Thank the gods someone is doing this. A fossil-fuelled China at a Western standard of living would wreck whatever chances we have of avoiding the worst consequences of global warming.

But it is kinda sad that the country which built the first nuclear reactor may end up buying advanced technology from someone else.

Keep in mind, a nuclear fueled China could yield results like Chernoble...

"Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies, and the media. … Even if they were right about its dangers - and they are not - its worldwide use as our main source of energy would pose an insignificant threat compared with the dangers of intolerable and lethal heat waves and sea levels rising to drown every coastal city of the world. We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear, the one safe, available energy source, now, or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet."


While I agree nuclear energy may be better than fossil fuels, to say that opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear is rediculous.

1. Finding places to store massive quantities of nuclear waste is not easy and maybe not practical.

2. Nuclear weapons are scary, and regardless of how well the use of nuclear material is policed around the world, greater access to nuclear material can't be a good thing.

The proposed reactors are not of the fuel rod design like TMI and Chernoble. The heat expansion of the graphite spheres of the pebble bed design will take the reactor sub-critical. As Dr. Teller specified -- walk away safe!

its hard for me to understand hysteria over possible accidents when air polution and global warming is inevitable.

after all, its possible that we may never have a major nuclear accident. but if we did and 50,000 people died, that would still make nuclear power a thousand times safer than coal, gas or oil. and that stat has nothing to do with polution.

Hey Dave-
Where does that stat come from?

Those two items are both based partly on irrational fear and mis-information.

1. All of the spent nuclear fuel ever produced would fit on one football field. The same volume of coal would not run one large power plant for a week. Even if we don't re-burn spent fuel in breeder reactors there is no significant disposal problem. It's just not that hard to bury it safely 'coz there just isn't all that much of it.

2. There are fuel cycles that never result in material that can be used in a bomb. If we do use those cycles (to get more energy out of the same amount of fuel and further reduce the amount of waste produced) they can be run on-site, in closed reservations guarded by the military. The French have protected their nuke plants that way for 40 years without incident. Are the French smarter than us? (I write for a US audience since most of the anti-nuke problem exists in the US.)

Dave is thinking of the consequences of global warming and sea level rise. These could kill tens of millions of people over the next thousand years, which is about how long it will take for atmospheric CO2 to return to pre-industrial levels.

Plain old air pollution, which he excluded from his estimate, already kills tens of thousands of people every year worldwide. Thousands more die in fossil fuel production accidents.

nuclear accident stat?

well, its been estimated that over 2.5 million people have been killed mining coal, oil and natural gas over the years.

hell, there is an average of 200-1500 motorists (mostly innocent bystanders, the semi driver rarely dies in a collision even if the other car is a fullsized SUV) a year killed in accidents when moving the crap around... should that be counted as hydrocarbon accident??? if they were transporting nuclear fuel or waste you can bet your bottom dollar it would be used as fuel to fan the nuclear scare hysteria.

another 2-6 million have died from black lung disease which is only acquired from mining coal.

these are US stats only. now there has been how many people killed here from nuclear power? well hell, lets include all the people who were killed that even remotely were connected to nuclear power. the number still doesnt reach the average death toll on american highways for a single day.

if we just use people killed while involved in nuclear power generation, then it would be less than the death toll on our nations highways for a single hour.

as for the football field of nuclear waste. an equivalent amount of coal wouldnt last a day in the larger plants. the coal fired plant in GA needs 2500 boxcars of coal a day. there is a railroad company there whose only job is to deliver coal to the electric plant.

sure foreign countries have large death tolls. russia will end up with over 100,000 people here shortly.

and japan has become a surprise 2nd in deaths from nuclear accidents (something that i thought they would have thought out better since they seem to do so well at nearly everything else) but even their numbers are not statistically significant. (hard to say for any amount of deaths especially if your family is involved)

but any death will be taken out of context if it is involved with something that others are against. i can remember the outrage over when 9 americans were killed in Iraq one day was 50 times greater than the outrage (of which there was nil in the press although im sure the families involved felt much differently) when over a dozen US army troops were killed in upstate NY during a training exercise.

im sorry but i dont understand this. to be killed in a war is part of the territory and the risk that everyone is fully aware of when they join the army. that is why the benefits are second to none and the pay is good.

but to die in a TRAINING ACCIDENT???
who in the hell is running the training program that kills its trainees on a regular basis?? and dont give that realistic training situations crap. these are trainees, they are not supposed to know whats going on, that is why they are TRAINING!!

ok im wandering (but that is normal) but the point is, nuclear danger has been blown way out of proportion.

Renewable energy sources anyone? Why choose between two evils? Why can't we use non-polluting sources like wind, solar, and hydro-electric? It is possible as long as you don't leave all of your electronics and lights on all day...

that would be nice to have all renewable. but unfortunately we dont have the money to do that. and i dont mean to imply that renewables are too expensive to implement. they are not despite information to the contrary.

we simply dont have the money to overcome the disinformation campaign lobbied by the oil companies. combine the billions they have to spend along with the full support and blessing of our current administration (plus the 20 billion in grants given to them as if they needed the money!!) and renewables energy sources simply dont stand a chance.

1. You missed the very important fact that nuclear waste exists for many thousands of years, longer than modern human civilization has even existed. How can you say there is no significant disposal problem? Can you see that far into the future to know the disposal will be secure for thousands of years? Especially if the entire world went nuclear, which would involve far more waste than is currently produced?

2. Would you trust countries like Nigeria, Libya, Iran (to name a few) to guard their nuke plants? However, I agree the security issue would most likely not be a problem in the US, although over a long enough period of time the possibility of a security problem increases dramatically.

I am not saying I think fossil fuels are better/safer than nuclear fission, but to say any objections to nuclear energy are based on irrational fear or misinformation is blatantly false. Nuclear energy is not "safe" the way that renewable energy sources are safe.

I'm painfully aware that nuclear waste is dangerous for thousands of years. The ore from which the fuel was made sat quietly below ground for millions of years. If anyone is foolish enough to dig up disposed waste from a thousand meters down and play with it, then they deserve what they get.

Look at it from another direction: how would you propose to stop the Chinese? (I would not; I'm counting on them to lead by example.)

Meanwhile, as some of us fret about solved problems, we are doing uncontrolled harm to ourselves and the world by non-nuclear means, some of which will take centuries to repair and some of which will *never* be undone.

krooster:

the fact that nuclear radition lasts a long time has never been disputed. the area around chernoble should be inhabitable in another few years (estimated to be 1200 years at last count) and thats only because 33 yds of concrete cover the old reactor and containment dome. (ps nearly all of the very very brave souls who covered the containment dome in a suicide mission died within 2 years... those were TRUE HEROES!!)

as far as how the security will be in places like Nigeria and Libya. i can tell you that without conviction, the security will be very well armed and nearly inpenetreble. the reason? they shoot to kill as a first option for people attempting to steal vegetables out of their garden, why do you think they would hesistate to do the same while guarding a nuclear power plant?
if i were you, i'd be much more worried about security in a place where security is practically nonexistant... the United States...

and you are not saying that fossil fuels are better than nuclear, because its simply would be a bald faced lie or a very nieve position. and im not saying that nuclear is better than renewable energy sources. in fact i have already stated that full commitment to renewables would be a dream come true for me. and i have full confidence in our being able to get all our power needs from renewables (after all, the energy is there, way more than we currently need and its there for the taking...) if just a fraction of the money and effort put into research for fossil fuel extraction, exploration and distribution was spent on wind, solar, hydroelectric, and thermal chimneys.

but as i said before, we will have to overcome a multi national oil industry rabidly protecting hundreds of billions in annual profits. tell me, if it was your billions, how easily would you give it up?

richard schumacher:

I kind of missed the "partly" in "Those two items are both based partly on irrational fear and mis-information." when I read your post. Sorry, I probably wouldn't have felt quite the need to defend myself if I had noticed that :mrgreen:

there has been a lot of things said myself included that were written emotionally, but all opinions are still welcome. that is how change comes about. get people talking, THEN thinking. i know it sounds ass backwards but that is how humans have always solved problems. they start talking, then start listening to what they are saying, receive valuable input from outside observers or collegues, and that is how difficult issues are resolved.

no one has all the answers. and this topic should be emotional. we are talking about the viability on the only home we know....Earth. for anyone who thinks im disagreeing with your post, i probably am, but please dont let that stop you from responding. even if you are responding to say im right or im wrong. because if you dont respond the conversation dies. and this is too important to give up on.

anytime a complex discussion as this is undertaken, a huge amount of frustration will be present. if it isnt, then the conversation probably didnt hit any real issues. we need to work through that frustration and continue to develope the idea and let it grow.

freedom from England started as a conversation in a pub in Boston or Philadephia over a cup of tea. the first two conversationalists were undoubtedly jeered as wasting their time on "fantasy" talk. but they were not deterred, because they believed in what they were talking about. their first plans no doubt was full of holes and poor planning. but they were overheard and eventually others joined their conversation and so on.

now will a great movement away from fossil fuels start here in one of these forums? who knows? but to shoot it down before it starts is a defeatist attitude. that is not where Toyota, the US or anyone else for that matter got to where they are now.

ok...might as well take advantage of the situation since im already waaay off topic. remember that 9-11 is coming up and we should all wear something that shows we still remember the pain of loss, the commitment of dedicated NYC public workers, and who was responsible for it all.

**edited** ummm... you guys from England might want to think of another example besides the Boston pub thingy...

Well, I agree with you that no change will happen as long as the oil industry is lobbying our government with a huge pocketbook. But I think the problem is more systemic than that..... our entire society is driven by economic factors, not human factors (what is best for all of humanity, or even more simply what is best for the american people, and best in the long run?). Even if we had billions of dollars to lobby congress, I think the average person would be against renewable energy for one reason: cost of energy. I am afraid that once fossil fuels start getting scarce and therefore expensive, we will switch to nuclear instead of renewables because nuclear is cheaper. I think there will be a spike in research into renewables, but once nuclear becomes socially accepted as "good enough" for all our energy needs, I fear that renewable energy research will drop off because it will be seen as more expensive and therefore not needed. Maybe I am too pessimistic, and I know I'm speculating into an uncertain future during which many variables can change, but right now I am scared that renewable energy will not catch on quick enough.

renewables are expensive because research dollars and widespread use has not driven down the price.

everyone thinks gas is cheap and it is NOW. its cheaper than bottled water in some places.

but that wasnt always the case. we need to factor in the 300 billion spent on the infrastructure to get the real cost of gas.

we also need to look at other places like japan and europe, places that dont have oil to get a better picture of what gas costs us.

do you really think that if every roof in the world had solar on it that it would be still expensive as it is now??

i sincerely doubt it. we are talking a multi billion dollar industry that would have several competing companies vying for a part of the lucrative pie.

the only reason solar is expensive is because its still too exclusive. few do it for the energy savings. ( it takes YEARS to recover the cost of installation) they do it to make a statement. that is too small a market for any new company starting up.

would you start a business when you potential customer base amounts to 1-2% of the available houses in your area? nope you wouldnt. less than a 50% penetration in the market means your family starves.

but if everyone needed it, then would you when a 10% penetration means that you will never have to worry about bills again for the rest of your life.

let me ask you this... what is the #1 type of business start up in the world?

restaurants... and why?? dont we already have enough of them??? they are also the business with the highest failure rate too. so why do people do it??

simple... EVERYONE eats. that means a potential market of 100%. that also means that even a 5% market penetration can mean huge profits immediately.

that is simple business and economic laws. and as i said before. if renewables like solar, wind, and thermal chimneys received a tenth of the money fossil fuels had, they would be successful and alleviate 90% of the reliance on the poluting sources and hopefully completely elminate our need to use coal fired power plants.

ok lets take this scenario...

we have a area of population larger than average size at 250,000 people.

say we have an industry that has potential revenues of 300 million dollars (slightly below the average as most of the figures are)

so we have 250 businesses start up to provide this service. which is more than double the average density of such businesses.

now each business averages a net profit of 10% (which is close... although this level is unacceptable to most other types of industry but because of the potential market being so high, its still viable)

now although the market seems saturated and no one has a real advantage, they all make a decent living with net profits amounting to over 100K a year.

now the industry we should be talking about should be solar energy systems installers. but sadly it isnt.

realize that solar energy installers would have higher rate of return in profitability and a slightly lower overall market worth although initially it would be much higher. also eventually the chaff will be separated from the wheat and the lesser companies dissolved as they should be.

all this happened in the industry we mentioned above and that industry is gas stations.

currently wind geeneration is waaay too expensive for the individual home. the system itself would be more expensive than the average home.

but that can be changed. there is no doubt in my mind that the full force of the scientific and business community of the US directed at this problem will have the obstacles to renewable energy on its knees in no time.

witness the acomplishment of US industry during WWII when a common goal was recognized, accepted and tackled with the full resources of everyone involved.

and we wonder why solar isnt better than it is... hmmm think the massive 150 million granted for solar research in 2002 had anything to do with it?

150 million wouldnt pay one tenth the cost of the cheapest military weapons project.