America’s nuclear revival

Absolutely! Nuclear energy has been used safely and successfully the world around for decades. If we need to review actual data and the experiences of others to convince ourselves we in America can do likewise, all we need to do is ask the French, Japanese, Germans, etc. etc. This is also an area ripe for R&D, for example spent fuel reprocessing, breeder reactors, not to mention the Holy Grail of Nuclear Energy – Nuclear Fusion.

Ernest J. Sternglass of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Monday’s keynote speaker, read his paper, “The Health Effects of Nuclear Fallout and Releases from Nuclear Power Plants.”

He said studies in the north central Texas area indicate large increases in cancer rates since the start-up of the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant in Somervell County southwest of Fort Worth.

The Texas Cancer Center and the Texas Department of Health compared statistics for the first five years of the plant’s operation, 1990 to 1994, to the previous five-year period, 1985 to 1989.

Dr. Sternglass said the data indicates that cancer mortality in the counties surrounding the power plant – Somervell, Hood, Johnson and Erath – increased dramatically, 27 percent, during the second five-year period while the rate for the state increased 15 percent for the same period.

In Hood County, breast cancer increased 190 percent over the previous five-year period, and total breast cancer deaths for all four counties increased by 51 percent while the statewide increase was 12 percent for the same period.

Dr. Sternglass said the cancer rate for children ages 5 to 9 was very low before 1945, one case in 10,000, even in states such as Texas that have high rates of chemical pollution because of the oil and gas industry. The rate has since climbed to 100 in 10,000, “overwhelming evidence” of the link between childhood cancer and radiation, he said.

The partial meltdown in 1979 at Pennsylvania nuclear plant Three Mile Island, which released radiation into the air, resulted in the premature deaths of about 50,000 people, Dr. Sternglass said, despite the government’s claim that no one died as a result of the accident. He said a study of the increase in death rates showed a direct relation between the death rate and proximity to the plant.

In total, Dr. Sternglass estimates that 19 million adults have died prematurely and that an additional million children have died as a result of radiation in the air from nuclear bomb tests, nuclear plant accidents and radiation released into the atmosphere from power plants.

Would you want nuclear waste stored in a capsule in your body? Why would we create waste like this that we know is dangerous and lasts for longer than any of us and think that storing it somewhere makes it not exist anymore.

In a hundred years how many storage facilities must we have to deal with this mess.

I live in a place that has the toxic mess of our ancestors laying all around. They thought it didn’t matter. Now here I sit in it.

If you want nuclear power find a way to make it not have a waste product.

Find something that wants to eat the waste and create some other kind of beneficial product!!

Wide spread Nuclear power is enevitable.I am glad to see a renewed interest in this form of power.The same people that whine about the dangers of Nuclear power generation are the same percent of people who whine and cry about the pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels and the building of new dams for hydro electric power.
Will there be some problems and maybe a “nuclear accident” of some kind, sooner or later…I would venture to say yes…but it is the risk we have to take because it is the most energy efficient means of power we have.
I figure it will be good for about 100 to maybe 200 years and by then…us clever humans will have figured out a way to harness the Suns energy and no need for Nuclear power generation.
I also believe the nuclear power industry will discover creative new ways to utilise the various forms of Uranium and Uranium’s by products to the benifit of everyone.
Nuclear power does not bother me and never has and when you read the track record of the industry you learn it’s application is a lot safer than all the unhealthy fliuds and gaseous substance we handle and breath and live in proximity with everyday.
The logistics of the whole industry are not without question and the mining and extraction end of the logistics is more of a concern than the final use of the uranium product for Nuclear power.
But, I can undrstand peoples concern and the fact is the material is dangerous so it does have to be continually monitered and the safety factor has to be taken very seriously…there is always room for improvement and I would surmize the public at large just wants to sleep content, knowing the industry is well organised and as safe as we can make it while continually striving to make it better.

I’m sorry, but anything that can kill me and everyone else without us even knowing it is too much of a risk. For some reason the terrorists haven’t targeted nuke sites. If they ever do, it’s a HUNDRED-YEAR-PLUS cleanup.

Nuclear power is the safest and cleanest forms of energy available. Its waste that everyone is so afraid of, is easily stored and contained. With proper shielding and containers, it can be stored for 100’s of years safely. Bury it in my back yard, and ill still get less radiation exposure in my life than you will flying across country once due to the buried spent material. Further, look at technology and what the spent fuel can be used for, i guarantee its a lot more than spent oil or coal can be used for.

The comments regarding Three Mile Island and Chernoyble are unfounded and shows a lack of knowledge on nuclear power, testing, and exactly what happened. Nobody was hurt at TMI, and there was NO meltdown. There are many PBS videos with plenty of expert testimony that will attest to this FACT.

Saftey concerns and managing concerns? Take a long hard look at the Atomic Energy Act and the folks that dedicate thier lives to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the rules they implement regarding operation of plants, records required, and training requirement.

Did you know the US Navy operates over a hundred nuclear reactors a day with no incidents to date? Seems like those folks trained to operate those plants know what we are doing, and so do the civilians that do the same job ashore. By the way, did you know most Nuclear operators ashore are former Nuclear operators from the Navy? I think the folks hired to run the plants are more than qualified and more than safe doing thier job.

Is nuclear power the way to go? Yes. Does it take the money back from the middle east oil millionaires and put it back into good American pockets? Absolutely.

I have been working in the nuclear industry for over 20 years. It is one of the safest, most regulated, occupations I have ever seen. I have hundreds of friends who feel the same as I do. The nuclear industry has been a great career and I wouldn’t change a thing if I had to do it all over again.

For those interested in further information about re-usuing spent fuel, check out: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

Note: Liquid lead can be used instead of sodium (the Russians developed a grade of steel that handles molten lead).
Also note: A higher efficiency plant would use CO2 in a heat exchanger with liquid sodium or lead, spin a turbine, and the excess heat would be used to run a steam generator to turn another turbine. This is known as a “combined cycle” plant, and has an estimated efficiency of +45% – much better than the 33% typically seen.

Yes. we should go completely nuclear. The spent fuel has alot of reusable by-products that can be reprocessed. We have current state-of-the-art technology to do so, else it’s foolish and wasteful to just let it sit while we keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which has slowed down the earths natural cooling trend. Our coral reefs, rainforests and crops arealreadysuffering theadverse affects. Plus it would be a job boon. The radiological concerns have been exhagerated fueled by fear ignorance and scare tactics. We need to think with our heads not irrational fears.
We look like the laughing stock to the world, a super power that’s affraid of its own nuclear power. The terrorist threads are constantly being monitored, so as to minimise their threats.

Anything but oil Einstine said donot do this mabey these men are smarter

There is no question that emissions-wise nuclear energy is as clean as you can get but what do you do with the spent rods? And just how do we make sure that nuclear plants are maintained properly? Until those questions are resolved, nuclear is not a great option – and it’s very expensive.

My company makes fuel cells that make clean energy and pose none of the risks that nuclear plants do. Fuel cells can be placed close to where electricity is needed so they are also a great way to relieve grid congestion. The materials that are “spent” are recycled so there is no disposal problem. This is a much better solution than nuclear power plants.

There are nuke technologies out there that put to rest the age old question of what to do with the spent fuel.

http://www.eskom.co.za/nuclear_energy/pebble_bed/pebble_bed.html is a good link to read up on, if you want to become a little more educated on the matter.

YES. It’s worked for years in Europe without incident. It’s clean and safe. Nut jobs like Wasserman are 30 years out of date. It’s the only solution to our energy needs.

Do you want Nuclear waste stored in your city or town?

Seeing I actually know the risks of nuclear power and waste, I’d be willing to have it stored in my back yard.

Should we give nuclear power a chance? Could it solve global warming???? What kind of a question is that. What you should ask is do you care about the planet we live on or do you want to prolong your own life? Polution is polution whiether it floats in the air or you try to burry it in a giant salt hole. People should wise up. we could live with a little socialism (the evil s world) the federal government should take control of our electricity. Build solar farms, charge us a fair but AFFORDABLE (DOMINION!!!!!!)price and in turn use the money for better technology or improve our financal situation

Nuclear waste is only thing people have to save that is bad about nuclear. But how much waste does a nuclear plant generate in comparison to the waste of coal, gas or oil plants. The only difference is that this waste is a solid instead of a gas. This makes it easier to capture, transport and store.
This may not even be an issue in the future as work is being done on how to use spent nuclear fuel (which contains generally 98% of its original power) as an additional fuel source which won’t produce nuclear by-products.
There is enough Uranium in the world to provide power for upwards of 50 years. So we have 50 years to come up with a better solution (such as nuclear fusion or anti-matter).
All that is needed is for people to stop being so short sited and for them to pressure their government into investing in these technologies.
And for everyone who thinks that other options such as wind or solar are viable solutions here is a Canadian example of how much energy solar plants produce.
In order to power the Greater Toronto Area an area of approx. 5 and 1/2 million people we would have to cover the entire province of Manitoba with solar panels an area of 647,797 km² or 250,116 sq mi. thats about the size of Texas 261,797 sq mi.

TMI was NOT a meltdown. Minor cooling leak comes to mind. Actually, the radiation released from TMI was less than the radioactive wastes released into the sewer from radiation therapy at the local hospital. TMI was also less radioactive than the waters at Lourds (forgive the spelling). Please people, do your research. Oh, an no one died from it.

Nuclear power is one of the cleanest, safest power sources we have. Yet know-knothings and people with agendas shoot it down and then complain about all the polution. What a weird world eh?

(Fortune magazine has a cover story about the nuclear industry stemming the “global energy crisis.” The rationale rings true in certain situations. But do we want to manage the “baggage” of “Nukes ‘R Us”?

Probably if the urban legislators think nukes “play” better for their constituents than do the ag-based renewables. The “urbies” complain that a national RPS penalizes them because they don’t have local resources. If they join the “aggies” to build additional transmission line capacity and fully “wheel” deregulated green power, the urbies can inexpensively buy their RPS requirement from the aggies. It is not “rocket science.” But the urbies will see that as an imbalance of power and kill the notion. Yeesh.

Proponents of nuclear power should call their Senators and Representatives to request that they lobby for a radioactive waste disposal plant in their home state.

The other issues are all but solved; waste is the show-stopper. (If you need clarification on that, I’ll patch you through to the kids.)

The reason NATO allows the USA to have reactors and not other nations is because of the type of materials used. Plutonium is a byproduct of U-238, which is the material Iran is using in their reactors. So the arguement can be made that their nuclear power program is in place to create weapons grade nuclear material. The USA reactors uses U-235, whose byproduct is not weapons capable.

For those that want an analogy. Just like there is more than one way for you to drive yourself to work; there is more than one way to generate nuclear power. You can pass a waste storage facility on the way, or a WMD fabrication facility.

It boils down to maintaining diversity on a wide band of Renewable technologies.The moment we become one track we had it.The beauty is it permits sustenance of our wide range of skills old or new which often creates a sense of insecurity in most of us.In turn we do lot good while washing sins.

Why use nuclear power when alternative renewable energies can do it just as well. For $5B (price given for a nuclear reactor), I could easily build plant using renewables (mostly solar and wind, some small hydro, geothermal,..) that is just as reliable, produces just as much power and has much less environmental impact (no rivers to divert, or heat up, no radio active waste that noone knows what to do with, no risk of a Chernobyl…). Renewable technology is there, with a some more research it can be improved even further, the sun sends us more energy than we could ever use… FREE !! Why gamble with toxic, lethal, environmentally extremely harmful technology ?!? Go SOLAR !

Why We Need to go NUCLEAR
1. We have no other choice. The demand for oil has outpaced supply and we need to transition to a new source of transportation energy.
2. The use of hydrogen powered cars requires lots of electricity in order to separate water and make hydrogen. With global warming concerns, do you really want to burn more coal?
3. Wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal are awesome, but will not meet the growing demand for energy.
3. The vast majority of uranium in the world is in Canada, USA and Australia. This means that for once Democratic countries will control the supply of energy to the world. This will be a great bargaining chip for world peace!
4. Nuclear is safer than coal because coal has killed many more people. France has a perfect record of safety.
5. Going nuclear will solve global warming because it does not produce CO2 emissions.

It’s funny how people that are against nuclear have no alternatives to give except solar and wind, which may never be able to put a real dent in our energy problem, I personally am for it because i believe that it is much safer than it used to be (even though it’s never killed a single person in the US) and much more efficent. As far as waste, I believe that we will find a way to either reuse or make it non-radioactive. So go nuclear or lights go out.

Let’s be positive on this, and develop a new technology. I find it a massive waste to bury nuclear waste, like a dog burys a bone. We need a daring, imaginative entrepreneur and investors to figure out a way to use the residual nuclear waste to passively generate electric power. After all nuclear reactor waste is still radioactive for 10,000 years, and we should still be able to harness this wasted energy to generate heat or electricity. All you need is the right compostion, mixture and formula.

Because of the nuclear waste is exactly why we need a broader spectrum of choices in reaching energy needs; first, conservation; second, alternative energies. A person in the nuclear energy industry told me that new technology today is more efficient at using the max out of the nuclear fuel rendering less potent. But, who knows long-term effects? I’d rather see windmill farms.

Just save some A/C energy by painting your roof white to reflect sunlight.

The US Navy should be in charge of nuke waste! It should dump it in active undersea volcanoes!No one coould mess with it there.

Yes – we should. I have lived within 10 miles of the Indian Point plant for the last 20 years and it doesn’t concern me. Our local air and water are very clean and I would rather use electricty from nuclear power, than be breathing in the pollution from a coal fired plant. The fear of Nuclear power fits into the typical human fallacy of worrying about the spectacular, once in a billion risk like a Chernobyl, rather than the slow, steady and certain risks of pollution, global warming, smoking, poor diet etc.

There is a very solultion to this question. Do you want Nuclear waste stored in your city or town?

It is the most under promoted, cleanest and safest source of electrical power. We (USA) have had fifty years of safe production and no one has fearlessly raised the standard to sing its praises. It’s time to come to the forefront is way overdue.

Nukular is the way out!

I say we need more nuclear plants as part of a balanced energy mix. But also do more research in Solar, Wind and Hydrogen. In fact, I think nuclear power should be used for hydrogen generation as well.

Special interest groups pro Oil, coal and other supplementary industries, rail, gas, etc., would like to pin nuclear, solar and wind against each other.

Nuclear, solar and wind are the solution. They should stick together as environmentally friendly sources. Don’t let Oil coal and gas (primitive forms of energy)divide the house. Pro Solar and pro wind activists should support nuclear. Lets move on.

At the moment, Nuclear Power seems to be the only reasonable course we can take. Reduced polution, plus, the reduction in the demand on fossil fuels will dramatically decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources.

They are also quite safe. Current designs have a number of failsafes built into the system, and current prototype reactors, such as the Pebble Bed design, are so safe that even in the event that the entire control system going down, including all redundant backups, they will still fail to a safe mode.

nuclear energy is the only reliable, economical, centrally based energy source yet available. it is unfortunate that the united states inhierited so much coal as to make it the cheapest source of energy to date. it is unfortunate that the wave of wind and solar cannot be the sole energy provider, due to there own inability to deliver a steady stream of energy, regardless of weather or time of day.
the benefits of nuclear are clear: zero carbon emissions. long lasting source. the world has hundreds of years worth of uranium in proven reserves, combined with generation four technology, we would practically never run out.
i’m no tree hugger, but i know that coal is about as dirty as energy gets, not just the burning, but also the refining and mining that are required to make use of it.
geothermal is nice theoretically, but not widespread enough to harness on a vast scale, solar is a cane to wobble with, installed in remote, sunny places where it must be transported to areas of demand. wind is very positive, but not reliable enough, and not central enough.
don’t even get me started on biofuels. useful SHORT term transition fuel, but every stalk of corn in this country could only replace a fifth of the gasoline usage.
the world needs nuclear, and we are the ones who must lead the charge into dominating the industry.

Many of the comments below have been favorable to nuclear energy as everyone seems to be focused on the process of power generation. Everyone seems to forget the byproduct of power plants – spent fuel rods.

We do not yet have a solution for nuclear waste. Not even Yuca Mountain is found to be appropriate, as the salt of that mountain would provide an enviroment for leaks into the soil. Additionally, there is the seismic risk in that solution.

Until we can find a completely safe way to either dispose of or recycle the spent fuel rods, I do not see nuclear energy as a long term solution. We already have enough spent fuel rods accumulating right now as it is. We must be responsible for the future of our children and for the safe existence of humankind.

Providing the power we consume is a matter of choose the lesser of evils. It seems that oppponents of Nuclear power sometimes don’t fully consider the effects of other forms of power generation. Coal plants for example pump out green house gases and other toxins at alarming rates. They also typically produce 300,000 **tons** of ash each a year that must be disposed. That compares to three tons of waste for a nuclear plant. Also, don’t forget the environmental and human costs of obtaining and transporting coal and oil. Consider how many miners die every year acquiring all that coal. These are actual deaths, not potential deaths caused by accidental radiation leaks. Also consider the environmental costs of coal and oil. Coal mining destroys land and oil invariably is spilled a la the Exxon Valdez. In summary nuclear plants require dramatically less fuel and release zero harmful emissions into the atmosphere when operating properly.

I believe that Nuclear Fission power (Current form of nuclear power we use today) is the correct course of action to meet the demands of our planets energy needs. I do however feel that within 50 years we will be able to move away from Fission power to Fusion power (Fusion is the energy generation method used by the stars). Fusion power is really the answer to our long term energy needs. It has all of the benefits of Fission power with none of the negatives we associate with nuclear power today. Nuclear proliferation, accident concerns, and waste are relatively non existent with Fusion power. Because of this, I feel we should really be focused on developing the technology to utilize Fusion. Fission power will satisfy us for a few decades but our eye should really be on the Fusion power. Currently there are a few countries that are testing Fusion power reactors.

Absolutely Not! After 3 mile Island and Chernoble there is no room for nuclear. Zero Tolerence for a mistake/accident. Put the time and money into renewables.

Nuclear power is required if the United States wants to maintain economic growth, and slow the growth of, and eventually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Although there are many interesting, and potentially beneficial renewable energy sources, one huge problem with most of them is that they can’t be depended on for base loading of the electrical grid. When the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing you still need electricity. Nuclear and hot rock geothermal are the only two technologies that hold the potential to deliver base load electricity reliably and without greenhouse gases.

Nuclear power by itslef is not a sufficient solution. Almost as much power is lost on the grid distributing electricity as is delivered as light and mechanical energy by the end user. Upgrades to the national energy grid to reduce losses can have a huge impact on total energy demand. Higher efficiency is also needed. The US could take easy steps like outlawing the traditional incedescent light bulb. High efficiency lighting, and better use of task lighting in home and ofice design can dramatically reduce power for lighting. Motors can also be made more efficient.

One big area for reduced electrical use is in electronics that “sleep”. Computers, TV’s, VCR’s, basically everything that can be turned on with a remote all consume electricity when they’re “off”. In some cases, the amount consumed is close to what the device uses when turned on. Better efficiency standards for consumer electronics would bring significant savings.

Other forms of renewable energy become more practical if the US auto fleet becomes heavily based on plug in hybrids. They can charge the grid when renewable energy is low, and recharge themselves when it’s high. This gives the grid the capability to store energy, something it can’t do well today.

The final piece is hot rock geothermal. Drill deep enough into the earth, and rock is hot. This heat can be used to generate hot water and steam in a closed loop cycle. No greenhouse gasses are emitted, except potentially during drilling. The amount of heat available is huge and could provide a substantial part of our electricity needs.

The overall solution to our energy needs is a balance between more generation, more efficient distribution, more efficient use, and some storage capability on the grid.

Whatever advantages or disadvantages nuclear energy offers, one thing is sure, nuclear reactors are one of the country’s most attractive targets for terrorists. If you can blow a nuclear reactor, there is no need for you to produce nuclear bombs to achieve the same result. Why should we give terrorists such opportunities?

It’s an excellent idea. Without it at this epoch, civilization ends–and with said collapse the greatest pollution problem would be billions of human corpses littering the landscape.
In reply to some of Frederick Ress’s questions: 1) recycle most, if not all waste, why store it? If storage is necessary vitrify it (at a profit) as the French do for their own huge uses and for imported waste. But also: India is developing a reactor that doesn’t use uranium 236/7 or that whole cycle; the which might be one answer to weapons proliferation–another is eradicate the poverty-base which facilitates the drive to war.. 2) Federal insurance: par of the propaganda campaign by the Synarchists. 3) Attack on nuclear plants: addressed earlier by 2 other commentators

There are numberous comments concerning a “safe” method for storing nuclear waste products for extremely long periods of time. What most people don’t know is that the waste currenly being stored can in fact be re-used as fuel for current and future reactors. Also, there are ways to contain the waste that have been tested over the milenia time scales people have mentioned before.

First, much of the waste generated in the USA falls into two main types. The first is the materials exposed to radiation and which is considered “low level” waste. These materials can be placed in dry, burried storage as they do not generate internal heating.

The second type of waste, “high level” waste, is a whole other problem. This type of waste will generate its own heat just sitting somewhere and requires cooling of some sort to keep it from becoming soft under the heat. Most of this consists of spent fuel assemblies.

So the solution to the problem is as follows:
1) Low level nuclear waste is compacted into near solid forms and burried.
2) Nuclear waste is re-processed to extract the uranium and plutonium (which is highly toxic and accounts for the 10,000 year number most people hear about)
3) The re-processeced fuel assemblies go back into the reactors where the plutonium is fissioned into other atoms
4) The waste from the re-processing is combined with liquid ceramics to form spheres.
5) The spheres are burried along with the low level waste.

Glassification works because ceramics are unaffected by heat over the long time scales and because the radioactive materials within them can only be extracted by breaking the molecular bonds and collecting the former waste atom by atom. Also, we know that ceramics can survive for thousands of years because the oldest human artifacts are stone fragments of pottery.

There are solutions. They just need to be employed.

Death by Nuclear? In the last week we have heard about the tragic deaths due to a recent bridge collapse, and the hundreds who have died in the last several decades due to bridge failure not to mention the 1000’s of deaths due to dams collapsing.

The record speaks for itself, NO ONE PERSON has died from radiation accident at a commercial nuclear power plant in the last 40+ years they have been operating! Compare this with the record of coal production

What is your best guess for how many people have died in the past 40+ years from coal mining, transportation and emission? The number is in the 10’s of thousands, Yes, 10’s of thousands!

So what is perceived and what is real to the public are two different things. Coal you can touch, smell, taste and see the pollution. In fact park next to a typical coal fired plant and see the acid rain eat the paint off your car, so it is no guess what it’s doing to your lungs. Yet, the public finds this acceptable risk and prefers coal generation over nuclear. Go figure?

I don’t believe nuclear energy is a viable solution to our energy dilemma. More problems would be created for a relatively small benefit. We have other options.

Instead of going nuclear, why not scale up existing Fuel Cell Tech to supply grid needs? It’s a much better approach to trying to do this at the single automobile level…

Why?
1. Scale – the infrastructure needed to get fuel cell tech to each auto is huge… We’d get huge scale if we built 20 or 30 Fuel cell tech electric generation plants to supply the grid (yes – they would be very large, and would be best located near a huge water source – this implies coastline locations)…
2. Cost – could use smaller, standardized design Nuke Power plants to produce hydrogen from water source for Fuel Cell electric co gen plants – again, achieve scale via standardized design.
3. Move cars to all electric.

Bene’s – approach zero emmissions standards for electric gen and auto use…

Just an idea…

We have to essentially Focuss on the strategy of Triangular approach of Nuclear,Hydro and Gas Based Power.Our user end Efficiencies have to be stepped up via Combined Heat and Power applications in Fuel Cells.Wind and Solar Heating/Refrigeration if not Solar Power will have to play a supporting role for Grid/Industrial applications to reduce conventional Power Generation.That is it.If we do all this limited Coal based Power Generation should make sense in the entire Spectrum of Sustainability.

There is no free lunch when it comes to electrical power generation. Dams kill fish, wind turbines kill birds and spoil the landscape, photovoltaics use high-tech toxic materials, wave energy takes crab grounds, fossile fueled power plants put carbon compounds into the atmosphere, nuclear generates radioactive waste.

Nuclear power is not the answer. Please say no to nuclear. it will just lead to more disasters and more threats to areas and cities where the plants are located. We need ALTERNATIVE ENERGY. Nuclear energy is like so called “Clean coal” a way to avoid going to the real solution, Solar power, wind energy, and alternative fuels….like hydrogen ..we need a hydrogen car initiative and alternative fuels initiative now. not 50 yrs from now. We need to stop putting fossil fuels into the atmosphere…we do not need nuclear power. Time to move to alternative fuels!

I opposed Nukes before most of you were able to read about them.
When River Bend was proposed in St. Francisville, Louisiana, several hundred of us protested against it..
I wrote letters in the Atchafalya Echo
and several other local papers.

I had read many articles and based some of my conmments on “We almost Lost Detroit”

My kids and many of my neighbor’s kids
attened False River Academy and Catholic HIgh, approximately across False River from
the “”Monster”"Plant.
We were told that “NUclear Excursions” (BS for meltdowns) were “UNlikey to Happen” Great Comfort for all the residents and all the grade and high school children next door.

Is was in the late 70’s I cannot find a copy, but my ending statements were” My children attend school across the River from the proposed plant. In the “UNLIKELY” event of a “Nuclear Excursion” who will write their epitaph?
Rather overstated, but the papers loved it and my english teacher said that she was not surprised at my “Talent”
However, lots and lots of plants were build. Can we not find another way To build safer and more effective ways of heating and cooling?

Go nuclear!
- There is enough Uranium to last us for thousands of years.
- Nuclear energy is clean. Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled, they are not waste.
- Nuclear reactors have gone thru several generations, they are safe!
- “Peak oil”, we may be in it now, you can’t see the peak until several years down the road.
- None of the alternative energy comes close to replace oil. The energy content of a small pellet (7gm) of uranium = 3.5 barrels of oil = 17000 ft3 of natural gas = 1780 pounds of coal.
- The current ethanol boom is a joke. Positive ERoEI is debatable, not to mention corn farming produce lots of greenhouse gas and the undesirable side effect of jacking up price in the food complex.
- Nuclear powered electricity can extract the needed hydrogen to make fuel cells for our cars or to power desalination plants to convert sea water into fresh water.
- Billions of people in third world country want to drive cars too and they are going to “drink” from the same “Peak oil” pools. Go nuclear now to avoid resource wars.
- Burning fossil fuel heats up our planet big time! The devastating consequence of global warming is unthinkable. If it may happen, then what about risk management?
- Energy security should be a concern for the U.S., fortunately, Canada and Australia have the bulk of world’s proven uranium reserves.

As mentioned below, the real problem with nuclear is waste disposal. I can think of only two safe and effective methods. You can essentially reverse the refining process;ie, disperse the radioactive material in so much dirt the resulting concentration and hence the radioactive emission levels are commensurate with background levels. Or, load the concentrated stuff into a rocket and send it to the sun. The former method would actually be the safest. Regardless, there would be enormous costs associated with either approach. If you insist effective waste disposal be included in power generation cost, I don’t believe nuclear will be competitive with our current methods….. If we want to pursue nuclear, we need to put our efforts into fusion power reactors. Then, this waste problem doesn’t exist.

Absolutely YES !
We really have no reasonable option.
The alternative is to be held hostage and a eventual collapse of our economy.
In addition, it is an accepted fact,the damage any fossil fuel is doing to our planet.

Absolutely essential! Unless the human race is dematically reduced (ie wars or disease) we are using more energy than the sun can provide us. Nuclear fission and hopefully fusion is the only solution.

In response to Greg from Ohio.

The information regarding solar farms you noted is false. Each person can power his or her home by simply using the un-used space on their own home. The amount of space required to power a city by solar would be significantly larger than the space required to build a nuclear or coal plant. You just need to weigh the pros on cons. PG&E, which is northern California’s electric utility is doing an amazing job with using all sorts of renewable energy to power its customers. Over 53% of the power generated by them is carbon free. This is all done without raising customers rates.

Hello all,
I am safety director for “the” up and coming nuclear fuels producer of the United States. I have just spent the last four and a half hours reading through the posts on this forum. Thank goodness that the people of the United States are becoming educated in the safety of nuclear power. My company is involved in the mining and milling of uranium ore and as a by product we will produce refined vanadium. I can personally assure you that the production of uranium can and will be done in an extremely safe manner.
We have the technology to mine uranium very safely and it might suprise many people to know that radiation is not my primary concern right now. I conducted radon testing on our main mining complex recently and was very pleased to find that our radon levels are far below the Mine Safety and Health Administrations standards. My main concern right now is to comply with the noise exposure standards and the diesel particulate matter standards, these are the really tough safety issues that our nations uranium miners face right now.
My father worked most of his life (30+years) in the nuclear fuels production industry mining and milling uranium. He retired at age 65 and enjoyed a very long and happy retirement (he passed away two years ago at age 90 of complications of acute arthritis). Mine and mill safety has improved expotentially over the years and I am very confident that the people who work for our company will enjoy the same long and happy retirement that my father did, as a matter of fact I am here to guarentee it.

Sincerly Jess W Fulbright

Some things to consider when you are writing your next piece on nuclear power. The cost of nuclear fuel is just a notch above the cost of water for hydro plants. When oil used to cost around $28 per barrel ( in the 1980’s), it was a bargain. Contrast that view with oil at $70+. You can’t afford to run gas plants with the high cost of that fuel and coal is not real appealing to the environmental set as there are tons and tons of green house gases emitted in running the plants.
What has always been the downside to nukes is the cost to secure and administer the plants. Regulatory reporting is a nightmare as is the multi-layers of security. When I was in that industry, a 90 outage was common and more likely 105+ days. If they are doing 21 or 27 day outages, their capacity factors have to be way up and their cost to produce electricity is even more of a bargain than it was 20 years ago.
I’ve been wondering how long it was going to take for the industry to come back and now it right around the corner. Nukes don’t produce green house gases, fuel is cheap and you don’t have to do open pit mining to get the product. Yes there is rad waste, but we have all the technology to handle it, including fuel reprocessing. The powers that be, ought to be re-thinking that issue, get over it, and just imagine that spent fuel storage is no longer a problem!

I was a reactor operator in the Navy for 11 years, on two classes of submarine. Underway I slept, ate and showered no more than 60 feet from a nuclear reactor operating at various power levels. Furthermore, I am the third generation of my family to be involved in the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. These experiences qualify me to speak to the subject with some authority.

Nuclear power is safe. The wastes generated by nuclear power generation are minimal. Any material that has POTENTIALLY come in contact with radioactive material is deemed radioactive waste and is removed from the site as such. It is then surveyed for free release. The aggregate waste for final disposition is significantly less than initial generation. Certain wastes, due to geometry, can not be sufficiently surveyed for free release and must be considered radioactive waste. To answer a previous comment, all waste that is not mixed material, hazardous chemicals that are also potentially contaminated, are more than welcome in my backyard.

The United States has the most advanced reactor designs. Our research for Naval Nuclear Power would translate easily to commercial use. The reason that TMI and Chernobyl had different environmental impact stems from a concept called inherent stability. All American nuclear power plants employ this concept.

Why can’t other countries use nuclear power plant? They can! The problem arises in how they try to develop it. There are significant differences between a reactor used for power generation and the production of weapons grade materials. These differences are obvious to inspectors. Uranium enrichment is not required for civilian, land-based nuclear power plants. When Iran starts to enrich Uranium, they are either starting a propulsion program, or a weapons generation program.

Nuclear power plants measure fuel consumption in kilograms per year. Oil and coal require thousands of tons of fuel to produce the same usable energy as grams of spent nuclear fuel. Wind and solar power, to compete with nuclear power, are expensive and unreliable. The environmental impacts of wind and hydroelectric power are, in my humble opinion, unacceptable.

Terrorists could crash a 747 into a nuclear power plant’s containment facility with minimal impact. These structures are engineered to withstand Mother Nature’s most awesome attacks, unfeasible concoctions of simultaneous earthquakes and super typhoons in a PA countryside wildfire. Unless said terrorists attack a site with a nuclear weapon, they stand little chance of success. If they already have a nuclear weapon, they would probably not use it on a nuclear site since they are generally located away from population centers.

Nuclear is and has been a good solution for a long time. Has money and polution finally gotten the attention of the obstructors? France got it right long ago and we still sit here in coal dust.

For all of those who worry about waste, lest we forget the waste from other types of energy. If we suffer from global warming and we total the environment we won’t be worrying about the waste of neclear power plants, we will be starving to death!

I say it’s the best alternative we have. My father was lead engineer for the Nerva Project for AeroJet. He later worked for Bechtel corp, which he greatly respected the professionalism and honesty. His favor was for nuclear by far and even did a study for some group on this exact subject. His many comments were things like: “We get more radiation from burning coal than from Three Mile Island at the height of the accident”.

Nuclear may be a good choice if all factors are addressed and taken into consideration – same with compact florescent light bulbs & mercury, hybrid cars & batteries, solar & chips, oil & pollution, biofuel & overall input vs. output…

But we need think of aggregate impact, on a scale on billions, not just 300 million Americans. Even the best of ideas/intentions can go awry when you scale them up massively.

Nothing can make a bigger impact than conservation – it can be implemented much faster, the moment you don’t consume it, and reduces any number of negative impacts depending on the item/resourse/energy source.

We basically haven’t made a permanent storage site for any of the nuclear waste we have on hand now – Yucca Mountain should be used ASAP, at least we would have one place to monitor and protect vs. hundreds of poorly maintained and secured facilities. New safer more efficient plants should replace older ones – but decommissioning generates more contaminated waste.

Most current statements that nuclear is cheap have federal subsidies and supports built in, but exclude much of the cost of major accident liability, waste transport, long term storage and maintenance – which, like the subsidies is paid by taxpayers and not the companies. Everything looks cost effective when you ignore / externalize significant costs.

Full analysis & disclosure should rule our decision making, not sensationalist info-tainment & politics – but I really doubt it will.

Funny how fast the pendulum swings – nuclear bad/good, SUVs great/horrible, Iraq bad/war bad, China cheap goods/economic super power, Republicans/Democrats.

Nuclear energy is the only clean energy source that could possibly scale enough to meet our current (and future) energy demands…solar and wind are not going to cut it as substitutes for coal. People who call themselves “environmentalists” need to get behind nuclear instead of fear-mongering about nuclear “waste” (which is actually just spent nuclear fuel). If you do any legitimate research into the topic, I promise you will see the benefits of converting to nuclear energy. France gets about 80% of its electricity from nuclear power now, so it can be done. Other countries already recycle spent nuclear fuel and as more research and money is thrown at the area, it can become cost-effective in the U.S. and the outlook for a viable nuclear fuel-recycling solution can only improve.

Coal adsorbs many heavy metals like uranium. In fact most coal-fired electrical plants emit more radioactive waste into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant. I believe nuclear power is a safe and environmentally friendly alternative to burning oil.

Nuclear power is the only logical answer to our growing energy needs. Whether you are politically or socially against it is really irrelavent when you look at the practical side of the problem. A single nuclear plant can displace millions of tons of CO2 that would otherwise be emmitted by a burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). What most people don’t know is that burning fuels like coal also emmits radiation into the air because all coal has some radioactive isotopes in it that occur naturally. When you burn trainloads of it every day it becomes a quantity that far exceeds the radioactivity released by any nuke plant! Also, has anyone ever wondered why doctors tell pregnant women (or the rest of us for that matter) that its not a good idea to eat fresh water fish? It’s because we’ve polluted our waterways and lakes with mercury (among other things) as a direct result of burning fossil fuels. You don’t get that from a nuke plant either. Another bit of info: In the early 1980’s the nuclear fleet capacity utilization was only around 60%. Today it is around 92%. Also many of them have been “uprating” their power output. So while no new plants have been built in the U.S., their total power output is 50%-60% higher than it was 25 years ago. You’re wondering why energy companies are making so much money these days?

As far as solar is concerned, the last time I checked it would take upwards of 9.1 million PV panels (120 watts/ea) at 100% capacity to generate the electricity put out by 1 new generation nuke plant. We all know that solar doesn’t generate a thing at night and only at reduced rates when it is sunny so it wouldn’t be a far stretch to expect to have to put in as much as 5 times that number. That’s 45 million panels! My guess is that would cost 22 BILLION or more and take up 10,000 acres of land. Where’s the economy of that? And who wants to put them on their roof, or back yard, or forest?

Wind? Same deal. Do the numbers and you quickly realized that these sources are only good in deserts and windy places (and remote places) and even then they are economically questionable. Areas of dense population (like the entire U.S. east coast, midwest, etc.) are out of the
question.
I like to think that the California is a good example of what NOT to do when it comes to energy policy for the U.S. as a whole. The state imports electricity from other states (simply “passing the buck” to other states) and thus makes itself vulnerable to energy trading like the “crises” that happened many years ago. Also, where are all the companies (and jobs) going? They are certainly not staying in California when industries can go elsewhere to find cheaper energy prices and less regulation.

The U.S. will be in economic disaster if we don’t produce our own energy and do it quickly with proven technology that works. Nuclear is currently the only way to go.

I would be for nuclear energy production if you could solve a few problems;

1.If nuclear power is so safe why does it take federal legislation to remove liability for possible accidents? I believe this is the only energy industry to need such legislation.

2.Is there a permanent solution to the storage problem? The industry creates large quantities of incredibly potent poisons that last for hundreds of thousands of years. This is even after any recycling process. The temporary solutions we, or the French, use will not last long. Unless you believe our civilization will last for hundreds of thousands of years, future terrorists will find endless use for these poisons. Unless you believe there will be no future terrorists.

3.The material produced by nuclear power generation is necessary for the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It would be hard to deny any country nuclear energy technology while we find it so necessary. Iran is only the latest country. There have been many others and there will be many others.

4.Is nuclear energy really that cheap? The vast majority of research on nuclear energy is paid by your tax dollars. Liability is covered by the federal government (your tax dollars). The cost of hundreds of thousands of years of guarding the waste is covered by future generations. The increase in military expenditures due to the proliferations of nuclear weapons is covered by tax dollars. The health problems, etc. caused by mining are paid for by those country’s tax dollars.

5.A terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant would be unbelievable. Perhaps this is the main reason for legislation removing liability. Have we learned that it is impossible to make anything terrorist proof? Why create such perfect targets?

If you can solve all these problems, and not just one or two, I would be for nuclear energy, otherwise I support conservation and other alternatives.

Nuclear energy has one MAJOR problem….What do you do with the waste??? Nuclear half-life is just that..After 10,000 years the half that’s left will still kill you just as dead. AND waste is not just spent fuel, there is also tools,building parts,pipes,cement,clothes,water,etc.etc.etc. This waste has to be removed from contact with the environment essentially FOREVER. What has man made that will last that long?? One mistake and things could get really nasty for everyone.

Robin-
Government nuclear waste is pretty hard to get information on since it also deals with the disposal of the spent nuclear reactors from submarines. In my opinion the volume of waste from commerical reactors is way more. As far as I know there is no “recycling” of radioactive isotopes.
At one time the US was building a “Breeder Reactor” at the Clinch River Site for more effieient use of the fuel cycle.

Can anyone comment on the mass/volumue of nuclear waste from commercial applications (power generation) as compared to that of non-commercial applications (government use/nuclear weapons)? And is nuclear waste recycled many times before it is truly disposed of?

Nuclear power, irrepairable ecological damage, or “economic meltdown:” There is only one clear choice here. For the fearful and ill-informed; nuclear power is as safe, environmentally friendly, and economically feasible as it gets. So let’s all stop listening to the “chicken littles” out there and get serious about freeing ourselves from bondage under OPEC……and there is higher probability of winning the Florida lottery (twice) than of another 3-Mile Island incident ever occurring again.

All power systems have waste. Solar requires batteries with short shelf lifes, coal has polutants, but nuclear is by far the most difficult to deal with. Its’ waste can linger for hundreds of thousands of years. That’s longer than modern humans have been around. Can we really handle something of that scale? We should choose truely renewable sources of energy.

Yucca Mountain is a very conservative location for storing spent fuel and high level waste. Most of the high level radioactive waste has very short half-lives consequently they become rather benign in a very short ime span. As for plutonium, as a previous writer has said is very easy to control. This element is very heavy and is an “alpha” emmiter which can be simple sheilded by a sheet of paper. Don’t take my word for it, simply look in it up. The issue has been surrounded by hysteria, and politics, nothing more.

The entire waste storage issue has been politics at its lowest. The property is owned by US taxpayers, but the opening of the facility has been blocked at every turn by the likes of Senator Reid of NV, and nuclear opponents. Most of the claims center around what happens to the waste 10,000 years later! I’ve even heard the arguement that the “people” living 10,000 years in the distant future may not understand what’s buried at Yucca mountain and may decide to investigate the site posing a problem for these futureistic people when they encounter a canaster of spent fuel!

When the nuclear industry here began the technology was relatively immature and, as such, not as safe as would be ideal. There have been a lot of new developments which can make it much safer (noting in particular the developments coming out of China which make a meltdown nearly impossible).

Nuclear power clearly is a “low hanging fruit” that needs to be exploited. There are essentially no other solutions out there right now which can be developed quickly to make a significant dent in fossil fuel consumption.

The problem of storing the waste is significant but much more manageable than the problems with fossil fuels. The ideal, of course, is a truly clean energy source but there is little indication that such technology will mature in the immediate future. Yes, there are lots of promising ideas but most are far from being practical.

It has been politically incorrect to talk about nuclear energy for the past few decades but we need to get over that before it’s too late.

Nuclear Power is safe ans smart. We will eventually improve our energy dependence through conservation and new technology. However Nuclear power is the only source of magnitude know that will allow us to reach Energy independence. Everyone knows the reason we are in IRAQ is Oil…..We need Nuclear Power for National Security

Jack C.:

I don’t think you understand the proportions of the situation. Plutonium waste, here on the ground, is a MILLION times easier to clean up compared to the billions of tons of carbon dioxide being dumped into the atmosphere.

Think about it. If you were given the task of either dealing with having to contain the relatively small amount of plutonium and uranium waste from nucler power plants, or having to find a way to take the carbon dioxide ALREADY in the atmosphere, and remove it. I’d love to see you attempt that!

I think it should be a part of the answer to wean us off our dependence on oil, not the only answer. It would take many, many years to convert most of the US to power based on wind and solar alone.

Nuclear has been running smoothly in Japan and France. If we open up to learning from these countries we can make a huge reduction in carbon and not impact energy costs. Nuclear has to be part of our energy futrue in addition to renewables and conservation.

Nuclear is a must if the U.S. is to move forward in the global economy. Emotional fear is the only thing holding us back. No one was hurt at Three Mile Island.

What about Fuel Cell power, it’s only byproduct is water and they can be run on many gases including sewer and landfills…

Wes, most of our uraniam comes from Canada. Check ticker CCJ. Nuclear power is the way of the future, forget the corn and switch grass garbage. Ignorance and fear continues to beat their drums lowder than mature reason.

All I can say is this….Solar,Solar, Solar, Wind, Wind, Wind..These are two truly renewable sources of energy that have zero emmisions. Spend our money improving that.Uranium is only renewable as long as you keep looking and mining for it.Here are a couple of things you can always count on…death, taxes,change,wind and sun. Without these elements..We’re all finished…

Thirty years ago the lifespan of a nuclear power plant was supposed to be forty years,then the plant had to be put out of commission and replaced whit a new one. What was to happen to the old one was not clear but in my knowledge no one has ever been dismantled or disposed of. Are we going to cover the land whit decommissioned nuclear plants? Only to replace the old ones in France would require the construction of a new one every four years and that for ever and they cannot be built everywhere.

What choice to we have if we continue to consume power at the present rate? Oil depletion and cost combined with the risks of increase C02 is not the answer. During the Nuclear hiatus has there been any safety improvements made? What about pebble bed reactors? I believe that their are solutions and nuclear is just one of many but it must be done in a controlled and safe way using a well thought out plan. Solar and wind should be increased and we all need to take steps to reduce our use.

More Nukes now! I work in the utility industry and if the general public saw just one oil burner in a conventional powerplant they would understand why we use so much foriegn oil. Nuclear energy is clean, efficient and cheap (over the long run). In addition we would be able to use the energy from a Nuclear plant to extract hydrogen to power fuel cell cars. It makes sense on all fronts. People who say that nuclear power is not safe are not looking at the true history of nuclear poweer. Hundreds of reactors are in service around the world (if you count military use) and there have been two well know incidents (3 mile, and Chernobyl). Of those two one resulted in a severe event and the other not much more than a very bad PR day. Nuclear power is the answer to the impending energy crisis.

How come the USA can have Nuclear and other countires can’t, what kind of message does that send to other people? other countries?

“We’re all talking about making hydrogen power our cars, but why not our power plants?”

Same reason why not our cars. Hydrogen takes energy to make. That’s like saying why don’t we make batteries power our power plants? Batteries contain electricity, and we can even use rechargable batteries to power our power plants and that would be even better.

Uranium is found in large quantities in Canada, Australia, western Africa, and the US which are much more stable countries than the Middle East. Waste is an issue but can be significantly dealt with by reprocessing (maybe we should call it recycling and it would be more popular). We cannot completely use just solar and wind because the energy density is just too low, meaning you have to have very large solar/wind farms. Just read some of the solar/wind farm proposals and the enormous footprint required. All will be a part of the solution not just one but nuclear has to be a part of it.

I’m no expert when i comes to Nuclear power. Yes, Nuclear power is effective, and relatively inexpensive when you price it per watt, but there is waste. Worse than that, there is the SLIM possibility that something could go terribly wrong. Why give nuclear power the time of day when we have other CLEANER options. Solar power is an extremely viable option. Solar panels can be purchased for $3.85 per watt. They have a 25 year guaranteed life spam, but most likely its around 35. Its 100% clean, safe and cost effective. Its truly the beginning to the end of our power struggles.

The last nuclear power plant I tracked as it was built was the Bay City,TX plant. I believe the plant was finally finished 1.5 to 2 years late.The initial price quoted the citizens of the various municipalities who bought into the plant ballooned to 2-3 times the intial projection. I am hoping for a little more accountability on budgets and for more oversight on the abilities and experience of these “power plant builders”. I feel the shortcomings of the projects already built had as much of an influence on public sentiment, as any concerns about nuclear energy itself.

Chernobylb had a grafite cooling system that was dangerous and absolete,this plant melt down had to happen

go nuclear!!!!!!!!!!

Nuclear energy presents the best opportunity for reduced dependency on oil. The naysayers will never be happy with any solution. Solar panels are expensive, and yes, production of solar panels does produce toxic waste.

Yes! Nucs are the only serious contender for major power generation without CO2 production. More Nucs will finally force the decision on waste storage facilities in Nevada.

Nuclear generated power is the way to go. It is time to get our heads out of the sand looking for oil. The sands are almost empty in the middle east and now they are pumping water down the wells to get the remaining oil. Their reserves are certainly questionable so back to nuclear. We know enough now to get them up and running through better engineering, management and regulation. If not nuclear, then we need to build more refineries near the ocean to process the crude.

The US can have cheap nucler power and take care of the waste issue. Since only a 1/3 of the fuel is actually “fissioned” the balance, 2/3 could be cycled out and reprocessed into new fuel. It simply matters as to the length of the refueling cycle and the enrichment. Again, as I posted before Yucca Mountain is a viable storage facility. Please read the Scientific American article on the naturally occurring reactors in Africa.
I bet a lot of folks don’t realize this but buring coal releases radioative isotopes. Please review your periodic table of the isotopes for a simple lesson.

Almost 8 billion people by 2020. We have no choice man – nuclear is the solution for mass energy if we want clean air. Lets protect the environment – Why can’t we recycle the waste like the French do.

I am an economist and consultant for an independent firm that performs feasibility studies on energy resources. I am neither pro nor anti nuclear. I simply do the numbers. For those that say nuclear energy is expensive, I say all our energy choices are expensive. However, nuclear seems to be the most economical in terms of life cycle costs.

France has cheap electricity produced by nuclear plants AND they recycle the nuclear waste. Why can’t we do that? Forget storing the waste at Yucca Mountain. It sure beats giving the middle east oil money to buy weapons to kill us with. Question: Where does the uranium come from? Please tell me it’s not the middle east!

I say “FULL STEAM AHEAD: Let the nay sayers have a couple of candles and a mule.

Nuclear power had its chance, and lost. Replacing carbon waste with plutonium waste is a fool’s solution to global warming.
Why risk stranding, in the event of a serious accident anywhere in the industry, the huge capital investment necessary to produce nuclear electricity?
Why not equivalent loan guarantees to truly renewable electricity sources, w/o the equivalent risk?

Yes! Global oil production has pretty much topped out and will be declining throughout the rest of this century, meanwhile while global temperature and energy demand will be increasing.

Burning more coal is not the solution.

I do support more solar and wind power, but I doubt they will provide enough power as they require a lot of real estate in the right places to make a big difference –

Europe has significantly advanced nucular technology since the 1980’s. We should take note get going!

For the people against nuclear power. Please keep in mind that gasoline, directly and indirectly, kills more people in one year than nuclear has killed in total. If gasoline were to be brought to market today, it would not be allowed. Do try to keep things in perspective.

The key is POWER, not nuclear. It is just another option. The question should be is nuclear power ready, especially from safety point of view.

WASTE people. Think about it. Wind and solar don’t generate waste with a half life longer than 10 generations. If all nuclear waste had to be disosed of within ten miles of the generator, would you still favor it?

Research into new reactor designs has continued in the rest of the world while the US sat on it’s collective butts. In SA there is a functioning pebble bed reactor whis is about as safe as a reactor can be, and far cheaper to build. Every conventional powerplant should be replaced by a PBR ASAP.

Chernobyl should not even be discussed. The communists had no containment units at any of their nuclear reactors. We do. There are new designs that make it impossible for a chemical explosion to occur.
They were doing experiments on a broken reactor without the containments unit.
It is completely irrelevant to our discussion.
It is like arguing against the chemical industry because some one in India messed up.

In answer to: Should we give nuclear power another chance?
ABSOLUTELY!
In answer to: Could it help solve global warming?
For those who “feel” that global warning is directly attributable to humans, I am sure it will be an improvment (if someone can develop a meaningful measurement tool) over coal fired plants.

However, the VERY noisy environmentalists and NIMBYs (Not In MY Back Yard) will cause unimaginable delays in licenses being granted and construction getting started which cause the utility companies to seek 80% of the cost in the form of Federal loan guarantees. And then there are the “elected” officials in Washington who will need to debate the pros & cons and see which side of the argument can secure them more money & more votes. And lastly, there is always that BIG sleeping dog in the corner (BIG OIL) drooling at the toll that these delays will have.

Nuclear power is safe, clean, efficient and we already have a model that we can follow that the French have done. Yeah, I know, they are French, but what can you say, even a blind dog finds a bone every once in a while.

More Nuclear Power? Absolutely!

If your concern is global warming nuclear is the only real answer available today that can be produced in the quantities needed.

If you concern is safety, nuclear has proven to be much safer than fossil fuel power. That’s right; we kill thousands of people every year with fossil fuel pollution. It just occurs one person at a time and takes the already sick so no one really attributes it to pollution. Even a catastrophic accident at a nuclear plant will not kill in the numbers that fossil fuels do.

Concerned about national security and the billions of dollars we send to unstable and mostly unfriendly nations? Reduce our imports with nuclear power and power all the electric cars you want with nuclear power.

The most important reason to use nuclear power as well as all other DOMESTIC sources of energy is that we do not have to sacrifice our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers to get it out of the middle east.

However, we need all sources of energy so we are never dependent on just one. Coal, hydro, wind, and hopefully some day solar are all candidates that can be used when cost effective. Renewables from biomass is another source where we have vast potential but still just an embryonic industry.

I have spent 40 years being a energy engineer and a nuclear power advocate. If you compare lives lost to commercial nuclear power in the US, you will find ZERO. Three mile Island, bad as it was, did not kill a single soul. Chernobyl, was worse and killed a few dozen.

Now compare the total lives lost after 40 years of commercial nuclear power in the US to just 3 years in Iraq and you can see my point. Nuclear power – Zero. Irag more than 3000.

Now consider all of the military actions over the 40 years of commercial nuclear power and my point is further supported. And if anyone thinks that the cost of our military isn’t a subsidy for petroleum based energy, products, then I have this old refrigerator ……

For you anti-nuclear supporters out there, get real and invest your emotions in developing a little knowledge of science and REAL risk analysis.

We need to conserve as a primary energy policy because it is smart and is generally cost effective. But you can’t conserve your way to prosperity. And without this country being prosperous, we have poverty. There is nothing worse for mankind than poverty and hunger. So, clean energy at reasonable costs is mandatory to preserve the quality of life for most of the USA.

over 80% of power in France is nuclear-
we have to stop crying about “not in my backyard”–3 Mile Island was a long
time ago– we need energy self-sufficiency; and waste–send it into the vacuum of outer space, simple.

How available is the fuel that supports all these new nuclear power plants? Who controls the uranium in the ground around the world? Is it like oil, limited supply and expensive?

To answer VKB: I would rather live in France than Bartertown. Also, I’m afraid your daily ouput of bodily waste would not provide enough methane if converted to electricity to power your computer long enough to read this post, let alone get you to work.

To Jeff Anderson of CA,
You may be right. Nuclear power plants may be a prime target for terrorist attacks, but are you really going to live with your head under a rock? If terrorists can’t hit nuclear plants, they will try and hit something else. Getting rid of nuclear plants won’t stop terror attacks.

I am a strong supporter for nuclear energy. It is cleaner and more efficient than any currently mass produced source of fuel. As stated previously Wind and Solar aren’t plausible for the entire country. They are a good idea for supplemental power as they do not produce anywhere near the amount of power as a nuclear plant. Until you find naturally occuring hydrogen fuel that does not need manufactured you will need to SPEND energy to create the fuel source.

There is a major downfall to using corn fuels. The byproduct is Ozone. Ozone is great in the upper atmosphere, but it is not good in the air we breathe, it can be lethal.

A nuclear revivial is critical to providing energy in general that is less dependent on fossil fuels. The improvements that have been made since the last plant was built are significant and the benefits of diversifying our energy sources cannot be overstated. In short, we need to have a full array of options for energy as we move on into the 21st century. That incluldes fossil and bio-fuels, wind, sun, AND nuclear. Anything short of that would be naive and shortsighted.

I think nuclear energy is a great idea, and we something we need to revitalize America. It’s safe and clean.
Look at Europe, they function very well on nuclear power, also if you look at China and India, they’re building nuclear power plants in droves.
It’s ridiculous that we haven’t built one in over 30 years.

The US has continued to build nuclear reactors, just not in the US. Over the years the there has been a great deal of new development in the efficiency and safety of nuclear reactor. The Pebble Bed Reactor (PBR) shows a lot of promise and China plans to build a 19 PBR facility with the help of France’s Areva and Westinghouse. Germany has been developmenting a PDR in South Africa.

Nuclear engery should be viewed as part an over all strategy (in addition to wind farms, solar power, etc.) to reduce the dependence on oil,

It’s time to put this nuclear debate to rest for the last time. Using nuclear technology to heat water to turn a turbine for electricity generation is, and always has been totally adsurd.
It has so many problems that it is difficult to know where to start.
It’s amazingly expensive, dangerous, and the enviromental problems-from the mining and milling of a radioactive substance that has a life of thousands of years- to the ultimate starage-are significant and unanswered.
Ask one question about nuclear–How many of these utulities that are proposing the building of more of these plants would do so without almost 100% government cost guarantees and being held harmless from accidents and terrorism?
The answer is none. There is no other electricity source that requires or needs these guarantees.
Put this industry to rest. There are so many other ways to generate electricity that are safer, cheaper and more reasonable, that the whole thing shouldn’t even have to be discussed.

We need to do this for a number of reasons.

Foremost, nuclear power is relatively safe. In contrast, the United States loses several hundred thousands of citizens each year to lung-illnessess aggravated by pollutants emitted by coal and oil-burning electric plants. The new generation N-plants can’t have TMI- type core problems because of changes in the designs. If the coolant in these new plants is turned off, the fuel rods expand their volume and distance from each other, shutting down the reaction.

Second, the toxic waste problem with nuclear fuel has been solved using reprocessing. The final waste products, while very hazardous, have very short half-lives that ultimately reduce to stable isotopes. In contrast, toxic waste from coal and oil generation remain HUGE unsolved problems. Anyone who prefers “Mountaintop Removal” coal minining to nuclear power generation is just nuts!

Third, we need to do this in order to stop exporting cash to terrorists. A useful side effect will also be that we will import less fuel, which has a favorable effect on trade imbalances. And not being dependent on oil in a world where most oil is controlled by lunatic dictators in Saudi, Russia, or Venezuela is an excellent way to improve American national security.

I believe nuclear power is a safe way to go, and with other sources running low the best way to go.

Start building!!

Since they are so safe, I would not mind one in my own backyard.

Those protesting are not educated or informed. They are simply scared of what they do not understand.

For me the debate comes down to “who do I believe?’ Call me crazy, but I feel much more confident listening to a Professor of “Top-Ranked Nuclear Engineering Department at MIT’ (Andy Kadak) saying Nuclear Power is a viable option, than listening to an Ex- Heroin junkie (Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of the “Riverkeepers”) tell me Nukes are evil.

Until the radioactive toxic waste can be disposed of in a manner which is safe and not just out of sight (ie. burying) then nuclear needs to stay shelved. This is not planet friendly or clean energy.

For the gentleman that suggests we abandon Nuclear, coal, gas and diesel fuels for producing electricity….at least you won’t be able to write mindless emails when the power grid collapses and your computer shuts off. Maybe we could all get together and listen to you by candle light.

I would be 100% willing to store dry fuel casks in my backyard. They are perfectly harmless and designed to withstand the most extreme circumstances one can think of. If you don’t believe me, watch the design tests conducted by the DOE.

Secondly, if you want to follow the logic that nuclear power is just a fancy way to boil water then why do we drive cars? They’re just a complicated way to get you where you’re going.

I am a nuclear engineer and I know for a fact that there is nothing wrong or unsafe with nuclear power. Instead of taking my word for it, or believe what is printed in newspapers, read a textbook or take an overview course on the subject. Its really quite amazing what we can do.

OK – Some misconceptions: Wind Farms perhaps do not emit hazardous gases, however they do have negative side effects including noise, obstruction of view, and other non-sensicle complaints that have hindered placement of even ONE turbine in my area. This area, by the way, is in the backyard of a NUCLEAR plant, which I think we DO need to keep.

Nuke plants having a limited life span? So do all power generation plants – and the fossil fuel ones lose their efficacy in controlling emissions as they degrade. Due to regulations, that’s not an option at Nuke facilities – if your plant isn’t proven safe, it’s shut down.

As for Japan’s reactor – their safety regulations do not meet the US standards for safety – not to say something like that couldn’t happen here, but it’s not likely!

Mr. Kraft – Chicago – what do you mean the industry couldn’t get it right after 50 years of trying? After 50 years, no major releases, and more designs coming … what, exactly, isn’t “right”??

I read an excellent article in Scientific American about the difference between slow breed reactors and fast breed reactors. All current US reactors were slow breed, horribly inefficient. Fast breed reactors not only had a tenth of the waste, but could run on nuclear waste as fuel, and were incredibly more efficient in energy production. In fact, the article stated that fast breed reactors were so superior that I couldn’t understand why we don’t start constructing them now. I didn’t read all of the posts, but to me, this is the central question of the debate on nuclear energy – why aren’t we building these fast-breed reactors?

“We’re all talking about making hydrogen power our cars, but why not our power plants?”

you’re an idiot

A nuclear power revival is a bad idea. The nuclear industry has never been willing to operate by the the same rules that other businesses operate. If the nuclear industry had to buy full liability insurance in the private market instead of relying on government protection under the Price-Anderson act it would shut down immediately. The U.S. nuclear industry failed because it was a financial failure and not because of anti-nuclear activists. Anything can “succeed” with enough government subsidies. Let the nuclear industry try to revive in the free market without government subsidies and loan guarantees and it will fail again.

Posted By Michael, Arcata, California : August 1, 2007 2:27 pm

I believe there are several factual errors in Michael’s comment.

First, the nuclear power industry is the most regulated industry in the United States. Therefore, they operate with more scrutiny than other industries.

Second, nuclear power is not the only industry that does not carry liability insurance. The pharmacutical industry is funded for side-effects from some medications, such as vaccines.

Third, the nuclear power industry “failed” for a number of reasons. Among them are the increased regulations after Three Mile Island and the failure of the nuclear power industry to take the anti-nuke activists seriously.

Fourth, many businesses (other than the nuclear power indudstry) survive on government subsidies. For instance, if farms were not subsidized by government funding, you would not be able to eat three square meals a day.

Nuclear power is a safe and planet-friendly source of sustainable energy.

The short answer is Yes. We need to construct nuclear plants if we ever want to be energy independent again. Do it like France (cookie cutter, single design, single logistics and training systems)

Then transfer the Natural Gas to use in vehicles. Use Propane in vehicles.

We can be energy independent if we want. Nuclear is safe!

YES! Full speed ahead, we know how to do this and do it safely. We hear all the calls for Hydrogen or Solar, but wake up, these truly haven’t been invented (in practical form) yet. You can pass a law in Congress that we will all be able to fly by 2010 but it doesn’t mean the engineeers can do it! Nukes are key to our economic security, our competitors are way ahead in other countries, time to get moving!

We operate “wrong-headed” in this country. Why escalate an energy source that we still don’t have a resolution for the by-product. To quote Steve Martin, “…all the big answer to life are in the movies…”. Did anybody see “Mad Max beyond Thunderdome”? Consider the power source for Bartertown, only instead of pigs consider humans. As long as humans exist, we will have an unending supply of power. No one talks about it because power brokers can’t figure out a model that allows them to over-charge for it to get even richer.
It’s the same with gasoline. It is an absolutely stupid idea impact the US food supply to supplement the gasoline supply (E-85). Has no one ever heard of a drought? I think they have now.
These ideas have nothing to do with “good” or “right” solutions. They are all about how a handful of controlling interests can increase thier money and power.

Posted earlier:
“We’re all talking about making hydrogen power our cars, but why not our power plants?”

Because hydrogen needs to be manufactured somehow, all the energy used by a hydrogen car comes indirectly from something else. If it’s a coal burning plant, then its not much cleaner. If its something like wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, etc, it is.

In the end, most people who are scared of nuclear power don’t understand it. If the price and ROI are right for a new plant, I’m all for it.

For Kansas City’s Anonymous:

Three Mile Island was a nuclear catastrophe, but the ramifications of it in terms of human toll and environmental impact (the two concerns that we care about most) were incredibly insignificant. Why? Because, despite the event, the situation was maintained by proper safety mechanisms and intelligent individuals. This has only gotten better since then. Consider the economic impact of an oil tanker running aground and leaking crude into the ocean. History’s past examples of such tanker incidents have proven to be much more environmentally harmful than TMI. We use more oil now then ever! When a plane crashes, the propensity for loss of life is very high, yet we all still fly! Why? Because we as a society weigh the costs and benefits.

Further Thoughts:
The Exclusion Zone around Chernobyl (yes that was also a catastrophe) is now bustling with wildlife…all having the same number of eyes they originally should have. Studies are routinely conducted in this area to help predict the “what if” situation: what if humans suddenly disappear from the earth?

For those who cite Chernobyl as a means for their anti-nuclear beliefs remember, the plant was poorly designed just like most Soviet products…in pithy context: Chernobyl was a communist plant.

What is so wrong with Wind and Solar power to ease the issues with the worlds energy crisis. If we invested the amount of money annually into those programs as we do into oil and natural gas. we weren’t need to have this discussion regarding Nuclear energy. Everyone in favor for Nuclear energy. I have one question. Can we dump the waste from this Nuclear plants into your town or even better your back yard? I THINK NOT. WAKE UP. Get out of bed with this people

Nuclear Power? Absolutely. There can be no serious discussion on reduction of dependency on oil, and the reduction in Green House gases without considering Nuclear. Wind and Solar are great at the local level, but they produce KILO watts, not the MEGA- watts required to run our country.

A nationwide light bulb changeout would be a much better investment. I guess if we have to build power plants, nuclear may be less dangerous to the atmosphere.

The problem is CO2 in the atmosphere,and the choices to correct the problem are coal to liquid,nuclear,solar,wind,geothermal.
The rest of the world thinks nuclear is the way to go.The US Congress thinks anything that gets them votes with do the trick. The Democrats seem to be a weak conterforce to big business and still can’t come up with an energy bill that makes a substantial effort at combating CO2.
Unless the Nuclear Industry get 80% government loan guarantees the Nuclear Industry will go nowwhere, and Congress is not in the mood to lose anymore money on start & stop projects because there is a change of direction in the future in combating CO2.As a result we will end of with a fractionalized energy policy that will end up doing nothing in combating CO2 except making money for the powers that be.The same old story.

The US NAVY takes nuclear reactors out to sea in carriers that roll, pitch, and yaw while carrying bombs and aviation fuel. Planes make controlled crash landings on the roofs of Navy containment buildings.

If that doesn’t prove anything, the Navy also takes their reactors hundreds of feet below the ocean. SSBN’s have nuclear reactors AND nuclear warheads. The warheads are on top of rocket fuel.

Here’s the problem. The NAVY is not for profit. My local power company isn’t interested in combat survival. They’ll be out to make the quarterly numbers. The reactor parts will be made in a third world country. The reactor crews will be temps with no benefits. The Navy has its own medical division. The Navy has its own college.

The Department of Energy will have to emulate the Navy and run the reactors at tax payer expense.

Our government isn’t great at running things but the Navy hasn’t had any big nuclear scandals. They couldn’t hide a nuclear accident aboard a ship with a crew of 5,000.

I don’t want some private equity outfit buying the reactor that powers my electric car. I don’t want to see McPower or Power-Mart using Wall Street controls in their reactors.

Nuclear Energy is the only good idea,as long as quality humans run it,build it and maintain it…STRICKT Quality…no slackers,believe it or not,most things we have would work fine if quality were priority

i live near an nuclear power plant and it seems that there are alot of unexplaned cases of cancer but then in the late70 i remember a melt down and mostly some steam went into the air it was 3 mile island and this area has an high rate of cancer its the #1 leading death rate in the area but weve came an long way from the seventies and with the right supervision and control i think we can harness the power of nucler energery and use it properly too our advantange

I’m absolutely opposed to the development of any new nuclear power plants in the US. The existing plants have proven to be dangerous and unreliable and now the added risk of a terrorist attack needs to be factored into the equation. Their byproducts are hazardous in the extreme and remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years, with no safe way to transport the spent material and no place to store it.
Existing nuclear plants should be decommissioned and eliminated ASAP, as they pose a grave threat to American security. We also need to get rid of coal, gas and diesel fuels that are contributing massive amounts of pollution and accelerating global warming. A “nuclear resurgence”? Over my dead body!

No to nuclear power – the most complicated way man has yet invented to boil water (to make steam, to turn a turbine, to make electricity, so we can turn on the light). Originally billed as producing power that would be “too cheap to meter” in the 60’s, there are some good reasons that no plants have been built in the US in the last 20 years, as Mr. Dobbins summarized so well.
I’m no nuclear engineer, but I visited the Vermont Yankee plant 25 years ago. There was a big pool emanating a bluish glow that stored the waste material. The material is…. still there, as there is no good solution for storing the waste.

The Yucca Mountain site has sucked up billions of taxpayer dollars but will never function. Transporting the waste via highway and rail across the country poses unnecessary risks due to accident or terrorism. Maybe the pro-nuke voices here will bury it in their back yard.

For all the talk in favor of reducing dependency on foreign oil, I didn’t see any mention of conservation or getting away from our SUV-based lifestyles.

My chemistry and history teachers in high school talked in depth about nuclear energy and their support of it.

In particular, we have the technology to reuse nuclear waste such that it’s not nearly the issue it was in the past. Modern plants are designed in such a way that even in the event of a failure it is extremely unlikely that we’d see a catastrophe like those in the past. Obviously care is needed, but nuclear plants built with current technology are safe and effective, and certainly better for the environment than fossil fuel plants.

Yes we should get back into nuclear power in a very big way. No green house polutants.

No,we should not be underwriting and financing a flawed nuclear revival with tax payer money. Further, the Price Anderson Act sticks citizens in host communities with the costs should a major accident occur…after Hurricane Katrina, it is obvious we would never be made whole.

Couple that with aging brittle reactors that could collapse at any moment like the bridge in Minnesota, and it is obvious a nuclear future built on the backs of leaking failing aged reactors is a fools folly.

Yes, nuclear power is a very reasonable and reliable source of electric power. Every new technology has been resisted by society. Nuclear has gone through it’s rejection cycle. It has an excellent record on safety. Yes, it must be managed by competent and careful people. The country cannot aford to not use nuclear power any longer with oil becoming so politically expensive and economically expensive.

The very best sources of renewable, sustainable, earth friendly energy are nuclear, geothermal and solar in that order. All, especially nuclear will be required unless we all want coal burners next door.

Nuclear energy when done properly is one of the safest & cleanest energy sources available. Using a good unit of production such as the CANDO reactor which has more safegaurds than any other sysstem is the way to go. Like all systems you get what you pay for. So If you are in the market for a reactor go CANDO!

Yes, nuclear power is one important part of a diversified energy program to produce safe, reliable, and continuous electric power. The storage of radioactive material from spent nuclear fuel, dismantled nuclear weapons, and nuclear medicine byproducts in Yucca Mountain site in Nevada is a sound and safe underground site remotely loacated in the mojave desert.

The oil companies would have us believe otherwise.

“I don’t have the names off the top of my head but what about the workers who had to go down and put out the meltdown and clean it up? I remember a story where one poor guy was so infected with radiation he infected his wife by sleeping next to her. Think he died from radiation from TMI?”

Then this is purely anecdotal at best. Even if it were true, the number of people killed in nuclear accidents in the United States is fewer than those killed in coal mine and oil rig accidents. Sago Mine was a catastrophe, but it is easily forgotten when the N word (nuclear) is used by fear-mongers.

Don’t get me wrong, there are still several issues with fission power that require attention before I would be 100% gung-ho for nuclear power. A safe and permanent method for waste disposal needs to be implemented. (There are several potential candidates that have been developed on small scales, such as turning spent fuel into glass and sealed in an isolated vault deep underground. Whether this method will work on a larger scale and for a longer period of time needs to be determined.)

TMI was the result of engineering shortcuts that would not be tolerated to day. If the reactors and control systems are built entirely to specs, they are inherently safe.

Speaking of reactor designs, there are many promising designs that have the potential to further increase reactor safety. One such design is of Chinese origin that uses a ball-bearing type fuel assembly and eliminates the possibility of a melt-down

No offense to our good friends in Nevada, but lets face it,…much of that state (or NM) is practically wasteland so it would be a good place to store the nuclear waste. I’m confident that additional gains can be made in resolving the waste problem. NASA and the Defense Department have clearly shown what billions of dollars can accomplish — lets put half that money towards something more useful.

America’s exploration into new nuclear power plants should be taken very carefully. While many cite Three Mile Island and Chernobyl as reasons against their construction, it is the long-term issue of radioactive waste that should concern citizens more.
Fourth generation nuclear power should be the goal of the United States and the pebble-bed reactor design is the most promising so far. Small, nearly-indestructible pellets of uranium are used in a design which reduces radioactive waste, conserves fuel, and minimizes fallout risks in the case of meltdown. A prototype of this design was intentionally steered toward a meltdown in 2004 but a built-in safety feature allowed the reactor to cool itself without any human interaction.
Nuclear power, while awesome and intimidating, can help alleviate some of America’s energy needs and, with wind and solar energy, help reduce the need for oil and other fossil fuels.

Longtime ago I was an antinuke. I used to say this technology was a catastrophic accident waiting to happen. Well I have been waiting for more than 30 years and thats to long. I learned that nobody died from the “catastrophic” TMI accident. I have also learned that the Chernobyl accident was a technology that would never be licensed in the western world. By the way, the official dead count was less than 100 and a few thousand tyroid cancer cases. I know other technologies that can top those number if managed irresponsibly. I am too tired of being stupid. I can only conceive that this technology is safe.

Another thing has happened over the last 30 years – I have learned things that are not obvious.

1) The Oil/Coal/railroad and other powerful special interest groups, directly or indirectly were fueling the anti-nuke movement. The equation is simple. More nukes means less oil, less coal, less railroad shipments – you can figure out the rest.

2) It seems that the people that support nuclear power typically present a better substantiated argument about the technology they defend. Anti-nukes (including myself in the old days) typically rely on fear and unsubstantiated facts.

3) The nuclear waste issue is not a technology issue. It is a political issue. I hear we have the technology to recycle this stuff, but it is very expensive because instead of improving it we have spent a lot more money debating it. No technology can move on with this kind of political wrap.

4)Finally, I learned that the safest nuclear plants are in general the most economic to run. This is not because of cost cutting – it is because of safe operations and efficiency.

Today, I am an enviromentalist for nuclear power. Less CO2 emissions have nothing to do with my belief. I am pro nuclear simply because I was wrong about being an anti-nuke.

I strongly support nuclear energy, it is a cost effective path substantially reducing our CO2 emissions and has proved to be safe and economical. I would like to point to the success of the French nuclear industry as an example we should follow for the good of the nation. I realize many people have a paranoia of radiation, but I would like to point out that coal contains a large amount of toxic heavy metals including mercury and uranium which are released into the atmosphere when it is burned. In fact one receives more radiation from uranium released by burning coal than from nuclear energy sources.

Yes. Definitely need nuclear energy.
Unfortunately, the most significant
Energy issue the World has ,is how to
move forward in spite of the many Donkey Hootes chasing windmills.

Very simple for me. I agree we need different, more eco friendly power sources, but nuclear? Accidents are not a major consern with me. We americans are smart intelligent people. And learn from the three mile mistakes in our lives. Its the unknowns that scare me. If the september 11th attackers had hit a nuclear plant?!. What would have been the long term effect of that?

lets face facts ,mass transit in states sucks.Only reason we dont have one is because people really dont care about envirment or our childrens future. Nuclar energy is just another poison to our envirmant.only thing that will change this is world war wwere people we be forced to concerve.

To Anonymous, Kansas City, KS
Where do you think that hydrogen comes from? It takes energy to produce it. Nuclear electricity would be a very good way to turn water into Oxygen and Hydrogen cheaply.

Ethanol…gas from coal…what other technologies can we name that bite off our nose to spite our face? Nuclear power offers the fastest and cleanest road to enegy independance. Additionally our investment in renewable energy sources (wind, solar) are critical to this independance as well. Build them nukes, baby.

Nuclear power is the safest, cleanest and most promising source of energy and power for the future. Many countries (not the USA) have more than 50% of their electricity provided by nuclear power plant, and in some countries the percentage is even higher. Our fear of nuclear power stems from our lack of knowledge and our lack of the facts. I was a nuclear engineer for most of my life, building, operating, repairing and refueling nuclear power plants. There are some things that must be done to make it the backbone of our nations future energy needs.

WE SHOULD NEVER HAD STOPED BUILDING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.
HERE IN CALIFORNIA OVER 25 YEARS AGO OVER 80% OF THE PEOPLE VOTTED TO BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS,I WAS ONE OF THEM.
ONLY THE CRAZIES AND DECADENTS THAT WANT TO PUT CIVILIZATION BACK TO THE STONE AGE.BECAUSE THEY ARE IGNORANT,THEY HATE TECHNOLOGY.
IF THIS COUNTRY DOES NOT DO IT,AT JUST WILL BECOME ANOTHER 3TH WORLD COUNTRY.

The two most practical means we have available to reduce carbon emissions and slow the pace of climate change are expanding our nuclear power fleet and reducing per capita energy consumption. Compared with other zero carbon emissions sources of energy, nuclear is the most achievable in large commercial scale in the next 20 years.

It is unbelievable to me that so many Americans are so stupid about energy. Haven’t you guys heard of Buckminster Fuller….What about Cal Tech Professor Nathan Lewis, the most authoritative expert on the raw figures. He explains for those that will listen, and by the way I am a professional Renewable Energy expert; to supply the 30 Terra watts of power the world needs, a terra watt is a trillion watts, we would need to build one, every other day and then they last only fifty years. Uranium is a fossil fuel. On the other hand 30 Terra watts falls on the earth in two hours from the sun collecting this would give is 600 terrawats is that enough? Wake up every one before it is too late. Nuclear power is an old fashioned 1950,s technology its a plutocrats toy for rich greedy pigs that only care about their nose in the trough. It is sad that so many sheeple have bought into their doomsday plan. Wake up America or become the Land of the Dumb….and by the way get yourselves a humane medical system before you are the laughing stock of the rest of the world.

Yes, nuclear energy is a good idea. It must be part of the mix of alternative energy for our nation’s future. After 40 years, people are acting as though we’re just thinking about nuclear energy. It is safer and much cleaner than coal-fired plants. They are developing plans for safer plants for the future.

Most people are not educated on the advances of nuclear energy, all they hear is “nuclear” and they think we’re going to get blown up. They won’t spend the time to learn about it, but they love to complain about it without hesitation. Without a doubt, Nuclear is the best way to go, you’re not convincing intelligent people otherwise.

To the idiot that thinks someone had to go and “put out” the melt down. I think you need to go back to grade school or something. What do you think it is a fire that you can spary with CO2. Get real you jerk and learn what you are talking about before making stupid comments. NO ONE died at or from the TMI accident.

It is funny how people that do not know a thing about Nuclear Power tend to be against it. Everybody still talks about TMI. They do not realize that the plant responded as designed and even though the core was destroyed, no radiation left the property.

“Any accident with ‘nuclear’ involved is catastrophic.”

Fear. Fear is a bad thing. Unwarranted fear is even worse. It is the fear that makes us choose the _stoooopid_ path that is catastrophic.

The no-nuke crowd can be divided into two camps: the fearful and the fear-mongers. Invisible radiation is easy to fear, especially if one refuses to trust. Understand that the people who design and work in nuclear power have families they love, too. These people care a great deal about your health and safety. If only the fearful would trust. As for the fear-mongers, there will always be Luddites.

Other than the loss of electrical generating capacity and the loss of capital investment, can anyone provide PROOF that the incident at TMI was “catastrophic”? Can you back it up with hard evidence? Can you count the number of people killed? Or the number of cancers caused? Or quantify the contamination of ground water? The answer: No, you can’t. Why? Because scientists — REAL scientists — have scoured TMI with sensitive instrumentation looking for any serious problems, and they haven’t found anything outside the entombed facility that a REAL scientist would call “a risk to the health and safety of the public”. The measurements used for this phrase are remarkably low and sensitive.

The security issues (regarding terrorists) can be handled by building nuclear facilities on military reservations. The waste issues can be handled by (1) using breeder reactors to recycle and thereby reduce the quantity of highly radioactive spent fuel that would otherwise require entombing for eons, (2) using breeder reactors to transmute radioactive isotopes into either less radioactive or non-radioactive isotopes, and (3) entombing only that which is necessary into repositories such as Yucca Mtn.

It’s either that, or get used to the dark and the cold. If we go the latter route, I’m moving my family to someplace with fewer fearful people.

Nuclear power and energy is imperative:
1. The ONLY viable mass energy alternative to fossil fuel.
2. Free us from being tied to the Middle East terrorists and other thug nations (Venezuela)
3. Diversification.
4. State of art nuclear energy, thorium, etc. will reduce the risks of spent uranium as it uses more of it in generating energy and can recycle the fuel.
5. There is no other alternative for peak oil (declining slope). Solar, wind, geothermal are minor substitutes.

There was a joint venture in the 1970’s between Westinghouse and Tenneco to build a series of floating nuclear power plants off the U.S. east coast. It was then and still is today a super idea, requiring no new technology. At the time, it was defeated by the environmentalists and labor unions in New Jersey. If it had progressed, we would doubtless be the world leader in nuclear power, instead of France and Japan. France has even figured out how to recycle the radioactive waste, rather than burying it. Surely the French are not smarter than us. I hope we really decide to do it right this time.

My family was forced to evacuate from Kiev, Ukraine because of the accident at Chernobyl, and my grandmother died of Leukemia shortly afterwards (quite possibly due to exposure to radioactive dust/food), so understand first-hand people’s concerns with neuclear power.

However, I am still a proponent of nuclear power. Why? Because the technology is many times safer now than it used to be, and it will only become safer in the future. If you don’t beleive me, read up on it (Wikipedia is a pretty good source).

Secondly, despite it’s drawbacks, nuclear is by far the most realistic and environmentally friendly solution we have available today.

All other solutions have severe problems: * Coal and oil plants are huge polluters, contribute to global warming, and use non-renewable resources * Wind and solar are expensive, require tremendous amounts of maintenance, chemicals and energy for their manufacture, use up real-estate, are bad for wildlife, and we still don’t have a good way to store the energy for use when it’s not windy or sunny (although hydrogen storage is a possibility in the future) * Hydroelectric is pretty much maxed out and is environmentally harmfull

Although I believe the government should invest more in building large scale solar and wind capacity, developing ways to store the power, and developing other technologies such as fusion, we still don’t know if these technologies will ever become large scale contributors to the energy economy. Nuclear is here today, and I would rather see the government invest in nuclear plants rather than spending it on coal, gas and oil powered plants. Investing in coal, gas and oil doesn’t make sense considering what we know about their harmful effects, considering that the price of gas and oil is only going to go up, and considering that we have to fight wars for oil (and the competition for oil is only going to get worse). By the way, we will still need oil for manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, airplanes and powering cars so it would be better not to waste it on energy production.

With more nuclear power, we could further reduce polution and our dependance on oil by using the power for charging plug in cars, and by using the nuclear power to cheaply convert water into hydrogen for powering hydrogen automobiles and planes once the technology becomes cheap enough.

Anyone that does serious research on this topic will see that today there is no other realistic option for mass energy production that is as environmentally friendly as nuclear. That is why France, China, Russia, the USA and many other countries are investing serious money into nuclear, and why they should continue to invest in it, while reducing investment in coal, oil and natural gas.

Nuclear power is not the answer either. There is only so much uranium on the earth so just like oil eventually we will run out. The reality is that humans need to really question their energy consumption needs. Ask yourself do I really need a Hummer or to run every light in my house? The excessive behaviors of our world waste things and all because we are lazy, fat and short term thinkers.

“Energy independence” has to become a key goal for our country. This will empower our government to engage in longer-view foreign policy strategy rather than our current preoccupation with short-sighted defense of strategic resources located under foreign soil. As the lowest cost energy source currently available to the planet,and one where our country already owns the technology, nuclear energy would appear to an obvious area for major investment by the United States. Of course, this investment must include the resources to assure safe operation of nuclear facilities.

This is for Anonymous, Kansas City KS and what he wrote about Hydrogen energy.

Hydrogen energy is a energy storage medium, NOT A PRIMARY ENERGY SOURCE. Energy is needed to make a hydrogen fuel cell. If that energy came from a clean source (nuclear power) then cars would be pollution free. If you make hydrogen energy cells from a coal power plant, then you still have pollution in the process of making the fuel cell.

To the person who wrote “We’re talking about making hydrogen power our cars, but why not our power plants?”: where do you think we are going to get our hydrogen? From power plants, and they better be nuclear ones. To make enough hydrogen to power cars, we’ll need to use electrolysis on water to split the H2 from the O. We would lose any benefit from going to hydrogen if we were to burn fossil fuels to make the electricity to perform the electrolysis. Thus, we’ll need clean, greenhouse gas emission free electricity – and lots of it – to make hydrogen. The only source that can do that is nuclear.

Nuclear Energy is too dangerous for the systems in place to control it. Chernobyl, 3 mile Island among other incidents demonstrate this. Radiation is toxic and persistent, the downside is too steep.

Please start building more nuclear plants now. Please pour money into research for even more effecient means of nuclear power. IT IS THE BEST OPTION!! no more oil.

Any one hear of thermal power?? very clean all you got to do is drill deep into the ground feed water into the hole and it comes up as steam to turn the turbines just like nuclear power but without the mess. Greenland has thermal plants that power entire citys So why can’t the best country in the world do something like this…Must be to prideful

we should try it again. we desperately need a new name for the very hottest buffalo wings.

Nuclear energy is the lazy man’s answer to our energy problems. We have and have had the know-how to produce energy in other ways but our government likes to keep a tight lid on that (we should have been done with gas-fueled cars decades ago). Nuclear waste and disasters are too catastrophic to risk. Those that tout the safety of nuclear power plants are fools; they’re operated by humans and run by humans. And those running the them eventually give in to greed (cutting costs, etc.) Safe? Ha! Anyone who thinks nuclear waste is an okay thing, how about you move to the nuclear dumping ground of Hanford, WA? And be sure to drink plenty of water while you’re there—it’s safe, isn’t it?
Insist on sustainability.

3mile island was the about the same radation as an xray, and considering the amount of da,age done by coal plants nucular is a good option.

realy it comes down to chokeing to death onm smoke or glowing in the dark

either way your dead if things go south
America needs to get over its fear of nuke plants

We should definitely encourage and invest in nuclear power plants … ASAP. We have a clear choice: Send our $$$ to our enemies or build nuclear power plants. Please build a plant in my county!

Cars crash, ships sink, and planes wreck. Accidents happen, but any accident with “nuclear” involved is catastrophic. It’s terrible that Three Mile Island happened, but even worse is that it wasn’t enouugh to make us change our ways. What will be enough to make us change? We’re all talking about making hydrogen power our cars, but why not our power plants?

What’s nuclear energy got that the others dont? Energy density.

I think it’s funny when the no-nukes decry the subsidies/funding that the nuclear industry has gotten, and then ask for as much, or more, to perfect turning (air/sun/water/moonbeams) into enough energy to help power our civilization.

yep go for it. it’s been 15-20yrs, I’m sure we know how to do it better these days. it’s that or coal!

Natural locations for new nuclear plants are hydroelectric dams where the transmission lines and water source are already in place.

Yes, I feel Nuclear Power is both safe and reliable. I work at a nuclear plant in upstate NY and from everything I have seen put into play here, safety is the number one concern and priority focused on day in and day out!

Jose (hmm possible HBO fan?) you are an idiot. Or maybe you are just having fun saying stupid things in what seems for the most part to be a serious discussion. We need more nuclear power now. Not only do we need to start building new plants we need to do so at the quickest, safest, possible rate to meet growing demand.

Contrary to corporate “greed” nuclear plants are also designed and built based upon a certain $/kilowatt electric installed. If its to high then the utility will simply look for another power source. I would also like to point out that when the “wind farm and solar panel/heating” craze started in the late 80’s and 90’s just about everyone that purchased stock into the windfarm project’s received considerable tax advantages. This also applied to solar water heaters, etc. So tax subsidies have pretty much benefitted those in the green zone!

There is not alternative today to Nuclear…

What do we have else :

-coal : an ecological suicide
-fuel : see above + a short term solution
-wind farms : well, may be for 15 % of our needs
-solar cells : Expensive and inefficient

Let’s be realistic : the choice is between stone age, CO2 barbecue or Nuclear…

(Tick the box : 1 answer)

A nuclear power revival is a bad idea. The nuclear industry has never been willing to operate by the the same rules that other businesses operate. If the nuclear industry had to buy full liability insurance in the private market instead of relying on government protection under the Price-Anderson act it would shut down immediately. The U.S. nuclear industry failed because it was a financial failure and not because of anti-nuclear activists. Anything can “succeed” with enough government subsidies. Let the nuclear industry try to revive in the free market without government subsidies and loan guarantees and it will fail again.

Yes, it is a great idea. Shame on us for not investing in this vital technology sooner.

yes, Absolutly. Nuclear safety technology can not advance without more nuclear power plant.

A considerable number of posters here are misinformed.

One poster claims that we’ve almost run out of uranium stocks. What follows is found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Resources_and_reserves

“It is estimated that there is 4.7 million tonnes of uranium ore reserves (economically mineable) known to exist, while 35 million tonnes are classed as mineral resources (reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction). An additional 4.6 billion tonnes of uranium are estimated to be in sea water (Japanese scientists in the 1980s proved that extraction of uranium from sea water using ion exchangers was feasible).”

Understand that the French have no uranium reserves, BUT THEY DON’T NEED THEM. Why not? BECAUSE THE FRENCH USE BREEDER REACTORS TO RECYCLE THEIR SPENT FUEL. What does this mean? It means that one load of Uranium fuel normally good for one year can be recycled into nuclear fuel and reused for MANY, MANY years. And this implies that much less highly radioactive spent fuel is entombed or stored.

In the interest of reducing the dissemination of disinformation here, I strongly suggest that interested parties read about breeder reactors at the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

We must drastically cut carbon emissions. It would be best if we could actually reduce CO2 content in the atmosphere. We need electrical power to feed society. Solar power is NOT free of environmental impact, since we would need to place many thousands of square miles into permanent shade, and it also takes HUGE quantities of energy to turn sand into molten glass and then turn that molten glass into nearly pure silicon. Furthermore, the chemicals and poisons used to manufacture solar cells have a significant environmental cost. We already have a problem with the placement of semiconductor integrated circuits into landfills.

While solar, wind and wave power can supply us with energy, these sources do not provide the energy density needed for society. Nuclear power is an absolute necessity.

No more nukes. There are plants now that should be closed down they are to old. These nukes aren’t like refineries that you can just keep pushing way past there prime. When a refinery goes it’s a bad fire. When a nuke goes it’s trouble for ever. As long as they are making money they are not going to shut them down.

Yes we need more nuclear plants. But we also need the government to step up along with the plan operators to complete the permanant storage facility for the radioactive waste, until it may someday be recycled/reused

I am all for nuclear power. I think it’s ironic that investment/adoption of nuclear power was stopped largely over environmental concerns and unfounded fear. Now 30 years later it is being considered a clean alternative to coal and oil. Imagine where we could be today if we had continued to invest in developing nuclear power over the last 30 years. It probably would have prevented this whole carbon footprint/global warming hysteria that we are seeing today….Thank you environmentalists…

Absolutly, if we use the heat generated from nuclear power we can make hydrogen for free. This will help green house gases far more than flexfuel and electric cars too.

Yes, we should give it another chance.

The latest generation reactors are safer and cleaner.

At minimum, we should use nuclear power until we can get solar efficiencies higher but I would be comfortable with it permanently.

Nuclear should have always been, and should be,a large part of the US Electrical Generation mix. We got way off track listening to groups like Greenpeace, etc. If we had continued with our original building plans, we would not be so dependent on the Mideast for oil. We would have kept the CO2 emissions and “global warming” down, which is what these groups are now complaining about.

I just wanted to give some facts about nuclear power already in the U.S. Most people don’t realize how much nuclear power we already have here. There are 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S. that give us 20% of all of our electricity.

To get the same amount of power from a single 1000MWT nuclear power plant you need 965 sq miles of wind power. To have enough wind power to power 20% of the U.S. you need 100,360 sq miles. Or in simple terms you need to cover the entire state of Colorado with wind mills to do what our current 104 nuclear power plants already do. Personally I think that would be more detrimental to the environment. Or you could cover the entire state of Alaska (501,800 sq miles) and power all of the U.S. right now (don’t forget our power consumption is not going to stop, it continues to grow).

Nuclear power just makes more sense and with already 435 nuclear reactors in operation in the world and not a major accident since 1979 I think it has proven to become a very safe and regulated industry.

Just ask the Japanese about safe power plants. Like oil, its all about corporate greed. Why not put the collective energy from the creative minds in this country toward seeking viable alternatives? We did put a man on the moon decades ago.

We definitely should invest in nuclear power. That’s the only way now to reduce green house gasses. Apart from that it’s a very cheap way of generating electricity. The only problem is the nuclear disposal. But one should realize that if all the energy consumed by a person would be generated by nuclear power, the nuclear disposal would be no more than the size of a thee spoon a year, which is not that much. Moreover, the period of which nuclear disposal is more radioactive than one can find in nature can be shortened to 50 years. We therefore have to invest heavily in nuclear power. Nuclear fusion will be the next step, but that’s still one bridge too far.

a correction and a comment for the readers. the correction is that hundreds of nuclear reactors have been built since the 1970’s for the department of defense these reactors do no more than provide power for us navy ships, second i work in the nuclear field and it is a very strict and ssafe field to work in the chance of another 3 mile island is there, but very remote

Fission based nuclear energy is the only option to meet short term power and energy needs here in the US.

France is on top among nations in being nuclear energy, self-sufficient.

Coal is the only other choice, period…. And it is no choice at all as added gigawatts of coal energy is just not in the cards, but I bet we still add a lot of coal plants, nonetheless. Coal is good for several hundred more years if all you want is cheap power.

Fusion electricity is a minimum of 50 years off, maybe more. I am a fusion researcher and should know the state of this non-art. Don’t let anyone tell you fusion is nuclear clean….It isn’t. It is a lot safer than fission, but fission is here, in use, and has a good record if you take humans out of the loop. (Both three mile island and Cherynobyl were due solely to human manual meddling with what was normally operated as an automatic reactor.

The technology of 2000 is a lot better than that of the 60’s and 70’s when most of the reactors still in service were designed and built.

I worry more that new reacotrs will not be built and placed on line fast enough!

The reactors in service NOW are all very old and most are beyond their design lifetimes. As you use or operate any contrivance that strains against multi-megawattts of internally released energy, operating 24-7, often at 100% design rating, you are asking for trouble, if operated beyond design lifespan.

We need new reactors now so we can shut down the oldest reactors that have trooped on well past their safe, useful lifespan. It is a testament to those engineers of the “Greatest Generation” that their edifices built under “Atoms for Peace” have survived so far beyond their pronouncements.

The pity is that if we build and decommission one for one we will only stand still. More likely we will tempt fate and let the old boys troop on, endangering the entire nuclear program’s future. (Look at the result of TMI’s tiny little burp back in the 70’s…It killed future fission dead)

Again, fission nuclear and coal is all we have if we grow and must create neeeded gigawatts at a flat, unaccelerated rate from this point on.

Forget solar, forget wind and all other ideas that seems so green. They cannot fill the gap.

If the TV’s, computers, and the millions of other devices go dark in future due to blackouts. The nuclear waste issue will become an overnight non-issue as countless billions scream in unison. “Get the %^&#$%@ power back on!”

Consider what your life would be like if you had no power from your outlet for 60 days. This is facing us now.

Nuclear power is the most expensive, slowest, and least efficient way to get electricity. Think of the years it takes to build one of those monster plants, and the cost is in the billions. A wind farm can be built in a year, costs only the turbines plus rent to the farmer who owns the land, and leaves no pollution behind to worry about. The same with solar, no pollution, no mess, quick installation. Of course winds don’t blow every hour and the sun doesn’t shine at night, so we would still have hydroelectric plants, batteries and generators, while we study other renewable methods. Don’t fall for the nuclear trap – and coal is the filthiest.

From the list of comments we have two (2) main groups. Those that strongly are for nuclear power and those strongly against.
I’m strongly for and just don’t understand how those against can be so narrow minded. How many thousands of mostly men have lost their lives drilling for oil & natural gas and in coal mines over the past many years.
It’s like saying one is more likely to die flying in an airplane than driving a car or even walking, both of which have been proven far more fatal.
I would agree that nuclear power needs vital attention paid to safety, backup failsafes, monitoring as well as design and engineering but then again those put out of work in other energy industries could be retrained for these type of needed jobs.
Quit crying wolf, some of us would like a break on energy costs and take a breath of cleaner air.

Push development of high performance electric cars, crank up the nukes, and tell the middle east pound sand!

Not only is Atomic power a good idea, it is essential. France now gets more than 75% of its electrical needs from neuclear. The US is the only major country in the world not currently building plants. Instead we use the empty oil barrels to ship cash to the Mid-East. The waste can be dealt with safely (is dealt with safely) if un-informed crazies can be kept at bay!

Nuclear power is our best option for affordable, enivornmentally friendly, purely domestic energy. As an electrical engineer with experience in the energy industry, I would say the only real problem with nuclear power is a lack of understanding. People wrongly worry about waste storage and accident prevention.

As for accidents, events like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island happened decades ago — think about how far technology has advanced since then. Just look at your PC and your cell phone for example. Modern control and safety systems are ridiculously more advanced than those early systems. As for natural disasters, we have a big enough country to find plenty of safe locations that are completely disaster free. Japan on the other hand, doesn’t really have any land that isn’t in a potential earthquake zone.

As for waste storage, Nevada, New Mexico, Idaho, and countless other states have more than enough completely unused, non-environmentally sensitive space. People just need to quit bickering and build the storage site.

Given that nuclear power has had more than a half century to prove itself in terms of economics, safety, security, and enviromentally, it definitely should NOT be given another chance.

It does not meet the market test.
No other industry is seeking $50 billion in loan guarantees. That’s because traditional investment wont touch it because of its high risk of default (according to the Congressional Budget Office more than a 50% chance of default). Of the 130 units that were completed in this country, 75 came in over $150 billion in cost overruns and decades behind schedule. Its quite like the “Peanuts” cartoon strip with Lucy offering Charlie Brown yet another kick at the football… we can not afford to fall flat on our back again particularly stakiung our chances of mitigating rapid climate change on an industry notorious for failing to meet cost of completion and time to completion. And given the delays and cost overruns already in evidence with new “advanced” reactor construction in Finland, Taiwan and Japan nothing has changed on that score.

In fact, if nuclear power is allowed to lunge forward with even more massive subsidization than it has already received over the decades (and still unable to stand up economically on its own) its is very likely to squander what precious little time and resources that are needed to abate rapid climate change.

Nobody knows what to do with the first cupful of nuclear waste generated more than 50 years ago. Who in their right mind would then consider adding to the a growing mountain of tens of thousands of tons of high level nuclear waste that sits percariously at reactors all around the world with no place to go? 36 US reactors are storing thousands of tons of deadly nuclear waste in storage ponds located literally on the roof of the reactor buildings 6 to 10 stories up outside of primary containment. Other sites are moving older nuclear waste from these pools into openly congregated dry cask storage units that look like so many bowling pins set up for a strike. There is no demonstrated, scientifically approved and accepted long term storage facility anywhere in the world. The only site in the US under consideration is Yucca Mt., NV, a site we already know to be seismologically and volcanically (the Lathrop Wells cinder cones) active. This is more akin to a science fiction story than reality. And we are talking about making more and more?

If these infernal things were so safe why is the nuclear industry still seeking federal limited liability protection from the full cost and consequences of an castastrophic accident or successful terrorist strike? The professional risk assessors (the insurance companies) will not touch these so-called “inherently safe” reactor designs nor the aging and increasing dangerous decreipt ones.

It is of increasing concern that the regulatory oversight of nuclear power is eroding.Beside a demonstrated bias by federal regulators that continually favors industry production and profit margins over safety and even security margins, within the next 3 to 4 years 40% of the staff over at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be of retirement age. Almost as many from the nuclear industry itself will be up for retirement within 5 years. Despite efforts by the industry and its federal champions, replacement with new graduates is increasingly dubious as nuclear engineering programs around the country have been drying up for lack of enrollment. The so-called rensaissnace lacks the personnel to sustain itself.

All in all, when you relook at nuclear power in all it problem areas, nothing, I repeat, nothing has changed. Its still the most expensive, dangerous and timelessly polluting way to boil water ever conceived.

The recent article in Rolling Stone expose the Ethanol scam plu liquid coal,oil shale, and oil sand. It cost more energy to make hydrogen than it produces. I don’t think solar and wind can fill the gap. I am consern about storing nuclear waste. But what is the alternative. Scienist found some bacteria in Yellowstone that produces energy it should be study. Waves in the oceans are constant source of energy. even tapping into volcanoes must be consider. I hope an answer can be found.

Coal is filthy and cleaning it up is going at a slow pace so I think nuclear power is definitely something we need to invest in. This may help hinder the “global warming” problem (quotes VERY intentional), but it doesn’t solve the main problem with America which is our addiction to energy.

Absolutely it must continue to be part of the Global supply for Power to continue the World’s forward Economic momentum.

Obviously new and safer technology of power plant construction needs to be stringently observed.

The biggest negative is the safe keeping of the long lived spent fuel.

The gennie has been out of the bottle since the first reactor under Soldier’s Field in Chicago.

Nearly 40% of all CO2 emissions in the US are from electric power stations. Build 50-60 large nuclear power stations and the US could make REAL cuts, not just the paltry cuts envisioned in Kyoto.
There are additional plusses such as the end of acid rain and a decrease of natural gas prices to more rational levels. (Most new power stations use natural gas because of all the expensive EPA regulations; natural gas burns at low temperatures so it is inefficient at generating the temps required. Huge amounts are needed when compared to coal.) Why not gassify the coal and turn it into diesel/heating oil/jet fuel while controlling the sulfphur content and keeping coal miners in WV, IL and WY working. There is much more to this scenario in terms of improving balance of trade by lowering imports of pertroleum. Think about it.

The only real energy source for the future is the sun. Let’s put all scientific energy into “harvesting” the sun’s energy.

Nuclear power could be used just to fill the time gap between now and a full sun-energy society.

Putting aside the discussion of nuclear waste and effects of radiation on humans, nuclear power is simply the most expensive and far-off solution to global warming. There are better solutions (renewable technologies and reducing demand). If the government invested some portion of the billions it spends on nuclear on renewable technology, we would have a safer solution sooner.

I will never agree to nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is “safe” now but ask those people at Chernobyl or Kashiwazaki if it is still safe to them…all it takes is one accident.
The technology is still new, accidents will happen eventually. Hopefully not soon

“Should we give nuclear power another chance?”

ABSOLUTELY NOT. If the industry could not get it right after $1+ trillion abd 50 years of trying, giving $50 billion in loan guarantees backed by the government — not the private sector investment or the so-caled free-market — won’t cure the indemic problems.

“Could it help solve global warming?”
Nuclear power is perhaps with the excception of coal itself the worst energy choice to deal with the global warming/climate change issues as was expressed in an LA Times and Salt lake City Tribune op-eds of July 23, 2007. Nuclear is too expensive; too slow to implement; and displaces less carbon per dollar spent than many other energy choices such as renewables, efficiency, conservation and co-generation. Nuclear expansion further exacerbates the nuclear proliferation, accident and terrorism potential, and nuclear waste problems. With only 9-1/2 years left to stabilize atmospheric carbon, choosing nuclear to do so is like choosing a health food diet and yoga to deal with an appendicitis — totally irrational, counter-productive, and a recipe for failure.

Many of the other comments about France, regulation, full costs and more in this thread either deceptively omit the downsides, or are downright wrong.

Nobody died at TMI. Period.
And over 150,000 miners have died over the last century mining coal for power stations.
France has already 75% nuclear power generation and no accidents

YES LETS DO IT

NO NO NO

Infected his wife sleeping next to her??? Who ever put this story out to begin read the last statement and comply, and I dont see how he could have because before you can leave a radilogical controled area you have to clear through monitors that count the loose radiation that is on you and your clothes and they cannot let you out if you dont pass the monitors this is controlled by radcon techs and is monitored by the NRC, and I can tell you for sure you absorb more radiation from the sun than you do from a nuke plant. People need to read from more than one source to get the whole and correct story before speaking about something as controverseal as Nuclear Power…

(It is better to let people think your a fool than to open your mouth and prove them correct)

To me, the issue of having to deal with nuclear waste is MUCH MUCH less of a worry than the issue of the enormous amount of carbon dioxide caused by burning of fossil fuels, which is currently the primary method of supplying the US with electricity now.

There are other alternative energy sources that also don’t emit carbon dioxide (solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal) that should be used as well as much as we can. The problem that is those by themselves are not enough to meet our energy demand. We need nuclear power to fill that void.

The safety and technology of nuclear power has improved tremendously throughout the last few decades, to a level that should diminish any worries of accidents that some people may fear.

Another thing to consider, in keeping in line with trying to eliminate as much CO2 production as possible, is the use of nuclear energy to produce electricity to then make hydrogen to power automobiles. Hydrogen can be produced via electrolysis to then be used to power hydrogen-powered vehicles, but right now the fact that we are using fossil fuels to produce electricity negates the benefit of avoiding carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. However, if we build enough nuclear power plants to meet our energy needs without having to use any type of fossil fuels for electricity, then the benefit of using electricity to create hydrogen is not negated by the source of electricity.

Anyone that still thinks that nuclear power is a bad idea needs to think about this: Is it really worth dumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to avoid the relatively miniscule problems created by nuclear power? Sure, nuclear power isn’t perfect, but to me it beats the status quo by a long long shot. And don’t think that solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric forms of energy are realistically enough to meet our energy demands.

I already have a nuke plant in my neighborhood. It is a fairly cheap way to produce power and is having no negative effect on the surrounding countryside. A few hundred more around the country would be a great idea. Then let the Arabs eat their oil!

The old mantra used to be, we don’t need nuclear power: it’s too expensive, there is no solution for waste and proliferation issues have not been solved.

The new mantra is, we need nuclear power, but the expense waste and issues of proliferation have yet to be solved.

All firms proposing to build new plants are foreign-owned (included GE and Westinghouse – think China and Japan), so how does this solve energy independence when American tax dollars are spent in foreign countries?

If this is the solution it certainly not a “free-market” solution and the cost to Japan of the loss of 7000+ MW and billions and billions of dollars should make us pause and rethink the Bush Energy Plan

First of all, there is enough uranium (U-235) to last a minumium of 200 years. Secondly, if the fuel is recyled and the plutonium used as a mixed oxide fuel, the available fuel will last even longer.
As for the waste stream, simply read the Scientific American article on the naturally occurring reactors in the Gabon provence of Africa. Simple analysis indicated that the by products of fissioning did not transport greater than 7 to 20 meters. Hence, the current disposal method of deep burial within glass lined canasters is not only safe, but extremely conservative.

I am all for nuclear power and would welcome a plant in my back yard. I have been extremely disappointed with our government officials and elected representatives that have not been willing to educate themselves and to stand up and lead us forward on this important issue.

The only objection to nucs I heard (and can think of) is the waste.
Well, there is the technology to deal with it. We do not have enough waste to deal with it profitably, though. So ironically to get rid of nuclear waste we need to produce more of it.
Basically the same neutrons that are used to split the uranium cause the radioactive waste to become less stable. Something that has halflife of 10000 years would catch a neutron, become less stable and split as the matter of seconds (while producing energy) into simpler elements.

Of course developing the equiment costs money and we do not have enough waste to make the process viable economically.

So if you are an environmentalist and hate that nuclear waste, you really and truely be fighting for more of it. A bit has to be stored at the stations (or under the mountain). A lot could be processe and be a problem no more!!!

There are good comments on this Fortune treatment of nuke energy, with most folks acceding to the need for nukes despite the downsides. Yes, there have been mishaps, Chernobyl being the worst. But the ecological zealots who fear nuclear power enough to want it banned in favor of only ethanol, wind and solar – and maybe geothermal – are the West’s equivalent of Islamic militants. Theirs is a back to nature dream that would abandon a great deal of modernity.

I admit, I am confused as to what the major issue with nuclear waste is. All of the waste generated by a nuclear plant is safely stored away waiting to be reused one day by future nuclear plants. Imagine a world powered by reactors with an endless supply of energy and no waste. This vision could very easily become a reality and with the current rate of things, France will be leading the way with their massive developments into the areas of reprocessing and fabrication.

For those concerned with the safety of storing nuclear “waste” at a plant rest assured that it’s perfectly harmless. In fact, you are exposed to more radiation watching TV or reading this post on your computer monitor then you would be walking by a cask filled with nuclear waste. Radiation is just a form of energy, its everywhere.

Nuclear power can be PART of the answer to global warming, but only if people can see that their safety concerns are being put ahead of the interests of the for-profit energy lobby. Greed and lies have really hurt nuclear power in the past.

The best thing would be to mass-produce cheap Geiger counters and distribute one to every household. That way everyone can check that their backyard isn’t radioactive – wait! – they can see that their backyard is already radioactive! Background levels are about 100 mrem due to minerals and cosmic rays. That can help put radioactivity into perspective. There is unimportant low-level radioactivity, and then there is serious health hazard radioactivity. And with a Geiger counter at home, everyone can tell the difference.

One thing is sure, the experts have no credibility left on this issue. But people will trust their own eyes. If there is a significant radioactive incident close to them, they will be the first to know.

Nuclear equals no Carbon dioxide, no global warming, no bowing and fighting in the middle east. Our children will thank us.

A lot of people seem stuck on the idea that one source of power is going to take over and be the end all be all. What we really need is diversity, and I think nuclear power should contribute a bigger to the energy basket.

To address some of the previous comments made: Solar and Wind are excellent sources of energy, but are not very practical in large scale power generation. The sun is not a reliable source for constant power because unless you live in the sunny southwest with 300+ sunny days a year and vast open deserts, you’re not going to get consistent power. Also, the amount of space that solar power would take up to produce large scale energy dwarfs what would be needed to store spent fuel waste.

Large repositories for spent fuel have not been utilized yet because there has not been any need. The relatively small amount of waste has so far been able to be store on site. It is contained and does not pollute the air or water around it.

The amount of spent fuel waste that comes from one fuel cycle (which last for about 4.5 years) for an average 1000MW plant is about 27 tons, which takes up about as much space as a 1200 sq-ft apartment. Where as it would take about 540,000 tons of coal, of which it is all being burned and distributed into the air.

For comment about not knowing what happened at TMI and Chernobyl, that is false. Just because no one has stopped you on the street and told you, it doesn’t mean it is not known. TMI’s problem was that there was operator error when a warning signal was disregarded as a false positive because of inadequate instrumentation. There were lessons learned from that event and new safeguards have been put in place to prevent it from happening again. What TMI also did was display the safety features which prevented the radiation from exiting the containment building (which is something Chernobyl did not have). The only thing hurt by TMI was the nuclear power industry.

I’d just like to finish by saying nuclear is an excellent source of greenhouse gas free power and people should not be afraid of it. It should be considered when thinking about ways to reduce coal burning, along with the renewable energy sources.

I’d like to suggest anyone who has any interest in this subject read the book by NM senator Pete Domenici.. “A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling the Promise of Nuclear Energy”

He talks about the many alternatives and has very thoughtful insights that can qwell peoples’ fears about Nuclear.

The main thing of importance besides the humans heath safety concerns its also the disposal of the waste. The government and energy providers want people to believe that nuclear energy is a clean resource for energy and this is the biggest this from the truth. We (the U.S.) don’t even have a main area in the U.S. to dispose of the waste. Not only is this wast toxic but it will remain dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. The earthquake that recently happened in Japan should also be a wake up call that natural disasters can also be of great danger to the reactor. We are not living the the 1950’s when nuclear energy was thought to be the future. It belongs is the past and now that we have the technology to move forward we must give the next generation hope and a clear vision of the future.

Nuclear power has proven itself in France year after year. Quality construction, employees and employers makes this a no brainer. HOWEVER, we need to change the regulations pertaining to the waste. In France they take the used fuel and use it again (I forget the actual term) and here in America we have laws that forbid it (and why we have tons of waste and France less than 50 pounds yearly, I’m not sure the exact number)

It works, it’s proven. Now do it. And you can do it in my backyard…

Nuclear wastes are recyclable, non-polluting, and renewable. Better than coal and oil. Expensive to build nuclear plants, but long term are better. Nuclear wastes are renewable and when handled properly are extremely safe.

If it’s good enough for France and the rest of the world then it should be good enough for us. All kinds of improvements have been made since we last built one in the USA. The only thing that will hold up construction time are the NIMBY’s and the NIAOBY’s. Wind power is being held up the same way as well as new refineries.

We better or just move inland 20 miles from the coast, buy gas mask and learn to live on soyengreen.
We are distroying our planet at a rapid rate burning fossile fuels. Wind, Solar and nuclear must be in our future if we are to have one.

Nuclear is not the ultimate answer, but it is the answer in the short term. Unfortunately, our collective nuclear fears may make building nuclear plants too late to help.

To the “no nukes” folks: what’s the other realistic, as-easily-achievable answer? You say coal is too dirty. You say gas is either too dirty, too expensive, or makes us rely on foreign sources like we are reliant upon the middle-east for oil (instead we’d probably be reliant upon Russia!!!). Wind and solare just aren’t there yet and neither are any of the other “green” technologies that could KW-for-KW replace our collection of “dirty generation plants”. So what other technology do we have, in hand, that can KW-for-KW replace the coal and gas plants *and* match our projected electricity demand?

Our current and projected electricity demand is outstripping our ability to generate and transmit it; and our flaccid attempts to be energy efficient are barely affecting our uncontrolled consumption of electric power. Something needs to be done, or the lights will go out (and that’ll be the important lights too like hospitals, fire departments, prisons, etc.).

Nuclear is the short-term something; and that short-term should be kept as short as possible.

To keep that use of nuclear generation short, our government needs to start investing some R&D money in what we’ll do to replace nuclear power. Otherwise, we’re only postponing when the lights will go out.

The facts that have been stated in other response ignore the most important fact: We’ll produce electricity at any cost (financial or environmental) because not enough of us are willing to conserve power in meaningful way. WE, not our government, and not the power generators, have made nuclear a necessity because we refuse to be mindful of our power consumption. If we didn’t demand so much of it, they wouldn’t need to figure out ways to generate so much of it at any cost.

>Nuclear power is not carbon free, it >takes a lot of fuel to mine, process, >and transport the fuel, as does >building the power plants, which have >limited life span.
Takes a hell of lot less than coal, gas, which you have to mine, build plants, etc
Until we get fusion, we’re stuck with
nuclear power.
You should see how much ethanol costs

Many of you are complaining about the “waste”, but fail to realize the entirety of this “waste” is sitting on site at your local nuclear plant. Think about that for a minute. Every bit of fuel that has ever been used over the past 30 or so years is contained in a pool (or cask) within the boundary of your local plant (uses up about an acre of real-estate).
Mean while other power sources are distributing their waste into your air, your water, and your food. You people are ingesting it while you complain about the spent fuel that is safely stored away.

>I don’t have the names off the top of >my head
because no one died
>but what about the workers who had to >go down and put out the meltdown and >clean it up?
they were protective suits
>I remember a story where one poor guy >was so infected with radiation he >infected his wife by sleeping next to >her.
They key word in that sentence was “story”, can’t infect someone with
radiation, it’s not a virus
>Think he died from radiation
Its questionable whether you think at
all.

i don’t see any other way but nuclear.
If we are looking to change the way we drive and other aspects of our lives to save fuel… then electricity should be a must for a change.

Nuclear bad, coal bad, hydro bad, tar sands bad, and oil is running out. Let’s just sit and wait for the lights to go out!

It’s my understanding that if we were to generate all the electricity we currently use with nuclear power, we’d run out of fuel in 25 years. A stopgap measure at best. A very risky one at that.

Very few people realize the staggering advances in nuclear power generation in the last 3 decades. About 3 months ago there was a 60 minutes story on the resurging nuclear industry and the ability to reprocess the uraniun into more usable fuel leaving almost no waste. Also, reactor design technology currently available makes it impossible for a meltdown to occur unlike some older reactors. Nuclear is the wave of future power generation for anything resembling low to no toxic emission power generation. With growth in China and India and scarce fossil fuel resources, we had better get on board or pay triple for dirty electricity in the future.

Nuclear fusion is the answer. If we spent as much money on fusion research and development as we have on the Iraq war, we be a lot closer to making it a reality. While mankind stands to gain an enormous amount from fusion, Haliburton (Exxon/Mobil, and others) would lose a fortune. As a result, the government fails to dedicate the necessary resources.

We have to move to nuclear energy. There is no other way around. So far we are just postponing the inevitable.

Jose, not one single person died @ TMI, there was no meltdown only, no China Syndrome only some small amounts of radioactive stream and water escaped.. The nuclear reactors constructed in the US are completely different from the one that caught on fire in Russia. This statement is only one example of an uneducated public fearful of the science of nuclear power. It is one of the most efficient means of generating electricity on a per unit basis yet divised. E=mc2

NUCLEAR POWER = INSANITY — Which Means We’ll Likely Do it:

The costs just don’t merit building nuclear power plants. Here’s a short list:

* Construction Time: 5+ years (provided that approval for such a plant is even achieved: nobody wants a nuclear power plant in their neighborhood)
* Making the tremendous amount of cement used in construction is a MAJOR source of CO2, exactly the pollution we need to stop producing
* We do not have any Uranium stocks of our own in the USA so we must depend on importing it. This stuff is getting super-expensive these days because many countries are scrambling to build these plants.
* We DO NOT have any place to store the radioactive wastes. This stuff is extremely dangerous to the environment and remains so for thousands of years.
* Dangers? Did anyone happen to read about the recent problems in Japan a couple of weeks ago when their nuclear power generation plant — one of the world’s most advanced and well-run, had to SHUT DOWN (and will remain shut down for many months) after a strong earthquake caused much unforeseen damage?

In summary, we just cannot afford to take all these risks just to keep up with our wasteful western lifestyles.

NO TO NUCLEAR POWER!

Preston

I would advocate an increase in nuclear generated power- IF we put a lot more research into waste reduction/elimination and IF the plants were built with greater security and safety. I served on nuclear submarines for 11 years. I believe that if nuclear utilites were held to the same safety standards as the U.S. Navy, nuclear plants would be very safe (to operate, not necessarily from terrorism). The U.S. Navy, in 50-ish years has never had an accident that released fissle material into the atmosphere. Even the 2 lost nuclear submarines, (Thresher & Scorpion) entombed on the ocean floor, have been tested and show very low radiation levels.

I remember reading a magazine back in the 50s that predicted that “nuclear power was so cheap that we would pay maybe $5 a month to power our house” well… I paid last month $350.00 to power my home and my house is connected to a nuclear power plan. So much for economy…
But my may concern is the waste, Were are we going to put the tons of radioactive waste produced by these plants?

Nuclear power generation, under the control of a corporation, is the proverbial “time bomb” that statistically will detonate some day, with consequences that defy full comprehension. Acts of nature or acts of people (business people, politicians, terrosists, ….). You can’t have it both ways; you can create the illusion, but it is not a reality. Conserve and move toward alternatives that are all around us.

Nuclear power plants should be increased, but why not build several small plants rather than a few large plants?

Jose, you’re wrong. You’re just wrong.

NO ONE died at or because of TMI. NO ONE!

Not one single solitary sole.

I strong feel that new reactor designs that are inherently safer than current designs should be given a chance. Older designs, such as Pressurized Water Reactors, that require complicated cooling systems should ultimately be phased-out and replaced (if deemed safe and reliable) with newer designs such as pebble bed reactor which promise great improvements in safety and reliability.

I think nuclear power is a great idea. I think people make way too much over the dangers of storing nuclear waste. There are thousands of square miles of totally uninhabitable land in the southwest, and the states that have it would love the storage revenues. When you can replace thousands of gallons of fossil fuel a day with a piece of metal the size of a lime for 30 years, it is worth it. I would rather risk a tiny radioactive leak on one acre in the desert than continue to belch out coal smoke constantly.

In France, they have a Nuclear power plant serving over 70% of their power. This waste is stored in the form of glass (sealed in safe containers )which emit less radiation than is produced by an airplane in flight. Why haven’t we converted to Nuclear power…whats more dangerous, the little radiation from waste, or the vast amounts of toxic fumes we spill into the atmosphere, causing global warming; or the radiation put off from the power were trying to produce anyways (power lines and other electrical devices)?

There will be accidents with nuclear power. However, take a look at the number of industrial accidents that have occured due to conventional sources.

Also people think that we are going to go and build the same 1950/60/70 design reactors that they see nowadays. However, if they would sit back and think they will realize that the engineering of nuclear power plants has greatly increased over the past several years. For instance, are you safer driving a Model-T down the interstate or a new car? Quite frankly, the only major obstical to nuclear power is that no one wants a reactor in their back yard.

It is a true fact that not a single person died at TMI or because of TMI. And no one had to “put out” the melt down.

Pat from Yler, TX, makes an interesting point about the current military situation and oil, but nuclear fuel is not endlessly abundant either. It is also NOT all conveniently located just beneath the power plants, but rather in various far-flung regions of the planet, meaning that the fight for finite resources, be it oil, uranium or water, will continue.

It is not merely a “what if” safety question should disaster of some sort strike a nuclear plant. There are so many strikes against nuclear power that it should be abandoned.

By the way, as a staunch anti-nuke sort of person, I have to admit the overall concept of nuclear power is fascinating.

Nuclear power is safe, clean and cost effective. We have uranium reserves in the US that will last 100 years. Nuclear power plant technology has improved significantly resulting in designs that are simpler and less expensive to build and maintain. These new designs are also extremely safe to operate. The unfortunate consequences of our dependence on imported sources of energy should be more than sufficient incentive to rekindle the building of nuclear power plants. As for global warming, the developing economies in China, India and much of the third world will negate any CO2 reductions we may experience via a shift to nuclear power. If you buy into the carbon based global warming hype as defined by the likes of Al Gore, your only logical conclusion is unavoidable global catastrophe.

I see comments such as compare to renewablesthat are clean and abundant. I reply, that would be great if people accept the windmills etc. The only concern is they do not have the ability to supply the power used today. Who will go without?

I see comments that it is the nuclear wast that is the issue. Some more forward looking countries (they do not have our other resources) are already looking to use that so called waste as a power source. I believe that we will be doing this within 20 to 30 years. If we address nuclear waste as waste, there are already capabilirties to store it quite safely. Then we get to the political arena where the facts are in the mind of the politician and the push is to make nuclear waste so safe to store that the probability of a meteor killing a million people is much more probalbe.

Lets make some decisions on facts and not emotion. Vote for the good of the most.

We cut our electricity use in half by switching to compact fluorescents. Do
we really need so much extra generating capacity? Remember the manufactured shortages in California? Have we seen rolling blackouts since Enron’s demis I think conservation together with more investment in renewables makes more sense, and doesn’t produce waste that will be dangerous for thousands of years.

Nuclear power is such a staggeringly bad idea that I wonder why on earth anyone would consider it. I mean – for a start, nobody in their right mind would invest in such a dicey and expensive industry.

But then – I remembered the weapons industry, and the arms race, and the need to be top – even if it means you get blown up – well – you were still top at the time. That seems to be the way that the Bushs (or more correctly Cheneys) and Putins of this world think. As for us – the great unwashed – we guiltily feel that we could do without nuclear weapons, and without our tax dollars propping up this ridiculous industry.

Man’s energy use has progressed from the least concentrated sources (peat, wood) to more concentrated fuels through the years. Solar and wind power are almost useless since they only provide small quantities of poor quality electricity while occupying large tracts of land. Wind farms are a form of extreme visual pollution.

Nuclear waste has never been a real problem- just an emotional rallying point for the misinformed. New technologies promise great reduction of generated waste.

A revival for nuclear power is long overdue- let us hope the bureaucrats and pagan extremists do not kill our childrens’ hope for safe, clean & affordable energy.

Nuclear is the most expensive power ever made. The total cost hasn’t even been added up since none of th waste has been cleaned up or stored which will have to be for the next 2,000+ years. It uses a lot of water and that is going to be the next high prices shortage. The dangers and terrorist target that nuclear plants make is another cost.
Just look at the shut down in Japan from the last earthquake. Is that reliable power. All 3 of the deadly reactors in Phoenix AZ were shut down for a month because of problems. Is that power you can count on.
The subsidies for research trying to clean up the waste is higher than any other power cost.
Only renewable and efficiency can get us throught the 21st century. Wind and Solar with hydro as the base power can really clean up our world. New plug-in vehicles can help store and extra power and with net-metering all people can help the system. What a wonderful world.

We should definitely increase the use of nuclear. It solves all three of the main problems with energy today, i.e., global warming, air pollution and foreign oil and gas dependence.

Whereas fossil plants cause ~25,000 deaths ANNUALLY in the US alone, and are responsible for ~40% of US CO2 emissions, nuclear plants have never killed anyone, and have not had any measurable impact on public health. It has a negligible global warming impact. Even a worst case meltdown would not cause nearly as much harm as fossil plants do annually.

It is fossil fuels, not nuclear, that have the unsolved waste problem. Whereas the massive quantities of fossil fuel waste are dumped directly into the environment, nuclear waste is generated in tiny volumes and has always been fully contained. Nobody has ever been harmed by nuclear waste. Unlike any other industry, nuclear is required to demonstrate that its wastes will be contained until they are no longer hazardous.

Scientific analyses show that Yucca Mtn. can accomplish this. The real truth, however, is that the waste won’t even be there 1000+ years from now. We will have long since developed the technology to process/use/eliminate the waste by then. The risks from nuclear waste, short-term and long-term, are infinitely smaller than the risks for other energy sources and their wastes.

of corse nuclear power is better safer and soon with better tec it will be cheaper just look at what GE is building

I have lived near enough to the San Onofre nuclear plant in So Calif to potentially be contaminated in an accident for more than 20 years . Some streets in cities I have lived in bear warning signs, because they are routes that are used to transort the nuclear waste from the reactors. The reactors were not intended to be in use for the length of time they have been. I’ve even been on a tour thru the plant. But I am still against nuclear power.

The primary reason I am against it is the radioactive waste it produces. I don’t want us to leave any more of a mess for upcoming generations to clean up! On the other hand, I believe that the main reason solar and wind power encounter resistance is because they can be accessed directly by consumers that are willing to make the effort. With solar cells in roof tiles and other innovations, plus prices going down as the technology becomes easier to produce, this is only going to increase. Remember, here in So Calif we do use some wind power; there is a windmill ‘farm’ out near Palm Springs. The argument that nuclear power is clean and free of elements that contribute to global warming is weak in the face of solar and wind power that have none and no radioactive waste! Even if the power co’s choose to develop these clean sources and sell the resultant energy to those who can’t or don’t want to access it for themselves, which would likely include most apartment dwellers, etc., they are still a better, cleaner and safer choice.

“Let’s not compare nuclear power to coal and natural gas but to solar power, wind power, and other more earth friendly options that are abundant and create no waste.”

Sorry, but nuclear power can generate enormous amounts of electricity such as coal and natural gas. Solar panels which have similar chemicals in it as anti-freeze , and wind which causes interference with national defense satelites, provide a very small fraction of power compared to their non greenhouse gas emitting rival, nuclear power. Nuclear power plants today provide 20% of the nations electricity. Wind and solar do not have the capability of providing hospitals and the rest of the country the reliably source of base load generation that nuclear and the fossil fueled plants provide. We need baseload generation and the best option unquestionably for that is nuclear power.

I have heard talk of recycling nuclear waste to power. Is this a feasible reality? If so, I think places like Hanford and Yucca Mountain could serve us well.

For those who argue that nuclear waste is horrible, I would suggest that you start talking about breeder reactors. A breeder reactor actually reduces the quantity of highly radioactive long-term waste, because it recycles spent fuel. Furthermore, from a theoretical perspective, a breeder reactor could be used to transmute some radioactive waste into stable, non-radioactive isotopes.

As for a target of terrorism, I would suggest you read an earlier post I placed here concerning placing a “nuclear island” on military reservations. Let the terrorists try to target the Army and see what happens.

For those who make misleading statements about corporate welfare, I would suggest to you that without government research, we would never have made it to the Moon. And if you don’t care about that, then I would suggest that you throw out all of your electronics and your computers, because research supporting NASA and the military directly contributed to those consumer items.

Yes, I like the idea of solar, wind and wave power, but I also know how to look at Economic systems and I know that those approaches are inadequate without significantly curtailing population growth and perhaps reducing the population.

Sooner or later we’re going to need to desalinate a lot more water for human consumption. That’s extremely energy intensive. Hopefully we have fusion reactors by then.

To those who believe that solar is the answer, I strongly suggest that you consider the energy density required to produce 1.0 gigawatt electric. Assume a 10% conversion efficiency, because the solar cells will accumulate dust and become translucent over time. Consider the environmental impact of placing all those solar cells in the desert. How many ecological niches and species are we going to screw up by placing thousands of square miles into perpetual shade? And how will this effect the weather?

At this time, solar power has more promise being placed on the roof tops of homes as a means to reduce electrical demand from the power grid. But a constant local solar energy source is _not_ dependable, because of stuff called “clouds”. You still need a dependable source of power.

Also consider the environmental impact of all the poisons that are used to create the solar cell semiconductors. Gallium, Arsenic, Phosphene gas, and the very strong acids used to etch the semiconductor substrates only touch the surface. Semiconductor fabrication is cleaner than it used to be, but there’s a lot of stuff in computer chips that shouldn’t be sitting in landfills.

And if you’re going to consider the energy efficiency of a large array of solar cells, then you should also consider the amount of energy needed to melt sand into glass, extract all the chemical impurities from that molten goo and otherwise fabricate the thousands of square miles of solar cells that will be needed.

Yes we need it, better than the route were on now.

IN THE JULY 2007 ISSUE OF PLAYBOY, PAGE 43, YOU CAN READ ABOUT FRANCE GETTING 80% OF THEIR ELECTRICIY FROM NUCLEAR ENERGY. THEY RECYCLE THEIR WASTE TO WHERE IT IS 95% PURE. UNLIKE AMERICA WHERE WE ARE GOING TO BURY IT IN UTAH WHERE IT WILL BE RADIO ACTIVE FOR A 1000 YEARS. IF FRANCE CAN DO IT WHY CAN’T WE.

Alrighty, folks, it’s fact time. There are several very valid concerns that people have posted here with regard to nuclear power. As a certified nuclear engineer, I will tell you how these have been addressed.

SAFETY. Many people believe that nuclear reactors are inherently unsafe and are capable of exploding and sending radioactive fallout into the atmosphere. This is what did happen at Chernobyl – because that reactor was designed backwards. As the reactor temperature rose, it sped up the nuclear reaction, which created more heat, and made the reaction even faster… until the water inside flashed to steam and the pressure blew the top off the reactor. That’s backwards. There were only five other reactors on Earth designed this way and they have all been shut down.
All reactors on the planet today are designed with materials that expand and melt when they get too hot. This allows neutrons to escape, rather than fissioning more fuel. The reaction slows down and stops on its own. The reactor is horribly damaged and can’t be used again, but it sacrifices itself to protect the environment. This is what happened at Three Mile Island, WITHOUT any action from the operators in the control room. It was the greatest PROOF of reactor safety ever seen. A catastrophic accident occurred, and the reactor shut itself down without any release of radiation or harm to plant workers.

HALF-LIVES. Long half-lives are a good thing. If an isotope lasts a really long time, that means it is giving off its radiation at very low levels, very slowly. Isotopes with an infinite half life are called “stable” – they emit no radiation at all. By contrast, if an isotope has a very short half-life, it gives off all its radiation very quickly. That fast burst of high-level radiation is what is harmful to living things. Long, low-level exposure is natural and all life is used to it. We get it from the sun and from minerals in the earth and from bananas all the time. We do not need to protect ourselves from things with a long half-life.

RADIOACTIVE WASTE. The harmful part of waste from nuclear plants are the isotopes with short half-lives. When we recycle nuclear fuel, as the French, Japanese and Russians do, we separate the short-lived isotopes from the others. The short-lived, harmful waste decays to safe levels in a matter of DECADES, not millennia. That’s about the lifetime of a normal land-fill. The long-lived isotopes are still useful, and can be re-used as reactor fuel, giving us much more energy and reducing the cost of fuel.

THERMAL POLUTION OF RIVERS. All power plants do this. Heat, and a cool place to dissipate it, are required to produce electricity. This argument does not separate nuclear power from any other form of electric generation. Options that don’t use heat – wind, solar and hydro – cannot provide even 25% of today’s current power demand, even if we dammed every river on the planet. Also, see the previous comment about the safety risk of a bursting dam…

USING PUBLIC MONEY. Designs for nuclear reactors today come solely from the private sector. And as for the funding for waste handling – the nuclear power companies have been paying the US government for DECADES to deliver a promised repository at Yucca Mountain and they’ve been stiffed on the delivery. That’s a multi-billion dollar cash pot ABOVE AND BEYOND the taxes they’ve paid over the years.

The solution to handling nuclear waste is to use it as fuel! The current fuel cycle used by our reactors is horribly inefficient. More modern reactors can actually use this “waste” as fuel.

These more modern reactors do eventually produce waste products, however in contrast with the waste produced by existing reactors, there is much less waste product produced, and the waste will decay to background levels of radioactivity in 200-300 years rather than taking billions of years.

Nuclear Power isn’t necessary. Nuclear Power carries an environmental risk. Nuclear Power is expensive.

We need superconductivity! We need to reduce the amount of energy we need.

Are the powers at be interested in solving problems or making a fortune for associates.

For the past thirty years, I’ve always believed that nuclear power could be an important energy source. The press has played up nuclear energy in a negative light. What people have to realize is that both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were caused by human error not a flaw in the technology.
The Navy has been operating nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers for years. Yes, there is an issue on the disposal of nuclear waste but comparatively speaking, we dispose of thousands of tons of other toxic materials every day.
I believe we should look at nuclear power as a means to an end. It is a “gap” power source that can provide us with sufficient energy until we can fully diversify our energy sources to solar, fuel cells, etc. When we technologically and economically reach that point in the future, we can then begin to scale back nuclear as a power source.

Nuclear power is an alternative that must be developed as part of any comprehensive plan to reduce our reliance on oil and gas. We have learned a great deal over the years concerning the safety issues and modern technology can produce safe nuclear plants for this country and the world.

many people are against nuclear power for various reasons, but we need to remember that the last wave of nuclear power plants were developed in the 70s, when technological standards did not exist.

We can argue over the validity of terrorism or Chernobyl as reasons to avoid developing nuclear power, but there the most compelling reasons FOR nuclear power are inherent in developing eco-energies: there’s no preservation of wildlife when miles of solar panels and wind generators must be erected over thousands of miles of land.

We do not yet have the technological capacity to draw vast amounts of energy from the earth sustainably and account for modern electrical usage. The technology required to build, maintain, transport and decontaminate nuclear energy are here now.

IF another disaster happens, we will hear many voices repeat the phrase “I told you so”. But will someone say that after expansive stretches of wildlife are covered in solar panels and STILL won’t be able to completely replace the coal burning industry?

Yes the best way to go is nuclear power. It is very cheap to run, althought it is high priced to build. I know that there are NIMBY out there, but in the long run it will save our NG supply for the people. It will slow the use of coal which everybody wants. If we keep going to E-85 for cars we can say goodby to the oil cartel. We then will be going in the right direction.

Solve the waste problem first, and only then consider building more plants. Most of the disposal techniques discussed are good for 25K years or so, far short of the typical 250,000 year half-life of Plutonuim. The typical nuclear fuel cycle uses fissile material once, followed by disposal, rather than reprocessing. Essentially, we are creating ever more radioactive waste without a solid idea of how to reliably dispose of it. Dumb idea in my opinion.

For 5 billion dollars at 1000 mega watts and 7 years to develop a nuc plant you could put up 2500 windturbines and 5000 megawatts output and have them in place in 3 years.And you do not have to store the nuclear waste for ten thousand years or live in fear of human failure.

One aspect missing from this discussion is the use of nuclear reactors known as actinide burners. These reactors can use spent fuel from today’s light-water reactors and re-use it in fast reactors. We would be eliminating the long-lived actinides and generating electricity at the same time.

Should we give nuclear power another chance? Absolutely, cleaner more efficient and less dependence on foreign supply.

Waste can be managed and is considably less when compared to waste generated by other sources.

And wind and solar by comparison are not effective on a large scale nor are they FREE. There are expenses with both.

I don’t think the question is exclusive of wind and solar, the answer should include all three.

Conspiracy theories concerning the damages and death at TMI, and government/industry cover-ups remind me of the Luddites. It is OK this won’t take away your loom.

And just so you don’t think I am an industry advocate, I’m not.

Please understand that radiation is not a disease with which one becomes infected, Jose. One person exposed cannot infect or expose a second person.

I love nuclear power. The more we use it, the better we’ll get at harnessing it. We just can’t grow enough corn.

Chris, I would recommend you take a 70 mile trip up I-40 and see how much “Waste” 30 years of power production in Arkansas has generated. I imagine it would all fit within the confines of your yard.
… but I reject the notion that spent fuel is waste. I like to refer to it as a future resource.

Nuclear Power itself is a good idea, but what about the nuclear waste that comes with it. Where do we put it all? Yucca Mountain (the proposed mountain for nuclear waste) has all kinds of issues includng leaking earthquake guarantees. Just google information about Yucca mountain and you will want to rethink nuclear energy. Before building anymore nuclear power plants, we must first find a way to deal with nuclear waster responsible

The nuclear waste “problem” can easily be solved by designing reactors to burn the fuel to generate power.

Integral Fast Reactors extract more energy from the fuel, and they don’t produce the waste that current reactor designs do.

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

Of course nuclear power is safe, reliable, clean, efficient, convenient, etc. etc.

Nuclear power has all these attributes in an absolute, objective sense. In a relative sense, it’s orders of magnitude MORE safe, reliable, clean, efficient, and convenient than any other form of power generation ever considered.

The debate over nuclear power has nothing to do with the facts, any more than the debate over DDT was fact-based, any more than the current carbon-dioxide controversy is fact-based.

Opposition to nuclear power and these other things is nothing more sophisticated than opposition to progress, knowledge, growth, and profit… to achieving the best that we can achieve.

People who oppose progress despite the overwhelming weight of all factual evidence are traitors to the human race.

Let’s not compare nuclear power to coal and natural gas but to solar power, wind power, and other more earth friendly options that are abundant and create no waste.

I would like to direct your reader’s attention to an initiative to develop a new type of nuclear reactor, one which promises to mitigate many of the technical challenges and concerns that have arisen in the past. This initiative is based on a liquid fluoride reactor designed to use Thorium instead of Uraniam as its main fuel. This technology is being explored world wide (US, Czech Republic, France, Russia) to address various aspects of the reactor design. The reactor design is quite innovative: it uses a mixture of molten Lithium and Beryllium Fluoride salts as the working fluid in the reactor. Added directly to these molten salts is a relatively small amount of Thorium and Uranium-233 Fluoride salts. The resultant salt mixture simultaneously works as a moderator, coolant, and fuel medium. As it happens, the technology was first successfully tested in the 1960s, but recent advances in materials, fuel processing, and energy recovery systems, have made the technology very compelling.

The advantages of such a technology are numerous:

• The reactor system is the only practical way of utilizing the Th-U233 fuel cycle, which unlike the U235-Pu239 fuel cycle, produces almost no transuranic nuclear waste. As a result, the waste products have decay times measured in hundreds of years, as opposed to millions. On top of this, the amount of waste produced is much smaller than the standard reactor.

• The Th-U233 fuel cycle is unique in that it can be configured to produce more fissile material than it consumes without requiring the fast neutron spectra and exotic coolants that doomed the previous breeder reactors.

• The nuclear materials from the molten salt reactors contain as a byproduct of the reaction U232, which is a strong gamma radiator. This makes the reactor products impossible to redirect for illicit purposes due to the inherent detectability of U232, and it the inability to use it in a nuclear weapon (or separate it from the fissile U233). This property is essential in effort to prevent nuclear proliferation.

• MSRs tend to burn up most of their nuclear waste; this property can be utilized to eliminate excess plutonium waste from other sources if desired.

• The design of MSRs enables the possibility of including a very small on-line fuel reprocessing loop within the reactor structure. This prevents the need of shipping nuclear fuels over long distances to be reprocessed. This also lowers dramatically the operating costs, as the plant may be operated indefinitely without shut-down.

• MSRs have an inherent, strong negative coefficient of reactivity as a function of temperature, indicating that the reaction rate will slow as the temperature rises. This means that there is absolutely no possibility of the runaway thermal event that occurred at Chernobyl, which had a regime in which there was a positive coefficient of reactivity.

• MSRs will be designed with passive safety systems. For example, should the core overheat, a salt plug at the bottom of the reactor would melt, and the working salt mixture would flow into tanks below the reactor. Since the tanks have no graphite moderator, the reaction would become subcritical and immediately stop.

• The molten salt coolant has a very low working pressure, as opposed to water moderated reactors. Thus the single most catastrophic event for a water moderated reactor, namely, a container vessel rupture, would not be a particularly dangerous situation for molten salt reactors. And, due to the low working pressure, such a rupture is much less likely.

• Because the boiling temperature of molten salts is so high (1500 C), MSRs can and will be designed to run at higher temperatures. This makes them much more efficient at converting thermal energy to electrical energy (50% as opposed to 35%). This also enables them to use dry air cooling instead of water cooling. The latter fact is important as this, for the first time, enable reactors to be built far from water cooling sources like lakes or rivers, and therefore further away from population centers.

• MSRs can be designed to be much smaller than conventional reactors due to the low pressure/ high temperature operation. The compact design should significantly reduce the initial capital costs. (Some have even suggested building the major components at a central factory and transporting them to their final destination)

In short, Molten Salt Reactors promise to be inherently safe, efficient and clean, and as such represent a significant departure from present designs.

A good resource for Molten Salt Reactor information may be found at the http://www.energyfromthorium.com website, which contains an online reference library, a discussion forum, and a blog.

Nuclear energy is wonderful but nuclear waste is not and until a way to dispose of or neutralize the waste safely is found I would not be for the building of new plants. You can only dig so many holes in the ground that can store the radioactive stuff. Cities have a hard enough time getting rid of normal trash due to landfills getting full. What do we do when we are highly dependant on nuclear energy and no place to put the waste? I do not want to go back to the days of seeing barrels being dumped into the oceans again…

Even if someone died and/or infected their wife by sleeping next to them….its a small price to pay. Every now and then, somebody has to jump on a grenade for the greater good.

By the time we have to refuel any new reactors, the world will have changed so much…

I’m for NUKES and I’m from Frisco. Go figure. I bet more poeople out here would be for Nukes if we somehow tricked them into thinking there were “Hybrid Nuke Plants!” haha

Nuclear power really is the only way to go. It will take decades before renewable energy gets up to speed and can compete with fossil fuels without tons of subsidies. In the mean time, nuclear is the only power generation that can really crank out the watts needed to run big cities. Think about what China would look like if all of their coal plants were nuclear. As for the waste, just dump it under Nevada, New Mexico, or Utah. Take Los Alamos for instance, the whole place is already glowing as it is, might as well just bury it there. We can always haul it out later if it becomes a problem and we find a cheap way to put things into orbit. Then it could just be shot into the sun, which is really the only way to get rid of something with a half life of millions of years.

Nuclear energy is not the answer. There is still so much about TMI and Chernobyl that we do not know or understand, and many of the ones who could tell us are dead. I believe that man is far too intelligent not to find a more viable resource. One without such destructive capabilities.

There are numerous objections to nuclear power, especially on a massive scale. Here are some:

* Radioactive waste accumulation and disposal problems
* Catastrophic accident risk
* Attractive terrorism target
* Greatly proliferates the amount of fissionable material to be regulated.
* Municipal insurance costs for workers against radioactivity exposure and accidents
* Decommisioning costs of old reactors
* Legal hurdles and lawsuits, “not in my backyard”, etc.
* Uranium another source of dependence ?
* Requires highly trained, security screened personnel for safe operation.
* Thermal pollution of rivers.

ALTERNATIVE: SOLAR power on a MASSIVE scale. Multi square mile arrays of photo-voltaics panels or Sterling engines in the southwest deserts.There is about 3.0 Gigawatts peak solar power falling on each square mile. (Much less on average can be recovered). Generate grid power directly for daytime. Also generate hydrogen by electrolysis as a fuel for conventional power generation at night. This provides basis for zero emmission, safe, 24/7 grid power.

Solar energy is free and never runs out. There is nothing to mine (unlike uranium), no dependence on critical materials, no security concerns, terrorism, or catastrophic accident to worry about. Solar if completely safe, non polluting, produces no waste, and is simple, requiring minimal maintenance. It’s a matter of economics and the political will to put our energy future on a footing that is sustainable and safe.
Why go down the nuclear road? Beware special interests that want to sell a bill of goods.

Nuclear power is not carbon free, it takes a lot of fuel to mine, process, and transport the fuel, as does building the power plants, which have a limited life span.
Nuclear power is not cheap. If the nuclear industry would have to leave the public trough and pay for its own research, insurance, security, and waste disposal (in a way safe to the public for the length the waste is hazardous) the price of the power would surely change. Let the free market work, cut the corporate welfare!

I think the biggest question surrounding nuclear power is how do we take care of the waste. There is no question that nuclear power is more efficient and cleaner compare to coal and oil since the by product of nuclear power is steam. My only concern is what happens in 50 or 100 years when we have too much waste. I would prefer to not have 3 eyed fish for my kids to eat.

Nuclear power is not safe. It is run by corporations that are out to make a profit. Which means cutting costs, and covering up. Our current nuke plants currently always have safety violations. it is a pandora’s box. sooner or later there will be a disaster…not to mention what to do with the radioactive waste.

We’ll make better decisions about our energy future if we first understand our energy present. For the most part, politicians, the press, the pundits and the public don’t. What does it actually mean on the ground and in the real world to invest more in nuclear? Or renewables?

I’ve worked in the nuclear industry over twenty years and it’s far different than what’s commonly portrayed by both its boosters and its detractors. I’ve tried to describe what the real world of nuclear power is like – as painlessly as possible – in a thriller novel. “Rad Decision” is available at no cost to readers online in serial format at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com . Reader reviews at the homepage have been very positive. “Rad Decision” is also available in paperback at online retailers. (I get no royalties.) It’s been endorsed by Stewart Brand, the noted futurist and founder of The Whole Earth Catalog.

Wind is nice. Solar is great. But there is just no way to get enough power out of those to make a dent in our electrical need – nuclear is the only way.
We have 103 nulcear power plants in this country and by themselves they generate 20% of our electricity. And new technology has made it cleaner and safer than ever before. I would have no problem living near a nuclear plant – my lights would always be on and my air would be a lot cleaner than if I was living near a coal plant.

I used to work in the industry and was 100% for nuke power generation.
Now I am 100% against nuke power simply because no safe method of nuclear waste disposal has been discovered or designed. Until a safe disposal method has been foun, no new nuke plants should be built anywhere in the US or Canada.

As far as I can tell from limited research, there were no fatalities from the ‘79 accident, and no fatalities from cleanup. Workers were not allowed into TMI 2 during the cleanup – they had to use specially created tools at the end of long rods.

Nuclear power is cheap and, when comparing the amount of waste generated to power generated, appears to be cleaner than oil, coal, and natural gas fired power plants.

Anybody who doubts nuclear power can be utilized with a minimum of risk should look at the U.S. Navy. Nuclear reactors have been aboard naval vessels since 1954, and the U.S. Navy has garnered over 5400 ‘reactor years’ of accident free power (as of 2001). By my estimates, as of today, that number would approach almost 6,000 accident free reactor years. Somehow I doubt that has been achieved through blind luck.

Nuclear power is safer than coal; coal spews radioactivity into the air as well as mercury; how many people die annually in mine disasters? Nuclear power is also greener than coal. If we were to use the “nuclear island” concept where multiple nuclear plants were located on military reservations, it would also have the added security of the armed services. Furthermore, if we were to use breeder reactors at those “nuclear islands”, we could reprocess the spent fuel and very significantly reduce the volume of high-level radioactive waste that would need to be entombed.

As for claims stating that someone was “infected with radiation” and who subsequently “infected his wife by sleeping next to her” — that is totally unfounded. People don’t get “infected with radiation”. They get exposed to radiation. Workers inside nuclear plants who work in areas that require exposure also wear special protective clothing and gear to minimize their exposure. There are multiple layers of personal radiation measurement systems to detect the level of exposure. Certain scientifically determined levels, required by law and very well below a safe limit, are not allowed to be exceeded. Personnel leaving the nuclear facility are also monitored and are not allowed to exit if they have a detectable unsafe level of radiation.

I know this. I was radworker certified. I have three engineering degrees. I worked at nuclear power facilities for almost ten years.

Infected his wife by sleeping next to her??? Statements from people like this are why the nuclear industry will have a difficult time. I mean really, infected his wife? I heard of an ol’ gal that got a sunburn ’cause her husband got a sun burn. Idiots.

Please get your facts straight Jose. The workers that died were at Chernobyl, not TMI. In addition, the Soviet Chernobyl reactor is nothing like the US (and world) nuclear plants. The Soviet reactors are not licensable or buildable in the US. That’s a fact.

Nuclear is the only current carbon free
way to genrate elecricity continually.
Soon it will become cheaper than coal or
gas. It is the only way we will meet
the growing electrial needs of the
country. Perhaps we should look at what
is happening in the rest of the world
. France generate nearly 80% of their
need using nuclear with NO problems.
China is installing many new nuclear
power plants as is Russia.

This is an interesting question. Most of us have a knee jerk negative reaction to nuclear power, just like many people are afraid to fly in airplanes, but facts may tell a different story. Statistically its safer to fly in a commercial jet than drive a car on a public road. Maybe nuclear power will kill or injure fewer people over time than the current war over fossil fuels (aka The War on Terror).
I’m looking forward to the rest of the articles.

No one died because of TMI? Please, I don’t have the names off the top of my head but what about the workers who had to go down and put out the meltdown and clean it up? I remember a story where one poor guy was so infected with radiation he infected his wife by sleeping next to her. Think he died from radiation from TMI?

This story looks more like something written by the nuclear industry than an unbiased report.