Poll on nuclear power plants

[17thfabn]

Do you think it is a good idea to have many more nuclear power plants?

France has 59 nuclear power plants, that provide 75% of it's electricity. Japan has 53. The U.S. has 109 which provide 20% of our electricity.

Increased U.S. of nuclear power would free up coal to be turned into fuel for vehicles.

New designs are even safer than the old ones.

[22WRF]

As a matter of fact TVA just came back on line with a Reactor at Browns Ferry that had been shut down for 30 years.

The South Texas Project at Bay City has a Reactor Built in the 70's that has never been on line.

[Pistolenschutze]

Suggestion: First, build more nuclear powerplants. Bury the waste products along the border with Mexico, on the Mexican side, of course. Illegals would then be much easier to see, especially at night since they would glow in the dark. Two problems solved for the price of one!

All kidding aside, nuclear power is one of the safest forms of power generation ever devised when handled properly, far safer than fuel oil or coal generation plants.

[berto64]

It's also one of the most expensive to construct and maintain and the consumer pays for it thru the pocket book.

Look into more ways to create hydroelectric power.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by berto64

It's also one of the most expensive to construct and maintain and the consumer pays for it thru the pocket book.

Look into more ways to create hydroelectric power.

Your point is well taken, Berto, but I think it is also reasonable to point out that much of the excessive cost is due to excessive government regulation and licensing requirements.

I do agree, however, that more emphasis needs to be given to alternative sources of electrical power generation, not only hydroelectic, but also wind and solar power. The oil on this planet won't last forever, and when it's gone, it's gone.

[clmanges]

No!
Doesn't anyone remember Three Mile Island? That reactor lost a whole five feet of its core, and was, IIRC, less than an hour from being another Chernobyl.
We have Perry right up from here, and they had a leak/corrosion problem that almost ate right through the cap of the vessel -- a massive radiation release would have resulted.
I'm of the opinion that the biggest problem with nuclear power is the way the companies are run.
We should concentrate on conservation and efficiency instead.

[bunnyhunter12]

I will not vote because I am of two minds on the issue. Nuclear power can be useful and safe, how many nuke submarines and carriers does the US navy have, and how many accidents? How many land based power stations have never had a problem. Not many problems at all. Then again can we risk the chance of having an incident near a populated area of North America? I think, as has been said above, that we need to look in to hydro and wind power. The Lower Churchill river in my own province provides hydroelectric power for the North-eastern United States and look at Horns Rev offshore "wind farm" in Denmark. We can find natural sources of power, but until we can build enough plants to harness such, LET THE ATOMS FLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bruce FLinch]

I feel if you total up the cost's for building a Nuclear plant, running it , & Maintenance, They could convert a crapload of buildings to Geothermal, Solar, Wind or other energy saving technologies. This would take a strain off the existing energy infrastructure & create less pollution.

[JohnK3]

Originally Posted by clmanges

No!
Doesn't anyone remember Three Mile Island? That reactor lost a whole five feet of its core, and was, IIRC, less than an hour from being another Chernobyl.
We have Perry right up from here, and they had a leak/corrosion problem that almost ate right through the cap of the vessel -- a massive radiation release would have resulted.
I'm of the opinion that the biggest problem with nuclear power is the way the companies are run.
We should concentrate on conservation and efficiency instead.

But, it wasn't another Chernobyl, mainly because the safety designs WORKED.

Chernobyl was a disaster because the old Soviet designs bypassed a lot of safety features that are standard for Western designs. First, a Soviet design is setup such that if it fails, it fails with the control rods out. A Western design is designed such that, lacking any input from the system, the control rods slam home into the core. A Soviet design requires constant input to keep it from going critical. A Western design requires constant input to keep it from shutting down.

Three-Mile Island was a problem. It was, indeed, a very scary situation. However, it was much less of a problem than the press made it out to be and reactor designers learned a LOT from TMI to incorporate into newer designs.

[Silencer]

There's plenty of oil out there to last us 600 to 700 years. Don't be fooled by those in the oil business (mostly car manufactures) who want to make a profit on oil price gouging.

In fact, the big oil companies manipulated the current price to finally make other forms of oil mining profitable.

I say a big yes to new nuclear power plants, but only if we can figure out a proper cost-effective solution to the waste it will generate.

[lohki13]

Solar Power ,hydro ,and wind is the answer .Nuclear Could work though if it was more cost effective.

[BIGBOOMER]

I think the future lies with the fast-flux breeder reactor. With this technology the "waste" is continually being recycled, hence no waste cleanup problem. Also, as Pistol pointed out above, we need to streamline licensing and regulation.
Best regards, BIGBOOMER

[Nortranman]

Lived pretty close to the Trojan Nuclear plant on the Columbia River.It is completely closed now, they even blew down the cooling tower. But while it was in operation, it was one big screw up after another. Most of the time it was a large concrete milepost doing nothing at all. We rate-payers are now paying for the decomissioning ond storage problems. If they don't work any better than that, I think we can do without! There is a terrific opening for wind and solar power. And if there is an accident, we won't glow in the dark.

[millwright]

Build a lot of them.....but make them GEN 4's. Not only will a standardized build of the GEN 3A's be cheaper to build and run they can be fueled with diluted bomb-grade materials. The G-4's are even better, being smaller and not needing large volumes of cooling water, they can be sited close to the load, easing the most perilous threat we face, a collapse of the grid system.

To date nuke power in the U.S. has been a "onesy-twosy" proposltion with multiple designs being custom fabricated and hand built on site. A G-4 puts much of the equipment build back into the controlled environment of a mfg shop.l Plus it can run on reprocessed "spent fuel" we've got hung in fuel pools across the nation.

There's never been a casuality linked to TMI, and damn few to all of the reactors built/run/decommisioned in the U.S. Comparing Chernobyl with TMI, (an old plant/design) is like comparing Ford's first flivver with a 1990's Lincoln. Even as crude as it was the Chernobyl reactor would have been safe if run within its operating parameters. It wasn't. Nothing but a trip would have been the result of the TMI incident but for human intervention that shut off cooling water resulting in a LLC cascade.

All of our oil, NG, coal and SCM can be put to much better uses than putting potential in the air. That's right electricity isn't a commodity until and unless someone throw a switch and uses it. Until then its just potential sitting there bleeding away as heat and rf static. >MW