|
The Crappy Economy A CIVIL Debate The Blogger's World Joe's Oil Editorial Cartoons Rants of the Play by Play Oil and the Economy The New Iraq Policy The Iraqi Standoff Farm Bill April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
Energy Solutions
A bumper sticker occasion found on a vehicle reads, “Another Environmentalist for Nuclear Power.” Right on! Despite the ever present fear of nuclear power, it hasn’t gone away because after all is said and done, it just makes sense.
Some notes: it’s cheap, it’s plentiful, it’s domestic, it’s safe, it’s reliable, it’s practical, it’s proven, and. . .oh yes. . . it’s clean! Nuclear energy is an carbon/sulfur emission free source of energy that’s cheaper than all other sources of energy with the exception of hydro-electrical. Newer reactors also offer the only practical means of producing hydrogen in a practical, environmentally friendly, economically competitive manner. Hydrogen, we can agree, is good. If as a country, we utilized nuclear power like the French do, we would not only being paying less for our electricity, but we would exceed standards set by the Kyoto treaty by a healthy margin. Other energy solutions like wind or solar would dry up tomorrow without government subsidies, while the thought of having to build thousands of windmills across the US is daunting and not very practical. Still there are some concerns about nuclear: 1) What about waste? Current technologies pioneered right here in Idaho allow for waste to be reprocessed. If the country were to focus on recycling all the current waste in storage, we would have enough to supply our needs for the next century without producing a drop of new waste material over what we already have. 2) You say it’s safe. What about Chernobyl or Three Mile Island? In view of the overarching history of the industry, nuclear power has a very good record of safety despite all the accidents that have occurred. What industry doesn’t have accidents? That said, the Three Mile Island meltdown resulted in nobody getting hurt, and only paltry amounts of radiation escaping from the reactor. In Chernobyl, the worst thing that could have happened, did. And although it was terrible, it wasn’t as bad as we have imagined it to be. The industry has learned from their mistakes, and is better because of it. Keep one thing in mind: a nuclear engineer isn’t ever afraid to walk into his own facility. As it now sits, a brand new generation 4 nuclear reactor prototype is slated to be built here at the INL, promising a stronger economy for this region. Licenses for new reactors (generation 3) are now being processed across the US for the first time in 30 years. Unfortunately this is all far too political, and the next administration could easily undercut the progress being made. Of the three major political candidates currently running for the presidency, only one (that I’m aware of) has voiced support for this technology. The others avoid the subject because of fear of alienating their uniformed constituency. Energy is America’s biggest weakness. Here we have the solution to make ourselves more prosperous and secure. So let’s go with it ALREADY! 7 comments from 4 users
1
posted by
unboxed
on Apr 7, 2008 at 08:02 AM
1. The Russian government had pushed the Chernobyl reactor well above its known and established limits in order to provide additional power. 2. 3 Mile Island would have been avoided had the operators walked away and let the reactor cool itself down, as it was designed. The radiation leak you referred to was only because of operator intervention (note verbage: "operator" intervention, not "nuclear engineer" intervention. 3 Mile Island had hired unqualified staff to oversee operations of the reactor). I would like your comments on other points of safety, though. What about terrorist attacks? What about hacker attacks? posted by
MichaelStrickland
on Apr 7, 2008 at 08:03 AM
Thank you for this fresh view on a long debated and controversial issue. As one of those people who has been around long enough to remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, I can now look back and say: where were the other nuclear disasters? Historically, there have not been many. We used to kid friends who worked or lived near nuclear facilities, saying, "My ... you're a lovely shade of green today." The idea was that nuclear power was supposed to turn us all into mutants. It didn't. This energy needs to be further researched, focused on, and utilized for its benefits and huge upside potential. -- Michael posted by
MichaelStrickland
on Apr 7, 2008 at 08:05 AM
Wo! Unboxed and I posted those two opinions exactly one minute apart. I guess nuclear power is on people's minds this morning. posted by
MichaelStrickland
on Apr 7, 2008 at 08:09 AM
It is time to hear from MBogo, Elena Webb, and some of the other prolific JHUb regulars. What are your thoughts on this topic? posted by
mbogo
on Apr 7, 2008 at 08:49 AM
Thanks for asking Michael. Nuclear power isn't a subject I feel qualified to really get into, so I have been satisfied to listen to some friends who have some expertise in this area while I try to bring myself up to speed. I still don't feel that I'm up to speed, but one of my friends put it as simply as he knew how. Since He knew that I was among the first group of concealed handgun instructors certified by the Texas DPS, he asked me if I thought that someone who was law abiding and exceptionally well trained in the proper use of a handgun for defensive purposes such as a police officer or citizen who had completed the Texas concealed handgun course presented any danger to the general public? My answer was a qualified no. (I won't explain the qulification) He then said that the use of nuclear power was similarly potentiallyy dangerous or really very safe depending on the training of those who were in charge of handling the material and working in the plants. That comparison made sense to me, so I am cautiously supportive of nuclear power while I am reading everything I can find on the subject in The Scientific American, and other sources. posted by
unboxed
on Apr 7, 2008 at 06:23 PM
Whoops. posted by
Ike
on Apr 8, 2008 at 10:15 AM
If I'm a bad guy and I want to do lots of damage to the America, I wouldn't even think about going after a nuclear facility. There are countless other softer targets that I can get at that will do a lot more damage. It is physically impossible for a power plant to go super-critical and explode in a way that will wash away a whole section of the earth. The ratio of fissile materials to non-fissile materials is too low, allowing it to cook slowly rather than explode. The absolute worst thing they could do (which is STILL impractical and difficult to pull off) is: 1) Somehow cause the plant to meltdown, which is nothing more than the core melting on itself and permanently shutting it down, costing the taxpayers a few million in lost revenue, or. . . 2) Steal some of the byproduct to make a dirty bomb. Good luck even trying.
1
|