Is it time to Reconsider Nuclear Power? Article re: Stewart Brand, and more

by Seeker4 11 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Seeker4

  http://www.peoplesvoicemagazine.com/

  Above is a link to an article I just wrote on the movement among some environmentalists to reconsider nuclear energy, focusing in particular on Stewart Brand, the futurist, author, entrepeneur and genius who created The Whole Earth Catalog, The WELL, and lots of other extremely cool stuff. Click on the link and then click on the main feature at the top of the page, where it mentions Brand.

  Brand is also a scientist, and is basing his change of view about nuclear power on reason and science as opposed to the romantic emotionalism of much of the environmental movement.

  This is a huge change in the focus of some environmentalists and is creating quite a stir. Thought there were some folks on here who might appreciate it.

  S4
• 

  Gopher

  Nice article, Nick.

  I remember back in high school (late 70's) when there was considerable debate about whether nuclear power plants should be built here in Minnesota. They were built in spite of the controversy. I remembered thinking how dangerous these facilities must be. I had a teacher whose husband worked in the industry though, and she said these plants were statistically quite safe.

  Thirty years later, those plants are still going, and there have been no major incidents and very few minor incidents either at Monticello or Prarie Island. I live near the one in Monticello and don't feel unsafe.

  And they are helping keep the cost of power relatively low here in Minnesota. My teacher was right.
• 

  SixofNine

  Everything should be reconsidered every day ;)

  Including this supposed "romantic emotionalism of the environmental movement". ;)

  My take is that Nuclear should be CAUTIOUSLY used as a viable stop gap measure IF new power can be brought online in time to make a difference (if not, then it's not really a stop gap, and if it's not a stop gap, it's not worth the relative danger, imo).
• 

  TrailBlazer04

  I work in nuclear propulsion design. The problem with civilian nuclear power has been a lack of standardization of the plants and control systems. IF one design was developed, controls standardized, and maintenance of civilian plants more like naval plants, the risks would be negligible. In the navy world, the reactor operators are basically kids who have spent about a year in nuclear power school. Civilian plants do not certify operators, test engineers, etc. the same way. (Thank you Admiral Rickover). The civilian world should take a page out of the military in this case, and run the plants in the same manner.

  I've studied the accident at TMI, and the bottom line was sloppy maintenance. The valve that let go was KNOWN by the vendor to be faulty. It had been replaced in other plants, but TMI had not replaced it. That caused the issue, along with some people in the control room who didn't read the signs correctly until it was too late. The reactor wasn't the problem, the operators were.

  I'm all in favor of more use of nuclear power. I live near the North Anna plant here in Virginia, and in the 30+ years I've lived here, the sirens have NEVER gone off.

  In case anyone is interested, while I'm not a "tree hugger", I'm in favor of alternate power, passive/active solar, grey water recycle, etc. If I had the money, I'd build a new home to take advantage of many technologies that are softer on the environment...

  TB
• 

  stillajwexelder

  I am totally pro -nuclear power - the French have it mastered
• 

  The wanderer

  Dear Seeker4:
  
  The question that I have regarding the use of nuclear
  energy is not its efficency, but rather the waste
  that is produced.
  
  My understanding is that nuclear waste takes 1,000's
  of years to break down and decompose. At least that
  is what I studied in college ecology class.
  
  If that is the case, then nuclear energy has a major
  fallback.
  
  Any feedback would be helpful.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  The Wanderer
• 

  SacrificialLoon

  I'm not sure how to get to the article, all I see is a picture.

  Anyway, the Chinese and I think the South Africans are working on something called a pebble bed reactor. It's supposed to be a lot safer that the ones currently in use.
• 

  ferret

  I have to agree with wanderer: Do you really know how much waste this produces. It is great.

  Where I live there is a company that produces the tanks that contain this nuclear waste. Do you know where they are stored. What happens if a hundred years down the line these tanks start to rust and break up. If this happens our great lakes will be polluted with radio-active pollution. I've seen them made and know that this can happen.
• 

  Seeker4

  TrailBlazer - I agree on your thoughts about building a house. I've written a lot about alternative energy, and right now you could build a warm, tight home using radiant heating and solar power that would be totally self-sufficient and off-grid. The technology has made great strides in the past few years, and more to come.

  To get to the article, click on the link above, then click on the title of the article at the top of the page.

  Nuclear waste is certainly an issue. Without a central depository, all of the waste at the non-military plants are stored at the plant. So, we have 103 plants in the US with nuclear waste stored on-site. Not a good situation. A central, safe depository such as Yucca Mountain, would be ideal. But that may not happen.

  Brand feels that within a 100 years we'll have the technology in place to recycle the waste and reuse it - and not for weapons. There is already work being done in this area.

  One thing I've thought of, but haven't had time to research yet, is why not incinerate the waste in space? I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of it, but why not just load the spent fuel rods onto a rocket and send it into the sun? We incinerate a lot of waste here on Earth, so would that work for nuclear waste? There may be prohibitive costs, but I'll bet there's ways to do it.

  S4
• 

  TrailBlazer04

  Seeker, I've often thought that disposing of waste by incineration was a great idea...the issue seems to be that if the rocket blows up, then the waste is scattered over a HUGE area (reference arianne and delta accidents). So, until the rockets are better...

  Living off the grid, for the most part is very attractive to me. We hope to move to Arizona in the next few years, and living off the grid there would probably be easier than taking my chances with the variable weather here.

  TB