Nuclear Power Plants

[Red Arrow]

On so many other things they've gone off the freakin' rails it's sad. I'd quite honestly like to have a choice, ...

I am not overly thrilled with many of the Republican offerings either.  I am even less thrilled with the Democatic Party offerings. 

The way folks complain about candidates winning an election with less than 50% of the popular vote, I don't see a system with a plurality among many candidates ever gaining acceptance in the US without a run-off election to get a majority.

[Teatownclown]

In Japan Reactor Failings, Danger Signs for the U.S

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/world/asia/18japan.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2


Yep Nate.....50's technology...we've been lucky so far....luck don't last.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Losing 50s technology would mean going to fusion rather than fission.
But that would mean way too much energy at way too low a cost to continue the price/power ratios we have today.

[Red Arrow]

Losing 50s technology would mean going to fusion rather than fission.
But that would mean way too much energy at way too low a cost to continue the price/power ratios we have today.

I  believe fusion would still require a massive dose of research time & money to make a sustainable, controllable reaction suitable for power generation (as compared to a bomb).

[godboko71]

Losing 50s technology would mean going to fusion rather than fission.
But that would mean way too much energy at way too low a cost to continue the price/power ratios we have today.

No there are other options:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Please note I didn't want to use wikipedia but for the life of me I can't remember the name of the Magazine I read about it first.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Red,
And yet we continue to subsidize fission to the tune of many billions while "researching" fusion to the tune of many millions. 

To paraphrase AT & T commercial; Makes all the sense in the world, if you don't think about it.

And like so many other industries mentioned previously, like solar and wind, we have engaged in our "protection of the existing industries" while others in the world move forward.  ITER is being built.  In France.  With our nominal participation, to be sure, but WITHOUT serious contribution on our behalf.

Again, it just "doesn't make economic sense" ---- to let cheap abundant power become a reality.  I can just hear the moaning, gnashing of teeth, and wringing of hands from the captains of industry if such a thing were to become available.  While China will watch in the background and as soon as practical, will embrace, enhance, implement and benefit from the work we so casually participate in.

Philo (inventor of electronic TV) did some serious work in 1927 with this stuff.  Would anyone seriously advance the notion that in 90 years, with the advancements we have made in every other topic that we have been serious about, we could not be further along??  Yeah...riiiggghhhhttttttt!!!!!!

Wiki is your friend;   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

[nathanm]

I  believe fusion would still require a massive dose of research time & money to make a sustainable, controllable reaction suitable for power generation (as compared to a bomb).

The DOE has finally managed to hit breakeven in one of their research reactors. Now they just have to figure out how to get the heat into water or something to make steam and make it more commercial and less mad scientist. If we had made this a funding priority over the last 20 years, early fusion reactors would probably be online today.

Sort of like how if we hadn't canceled the SSC we probably would have found the Higgs boson by now.

[Teatownclown]

 This is worth 10 mins. Then you'll hope that other clown is correct about the world ending Saturday.

[Conan71]

Citing a pediatrician on nukes?  Really?

She appears to have a bad habit of blaming everything on radiation including children being born naked.

No one seems to have any sort of credible account of how many have died as a result of Chernobyl.  Why is it information like this only seems to appear on fringe news sites and not MSM?

[Red Arrow]

No one seems to have any sort of credible account of how many have died as a result of Chernobyl.  Why is it information like this only seems to appear on fringe news sites and not MSM?

Not enough dead people?

[heironymouspasparagus]

No there are other options:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Please note I didn't want to use wikipedia but for the life of me I can't remember the name of the Magazine I read about it first.

For every design that has come down the pike, there has been claims about how "THIS" one will solve all the problems.  Until the main problem is found.  

Estimates for Chernobyl deaths range from 47 to 985,000.  Wonder which number is desperately promoted by the powers that be??  The ones supporting many more nukes maybe??

All that completely misses the main issues - first the FACT that uranium is very much running out.  It IS a scarce resource and becoming more so.  The artificial low prices of recent years are due to disassembly of Russian nuke bombs.  When that runs out, so does the cheap uranium...oops!  Already there!

[sauerkraut]

I dunno why we can't expand the use of natural gas, we have something like almost 3 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas and we have started to export some of it at long last. We have natural gas up the wazoo. Let's have cars that run on gasoline & natural gas. Nuke power has too many drawbacks Uranium is hard to find, nuke waste is a major problem plus the risk of some accident. We can use clean buring cheap natural gas.

[Gaspar]

I dunno why we can't expand the use of natural gas, we have something like almost 3 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas and we have started to export some of it at long last. We have natural gas up the wazoo. Let's have cars that run on gasoline & natural gas. Nuke power has too many drawbacks Uranium is hard to find, nuke waste is a major problem plus the risk of some accident. We can use clean buring cheap natural gas.

+1

Here's your answer:

As long as the exploitation of any energy source is tied to profit, it will not be looked upon favorably by liberals.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And then ya gotta ask why subsidize all those 'profitable' enterprises with our tax money??
Nukes, oil, natural gas, ethanol....

Fusion would provide the profit and would also give plentiful (infinite in our frame of reference), clean, non-polluting electricity at reasonable rates.  Unless you count pure water as a pollutant....

[Teatownclown]

Tepco Says Fuel Rods Melted Down in Two More Reactors at Fukushima Plant

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-24/tepco-confirms-meltdown-of-no-2-3-reactors-at-fukushima-1-.html

Matching worse-case scenarios....so much for those TNF posties pushing nukes. Run aways?