Time to go nuclear

Parent Cafe
21

<p>“At this time there are no permanent facilities for disposal of high level radioactive waste…” Yes there is. Yucca Mountain. It is a land that has been studied for over 30 years to be a safe permanent nuclear waste repository. It was accepted by the DOE, however, oppositions (people like yourself who fear nuclear energy) stopped Yucca Mountain from opening.</p>

<p>In addition, there are amazing technologies being developed around the world where you can recycle nuclear spent fuel to maximize energy while minimizing waste. The only problem with this is that people fear the word “Plutonium.”</p>

<p>I would like to know why people don’t fear much about chemical waste, bombs, and accidents as opposed to nuclear waste. I guess maybe its because people use chemicals everyday, while nuclear energy is something they must rely on the government.</p>

<p>By the way, we should start calling nuclear reactors fission reactors : ) Sounds more comforting~~</p>

22

<p>Word “Nuclear” instills primal fear into all of us because it makes us think of something lethal and undetectable, something that would not dissipate or disintegrate in our lifetime. While phosgene, sarin or mustard gas can kill, they can be destoyed by burning or chemical neutralization. Bacteria and viruses can be annihilated by something as simple as a chlorox wipe, and bullets can be dodged. “Nuclear” equates “Radioactivity” in people’s minds. </p>

<p>For example, the word “nuclear” was dropped out of the name of a commonly used diagnostic imaging instrument beacause not too many patients would want to undergo a “nuclear magnetic resonance imaging” procedure (btw, the nulei used for NMR imaging are protons and they are not radioactive).</p>

<p>I too believe that nuclear energy can be a very efficient way of solving the world’s looming energy crisis, but the technologies to make it safe need to be developed much further. Sure, sending the produced waste into space sounds like a neat idea, but can you imagine a nuclear Challenger-like accident? We have a long way to go before we can rely on radioactive isotopes as a safe energy source. May be the government should start funding physicists and chemists again?</p>

23

<p>

</p>

<p>from-
<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/beastly/[/url]”>http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/beastly/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

24

<p>But are we “currently” preventing the chemical wastes at this point? I don’t think so… millions of computers are being dumped without being taken care of… mercury poisoning is already being a major issue. Ex.) Pregnant women can only eat one fish per ~2 months because of the high levels of mercury.
Chemical wastes are just as bad as nuclear… and they are “already” taking charge of hurting the environment. </p>

<p>Why aren’t these policies more enforced?
Why aren’t policies for greenhouse emission being set?</p>

<p>Yes, if improperly used, nuclear (chemical, biological as well) can be extremely dangerous. However, so many restrictions and amazing levels of safety factors prevented this from occurring. To my knowledge, no body in the US has fallen ill or died due to radiation exposure from nuclear power plants including TMI.</p>

<p>I think it would be wise to correct problems that are happening right now FIRST before we worry about problems that would occur in a million years…</p>

25

<p>It is politically correct to talk about biofuel, wind and solar energy. Unfortunately none of them have the potential to come close to meeting a significant portion of our energy needs. If you have any doubt, read the recent Scientific American article proposing a massive solar energy system. We would need to use the newest upcoming solar film technology and cover tens of thousands of square miles of the southwestern States. That would meet only a portion of our current energy needs. Wind is no better. Thousands of square miles of wind farms would be needed. In addition both wind and solar systems would need development of massive energy storage systems. Both solar and wind will see some limited applications, but we really need to develop alternate sources of energy. If global warming is being triggered by CO2 production then we need energy which is not dependent on combustion. Nuclear energy is the only viable alternative. It may take high energy costs, a declining quality of life and a sagging economy, but sooner or later, we will move in that direction. One of the big concerns seems to be radioactive waste. We seem determined to find some deep hole to dump the waste into. Another stupid idea. Future generations will want to harness those wastes for energy production.</p>

26

<p>It is not exactly opening a hole and simply dumping waste…
All repositories are required to have access to retrieve the spent fuel. This means that you are able to constantly monitor what’s going on inside the repository, in addition for re-using spent fuel for future generation reactors or maybe sending it to space.
Also… I am pretty sure that there is a solution to prevent the nuclear waste from leaking out of the repository.</p>

27

<p>[Fury</a> at nuclear waste disgrace for Sydney | NEWS.com.au](<a href=“http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23122895-421,00.html]Fury”>http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23122895-421,00.html)</p>

<p>I feel safer already.Just one recent example.</p>

<p>We have high level nuclear waste and spent fuel rods all over the United States held in nuclear power plant cooling pools etc. (see the article I posted) by the Nuclear Reg. Commision which I was assuming no one would have trouble with as a source. Hey, we also ship in high level waste from other countries where we keep it for them too. How nice of us. Of course it has to travel to these destinations by ship, rail, roadways. No worry there?
Heres our storage methods. Hope they don’t get hit by a plane.
[The</a> Bane of Nuclear Energy: Nuclear Waste - Storage](<a href=“http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html]The”>http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html)</p>

<p>I never said solar and wind etc would be the only power sourses. We need to use them all and come up with more efficient ways of doing this.</p>

<p>My hope is that we don’t put all our eggs into nuclear energy and ignore the rest. Again we have had at least 30 years to find a better way to store this waste and it’s sitting around in your backyard.</p>

<p>I am supposed to be comforted that the gov’t has regulations on how to keep this safe although these places are not under their direct control?</p>

<p>At least read the page I posted before expounding on your views.</p>

<p>And no they are not buried in Yuma. Apparently alot of people think it’s a bad idea.</p>

28

<p>That makes you feel unsafe why? The government obviously screwed up, but the fact that the waste is nuclear is tangential to the crux of the problem, which is that the government dumped a bunch of waste, didn’t monitor it, and then covered the fact that it did those things up.</p>

<p>The histrionics after the fact are either related to the dumping (to which, again, the fact that the waste is nuclear is tangential) or are standard NIMBYism, which I find annoying and irrelevant.</p>

29

<p>The more nuclear energy we use, the less money we send to unstable, anti-american, human rights violating middle eastern countries. Nuclear energy is good energy policy and it is good national security policy.</p>

30

<p>That’s one reason why they need to finish the job in Nevada. Worrying about what happens to the waste in 10,000 years shows how ridiculous the anti forces are. Where was the world 10,000 years ago? Can you begin to imagine the technology we will have in 10,000 more years.</p>

31

<p>“Where was the world 10,000 years ago”</p>

<p>Clean? ;)</p>

32

<p>I doubt it. People burned whatever they could find for fires. Ever been around a bunch of large open fires?</p>

33

<p>To Sax:</p>

<p>“We have high level nuclear waste and spent fuel rods all over the United States held in nuclear power plant cooling pools etc.”</p>

<p>Why is this bad? They are securing the nuclear waste from leaking into the environment. In addition, the dry storages are later covered with a concrete seal. They must remove the concrete in order retrieve the spent fuel.</p>

<p>“it has to travel to these destinations by ship, rail, roadways. No worry there?”</p>

<p>They don’t just transport the spent fuel through conventional tanks. They secure it inside very thick concrete. They have conducted MANY tests, from ramming the container to trains and jet planes. So yes, these are extremely secure.</p>

<p>“Hope they don’t get hit by a plane.”</p>

<p>First of all, how and why would they get hit by a plane in the first place? If its a terrorist attack your thinking… it would be much more efficient and convenient for the terrorists to attack the white house, or the pentagon, or even a shopping mall where many people are actually present.</p>

<p>“My hope is that we don’t put all our eggs into nuclear energy and ignore the rest. Again we have had at least 30 years to find a better way to store this waste and it’s sitting around in your backyard.”</p>

<p>I never said we should go 100% nuclear. That’s absurd, and would waste lots of money… The DOE will never ignore other energy sources including wind, hydro, solar. We must meet the demands of what we resources we have, how much we have, and how much land we have. We need to make a strong energy portfolio that can use our resources efficiently that considers natural gas, solar, wind, hydro, coal, nuclear, etc. It’s just a shame to see that nuclear power is not meeting its potentials.</p>

34

<p>On another note, sax: We have been finding better ways to store nuclear waste for 30 years - but every single time one is propsed, 100000 different NIMBY groups, special interest groups, environmental groups etc. all get ****y about it.</p>

35

<p>“Where was the world 10,000 years ago”
Clean?
“I doubt it. People burned whatever they could find for fires.”</p>

<p>What people? God created the earth in 6 days far more recently than 10,000 years ago. Ask Huckabee.</p>

<p>" Ever been around a bunch of large open fires?</p>

<p>One count? I’m a beach bonfire aficionado.</p>