schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 13, 2011 13:49:37 GMT -5
Well, of course terrible tragedies like the earthquake / tsunami in Japan bring up these questions. Now we see live what can happen to even the best prepared nuclear plants in an extreme case like this.
So what is your opinion? Is the risk worth it or should we cut back (both on consumption and nuclear power plants)? What if that plant is to be built 5 miles away from your home. Still ok? How much are we willing to risk?
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 13, 2011 14:05:20 GMT -5
I would be willing to live near a well maintained nuclear plant, oil, coal or whatever. In an earthquake zone? Apparently, good maintenance may not cut it ... As for the "enviro nuts" (lol), I think there needs to be some sort of balance. Without the other extreme, one extreme would always win, and any extreme is not good. Unfortunately, this world can not exist without any extremes, apparently. One solution would be to cut back on consumption. Nuclear energy is just not all that very safe.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Mar 13, 2011 14:08:01 GMT -5
IMHO if the funds from building nuclear power plants had been used instead for solar research, we would be a lot farther ahead.
|
|
Apple
Junior Associate
Always travel with a sense of humor
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Posts: 9,938
Mini-Profile Name Color: dc0e29
|
Post by Apple on Mar 13, 2011 14:13:12 GMT -5
With solar and wind there is a lot of "down time" where nothing can be generated. Wind power wreaks havoc on the grid. Nuclear is as efficient as we can get right now. Personally, I think we need to develop a lot more pump storage plants, we've got so many mountains there are a ton of places they could be set up, and it's the only way we have to "store" electricity. In the northwest, hydro is king, but the fish rule it.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 13, 2011 15:35:49 GMT -5
With solar and wind there is a lot of "down time" where nothing can be generated. Wind power wreaks havoc on the grid. Nuclear is as efficient as we can get right now. Personally, I think we need to develop a lot more pump storage plants, we've got so many mountains there are a ton of places they could be set up, and it's the only way we have to "store" electricity. In the northwest, hydro is king, but the fish rule it. Yes, I think there are options, but they are not easy or cheap. We are already switching to CFL light bulbs only, LOL, while putting more and more hp into bigger and heavier cars.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,369
|
Post by Tiny on Mar 13, 2011 16:33:17 GMT -5
I'm all for fewer Nuclear Power plants. I know that 98% of the electricity I use comes from the local reactor... but I'm still all for finding some other way to generate electricity other than nuclear or burning coal or natural gas.
I think the over all solution involves a combination of using less energy (meaning keeping demand steady even as the population grows) and finding other ways to generate electricity.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,408
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Mar 13, 2011 16:45:44 GMT -5
No to nuclear. As the saying goes, "not in my backyard". ;D
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Mar 13, 2011 18:24:43 GMT -5
I haven't really done enough research on the topic to have an informed opinion... but I wouldn't want any sort of power plant - coal, nuclear, whatever - near our house. I feel the same way about CAFOs and huge electrical grids I think the ultimate "solution" is a combination of many technologies - solar, wind, nuclear - along with decreased consumption. I am amazed at how much energy is saved with newer, efficient appliances and homes. We just moved from a tiny 1940s-built home with older appliances and propane heat into a 2010-built modular home, also heated with propane, and with all Energy Star appliances - amazingly, our heat and electric bills are LOWER in the new house than in our old one, despite it being 4x bigger. With continued use of this sort of technology, we should be able to decrease consumption without having a noticeable decrease in lifestyle/convenience.
|
|
❤ mollymouser ❤
Senior Associate
Sarcasm is my Superpower
Crazy Cat Lady
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 12,857
Today's Mood: Gen X ... so I'm sarcastic and annoyed
Location: Central California
Favorite Drink: Diet Mountain Dew
|
Post by ❤ mollymouser ❤ on Mar 13, 2011 20:10:31 GMT -5
I'm still in favor of nuclear power plants, but I think keeping them away from hurricane and earthquake prone areas would be advisable. I'd also like to see them in places a bit more sparsely populated than huge metropolitan areas.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Mar 13, 2011 20:32:54 GMT -5
if the funds from building nuclear power plants had been used instead for solar research, we would be a lot farther ahead.
The science doesn't support your solution - you could cover the world with solar panels and still not generate enough power (plus you would shade the photosynthesis process and kill all vegetation). The wind turbines & solar are feel good ideas but they don't provide enough power. Reactor power would eliminate carbon-based power. No more power plant pollution (about 45% of pollution). And the reactor power could charge our electric cars overnite so that we could eliminate carbon-powered cars (anther 45%). So, 90% of our pollution would be gone, the air would be cleaner than it was in 1890 when the pollution came from coal burning furnaces & factories. Imagine LA & Chi with clear skies. The reactors are essentially earthquake proof, but the cooling system failed when it was flooded underwater. Maybe we should build them a few miles away from oceans, outside of tsunami range.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 13, 2011 20:39:26 GMT -5
Phil cutting back consumption must be part of the effort. I think we may need nuclear plants for the time being, but with some effort, they could be cut back. And as you said, placement is key as well.
|
|
TrixAre4Kids
Familiar Member
'Not all those who wander are lost' - J. R. R. Tolkien
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 22:33:15 GMT -5
Posts: 877
|
Post by TrixAre4Kids on Mar 13, 2011 21:27:47 GMT -5
I'm still in favor of nuclear power plants, but I think keeping them away from hurricane and earthquake prone areas would be advisable. I'd also like to see them in places a bit more sparsely populated than huge metropolitan areas. What she said. Pro-nuke.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 13, 2011 21:45:40 GMT -5
Wow, all them girls like nuke plants!
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Mar 14, 2011 0:03:09 GMT -5
...I'm pro nuke and anti panic... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576198421680697248.htmlThe core of a nuclear reactor operates at about 550 degrees Fahrenheit, well below the temperature of a coal furnace and only slightly hotter than a kitchen oven. If anything unusual occurs, the control rods immediately drop, shutting off the nuclear reaction. You can't have a "runaway reactor," nor can a reactor explode like a nuclear bomb. A commercial reactor is to a bomb what Vaseline is to napalm. Although both are made from petroleum jelly, only one of them has potentially explosive material.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 14, 2011 8:29:34 GMT -5
But a lot of savings will be recognized by lower usage with the new energy efficient products, however, they will just raise the rates to get the same revenue. I'd think in the worst case "they" would go for the same profits, not revenue, which would still mean significant savings for you. One problem is people thinking like this: only their immediate money spent.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 21:57:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2011 8:30:12 GMT -5
Solar is the future!
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 14, 2011 8:34:08 GMT -5
...I'm pro nuke and anti panic... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576198421680697248.htmlThe core of a nuclear reactor operates at about 550 degrees Fahrenheit, well below the temperature of a coal furnace and only slightly hotter than a kitchen oven. If anything unusual occurs, the control rods immediately drop, shutting off the nuclear reaction. You can't have a "runaway reactor," nor can a reactor explode like a nuclear bomb. A commercial reactor is to a bomb what Vaseline is to napalm. Although both are made from petroleum jelly, only one of them has potentially explosive material. LOL, that was a funny quote. We'll put them in your backyard then! Interesting, those thousands in Chernobyl got sick and died of an overdose of Vaseline, at least now we know!
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 14, 2011 13:49:59 GMT -5
If anything, I think this crisis has shown how much safer nuclear technology has become. An 8.9 earthquake & huge tsunami & still no massive nuclear meltdown. They have been keeping everything fairly controlled despite the fact that almost everything that could go wrong has gone wrong, although we will see what the next few days will bring.
I have to applaude Japan for their strict building codes, they probably saved a couple hundred thousand lives by building to withstand earthquakes. It is hard to look on the bright side, but this disaster could have been so much worse.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 21:57:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2011 13:55:09 GMT -5
Maybe nuclear power just needs to be rebranded. Just like high fructose corn syrup had gotten such a bad reputation that no one could see passed the name, so now they call it corn sugar. Maybe we should call nuclear power 'super terrific awesome power'. Who wouldn't want to use that?
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Mar 14, 2011 13:57:57 GMT -5
I'm totally pro nuke, but I wouldn't want one in my backyard. Only because I currently live right on a fault line though. Like literally right on one. The local paper shows all the quakes each week in the Sunday edition and it's always about 10 or so. Most are too small to feel, but at some point we'll have a bad one, and you don't want a nuke plant built right on top just waiting for something like that. When I lived in AZ or CO though, bring it on. I'd live right next door.
|
|
|
Post by illinicheme on Mar 14, 2011 14:07:19 GMT -5
Definitely pro nuclear power.
I had the same reaction as Angel D. I interpret this "nuclear disaster" in Japan as proof that they did a pretty darn good job of designing a safe plant.
|
|
telephus44
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 10:20:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,259
|
Post by telephus44 on Mar 14, 2011 14:10:42 GMT -5
I'm pro-nuclear. Yes, I do believe that we need to curb consumption, but with the explosive population growth on the planet, we can't conserve our way out of the crisis. I would be ok with one next to my house.
I'm also pro solar and wind, but I don't know if they'll ever be able to produce enough power to replace current energy sources (oil, coal, nuclear). They are a piece of the puzzle, but not the entire solution.
FWIW, I plan on putting up a wind turbine when I build my cave house and sell power back to the grid to supplement my retirement.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Mar 14, 2011 14:14:02 GMT -5
I don't care how well they are designed and how well they are protected. Accidents happen and if YOU want to live with consequences of those possible accidents, that's up to you. Been there, done that, don't want to do it again.
So, for all of you who want them around, make sure they are nowhere near me
Lena
|
|
Apple
Junior Associate
Always travel with a sense of humor
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:51:04 GMT -5
Posts: 9,938
Mini-Profile Name Color: dc0e29
|
Post by Apple on Mar 14, 2011 14:20:52 GMT -5
I'd rather live near a nuke plant than a coal plant. To me, the slight risk of an accident is better than breathing in that crap daily. But I don't have to choose since we don't have either one located anywhere near, just hydro, cheap, efficient, not likely to kill you.
|
|
The J
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 11:01:13 GMT -5
Posts: 4,821
|
Post by The J on Mar 14, 2011 14:21:36 GMT -5
I'm for it. We have a large enough country where we could find extremely safe locations to put the plants (away from fault lines, the coasts and tornado zones for example). It's clean, efficient and cost-effective.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 21:57:08 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2011 14:30:34 GMT -5
I don't care how well they are designed and how well they are protected. Accidents happen and if YOU want to live with consequences of those possible accidents, that's up to you. Been there, done that, don't want to do it again. So, for all of you who want them around, make sure they are nowhere near me Lena That's a lot of "The Sky is Falling!" talk quoted above. Are you really that concerned with "POSSIBLE" accidents....as you yourself put it. It's possible that you get in a car wreck and die. It's possible that a plane crashes into your home while you're sleeping. It's possible..... See what I'm getting at? There are literally millions of ways you could "possibly" die today. Do you live that sheltered a life that you fear every possible outcome?
|
|
|
Post by illinicheme on Mar 14, 2011 14:31:22 GMT -5
I'd rather live near a nuke plant than a coal plant. To me, the slight risk of an accident is better than breathing in that crap daily.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Mar 14, 2011 14:33:23 GMT -5
Yeah the world is all against it now. Give it a month for everyone outside of Japan to pretty much forget about the quake/tsunami, unrest in the middle east will probably retake the top news spot, oil prices will climb, and everyone will get back on the energy independence kick. Without sending large amounts of cash to the middle east in exchange for oil, there aren't a lot of good options. "Clean" coal, which really isn't, pumping a bunch of poison into the ground to extract natural gas, wind and solar which are too variable and expensive to be viable yet, or nuclear. I'm all for renewables research and think they'll probably play a big part long term, but they aren't ready for prime time right now.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,333
Member is Online
|
Post by swamp on Mar 14, 2011 14:37:21 GMT -5
There is a wind farm proposed near me, and it looks like it's going to be shot down by the locals. You'd think that the developers were planning on putting a big glob of uranium in the middle of the town, not a bunch of windmills.
NIMBY runs rampant.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Mar 14, 2011 14:45:02 GMT -5
They're building a solar plant out near my mom, and there was an opposition group to it too. They're putting it way outside of town so you'd have to drive out to see it anyway, but people didn't want the eye sore near them. Keep in mind the place we're talking about looks like this: An eye sore? Are you kidding me? A land fill would be an improvement.
|
|