Nuclear energy

[Half a Hundred]

Now, this being an Oklahoma board, obviously most here would prefer natural gas.

However, I still wanted to get your thoughts on the role nuclear energy will have in the future. Should we make it the backbone of our electricity production capacity? Should we reduce it? Or should we simply focus on replacement of current capacity with newer, more efficient technology?

I'd like to hear y'alls opinion on the subject.

Various topics:

Pebble-bed reactors
Reprocessing fuel
Standardized model (France) vs. custom model (US)

[Tulsa_Fireman]

You spelled it wrong. It's 'NUCULAR'.

[Half a Hundred]

You spelled it wrong. It's 'NUCULAR'.

Damn. I always do that. :D

[Lott's Bandana]

Having spent 20 years putzing around the world on nuclear submarines, I have always been dismayed at how this topic has been anathema for so long.

The concept of harnessing nuclear energy is so incredibly simple, yet the cost prohibitions come from the triple/quadruple redundant safety systems, as well as the incredible bureaucratic infrastructure needed to provide oversight at each facility.

Since I am only familiar with the reactors typical to nuclear warship propulsion, I cannot speak much towards a public utility function, other than to say it seems at this point we can design a safe, clean, compact model reactor that could serve as a bridge between fossil (and other) energy and future development.

Oh, and living 85 feet from a reactor for so long? I lost my hair and sired only daughters....;)

[Okla-homey]

I'm a huge nuke for electricity production proponent. Its bordering on criminal nonfeasance we aren't generating all our electricity that way IMHO.

[OUHOMER]

I think we are ready for it. Most folks have forgotten 3 mile island, The one in Russia I can not spell. I would think / hope technology would prevent something like that from happening again.

[Vaevictis]

Hell, technology did prevent Three Mile Island.

And technology would have prevented Chernobyl, had the Russians given a rat's *** about safety.

[bluedogok]

I'm a huge nuke for electricity production proponent. Its bordering on criminal nonfeasance we aren't generating all our electricity that way IMHO.
Yep, but the bright side is there are many that are in the planning/permit stages at this moment.

From Sourcewatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Expected_New_Nuclear_Power_Plant_A pplications_in_the_U.S.) which may or may not be an anti-nuclear site but they have links provided from the NRC so I think their info is correct.

NRC - New Reactors (http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors.html)

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/new-plants.gif

[Jerk]

Gotta have a lot of water wherever you build one and humans love to live near water, thus NIMBY'ism.

[Harry Beanbag]

Having spent 20 years putzing around the world on nuclear submarines, I have always been dismayed at how this topic has been anathema for so long.

The concept of harnessing nuclear energy is so incredibly simple, yet the cost prohibitions come from the triple/quadruple redundant safety systems, as well as the incredible bureaucratic infrastructure needed to provide oversight at each facility.

Since I am only familiar with the reactors typical to nuclear warship propulsion, I cannot speak much towards a public utility function, other than to say it seems at this point we can design a safe, clean, compact model reactor that could serve as a bridge between fossil (and other) energy and future development.

Oh, and living 85 feet from a reactor for so long? I lost my hair and sired only daughters....;)


Having worked on three reactors in the Navy, there is nothing to fear but propaganda itself. Working in the engine rooms of a cruiser, I received less radiation from the reactors than the boatswain mates working on the main deck received from the sun.

I do think there should be a standardized design that is used for all new civilian reactors going forward. Following a known, workable convention would be easier and cheaper. Personally, I think the Navy should be involved with all aspects. Nobody does it better, more efficiently, and safer than the U. S. Navy.

[StoopTroup]

I know there are many folks really concerned about what we do with nuclear waste...but I'm more worried about what other Countries might do with it. I've worked with a few folks that worked at NP Plants at one time or another. Everyone of them I talk to always state that they were constantly busy double and triple checking each other to the point that it was all the regulation that made the cost of running the plant so expensive.

The other day someone I spoke with said they saw an article that stated that you could give everyone on the face of the Earth a 10' X 50' area to stand in and those spots would be just about the land area of Wyoming. In other words...there is no over-population of the Earth and there is plenty of places to store nuclear waste safely. I'm guessing that the calculations about Wyoming didn't even include the areas of the Oceans...it just calculated the space on land mass alone.

Any of you ever here this?

Thoughts?

[StoopTroup]

Having worked on three reactors in the Navy, there is nothing to fear but propaganda itself. Working in the engine rooms of a cruiser, I received less radiation from the reactors than the boatswain mates working on the main deck received from the sun.

I do think there should be a standardized design that is used for all new civilian reactors going forward. Following a known, workable convention would be easier and cheaper. Personally, I think the Navy should be involved with all aspects. Nobody does it better, more efficiently, and safer than the U. S. Navy.

Was it the navy that invented the Q-Tip?

And what about the Shamwow? Those things are amazing too? :D ;)

[Vaevictis]

In other words...there is no over-population of the Earth and there is plenty of places to store nuclear waste safely.

The problem with that figure is that it doesn't include all the land necessary to support those people.

You need farm land, clean water, etc, etc.

Safely storing nuclear waste in the short term isn't a problem for the USA, other than the not-in-my-backyard syndrome. Long term might be, as you could very easily turn that part of the world into a non-livable area if your safety protocols should fail.

What happens when -- not if, when -- the United States should fail? How do you ensure that those safety protocols continue?

What would have happened if, for example, the Soviet Union had put such a location by the Iranian border and it was now located in one of the post-Soviet states?

Worse, how do you reasonably tell countries like Iran that they can't have nuclear energy? I mean, you can, but such hypocrisy will be a major diplomatic thorn in your side.

Very thorny issues.

[pott_2]

I am 100% for the nukes. However we have not tapped into a very useful and cheap renewable resource. We use inmates to power OUr homes. You put inmates on either treadmills or stationary bicycles with small generators. Make OUr tax dollars work for us.

[Okla-homey]

I know there are many folks really concerned about what we do with nuclear waste...but I'm more worried about what other Countries might do with it. I've worked with a few folks that worked at NP Plants at one time or another. Everyone of them I talk to always state that they were constantly busy double and triple checking each other to the point that it was all the regulation that made the cost of running the plant so expensive.

The other day someone I spoke with said they saw an article that stated that you could give everyone on the face of the Earth a 10' X 50' area to stand in and those spots would be just about the land area of Wyoming. In other words...there is no over-population of the Earth and there is plenty of places to store nuclear waste safely. I'm guessing that the calculations about Wyoming didn't even include the areas of the Oceans...it just calculated the space on land mass alone.

Any of you ever here this?

Thoughts?

two words: Marianas Trench

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Two more words: Austin, Texas