Is Nuclear Energy Worth the Risk?
 

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/0...ate/index.html

Yes, if we'll be wanting electricity in the relatively near future that doesn't further speed up climate change.

Sadly, everything seems to involve a Faustian bargain these days...

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...nuclear-planet

Maddow had this up on her blog today. By the looks of it we are already screwing up our DNA as well as every single living thing on the planet.

Until there are viable and safe ways to store nuclear waste from these plants, I don't think more should be built. I also think that a hell of a lot more effort needs to go into research and development of other kinds of energy production.

One of the major problems I see with nuclear energy is the energy companies that run them. They are profit driven and will cut corners if they can get away with it.

Also, after living near the Rancho Seco plant near Sacramento (closed for safety reasons upon the vote of the people living in that utility district) for many years and working with other clinicians that were part of insurance panels for the utility that ran it and learning of the amount of drug use of technicians working all those late and graveyard shifts there- I am not comfortable with the human resource development and training involved in these companies. This situation was found to be related to accidents occurring at that plant (all documented during the fight to close that plant). I'm not crazy for nuclear power, yet my problems with it are not about the science behind it really. This is part of the "human error" that can lead to accidents which is not related to the science and engineering of nuclear power. In fact, how many times do we hear something about the recommendations of the engineers and scientists being totally disregarded after plants are built? And it is usually about money.

After hearing about the very same kinds of shut-off valves that malfunctioned in the Gulf oil spill and the fact that new drilling being OK'ed with the same damn valve- I'm not trusting governmental regulations much these days (an certainly not what is going on with re-licensing aging nuclear plants). These factors are also involved in regulating nuclear power plants. The science is amazing, but, we are not going to have top-notch nuclear scientists running these plants. A lot of the jobs they create are not going to pay the big bucks to have the kind of people needed there 24/7. Many of these jobs are not technical in nature at all and semi-skilled. So, I am wondering about the human resource areas to this within companies that run these plants, including public utilities (that sometimes are farmed-out to the private sector).

I would like to see more done with our (USA) doing more in cutting down energy use all together. We waste so much! Hell, look at the mess we are in with plain old “garbage,” hazardous waste and e-waste! If we can’t deal with that effectively, how are we going to deal with nuclear waste? When I see lights on in empty room, it drives me nuts! Of course, I can still my Momma yelling "turn out the damn light" when leaving a room! Also, I really like living where there is decent public transit. I have made some fairly simple and inexpensive changes to my own home and seen quite a reduction in my utility bills-think of what we can accomplish if we had the money to install solar panels for hot water and buy only energy star efficient appliances. makes me nuts that these things are so expensive as my bet is that most people would do more to save energy if they could afford these things.

I think nuclear energy is a viable option. The knee jerk based on what is happening in Japan is normal when something catastrophic like this happens. Was the problem the power plant? No. Was the problem the earthquake? No. The problem was the tsunami. Locate nuclear power plants where they are not near the water, not on a fault line, or in a tornado alley. Modern day nuclear power plants rely on gravity feed water cooling systems. What that means is that if they have a power failure, water flows from above to allow time to get backup power systems working, so that pumps used to circulate the water can be placed back online. In the case of Japan, they had back up power sources, but they went under water so it was the one, two punch of earthquake followed by tsuname that led to what is happening now. We are very dependent on fossil fuels; that isn't likely to change in the short term. However, we do need to look at all alternative sources including nuclear. Just my .02.

Glynn

I am so glad you brought this up- yes, think of what could have been developed from the time of Carter! And now, solar panels - initially developed in the USA- are no longer produced here!! We freakin' import them!

We could do so much to improve the cost factor if all new construction had to have whatever solar (or other more cost effective method for the consumer) type set-up or heat-pumps configurations, etc. was required. This would have to make sense in total cost, but installing these kinds of thing to begin with is much less expensive.

Are there any rebates/tax breaks from utility companies for solar power where you live? These can help- but you bring up a big problem for people- the damn cost in retro-fitting.

I have been looking into some DIY hot water heater solar systems that are cost effective and actually not complicated (sun and gravity!). But, this old butch doesn't trust herself going up on the roof anymore.

Most likely, the US will need many sources of power/energy. I just hope we start getting a whole lot smarter about it!

We do need to look at al alternatives, but Japan's island grouping circumfrances is not really a good geographic fit for nuclear power plants- island are not in general- especially in areas with the constant seismic activity and tsunami probablilities (tsunami is from the Japanese language).

Japan as a technological leader and its power needs are difficult due to its size and being a country of islands. So, it chose nuclear as its prime power source. It doesn't have a lot of land mass for something like wind or huge solar panel "fields." It is a country with a lot of people and construction is very vertical. It will be hit many more times by tsunamis in the future and the plants that are in trouble were built in 1979. A lot has been developed since then in terms of plant engineering. They really have a problem in terms of viable energy sources. The US has many more options.

The truth is, if we switched to a more viable option now, our enemies would crush us in a day.

NO
 

~ It's way, way too expensive to build a plant

~ There is no safe long-term storage for the waste, nobody wants it, it lasts too long, etc.

~ We cannot plan for and control all the things that can go wrong

~ No matter how safe the actual process is, the plant is run by humans, who regularly mistakes

AND

~ It can get OUT-OF-CONTROL when we fuck up and the price is way too high.

I think there tends to be a lot of alarmism when it comes to nuclear power. Yeah there have been a handful if even of major accidents that have not ended well, but given that plants have evolved since most of those took place I don't think there is a need to be overly worried. Japan really was a case of an event that was unprecedented in Japanese history as far as the scale of both the tsunami and the earthquake. Yet I was just hearing on the news the other day that it had been revealed that the leak had not been as dangerous/severe as previously thought. Of course we won't know the real effect for a while, but I do think we have the tendency to blow disasters out of proportion at first.

Anyways, given how many nuclear power plants are providing vast areas with electricity the world over today, and given the number of accidents there have been today, I would not be worried.

Ontario has something like 15 or 20 nuclear power plants and, according to the official OPG website, have not had a single mishap in the 40 years that they have been operating these plants. It's not Ontario's sole source of electricity, but apparently nuclear energy can account for up to 50% of Ontario's electricty needs, which I found interesting. Of course Ontario is rather strategically placed so we get a lot of power from hydroelectricity (thank you Niagra Falls lol) as well.

I've no doubt that if governments and related researchers became completely dedicated to making alternative energy a true reality, that it would be possible. Lol, I remember some German students that were shown on the news once who made a functioning car entirely out of biodegradable material and ran it on green energy. Come on, if graduate students can do it, evidently with more money behind it this wouldn't be entirely farfetched.

Weeee!
 

+6987543 cause this post was priceless

Indeed!
We are doomed, no matter how we look at it.

There have been so many conflicting reports about the Japanese plant, I find it difficult to trust much of what has been reported. Some of this I believe is simply due to unknown facts. And so much that needs to be evaluated is has too high of radiation levels for workers to even get cameras in.

Reports of radiation levels have been all over the place- even from organizations that have a lot of expertise.

There isn't much room for error with nuclear power- consequently I don't put much weight in the accident records. It is just not like other kinds of mishaps. We have no control over events like earthquakes or tsunamis and at what magnitude they can hit. And we do not have the spent fuel storage/disposal figured out.

Frankly, I don't think a thing has been blown out of proportion- higher levels of particular kinds of radiation have entered the Japanese food chain and water.

Yes, ask questions and do research. I don't doubt the great minds that bring these kinds of advances to us at all- I do not trust government regulatory agencies and plant management to do what the scientists and engineers tell them in order to run these plants in a safe manner- they will not do so because of costs. Look at what was going on in the Gulf with regulation agencies! And not only does this suck due to the spill, but that is an area that has a large work force in the oil drilling industry along with fishing. Nuclear plants also provide many jobs.


Right now, due to cost, huge energy companies in the US won't touch nuclear power.

We don't know what the heck we're doing with nukes, and the risks are too great. I have been opposed for my entire life to this source of energy and I feel more certain now than ever that I was right.

NO NUKES!!!

Smooches,
Keri

why
 

Look at what is happening in Japan need i say more?:glasses:

Yup.... wake up! We ought to add up all the $ spent on the key nuclear plant accidents and figure out just how it does measure up in terms of being less expensive energy. ALL of the costs, including health care expenses and long term monitoring of accident and nuclear waste sites. Add in R & D costs.

Just in terms of economics, makes no sense. And utility corporations since 3-Mile island in the US are not jumping to invest in more plants. The ones that are proposed may never be funded and built. Good, these ought not be "shoe-string" projects.

bewildering ignorance......
 

yesterday over lunch my sister is complaining about the cost of electricity. This is after I just finished paying 600.00 at the power company and thats for one month. For almost an hour she's ranting about MY BILL and how the government needs to do something about it.

well I guess in a way they did. We demanded more energy and all along we were told the risk. We kept using, using and buy big ass cars and trucks, consuming huge amounts of energy without ever considering where it came from. Now we're face with all the backlash and issues of our demands.

The earth has always shifted and changed. This we can't stop but because of our greed and need for power when the earth does take it's natural course our stupid solutions back fire on us. nuclear energy is what will ultimately destroy our planet.

What happened to 'American ingenuity'? Nuclear power is the best we can come up with to frigging boil water, creating steam to run a turbine to produce electricity??????

We need a paradigm shift in how we think about energy production and distribution. Right now we operate on the idea that everyone should be hooked up to the local power plant grid and ALL the electricity for an area must be produced and distributed by the local power company. That power company is most likely a for profit corporation and they are sucking up your dollars (your energy bill) in order to make a profit. All utilities should be publicly owned and not for profit.

If every new building built had solar or wind panels on it, the amount of power needed from the grid could be reduced, significantly in many cases. A home building company here in CA has decided to put solar panels on all their new homes. How about all the acres of parking lots with cars baking in the sun? In SF, there is a parking lot with solar panels over the parking spaces..........energy created and stored, cars in the shade and asphalt not putting off 120 degree heat.

We need a bit more of the 'can do' spirit instead of the 'nope, too expensive' lie.

Yes, this is exactly the kind of BIG changes in thinking and doing we need. I think we are lied to about most of this, too. All of a sudden, after decades of cars and trucks that never got more than 12 miles a gallon, there are hybrids and second generation electric vehicles. These could have been produced 20 years ago.

Some larger SUVs are hybrids now. People can have hybrid mini-vans. Even argricultural vehicles and equipment that are gas powered get more MPG now. In some instances, like trucking, the need for gas will most likely be around- although, development of transit hubs much like high speed rail could change how much gas/oil is used in these cases.

Rapid/Public transportation system infra-structures must be developed in the US now. They do need to be easy to use and get people to places on time. And we need to begin education (and modeling) a public transit state of mind to future generations.

I have re-thought my needs for vechiles a lot lately. I use the public transportation here a lot and realized my car sits in the garage most of the time. Yet, I pay to insure it and license it. I drive the dog to the dog park daily in a camping van- same expenses and my I just can't go on the road trips I used to. So, it is time to change this. I have always loved cars, but my life is different now and I'm retired. I know we all come from differing regions and have different needs for vehicles and transportation. But, the kinds of things you write about here, Toughy, could go a long way in cutting down energy use and costs in the long run. It does take changes in building right from the start. Good place to begin is with new construction- both residential and commercial. I have seen some great "Green" residential areas in which this has taken place. The thing I see most is a very different consciousness of the people that live in them.

When the powers that b play with fire ..especialy this kind of fire...u are going to have something bad happen no mater how u try to prevent it.I never thought nukes were the way to go,nothing will change my mind its just to dangerous.Useing wind,solor or any safe way will be the thing that will save the planet.If I could afford it I would be driveng a hybred car or convert my cadi to natural gas,last year I looked into puting solor panels on the roof or a pad in the corner of my back yard..the cost is way out of sight and will be for a while.I know that ppl want to do better but greed as well as oppertunist can get even more money in there already well lined pockets greed will contenue.

A 7+ "aftershock" has just occurred in Japan, causing loss of power to additional nuclear plants. For weeks now the Japanese have been spilling radiated water into the ocean whoch has been read at 3000 times the level of radiation considered SAFE by the industry. Do we imagine that that radiatio will not circulate throughout the world?

The ocean is our life. If ocean life dies, humans will die as well.

The answer to every economic worry the USA has, lies in putting our money into development of durable sources of energy. Just think where we would be if we had put all the money spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan (and now the Lybian) wars on development of alternative energy sources. If we needed revenge against those who attacked us on 911, what better revenge than to stop buying their major product?

We are now 10 years post 911. Had we sought to "Live well" (Living well is the best revenge!) rather than kill hundreds of thousands of people and tank our own economy, we could be 50-90% of the way along to eliminating reliance on first foreign oil and eventually ALL oil. This could be translated to reduction of nuclear energy as well. I have said this (ranted this?) on other threads. It is my particular "issue"

Localization of energy provides much of the answer. Individual homes, particularly newly constructed homes as AtLastHome points out, can be powered individually, reducing or eliminating their "draw" on the grid. In areas where wind is consistent, local grids should be developed to access this source. Sun, heat, and water flow can be used in other areas. This is a national security issue as well. The entire east coast is powered under one huge grid. Sabotage of this grid would cripple the country for an extended period of time

Garbage is a universal problem, but the decomposition of garbage creates huge amounts of methane gas which is pretty much just wasted. Using this gas to power electricity is an idea which has been circulating for at least a century (Link to article written in 1906 -http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/electricity-from-garbage.html ) Communities everywhere could access this source of energy and solve two problems at once.

Well, I DO run on but the shot version is,

NO NUKES!!!
Smooches,
Keri

I"m curious about the 'cost way out of sight'. Is it way out of sight because you are trying to get completely off the grid? Is it way out of sight to use solar for half your electricity? What is making the cost way out of sight? Is it the panels themselves, the batteries and/or the cost of labor for installing them? Is it cost prohibitive in the short term or does that extend 10 years out?

What is driving the cost so high? Are there government programs to help defray the cost?

My mother came from poor ass dirt farmers. They had a couple of windmills that pumped water into water tanks for the animals on the farm. Those windmills had batteries attached to them and those batteries stored power and that's how they had some electricity on the farm. This was in the 20's and 30's.

Let's look at General Electric, with a 5.1 billion dollar profit for 2010, for a minute. (http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...-ges-tax-bill/)

<snip> Samuels said at a tax forum in February that GE needs a tax system that will let it compete effectively with giant, foreign-based multinationals like Mitsubishi, Siemens (SI), and Phillips. However, their effective tax rates for earnings purposes last year were 40%, 31% and 26% respectively, compared with 7% for GE. (GE says its tax rate's been artificially low the past few years, and will soon rise.)

a bit more on GE:

In the period between 1991 and 2009 GE's pretax income is cumulatively $293 billion on which however the firm has paid only $25.2 billion in current domestic taxes, or a 8.58% cumulative tax rate.

Yet where it gets wild is the narrower period between 2002 and 2009, during which time frame the firm made a generous $164.4 billion in pretax net income (not to mention $639 billion in domestic revenue, just over half of total revenues of $1.2 trillion) it paid only $5 billion in domestic current taxes, or a 3.17% tax rate! So our question to the administration is how does $639 billion in domestic revenue, and $164 billion in total net income, result in $5 billion in taxes?

Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/how...mestic-revenue

If that doesn't piss you off nothing will. GE has paid a smaller percentage in taxes than probably 98% of folks on this website. Yet the asshole corporatist in Congress are going to shut down the government because 'we don't have enough money' for health care and education and must cut the budget.

And folks can't afford to put solar panels on their homes or small business.

sorry I kinda ranted off subject for a minute or two...........

We need another Tesla.

You know I refinanced my home to break away and give me 25 acres free and clear, It has a spring, long creek, woods and pasture. I wanted freedom to know no one could take it from me. Often I fantasize about packing up my tents, my dogs and just hitting the back 40 without electric, running water and trying to be as sustainable as possible. BUT I get scared. Although I bitch about commercialism and our government I'm just as responsible and dependent on the luxuries I afford myself. I support the very thing I bitch about.... lol as I sit here opening boxes from Amazon containing foods I can't get locally. I also broke down and cried like a big ass a few winters ago standing in all that snow, pipes busted, cold, wet... how the hell would I ever survive? I guess i would if I had to.

But there is a tread of resentment in me when I pay that stupid ass power bill that could easily house a small family. Meanwhile I see our government sending millions overseas. There is resentment when I'm busting my ass and helping to pay to do it. My best defense in the ebb of all this resentment is continue and refine my "fuck you" plan and learn to be even more sustainable. I wear more clothes and even put coats on the dogs. If it's super cold we all huddle together and cuddle. I plan my trips to town- shopping, seeing Mia and my family. This year my garden will be even larger and I'll preserve more food. I can't bitch about something I'm not willing to do anything about. We all make excuses and even though we can't snap our fingers for change we damn sure could all start stepping towards it proactively.

Sachi
Back in the 1950s, we went to Houghton Michigan to visit friends of my Dad who had moved there. One guy had bought a home on ten acres. He was retired so he time on his hands. The first summer he was there he dug a trench around the outside of his property and was able to hook it up to an artesian well (naturally free flowing well.) A spring or river would work as well, if you had access to one.

He built downhill slants and drops into this trench to increase the speed of the flow of the water. He built several paddle wheels into it and close to the house he had a windmill that was powered by both the water and wind as well.

Anyway, long story short, he generated enough electricity to power his whole house and sell enough power back to the electric company that he powered his house for free the rest of the year. It's cold where he lived, so this system was probably working less than six months of the year.

Now this was in the late 1950's so imagine how much more knowledge is out there that would let you have a good power source right on your own property.

I did find one link to an article telling how to do it, but I found it a little technical. You may find it easier. Also there is probably lots of other info out there.

http://www.ehow.com/how_5937675_make-hydro-electricity.html

You can do it!!!
Smooches,
Keri

Ever evolving story-
 

FYI- I posted this to Breaking News thread also-

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2410014.story

Japan raises nuclear crisis rating to highest level
The level 7 rating for the crisis at the quake- and tsunami-stricken Fukushima power plant is based on the amount radiation released. A day earlier, three new quakes hit as Japan announces plans to expand the evacuation zone.



April 12, 2011
Reporting from Tokyo and Rikuzentakata, Japan— Japanese nuclear regulatory officials Tuesday raised the severity rating at the earthquake- and tsunami-damaged Fukushima Daiichi power plant to the highest level by international standards, equaling the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown in the former Soviet Union.

The country's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency announced that because of the amount of radioactive material released from the plant after the magnitude 9 earthquake a month ago, the rating would be changed to level 7, a "major accident" on the International Atomic Energy Agency's scale, up from a level 5, an "accident with wider consequences."


In a nationally televised news conference, the agency's spokesman, Hidehiko Nishiyama, said the decision was based on the amount of radioactive iodine and cesium spewed from the power plant in Fukushima, north of Tokyo.

Nishiyama stressed that the radiation from the Fukushima nuclear plant was 10% of the amount at Chernobyl. He also said that unlike at Chernobyl, there had been no deaths linked to the accident at Fukushima.

"At Chernobyl, the reactor itself exploded," he said. "At Fukushima some radioactivity has leaked from the reactor, but the reactor itself continues to keep most of the radioactive material inside. In that sense, this is different from Chernobyl."

Before the rating was elevated, the disaster had been rated at the same level as the 1979 Three Mile Island accident near Middletown, Pa.

But Minoru Ogoda of Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said the change in the severity rating came because "the impact of radiation leaks has been widespread from the air, vegetables, tap water and the ocean," the Associated Press reported.

Measuring severity on the international scale involves factors including the amount of radiation released, how wide an area it reaches and how long any problems may last.

Officials said the rating reflects the severity of the problem at the outset, when radiation levels were highest. Those levels have since fallen sharply, they said.

Experts, nevertheless, say it will take years to recover from the damage incurred at the Fukushima plant.
More than 27,000 people were left dead or missing as the disaster last month, centered in the northeast, destroyed fishing towns and caused severe damage to homes, businesses and almost everything else along more than 200 miles of coastline. The government has estimated economic losses of as much as $300 billion, not including costs such as the cleanup of the Fukushima plant, which is operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co.

The announcement by nuclear agency officials came the day after three powerful aftershocks struck already jittery northeastern Japan within the span of 10 minutes, as the government announced new plans to expand the evacuation area near the stricken nuclear plant due to high radiation levels.

Japan is trying to rebuild after the March 11 quake triggered a deadly tsunami that also left tens of thousands homeless. The tsunami has caused several fires and explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, which has leaked dangerous isotopes into the air, soil and water.

The first of Monday's temblors, which trapped some victims in collapsed homes and vehicles, hit at 5:16 p.m. near the coast in Fukushima prefecture, registering a magnitude 7.1 at a depth of 6 miles underground, according to the Japan Meteorological Agency.

It was sizable enough to rock buildings in Tokyo, about 150 miles to the south. A magnitude 6 quake hit a minute later in the same area, followed by another temblor, measuring magnitude 5.6, nine minutes after that.

Aftershocks continued hours later, the agency said. In neighboring Ibaraki prefecture, one man died after falling and hitting his head during the shaking, according to the local Ryugasaki fire department.

The quakes also triggered a landslide that buried three homes in Iwaki city. Two people died in the landslide, including a 16-year-old girl, according to public broadcaster NHK. Three other men pulled from the rubble were unconscious and taken to a hospital, NHK said. Rescuers continued their efforts Tuesday.

Officials issued a tsunami warning after the quakes but later lifted it.

The quakes temporarily knocked out the power to the Fukushima plant and led to a 50-minute stoppage in the water-spraying operations to cool four of the plant's six reactors. Highways were closed, bullet train services to the region were halted briefly, and as many 220,000 homes in Fukushima prefecture were without power.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said a fire broke out on the plant's premises Tuesday morning at a building where batteries are stored. Within minutes, firefighters put out the blaze, and there appeared to be no impact on workers' efforts to cool four of the reactors, the company said in a statement.

On Monday, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said the government would expand a 12-mile evacuation area near the nuclear plant, adding to the ranks of the thousands who have already been told to leave their homes.

Unlike the government's previous evacuation orders, the new one is based on data that show higher than normal radiation levels extending to towns and villages that lie beyond the 12- to 18-mile zone around the plant. The government has advised residents in the zone to stay indoors.

It was unclear how many residents would be affected by the new order, which the government plans to carry out over the next month. Edano noted that the risk of a massive radiation leak from the Fukushima plant was "considerably lower."