Agreed

NO @!$%# get a clue folks , we will NEVER get off of coal and oil unless we embrace MODERN Nuclear power and were already 10+ years behind the Chinese.

Build it next to my house and give me a job there

YAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watch the pro-oil Republicans start to bitch about this.

Agreed. Build many many more. The universe is powered on nuclear fusion, no reason why we can't be either.

Agreed. Build many many more. The universe is powered on nuclear fusion, no reason why we can't be either.

Fusion isn't done yet. They're still using fission.

They're building the first prototype commercial fusion plant in the EU, but I don't see commercial plants widespread until at least 2050.

Eric get a clue ... pro-oil people are all for nuclear power too. It's clean, dependable, safe with today's standards, provides cheaper long-term electric rates, and provides very good paying construction jobs during their construction, and is far less of an eye-sore than, 100's of square miles of expensive windmills, that generate a fraction of the energy. But because there MIGHT be a minor incident at some point in the future, we must abandon the technology? With that attitude the last 200 years, where would this nation be today?

Nuclear power is a necessary component to any alternative-energy plan to get us off of fossil-based fuels and become energy independent of foreign sources.

Don't forget polywell fusion!

SinisterPhnx - all well and good that the universe is powered by nuclear fusion (combining of atoms, like on our Sun), but our nuclear plants are powered by fission (splitting atoms).

Thanks dman, I logged in to make exactly that same poing. Nuclear fusion is what powers our Sun but we have yet to master fusion here on earth.

Fission = splitting of atoms, Fusion = joining atoms

It's about time. What did it take? Over thirty years? Wow.

Eric913730...

Watch the pro-oil Republicans start to bitch about this.

hmmm, I believe it's been the tree-hugging liberals who have squashed nuclear power since 1978 in this country. They also hate coal fired plants for obvious reasons, hydropower plants kill salmon, wind farms kill birds, and let's see...what else? Sheeesh!

It's about time, no CO release, no Ash, no CO2. But the NIMBY's are up in arms about building a power generator near them, but listen to them WHINE when the power goes off for any reason. Then the Dumb A$$($ call 911 to find out how long the power will be off

Eh ... they'll still subcontract out to the lowest bidders.

http://atomicinsights.com/2011/09/backlash-against-nuclear-power-adds-to-the-top-line-of-oil-and-gas-companies.html

"Backlash Against Nuclear Power Adds to the Top Line of Oil and Gas Companies"

There are several things missing in this article and there are several things missing in most of these arguments. One, nuclear power relies on huge subsidies (most of which are never seen but come from government assistance in the form of allowing utilities to pass of additional per KW costs to customers and legislation which limits liability for accidents as well as providing back up insurance) and has since day one. Second, we are no where close to a place to handle all the spent fuel and reactors and as we can see, a serious, long term power outage (one that goes past the battery back-up abilitly to keep holding pools cool) would be a disaster. Think power grid failures and infrastructure issues are rare? Think again and my guess is they will be getting worse. Yes, its low carbon which is great but until we have some way to really handle the waste, this is real deal killer.

Leave it to a liberal to make a political statement out of everything. It is people like Eric that polarize this country.

As a fiscal conservative, I agree with Rukin. About Effing time it is!

Nuclear power is the most expensive form of electricity. Anyone supporting it is bought out by the nuclear lobby and this would explain the constant refrain of it coming from the right. Look it up yourself. It is several times more expensive and this isn't about the environmental nightmare either.

Since Americans can control everything, why not build new death machines? Hmmmm..... because in reality, we cannot control all scenarios, like tornadoes (and terrorists), which can do serious damage to a reactor. Yes, I know the government says they are safe...they also claim the economy is healing, more people are working and foreclosures are going away. Nuclear power is just another way for the government to screw us over, people.

There's no way tornadoes can damage a reactor.

Terrorists would have a hard time as well, considering the security is tight, and the plants can survive impacts from commercial aircraft.

Nuclear power is the most expensive form of electricity.

No, it's not. Not even close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1,_2011_DOE_report.gif

Steven....Yucca mountain in Nevada was created to handle the waste...however, Reid, Obama, and the tree huggers killed the project...and the utilities who paid huge money to the gov't to build it are now sueing to get the money back...

Dave'snothereman...

About what we give the towel-heads each year to buy their support...even though they still hate us and use our money to purchase bullets which are used to kill us...

Seems like a pretty good deal to me!

The issues preventing nuclear fusion reactors at this time are it takes a tremendous amount of heat to start the fusion process, and so far scientists have not been able to generate enough heat to keep the fusion process going, they have only achieved a few seconds of fusion. That will work in a nuclear explosion, but not for generating electricity. And the second is that fusion is extremely difficult to contain because fusion also creates a lot of pressure. And the process itself is difficult to contain, and you know what happens with a run away reaction process, a huge explosion.

Nuke plants may be more expensive when compared to oil but when you factor in the cost of war used to maintain that flow of oil then they seem pretty cheap.

Wow, after $6 Trillion in deficit spending under Obama, this is probably the first useful thing that came out of it!

It's about time!!!! The tree huggers and the eco nuts have hamstrung this industry for over 30 years. There has never been a nuclear incident in the U.S. that cost a single life. These plants are so safe I would have no problem living next to them. Hell, if they would build me an apartment inside I would live inside of the plant. Now, even though we have the safest nuclear program there are still some who want to wait until it’s safer. Those people will never be satisfied. No matter how safe they always want to wait for more safety. We have lost 30 years in engineering and design that could have advanced the industry but that will not happen if there are no new plants to prove the new designs.

cantakenomore:

hmmm, I believe it's been the tree-hugging liberals who have squashed nuclear power since 1978 in this country.

Are you seriously contending that "tree-hugging liberals" had a unilateral stranglehold on these developments, during Reagan's 2 terms, George H. W. Bush's term, George W. Bush's 2 terms, and all the interim years when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress? Seems a little far-fetched.

And if your hypothesis is right, curious that right now under this President the "tree-hugging liberals" have finally met their foe . . .

I'm just sayin'.

This a good start, but we also need to revamp legislation that prohibits us from recycling fuel rods. There is no need to store nuclear waste if we reuse it (as France does).

While nuclear may be expensive power now, will it still be so when oil is $500/barrel? Don't you think that's inevitable? And what's going to happen to our cheap natural gas when we start banning fracking?

@ OP - Yeah! And put almost all of them all in Georgia, with a few in S. Carolina.

LNKRaging you got babe. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Golly gee your really smart. You picked up on that right away.

Succinctly (if crudely) put. It is about time we took control of our energy future. France uses nuclear power with great success, and had it not been for one of the greatest natural disasters in modern history, Japan could boast the same. And I'm willing to bet they won't walk away from nuclear energy in any case, it just makes sense.

Yes, there are dangers from nuclear energy, just like there are dangers whenever industry of any kind is involved. But modern reactor design is far safer than TMI was, or any of the existing plants we have now.

Of course nuclear waste is dangerous. And it's dangerous for a long time. But frankly I'd rather we deal with a relatively small amount of very dangerous waste than an abundance of slightly but measurably dangerous waste from oil and coal plants. From a macroscopic point of view, atomic energy is much, much cleaner source of power than just about anything except hydroelectric.

Fission isn't the whole answer, but it's a step in the right direction. In a generation or two, we may have fusion plants, but right now we need an interim solution that can generate an appreciable amount of energy (solar and wind can't) and still be kind to the planet.

I'm sure glad I don't live in Georgia, and for all of those that don't live in Georgia but approve of this decision I'm not surprised. Do we ever learn that there is always a cost to taking these huge risks?

jerry: I'd live next to a nuclear power plant before coal or oil. Well, not right next to it, but I wouldn't mind if it was down the road.

What a bunch of panty waists....you bitch about weather changes, the cost of food and gas, politics no matter which side, what a BUNCH of SHEEPLE........enjoy it when it all falls down.

EricF-917687,

It was too bad that funding for fusion reactors research was curtailed during the fag end of Clinton / Gore era. Princeton Plasma lab and some private firms do some research but most of the Fusion research is now done in Europe.

Fusion power plants would produce far less radioactive waste than fission plants, and none of it would be long-lived.

A good overview of how Fusion energy can change the world (in layman's terms) is given in a NYTimes article below.

http://fire.pppl.gov/fusion_nytimes_prager.pdf

Too bad our country is short-sighted in neglecting fusion research.

Are you seriously contending that "tree-hugging liberals" had a unilateral stranglehold on these developments, during Reagan's 2 terms, George H. W. Bush's term, George W. Bush's 2 terms, and all the interim years when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress? Seems a little far-fetched

I am also contending this! Who else put the 30 year brakes on it?

LKNRaging...

Dude, check out which party has controlled congress for most of the past 40+ years...it wasn't until slick willie was responsible for the dems losing control that republicans got control...at that time for almost 30 years! Better check your history book, pal.

Wendy, so glad I could reinforce your smug superiority. My other point was that maybe, just maybe, there were enough unanswered questions about nuclear power -- especially in the face of TMI, Chernoybl, Tokaimura Japan (9/30/1999), and plenty of other civilian and military nuclear incidents through those years -- that these matters transcended party politics. Kinda like the unregulated abuses that drove Richard Nixon to create the Environmental Protection Agency.

But I'm sure Nixon was a tool of the Birkenstockian tree-hugging liberal crowd, too. Thanks for clearing this up.

I, probably like most people, have reservations about nuclear fission based power generation, but I firmly believe that, when properly constructed plants are operated by responsible and caring management and are dutifully overseen by diligent regulators, the risks inherent in the technology are minimized and become acceptable. Sadly, this has not always been so!

Just make sure, this time round, that your regulators don't ever again allow a Kerr-McGee bunch of cowboys back into operation - they, as the licensed operator of a nuclear plant near Crescent, Oklahoma, through their mismanagement, their falsification of records, their lying to federal agencies and their wilful endangerment of employees, presented a far greater risk to public safety than did the actual plant itself.

Remember Karen Silkwood !!

Yes I know the difference between fusion and fission. I beg your pardons for typing faster then thinking. But the point remains that either way, it is harvesting the energy that bonds the atoms together, and this energy is key to getting ourselves off fossil fuels.

Think about this:

The Chinese are building 12 of these reactors right now.

Meanwhile they export windmills and solar panels.

If windmills and solar panels were cost effective means of producing power, why would they export them instead of installing them in China?

It's pretty obvious that China is going to go with the most cost effective choice.

That would be nuclear.

That doesn't mean that in a decade or two, solar and wind could be a better value if technology significantly improves - but that is an if.

.

As for these designs being safe. In Japan, the designs were 50 years old and the plants were over 40 years old. They were also built next to the ocean in a tsunami zone. Oh, and they have earthquakes there that are 10 times stronger than any in the US.

And in the end, while nearly 20,000 died in the tsunami, one person has died from the nuclear plants there. Even projecting forward, several people may have earlier deaths. Or about as many people that die in the US in an hour on the roads.

Yet, you are going to get in your car without fear.

Remember, they didn't even have electronic calculators when they designed the plants in Japan - technology has advanced since then.

.

Finally, politically, Bush, Reagan - they did not oppose nuclear power. Where on earth did anyone get that idea? The reason they didn't build plants is that around the time of 3 mile island, regulators began to change standards in the middle of construction. Yes, it's like a city building inspector approving your 2 story house, but then telling you that you can only have a 1 story - as you are painting the walls on your second floor. The cost over runs due to regulatory changes made it unprofitable to build them.

We would have many more plants if the rule was: you approve a design, and then change it - then the Gov't should pay for any changes.

(Personally, I think that should be the rule for any Gov't regulation - they want to change something : they can pay for it. If it's too expensive, then don't change the regulation. Someone has to pay that cost.)

When the first reactor at comanche peak went on line our electricity went up, when the second went on line, it went up again, now they are telling us it is going up again because of the windmills.

We have about the highest priced electricity in the united states, yet we export electricity, how does that work?

gamerk2

People need to understand that having centrailized power plants is old thinking. Per unit solar power. Simply equip every new/remodled building with solar panels, and wire them together

Are you an electrical engineer? The reality is that the sun goes down every night. Solar panels and windmills cannot provide enough power.

Well I think this is a step in the right direction however my only disagreement is the design of this reactor, which I believe is still a lightwater reactor, of which I say NO NO NO. Stop fooling around with light water reactors, these are the reactors that have gotten us into trouble and are old technology. They were good for a time and gave us good information but it is time to move on to the next generation.

We need to be using Nuclear, to which I agree, but we need to switch to Fast Reactors. These have a different design thats best features are a passive cooling system, meaning as long as containment for cooling is not lost (something that I don't believe is a major design challenge) it will still work even if power is lost. The other feature is if power is lost not only will coolant still be there, though the core will get hotter to an extent, the hotter the core gets the less reactions start taking place and thus the core does not go critical. These two features alone, in my opinion, make this an obvious choice beyond the fact many other redundant safety features could be added.

Another advantage is the waste created is much less than that of current light water reactor designs and most of that waste those reactors created can be reused in fast reactors. The final waste that fast reactors do create is dangerous but the isotopes formed that are the worst of those found in nuclear power plant waste are fewer and have much shorter half lifes - 30 or 40yrs compared to 100's or 1000's with light water reactor waste. The remaining other waste is still not good but a lot less radioactive and reaches safer levels in 100yrs or so - not great but quantity wise much less.

Fast reactors also can use other fuel source like thorium (besides the existing waste), which is much more abundant and way cheaper than urianium used in current lightwater designs.

Also, when it comes to design, fast reactors are much simpler and can be smaller. Currently lightwater reactors are huge and essentially still custom to each application. We need to standardize the designs and can do that much more easily with fast reactors. That reduces cost and also makes them safer as well.

The other thing we do need to do when going this route is to get back on board with a central storage location, yes use Yucca, and put the teeth back into the inspection process. No more passes or extending plant lifes that were 30yrs to 50, 60 and so on. We have got to get back to the right regulation and following the rules.

Besides the recent disaster in Japan, which was a perfect storm and a lightwater reactor design from the 60's, all other issues have been operator error.

There are other advantages and some disadvantage but at the end of the day Nuclear is an answer for us and it is time we stop messing around. In my opinion it is nuclear and renewables (specifically solar) that we use as our main focus on in the near future. During that time we can slowly wind down other fossil fuel plants and still look at other renewable options and programs like improving energy efficiency as well as advancements with smart grid tech and infrastructure to. It is all an big web of process and ideas that need to come together sooner than later. I also will add that the final goal is to get fusion as soon as we can, at which point we still use renewables like solar. This is the way I see us getting there. It is time to do it.

LKNR,

In your previous post, you basically stated that the Republican president's opposed nuclear energy. If Obama was so pro nuclear, why didn't he do this in his first year in office?

The president is powerless to effect direct change. We could have a martian president and he could never pass laws. That is for congress to do. That is why most of the current democrats whine about the house being in the hands of the republicans. If Reagan (too soon after TMI to for the public to desire new permits) Bush I (4 years), Bush II (bigger issues with terrorism) wanted to push nuclear power, it was the special interest groups that forced too much regulation that inhibit the permitting of nuclear power. Those are the "tree huggers" that they are talking about, not the presidents.

IWonder,

We have about the highest priced electricity in the united states, yet we export electricity, how does that work?

When you export electricity the price goes up because the market that you are exporting to can charge higher prices. So the power company can charge everyone the same price for the same product. Montana is a classic example of how an exporting state gets screwed.

If anyone is interested, please research LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) nuclear reactors. They are far more efficient than the standard LWRs, much safer, smaller, less expensive, and can burn existing nuclear waste and turn it into electricity.

Steven -

One, nuclear power relies on huge subsidies

Yes. But that is the case for most LWRs. A LFTR would be "cheap" enough to be constructed without subsidies. Also, half of the cost of building a new reactor come from legal fees from dealing with the NRC's regulations. It would be much cheaper if there weren't so many government strings attached.

Mr. Tom -

Of course nuclear waste is dangerous. And it's dangerous for a long time. But frankly I'd rather we deal with a relatively small amount of very dangerous waste than an abundance of slightly but measurably dangerous waste from oil and coal plants. From a macroscopic point of view, atomic energy is much, much cleaner source of power than just about anything except hydroelectric.

Traditional LWRs like the ones being proposed today use less than 1% of the potential energy contained in the Uranium. Thus, you get a massively inefficient burn and are left with nuclear waste that emits lethal radiation. But what is radiation really? Energy, right? An LFTR can burn this waste and it is 95% efficient. Think of how much less nuclear waste that is to deal with.

Also, Thorium is much more abundant than Uranium. Cheaper too. In fact, coal plants regularly throw thorium away as waste slag. They are actually throwing away many times more energy in thorium than what they burn in coal!

Georgia...perfect place for it. Does Newt still live down there ever?

Pyrrhic Victory

good post...very informative. thanks.

Indeed, good post Pyrrhic

Nuclear power is fission, not fusion.

It is time -

Look into LFTRs. I believe they are superior to using FBRs as you suggest. But I agree with you, the time for using cold war era LWRs hsa come and gone.

Fine. Build nuclear power plants. Build wind power turbines. Build coal plants, whatever.

But if I were building one today, I would probably go with clean, plentiful natural gas.

Pyrrhic - yes good post, exactly what I was saying!!

Dante - I don't get a check from the lobby and have done my own reasearch, you need to do some more yourself. No I'm not claiming to be an expert either. Just stating the facts I've found. Also stop re-posting.

Not a good idea....... Mother Nature will take it out and many with it. Oh, well stupid is as stupid does.... good luck.

I live in Carlsbad, CA., just south of the San Onofre plant, no big deal. The Navy has been powering ships and submarines with Nuclear power since 1957.

commonsense - only bad thing is natural gas is still a limited fossile fuel and I think can help, but I don't think it really gets us any further or can bring about any real change to how we look at power generation, and until they disclose the chemicals used for fracking it is no better than anything else, if not worse.

Pyrrhic, I think we are a talking one in the same just a different version of it. But again to both our points, no more LWR's from here on. Time for the next generation. That is the way to go.

This would have been a call to war if the people building it spoke: Arabic, Farsi, Urdu or even Spanish.

bohnmann, I was not contending that the various presidents, acting alone, can effect change. I am reacting to the notion that somewhere in this development we all need to find some "villain" for why it hasn't occurred sooner. Nor am I opposed to the new reactor license; it's high time we take a different approach to our energy needs and infrastructure.

I do not agree there is some conspiratorial villain -- conveniently, anyone who's political beliefs might differ from ours, here the environmentalists -- who are the sole source of the delay. We could, just as plausibly, point fingers at Big Oil which has every conceivable reason to push back, hard, on energy alternatives.

But it's so much easier to paste progressive thought as the root cause of all evil. I disagree.

I have always believed in Gandhi's idea of passive resistance. I believe that we should place a reactor or two in every state in the union,and then tell the world that if they attack us,we will set them off and blow ourselves up.That ought to stop em!

I guess Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and the various leaks they've had up at Indian Point aren't enough. You don't have to be a "tree hugging liberal" to know that nuclear power plants are POISONOUS, and DANGEROUS.

I thought we got past all this thirty (30) years ago?

WTF is wrong with anybody who would authorize the construction of more of these things? If anyone needs a convincer, type the word Chernobyl in your browser and take a good look at the images of people suffering horribly because of the accident there in 1986.....and don't think that it couldn't / wouldn't happen here, because it DID happen here in 1979!

Not, to the extent of what happened in Chernobyl. There was no complete core meltdown.

But, there was a meltdown at Three Mile Island, with serious leakage of radioactive "coolant," and thousands of people had to be evacuated from their homes. It could have been much worse, and perhaps, next time it will be!

NO NUKES!

if most understood that there is no major change since the accident at 3 mile island caused by a simple relay made by GE that over rated its replacement life, they want know more of safe guards that are in place.REMEMBER PEOPLE BIG BUSINESS BUILD THE PLANTS AND WE KNOW THEY CAN NOT BE HELD TO THEIR WORD AND GOVERNMENT PROTECTS THEM NOT US.

Not saying can not be made safe just both business and government can't be trusted , remember few months ago when they wanted too get rid of NRC chairman???? was it because he was against the new reactors?????

Looks like the lessons from Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima were completely ignored. we should be shutting these plants down, not building more of them.

there is no possible way to build a truely safe nuclear power plant.

there is no possible way to safely dispose of the 1000's of tons of deadly waste produced by EACH reactor.

there is no possible way for a nuclear power plant to operate in the black.

there is no possible way that a nuclear power plant is "greener" than even the dirtiest of coal fired power plants

there are other ways to generate electricity that dont have the risk of making the surrounding area uninhabitable for hundreds or thousands of years if there is an accident....

there are other ways to generate electricity that dont have the risk of making the surrounding area uninhabitable for hundreds or thousands of years if there is an accident...

FYI, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are habitable in less than 100 years.

Be careful, american-400792; apparently we're not allowed to talk about the environment.

Agreed LKNR,

I do believe that there was delays in part due to the environmentalists, in part due to political pressure. It's not Obama's fault, It's not Bush's fault. It is usually a combination of things. But for my political side, it's easier to blame Bush(Obama/the incumbent senator that I don't agree with/etc) than to have a real discussion.

J Merle and American - any thoughs on my posts or Pyrrhic's?

Also, Chernobyl was bad but certainly never should've happened. The Soviets wanted to see what limits they could reach and pushed that reactor beyond design purposely, and unfortunatly for the innocent people around the area, they found the limit. Just want to be fair when using it as an example.

So american, what do you propose? Do you want solar which contains harmful chemicals and require harmful chemicals to produce? How about wind?

Nuclear is cleaner than coal in the amounts of waste that it generates. Yes nuclear waste is probably more toxic than coal waste, but there is much, much, much less of it and it is contained small locations.

"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's chairman, Gregory Jaczko, opposed licensing the two reactors at this time even though he had earlier praised their design."

Obama hired Jaczko to STOP approval. It apparently didn't work, since he was the only one opposed among the 5 members.

France gets nearly 80% of its power from Nuclear, and has the lowest prices for electricity in Europe - with no Carbon emissions. It just seems that the environmentalists will not be satisfied unless we halt all growth and progress in this country.

Fine, we need cheaper power for America. Nuclear doesn't have to be the answer though. You want savings? FIX THE F***ING POWERGRID!!!

It is time: You don't really think people like american and J. Merle will actually educate themselves before spouting their outdated ideas, do you? They've already made up their minds. Reading your posts will do nothing to enlighten anyone who isn't really interested.

american...

You have to know nuclear is clean...look at Europe. It's full of "greenies" and they THRIVE on safe nuclear power. The new designs are very safe and do not generate near the waste as the old systems. How in the heck would we know anyway? We haven't built a nuke plant since the 70's. What has DOE been doing for the past 40 years? Boy, we have a lot of catching up to do...gawd, think of it...having to go the the french for the technology!

I wouldnt mind a cold fusion reactor in my backyard! >.<

I don't mean to rain on your parade but...

Cold fusion is impossible :(

AG99 - Sadly you are probably right but always worth a try, ehh?

bohnmann - you are right but as we increase our usage of solar the technology gets better and manufacture processes improve and can reduce those chemicals. Nothing is perfect but at least we can control those chemicals (well if they were made in USA, China don't hold your breath) and at the end of the day the fuel source they use is free you don't have to rely on others for that power. Always good and bad but as I said you made a good point that we can't overlook it, I'm all for solar (as a supplement to the base power supply), but I do agree we can't forget that. Also, I believe the manufacture of many other electronics involve similar chemicals.

Ruken - add "at least not yet, on a commerical scale" - technically scientists have done it in the lab but can't sustain it like we need at this point.

It is time -

There are a few differences between a LFTR and a FBR. Firstly, a LFTR uses thorium, not uranium. Also, the fuel is dissolved in a liquid FLiBe salt, making nuclear meltdowns impossible. A FBR still uses solid uranium. A FBR's neutrons move fast (Hence the "fast" in fast breeder reactor), while a LFTR's neutrons move more slowly as they are moderated by graphite. There is also no expensive pressure containment dome for a LFTR as it operates at atmospheric pressure. There is also no water used as a coolant. It's cooled by the FLiBe salt. This makes Fukushima-like explosions impossible.

american -

there is no possible way to build a truely safe nuclear power plant.

there is no possible way to safely dispose of the 1000's of tons of deadly waste produced by EACH reactor.

there is no possible way for a nuclear power plant to operate in the black.

there is no possible way that a nuclear power plant is "greener" than even the dirtiest of coal fired power plants

LFTRs solve ALL of these problems. Do some research on them. Flibe Energy is already on the way to building a prototype. So is China. You can find them on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and their company website. Again, do some research. You will be amazed at what you find.

A successful LFTR was built in the 50s at Oak Ridge National Labs. It ran for several years without a hitch. The program was cancelled in the 70s because it did not produce Plutonium for nuclear weapons manufacture. LWRs did, so LFTRs were phased out in favour of nuclear weapons. The Chinese have already got their hands on the plans and research info from the LFTR built at Oak Ridge. They are going to build LFTRs. That would be the ultimate irony and insult if the Chinese built LFTRs and revolutionized energy production using OUR plans and scientific research from the cold war. It would be a shame. I am hoping for Flibe Energy's success.

The total number of people killed by all the privately run nuclear plants in the world during it's entire history is about how many people die in two years installing wind power in the US.

In Japan, ONE DEATH.

In the US, 3 deaths in an explosion at an uranium mine.

Think about it: your odds of dieing driving to your corner store to get a slurpee are tens of thousands (I'm going with low numbers) of times higher than being killed due to nuclear power.

And we all have no problem accepting those odds over something as trivial as a slurpee.

.

As for any technology that produces power meaning that we wouldn't use fossil fuels: that's not reality. There will always be people in the world who need energy. If the US were to stop using any fossil fuels, the other countries would just use our share. Unless gas/oil regenerates, every drop of oil, every cubic meter of gas will ultimately be consumed. It may take 500, or 1000 years - but everyone should go ahead and plan on every drop getting used.

This is something that will not change with improvements in solar or even something as unlikely as fission. (Fission is nowhere near 20 years away, it takes 10 years to build a nuclear plant and we know how to do that). Even if they happen, they will simply make fossil fuels cheaper to use.

If the price goes down, then fossil fuels become more cost effective to consume. If the price goes up, then there is more incentive to produce it. No law will change that. Over 500 to 1000 years, every country will get into a financial bind that forces them to use it or sell it.

Just check out California. They came very close to default. They would then have to sell their oil/gas rights to stay afloat. And that is in the richest state in basically the richest nation. Imagine them in 30-50 years when the $100 trillion in US unfunded liabilities are coming due.

There is simply no way that you are going to tell some poor country that they can't use the oil/gas/coal under their own feet when their kids are starving.

So I hate to rain on the great news about the new reactors, but I simply have moved beyond the CO2 debate. After deep analysis, including human nature and economics, it is very clear that every bit of fossil fuels will eventually get used.

We may as well make plans around that fact.

To those that have worked in the Nuclear Field: Thorium Reactors?

Pyrrhic Victory,

Correct. Good post.

LMarcT, LKNRaging, jk-1139315, = Political Cronies.

You want to talk Politics, Matter of US Congressional Record:

2009 President Obama removed the subsidises to GE to build Generation III Modular Nuclear Power Plants (later named AP-1000) to replace the over 40 year old (Dangerous) Nuclear Plants at the US. These Federal Subsidises were then given to Vice President Biden's Coal Lobby.

2009 President Obama stopped the Alternative Energy "Brazil Solution" (provides Electricity, E-100, purified water) by eliminating the Federal Subsidise which were then given to his Illinois Corn Lobby. By removing these Federal Subsidises the "Brazil Solution" became impossible as most of the unique locations at the US closed down permanently at Florida, Louisiana and Hawaii, with the land at these locations then sold.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/19/AR2006081900842.html

Nice Failed attempt at deflecting the blame LKNRaging. You would have succeeded, if people were too lazy as failures of the Failed Broken US Education System to do the actual research.

Since 1945 Democrats have controlled the the House & Senate 22 terms to Republicans 6 ( Or 46 years to 12 years ). Democrats have controlled the House, Senate, and Whitehouse 12 terms to Republicans 2 ( or 26 years to 4 years ).

Ryan in Texas - Just check out California. They came very close to default.

Imagine if they stopped the Tax Ememptions for "Hollywood". Or if they knew how to count (figure out that they are spending almost $20 Billion of their decreased yearly budget of $79 Billion on Illegal Aliens Education, Health Care, Imprisonment (Violent Crimes), and that does NOT include Public Assistance, Public Housing, SNAP, etc. as required since the defeat of California Proposition 187. And no Sales Taxes of $17 Million does not pay for almost $20 Billion, as the Illegal Aliens do NOT pay Income Taxes (they do not do Employer paperwork (State and Federal Income Tax Withholding, as used for ICE).

I'm sure glad I don't live in Georgia, and for all of those that don't live in Georgia but approve of this decision I'm not surprised.

As someone who does live in Georgia, I'm definitely wary, but also willing to keep an open mind. The discussion in this thread has been both fascinating and informative. Sincere thanks to Phyrric Victory and others for your efforts to objectively educate on the topic. I, for one, appreciate it.

american-400792

there is no possible way to build a truely safe nuclear power plant.

No shti Sherlock. There is no possible way to build ANY truly "safe" power plant. Coal causes more deaths BY FAR every single year than nuclear accidents EVER have.

@LMarcT

Count on the GOP... especially the Boehners, the Cantors, and the Romneys of the world, to criticize this decision based on what it is, where it is, how it's funded, or how late the approval is... or all of the above. They will find a way to bitch about it.

And count on the progressives whining about the what the GOP is doing LONG before the GOP actually does it and count on them continuing to cry about it even if the GOP never does.

For everyone singing Obama's praises on this one, let me remind you of something: since stepping into office he has shot down every nuclear power plant license request for new plants to be built. He has also criticized the nuclear industry because the possibility of containment failure exists, even though the probability, even in plants from the 70's, is low.

That being said, anyone singing the Republican's praises for the pressure on Obama need to consider the headline again and then ask yourselves this: how many Republican administrations, or further right leaning organizations, have been "in control" since '78?

The fault lies at the feet of environmental groups touting alternative "green" methods (most of whom are led by Al Gore while he flies around in his private jet), which, while possible, are still in a stage of prototype. We're learning how to harness these energies better with less, but we aren't there yet and the mass production that the current administration, not just Obama, but all the others in office currently, has been pushing is not long-term sustainable. We should stick with what we know right now (yes, that means coal, oil, and even nuclear) but we knowing the toxic side-effects of all these, we need to research other methods until they can be long-term sustainable.

Prryhic - thanks for clearing that up. Make no mistake I'm not a nuclear engineer :) I did look it up and you are right, what I was talking about did use uranium but I have heard about the thorium reactor design too and agree completely. It does appear that would ultimately be a better option. I suppose I should've called mine an IFR. Still uses molten coolent, not water, less waste, but different fuel among other things. Both much better than what we have now - end of day my only argument is, nuclear yes, but no more LWR's (that's keeping it short).

Question to you? Can the Thorium reactors resue existing waste like a IFR can? Also the thorium turns into uranium 233 right? Can that be reused for anything or does it just decay into something that isn't useful?

Thank God for Georgia. I live here. If we were smart we'd starting building more and more of them here. Start exporting electricity to all the other states. Georgia is the largest state East of the Mississippi. Plenty of room for more reactors.

I agree its been long overdue that we begin to build (and replace those 35 to 50 year old nuke plants) but what still should worry all of us is the waste that is produced by any nuke plant using fission. If we don't find a way to get rid of the thousands of tons of old waste and all the future we might as well just keep using coal and crude oil. At least that way we can all perish in a couple of hundreds of years instead of watching the human race transmute into green goo in couple of thousand years.

@William Mcarthur

Wow, after $6 Trillion in deficit spending under Obama, this is probably the first useful thing that came out of it!

Wow, another person that doesn't understand basic facts! The US governemtn isn't spending any money on this. They are only granting the license. The costs are paid by the utilities and ultimately the customers.

@SinisterPhnx

Agreed. Build many many more. The universe is powered on nuclear fusion, no reason why we can't be either.

The universe is powered by gravity, which causes matter to condense and then gett more dense and more hot. Eventually, the matter becomes so dense that atoms begin to "FUSE" to other atoms - "FUSION".

This is not the process that nuclear reactors use.

Brian - I think some are already at a goo state :) There are options for reusing and reprocessing the old waste to reduce the final amount, we just aren't doing it. Some options better than others.

@Knine, since you've quoted Article 1, Section 8, then you should also quote the very last item:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Which essentially gives Congress the authority to write a law that they deem necessary for carrying out one of the aforementioned powers. H.R. 7837 was introduced in the House in 1913 to create an organization deemed necessary to regulate the value of money. Your suggestion that somehow it is against the Constitution for Congress to delegate its power to another quasi-government agency is moot. It is no different than their creation of the US Patent and Trademark Office to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Using your logic, the Department of Defense is unconstitutional because Section 8 says that Congress shall have the power to maintain a Navy.

You also need to do some research on the differences between "shall have", "shall", and "must". The Constitution gives Congress the authority to have the ultimate power for regulating the value of money. Congress SHALL HAVE the power to regulate the value of money. It does not say that Congress MUST regulate the value of money.

As a former nuclear operator, I can say there is absolutely no way to argue for nuclear power. It's almost as easy as arguing which religion is better. You can tout statistics and new reactor designs, and efficiency, and costs, safety records, containment systems, and anything else all day long. The bottom line is there's a bunch of ignorant people that believe nuclear is bad no matter what anybody else tells them. There is no way to convince some people that nuclear power can be safe. The safety precautions and regulation that go into a US plant, are absolutely incredible since 3MI, which also drastically increases the cost. If at some point in the future, every square inch of the world is covered in wind mills, we've seriously messed up as a species.

And as to the thorium, particle bed, and other newer reactor designs, our regulatory process is so narrow that it takes decades for a reactor design to ever get to the approval process, let alone possibly getting commissioned. It will happen some day, but any new nuclear power is a good step for the US. The less we can rely on fossil fuels and hopefully some day we can stop using any gulf oil the better off we are.

Wow, Liberals are such lying hypocrites! Now, they want to blame Republicans for not building nuclear reactors before this! The truth is, it was all the tree-hugging, Greenpeace Liberals who stopped all construction of nuclear reactors decades ago, with one lawsuit after another! It's funny how they'll fight new technologies until their side endorses it. They fought CFL's forever, until the idiots on the left went after incandescent bulbs. Now, we're being forced to buy bulbs containing the deadly, heavy metal Mercury, which is dangerous even in small amounts. Remember the levels found in fish? Look for that to rise. Now, that they're paying triple digit electric bills, and the current administration has licensed (remember, we're a long way from it being built) a reactor, they're all for it.
Of course, this will only last until another fringe nut-job files a lawsuit against it, and we'll be right back where we started.
I'm so conservative, I make Ron Paul look like a Neo-Con, but I've favored nuclear energy for years. Grow a spine, lefties and admit you were the reason this took so long and you were wrong.

Nuclear reactors are perfectly safe. If you don't believe me, just ask anyone in Belarus or Simi Valley, or Middletown, Pennsylvania or, better yet, ask someone in Fukushima, Japan. They'll certainly agree; perfectly safe. No problem. Right?

It is time -

Make no mistake I'm not a nuclear engineer

Nor am I. I'm just a lowly environmental engineer :-)

Not that IFRs (FBRs) are bad. They are vastly superior to LWRs. I just prefer LFTRs since one has already been built and there is a US-based company (Flibe Energy) trying to manufacture and sell them. If a company was to try and manufacture FBRs, I would fully support it.

Can the Thorium reactors resue existing waste like a IFR can?

Yes.

Also the thorium turns into uranium 233 right? Can that be reused for anything or does it just decay into something that isn't useful?

Thorium as a stand-alone metal is relatively stable. In the reactor, Th-232 absorbs a neutron and transmutes to U-233, which is fissle. The U-233 is what is actually used in the decay chain to produce power. The Thorium is needed for breeding the U-233. The U-233 and many of its decay products will burn up within the reactor and produce power whils doing so. You will be left with some radioactive byproducts, though some of these are actually useful. For example, Some of the radionucleides can be sold to hospitals for use in cancer treatment or to NASA for space vehicle propulsion. Other stable (not radioactive) products include precious metals such as Palladium and Rhodium, Neodymium for use in powerful magnets, and other rare-earth metals. This is all a secondary profit source. The stuff that can't be used is only dangerously radioactive for 300 years, which is miniscule when compared to tens of thousands of years for your standard LWR waste.

It is time

J Merle and American - any thoughs on my posts or Pyrrhic's?

Also, Chernobyl was bad but certainly never should've happened. The Soviets wanted to see what limits they could reach and pushed that reactor beyond design purposely, and unfortunately for the innocent people around the area, they found the limit. Just want to be fair when using it as an example.********************************************************************

Yes, I do have a comment in regards to both posts. First off, the assertion that that The Soviets tried to push the reactor beyond it's capabilities is preposterous, and shows me you haven't read very much about what happened there.

The problem, or at least part of the problem, was that the graphite regulating tubes containing Boran, and Hafnium, were graphite tipped. The graphite, when inserted into the reactor to regulate/shut it down, momentarily causes a power spike. This happened while they were conducting a test of how long they could cool the reactor using only steam, and coasting turbines to power the cooling pumps.

Yes, there was operator failure, and yes such a test would not be allowed in this country. However, operator failure was also the cause of the meltdown at Three Mile Island. Operator (human) failure at some level, be it design, or procedural, is usually the root cause of all accidents.

Pyrric saysthat a meltdown would be "impossible" for a specific design of reactor, and all I can say to that is; BOULDERDASH! The possibility of a meltdown or radiation leak is always present with any reactor should it's cooling system fail.

Furthermore, the danger with a nuclear reactor isn't a critical mass explosion; but rather, the possibility of a core breach that would allow radiation leakage. Three mile island isn't the only place its happened in the U.S. There have been other far less publicized "breaches" which were kept out of the media, not the least of which occurred up in Buchanan NY at the Indian Point power plant, and of course let's not forget Fukushima.

The point is, that there are other cleaner, safer, alternative sources of energy we can explore, research, and develope without putting lives at risk in this fashion. A catastrophic radiation leak could/would make an area uninhabitable for a radius of some ten (10) to twenty five (25) miles (or even more) from ground zero, for multiple decades to come.

I, like you, understand the need to move off of the dime in regards to finding cheaper, more efficient sources of electricity, and systems by which it is distributed, in this country. Our infrastructure is dissipating beneath our feet. Old, outdated systems such as the grid that failed in 2003 need to be updated and eventually replaced.

But, we don't have to expose ourselves to mega doses of radiation in order to accomplish that. There is no such thing as a perfectly-guaranteed-100%-safe nuclear power plant. All I'm saying here is that it would be too late AFTER a catastrophic leak. Let's all take a deep breath and decide if this is REALLY the road we want to go down to find cheaper more efficient ways to produce "power."

Nuclear power is the most expensive form of electricity.

No, it's not. Not even close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Levelized_energy_cost_chart_1,_2011_DOE_report.gif

Technically true - nuclear is less expensive than solar and offshore wind farms due to high construction costs, and less expensive than the least efficient natural gas fired plants and biomass due to fuel costs.

But according to that chart, nuclear is more expensive than coal, high efficiency natural gas turbines, geothermal, hydro, and land based windmills. So, not "the most expensive", but far from "cheapest".

The cost of solar is dropping, if that trend continues, solar could become cheaper than nuclear in a few years, and when that happens it will mark the end of nuclear power for everything except ships.

Ain't it amazing what can get done in an election year. EVen Obama has to cough up some sensible things in an effort to get re-elected. NOT happpening though.

Scott M-536256

@SinisterPhnx

The universe is powered by gravity, which causes matter to condense and then gett more dense and more hot. Eventually, the matter becomes so dense that atoms begin to "FUSE" to other atoms - "FUSION".

This is not the process that nuclear reactors use.

Good grief... how many more are going to feel the need to point out this simple mistake? I think you're like number 5 so far...

SinisterPhnx

Yes I know the difference between fusion and fission. I beg your pardons for typing faster then thinking.

To all those comparing nuclear power to fossil fuels/oil:

When was the last time a product from nuclear power was able to lubricate or power motor vehicles? The auto makers can't(or won't) make an elctric powered car that is affordable enough(or has a long enough range and power)

Until the technology for many machines improves, oil/petrol/gas is the most feasible power source for land vehicles and aircraft.

Iran has said it will sanction us if we continue to build nuclear plants, and that they want NATO to be allowed to inspect our nuclear plant to verify that we are not building nuclear weapons. They are afraid that we might build weapons and use them to start another war!

J Merely - My point was that Chernobyl always gets brought up, yes it was a human error issue and is an example of the worse case scenerio, but it didn't happen out of normal operation, it happened because they were doing tests that should've never been done in the first place. Yes the events you talk about happened and that's what caused the explosion but had they not been doing the test and deliberately did what they did, bypassing the safety systems and cooling systems that the reactor was designed to use, the explosion wouldn't have happened. It was not the opps human error it was the I'm going to do an experiment that I know is dangerous and could potentially have catastrophic results human error. My understanding is the reactor was also of questionable design anyways.

But otherwise I was asking have you looked at any of the other options? True nothing is 100% safe (lot of things in life are like that) but the new options out there are lightyears ahead of the old LWR's and when compared to the pollution coal and fossil fuels makes you actually are better off.

However I do agree we need to understand all the trade offs we are talking about and we are at a crossroads in our country. We need to get a handle on our energy supply and right now these new nuclear designs - red tape bureaucracy not withstanding - are our best bet to dump fossil fuels and gain some independence in the near future. Doesn't mean they go away over night and there are still uses for those products we just don't need them to be the fuel for our base power supplies. And as you read my posts I agree Fusion is the ultimate answer and needs to always be our focus but nuclear and alternative energy sources can be the bridge to get there and bring us some stability. And I'm open to all alternative energy forms but right now solar makes the most sense from a power usage standpoint, and is getting there financely for everyone, but others can play a part as well.

I like nuclear power but they should be operated as not-for-net profit and owned by their customers so that their isn't an incentive to put off necessary maintenance for added profit. I live downwind of the Perry nuclear power plant in Ohio and it has one of the worst safety records because of First Energy.

The consumers and the governnet are both on the financial hook if something goes catastrophically wrong and for the post-shutdown cleanup so we should get some kind of benefit while they are operating.

J. Merle -

Are you really that dense?

Pyrric saysthat a meltdown would be "impossible" for a specific design of reactor, and all I can say to that is; BOULDERDASH! The possibility of a meltdown or radiation leak is always present with any reactor should it's cooling system fail.

A LIQUID fluoride thorium reactor cannot melt down BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY A LIQUID! I assure you, no matter how hard you try, you can't melt a liquid. It's impossible. Ergo, a meltdown is can't happen. Ever.

If the coolant system fails, the liquid will melt a salt plug and passively drain into a holding tank, ceasing the reactions. If any of the fluid were to somehow escape, it would solidify, again ceasing the reaction. All of this happens passively, meaning that no power or electricity or human input is necessary for its safety. You can't have a hydrogen explosion because there is no water. You can't have a pressure explosion because there is no pressure!

The only thing that will stop a nuclear rennaissance is an uneducated public. Unfortunately, that is a rather large stumbling block.

SSPerfectChaos "ask yourselves this: how many Republican administrations, or further right leaning organizations, have been "in control" since '78?"

In the 34 years since 1978, Republicans have had control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress exactly 4 years (2003-2006), but during those 4 years, Democrats had filibuster rights to block any legislation proposed by the Republicans, since the Republicans only had a bare majority in the Senate.

So what was your point?

@ raddave: Really? I thought it was because it took so much energy to create the heat and pressure necessary to start a fusion reaction that it was self-defeating - more energy was consumed by heating the damn thing to the necessary levels than was created by the atoms fusing.

As a Nuclear Engineer I feel I am obligated to kick the hot air out of some of you Wikipedia trolls. Nuclear Power is the second cheapest form of Electricity generation per kWh. The cheapest is coal at 2 cents with Nuclear ranging from 3-4 cents. Solar is in the 9 cent range. Renewable is in no way near ready.

Coprorate Welfare at it's worst. In a free market nuclear power wouldn't exist. They simply rely on too many government subsidies, loan gurantees, caps on liability, and zoning exceptions to be possible without the state.

Free market fans should be appauled and so should environmentalist lefties. These things are not even cost efficient once you factor in the cost in taxpayer dollars per power unit. Just like publicly funded trains, the fare the riders pay is only 1/3 of the cost of the ticket...the rest is collected in taxes. 2 taxpayer dollars per consumer dollar...not exactly a great business model (or even a possible one without he state).

End nuclear power subsidization (through all the aforementioned methods) and any other "business" that can't operate without state funding. It's corporate welfare and leeching of the oligarchy from the average citizens.

I find this approval a tragedy to our generation. Nuclear is far from clean and doesn't contain greenhouse gases... how do you think they get the plutonium? For every 1 ton mined they have to dispose of 7 tons of waste releasing poison into our world. Plutonium turns to uranium and the rods must be cooled in pools releasing fusion charged atoms into the atmosphere. After Fukushima only 1 of 5 women in Japan will be able to get pregnant. Women are 50% more susceptible to its attack then men. how can we be so blinded to approve the biggest killer on the planet? How can we approve this when we can't even manage the disposal of plutonium. We leave it on concrete slabs in metal barrels knowing it will take millions of years to dispose...

Rumor has it that if needed there are plenty of spare reactor parts for sale in Iran.

BTW Messenger your statement is sobering if true:

Nuclear power is less than 10% efficient

Can you shed any light on your statement as to the source of this information? If you are correct then like ethanol this form of energy needs work before proceeding; that is unless there is an alterior motive for building more reactors.

Mickeymana, you better start showing some proof. Otherwise, I'll say that solar energy causes brain tumors, it causes sterility in men, it also causes insanity. There, I have as much proof as you do about your false claims.

Besides, 1 in 5 women in fukushima won't get pregnant because THEY WERE WASHED OUT TO SEA!

Ummm, Other Con$ideration$ ???: ProIndividual says it... "These things are not even cost efficient once you factor in the cost in taxpayer dollars per power unit"....

I guess people do not understand the concept of decentralized energy purchase and use per household of soon affordable tick back inverters and solar photovoltaic panels which are now covered with plastic laminate and leak no chemicals which is a big improvement made recently that now guarantees them for many years on your roof, be it metallic or shingle. Yes, solar is moving right along and guess what folks, photovoltaic just requires daylight and has batteries inside with a generator if you want for the night time. Duh. It works is the point. Just fine.

http://www.metanna.com/solutions/index_147.cfm

Oh wow, these are nice, tiles! and guess what, they don't glow ;) ...

http://www.lumetasolar.com/Pages.aspx/Solar-S-Tile

...And so, Citizens, paying taxes in GA go right ahead, get it, treat yourselves...did everyone get that?

"The licensing covers two reactors estimated to cost $14 billion that the Southern Company wants to add to its existing Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia. Preliminary work has already begun and plans are for the first new reactor to be operating in 2016."

Just curious, Who is going to repay that loan for how long?

Pyrrhic - lowly or not thanks for answers :) I assumed that was the case with using the existing waste but wasn't for sure. I can say I have no favorites here, just see some opportunities we are missing out on, as I'd say we both agree to that. Glad to trade thoughts with you, thanks again for your insight.

Mickymama - please go back and do some more research, uranium turns to plutonium if I'm not mistaken. No comment on your other "facts". That will do for now.

Messenger - what are you talking about? see my comment to Mickymama about research. I believe what you mean to say is a current rates only about 1% of the available energy in uranium fuel gets used.

Both of you please see the posts about new reactor options out there, assuming you care to learn some facts. Not trying to be rude, just saying its time to step back and see the big picture more than you both currently can.

Concerned - small scale renewable, i.e. solar not all the way there, but on large scale it is doable and I mean that financially. Large or small it does work, but yes not as a base power, unless you add batteries and at this point drive up the cost alot.

Anonymous - you're at least on the right track, not fully there, but going the right way. Keep it up.

We need a combination of energy sources that includes coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, wind, geo thermal, hydro, hydrogen, solar, bio mass, tidal, and wave. Did I miss any? It is good news that these two nuclear reactors were licensed. We need all we can get. I mentioned oil, I actually meant domestic oil. We need all the safe energy we can produce. The dirtier energy sources can and should be cleaner. The dirtier being coal, oil and nuclear (because of the extensive mining and production of uranium). I wonder if I missed any forms of energy, perhaps someone can add to my list. We need to produce the kinds of energy that makes sense in the area that is producing it to the most efficient way possible. Another thing that is needed is for us to use the energy in the most efficient ways possible.

Pyrrhic..."You can't have a hydrogen explosion because there is no water. You can't have a pressure explosion because there is no pressure!"

Never say never, especially when talking in half life. There could be an infiltration of water and there could be pressure under the right circumstances, take your pick. Things go wrong over time. Things get old and worn out, people get old and die. Other people come along and change things. In planning we need to keep a realistic perspective...of time...as well as of space...and of many scenarios that could happen for any number of reasons that are human or naturally caused.

J. Merle Stanley is correct. There was a melt down at TMI, there were long term health problems there. Stormer F below is factually wrong. There are many sources to bear this out.

http://www.tmia.com/node/118

As far as the actual track record of safety recently?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367718/Obama-orders-nuclear-safety-review-14-near-misses-US-plants-revealed.html

The documentary on TMI:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLPAigMuBk0&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP937B0E873F58A3D7

Fission is an important part of our pathway to more effective and cleaner power sources - and I'm glad to see that people have been discussing the Thorium fuel cycle, as there is an amazing amount out there to use as fuel in the reactor, because the reaction is very clean compared to most, and due to its properties that reduce the chance of a major meltdown compared to current reactor designs.

As to others talking about all of the spent nuclear waste, that is not a technical issue actually - it's a bureaucratic one. The United States does not (or I should say has not, hopefully there's at least some small scale DoE R&D project now) reprocess the spent fuel rods. In some ways its due to the difficulty in breaking down the rods into the individual fuel components. Many of the common reactor types use fuel pellets jacketed within metal sleeves and assembled into long rods - which would of course be a lot harder to process than the output of a Thorium cycle or other liquid metal or salt reactor. If the fuel assemblies could be solid Uranium you could send the entire thing into any of a variety of separation processes (PUREX type chemistry, gas diffusion, gas centrifuges, or good old school Calutrons) to break down the still usable materials to go right back into the new fuel rods while separating out the nasty isotopes to be vitrified and/or otherwise locked away in a Yucca type facility. At least that way, you're not throwing away the huge amount of the fuel left in the rods nor are you filling up an entire underground complex with nasty waste - you have one long hallway instead. However the fuel assemblies are not solid low enriched uranium, so you have to get the fuel out of the sleeves before you can break it down - unless your process can chow through the metals the sleeves are made out of and allow you to reuse that as well.

Our descendants may want those concentrated samples of nasty isotopes too, so we can't make them too dangerous to retrieve when we bury them away. Who knows what fuel you would use for a starship with FTL after all... so we need to make sure that the site is well marked, but we need to leave the keys in the door so to speak.

Also, Pebble Bed reactors are really interesting for future projects so we need to understand how to build them safely - especially for use in smaller reactors, even ones that we could build now if we wanted to - such as in a Mars ship to have a Pebble Bed reactor to power a powerful ion drive or nuclear rocket. When the pebbles were all in the reactor it would establish a chain reaction and heat up - for when you were firing the main engine, but during the coast phase you'd only have it running at 1/2 power or less, achieved simply by removing some of the pebbles. Making the mechanism to transfer the balls in 0 G would not be too difficult either - they just need to get rid of the dust issue.

until last year i was a proponent of nuclear power. ive always been facinated by the science and physics of nuclear fission.

but after seeing Fukushima reactor #3 blow up in a prompt criticality event,seen the fallout land in my area in high enough concentrations to make my counter go crazy when i lay it on the ground or on a paper towel that i wiped the hood of my car with, i have since changed my mind.

if we HAD to use nuclear power to generate electricity, uranium fission reactors are easily the worst possible way to do it. others posting above have already mentioned thorium reactors. while not perfect, they are far far safer than a uranium or plutionium mox powered fission reactor. the physics of a thorium reactor are what make it safer. you have to constantly mess with it to keep it running. you can simply walk away from one and it shuts down all by itself with no decay heat to worry about. it just turns itself off. a uranium or mox reactor you have to keep messing with it to keep it from melting down and blowing up. shut one down and you still have to cool it for a long time , otherwise the fuel will melt or explode. what happens if theres another Carrington event, or an EMP attack? no power to cool the reactors even though they have scrammed and we will have a Fukushima event at all 104 reactors in this country. does that sound like a good idea to anyone capable of rational thought?

if georgia wanted to become an energy exporter, there are massive natural methane deposits not far off its coast. there is an estimated 1,300 trillion cubic feet of clean burning methane gas that is very easy to get to- it just bubbles out of the sea floor.

i do agree solar cells arent really viable- just not efficient enough. wind power has its flaws too, also not efficienet enough. solar thermal plants are viable however. works just like a nuclear reactor to boil water except the reactor is 150 million kilometers away.

hydro-electric, geothermal, natural gas, also viable and not as dangerous as a fission reactor. like i said before there are other ways....

one death from fukushima? i supposed you are one of the psychopaths who believe there were no deaths from chernobyl either? the cancers and other diseases that are a direct result of these reactor explosions take years to develop.the children who were exposed in japan wont die today , tomorrow or next year. but in 10-15 years they will begin dropping like flies. and they wont just keel over dead , those affected will endure slow painfull deaths that no human should ever have to endure. its not today you have to worry about, its years down the road where the real hell begins for those people.

yes i do have an open mind. i was able to change, can you?

Safe nuclear power generation is an illusion! Are we not smart enough to learn from the horrors in Japan?

The way we generate nuclear energy now is beyond dangerous and creates radioactive poisons that can never be released into the environment accident or intention. Once U235 is refined it must be monitored for 704 million years. Which of you thinks a safe method exists to protect all living things from a creation of man for 704 million years? Which of you will parent the child whose child's, child's child's will suffer the poor choices we make to day? For it is not possible to keep the waste produced by a nuclear plant separated from the environment for that length of time.

Each plant produces 40 tons of high level radioactive waste each year. With refinement it is reducible to about 1 ton each year. One ton for each year of operation and with nowhere to safely confine it the waste piles up vaulted within plant. It's stored encased within concrete and stainless steel once it's cool enough to handle. Not only is beyond dangerous now is becomes a security problem too as it's ability to contaminate a large area makes it a vulnerable target for terrorists too!

It is time

J Merely - My point was that Chernobyl always gets brought up, yes it was a human error issue and is an example of the worse case scenerio, but it didn't happen out of normal operation, it happened because they were doing tests that should'venever been done in the first place. Yes the events you talk about happened and that's what caused the explosion but had they not been doingthe test and deliberately did what they did, bypassingthe safety systems and cooling systems that the reactor was designed to use, the explosion wouldn't have happened...............

I hate to pick on you, It is Time, but you are wrong. The Graphitetubes containing Boran and Hafnium, WERE part of the safety system! The two poisons combined were supposed to shut the power off immediately when introduced into the reactor core....But, the material the tubes were made of, Graphite, caused a power SPIKE instead. This would have eventually happened anyway.

Pryrric....I must respond to you as well. You didn't read m,y entire post, or chose to respond only to part of it.

First off, I said the danger of a meltdown OR a CORE BREACH is always present in a nuclear reactor....and both are, regardless of whether we're talklng about "solids" or liquids." Liquids CAN overheat under certain conditions. Furthermore, you answered NOTHING with regards to the possibility of a breach, which could cause leakage and wreak HAVOC on every living thing within a 25 mile radius of one of these plants. You cannot control mother nature's affect on one of these things, as Fukushima showed us, and you cannot account for the possibility of a design flaw, or simple human-operator-failure.

And lastly, I'll ask the same question to you that I asked the other numbskull; would YOU be willing to invest $100,000 or more in a home right across the street from one of these plants?

Once U235 is refined it must be monitored for 704 million years.

where do people come up with this nonsense?

I hate to pick on you, It is Time, but you are wrong. The Graphitetubes containing Boran and Hafnium, WERE part of the safety system! The two poisons combined were supposed to shut the power off immediately when introduced into the reactor core....But, the material the tubes were made of, Graphite, caused a power SPIKE instead. This would have eventually happened anyway.

WTF is up with the bold?

the entire design of chernobyl was flawed from the beginning

J merle - I don't disagree with you on what caused the explosion or that it was a worse case example of what can happen but as I said if they hadn't been experimenting it would not have happen that was all. Like danwill said it was not a good design to start with. Eitherway I'm not arguing that point anymore and that really isn't the topic I'm after here to begin with. We can both be right or you can be right I don't care at this point. My concern is they shouldn't be using LWRs and need to go with the new designs. Like I said before we are at a crossroads and need to make a decision. From my standpoint the new designs are viable and safe enough to give them a look to bridge the gap til we get to fusion. The continued use of existing fossil fuels will pollute more than one of these plants ever will. It my not be 100% ideal choice from every angle but it is time we do something and the alternatives, for full scale base power, otherwise are few at best when compared to the new reactor designs. The only reason I originally commented on your post way above was because you seemed to be following the thought process of what happened at plants with the old LWR design and where ignoring new options that are available.

danwill

I hate to pick on you, It is Time, but you are wrong. The Graphite tubes containing Boran and Hafnium, WERE part of the safety system! The two poisons combined were supposed to shut the power off immediately when introduced into the reactor core....But, the material the tubes were made of, Graphite, caused a power SPIKE instead. This would have eventually happened anyway.

WTF is up with the bold?

the entire design of chernobyl was flawed from the beginning

****************************************************************************

Who T.F. are you, the message board police? The bold is so you can tell my text from the person to who I am responding. You're the idiot, since everybody else knew that .

Okay, so Chernobyl was flawed. But, nobody knew it until the place blew up, and so was Three Mile Island. Same thing there. Human error and design flaws were the root cause.

The whole point is that we never know these things until something goes wrong. I have yet to see one of you people say you'll put $100,000 into a piece of property next to one of these things

Who T.F. are you, the message board police? The bold is so you can tell my text from the person to who I am responding.

try using the block quote instead, bold makes you look like you are yelling

Okay, so Chernobyl was flawed. But, nobody knew it until the place blew up

not true, the flaws in the RBMK design were well known, it is one very big reason that you don't find any large, graphite-moderated, liquid-cooled reactors in the US. "positive void coefficient" can be a real bitch if things go wrong (as the Russians found out). not to mention all of the easily bypassed safety controls.

personally, I do think that all of the current generation of nuclear reactors in the US should be phased out and replaced by designs capable of passively maintaining integrity without powered pumps. current designs are capable of doing so for several days, and newer designs can go indefinitely without power or external intervention indefinitely.

and yes, I wouldn live next to a reactor

The new designs are much safer than the older ones.

The major concern is safety and when we had a problem at 3 mile island,our safety guards worked fine and we had no melt down. when we have safety systems that work,we need to get rid of the idea that radiation spent fuel rods are going to create problems.There have been no radiation contamination of anyone in the us and we have over 100 Nuclear power plants working,and have been working for over 30 years providing power.

Thank Goodness I live on the W coast and the weather patterns favor an easterly flow. This will keep the fallout from the meltdown in Georgia where it belongs.

The risks of nuclear fission reactors are not worth the return. Where is the waste going to be stored? Who is going to monitor it 1000 yrs from now?

Fusion is the best and cleanest source of nuclear power. There is a huge fusion reactor that we can use for free every day: it rises in the east. If Germany can retire their fleet of reactors and replace it with green power then so can we. Except for the howling complaints from the isotope-lovers. Isn't there a Lynden Larouche table wating for you at some airport?

Patrook do you have any clue as to how long it will take make fusion work. Right now fusion is simply a pipe dream that requires more energy to produce than its return. If they can make it work great I will support it all the way. Right now we need to look at the here now not simply continue to poor CO2 into the atmosphere. It is possible that all the Greenland glaciers will have melted before fusion becomes a real possibility

You must never get into a car or on a bus, do you. Some of the first riders of horses fell off and broke their head open. Nothing man does, builds or ever creates is fail safe. If something can go wrong, it will go wrong sooner or later. You can give an idiot a gun and in time he will shoot himself in the foot. We can do nothng and as our scientist tell us a meteor will strike the Earth and wipe out everybody. Living is a risk. You want to see a full blown fallacy of no risk, take a look at the TSA, four billion dollars a year spent to make us safe from the terrorist, but you still ride, fly or travel at your own risk. For all of their X ray machines, scanners, pat downs, dress downs, shoes off probing, you are no more safe than you were prior to 9/11. Fools still get on planes and talk about bombs.

david, Patrook is talking about solar energy. Unfortunately, he failed to take into account the fact that, while Germany is planning getting more and more of its energy from solar, it is also planning importing electricity from France, Poland, and the Czech Republic.

How is that electricity to be generated? Why, by nuclear plants, of course!

"If Germany can retire their fleet of reactors and replace it with green power then so can we."

Yeah... the problem is... they CAN'T.

Or at least they haven't managed to do so yet. Last I heard there was still great concern over where their energy was going to come from if their nuclear power was shut off.

As for your other concerns, the waste can be stored pretty much anywhere; as opposed to, say, gas, oil, and coal fired plants, which stored their waste in the air, and ultimately in your lungs.

As for renewables, sure, I'm all for 'em, so long as they're competitive, and so long as the same tree-hugging dolts that tell us to use renewable power don't get up in arms when a new dam gets installed, or birds are chopped up by windmills, or that the massive solar plant is "ugly".

But until that happens, keep the nuke plants coming. 20 percent isn't nearly enough.

Its the same old story, we need to build more prisons, just not in my neighborhood. I marvel at the people who can turn on a computer, have two or three TV's going, a house full of electrical gadgets using electricity, porch lights on 24/7 charging their electric cars who shout at the top of their voices we need green energy. Not coal fired generators, not atomic generators, not carbon creating gas or oil generators, just green energy. I'm still looking for someone to define to me what is green energy. Is that green colored electricty as opposed to red electricty something like the stop lights, which by the way has amber colored energy also. And for that poster who said Obama was against burying the nuclear waste in Nevada, that fight has been going on for twenty years, by Nevadans pro and con and various other groups dead set against everything. An easy way to dispose of nuclear waste would be to put it on rockets destined for the Sun, but not to worry we have a lobby against that too.

Give Perry $150.00 and dump the waste in Texas.

The government spent a lota bucks on yucca mountain and its in the middle of nowhere,i dont see why we dont use it.also many plants just store material onsite.

Patrook, while you are right in that most nuclear reactors are in the NE, there are some on the West Coast as well. Near major cities.

FYI: Germany is moving fast toward massive offshore wind farms, which along with more solar installed than the entirety of North America, will power its future. Not to mention that they are twice as conservative in their power and fuel usage as Americans.

I'm sure the people in Fukushima were making all of the same giddy pro-nuclear pronouncements as you read on this blog a little over a year ago. If only they knew then...

NC,

Re: "An easy way to dispose of nuclear waste would be to put it on rockets destined for the Sun, but not to worry we have a lobby against that too."

Lets See:

Take large amounts of nuclear waste and put it in a cargo bay.

+

Strap on "Acme" rockets to outer hull.

+

Have coyote light the fuse.

=

What could possibly go wrong with this plan ?

;)

One malfunction in mid-flight and you have a dirty bomb approved by the Taliban.

Just cause people can think doesn't mean they follow through.

stormerF

The major concern is safety and when we had a problem at 3 mile island,our safety guards worked fine and we had no melt down. when we have safety systems that work,we need to get rid of the idea that radiation spent fuel rods are going to create problems.There have been no radiation contamination of anyone in the us and we have over 100 Nuclear power plants working,and have been working for over 30 years providing power

This is not true stormer, there was a partial meltdown at three mile Island, roughly half the fuel had melted. How do you figure that spent fuel rods aren't going to cause problems. They are made of enriched uranium-235, which is highly radioactive, and has a half life of 704 million years. To say there has been no radiation contamination of anyone in the U.S. is a lie. People living around the Nevada test site were routinely contaminated radiation and nuclear fallout. There was low level contamination around three mile island. There have been 56 accidents at nuclear sites in the U.S.

I am not arguing against nuclear reactors. However, to try and portray them as completely safe is wrong.

Maybe someone else can answer this for me, as my question doesn't seem like it's out of the realm of possibility, but my logic may be inherently flawed so someone with more knowledge of nuclear plant design please enlighten me:

To everyone that talks about Fukishima, and having days of battery backup for cooling systems, and if we had a long-term event the batteries would die and the cooling systems would fail, thus, Fukishima.

But, it's a Nuclear Power Plant, why cant we make the cooling systems feeding off power from the reactor output, in a perpetual cycle? If you say that when they shut down a reactor, they pull the rods from the reactor, why not leave a few, small rods in solely to power critical systems?

The logic seems fairly straightforward, but again, I don't pretend to know the first thing about NPP design.

"I'm sure the people in Fukushima were making all of the same giddy pro-nuclear pronouncements as you read on this blog a little over a year ago. If only they knew then..."

If they knew that a massive tsunami was coming? Yeah, things would have been different. Way different. I'm not sure that the nuclear plant would have been their top concern, though.

So I suppose the lesson is: don't build nuclear reactors in regions prone to incredibly destructive natural disasters. Which most of Japan is. That's not an argument against nuclear power in general.

raddav, you are absolutely correct. Except that I will go as far as to say that nuclear power plants should be banned! There were approximately 1-2 additional cancer deaths in the ten (10) mile radius surrounding Three Mile Island, in the ten (10) years after that accident. There was also an increase in the infant mortality rate within the same radius.

I remember everyone trying to pin blame for 911 on somebody. But up until that point there had not been a terrorist attack of that magnitude, from a foreign organization, in this country.

The same people who were screaming that something wasn't done before that happened, are the same ones who now say; "why should we worry about nuclear power when it hasn't hurt anyone?"

But, let me ask you this; why should we wait until someone dies, before we do something about this?!

We all saw the pictures from Chernobyl. We all read about, and watched Three Mile Island on TV. It COULD happen again, and I promise you that sooner or later, SOMEWHERE, it will!

I don't want it to happen. But, the law of averages being what they are, just says that it will happen. I guess until then, no body is going to listen....just like with everything else.

Patrook Goreng - Thank Goodness I live on the W coast

Uh, huh. You might want to research why you are not immune. I can name two of the old dangerous (design) Nuclear Power Plants on the West Coast.

J. Merle Stanley-2759623 - We all saw the pictures from Chernobyl. We all read about, and watched Three Mile Island on TV. It COULD happen again, and I promise you that sooner or later, SOMEWHERE, it will!

The whole point of this is that you are arguing about OLD DESIGNS versus Replacing these Old Designs with newer Safer designs that use less Nuclear Materials. Your arguement is like comparing old cars with no seat belts, or current safety equipment (air bags, etc.) compared to modern vehicles.

SF accountant

Fukushima was a double whammy, Earthquake and Tsunami.

J Merle Stanley...

And another projectile can strike the earth and create a life exterminating event as is theorized what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

So realizing that, and the fact that it CAN HAPPEN AGAIN... maybe you should just go to sleep and stay under the covers for the rest of your life.

Assuming Pyrrhic Victory and It is time are correct about the new generation of reactors and that we can use the spent light water reactor rods as fuel for the new generation reactors I'm not totally thrilled, because nature can do anything anywhere and we will always get a surprise thrown at us, but IF we highly regulate placement and construction, this may be a decent option until science has progressed to a point we can be even more efficient in how we get energy.

I was a student at Cal Poly when Diablo canyon was built. It was placed on the convergence of three faults and it was discovered two thirds to three quarter of the way to completion that the contractor had majorly cut corners. IF placement of reactors is done by geologists and seismologists instead of by political favors and the same for contractors building them we may just have a stop gap for transferring from fossil fuels to other more renewable forms of producing power. I have ZERO faith that free market capitalism will be held in check in favor of public safety so all I hope is that no more are built in California.

To everyone that talks about Fukishima, and having days of battery backup for cooling systems, and if we had a long-term event the batteries would die and the cooling systems would fail, thus, Fukishima.

But, it's a Nuclear Power Plant, why cant we make the cooling systems feeding off power from the reactor output, in a perpetual cycle? If you say that when they shut down a reactor, they pull the rods from the reactor, why not leave a few, small rods in solely to power critical systems?

I had a similar thought, realizing that if that "shut down" reactor was still producing so much heat that it needed active cooling and could melt, then it was producing enough heat to power the cooling system. A smaller heat engine, like a Stirling engine, would do nicely, no need for diesel backup that could run out of fuel, and it could keep running as long as needed.

Ah, yes, the law of averages. Every day, many people are killed by motor vehicles (including public transportation); therefore, ban motor vehicles of any stripe: gas, electric, etc...but wait! non-motorized vehicles also kill people. (Let's see, to what life event - of myriad life events - should I next apply the law of averages for the purpose of banning)?

Wake up now...

are you unaware there are over 300 Russian (defunct) Sodium cooled reactors strapped to satellites in the Earth's atmosphere? They leak radioactive waste (Sodium) daily that falls to earth.... Sodium coolant has the highest recorded radioactivity level ever....

CM

Reactor rods are NEGATIVE reactivity...you insert rods to shut down the reactor... they are neutron absorbers. You cannot think of a reactor as a battery. A reactor has to have every cm of space cooled and considered for reactivity...if one rod is left out then you have a ruptured fuel cell. All reactors have a pressurized system that will shove rods back in under 'any' circumstance to shut down the reactor...but that is not the issue.

The issue is short lived particles that decompose and add net heat to the reactor... even if reactivity is negative you still have to remove the heat or the cells will rupture...the cooling pumps remove this heat but primary coolant temperature will continue to raise unless the secondary system (steam plant) removes the excess heat. It ia an all or nothing design..you cannot live without one of the parts.

As a rule of thumb..... the first 4 hours after rod insertion are roughly the equivalent of 20-30% reactor power.

The other issue is you cannot force cold water into the reactor to cool it..as the cold water enters...it is more dense...and slows neutrons... which are absorbed by the fuel and fission occurs....even with rods inserted.

The design answer is to have redundant cooling plants to each core. If you have dual cooling plant failure.... pump the core with nonfissionable liquid material and stick the core in a tomb in Idaho... wash rinse repeat.

XDM

Actually that theory has been disproved...

The event was a mega volcano (multiple) in SE Asia.

I am sure that theory will be disproved also but till then...

Mark,

are you unaware there are over 300 Russian (defunct) Sodium cooled reactors strapped to satellites in the Earth's atmosphere? They leak radioactive waste (Sodium) daily that falls to earth.... Sodium coolant has the highest recorded radioactivity level ever....

Where did you get that information? Even if its true Sodium will bind with water molecules in the air. The radioactivity may be high but the dispersal of such material would be widespread. Spent Uranium however, is far more dangerous. Are you saying we should shoot radioactive material into the sun? I suppose you support space microwaves too?

Its a dangerous point of view..but the way the world is..we have no choice..we need backup to oil!

David.....The point is not that there are "newer, safer designs". But rather that, nuclear power itself is POISON. Period.....and if leaked into a residential community, or any area for that matter, it will KILL a good portion of the surrounding population, and make hundreds of square miles of land uninhabitable for decades to some.

Newer, safer designs are subject to the competency of the operator. It is operator failure that has been responsible for every Nuclear reactor accident with the exception of Fukushima.

And that's another thing; what about the possibility of extreme weather conditions like hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and floods? I'm sure they NEVER thought it would happen to them at Fukushima....but it did

What's more, EVERY design is "flawed" when a contingency arises that was not thought of before hand.

Why not nip it in the bud NOW, and seek out newer, safer, more natural forms of energy; instead of, putting lives at risk ...and I HAVE TO respond to the moron who posted this..........."XDm9mm

J Merle Stanley...

And another projectile can strike the earth and create a life exterminating event as is theorized what caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.

So realizing that, and the fact that it CAN HAPPEN AGAIN... maybe you should just go to sleep and stay under the covers for the rest of your life. ......................"

XDm9mm

LOL, my first question would be to ask if your mother had any children that lived?

My second would be to ask if YOU would like to invest $100,000 or more in a house right next to a nuclear power plant?

Maybe you already did, and THAT explains the brain damage.

Guys like you, are like the big "Ya-Da Ya-Da's" on the Titanic. The first ones to shoot their mouths off with BIG talk, were also first ones to jump into the life boats with the woman and children.

Go take your prozac now, have a cookie and lay down. You'll feel better when the medicine kicks in.

Here here.

problem is that the public doesn't see it as "replacing a nuclear plant with a safer design" they see it as "building a nuclear plant in their back yard"

I very much agree with this idea. And hey, more jobs too!

Best way to secure our energy independence for the forseeable future is to keep building more nuclear reactors. If we reprocess our waste as France does, it is actually one heck of a lot cleaner than coal or oil power. Getting a thorium research reactor online and scaling up would go a long way towards eliminating nuclear waste too as well as being more intrinsically safe than light water reactors. In fact, thorium reactors were once considered by the DoD for nuclear powered aircraft.

Has anyone asked Georgia if they are using AMERICAN SUPPLIERS or are they using CHINESE SUPPLIERS?

and with one mistake its a multi-generational disaster.

I'm an environmentalist.

But I'd rather have nukes than coal.

I also want them to totally repair and rework our power grid. It has so much waste it's not even funny. Think of the jobs produced there. Oh wait, the nutty environmentalists can't see that reworking the grid would actually be better for the environment in the long term.

Many 21st century environmentalists are more or less pro-nuclear power. If it's done safely, it's the best way to replace 19th century fossil fuels with clean energy. When you stop to think about it, it's unbelievable we still use coal and dinosaur remains to power our cars and cities.

ok fate, er clotho...

where do the enviromentalists stand on nuclear waste, why can't we get yucca vally up and running?

Chumb:

Another poster said it was because they found out the water table in the past was too high or something and they were worried that in the future it could flood again and spread the waste around.

Dunno the validity to that claim.

I don't know whether or not Yucca Valley would have flooded or not but it has to be better than Turkey Point Florida.

Ruken, it's Republicants that are against any investment in infrastructure in this country, including a smart electrical grid which could draw power from whatever source is most efficient at a particular time. The party of "no" calls it wasteful spending. The technology is available but no single company can pursue such a massive undertaking. It is the kind of thing progressives have been discussing and pursuing for years. Get a clue dude.

An environmentalist, defined as lets not change anything from the way it was, except, those things I don't like. Try making him live in a cave or walking everywhere, he'll shoot you with his bow and arrow. Cut off his electricity and you'll get a real reaction from him that cannot be aired in polite society. Like someone said I never met an environmentalist who would walk a mile in my shoes. He'll wait for the bus or a passing cab both of which are not environmentally correct.

Its a bit of a mixed bag with enviromentalists. Afterall, Cherynobyl now has a thriving ecosystem despite what happened.

OK, can we all agree that we ALL have problems with the way that the smoke and mirror, horse and pony show, three ring circus in Washington, D.C. (As well as in most of our State capitols) handle things from new postage stamps to nuclear reactors regardless of which party, if any, controls them?

Move off oil imo.

Use nuke plants and finish hydrogen cell cars.

Oh wait, the oil lobby owns politicians. My bad.

We need more nuclear plants, not more oil refineries.

We need both. It will be quite a few years before we can get off of oil.

One way or another, Oil is dying. The supply poses too many national security problems. Between ethanol (which is currently a big joke) and natural gas, $$ will stay here, and an alternative is pretty cheap and easy to get. There are much cheaper options for CNG and LNG engines or retrofits that can reduce the supply of diesel in trucks. Politicians are horrible, evil greedy people, but even they are seeing in bigger and bigger number that we really do need to find something else.

My concern with fuel cells are that they might technically produce their own power when hydrogen and oxygen combine, but in reality they work like a glorified battery in that the energy from power plants is essentially stored in the hydrogen that is freed with the electricity that is produced by cal and CNG power plants. Without good power plants, then they are just as dirty as any other technology. Right now, CNG and LNG are the best interim solutions for cars and trucks to reduce oil consumption. Our natural gas will last very likely at least 100 years, giving us enough time to find something else.

Oil does not run power plants though. Our choices are between Natural Gas, Coal, Solar and wind, and Nuclear. Solar and wind are not capable of delivering steady supplies of power. Coal is always very dirty. There is no such thing as clean coal. Nuclear power is nice, but power plants are too expensive and, are very difficult to get approval for. Gas is cleaner and decently cheap,. It will likely not run out within the service life of the power plants built today.

Ultimately, I think Nuclear power is nice, but will not be adopted like it arguably should. Ideally, coal would be replaced by Natural Gas until hopefully in 20-60 years, fusion power is possible and practical.

Doesn't ethanol put more net CO2 (between refining and combusting) into the atmosphere than gas?

I heard rumors but don't know for sure.

yeh. get rid of oil and make NUKE cars.

Would be really fun when the first 2 nuke cars crash.

Hiroshima all over again!

The hydrogen cell comment was meant for the cars, the nuke comment was meant for the power plants.

Ruken, The problem with ethanol is not really pollution. We really do not care enough about that, and will fudge the numbers as we need to if it is profitable. So, it does not matter if it pollutes, because destroying our planet is a slow enough process that we can just keep passing the buck further for now.

The problems with ethanol are that it consumes too much energy to produce, and that the world simply does not have enough arable land to both produce ethanol to replace gas and to grow food to feed the billions of us here. There are a lot of energy needs and not enough land and water to go around for both food and ethanol for everyone. When real gas shortages do hit, ethanol will be unable to help us much.

symbols_you,

You have no clue what would happen if two "nuclear" cars crashed. Would there be some radioactive debris scattered around, possibly depending on how the fuel is contained. Would there be a nuclear explosion? Absolutely 100% no. For there to be a nuclear explosion i.e. Hiroshima, the radioactive material has to reach critical mass. Not exactly an easy feat. This is rocket science (or nuclear science). Stop commenting on something that you know nothing about.

Yes to both! We have the crude but lack the refining capacity to make the product that comes out of them.

Ruken,

Re: the ethanol C02 question.

On top of what Hello said.

Corn is a lousy source for 2 reasons: Lots of energy to grow and the moral issue of using food that can feed the world's hungry (many in the US as well) to power our vehicles. Switch Grass or Hemp possibly are better but as Hello mentioned we need the land and water for food.

Also the c02 footprint is compounded when forests are clear cut and then burned to create more land to grow plants for food or fuel. There was an interesting article in National Geagraphic (I believe or a magazine like it) awhile ago where this is occurring all over South America. Rainforest, farmland and even ranches are being destroyed.

2 hydrogen cars crashing together could produce more havoc than a dozen nuke cars crashing together.

2 hydrogen cars crashing together could produce more havoc than a dozen nuke cars crashing together.

There are additives that stabilize it.

Any chance it could in Washington first?

Hate to break it to you, but with hydrogen it depends on what form it is in. If it is in the fuel cell state where the hydrogen is being "produced" then there is little chance of an explosion. Gasoline is more dangerous than hydrogen is. Except for when it is a pressurized canister of hydrogen. The problem is that Hydrogen is flammable at a wide concentration (4 - 75%) (gasoline flammability is 1.75 - 7.6%). Both will burn, but if you don't burn from gasoline flames, you probably won't burn from hydrogen either. Also, since it is lighter than air, those fires will burn upwards. The hindenberg burning didn't cause people to die. It was the fall or gasoline fires that killed people.

out of all the fossil fuels, natural gas is the one we should rely on the most, as it is the cleanest burning fossil fuel.

Hydrogen is inherently safer than gasoline. However, the downside to hydrogen is that it isn't a fuel source. It's a storage medium. There are no hydrogen mines. We make hydrogen using electricity and unfortunately about half our electricity is made by coal power plants.

Hydrogen is pretty lousy next to gasoline. It has a low energy density. In other words if you converted your 25 mpg gasoline car to hydrogen, it would get about 4 mpg. And you'd have to compress it to many thousands of PSI to achieve that.

Thanks for that tip, bullet.

Definitely. Thorium Molten Salt reactors sound like a much better way to go.

See this article in Popular Mechanics...

Thorium has nearly 200 times the energy content of uranium without creating plutonium. at:

And this one in Popular Science...

Concepts & Prototypes: Two Next-Gen Nukes at:

Oops, links don't work. Just search for the article on the web sites.

Popular Mechanics and Popular Science, been reading BOTH for 45 years. Have a nice day KYale. Remember the article about the WANKEL, I think that was the name, Turbine engine for cars that had like 8 moving parts and got 50 miles per gallon? I wonder whatever happened to that. I suppose the oil companies bought the plans and burned them.

The Wankel is not a turbine engine. (Making turbine blades is too expensive for regular cars, although a turbine engine car did almost win the Indy 500 once.) The Wankel probably went away simply because it didn't offer enough of an advantage over improved piston engine designs.

Mazdas used the Wankel in their cars in the 1970s and 80s. The old commercials were refering to it when the jingle went, "Other cars go *Boing, Boing, Boing", Mazda goes, "Hmmmmmmm"!

Wankels are rotary engines. The Mazda RX-8 (we had one) was the last car to have one. 2011 was the last model year. They just discontinued it because they aren't very efficient and they could never resolve problems they have with the seals.

Thanks for the information folks. I just remember reading about them first in Popular Mechanics. Peace.

That's because the oil pipeline didn't even have their route chosen.

You can't get a permit to build when you don't know where you want to build.

Also, the pipline issue isn't over. They can still reapply, but there wasn't enough time to do a complete survey and study of the environemtal impact. The rejection was done at the request of the state governors, mostly Republican.

I can't believe all of you bozo's think that nuclear reactors and country long pipelines can be built safely. They can't even build cars that don't have problems.......and cause death.

If that stuff comes, I'm going to try and make damn sure that all of it is in your state next to your babies, and not near mine.

They'll mostly likely be AP1000's. Siemens/Westinghouse not G.E. So go get another theory and blame someone else.

SosickoftheGop: "I can't believe all of you bozo's think that nuclear reactors and country long pipelines can be built safely"

You must have blinders on. You act as if nuclear power is a "new thing". You might be surprised to know that over 100 nuclear reactors have been operating all across the US for 30-40 years now. Most people have operating nuke plants near them and aren't even aware of it. You know why? Because there haven't been any major problems.

bonhead1: "hum ge who donates to obama and owns msnbc and builds nuc reactors is ok, looks like obama knows which side his bread gets buttered on, oh yea he's all for clean enviroment"

I guess you are also ignorant of the fact that GE is only one of several designers/manufacturers of nuclear components. GE manufactures, and makes more $$, from components for the fossil fuel sector of power generation (combustion turbines and steam turbines) than it does from nuke projects. GE is a small player in the nuke industry compared to Westinghouse, Mitsubishi, Areva, etc. GE's biggest projects are actually in the Middle East, providing power and water to the oil exporting nations.

nuclear reactors are safer than obama,,,and nuclear reactors are also build better than michelle obama

I guess you are also ignorant of the fact that GE is only one of several designers/manufacturers of nuclear components. GE manufactures, and makes more $$, from components for the fossil fuel sector of power generation (combustion turbines and steam turbines) than it does from nuke projects.

GE happens to build and sell the most efficient natural gas power plant available, the "H cycle Combined Cycle Gas Turbine", which reaches an astounding 60% efficiency. With that high efficiency and the current price of natural gas, it is cheaper than Nuclear power, and much safer, too.

Has anyone forgotten the raging nuclear disaster over in Japan?

Oh I forgot... The MSM has that under a Media News blackout.

Now I see why. To get this Georgia Nuclear disaster passed and built.

They don't pollute? So what happens with the reserves of nuclear waste we have? Where are we going to start piling the rest of it when we build more of these things?

There's leaks in these things all the time. Please learn the process of nuclear fission and what it produces.

technically they use natural resources, though i doubt too many environmentalists would want to hug a chunk of uranium ore.

@Ranman: yucca mountain was a perfect candidate killed because people didn't like the idea of waste being trucked through their state despite the fact that the containers can be hit by a train full of jet fuel and not leak.

Nuc's don't pollute?... and what is your answer to getting rid of the spent fuel rods?.... give me a break... and learn how these damn things work....

Yep, they're pretty clean except for the spent nuclear fuel that will take thousands of years to become even remotely 'clean'...if you can even call it that.

Nuclear power was a good idea on paper and it's been great for certain military applications, but it's kind of hard to discount the waste it creates and the downside of even 'minor' accidents.

Actually Yucca Mountain was scrapped because they discovered the water table at some point in the past was higher than they thought. (ie they worried water would again rise one day and flood the underground areas where the material would be stored and it would leak.

Though honestly it amazes me how stupid we are on this issue. Where do we get the Uranium? Where should we put it once were done using it? OH.... dur... just put it back where we found it. In fact it's LESS radioactive when we put it back than it was when we pulled it out. Or heck just put it into one of the subduction zones on the planets plates and watch it get sucked under a continent over millenia... won't come out for eons.

It's amazing we call the spent fuel "waste" it's the same thing we pulled out of the ground! Except now it's degraded more since we used it for nuclear power. It's just accelerating the natural decay that the uranium goes through, just put it back where we found it and POOF problem solved. OUr ancestors lived with uranium in the ground for a long time somehow i dont think its a big issue if we grind it up with a couple million tons of dirt and bury it.

In fact it's LESS radioactive when we put it back than it was when we pulled it out.

Not even remotely correct.

Or just blast it into space, if that's really your cup of tea.

But then we'd need to give more funding to NASA, because I wouldn't want the Russians in charge of that task.

If we did all go onto nuclear power, it would take a much larger number of reactors than we have now. Yes, nuclear power does consume resources. If we got rid of all other types of power, the world would run out of nuclear fuel in something like 100 years, if it were exclusively used as the only type of power plant. So no matter how you slice it, we will eventually run out of fuel, if we use nuclear power in any significant way (although that might take a while).

Natural Gas, Coal, Oil, and Nuclear Fission will all eventually be impossible due to lack of fuel, given enough time. Wind and solar rely on too much materials and are not efficient enough yet, not to mention that they do not produce power continually. Nuclear fusion, when we get it, will literally never run out of fuel.

Ranman,

It is true that there is less radioactive uranium, but that's not the problem. The problem are the other isotopes which are byproducts of the fission reaction. A majority of those other radioactive species would exist in a chunk of radioactive uranium if enough of it was in a concentrated area. Therefore it would be naturally existing.

Something like 100 years? Are you sure about that?

I'm not necessarily disputing that figure, as I have no alternative number, but I'm wondering where you got that. Have people even looked at how long it would take to use up all the uranium on the planet? Is that even a rational concern? Nuclear reactors use relatively little fuel, in terms of mass to output. I would be surprised if we could really burn through all the currently known uranium supplies in a measly hundred years.

Finally long past due. Now just build about 200 or so more nuke plants and replace the coal burning plants. Frack our shale deposits for the NG, oil, open the pipeline to CAnanda convert all cars to dual use hybreds using NG, gasoline and electric . Stop wasting money on wind mills, trolley cars, light rail pipedream and solar projects and we then have an energy policy that will get America working again. All we need is to get rid of the current president and his croines and get someone in charge with half a brain to get this country on the right track.I am looking forward to November 2012.

Let the arabs keep their F****** oil.

Spent fuel rods? Sell them to China, they'll build toys out of them, paint them with lead based paint and send them back to us.

kama

Actually Yucca Mountain was scrapped because they discovered the water table at some point in the past was higher than they thought. (ie they worried water would again rise one day and flood the underground areas where the material would be stored and it would leak.

Though honestly it amazes me how stupid we are on this issue. Where do we get the Uranium? Where should we put it once were done using it? OH.... dur... just put it back where we found it. In fact it's LESS radioactive when we put it back than it was when we pulled it out. Or heck just put it into one of the subduction zones on the planets plates and watch it get sucked under a continent over millenia... won't come out for eons.

It's amazing we call the spent fuel "waste" it's the same thing we pulled out of the ground! Except now it's degraded more since we used it for nuclear power. It's just accelerating the natural decay that the uranium goes through, just put it back where we found it and POOF problem solved. OUr ancestors lived with uranium in the ground for a long time somehow i dont think its a big issue if we grind it up with a couple million tons of dirt and bury it.

Kama, you should refrain from commenting on something you know nothing about. Before uranium is used in nuclear reactors, it is enriched, causing it to be more radioactive than when it was first mined, because all the contaminants are removed. Uranium 235, which is what is primarily used in nuclear reactors has a half life of 709 million years, meaning that the radioactivity will decay to half it's original level in that time. fuel rods are only used for about 6 years So it is NOT less than when it was mined.

Yucca was scrapped because after the predicted containment failure, the waste will seep through crevices and into the water, not that it would flood. Also the Bow ridge fault line was discovered to fall below some of the containment areas.

Yeah you should probably not talk about things YOU dont understand.

Atoms exist with the same number of protons but can have different isotops with different numbers of neutrons (IE Carbon ALWAYS has 6 protons but can have different numbers of neutrons). We use a specific isotop in nuclear reactors.

"Enriching" uranium is the process of seperating the less radioactive (depleted uranium) from the more radioactive uranium (the one we use in power plants/bombs). So actually YES i am right.

Enriched uranium if mixed back in with the depleted uranium and mix impurities that natually exist in uranium ore will be LESS radioactive than when you pulled it out of the ground. Why? because the more radioactive isotop that we pulled out and used has had decay and thus has become a less radioactive atom lower on the periodic table. (also the depleted uranium is also continually decaying all the time to)

If you want to learn more about Enrichment open a chemistry book or take the 30 seconds it takes to search it on wikipedia.

This unfortunately is pretty common among people who are anti nuclear power. They fail to understand the basics. We don't make uranium MORE radioactive, but we don't use Plutonium in nuclear power plants (what im assuming you THOUGHT enrichment meant)

Now plutonium can be a byproduct of nuclear power but the net result is (like enrichment) a more concentrated radiation source. This relatively small amount can be left with spent fuel rods (and indeed is in them) and just left with the uranium and treated the same, the end result is still a less radioactive source in the ground than when we found it. (this of course assumes you mix it back up and bury it)

It's also worth mentioning many plants for a long time intentionally wanted the plutonium because we used it to make bombs, now since we no longer make the plutonium it's still being created but in smaller amounts (plus plutonium has an 88 year halflife so its really not to big of an issue)

BTW props to Hellohowareyou? Fusion power is the way to go unfortunately there's lots of ignorant people who don't understand it. One of the few things Bush did that i liked was getting USA funding back into ITER (experimental fusion plant in France).

Using nuclear fission to boil water to make electricity is like using a cannon to light a match. It is expensive, inherently unstable, unsafe, and pollutes for 10s of thousands of years. Not to mention of course that the people that mine the pitchblend ore die of radiation poisioning.

As compared to burning coal? I agree uranium fission plants aren't ideal but nothing is. People die in the same numbers from coal mines as from uranium mines (actually more from coal but there are many more coal plants), minings inherently dangerous. I'd prefer if we got the Fussion power plant stuff worked out (IE triple ITER's funding) but in the mean time fission power WORKS and is cost effective

Well, we didn't do it, but the French did!

They do it the French way...

We did we had a storage facility in Neveda at the cost of 13 billion dollars and 22 years work,all put to a stop when Obama took office,You can not make a nuclear bomb out of spent fuel rods,in fact you would get more radiation from traveling across country in a plane. All those freaky movies about radiation was just that a movie to scare people.

Stormer ....I'm no nuclear scientist .....but I am pretty sure that stuff can be used to make a dirty bomb. I will agree with Gorilla's sarcasm. Not to mention ....I'm sure you know the difference between storing and recycling....

Yeah, you could make a dirty bomb from spent radioactive fuel...

Of course, spreading around waste to give people radiation poisoning has to be the most convoluted, ridiculously ineffecient way to kill people. Most terrorists would give up, pick up their guns and just go shoot somebody to save time and keep from getting gook all over their hands.

As for the waste it produces, solid nuclear waste seems much easier to deal with to me than the millions of tons of waste we're currently churning into the air with coal, oil, and to a lesser extent, gas power. It's essentially a matter of "choose your poison": greenhouse gases and lung infection, or toxic waste dump?

I'd choose the toxic waste dump, but sadly, nobody ever consults me on these issues.

Did you even read the story?

A disaster for whom?

I'm a liberal and i support nuclear power

Liberal here and I think we should embrace nuclear power, and increase funding for fusion and thorium based reactors. Pay for it by eliminating tax loopholes for the oil companies.

I want my energy made in America, where the proceeds of it are kept domestic and the environmental impacts are reduced.

Whats this world coming to, I'm agreeing with a Liberal

We have bipartisian support!

IT'S A MIRACLE!

Now THIS is a milestone on the vines, way to agree folks.

Obama didn't stop what?

Didn't stop keeping his promise to help finance new nuclear power plants, I suppose.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/02/president_obama_promises_to_he.html

Obama makes many decisions based soly on politics. No secret there.

It scares me how much power some people think a POTUS has...and therefore, how much power they are willing to give him/her.

Either way, he probably can delay the decision...and I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

if he wasn't up for re-election they wouldn't be building. obama two faced liar, how about the pipeline. yeah piece of crap. Lian about jobs too, the first 2 years for extension on unemployment is over, their has to be at least 1.5 to 2 million people that can't collect right now so the jobs market isn't there, just more bull@!$%#.

Michael:

The pipeline was denied because they didn't even have the route finalized.

You can't get a permit to build when you haven't chosen where to build.

no, really the pipeline was denied because they were pushing and pushin and the hell with permits and all that.......truth be told they were 1 hiring canadians to work on it 2 using it to get oil to the gulf to sell to china, or whomever was the highest bidder. Clue: when u call it "transCANADA" that means it goes ACROSS canada, NOT the U.S. In Nebraska they threatened to invoke "imminent domain" on farmers that didnt want to sell them their land so they could soak it with oil...what phukin DOMAIN does a foreign country have within the borders of the U.S. ??????

You are absolutely right, I listened to one of the men envolved. He was asked point blank if the fuel flowing through the pipe, whether it would be between the US and Canada he said he resevered the right to sell on world market . Now u know that will go to China.

@Obama, a.f.e.: How many "politians" you figure don't make decisions based on politics? By definition, I bet that number is vanishingly small :)

To "Obama, a failed experiment" (16.3):

And your beloved buddies Bush #1 and Bush #2 didn't???????????

Are you that stupid????? (Obviously YES.)

Bush #1 and #2 didn't support Nuclear Power because they're oilmen.

Bush #1 and #2 didn't support Nuclear Power because they're oilmen

Electric cars maybe, but most electricity is produced using coal, which has nothing to do with oil. The main benifit of using nuclear is to reduce coal emissions. We don't produce electricity with oil.

In what way would nuclear power generation compete with oil, or do you simply just like bashing the Bush's regardless if you are making any sense or not?

Bush #1 and #2 didn't support Nuclear Power because they're oilmen

?? Oil and nuclear power are almost non-competing and, in fact, they mutually benefit each other. The increased use of one will lead to the increased use of another.

Okay, OKAY, I stand corrected, you both have a nice day. Geesh!

Mmmm...this is one where most people would be ok with gov't intrusion. Utilities are hardly private enterprises with as much government oversight they have, plus the fact that they are basically forced to be monopolies. Unless you want 10 power plants and 10 sets of power lines in your neighborhood, almost everybody is okay with government involvement in utilities to some extent...provided the energy is proven and not just some wild guess.

You have a point. But on the other hand, the prospects of nuclear power are crippled badly by the truly comprehensive safety concerns and regulations that make cost overruns inevitable and make reactors very difficult to build.

Normally I favor liberalization and repealing regulations in these cases, but given that a safety failure in a nuclear reactor can devastate an entire region and cause widespread damage, this is a case where I'm willing to give the government all the slack it needs to nitpick the utilities into line.

So how do you make an energy generator competitive when it suffers from crippling government regulations and rules? Well, you give them a government handout to sweeten the deal.

It's inefficient, but efficiency could lead to meltdowns, so I'm okay with that.

SO accountant,

I'll assume that you are an accountant. How about if I as a government agent tell you that you have to write all of your calculations on college ruled paper. What about if I tell you that you have to use a TI83 calculator to do all of your calculations. Do those regulations help you do your job safer or with more accuracy?

I am in favor of regulations, but I am in favor of smart regulations. Just because a dumb government agent says that you have to do something one way, doesn't mean that it is the best/safest way to get it done. I believe that good regulation comes as a result of cooperation between the government agencies and the companies. If there is open conversation between the two, the agent can learn what really needs to be regulated and what does not.

I absolutely agree with you. And in any single case in which a safety failure wouldn't end up with radioactive ash covering entire cities and potentially giving a chunk of the population cancer, I'd say to hell with the stupid rules and let the industry do anything that isn't actively killing people or already illegal.

But nuclear power IS special. Part of the Fukushima disaster was caused because the regulator was too cozy with the regulated, and as a result the law wasn't followed. The nuclear plant SHOULD have been able to deal with the damage it suffered if it had followed the regulations in place, but it wasn't, and it was revealed that the regulatory agencies were extremely lax in enforcing their own rules.

Not that I think the world would be pockmarked with nuclear craters if we left the utilities to their own devices, but I, and many others it would seem, demand a greater level of assurance than the nuclear industry's own self-interest.

Kudos to both accountant and boh, well thought statements without name calling. Maybe there is hope to reading some off these threads. Nah, I am sure it was just a cosmic accident.

for trying to applaud the correctness of another commenter you sure do skip of one blatant myth on your own comment. the fuel used in nuclear reactors isn't configured for a nuclear chain reaction like those seen in bombs.

James:

They're configured for a chain reaction. That's sorta necessary.

There's just safeguards to prevent a runaway chain reaction, like the type you see in bombs.

@Ruken and James: A runaway chain reaction does not result in a nuclear bomb. It is simply called a "meltdown". For a runaway chain reaction to manifest as a nuclear bomb it requires a "super critical" mass, and "...the amount of material required for criticallity is modified by shape, purity, density, and the proximity to neutron-reflecting material, all of which affect the escape or capture of neutrons."

Actually, I think the point James was trying to make is that fuel for commercial reactors isn't enriched to the same degree as what is required for reliable weapons. Of course, a chain reaction is still required, but it takes more fuel (in total) to reach sustainable criticality.

@jukkou: Do you have the slightest idea how a thorium reactor works?

I can't believe all the pseudo scientific crap going on in here.

-Actual scientist working in nuclear technology.

@Jukkou You obviously have no clue on the subject. Its funny how people with an overblown sense of their own opinion and intellect, put their ignorance on display for all to see by posting nonsense. The sad thing is that your vote counts as much as mine, and other knowledgeable people. That is how we've gotten the clowns like Barry in office. I guess the old addage in the eye of the blind, the one eye will be king. Ignorant people admire and look up to people only a slightly bit ignorant than they are.

We can get rid of the fuel...spent billions on it already...bury it...That's why god made west Texas and eastern Nevada... It also does not generate the deadly CO2 emmissions...

Hello Teo, What about New Mexico bone head.