Nuclear Power.

[Alaskan Rover]

I think the US has to get serious about nuclear power. I used to be against the idea of increased reliance on nuclear power, but I have definitely swung around when I began noting the safety record of nuclear power stations around the world. The safety record is FAR better than oil, coal or natural gas. There have been essentially TWO major nuclear accidents: Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

Three Mile Island was basically a fail-safe device malfunction in an essentially well-designed plant. Chernobyl, on the other hand, was basically a poorly engineered plant from MANY aspects...an accident waiting to happen. There have been an assortment of very minor incidents since then, but nothing major. Chernobyl is STILL a mess, and they say that failed core is still very "HOT"...twenty some odd years down the road.

The rest of the fission nuclear plants around the world have excellent safety records. But even though the safety records are high, we STILL need to increase our research into alternative nuclear power initiatives. Fast-Breeder reactors show promise as long as more research is done as to their viability.

The biggest technology we should be working on is commercial-scale FUSION power plants. The Tokamak-style fusion reactor has been online now for decades on a few different campuses....albeit, in a research mode, and not with a continous fusion reaction. Much more money and research must go into sustaining the fusion reaction.

It is fairly a misnomer that fusion reactors beget NO nuclear waste at all, but present systems being tested produce FAR less waste and with a far shorter radioactive half-life. The fact that the fuel source, deuterium, is readily available in ocean water with NO mining needed, makes it especially approachable. While it is not really a "renewable" energy source, its potential is FAR closer to that model than any fission reaction.

Other types of fusion must have more research, such as "cold fusion" and "bubble fusion" We also must do much more research on the re-processing of nuclear fission waste for further fission. Presently, no fusion plant produces more energy than is initially consumed and the first commercial fusion reactor isn't really speculated to go online for another forty years!! We MUST step up the research in this regard.

While we DID form our technology and industry around oil and coal....we CAN re-form ourselves around a combination of fission and fusion nuclear power and wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal energy sources. To those supporters of natural gas, you must know that it would contribute to atmospheric warming to a fairly high extent if vastly stepped up.

Not only is crude oil a nasty, dirty substance that should stay in the ground EXACTLY where it is, we are now finding with this ongoing Gulf saga, that at least environmentally, it is not nearly as cheap a source of fuel as we thought.

When will we learn our lesson?

[RDY_2_Carve]

Sorry but no.

We need to focus on Renewable Energy like Wind, Hydro, Solar, Geothermal, Bio, etc.

When Chernobyl did it's thing the radition levels in Albuquerque, New Mexico rose by 1000%. This is half way around the world. If you think a nuclear event that happened in Europe won't affect your enviornment in the U.S. you need to think again. Events like Chernobyl have a global impact.

What do you think is more of a threat: Iran having a nuclear weapon or Iran building Nuclear Power plants. A nuclear warhead is a contained device and even if a silo catches on fire it will not set off the warhead. The warhead must be armed and triggered to have any effects. A nuclear power reactor, on the other hand, can have a far worse biological impact if things go wrong.

Despite all of this the biggest problem with nuclear is the storage of the waste. We all know that it has an insane half life and that stuff is hot for a long long time. Living in New Mexico we are storing tons of this stuff and it is a major problem dealing with it. The biggest issue is the transportation of this stuff from the power plants to the storage facilities. One mistake by the semi driver or some douchebag driver making the wrong move and causing the semi to wreck equals a national disaster.

Saftety records might argue against all of this, but it only takes one event to have a global impact that effects us all. IMHO the risks far outweigh the gains. Especially when there are other renewable energies out there that offer clean fuel sources with zero enviornmental impact.

You are right that the US is falling way behind the power curve. The EU is trying to get 20% of it's power from renewable energy by 2020. They are currently at 10%. They are blowing us away in that aspect.

[boarderboy]

expanded nuclear has to be a significant, though very dangerous, part of our future energy mix.

That's a dark truth if, for no other reason, than this. Even as a no-end-in-sight catastrophe spreads in the Gulf, a majority of us still want to "Drill Baby, Drill!"

"An Associated Press-GfK poll released this week found that a plurality of people still favor increasing drilling for oil and gas off the coasts even as an unprecedented natural disaster unfolds in the Gulf of Mexico. Environment be damned." note: See the rest of the gory findings here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/opinion/15blow.html?scp=1&sq=Blow%20oil%20plurality&st=cse

Meanwhile, in Finland, they're boring deep into the earth's bowels in a 10-year project to bury the "hot" refuse of decades worth of fission-born electricity. (Remember, this is the generation process that was supposed to give us "electricity too cheap to meter!")

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/science/11nuclear.html?scp=1&sq=Finland%20%20nuclear&st=cse

And back on the Louisiana docks, stunned fishermen listen to the B.P. pitch on how they'll be paid to participate in the oil spill clean-up (and become exhibit A in the company's unfolding P.R. campaign to retain its "image" during this debacle.)

(Not to be uncharitable here, but you can bet a significant number of these trawlermen fought tooth and nail against the now-mandated T.E.D's, turtle extraction devices, that have sharply reduced the slaughter of sea turtles by otter trawls.)

Finally, to bring this musing full circle, see Mondo Cane, the Oscar-mominated 1962 shockumentary that included horrendous scenes of thousands of sea turtles dying on South Pacific islands, their celestial navigation systems seered by radiation years after our atmospheric nuc tests. (A few of you may remember the popular song, More, from the flick's sound track. I think Andy Williams sang an "Anglocized" version...?)

My point is this. Very few of us will make the effort to become real energy conservers, much less independent, off-grid energy producers. And if restraint, self-denial, sacrifice for the common good, reverence for our incredible water planet, etc. become inconvenient - if they "cost" (My God! $3.65 a gallon!) - the majority of us will shrug and say, "it's not practical. I can't afford it. That's unreasonable." And then we'll floor it...

So, to me, nukes are a lesser evil here. But make no mistake, the technology IS a huge potential evil with a high risk of disastrous "fallout". Therefore, we should make absolutely certain that our NRC safety regulators are truly regulators, administratively and monetarily impervious to pressures from fission promoters, both governmental and private sector.

Postscript -

back in the Gulf:

"BP has resisted entreaties from scientists that they be allowed to use sophisticated instruments at the ocean floor that would give a far more accurate picture of how much oil is really gushing from the well.

“The answer is no to that,” a BP spokesman, Tom Mueller, said on Saturday. “We’re not going to take any extra efforts now to calculate flow there at this point. It’s not relevant to the response effort, and it might even detract from the response effort.”'

See it here

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/us/16oil.html?scp=1&sq=oil%20plume&st=cse

And so the R.V. Pelican, the only non-BP research ship monitoring and exploring the spill's spread and impact heads back to port today, Sunday, hoping for follow-up NOAA funding so that they may return and try to give us a true picture of what's really happening down there at 5,000 ft....

BB

[bobble]

if they can dial in thorium reactors, life would be sweet...

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

[bigdyno]

Until the power demand of N.America is put in check, you can build all the windmills you want and it still won't keep up with demand. If you think Hydro is the answer, take a look at the Three Gorges dam. Wind and solar both require battery banks when used at the household level, and both are also dependent on outside factors (weather/not night). Bio needs land and if we can't feed people, what makes you think we can grow enough to make a difference in power generation?

I spent four years working in nuke plants and I can tell you that repeats of the TMI and Chernobyl are very (read almost impossible) unlikely. Chernobyl was, in fact, a human error. An individual over-rode several failsafe systems. TMI was faulty equipment that lead to further development of redundancy systems. There were key factors of the NRC policy that were not followed, so human error could be cited as a factor here as well.

There is a large windmill project underway on the Bruce Peninsula in Ontario. This is also the home of Bruce Power, an 8 unit nuke plant. The residents have complained about wind turbine syndrome and they make a very noticeable change to the landscape. Each unit generates about 3mw when the wind blows. Each reactor at BP generates about 780mw rain or shine. 260 windmills take up a large amount of real estate, would you want them in your back yard?

Nuke plants don't produce emissions, but let me tell you about the waste they do produce. Anything with any radiation (no, most of it isn't glowing green) gets sealed in drums and put in storage facillities for ever. That's a long time. The retube at BP produced 200+ flasks the size of full size vans that contained waste from the reactors. They are designed to contain most of the radiation, but they still have to be stored somewhere.

While I am a proponent of nuke power, it isn't perfect, but neither is any of the other options. The biggest thing we can all do to make a difference is use less power.

[Petrol]

there you have it...

no more light at night

no more cool in the summer

no more warm in the winter

no more internet

and certainly no more chair rides to the top

[Alaskan Rover]

So it seems what we need is a brand new "Energy Initiative" akin to the "space race" of the 1960's and 1970's. We need an "Energy Race" of that same scale.

We need to vastly step up our research into fusion power; fast breeder reactors; nuclear waste reprocessing (and NOT into bombs, but into more fuel); cold-fusion; bubble-fusion; and develop new technologies that aren't even on the horizon yet: quark differential energy, etc.

We need to invest in more alternative energy. Yes, I realize that we will not meet all our needs with solar, wind and tidal ONLY, but every bit helps. Personally, I'd rather look at a row of wind generators than a belching coal-plant.

Mostly we need to re-structure our thinking on energy use. We have become a society used to cheap energy (highly subsidized....that's why it's cheap!!). We should cut those government energy subsidies, so that energy prices represent the TRUE cost, not some abnormally-small subsidized cost. We have been heavily subsidizing energy costs since the 1920's when we still had a "Wild West" mentality...where development of land and resources was the #1 issue, and conservation was a non-issue, and even thought of as un-American. If we had to pay the REAL, unsubsidized cost of energy, believe me...we'd use LESS of it.

We need to start teaching our kids to use less energy...to conserve. To think about the energy they use every day, and don't just take it for granted. I used to live in a cabin in Ak, where all our electrical energy was 12 volt and came from the sun and the wind, and we lived WELL. And we most certainly didn't take energy for granted. We need to teach our kids the value of conserving energy sheerly for it's OWN sake, and to respect energy and know where it comes from and that it sometimes comes from very dirty sources and so it's good to use less of it. The last 60 years we've been a society of MORE MORE MORE......we need to become a society of LESS LESS LESS. "Less IS more!"

Petrol:

You said:

no more light at night

no more cool in the summer

no more warm in the winter

no more internet

and certainly no more chair rides to the top

It doesn't have to be "No, No, No, No..." Ever hear of Less?

Less light at night: We don't need parking lots ablaze with light at 3am with nary a car in sight.

Less cool in summer: Open the windows and install ceiling fans, you'dx be amazed what a good breeze can do. keep your air conditioner only for super hot days.

No more warm in winter. Turning the heat down a few degrees ain't gonna kill you. Sweaters are good, even if you DO look like Mr. Rogers. :)

No more internet: internet servers aren't HUGELY power-consumptive, just marginally.

No more chair rides to the top: Split boards can be your friend, as can AT skis and skinz. :)

[Justin A.]

So it seems what we need is a brand new "Energy Initiative" akin to the "space race" of the 1960's and 1970's. We need an "Energy Race" of that same scale.

Will never happen on the same scale. The USA and USSR were competing for national pride to be the first to land a human on the moon.

Lets drum up another cold war so we can get that kind of competition going again! We'll all benefit in the end! (unless we kill the whole world this time)

Less light at night: We don't need parking lots ablaze with light at 3am with nary a car in sight.

I LOVE being able to skate in parking lots at night, but I turn the light off in the bathroom when I'm done and don't leave stuff turned on when I'm not using it.

Less cool in summer: Open the windows and install ceiling fans, you'dx be amazed what a good breeze can do. keep your air conditioner only for super hot days.

Uh huh. You first - when you're in Virginia, not Alaska.

No more warm in winter. Turning the heat down a few degrees ain't gonna kill you. Sweaters are good, even if you DO look like Mr. Rogers. :)

I used to keep my thermostat at 50* during the winter. It ****ing sucked, because that meant that the house was at 45-50*. If oil hadn't been $3.50 a gallon, I wouldn't have had to wear my underarmor under my clothes when I was sitting around the house under a blanket. F that S right in the A. It was so damn cold in the house that the CFLs that we had to keep the electric bill down would take a few minutes to come up.

No more internet: internet servers aren't HUGELY power-consumptive, just marginally.

But computers sure are. You should turn yours off more often.

No more chair rides to the top: Split boards can be your friend, as can AT skis and skinz. :)

You know how I know you don't belong on this site?

[RDY_2_Carve]

Billy Bordy would enjoy this one:

<!--copy and paste--><object width="446" height="326"><param name="movie" value="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="bgColor" value="#ffffff"></param> <param name="flashvars" value="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/SaulGriffith_2009-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/SaulGriffith-2009.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=492&introDuration=16500&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=2000&adKeys=talk=saul_griffith_on_kites_as_the_future_of_renewable_energ;year=2009;theme=ted_in_3_minutes;theme=bold_predictions_stern_warnings;theme=what_s_next_in_tech;theme=a_greener_future;event=TED2009;&preAdTag=tconf.ted/embed;tile=1;sz=512x288;" /><embed src="http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf" pluginspace="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" bgColor="#ffffff" width="446" height="326" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" flashvars="vu=http://video.ted.com/talks/dynamic/SaulGriffith_2009-medium.flv&su=http://images.ted.com/images/ted/tedindex/embed-posters/SaulGriffith-2009.embed_thumbnail.jpg&vw=432&vh=240&ap=0&ti=492&introDuration=16500&adDuration=4000&postAdDuration=2000&adKeys=talk=saul_griffith_on_kites_as_the_future_of_renewable_energ;year=2009;theme=ted_in_3_minutes;theme=bold_predictions_stern_warnings;theme=what_s_next_in_tech;theme=a_greener_future;event=TED2009;"></embed></object>

[Arclite]

I know I'm only 15, but I'm still educated.

Nuclear plants require that the substance (uranium, plutonium, etc) needs to be constantly water cooled at a certain temperature (help me out? i recall 35* but thats too cold..50* maybe?) even tens of years AFTER being depleted.

that would need some considering, besides the meltdowns and things at chernobyl and 3 mile island.

On the other hand, we have solar, hydro, and wind energy with good potentials, but at the way I look at it, we need to be a lot more efficient with the energy transfer from nature's wonders to our home.

It takes crazy amounts of "natural" energy to power a house, let alone a full city.

I really don't care which direction we go in, as long as everything has been accounted for, fixed, and made much more efficient.

[Neil Gendzwill]

Nuclear plants require that the substance (uranium, plutonium, etc) needs to be constantly water cooled at a certain temperature (help me out? i recall 35* but thats too cold..50* maybe?) even tens of years AFTER being depleted.

I've never heard that. I think you're misinformed. Cite, please?

[Arclite]

I've never heard that. I think you're misinformed. Cite, please?

There was a documentary a while ago

It was about "what would happen if humans just disappeared from the world"

And there were depleted radioactive substances being water cooled, and without someone regulating the temperature, the substances overheated and eventually caused a wild fire, and melted the building through radiation or something along those lines.

Any one see that video?

it was on national geographic a few years back.

skip to 2:15 ish

<object height="385" width="480">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adsEBTv42vk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>

this was the intro

[bigdyno]

The fuel rods are in a shielded tube that is filled with water. The heat to turn water to steam is developed by pulling the fuel bundles out of the shielding. If the fuel is fully shielded, there is minimal heat generated in the system.

This is specific to the reactors that I have experience with and they are not all the same, but I expect they would all be similar in this respect.

[davekempmeister]

Not being a physicist, I can contribute very little technical knowledge to a conversation about nuclear power. What I do find intriguing, however, is the fact that in recent years I've listened to so many highly educated, formerly no-nukes zealots say that they have turned 180 degrees on the subject. This coupled with the opportunity for our society to "leap-frog", technologically, for once. The Danes are doing wind in a big way and the French have essentially shown the way nuclear is done safely. Why not get the benefit of all that knowledge from friendly allies?

[KingCrimson]

I know I'm only 15, but I'm still educated.

Damn Julian, you're worse than me!

;)

On topic, as far as Nuclear, hell yeah.

I like the concept of using cyclic sources such as solar in conjunction with the electric car "battery" theory. However, I don't think it's yet feasible, nor prudent.

I love when people buy freshly manufactured cars to save the world.

[softbootsurfer]

Since they can not just throw anymore 55 gal. drums into the Oceans... or Old Nuclear Subs for that matter:smashfrea

http://www.cash4-nuclear-waste-storage.com/

[Jack M]

Read up on Pebble Bed Reactors. Self-extinguishing if left untended.

[softbootsurfer]

Even the People that designed and built them do not like them anymore ?

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/the-demise-of-the-pebble-bed-modular-reactor

I think Fuel Cell development makes more sense than this perhaps...?

[skatha]

Why not get the benefit of all that knowledge from friendly allies?

That seems to be an overriding problem the US has-we have a hard time asking for help!

Nuclear power is very costly for construction of the plants. We haven't figured out the waste issue yet. There's 2 plants in TX-Comanche Peak and South TX Nuclear Project. Both are very safe but both are scheduled to be decommisioned in the next 10-15 years due to their age. Replacing them is prohibitively expensive. Gov. Good Hair has tried to get 11 coal plants opened in TX over the last 10 years, but, thank God for "NAMBY", nobody wants that to happen-I wish it was because of the environment-but I do live in TX.

As for asking for help-I think it's because we're too scared of the answer. The countries that do the best with nuclear and off-shore drilling control the means of production, which, FYI, really is the definition of socialism

[dingbat]

We've got radioactive tritium leaking into the river from the reactor up North.

Yeah but the new tech. is totally safe right? Says who? The same folks who said the old tech. was totally safe.

Less people = problem solved.

Folks have just got to stop having so many frickn' kids. The house just isn't big enough.

[RyanL]

I actually work at a nuclear company (Westinghouse) that designs nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel. My degree is in nuclear engineering, and I am goin back to get my masters in nuclear engineering, so I might be able to help.

We've got radioactive tritium leaking into the river from the reactor up North.

Tritium is actually naturally occuring in ocean water, and the levels that are released by a nuclear power plant are significantly bellow what is dangerous. If you feel safe in ocean water than you shouldnt fear tritium from a nuclear reactor.

Nuclear power is very costly for construction of the plants. We haven't figured out the waste issue yet. There's 2 plants in TX-Comanche Peak and South TX Nuclear Project. Both are very safe but both are scheduled to be decommisioned in the next 10-15 years due to their age. Replacing them is prohibitively expensive. Gov. Good Hair has tried to get 11 coal plants opened in TX over the last 10 years, but, thank God for "NAMBY", nobody wants that to happen-I wish it was because of the environment-but I do live in TX.

Texas actually has a plant that is very far along in the approval process, STPNOC is building a Toshiba reactor (Advanced Boiling Water Reactor). If you google STP 3 and 4 you can get to thier website.

Read up on Pebble Bed Reactors. Self-extinguishing if left untended.

There are pluses and minuses to every technology, I could explain more of why, but there is no silver bullet.

The fuel rods are in a shielded tube that is filled with water. The heat to turn water to steam is developed by pulling the fuel bundles out of the shielding. If the fuel is fully shielded, there is minimal heat generated in the system.

This is specific to the reactors that I have experience with and they are not all the same, but I expect they would all be similar in this respect.

You are correct that there are many reactor designs. In reactors that are designed to boil you need water in the top part of the core. The "tube" is there to make sure water gets to the top before boiling. But it doesnt help with once the fuel is discharged.

Nuclear plants require that the substance (uranium, plutonium, etc) needs to be constantly water cooled at a certain temperature (help me out? i recall 35* but thats too cold..50* maybe?) even tens of years AFTER being depleted.

Nuclear fuel that is used in American reactors uses enriched uranium which means there is more Uranium 235 than in natural uranium. The fuel is loaded into the reactor and lasts between 1.5 and 2 years. Operating temperatures can get as high as 650*F and when the fuel comes out of the core it is still producing heat. It is cooled in a pool for 10 or so years and placed in cement canisters that let air through. The canisters are then placed on a pad on the grounds of the site.

If you guys have anyother questions let me know.

[softbootsurfer]

I actually work at a nuclear company (Westinghouse) that designs nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel. My degree is in nuclear engineering, and I am goin back to get my masters in nuclear engineering, so I might be able to help.

Tritium is actually naturally occuring in ocean water, and the levels that are released by a nuclear power plant are significantly bellow what is dangerous. If you feel safe in ocean water than you shouldnt fear tritium from a nuclear reactor.

Texas actually has a plant that is very far along in the approval process, STPNOC is building a Toshiba reactor (Advanced Boiling Water Reactor). If you google STP 3 and 4 you can get to thier website.

There are pluses and minuses to every technology, I could explain more of why, but there is no silver bullet.

You are correct that there are many reactor designs. In reactors that are designed to boil you need water in the top part of the core. The "tube" is there to make sure water gets to the top before boiling. But it doesnt help with once the fuel is discharged.

Nuclear fuel that is used in American reactors uses enriched uranium which means there is more Uranium 235 than in natural uranium. The fuel is loaded into the reactor and lasts between 1.5 and 2 years. Operating temperatures can get as high as 650*F and when the fuel comes out of the core it is still producing heat. It is cooled in a pool for 10 or so years and placed in cement canisters that let air through. The canisters are then placed on a pad on the grounds of the site.

If you guys have anyother questions let me know.

Perhaps you could discuss the WASTE issues and why we should not concern ourselves about that ?

Thanks

[RyanL]

As far as wastes goes the technology to recylce the waste has been around for about 40 years. This reduces the waste about 95%. You can also reuse the fuel in breeder reactors, which is a technology that the US is just starting to really look at.

Also billions of years ago there was enough uranium in africa to start a chain reactor, basically a naturally occuring reactor. After a few billion years the plutonium has moved about 10 feet or so. So if you opened up a waste container and spilled it on the ground the chemistry is such that most of the isotopes wouldnt move far.

Source:

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml

Another thing to remember is that everything around us is radioactive. So no matter how much reprocessing or recycling you cant get waste to 0 radioactivity, but then again everything around us has radiation in it.

But like I said before no technology is perfect and the waste is a problem that needs to be looked at. I dont think we should have only nuclear, but nuclear is a cheap, no carbon emitting, baseload energy source that we should use.

[dingbat]

I actually work at a nuclear company (Westinghouse) that designs nuclear reactors and nuclear fuel. My degree is in nuclear engineering, and I am goin back to get my masters in nuclear engineering, so I might be able to help.

Tritium is actually naturally occuring in ocean water, and the levels that are released by a nuclear power plant are significantly bellow what is dangerous. If you feel safe in ocean water than you shouldnt fear tritium from a nuclear reactor.

Well in that case I'm sure everything is just fine. Wonder why they feel so compelled to lie about it though?

"Plant officials admitted last month that they had misled state officials, sometimes under oath, by saying the plant did not have the sort of underground pipes that could carry tritium."

.....and I'm not talking about the levels that are given off by a properly functioning plant. This is a leak.

I don't drink Ocean water either. I do drink the ground and river water here though.

Nuclear fuel that is used in American reactors uses enriched uranium which means there is more Uranium 235 than in natural uranium. The fuel is loaded into the reactor and lasts between 1.5 and 2 years. Operating temperatures can get as high as 650*F and when the fuel comes out of the core it is still producing heat. It is cooled in a pool for 10 or so years and placed in cement canisters that let air through. The canisters are then placed on a pad on the grounds of the site.

"There's one large tritium plume coming from one spent fuel pool and there's a large plume of water contaminated with strontium 90 and cesium and some other things coming from a partially decommissioned reactor on the same site right next to it. And both of the pools were discovered over time to be moving through the ground water and leaching into the Hudson River."

Sounds awesome. I'm sure it's fine though because the guys making the money on these operations tell me so.

In concept, I think Nuke power is great. It's the general putting "doing the right thing before lining your pockets" thing that so many can't get the grasp of that bothers me.

[boarderboy]

I dont think we should have only nuclear, but nuclear is a cheap, no carbon emitting, baseload energy source that we should use.

I thought one of the reasons so few reactors have been build post-TMI is that regulatory (translate "safety") concerns are so formidable, the plants aren't cheap at all and take a LONG time for review and completion (?)

Moreover, the public is asked to start paying for a new plant in utility bills long before it's operational, and there are many electrical co-ops and even municipal power entities that are very resistant to that.

Finally, don't utilities insist on an indemnity cap, relieving them of onerous liability in case there is an accident?

Nuc may be "clean." It may even be desirable given the problematic alternatives. But one thing it'll never be is CHEAP!

And it shouldn't be!

BB