Griper Blade: Corruption, Fraud, Iraq, and The Big Dig Because the politically connected companies like Bechtel get to build the huge projects. They have a history of cheating and cutting corners. They are doing it now in Iraq.
Who would you trust to build these nuclear plants? Our major construction companies have not demonstrated much integrity.
There have been several news events such as this recently: http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/957/california-to-get-world-s-largest-solar-project.html
“The desert outside of Los Angeles is about to get a system of solar thermal plants that will, at maximum output, produce 1.3 gigawatts of power. Yes, that is more even than large nuclear plants.”
What do you ‘nuclear is the only quickly scalable alternative to coal’- sayers think about this?
Have you looked at a map lately? Los Angeles (and much of California) is in a desert (well, semi-arid I suppose) with lots of sun shine (ever heard the term ‘sunny California’?). So…for THEM it might make sense (though I’d have to see the cost to benefit side to actually know).
How about building one in Seattle?
-XT
As xtisme said, it is only possible in a few places in the U.S. (mostly in the Southwest). They also take up huge areas (this one is less efficient than photovoltaic arrays), have a potentially harmful affect on desert ecosystems, and have been in development for decades. If we had been working on building safe nuclear plants during the same time we would most likely already have many up and running, with less destruction of ecosystems, and fewer long distance power lines.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for this. The mirrors are cleaner to build than solar panels, and in areas with consistent sunshine, this can be a great addition to the power grid. But it will never completely replace fossil fuels the way nuclear could.
Jonathan
Let me know when it’s actually built and running, not just “going to be built”. There have been plans for plants like this for decades. If they have actually solved all of the practical problems that doomed all of the previous attempts, great, but in the meanwhile, I’m not holding my breath.
On the other hand, functioning nuclear power plants have actually been built, so there’s no doubt that they can be.
I think nuclear power needs to be used, and developed much more than it currently is. My only hangup is the waste. No one seems to have a decent solution for dealing with it.
P.S. I posted this prior to having read the comments. So if someone had a good wate plan, my bad!
http://www.alternet.org/environment/116854/6_reasons_why_nuclear_power_can't_save_us/
Nuclear is fraught with problems. Cost of plants and waste are just 2 that are unsolvable.
Guess what? Every other potential energy source is also “fraught with problems.” And simply stating that the the cost of the plants and dealing with the waste are “unsolvable” problems is simplistic to the point of absurdity.
I remember you, you suggested using pebble bed reactors to power tractors for farming last summer. My trial expired so I never got to say what I thought of that idea.
Needless to say I wasn’t exactly sold on the idea of dragging nuclear reactors over our food supply.
I agree there are certain situations, with current tech, where nuclear is the only practicle alternative to coal, but as long as coal holds out I really think it’s preferable in those situations. CO2 can be bottled and buried after the coal is burned, but nuclear waste not so much. NIMBYism is a real problem and nuclear waste will get shuttled to where ever is politically expedient, not the safest least destructive spot. Breeder reactors you might say but that opens up the trouble of creating weapons grade nuclear material. It just takes one lapse of security and suddenly NYC’s water supply is undrinkable and radio-active thanks to a dirty bomb.
Then there’s scale. How many reactors are you going to have? Where will they be? Will poor countries have them for power too? How well would a poor country be able to afford safety measures and maintenance? What’s the fail rate with proper maintenance? What about if neglected or underfunded?
Of course it can. Getting rid of nuclear waste is a political problem, not a practical one. Nor do I think that “bottling and burying” all that CO2 will be as easy as you seem to think, assuming it’s even feasible.
Nonsense. A “dirty bomb” would be a trivial threat. It’s anti-nuke hysteria. And NIMBYism applies to everything, not just nuclear plants.
All problems that will have to be solved, if we don’t want to either go back to the 19th century or watch coastal cities go underwater. But I see no reason to think that they are unsolvable ones.
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:90, topic:470035”]
Of course it can. Getting rid of nuclear waste is a political problem, not a practical one.
That’s kind of my point. Politics mean it gets put where it upsets the least amount of voters, not where it’s safest.
After Bush getting elected twice do you really trust the voters? Sometimes they do really stupid things. I know I wouldn’t trust anyone capable of being that stupid to manage nuclear waste.
Safer though. Some CO2 escapes well it sucks but life goes on, some nuclear waste gets out and crap.
Really? Someone sets off a dirty bomb and leaves radio-active dust all Times-square, and various streets down wind. How do you clean it up, and how do you protect the people who were exposed?
How about the people exposed to the dust cloud?
Truth, but nuclear waste has more drastic long term consequences from mismanagement.
Agreed, but that kind of puts it back in the realm of other hypothetical technologies since no practical demonstration of fool proof safe nuclear power.
Some one will always find a way to fuck it so fails spectacularly.
Nuclear waste just isn’t as dangerous as you make it out to be. You don’t want to spread it over your pancakes, but a leak here and there isn’t that big a deal.
Wait for it to blow away mostly, and the people exposed probably don’t need protecting. “Dirty bombs” are a joke in terms of actual damage; you’d be better off using plain old bombs in terms of killing people.
No, it doesn’t. It’s coal and other CO2 producing power sources that are the biggest threat to the world. And other power sources and industries are quite a bit more dangerous than nuclear plants.
There are a variety of safe methods of generating nuclear power. That’s not “hypothetical”; it’s a solved problem.
They’re easily solvable: regulate nuclear in a way equivalent to other power sources.
The Kingston TN ash pond failure has pretty significant radiological features, but they still haven’t done much about it because it’s “natural” radioactivity from coal.
The big cost of nuclear power is the upfront capital outlay without return on investment for several years.
How does the current economic climate effect that?
On the one hand any one who can score a large loan can get interest rates at record lows. This has to tremendously lower the cost of the nuclear power provided as so much of the annual expense is debt service.
OTOH, who is going to have that much cash on hand to lend right now???
Look at it this way.
Currently Nuclear Power and its waste are NOT killing scores of people and destrorying the earths surface in any significant way. And thats with 40 year old technology derived from nuclear designs where the military aspects were a key part.
We’ve been running that experiment in large numbers for 40 years now. We have a decent estimate of the real risks, as well as some good ideas for greatly lowering them.
Look at it this way. They cost too much. They take years to build. They have a limited shelf life. After 40 years you have a horrible scar left that cost many millions to build. The waste has never been dealt with. The builders can not get insurance. Private contractors will cut corners to make profits. Politicians and regulators will be bribed out of doing their jobs. It is just an energy paradise.
Too funny. We regulate the industry to death, eco-nazis and whacked out tree huggers put every stumbling block in it’s path known to man, and then you sit there and say ‘See?? It costs too much and takes too long to build!’. It’s funny that these issues don’t seem to plague OTHER countries or their nuclear industries.
I guess, since solar is completely un-viable at this time and since nuclear obviously (to be sure) is economically, morally, socially and astrologically unsuitable we should just stick to coal then, ehe?
It’s ironic that the ‘waste has never been dealt with’ meme should cross your lips as well…I understand that after billions of dollars (hell, ten’s of billions) and numerous stupid and pointless delays that Yucca Mountain may have been killed yet again. I just LOVE these self fulfilling prophesies! Not that Yucca Mtn. was optimal…but it’s sort of funny how these things work out, ehe?
If it were up to me and if I had a really evil streak (and unlimited funds) I’d say go for it…drop nuclear AND coal (and oil) and build all the wind turbines and solar plants you guys want too. Serve it up…let’s see it. It would be hilarious (if it wouldn’t cost so much and have such a huge impact on our energy, economy, ecology and the whiteness of our collective teeth) to watch when this pie in the sky fell back on the upturned collective faces of the eco-nuts who think this stuff is ready for prime time…and that it wouldn’t really cost all THAT much. And it would get better…when the ACTUAL ecological impacts started coming back and the same eco-nut cases who are against nuclear started protesting massive solar panel deployments into the deserts because of it’s impact on the spotted coyote, or that huge numbers of wind turbines disrupted the migratory flights of the gray tufted Mongolian goose.
-XT
If the French can manage it, I think the rest of the civilized world might be able to swing it as well.
Sort of like the classic definition of chutzpah - killing your parents, and then asking the judge for mercy because you are an orphan.
If there is any infrastructure/stimulus spending I would support, it would be the push for new nuclear reactors both candidates mentioned during the campaign. Addresses several issues at once - infrastructure, energy independence, AGW, and a bipartisan issue.
It won’t get very far - it makes too much sense.
Regards,
Shodan
It takes a pretty big set, no doubt of that. As a thought exercise for you gonzo (and everyone else shaking their heads in disbelief at this point), try this:
In the US there are currently companies who are installing and bringing on stream wind turbines in many places in the US (there is one going in at one of my customers sites as we speak in Tucumcari). How well do you think they would do if they were bombarded with regulations, protests and law suits causing them to delay construction for months or years? How viable do you suppose they would be THEN? How about solar? Leaving aside how viable it actually is, now viable would it be if it was being similarly regulated and held back due to protests, impact studies and law suits?
I don’t expect an honest answer gonzo…this was just to give you something to think about before you hand wave it away and carry on.
-XT