SW,
Don't you find it peculiar that for being so technically savvy on so many levels when it comes to the "nuclear" option we are almost frozen with irrational fear?
 Every major country is developing nuclear power plants and using the technology to improve there way of life.
Yet, because of the hysteria caused by 3 mile island and the Chernobyl disasters we don't even want to consider it?
 Yes, there are hurdles and serious ones at that but I have a hard time believing that are concern for our citizens is so much greater than the country's you mentioned, that we ignore the technology??
I would like to see us at least have the CHOICE and let the market determine if it succeeds or fails?
I don't even eat much red meat but I can see the benefits in many other ways to the food industry and the related economy?
 Millions of tons of food are wasted every year due to spoilage and short shelf life's!
 I can't help but think irradiation should at least be a option?

Chasinmendo wrote on Jul 7^th, 2007 at 7:23pm:

In my travels I have noticed many of the same things, also interesting packaging for condiments that lend themselves to a camping use.  I have not tried the meats yet because I did not have cooking facilities but maybe I will bring some home to test with.  Interesting options to augment the protein part of a meal.  Great idea SW

Quote:


Good point and Welcome to one of the best canoe camping sites anywhere. I suspect that eventually we will get there but there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding and paranoia regarding radiation in the US.

I really hate to go into this because I'll probably be drawn and quartered but many moons ago I used to be a nuclear engineer for the Bechtel Corporation.  In those days we developed something called SNUPPS or the standard nuclear unit power plant system.  It was a pre-designed unit with all the documentation in a fill-in-the-blanks format.  I used to get together with the French and German counterparts to do the same in France and Germany.  Japan already had a program based on the Mitsubishi reactor on which I consulted at one time.  If anyone should fear nuclear power it should be Japan but they've embraced it completely becasue or their limited natural resources.  France and Germany both are building capacity all the time.  The US knuckled under to special intrest groups and stopped siting new power plants after 1972.  I keep hearing rumors that we may try again.  OK Let the flames fly!

As long as the thread is already teetering on the rails, I'll ask a question that it sounds like we have folks who will know the answer.

Isn't there a major concern for the waste materials that are generated from running a nuclear power plant? I'm all for clean energy, but I seem to remember a show that was all about the long term storage issues invloved with spent fuel (?) from the plants.

You bet Chinook....just don't bury it in my backyard.  I think the "waste" has been a real political issue, being that it'll be "hot" for millenia.

Research vitrification, I'm not getting involved in any more politically incorrect discussions on this board, many people aren't willing to consider anthing other than what they believe! I've been beat up and called a liar and I'm not doing it again!

I thought this was very informative!

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

Chasinmendo wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2007 at 12:58am:


I bet that's not something the majority of people are aware of?
The nuclear genie is out of the bottle like it or not.
Modern medicine has reaped its benefits and we as a nation should be focused on developing and reaping the good that it can bring instead of obsessed with the bad. Whether your a producer or consumer we all have a stake in the health of the planet. IF the proponents/opponents of nuclear energy would put aside the rhetoric and work together to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks, MAYBE we could get off the foreign oil teat and set a course for alternative fuel sources by setting the greatest producers in the world, the American farmer loose to provide the raw materials needed to get us off the fossil fuel merry-go-round?
Along with solar/wind/tide technologies we could energize the economy and insure our national security.

"Along with solar/wind/tide technologies we could energize the economy and insure our national security."

You might be interested in this article from our local newspaper regarding tidal/wavepower energy;

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

It seems that no matter what, there are those who are against it.  When I first moved to this community in the 1980's we used to have an activist group called the CAVE people. CAVE stands for Citizens Against Virtually Everything.  They used to go to all the City council meetings and would oppose everything just on priniciple. I haven't seen them around lately.   

Quote:

A nuclear power plant does operate on a virtually CO2-free basis, it actually is about on a par with fossil-fuel generating plants when the carbon emissions needed to build the plant, process the ore, manufacture the fuel assemlies.  When the whole of the fuel cycle is considered nuclear isn't all that much better than burning fossil fuels.

CO2 sequestration seems to be the short-term answer.  We cannot wean ourselves off of the energy stored in carbon-based reserves fast enough to have an effect.

Another problem is the bulk of nuclear waste that has built up.  Yucca Mountain, once it finally gets to open, has enough material already waiting for burial to fill it up, with much, much more to spare.  Where is the waste currently being stored?  For nuclear power plants, it's on site.  That's right, the gov't taxes the companies for a storage site the gov't has yet to open, then forces the utilities to pay for facilities to store their spent fuel on site.  You don't hear of a second waste site being bantied about, have you?

Energy gains can be made through making the delivery sytem more efficient.  Much of our grid is old and wastes a lot of energy.  Lighting is a large percentage of our energy usage, so small gains there translate into big savings.  Ideas like these need to be promoted because they provide the biggest return on the dollar.

Large public works projects, spending large sums of gov't money (raised thru taxes), have had positive effects on the quality of the economy.  Eisenhower's interstate plan, the TVA, Rural Electrification Act are examples.  We need to finance more such projects.

Energy is an illustration of but one of the problems facing this country.  Much of its infrastructure needs upgrading or replacement.  The first segments of the interstate system are over 50 years old, bridges are into the twilight years of their anticipated life span.  The fabric of our country is full of holes.  It sorely needs replacing.

   A long time ago there was pretty good data that radon was not in fact bad for you at household levels but actually good for you.  Just to swing the discussion in an unexpected direction I give you ..

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

"Approximately 10,000 people occupied these buildings and received an average radiation dose of 0.4 Sv,
unknowingly, during a 9-20 year period. They did not suffer a higher incidence of cancer mortality, as the LNT
theory would predict. On the contrary, the incidence of cancer deaths in this population was greatly reduced – to
about 3 per cent of the incidence of spontaneous cancer death in the general Taiwan public. In addition, the
incidence of congenital malformations was also reduced – to about 7 per cent of the incidence in the general
public. These observations appear to be compatible with the radiation hormesis model."

TwistTieCollector wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 5:00pm:



I'd like to see your documentation regarding these "facts"