Occam wrote:


Agreed.

As for the danger of nuclear plants, we need to remember that coal kills people too, it just does it less dramatically. Coal miners die every year, and the pollution from burning coal kills people too. There is no free lunch.

These 40 year old reactors needed to be updated (storing spent rods inside the reactor is a very bad idea and we don't do it that way anymore) and that wasn't done.

So while this is indeed a catastrophe, I'm not sure we should be pulling the plug on nuclear energy. It still might be the safest, cleanest source of energy we have today.

I am sure this thread on Nuclear Energy will go on as long as the disaster remains in Japan. In all the previous comments did not see one sympathy for the Japanese people. They have and will have a long healing process. That being said I thought it was crass for the EPA to release their comments on Energy today. Never let a disaster go to waste to enhance your political agenda I say. Is anyone surprised that a few days after the Japan disaster Obama PR brings out this rule? I am not. From the day one Obama has used every disaster, Japan, BP, Libya, to raise the cost of fossil fuels and gasoline. IT IS HIS PLAN TO BRING ABOUT WIND AND SOLAR POWER. HE FORGOT THAT HIS RULES UNDERCUT 70% OF OUR ENERGY OUTPUT of coal and Nuclear. Remember the cap and trade fiasco? Was/is a scam. Only negative I can see on the Nuclear issue is that in California you would think they would be smarter to put a nuclear plant on a fault line. Hello,guess they want nuclear radiation to keep them warm when the next earthquake comes. HMMM? When a nuclear plant implodes we get instant radiation. When we blow up a coal plant we get a little soot. I guess you can make your choice.

I'm not sure what comments you're referring to, but I heard on the radio that there would be a review of all US nuclear facilities "in light of" the Japan experience.

I was wondering if that would bother people. For myself, I decided that I'd be pretty upset if we didn't do that. We learn from mistakes, wherever they happen. If it results in some regulations that companies don't like, and increases energy costs, that is a fantastic tradeoff IMO.

Maybe you are referring to something else, though.

Are there problems with Nuclear Power here in the U.S. and elsewhere? Damn right. But I can assure everyone, when a part as small as a washer or nut fails at one plant, ANYWHERE, no matter who owns it, the entire industry is alerted and those parts that are in other power plants are replaced.

Just like an aircraft manufacturer, if something goes wrong they ground the entire fleet.

All information about the mechanical and operation of these plants is shared. Every morning we have OE (Operational Experience) briefs that point out flaws or mistakes made previously.

When we work on a specific system or device, we review prior work or mods information so that it is done better than the last time.

I personally favor more plants that are smaller, providing power in a much smaller grid. If something goes wrong it can be contained within a small area. It also would require less revamping of the existing grid, the power is made local, it stays local, rather than providing power hundreds of miles away.
Smaller plants would also mean much smaller problems, less people to evacuate if necessary, less area effected by power loss.

God Bless the people of Japan and those affected by this disaster.

upnort wrote:


I've already sent personal sympathies and encouragement to my friends and colleagues living in Japan, and made other contributions to charitable organizations of my choice. I see no reason to voice empty words in this forum.

This thread is about nuclear energy.

Upnort wrote:


Your observation might have some credibility if Obama had used the disaster to come out against nuclear. But to the contrary he reaffirmed his support of nuclear as a neccesary part of our energy mix at a time when people are particularly concerned about the dangers involved - his support includes some public funding for new plants.

WSJ wrote:

online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487...200973216100488.html
www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-14/oba...quake-aftermath.html


At the same time it is a good time to get authorities interested in reviewing safety policies and performance in light of the disaster in Japan. Long periods of inattention and accident free operation breed complacency. Failure to take heed from the Japan experience would be foolish.
www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/03/18/18clima...12.html?pagewanted=2

I agree with the Presidents approach to nuclear. The problem with nuclear is that it is too expensive and risky both environmentally and financially to build new plants, so the business community is not very interested in building plants unless the government takes on some of the financial risk. Cap and Trade would have made nuclear a more attractive option if it had passed, but that died with the bill. I am not a fan of nuclear but accept it for the time being as a part of our energy mix, hopefully in 20 years it will become apparent that we no longer need to build them and can slowly start shutting them down. But till then cross your fingers.

Speaking of financial risks, who thinks this disaster could be a Black Swan event that triggers a double dip recession? If not, what if a radioactive plume had drifted over Tokyo making it unihabitable for a hundred years, the global financial impact would be huge. More than enough to scare away investors that are already nervous about the recovery.

Occam wrote:


Making Tokyo uninhabitable for 100 years is very unlikely as you know. People are living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today with no ill effects, and it's only been what, 65 years? Not to mention the chain of events (meltdown, wind direction, rain) required to actually deliver a high dose to any area outside a pretty small radius.

Japan is the world's 3rd largest economy, there is no way we are going to escape significant impacts from this, both real and imagined. This and the middle-east anarchy could very well cause if not a double-dip, at least prolonged stagnation. I hope they (Congress) leave things alone this time and don't use this as an excuse for another porkulus, but that's getting off-topic again.

I don't want to glow in the dark either, but like everything our media scares the crap out of people and incites fear way beyond what's rational. We all receive very low levels of radiation every day from natural deposits in the earth, the suns rays, xrays, etc. No reason to panic unless you are within a good bike ride of watching the meltdown live in person.

With 35 year old reactors in MN I hope they take a long look at safety issues. And the Japanese people are experiencing a horrible national disaster but they are pulling together as a nation to take care of it.

You can buy land real cheap in Chernobyl.

Of course it is very unlikely if you pick a particular city, but it is not unlikely that at least one city around the globe will become uninhabitable due to a nuclear accident in the next few decades and vast regions will be affected at some smaller but significant level. We still don't know where this disaster will end.

The more plants around the globe the more likely an accident.

online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487...225961395484904.html

The amount of fissile material in the "bombs" is a fraction of what lies in these plants and halflives differ making no easy comparison with a future accident of whose dimensions we can only speculate.

We have much better sand piles than the Russians had around Chernobyl. Don't confuse Apples with Rutabagas, please!