Nukes are forever. They become a legacy once built. You don’t just abandon them and walk away when a better alternative is found. They are a facility that you don’t leave decommissioned without concern. They require care and monitoring forever even when not producing energy. How many of these cheap and easy fixes do you want doting out landscape and in our neighborhoods.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.htmlt
These things are referred to as a “legacy site”. Pretty much a debt after decommissioning we incur forever. Talk about a burden we leave o our grandchildren ?
There are supposedly processes to accelerate the breakdown and decay of nuclear byproducts,rendering them inert.Cant find the information right now,I know chemical processes cant do this,we are probaly heading over to Quantum land.Before anyone says nay,what does a fission bomb or nuclear reactor do?-Kevin
I am currently paying $0.062/KWh. Does that equal $61/MWH?
You live in a low electric rate area…Some area’s in NH are paying $0.14 (or higher) kwh.
The replies on this thread would suggest that nobody here likes nuclear, but there’s disagreement on whether it is the only vable option…or whether it should be considered the only viable option. I’m not convinced that something that has proven itself to be so destructive, and we now have actual cases, so it’s no longer “potentially” destructive, should even be considered an option. I respect that other very intelligent, caring people have thought deeply on this also and feel that it’s the only viable option, but I cannot in good conscience subject my future generations to the legacy that nuclear power will leave. As Dag pointed out, nukes are forever. Nor can I in good conscience subject current humans to what happened in Japan and Chernoble…and it WILL happen again. It’s inevitable.
I agree with mountainbike, as I usually do, but…then there is the question of how France–which has derived most of its electricity from nuclear plants for several decades–has compiled such an excellent safety record with its nuclear plants.
Ultimately, the biggest problem is still the disposal/safe storage of spent fuel rods, but at least France has shown that it is possible to operate these plants safely.
The energy sources with the least environmental impact are likely to be wind and tide-powered generators. While the windmills are definitely unsightly (and reportedly very noisy, thus making them impractical for placement near homes), tide-powered generators don’t seem to be a blight either visually or in terms of noise levels.
Kevin “There are supposedly processes to accelerate the breakdown and decay of nuclear byproducts,rendering them inert.”
There is…one way is called a nuclear bomb. Unfortunately it destroys the surrounding area and spreads the radiation outward to other material. Knowing that the higher level wastes from fuel rods are now on their way to becoming weapons grade material by reprocessing, or even if just used in conventional bombs to spread radiation, gives me pause. You know my feeling on gun control and how “opportunity” is THE major contributor to criminal behavior. I just find that increasing the amount of this radioactive material, does as well…It must be guarded by the central govt. or other agencies immune from economic gain…and we know how many of you feel about the govt.
France may have an enviable safety record in operation, for now. I wonder about the use of that material later. We have spent the last decade debasing the French and the rest of Europe for their ineptitude. Can we now hold them up as a model for security of nuclear wastes ? A little hypocrisy is creeping in if we all jump on that band wagon as a reason to support nuclear energy.
I agree with mountainbike, as I usually do, but...then there is the question of how France--which has derived most of its electricity from nuclear plants for several decades--has compiled such an excellent safety record with its nuclear plants.
In the US…nuclear power plants are one-offs. They are all custom made. In france there are just a few designs…so there aren’t as many unknowns every time a plant was built. In the US…there were tens of thousands of unknowns each and every plant.
No matter how good a job we do designing them, and no matter how good the integrity of the organization, we cannot control natural events such as earthquakes, tsunamis, major electrical storms and tornados, nor can we control attacks by hostile enemies and terrorists. Imagine, if you will, if they’d aimed that second plane on 9/11 at an operating nuclear power plant rather than at the Pentagon.
Sincere respects and prayers to those victims that died at the Pentagon and to their families, as well as all those who died on and because of 9/11. I offer the scenerio only to illustrate a point.
From 1800 to the present, the world population has grown from 1 billion to 9 billion. At that rate the demand for energy, food and water will result in some world wide debacle during this century. War, epidemics, starvation, or most likely a combination of those dilemmas will likely reduce what Scrooge called “the surplus population.” I am hopeful that the industrialized nations make reducing their populations a top priority and make an effort to help 3d world nations to do the same. Leaders must recognize that future prosperity does not require growth. Much of the stampede for resources is based on projected population growth. Why is it that only the Chinese publicly recognize the problem.
@RodKnox You can’t seperate population growth from economic and energy growth. Most European countries now have stable populations; Russia even has a declining population.
However many third world countries and most Muslim countries are population bombs. All these people have to eat and will use energy. India’s population will exceed that of China in the near future.
A few years back, a professor with TENURE was asked to give the graduation address at a Catholic College. His theme (not pre-announced) was that Western Countries should put all their foreign aid into family planning and birth control!!! You can only say thesee things when you have tenure.
US foreign aid specifically forbids spending on familiy planning and birth control. All that money spent on current projects usually does not catch up to the population growth.
It’s true that the world can support more people, but at some stage there will be a significant drop in the quality of life worldwide; it’s already occurring in many poor countries.
And in poor households.
“His theme (not pre-announced) was that Western Countries should put all their foreign aid into family planning and birth control!!!”
The Philippines, which is an overwhelmingly Catholic nation, has traditionally had a poverty problem, chiefly because of the incredibly high birth rate among its poorest citizens. Most educated people observing the situation in that country were quick to note that a reduced birth rate would enable many families to live at a higher standard, but the Catholic Church condemned these views because of its core beliefs.
Well, apparently, times have changed, because just this month, the Philippine Congress passed–and the President signed–The Reproductive Health Act, which, for the first time will enable poor people to obtain birth control if they wish it, at no cost or very low cost. Nobody is forced to use birth control, but those who desire it will be able to obtain it readily. Public Health Nurses will fan out in the poorer areas to educate people about what can be done to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
I say that times have changed because almost all of the members of their Congress are Roman Catholic, as is their president. The Archbishop of The Philippines is NOT happy, but he will have to deal with the reality that the majority in their Congress has recognized one of the problems that has held that country back over the years.
The Catholic Church is NOT against a reduced birth rate, only on how most family planning groups achieve that goal, birth control pills and abortion. The Catholic church is OK with abstinence, although that isn’t very effective.
BTW, India’s population bomb may be somewhat diffused as now, many pregnant women abort their female babies. The dowery system is becoming way too expensive to have a girl in India. I heard that the birth rate is now 10:1 boys to girls.
“The Catholic Church is NOT against a reduced birth rate, only on how most family planning groups achieve that goal, birth control pills and abortion.”
Yes, you are correct. What I should have added in my previous post was that these consultants/observers recommended that birth control be made more widely available, and at low or no cost, to the very poor.
"The Catholic church is OK with abstinence, although that isn’t very effective."
Well, if it was a realistic approach for adults, The Philippines would not have the over-population problem that is holding it back!
If birth control is made more available, abortions should become very rare.
Mike, Yes, $0.062/kWH is the same as $62/MWH, your rates are below the national average of around $85/MWH. I was referring to what the utility pays for the power, not what they sell it for. The highest rates that utilities pay for power is in the southwest. The Mojave area of California pays the most, despite the fact that they have the worlds largest solar plant and many wind farms. The problem is that the solar farm and most of the wind farms belong to the Los Angeles utility district so Mojave has to buy power on the open market.
Barkydog, I don’t understand your question.
VDCdriver, have you ever been to the Philippines? It is a beautiful country. It is too bad they can’t get their politics in order as it would be a great place for ecotourism. When the US Navy pulled out of the Subic Bay Naval Station and Cubi Point, they left behind what could have been a world class resort, arguably the best resort in the world. Mt. Pinatubo buried it in ash, but that could have been cleaned up.
keith–Regardless of the Pinatubo eruption, beach resorts in The Philippines are now the go-to destination for affluent folks from all over the Asian continent. In fact, last year, Travel & Leisure magazine named Boracay island the best beach resort in the world.
You can read a little bit about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boracay
No, I have not been to that island nation yet, but I have some Filipino friends, so I am fairly knowledgeable about the politics and social aspects of The Philippines. Besides its very high birth rate, the other factor that has held them back over the years is the consistent history of government corruption at all levels.
However, President Aquino does seem to be committed to rooting out corruption, and–in fact–The Chief Justice of their Supreme Court was impeached and convicted for accepting bribes/selling justice last year!
This is almost without precedent in that country. That event, coupled with ethics standards for police and other officials, is beginning to change things in that country.
The Philippines is blessed with incredible natural resources, including mineral and petroleum deposits that have not been tapped. Once that process–which is now under way–gains steam, that country has the potential to emerge with a new-found status.
@VDCdriver
Abortions are lower where there is more education on options both before and after pregnancy, and support for mothers. This takes money and few conservatives is willing to spend money, ever that doesn’t go directly back into their own poket. About the only birth control measure conservatives agree upon is to have volunteers hiding behind rocks, and at the appropriate time, jump up and yell " cut that out ! ".
And I thought the approved birth control for conservatives was the birth control pill…ow.