Comments on: Nuclear power: seeing less political fission these days

By: Justin Val

Justin Val — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:15:43 +0000

I'm thinking we should wait until we solve the problem of nuclear waste disposal. Also, with terrorism rampant in the world, wouldn't this create more targets? I don't know much about the possibilities of utilizing nuclear reactor as terrorist targets, but it seems like it could be a major concern.

By: floyd elterman

floyd elterman — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:18:29 +0000

renewables wind, solar, hydro, and thermal do not produce greenhouse gases or radiation risk and tap a power source which will last much longer than we will. small scale renewables can be owned and operated by individuals providing employment and profit for millions. large scale operations will pay taxes and fees to land owners and governments. as a bonus natural gas used to generate electricty can be come fuel for vehicles instead reducing the need to import oil.

By: John M

John M — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:18:24 +0000

If we're going to go back into building nuclear power plants, please please, please, do it like the french did it. Find one design, make it the best you can, then build that one design every where. If you change one, change them all. If you train on one, you could run any. And if you want to build another one, you'll know exactly how much it will cost.

By: Calvin Hobbes

Calvin Hobbes — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:20:53 +0000

Why can't we just buy the uranium from some other country? Leave the U.S. Southwest undamaged? U.S. Steel and Nucor are pulling out of the U.S? Well shipping prices are starting to fall again. If they close Yucca flats maybe we can ship the waste somewhere? How much does it cost to store it at Yucca? Can we store it on the moon or aim it at the sun? Weren't there reprocessing techniques when we had a nuclear industry to put it into inert material or re-invigorate the fuel? Obama said he will close down ALL the coal plants and mines in the U.S. Oil is most likely on the short list. That leaves just wind and solar. All the people in the U.S. Northeast may find that a challenge and a benefit as their home heating bills will have dissappeared for the winter.

By: Alche

Alche — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:47:21 +0000

Yes, building new nuclear plants quickly is of high priority. With the call ever increasing by the global warming crowd and the even MORE important issue of energy independence, we will NEED a lot more nuclear power. Increasing by a factor of 10 the number of wind farms still leaves us less than 5% of our electricity requirements. There are significant environmental concerns with Solar cells too if they are manufactured and distributed around the country in the quantities necessary to provide 50% or our energy needs – so no real easy answer there. We should use WIND, SOLAR, and NUCLEAR to reduce our reliance on oil and coal. We need to build them BEFORE we shut down coal plants or we will have electrical shortages and huge price increases resulting in many more job losses and severe damage to our economy and standard of living. We should also be investing 10billion per yr into FUSION energy research as regular nuclear energy has a much more finite supply and significantly worse environmental and weapons related concerns.

By: Aussie Jane

Aussie Jane — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:45:25 +0000

Let's talk cost. Anyone know how much an average nuclear reactor costs, to design, build, and maintain? These things aren't cheap, and they take over 7 years to go from ground breaking to power distribution.

By: Franko

Franko — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:29:16 +0000

"Galena Nuclear Power Plant"
A few oil black polar bears, or radioactive fishies ?

"Peoples' Nuclear Program"
Best way to toast sliced bread ? "No relation between consumption of nuclear toast and nuclear radiation has yet been found."

"Nuclear and radiation accidents"
Long is the list. A little radioactive uranium worker, or dead coal miner
More than 40,000 US driving fatalities, that is the standard of concern

By: griesimatt1

griesimatt1 — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:33:35 +0000

"When considering the nuclear consequences of coal combustion, policymakers should look at the data and recognize that the amount of uranium-235 alone dispersed by coal combustion is the equivalent of dozens of nuclear reactor fuel loadings" -Alax Gabbard

We need to realize we hurt ourselves more by burning coal which contains specks of radiation, than we would be by turning that radiation into energy and then containing it (or recycling it) when we are done using it.

Remember we run about 20% off nuclear plants and 50% coal.

By: Lee

Lee — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:57:54 +0000

Mr Higgins,

I hate to dissapoint you, but I am not a "bot" or a mindless individual. I can see by reading your post that you seem to be an intelligent thoughtful individual. However, I do wish you would investigate a bit further into the realities of nuclear power. I am concerned that you are basing your beliefs on propaganda rather than actual investigation.

As for approving new reactors, I think you are very wrong. Perhaps it is just that I grew up in an area with a nuclear power plant and where the people were progressive and intelligent, and not simply reactive to activists.

To be honest, if we had never developed nuclear weapons, but simply moved to peaceful energy production, a lot of this hype would never have surfaced. Too many people simply cannot separate nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

I do not personally know a single person who has died from the "nuclear" part of a nuclear power plant in the US. I do know of people who have died from coal power generation process, hydroelectric process, etc. And I do know people who died as a result of nuclear weapons testing. Also, the vast majority of the people affected by Chernobyl – especially children – would not have been affected had the potassium iodine been handed out rather than the Soviets take time to try and cover it up. Still, a Chernobyl simply cannot happen here.

Anyway, I just wish people would actually investigate and find out the facts about an issue before they make comments. Personally, I have to my satisfaction. And to those who had done their own due diligence, great! Even if we disagree. At least you are informed.

I am confident that nuclear power is safe and needed. If you honestly disagree, that is what America is all about. But just know what you are talking about first.

By: Allan J Federman

Allan J Federman — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:33:16 +0000

I I think there are many advantages to nuclear power Generation IV especially if this is applied as an inherently distributed architecture system that would function as a mesh network of independently owned by small businesses.
The availability of this technology today can help alleviate the current burden on our existing infrastructure.
Furthermore, the emerging technology is within our reach to bring this potential to a smaller scaled sized nuclear battery and create a new market segment which could reignite the economy.
If the market of “pollution credit trading takes off as independent industrial surveys indicate this will only further enhance competitative markets
This is a paradigm shift in the way Americans get their power today.
These types of changes are radical and are often met with great resistance until they become accepted by the communities with the expertise to understand.
Once the new technology is proven safe to the public and more accepted of course.
I believe that in the present time this alternative energy happens to be one of the proven and safe alternative methods that provide clean energy.
The key understanding is to decentralize and shift our thinking to independent sustainability via smaller commercial sized nuclear powered batteries as a possible viable option to national sustainability.
Keep in mind this is only my personal view and does not represent any other person, company or organization.

Thanks
Allan J Federman
anonymous.good.friend@gmail.com