First US Nuclear Power Plant License since Early '90s

To our children's children's children's children,

Sorry We couldn't think of anything else.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/us/tennessee-nuclear-power-plant/

 

Thank goodness someone is doing something about global warming!

 

Yeah, the trouble is that you're left with all this.

Radionuclides associated with the fission process. None of these occur naturally on earth, without nuclear fission:

technetium-99, carbon-14, iodine-129, tritium, cesium-137, strontium-90, nickel-59,
plutonium-241, nickel-63, niobium-94, cobalt-60, curium-242, americium-241,
uranium-238, and neptunium-237.

All are dangerous, and can even be lethal, both in large and small doses. Long-term containment cannot be guaranteed. Proliferation of nuclear wastes is a bad idea, unless you hate your children, grandchildren, great grand-children, great-great...

 

Breeder reactor: problem solved.

Why won't you help save the earth instead of thinking of excuses on why we have to die of heat because of global warming?

 

What is rarely mentioned in this debate is that coal produces even more waste than nuclear.
Here is a referenece http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/waste#.WHKs6Bt9670

 

It is often mentioned. I don't see anti-nuclear people arguing for coal. That is a straw man.

However, climate change aside, coal only has relatively short-term consequences.

 

There is nothing that will make you Hamilton liberals happy.

 

Here are two of my problems with nuclear: Firstly, a nuclear plant could easily be overpowered by terrorists. If well planned with knowledgeable people, they could intentionally create a runaway. Yet even right after 911, we saw videos of guards at nuclear plants sleeping on the job!

Beyond that, consider why Fukushima happened. Budget cuts led to a sea wall that was just a little too short to prevent catastrophe. Had they built the wall to meet the well-known threat of tsunamis in that area, the plant never would have been in trouble.

Secondly, the idiots put the emergency generators below flood level in a room that wasn't water tight. Recall that the loss of emergency power is what caused the crisis.

So the meltdown was not only forseable but completely preventable. It happened because of the nature of business.

It's not that in principle nuclear power can't be made safe. To me that is irrelevant either way. The problem that I see, speaking as one who has spent 25 years in industry, nuclear power won't be made safe. Mistakes and oversights like the ones in Japan will occur again. It is a certainty. And losing an entire city, and who knows how much of the surrounding area, possibly forever in practical terms, is a price too high.

Factor the cost of one disaster into the price of nuclear power, and it would never be affordable.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hanford-nuclear-cleanup-problems/

 

Not quite so simple as the pundits say it is...

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-terrorism/reprocessing-nuclear-waste#.WHMTwIWcHmS

 

I'm not here to defend coal, but the waste associated with nuclear power is much more dangerous. For example, the Exclusion Zone around Chernobyl is 1000 sq. miles, contaminated by Cesium (and others). Many of the US nuclear plants are in heavily populated areas (i.e. East Coast). Take the distance from Washington,DC to Baltimore, a 20-mile-wide alley, and you're talking about a lot of displaced people, and disruptions in travel thoroughfares, etc. It would be devastating to the US, it's economy, and our quality of life.

 

Name calling? Is that your response? Truth-be-told, liberals are of mixed opinions on this issue.

 

Actually coal is far more dangerous. With coal you get serious air pollution. Just check what has happened in China http://thoughtcatalog.com/james-hal...ution-problem-that-will-make-your-skin-crawl/.

China Air Pollution Kills 4,000 People a Day: Researchers
How many people has nuclear power killed since 1946?

Every developed country needs cheap, base load electricity. A country can use coal, nuclear and maybe gas. Other forms do not come close. Hydro would be good, but there is a limit to how much can be used. Hence my post above is not a strawman. You need to compare one form of electricity generation with another.

 

Con Ed releases a lot of carbon to light broadway.

 

Who needs coal when we will have a vast surplus of natural gas? In fact, with fracking, coal won't even be competitive with natural gas.

Coal is Straw man.

The real irony with Trump's position on this. His promises to the coal workers are total bull. He will put them out of business with fracking.

 

Why is it that the French can do it but Americans can't?

 

Fracking releases vast amounts of CO2. Not really a good alternative to coal.

 

Trump is doing it anyway. That is part of his energy plan.

The benefit is a lot of cheap natural gas and petroleum products. Coal is toast.

The down side, for the next 4 years we will make negative progress on the climate. In fact, at some point we go over a cliff. Hopefully there is still time left before we hit the tipping point. We just don't know.

 

Reference to the above.....

My research indicates otherwise:

https://energyindepth.org/national/sierra-club-admits-fracking-has-helped-lower-co2-emissions-2/

 

Of course this ignores that fracking drives down the price of oil, which reduces efforts for alternatives and makes it more difficult for alternatives to compete, so we emit far more CO2 and toxins through the use of gasoline and diesel, and extend the lifespan of the oil industry. So it is a huge net negative. Right now, biodiesel from carbon-neutral sources is about $5 a gallon. If the price of crude were higher, we might be switching over to alternative sources right now.

It all comes down to the price at the pump.

The fate of the world may hinge on a difference $1-$2 a gallon.

 

I can produce more links than you that say otherwise
http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...nhouse-gas-emissions-study-says-a6928126.html

https://skepticalscience.com/frackingandCO2.html

 

First, methane is not CO2. You claimed that "Fracking releases vast amounts of CO2." The second quote proves my point. So, you are wrong on both points. Please try again.

 

Renewables, in conjunction with pumped water storage, which is 85% efficient (much better than batteries) is very promising for base-load electricity. Once pumped uphill, hydroelectric can be used. Goldman Sachs, who has invested much in wind farms, is investing $150 Billion in clean energy.

http://fortune.com/2015/11/02/goldman-sachs-clean-energy/

 

If you read the UCS document, you will realize that the French are only producing more plutonium and uranium fuel with their reprocessing. Their process actually produces more tonnage of radioactive waste than they start with...

 

Just re read my second link. This says that the decrease in CO2 emission levels are because of improved efficiency, decrease in demand and moving away from coal and to gas.It says that gas may be better than coal but is not the answer to CO2 emitions.

Pumping water uphill would be good. The main problem with it is that it cannot be used everywhere. One problem is that you need large quantities of water moved over a large height. For example a 1kg weight moved 100 meters will give 1KJ.