On the drive home yesterday I heard one of the presidential candidates, the liberal republican one, say he wanted the country to start increasing our nuclear energy usage.  My first thought was that if we have not built an oil refinery in over 30 years, how in  the world are we ever going to get another nuclear power plant built.  Doesn't the licensing and EPA hurdles alone take about 10-15 years?  And the tree huggers....?

I then remembered reading recently about some ETF's that can be used to invest in the nuclear industry.  The first one, NLR, is Van Eck's Market Vectors Nuclear Energy ETF, which follows the DAXglobal Nuclear Energy Index.  It has been criticized, because it only contains about 35 companies, with a great percentage being in the uranium mining segment of the industry.  Here is a seekingalpha.com article, dated Feb.19, 2008 about 3 nuclear Indices:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/65093-going-nuclear-3-indices-1-etf-and-seeking-alpha

Another ETF option is now available.  It's the Powershares Global Nuclear Energy Portfolio, PKN. It tracks the WNA or World Nuclear Association Energy Index.  It's a lot more diversified with over 60 companies, and it's a lot more Global, Ex Iran & Ex North Korea, of course:^)

Here's a Kiplinger.com article, dated May 8, 2008:  New Way to Ride Nuclear's Revival

http://www.kiplinger.com/columns/fundwatch/archive/2008/fundwatch0508.htm

Any takers?
Coy

Didn't hombre munchkin get burned on Uranium stocks?

I don't think it is the environmentalists stopping nuclear power, it's the NIMBYs (not in my back yard.)  You should have seen the furor over storing nuclear waste in Utah and then the furor over driving it THROUGH Utah on the way to Nevada. 

I predict it will take about ten years to turnaround...one more generation.  You see, this new generation will want its computers, auto's (likely electric). clean energy, yet oil and gas prices will be out of sight.  So this next generation will be saying:

"Damn, what were those thirty, forty and fifty something year olds thinking of.  Were they ever chicken sh_ _ _ , scardy cat, do nothings.  Here they had a solution right in their hands, namely, nuclear power, and they wouldn't adopt it because of a little fright on what to do with the nuclear waste!  We'll solve this technical problem and get on with it."

Yes, Coy, a whole book could be written on the reasons why, but you are witnessing at least two generations of people who will probably be noted by historians for what they didn't do, when it comes to energy, global warming, declining living standards, aging infrastructure, border controls, education, and on and on.  But they were good at lawsuits, safety, NIMBY, risk avoidance (no more diving boards), self esteem (everyone gets troghies) and feeling good.  Perhaps I'm being unfair, but I just don't know how we sixty somethings survived!.

Someday, nuclear power will be booming.  The dilemma is that a high growth area is not always a good investment area.  But I have a small piece of the ETF you mention, and wish there were a better play in nuclear, like your link suggests.  Looks like its coming soon.

It's just disheartening that France is leading the way in nuclear power, about 85% nuclear, now.  The next generation will take over in the USA, and move forward.

BTW I am a little biased, because I was a Quality Assurance Manager involved with Naval Nuclear Powered Submarines, for which the USA submarines have never had a nuclear accident. 

retired at 48

Coy,

Thanks very much for pointing out PKN. Here's a LINK to the index components.

I presently have a 1% position in NLR to supplement my energy sector fund holding. Performance has been mediocre of late.

It's a long-term story for sure. 

As you likely know, France has been using nuclear power for decades to generate about 80% of the country's electrical power.  EDF is now bidding to expand into Great Britain for the purpose of building nuclear plants there.

Furthermore, France's Renault is working with Israel on their big electric car experiment.  Their goal is to have 80% of cars running on electricity within 10 years. No more imported oil!  One thing leads to another ...

Although I moved to France about 10 years ago, I still have a US passport.  It's sad to hear that the "can do" American spirit is no longer what it used to be.  However, I think we'll be able to catch up rapidly if there is the political will.  For nuclear we need a national energy policy, not just free markets.  France's success came by building cookie-cutter reactors with a single, very conservative set of control standards.  It's the economies of scale ...

Cheers,

Norbert 

>>> BTW I am a little biased, because I was a Quality Assurance Manager involved with Naval Nuclear Powered Submarines, for which the USA submarines have never had a nuclear accident. 

Hey Retired,

Sorry if I find that your opinion typical of the narrow-minded outlook for which the military is famous.  Never a nuclear accident?  How about the Thresher, whose reactor is still sitting on the bottom of the Atlantic?  Sure, I know the ship didn't sink because of a reactor problem.  Doesn't matter.  However, it began, it's a muclear accident now.

This a typical negative externality, of which there is no better example than nuclear power.  The military, in this case, gets the benefit of "cheap" power and someone else pays the long-term environmental cost.  

 Capt Midnight
 

>>> BTW I am a little biased, because I was a Quality Assurance Manager involved with Naval Nuclear Powered Submarines, for which the USA submarines have never had a nuclear accident. 

Hey Retired,

Sorry if I find that your opinion typical of the narrow-minded outlook for which the military is famous.  Never a nuclear accident?  How about the Thresher, whose reactor is still sitting on the bottom of the Atlantic?  Sure, I know the ship didn't sink because of a reactor problem.  Doesn't matter.  However, it began, it's a muclear accident now.

This a typical negative externality, of which there is no better example than nuclear power.  The military, in this case, gets the benefit of "cheap" power and someone else pays the long-term environmental cost.  

 Capt Midnight
 

[/quote]

Now let's take this narrow-minded guy, me, (who wasn't in the military) and think outside the box a little.  Capt Midnight, you correctly have a concern regarding potential nuclear accidents.  Here's how the next generation can mitigate this. 

First, current reactor designs are flawed in that they put all their stored energy at risk at one time.  An accident could potentially release all that radioactive energy into a community.  The design is like a large water dam...large breach can release years of stored hydro energy, a potential catastrophe.  Current reactors expose the total fuel (radiation part) to meltdown risk, because utilities wanted to run the plants for several years without refueling.

What one needs is to design a "continuous feed" reactor whereby small amounts of (radioactive) fuel are injected into the reactor, burned quickly, then injected out, with new fuel brought in.  Like the railroad steam engine.  The second train car contained the coal.  The engineer shoveled in a few shovels of coal into the steam engine burner to create steam.  Any explosion was small, not destroying the surrounding community.  The large pile of coal in car 2 is unaffected.  Ditto for nuclear power.  A small, continuous feed reactor could limit problems to very local confines, thus allowing people to sleep at night w/o worry.

Similar, easier tech solutions exist for nuclear waste disposal (more of a political problem). 

BTW reactors in submarines are "small" now.  And not condescending to military personal can go a long way in solving the nations energy problems.  Most people running USA nuclear reactors get their training in the military.

I will have to ponder for awhile regarding how France, and the next USA genarations deal with your words "typical negative externality".  Sounds  a little like military-speak to me.  I'm not sure who is the negative one here.

retired at 48

The challenge  of  nuclear energy is not just the danger of nuclear accident, but how to safely and effectively dispose of high-level radioactive waste. The best we seem to be able to do is bury it deep somewhere. Today's main somewhere is only 100 miles from Las Vegas in a place called Yucca Mountain in Nevada (map)  http://www.nrc.gov/waste/low-level-waste.html

I wouldn't reject, out of hand, the "tree huggers' and other environmentalist's worries about the downside of nuclear energy (not only danger of accident, but health problems associated with radiation leakage and dispersion). IMO we need  to engage the most sophisticated, sober, and cautious minds in solving the problems of nuclear power.   Some scientists themselves say that at this time, given the downsides, nuclear power is an unacceptable risk and is something we shouldn't pretend to be the master of.

I wonder where France buries it's radioactive waste

.~Satori

Hi,

While I certainly agree with most of Norbert's comments, I do think it is worth pointing out that the US produces more nuclear power than does France. (It's a much smaller percentage of the total, but the US still produces more.)

I really like the cookie-cutter approach of France. Hope that is in our future here.

PaulF

BTW I am a little biased, because I was a Quality Assurance Manager involved with Naval Nuclear Powered Submarines, for which the USA submarines have never had a nuclear accident. 

retired at 48

[/quote]

Hey Retired@48 - There's a chance you know me or vice versa, since I'm three years younger than you and I was at Naval Reactors, from 1980-1985, Division 08-I (Reactor Engineering Division) under Dave Pye.   I've lost contact with most of my fellow nukes, though I still keep in touch with our old nuclear engineering prof. at Bettis.

>>> BTW I am a little biased, because I was a Quality Assurance Manager involved with Naval Nuclear Powered Submarines, for which the USA submarines have never had a nuclear accident. 

Hey Retired,

Sorry if I find that your opinion typical of the narrow-minded outlook for which the military is famous.  Never a nuclear accident?  How about the Thresher, whose reactor is still sitting on the bottom of the Atlantic?  Sure, I know the ship didn't sink because of a reactor problem.  Doesn't matter.  However, it began, it's a muclear accident now.

This a typical negative externality, of which there is no better example than nuclear power.  The military, in this case, gets the benefit of "cheap" power and someone else pays the long-term environmental cost.  

[/quote]

Actually there are two US reactors on the ocean floor, the Thresher's and the Scorpion's; however, both losses were unrelated to the nuclear power plant, and neither is a "nuclear accident now".   I'd explain it to you, but from your tone I don't think you're really interested.

The US Navy was a pioneer in the development of nuclear power.   Many -- maybe a majority -- of today's commercial nuclear plant operators were trained by the Navy and served aboard ships and submarines before departing to work at utilities.   The Navy developed the first breeder reactor, the Light Water Breeder Reactor at Shippingport PA -- a highly innovative breeder based on a thorium cycle and using light water as a coolant.   It's a great pity that Jimmy Carter killed the US breeder program; the US should have been in the vanguard of a worldwide effort to develop safe, efficient and cost-effective breeder reactor technology to wean ourselves off fossil fuel dependence.   Carter set us back at least fifty years at a possible cost that's hard to imagine.

I don't know what you mean by "The military, in this case, gets the benefit of cheap power".   The Navy single-handedly developed nuclear power in this country at great cost in dollars, industrial manpower and intellectual resources, and it's the rest of the commercial nuclear power industry that has benefited.   The Navy created two dedicated laboratories which for decades were run by Westinghouse and General Electric.  Where do you think those companies gained their expertise in nuclear reactor design?

While I certainly agree with most of Norbert's comments, I do think it is worth pointing out that the US produces more nuclear power than does France. (It's a much smaller percentage of the total, but the US still produces more.)

[/quote]

Paul is correct as this LINK will show.  Note that details for each country are available on links on the "Nuclear Power by Country" page.  This includes fuel cycle and disposal issues.

The World Nuclear Association has a wealth of information available - just Google it. 

A discussion of nuclear power has to examine the potential for the really bad, and how events have affected the boomers and previous generations in their thinking. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, for example. When a plane crashes the loss of life is counted in the hundreds. When a nuclear accident happens...

Forward thinking is towards renewable energy sources. 

Thanks for reminding me about the Scorpion.  I thought there was more than one.  

You're right that I am not very interested in hearing how safe and secure those reactors are at the bottom of the ocean.  I understand that the Navy has monitored the Thresher over the years and certified that there is no leakage.  Do I trust the US military to tell us the truth?  Absolutely not.

Since nuclear power is not safe and cannot be made safe, the risks will always be borne by those who are not necessarily benefitting.  That the beneficiaries should include US corporations in addition to the US military, hardly changes that fact. 

I do agree with the original poster that nuclear power is coming back.  The bad decision-making that encouraged wasteful oil consumption will find the apparent cheapness of nuclear power irresistible.  As time goes by, society will accept the occasional leaks and accidents as just a cost, the same way we regard traffic accident deaths now.  Too bad for us.
 

BTW I am a little biased, because I was a Quality Assurance Manager involved with Naval Nuclear Powered Submarines, for which the USA submarines have never had a nuclear accident. 

retired at 48

[/quote]

Hey Retired@48 - There's a chance you know me or vice versa, since I'm three years younger than you and I was at Naval Reactors, from 1980-1985, Division 08-I (Reactor Engineering Division) under Dave Pye.   I've lost contact with most of my fellow nukes, though I still keep in touch with our old nuclear engineering prof. at Bettis.

[/quote]

Yes, I do know you.  I was closely associated with 08, but from a QC role.  Names like Lavish, Henke, etc.  I liked your subsequent post re military/nuclear power.  Guess I'm not alone in this post!

R48

Thanks for reminding me about the Scorpion.  I thought there was more than one.  

You're right that I am not very interested in hearing how safe and secure those reactors are at the bottom of the ocean.  I understand that the Navy has monitored the Thresher over the years and certified that there is no leakage.  Do I trust the US military to tell us the truth?  Absolutely not.

Since nuclear power is not safe and cannot be made safe, the risks will always be borne by those who are not necessarily benefitting.  That the beneficiaries should include US corporations in addition to the US military, hardly changes that fact. 

I do agree with the original poster that nuclear power is coming back.  The bad decision-making that encouraged wasteful oil consumption will find the apparent cheapness of nuclear power irresistible.  As time goes by, society will accept the occasional leaks and accidents as just a cost, the same way we regard traffic accident deaths now.  Too bad for us.
 

[/quote]

 CaptMidnight, believe me when I say I fully understand your position and take on nuclear power.  That is why I posted that it is the next generation that will develop and use this technology to the fullest.  I'm convinced, like Chang above, that no amount of technical understanding or risk mitigating will sway you in any way. 

But by your rationale, if I brought to you a technology that kills 4000 citizens monthly, I'm sure you would reject it out of hand.  Oh, then we should all give up automobiles.  What was that generation thinking!?#!&  And if another technology blew up thousands annually right in their own homes, you would similarly reject it.  Oh, guess we have to stop using natural gas to heat our homes and cook food. (Who the hell developed that usage).  And if I brought to you a new technology that instantly electrocuted thousands annually...ditto, rejected.  Then let's get all those electrical wires and electricity out of our homes...damn capitalists. 

Indeed, viewpoints towards these is generational, in this sense.  Buried in your comments is a cynicism towards all things military, governmental, and our business structure.  That leaves no one to develop anything.  The next generation will caste these interpersonal considerations aside, and get on with it.

I thank Chang for identifying two other major points.  First, the role of the military who ACTUALLY DEVELOPED THIS TECHNOLOGY, now being used by Frenchmen.  Guess we didn't charge them a penny, again, for our contributions.  And secondly, Chang is right, one can actually design a reactor that BREEDS MORE FUEL THAN IT USES UP.   Imagine that, a way to burn fuel, create electricity, and end up with more fuel.  Indeed, the next generation will say "What the hell were those people doing back then, a solution right at their fingertips."

Just some thoughts....retired at 48

Thanks for reminding me about the Scorpion.  I thought there was more than one.  

You're right that I am not very interested in hearing how safe and secure those reactors are at the bottom of the ocean.  I understand that the Navy has monitored the Thresher over the years and certified that there is no leakage.  Do I trust the US military to tell us the truth?  Absolutely not.

Since nuclear power is not safe and cannot be made safe, the risks will always be borne by those who are not necessarily benefitting.  That the beneficiaries should include US corporations in addition to the US military, hardly changes that fact. 

I do agree with the original poster that nuclear power is coming back.  The bad decision-making that encouraged wasteful oil consumption will find the apparent cheapness of nuclear power irresistible.  As time goes by, society will accept the occasional leaks and accidents as just a cost, the same way we regard traffic accident deaths now.  Too bad for us.
 

[/quote]

I am not an expert like a lot of the people posting here, although I have worked at nuclear power plants.

If we can't accept nuclear risks, then what risks should we accept?  Industrial accidents happen and people are killed in jobs related to oil and gas, hydro,  and even wind power.  As with traffic accidents, we pay attention to disasters, but not to "everyday" loss of life that may have historically resulted in as many or more deaths.

There are objections to almost every kind of energy.   What solution are you proposing, given current technology?

Paul
 

The downside risks of nuclear energy are just too large.  Not just due to accidents, but to storage and transport.  In fifty years of nuclear power, they haven't found a place to store the waste yet that is sufficiently stable given its long life.  The risks of oil and gas, hydro and wind (!? what risk is that exactly?) are just not of the same scale.  And scale matters.  Human beings are not careful enough to manage the operating risks even if the storage and transport problems were solvable, which they are not.

The main solution is to reduce consumption.  Penalize automobiles.  Develop public transportation.  Burn coal with scrubbing technology.  Push housing development and population into the cities where everything is more energy-efficient. 

 
Beyond that make it a mission of national emergency to find solutions.  When the Chinese govt announces that they will reduce the polution generation and energy consumption per unit of GDP, I believe that they will achieve that.  I don't believe America can solve any of its problems: health care, energy, loss of manufacturing, govt liabilities for underfunded military pensions and Medicare, etc.  There are too many vested interests making too much money on the status quo to engineer change.  The auto industry is a perfect example.  In the 50's and 60's they owned the world market.  They could have developed the next two generations of auto power systems.  Instead, they will probably just go out of business.

 It's only when you start from the assumption that the American suburban lifestyle is the goal that nuclear power looks like a solution.  That infrastructure was all developed on the premise of cheap oil, which is either gone or soon to be.

I don't cede an inch of the discussion to the so-called "experts."  They are not experts in what safety risk I find acceptable for me.
 

Why are there no commercial ships using nuclear energy? Those new, huge cruise ships must burn a tremendous amount of diesel fuel.

Sam

BTW I am a little biased, because I was a Quality Assurance Manager involved with Naval Nuclear Powered Submarines, for which the USA submarines have never had a nuclear accident. 

retired at 48

[/quote]

Hey Retired@48 - There's a chance you know me or vice versa, since I'm three years younger than you and I was at Naval Reactors, from 1980-1985, Division 08-I (Reactor Engineering Division) under Dave Pye.   I've lost contact with most of my fellow nukes, though I still keep in touch with our old nuclear engineering prof. at Bettis.

[/quote]

Yes, I do know you.  I was closely associated with 08, but from a QC role.  Names like Lavish, Henke, etc.  I liked your subsequent post re military/nuclear power.  Guess I'm not alone in this post!

R48

[/quote]

I didn't think I gave you that many clues!

Since nuclear power is not safe and cannot be made safe, the risks will always be borne by those who are not necessarily benefitting.  That the beneficiaries should include US corporations in addition to the US military, hardly changes that fact. 

[/quote]

What is "safe"?   Nothing in life is absolutely safe.

You should look at a PSA -- Probabilistic Safety Assessment -- for a third generation nuclear power plant like the Westinghouse AP-1400.   I am involved in the AP-1400s being constructed now in Korea.   Compared to anything else in life, these are safe.   They require no active systems, no operator actions, no motors, no electronics, no turbines, no compressed air, nothing to survive a worst case loss of coolant accident without release of radioactivity.

I would happily live next to one.   As I happily slept in the missile bay adjacent to the reactor compartment of the USS Nathan Hale. 

But if you are not actually interested in facts, then . . .
 

When the Chinese govt announces that they will reduce the polution generation and energy consumption per unit of GDP, I believe that they will achieve that.

I don't cede an inch of the discussion to the so-called "experts."  They are not experts in what safety risk I find acceptable for me.

[/quote]

You trust the Chinese Government .... but you don't trust nuclear safety analyses by the NRC or IAEA?   Hmm.
 

To Mr Ed

You raise a legit safety issue, which I will discuss in next post.  But you specifically said "Forward thinking is renewable energy resources."  Like Chang said above, our country has actually tested out "breeder reactors"!  What can be more renewable than a fuel that generates more usable fuel as you burn it...and in completely enclosed systems.  The word "renewable" fits.

To Satori

You, too, raise legit safety questions.  But you have your doubts, because you ask, rightly, wonder where France stores its radioactive waste.  In a post below I'll try to mitigate your concern.

To Snray

No commercial ships use NucPwr because it is just not cost effective to build all the safety controls,etc for each individual ship. And one would have to train passengers. etc.  The navy benefitted because of long patrol capability, without need for fuel (goes about a decade) and it is well-hardened against blasts.  A full analysis would probably show is not even cost effective to do for submarines.  That is, on that small a scale, individually.

retired at 48

Actually the Russians built a couple of nuclear-powered ice breakers for Arctic use.

I agree with your Retired@48 - what could be a more "renewable" and "green" energy than a breeder?   Produces more fuel than it consumes, and emits no greenhouse gases!

The downside risks of nuclear energy are just too large.  Not just due to accidents, but to storage and transport.  In fifty years of nuclear power, they haven't found a place to store the waste yet that is sufficiently stable given its long life.  The risks of oil and gas, hydro and wind (!? what risk is that exactly?) are just not of the same scale.  And scale matters.  Human beings are not careful enough to manage the operating risks even if the storage and transport problems were solvable, which they are not.

The main solution is to reduce consumption.  Penalize automobiles.  Develop public transportation.  Burn coal with scrubbing technology.  Push housing development and population into the cities where everything is more energy-efficient. 

Beyond that make it a mission of national emergency to find solutions.  When the Chinese govt announces that they will reduce the polution generation and energy consumption per unit of GDP, I believe that they will achieve that.  I don't believe America can solve any of its problems: health care, energy, loss of manufacturing, govt liabilities for underfunded military pensions and Medicare, etc.  There are too many vested interests making too much money on the status quo to engineer change.  The auto industry is a perfect example.  In the 50's and 60's they owned the world market.  They could have developed the next two generations of auto power systems.  Instead, they will probably just go out of business.

 It's only when you start from the assumption that the American suburban lifestyle is the goal that nuclear power looks like a solution.  That infrastructure was all developed on the premise of cheap oil, which is either gone or soon to be.

I don't cede an inch of the discussion to the so-called "experts."  They are not experts in what safety risk I find acceptable for me.
 

[/quote]

I don't know in which generation you fall, CaptMidnight, but I acknowledge there are surely thousands of people who share views similar to yours.  But it does give credence to my initial position that it will "take one more generation."  Although I must question that if we "make it (energy) a mission of national emergency" yet we exclude the types you distrust, namely, the military,  government types and the corporations (capitalists), I'm not sure who is left.  Outsource to India?  And since you won't, in your words,  "cede an inch", I'd like to discuss nuclear transportation and storage issues for the forum readers.

When a nuclear reactor is operating, the nuclear fuel, uranium, becomes radioactive and bombards surrounding enclosure materials.  These materials themselves become radioactive, emiting back some radiation.  When any reactor is refueled, or torn down, the spent fuel goes to a reprocessing plant where its volume is greatly reduced.  Adjacent parts/materials are simply retained. 

Now here's the technical deal regarding transport/storage.  The key technical aspect is that, even with exposure in air, these radioactive components are not dangerous as long as one keeps a small distance away, like hundred(s) of feet.  So if a transporting train wrecks, and the containers are breached, as long as one does not go touch these materials there is no harm.

Santori asked an insightful question: Where does France store its waste?  Probably like in the USA.  Since our country is still trying to select a burial ground, how has the waste been handled for the past fifty years?  Answer: it is stored on site at the power generating plants, in large swimming pools of water, just sitting there.  Why water? Because it absorbs the outgoing radiation better than air, such that a few feet away is very safe.  I, personally, have stood on walkways overlooking the swimming pools, looking down on top of a used (spent) nuclear reactor, about 20 feet above it.  My personal radiation monitoring device showed no increase above background.  Now when I went outside in the direct sunlight, the device registered higher readings!

There are enough very good storage sites, now known, as places to safely place these materials "to rest" and keeping rainwater off of them.  Nevada has the best ones.  But until a future generation gets over the fears involved here, and solves the "not in my back yard" issue, we will continue to have the higher risk storage as we have now: swimming pools throughout the country. 

Amazing, but in fifty years you have never heard a storage incident make the national news.  Perhaps what R48 says is remotely correct.  Storage is an education and political issue.  Reactor accident safety is a design, siting (keep them away from populated areas) and control issue. 

BTW radiation is in lots of places in the universe.  When volcanoes erupt, we spew some radioactive material.  Uranium is natural.  People get medical Xrays.  The sun is essentially thousands of nuclear bombs going off hourly--loads of radiation, which is why we get sunburned..  I am confident future generations will see radiation for what it is, and deal with it.  That is, unless fusion reactors are developed, which, would you believe, involve NO Radiation!

retired at 48

The challenge of nuclear energy is not just the danger of nuclear accident, but how to safely and effectively dispose of high-level radioactive waste. The best we seem to be able to do is bury it deep somewhere.

 
You don't have to dispose of it - you just use reactor designs that burn the fuel farther down the radioactive scale.  Check out some of the recent pebble bed reactor designs - when they're done with the radioactive waste/fuel from the traditional reactors, there's nothing left to build bombs out of and the disposal problem is much much easier since the stuff is no longer nearly as hot as the waste was originally.

It's also worth remembering that coal power puts out way more radioactive pollution in the US than our nuclear plants. We burn a whole lot of coal, so if you're worried about radioactive pollution problems, you should start there.  More nuclear plants would be cleaner than more coal plants and way better on the green house gases front too.

Now here's the technical deal regarding transport/storage.  The key technical aspect is that, even with exposure in air, these radioactive components are not dangerous as long as one keeps a small distance away, like hundred(s) of feet.  So if a transporting train wrecks, and the containers are breached, as long as one does not go touch these materials there is no harm.

[/quote]

Another key aspect is the radioactive substances may be released to the atmosphere and distributed by winds.  The human body accumulates some of these substances, such as iodine.  It is not possible to keep a small distance away from yourself.

[quote user="retired at 48"]

Amazing, but in fifty years you have never heard a storage incident make the national news.  Perhaps what R48 says is remotely correct.  Storage is an education and political issue.  Reactor accident safety is a design, siting (keep them away from populated areas) and control issue.

[/quote]

In 1998 the New York Times reported in "Panel Details Management Flaws At Hanford Nuclear Waste Site" that more than one-third of the tanks containing high-level radioactive waste had leaked.

Now here's the technical deal regarding transport/storage.  The key technical aspect is that, even with exposure in air, these radioactive components are not dangerous as long as one keeps a small distance away, like hundred(s) of feet.  So if a transporting train wrecks, and the containers are breached, as long as one does not go touch these materials there is no harm.

[/quote]

Another key aspect is the radioactive substances may be released to the atmosphere and distributed by winds.  The human body accumulates some of these substances, such as iodine.  It is not possible to keep a small distance away from yourself.

[quote user="retired at 48"]

Amazing, but in fifty years you have never heard a storage incident make the national news.  Perhaps what R48 says is remotely correct.  Storage is an education and political issue.  Reactor accident safety is a design, siting (keep them away from populated areas) and control issue.

[/quote]

In 1998 the New York Times reported in "Panel Details Management Flaws At Hanford Nuclear Waste Site" that more than one-third of the tanks containing high-level radioactive waste had leaked.

[/quote]

First item...distributed by winds.  Not really.  This stuff is not powder; rather it is very heavy metal parts.  Note the radiated rays do not reradiate things such as particles in air.

Second item...I probably should have added, for clarification, the words "involving people" after the word incident.  That's what I intended, e.g., people are not suffering from over exposure. 

Bottom line.  I think forum investors can relate to the fact we have 50 years of data, and one can data mine it all they want and still see that nuclear transporting and storage is not hurting people.  Ought to count for something, shouldn't it? Not like that damn sun causing all the melanoma...

retired at 48 

First item...distributed by winds.  Not really.  This stuff is not powder; rather it is very heavy metal parts.  Note the radiated rays do not reradiate things such as particles in air.

[/quote]

Yes, really, when the radioactive isotope is part a molecule that is a gas.  For example iodine, which was previously mentioned, is a solid that sublimates at room temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sublimation_(chemistry)).

In addition, non gaseous substances may be carried off by water.

[quote user="retired at 48"]

Bottom line.  I think forum investors can relate to the fact we have 50 years of data, and one can data mine it all they want and still see that nuclear transporting and storage is not hurting people.  Ought to count for something, shouldn't it? Not like that damn sun causing all the melanoma...

[/quote]

There was no data mining behind posting a hyperlink to a New York Times article that shows that the statement: "Amazing, but in fifty years you have never heard a storage incident make the national news." is incorrect.  It does not take much knowledge about the history of nuclear reactors to know about the waste storage leaks at Hanford.

The NRC considers leaks from spent fuel rod storage pools to be important enough mention them in its Frequently Asked Questions About Indian Point  web page.  The Frequently Asked Questions About Liquid Radioactive Releases web page may be of interest, too.

Can't build nukes, can't dam up lakes, can't build wind farms (bird kills), can't drill for oil in ANWR or anywhere else. How'd we get so wimpy?

[quote user="canoehug"]Is my memory correct in thinking that the Three Mile Island utility never missed a dividend after their accident?[/quote]

According to a Company History of GPU:

"The turning point finally came in November 1985, when the NRC ruled that GPU could return Three Mile Island to operation, ending more than six years of inactivity. The ruling almost instantly added $1 per share to company earnings and allowed rates to be lowered in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania, since the need to purchase power from outside sources was dramatically reduced. In May 1987, GPU reinstated dividends to shareholders for the first time since 1980."