Comments on: Should nuclear power play a significant role in America’s energy future? http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/2010/07/27/question-of-the-week-137/ Questions of the Week Wed, 08 Sep 2010 09:54:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By:  Melatonin Dosage http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/2010/07/27/question-of-the-week-137/#comment-214220  Melatonin Dosage Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:26:30 +0000 http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/?p=1173#comment-214220 i prefer to use soft touch light switches because they last longer',* i prefer to use soft touch light switches because they last longer’,*

]]> By: Peter Walker http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/2010/07/27/question-of-the-week-137/#comment-211924 Peter Walker Sun, 01 Aug 2010 02:47:26 +0000 http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/?p=1173#comment-211924 The recent issue of American Scientist has an interesting article on the promise of thorium reactors and contrasts them with uranium based technologies. The recent issue of American Scientist has an interesting article on the promise of thorium reactors and contrasts them with uranium based technologies.

]]> By: Bill http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/2010/07/27/question-of-the-week-137/#comment-211694 Bill Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:39:17 +0000 http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/?p=1173#comment-211694 There definitely should be a maybe answer to these questions. I voted no only because maybe wasn't available. Until there becomes a reasonably reliable means to dispose of nuclear waste, further nuclear power developement will remain a suicidal approach to resolve our desire for inexpensive reliable energy sources. Since when can government, science, or business lay claim to having the best interests of the human race as their motivators? Who wants Russia to be in charge of nuclear waste disposal? Who wants BP to be in charge of nuclear waste disposal? In academia having an answer is never the same as using the answer. The human race has demostrated that the lowest common denominator is what will generally prevail. Therefore, with the potential of thousands of years of consequence, demonstrated effective nuclear waste disposal must come first, if the survival of the species and or earth means anything. There definitely should be a maybe answer to these questions. I voted no only because maybe wasn’t available. Until there becomes a reasonably reliable means to dispose of nuclear waste, further nuclear power developement will remain a suicidal approach to resolve our desire for inexpensive reliable energy sources.

Since when can government, science, or business lay claim to having the best interests of the human race as their motivators?

Who wants Russia to be in charge of nuclear waste disposal?

Who wants BP to be in charge of nuclear waste disposal?

In academia having an answer is never the same as using the answer.

The human race has demostrated that the lowest common denominator is what will generally prevail. Therefore, with the potential of thousands of years of consequence, demonstrated effective nuclear waste disposal must come first, if the survival of the species and or earth means anything.

]]> By: Peter http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/2010/07/27/question-of-the-week-137/#comment-211463 Peter Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:00:42 +0000 http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/?p=1173#comment-211463 If Bill Gates is on record advocating for nuclear power... I believe I reluctantly agree with him. I'm not clear on whether he truly is an advocate, but none-the-less, he knows if we are going to continue providing the kind of electrical power to provide the capacity we need to continue doing what we all do - we need a quantum leap to get to that next level - and his study and analysis says there is no other alternative on the horizon to do that, except nuclear. I, too, am concerned with the spent fuel - and I noted with interest the concept of "diluting" nuclear waste that Jose mentions. I think more to the point, the half life of nuclear material goes on for thousands of years - we will be accumulating the spent fuel much more rapidly than it can be diluted. We need another economical method to readily dispose of nuclear waste. Fusion may be a more suitable alternative to the previous focus on the fision process. If Bill Gates is on record advocating for nuclear power… I believe I reluctantly agree with him. I’m not clear on whether he truly is an advocate, but none-the-less, he knows if we are going to continue providing the kind of electrical power to provide the capacity we need to continue doing what we all do - we need a quantum leap to get to that next level - and his study and analysis says there is no other alternative on the horizon to do that, except nuclear. I, too, am concerned with the spent fuel - and I noted with interest the concept of “diluting” nuclear waste that Jose mentions. I think more to the point, the half life of nuclear material goes on for thousands of years - we will be accumulating the spent fuel much more rapidly than it can be diluted. We need another economical method to readily dispose of nuclear waste. Fusion may be a more suitable alternative to the previous focus on the fision process.

]]> By: Tim http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/2010/07/27/question-of-the-week-137/#comment-211439 Tim Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:55:42 +0000 http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/?p=1173#comment-211439 Marks hits a nail on the head rather nicely. The only proper long term solution is to use the sun in an energy balanced way, taking account of the planet’s needs. Nuclear energy seems to be a way to fill the gap whilst we develop ways of getting there. Reducing our huge wastage of fossil derived energy is also essential. I do buy the climate influence argument, but even if you are fixed against that view it makes sense to preserve the energy rich fossil fuels for sensible use over a longer time, rather than throw it away on big engines for shopping trips, shirtsleeves in centrally heated winter and sweaters in the air-conditioned summer. So carbon footprint reduction is the way to buy time to get the nuclear option going. Gosh, and we could make money by selling both these technology systems to the rest of the world. Oh, and we had better be prepared to accept that other countries, many other countries, will come to the same conclusion about nuclear energy. Marks hits a nail on the head rather nicely. The only proper long term solution is to use the sun in an energy balanced way, taking account of the planet’s needs.

Nuclear energy seems to be a way to fill the gap whilst we develop ways of getting there. Reducing our huge wastage of fossil derived energy is also essential. I do buy the climate influence argument, but even if you are fixed against that view it makes sense to preserve the energy rich fossil fuels for sensible use over a longer time, rather than throw it away on big engines for shopping trips, shirtsleeves in centrally heated winter and sweaters in the air-conditioned summer. So carbon footprint reduction is the way to buy time to get the nuclear option going.

Gosh, and we could make money by selling both these technology systems to the rest of the world.

Oh, and we had better be prepared to accept that other countries, many other countries, will come to the same conclusion about nuclear energy.

]]> By: Milton Schick http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/2010/07/27/question-of-the-week-137/#comment-211369 Milton Schick Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:08:16 +0000 http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/?p=1173#comment-211369 YES! ABSOLUTELY! UNQUESTIONABLY! PERIOD! YES! ABSOLUTELY! UNQUESTIONABLY! PERIOD!

]]> By: Claude Stachowiak http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/2010/07/27/question-of-the-week-137/#comment-211363 Claude Stachowiak Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:24:50 +0000 http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/?p=1173#comment-211363 Yes, we should pursue using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. However, all the States benefiting from it need to develop their own repositories’ to dispose of the waste or the Federal Government needs to find a way to get it off our planet. We cannot keep sending it to one location in the United States that is currently the subject of a massive cleanup from storing waste created in the 1940’s. Yes, we should pursue using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. However, all the States benefiting from it need to develop their own repositories’ to dispose of the waste or the Federal Government needs to find a way to get it off our planet. We cannot keep sending it to one location in the United States that is currently the subject of a massive cleanup from storing waste created in the 1940’s.

]]> By: Terry C. Potter http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/2010/07/27/question-of-the-week-137/#comment-211353 Terry C. Potter Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:55:17 +0000 http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/?p=1173#comment-211353 I absolutely think nuclear power should play a major role in our future energy needs. I think some type of self contained minature nuclear reactor will someday power personal vehicles. Maybe something that would be swapped out every 6 months or so. I absolutely think nuclear power should play a major role in our future energy needs. I think some type of self contained minature nuclear reactor will someday power personal vehicles. Maybe something that would be swapped out every 6 months or so.

]]> By: Jim Roe http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/2010/07/27/question-of-the-week-137/#comment-211344 Jim Roe Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:44:19 +0000 http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/?p=1173#comment-211344 Nuclear, or similar sources for power generation, for the short term I still like coal for the immediate future, as global warming cannot be altered by any great degree through human resources. One Volcanic eruption would put us back years. Global warming billions spent for control, what a terrible ROI Bet that business plan would be laughed out of existance. Spend the billions on clean coal technology, and nuclear power. Nuclear, or similar sources for power generation, for the short term
I still like coal for the immediate future, as global warming cannot be altered by any great degree through human resources. One Volcanic eruption would put us back years.
Global warming billions spent for control, what a terrible ROI
Bet that business plan would be laughed out of existance.
Spend the billions on clean coal technology, and nuclear power.

]]> By: Jose' Lage http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/2010/07/27/question-of-the-week-137/#comment-211341 Jose' Lage Tue, 27 Jul 2010 20:34:49 +0000 http://www.techbriefsinsider.com/?p=1173#comment-211341 Only idiots (!) would not consider nuclear energy. It is a proven technology AND economically feasible. By the way, the current cost of electricity (based mostly on the price of fossil fuel) is generating a windfall of profits to utility companies running nuclear reactors - just check it out! The answer to the only reasonable question concerning nuclear energy: what to do with the radioactive spent fuel? Simple solution: dilute the material and we will have no problem with it. Remember: the nuclear fuel comes originally from nature, in an diluted form. So, bring the spent fuel to the original natural (diluted) state and return it to nature. However ... if we really want to resolve our energy problem, simply forbid the use of ice on drinks sold everywhere in this country. Has anyone have the slightest idea of how much energy goes down the drain, per minute, with all the ice wasted in this land? Has anyone ever asked why do we need to fill 3/4 of every soft drink cup with ice before drinking it just to throw most of it away minutes later? WAKE UP AMERICA! Only idiots (!) would not consider nuclear energy. It is a proven technology AND economically feasible. By the way, the current cost of electricity (based mostly on the price of fossil fuel) is generating a windfall of profits to utility companies running nuclear reactors - just check it out!

The answer to the only reasonable question concerning nuclear energy: what to do with the radioactive spent fuel? Simple solution: dilute the material and we will have no problem with it. Remember: the nuclear fuel comes originally from nature, in an diluted form. So, bring the spent fuel to the original natural (diluted) state and return it to nature.

However … if we really want to resolve our energy problem, simply forbid the use of ice on drinks sold everywhere in this country. Has anyone have the slightest idea of how much energy goes down the drain, per minute, with all the ice wasted in this land? Has anyone ever asked why do we need to fill 3/4 of every soft drink cup with ice before drinking it just to throw most of it away minutes later?

WAKE UP AMERICA!

]]>