Vivienne Eggers

Writing Thesis on Gaia Peace Philosophies Intl Law & Global Gov , Founder Gaia Life Way Intl Peace Institute

This conversation is closed.

Nuclear Energy is threat to life. Nuclear clean energy is a spin doctored myth that ignores the huge footprint of nuclear waste clean up

The debate about whether nuclear energy as a power is a commercially viable and clean energy source is ongoing.

Advocates of the nuclear position argue that if you read the 'facts' nuclear energy is even 'green' energy with zero or low carbon footprint.

I contend the position to say nuclear power has a zero footprint when this most lethal, toxic waste is virtually indestructible for millions of years. In scientific engineering, the risk cycle of nuclear power reactors cannot be fully validated as safe until waste can be permanently removed, stored, degraded.

Should governments have a policy to create more nuclear power plants before there is clean up and before 4th generation and further advanced technology can be adequately trialled and tested? Should replacement of old be the necessary policy before any new can be built?

The facts are that although nuclear power makes up 16% of the worlds energy supply - a significantly high incident and failure rate has been experienced since early inception. Every year there is at least one accident.

With the above fact in mind I wish to address the issues of waste solutions. How can we eliminate the critical risk of devastation to human?

What about solutions to degrade or transform it?

How might we remove it? (and permanently remove the risk)

  • thumb
    Nov 16 2011: how many people died in fukushima? how many died in bhopal?

    why nuclear waste is a problem? exactly what is the problem with it?
  • thumb
    Nov 16 2011: A little perspective on Nuclear power. It has been around for about 3 generations (60 years) Plants are generally licensed for 30 years ( 1 1/2 generations) although many don't make it beyond 20 years ( 1 generation). The United States has been a country for about 234 years or a little under 12 generations. Nuclear waste (plutonium) has a half life of a quarter million years or over 11,250 generations. This represents almost 1000 times longer than the US has been a country. So one generation of benefits and 11,250 generations with no benefits and liabilities off the charts. A Faustian bargain that our grand kids will curse us assuming they survive. Remember, you can't hug your children with nuclear arms. It's inter generational suicide in spades...
    • thumb
      Nov 16 2011: Thank you Craig. That really puts it into perspective.

      What amount of waste does a plant produce?
      • thumb
        Nov 17 2011: All the nuclear material created to-date in the world can be stored in a space a fraction of the size of Yankee stadium. Therefore if Greg's 11,250 generations all used the same tech for the next 225,000 years we would have enough to cover an area about the size of Manhatten island. I point out that although large you could easily hide Manhatten in New Jersey, and easily hide New Jersey on a globe.
        • thumb
          Nov 17 2011: Mr Reynolds,You are involved with a solar energy company and you make a post like this? Which side are you on, dude? Me thinks your sitting on the fence. Being ineffective in neither, I suspect.
        • thumb
          Nov 19 2011: I'd rather play or watch 'baseball' than sit in a pool of nuclear waste in the Yankee stadium.

          How much of that material does it take to 'kill a person' - I mean what percentage of that amount in the stadium.
      • thumb
        Nov 19 2011: I take your points Craig and VIvienne. My comment was directed at Chris who seemed to really have his eyes opened at your comment Craig. Perspective is a funny thing though; these choices don't live in a vacuum.

        The answer to your question V. is that you can be killed by a very small amount of nuclear material. But look at the numbers, I'd rather not power the world with nuclear fuel exclusively but it's incredibly hard to argue how efficient it is. We're talking about an amount of waste the size of Manhattan for a quarter million years of power. We'd have to give up a spot the size of texas to use as a landfill for our other garbage over that period. If we used coal or something like it for that period our atmosphere would black and as hot as mercury.

        I like any method of answering the problem of climate change because I think it's urgent. So urgent that I live in a coastal community and refused to buy a house that was less than 40' above our current sea level. We know from research that the language used and conclusions offered to the challenge of climate change have a serious impact on the way that people view the seriousness of the threat claims.

        Although I suspect many of the TED members would fall in line with what you and I consider mainstream thinking on the climate, legislative action really does depend on bringing right-leaning thinkers on board with our solution. Studies tell us that showing nuclear power as a part of the solution greatly impacts the likelihood of actually getting progressive regulation passed.

        As for my eco-bonifides, Craig, I'm doing just fine.
        • thumb
          Nov 20 2011: Thanks for your clarification. I think your concerns on climate change and coast - is a good example of why I feel it is important to 'face up to' the real threats and reason we have nuclear power.

          That is because post Hitler cold war paranoia swept our democratic world who went overboard in the nuclear arms race. The end result was a massive threat to world existence - and no way to dispose or degrade the nuclear weapons. Countries holding them stockpiled held greatest threat to themselves with a first strike policy that did not augur the UN 'self -defence' i.e. such as the Kennedy Cuban missile crisis - the policy shifted away from waiting to be hit - to make the first strike because the threat of being hit was one off devastational.

          The next generation (x-y gen capitalism babies) grew up and the intake of politicians favoured trade markets to conquer and had a bit more maturity (and intellectual knowledge) about the dire consequences of nuclear war heads. They knew they had to get riid of them. But the sad truth is they couldn't. The Bush Regime was the first US government to even put significant funding into researching methods of degradation and disposal - ironic perhaps - but incited due to knowledge of threats of war arising out pending Iraq invasion.

          They couldn't 'dispose or degrade the nuclear weapons. They had created enough to nuke the entire planet. So they did what they considered to be the next best thing. They transferred the risk - recycled nuclear weapons into power plants. They knew they couldn't make it safe - but they could make storage safer (not the same thing) and really they had no choice with NO WAY OF SAFE DISPOSAL. So then it becomes a matter of adopting that into the world culture. How do you tell your voting public that your predecessors have screwed up and you can't fix it? And not fixing it means 'end of the world' stuff. So you don't. You market the only found alternative as a 'new safer way' forward.
        • Nov 20 2011: How much of that waste would it take to say power a steam engine that would propel an automobile? Me thinks we can' t see the large forest for the nuclear trees
        • thumb
          Nov 20 2011: Thanks for your clarification. Both you and Stephen mention issues of climate change. Stephen - that it is only recently accepted. You that the issue may be around the way the risks and implications of climate change have not been communicated in a way that people would perceive the seriousness. This is partly as Al Gore's well promoted doco showed with his example of a frog in hot water. The temperature rises gradually and the frog boils. But the same frog wouldn't jump into the water already boiling. Humans have issues with accepting their reality and safety challenged unless it comes from authority models. This stems from childhood parenting models - of mother and father heading the family unit and making sure all is safe (or not).

          The point on climate change - is there are still people that say it may not be real. The reality is that it has already happened. That pot of water has boiled with the frog in it. In New Zealand there are pacific island communities who have been forced to relocate due to rising sea levels.

          Again people spend energy arguing over whether it is climate change or not - and the real issue is that - whatever you accept is causing it (i.e. a cycle or whatever) IT IS HAPPENING.

          So while we waste so much time debating over whether something is 'true' or not - the actual reason for the problem continues without any focus on solutions - or in the case of climate change - survivor preparation. We'll need a lot more than a box under the bed with candles, torch and dried rations.
    • thumb
      Nov 17 2011: it does not work like that. the cost of storing nuclear waste is annual. we pay already. we can safely assume that future generations will have more income, more GDP, so they will pay that cost easily. we can also safely assume that nuclear era will end within 20-50 years, when it will be replaced with other sources. your reasoning lacks scientific merit, data, numbers, calculations. it is populism.
      • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Nov 19 2011: future generations - with 'more' incomes and GDP. Is this that Woody Allen Movie where the beloved leader appears on the wide screen every night to deliver his message to his people?

        What future generations? The 250 million in refugee camps predicted in the next ten years as a result of increase natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, hurricanes etc.) Lets throw in a collapse of the economy we are 'trying' to bouyant up now and GDP - which will soar - true! But what future generations - if we throw nuclear into the equation as well?

        One of the major factors that has been attributed to recent collapses-recession of the global financial system, at state regime or national level - is GDP. GDP is an outdated measurement that governments use world wide to say their economy is flourishing (even when stock market crashes and banks and mortgagors go bust). Gross Domestic Product goes up with increase of internal expenditure. Sounds and smells like consumer sales doesn't it? Uh uh fooled again. GDP goes up when there are natural disasters and all kinds of horrific incidents that do nothing to make a fat healthy economy - but hey - it looks really good on paper - next to the 'green nuke power station'.
        • thumb
          Nov 20 2011: so you envisage the total collapse of society and the ecosystem. then what difference nuclear plants make? why would we stop using them if we face inevitable doom? and if we can still stop that disaster from happening, why not increase nuclear instead of abolishing? the risk of radiation is survivable, but the global warming, in your views, is not. so why not go for nuclear and abolish fossils? i don't get the logic of it.
      • thumb
        Nov 22 2011: Hello Krisztian. Attacks and confrontation do little to bridge the gap between two views (just my own opinion). I agree with you, fear mongering is very prevalent in the nuclear energy discussion and it is worthless as an argument. Scientific findings are much more to my liking.

        I only have a disagreement with your response about the cost of storing nuclear waste. For how many generations do you think the GDP can increase? Obviously it must stop at some point because this planet is not infinite. Perennial economic growth is just not possible. So, 10 generations? 20? Have you considered what the population of the world will be then?

        I think it is safe to assume that resources in the future will be directed to deal with the problems that overpopulation is going to create, rather than use them to pay for the storage of nuclear waste from previous generations. And in any case, i don't think we should be deciding today what their resources should be used for.

        As you said, it is not a problem of "good" energy versus "bad" energy, but instead of managing risks. The risk of coal is higher than that of nuclear, but the risk of nuclear is still higher than, say, solar. If you think that nuclear will be obsolete in 20-50 years, then why not just start redirecting the investment out of nuclear technologies into these new technologies?

        If we picked just solar and started now, don't you think that within 50 years it could be mature enough to provide energy to a bigger percentage of the population than the those who get nuclear energy today?
        • thumb
          Nov 22 2011: "For how many generations do you think the GDP can increase?"

          indefinite

          "Obviously it must stop at some point"

          no

          "because this planet is not infinite."

          the planet is not measured by dollars. amount of coal mined can not grow indefinitely. but for example amount of energy used can grow in the current rate for thousands of years. the goods we can have can grow indefinitely not in amount, but in value (personal value). the problems we can solve can grow indefinitely, as we get more sophisticated and knowledgeable. we can make more out of the same natural resources with technology.
  • thumb
    Nov 16 2011: To be fair... I agree with a lot of what you say... but in the end all I hear is "Coal is better"... and that is factually incorrect. It's great to complain on TED about how horrible nuclear technology is, while you type on a computer powered by "clean coal" an equally rediculous myth... The fact is that Nuclear is cleaner that anything else we yet have, even accounting for the deaths and waste. Also, the amount of waste produced by a modern plant is actually small enough for a permanent storage facillity to be built.

    I'm not a fan of Yucca Mountain, because it sits right over the Las Vegas water supply, which was just bad optics, and I love Vegas. But is it really that rediculous to think that for the next 20-50 years we could use nuclear energy to ween us off of coal, while we build an actual green infrastructure that is going to take generations and trillions of dollars to build... I don't thinks so. Shoot the waste into space, or put it in area 51, in death valley. I don't think there's magic or conspiracies there, but it's in the middle of nowhere and no one will get hurt. We could store a hundred years worth of waste there easy, and nothing lives there.

    I'm not a fan or supporter of nuclear technology, but to complain about it on a coal powered device is hypocritical, it is better than that... Don't build one in California, we have earthquake, and we need solar concentration farms... but in the northeast, nuclear might not be a bad temporary solution, until we find something better than coal. Maybe Australia has the climate for pure solar concentration generation... If not, you can't complain about building a nuclear plant while utilizing a coal plant, lol. It's factually better than coal. Shoot the waste towards the sun, it's only a problem because people don't want us to solve it.
    • thumb
      Nov 19 2011: Good points - lots of them and someone thinking through. I was told about someone on TED who invented some amazing energy generation concept recently. I'll take a look for it and find the link. It sounds like the answer to a lot of prayers - that is those who care about themselves and community more than the buck. Then we just have to find a way to clean up and dispose or degrade what's already done.
  • thumb
    Nov 16 2011: Your passion for the subject is inspiring.

    I however am not convinced by passion alone.
    • thumb
      Nov 16 2011: I guess that's your explanation for apathy then? So do I 'need' to convince people - or can they make a balanced assessment of their own - make a list of the facts, issues, risks, impacts, severity, how to resolve, mitigate how long it will take, how effective. Anyone can do their own balance sheet of circumstances - don't need me to platform and sway opinion - its like saying I need to be convincing that the sun is hot.

      I'm inspired by your dog. He looks like a friend. I bet he knows what's good for him and what isn't.
      • thumb
        Nov 16 2011: I would like something like this

        -nuclear energy accounts for around 8 percent of the US energy.
        -there are 104 plants in operation in the US.
        (http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm)
        ^ cold hard facts.

        simply saying what you believe is true without giving any reason to believe you won't convince people.

        Furthermore relying on passion alone may alienate you from constructive dialogue.
        ---------------
        My dog has no opinion on Nuclear energy,
        or Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan (I just wish fox news would stop calling and asking for an on air interview)
        • thumb
          Nov 19 2011: You better ask your dog again. Watch closely - you'll get a very distinct gesture to know that he knows what you and I know about nuclear energy.

          I apologise I didn't cite anyone and put little superscripts with footnotes (I prefer Oxford or Chicago Legal style and variations to Harvard - because you can see on the page who you are quoting - don't have to wait to the bibliography at the end. But I did offer my knowledge - not pure opinion - but my personal truth based on research, learning and super natural ability. Oh and in this mundane dimension that confines most - there is also what I call the obvious summation of point of reference reality. e.g. I know a tree is a tree when I see/feel/smell/touch or intuit it. That's because I've observed and come to know trees before. The nomenclature is just the part of word association - but the manifest being - is always my personal reality experience. I make a summation about nuclear energy in the same manner. I am not anti the sun. I was born near Rutherford so I was interested from an early age about how he managed to come to the concept or realization that he could split the smallest unit or atom to release the greatest power. Because this is a mirroring of the nature of consciousness - as quantum physicists are prone to explore.

          I am sorry I don't know who Herman Cain is - is it him they are asking for an interview - or is it you. How exciting. If you - take the dog with you - he's interesting.
          There are just some things in life of which I am truly ignorant. I will make a point of finding out.
      • thumb
        Nov 19 2011: I have not partaken in YOUR research, learning, or super natural ability- My super natural ability is that of a scientific skeptic so excuse me if my requests for evidence are crossing a line.

        As for that obviously mundane dimension.
        Is a banana tree a tree?
        How about strawberries,are they really berries? - well if we all call them that is must be so right?
        ----Do you see the fallacy here?
        • thumb
          Nov 19 2011: You're not crossing the line - I perceive you as engaging in a dialogue in a bid to ask me to see the world with the light you shine on it.

          To me a banana tree is a tree. If I experience it to be one. I wasn't very detailed but what I was implying is that each individual reality is subjective - yet through agreed social rules and norms we form collective agreements about what is what. An alternate is to just accept that to some people a banana tree might be a Moreton Bay Fig or a Wollemi Pine. To others a banana tree might be a plastic pole with tinsel purchased at Walmart.

          To me, in my personal truth - fallacy doesn't exist in a name. That is merely subjective translation - and name calling is the great source of many wars. For example if I said God's name was Allah, or Bezelbub or some other fancy - various people become upset. But really I am still talking about God - I'm just using the language that I understand and experience Her to be.

          Really it was probably quite silly for collective agreement to form around a name strawberry when it is not a berry. But someone probably discovered the little red wild ones that grow in the glades near the woods and really are quite succulent.

          I have not found all scientists to be skeptics - not at all. I find many scientists to be quite imaginative, explorative and always testing the boundaries - quite profound - and many really do have great insights through some closet awareness of their super natural. Super natural to me (so you understand my berry language) is really just an extension of parameters that have a general guide rope for society. Using senses and accessing truth from a greater area of our brain - which in turn is fuelled with chi, or greater cosmos - that consciousness that scientists refer to.

          Despite too many years with intellectual and experiential endeavours I'm really just a natural person - so things come to me best that way - then I like the scientist find validation of my intuitive.
        • thumb
          Nov 19 2011: In fact I feel very lucky that you have spent as much time with me as you have - my intuition tells me you usually prefer to be succinct and move on.

          Thank you
  • thumb
    Nov 22 2011: Kristian

    1) You are splitting atoms or hairs in the attempt to pose an argument that has no real relevance other than you seek to instate yourself in an intellectual superior position in this forum. The reality is virtually every brain that accesses this forum has resonance in the same unified consciousness and intelligence of the universe - any person in this forum can be intellectually superior and inferior according to the paradox of the moment.

    The translation of meaning to textuality is an important factor in cross cultural explanations. In my reality 'good' means something that beneficially serves a purpose - and causes less harmful impact on all - i.e. that which is most harmonious. For many many thousands of years people have in common shared this understanding of the meaning of 'good'. Under this definition technology can most certainly be 'good' or 'bad' depending on its sustainable harmony in the balance of all things.

    2) You state an OPINION that I do not use facts and only use opinions to be 'popular. This statement can only be your OPINION as you have no evidence to support your statement that I am using majority opinion. What you are really 'assuming' without making the investigative analysis is that because of my feminine, organic or earth oriented 'way' of speaking (as is a problem with many Indigenous people) my way of using language challenges your narrowly presented view of what fact is. Just because I do not speak with a listing of references (and nobody else does here either) and speak through the symbolic language of sacred feminine - doesn't mean I'm not speaking the truth. I also had the genius IQ topped my country at 100% cognitive assessment age 11, and was well advanced in reading and writing by the age of four when I first started school - having read much of my parents library on psychology, arts, science and philosophy. Proving myself to you or others through facts and figures is really not relevant to reality of life.
    • thumb
      Nov 22 2011: 1. your claims about my motivation are as irrelevant as wrong. i refuse to accept any form of interpretation of my words. i try to be precise. nuclear is low risk, carbon neutral and clean. not good. coal is highly polluting and cheap. not bad. it is not a value judgment. it is an optimization problem. there are risks in everything we do. our goal is to optimize risk. we all have different risk tolerance. we all have different risk preferences. knowledge helps. dramatic fear mongering does not. oversimplification does not.

      2. ah sure. someone said "70% of japanese people disagree". is that a statement of nuclear science? is that a statement about risks and costs? or it is a statement about majority opinion? jeez, you are ready to deny something you have said one day ago? ...

      wait. i just get to the point where you talk about your IQ and your exceptional skills. i think i rest my case, and withdraw from that conversation. in sheer terror.
  • Nov 17 2011: A Different Perspective....there are negatives and positives with regards to any form of energy...nuclear can contaminate, coal pollutes, wind farms kill birds, and solar impacts wildlife habitat. But perhaps they are all viable and what we are faced with is not the unending arguments between believers but a rather a sad reality. We haven't engineered for success for political reasons, corporate greed, blind sided environmentalists, etc. and the learning curve. Might I suggest we both think and engineer for success...nuclear facilities on California's coast can't be a real bright idea given Japan's problem but isn't that fixable, coal plant emissions....we have the technology....where is the political muscle (of the people for the people), nuclear waste disposal.......was the Nevada site really bad after many billions of dollars were invested or is it "public sentiment" / irrational fear? Even climate change, despite it's subject popularity, is only a fact relative to recent history and while the scientific community says it is changing it could be just another of the many cycles that we have gone through historically as a planet (and very recently). So, somewhat bluntly I submit that solutions exist, we can get there if we drop the armed camps, get politics out of the fray and really legislate safe practices (or triple redundant in the case of nuclear energy) that industry must abide by PERIOD and government must inspect. At that point it's simply a cost benefit analysis and we no longer rant endlessly. Focus on your politicians....and if you agree do a cut and paste along with additional thoughts and ideas. If not then ask yourself a simple question....am I contributing to a solution or not?? Progress? There are 16,000 employees at the DOE with a budget of (for "projects" alone) something over 26 BILLION. I would venture a guess that 4 lawyers, 10 accountants, 200 inspectors, 1000 scientists and engineers plus a citizen's board would make progress.
    • thumb
      Nov 20 2011: I think you make some valid comments here that are particularly relevant to seeing the 'issues' and realizing the requirement for action around these rather than an ongoing slog match of what is factual what is not what is true and what isn't, what is science and what is some whacky women who thinks she's indigenously related to Mother Earth.

      The issues - we have many sources of power available - and all have an EFA and have impacts on life sustainability - whether it is a hydro dam or a wind farm. But we also have common sense - and don't need to be scientists or intellectual genius to understand that nuclear is the most dangerous and most life threatening.

      But the real problem is that we already have it. And we have to find solutions to clean it up.

      As for what power to use - take nuclear out of the debate and do a comparative analysis. Some solutions are better in some locations than others. The old dutch windmill wasn't noisy. Here in Bali poor farmers are now keeping cattle or pigs in their villages - and recycling the slurry as fertiliser and gas for cooking, heating and even light - and it is much safer than their LPG alternative. We don't have to have grand scale solutions - some things work better at local level. Its a matter of working out local EFA (eco footprint assessment) and finding what solution or solutions are best for a community - and then look to a national and global grid for infrastructure and general management.

      Really - for many decades now - it has been predicted that the city model will become defunct. But a combination of small city innerspace and localised does have merits. Currently though cities are such a huge drain on resources. Think LA traffic. Think any city traffic.

      Nuclear needs to be put where it should be - back into the labs of those who can do something to solve the problem - fast. Not in the homes and communities of those who would sue lesser companies for threat and damage to life if it were chemical corp
  • thumb
    Nov 23 2011: This is not a degrade and disposal but a clean up aftermath - Geobacter with nanowires for uranium reduction - what do you think? How effective? What scale?

    Microbes Generate Electricity While Cleaning Up Nuclear Waste -

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110906144558.htm

    And here's another to clean up Nuclear contamination in water - Nanofibres - 1 gram to 1 tonne of water.

    Professor Zhu and ANSTO - like the dumb psychic also states 'we need to solve

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111102093051.htm

    "Even if we decide that nuclear energy is not the way we want to go, we will still need to clean-up what's been produced so far and store it safely,"

    What do you think about this? Can it be funded and developed quickly? How far away are these solutions from being applied in real situation? Could that be one of the reasons Barack Obama decided not to bury waste in a big hole in Yucca Mountain volcanic crater and keep it temporarily stored at US plants?

    Can these solutions suffice to clean up existing waste - stored in underground and deep sea caverns?

    Of the 12 countries involved in producing 4th gen nuclear reactors - most won't be deployed until 2025. The first planned for next year. It will take many more years to decommission and replace all existing reactors. Several United Nations reports have predicted that the increase of natural disasters will ensure forced displacement of populations in all countries around the world to the extent of 250 million by 2025 - the Darfur displacement crisis comprises 4 million today - how can we minimise the risk to citizens in these critical decades - so that we have 1) prevention 2) protection and 3) clean-up as a readiness focus? What steps can we take to deploy 'civil defence' for natural disasters impacting nuclear disasters?

    These are the debates I believe we should be putting our time and energy into - not whether it is green or not. It won't be green until it is. Until then...
  • thumb
    Nov 23 2011: I find it quite amazing that people can project that I make only 'opinions' and not facts - and they make facts and not opinions. What are their comments if not opinions! Particularly coming from people who just attack the person. You fail to provide any kind of factual contradiction to the statement that there is currently no way of cleaning up nuclear energy waste.

    Why? Go to any nuclear physicists forum and ask them if there is currently of cleaning up nuclear waste. You will get what you call facts - which are really the opinions and findings of scientists and physicists. You are simply behaving with an angry little chip on your shoulder against a woman. A woman obviously doesn't and wouldn't know anything would she? But you would - you would know all the facts - so many you don't list any. Because the facts - ie. the scientific evidence - supports my statement - No one has published any kind of method or way of cleaning up nuclear waste. If you think you know the answer - then give it to me -we can start discussing it at a deeper level in physics.

    Instead of making little kid statements like 'you are a liar - lliar liar your pants are on fire'. Grow up. If you know so many facts then lets have a real discussion about nuclear physics - lets brainstorm some solutions. I'd really like that and its positive more productive.

    You know nothing of my scientific knowledge, education or research sources. You just know your own opinions and you want to put down anyone that doesn't agree by saying they don't know what they are talking about. So lets talk physics theory.

    What kind of conduction equation might be considered?
  • thumb
    Nov 22 2011: Nuclear Power Plants are the cleanest and most efficent type of power source in the world. If secured properly with back-up plans to prevent any radiation leak, nuclear power plants produce almost no waste products.

    Geothermal - Plants are extremely expensive
    Solar - Expensive to create panels, replace panels, sun is not always available, not very efficent conversion
    Wind Mills - Expensive to build turbine. Doesn't create that much energy
    Hydroelectric - Must have a waterway. Damaging to the ecosystem
    Coal - Extremely harmful to ecosystem, inefficent
    Oil/natural gas - expensive to find, harmful to environnment, inefficent

    Not every energy source is perfect as you can obviously see above. However, Nuclear Energy is the cleanest and most efficent power source we know of.
  • thumb
    Nov 22 2011: I see you put "Japan Nuclear Tragedy" as one of your tags. Remind me how many people died from radioactive poisoning again? I sometimes wonder how on earth the nuclear hysteria managed to overshadow one of Japan's biggest earthquake/tsunamis in centuries, without claiming nearly as many lives, if any. If there's anything that we can learn from Fukushima its that the days of Chernobyl, the one real nuclear catastrophe that claimed still less lives than say Bopal, are over

    The truth is, we have an urgent problem to face, global warming. Renewables are not nearly efficient enough to tackle the problem and returning to carbon would be an absolute nightmare (coal, by the way, whose life-cycle kills many people per year, yet nobody seems to make a huge fuss about that). Nuclear fusion is maybe half a century to a century away. So nuclear fission is, as far as I can see, the lesser of many evils. Not that it's really all that bad to be perfectly honest. The nuclear waste is fairly limited and can be burned down to an extent in each subsequent generation of nuclear reactors. It's not as though all the waste from our current 3rd generation was left indefinitely stored undergroud, some of it has already been reprocesses in a few of these new reactors.

    The dangers of nuclear are overstated. It is a fact.
    • thumb
      Nov 23 2011: Sad question Matthieu

      There are over 1000 thousand known bodies in the immediate radius of the power plant that are unable to be recovered due to the extent of radioactive contamination. Due to the high risk there currently no means of doing a full body count.

      In the 20 kilometer radius 70,000 have been evacuated. And a further 60,000 in the 30 kilometer radius. As you will be aware the extent of radiation poisoning and fatalities will not be quantifiable. So we are talking about an impact larger than Horishima. Impacts beyond the immediate zone have not been fully assessed and published. It is also not in Japanese interest to incite public panic. People as far as Tokyo are reporting and presenting with thyroid and other symptoms. Fatality count at this point remains unknown. As with Horishima - the real damage cannot be quantified for generations. Genetic damage and mutations being the greatest and long lasting.

      I so feel for them. Double strike. Two days ago a Japanese citizen told me there was a politician who wanted to close the plants down before the earthquake because he had reports that they were unsafe - mostly 2nd but some 3rd gen - but he was ousted and they stayed. This is another example where commercial gain overrode duty for public safety.

      Out of respect for the grief of Japan - it is a difficult matter to be too explicit - however I feel transparency in solutions by debate could and will help them also.

      I am concerned that we do not allow this practise to continue - and ensure correct action for survival preparation is taken - beyond storing iodine tablets.
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2011: "There are over 1000 thousand known bodies in the immediate radius of the power plant that are unable to be recovered due to the extent of radioactive contamination." You mean dead bodies from the Tsunami? That doesn't count. Unless you think the power plant exploded? It didn't... I don't really get this sentence.

        "As you will be aware the extent of radiation poisoning and fatalities will not be quantifiable. So we are talking about an impact larger than Horishima."

        Ok, so because radiation poisoning is not quantifiable, more than 100,000 will die. What kind of flawed logic is that? You do also realise the fundamental differences between atomic bombs and nuclear power right? I find that comparing nuclear weapons to nuclear plants is often a sign that someone just doesn't know what they're talking about. The result of the atomic bomb was fairly straightforward, the bulk of victims made at the moment of the blast and some of the radiation thereafter. Generations don't really come into it, if anything, studies have shown that a hormesis effect has kicked in in places like Hiroshima: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis. Pretty credible given that life is naturally bathed in radiation at low doses anyway.

        I will agree that the plants should have been closed earlier and that financial gain won over common sense. The rest of your post though is complete jibber-jabber.

        "Out of respect for the grief of Japan"

        The grief over the tsunami. Japan was hit by a tsunami, that's what killed 99-100% of the people that are being grieved. Why is this ignored?

        I don't have interest in pursuing conversation in this thread to be honest, especially after you've claimed psychic powers.
  • thumb
    Nov 22 2011: Krisztián Pintér 100+ 0
    TED TRANSLATOR

    1 day ago: so you envisage the total collapse of society and the ecosystem. then what difference nuclear plants make? why would we stop using them if we face inevitable doom? and if we can still stop that disaster from happening, why not increase nuclear instead of abolishing? the risk of radiation is survivable, but the global warming, in your views, is not. so why not go for nuclear and abolish fossils? i don't get the logic of it.

    The answer to this 'spelled out' question is at the crux of why I bothered to post a forum in the first place. I do not inhabit this world alone. If I did - there are many things I would do with my own foresight and knowing that are not common or accepted practice in common society.

    If a coal mine exists in my eco-habitat and there is a collapse of the system or natural disaster - the mine will likely be wiped out, closed down and a small area of environment will be affected.

    If - as with Japan - the same event occurs and I live near a nuclear power station - the result is devastating - not just to me - but to everything - and for a perpetuation. The economic costs to governments in rectifying the post clean up, repair and compensation should alone be enough to deter capitalists and economic oriented governments. That it doesn't is that governments in democratic society - don't typically do a lot for long term - trying to win popularity and gain benefits quick and visible for voting public - it is the same with corporate governance of corporations and this is being improved through legal and governance framework of accountability. I think we should do the same with governments in general.

    Answer in point. Really I don't mind if humans survive or not. I do mind humans destroying all life not just themselves. Nuclear energy is one way to ensure devastation amplifies threat to ALL life. My truth recognises spirit evolves on Earth. People will have to rebirth after death as soul is eternal
    • thumb
      Nov 22 2011: the facts tell us otherwise. so far, no nuclear accidents in the free world claimed many lives. and in fact, radiation from those nuclear plants claimed no lives at all. people who died in fukushima died from reasons that can happen in any kind of factory or plant. the only nuclear disaster that claimed lives was the chernobyl accident, but that happened in the soviet union, which tells us some things. also bear in mind that the fukushima accident is probably the worst that can happen. everything that can go wrong, went wrong. and the containment still holds, and 50kms away from the plant, the effects are negligible. and one more thing to bear in mind: even chernobyl was not able to cause global catastrophe. you are simply wrong. nuclear power does not pose that much danger. irrational fears don't count. and an important note: no deaths and no suffering is associated with normally operating nuclear reactors. that's a fact.

      however, fossil energy poisons the atmosphere. and although the magnitude of the danger is debated, it is certainly there. what you do in effect is promoting natural gas and coal. how do you think germany will replace the missing nuclear energy, after their wise leader decided to get rid of it? bingo, natural gas. congratulations.
  • thumb
    Nov 22 2011: Kristian

    3) Further to assuming I do not base 'factual' evidence (how did I ever get those High Distinctions over 90 in my law assignments without learning factual evidencing?) - you then accuse me of dishonesty! Wow. I suggest you don't take a career involving human relationships or public speaking. Further I suggest you retract that defamatory statement you have published without any real recourse to do so - i.e. you have no personal experience of me or my honesty. I resent your attack to my personal character. I have devoted my life and healed and worked with thousands of people - given my energy, my skills, my money, my time and my love - I think the balance sheet is well in my favour for honesty and integrity in this world and beyond.

    4) You raised the issue of dams. I simply advised you on some of the threats involved. In career I have been an 'authority' in strategy change management consulting - restructuring governments, corporations and cultures as well as my own personal endeavours in spiritual transformation and empowerment - poverty and suffering alleviation in third world. The term 'anecdote' is as I said in 1) - a way of speaking. Just because someone 'talks' their truth and does not list it like a computer - does not mean they don't 'know' where it is coming from.

    Why don't we speak about the real issue. How to get governments and system to fund safe alternative fuel R &D and to halt the negative - while we do still have some chance left of keeping some of the beauty in life for our families and selves.
    • thumb
      Nov 22 2011: surely you think you are honest. but you are not. your point of view can be maintained only by denying facts, refusing to use formal logic. in ancient greece, a system of arguing was developed. valid arguments were called syllogisms and invalid arguments fallacies. i think that using common fallacies is dishonest and/or impolite. so personally i don't care if you are deeply hurt. if i can show the invalidity of your arguments, you are wrong. and if i can show that you use statements known to be false, or well known fallacies, you are dishonest. don't shoot the messenger.

      there are several flaws in your reasoning, and you have to work on them. if you refuse that, and continue to spread deformed and half cooked information, it is no better than shameless propaganda.
  • thumb
    Nov 22 2011: QUOTE:

    Krisztián Pintér 100+ 0
    TED TRANSLATOR
    1 day ago: please note a few things.

    1. i didn't use the term "good". a technology can not be "good" in itself. it might or might not serve a certain purpose. it has characteristics. in my post, i was talking about risks, not being "good" or "bad". we should respect facts rather than value judgments.

    2. no matter how many people likes or hates something. facts are still facts. i use facts to convince people. you use majority opinion to maintain majority opinion. see the difference?

    3. anecdotal evidence does not count. there is no excuse for it. using anecdotal evidence is simply bad science, and dishonesty.

    4. are you advocating not using dams and chemical plants either? fine to me, but i bet that the popularity of such notions will fall greatly behind the popularity of anti-nuclear sentiments.

    ================================================================================================
  • Nov 21 2011: Let's make it illegal for trees to be within falling distance from any house, road, any place where a person might be... That has to be a good idea because it is bound to save lives, right? While we are at it, let's outlaw all all forms of transportation other than walking---a much better idea than getting rid of Nuclear Energy due to it being undeniable that cars have an increased degree of fatality. Let's not use cell phones, x-rays, or shampoo because they might cause cancer. Let's make any animal that has a chance of killing a human extinct...Why do we need lions, tigers, and bears?---It would certainly save lives, right?

    Does keeping all of these imminent threats to humankind prove a low IQ? How can anyone feel safe when an airplane could fall out of the sky onto them at any second? How could anyone feel psychologically safe on these issues?
    • thumb
      Nov 22 2011: In fire prone areas - it is environmental policy and 'law' to manage trees - just as it is to manage trees in city streetscapes and parks. Not always the ideal situation - when a tree becomes a hazard to the public - and in many circumstances tree doctors try to save the tree and relocate.

      I think your internal anger is being expressed in a way that does not serve the real issue. Its not a paranoid fear that requires living in an oxygen tent and not experiencing life.

      Using common sense when approaching 'the family' or living in sustainable harmony does not even require a high IQ = which is really a measure of intellectual capability and many people who are classified as 'not intelligent - who didn't do well at school or get good grades - had emotional reasons or other limits - i.e. they think and access information and use it outside the typical measure that society accords IQ. IQ tests are only one paradigm. Take the man with no brain whatsoever who is a brilliant pianist.

      There are many things that society does that are not good for the health of humans. You list them. Some humans choose to mitigate risk around these factors.

      Bottom line it is the arrogant ignorance of human condition that assumes 'he' has a greater right to existence on this planet than all other species that has caused him to destroy what truly feeds him.

      My suggestion is you breathe into the fear and angst that creates such non rational response and feel what it really means to you to feel threatened that you need to state such dramatic arguments that are not related to the issue.
      • Nov 22 2011: You are not very good at detecting sarcasm. My point is that you are as irrational as all of the idiotic examples I listed.

        Do you think I walk around in fear of an airplane landing on my head?

        You talk about "Spin" being used to sell Nuclear Power as Green Energy, but your arguments are nothing but spin. You use fear tactics and ignorance over stating your points with facts and alternatives to Nuclear energy. You start a debate over false pretenses (or at least state your opinions as facts) and accuse anyone who disagrees with your opinions of having a low IQ.

        I happen to disagree with your opinions...
        • thumb
          Nov 22 2011: I suggest you re-read this statement you have made - first removing yourself from the emotion you attached to it when you attacked me.

          I neither 'mind' whether you agree or disagree with my statements - that is the choice of free will which I respect greatly. Yet I find that people do not get their truth across realistically when they make dramatic statements as you have done. First you incorrectly state that I accuse anyone who disagrees with me of having a low IQ. In fact I state the opposite. But you on the other hand attack me as irrational and idiotic - so you become what you project onto another person.

          That is why I tell you to breathe - because metaphysical experience tells me that when people project anger and nastiness at others - it is because they feel threatened and self loathsome. It is me you are attacking - not addressing the issue. This shows up to many as immature - even if you are not and have something valid to say. I'm happy if you state valid reasons for nuclear energy to be perfect and safe for everyone. Its the best news I could have! I'm waiting for that breakthrough - that clean-up. Unfortunately spirit tells me you are more seeking to attack the person you do not know because you are so angry inside.

          I was once on my way to Bangkok airport to fly to South Thailand. On the way I breathed into something that had been brewing in my consciousness - and decided instead to fly to the north of Thailand. While there I read the newspaper report and was sad that the plane I would have been on had crashed - killing most. I had a similar experience when leaving Sumatra. I was going to fly. Instead that morning I rang the Senator and the Govenor and advised I was going by boat to Penang for other reasons. Really it was just intuition. In Penang again I read the news headlines - the plane had 'fallen out of the sky' (just as you say) and sadly, all were killed including the Governor.

          Never take plane flights lightly
  • thumb
    Nov 21 2011: Energy needs are to be met.
    As long as we can't agree on cleaner energy sources (like mass solar energy from deserts, or wind from kites), we should keep nuclear up and running (like Bill Gates advocates: the 4th generation plants use current nuclear waste, and reduce it to a fraction, effectively cleaning up current waste and making great amounts of energy at the same time)

    Though I would rather see coal plants eliminated first, before arguing about nuclear.
    • thumb
      Nov 22 2011: Well the reality is that neither are going to be 'eliminated' due to systemic governmental policy. Nuclear power because there is no way to eliminate it. Its no more safe to shut down the plants (which is a long and complex cycle) than it is to have them. But surely - what insanity to keep building them! And in volcanic, earthquake prone and exposed to other natural disasters.

      Coal because its an energy source that is cheap and accessible and fuels the capitalist model. All I can say is considering the length of time it has been around - people have become concerned enough about coal mining and production to 'clean' up much of the pollution that was first associated in the industrial revolution.

      But with nuclear energy, do not fall into the fallacy and complacent myth that when you can't see or smell something it is 'safer' and 'cleaner'. For example - carbon monoxide emissions from petrol fuelled vehicles - are also a good method for those suicidal to do the quick termination.

      My point is that we - humans - if we have gained any kind of intelligence over greed since the industrial revolution - will require to protect our own children and not just selfishly think of what we can do or cannot do in the short term - and what we need to do for the best way forward.

      Our focus as society should not be on justifying why we have or don't have - our focus and funding should be on how we can rectify the situation we have created in the past few generations. Do you want to be living near a nuclear power station with your family when the next natural disaster strikes?

      So why build them - (other than to recycle war weapons) when there are alternatives - and these are better for the health and long term prosperity of ALL life. That we even debate this is just ridiculous.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Nov 22 2011: Thanks Griffin

        More comments I can further my knowledge with. That LED transmission is fascinating. How does it impact with line of sight, transmission etc. I'll have to read up more.

        I'm also looking for that TED talk where the person apparently uses a film or something on the external of a building in a form that extends or relates solar energy. I was told about it by another Teddy - but I can't find it.

        I too think the answer for degrading (or cleaning up) nuclear waste may also have links to altering light wave frequency perhaps through a conduction medium. LED has modelling patterns for radiation alteration and relies on heat sink cooling conduction - sometimes cold plate. As most know nuclear power plants also use cold plate or water coolant.

        Permaculture - has really been gaining popularity in sustainable cityscapes - where space is impacted. I believe also mushroom intelligence is a vital significant in the ethno-botanics.
  • thumb
    Nov 21 2011: I feel it is important to 'face up to' the real threats and reason we have nuclear power.

    That is because post Hitler cold war paranoia swept our democratic world who went overboard in the nuclear arms race. The end result was a massive threat to world existence - and no way to dispose or degrade the nuclear weapons. Countries holding them stockpiled held greatest threat to themselves with a first strike policy that did not augur the UN 'self -defence' i.e. such as the Kennedy Cuban missile crisis - the policy shifted away from waiting to be hit - to make the first strike because the threat of being hit was one off devastational.

    The next generation (x-y gen capitalism babies) grew up and the intake of politicians favoured trade markets to conquer and had a bit more maturity (and intellectual knowledge) about the dire consequences of nuclear war heads. They knew they had to get riid of them. But the sad truth is they couldn't. The Bush Regime was the first US government to even put significant funding into researching methods of degradation and disposal - ironic perhaps - but incited due to knowledge of threats of war arising out pending Iraq invasion.

    They couldn't 'dispose or degrade the nuclear weapons. They had created enough to nuke the entire planet. So they did what they considered to be the next best thing. They transferred the risk - recycled nuclear weapons into power plants. They knew they couldn't make it safe - but they could make storage safer (not the same thing) and really they had no choice with NO WAY OF SAFE DISPOSAL. So then it becomes a matter of adopting that into the world culture. How do you tell your voting public that your predecessors have screwed up and you can't fix it? And not fixing it means 'end of the world' stuff. So you don't. You market the only found alternative as a 'new safer way' forward.

    There is little point to blame solely current political and corporate system. We really require disposal solutions.
    • thumb
      Nov 21 2011: nuclear ... weapons? what that's got to do with nuclear energy??
      • thumb
        Nov 22 2011: The whole nuclear power program is around the recycling of nuclear weapons because the weapons are a threat to mankind - are redundant and more intelligent mature governments (such as the US) have come to realise something had to be done about eradicating - hence the nuclear disarmament process.
        • thumb
          Nov 22 2011: all hail governments' efforts to disarm nuclear weapons. it is good that we have a perfect use for the plutonium. isn't it?

          but i still don't see your point. what does it tell us about nuclear reactors?
  • thumb
    Nov 19 2011: Perhaps a more constructive approach is to review the ways and means of disposing of waste 'safely'. Any minds out there that have come up with some possibilities? Sending it to the sun has been proposed. One bomb to another. So has bombarding it inside a container that can take the intensive heat. Another is sticking it down a volcano (interesting and a personal favourite)

    We know that water salt water especially disperses it but does not remove it or break it down - that instruments have difficulty reading radiation in water. What other developments are in the pipeline for 'safe' disposal or bio degrading it?
  • thumb
    Nov 19 2011: QUOTE

    Krisztián Pintér 100+ +1Reply
    TED TRANSLATOR
    2 days ago: how many people died in fukushima? how many died in bhopal?

    why nuclear waste is a problem? exactly what is the problem with it?

    =======================================================================================

    Less than 5 minutes ago: Well do you? Live close to a nuclear power station? Will you go and live in the North of Japan?

    The problem is - they can't shut down the power stations - as those of you who 'research' nuclear phsyics will know.

    The problem is - that regardles of 'how small' how minute and 'it never happens' you think nuclear power is - the bottom line in its current format - its not going to degrade for x million years. After just a tiny dose of radiation - my hair began to fall out in clumps, my gums bleed, my nose and I was covered in what I will call lesions. I suffered from cumulative - from the MRI and scans I had to have for my Neuro physiological condtion. I haven't had enough to permanently damage (possibly)- but if a minute can do that - it took me a year.

    And you seem to think that if you can rationalise it away - you can minimise the harm. Sure you can - you can build safer plants - but you cant remove the risk - and the greatest kick back to that risk is that you have no control over the environment - with huge amount of climatic instability recurring all over the world - earthquakes, volcanoes - on the sea floor where stuff is stored down deep shafts. Water doesn't remove radiation.

    That's the problem. Now why are you trying to defend something that you know has and will continue to kill so many people? What is your reason? Have you ever been exposed? Do you work in nuclear field? I understand that there are reasons we use radio active material - such as medicine etc. But we do know even this isn't safe. There has never been one single record, study or proof offered that nuclear energy is safe to human beings. Cockroaches apparently can withstand it.
  • Nov 17 2011: What about nuclear fusion energy? I know it's not ready for production right now, but because you're talking about nuclear energy in general in a way I think would rather fit nuclear fission energy, I would like to possibly bring that precision (for the record).
    • thumb
      Nov 19 2011: The big O Maxime is that it is NOT ready right now. If and when it is AND there can be a degradable minimal risk - that is the time to bring it out into the public.

      Think about pharmaceutical trials. They are not allowed (in most countries now) to live test on people. They have to go through many years of tests before they release something on the market.

      Nuclear energy - well we released it alright - we nuked Horishima and we nuked original Australians in WA by not bothering to remove them from a test zone. We held tests 'underground' in Mururoa - which has been held to account for destabilising the pacific rim, earthquakes etc. - felt as far as New Zealand.

      Then we decided to switch to power - cold war was over - couldn't dispose of nuclear waste (other than the rusting drums dumped in third world and down deep shafts under Native American reservations and deep sea) so we thought we'd 'give it ago' as a power alternative. Thats when we had Long Island Chernoyble.

      Yes of course - technology has advanced since then and so we thought we'd give it 'another go' better, safer power stations - Japan up to the minute technology.

      Ok - this is just a brief precis of nuclear history - but in that track record - where does it say 'safe'? Nuclear weapons were big business in the military until a few years ago weren't they? Wonder where the 'funding' to transfer into nuclear power development came from?

      How blatantly obvious these people are and yet still we get others trying to support them with some kind of weird arguments - with a zero success track record and probably one of the most toxic, threatening 'inventions' to human life on the planet.

      Yet we couldn't afford to fund research for solar energy for instance. I don't think you need a PHD in nuclear physics to work out what this is really about. And I'm over it. We are just at the end of the oil reserves, at the end of the rain forests, at the end of the fish supplies - and we want to nuke the planet.
  • Nov 17 2011: With the current technology we have, nuclear is always unsafe to some degree. If not the actual processes involved in deriving energy from nuclear fission / fusion, then the waste by-products of this process.

    There is a substance called 'Thorium' that is said to have no isotopic residue and thus is deemed a 'clean' form of nuclear energy. Apparently the Chinese are researching the method; but I'm unsure why there isn't more focus on this form of nuclear energy generation, if it is in fact as safe as it's touted. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same reason industry drags its heals on other 'green energies' (i.e., we still have fossil fuels to exploit).
    • thumb
      Nov 17 2011: "nuclear is always unsafe to some degree"
      and chemical plants? they are safe? how about dams? cars?
      • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Nov 19 2011: 70% of Japanese residents have stated they don't want nuclear power any more.

        You seem convinced its 'good' for you. I could arrange for you to go and live in the North of Japan - or just stay there - with contacts and you could do a 'see I told you all' video - how about it?

        By the way I've just met someone who wasn't even in Japan at the time of the Earthquake - was away - and she's gone back - only to Tokyo. She's showing loaded signs of radiation poisoning. Never been anywhere north.

        Chemical plants are generally unsafe also - Australia has recently experienced issues of dioxide gases spreading with windrift - affected drivers on motorway - accidents as well as the more serious underlying issues. US case law has several significant corporate battles with chemical poisoning.

        Cars - well we are hoping they get cleaner.

        Dams - in India in 1996 that Multi-national partnership to the Indian power company decided to flood a river valley - the company neglected to evacuate and relocate thousands of people. Elderly, children were left stranded - climbed on their roofs above rising water. You might know of the author Arundhati Roy - who was called to court over her statements around this. I believe those that drowned and were left abandoned, homeless, sick etc. felt that dams are very dangerous.
        They do have serious ecological implications - in terms of EFA or global footprint. They are negative on the water table , salination as well as direct erosion and the long term impact of dam construction - drains lower deltas.
        • thumb
          Nov 20 2011: please note a few things.

          1. i didn't use the term "good". a technology can not be "good" in itself. it might or might not serve a certain purpose. it has characteristics. in my post, i was talking about risks, not being "good" or "bad". we should respect facts rather than value judgments.

          2. no matter how many people likes or hates something. facts are still facts. i use facts to convince people. you use majority opinion to maintain majority opinion. see the difference?

          3. anecdotal evidence does not count. there is no excuse for it. using anecdotal evidence is simply bad science, and dishonesty.

          4. are you advocating not using dams and chemical plants either? fine to me, but i bet that the popularity of such notions will fall greatly behind the popularity of anti-nuclear sentiments.
        • thumb
          Nov 22 2011: "Cars - well we are hoping they get cleaner." Ok, fine. Same answer for nuclear then. Interesting how only nuclear safety seems to warrant scrutiny. I agree with Krisztian, anecdotes and opinion are not facts.
    • thumb
      Nov 19 2011: Because nuclear is the 'new oil' thats why. This is all about money and nothing more. 'Clean' means quick and dirty cash savings.,

      Vanadium is another that might get off the ground. Most who have been involved in real 'green' technology will tell you their hard luck stories over the years - nothing to do with technology and viability - jut where the big buck lies.

      It's only that climate change and imploding economy that has impelled any kind of research funding and development. This is not an attack on capitalism - it is just one of the negative ways in which the system works. Now there are drivers - insurance companies know the statistics for increased natural disasters worldwide - they are not a left field imagining. Many years ago I remember reading a bible story - warning about the man who builds a house on sand or rock - meaning - build on something solid. Well - when it comes to nuclear energy there isn't anything solid. Not yet. When there is, then its the time to talk about using it - not generations after people have been nuked in numerous ways.
      • thumb
        Nov 22 2011: Vivienne, I mean no offense when I say this, your comments have almost no scientific reasoning what-so-ever. Nuclear energy is clean, safe (if properly secured), and efficent. In many of your recent arguements you have not stated any scientific evidence that nuclear power plants are bad in any way. Having Nuclear Power Plants does not mean a nuclear war, it means a way to create energy cleanly and efficently.
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2011: Thanks for your clearly stated opinion Jake - no offense taken - because at least its stated with maturity.

          My statement is that nuclear waste is not safe until there is a safe method to degrade or permanently dispose.

          I do actually have scientific basis - but I didn't think it was necessary to write a thesis - I thought people in this forum would know the difference - but its obvious the topic is just so emotive that people revert to childhood.

          I am simply stating that your argument above much as I respect and agree with your words - STILL DOES NOT DISPUTE THE FACT THAT THERE IS CURRENTLY NO METHOD FOR SAFELY DEGRADING OR PERMANENTLY DISPOSING OF NUCLEAR WASTE.

          I do risk management - I look at the impacts on people - the risks highlighted by insurance companies and those who don't want the information published.

          In a risk management life cycle - something isn't safe until it is completely checked off at milestones and validation points - consider the V method test matrix. If you can't validate then ISO IEEE standards (and I do not list the Nuclear standards but they have been developed and challenged for the same reason) are it is not safe. I've also worked on many government mission and safety critical projects where public exposure is involved - I know how to risk manage for projects like this. I really am not just an airhead who thinks a nuclear power plant is a bomb. But a nuclear power plant IS a bomb.

          Statements like cars are dirty and planes drop from the sky. When you analyse risk you establish a matrix. You look at not just the severity of the risk (of which Nuclear is Code Red or A1 critical) you look at the frequency of it occurring. Sometimes extreme destruction risks (e.g. an asteroid hitting California) are so remote in occurrence that they receive a low rating. But nuclear power plants are not in the same category of remote occurrence - they have a high rate of failure through historic stats.

          Lets 'face the facts' work on solution
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2011: There is no way to dispose any waste of any form of energy that is effective and commerically suitable. Every form of energy will create a byproduct whether it be air pollution, chemical waste, or even a product like plastic. We will always have waste, however like someone stated earlier, it takes 250,000 years to only create the size of Manhattan in waste. Nuclear plants can easily become safe and practically sealed off complelely given the right funding and resources. The reason why, in the past some nuclear power plants have failed is because of a natural disaster that caught them unprepared. Through history we have learned that nuclear energy can be dangerous but we have also learned how to use it effectivly, safely, and responsibly.
    • thumb
      Nov 22 2011: I find it interesting that you can comment on the byproducts of an energy that doesn't exist yet (nuclear fusion) says alot.
      • thumb
        Nov 23 2011: Well I commented on 911 before that existed. I commented on Foot and Mouth Disease and the mass burning in the UK before that existed. I commented on the Sari Bar bombing before that existed. I commented on the Tsunami for ten years before it existed. I commented on Hurricane Katrina before it existed. I warned of NZ and Japan earthquake. In all these circumstances and so many many others I commented and risked my life trying to save lives. I warned 'powerful' people - But still people didn't listen to me then either. Instead they attacked me just as you do. That's what an incarnate is - coming down here - the curse of this life - for you lot. There are people all over the world who personally know this.

        Just because you are not functioning on higher consciousness - doesn't mean I cannot utilise science AND be super natural in my sentience. Just because I don't speak with your rhetoric doesn't mean I don't hold the intelligence. I have that IQ also recorded as 'fact' from childhood.

        But in your world psychics are just 'stupid' people who make up stories with no real facts and have no intelligence. Go ahead kill yourselves and all life - then you can present the facts on it. Lets talk science and physics. What do you think about radiation patterning?
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2011: "Well I commented on 911 before that existed. I commented on Foot and Mouth Disease and the mass burning in the UK before that existed. I commented on the Sari Bar bombing before that existed. I commented on the Tsunami for ten years before it existed. I commented on Hurricane Katrina before it existed."

          I would just like to say that I can list off a random series of events that could/probably will happen in the next 100 years. I can say that we will have another deadly hurrican, that we will experience bad weather, that there will be an earthquake, there will be a tsunami, a financial crisis, a revolution, etc.

          We can go on and on about what might/probably will happen in the future, but what does that prove? Does it mean that I can read the future? That there will be a nuclear crisis just because I say so? No, it means that I have guessed a random amount of events and based on history, these events will happen again, perhaps in different circumstances.
        • thumb
          Nov 23 2011: That post was directed to Sablcious Faux who talks about the current waste produced by fusion. The problem is of course that no energy whatsoever is produced by fusion currently. So that comment came off as completely ignorant.

          And yes, psychics are stupid people who make up stories with no real facts and have no intelligence, that is entirely correct. At least, this is the judgment I'll make until a 'psychic' can successfully win the James Randi's challenge. Apparently, they are also cowards now. I contend that anybody who knew about 911 and didn't do anything about it is a total jerk. Completely crazy or absolute coward, make your pick.
    • thumb
      Nov 23 2011: Yes - although I believe they have actually started production - it is not as efficient as other 4gen - but 62% is better than 1 by far.

      China is a great concern with the number of earthquakes in the region. Fossil fuel continues to boom.
  • thumb
    Nov 16 2011: I'm not a nuclear physicist but here is some information for you.

    Spent fuel accounts for 3 percent of a nuclear power plant's waste. For every new fuel assembly loaded there is an old one which must be stored carefully, under water at first to allow much of the decay heat to reduce. In the US this is done at the power station site, as there is no long term storage available elsewhere and no program for dismantling discharged fuel.

    Source: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html

    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_waste_does_nuclear_power_produce#ixzz1dt2X24Dv
    • thumb
      Nov 19 2011: This is the stuff we need to be worried about. Green is not green when you can't bio degrade it - no matter how safe in between. Thanks
  • thumb
    Nov 16 2011: Perhaps I may sound inflammatory. Well - like those currently expressing a protest view in 'Occupy' sites I believe that this is an issue so serious that it must be brought out now.

    We can't go on just playing along. Those politicians I question - are humans too, with families. They must start to do real accounting and real accountability.

    I cannot believe that people will just sit in a vehicle that is heading for a cliff - and even put their foot down on the accelerator.

    This requires real action. There are many people who care about having a future. We can all blog and discuss it. But that will not stop the destruction.

    Do people really think even now that these disasters won't happen - when so many already have? I think that people are just too frightened and don't know what to do about it - so instead they deny and get involved in other social things to escape. But there is no escape. There is no magic cure. Only prevention and preparation.

    I personally desire to do what I can to protect my world. But come on - would you give your car keys to a three year old who can't see over the dashboard? Don't give your life and power away to those who don't really know what to do - they are only trained to manage an economy and that's what they feel secure in doing.