Can someone, who is informed, explain to me why nuclear plants are so bad?

Have not read all of page three, but IO wanted to respond to tick tock. Though you are mildly informed on the issues of coal, you are grossly overstating the issues.

first off, Coal constitutes less than 1 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere!

Secondly most of the other chemicals (save mercury) can be and generally are isolated and captured in the burning process. There is new technology out that takes the captured "waste" and forces a chemical reaction, which turns the "waste" into I beleive hydrogen which when released is harmless.

Third- there are chemicals (such as bromine) that can be placed on the coal prior to burning that will essentially create a total clean burn.

Fourth- mercury is a major issue. However there are a few companies that are doing remarkable things in the prevention and negation of mercury in coal.

Oil- produces more global,environmental, and social issues for the planet than does coal, and our earthly suply is far less.

Biggest issue with coal by far is the harvesting of it. More safety regulations must be put into place.

Now all of my sources I have not with me, so appologies that I can not post them. Likewise, most of what I said came from memory so it is not 100% but is pretty accurate.

Actually the nuclear storage problem is primarily a social and political problem and only secondarily a technical problem. That's not to say that the technical issues of storing the waste are trivial, but they are hardly the main issue. Considering the US generates about 50% of its energy from coal, which pours tons of nasty pollutants directly into the air, it's a little odd that we focus on nuclear power.

As for Chernobyl - they ran an ill-advised test with a skeleton crew who lacked experience with nuclear power plants and they ignored their own safety regulations. So, yes, if you do everything wrong with Soviet era technology then you can screw things up very badly.

TMI hardly compares, I think. The reactor was of a better design and despite the fact that part of the reactor core melted down the reactor vessel contained it all. All in all, a pretty good result. No leakage (although there was some deliberate venting), no deaths, and it is generally agreed that there was no serious radiation exposure.

This is a pro-nuclear site, but there's lots of good stuff here:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf103.html

http://www.world-nuclear.org/

Where would you rather buy a house -- next door to a coal power plant or next door to a nuclear power plant?

I'd personally chose living by nuclear in a heartbeat. It's much safer/cleaner. I think only a fool would want to live in close proximity to burning coal.

Just my 2 cents.

c'mon that is crazy talk, we all want to join Nuclear Waste in his stone age hunter gatherer society where we all wear animal hides and live in harmony with nature.

I wanna join the nukies! Hey can we store the nuclear waste in your backyard please?

I don't see a whole lot of scientific evidence to support all the stuff that was written by Nuclear Waste. You seem well informed about TMI, but then you attack nuclear power with what appears to be a very closed mind. This how dilemma is about energy economics. I wish we could find a solution that is perfect and as clean as a flowery field with butterflies; without regarding money at all. But, that simply isn't realistic. Nuclear power has natural and economic tradeoffs with other energy forms, such as long-term waste and all that. Right now nuclear power appears to be a step in a better direction, not necessarily the right direction, compared to relying on coal or oil.

You continue to insult nuclear engineering, and you base your attack solely on the fact that we haven't figured out clean disposal techniques. That is simply asinine. How the hell does that determine whether or not engineering has made any progress in the past 30 years? Sure, it would be the big milestone, but because it hasn't happened doesn't mean that the nuclear engineers have been sitting with their thumbs up their asses the entire time either. I don't see where all the animosity and anger in your posts come from.

I'd rather not live next to either, but I'd chose the coal plant anytime. It isn't going to melt down.

by the by. We are a whole lot closer to having extremely clean coal than most people think. Within 50 years (not that long) coal should be able to be used with 0 green house gases or any other type of waste.

Nothin wrong with Nuclear either. One of those 6 of one, half dozen of the others.

Many countries have used nuclear technology for terrorism and bad things. The United States committed two of the worst acts of genocide in the history of mankind, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Russia and Israel use it to illegally hold onto Islamic homelands. Japan uses it to muscle China, Korea, and Taiwan out of territorial waters for mineral and oil rights. Iran wants to build nuclear plants for peaceful purposes. Why can't more countries be like Iran, the great Persian Empire.

I want to know how I can profit with more countries using nuclear power.

Is there an ETF or mutual fund that specializes in nuclear power developement? I would like to have a few different uranium mining companies and whatever else that would be in high demand if nuclear power plants start being built. Anyone know of such a fund or ETF?

"Long term waste and all that". Do you realize what you are glossing over with this phrase. "Long Term" in this scenario effectively equals "permanent".

I did not "attack" nuclear engineering. (I sure hope its feelings weren't hurt!) The other poster made a claim of how far engineering had come in 20 years (I believe he meant to say 30). I don't see that it has. Regardless if he is claiming it has come such a long way I'd like to see him back it up. What improvements have been made that I'm supposed to feel so comfortable when Con-Ed decides to build a nuclear power plant in my neighborhood.

So far all we seem to have is his faith in that. It's not enough.

Back when TMI happened, we were all assured that "nothing is wrong" and "everything is under control". Turns out it wasn't at all. I'm through taking the assurances of power companies and politicians.

The issue of waste disposal is a separate one and the attempt by those here to minimize it astounds me. Tens of thousands of tons of the stuff come from France alone. Imagine how much the US would produce. Permanently toxic to humans. The only solution is to dig a hole and put it there. And when the hole is filled? Then what do you do? Hey, dig another hole. And as another poster (think it was HRE) made a great point that I should have raised, how do you GET the waste to Yucca mountain? Train? Truck? What happens if the transport crashes? It's not quite the same thing as a gas tanker truck overturning, now is it? Do you want the nuclear waste train going through your neighborhood?

It comes from having lived in the area of TMI when the disaster there occurred. It's one thing to talk about nuclear power when you live a few hundred miles from the nearest plant. But when you might have to be evacuated if the plant has an accident, you'd be amazed how quickly you start to care about this stuff.

Those who object to what I say seem to be under the impression I expect perfectly clean energy. That is, of course, ridiculous. But when looking for things which are going to replace coal, oil, and gas, I'd rather it not be something that will generate pollutants orders-of-magnitude worse than what those imperfect sources generate.

What astounds me is how willing people are to simply throw up their hands and say, "oh well, our power demands are going to increase so we need it from SOMEWHERE so lets take whatever there is. Screw the problems. Lets hand them off to future generations."

Energy technology never really progresses until the PRICE rises. Funny how inefficient cars were until the first energy crisis in the 70s. Suddenly 10 mpg was out and 30-40 mpg was in. Now that we're sliding into another energy crunch, a more permanent one, suddenly hybrids are commonplace, fuel efficiency standards for cars are significantly rising for the first time since that crisis.

Other sources of energy like solar, geothermal, wind, etc. They never will become viable until people NEED them to be. But as long as people are willing to mortage the future for the cheap energy they want now, they never will. And even then, they're not made for the huge one-big-central-power-plant model. The future of our energy needs is going to be met largely by energy ISLANDS. Everyone having little solar cells on their houses. Little wind farms even. We have so many small energy needs that can be met by all of my "flowery field" solutions to take the load off of the BIG energy needs.

Solve the nuclear waste problem - figure out how to make those bacteria eat all the waste or a way to completely recycle it -- and then I will be all for nuclear energy. Yes I fear the danger of another TMI. I am convinced something worse WILL eventually happen. If not by accident, perhaps by some act of terror.

But even that is minor compared to the main problem: nuclear waste. In the meantime, I would rather see the price of energy rise to 100 times what it is now than see another nuclear power plant built. I'm not worried about that scenario. Because once it rose, you'd see innovation in energy like we've never seen. Necessity is the mother of it. Who knows -- maybe it would spur them to solve the nuclear waste problem. There's not much money in that now.

Yucca mountain is a band-aid. Nothing more.

I can't say it any clearer than that. I hope those that support nuclear energy will think a little more about it. Perhaps you'll still support it but please don't dismiss the waste problem like it's some sort of minor annoyance. It's huge.

You mention proximity to TMI. I happened to be very near the plant during that episode.

I'd be interested in seeing how close or far people posting here, especially people who think nuclear power is a good idea, live from a nuke plant. I'm about six miles from one.

man, you have some serious nuclear phobia issues. just remodel your house with some lead siding, and you'll be able to relax, and concentrate on worrying about the thousands of nuclear warheads scattered across the country, and the thousands more that have been targeted on America since the cold war. they don't just leak radiation like the nuclear waste you're so scared of - they actually are designed to explode. then there's the ever-lurking threat of some rogue actor getting their hands on one of those unaccounted-for nukes from the former soviet states. i also caught a show on the history channel about the danger of gamma ray bursts from supernovae that apparently caused a mass extinction 450 million years ago, and could happen again at any time. man, radiation sure is scary shit. put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye!

now there is a trick i have never heard ofturning basic elements that comprise waste (which are certainly not all hydrogen)and turning them into hydrogen - wow, you want to explain that to me

fadsgw wrote:

There is new technology out that takes the captured "waste" and forces a chemical reaction, which turns the "waste" into I beleive hydrogen which when released is harmless.

to the last post:

I wish I could go into more specifics, but I can not because I am not educated in that field. My father in law is a VP for an enviromental engeneering company, that monitors power plants, and is as well developing technology to clean up coal. They recently recieved 10 million from DOE to continue their research on this. My area of expertise is mathematics, so I can somewhat understand what my father in law is talking about, but can not repeat it verbatum.

when googling his name+ environment there are 100,000 + hits and his is a rather uncommon name. I omly looked at first 10 pages but 95 percent of the things were about him. he has 11 patents, mostly for components used in nuclear and coal based powere plants. He is a smart dude, and is not pulling my leg.

Now I will admit that I may have misinterpreted and misrepresented the basics of his work, but for the most part it is accurate.