Nuclear Power

[southwind]

How 'bout Salt water for fuel !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Tf4gOS8aoFk

 

[SparrowHawk]

I think this is exactly the roll of government. To help protect the people and preserve the union. To wait till it's too late and the country suffers is not the smart thing to do. As tech pointed out, private enterprise could not and would not have funded the moon shots and all the innovations that evolved from that. Then there are the interstate roads, FAA, to mention only a few things.
Private enterprise will not be able to get us off fossil fuels with out the help of the Fed. They do not have the capital and they cannot take the risk.

We know how to manage nuclear power but we do not want it due to all it's inherit problems. Where does Japan and France store their nuclear waste? Do you want it in your back yard? How much does it cost for a nuclear power plant? R&D on alternate power sources is all but stifled because the fossil fuel and nuclear power folks have too much money at stake. There are alternatives out there, we only have to find them.

Well said as you point out the very real difference between someone who is likely a liberal Democrat (you) and a Libertarian like myself. I think your first paragraph is debatable as the airlines are taking it upon themselves to develop more cost effective technologies such as bio fuels. We'll never know about for sure if Tech was right though we can and should have the debate. I'm not a total Libertarian ideologue so I think raw scientific research IS a role for the Federal Government although many of my Libertarian colleagues may disagree in the pure sense of Libertarian philosophy.

As to nukes, I saw a show on the History Channel about new technology to re-mediate damage caused by Nuclear Waste. A pilot plant is up and running. To date it seems to be working and it may well be commercialized. This type of research IS likely the role of Government as well. However once it becomes commercially viable the government needs to step back and move on to solving the next problem.

 

[tech2101]

Well said as you point out the very real difference between someone who is likely a liberal Democrat (you) and a Libertarian like myself. I think your first paragraph is debatable as the airlines are taking it upon themselves to develop more cost effective technologies such as bio fuels. We'll never know about for sure if Tech was right though we can and should have the debate. I'm not a total Libertarian ideologue so I think raw scientific research IS a role for the Federal Government although many of my Libertarian colleagues may disagree in the pure sense of Libertarian philosophy.

As to nukes, I saw a show on the History Channel about new technology to re-mediate damage caused by Nuclear Waste. A pilot plant is up and running. To date it seems to be working and it may well be commercialized. This type of research IS likely the role of Government as well. However once it becomes commercially viable the government needs to step back and move on to solving the next problem.

Good post. I think most of us can agree that there are some functions that are inherently governmental. Things like the control of airspace over the United States of America is a big one that comes to mind. I am sure you can come up with some as well.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Good post. I think most of us can agree that there are some functions that are inherently governmental. Things like the control of airspace over the United States of America is a big one that comes to mind. I am sure you can come up with some as well.

Well therein lies the problem! I think there is a great deal of common ground to be had as to what is "Inherently Governmental" and that which is not. I don't honestly believe that a program like the Rural Electrification Program was a poor use of funds. THIRTY FIVE YEARS AGO, yet the agency lingers on fully funded to what end? The homes in this country are something like 99.8% electrified. The job is done, close the agency and send them home. Once a project is started it DC it NEVER ends and that's on of the reasons we have such a staggering debt problem.

Why on earth are we giving even so much as a dime to fund NPR and PBS? There are a bajillion media outlets via print, radio, TV, cable etc etc. If the states want to fund it God Bless them, but the Feds? NOPE not the role of the federal government.

One of the common misconceptions regarding Libertarians is that we are anti tax, anti government and that just isn't accurate. We believe in a very small role for the federal government and a much wider role for state and local government in determining what works best in their state, county, township etc.

So in my mind the Federal Governments role is to protect us from foreign invasion, be it traditional military or a 9/11 style attack, Assist in times of natural disaster, Promote pure research and economic growth and maybe deliver the mail. In a Libertarian world if we could get a low bidder to provide postal service the USPS would be gone. The role of the Federal Government is to keep us safe and allow each citizen to reach their full potential, free from interference as possible in a civilized society.

Funny thing is the two things that nearly 100% of the people agree on is the role of the feds, they have FAILED at. Think Katrina and 9/11. If you look at it in that harsh context one could argue that the feds haven't earned the right to more responsibilities.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Good post. I think most of us can agree that there are some functions that are inherently governmental. Things like the control of airspace over the United States of America is a big one that comes to mind. I am sure you can come up with some as well.

the only reason gov't MUST be involved is if the scope of the project is larger than what private enterprise can handle. Given that there are very few things the US government does, the list is pretty short when you talk about projects the government must do.

There are alot of things the government can do to help private enterprise make solutions work.

Sadly, the US government has not done near enough to help develop nuclear energy in the US; it is noteworthy that US companies have more success selling nuclear technology outside of the US than inside.

Currently, there are 436 nuclear reactors safely generating electricity around the world,
accounting for about 15% of global electricity output. According to the World Nuclear
Institute and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 53 reactors are currently
under construction with an additional 137 planned or on order in 26 countries. Nuclear
power is playing an important role in the fuel mix of the world’s largest and fastest
growing economies. China has announced ~60 GW (at least) of new nuclear power
capacity will be built by 2020. India plans to add the same amount by 2032, and Russia
plans to add 30 GW by 2020. In the US, the Department of Energy (DOE) has received
applications for more than 36 new GW of new construction – a large number, but barely
sufficient to cover the 32 GW of nuclear plants that are scheduled to retire in the next 20-
25 years. GEH is pursuing opportunities for new plants worldwide.

Over time, the Company expects this growth to continue. As the climate change debate
migrates from promises to policies, power and environmental experts are in agreement
that increasing the share of nuclear power in the global energy mix will be an essential
component of achieving emissions targets.
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, electricity generation alone
accounts for 41% of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – and likely more as economies
develop around the world. Increasing the spread of low-carbon sources of power (such as
solar, wind, and nuclear power) and lower-carbon sources of power (such as highly
efficient natural gas turbine power) will be essential to limit GHG emissions growth. As
such, the Company has invested heavily into solar, wind and natural gas power
technologies. However, these power sources cannot be the entire solution to the global
GHG challenge. Solar and wind power currently account for ~5% of US power
generation. Utilities still must rely on coal and natural gas technologies to provide power
during periods when the wind does not blow or at night. Nuclear power, by contrast, is
the only technology option available today able to provide steady, baseload power supply
throughout the day, while emitting virtually zero carbon. According to IAEA (How Safe
is Nuclear Energy, 2006), the complete nuclear power chain, from uranium mining to
waste disposal, including reactor and facilities construction, emits only 2-6 grams of
carbon per kilowatt-hour. Therefore, the operation of the world’s nuclear power reactors
avoids the release of roughly 600 million metric tons of carbon annually.
Looking forward, The World Economic Forum’s 2008 analysis of energy states that
nuclear energy is “probably the best option for carbon-neutral energy from the
perspective of currently available and easily scalable technologies.” The International
Energy Agency (IEA) concluded in its 2009 World Energy Outlook that stabilizing the
level of CO2 in the atmosphere at sustainable levels will require nearly doubling the
world’s nuclear capacity by 2030. Support for nuclear power as a force for combating
climate change is growing outside of the energy industry as well – Patrick Moore, cofounder
of Greenpeace has said: “Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective
6
energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing
demand for power.”
Besides its climate-friendly attributes, the promise of nuclear power is bolstered by
increasing recognition of its cost-effectiveness and distinguished safety record. In 2008,
the 104 nuclear power plants in the US had a capacity factor of 91.5%, by far the highest
capacity factor among all generation technologies. This exceptionally reliable
performance contributes to operating costs that are far lower than coal or natural gas-fired
power (roughly $15-20/MWh vs. $40/MWh of natural gas at $5/MMBtu gas prices). In
the modern era, Gen III reactors like GEH’s ABWR and the new ESBWR have been
designed to achieve even higher power output with higher safety levels at lower lifecycle costs.

http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/nuclear_energy/en/downloads/GE_Report_on_Nuclear_Power_Business_(Final).pdf

Note that GE Power and Hitachi jointly develop and sell nuclear power systems.

here is a great report on the status of nuclear power worldwide.

http://www.bmu.de/files/english/pdf/application/pdf/welt_statusbericht_atomindustrie_0908_en_bf.pdf

note that while the US generates about 30% of all the nuclear power worldwide, the number of new reactors on order in the US is not enough to replace the capacity that will be shut down as nuclear plants reach the end of their life cycles.

 

[tech2101]

Why on earth are we giving even so much as a dime to fund NPR and PBS? There are a bajillion media outlets via print, radio, TV, cable etc etc. If the states want to fund it God Bless them, but the Feds? NOPE not the role of the federal government.

I agree with you there. I am an avid supporter of my local PB stations and my local NPR stations. I do not think that they need Federal $$$. I think their budget is less than 5% federal money anyway. The places that do need public stations are those rural areas. However, I am with you that the state or county should be the one to provide assistance there. They are the ones who know best what is needed...

I am not so sure that the Federal government failed so miserably with Katrina. I think the state of LA did. The feds were relying on the state to be better prepared, but we all know how that turned out.

Of course we could look at the Corps of Engineers. Now there is one that many would argue is a federal necessity. Could you imagine if the states were left to deal with the nations' Corps projects? We would have states at war with each other.

 

[Ms Tree]

I agree with tech. I do not see how the fed fail in 9/11. Im not convinced anyone could see that coming. Katrina I was a failure from top to bottom. The levies were known to be weak and were not up dated. The mayor/governor should have called for ass before it hit. The Fed should have put troops and NG on standby to roll one the eye passed.

Nuclear power is fine till the plant need to be retired or the fuel rods need to be replaced/disposed of. Thats where the problems come in. Then there is the problem of what happens when something goes wrong. If i heard the new correctly Japan is about to have a melt down due to the latest earth quake or aftershock. The containment dome collapsed and its game over.

 

[SparrowHawk]

I agree with tech. I do not see how the fed fail in 9/11. Im not convinced anyone could see that coming. Katrina I was a failure from top to bottom. The levies were known to be weak and were not up dated. The mayor/governor should have called for ass before it hit. The Fed should have put troops and NG on standby to roll one the eye passed.

RE: 9/11 - Had we not dismantled our on the ground assets of agents and informers during the Clinton Administration we would have had a far greater chance of stopping the events of 9/11. As it was we were only about a day behind them despite the handicap of decision made 10 years prior. As for Katrina, FEMA failed to act in a prompt and proactive manner due to well documented political considerations admitted by no less than Bush himself. For me the fact that 9/11 occurred at all is the fault of the Federal Government as that's THEIR JOB to be on top of these things, not a day late and a dollar short. As a country we have a well documented history of fighting the last war and 9/11 was no exception.

 

[Ms Tree]

I see ur point and a agree for the most part. I see terrorism like whack-a-mole. We Jove to hit evey mole every time. The mole only has to win once. Statistically, we were going to miss. I do not think there is anyway to win every time.

 

[tech2101]

I agree with tech. I do not see how the fed fail in 9/11.

For the record. I did not say the Feds did not fail in the 9/11 event.

 

[delldude]

Hydrogen is not a fuel. It is an energy storage medium, much like a battery.

Hydrogen merely is a chemical energy source which can be converted to mechanical energy much like many other chemicals and compounds.

Liquid Hydrogen--the Fuel of Choice for Space Exploration

Today, liquid hydrogen is the signature fuel of the American space program and is used by other countries in the business of launching satellites.

 

[Ms Tree]

Sounds like a melt down is going to happen. They are pumping sea water in to try and cool it.

Japan struggles with nuclear reactors in wake of quake

Tokyo (CNN) -- A meltdown may be under way at one of Fukushima Daiichi's nuclear power reactors in northern Japan, an official with Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency told CNN Sunday.

"There is a possibility, we see the possibility of a meltdown," said Toshihiro Bannai, director of the agency's international affairs office, in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Tokyo. "At this point, we have still not confirmed that there is an actual meltdown, but there is a possibility."

Hopefully the containment vessel will hold and not leak.

 

[xUT]

Thousands protest against Germany's nuclear plants

Demonstrators in Stuttgart formed a human chain reaching 45km (27 miles) for the protest, planned before the current nuclear crisis in Japan.

Organisers said events in Japan had proved atomic power was an uncontrollable and risky technology.

As much as night proves there is no day, and aeroplanes can not fly... :wacko:
Let's continue to burn coal and oil for LeckTricity. How much damage does that cause? :wacko:
B) xUT

 

[delldude]

Sounds like a melt down is going to happen. They are pumping sea water in to try and cool it.

Japan struggles with nuclear reactors in wake of quake




Hopefully the containment vessel will hold and not leak.

Well, with the original coolant system compromised......it is a logical attempt. I read they only had trouble on several cores, and not the entire pile. Time will tell.

 

[tech2101]

Well, with the original coolant system compromised......it is a logical attempt. I read they only had trouble on several cores, and not the entire pile. Time will tell.

Some boring (nuclear physicist) dude on CNN said they are trying to piss on a bonfire. (well, not exactly a quote)

Time will tell.