I'm watching news stories with nuclear experts challenging or defending nuclear power technology.

Is there a realistic chance this could become a technology of the past?

What say you, Mr. 1%?

No technology is without risk, so it's all about risk tolerance.

That's about it.
Coal fired power plants cause few news worthy accidents, but the pollution from those plants creates health hazzards.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Air_pollution_from_coal-fired_power_plants

Yep. Learn from mistakes. Do better. Know how many steam engines blew-up before they became reliable? It was common.

Nuclear is very clean and reliable, but when it goes bad it pretty scary stuff. It seems the only way to quiesce the fuel rods when all else fails is to encase them in sand and concrete. Would it be practical to have those materials on hand right at the plant to mix and pour if its ever needed?

__________________
1985 380SE Blue/Blue - 230,000 miles
2012 Subaru Forester 5-speed
2005 Toyota Sienna
2004 Chrysler Sebring convertible
1999 Toyota Tacoma

The good Reverend Stirling devised his amazing engine shortly after the advent of steam power because he was appalled by the carnage from burst boilers.

Nuclear is fine when it works. When It dies not there are huge problems. Then there is the problem of all the waste. The cost of the plants, infrastructure, disposal sites, transportation just to name a few.

I cannot help but wonder why solar, wind geothermal and the like have not been researched more. The only thing I can think of is money. There is more to e made in nuclear then in renewable. We do possess the ability to power a home off of solar. Now radiation no where near the issues of nuclear. Why is it not used more?

__________________
Sent from an agnostic abacus

2014 C250 21,XXX my new DD ** 2013 GLK 350 18,000 Wife's new DD**

- With out god, life is everything.
- God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time moves on..." Neil DeGrasse Tyson
- You can pray for me, I'll think for you.
- When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

There is no major corporate industry for alternate power sources. Hence no, or not much, money to the politicians.
Who built those reactors in Japan? GE did.
I think nuclear power has a place in the future if the regulatory offices get themselves out of the corporate pocket.
The situation in Japan would likely be less intense if someone had thought to position the stand-by generators on higher ground.

The U.S. Navy has had tens of thousands of sailors living within feet of a nuclear reactor for over fifty years. None glow in the dark and as far as I know, we have never had a nuclear accident among them.

Cooling the reactor is the key to safety and reliability. The Navy reactors are surrounded by unlimited water but is must be desalinized and purified before use as a coolant so there is opportunity for failure however remote.

In terms of power availability, many years ago (30 or more?) a single U.S. submarine powered critical systems in the city of Manila by plugging into the grid after a natural disaster knocked out electrical power.

The plant they're having the most trouble with was built before 1980 - over 30 years old - which means the design for it is probably over 40 years old. Add to that, from what I've heard it's a BWR - Boiling Water Reactor - not the most user-friendly when it comes to routine maintenance, and more problematic when it comes to emergency cooling in a situation such as this.

Technology and design has long since surpassed this. For over a decade, they've had new reactor designs on the board, such that even what happened to this Japanese plant (earthquake/tsunami/total loss of electrical power/loss of emergency cooling) would be virtually a non-issue as far as keeping the plant in a safe condition.

But I'm already seeing signs of a knee-jerk starting - Germany suddenly decided to shut down 7 of it's 17 nuke plants, which they had previously decided to keep running until 2021 pending replacement - although there's little chance of a similar magnitude earthquake happening there, much less of a accompanying tsunami.

Perhaps Jane Fonda is dusting off her old anti-nuke shtick as we speak - oh, that's right, she stopped showing up for anti-nuke rallys when they couldn't pay her appearance fee any more.

As far as my credentials - 20 years in the Naval Nuclear Power Program, all on subs, qualified on 3 different types of sub nuke plants.

__________________
Just say "NO" to Ethanol - Drive Diesel

Mitchell Oates
Mooresville, NC
'87 300D 212K miles
'87 300D 151K miles - R.I.P. 12/08
'05 Jeep Liberty CRD 67K miles
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club

Don't ships use a BWR?

No, at least our nuclear powered naval ships use PWR's - Pressurized Water Reactors. You have a separate loop that circulates water thru the reactor to a steam generator, where it circulates thru tubes and boils water on the opposite side of a physical boundary - the steam generated on the opposite side powers the steam plant. All the radioactive crap is kept inside the primary "loop" that circulates between the reactor and "primary" side of the steam generator - the steam generated on the "secondary" side of the generator and the entire steam plant is kept "clean".

Much easier to do emergency cooling with this type of plant - all you have to do is vent steam from the secondary side of the steam generators, to atmosphere if need be with no problem since the steam is as "clean" as that from a coal fired plant - and also easier to get makeup water into the generator since the steam pressure inside them is at least an order of magnitude lower than inside the primary reactor loop.

In a BWR, the steam is boiled off from the reactor itself and directly piped to the steam plant - such that the entire setup is potentially contaminated - and you just can't casually vent steam to atmosphere for emergency cooling purposes, for rather obvious reasons.

__________________
Just say "NO" to Ethanol - Drive Diesel

Mitchell Oates
Mooresville, NC
'87 300D 212K miles
'87 300D 151K miles - R.I.P. 12/08
'05 Jeep Liberty CRD 67K miles
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club

Just when folks here were thinking Nuclear energy didn't sound so bad this happens!

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

I still support nuclear power.
You've ignored the constant pollution emmitted by burning fossile fuels and the resulting health consequences.

The reason why alternative (solar, hydro, wind, bio, etc) don't replace current dominant methods is either there isn't enough arable land on the planet to feed humanity and feed the power grid (bio), there's not enough falling water (hydro), the price/kwh is non-competative (solar, wind)and the mining, refining and manufacturing and disposal is itself dangerous and expensive (solar).

To suppose that energy companies could keep innovation stifled flies in the face of common sense -- who on this planet could keep a multi-trillion dollar secret? And if a secret got out, every gov on the planet would hound the company into bankruptcy and impoverish or jail the execs. People love to see execs perp-walk.