Is Nuclear Energy Worth the Risk?
 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/0...ate/index.html

Yes, if we'll be wanting electricity in the relatively near future that doesn't further speed up climate change.

Sadly, everything seems to involve a Faustian bargain these days...

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...nuclear-planet

Maddow had this up on her blog today. By the looks of it we are already screwing up our DNA as well as every single living thing on the planet.

Until there are viable and safe ways to store nuclear waste from these plants, I don't think more should be built. I also think that a hell of a lot more effort needs to go into research and development of other kinds of energy production.

One of the major problems I see with nuclear energy is the energy companies that run them. They are profit driven and will cut corners if they can get away with it.

Also, after living near the Rancho Seco plant near Sacramento (closed for safety reasons upon the vote of the people living in that utility district) for many years and working with other clinicians that were part of insurance panels for the utility that ran it and learning of the amount of drug use of technicians working all those late and graveyard shifts there- I am not comfortable with the human resource development and training involved in these companies. This situation was found to be related to accidents occurring at that plant (all documented during the fight to close that plant). I'm not crazy for nuclear power, yet my problems with it are not about the science behind it really. This is part of the "human error" that can lead to accidents which is not related to the science and engineering of nuclear power. In fact, how many times do we hear something about the recommendations of the engineers and scientists being totally disregarded after plants are built? And it is usually about money.

After hearing about the very same kinds of shut-off valves that malfunctioned in the Gulf oil spill and the fact that new drilling being OK'ed with the same damn valve- I'm not trusting governmental regulations much these days (an certainly not what is going on with re-licensing aging nuclear plants). These factors are also involved in regulating nuclear power plants. The science is amazing, but, we are not going to have top-notch nuclear scientists running these plants. A lot of the jobs they create are not going to pay the big bucks to have the kind of people needed there 24/7. Many of these jobs are not technical in nature at all and semi-skilled. So, I am wondering about the human resource areas to this within companies that run these plants, including public utilities (that sometimes are farmed-out to the private sector).

I would like to see more done with our (USA) doing more in cutting down energy use all together. We waste so much! Hell, look at the mess we are in with plain old “garbage,” hazardous waste and e-waste! If we can’t deal with that effectively, how are we going to deal with nuclear waste? When I see lights on in empty room, it drives me nuts! Of course, I can still my Momma yelling "turn out the damn light" when leaving a room! Also, I really like living where there is decent public transit. I have made some fairly simple and inexpensive changes to my own home and seen quite a reduction in my utility bills-think of what we can accomplish if we had the money to install solar panels for hot water and buy only energy star efficient appliances. makes me nuts that these things are so expensive as my bet is that most people would do more to save energy if they could afford these things.

I think nuclear energy is a viable option. The knee jerk based on what is happening in Japan is normal when something catastrophic like this happens. Was the problem the power plant? No. Was the problem the earthquake? No. The problem was the tsunami. Locate nuclear power plants where they are not near the water, not on a fault line, or in a tornado alley. Modern day nuclear power plants rely on gravity feed water cooling systems. What that means is that if they have a power failure, water flows from above to allow time to get backup power systems working, so that pumps used to circulate the water can be placed back online. In the case of Japan, they had back up power sources, but they went under water so it was the one, two punch of earthquake followed by tsuname that led to what is happening now. We are very dependent on fossil fuels; that isn't likely to change in the short term. However, we do need to look at all alternative sources including nuclear. Just my .02.

Glynn

I am so glad you brought this up- yes, think of what could have been developed from the time of Carter! And now, solar panels - initially developed in the USA- are no longer produced here!! We freakin' import them!

We could do so much to improve the cost factor if all new construction had to have whatever solar (or other more cost effective method for the consumer) type set-up or heat-pumps configurations, etc. was required. This would have to make sense in total cost, but installing these kinds of thing to begin with is much less expensive.

Are there any rebates/tax breaks from utility companies for solar power where you live? These can help- but you bring up a big problem for people- the damn cost in retro-fitting.

I have been looking into some DIY hot water heater solar systems that are cost effective and actually not complicated (sun and gravity!). But, this old butch doesn't trust herself going up on the roof anymore.

Most likely, the US will need many sources of power/energy. I just hope we start getting a whole lot smarter about it!

We do need to look at al alternatives, but Japan's island grouping circumfrances is not really a good geographic fit for nuclear power plants- island are not in general- especially in areas with the constant seismic activity and tsunami probablilities (tsunami is from the Japanese language).

Japan as a technological leader and its power needs are difficult due to its size and being a country of islands. So, it chose nuclear as its prime power source. It doesn't have a lot of land mass for something like wind or huge solar panel "fields." It is a country with a lot of people and construction is very vertical. It will be hit many more times by tsunamis in the future and the plants that are in trouble were built in 1979. A lot has been developed since then in terms of plant engineering. They really have a problem in terms of viable energy sources. The US has many more options.

The truth is, if we switched to a more viable option now, our enemies would crush us in a day.

NO
 

~ It's way, way too expensive to build a plant

~ There is no safe long-term storage for the waste, nobody wants it, it lasts too long, etc.

~ We cannot plan for and control all the things that can go wrong

~ No matter how safe the actual process is, the plant is run by humans, who regularly mistakes

AND

~ It can get OUT-OF-CONTROL when we fuck up and the price is way too high.

I think there tends to be a lot of alarmism when it comes to nuclear power. Yeah there have been a handful if even of major accidents that have not ended well, but given that plants have evolved since most of those took place I don't think there is a need to be overly worried. Japan really was a case of an event that was unprecedented in Japanese history as far as the scale of both the tsunami and the earthquake. Yet I was just hearing on the news the other day that it had been revealed that the leak had not been as dangerous/severe as previously thought. Of course we won't know the real effect for a while, but I do think we have the tendency to blow disasters out of proportion at first.

Anyways, given how many nuclear power plants are providing vast areas with electricity the world over today, and given the number of accidents there have been today, I would not be worried.

Ontario has something like 15 or 20 nuclear power plants and, according to the official OPG website, have not had a single mishap in the 40 years that they have been operating these plants. It's not Ontario's sole source of electricity, but apparently nuclear energy can account for up to 50% of Ontario's electricty needs, which I found interesting. Of course Ontario is rather strategically placed so we get a lot of power from hydroelectricity (thank you Niagra Falls lol) as well.

I've no doubt that if governments and related researchers became completely dedicated to making alternative energy a true reality, that it would be possible. Lol, I remember some German students that were shown on the news once who made a functioning car entirely out of biodegradable material and ran it on green energy. Come on, if graduate students can do it, evidently with more money behind it this wouldn't be entirely farfetched.

Weeee!
 

+6987543 cause this post was priceless