do about the reactors that were designed to last 40 years and are still operating beyond this period?
What would happen to NYC & its water if Indian point had a major disaster?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8655) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

plants are re-certified to extend their operating license

the waste should have been put in Yucca Mountain or similar location long ago politics prevents this

Indian Point should be shut down (most likely)

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

YES!
they are re-certified - because power companies CAN contribute to politicians
The waste is NOT in Yucca - thats one reason we should not build more

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8655) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

The re-certification is not just a paper work thing you know it involves a ton of actual testing and the power limits are all re-done.

I think the problem is not that it can't be done, it's just that it's not being done, as long as the plants are in private hands they will be ran for profit not safety and lines will be pushed, I talk to Danial more about this in this thread.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I'm sorry to sound so contrary - BUT
The re-certification is not just a paper work thing you know it involves a ton of actual testing and the power limits are all re-done.
I hope that you don't really trust this!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8655) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

look what i'm saying is i'm not sure nuclear can or can't be done, but I don't think it should be ran for profit, I think the stakes are too high, after what happen in Japan awhile back, I'm not sure it can be done, but given the climate change thing models like France's may work, there all operators have degrees and are treated as professionals instead of minimum wage workers...

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8655) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

trust is an interesting word, I've seen the process, what I don't trust is the motives of the people who run them....

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

The nuclear waste is put into dry cast storage something that is sealed twice and relies on its self. The future human race will use these like batteries since bread reactors have not been approved yet for constructions.

We are beginning the Nuclear Renaissance new technology in the fusion power, nuclear powered rockets and even the mars rover. To comment about when elephants fly well they most of flown because fusion power works we are just working on it to generate electricity. There is currently a project in France that is a multinational project to prove that fusion power can work. http://www.iter.org/

If Indian point had a major disaster well it would depend on what you mean by major disaster for example they prepared themselves for the recent Hurricane in a very orderly fashion and even with flooding they still maintained the plant with no problems. Now if you mean something like pipes breaking im sure the plant has a procedure to deal with all these problems. You can read them here http://www.safesecurevital.com/emergency-preparedness/

The plants that were designed are being examined and updated to codes by the EPA and NRC

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Please believe me - fusion power is as close to impossible as you can get.
I have a degree in nuclear physics. Briefly - fusion is the source of the sun's energy. It can only occur at temperatures over 50,000,000 degress - yes 50 million! Since no material can contain this kind of temperature, scientists have developed what might be called a force ( magnetic) field to contain a very tint quantity of hydrogen to sustain a fusion reaction for a very small part of a second - at a huge expense.
The tokamk technology in your link is NOT new. It was first built in 1980. Some people have claimed they have developed a "cold" fusion technology that would allow fusion to occur at "containable" temperatures.
BS
They will be more likely t o find an atom with an atomic weight of 1/2

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

nuclear physics degree sure......

then you would know that we have used fusion reactors before but they usually consumer more energy than give off. But in some cases it actually gave off heat that was turned into electricity but only for a short time

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Yes - exactly but if it generates 10,000,000 watts of power for 1 thousanth of a second and costs $800,000,000 to build ? The new "French" toy costs how much? produces how many megawatts? for what price? Elephants first!


Fission isn't a winner either - No utilty will build without government subsidized i nsurance - that YOU pay for. And nuclear waste!!!! safe!!!!!
Is that why Japan decided to shut down ALL NUCLEAR REACTORS Nuclear waste is fatally radioactive for centuries .
Before it is used for batteries , it will be used as house paint. You did post the ITR link A larger version of a very old technology - I could not find the power - time - cost numbers on that site.
I'm open to more info, if you can post the link.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Yeah looked into that they are redoing their safety issues with the reactors then are restarting their nuclear power program.

It cost that much but once operation cost is below coal plants also

so also why did you denounce that it has worked then acknowledge that it does work

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Sorry I was not crystal clear -
the technology of controlled fusion has worked for a very long time
but in such tiny quantities and tiny amounts of time and huge cost,
I find it agravating that we are wasting money on this losing technology just because it seems exciting. . REALLY - imagine what we could have done with the man on the moon money to feed or educate our children How many people are wasting money protecting themselves from 12/21/2012
How many people vote based on trickle down economics
I just am fed up with ignorance

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

A space program is one of the best ways to feed and educate children. JFK's space programs is estimated to have generated $10 in terms of economic development for every $1 put into it.

The space program created an entire industry, the aerospace industry, which created many good paying blue and white collar jobs. Spin offs from the space program, as new technologies, have created many jobs and other benefits for our society.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

S[endinf $100,000,000 trying to invent a perpetual motion machine might help us create a better lubricant, but spending $100,000,000 to create a better lubricant is a more cost effective choice.
[ sorry to be negative & contrary - but I do know this field ]

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Perhaps you are familiar with this field, but their are quite a few PhDs out there who know this field as well, working for NASA, for example, who hold positions that are quite contrary to yours. Its always like this, even in hard sciences, that even highly educated experts disagree.

Your analogy sounds convincing, but the facts still remain, the economic return from the space program was enormous, while the returns from green technology so far have been quite dismal.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Perhaps you are familiar with this field, but their are quite a few PhDs out there who know this field as well, working for NASA, for example, who hold positions that are quite contrary to yours.
I have a physics PhD friend who has been working on ronnie's star wars defence system for decades - he does not want to lose his job either.


Your analogy sounds convincing, but the facts still remain, the economic return from the space program was enormous, while the returns from green technology so far have been quite dismal.
In the last 50 years what has been the total spent on space?
In the last 50 years what has been the total spent on green?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

There are also quite a few scientists these days with green financing who don't want to lose their jobs either, and who are willing to fudge their data to keep their jobs, as we have seen in "climate gate".

I don't know what the totals spent have been, but I don't see green industry demonstrating any great potential so far.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I'm not sure that those are separate issues. The decline of the west is mostly due to de-industrialization, and the switch to green energy is a big part of that. I don't think that green energy is sufficient to power an industrial economy.

The left is eager to protest Wall Street for doing things like exporting industrial jobs to China, but fails to see the role the green movement has played in destroying our industrial economy.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

While I agree that de-industrialization is the big issue, I see no connection with green energy. Germany has made great strides in green energy as well and has not de-industrialized. The two are not connected.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Hard to say, but I think Portugal's economy, overall, is not doing too well these days.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Those are separate issues. In fact, it only strengthens the point- if a poor country like Portugal can do this, why can't the US?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

And what if every penny from the space program was put into alternate energy? FYI- I am a SCIFI fan & a degreed physicist
I love science - but the money could have been more productive

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

The physics of alternative energy is not that advanced. Space travel requires the most advanced physics research and the development of the most advanced technologies.

The discoveries made in physics and the new technologies developed through space research are of great benefit to mankind, both as useful products and as industries providing good paying jobs.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Alternate energy - such as solar WOULD be that advanced if we spent the last 50 years of "space" money on solar & battery technology
The space shuttle program - alone cost $209,000,000,000
and - yes - that is not "million"

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

Overall, the space program did not cost us, it profited us. For each of those $209 billion dollars that was invested, ten times the amount was returned in terms of economic development. Most of what we call high tech today came from the space program.

How do you see solar energy as becoming advanced? Producing solar panels or reflectors is just not that demanding. Besides, space is like the next America. Where would we be today if we never did the exploration necessary for the discovery of America?

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

$209,000,000,000 spent of space helped many tech areas including lasers, etc. But every penny spent on inventing and building large rocket engines & systems to protect people in space & rocket fuel was a waste.
If it was spent on solar, we would probably have solar panels that deliver 10-100 times the power -> we would not have to depend on oil -> we would not have oil money buying congress -> oil spills would be reduced. Again - I am a scientist-engineer.
I love this stuff - but dollar for dollar it was not the BEST way to go. Imagine, 50 years ago if we spent the $209,000,000,000 to bring car mileage up to TODAYS standards. By today, all cars would get 50MPG+ or they would be electric. $209,000,000,000
Imagine a car storage battery that weighs 80% less and stores 10 times the power.,

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

the planet is NOT clean aids is NOT cured

A space program like what we had under JFK has NOT existed for over 50 years.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

...would you spend it on an aids cure or educating children or cleaning the planet or a Mars colony?

A space program and its spinoffs would generate the revenue necessary to finance those other programs.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

the planet is NOT clean
aids is NOT cured

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 1 year ago

I understand that you are a scientist and engineer, but what am I to say to all those other scientists and engineers who disagree with you? They are qualified and educated as well.

I don't think of the investments in protecting people in space as wasted, I believe that the colonization of space is our ultimate destiny, just as the colonization of America was our more recent destiny.

Furthermore, that the process of getting there is the best way to feed the hungry people of today. We've lived off the progress generated by JFK's space program for the last fifty years, but since we discarded it, our society has generally gone downhill.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

_I don't think of the investments in protecting people in space as wasted, I believe that the colonization of space is our ultimate destiny, just as the colonization of America was our more recent destiny__ If you had $100,000,000,000 to spend, would you spend it on an aids cure or educating children or cleaning the planet or a Mars colony? I am a SCIFI - addict - but first - I am a human being and I love people more than space.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Solar tech was advanced because of the space program for a man who claims to be from science background you really do like to hate on the space program

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Invest in - and implement - and continuously improve - GREEN TECHNOLOGY POWER & FUEL.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

The first flight only lasted 12 seconds they were told that they were fools to try it again. Look what they accomplished and inspired millions to do. Ignorance to innovation has always been there and continues to delay scientist and engineers just because something seems wasteful or impossible. Universities and governments wouldn't fund ideas such as this one.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8655) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

"usually"?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

There has been instances where the fusion has actually generated power. Look into it

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8655) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

there were reports, all of which have become suspect when others attempted to repeat the results

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

None of which i have read but this is building a star its not a simple process

[-] 0 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

Yes, fusion is thirty years away and always will be. On the issue of so called "cold fusion", it may be a misnomer, but LENR or LANR, seem to have some strong evidence. Apparently, The American Nuclear Society takes it seriously. http://news.newenergytimes.net/2012/11/30/report-of-lenr-session-at-american-nuclear-society-2/

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

there are perpetual motion believers
there are armageddon bleievers
there are 12/21/2012 believers
SORRY- no!

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 1 year ago

This is not perpetual motion. Maybe you haven't kept up.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8655) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

If Indian Point ever had to evacuate their ten mile radius it would be a disaster, and that is a possibility that increases with time, of course I would have to spend some time at the plant to evaluate the actual danger.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Emission free? You mean other then for the thousands of years of radiation emissions of the nuclear fuel waste?

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

check the specs you will see that your microwave releases more radation than a dry cast storage unit of nuclear waste

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

And that is why incidence of cancer in relation to the location of a nuclear reactor increase outside/above the rate of other locations away from a nuclear reactor?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

show me the research paper that shows that. I have been around nuclear power plants since I was born so has my family as i am the son of a nuclear engineer. We have always lived inside of 50 miles of one. Now none of his friends working at the plant or any of my family has gotten cancer nor has any of there family.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Was this too overwhelming for you to respond to.?

This a good reason to end the failed experiment with Nuclear energy.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13059-whistleblower-nuclear-regulators-suppress-facts-break-law

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Elevated childhood cancer incidence proximate to U.S. nuclear ... www.c-10.org/.../... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View rules imposed by various state tumor registries. The NCI examined cancer rates in counties closest to nuclear reactors; some of their locations are duplicated ...

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Well done DK. He refused to even respond to anti nuke evidence I sent him.

Solidarity. Green energy, Not green glowing people!

[+] -8 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Thx - I would like to see however - more studies/information on thorium reactors ( not thorium/uranium hybrid reactors ) - straight thorium - they are supposed to be cleaner and safer all the way around - still - would not like to see them anywhere near people.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

If you find they are safe/clean I would believe it (still investigate myself of course) but as of now I do not know enough about it.

In any event current nuclear power generation is just too dangerous.

I cannot support it.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Down with the use of uranium. Stuff is just bad business all the way around.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

Plutonium is even worse than uranium and we are getting so much of it from dismantling old nuclear weapons. They present terrorism/weaponizing risks in long-term storage so "nuclear-incinerating" them in uranium-based reactors make sense by degrading the plutonium's weapon potential as well as generating electricity. There is no good way of getting rid of the extremely toxic plutonium except through transmutation by neutron irradiation. Nuclear reactors are existing sources of neutrons so they can work well as nuclear incinerators.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Please let us locate them well/far away from people as possible.

Radiation - nuclear radiation - it is so hard to contain.

Can It Be Contained?

It was my understanding growing up in the age of the cold war and the Cuban Missile crisis - the age of the nuclear clock paused just before the stroke of midnight ( the doomsday clock ) - USA and USSR having a nuclear stare down contest ( please no one blink ).

Well anyway it was my understanding ( from school studies ) -that nuclear radiation traveled in perfectly straight lines - passing through material objects like they did not exist until they had a collision on the molecular level ( one would think that would be pretty quick when passing through solids - but apparently that is not the case ). OK now consider that nuclear radiation happens in a spherical pattern - it travels out in a straight line in all directions. ( COOL HEY ? - ahem - perhaps not so cool ).

Anyway - what surrounds a nuclear reactor and it's nuclear stored waste?

How far does nuclear radiation travel before it dissipates?

How is it that it does Dissipate? What is the process of dissipation?

Does the escaped nuclear radiation have a tendency to contaminate objects near by? How Near By - and contaminate for how long? Does any of this contaminated material come in contact with living things? I mean like can an underground stream or aquifer get contaminated? Can that water travel a fair distance from where it was exposed/contaminated? What about plant life that gets exposed - does any get eaten? Once eaten - does what ate it get eaten? How much traveling does this cycle/chain of events do?

[-] 2 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

Nuclear radiation can be contained in the short term but for high-level nuclear wastes the half lives of the radioisotopes can be hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of years. I very much doubt the feasibility of their long-term containment. Short term, measured in years and maybe a decade or two, I am very confident.

Ever since the Rutherford experiment roughly a century ago, we knew how to shield nuclear radiation, using "nuclear ash" such as lead or high-density materials. The long-term bad guys are the neutrons because they can degrade materials' integrity slowly but surely because they can sneak easily into an atomic nucleus and change it or knock out electrons from chemical bonds. That will ruin the materials' integrity.

Usually steel, concrete, water, neutron absorbing materials such as boron, surround a nuclear reactor. There are usually large amount of these so the exponential law makes the residual radiation almost negligible. Living near a nuclear reactor tends not to increase cancer rate detectably but it is all a statistical thing so people certainly lie when they say there is no effect at all. I do not worry about the far more potent cosmic ray particles raining on us all of the time for similar reasons -- negligible so do you really want to live a thousand feet underground all of your life? Mentioning that, we should stop flying in airplanes because that exponentially increase our exposure to cosmic rays. We should also evacuate our NIST physicists in Colorado, right? Don't be silly -- they know that they are taking chances, too, and they should know.

Dissipation of nuclear radioactivity is spontaneous by chance or induced artificially through nuclear particles. There is virtually nothing else that can change the rate of dissipation because almost everything else occur to other parts of atoms.

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

good comment you forgot one thing Lead the element that is used to deter radiation leaks

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

Yes, I am sure they must use lead, too, perhaps in transparent glass that will allow the operators to see things better.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

Yes, we should now firmly be in the age of "flying blind" but cybernetically with "eyes wide open." Why risk human well-being if robots and sensors can do the job well? The status of the Fukushima reactors was an enigma while the partial meltdowns were going on. That was likely due to not having any way of observing the reactors visually. Sometimes "flying blind" may mean just that literally.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

actually most stations don't have windows anymore they use robots and sensors so really they just look at computers all day

You could ask Corium since he operated one

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Lead does not stop radiation - it filters some. As a nuclear explosion ( a great deal of radiation in a short period of time ) can still kill you fairly quickly even having sat behind a thick wall of lead. Right? ( so that was a lot in a very short period of time ) so what about a reduced amount and long term exposure - build up?

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Build up is the wrong word for this but the Lead becomes "Heavy" and becomes radiated then release that radiation which is lower level of radiation than what the Uranium releases its almost like a filter. But it does protect us and everyone from the radiation

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

[-] -1 points by shooz (17782) 1 year ago

Goggle is, in this case your friend.

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/protection_basics.html

It can be all about the type of radiation and you are correct lead is not appropriate for all types.

http://www.thomasnet.com/articles/custom-manufacturing-fabricating/radiation-shielding-materials

Time, as was already pointed out brings it own limitations, and is the major technological impediment to travel outside the magnetic shield of Earth.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Thx shooz - I reply here as there is not an open reply button for your comment.


[-] 2 points by shooz (14373) 0 minutes ago

Goggle is, in this case your friend.

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/protection_basics.html

It can be all about the type of radiation and you are correct lead is not appropriate for all types.

http://www.thomasnet.com/articles/custom-manufacturing-fabricating/radiation-shielding-materials

Time, as was already pointed out brings it own limitations, and is the major technological impediment to travel outside the magnetic shield of Earth. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

How thick the lead encasement to stop radiation escape? Over time how much new lead shielding needs to be added due to contamination of the containment material?

[-] -1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Lead is what the Uranium decays into. Just small layer i think its 3 inches or less. the radiation doesn't build up it actually dissipates and become harmless.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

So basically the longer a facility is in place - in operation - the more contamination build-up. Correct? Same goes for concrete waste containment - the longer it contains waste the more of it's own material is contaminated and subsequently is radiating out.

[-] 0 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

Yes, the longer a facility is in operation the more radioactive waste tends to accumulate and the contamination risks increase but the really troublesome wastes are the used fuel rods containing the plutonium. The objective of the containment is really to prevent the medium half-lived radioisotopes, especially the bio-active ones such as strontium, potassium, or iodine to leak into the biosphere. The short-lived ones decay so fast that they are only as dangerous and for as long as our hot hot news stories survive and the long-lived ones such as uranium decay so slowly (at least millions of years) that their radioactivity is weak. Plutonium is very radioactively "hot" and has high weapon potential so it is really bad but hey, we have to dig ourselves out of our plutonium war economy somehow, right?

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Scrap uranium use would be a very good start. Thorium - not very mass destruction/death worthy in comparison.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

Contamination is possible in many different modes but remember that we are talking about subatomic particles so they are often as insignificant as flies are to an elephant in one sense. However in another sense, because we have DNAs that are susceptible to them so we can get cancers, just like materials near highly radioactive sources become brittle. Aquifer can be contaminated and there can be water-borne migration. Plant life can get exposed and some will be eaten. What gets worrisome is the propagation up the food web. Herbivores tend to fare far better than carnivores so reducing the consumption of meat is one very easy way to cut down on the consumption of radioactivity unless radioactive strontium (chemically similar to calcium so it can be incorporated into bones and cause cancer in the long term) or potassium is involved in the vegetables eaten. I am assuming that people do not eat bones even if they are carnivorous.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

So - basically - the further away the reactor - the better? Further away from populations - crops and animals and animals eating crops.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

Yes, but you need to be reasonable because the inverse-square-law applicable far beyond the confinement area makes the residual radiation rapidly almost irrelevant. One does not gain much by being farther away. You can do far better to remove your granite counter tops, for example.

[-] 2 points by grapes (2775) 1 year ago

Contamination comes up with natural gas, too, so technically the frackers are correct that there was no contamination of water sources from the fracking fluid per se but it is morally dishonest. They are excluding the dumping of the discharge fluids into waterways, for example. That was why they sought and received an exemption from our Clean Waters Act under the Bush'ite administration.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Or not frack contaminated gas deposits and place the gas into public use?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I'm with you.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

Thank you for that so started reading into it. read the whole paper found the whole thing interesting. Then I started to look into the subject as a whole and that's when i found something studies from other resources that stated the opposite. But as the original study said there was to small of a demographic and that there was outliers that they wish to address since "For all other cancers, virtually no difference was seen between nuclear and non-nuclear counties, even though both exceeded the national rate". So instead of cancers we are dealing with one leukemia which is one of the most bizarre types cancers since no cause is known.

http://xkcd.com/radiation/ here is a dose chart

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (34914) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You don't mean that there are studies similar to tobaccos studies ( that tobacco is not harmful ) that show that nuclear radiation is not harmful? That proximity is not a dangerous thing? ( kinda like you are OK if you don't inhale the tobacco smoke ? so just suck on the tobacco ) Or that fracking does not pollute ground water or soil or air in it's extraction of LNG or Oil? That there really is such a thing as clean coal?

Wow - wonder who would promote such studies?

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 1 year ago

actually believe it or not we learned that tobacco studies can actually not be certified since we cant force someone to smoke and see if they get cancer its a loop hole in research but lets not strain to far from topic.

Institute of Social and Preventative Medicine was main one. Im looking for the actual paper since i only got the results at the present moment