We can't put out enough wind turbines/solar panels to meet our power consumption needs. BOTH are unreliable, usually peak at the wrong times (least demand), are EXTREMELY costly and they also have environmental impacts as well. Hydro works great, but also has environmental impacts. There is no perfect solution, but a complete analysis shows a mix of all the above, with a strong reliance on nuclear, is the most reasonable path for the future!

Being from the tri city area of course you would have that opinion. You have the biggest Nuclear fuel facility and power plant in the world in your back yard. Also, you forgot to mention geothermal, which is everywhere in the Western US, but hardly used for some reason.

I am surprised to see all of the comments defending nuclear power here. Really!? Do you have to wait and see your own children’s skin melt off in front of your eyes to realize that this nuclear power sh*t is not good for anyone!?!

Those people who commented saying, [renewable energy sources could never sustain our needs] are ill informed. That is a lie from the people who are profiting massive amounts of money from building and maintaining these death traps. Those people that are profiting can protect their families from the devastation a nuclear meltdown would cause and they don’t give a sh*t if it happens. Do you have the money and resources to fly you & your loved ones away from a disaster in a private jet?

I understand that it would take a lot of work to integrate renewable energy into our lives, but at least we would have lives. At the rate we are going we will all soon be cooked! Yes, it would be hard not to have the comforts of turning all the lights on in the house for hours on end, or having 4 TV’s blaring at once. Hey, maybe we could turn off more lights in commercial buildings at night or when not in use? Are we spoiled enough yet?

Besides hydro, solar and wind anyone herd of Algae? Sea water? Bloom boxes? These are resources that have tons of energy and it’s all untapped!

I feel so sorry for the people of Japan. My thoughts and prayers go out to everyone affected.

I would expect someone from the Tri-Cities to be in favor of nuclear energy as Hanford is a large local employer. I differ greatly from your opinion. I cannot support the use of a process that creates immediate and long term danger to society and the world. Spent nuclear fuel creates wastes that last longer than any human civilization has existed to date. Since I live in Las Vegas now I understand the reluctance of Nevadan to becoming the country's nuclear waste dump. Why was it picked because no one else want that kind of liability in their back yard.

All things cannot be decided upon because they are the "most cost effective". I believe in a responsibility to those who follow me and those who could be affected by a nuclear disaster. See how a first world nation is being brought to their knees by a nuclear disaster. Saying that such event are extremely rare so don't worry about them is a specious argument. This stuff is too dangerous to even allow. I will put my money where my mouth is and pay higher energy bills. Nothing anyone can say will dissuade me. I am not alone in my thoughts.

Seattle, the threats you give are generally sound, but only narrowly applied. In terms of immediate danger, that danger is clearly far less immediate or deadly than the threat of earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, pollution from coal, naturally-occuring radiation, etc. Even in the worst-case scenario of Chenobyl, in which over 800,000 people were exposed to higher-than-normal radioactivity, the death toll is officially noted as less than 1,000, including delayed deaths due to long-term radiation effects. Every year in the US, thousands of people die due to much more immediate risks. Today, in Japan, they are predicting in excess of 18,000 deaths directly related to the earthquake and tsunami. The predicted morbidity from realistic, worst-case scenarios involving Fukushima are only in double digits, and that following a natural disaster of nearly unprecedented scale. I am generally far less worried about most nuclear plants than I am about the drunk driver on my way home...

There is only one important reason why nuclear power plants must be eliminated. The prophesy that "The meek shall inherit the earth " can't come true if the meek are eliminated or killed off by radiation. We also need to keep the meek alive for breeding purposes of the gene pool. Also the young girl that tied nuclear power plants and whaling vessels together was correct in doing so. Whale meet is most heavily contaminated with mercury and dioxins from coal fired powerplants that have contaminated the oceans and land masses and the more whale meat that is fed to the masses pulls down the meek and makes them more meek to the point that they may not be able to inherit the earth. I said the prophesy needs to be fulfilled and we need to maintain a viable state of meekness among the meek.

now there are morons and there are idiots but Bill is an anomoly a moronic idiot. There is always some biblical philosopher who can misconstrue all bible quotes. It really amazes me at the intelligent quotient of some comments. heres one for you from proverbs " even an idiot can seem wise if he keeps his mouth shut".

Suggesting that wind turbines and solar arrays are "extremely" costly is simply not true. They are already cheaper than nuclear and the nuclear industry has required decades of government subsidies to continue to operate. Nuclear is simply no longer acceptable. (It never really was acceptable) Simply the costs of storing the waste is skyrocketing, waste that can NOT be disposed of and takes thousands of years to decay.

Nevermind the dangers of natural disasters imagine the danger of a terrorist attack or a war which would be much worse than the human/equipment failures at 3 mile Island and Chernobyl. As we all know the world paradigm can totally shift from decade to decade. Unforeseen events are just that, not foreseable. When a bomb hits a wind farm or a solar array electricity will be turned off for a whole region. If a bomb were to hit a nuclear plant then the whole region would be destroyed. Nuclear is a relic of the cold war and 20th century and it needs to end now. It is totally irresponsible technology.

As physicist Dr Michio Kaku pointed out the nuclear industry has a "hope for the best" mentality meaning they know nuclear is dangerous but they are hoping nothing will go wrong. Well things DO GO WRONG.

Scientists have already PROVEN that we can provide 100% of our needs with solar and wind yet the nuclear industry continues to force their madness upon us. Look up Amory Lovins for one. He has solved all our energy problems yet government and industry fails to listen to him.

"We can't put out enough wind turbines/solar panels to meet our power consumption needs."

Bull@!$%#. I'm not sure if you are representing a city or what, but your words are VERY ignorant & ill-conceived. Here are 2 FACTS to think about:

1. In order for the U.S. to receive ALL (that's 100% for those who don't know) of it's power from solar cells, you'd have to cover an area the size of Vermont with them.

2. The area of rooftops in the U.S. is FOUR times the size of the entire state of Vermont.

There's 4 times the amount of power we need right there. Just using half of those roofs would pretty much guarantee enough to use & about the same amount extra. Use that extra to drive re-pump systems during the day, switch over to those at night, 24-hour completely free energy from the sun.

And you don't have to worry about a HUGE area being pretty much completely uninhabitable for a few hundred years in case something goes wrong. And it will if you keep playing with it .... look at Japan, for those who have obviously been asleep for the last couple weeks or so.

Hello Rick,

You are right - but greed trumps intelligence most of the time...

I live 4 miles from a nuke plant that was built on the ocean in FL. I think they build them there as a last ditch resort to use seawater to cool the reactors in the event of an emergency and to help minimize the impact of a meltdown since roughly half the radius would be in the ocean and not over population.

Just a thoughtful guess. I still laugh when we get the emergency plans in the mail along the lines of "calmly get in your car and drive to the nearest highway"...along with a million other panicked people running for their lives...right...

I live on an island south of the plant. The only way 'out' is past it unless you have a boat. If the wind is the wrong way and strong, wich it often is, and there is an accident, well, let's just hope that does not happen.

They put it there so the prevailing winds would carry radiation away from the populace if there was an accident. I'm also sure that they use the water in the plant in some way. A lot of nuke plants are near sources of water. Bottom line though, there is no good place for a reactor!

I remember when they tried to build one in the 80's in Shoreham, NY. That is right on the north shore of Long Island. The sight was basically salt marshes and tidal estuaries, which pissed a lot of fishermen off - never mind that it was only a few miles from densely populated cities and there is almost no way to evacuate the over 7.5 million people in case of an emergency. The bridges and tunnels sit motionless on a good traffic day. Of course Connecticut and Rhode Island would be in harms way as well, but at least they could escape over land. Long Islanders would simply have to swim for it. I would much rather see windmills off of Long Island "blighting" the view than live with the threat of Chernobyl hovering over my home.

Nuke reactors make economic sense - until something goes wrong. They are systems that cannot be shut off easily once turned on and they are designed to work for decades if not over 100 years. A once in a hundred year event becomes highly probable with that lifespan and when it does go wrong the surrounding country is useless for decades. So it seems like a gamble to me. High short term payoffs with the ever present risk of losing everything. That is the opposite of sustainable. What happens in the event of war, or economic collapse? These facilities are not protected from airstrikes and I doubt that a bankrupt economy could keep these running without cutting corners and taking serious risks. These events happen over the long course of history, but they weren't factored into most reactor planning.

We need safe and reliable energy and if we have to build large and blight the landscape, we should build solar, wind, algae, and tidal farms. Those would create just as many jobs without the risks.

What? Do you mean to indicate that education implies a person has common sense? I have advanced degrees myself, but I can also tell you that facts and education will not make a person sensible.

Does anyone realize we do have a nuke plant in Southern California on the beach? The problem in Japan is not that it is on the beach, but that the back up generators got hit too. The plant withstood the earthquake as it should have, with no problems. The power shut off as designed when the earthquake hit, but the problem was the backup generators. They should maybe have put them in a different area that the wave would have not hurt them as bad. This concept of having the generators is one we use here in the States as well. They are very close to the reactors. Maybe this is the wake up call the entire nuke world needs to reevaluate better positioning of emeregncy equipment. Unfortunately, the people of Japan are the ones who are suffering for this major problem. It could have easily been us here anywhere in the states near a nuke plant, and still may be.

Rick - You are in an elite club, those living within the danger zone of a nuclear disaster. I live just south of San Onofre in Carlsbad, California. With the quakes in Japan, New Zealand and Chile three of the four sides of the Pacific Plate have slipped. They say the west coast of the U.S.A. is next. FYI San Onofre is built to withstand a 7.0 and a 30' Tsnuami. I hope we don't get a 9.1.

Hey Vet,

Family member worked at San Onofre for 18 years, you are exactly right. But again, the plant should weather all the issues as long as the generators dont get hit too.

Note that the Nuke plant at Fukushima do not have the huge cooling towers that accompanied Three Mile Island and other plants built away from the ocean. These towers had come to symbolize a nuclear reactor and are a part of the visual vocabulary of cartoonists everywhere. Plants on the ocean use sea water as a heat exchanger and therefore do not require those huge contraptions. The prevailing wind argument also carried a lot of weight when a plant is situated. Power transmission is another consideration, in other words they are built as close to Tokyo or any other urban center as safely possible. Those were all reasonable considerations in this sighting 40 years ago but in hind sight they grossly underestimated the damage a tsunami would do to the supporting electrical infrastructure surrounding this plant and what a prolonged power loss would do to the plant.

Tectonic plate theory is only 50 years old. When nuclear reactors were first being built, they did not know the full impact and possible consequences. They sure do now! ...g

Ha! Lizza - you guys have two down there in CA. Diablo Canyon is right near Cal Poly and on the ocean as well. It is also within about 5 miles of numerous faults in Paso Robles and Cayucos. Good luck with those.

The fact that this plant is located adjacent to the ocean, or any water source, has saved countless lives. It was only through the "plan-D" option of circulating raw seawater through the reactor cores that prevented a far more tragic event. By being close to the ocean, the plant operators could use built-in, natural pressure differentials to draw seawater into the reactor vessels, without the use of any pumps or electrical devices beyond battery-operated valves. This is why we saw the hydrogen explosions, which were a much less dangerous problem than keeping water in the reactor vessels.

As water boils into steam, the water level in the reactor vessel drops, potentially exposing a portion of the fuel rods. Before the level drops far enough to create major hazard, the plant operators can release the built-up steam, creating a negative pressure in the reactor vessel. They open a valve to seawater, and the negative pressure draws cooing water into the reactor vessel, thus maintaining coolant on the fuel rods. This last-ditch option, properly applied by the plant operators, prevented massive melt down of the reactor cores.

You should also understand that the hydrogen released with the steam, and which then exploded, was a by-product of exposing a portion of the reactor core to steam and seawater. However, the hydrogen explosions, which apparently did little more than tear the roofs off of the weather shells, were a far preferable option than failing to keep the cores cool.

I believe the reactor operators should be congratulated for succeeding in executing a very difficult and demanding emergency procedure in the face of overwhelming destruction. While a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami are a remote possibility, the tradeoff of placing the plant on the seashore has proven to be a benefit. The same degree of damage to an inland plant, of the type which uses primary and secondary cooling from a limited water supply, might have ended differently absent the catastrophic loss of both emergency and outside power. (Note: There was no electrical power available on-site due to the automatic "scramming" and shut down of the reactor cores when the earthquake happened.)

wje37fcsm

The type of plant also comes into play when it comes to the huge cooling towers, Palo Verde does not have them, and it is in the middle Arizona where there is no lake or ocean to be seen.

Ed, a quick check of the Palo Verde plant on the 'net shows cooling towers, though they are not the tall, concrete structures which have become iconic of nuclear power. The Palo Verde plant is a "pressurized water reactor", which is a different type than the "boiling water reactor" at Fukushima. The Palo Verde plant uses both primary and secondary coolant circuits. These will have a natural convection backup condition, but the water available for backup cooling is much more limited than for plants on large bodies of water. Again, trade-offs made in design and engineering. Still, how many people have been killed by dam breaks in the US, or by air pollution from coal-burning plants, versus radioactivity from even 3 Mile Island? 100's or 100,000's to zero.

We need to learn from this experience, not run in panic. People who think that solar and wind can supply all the energy that we need to grow an economy don't understand the numbers--there just isn't enough energy in alternative energy for industrial and commercial needs, by a long shot. Nuclear has the opposite problem--too much energy. We learned how to let the nuclear genie out of the bottle before a lot of supporting technology and science was developed that in retrospect was needed to understand the risks. As far as shear stupidity goes it's hard to beat Cherobyl, but this was build by the Russians at a time when they ran thier own empire behind an "iron curtain" and were trying to build an advanced military on the cheap. Totally different situation today. The US Navy for instance has been running a nuclear navy ever since the sixties with no nuclear accidents. It can be done--just not on the cheap and not without regulatory oversight. We also need to follow thru with the plan for long term storage in Nevada so that spent fuel is not allowed to accumulate at the reactor sites. Maybe the current situation will allow use to put safety and planning over politics and hysteria. We really need this energy. The alternative is stagation and decline due to higher and higher energy costs, more trade deficit due to importing energy, and more environmental disaster from deep water drilling as well as cost. Oh yeah and no CO2 to contribute to global warming.

What could go wrong ?

The nuclear age has not been kind to Japan, and yet they really have no choice, they must rebuild the plants as soon as possible, and they may as well use land that is already contaminated. We also need to build many nuclear plants.Windmills and solar are nice and fuzzy, but will not supply even a tiny fraction of the power we need. I just hope they can build them safer and build them to limit the disaster when something inevitably does go wrong. I can see a nuke plant from my house, but it is the famous one that they never used ( after contaminating it ), it now sits as an empty monument to greed, stupidity and ineptness ( while the taxpayers continue to pay for it.)

Mike, Dave T, MM. It's nice to see some sensible comments. I live near San Onfre, but I'm not particularly concerned. Even if an enormous earthquake/tsunami like this occurred, there would be plenty of time to leave the area before things could go too far. Given an event such as in Japan, leaking radiation would be a small part of the damage. The entire area would be devastated and thousands would be killed outright, not by radiation. In an incident like this, the most common leak is of volatile iodine which fortunately has a half life of only 8 days. The heavier stuff does not spread easily. It would take an explosive criticality to get that stuff very far from the plant. Very unlikely. Besides there are huge containment buildings designed to handle an over pressure situation.

Just wondering where all this nuclear waste is going? Aren't any of you? Or are you happy not knowing?

I live next to the Nuke plant on Hutchinson Island. Lots of fun.

So far so good.

I see a lot of theories above for nuke reactor placement by the ocean...they are there for one reason...water. There is no way to predict long term wind direction. In Florida, we tend to get a lot of wind from the NW in the winter and in the summer it tends to come from the ocean...it also changes during the day and at night on the coast. In Japan, the first few days after the tsunami, the wind was blowing out to sea. Then the wind shifted to the south affecting Tokyo's water supply. If a full meltdown were to happen and the wind blows to the SSW, than Tokyo along with others would be in a real bad situation. We could see over half the population of Japan contaminated. Their is no consideration for the local population. If there was, all nuke plants would be 100's of miles away from large population centers. Yes, there are nuke plants that are not on the coast, but they are near rivers and lakes. Nearly every nuke plant in the US is near a major population area. In fact, there are over a dozen nuke plants on the East coast of the US that are susceptible to tsunami damage. In the Canary Islands, the island of La Palma is capable of producing a tsunami much greater than the Japan or Indonesian tsunamis. If that island falls into the ocean as is predicted will happen in the future, the tsunami that will hit the US East coast can be over 100 feet high or even more. Japan saw roughly a 30 foot tsunami. The whole Eastern seaboard of North America will be impacted as well as parts of South America. If this happens, the tsunami would kill much of the population on the East coast and there will be no one to maintain or repair the nuke plants that get damaged. All could melt down in a very short time...worst case scenario, of course. If even a few reactors were to melt down, we would be looking at considerable radiation being released and depending on the winds, much of the Atlantic and Europe would receive considerable amounts of radiation. I lived in Germany when Chernobyl happened and we received small amounts of radiation, but areas like Belarus and Poland received considerable amounts of radiation. We have detected radiation on the West coast of the US and I can only imagine the amount that has been dispersed in the Pacific Ocean. We have a possibility of many years of at least trace amounts of radioactive toxins in the fish that many eat. This situation is not even over yet. The Japanese plant still stands a chance of a melt down.

Additionally, I see a statement about the Nuke plant in Japan wasn't damaged, but the back-up cooling generators were. Well, since that plant was built as a unit, that means when the plant got hit and the generators got taken out, the plant was damaged.

All of coastal North America has a history of tsunamis. I would like to think we are prepared for a disaster like the one that hit Japan, but it is clear that we are not. It will take years to learn what went wrong at the Japanese plant and how to correct it in the future. Add to that more years to actually get the work done...we are probably looking at a decade or two and billions of dollars. Even then, if we get hit with a tsunami bigger than the one in Japan, we are likely screwed.

We need to get off nuclear. That is the bottom line. Just a hand full of reactors melting down at the same time will virtually destroy the whole planet. Maybe not instantly, but through contaminated air, water and food...everything we require to live.

I agree... reporting like Fox News today I see... Give us a headline to pull us in, but nothing really good...

I don't know much about nuclear power.... but if what you say is true, then I agree. I really wondering how many politicians around the world think about the future of this planet... as long as they have a good, comfortable life while they are here they are happy. Let the future generations deal with the future. It is so sad.

Hannity and Limbaugh are morons, I think I'm preaching to the chior here. Wind and solar are unreliable and inefficient because they are underdeveloped. Solar panels were invented almost 50 years ago, but haven't changed much until the last 10 because of a lack of effort and investment to do so. Suddenly with a little American know how the efficiencies of these systems have gone through the roof and there is still plenty of room for more improvement. I cannot tolerate these windbags who wrap themselves in a flag and tout that America can't accomplish this. Are they saying we lack the skill while they also say we're #1? It seems they prefer the easy way out of the energy crunch. It would seem they don't favor working hard or thinking too much!

If every building with a roof had solar panels in this country, just think of how much electricity that would be. It would be like building two dozen solar farms across the Southwest except without the footprint of two dozen solar farms. We wouldn't need new power lines and all the headaches that comes with building them across jurisdictions. Think of the jobs that would create in maintaining those rooftop systems. Millions of systems. Millions of jobs. Right where people live. How many plumbers and HVAC specialists are there in America? It would create that many jobs! Think of the jobs in manufacturing those systems. With a little up front investment, property owners would eventually make their money back in savings, which may decrease rents over the long haul. Can a nuke plant do that? Can nuke plants create millions of jobs and bring down the cost of living - without the need to rehearse evacuation plans?

The best we can do is to ignore Hannity, Limbaugh and the rest of the ditto-heads suffering from the inertia of their own stupidity. Build the systems regardless of what these tabloid freaks say.

radagast... you make too much sense... politicians would never go for it...

radagast - Look out for the environmentalists, they say wind turbins kill too many birds.

radagast - the real reason that these things don't happen, aside from vast number of idiots that grovel at Limbaugh's feet, salivating for his tidbits of fallacious wisdom, is that the energy industry, oil, GE (who manufacture reactors), etc., contribute large sums of our rapidly devaluing currency to politicians to assure that what you suggest does not happen. OMG, every home with it's own system of electrical production? Energy independence for every household? To them that is an appalling scenario.

A couple of comments: the idea that a western-style reactor will make 400 square miles uninhabitable for 50,000 years is false. Hiroshima was a uranium fission event, and it is fully inhabited. In general, short half lives = dangerous, long lives = no big deal. Each packet of radiation comes from an atom spontaneously degrading. If you have 2000 atoms with 1 second half life, you get 1000 bursts of energy in 1 second (hot & dangerous). If the same atoms have 1000 year half life, you get 1000 burst of energy over 1000 years, obviously a lot less dangerous. An analogy is a hot fire burning up its fuel quickly compared to a smoldering fire lasting a long time. That's why stuff that makes us radioactive (potassium and carbon) are not dangerous. Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years, potassium-40 a billion years.

Also, the idea of half lives means that the stuff spontaneously disappears. Iodine-131, a major actor, has a life life of 8 days. After 1 month, over 90% of the I-131 has disappeared by itself. Compare that to a toxic dump of mercury or arsenic or PCBs or Chromium Vi or lead or a host of other toxins that never decay. Plus those things require slow tests in a laboratory to detect; at least radioactive contamination announces itself (via geiger counters) so that it is easily discovered and measured.

Uranium-235 is easy to fission, U-238 requires an advanced breeder reactor. After the U-235 is used up (in about 200 years), the spent fuel containing U-238 suddenly changes from "waste" to "useful fuel" and we can burn that for another 1000 years. Somewhere along that timeline we can switch to fusion and never run out of fuel.

I know the events in Japan look horrible, but what people are saying is true. Coal particulates kill people in as horrible and drawn out a way as radiation, except the coal particulates are causing thousands of deaths each year now, and commercial nuclear power in the US has never caused even one public fatality by radiation in its 50 year history. And remember, all 54 Japanese reactors transitioned to a safe state after the earthquake, it took a tsunami and such devastation that no power could be supplied for 10 hours before troubles started to occur.

Despite the Japanese event, in whcih it took a 9.0 Earthquake and massive tsunami that killed 15,000 people to initiate a nuclear accident that looks to have killed 2 people, nuclear power remains the most environmentally benign source of power known to man. When nothing goes wrong in the nuclear fuel cycle, there is virtually zero impact on the environment or public or workers. When accidents occur (in western style reactors) they occur very slowly over days, and are more of an economic than a health risk.

jstern, please consider your statement in light of the following: Currently, US policy prevents re-processing of spent nuclear fuel. Thus, the large caches of spent fuel at each reactor, and the need for facilities like Yucca Mountain. However, if this policy were changed, the existing spent fuel, as well as excess (most) weapons-grade plutonium already in-hand would provide approximately 2,500 years of nuclear- generated electricity at current consumption levels in the US. An added benefit would be a 90-95% reduction in the quantity of high-level radioactive waste which would ultimately require long-term disposal and storage. This single policy change, which is in place due to political considerations, rather than practicalities, would have an enormous impact on the entire nuclear/environmental equation. We would not need to mine a single additional pound of uranium ore for millenia.

FYI, I work closely with a nuclear physicist who is also a former reactor operator, taught nuclear physics to the Navy's reactor operators, and who currently teaches university courses in the environmental impacts of energy choices. She has provided me with extensive and detailed information regarding these issues. She is not a blind advocate of nuclear power, but can explain the real tradeoffs we make in choosing any electrical generating technology over any other.

Radagast

You are so right.

Scientist X,

What about the MOX Plutonium. If I understand it correctly that has a half life of 24,000 years. Reactor 3 is now leaking it. Plutonium was used at the Chernobyl plant also.

Yes, fossel fuels are dangerous. But once they are stopped being used the affects will be taken down by natural happenings. Refined radioactive material, depending on its nature, will have to run its course as you pointed out. 24,000 years is a hell of a course to get it to the half way mark.

I am not anti-nuclear. I am a realist who knows that human nature, nature and just plain 'things' happen. You are right, we need to keep it in prospective, it is happening a half a world away, a very small % of the world's population is at risk while a large part of the population, probably the majority of people, are at risk from carbon base energy. This one event could shape the future developing of our energy plan way out of proportion to its actual impact.

But if you are living on the east coast of Japan it must seem like the 800lb garilla is not only IN the room, the door is locked and it is in a bad mood and horny.

There is only one important reason why nuclear power plants must be eliminated. The prophesy that "The meek shall inherit the earth " can't come true if the meek are eliminated or killed off by radiation. We also need to keep the meek alive for breeding purposes of the gene pool. Also the young girl that tied nuclear power plants and whaling vessels together was correct in doing so. Whale meet is most heavily contaminated with mercury and dioxins from coal fired powerplants that have contaminated the oceans and land masses and the more whale meat that is fed to the masses pulls down the meek and makes them more meek to the point that they may not be able to inherit the earth. I said the prophesy needs to be fulfilled and we need to maintain a viable state of meekness among the meek.

Using a nuclear reactor to boil water to feed thru a generator turbine is a poor and crude use for electrical power generation, largely 60's thinking at best. We need to convert the nuclear saturation of neutron activity directly into electrical generation and with such extreme efficiency, the reactors would be largely passively cooled and run at much lower levels of activity leading to a much longer fuel cycle on the fuel rods.

France 'allegedly' has finally reached the reprocessing level which levels mere grams left over as waste per fuel rod. Some fuel rods weigh a great many tons so such a refinement scale would be remarkable. America's shut-down reprocessing plant is extremely contaminated. I suspect it was used to reprocess the extremely dirty fuel rods that America used to create it's ten's of thousands of atomic weapons which pushed the hanford and other reactors into an extremely dirty and wasteful cycle creating all kinds of long lasting and extremely dangerous radioactive isotopes in the process.

More likely, reprocessing the newer and much cleaner running fuel rods in the 3rd. generation series commercial power generation reactors would not have to deal with such extremely direct and heavily contaminated fuel rods and all the contamination and worthless usable highly radioactive waste that came with them previously.

Off the West Coast is a remarkable amount of Wind Generation on a near constant basis blowing inland and often led by the JetStream providing an enormous potential for offshore wind generation. The Midwest has a natural convection wind pattern also although it is not as strong as that blowing in on the West Coast.

What is seldom talked about is the Republicans 'stuffed', 'blocked' and prevented upgrading America's national powergrid to a 3rd. generation design which is absolutely essential to fully embrace large scale alternative energy generation for the powergrid AND a 3rd. generation national powergird is also absolutely essential to provide the 'volume' of energy needed to largely embrace full electric motors for America's transportation use. the Republican lawmakers knew these facts even thou such a large scale infra-structure project would definitely be a 100% investment in America's future, they shot that down on behalf of their Big Oil masters. Shame on Obama and the previous Democratic majority for NOT pushing that thru prior to the previous November mid-term election. President Obama's most recent 'State of the Union' speech sounded like Obama didn't have a clue that without a serious upgrade to the very aged national powergrid, all of his talk of embracing alternative energy is simply a pipedream which cannot be widely applied nor widely added. LAST Year Obama you could have done that, not now!

Meanwhile American's should loudly demand that more automakers produce NG (natural gas) fueled cars and trucks and that more public vehicles and mass transit buses using city/state/federal centralized Natural Gas filling stations. CNG (compressed natural gas) is much cheaper, burns much cleaner and the maintainence on such vehicles is a distinct cost savings to the taxpayers. All automakers readily make them for EUROPE but only very limited in very few offerings here in America. Honda also has a filling station for homeowners to attach in their garage to a natural gas line to fill up for a buck overnight.

I suggest we require 5th graders to hold half of the seats of political office! Sometimes as adults we 'over think' things... I know my 4th grade daughter helps put things in perspective for me sometimes. I don't always have to listen to her advice, but she does put a different spin on things.

You are right, I raised 6 children and they all gave me a different point of view, still do. AND it is their world they will be inheiting in the future, if we involve them in developing it sooner, maybe they will appreciate it more when they end up with it.

i can remember when my kids would come up with a solution to a problem in my family that i never even thought of.

it would embarrass me...so i would hit them and send them to their room. later i would claim responsibility for the solution.

damn right.

A class of 5th graders would only use logic. So called "educated" people would also consider how much all that would cost the owners and builders. Anything that would cut into the profits would be rejected unless they were forced to through legislation. So they spend money on politicians so that never happens. Of course they use phrases like "best interest of the country/community" as to why it doesn't happen.

By the same token, if you asked that 5th grade class, is it a good idea to build cities in these locations, they may say no. After all, the tsunami killed maybe 15,000 people. The tsunami in Indonesia in 2004 killed a stunning 230,000 people. The nuclear accident in Japan killed 2 workers.

That 5th grade class might think that 230,000 dead is a larger number than 2 dead. If their recommendations regarding cities are followed, maybe we should abandon New York, San Francisco, Venice, and a lot of other places.

ScientistX... I wouldn't say we take only the 5th grader's logic, but rather use it to balance the scales a bit. Sometimes logic is the way to go, and other times, experience and need trump logic... but it doesn't appear that politicians and decision makers of today utilize logic in the least. I agree with your hypotheisis on a child's way of thinking, however my daughter is very well able to distinguish between the type of scenario in Japan vs. that in Indonesia. Perhaps that is because I talk to her about current events and try to expose her to what is going on in our world. Children, when explained situations, are much smarter then we give them credit for. It is lack of experience that hinders their decision making... and sometimes too much experience that sometimes hinders ours. (How many times have you heard someone say 'It didn't work before', yet times have changed... maybe it will now.) Perhaps together we can make better, more informed and logical decisions for the future of THEIR planet.

One of our biggest problems is that too many decisions are made based upon "politically correct" criteria. Thus, our failure to reprocess and use spent nuclear fuel and plutonium in existing reactors. Or, the total elimination of DDT, and the subsequent deaths of millions (yes, many millions of people due to malaria), when the correct and appropriate application of DDT inside homes in areas vulnerable to malaria was proven to save the vast majority of lives. It was the mis-use of DDT which made it a political target, and that directly cost the lives of more people than Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot murdered. If you doubt, go ahead and check it out. The documentation is in the book "10 Scientists Greater than Einstein". There are far too many issues on which we make, as a society, critical decisions based on political dogma. I am NOT advocating sprayin the whole world with DDT, or neglecting safety concerns of any technology. Let's just be smart, rather than reactionary, to our own detrment.

ScientistX,

Your reasoning is bit off. The difference between a city and a nuclear plant is if a city gets destroyed by a natural desaster, and that has happened multiple times in history, the survivors evaluate the situation, calculate the risk and decide to rebuild or not with or without preparations spawned by what we may have learned from the experience.

With a nuclear accident, like Chernoyl, there is NO choice, the dicision is made for the survivors and a thousand generations after them.

The former is something mankind has been able to cope with no matter how devastating and through it all our population rebounds and has thrived.

The later, a human creation from our relatively recent ability to manipulate our environment on an industrial level, we have much less ability to handle. The scary part is nuclear energy is only a part of mix. Chemicals, species extinction, atmosphere and water pollution, amoung others, have been a growing menace. Now we are playing with genes, the force of life. I fear we have seen nothing yet compared to what may come.

Dave T-3196598,

You bring up some very good points. 1. many are ignorant about history in general, scientific history being no exception. In the first couple of decades after the introduction of DDT on a mass scale it SAVED 30,000,000 lives, mostly from malaria as you mentioned. There was nothing malicious about using it, the inventors have nothing but the best of intentions. But that did not stop the damage, which is still occurring (DDT last for 100 years without breaking down).

The Carries did not dedicate much of their lives to something they thought would have bad effects on people, but that did not stop them from suffering from radiation exposure.

2. The point derived from these and many more examples is that we, as a species, have the unlimited potential to understand and manipulate our environment, but at the same time an apparent weakness to see what that manipulating will result in.

Taking away nothing from the people we own our modern lifestyle to, what they accomplished is phenomenal, it is time in our maturation process as a species to realize that we tend to, understandably, rush ahead of ourselves for one reason or another, and introduce things ON AN INDUSTRIAL SCALE without fully knowing the affects on the dark side of technology. Instead of having a procedure that is uniform and controlled in a fair, rational way, we often let things like economic rewards or military advantage be the deciding factor(s).

The most recent example is the introduction of GM foods. 15 years ago they were a novelty. Today they are the vast majority of crops and are poised for more than economic reason to take over all production and enter the natural world in ways we have no way of measuring in both volume and affect.

There was a light speed introduction of a new technology that has implications we have NO benchmark to measure. It makes a thinking person wonder if we have, or ever will, learn from past experiences. So we come to that prickly subject: THE HUMAN FACTOR you so insightfully brought up. The biggest question to confront us now is: Can we get the human factor under control in our increasingly technologically advancing world before we cross one 'line' too many?

That is the question every human should be asking.

Thank you all for your replies, they were well thought out. The internet at its best.

Just-The-Truth,

Based on your response to ScientistX, above, how do you justify the reconstruction and re-habitation of the below-sea-level areas of New Orleans? As a taxpayer who helps share the burden of this restoration, I would much prefer to see those areas transition to a far less vulnerable use. The probability of a major hurricane and storm surge again impacting New Orleans is 100%, and, no matter what you do, water still flows down hill. Have we really evaluated the risk/reward balance for the decision to re-build, or are we responding to the guilt trip promulgated by those who did not leave the city. I don't want to argue issues of prejudice in this regard. There has been far too much of that already. I just figure this is another example of our communal failures to think and act rationally.

The recent movie "I Am Legend" presents an interesting scenario of the unintended consequences associated with technology, or any human-implemented change. Yet, should we stop trying to make things better? Do you have a reccommendation for developing a balance between discovery, implementation, and presumed safety in the status quo? If you do, I am interested to hear it.

As a design professional, I spend a lot of time trying to imagine what can go wrong, or what catastrophe stupid people can cause. I am routinely amazed at people's capacity to do dumb things. Yet, we drive at 70 mph with all those people; they cook our food; teach our children; operate on our bodies; and have innumerable other opportunities to do us damage. Please, what is the answer? Is there an innate right to be stupid and act stupidly, or do we need to pass a test before we are considered qualified to have our opinions matter?

Dave T-3196598,

I do not justify NO being rebuilt, nor did I agree with it when they were proposing to drain the swamps and use swamp mud to build the dikes.

I do not have the answers to all the questions and have no formula to solve the worlds growing complex problems. What I would like to propose is an international forum be arranged for anything that affects, or could affect the world. Here again we are looking at such a complex process that even the best scenario would slow down development by years.

So we come back to that simple task of assessing the potential danger as individuals and asking the questions that make us look at the big picture. If someone want to climb a mountain, I am all for it. If that same person does not use caution, goes ill prepared or is foolish in some other way gets stuck and other peoples life are put on the line and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to 'rescue' him, I have to ask: are we helping society by rescuing him? If that $250,000 could go to saving children or towards a cure for a disease, would it be better spent on those things?

If people want to come back to NO and rebuild it the way it was, good for them. If they are paying the bills, want it so much they are willing to take the risk, so be it. But when it happens again, and it will, we really have to ask if we are helping the development of the human race by bailing them out again. I think not, but I am only 1/7,000,000,000th of the world's population, and an old one at that.

If I could just mention an old proverb, if you are not religious please do not miss the point just because it is not your flavor, it has a lot of meaning whether you believe in God or not. "Do not be misled, God is not one to be mocked. What you sow you WILL reap."

In other words there is ALWAYS a 'cause and affect' for all of our actions. Newton put it simply when describing matter in motion: An object in motion tends to stay in motion until acted upon by an equal or greater force. We socially are the same way.

We will not change the course we are on, which in my humble opinion a dangerous one, until we want to change enough or we are forced to change by a power/occurrence stronger than us all. Which shall it be? Stay tuned for further episodes.

Yup. GE and the people with the money keep telling us that it is completely safe, but I think it is clear now that they don't know their butt from a hatband.

All nuclear plants should be powered down, dismantled and whatever toxic fuel (with a halflife of 25,000 years!) disposed of, if that is at all possible.

Right now, there is absolutely NO place or plan for long term storage. These morons talked the U.S. population into this time bomb. Too bad we couldn't dispose of those fuel rods by shoving them up their butts.

Starderup, if you want "completely safe", then I can build you a reinforced concrete box which will be proof against earthqake, tsunami, hurricane, flooding (put it on a high hill), and in which your body will atrophy, you will be nothing but a burden on the society which supports you, and you will go stark, raving mad. Think about it. What are you willing to trade for the benefits you enjoy in your life? I encourage you to study, to understand ALL of the issues relating to the choices we make in energy, and then take an informed position. The same to everybody else.

Hee, you are correct with "pressurized water reactors". However, the "boiling water reactor" as used at Fukushima sends steam directly from the reactor vessel to the turbogenerators. This allows this type of reactor to operate at lower overall pressures, and makes less robust containment an option. A review of the GE Mark-1 design diagrams shows that, in the event of an overpressure event, the excess steam is released into a water reservoir, where it is re-absorbed. You are correct that all steam plants, regardless the fuel, use heat exchangers of some type to condense the working fluid from a vapor back into a liquid, which is then re-injected into the steam generator. This is even true of geothermal plants which use pentanes and similar materials as their working fluids. (Check out description of the Raft River Geothermal plant in Idaho.)

What is the saying? "Time makes liars of us all".

One thing about something like this, it will all come out in the end. Too late for some, sad to say.

What about this story leads you to conclude that information about the situation in the plant was kept from you other than possible racism? Blaming the Japanese for the tsunami? Isn't it possible that over time they are discovering more information about the situation? I don't know what country you're from, but if you're going to blame the Japanese for this, you need to be mad at the Americans too who have made the same "mistake" (putting reactors on the ocean and faultlines). Americans just haven't been "lucky" enough to experience this. We will learn from their mistake at the expense of Japanese lives. STFU and have some pity for a country that has suffered a huge loss and does not have the natural resources that other countries do. If they knew the situation, do you think they'd send their workers in to wade in water without boots?

John, the current cost per kilowatt hour for solar panels is far in excess of existing market levels (about 7-8 cents per kilowatt hour, versus over 10 cents plus for solar.) At this cost, there is no payback on the cost of panels without special subsidies. The money saved by going solar is not payed back within the 20 year life expectancy of the panels. All current solar projects are only financially viable due to large government subsidies and tax credits. However, there are some researchers who claim to be on the verge of a breakthrough ins deposition technology which will bring the cost of PV panels down to a competitive level, making solar PV much more viable. Now, if we can only get the environmentalists who are fighting against installation of large PV arrays to sit down and shut up. (Check out articles regarding environmental opposition to PV arrays in California.)

Dave I'm assuming PV is short for Photo Voltaic. You are talking about large arrays in the desert. I'm referring to installing panels and turbines on buildings in urban areas on individual buildings and homes. The only profit in the sales is at the very beginning. Other forms of power generation have need spare parts and regular maintenance. Plenty of opportunity to make more money. Once you sell a panel to someone, that's all there is. Minimal maintenance and no spare parts to sell. There are literally thousands of buildings an any city that can contribute to the grid with no large transmission lines needed.

John,

I am a fan of PV, but the current status of the technology makes it uncompetitive with other electrical systems. Unless or until they can make it competitive, there won't be a larger market for it. There are indications that a breakthrough is imminent, but until it comes our taxes will be heavily subsidizing most PV arrays. Or, people and organizations who install un-subsidized arrays will have done so out of a sense of duty rather than based on an anticipated pay-back. I am in favor of these, simply because the added investment will foster further developments in the technology.

I just hate it when people say I should do something for a purely political purpose, or just to feel good. That's why I don't drive a hybrid. None of the reasons people give for doing so are real. We drive a well-maintained, 18-year-old car which gets excellent gas mileage and passes its annual smog inspection. I do so because the amount of energy and pollution invested in manufacturing a new Prius is many times greater than that resulting from continued use of our 1993 Civic (45 mpg highway).

The population of Japan is over 100 million.

I stand corrected...

T H O R I U M POWER. All nuclear energy is not the same.

Ding

Eric, I think you better keep your day job, or just stay in the kitchen. Where do you think the electricity comes from to generate the heat in the "carbon element rods"? Where is the power coming from to create (disassociate) the hydrogen to fuel the fuel cells?

And from such a redesign or retrofit.....or changed design of any future power plants...enhanced high pressurization techniques and boiler designs can be improved to coax every possible megawattup to the generating capacity of the turbines.

This generation has already left enough nuclear waste for future generations to worry about.

And we may be so ingrained in our pride in our capacity for technological development that we haven't learned to harness the power of decision making when they're simple decisions opting instead for the most expensive complicated decisions that wind up making us wish a simpler decision had been made.

Maybe we think we have something to show alien civilizations in outer space, or maybe some may think we're the only intelligent life in the universe with a capacity for invention with five digits per limb instead of three or four.

And those alien civilizations would want to protect their technology from us because we haven't been out that far in space. But I could be wrong about that, and a number of other possible scenarios could exist, because we are most likely eclipsing any alien technologies that may exist.

Human civilization could plan its future as such scaling down its dependence on nuclear sources of energy

'Aye, Its Ironic...still no more advanced than turn of the century steam.

We can look back and say that now. Even of Fusion, to boil water.

We haven't yet harnessed it directly, i.e. not needing water to boil to create steam and electricity.