Yes, Nukes. The tragedy in Japan shouldn't cause us to abandon nuclear power.

When parts of Japan were devastated last month by an earthquake and subsequent tsunami, news of the human toll was quickly overshadowed by global fears of radioactive fallout from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The concern was understandable: Radiation is very frightening. I grew up in Denmark at a time when fear of nuclear power was pervasive.

But our latest nuclear fears have broader implications, especially for energy supply and our desire to shift away from reliance on fossil fuels. At the time of a natural disaster, it is difficult to step back and gain a broader perspective; even attempting to do so can feel crass. But there are some facts that we should not overlook.

During the round-the-clock coverage of the nuclear drama, the specter of Chernobyl has been raised repeatedly. It is worth noting that the worst nuclear disaster in history directly caused only 31 fatalities. The World Health Organization estimates that 4,000 deaths could be linked to the disaster over 70 years, whereas the OECD projects a range of 9,000 to 33,000 deaths during this period. That is substantial. But also consider that, according to the OECD, every year nearly 1 million people die from fine-particle outdoor air pollution. This massive death toll provokes no discernible fear in the developed world, and receives virtually no news coverage.

Of course, every country with nuclear power facilities should revise its safety measures in light of the Japanese disaster, which raised obvious questions about the sites chosen for such facilities. Clearly, plants located near tsunami-prone areas need to be reconsidered, and some countries have power plants in disturbingly close proximity to seismic faults—and to large cities.

What you call waste is something that came right from the earth. Where do you think that stuff came from? What do you think they mine in places like Uranium City Canada?

Here's the problem, there are obstacles placed in the way of nuclear power by politicians like Harry Reid pandering to various groups. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/31/us-usa-nuclear-probe-idUSTRE72U6ZZ20110331

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/30/harry-reid-ally/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/31/eveningnews/main20049454.shtml

Once you have this nuclear material, even though it came right from the earth, it becomes this mystical and feared waste. In reality you could dry hump the castor in which it's transported.

Realize that the amount of waste generated from nuclear power has other uses and is recyclable, furthermore nuclear generates in volume and weight >100,000 TIMES less waste than coal. There is no such thing as a real “green” energy. Even solar cells use heavy metals in their production......etc. It's really just a question of the source of power that has the least safety and environmental impact to us while still being feasible (reliable and cost effective). Which only leaves us with two viable alternatives, coal or nuclear. Obama can give all his rainbow, unicorn, pixy dust green power speeches he wants, that's the reality. Nuclear is actually the cleaner form of energy!

Think of it this way. Why is the waste being stored in a less safe manner by the reactors? Because those worried about nuclear powers safety and the storage of this waste are BLOCKING the yet safer and long term cheaper storage in places like Yucca mountain. The so called nuclear "waste" issue is contrived. It's an issue because it's made into an issue. There are many places where this waste can be stored safely with near zero impact. Our blocking of this long term solution is actually what is creating the problem and it might as well be why you even had something like at Fukushima where spent rods were stored on site. Ironically, those using Fukushima as their battle-cry against nuclear power are also the ones that argue against Yucca mountain.

Anytime a debate starts with one of these anti nuclear folks, just bring them back to reality with the simple question: "coal or nuclear?" Of course they won't answer or will wander off into the theoretical magical land of clean power alternatives.......... that aren't economically viable. Force them to make the decision between coal and nuclear and the answer becomes apparent.

Even though it seems that the Japanese govt didn’t release all the information (hard to tell in our own country what is true when dealing with government information), it looks like the newer nuclear plants held up pretty well considering they were hit with an earthquake and tsunami damage.

It sounds a whole lot safer than continuing to buy oil from people who want to kill us all, especially since we have an administration that doesn’t want us to drill our own oil. We are also saddled with the burden of a nonsensical EPA that says our exhaled breath is a toxin and pretends to believe in the bogeyman of global warming/disruptification/climate change to control our every movement.

>>>>>>>Nuclear power has one fault I see.....the waste. It remains toxic for centuries. Once there is a way to re-process it I’ll feel safer.<<<<<<<<<

Or more precisely: PRESENT DAY Nuclear power technology has one fault I see.....the waste

There is a way, invented by an American physicist in the 1960s to build no waste nuclear reactors. This is now in use in China and India.

Thorium reactors burn all nuclear fuel and there is no waste to worry about. Thorium is abundant, U.S. has lot of it. Also, thorium can not be weaponized.

So, the question is - why it is not used in U.S.? let me quess:

Thorium reactor makes existing technology obsolete and lot of uranium merchants unhappy. It's DC vs. AC all over again. Edisons of the world are more abundant than Teslas.

Because there is no military use for thorium, thorium reactors can not be used for weapons grade enrichment for the military.

Chances are, U.S. will be left behind and one day will have to purchase Chinese technology for something invented by an American.

The forty year old nuclear reactors operated flawlessly the moment the earthquake hit. Each reactor immediately shut down as designed and planned.

The problem was that the plant designers placed the emergency generators only 33 feet above sea level, and were wiped out by forty foot high waves of water. Once there was no power, all the other stuff happened.

This was just like Katrina where the engineers placed the emergency generators to run the emergency pumps to pump out the city in the event of a levee breach just feet above sea level, and once the water wiped out the generators the city was doomed.

Or the engineers who designed the emergency power for the NOLA hospital, and placed the gensets on the ground next to the hospital. Wipe out.

We don’t have a nuclear power problem, we have an emergency generator siting problem!

There are ways to re-process the waste.

The problem is, (as usual) the scruffy, Volvo-driving anti-nuke do-gooders and other jacksnipes get their long pecksniffian noses into the issue and start wailing about how breeder reactors for fuel reprocessing can be used to make fissile material for weapons.

Well, yes they can.

That doesn’t stop Japan from having one, nor the French.

Want to know what we have to do with all the weapons-grade material we buy from the Russkies to reprocess into civilian power reactor fuel?

We have to send it to the French. Because our fast breeder reactor program was shut down during the Clinton administration under the idea that doing so would “prevent proliferation.” Since then, Pakistan and India have both lit off credible weapons, North Korea is engaged in a weapons program, we’ve gone to war in Iraq (in part) because of their program and in so doing, we exposed the fact that Libya had a program we never even knew about.

All that happened after we shut down our FBR program.

RE: I see a problem with point (2). You kinda need water for cooling.

Lots of it.

What I meant was away from places where there are possibilities of tsunamis or huge flooding.

Putting them near some reservois I think would be OK.

Sites similar to the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Wintersburg, Arizona might be a good place to look at.

Ths Nuclear Plant is not situated adjacent to a large body of above-ground water. The facility evaporates water from the treated sewage of several nearby municipalities to meet its cooling needs.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.