Save the environment, go Nuclear

[Moliere]

“The Case for Terrestrial (a.k.a. Nuclear) Energy”

The rest of the world is rapidly moving toward nuclear power. France, Russia and Japan are not only going ahead with their own nuclear programs, but selling their technology in the developing world. America, which once dominated this technology, is being left behind. The main culprit is public fear. Nuclear technology is regarded as an illegitimate child of the atomic bomb, a Faustian bargain, a blasphemous tinkering with nature. It is none of these.

I say, more boobs.

[The Meal]

This went around work about a month ago (I'm in the biz).  Not even the folks here beleive everything he wrote.  But still, fun read.

~Neal

[Moliere]

This went around work about a month ago (I'm in the biz).  Not even the folks here beleive everything he wrote.  But still, fun read.

~Neal

Since I am not in the biz can you be more specific about which parts are not believable? It seemed like a pretty reasonable and logical argument for the use of nuclear energy.

[leo8877]

Plus future melt-down sites make good maps for future call of duty games!!

[The Meal]

This went around work about a month ago (I'm in the biz).  Not even the folks here beleive everything he wrote.  But still, fun read.

Since I am not in the biz can you be more specific about which parts are not believable? It seemed like a pretty reasonable and logical argument for the use of nuclear energy.

To avoid turning into a douchebag, I'll give someone else the opportunity to step in and answer this (possibly only after reading the article).  The difference between that someone else and me would be their desire to get into an argument.

If nobody steps up, I'll see what I can come up with.

~Neal

[Zinfan]

This went around work about a month ago (I'm in the biz).  Not even the folks here beleive everything he wrote.  But still, fun read.

Since I am not in the biz can you be more specific about which parts are not believable? It seemed like a pretty reasonable and logical argument for the use of nuclear energy.

To avoid turning into a douchebag, I'll give someone else the opportunity to step in and answer this (possibly only after reading the article).  The difference between that someone else and me would be their desire to get into an argument.

If nobody steps up, I'll see what I can come up with.

~Neal

While not looking to get into an argument I also am in the nuclear business (I've worked at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant for  24 years).  His article seems a bit too light handed on a few issues such as

The replaced rods will be removed and transferred to a storage pool inside the containment structure, where they can remain indefinitely (three feet of water blocks the radiation)

err I wouldn't go near an expended fuel rod that was shielded by only 3 feet of water!  Ours are under 27 feet and there are numerous design elements that go into that figure.  He is also pretty offhand on the issue of recycling the fuel, while it is true that much of an expended fuel rod is reusable, getting it out isn't an easy task.  He ignores low level radioactive waste (a big cost for us to dispose of) and is wrong when stating there isn't any discharge to the environment.

There is no release into the environment. The fuel rods come out looking exactly as they did going in, except that they are now more highly radioactive. There is no air pollution, no water pollution, and no ground pollution.

Actually there is some release of radioactive gas and liquid to the environment during normal operation and while his comment about the fuel rods is correct (except they aren't as shiny anymore) his statement that they are "now more highly radioactive" is an understatement, they are now lethal if you get anywhere near one, say 3 feet from one even if it is underwater.  There are many many safeguards to prevent that from occuring but you can't just disregard it with an off hand comment.

I guess the overall tone of his lecture was too light on the difficulties and downsides of nuclear power in order to make his point.  I support the business but people really should be told the reality of it.

[Doopri]

While not looking to get into an argument I also am in the nuclear business (I've worked at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant for  24 years).

now im not normally terribly superstitious but come on did it have to be built HERE???  wasnt there like a happy carebear springtime ridge or gorge of infinite luck nearby?

[warning]

While not looking to get into an argument I also am in the nuclear business (I've worked at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant for  24 years).

now im not normally terribly superstitious but come on did it have to be built HERE???  wasnt there like a happy carebear springtime ridge or gorge of infinite luck nearby?

Awesome.

[CSL]

While not looking to get into an argument I also am in the nuclear business (I've worked at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant for  24 years).

now im not normally terribly superstitious but come on did it have to be built HERE???  wasnt there like a happy carebear springtime ridge or gorge of infinite luck nearby?

Awesome.

Critical Failure Valley already had a coal plant - they had to built it at Diablo Canyon.

[Zinfan]

While not looking to get into an argument I also am in the nuclear business (I've worked at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant for  24 years).

now im not normally terribly superstitious but come on did it have to be built HERE???  wasnt there like a happy carebear springtime ridge or gorge of infinite luck nearby?

Awesome.

Critical Failure Valley already had a coal plant - they had to built it at Diablo Canyon.

Well first choice Death Valley had already been taken as well. 

[unbreakable]

We keep hearing about how "clean" nukular power is lately, and I was even swayed by it for a while.  But I've heard a bunch of energy speeches in the last year, and some of them cite all the problems France (the shining example put forth by the pro-nukular energy people) has been having with the disposal of waste.  France exports it's nuke waste to Russia, which is obviously not an option available to the US (and it seems Russia doesn't do such a good job of storing the waste anyway).

And seeing how we STILL can't get the Yucca Mountain displosal site going, it's going to be a long time before we are able to do anything with the waste.

However, a nuclear reactor is still, by far, preferable to a coal fired power plant (even a... LOL... "clean coal plant"), which spews far more radiation into the environment than a nuke plant.

[CSL]

However, a nuclear reactor is still, by far, preferable to a coal fired power plant (even a... LOL... "clean coal plant"), which spews far more radiation into the environment than a nuke plant.

Not that I support coal fired energy plants. But when they refer to them as "clean coal plants" they are just basically referring to carbon sequestering in things like underground caverns and such. They've never made any huge bold claims about radiation.

[unbreakable]

I just laugh at the name, which is so much propaganda it isn't even funny.  It's "clean"... and yet, in reality, it's not that much cleaner than a standard coal plant.