Somebody help educate me on the other side here?

[True blue (and gold)]

I've said it a thousand times.

 

Go nuclear.

 

Me, you and PepRock need to make some BGP bumper stickers with this motto.

[2 Humped Camel]

I've said it a thousand times.

 

Go nuclear.

 

I would be fine with that.

[Getslow]

I've said it a thousand times.

 

Go nuclear.

 

I agree... generally. There are at least a couple concerns, not the least of which is trying to figure out what to do with the waste.

[Getslow]

There's also this concern...

 

[True blue (and gold)]

I agree... generally. There are at least a couple concerns, not the least of which is trying to figure out what to do with the waste.

 

I agree with nuclear waste disposal being an issue. However, there is less of it per unit of energy than the waste from other non-renewable energy sources.

[BleedBlue12]

Has a lot of value but it takes a long time to get going.

 

With that, we have to look long-term here.

 

Estimates today indicate 19 years to build a nuclear plant because of all of the regulations, certifications needed, and such. By then, the technology tends to be slightly outdated anyways. I believe nuclear energy can be the answer, we just need to speed the system up.

 

Natural gas won't last. Companies are already feeling the pain from producing it. The reason prices are so cheap right now is because companies are selling it for 1/3 of the price it takes to produce it. That is clearly not sustainable. Either prices will rise, or it will phase out completely. I love natural gas, it's a great product with high energy density and low emissions, but with current technology it is not a sustainable form of energy like coal is.

[BleedBlue12]

For comparison... A single Uranium-235 atom is capable of producing 200 MeV. A single carbon atom is capable of producing 4 eV.

 

200,000,000:1 ratio. That is incredible.

[Bluegrasscard]

For comparison... A single Uranium-235 atom is capable of producing 200 MeV. A single carbon atom is capable of producing 4 eV.

 

200,000,000:1 ratio. That is incredible.

 

But after Fukushima nuclear is or should be dead. We are all a little more irradiated due to that incident.

[Bluegrasscard]

I've said it a thousand times.

 

Go nuclear.

 

Fukushima has killed that plan.

[Bluegrasscard]

Just like any other energy industry in it's birth, there is a learning curve that will be navigated.

 

I do not think so. I think it will die before reaching critical mass in its current form. I do like the egg-beaters for personal use to help go off-grid.

 

These massive things are expensive, hard to maintain and fail a lot as noted. But also they are just plain ugly when you see them. I have seen these 'wind farms' from the air. They are ugly from 30,000 feet. Except in the desert where no one lives no one would want to be near these farms.

 

I think wind and solar work at individual house levels and help get 'off-grid'. But on massive scale and distributed as done today? Seems like a long stretch for wind.

[True blue (and gold)]

But after Fukushima nuclear is or should be dead. We are all a little more irradiated due to that incident.

 

No, it shouldn't be "dead," though due to misinformation, it may be.

 

BTW...you do know that we are exposed to radiation due to coal burning power plants, right?

 

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American

 

Now, I could blow it up all out of proportion and make it sound scary, if I had an agenda. Beyond knowing that nuclear is safer overall and more efficient, I don't have an agenda. Let me suffice it to say:

 

1) Yes, studies show that within a certain radius, people living near a coal burning power plant are exposed to 3-6 times more radiation than those that living the same distance from a nuclear power plant. (Panic, right? I live and work in sort of a triangle of coal burning power plants.) However, this does is still considerably less than what we receive as normal background radiation each year.

 

Now, if you want to talk about Fukushima, this is the article you should read:The Panic Over Fukushima - WSJ.com

 

For those that might not enjoy the science, I'll cut to the chase:

 

1) At the most extreme educated estimate, there will be 1500 deaths from cancers in the next 70 years in Japan, as a result of Fukushima. That is the extreme estimate. Another physicist comes up with a number closer to 200.

2) Keep in mind that 15,000 died from the wave.

3) Some of the nuclear "hot spots" in Fukushima measured the same radiation levels as people that live in Denver get daily due to radon gas from uranium in local granite. Yet, people in Denver have one of the lowest cancer rates in the country (perhaps due to lifestyles).

4) Any increase in cancer risks for those of us that do not live in Japan is equivalent to taking an airplane ride cross country.

 

So, no. Fukushima should not put to bed the debate over nuclear energy. However, it should bring to light the need for GOOD science education in this country.

[True blue (and gold)]

I do not think so. I think it will die before reaching critical mass in its current form. I do like the egg-beaters for personal use to help go off-grid.

 

These massive things are expensive, hard to maintain and fail a lot as noted. But also they are just plain ugly when you see them. I have seen these 'wind farms' from the air. They are ugly from 30,000 feet. Except in the desert where no one lives no one would want to be near these farms.

 

I think wind and solar work at individual house levels and help get 'off-grid'. But on massive scale and distributed as done today? Seems like a long stretch for wind.

 

They may die before they reach "critical mass" (nice nuclear analogy, so kudos), but it may be in large part to fossil fuel advocates.

 

As I said before, many things are massive, expensive, hard to maintain and fail a lot in their infancy. Rockets come to mind for me. However, we did land men on the moon using them.

 

As far as wind farms being ugly from the air, I'll take your word on that, though I hardly think that is a valid criticism.

[Bluegrasscard]

No, it shouldn't be "dead," though due to misinformation, it may be.

 

BTW...you do know that we are exposed to radiation due to coal burning power plants, right?

 

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American

 

Now, I could blow it up all out of proportion and make it sound scary, if I had an agenda. Beyond knowing that nuclear is safer overall and more efficient, I don't have an agenda. Let me suffice it to say:

 

1) Yes, studies show that within a certain radius, people living near a coal burning power plant are exposed to 3-6 times more radiation than those that living the same distance from a nuclear power plant. (Panic, right? I live and work in sort of a triangle of coal burning power plants.) However, this does is still considerably less than what we receive as normal background radiation each year.

 

Now, if you want to talk about Fukushima, this is the article you should read:The Panic Over Fukushima - WSJ.com

 

For those that might not enjoy the science, I'll cut to the chase:

 

1) At the most extreme educated estimate, there will be 1500 deaths from cancers in the next 70 years in Japan, as a result of Fukushima. That is the extreme estimate. Another physicist comes up with a number closer to 200.

2) Keep in mind that 15,000 died from the wave.

3) Some of the nuclear "hot spots" in Fukushima measured the same radiation levels as people that live in Denver get daily due to radon gas from uranium in local granite. Yet, people in Denver have one of the lowest cancer rates in the country (perhaps due to lifestyles).

4) Any increase in cancer risks for those of us that do not live in Japan is equivalent to taking an airplane ride cross country.

 

So, no. Fukushima should not put to bed the debate over nuclear energy. However, it should bring to light the need for GOOD science education in this country.

 

Germany is already shutting down ALL its nukes.

 

I was an advocate of nuclear until Fukushima. It shows that the risk/reward ratio is not as good as thought. Even in the US the upper mid-west record flooding threatened a nuclear plant a couple of years ago.

[jolmstead]

Everybody supports Nuclear Energy untill someone proposes to build a plant near somebody's house.

 

I worked as an environmental regulator on the west coast (LA Basin). The shocking thing about environmental as well as worker safety regulation is that they were started in the Nixon Administration back when "liberal" was not a dirty word to the GOP.

 

The antithapy towards big business in that area started when the oil, automotive and tire companies conspired to shelf mass transportaion projects in the LA basin and the regulatory community has been persecuting them ever since.

 

Our energy usage revolves around our automobile centric culture. Other than the two coasts, when communities are designed, mass transportaion is not a consideration. We consider driving in our vehicles to be an entitlement. The automotive industry has been selling us an image of personal freedom that we have naively associated with automobile ownership. How much blood and treasure has been spilled to preserve this legacy?

[marvel]

Germany is already shutting down ALL its nukes.

 

I was an advocate of nuclear until Fukushima. It shows that the risk/reward ratio is not as good as thought. Even in the US the upper mid-west record flooding threatened a nuclear plant a couple of years ago.

 

Disagree. Japan ignorantly built a nuclear plant in an area where seismic activity is extremely prevalent. Fukushima makes the perception of nuclear energy scary and gives it a bad rep.

They didn't build it in a safe environment.

 

Nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest, most cost-effective resource we need to be using.