Considering that the term “half-life” is only applicable to radioactive material…
Anyway you can bet the farm on the fact that lots and lots our waste products that aren’t radioactive are absolutely going to be “affecting our great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren,” and probably more directly than any of the existing nuclear waste.
But, but, but radiation is involved! SCARY!!
It seemed like opposition to nuclear power was starting to wane in the U.S., at least in part due to concerns over greenhouse gas emissions. I imagine the situation in Japan will push things back the other way. In the end though, our only real choices for base load are coal and nuclear, with some contribution from natural gas. Wind and solar provide some feel good clean power, but unless we have vast improvements in the distribution and storage of power, they will never provide a significant fraction of the base load. The same is probably true of biomass, but that is more complicated both from an availability and environmental impact perspective. Basically people don’t want coal, don’t want nuclear, and don’t want power lines anywhere near them, but absent significant technological improvements, you need to pick one or two.
In my own opinion I think recent events should be considered when siting new facilities and if facilities will be (or are for that matter) sited in areas potentially impacted by natural disasters, they need to have appropriate redundant equipment and emergency plans in place. I know you can’t over design for every possible event, but it seems like some of the issues in Japan could have been avoided or at least minimized with better system design.
Help me out here, are you going for parody or irony with these 2 statements?
Seriously? That’s news to me. This board is overwhelmingly pro-nuke, and in real life about all I hear from people these days is we should be building nuclear plants like crazy, until we make France look like they only dabble with the technology.
Then we have people who say ridiculous things like we have better newer designs and what happened in Japan can never happen in the US. “It’s impossible!” they scream.
General Electric built, and then taught the Japanese to build these boiling water reactors (BWRs). General Electric built the same things in the US, around the same time. Ours are just as old. Same design.
The General Electric/Japanese plants were/are at the end of their operational lifespan. In fact, the first plant to blow its top in Japan was already over its lifespan, and had just received a new 10-year license to continue operating. Then the quake hit.
Can’t happen in the US? How monumentally naive can you be? Our plants are just as old, same designs, built by the same companies, same safety features (actually the Japanese are far, far better prepared for earthquakes and tsunamis than the US), and also getting extensions on their licenses.
We’ve got two nuke plants on the coast in California, right on top of major earth quake and tsunami land. They aren’t built for a tsunami or a 9.0 quake either. Get your head out of the sand. You can’t just slap a fresh coat of paint on these things and viola, disaster and “oh shit” proof!
This board is overwhelmingly, and often obnoxiously, liberal elitist dreamers. Completely out of touch with mainstream America. This board would likely ban religion, guns, and individual income over $25K/year. This board has little to no comprehension of reality.
You seem to be assuming that if we build new plants that they will be the same design as those 40 year old plants. Safer designs have been developed since then.
What I assume, and I think rightly, is that “new design” means outlandishly expensive and complicated and by the time our new safer plans actually get built, besides being criminally over budget, are also 10-20 years old. The plans, that is.
I don’t really see the problem with constanze’s statements - nuclear waste is harmful without ingesting or even touching it, which a lot of other substances are not. I believe it’s grossly irresponsible to stick stuff in the ground that will stay just as lethal for hundreds of thousands of years, without a way to make sure that it doesn’t leak into the ground water. It’s just sweeping the dust under the carpet, hoping to make sure no one will look.
As for Germany, our government actually terminated nuclear plants on a 20-30 year plan, which was reversed by the current government. They are feeling significant heat over that decision right now, hopefully to the point where they will decide it’s just not worth it having those ticking time bombs in our country any more.
Two of the reactors are dead, killed by the salt water pumped in to cool them. Today uranium stocks are tanking. If nothing serious happens, it should be okay, but if things get worse and there is a leak, nuclear power is dead.
Remember, this is the Japanese having the problem. If they can hardly keep a lid on things, imagine what would happen in Russia. Oh, I guess we know.
I’m for nuclear power myself, but we have to be realistic.
Oh come on. The comparison is between a highly toxic material that can easily migrate into ground water but if it’s in a corrosion resistant container and indefinitely maintained is not a problem and nuclear waste which can easily contaminate ground water but if it’s in a corrosion resistant container and indefinitely maintained is not.
You don’t see the silliness of that analogy?
Nuclear waste can be contained and localized - unlike many other methods of constant power generation which pollute on a global scale.
This is totally absurd. You really ought to feel ashamed.
But to the answer the OP: you can perceive the way the “nuclear threat” is being sensationally reported in the U.S. I submit that the most severe and persistent environmental problems Japan is going to face as a likely result of the earthquake/tsunami are not nuclear, in terms of long-term harm to human health.
Nevertheless radiation is the big boogeyman. Thus far, no significant amounts of radiation have been released into the environment, but it’s the big single obvious threat. Threats of contaminated ground water, toxic chemicals leeching into soil, widespread petroleum spills, noxious mold and spores from water-destroyed material and human waste being spread around, etc., are being downplayed in the media by comparison. Yet the overall threat from them is likely worse. Some threats can be solved in the short-term, others will persist for many years.
So, yes, people in the U.S. are going to overreact against developing a improved, safe, nuclear program.
Not gonna happen in the US (new plants), at least under the current Administration.
This will them the excuse they need to drag their feet on any new plant permits and licensing, just like they have done for Gulf drilling permits.
Reactor #2 is being reported as possibly being dry right now. This could sadly get a lot worse then 3 Mile Island if we’re not all lucky. BTW: Another stuck friggin valve is the cause apparently.
Today’s plants are far safer designs but not full proof of course. We have far too many at risk older plants on line and one reason to build new ones is to shut down the pair on the fault lines in California or Indian Point in NY as examples.
Oyster Point in NJ is extremely vulnerable to a tsunami though the tsunami risk is much lower here then in the Pacific.
I still feel the events in Japan will delay the attempts to build new plants. I believe Joe “Droopy Dog” Lieberman is already calling for delays.
Well, water works just as well. You need cold water though. Like the water at the bottom of the Marianna’s Trench.
Luddite loonies will become loonier.
People who have that sticker on their car (which is for me one of the biggest examples of hypocrisy) are currently creaming so much their pants that it leaks on their birkenstocks.
See, this is the problem.
You’re talking about a theoretical technology that doesn’t really exist yet. It was researched in the 90’s. Already 20 years old. The originators of this plan themselves optimistically state it couldn’t even BEGIN to actually be constructed for 15 years. Let’s remember that there are experts who, back in 1966, were saying in all seriousness that we could build a space elevator. We’ve got nanotubes now and they’re still saying it. You’ll notice there’s usually a “as early as in 15 years” stuck in there somewhere.
We’re fresh out of these “in 15 years” blocks of time. There are “new” nuclear power plants being built around the world all the time, and they aren’t using theoretical technology, they are always ridiculously over budget, over time, and really expensive. Even the Chinese can’t build and operate them cheaply.
What are these new safer nuclear power plant designs pro-nukies talk about? Pebble Bed Reactors? That idea is from 1947, and the first one was operational in 1966. Not new technology, really.
I am in favor of Nuclear Power, but dismissing the concerns of the Greens about Nuclear power and how it has been operated is hardly fair. The waste and danger are real.
I feel built and run properly in safe locations nuclear power can be a huge component in fighting Global Climate Change and help us shift to electric cars without increase in the amount of coal we burn. The long term reduction in use of foreign oil is a major concern. The ability to shut down older dirty coal plants and older not as safe as they should be nuclear power plants is a goal well worth working towards. Along with Solar, Wind and of course energy conservation. We need to keep getting more efficient.
It appears the plants rode out the earthquake itself okay. The tsunami, not so much. There is a nuclear plant around San Clemente, right on the ocean. I’d be nervous living around there.
Germany has announced plans to suspend operation of their 7 oldest nuclear plants for at least 3 months. These are all the older style (less safe) plants and all were operational by the end of 1980. If I heard correctly, this is half of their nuclear plants.
I think the US is clearly going to at least slow down on the plans to build the new ones. The shame is a pair were scheduled to break ground this year. I think ideally we would bring new ones up on line so we could start taking down older and susceptible plants and of course shut down the dirtier coal plants. More delays probably actually increase the chance of a nuclear accident as these old plants keep getting extensions of life.
Meanwhile we really need to get the wind farms built. This is an excellent source of power for many areas. We should be in the forefront of new energy technology. As a part of the solution wind is great.
