Nuclear Power Plants for US Energy

redkeethredkeeth Posts: 123
edited November 2011 in A Moving Train
Can most countries use Nuclear power to drop the significant dependency on middle eastern oil?

I understand there are trade offs but seems to me in this economic downturn and the need for alternative fuels and the advances in technology we should be building these power plants. South east Asia is building them like mad, France gets much of their power from Nuclear power plants.

Sometimes I wonder why the US doesn't just say forget foreign oil & the demands of barrels we are gonna power our own country? Solar and hyrdro and geo thermal don't power countries we know Nuclear can.
* Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre Irvine - Jun 02, 2003
* Bill Graham Civic Auditorium - Jul 18, 2006
* Key Arena - Sep 21, 2009

Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    nuclear power only makes sense to people in the nuclear industry ... nuclear is probably the most expensive form of new energy out there ... read up on subsidies especially to oil, coal and nuclear and you'll soon see why it's the primary source of energy in the US ...

    america can easily be powered on renewables ... but that doesn't make the oil and coal industries happy ...
  • satansbedsatansbed Posts: 2,139
    redkeeth wrote:
    Can most countries use Nuclear power to drop the significant dependency on middle eastern oil?

    I understand there are trade offs but seems to me in this economic downturn and the need for alternative fuels and the advances in technology we should be building these power plants. South east Asia is building them like mad, France gets much of their power from Nuclear power plants.

    Sometimes I wonder why the US doesn't just say forget foreign oil & the demands of barrels we are gonna power our own country? Solar and hydro and geo thermal don't power countries we know Nuclear can.


    i would agree that nuclear is probably the way forward as long as its combined with the power of renewable energy because it is more reliable than any of the other sources at the moment. the problem with oil is that we still need it for things like cars and trains etc, until they can develop a car that can run on hydrogen it will probably stay that way for the foreseeable future
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    redkeeth wrote:
    Can most countries use Nuclear power to drop the significant dependency on middle eastern oil?

    Not to derail the threat too much but the whole idea that the US is dependant on middle east oil is a pretty big exageration. Over half of the oil the US uses is either produced in the US or imported from Canada. The next biggest country is Mexico. Canada exports more oil to the US than all of the Middle East combined. Plus while the US may be somewhat dependant on oil from those countries, it is important to note that those countries are way more dependant on the cash that comes from the US buying their oil.

    http://www.cracked.com/article_19461_6-b.s.-myths-you-probably-believe-about-americas-enemies.html
  • If this source of energy were to become the main source. What do we then do with the nuclear waste? Continue to hide it in the mountains in states that don't want it?
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    If this source of energy were to become the main source. What do we then do with the nuclear waste? Continue to hide it in the mountains in states that don't want it?



    We launch it into space towards the sun
  • I'm pretty sure it becomes the lime Jell-O served to school children at lunch.
    If this source of energy were to become the main source. What do we then do with the nuclear waste? Continue to hide it in the mountains in states that don't want it?
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,431
    If this source of energy were to become the main source. What do we then do with the nuclear waste? Continue to hide it in the mountains in states that don't want it?
    The nuclear waste we've already produced will be problematic for a long time to come. I'm not sure this is a very favorable opinion, but everything I've read and studied leads me to believe that their is no substitute for the cheap abundant energy that is (or soon to be, was) oil and that our current first world way of living is unsustainable. Probably our best option would be to learn to live with less of everything, build walkable communities, revitalize our rail system, and as much as possible run our economies on a local level.

    OK, I've got my tomato proof vest on. Let 'em fly.
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • redkeethredkeeth Posts: 123
    brianlux wrote:
    If this source of energy were to become the main source. What do we then do with the nuclear waste? Continue to hide it in the mountains in states that don't want it?
    The nuclear waste we've already produced will be problematic for a long time to come. I'm not sure this is a very favorable opinion, but everything I've read and studied leads me to believe that their is no substitute for the cheap abundant energy that is (or soon to be, was) oil and that our current first world way of living is unsustainable. Probably our best option would be to learn to live with less of everything, build walkable communities, revitalize our rail system, and as much as possible run our economies on a local level.

    OK, I've got my tomato proof vest on. Let 'em fly.

    I like all these comments. With population growth we can cut our energy use greatly per capita, cars getting 100 miles per gallon even, however we will use more energy more than ever with urban sprawl and the population increasing. Developing countries will demand more energy than ever before as well.

    I hope there is a way to use sustainable energy. I don't want to get into conspiracies, but it seems if there is a better way it will happen, but oil seems to be the most simple inexpensive and "natural" way.

    If we charge electric cars using Nuclear energy it will reduce air polluton, but increase Nuclear waste.
    Do we concentrate toxic waste? or polute the air across the world?

    At least CO2 can be cleaned by our vegetation.... I don't see Nuclear as a sustainable energy but maybee it can buy us time to develop other methods.

    It is sad even the most Green outspoken celebrities and politicians don't practice what they preach. Living in 10,000 square foot homes driving Ferraris but promoting the Prius.
    * Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre Irvine - Jun 02, 2003
    * Bill Graham Civic Auditorium - Jul 18, 2006
    * Key Arena - Sep 21, 2009

  • I'm pretty sure it becomes the lime Jell-O served to school children at lunch.
    If this source of energy were to become the main source. What do we then do with the nuclear waste? Continue to hide it in the mountains in states that don't want it?

    If that were true I'd back nuclear power 100%! Lime Jell-O is the King of Jell-O's.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    I work for a Nuclear power company. I am biased. I strongly urge all of you looking for work to pursue this field, we are hiring, and the pay and benefits are good.

    No spent fuel is being stored in Yucca Mountain, the Obama administration froze that project, even though the taxpayers have funded it with hundreds of millions of dollars. It is expected to cost the taxpayers up to ~$11B over the next eight years or so due to contractual issues.

    BTW Congress had already approved all of this, Dictator Obama though had other ideas.
  • unsung wrote:
    I work for a Nuclear power company. I am biased. I strongly urge all of you looking for work to pursue this field, we are hiring, and the pay and benefits are good.

    No spent fuel is being stored in Yucca Mountain, the Obama administration froze that project, even though the taxpayers have funded it with hundreds of millions of dollars. It is expected to cost the taxpayers up to ~$11B over the next eight years or so due to contractual issues.

    BTW Congress had already approved all of this, Dictator Obama though had other ideas.

    Where is the spent fuel now going, then? I'd imagine it hasn't just disappeared and has to be put somewhere.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    It's stored on site in dry casks. Giant concrete tombs.
  • unsung wrote:
    It's stored on site in dry casks. Giant concrete tombs.

    On site, eh? Any idea how long before onsite no longer has room for something like this? Once onsite is full, do you suppose more land will need to be aqcuired and incorporated as on site in order to continue to be able to store on site?
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    unsung wrote:
    It's stored on site in dry casks. Giant concrete tombs.

    On site, eh? Any idea how long before onsite no longer has room for something like this? Once onsite is full, do you suppose more land will need to be aqcuired and incorporated as on site in order to continue to be able to store on site?

    They could just put it back in the ground where it came from? Where do you think they get the radioactive fuel for nuclear plants?
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,431
    unsung wrote:
    It's stored on site in dry casks. Giant concrete tombs.

    On site, eh? Any idea how long before onsite no longer has room for something like this? Once onsite is full, do you suppose more land will need to be aqcuired and incorporated as on site in order to continue to be able to store on site?

    They could just put it back in the ground where it came from? Where do you think they get the radioactive fuel for nuclear plants?
    It's been converted into something much more dangerous. There isn't a viable long term plan for the disposal of radioactive material. Just more denial. Spent fuel rods remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. Is this the solution we want for our energy needs or, again, wouldn't it make more sense to lessen our energy usage by lowering our population and living lighter on the planet?
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • unsung wrote:
    It's stored on site in dry casks. Giant concrete tombs.

    On site, eh? Any idea how long before onsite no longer has room for something like this? Once onsite is full, do you suppose more land will need to be aqcuired and incorporated as on site in order to continue to be able to store on site?

    They could just put it back in the ground where it came from? Where do you think they get the radioactive fuel for nuclear plants?

    Are you being facetious here or are you serious? I thought it was a known fact that nuclear waste takes forever and then some to break down. High-level wastes such as spent nuclear fuel must be stored for thousands of years and once used is not in the exact same form it was when obtained.

    If you are being serious, I think it is fallacious to believe that just burying everything will solve the problem. This ignores the fact that containers do leak and ignores the fact that there are limited areas storage could occur due to people not wanting this type of thing to happen in their neck of the woods. We go ahead and make nuclear the main source of power and I'm pretty sure we will have even more complicated issues arising than we currently have one of which is obligating future generations to clean up our shit. I don't believe in that kind of thing.
Sign In or Register to comment.