# Nuclear power **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 3, 2005, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417 "2005-08-03T13:46:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/201 "2005-08-10T02:11:30Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > Yes, I’m well aware of what the Judge said. I also don’t care. It’s not his purview and he has no valid authority in this case. It doesn’t matter if the federal government says Yucca Mountain is made of chooze, Nevada has no right to stop it. Actually, Judges Harry T. Edwards, David Tatel, and Karen LeCraft Henderson did have valid authority. Their decision, authored by Judges Edwards & Tatel, stands. And of course Nevada has every right, under the first amendment to the US Constitution, to petition the federal government for a redress of grievances. [cite](http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/202 "2005-08-10T04:39:39Z")
On a slight sidetrack, this is very cool: [Hydrogen Green Fuel Comes a Step Closer](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/05/wfuel05.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/05/ixworld.html) > [@](#): > > The dream of using hydrogen, the most plentiful element in the universe, as a green fuel moved a step closer yesterday with the announcement that it can be made with the help of sunlight. > > Nearly all hydrogen used at present is produced by expensive processes that require the burning of polluting fossil fuels. > > Now the Weizmann Institute of Science, in Israel, has tested the environmentally friendly solar method on a large scale. > > … > > The institute, working with colleagues in Switzerland, France and Sweden on the EU-backed project, used sunlight to heat a metal ore, such as zinc oxide, to about 1,200° Celsius in the presence of charcoal. > > This split the ore, releasing oxygen and creating gaseous zinc, which was then condensed to a powder. The powder was later allowed to react with water, yielding hydrogen to be used as fuel and zinc oxide, which was recycled in the solar plant. > > Michael Epstein, of the institute, said: “The success of our experiments brings industrial use closer.” > > He said he foresaw the building of a commercial plant in six to eight years. This is essentially a solar power plant, with hydrogen being the storage battery. So it remains to be seen how expensive this would be and how much area you would have to use up to get a reasonable amount of hydrogen. But if it’s economical and feasible, this could be a pretty significant breakthrough. You’re essentially bottling concentrated solar energy for use wherever you need it. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/203 "2005-08-10T04:46:52Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > On a slight sidetrack, this is very cool: > [Hydrogen Green Fuel Comes a Step Closer](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/08/05/wfuel05.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/08/05/ixworld.html) > This is essentially a solar power plant, with hydrogen being the storage battery. So it remains to be seen how expensive this would be and how much area you would have to use up to get a reasonable amount of hydrogen. But if it’s economical and feasible, this could be a pretty significant breakthrough. You’re essentially bottling concentrated solar energy for use wherever you need it. Holy fucking shit! That’s cool! Today has been a good day! First the space shuttle landed safely, now this! 😃 WOOT! Thanks, **Sam** , for the info. That is truly a stunning and remarkable achievement. I made a sticky to watch for news from the conference next week. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/204 "2005-08-10T05:04:27Z")
I’m pro with a few reservations. A new nuke plant is about $2 billion to make and the 100 plants we currently have in the US provide 20% of our electricity. Another $200 billion would replace alot of CO2 producing plants, giving 40% of our electricty from nuclear power give or take. The only problem I have is terrorism. I don’t believe that in 2005 an accident like chernobyl is possible, but if terrorists set out to attack a plant they could cause trillions of dollars worth of damage. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/205 "2005-08-10T08:14:11Z")
> [@Wesley Clark](#): > > A new nuke plant is about $2 billion to make and the 100 plants we currently have in the US provide 20% of our electricity. Another $200 billion would replace alot of CO2 producing plants, giving 40% of our electricty from nuclear power give or take. I think that even with the nuke building boom , that the fossil fuel plants will be around , as some of the existing nukes will have to be de-commisioned or at least taken offline to be refurbished with newer nuke technology. Then we come to a fork in the road I don’t want nukes to become an end all energy generation solution , they just happen to the easiest to implement in the time available, but at some point in time , someone is gonna come up with a fusion reactor design, so these new plants will have to have the ability to bolt on newer technology. Next is that while I think that almost everyone agrees that nuclear generation is going to make a comeback , I have not seen anything along the lines of how its gonna be networked , how many nukes exactly are we gonna need , the fun part , who is gonna pay for em. Back in the fifties , or late forties experts were saying that electrical energy will be almost free , that and the flying cars of course. So once we get past the politcal , the scientific and break ground on the new nukes , now it becomes financial. To make money on these things, the power has to be a commodity , not like the air we breathe ,which can’t be taxed or metered. Anyone wanna bet that con-ed is not just going to drop your electrical bill 99 percent , once the tap is turned on. For the high start up costs , the payoff has to be a very sharp decrease in the billing department before john q public is gonna sign off. > [@](#): > > The only problem I have is terrorism. I don’t believe that in 2005 an accident like chernobyl is possible, but if terrorists set out to attack a plant they could cause trillions of dollars worth of damage. Actually I don’t believe that terrorism will greatly impact the integerity of a nuke plant much ,when the existing plants are designed to withstand the impact of a jet airliner, physical invasion and a whole host of other goth senarios. While I dont put much faith that a terrorist can tote around a tow missile launcher , set it up , and fire a round with a good probability of a causing some sort of chain reaction, a more likely situation would be moving the nuclear goods in the transit phase and hitting it with multiple RPG-7 or M-72 LAWS rockets. Right now on an irregular schedule , nuclear weapons are constantly being moved across state lines , in unmarked semi-trailors with no visible security present, so there is a body of accumulated knowlege on how to move hazmat cargos in an unsecure transit corridor. Declan ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/206 "2005-08-10T13:01:11Z")
[Proposal for New Radiation Exposure Limits](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4793572) Worth a listen, I caught this on the way into work on NPR. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/207 "2005-08-10T13:18:00Z")
> [@jrfranchi](#): > > [Proposal for New Radiation Exposure Limits](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4793572) I apologize, worst streaming audio ever. I can’t get more than 5 seconds at a time, hopefully others will have better luck. They were discussing the 10,000 year and 1,000,000 year limits specifically for Yucca. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/208 "2005-08-10T13:32:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually, Judges Harry T. Edwards, David Tatel, and Karen LeCraft Henderson did have valid authority. Their decision, authored by Judges Edwards & Tatel, stands. Judges have no place deciding public policy or needs or scientific truth. > [@](#): > > Thanks, Sam, for the info. That is truly a stunning and remarkable achievement. I made a sticky to watch for news from the conference next week. It’s not a big acheivement, really. Hydrogen is a battery, nothing more, and we’ve known how to make one in theory for quite a while. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe that in 2005 an accident like chernobyl is possible, but if terrorists set out to attack a plant they could cause trillions of dollars worth of damage. How are they going to do that? They’d need a small army or workers and soldiers to do anything. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/209 "2005-08-10T14:55:44Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > It’s not a big acheivement, really. Hydrogen is a battery, nothing more, and we’ve known how to make one in theory for quite a while. Potentially, it could be a huge achievement. Sure, we can make hydrogen already. We can electrolyze it out of water, or make it from fossil fuel. The first method is still very expensive, and the second doesn’t really solve any problems. But this technique uses solar power to create it. Whether or not it’s a big breakthrough depends entirely on how economical it is. After all, we could make hydrogen now with solar energy - just use photovoltaic cells to power an electrolyzing process. I’m assuming that this method they’ve discovered is much more efficient than that, or I don’t see the point at all. It looks like it could potentially be very cheap - just spread this stuff over an area, let the reaction take place, then collect it up and extract the hydrogen by simply adding water. That gets you back your original chemical, which you then spread all over again. It could also be a technology that translates well to remote use. If the process is very simple, you could see farms setting up their own little hydrogen stations. So depending on the specifics of the process, this could either be groundbreaking or a yawn. We’ll have to see. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/210 "2005-08-10T15:02:13Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > Ridiculing me and attempting to trivialize my facts isn’t going to dissuade me. Ascribing an intractable delusional attitude to me will not change those facts. I’ll just keep coming back here and citing corrections. You might want to correct the guy who claimed that a river which is dry most of the time is the only source of surface water for all the little birdies in the region. Etc., etc. 😉 Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2005, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/211 "2005-08-10T21:58:11Z")
Yep, when there is water on the surface, it’s in the Armagosa River. And when there is water in it, it’s the only source of surface water in the area. And we’d like to make sure that that water is clean for all the wildlife that uses it. Now how about you go correct the guy who said there aren’t any large earthquakes, or the guy who said Yucca is 100 miles from anything, or the guy who said there were tests done on storage casks, or… Ah, never mind. You won’t do it, just like you won’t listen to facts. You seem to have a bottomless well of false and misleading information which you use to prop up baseless opinions. I’ve already cited a link for people who want to read the USGS, EPA, NRC, and DOE documents, as well as all of the emails and legal paperwork that are related to Yucca. I’ll do it again tho, and people can avail themselves of the resources if they want to. [http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/whatsnew.htm](http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/whatsnew.htm) I suggest you and I just agree to disagree, **Shodan**. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2005, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/212 "2005-08-11T13:38:55Z")
> [@](#): > > by **Snowboarder Bo** > You seem to have a bottomless well of false and misleading information which you use to prop up baseless opinions. Actually, we know exactly what you’re saying. It’s just tat we find your arguments unconvincing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417.md?page=10)