Who knew Jane Fonda could destroy the Planet?

We (el paso electric) bought 1/4 of one of the last nuke plants built at palo verde. This left us a debt to pay that gave us the highest rates in the US for 20 years. I wonder why that mistake was not repeated by others? Must be a conspiracy to not be stupid.

Palo Verde is always being shut down for one thing or another. (shhh, don't tell anyone)

LOL - I have to agree with deron - I'm pro nuclear. Not sure I'd blame Jane Fonda for being the coal miners puppet though!

Nuclear certainly has it's problems - but like all technology it has gotten better. I think I read that France has the "cleanest" electricity because it has the most nukes (power stations, not bombs!). America has some of the "dirtiest" electricity - because of lots of older, coal powered plants - and lots of destroyed mountain tops in the coal belt...

Do any of the French readers out there have any view on whether nuclear power is seen as good or bad in France?

While the USA has had a moratorium on building new nuclear power plants for 30 years, other countries have continued to developed new types.

I have never run a nuke, but as an ex-submariner, I have stayed in contact with friends who have.

France. They selected a basic size and configuration, and the vast majority of their plants are identical. If you need more power, they build two of them. The USA treats every site as unique, and the unions that built them were mob-controlled. YOUR union might not have been corrupt, but I was in two different unions. Don't bother writing back to me about this. My unions viewed the public as chickens that needed to have their eggs squeezed out, so get back in your coop, and shut your beak. (How many New Jersey Union electricians does it take to change a light-bulb?...5, you got a problem wit dat?)

Chernobyl and 3-mile were both primary coolant releases that condensed into radioactive rain. Primary coolant that is water must be under high pressure to keep it from boiling as it transfers heat from the reactor to the steam generator. Many new reactors use LOW-pressure helium, which doesn't hold radiation like water, and a leak would send it to the upper atmosphere where the is already so much radiation, special suits must be worn there.

Thorium is much more abundant than Uranium, and it is unsuitable for breeder reactors that can produce Plutonium. The only use for Plutonium is bombs. Reactors were started with uranium in Hanford and Oak Ridge specifically to make Pu239, and U235 as a cold war by-product. Everyone else just used the existing infrastructure instead of starting something new.

The new "pebble-bed" configuration incorporates a walk-away inherent safety. Its barely able to heat, and the only possible failures involve it cooling.

Nuclear warheads decay to the point where they wouldn't work well, so every few years they are swapped with a warhead that has been "refreshed". Nuclear fuel can be re-freshed instead of buried as waste, and should be.

I also personally would build the reactors underground (for protection), with the entire non-radioctive steam portion above-ground, with a "Polk-county" style clean-coal back-up to power the high-RPM steam turbines.

Environmentalists love to hate coal, but the plain truth is that the USA has 100 years worth under its feet. They drive to "I hate oil" rallys in cars that burn gasoline.

If you want widespread EV use, you NEED more nuclear and clean coal.

Nuclear power may well be cheaper than CO2 free coal. We will need both. The building of Palo Verde was either mobbed up or worse. I remember at one point they discovered a big hole with millions of dollars worth of brand new heavy equipment buried in it. I don't recall prosecutions though, just evidence of waste on a biblical scale. I suppose similar stuff happens on any humongous project worldwide. Three mile island really chilled nuclear, but the real cost of Palo Verde made a lot of people rethink the idea that nuclear was cheap. But what is cheap changes daily with the price of oil. Just one more rate increase for EPE and I can put solar power on my roof for the same price. After rebates and finance costs, solar is about .15 a kilowatt in my state. EPE is now .115. It won't be long till lots of stuff becomes cheap compared to oil, coal, natural gas, or nuclear.

I'm not against nuclear power, it is part of the solution but not the only way to save the planet.

For example, if the US were to eliminate beef and dairy from our diet, not only would we live longer and healthier lives but worldwide, methane from cows account for about 18% of the greenhouse gas emissions - more than all the cars, planes and other forms of transportation, combined.

Getting back to electricity, the first thing we should do in the US is rebuild our power grid. The power loss through our old grid is staggering. With a new grid, we would be able to produce electricity in a solar farm in Arizona and use that electricity in New York. The next thing we should do is change the laws (where needed) to require power companies to purchase extra power from home or small business solar or wind generators. Once we do that, it will be cost effective for homeowners to put solar panels on their roofs in sunny areas, and there will be lots of small solar farms in the west and small wind farms in the midwest that provide pollution free electricity.

There are plenty of solutions, if we have the political will to implement them. For that to happen, we need to sever the ties between our government and the oil, gas and coal industries.

Guys,
You really should stick to writing about electric vehicles.

A nuclear roadtrip:

http://nikongear.com/Chernobyl/Chernobyl_1.php

No answers from me, just opinions.

I agree upperleft7, the thread seems unusual for the forum, but I think its a good thing to thrash these things out and see what we come up with. Sometimes people with no background or professional expertise in the utilities or energy generation can still see what needs to happen. In fact, I think our tendency to leave big choices in the hands of others, has gotten us into trouble?

What I mean is, people are trying to get electric transportation really happening, in a forum like this. We can see battery technology moving rapidly. Electric cars by large manufactuers are on the way. So we should all be on the same page in that we can see that it's time to move into a different level of technology.

However the issue of where that juice comes from is huge. I see a lot of people prepared to support nuclear as the alternative to coal or oil, and I don't blame them either, burning coal and oil have visible negative effects so easier to see the pros and cons.

However, let me throw a few things into the pot about nuclear, if anyone cares to comment, please be aware I am no expert:

1. The chernobyl meltdown threatened - far more seriously than publically admitted - the planet with radioactivity that would have polluted the entire food chain and atmosphere. this bone-chilling consideration motivated the soviet government to send as many men as needed into suicide missions as they knew time was of the essence. And soon after Gorbachov did what he had to do as he knew the system was the problem.
2. We are currently in a situation where israel has publicly said they will bomb iran if they continue their nuke program. Are people aware of what happens when you bomb a nuclear power station and other processing facilities.
3. The recent earthquake in China. The epicenter was the site of their largest nuclear research lab and many facilities.
4. The earthquake in Japan. the epicenter was the site of their largest nuclear power station.
5. The tsunami of a few years ago. Very close to wiping out a number of nuclear stations in India, situated on the coast.
6. The actual process of splitting the atom to release energy that in reality should not be released at all, that light is in there for a reason and it is not to turn water into steam. ie what this means electromagnetically and etherically, in relationship to the forces of nature that hold everything in delicate balance. for eg, What is the water like, as it exits the facility. Is there a relationship between the placement of nuclear, and the planetary science of electromagnetics, gravity, and Light.
7. The highly polluting processes and vast amounts of energy required to manufacture and reprocess nuclear fuel. ORNL as part of the Manhatten project, caused grevious damage to the atmosphere. People weigh up the process of burning nuclear fuel and dealing with the waste, but never take into account what occurs to get that fuel to begin with. If people knew, 90% would forbid all nuclear activity - of any kind.
8. The inherent relationship between nuclear power stations for civilian purposes with military applications. For instance, depleted uranium and its military application. DU contamination is global. By using nuclear, we take relationship, like it or not, with military applications of nuclear science. Is that a partner you want to hop into bed with. A partner that in the early days was not sure if the first atomic test would set fire to the entire atmosphere - but went ahead and did it anyway.
9. The relative ease by which America - and any country - could avoid oil, coal, and nuclear completely. don't be fooled it is not that hard, lets give ourselves some credit as to our ingenuity and creativity, especially in America!. A state level variety of alternative energy sources coupled with a vigorous evolution and re-evaluation of energy usage and the local and household level.
10. Even if we stopped all nuclear activity tomorrow - are people aware of the exent of the current inventory of used nuclear fuel worldwide, and the problems associated with what to do with it.

Sounds like a hit piece on nuclear. If you compare the details of coal you will find out it is worse than nuclear, including amount of radiation released.

1. We can all say we were close to the sky falling, but is it really true?

2. Is that a reason for the U.S. not doing nuclear?

3. Did anything bad happen?

4. Did anything bad happen?

5. Did anything bad happen?

6. Sounds like a religious or paranoid belief. If men were meant to fly they'd have wings.

7. Coal is worse.

8. I have no problems with supporting the military.

9. Wishful thinking.

10. Other industries have a 10 times bigger problem with hazardous waste.

hey c'mon dancar, I can't have gotten 10 out of 10 dead wrong, you are making me out to be a fruitcake.

Anyways....If I reframe the list more the way you do it, maybe someone out there can provide definitive answers.

1. is it really true how close chernobyl was to creating global catastrophe?
2. if they bomb iran nuclear facilities, should it affect the US nuclear program?
3. did anything bad happen when the earthquake struck china?
4. did anything bad happen when the earthquake struck Japan?
5. did anything bad happen when the tsunami struck?
6. Is splitting the atom inherently harmful/wrong on religious, scientific, or ethical grounds?
7. how problematical is the process of creating nuclear fuel and storing nuclear waste?
8. If a person has a problem with supporting the military, is there a significant link to consider between civilian and military nuclear programs?
9. Will humanity be able to change its current course in a very short space of time, or is this wishful thinking?
10. How much nuclear waste is there currently, and how much of a problem does it represent?

On the plus side of being anti-nuke:
1. Only the paranoid survive.
2. The paranoids make the world safer.
3. Yes, it really is dangerous and it can be made safer. Easiest way to make it safer is to make the nuke plant much more open and open to public scrutiny. Greenpeace says that near misses are swept under the rug.
4. Yes, there is constant research/investigation of alternative energy sources.

on the plus side of being pro-nuke:
1. the arrogant are at the top of the food chain
2. naive simplistic trust in "the destroyers of worlds" is easier on the unawakened mind

And those whom are on the top of the food chain are also weakest and most dependent on the species below.

Nuclear in the US is a moot point, even if one was proposed that met the new safety designs, enviro-lawyers would use the endangered species act and endless environmental impact surveys to prevent any from being built.

Coal is another story, the majority of electricity in the USA comes from coal-steam. If you are charging up an E-bike, E-scoot, or reading this on a computer screen, you are probably doing it with coal (whether you like it or not)

In Polk county, a pilot plant was built to find out how much more expensive "clean coal" is. You have to do a lot to it, so its very expensive. Since the USA has a lot of coal, our future electrical costs are guaranteed to go up.

We don't need to ask anyone to expand coal-electricity, coal mining is booming already.

On a positive note, China's unbridled capitalism is driving down the price of solar PV panels (they don't care about the environment, if you wanted to buy a leaky nuclear reactor and an endangered species sandwich made by political prisoners, they'd sell you that too)

Coal accounts for 49% of the electricity generation in the USA.

Within the past year, nine license applications for as many as 15 possible new reactors have been filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and between seven and 11 more license applications are expected to be filed this year.

from the bottom of page: http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/industryexecutives

Here is a U.S. plant that is adding a nuclear reactor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Generating_Station

I said in my earlier post that I am not against nuclear power, but let's not ignore the fact that nuclear power is the most expensive way on earth to charge our ebikes. Not only are nuclear plants extremely expensive to build, maintain and decommission, there are hidden costs that are less obvious. Take insurance, for example. Every homeowner insurance policy in the US has a clause that they will not cover damage caused by fallout from a nuclear power plant. Free market capitalism shows that insurance companies are the ultimate authority on assessing risk, and they won't TOUCH the risk from nuclear plants. The US government had to pass a law to insure homes in case of nuclear fallout so that banks would be willing to give home loans. This is just one of the many ways that we taxpayers subsidize the privately owned nuclear power facilities.

You can't blame Jane Fonda. Even with advances of today, nuclear power is not cost effective. But there ARE plenty of solutions, if we had the political will to implement them over the objections of oil, gas and coal lobbiests.

Perhaps the ultimate authority on costs of nuclear power are the investors who decide to build them. Maybe not since the government subsidizes them. Even so, they are plenty getting built all over the world.

I've heard nuclear power plant operators say the plants are very profitable, with wholesale costs around $1.33 per KWh. Coal is around $2.33 per KWh.

The congressional budget office released a report saying that Nuclear will be the cheapest power plant option if the U.S. adopts a carbon tax similar to what Europe is proposing. The report allegedly included all costs of nuclear.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9133/toc.htm

The anti nuke people should open their eyes. Go outside on a sunny day and look up, what do you see? The very thing that gives us all life, a nuclear furnace a million times the size of our whole planet.
...
Oh well, so much for the Anti Nuke people keeping us safe from overexposure to nuclear radiation.

Deron.

Hey, mate, it's the magnetic field of the earth that is keeping us (somewhat) safe!

(Not the anti-this or pro-that people.)

The only sensible approach I can see at this stage it to tap that furnace (the Sun), already shielded by a force field that enabled our life form to develop on this planet, and to use it to the best of our ability (probably a solar doomsday machine....just kidding!)

Mr. Mik

Perhaps the ultimate authority on costs of nuclear power are the investors who decide to build them. Maybe not since the government subsidizes them. Even so, they are plenty getting built all over the world.

I've heard nuclear power plant operators say the plants are very profitable, with wholesale costs around $1.33 per KWh. Coal is around $2.33 per KWh.

The contradictions in your answer is teetering on the truth. The only way you can calculate a nuclear power plant to be profitable is to use math that does not consider the costs paid by the government. The reason that no nuclear plants have been built in the US in recent years is because the US government has not been willing to pay those subsidies, and without government subsidies nuclear power is not cost effective. Your comparison of the costs of nuclear power to coal power ONLY considers operating costs; it does not consider the cost to build the plants, which is generally paid by the governments outside the US, it does not consider the cost to decommission the plant when it is worn out, which is paid by the government, and it does not consider the cost of nuclear fallout due to a plant failure.

It is like saying gas in the US is $4/gallon, which is what consumers pay at the pump, while the real costs are more than $9/gallon once you add in government subsidies. These government subsidies create a false economy and cause consumers to make wrong choices. If it weren't for the false economy, there would be a lot more electric vehicles on US roads.

Hey all I know is the newest nuke plant in america cost me a lot of money for a lot of years. We paid double for twenty years, and then got out from under some of the debt by a restructuring. Today EPE charges .115 per kilowatt hour for southern New Mexico, while the rest of the state is at .085. My nuclear plant is not cheap, though earlier ones may have been. Lets judge cost by the most recent purchase eh?

I asked a lot of questions to see where everyone was at and not to offend anyone. if I'm pro anything I'm pro "getting to the truth". I throw a challenge to the forum members reading this not to respond to my statements here but to accept they are being snookered by the ms media and therefore really research just what is going on with both coal and nuclear industry starting from WW2. Also the processes of oil refining and what is leaked into the environment that way.

If you love the world and care for humanity you will go through one hell of a process as you go deeper down the rabbit hole, and weep a lot, nothing to do with me or my little opinions, its just the way it is. So you go there and realize coal is a no and nuke is a no. Oil obviously not. so then what. There is a what, but you gotta realize there's more options than what they give you, but as a clue, maybe its a greater understanding of nature's processes that go on around us all the time and no I am not being religious.

the sun is not a nuclear situation for starters. comparing solar processes to even the most advanced nuke power stations or the fission motors powering some of the space command vehicles, is like comparing the space station to a shack in a slum in calcutta. that is just projecting a level of understanding onto it. 100 years ago what was it....a furnace powered by coal?

cancer is not caused by the sun, again the ms media and the massive big pharma do not tell the truth about what is really going on, the liabilities alone would crash the party, now they are starting to say better to get some sun for the vit d...finally!. Figure the body is self-repairing at a cellular level if the body's systems and glands are not messed up by a variety of deadly global pollution factors that oil, coal and nuke cover up big time. Do you really want to know.

I don't want to upset anyone but come on....global warming...don't be fooled by al gore and the media. never trust a politician. he is representing ORNL and spinning the data to serve a political agenda. ask someone who worked there. Ask the leading scientists. there is warming and we know ocean levels rise and fall, but more likely it is as a precurser to a cooling and if we don't get sunspots soon, we are definitely in for a major cooling which is far worse for civilization than a warming. carbon dioxide build up..yes, but it is in direct relationship to the temperature of the oceans as they are the main sink, and always have been, the oceans have been getting heated both by planetary internal processes and by the sun due to natural cycles, but where humanity enters the pic is not through the transport activities but through the grevious damage to the ozone and the natural cloud formation cycles, damaging the phyto plankton. It starts with the secret manhatten project, hosted by....oil and coal and nuke industry. as phelps says you leave a coke (pun intended) out in the sun and it gets far warmer than room temp as the co2 leaves the liquid and hovers over it. And as just one small example: sure freon was banned like it was the public problem, but in reality most freon is used in making nuke fuel. and not to leave out oil. Just the refining...hydrogen fluoride is released, research what that does to the atmosphere, what it does to you. we are looking at major atmospheric damage already done, the chemtrails are just a bandaid, the cancers all over the place and the mad cow are a symptom, and that is the benevolent aspect only of the chemtrails we are talking about.

so before you leap on the bandwagon of either coal or nuke, or concede best to focus on one over the other as that's all we have got, think again. there is a way out but only if we pro-truth by realizing the situation is complicated and necessitates self-education in order to thoroughly understand both processes and, sad to say, you will end up pondering the complex sinister hidden factors from both that threaten humanity, overseen by a thoroughly corrupt political system.