<p>This didn’t take long:</p>
<p>[The</a> Associated Press: Solar application moratorium called off](<a href=“http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iExnDc6JtBahwnAVhIreGyjcjHOQD91M00H83]The”>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iExnDc6JtBahwnAVhIreGyjcjHOQD91M00H83)</p>
<p>I was in Europe during Chernobyl. While I understand that it was a type of reactor with fewer safeguards than reactors in Europe, I don’t know that anyone in this country really appreciates how far the radiation spread. When my husband arrived at the lab the day after the accident (we’d heard nothing yet) there were people outside with their Geiger counters. His first thought was that the counters must all be broken because they were all registering more radiation than they are allowed to have in the lab. We didn’t eat fresh lettuce all spring, we didn’t drink milk for six months, mushrooms and venison never did get down to reasonable levels before we left in 1989. Chernobyl was more than 800 miles away - that’s about the distance between Jacksonville, FL and New York City. Now imagine terrorists dropping a bomb on one of our reactors.</p>
<p>Well, I’m concerned about the environmental impact from large scale solar power systems. They basically bulldoze acres and acres of land on which they place the extensive solar collectors. I’ve seen the facilities in the desert of California where it takes hundreds of years to return to any semblance of a natural state. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any solar facilities, especially experimental ones to attempt to make the technology viable, but it needs to be done with the appropriate level of environmental planning. </p>
<p>On top of that, solar is still not economically viable hence the subsidies required to make it at all possible to build and still meets only a very small percentage of power needs. It currently takes a huge amount of area to provide a relatively small amount of power. This technology still needs to improve to become viable.</p>
<p>I agree that the environmental impact of any large scale installation should be assessed, although it shouldn’t take two years from now for projects which have already been proposed. As to subsidizing the cost of energy - are you including the cost of perpetual storage of nuclear waste materials into the “cost” of nuclear power? What do you suppose the kWh price of nuclear generated electricity would be if the plant operators had to price it to fully fund a 10,000 year storage facility, not to mention to pay for adequate liability insurance in case of a problem? Right now those costs are being partly funded by taxpayers (i.e. “subsidies”) and the rest is just sitting out there as an unfunded future liability. Same thing with calculating the cost of global warming into the “cost” of fossil fuel generated power.</p>
<p>I’m concerned that the short-sighted financial analysis that our generation seems to apply to everything (costs passed onto our children don’t count as real “costs”) is being applied to the “cost” of energy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Its estimated that in 10-12 years, global solar capacity could be 20 to 40 times what it is today. If that happens, it would still account for no more than 3% of electricity generation capacity. </p>
<p>Based on what Ive read, other green alternatives such as wind, water, geothermal, biomass, and biofuel would likewise account for only small percentages of total energy generation. If we are at or near peak oil, what other sources of energy could possibly meet the worlds energy needs without bringing nuclear into the mix?</p>
<p>The release of the EIS is just the start. Then there are objections, lawsuits over the adequacy of the EIS, and so on. It is easy to tie a large scale project up for 10 years. Finding an endangered species is just one aspect of the methods used to kill projects. It took at least 10 years for the local airport to add a needed runway due to such lawsuits and the cost tripled. Same for a needed new sewer plant. Why? it would increse sewer capacity to allow more homes. Don’t tell me these stalling tactics are not the bread and butter of the environmental anti-growth movement. Hit the chokepoints like roads and sewers as a way to stop growth.</p>
<p>If we live as to what a terrorist might do we are never going outside the house.</p>
<p>“Now imagine terrorists dropping a bomb on one of our reactors.”</p>
<p>Nope! I took a semester course on Nuclear Power Plant design, construction and operation. Two of the things that they very clearly planned for was (edit: This was in the 70’s and 80’s, I imagine they are a hell of a lot more paranoid after 9/11): </p>
<p>1) A terrorists dropping a very powerful bomb or shooting a missile directly at the reactor core housing.
2) A 747 at full speed hitting the reactor core housing.</p>
<p>The housings are designed very carefully to withstand both such things. </p>
<p>The reason Chernobyl went horribly wrong is because it was designed in an incredibly poor manner. I’m talking the type of design that would have received an F at any US graduate school when a student designs a reactor as an assignment. The US has far superior designs (and now so do the Russians, and the rest of the world), and the only time we came close was TMI (in which case our setup was sufficient that we avoided the worst of possibilities, and caused the nuclear industry to very carefully learn from its mistakes). Also a lot of the stress from TMI was confusion in the media moreso than the actual plant threatening to blow up (the problem solved itself long before people realized it did).</p>
<p>Anyway, just thought might want some facts surrounding your hypothetical question.</p>
<p>UrsaMinor: There was more than likely less radioactive material released into civilian populations (except for the scientists who may have had direct contact with it, and it’s not surprising they had internal readings nor do I have much pity since anyone working with radioactive material should have proper safety equipment) than each time the US tests an atomic weapon. </p>
<p>Of course I believe what they taught me in class. My professor does design and research for nuclear reactors (this is a tier one research university). He was involved in fixing the TMI incident. </p>
<p>Nuclear engineering is a well understood discipline of engineering. Of course to someone who doesn’t have a degree in Civil Engineering or Nuclear Engineering, nuclear reactors are these big bad scary monsters. But this is why we have people who have trained their entire lives to a very high standard on trying to make these things safe have input into the decision onto whether or not to build them. After studying how they make these things safe, the systems and sub-systems and operator training given, they have done a very good job in my opinion.</p>
<p>If you want to see how easily the American populace can be scared into submission by throwing around a few numbers that people don’t really understand, check out the Cassini-Huygen’s probe fly-by of Earth. </p>
<p>The main concern if any with Nuclear Reactors is not if they will blow up or leak, but rather how we will store the waste.</p>
<p>
There’s a huge difference between bombing an office building with only a pane of glass separating the interior from the exterior and a containment building built of thick steel reinforced concrete.</p>
<p>I think if a plane is dropping a nuclear bomb on our nuclear power stations we don’t need to worry about the fallout from the power station - we need to worry about the bomb itself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What? Do you have any insight into how the designs for these different structures are developed? The government is <em>far more careful</em> when building a nuclear reactor. It doesn’t take a genius to start thinking about all the different ways that a terrorist group could try to take out a nuclear reactor, and you had better believe we have damn smart people in this country who have thought these things through. Modern reactor housings have a first layer of about 5-10 ft of reinforced concrete with steel beams, followed by a layer of pure steel casing followed by a high pressure chamber full of steam and water followed by a very thick layer of lead followed by the actual reactor cores. Modern computer systems can also detect attempts to sabotage the system by operators, and can redirect control to other areas. Even then, the system is designed such that in the case of a meltdown, it contains itself (in which case cleanup might be expensive, but nobody would be hurt).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) Not related to nuclear power plants. Has to do with the USAF being idiots and flying nuclear warheads directly over the country.</p>
<p>2) See (1) above.</p>
<p>3) Again, contained nuclear reactor in the ocean. Don’t be too worried about a single nuclear powered submarine melting down in the ocean (I doubt the reactor core even completely melted and leaked, probably it contained itself). We explode dozens of thermonuclear warheads in the ocean a few years ago, so if anything you should worry about that. Also land based nuclear reactors have a COMPLETELY different design (seeing as space is not the main constraint as it is for a submarine).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have several professors of nuclear engineering at MIT who have told me these figures. I am talking about modern nuclear power plants in the USA (not sketchy ones in USSR from back in the day). So if you want to just throw around how many scientists you have on your side, I’m not sure that argument will fly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is just called being paranoid, and the logic is silly (enough that I wouldn’t even call that a logical statement).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For TMI or Chernobyl? I wrote a 35 page term paper on these two accidents and have spent quite a <em>long</em> time studying them. So if you’d like to cite specific passages from these documents to backup your argument, I’d be happy continue that discussion.</p>
<p>@pstvd: Fusion isn’t happening because Congress is not funding fusion research to the extent it should. In any case, fusion reactors are a good 20-30 years off. (Check out the ITER: [ITER</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER]ITER”>ITER - Wikipedia))</p>
<p>I think the vast majority of my arguments are based on facts that you can find if you study a book on nuclear engineering, and read the editors columns in popular scientific journals. Some of your arguments are borderline insulting (Is the MIT professor you are quoting the Fox News pundit who claims global change doesn’t exist? uh… no, he’s the guy who designs and builds many of the nuclear reactors providing many people in this country power for the last 30+ years).</p>