Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Oops, this was a dupe.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 10:17 AM
Original message
Oops, this was a dupe.
Edited on Mon May-05-08 10:47 AM by phantom power
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hadrons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. Because France is smaller and doesn't need as many nuclear plants ....
Senile old fool ... no new nuclear plants are being built because (with overruns) they end up costing about $7 billion; what private company going to pony-up that dough???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
2. Maybe 1, 000.....maybe 10,000...
...sorry, I was channeling McCain for a moment...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poll_Blind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
3. I think it was this month's Scientific American which talks about nuclear waste.
  We need to figure out what we're going to do with nuclear waste before we build more nuclear power plants. It's just that simple.

PB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyberswede Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Also in the Nation
I read an alarming article about that in the Nation recently - something about the pools where spent fuel rods are stored, and how they're not very secure.

Oh here - I found the article online (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti):

Activists like Sidebotham say the real issue is not how to build more nukes but how to handle the old, decrepit plants and their huge stockpiles of radioactive waste. Most of the atomic plants in this country are reaching the end of their life span; seventeen have been decommissioned. And increasingly the question is what to do with the accumulated waste--the extremely radioactive spent fuel rods. This is dangerous stuff. If exposed to air for more than six hours, spent fuel rods spontaneously combust, spewing highly poisonous radioactive isotopes far and wide. This spent fuel will be hot for 10,000 years.

Since 1978 the Energy Department has been studying Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a possible permanent repository for atomic waste. But intense opposition has held up those efforts. In the meantime, the partially burned uranium is stored at the old power plants, in pools of water called "spent fuel pools." Lying near great cities, on crucial river systems, in small rural towns, these pools are potentially a far greater risk than a reactor meltdown. Scenarios for how terrorists might attack and drain them range from driving a truck bomb to crashing an explosive-laden plane into them.

Just after 9/11, when security at nuke plants was supposed to be high, lead pellets started raining down on the containment structure and guard shack at Maine Yankee, in Wiscasset. (The plant has since been decommissioned.) A group of four men in camouflage, armed and intent on killing, had infiltrated into a swamp and were firing weapons from somewhere in the reeds. This "cell" turned out to be four local duck hunters who had no idea they were hitting the power plant.


Yikes! :scared:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoesTo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-05-08 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. Not crazy, but be skeptical
With peak oil and global warming, we're going to need radical solutions. I don't mind seeing a candidate put them out there. I don't want to understate the problems with nuclear, but it could be that oodles of radioactive waste and plants are less risky than oodles of coal-burning plants and gas burning cars. Conservation should come first, then some renewables. Then what? Nuclear in France is better than in the US because the plants here are all old technology and nobody is really that good at running them here. Have to consider it.
On the other hand, if we're talking about $4 trillion worth (which would ballon to $20 trillion as these things do), look into the lucky contractors before signing the contract.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 15th 2024, 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC