Bush pushes for more nuclear power plants...

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:49 am

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/22/ ... index.html

I don't usually agree with the President on a lot of things, and I'm basically a rational tree-hugger (I love trees, but if it's the tree or me, screw the tree), but on this one we can sing "Kumbaya" in the same boat together.

It's obvious that we can't continue to rely on fossil fuels as the primary source for power generation. We have an irrational fear in this country of nuclear power since Three Mile Island (TMI).

Granted TMI was a near disaster, but TMI also proved that we build inherently safe reactors. Even though a LOT of things went VERY wrong, containment held (the radioactive gas that escaped from TMI for the most part was part of a controlled release to relieve dangerously high pressure in the containment vessel and avoid an explosion) and a major catastrophe (like Chernobyl) was averted.

A lot of people use the example of Chernobyl to show that nuclear power is unsafe, but that was a VERY reckless and unsafe design - a design you'd never see used in a western nation.

There are about 439 (as of October 2004) nuclear reactors operating in 31 countries totalling 16% of the world's power production (reference: http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/17/news/nuke.html). France and Japan in particular have a huge number of nuclear plants between them, that have been operating for 20 years without a problem. Keep in mind that Japan has more seismic events than California.

We haven't built a nuclear plant in 20 years while the rest of the world has passed us by. Modern reactor designs are smaller, more cost efficient and safer.

Are there concerns? Certainly. Terrorism, nuclear waste storage, etc. But all of these can be dealt with and we have little choice.

Red Dawn · Post by **Red Dawn** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:43 am

As long as they build them all in Texas

Executioner · Post by **Executioner** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:18 am

Originally posted by Red Dawn
As long as they build them all in Texas

Haha.

It's a shame that here in California, we don't push for solar energy alternatives, along with more nuclear plants. As for solar, the cost is so high. I've read several articles where some businesses have installed solar panels, and they are able to see there electric meter run backward. These would be great for residential use, but the damn cost for a decent one is > $25k.

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:57 am

The laws in this country DO NOT allow you to cost-effectively install solar power alternatives in your home or small business.

The reason it costs so much for a home solar power installation is that the utilities managed to get a stupid law passed many years ago that REQUIRES YOU to have the necessary equipment to sell any surplus power you generate BACK TO THE UTILITIES (in most states).

This is assinine as any excess power generated in a home installation won't amount to anything. The additional and very strict technical requirments for the equipment that's required to feed excess power back to your utility's power grid is what adds so much expense.

Additionally you cannot (in most states - unless you're in a rural area with no utilities) just setup a solar power system and disconnect yourself from the grid (just like in most municipalities you HAVE to use city water and sewer once it's provided in your area, even if you have a pre-existing well and septic tank).

It's this kid of crap that keeps alternative energy from being widely used here. Thank the oil/power utilties industry lobbying groups and their toadies in congress.

BillyGoat · Post by **BillyGoat** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 12:32 pm

Originally posted by FlyingPenguin
The laws in this country DO NOT allow you to cost-effectively install solar power alternatives in your home or small business.

The reason it costs so much for a home solar power installation is that the utilities managed to get a stupid law passed many years ago that REQUIRES YOU to have the necessary equipment to sell any surplus power you generate BACK TO THE UTILITIES (in most states).

This is assinine as any excess power generated in a home installation won't amount to anything. The additional and very strict technical requirments for the equipment that's required to feed excess power back to your utility's power grid is what adds so much expense.

Additionally you cannot (in most states - unless you're in a rural area with no utilities) just setup a solar power system and disconnect yourself from the grid (just like in most municipalities you HAVE to use city water and sewer once it's provided in your area, even if you have a pre-existing well and septic tank).

It's this kid of crap that keeps alternative energy from being widely used here. Thank the oil/power utilties industry lobbying groups and their toadies in congress.

This was the problem when I was thinking bout going solar in California, The cost of the junk for the electric company was over Half the cost! While it is a good idea, if its required I believe the electric co should have to Pick up that tab

wvjohn · Post by **wvjohn** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:02 pm

I agree that we have to look at this seriously....people are right to be concerned about all the issues involving nuclear, but as FP said, a lot of countries have been doing this safely for a while...people never look at the safety issues on other energy sources...like coal mining and oil drilling don't kill lots of people.

I of course hope someday they will figure out the fusion stuff - free energy for everyone basically and it would sove many environmental issues completely

the russian reactors were notorious for their designs - the russians also used materials that were radioactive (can't remember exactly what was in them) put into containers as

hat portable heaters

hat in Siberia

in case anyone hasn't seen it, here's a link to what I consider the best piece of web journalism/whatever ever done - she also has more stuff on her site now - for awhile she was "off the air"

motorcycling through chernobyl

TheGirter · Post by **TheGirter** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:07 pm

It should be simple enough - Keep them close to military bases like San Onofre near Camp Pendleton here.

Badmojo · Post by **Badmojo** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:34 pm

Originally posted by FlyingPenguin
The laws in this country DO NOT allow you to cost-effectively install solar power alternatives in your home or small business.

The reason it costs so much for a home solar power installation is that the utilities managed to get a stupid law passed many years ago that REQUIRES YOU to have the necessary equipment to sell any surplus power you generate BACK TO THE UTILITIES (in most states).

It's this kid of crap that keeps alternative energy from being widely used here. Thank the oil/power utilties industry lobbying groups and their toadies in congress.

I always wondered why more people didnt just setup for partial solar and cover low-end/low power needs like TVs and lights and use GE for thier frigde and airconditioners.

Here in chicago area we can sit for almost an hour at times as the trians carry coal to the city

Pugsley · Post by **Pugsley** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:42 am

Originally posted by badmojo
Here in chicago area we can sit for almost an hour at times as the trians carry coal to the city

Ah yes. Coalhour yard. It's the name of an ex-Conrail railyard that used to handel coal for the comed plant. it got that name cause about onece an hour a coal train of about 80 cars would show up.. and the next hour it would leave then about an hour later another one would show up. Amazing operation.

But yes nuclear can work just fine when people do it properly.

What gets me about TML is the fact that the reactor has all them gauges and sensors but not one of them was a sight glass or actual sensor to detect the actual water level in the core.

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:30 am

There was some stupid technical reason for that. Sensors in a reactor core are a tricky thing apparently. At Chernobyl for instance, the core did not UNIFORMLY overheat. Instead it developed a hot-spot. The temp sensors apparently were reading the temps outside the hotspot which only added to the confusion.

Pugsley · Post by **Pugsley** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:50 pm

a glass or plastic tube or some clear object that can fill with fluid and have a camera and light pointed at it.. wouldent be that hard to do... but i think sheilding would be the issue there.

marscheese · Post by **marscheese** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:04 pm

Originally posted by FlyingPenguin
The laws in this country DO NOT allow you to cost-effectively install solar power alternatives in your home or small business.

The reason it costs so much for a home solar power installation is that the utilities managed to get a stupid law passed many years ago that REQUIRES YOU to have the necessary equipment to sell any surplus power you generate BACK TO THE UTILITIES (in most states).

do you have an article or something that says this? I've always wondered why solar power wasn't taking off more. I'd like to read up on that, if you have a link you could post.

also...fucking amazing poll...17 to nothing so far. that's awesome. I think nuclear power should be being seriously considered as an alternative source of power. After learning about them in my physics calss, they seemed to make a lot of sense. And I think that the reluctance to go for them is mainly caused by people's misunderstanding of them.

Also saw a program on TMI...it's amazing how many fuck ups there were there.

darcy · Post by **darcy** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:13 pm

Originally posted by marscheese
*** And I think that the reluctance to go for them is mainly caused by people's misunderstanding of them.

mr d designed pipe support systems 4 nuclear power plants for o'er 10 yrs,, 'n' that is 'xactly what he has always said, marscheese,,

Post by **FlyingPenguin** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:24 am

MARCHEESE: I admit I'm going from past experience - 15-20 years ago. Also every state and every utility has it's own policies.

From doing a quick Google search it looks like many states make it simple now - many of the solar power systems use the utility as your "battery" to avoid the complexity of setting up your own battery backup. So your solar plant supplies as much power as it can, and any deficit is made up from the utility feed. Any excess you produce you back-feed.

There seems to be a lot issues with the rates power companies pay you for your back-feed, and they have varying requirements (sounds like they don't want you running the meter backwards in most places, so you either need a special meter or a 2nd meter to measure the back-feed).

I did a quick search and I found some interesting info here:

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/yago94.html

http://www.altairenergy.com/AboutSolar. ... ParentID=3

TheSovereign · Post by **TheSovereign** » Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:38 am

have you guys seen what we can do with the radiactive sludge that comes out of these things?!!??!?!
lookup in google "beta voltaic cell"
power for thousands of years!

PCA Forums

Bush pushes for more nuclear power plants...

Should we build more nuclear power plants in this country?

Bush pushes for more nuclear power plants...