more Nuke plants

what do you think?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/...a.jobs/?hpt=T2

[Victus]

They have some pros and cons. The safety issues are way overblown, especially with today's systems. The big downside is the generation of nuclear waste, which incredibly nasty stuff and that to date we have no way of completely eliminating beyond storing it "safely".

If we need a bridge between this and clean, renewable energy and what we have now, nuclear is a viable option. Ultimately, though, I think the best solution would be to have a decentralized power network, where individual households (or neighbourhoods) could generate their own power and sell any surplus back to the grid.

[nkb]

I'm all for it, as long as the promise to hold the nuclear facilities to "the highest and strictest safety standards" is actually fulfilled.

The main concern I have is the handling of the nucular trash.

[nkb]

Victus wrote

If we need a bridge between this and clean, renewable energy and what we have now, nuclear is a viable option. Ultimately, though, I think the best solution would be to have a decentralized power network, where individual households (or neighbourhoods) could generate their own power and sell any surplus back to the grid.

Technically, we already have this. If you have solar power (for example), and you produce more than you use, it feeds back to the electrical provider, reducing your electric bill.

I would like to see more of a push to make solar power more affordable, whether it's through tax incentives or other means. If it was more affordable, I would be installing it tomorrow.

Victus wrote

I think the best solution would be to have a decentralized power network, where individual households (or neighbourhoods) could generate their own power and sell any surplus back to the grid.

see

now thats a Idea thats time came,.in the 1930's
when small communities all over the mid west who were being left out of the push for electric power because they were too small for the big power industries to bother with built their own power and light plants
,granted, those types of plants were fossil fuel plants that are not cost effective these days, but surely , today, we can come up with something like this that is viable

and as far as safety of nuke plants

when ever some one calls a technology "fool proof"

I always think that some one has underestimated the ingenuity of fools

[Victus]

nkb wrote

Technically, we already have this. If you have solar power (for example), and you produce more than you use, it feeds back to the electrical provider, reducing your electric bill.

I would like to see more of a push to make solar power more affordable, whether it's through tax incentives or other means. If it was more affordable, I would be installing it tomorrow.

Indeed. The technology exists, but the market doesn't. People won't by personal solar/wind sources because they're too expensive. They're too expensive because they're not mass produced, because so few are purchased. We must either wait for the market to gradually develop itself (decades), or kick it in the ass with tax incentives or other methods, and then allow it to develop itself once a market is established.

Simple Mind wrote

see now thats a Idea thats time came,.in the 1930's
when small communities all over the mid west who were being left out of the push for electric power because they were too small for the big power industries to bother with built their own power and light plants ,granted, those types of plants were fossil fuel plants that are not cost effective these days, but surely , today, we can come up with something like this that is viable

The big barrier is that the start-up costs for a house to using solar or wind exclusively or as a supplement is simply beyond what most can afford. Once prices go down, I have can't imagine people shunning "free" electricity, assuming the technology is made relatively hassle-free.

Simple Mind wrote

and as far as safety of nuke plants

when ever some one calls a technology "fool proof"

I always think that some one has underestimated the ingenuity of fools

Nothing is ever entirely fool-proof, but nuclear, in terms of accidents, is quite safe. The number of accidents since the 1950s can be counted on your fingers, and all but a couple were quite minor (Chernobyl and, to a lesser extent, the Windscale fire). The big risk with nuclear power, which hasn't manifested itself yet, is that terrorists will either attack the site or somehow get a hold of refined nuclear materials necessarily stockpiled as fuel. With a distributed, wind/solar energy matrix, the potential for such a disruptive attack is eliminated.

[Smellyoldgit]

Victus wrote

Indeed. The technology exists, but the market doesn't. People won't by personal solar/wind sources because they're too expensive. They're too expensive because they're not mass produced, because so few are purchased. We must either wait for the market to gradually develop itself (decades), or kick it in the ass with tax incentives or other methods, and then allow it to develop itself once a market is established.



The big barrier is that the start-up costs for a house to using solar or wind exclusively or as a supplement is simply beyond what most can afford. Once prices go down, I have can't imagine people shunning "free" electricity, assuming the technology is made relatively hassle-free.

I agree, I know I can't afford to go solar, but the idea that communities
can come up with local alternative energy sources is a good idea imo

Victus wrote

Nothing is ever entirely fool-proof, but nuclear, in terms of accidents, is quite safe. The number of accidents since the 1950s can be counted on your fingers, and all but a couple were quite minor (Chernobyl and, to a lesser extent, the Windscale fire). The big risk with nuclear power, which hasn't manifested itself yet, is that terrorists will either attack the site or somehow get a hold of refined nuclear materials necessarily stockpiled as fuel. With a distributed, wind/solar energy matrix, the potential for such a disruptive attack is eliminated.

this is all true, but it is one of those ,"not in my back yard" things
people say Nuclear power is a good idea,...over there ------>
and the spent fuel issue has no answer right now, outside of Yucca mountain, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they closing it?

[Whisper]

I'm all for it, always have been. As a stop gap to better means of power, nuclear has just always made sense to me. I also ADORE the windmill fields. There's a huge one up in the Lake District that we pass every time we go up to Scotland, I love it - seeing these gorgeous testaments to technology, slowly milling away. I'd have a personal one in my garden, if I had a garden, fuck the people who complain about them being an eyesore (I'm sorry - have you SEEN the fucking electrical pilons?)

Whisper wrote

I'm all for it, always have been. As a stop gap to better means of power, nuclear has just always made sense to me. I also ADORE the windmill fields. There's a huge one up in the Lake District that we pass every time we go up to Scotland, I love it - seeing these gorgeous testaments to technology, slowly milling away. I'd have a personal one in my garden, if I had a garden, fuck the people who complain about them being an eyesore (I'm sorry - have you SEEN the fucking electrical pilons?)

a lot of people who live near wind farms hate them, say they are noisy

I personally have no idea, never been close to one, but I do know, people will bitch about anything

[Victus]

Simple Mind wrote

this is all true, but it is one of those ,"not in my back yard" things people say Nuclear power is a good idea,...over there ------>

Indeed, although a big part of that is the misconception that the plants will explode and wipe out half the country in an apocalyptic, zombie-creating green glow. From a safety standpoint, you're probably in more danger living next to a coal plant.

Simple Mind wrote

and the spent fuel issue has no answer right now, outside of Yucca mountain, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they closing it?

They are closing it. More recent technologies allow for spent fuel to be re-used to a limited extent. The hope has always been that most or all spent fuel could simply be re-used, but progress has been slow.

Victus wrote

zombie-creating green glow.

now that might be pretty cool

I'm all for going total nuke

as long as they wait ten years so i can retire from my polluting dinosaur burning old plant
and move to the lake

Victus wrote

The big downside is the generation of nuclear waste, which incredibly nasty stuff and that to date we have no way of completely eliminating beyond storing it "safely".

Nobody knows for sure if we'll ever find a way to store spent fuel safely but there's still hope and some interesting prospective technologies. I do know that the physics department at my university is conducting experiments on a way to vitrify (turn into glass through high temperature) nuclear waste. Here I was thinking that they were trying to open a portal to Lord Cathol.

[Smellyoldgit]

I would like to see more development of energy from waste, - in particular, good old gasification.
Diverting household waste from landfill, generating heat & power and making useful stuff from most residues is full of plusses.
.... oh, and it may be paying my wages for a couple of years!