We humans cracked the atom sometime in the early 1940's; built the first nuclear power plant anywhere on the planet in 1954 in the USSR. The US currently has 104 nuclear power plants.
Nuclear Energy Institute - U.S. Nuclear Power Plants
I can't believe I'm asking this, but I am. I'd rather have another one in my county than to have fraking for natural gas going on, or coal mining, or that benighted Keystone Pipeline.
What say you? Could we achieve energy independence via building more nuclear power plants, and if so, would you be willing to do so?
O, *duh*. Of course.
Still, if you want off the grid, there are technologies around that might could get you there -- one thing we all need is the right to sell excess power to the electric company, so none of needs a huge battery to store it. Parts of California have this -- maybe the whole state.
O, true, but if electricity were significantly cheaper, electric cars would be far more appealing to the average consumer.
I find it hard to believe we're stuck with the internal combustion engine in perpetuity.
Not so much politicians but more the people themselves and the people who work for those politicians.
Yes, because we all know our government is so very efficient when it comes to running and/or regulating any industry............I thought the idea was cheaper, cleaner and more efficient.............under this premise, are you certain you want the federal govt running things? :shrug:
We humans cracked the atom sometime in the early 1940's; built the first nuclear power plant anywhere on the planet in 1954 in the USSR. The US currently has 104 nuclear power plants.
Nuclear Energy Institute - U.S. Nuclear Power Plants
I can't believe I'm asking this, but I am. I'd rather have another one in my county than to have fraking for natural gas going on, or coal mining, or that benighted Keystone Pipeline.
What say you? Could we achieve energy independence via building more nuclear power plants, and if so, would you be willing to do so?
When it comes to nuclear plants: absolutely. Private business is around to make money. Safety costs money. And nuclear plants require huge amounts of safety. It's questionable that nuclear plants can actually make money without the subsidies they get per kilowatt. Cheaper does not equate to better. Especially if that cheaper comes at the cost of safety. TEPCO's problems somewhat stem from weak regulation. They made a lot of cost savings measures that cut safety. And look where it got them.
Well, the politicians in my state have recently approved the construction of a new lignite coal power plant which has gone $400 million over projected budget and is based on a design that most engineers have agreed is "questionable" as to level of its efficient "power output to cost of operation" ratio. The regional power cooperative has now been "forced" to pass on the extra cost of construction to the consumers in the form of a 35% increase in electricity bills over a 3-year period. For what it's worth.....I also live in one of the "poorest" states in the Union. This is just one reason why I have very little confidence in politicians when it comes to acting in the best interest of the citizenry. :shrug:
Its not so much "co$t" im worried about its more about safety, and safety standards when dealing with the people and communities that surround them. Also i believe something as dangerous as nuclear power should not be put in the hands of a for profit business.
The domestic oil production industry was/is also supposedly "strictly regulated" by the fed govt.
We hate nuclear power. Have one near us - broken - and they talk of building 2 more at tens of billions of dollars of cost. They added 50% to everyone's electric bill in anticipation of maybe fixing the broken one and building 2 more - maybe ready to use in 10 to 20 years. We have about the highest electric bills in the country.
I have NO doubt if they had to blow off radioactive steam they'd never tell anyone.
As for safety, they don't allow anyone to work in the facility for more than 2 years due to accumulated radiation. Most quit much sooner despite being the highest pay around.
in the USA?We hate nuclear power. Have one near us - broken - and they talk of building 2 more at tens of billions of dollars of cost. They added 50% to everyone's electric bill in anticipation of maybe fixing the broken one and building 2 more - maybe ready to use in 10 to 20 years. We have about the highest electric bills in the country.
I have NO doubt if they had to blow off radioactive steam they'd never tell anyone.
As for safety, they don't allow anyone to work in the facility for more than 2 years due to accumulated radiation. Most quit much sooner despite being the highest pay around.
The difference is if the people dont agree with it then the people dont vote for them.The "profit" for politicians ........comes in the form of votes.
If you are under the illusion that elected officials haven't and won't "cut corners" and jeopardize community safety for the sake of getting re-elected or for moving up the political ladder........you should re-evaluate your confidence level in regards to the average elected official.......IMHO of course. :shrug:
Where did you get that notion? Want to see a regulated industry? Go to banking. Oil's got nothing on banking.
Depends on the variables. How stable is the environment around the reactor, i.e. will an earthquake, hurricane, wildfire or other natural disaster in the immediate area be enough of a threat to destabalize it and cause a meltdown. As well I would want to make sure the newest techs are employed and it's as safe as possible. If it's not a threat to the public and waste is disposed of properly absolutely.
and yet it is the bankers who are most adept at gaming the system for personal gain...
Yeah. As long as the risk to the public is statistically low I'm good with it. I saw something on the pebble bed reactors a few years back, was impressed not as familiar with thorium but if it works let's do it.Pretty much everywhere in the US has some natural disaster issue. Whether it be tornados, hurricanes or earthquakes. Granted, building on a fault line is dumb idea, but it's pretty much impossible to get a 100% natural disaster free zone.
That said, we should build either thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors. It will take more space, but they will be far safer, not only in operation but in the waste problem.
Depends on the variables. How stable is the environment around the reactor, i.e. will an earthquake, hurricane, wildfire or other natural disaster in the immediate area be enough of a threat to destabalize it and cause a meltdown. As well I would want to make sure the newest techs are employed and it's as safe as possible. If it's not a threat to the public and waste is disposed of properly absolutely.
There's a reactor around the Baton Rouge area of Louisiana, it's in a sparsely populated area and from what I understand it can withstand a Cat 4, possibly a 5. I think the structures can survive and protect the reactor but the concern becomes manpower, does the plant hold it's own if the roads are impassible or manpower is scattered and if so, how long will it remain stable, things like that are just as important as structural integrity.You know, that's a really good point. It seems like every two years we either have a catastrophic hurricane, or one of the ****ing plants around here blows up (Looking at you BP). So on top of the actual hazards it presents, and the utter lack of responsibility when it comes to industrial waste disposal, we'd have that too.
Yeah. As long as the risk to the public is statistically low I'm good with it. I saw something on the pebble bed reactors a few years back, was impressed not as familiar with thorium but if it works let's do it.
Definitely worth a look, I am kind of wary of low supervision systems because even the best safeguards can fail, but it sounds promising.In theory, a PBR cannot meltdown due to design and total potential heat generated. And some thorium designs are self regulating so that heat generated cannot exceed a certain level before automatic system shutdown. Apparently a large number of nuclear engineers are sketch on the thorium designs because it's such a radical departure from the constant supervision and massive safety engineering that goes into current systems. But a system designed to shut off once heat reaches a set point is pretty cool.