Create an Account
username: password:
 
  MemeStreams Logo

MemeStreams Discussion

search


This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: Partnership Formed to Build Nuclear Plants. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.

Partnership Formed to Build Nuclear Plants
by Rattle at 5:59 pm EDT, Sep 16, 2005

After a gap of three decades in orders for nuclear power plants, two companies interested in building new ones announced Thursday that they had formed a partnership intended to create a new business model for the industry.

Its about time something starts happening in the nuclear energy space again. its time to build new plants and decommission old ones.


 
RE: Partnership Formed to Build Nuclear Plants
by Mike the Usurper at 12:47 pm EDT, Sep 17, 2005

Rattle wrote:

After a gap of three decades in orders for nuclear power plants, two companies interested in building new ones announced Thursday that they had formed a partnership intended to create a new business model for the industry.

Its about time something starts happening in the nuclear energy space again. its time to build new plants and decommission old ones.

And now for the knee-jerk lefty response. Yes it's time to decommision old ones, no it's not time to build new ones. When we figure out what to do with the radioactive waste, then maybe it'll be time to start building new ones.

We're probably better off spending the money on getting fusion to work, or giant windmills or something like Scotland's tides project. There are a lot of options out there that aren't going to leave garbage that will be lethal for millenia.


  
RE: Partnership Formed to Build Nuclear Plants
by Rattle at 7:02 pm EDT, Sep 17, 2005

And now for the knee-jerk lefty response. Yes it's time to decommision old ones, no it's not time to build new ones. When we figure out what to do with the radioactive waste, then maybe it'll be time to start building new ones.

Screw that perspective. I'm probably more of a liberal than I am a conservative, and on both grounds I can find a way to refute it. You are very right in classifying that as 'knee-jerk".

I'm really critical when it comes to a number of nuclear plants. I'm sure you've seen my regular rantings about Oyster Creek. My problem with that plant isn't that its nuclear, its that its based on 1st generation commercial nuclear technology and has a downright pitiful safety record. We can do better. Much better.

Nuclear power can be safe. It can be efficient. And . . .

We're probably better off spending the money on getting fusion to work, or giant windmills or something like Scotland's tides project. There are a lot of options out there that aren't going to leave garbage that will be lethal for millenia.

. . . as it stands right now a key piece of the more reasonable ways to produce hydrogen in bulk. I'm not against the development of the energy sources you suggest. Scotland's tides project is great for areas by the coast. Giant windmills are clearly visible in bulk if you have ever driven between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Its still not enough. Not that we don't need these approaches; we need several approaches. Putting nuclear in the closet is just as irresponsible as not pursuing a way to get solar power collected in space down to earth. Only difference is we likely need a space elevator before its possible to build a space solar field. We know how to build safe nuclear plants, we are just not doing it because of knee-jerk reactions.

As for the waste... Just be glad that Styrofoam and plastic are not radioactive. When taking into account the quantity of radio active waste generated from nuclear plants, its not the biggest threat to the environment or mankind. If projects like Yucca Mountain were not mismanaged, we would have a solution already. On-site storage is even workable. At it stands right now, as poorly as that may be, we are still doing much better than Russia did.

The big mistake would be doing nothing. That's what is happening right now. Nothing. Oh, wait, that's not necessarily true. We are doing one hell of a job fighting wars with both conventional weapons and economics over oil.


   
RE: Partnership Formed to Build Nuclear Plants
by bucy at 6:01 pm EDT, Sep 18, 2005

Rattle wrote:

And now for the knee-jerk lefty response. Yes it's time to decommision old ones, no it's not time to build new ones. When we figure out what to do with the radioactive waste, then maybe it'll be time to start building new ones.

Screw that perspective. I'm probably more of a liberal than I am a conservative, and on both grounds I can find a way to refute it. You are very right in classifying that as 'knee-jerk".

There was just such a rambling piece in the Guardian this week.

If projects like Yucca Mountain were not mismanaged, we would have a solution already. On-site storage is even workable.

I have to say Yucca mountain is a pretty dumb idea; all storage *must* be recoverable; it is ludicrous to suppose that we'llhave any idea what will happen to the stuff on a geological time scale. Further, how on earth are you going to get the stuff there? As it stands, you have to cross something like 40 states to get there from all of the nuke sites. On-site isn't perfect but Yucca mountain certainly isn't the answer either. Put it in relatively low-density dry casks until we can come up with a better solution.


Partnership Formed to Build Nuclear Plants
by bucy at 3:56 pm EDT, Sep 16, 2005

After a gap of three decades in orders for nuclear power plants, two companies interested in building new ones announced Thursday that they had formed a partnership intended to create a new business model for the industry.

Its crazy to be one-offing these things. It sounds like
there may be some progress here.


 
 
Powered By Industrial Memetics