Think of a mummy movie -- any mummy movie.
Treasure hunters enter a pyramid. The explorers either ignore or can't read the hieroglyphics warning of the curse that awaits those who open the 3,000-year-old sarcophagus before them. The mummy awakens and kills most of the cast.
Rough translation: Seriously dude,
do not open this door.
Photo: iStockphoto
If only those ancient Egyptians had done a better job warning future treasure-hunters not to mess with their sarcophagi.
Today, the U.S. government faces a similar task: figuring out how to warn descendants hundreds to thousands of years in the future about buried nuclear waste -- material that can remain deadly for millennia. As cleanups proceed at shuttered sites and talk brews about building new plants, the question is more pressing than ever.
How do you tell someone centuries from now not to dig up radioactive waste from a burial site that may be long-forgotten, or from a place that's attractive to the curious? A thousand years from now, will the United States still exist? Will an earthquake or volcano have wrecked the burial site? Will the people understand English? Who will show up at an ancient, possibly forgotten burial mound in the year 3000 A.D. -- Mad Max, or the Jetsons, or someone we can't even imagine?
While the Department of Energy has held preliminary discussions about some scattered nuclear waste and uranium tailing sites, there has been no coordination between the sites so far. "We're very concerned about it," says Ray Plieness, acting director for land and site management for DOE's fledgling Office of Legacy Management, established in late 2003 to clean up the nation's messes. "We're in the infancy stages in discussing it."
Dear Future People: Oops
Richland, Wash., home of the Hanford nuclear site, is often cited as the most radioactively and chemically contaminated spot in the Western Hemisphere. This is where the world's first industrial-sized nuclear reactor was built, where the plutonium for the first atomic bombs originated. Today, Hanford has hundreds of contaminated buildings, including nine long-shutdown reactors and five closed chemical-processing plants, each slightly bigger than an average World War II battleship.
Hanford is one of a few dozen former nuclear production sites scattered across the nation, relics of the Cold War that include sprawling facilities at Idaho Falls, Idaho, and Savannah River, S.C. Across the country, the government is undertaking more than 100 cleanup projects at such sites. All the projects have a common thread: they'll end up burying wastes with half-lives of up to thousands of years.
Inside the storage facility at Carlsbad,
N.M.
Photo: Sandia National Laboratories
The best-known burial sites are a half-mile deep artificial cavern near Carlsbad, N.M., and the controversial proposed site at Yucca Mountain, Nev. More waste will be or already is buried at Hanford, Savannah River, Idaho Falls, and elsewhere.
Much of the waste is supposed to be kept isolated for 10,000 years -- more than twice the age of the beat-up and cryptic pyramids and Stonehenge. Right now, these DOE sites are usually protected with "keep out" signs, chain-link fences, and guards. However, there's no guarantee that any of those measures will be feasible more than a few decades from now.
The problem of how to produce more permanent warnings is coming up quickly for Hanford, where a battleship-sized plutonium extraction factory -- a place dubbed "U Plant" -- is supposed to be buried under a huge on-site mound by 2012. That and similar sites may prove tempting places to dig centuries from now. "You've got to think of reverse psychology," says Kevin Leary, DOE's technical leader for the U Plant project. "What if you tweaked someone's curiosity [to dig instead of avoid digging]?"
At Hanford, a rough rule of thumb for planners is to look ahead 1,000 years. That's like a Viking trying to conceive of an astronaut, then trying to pass a note to him.
Experts inside and outside of DOE have pondered this communication conundrum. The agency has assembled panels of scientists, historians, artists, and others to tackle from all angles the question of how a 21st century sign should look to a 31st century person. From symbols to colors to materials to size, everything's up for grabs -- and nothing's been decided. The leading plans for the major sites in New Mexico and Nevada involve enormous berms, monuments, time capsules, and more. Meanwhile, detractors say that will only draw unnecessary attention, and suggest that the best notification is no notification at all.
Amidst the uncertainty, Jim Wise, an associate professor of psychology and adjunct professor of environmental science at Washington State University, led a course last year on developing nuclear warning systems. Wise says the ultimate solution doesn't have to be a shot in the dark: "There is enough evidence to make some responsible decisions."
Color Me Radioactive
Pointing out that many of the potential warning designs suggested to date stress creativity and beauty rather than rigorously analyzing the psychology of what someone in 3000 A.D. might understand, Wise paints a picture of the challenges ahead.
Look at manuscripts from England that survived from 1000 A.D., Wise says. First of all, very few of those documents made the 1,000-year journey entirely intact. And the written English is indecipherable to most people today. Although we understand some aspects of what life was like then, most of that era is a mystery to us. Given our track record of understanding 1000 A.D.'s communications, Wise speculates that a nuclear-waste burial site would need at least seven different types of warnings in order for at least one to survive 1,000 years and be interpreted correctly.
Now take into consideration that language, science, and technology have evolved much faster in the past 200 years than in the previous 800. And future changes will likely accelerate over the next millennium. After all, videotapes were state of the art in the 1980s, and are antiquated today. Computers become obsolete in less than five years -- so what are the chances of a warning sign lasting 1,000 years at a nuclear burial site? The bottom line is, no one knows what to expect.
In 2005, along with undergraduate student Stuart Davis, Wise met with DOE officials at Hanford to discuss the findings of his class. Many of the group's ideas, says Plieness, have come up in discussions at other DOE sites as well.
As far as materials go, Wise and Leary think ceramics -- perhaps buried at varying depths above the waste -- might do the job. Others suggest concrete or stone. Wise fears that steel and most metals would likely corrode or be salvaged for some other purpose during the next several hundred years. One anti-theft device might be to use the burial mound itself as a warning, Wise says, noting that furrows and ridges could be incorporated in the design so the wind blowing across would make a sinister sound -- or that long-lived, prickly vegetation could be planted on or around the sites.
Whatever the size of the warning, Wise suggests following nature's lead by using bright colors, long an indicator from one creature to another to back off. These include a bee's black and yellow stripes, a coral snake's red and yellow stripes, a monarch butterfly's wings -- even the exaggerated contrast between the pupils and whites of human eyes, which allow others to read fear.
Wise contends that any warnings should be based on universal symbols of danger: things like sharp teeth, claws, lightning bolts, even today's biohazard symbol. "As forms get sharper and get more edges, people dislike them, even in abstract images," he says.
Circles and other symmetrical images, on the other hand, are comfortable at a gut level. And that immediately raises red flags. Today's universal sign for prohibited items -- a red circle with a diagonal slash -- could easily be knocked askew over the next few hundred years, ending up looking more like a pictograph of a hamburger, Davis says. And the well-known skull-and-crossbones symbol, also symmetrical, won't necessarily retain its meaning. "Someone might find a copy of Pirates of the Caribbean, and say there's buried treasure there [where a skull-and-crossbones marker is found]," Davis adds.
Photo: iStockphoto
And what about today's radiation warning sign? "It's unfortunate that the radiation symbol looks the way it does, because it doesn't look very threatening," Wise says. "Someone might look at it and ask: 'Why did someone bury all these propellers?'"
Go Tell It On the Mountain
Wise's group suggested sending a warning to future generations through "memory stewardship" -- essentially ingraining the dangers of radiation into folklore that's passed from generation to generation. The need for awareness is underscored by DOE's Plieness, who says it could also be achieved by teaching about the waste sites in local schools.
Plieness also says it will be necessary to plan for technology evolving into unforeseen forms, by setting up administrative rules that would require pertinent nuclear-waste information to be added to and stored in whatever state-of-the-art information system exists at that time. Sounds straightforward, but there are almost too many unknowns to analyze.
For his part, Wise hopes that a survey similar to one Davis conducted -- which asked 75 southeastern Washington residents what symbols, shapes, and colors inspired the most fear, with lightning, triangles, and red and black the top vote-getters -- will be conducted across other nations and cultures. This, he says, could help gauge what will truly speak to every culture's gut, now and down the unknown road.
Ask Umbra on shower caps, computers, and junk mail
Seventh Generation launches anti-toxics campaign with wee gimmick
Ask Umbra on her hotness, corporate gift baskets, and more
Comments
View as Flat
Matt Painter Posted 6:06 am
08 Aug 2006
Permalink
Jawfish Posted 6:46 am
08 Aug 2006
I have never seen a projection that we'll be able to supply enough electricity to support the current lifestyle of the first world, let alone the coming usage in China and India, without massive coal and nuclear build-up.
Even allowing for much greater conservation, and a very optimistic schedule for new technology, is there any way we can avoid coal and nukes for the next century? If not, then it's simply unrealistic to fight nukes, we should be regulating them carefully. If so, and there is a viable way to go straight to sustainable power, let's get the word out quickly.
Permalink
Howell Haus Posted 6:57 am
08 Aug 2006
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:59 am
08 Aug 2006
Permalink
shannonbinns Posted 7:26 am
08 Aug 2006
As evidence, in 2004 I worked with WashPIRG on a campaign to prevent the Department of Energy (DOE) from dumping additional wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State until cleaning up the existing waste, which is moving towards the Columbia River via groundwater. We did this by placing an initiative on the November ballot and raising awareness of it across the state. Essentially, the initiative stated that if passed, the DOE would be forced to clean up the mess before making it worse.
The initiative passed by the LARGEST MARGIN OF ANY IN STATE HISTORY -- nearly 70% voted for it.
To me, this clearly reinforces the American public's position on nuclear waste generation and storage of its unavoidable radioactive wastes: Not In My Back Yard - better known as NIMBY.
And as far as those who advocate nuclear energy, I wonder how many would continue to do so if the backyard chosen for a new plant was their own.
Permalink
disdaniel Posted 8:33 am
08 Aug 2006
Permalink
EnergyDude Posted 10:01 am
08 Aug 2006
From this standpoint I feel that I have an informed basis from which to argue derived from my interning experience.
The issue of NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) is quite ridiculous. Nuclear plants and fuel production facilities must meet strict coding requirements and have extensive buffer zones in order to even think about breaking ground. The Yucca Mt. project is even more remote. The mountain is in the middle of the desert. If you go out to the facility you will see that even standing from the highest reachable point on the mountain, you will see nothing even remotely resembling civilization. The spent fuel is to be stored deep underground, and the nearest water aquifer has been evaluated by geoligists to be completely isolated, and not drawn on from any domestic water source or otherwise. This plan has been approved by congress.
The only reason that there are spent fuel rods all over the US just sitting at nuclear plants is because Harry Reid will not allow the rods to go to Yucca Mt. regardless of the previous act passed.
Rolling Harry's filibuster on the Hill is quite a difficult proposition, but if the other senators would get on board it could happen and that spent fuel can finally go where it was meant to. Otherwise where have all of our tax dollars gone all these years (23 to be exact). They have gone into military spending, government subsidies to less appealing energy, and a multitude of other wasteful government expenditures.
Before going on an emotional and unbased rant on any topic of interest it is best to look the facts first, then bring your hopefully somewhat more intelligent argument to the table.
Permalink
PeterPage Posted 11:38 am
08 Aug 2006
New nukes are another matter. My bet is an honest carbon impact analysis would conclude a new will have to run as long as our old nukes have already just to offset the CO2 emissions needed to build, fuel and maintain the plant.
Not that we ought to be guessing.
Permalink
shannonbinns Posted 1:01 pm
08 Aug 2006
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:53 pm
08 Aug 2006
That says it all so well. Excellent.
Permalink
spacerkev Posted 4:03 pm
08 Aug 2006
Whatever the true toll of the Chernobyl accident, even conceding a worst case scenario, what most characterises the contribution of civilian nuclear power to world energy production is its relative safety compared to all other means of energy production.
In terms of direct deaths per terawatt produced since 1972, Coal killed 342, Hydro 883 and natural gas 85, but only 8 fatalities were recorded per terawatt of nuclear power.(1) In fact, this statistic vastly underestimates the relative hazards of fossil fuels as the indirect deaths from pollution caused by Coal powered stations worldwide is estimated at over 5 million per year.
A 1000 MW(e) coal plant, depending on sulphur content, sends annually millions of tons of Carbon dioxide, 44 000 tonnes of sulphur oxides and 22 000 tonnes of nitrous oxides into the atmosphere causing acid rain and poor human health. Additionally, there are 320 000 tonnes of ash containing 400 tonnes of heavy metals for which abatement procedures themselves produce as much as 500 000 additional tonnes of solid waste that must be disposed of.
If the potential future climate change impact of the billions of tons of carbon emitted yearly from conventional power plants is taken into consideration, the death toll of say, heat waves in Europe or drought in Africa may, sooner or later, need to be added to the already massive indirect costs of conventional power.
Vattenfall, the Swedish energy company produces electricity from Nuclear, Hydro, Coal, Gas, Solar Cell, Peat and Wind energy and has produced accredited Environment Product Declarations for all these processes.
Vattenfall finds that averaged over the entire lifecycle of their Nuclear Plant including Uranium mining, milling, enrichment, plant construction, operating, decommissioning and waste disposal, the total amount CO2 emitted per KW-Hr of electricity produced is 3.3 grams per KW-Hr of produced power.
Vattenfall measures its CO2 output from Natural Gas to be 400 grams per KW-Hr and from coal to be 700 grams per KW-Hr.
Thus nuclear power generated by Vattenfall emits less than one hundredth the CO2 of Fossil-Fuel based generation. In fact Vattenfall finds its Nuclear Plants to emit less CO2 over the lifecycle than even green energy production mechanisms such as Hydro, Wind, Solar and Biomass.
Of course, all these methods emit much less carbon than fossil fuel electricity and they all have a respected place in our energy future. Until cheap and ultra efficient large energy storage systems become available only nuclear power can replace large coal burning plants.
Once PBMR's are in full production they may be able to generate energy at about 1.7 US cents per kWh, well below the costs of new coal, gas or wind plants, and far below the cost of other nuclear power.
In conclusion, I'll quote from James Lovelock, who's research ultimately saved the planet when he discovered CFCs in the atmosphere in 1973.
"Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation... If we fail to concentrate our minds on the real danger, which is global warming, we may die even sooner, as did more than 20,000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer."
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:14 pm
08 Aug 2006
Nuclear power is simply too expensive.
Wind, wave, solar power, electric cars, and geothermal heat pumps will do the job at a price we can afford and reverse global climate change.
And at the same time revive the DOA US manufacturing sector and with it the tax base. Do you want every US child born to inherit the 500k debt that these neoconmen have saddled them with to pay for their oily military industrial nightmare? I don't.
It is physically impossible to build enough nukes to put a dent in global climate change in time to save spaceship earth. No one wants them anywhere near their homes, the lawsuits alone would bankrupt the effort.
And the disastrous performance of the nuclear contractor/government alliance, would need to be turned around first. With industry self (no) regulation that can never happen.
The largest provider of corporate jet joy rides for congress? The nuclear industry lobbyists.
Lovelock didn't save the planet yet and he won't do it with this nuclear powered self deception.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 2:53 am
09 Aug 2006
Nuclear is climate-friendly; the people who say "what about this carbon-emitting step, what about that one" are innumerate, but not so innumerate that they don't know their questions are dishonest.
Because of government's fossil fuel interest, those who question the future of nuclear waste and then cash government cheques are lobbying for carbon monoxide deaths. They know no analogous harm has ever come from nuclear waste, even though all of it is today only a few decades old, and vastly hotter than it will be in a century or so.
How much income would you stand to lose if you started repeating my nuclear-is-clean message, merely because you know it to be true? That's your price. Rather than continue to take that money, you would be better off eating a fuel rod.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Boron: internal combustion, nuclear cachet:
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
Permalink
kmp Posted 3:52 am
09 Aug 2006
I find it hard to believe that a majority of people actually want a nuclear reactor in their backyard. Perhaps my circle of friends are simply NIMBY-bastards, but I don't know a single person who wants a reactor close by. In fact there is an active grassroots campaign to stop renewal of Indian Point's license (a reactor on the Hudson about 1 hour north of NYC).
Permalink
EnergyDude Posted 5:26 am
09 Aug 2006
How many people died in America alone last year from motor vehicles? 47,200!!! That cost Americans $245.2 billion dollars in just 2005 alone!!! Check my facts: http://www.atsip.org/index.php/news/.
Now...Is powering our homes, cars (in the future), factories, and nearly everything imaginable a necessity? We throw that away for a ONE isolated incident?
How many people died from a single, completely avoidable accident in unregulated EASTERN EUROPE? 112? Are you kidding me? That number isn't even a percentage of who we kill on our roadways in a single year....
Face the facts! Nuclear is SAFE! Nuclear is CLEAN! I can get you facts on these as well. Talk to an informed source before going to a fire-breathing, rumor spitting anti-nuclear activist.
Will people ever wake up from their fear driven false reality?
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:26 am
09 Aug 2006
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_33/b39970...
Permalink
EnergyDude Posted 7:24 am
09 Aug 2006
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 7:57 am
09 Aug 2006
So what, in my opinion, is really illuminating is to compare hypothetical nuclear deaths to routine real deaths that, without nuclear energy, obviously would occur that much more often: coal mine disasters, pipeline explosions, household gassings by furnaces where a nuclear-powered heat pump could have served.
This makes it easy for common sense to get a grip, and see that, while it would be very odd if real people were unaware that nuclear is a lifesaver, it's understandable that fossil fuel interests try to suggest this; they're trying to blame the victim.
So by asking, "Will people ever wake up from their fear driven false reality?", you're missing the point. It's not people who fear nuclear energy, it's fossil fuel interests. Unfortunately, because of fossil fuel taxation, that includes anyone whose financial mainstay is a government cheque.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Boron: maybe nuclear will save some drivers after all
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 8:02 am
09 Aug 2006
You misspelled "gross-rats".
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Boron: internal combustion without exhaust gas:
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:10 am
09 Aug 2006
In January 1982, the WPPSS board stopped construction on Plants 4 and 5 when total cost for all the plants was projected to exceed $24 billion.
http://historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5482
Northwest ratepayers were stuck with more than $7 billion in WPPSS debts.
http://www.bluefish.org/wilwppss.htm
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 9:07 am
09 Aug 2006
The default, meaning bonds that were unable to secure sufficient revenue to make its required posting to pay its coupons, was on the order of 2.4 billion.
These power plants were being planned when electricity growth was assummed to 7% per year or more. What happen between 1975 and 1982 is that this growth rate dropped to 2%. Suddenly there was no need for all these power plants.
Other projects also failed at the same time, but others continued on to opertion. Some were converted to natural gas or lead to the bankruptcy of the purchasing utility.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 10:10 am
09 Aug 2006
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 1:38 pm
09 Aug 2006
In any case let's not get in a rush to build nuclear today when solar and wind are ready today and can only get better over time.
Permalink
Emily Cunningham Posted 5:49 am
10 Aug 2006
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:58 am
10 Aug 2006
Permalink
northbranch Posted 2:18 am
15 Aug 2006
Steven Cohen writes that "When we drive on an interstate highway, we face the risk of a crash. We accept the risk because it is relatively low, and because the effect of the risk is localized. A mistake in a nuclear power plant, however, can cause long-standing, widespread damage to people and ecosystems."
Well, actually, in 60 years of the civilian nuclear industry, there has been one (1) accident that caused widespread damage. According to an intensive study by the World Health Organization, the Chernobyl accident might eventually result in as many as 4,000 premature deaths.
Four thousand deaths in 60 years -- is that a lot? Well, not compared to the everyday carnage on the world's roads - about 4,000 people die in traffic accidents, on average, every 30 hours, for a total of 1.2 million people around the world every year.
But if we really want to estimate the danger posed by cars and trucks, we need to add in the tens of thousands of premature deaths due to smog each year, in North America alone. About half of that smog comes from the smokestacks on our cars and trucks, while most of the rest comes from the smokestacks on non-nuclear power plants. Oh, and there's the inconvenient matter of global warming, which will have widespread and quite likely catastrophic impacts for many generations; in the US, 70 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are due to transportation. Not to mention the fact that the oil consumed in the manufacture of a car generally equals the oil burned during the lifetime of the car. Not to mention that to make space for all these cars to drive and park, we've had to turn our cities and suburbs into concrete wastelands, which soak up heat while quickly flushing cooling rains down the sewers.
The dangers posed by the auto-industrial complex are orders of magnitude greater than the dangers posed by nuclear power. The overwhelming environmental priority should be to decommission the auto-industrial complex. Once we've done that, if we've survived global warming, and if we've built a new car-free way of life, and if we've got enough renewable sources for our new, energy-reduced civilization, then we might want to look at phasing out nuclear power.
Permalink
practically green Posted 2:18 am
15 Aug 2006
I also think it's important to point out, since people keep citing the incident at Chernobyl, that the reactor at Chernobyl is VASTLY DIFFERENT from those in the US. Thanks to the cold war, the US didn't share ideas about moderating materials for nuclear reactors. The Soviets used graphite, which is flammable & almost certainly contributed to that meltdown. US reactors use deuterium or "heavy water" as a moderator. Heavy water is not flammable, therefore a similar incident (reactor catching on fire) could not actually occur in the states.
Could there still be incidents? Sure, but more like 3-mile island (nobody died). This also means the figures cited above are more likely overestimates of the dangers of nuclear power plants, and the emotional arguments made on the basis of Chernobyl--already a cheap rhetorical ploy--are irrelevant to the issue.
Do I think any of this will overwhelm popular opinion and bring nuclear power (back?) into favor in the US? No. Does this affect the argument that these plants are military targets? No, but power plants and refineries are always major targets in war. I don't want a coal plant in my back yard either.
Permalink
sertsa Posted 3:25 am
15 Aug 2006
To jerk your knees at some twit pulling out Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and (hey it works on the conservatives too) the terrorist card is sad. Try to be at least slightly informed. I am not advocating yes or no to nuclear, but that people discuss the actual issue and not the standard fear/distraction that gets regurgitated again and again. Seriously, how many times has virtually this exact same article been published, with the exact same bullet points, getting the exact same reactions.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 4:09 am
15 Aug 2006
How Dr. Teller taught the US the lessons of Chernobyl in 1950. Graphite is fine, and so is water ...
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Boron: internal combustion, nuclear cachet
Permalink
Lapish Posted 5:28 am
15 Aug 2006
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:47 am
15 Aug 2006
I respectfully disagree. The nuclear industry failed for internal reasons. It is not competitive, not profitable, not support by sources of capital.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 6:32 am
15 Aug 2006
Yes he does.
Nuclear replaces fossil fuels at pennies on the dollar. Government naturally is of two minds about that; its employees would prefer living near a nuclear power station to living near a gas pipeline, but some of their salary, that which would have been gained as tax on that dollar, depends on your having the opposite preference. They try to lead you into this by telling you that's how you feel.
Indeed, that may have been Lapish's errand.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Burn boron in pure oxygen for vehicle power
Permalink
amarct Posted 9:30 am
15 Aug 2006
I can't seem to find anything else on that...
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 12:09 pm
15 Aug 2006
The German researchers are petrodollar pandering when they talk about nuclear waste as a toxic legacy to future generations. This lack of integrity would be very sad if their "findings" weren't on a par with it, i.e., crap. Fortunately they are; beta- and alpha-decay have never been hurried, nor need they be.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Burn boron in pure oxygen for vehicle power
Permalink
Lapish Posted 11:44 pm
15 Aug 2006
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:31 am
16 Aug 2006
Even France, which gets more than three-quarters of its electricity from nuclear power, now has a moratorium on nuclear plant construction, and other European countries are debating how quickly to shut their plants down. The only countries still building nuclear power plants are nations such as China, Japan, and possibly Iran, where the electric power industry is still a government sanctioned monopoly that is protected from competition.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1646
Permalink
Lapish Posted 4:45 am
18 Aug 2006
Permalink
Lazarus1232 Posted 12:22 am
13 Nov 2007
Nuclear waste disposal (as said by EnergyDude) would be ascertainable if environmentalist politicians would just loosen up a bit and let the facilities transport their wastes to Yucca.
And looking at accidents, the Chernobyl Plant was maintained by poorly trained engineers that had little idea as to what they were doing. They also made mistakes (human error present) such as running a test that they shouldn't have in the first place. Also the plant was a cryptic model which should never have been in place. (Soviet era power plants were made to produce weapons as well as generate power)
The reason why people distrust nuclear energy is because the hazard of fallout from a melt down. A melt down would most likely never happen if you didn't put ill-trained engineers into the reactors.
Some facts:
-Nuclear power plant core housings are built to withstand Jumbo Jet Airliners Crashing into them.
-Nuclear power plant security is in the top 3 most secured industry in the United States.
-Nuclear power plants CANNOT explode like bombs, the only explosion that may occur is the pressure built by the steam generated by the heat of the reactor.
-Three Mile Island reactor melted down, BUT NO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES HAPPENED, RADIATION WAS CONTAINED.
Take off your blindfolds and look up some information about nuclear energy and open up your minds to other things. Stop being so narrow minded.
Permalink
Lazarus1232 Posted 12:42 am
13 Nov 2007
One type is a Integral Fast Reactor, which uses the spent fuel from the reactor to help fuel the reactor. Cutting down waste to a fraction of what it was and lessoning the usage of the primary fuel in the reactor.
Yet another is the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor, which produces more fuel than it consumes. Thus providing a never ending supply of Uranium for it to use. Also providing a surplus of it. It can use lead as a liquid metal to cool it, providing protection and operational temps at a very high level.
Again, do the research before praising the words of a man who doesn't know anything about what he's talking about.
Permalink
Stolz25 Posted 3:51 am
19 Feb 2008
There is a good article to read that addresses your main problem with nuclear power. I noticed you qualified your statement with the word "could" because you actually have no idea if they would cancel out many of the greenhouse gas reductions. Don't worry, they don't. Of course I know your post wasn't so much seeking a real answer as trying to find any reason to be against nuclear power at whatever cost, so I doubt you'll care.
Permalink