Did not take long.

[layoutshooter]

It did not take long for the "fear" to set in, longer than I thought though.

All it took was one the most most extraordinary set of events that could ever happen to scare these people. There are not going to be many 8.9 earthquakes ever, world wide, and they are VERY unlikely in many parts of the mainland U.S.

We need the power. Windmills won't do the job. No one wants coal and hydro destroys river systems.

There is NO such thing as power without a price. Nuclear is one of the best ways we can go.

Stay out of the way and let's get started and another 20 or 30 plants.

"Put the brakes" on nuclear power plants: Lieberman​

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States should "put the brakes on" new nuclear power plants until fully understanding what happened to the earthquake-crippled nuclear reactors in Japan, the chairman of the U.S. Senate's homeland security panel said on Sunday.

Engineers in Japan tried on Sunday to avert a meltdown at three nuclear reactors following Friday's huge earthquake by pumping in cooling seawater after authorities said they assumed that some damage had already occurred.

"I don't want to stop the building of nuclear power plants," independent Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on the CBS program "Face the Nation."

"But I think we've got to kind of quietly put, quickly put the brakes on until we can absorb what has happened in Japan as a result of the earthquake and the tsunami and then see what more, if anything, we can demand of the new power plants that are coming on line," Lieberman added.

Lieberman, an influential voice in the U.S. Congress on domestic security matters, described himself as a "big supporter of nuclear power because it's domestic, it's ours and it's clean." He also touted "a good safety record" with nuclear power plants in the United States.

Nuclear power is controversial because of its radioactive waste, which is now stored on site at reactor locations around the country. Remembering the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, many Americans still harbor concerns about nuclear power's safety
.
U.S. President Barack Obama has argued that the United States must increase its supply of nuclear power to meet its energy needs and fight climate change. In February 2010, Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees to build the first U.S. nuclear power plant in nearly three decades.

The government backing will go to help Southern Co build two reactors at a plant in the U.S. state of Georgia.

Expanding nuclear energy is an area Obama, a Democrat, and Republicans have embraced as a way to generate power and jobs.

Supporters of nuclear power argue that more reactors will be needed for the United States to tackle global warming effectively because nuclear is a much cleaner energy source than coal-fired power plants, which spew greenhouse gases.

Lieberman noted there are 104 nuclear power plants in the United States, and that about 23 of them are built according to designs similar to the nuclear power plants in Japan that are now the focus of the world's concern.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is actively reviewing 12 combined license applications from 11 companies and consortia for 20 nuclear power plants, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group.

"Since Three Mile Island, we upgraded safety standards for our nuclear power plants, and right now no plant can be built unless it can withstand the known highest earthquake in that geographic area plus some margin of safety," Lieberman said.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, speaking on "Fox News Sunday," urged a cautious approach.

"I don't think right after a major environmental catastrophe is a very good time to be making American domestic policy. I think we ought to just concentrate on helping the Japanese in any way that we can," McConnell said.

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer told NBC's "Meet the Press" the United States still must free itself from dependence on foreign oil for its energy needs. "I'm still willing to look at nuclear. As I've always said, it has to be done safely and carefully," Schumer said.

Friday's earthquake knocked out the back-up cooling systems at stricken reactors in Fukushima prefecture north of Tokyo, causing a build-up of heat and pressure that probably damaged but had not yet destroyed some fuel rod





"Put the brakes" on nuclear power plants: Lieberman - Yahoo! News

 

[Turtle]

I don't know if putting the brakes on until we "fully understanding what happened" is something I would call "fear" or some kind of overreaction. I'd call it prudent. If anything can be learned from these accidents, then why not learn it?

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't know if putting the brakes on until we "fully understanding what happened" is something I would call "fear" or some kind of overreaction. I'd call it prudent. If anything can be learned from these accidents, then why not learn it?

Because I believe that this is just an excuse for some who do not like nuclear power to begin with. The government should not even be involved with the production of electricity.

Sure we can, and likely will, learn things from this event. Don't build plants where a tsunami can hit them. Don't build plants where 8.9 earthquakes are likely to occur and have at least 2 other sources of power to run the pumps.

A plant in Michigan or Ohio will NEVER see the series of events that has led to this.

 

[cheri1122]

Considering the potential for catastrophe, I totally agree - there's waaaay too much equivocating ["we think", "it may", etc] coming from the "experts" for me to feel reassured. One expert said he was confident that Japan would handle a meltdown without any major problems, because "the reactors were built to withstand such earthquakes"
From what I've seen, they didn't withstand it very well so far....

 

[layoutshooter]

Considering the potential for catastrophe, I totally agree - there's waaaay too much equivocating ["we think", "it may", etc] coming from the "experts" for me to feel reassured. One expert said he was confident that Japan would handle a meltdown without any major problems, because "the reactors were built to withstand such earthquakes"
From what I've seen, they didn't withstand it very well so far....

Do you think that this set of events could happen on Lake Erie for example?

EVERY form of power production is dangerous in it's own way. We are running short of power in many areas. We have rolling "brown outs" in California and Florida often during summer months. The demand for power is growing.

What is your solution? I think that nuclear and coal are the best answers, but hey, have at it. What would you do? Tie up a hundred thousand acres or so for a wind farm that only works when the wind blows?

If we wait for the years it will take for the final report to come out we will just be that much further behind on building needed plants.

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't know if the answer below is 100% or not. I doubt it is too far off though. We need a steady, reliable source of power.

How many square miles of Windmills equal 1 Nuclear power plant?

Or, how square miles of Solar Panels.
Where are we going to put them?
​

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

A typical nuclear power plant produces 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour.

At 25 megawatts to 1500 acres for a nice wind farm of 60 to 70 turbines, you would need 60,000 acres and 2400 to 2800 wind turbines to equal 1,000 megawatts. Of course, these wind turbines only produce that much power when the wind is blowing just right. That only happens about 25% of the time, so you really need four times as many wind turbines and four times as much space to produce, on average, 1,000 megawatts of electricity per hour. So that's, 240,000 acres and 9,600 to 11,200 turbines. 240,000 acres is 375 square miles.

At 5 acres of solar panels per megawatt, you need 5,000 acres of solar panels to equal 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Those solar panels only work at peak power levels during the sunny times, so, on average, they only put out about 25% of their rated capacity. That means you really need 20,000 acres of solar panels to generate 1,000 megwatts of electricity per hour, on average. 20,000 acres is 31.25 square miles.

We aren't going to put them anywhere. They are way too expensive and they don't provide a stable enough power supply to rely on. Anyplace with enough open spaces, enough wind or sun shine to be a good candidate is too far away from the east and west coasts where that power is needed most.

By comparison, the Fermi nuclear power plant near Monroe, Michigan sits on a site of about 2 square miles and produces 1,150 megawatts of electricity 24 hours a day for 18 months straight. Then it needs to be shut down for a month for maintenance and refueling and it can go right back to making power 24 hours a day, rain or shine. They are even thinking about adding another reactor that will double the output of the plant on the same amount of land.





How many square miles of Windmills equal 1 Nuclear power plant? - Yahoo! Answers

 

[cheri1122]

If we don't wait until we know the answers, we may well be dead and/or dying by the time we find them.
I don't have "a solution"- as I mentioned, nuclear physics isn't my area of expertise. I just expect that those who are providing answers to the growing need for power will consider the answers to be necessary before proceeding when the stakes are life or death for millions of people.
Whatever the solution, it shouldn't involve 'the unknown' in this endeavor.

 

[layoutshooter]

Well, I live within range of Fermi in Michigan, it does NOT scare me. If I had the chance I would move even closer, more country out there. Good duck hunting too. Lots of deer and rabbits.

When I lived in PA I was on a fire department that was a decontamination center for both Three Mile Island and Peach Bottom nuke plants. Twice a year we had training in case a problem arouse. We learned all about what really happened at TMI and how the press used it for ratings. We learned the REAL risks and how to deal with them. I became more of a fan of nuclear power the more I learned.

I think there is a lack of real, honest, just facts education (yeah Turtle, I said that word ) on nuclear power and people tend to fear what they do not understand.

 

[Turtle]

Because I believe that this is just an excuse for some who do not like nuclear power to begin with.

Well, yeah, for those who are anti-nuclear power, this will be a rallying cry. But Lieberman isn't one of them. He's a proponent of nuclear power.

The government should not even be involved with the production of electricity.

Yeah, well, they are, and you can't change that, so you need get over that.

Sure we can, and likely will, learn things from this event. Don't build plants where a tsunami can hit them. Don't build plants where 8.9 earthquakes are likely to occur and have at least 2 other sources of power to run the pumps.

It's easy to say that now. But the fact is there is no truly safe place on Earth that is protected from any and all natural disasters.

A plant in Michigan or Ohio will NEVER see the series of events that has led to this.

And the Titanic is unsinkable.

On June 23, 2010 there was a 5.0 quake 12 miles below the surface in an area near the border of Ontario and Quebec. There is a geological formation known as the Canadian Shield, a massive layer of rock left over from the advance of glaciers during the Ice Age, some 10,000 years ago.

The edge of the Canadian Shield, the spear of the shield as it were, borders and sits between Lake Huron, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. When you cross into Canada at Sarnia or Windsor and drive to Toronto, you are driving along the edge of that shield. You can think of it as a single sheet of plywood. Hit it solidly anywhere and the whole sheet vibrates from it. In 2010 the quake was felt in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and as far south as West Virginia and north through Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. The pressures underneath the Canadian Shield are always building, and one day they will give way. And when it does, that spear portion of the shield will vibrate like crazy, causing at the very least a few ripples in the lakes.

So yes, a massive earthquake (and tsunami of sorts) could, absolutely, happen on the Great Lakes. One cold even have its epicenter under one of the lakes, which could cause a tsunami for real.

Imagine if a relatively small asteroid slammed into the middle of Lake Erie. That would be fun.

 

[cheri1122]

I fear what I don't understand when those who make decisions that affect everyone's safety don't understand the subject thoroughly, either. The qualifiers we're hearing now ["maybe" "possibly"] make it clear that they don't know for sure what will happen in Japan. And Japan is considered the most advanced in nuclear technology!
If you're not worried, you trust them blindly, maybe you want to consider how much the field of medicine blundered about, killing folks, because much of what they 'knew' turned out to be dead wrong.
Lobotomy, anyone?

 

[moose]

I always wondered why they paint the Air turbines white and not black so they can capture the sun somehow...

 

[layoutshooter]

Well, I guess that we should just wait another 2 or 5 years before we do anything of value to increase the electric output. I mean, for the most part, we have done nothing for 30 years, why start now? Just wring our hands about the extreme, and continue with the brown outs etc. Sounds good. Plug in your electric cars too.

I would be willing to bet a LOT of money that more people will be killed this year alone in car wrecks that 100% of ALL deaths related to nuclear power in ANY way shape or form.

 

[LDB]

We should wait until we learn everything there is to know. If we aren't 100% certain of safety and security we shouldn't do anything. Yeah. That's it. Wait for the guarantee. Oh, and before apoplexy strikes our susceptibles, we have to be virtually certain of safety and then accept there's risk in everything in life and our choices are use the safest and cleanest form of power that can meet all our needs or use other sources less safe, less clean and unable to keep up with current and future demand.

 

[Moot]

Lobotomy, anyone?

Thanks, I'll pass. One is my limit!

 

[Pilgrim]

The safety statistics on Nuclear Power Plants are always understated and de-emphasized by the media and the fear-mongers. Mention nuclear power plants and the majority of Americans - most of them woefully uninformed about the subject - immediately think of something like a huge bomb waiting to go off. One would think somebody in the govt. would campaign to present a few facts, such as:
(emphasis mine)
"Risks from reactor accidents are estimated by the rapidly developing science of "probabilistic risk analysis" (PRA). A PRA must be done separately for each power plant (at a cost of $5 million) but we give typical results here: A fuel melt-down might be expected once in 20,000 years of reactor operation. In 2 out of 3 melt-downs there would be no deaths, in 1 out of 5 there would be over 1000 deaths, and in 1 out of 100,000 there would be 50,000 deaths. The average for all meltdowns would be 400 deaths. Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning. "

Nuclear Power Risk

 

[scottm4211]

I feel completely safe now that both Fox News and CNN have had Bill Nye the Science Guy on to reassure us.

I'll be in the corner curled up in the fetal position.

 

[layoutshooter]

Below is a list of MAJOR nuclear accidents world wide, since 1952. Notice how FEW deaths. Yes, there is POTENTIAL for more, but there has not been. I wonder, how many coal miners have been killed world wide since 1952? Most of the coal mined goes to electricity production. Any bet there were more? LOTS more?






Major Nuclear Power Plant Accidents

December 12, 1952

A partial meltdown of a reactor's uranium core at the Chalk River plant near Ottawa, Canada, resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water poured into the reactor, there were no injuries.

October 1957

Fire destroyed the core of a plutonium-producing reactor at Britain's Windscale nuclear complex - since renamed Sellafield - sending clouds of radioactivity into the atmosphere. An official report said the leaked radiation could have caused dozens of cancer deaths in the vicinity of Liverpool.

Winter 1957-'58

A serious accident occurred during the winter of 1957-58 near the town of Kyshtym in the Urals. A Russian scientist who first reported the disaster estimated that hundreds died from radiation sickness.

January 3, 1961

Three technicians died at a U.S. plant in Idaho Falls in an accident at an experimental reactor.

July 4, 1961

The captain and seven crew members died when radiation spread through the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered submarine. A pipe in the control system of one of the two reactors had ruptured.

October 5, 1966

The core of an experimental reactor near Detroit, Mich., melted partially when a sodium cooling system failed.

January 21, 1969

A coolant malfunction from an experimental underground reactor at Lucens Vad, Switzerland, releases a large amount of radiation into a cave, which was then sealed.

December 7, 1975

At the Lubmin nuclear power complex on the Baltic coast in the former East Germany, a short-circuit caused by an electrician's mistake started a fire. Some news reports said there was almost a meltdown of the reactor core.

March 28, 1979

Near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, America's worst nuclear accident occurred. A partial meltdown of one of the reactors forced the evacuation of the residents after radioactive gas escaped into the atmosphere.

February 11, 1981

Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.

April 25, 1981

Officials said around 45 workers were exposed to radioactivity during repairs to a plant at Tsuruga, Japan.

April 26, 1986

The world's worst nuclear accident occurred after an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. It released radiation over much of Europe. Thirty-one people died iin the immediate aftermath of the explosion. Hundreds of thousands of residents were moved from the area and a similar number are belived to have suffered from the effects of radiation exposure.

March 24, 1992

At the Sosnovy Bor station near St. Petersburg, Russia, radioactive iodine escaped into the atmosphere. A loss of pressure in a reactor channel was the source of the accident.

November 1992

In France's most serious nuclear accident, three workers were contaminated after entering a nuclear particle accelerator in Forbach without protective clothing. Executives were jailed in 1993 for failing to take proper safety measures.

November 1995

Japan's Monju prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactor leaked two to three tons of sodium from the reactor's secondary cooling system.

March 1997

The state-run Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation reprocessing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, contaminated at least 35 workers with minor radiation after a fire and explosion occurred.

September 30, 1999

Another accident at the uranium processing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, plant exposed fifty-five workers to radiation. More than 300,000 people living near the plant were ordered to stay indoors. Workers had been mixing uranium with nitric acid to make nuclear fuel, but had used too much uranium and set off the accidental uncontrolled reaction










Major Nuclear Power Plant Accidents

 

[Turtle]

People freak out over nuclear energy because of the radioactive waste that just keeps piling up (in the US, 2000 metric tons per year) and the fact that it remains lethal for roughly 250,000 years. The long term storage facility at Yucca Mountain is 11 years behind schedule, and the water and boron pools at the plant sites are full, so now we're storing the spent fuel in dry casks (which every terrorist has their eyes on, no doubt). France, Japan, Russia and the U.K. have reprocessing facilities that extract fresh fuel by enriching spent nuclear rods, albeit also producing radioactive waste by-products that have to be dumped. At one time the US reprocessed the waste in a process that was called PUREX, for plutonium and uranium recovery by extraction, in both Barnwell, S.C., and West Valley, N.Y., to separate out the plutonium and other reusable fission products from nuclear waste. But reprocessing is an astoundingly expensive operation.

Reprocessing is also the same exact process that is used to create weapons-grade plutonium, the stuff used in nuclear weapons. Same stuff, exactly. So far, about 250 metric tons of plutonium has already been reprocessed by France, Japan, Russia and the U.K. That's enough plutonium to make about 30,000 nuclear weapons. So in addition to all the regular nuclear weapons that have to be kept track of so that they're not sold on the black market to bin Laden Junior one day, we now have to keep track of every bit of that reprocessed plutonium for the same reasons.

Breeder reactors, if they can ever figure it out, will solve both the long term storage problem and the weapons grade plutonium problem because a fast-breeder reactor uses plutonium to generate electricity, and the waste byproduct is more plutonium, which is used to generate electricity. Theoretically, a virtually inexhaustible self-sustaining supply. But they are very complex reactors, have their fair share of problems, and extremely expensive to build. Japan had one operating for a year, at a cost of $6 billion to build, then had to shut it down because of all the problems. Breeder reactors also still produce waste that has to be permanently stored. Hopefully they'll get all that sorted out sooner or later.

But even with all the hysteria that spent nuclear waste remains lethally radioactive for 250,000 years, and that it's far more dangerous than radioactive waste, it's contained and we know where it is. Radioactive waste is dangerous, without question, but its radioactive decay does decrease with time, eventually becoming inert. But the waste from burning coal does not decay. The fact is, while radioactive waste remains dangerous for thousands of years, the wastes resulting from the burning of coal remain dangerous forever.

 

[layoutshooter]

Some people just freak at the words, radio active.

The problems with the waste are more or less logistics. Not that hard to solve if we just DID IT!! Far too many hand wringers and "green nuts" in the way.

We need the power. There are, at least for now, very few valid options to produce the power needed.

Build them as safe as we know how too, solve the waste problem. That will buy us the 50 to 100 years it might well take to come up with other reliable sources of power.

We have done little for 30 years. It is catching up to us. Fix the problems.

If there is a better answer, prove it.

 

[purgoose10]

Yucca mountain was opened last year, receiving the first shipments from the Savannah River Nuclear site next to where I live. When "Numb Nuts" got into office, one of his first priorities was to shut it down. It still has funding from the Bush years but until OH, OH, gets out of office nothing further will be done.