Science and Society

This is ambitious....but doing it without cheap off shore labor is what's really going to be impressive.

We have nuclear weapons stored in almost every state, attended by 19-year olds, with no education and hopefully average discipline. Nuclear power plants are run by trained professionals, and as we can see from the example of France, that gets 60 % of their power from nuclear, safe operation is possible. Only fools can oppose the most efficient, cheapest, cleanest way to generate power.

As long as they can find a way to dispose of the radioactive waste and I don't find a 3 eyed fish on my plate in a restaurant.

Only a fool would NOT endorse Wind Power or other alternatives. Wind Farms reduce our liabilities compared with Coal and Nukes. Why can't the Nuke and Coal supports adopt a new attitude towards alternatives? Clean energy, safe energy, is the way.

Thanks, Now we have a new terrorist target, Nice work.

There are better sources of energy. This is just another grandstanding effort to show "we are trying to make a difference". When will the truth begin to be seen?
Send the waste into outer space..toward the Sun..it has plenty of radiation to spare...heck we may even prolong it's life.

It's about time we continue with nuclear power. Fossil fuels have been fouling the air we breath and the water we drink for far to long. Global Warming is a major issue and nuclear power is the answer. With technology growing in leaps and bounds it's only a matter of time before science finds a use for nuclear waste. Economy wise an investment in nuclear power will be a benefit for retirement options . Social Security will be safe since individual retirement plans will bring in huge amounts of profit in the stock exchange

Bravo!

There are ways to recycle Nuclear waste as well once the American public gets over nukephobia.

I also support wind but let's be realistic - We would have to convert an enormous amount of our wilderness to wind farms. The foundations alone are enough to scare any serious environmentalist.

Here, here! Now let's see if the the Bushies have balls enough to push the enviro-fascists aside and approve the app.....THEN let's see if the Circuit Courts and the Supremes have the guts to decline to hear the multiple lawsuits this will generate

I live near a nuke plant and feel quite comfortable. We need balance in America, I would welcome wind, solar, coal, oil and nuclear all in balance. I am making great money in the Energy Fund of my retirement money. That nuke plant I live near, no problem with terrorists.. those guards practice with M16's and great barricades.. and as stupid as the terrorists are they would probably aim for the cooling towers.

Dump the waste in Crawford!

It is unfortunate that so few recognize the limitations of the sources of energy to replace fossil fuel. Biofuels and wind or solar energy are not sufficient to power the world. Nuclear energy is limited by the danger of proliferation of used fuel rods with no disposal solution and the finite supply of pitchblend for radium.

It's O.K. for us to build them, but Iran better not !!

France currently has 59 reactors on line producing 75% of their electricity.

Also, the recycle their waste bringing it down to about 3%.

The French people are overwhelmingly in favor of it. We are so backwards here in the States, clinging to acient myths about the dangers of radioactivity simply because we cannot see it.

Yes there is a risk - just as there is getting on an airplane or crossing the street.

Common sense dicttes that there is far greater danger clinging to oil wars or fabricated fairy tales about solar energy.

I think the terrorist threat is scare tactics propagated by the nukaphobics.

It makes far more sense that oil independence will reduce the risk much more than guarded plutonium will increase the risk because we will no longer need the Middle East and can mind our own business. If we’re not there they will have no reason to terrorize us (unless we have been lied to by the left and oil has nothing to do with it)

No blood for oil takes on new meaning when you don’t need the oil.

It's about time - like it or not, Nuclear Power is the only real solution to global warming and fossil fuel dependency.

It's about time. We had TXU try and pull a fast one with GOV Perry's support in the last state congress to push for 14 new coal burning power plants. A lot of us here in Texas said no due to the obvious emissions that that would produce. Nuclear Power is the way to go until you can figure out how to use Hydrogen locally.

To all of you that are against nuke power, what are the alternatives? There's no tech available now that generates the amount of electricity as cleanly as nukes do. Natural gas? gives off co2, coal ditto. Solar - you'd need to cover the area of Mass. to get the same amount of power, Wind - same story. It's time we realize there's a penalty to pay for our lifestyles. Energy doesn't come easy and nuke power is the cleanest form of generating power without producing co2. Put a plan together (yucca mtn) to handle the waste and lets get off the fossil fuel addiction.

America likely won't be storing used nuclear waste for very long - they have treaties under negotiation whereby the spent fuel will be returned to those countries that mined it. Yucca Mtn is not required.

Next problem?

Nuclear power is not cheap-it is one of the most highly subsidized industries, which means more tax payer $$.

And nuclear power is certainly not clean, nuclear plants are running out of space to store the tons of spent fuel. The research involved in finding a permanent storage facility for spent fuel is in the billions-more tax payer dollars. Many facilities have run out of space in the meantime and are burying the waste, which ends up in water and soil, causing numerous cases of cancer in the surrounding communities.

These are the problems if no accidents occur at the plant. And if an accident does happen, whether because of terrorism, equipment failure/malfunction, or human error, the consequences are horrifying. Look at Chernobyl.

France is the world leader in nuclear power. They have recently found ways to recycle waste, making nuclear power cleaner than ever.

Educate yourself on nuclear power. Americans are the dinosaurs when it comes to alternative energy.

If France can produce and use nuclear power safely, we should most certainly be able to. It's a black mark on our national record that we still have the same discussions over and over again whenever nuclear power is mentioned: its safety, its effectiveness, and its generation and disposal of waste materials. Can't we progress beyond discussion?

Anyway. I think it's great. We do need alternative fuel sources and energy sources. Burning fossil fuels IS using Solar energy. Ha, I bet none of you ever thought of that did you? When you eat, the energy you get from the food, yep, you guessed it, solar energy. Drive down the road, solar energy again. Solar energy is our biggest energy producer. Exploiting it directly may, in the future once we can get higher efficiency from it, be our saving grace.

Nuclear power is a way to go, and is, for the most part, clean. Just all the waste that is produced. And no, dumping into the Sun isn't a suitable option. You will actually lessen the Sun's lifespan. The sun isn't hot enough to use the toxic waste as fuel, it can't fuse it like it can hydrogen and other lighter elements. I'm glad people want to build more nuke plants.

The post by wild2283 indicated a finite supply of pitchblende. I never thought of that before. I guess it has to come from somewhere. Another limited supply of fuel. Unless we start using tidal power where appropriate, solar, where appropriate, we're on a one-way trip to darkness. Maybe we'll evolve generating our illumination from photophores.

9-26-2007
One question not asked is what about the water used to cool the fuel rods.Is there a possibility of radiation being absorbed into the water?==> to our drinking water supply? There are other sources of power.The Bush administration favors nuclear.I know of one to rival nuclear,but the Department of Energy is not interested.

With regards to a finite supply of uranium, there is a finite supply of anything on this planet. But the amount of uranium consumed to generate power is very little. In most reactors used to generate power the isotope of uranium used is U-235. This isotope occurs as .7% of all naturally occurring uranium. While U-238 forms 99.3% of the remainder. While U-238 can not be used in a thermal reactor, such as the ones commonly used in commercial nuclear reactors. There are other types of reactors that can use U-238 as a fuel. These types of reactors, called breeder reactors, convert that U-238 to a form that is usable in a thermal reactor. This way more fuel is made from what is otherwise junk. As an indication of the availability of U-238, it is used in non-nuclear weapons and armor by the military and is called depleted uranium. It is called depleted in the sense that all the U-235 has been removed from it and only "waste" U-238 remains.

The water that is used to store the spent fuel from a reactor serves two functions. It cools the spent fuel as it is still generating heat from the radioactive decay of short-lived isotopes. And it absorbs the radiation given off by the spent fuel as it decays. If the intent of your question is does the water becomes radioactive, then yes it does. The most common form is when the oxygen atom in a water molecule is converted to a nitrogen isotope. But this nitrogen isotope is very unstable and quickly decays and reverts back to oxygen. Now if you are talking about the water picking up contamination from the spent nuclear fuel then that is a possibly and that is why that water is tightly controlled. You do realize that the water in the clouds are right now absorbing a lot of radiation and has been ever since there was water on this planet and the sun has been shining.

"You do realize that the water in the clouds are right now absorbing a lot of radiation and has been ever since there was water on this planet and the sun has been shining." Posted by Alain

Would that radiation "absorbed by water in the clouds" be nothing more than radiation from the sun? But that form of radiation so far has not produced 3-headed, 4-legged beings other than those caused by mistake of nature.

But if building nuclear power plants will bring all our kids back from the war, get us off dependency on foreign oil and keep us from medling in other countries' politics where we are not truly welcome anyway, then by all means let's put a nuclear reactor on the corner of every Main Street, USA.

Perhaps after we leave those countries alone, we will not have to worry about terrorists creating havoc in our country.

There are several different type of radiation. There is beta radiation, which is high energy electrons. There is alpha radiation, a helium nucleus without its electrons. There is neutron radiation, which is a neutron flying around. And there is gamma radiation which is a high energy photon. These are the main forms of radiation that have measurable effect on living tissue. They all ultimately do the same thing to cause cellular damage. They cause cellular damage by causing ions to form inside the cell that may cause the DNA of the cell to be damaged. So, the "form" of radiation is not relevant since they all do the same thing. Radiation affects the body by depositing energy within the body to cause cellular damage. The sun is a massive radiation source and its radiation is no different then the radiation coming from a nuclear reactor since it is itself the biggest nuclear reactor in the solar system. The only reason we are not more affected by it is due to the protection afforded us by the Earth's magnetic field, the Earth's distance, and the atmosphere. A microwave oven is another type of radation emitter. It emits high energy photons in the microwave frequency. The photons interact with the water molecule in the food and thereby depositing energy within the food. This deposited energy is converted to heat which cooks the food. So, when you are microwaving your popcorn you are radiating your food. The reason your food does not become radioactive is the energy of the photons are not sufficient to knock a proton or a neutron out of a nucleus of the atoms that make up your food. Have what I written explained that there is no difference between radiation coming from the sun and radiation coming from a nuclear power plant?