Nuclear Power Plants

[Ibanez]

OMG. Why in the hell does ANYONE think that a nuclear power plant is EVER a good idea? I'm surprised that Japan, after having us blow them to hell and back during WWII, would have ever even considered the idea at all. I hope this is a wake up call. Oh yeah, I forgot, BP gets to drill again so how bad could a nuclear power plant in a earthquake zone be?

It would be refreshing to hear from someone who can state accurately what's happening there with the nukes.

What are there? Six out of control reactors?

Calm down...you're buying into all the media scare tactics and hype. Take a minute to think about what happened and how well things have gone considering the hell that was unleashed by the 9.0 quake and the following Tsunami.

[Teatownclown]

I'm more concerned about what they aren't saying and the contortion of true situations. TMI and Chernobyl look small compared to this. Glad I live up air from Russelville .... can you say "new Madrid?"

[Hoss]

Wonder how long THIS incarnation will last before getting the 'boot'...

[Hoss]

I'm more concerned about what they aren't saying and the contortion of true situations. TMI and Chernobyl look small compared to this. Glad I live up air from Russelville .... can you say "new Madrid?"

Really?  The IAEA has placed the accident in Japan at a level 4.  Chernobyl was given a level 7, the highest the IAEA could assign.

The difference here is about 20 years and better containment.  Oh, and catching the problem and actually admitting they had one.  Russia didn't.  At their peril.

[Teatownclown]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/12/japan-ministers-ignored-warnings-nuclear

You are correct Ibanez. Not to worry. They were warned. Let them face the consequences of their decisions.

[Teatownclown]

Breaking News!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/japan-earthquake/4767180/Another-blast-at-nuclear-plant-in-tsunami-devastated-Japan

"BREAKING NEWS: A hydrogen blast has occurred at Fukushima nuclear plant's No. 3 reactor, Kyodo News has reported.

Residents who live near the nuclear plant just south of Sendai have been ordered inside buildings."

They'll need some of that "better containment," Hoss.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Cannon,
Usually you are very close to reality, but obviously haven't been watching the reality of wind AND solar.  I betting the Germans would be stunned, if not outright horrified to know that wind is not a viable alternative.  Since they are at about 10% of their power needs and heading toward 15%.  And running ahead of that in their obviously foolish headlong rush toward solar, too.  They are aiming for about 15% for each before 2020.  AND they are ahead of schedule and on or below budget.

As far as bleeding energy, would you be surprised to know that 30 to 40% of every kw generated in this country is lost to resistive losses in the grid.  But the utilities can't justify the extra wire needed to reduce those numbers.  This has been helped a little bit by moving to higher voltages, mostly in the 375,000 volt range, but some as high as 800,000 in a few places.  Reduces the current for any given kilowatt, leading to fewer loses in the conductor.

I'm betting west Texas and California and Arizona would likely be surprised to know the thousands of windmills they have operating are not practical.  They should not have done that, obviously.

As far as investment - yeah, it is big.  But that is what 'economic activity' is all about, huh?  And what a shame it would be to have a rethinking of anything.  We should just keep on believing what big oil says and be good little girl and boy consumers and just don't worry.  They will take care of us.

Hey, here's an idea - build a two level elevated lake for storage.  Use the available wind to move water when wind electric is available from the lower level to the higher level.  Then when peak demand is needed - or other times when capacity is adequate - let the water out to flow back to the lower level through the generators.  Much like has been done for decades just east of Tulsa off of turnpike 412.


Here is a very conservative calculation for nuclear power done a few years ago, base on a vested interest of wanting nuclear to proliferate.  They said that uranium would have to go to $575 per pound to be "competitive" with oil.  (Which means it is way more than coal.)  And since uranium is now running over that magical number, well, plain old oil is better right now.  If you believe the "Pollyanna" version they present.  If the REAL cost of nuclear is taken into account, added to the fact that easily mined uranium is pretty much gone.  And Russia only has so much left to sell us (the reason uranium has stayed as cheap as it is.)  The gap will only widen.  Unless you think uranium is just spiking now for some reason and will drop back down to $75 per pound real soon.  Oops!  Forgot to add the billions of cost for the plant!!  Sorry!

http://www.uranium-stocks.net/uranium-how-high-could-the-price-go%E2%80%A6576/

Uranium cost as of 2011
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

Plus, can you spell Japan nukes?  (I submit there is NO ONE on this planet that would be more qualified and responsible and likely to be successful at running a nuke than the Japanese.)  But then, there are always acts of God, no matter how competent one is.

Notice in the cost article how costs are about $3,000 per kwH.  Or $3 per watt.  Just about the same as the cost for an installed solar system.  Solar panels are running about a buck and a half per watt.  Install usually nearly doubles the cost so somewhere near the $3 per watt.  Without fuel cost.  Or operating or back end pollution costs.  (Front end - probably comparable.)

[Red Arrow]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/12/japan-ministers-ignored-warnings-nuclear

You are correct Ibanez. Not to worry. They were warned. Let them face the consequences of their decisions.

Are you part of the movement to go back to living in caves, reject heating and air conditioning and live like we did centuries ago? Remember people die from exposure to extreme heat and cold and frequently died young centuries ago compared to now.

[Red Arrow]

I'm more concerned about what they aren't saying and the contortion of true situations. TMI and Chernobyl look small compared to this. Glad I live up air from Russelville .... can you say "new Madrid?"

Are you aware that a typical coal fired plant releases more radiation than a nuclear plant?  They do because they are not regulated not to. TMI was a small deal in that the containment system worked.  I will agree that storage of spent fuel is an issue.  Breeder reactors offer a potential solution but are too intimidating to the general public.

[custosnox]

Breaking News!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/japan-earthquake/4767180/Another-blast-at-nuclear-plant-in-tsunami-devastated-Japan

"BREAKING NEWS: A hydrogen blast has occurred at Fukushima nuclear plant's No. 3 reactor, Kyodo News has reported.

Residents who live near the nuclear plant just south of Sendai have been ordered inside buildings."

They'll need some of that "better containment," Hoss.

Now I'm curious, what do you think would happen with our refineries here if we were hit with an 8.9 earthquake?  Yet you don't seem to be worried about the  dangers of that.  Trying to compare nuclear reactors to Chernobyl to anything today is simply trying to force a past disaster to fit into your idea of something no matter how far off it is.

[heironymouspasparagus]

We have become completely and totally complacent about oil - we even go so far as to just dump billions of gallons of it on the ground.  And have for a couple hundred years.  Mix in a little gravel and we are deluded into thinking we got a road!

Red,
Come on... don't get on the bandwagon of just jumping to the most extreme position (even if it may well be the end result!).  We DO live in caves.  But they are air conditioned.  And much more easily damaged by tornadoes than the ones of millenia ago.  And we could be getting more than a couple percent of our energy usage from solar and wind.  A reasonable target being 30% as demonstrated by Germany.

And cost effectively, too.

[Red Arrow]

We have become completely and totally complacent about oil - we even go so far as to just dump billions of gallons of it on the ground.  And have for a couple hundred years.  Mix in a little gravel and we are deluded into thinking we got a road!

Red,
Come on... don't get on the bandwagon of just jumping to the most extreme position (even if it may well be the end result!).  We DO live in caves.  But they are air conditioned.  And much more easily damaged by tornadoes than the ones of millenia ago.  And we could be getting more than a couple percent of our energy usage from solar and wind.  A reasonable target being 30% as demonstrated by Germany.

And cost effectively, too.

Just testing the waters.  Some folks arbitrarily jump on present technology without considering the real consequences.  Sure, develop wind and solar but recognize that they too have limitations.  I kind of remember a big move to eliminate petro products in the NW USA possibly a few decades ago now. The environmentally correct move to burn wood resulted in more pollution than the petroleum processes.  I hate it when a fad becomes law and then demonstrates the law of unintended consequences.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The rest of the world has embraced both wind and solar NOT as a replacement for oil - that is the BIG LIE that the Murdochian Cabal is foisting on us - but to supplement and enhance.  NO one would argue that 30% of energy usage is going to eliminate oil, but it will cut imports.  It will help balance of trade deficits.  It will incidently help pollution - even taking into account the manufacture of solar cells and wind generators.  It will spur economic activity in manufacturing - look at that HUGE barn up by Tiger Switch in north east Tulsa that is churning out towers.  And the propeller plant in Gainesville TX that is making blades for windmills.  They come through Tulsa from time to time.

And nukes have NEVER been economically viable compared to oil or natural gas, or coal - even if we required coal to be cleaned up!

Which brings to mind the question that should be asked by every American in every discussion about energy.  Why don't we have fusion reactors yet?  Simple question.  We have been told by the "experts" - the same people in bed with big oil - that a practical fusion reactor is "20 years away".  Well, if we would spend more that $18.36 on development every year - as compared to the Billions (yes, with a capital B) that we fund fission nukes with every year - we would have been there about 1986.  So the question ya gotta ask yourself is, "Why?"

Well, it provides extremely inexpensive, widely available power in an extremely environmentally friendly format/footprint.  The waste byproduct is clean (distilled) water.  Think of the disruption this would cause to the powers-that-be structure in the world.  Massive.  And chaotic - they would lose their hold on much of that power (not electric, but political).

As they would with 30% (or more) solar and wind.  You got a power (electrical, not political) system right on your house.  You are less dependent, hence less controllable.  What really puzzles me is why the more "libertarian" minded haven't jumped on this with both feet.  Makes no sense until you factor in the Murdoch Kool Aid.  They buy it.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And here is a little more direct information about cost of fission nuke.
About $7 billion each, when all the smoke clears (and radiation leakage dies down??)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

[Townsend]

Wonder how long THIS incarnation will last before getting the 'boot'...

Not sure which one you mean but I'm betting it's a Santa impersonator.