Where does the Uranium come from that we use in these plants? Are we not simply trading reliance on one unstable geographic region to another. I don't think we mine a great deal of uranium in the U.S. Also, is it renewable? Ultimately, is this better than fossil fuels (outside of carbon output)?

 

Around this area the discussion is on the table to allow for uranium mining. Some are dead set against it and others see it as a help to horrible local economy. Stay tuned.

CNN is no more for me. Does anyone watch BBC News?

 

Yes. Almost every night while I eat dinner. If I'm at my computer, Al-Jazeera English has an internet video feed that is also very good. If we could get Al-Jazeera on TV in the states, I'd watch it over any of them.

 

On the topic, I'm all in favor of more nuclear power.

Where does the Uranium come from that we use in these plants? Are we not simply trading reliance on one unstable geographic region to another. I don't think we mine a great deal of uranium in the U.S. Also, is it renewable? Ultimately, is this better than fossil fuels (outside of carbon output)?

 

We do have large uranium resources in the US, though I believe that Australia has the largest supply. Mining techniques are very different than coal techniques. (My father used to work at one in New Mexico.)

 

Uranium is no more renewable than coal. However, the amount of energy output per gram of material used is VASTLY different, uranium producing a staggeringly larger amount of energy. (Per gram on avegage, coal produces 50 kJ of energy, while nuclear reactions produce 1,000,000 kJ per gram.) This obviously allows for less fuel needed in a nuclear reactor. You could put all of the nuclear fuel needed for at least two years of operation of a nuclear facility in the back seat of your car.

 

Additionally, nuclear reactions do not produce the combustion products that coal does. This results in no carbon dioxide emissions or sulfur compounds that lead to acid rain.

 

Nuclear fuel is, however, still radioactive after it is used. It must be stored in appropriate containers in stable areas. This is along with nuclear waste used in cancer radiation treatment and other medical radioisotopes. There has been controversy at Yucca Mountain (near a former nuclear weapons testing range) in Nevada for years, as it is a proposed nuclear waste site storage facility.

Nuclear fuel is, however, still radioactive after it is used. It must be stored in appropriate containers in stable areas. This is along with nuclear waste used in cancer radiation treatment and other medical radioisotopes. There has been controversy at Yucca Mountain (near a former nuclear weapons testing range) in Nevada for years, as it is a proposed nuclear waste site storage facility.

 

That right there represents one of the biggest problems with nuclear energy: everyone likes it in principle, except when it comes to where the waste is stored. Everyone wants the energy, nobody wants the by-product to spend a thousand years decaying in their state.

That right there represents one of the biggest problems with nuclear energy: everyone likes it in principle, except when it comes to where the waste is stored. Everyone wants the energy, nobody wants the by-product to spend a thousand years decaying in their state.

 

True. That and the ill-educated on the topic. There are those that still expect these nuclear plants will "detonate" like a nuclear bomb at any moment. One news station even reported a "nuclear explosion."

Yes. Almost every night while I eat dinner. If I'm at my computer, Al-Jazeera English has an internet video feed that is also very good. If we could get Al-Jazeera on TV in the states, I'd watch it over any of them.

 

On the topic, I'm all in favor of more nuclear power.

 

You can watch it if you have satellite TV, the channel is called LINK, it also has Middle East news along with Al-Jazeera

True. That and the ill-educated on the topic. There are those that still expect these nuclear plants will "detonate" like a nuclear bomb at any moment. One news station even reported a "nuclear explosion."

 

I have read reports about potential fusion reactors using lasers to convert the old fuel into plasma to sustain a fusion reaction, but those are years away still. I suspect though that if we got to the point where we started using reactors we would end up finding a solution to the problem of disposal. Necessity is the mother of invention.

I have read reports about potential fusion reactors using lasers to convert the old fuel into plasma to sustain a fusion reaction, but those are years away still. I suspect though that if we got to the point where we started using reactors we would end up finding a solution to the problem of disposal. Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

Agreed. We must make changes to expect change.

We do have large uranium resources in the US, though I believe that Australia has the largest supply. Mining techniques are very different than coal techniques. (My father used to work at one in New Mexico.)

 

Uranium is no more renewable than coal. However, the amount of energy output per gram of material used is VASTLY different, uranium producing a staggeringly larger amount of energy. (Per gram on avegage, coal produces 50 kJ of energy, while nuclear reactions produce 1,000,000 kJ per gram.) This obviously allows for less fuel needed in a nuclear reactor. You could put all of the nuclear fuel needed for at least two years of operation of a nuclear facility in the back seat of your car.

 

Additionally, nuclear reactions do not produce the combustion products that coal does. This results in no carbon dioxide emissions or sulfur compounds that lead to acid rain.

 

Nuclear fuel is, however, still radioactive after it is used. It must be stored in appropriate containers in stable areas. This is along with nuclear waste used in cancer radiation treatment and other medical radioisotopes. There has been controversy at Yucca Mountain (near a former nuclear weapons testing range) in Nevada for years, as it is a proposed nuclear waste site storage facility.

 

Isn't the amount of waste produced each year from a single reactor relatively small? Smaller than one might think?

There is soooooo much misinformation being spread by the media on this topic. (What's new, right?) I put together a lesson for my Chemistry II seniors (we've already studied nuclear science this year, but this gave it a new face, so we re-examined it today) and it provided for some of the most thought provoking and intelligent conversations that I've ever had with high school students before.

 

If you are interested in knowing more about the science behind how this type of reactor works and what is likely happening, feel free to utilize the following link: http://www.trimble.k12.ky.us/tchsweb/teachers/apacheco/chemistryii.htm You will need to scroll about half way down, under Ch. 24 Nuclear Chemistry, click on "Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Catastrophe?"

 

I am actually really glad to see so many of you still on board with utilizing nuclear energy. I honestly thought that this event would turn more people away from this resource. It is not the final answer to solving all of our energy problems, but it is certainly a major step in the right direction. Unfortunately, some of our politicians are being reactionary and are backing away from it.

 

Let me add that this single event has turned me off of the last cable news network that I watched. CNN is no more for me. Does anyone watch BBC News?

 

Thanks for the lesson in nuclear reactors TBG!! It was an excellent read.

Where does the Uranium come from that we use in these plants? Are we not simply trading reliance on one unstable geographic region to another. I don't think we mine a great deal of uranium in the U.S. Also, is it renewable? Ultimately, is this better than fossil fuels (outside of carbon output)?

 

Start drilling right here and we don't have to rely on oil from an unstable region. We have more oil than anybody in the world.

 

We need to be doing everything we can to become energy dependent. Use as much of our own fossil fuels until we can get enough nuclear. Nuclear is the cleanest practical source of major energy production. Solar, wind, and hydro can't come close to it, but use them where you can. The French get in excess of 70% of their power from neuclear.

Heard this one today.

 

Does anyone know what is concidered to be the greatest manmade tragedy ever? It involved power production.

Heard this one today.

 

Does anyone know what is concidered to be the greatest manmade tragedy ever? It involved power production.

 

The Holocaust?

The Holocaust?

 

I would agree with you there. But not what I was refering to. Perhaps my wording should have been better.

 

It involved the failure of a power facility.

I would agree with you there. But not what I was refering to. Perhaps my wording should have been better.

 

It involved the failure of a power facility.

 

Ahh...well that's got to be Chernobyl as far as I know of. I think it's the only event ever to be rated a 7 on the nuclear incident scale. But I hear there's a French agency alleging the situation in Japan to be along the lines of 5/6. Three Mile Island and Windscale were both 5.