Blaise (imported) wrote: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:13 pm I don't know why we don't have safe, clean nuclear power.

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island....

It produces lots of nasty remains that are difficult at best to manage....

It is hideously expensive to build....

etc.....

kristoff wrote: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:18 pm Chernobyl, Three Mile Island....

It produces lots of nasty remains that are difficult at best to manage....

It is hideously expensive to build....

etc.....

The U.S Navy has had nuclear-powered vessels for over 50 years with no mishaps that have caused environmental problems.

Nuclear power has been used in France with no incidents.

Comparing Three Mile Island and Chernobyl is a bit like claiming that rotten apples are a reason not to buy oranges.

The problems were entirely different.

A-1 (imported) wrote: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:51 pm The U.S Navy has had nuclear-powered vessels for over 50 years with no mishaps that have caused environmental problems.

Nuclear power has been used in France with no incidents.

Comparing Three Mile Island and Chernobyl is a bit like claiming that rotten apples are a reason not to buy oranges.

The problems were entirely different.

I knew that there was some reason why I haven't bought organges recently. One of my brother is an engineer in the nuclear industry. He talks about safe, clean nuclear power. Of couse, he is one of the most delightfully sarcastic people I have ever known. My brother-in-law is in the nuclear industry at the National Engergy Lab in Idaho. I am open to arguments on the matter. But I don't know enough to conduct an argument.

A-1 (imported) wrote: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:51 pm The U.S Navy has had nuclear-powered vessels for over 50 years with no mishaps that have caused environmental problems.

Nuclear power has been used in France with no incidents.

Comparing Three Mile Island and Chernobyl is a bit like claiming that rotten apples are a reason not to buy oranges.

The problems were entirely different.

And the Navy's chemical and nuclear cesspool at Hansford? Not an environmental disaster? All their "clean" nuclear well disposed of? One of the worst shit holes of its kind.... The Navy's hands are most definitely not clean. And they have had more than their share of nuclear "incidents" over the years - I once heard much about the Navy and its Nukes - older brother was a nuke tech type on the boats, until he decided he had had enough of that and transferred away. I would be interested to know what the French do with all their waste after having been recycled, ending up with ultra radioactive waste. Does it just sit in above-ground storage casks waiting for someone else in the future to cope with?

Blaise (imported) wrote: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:13 pm I don't know why we don't have safe, clean nuclear power.

Simply bec

A-1 (imported) wrote: Wed Jul 23, 2008 8:51 pm ause there ain't no such thing.

Everyone has heard of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but few have heard about the partial meltdown at the Fermi-1 reactor outside Detroit on October 5, 1966. The engineers managed to get control of the situation, just, and no radiation leaked off site, but as one engineer put it, "That was the night we almost lost Detroit." (Just how much of a loss that would have been can be the subject of another thread.)

The only way we can achieve safe, pollution free, large scale, centralized generation of electric power is if we can get fusion reactors to work, A BIG IF. The waste product from fusion would be a tremendous amount of heat, but that could be used for industrial processes that need a lot of heat, further reducing the need for fossil fuels.

DETROIT?

bomb detroit, bomb detroit.

River

I dunno, I've heard nothing but good things about CANDU reactors. And honestly, can a well-maintained nuclear power plant with a good safety record be any worse for the environment than a coal-burning power plant?

I understand that nuclear reactors rarely release any radiation, but that refineries release enormous amounts of radiation. Trace elements in oil amount to large amounts when we refine a lot of petroleum.

The nuclear waste stored in Washington state is nasty stuff; however, the French and Germans seem able to use nuclear power without adverse effects. Hydoelectric and coal generation of electric power seem to create horrible environmental side effects. I live near or even on top of one of the great natural gas stores in the world, but natural gas no longer seems the desired way to generate electric power.

I suspect that nuclear power is a much better choice than we have suspected.

kristoff wrote: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:15 am And the Navy's chemical and nuclear cesspool at Hansford? Not an environmental disaster? All their "clean" nuclear well disposed of? One of the worst shit holes of its kind.... The Navy's hands are most definitely not clean. And they have had more than their share of nuclear "incidents" over the years - I once heard much about the Navy and its Nukes - older brother was a nuke tech type on the boats, until he decided he had had enough of that and transferred away. I would be interested to know what the French do with all their waste after having been recycled, ending up with ultra radioactive waste. Does it just sit in above-ground storage casks waiting for someone else in the future to cope with?

Pointing out a case where a thing was done badly doesn't prove the thing can't be done well. In the 1950's, U.S. government deliberately let some Nevada residents be exposed to fallout from nuclear bomb blasts just to see what would happen. So it isn't possible to perform such tests safely?

Pierre is doing a fine and safe job with nuclear energy. And as to the waste issue, they recycle 98% of it. In an interview I read with the head of the French nuclear agency, he said with a chuckle in response to the waste question: "Why would you take something so valuable and bury it in a cave?"

Engineers and scientists can really do great work, if we get all the damned tree huggers and their law dogs under control.

One of my brothers works for a company that had a contract with the Department of Energy at the Hanford Plant. He told me about that mess. He is also the one who

Blaise (imported) wrote: Wed Jul 23, 2008 10:24 pm talks about safe, clean nuclear power.

He is, as I have noted, a sarcastic person. Where do the French and Germans store their nuclear waste products?