I don't like nuclear energy specially for health reasons. In other post I warned that there are alternative energies that can be used quickly than nuclear energy. But as people doesn't want to stop with oil and energy adiction, nuclear energy can be considered. This link shows a revolutionary inovation in nuclear energy.http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/direct-conversion-of-radiation-into.html

I LIKE nuclear enegy, specifically for health reasons, and it's technology has ALREADY been developed!

More nukes, now.

//mjs

Yes, we have never had a single fatality from nuclear power but lose hundreds each year in the coal mines not to mention the hundreds of thousands who suffer from black lung, asthma, or other coal related illnesses. 

The link was way beyond my ability to understand.

I read Popular Science - not Scientific American  [;-)}

I was just re-reading cold fusion (not the Web software) info the other day
Hopin' beyond hope

Yes, we have never had a single fatality from nuclear power but lose hundreds each year in the coal mines not to mention the hundreds of thousands who suffer from black lung, asthma, or other coal related illnesses. 

[/quote]

Gov,

Good points!!  I too am supportive of nuclear energy, in particular, as well as other alternative energy sources.

Was speaking to someone recently who has worked in the nuclear power field and learned that over 40 applications have been filed for new nuclear plants in this country.

Unfortunately, we have lost some of the basic manufacturing infrastructure needed to build reactors. Prior to the collapse of the indusatry in this country, there were two manufacturers of the pressure vessels used in reactor construction. They have gone out of business. Now the only manufacturer of these vessels is located in Japan and they currently have a 4 year backorder.

In addition, we've have also lost a lot of the technological edge we once held.  Now it appears that France is the technology leader. What a shame.

I have read that about Japan and France but have no doubt that we can regain both the basic mfg. infrastructure (with some well placed subsidies probably).

In addition, we've have also lost a lot of the technological edge we once held.

Something we can thank Carter for, right Chang?

I'm not sure what it reminded me of more;  the "U-Tube" video that many claimed showed the benefits of burning water, or the stuff about covering the Gulf of Mexico to reduce hurricanes.

//mjs

Mshimko, use the name of the scientists to find other links about this technology.
 

There was enough info in the link to get a pretty good flavor of what there was, and wasn't, if you think about ut technically and critically.

//mjs

While France/Japan and other countries have taken greater advantage than us of nuclear electricity generation, the thrifty Swiss are profiting as a country.

Historically Switzerland’s power generation basis has thus been mainly based on hydropower and nuclear energy  -  95%  nuclear/hydro and only 5% "thermal" (coal/oil/natural gas). They took advantage of being a mountainous country by constructing large reservoirs high in the Alps with companion reservoirs far below..Electricity is used to run reversible pump/generators that pump water into the upper reservoir during "off-peak" times when electricity is cheap and release water from the upper reservoir to generate electricity for sale during peak periods when prices are high.

Only the Swiss could have come up with this concept – buy electricity from France and other surrounding countries when it’s cheap, and thensell it back to them when it’s expensive! They only have to sit there watching the water going up and down while they line their pockets.

The Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/3/61410/6465

did an interesting piece recently on "New Approaches to Pumped Hydro" which didn't mention nuclear (surprise!) or the remarkable Swiss concept.

The US has a lot to learn from others which would be much more productive than what we've been doing. jim 

Yes, we have never had a single fatality from nuclear power but lose hundreds each year in the coal mines not to mention the hundreds of thousands who suffer from black lung, asthma, or other coal related illnesses. 

[/quote]

Who do you include among the we?  How about the 31 who died from radiation exposure within three months after the Chernobyl accident.  How about the 3 who died during the SL-1 reactor accident at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho.

Yes, we have never had a single fatality from nuclear power but lose hundreds each year in the coal mines not to mention the hundreds of thousands who suffer from black lung, asthma, or other coal related illnesses. 

[/quote]

Who do you include among the we?  How about the 31 who died from radiation exposure within three months after the Chernobyl accident.  How about the 3 who died during the SL-1 reactor accident at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho.

[/quote]

34 people?

I can see why the radical left is so afraid of nuclear power. Really, we need speed limits set at 45, because we lose that many people on the roads every what? Hour? 

Chernobyl...what state is that in?

Mark 

Chernobyl...what state is that in?

Mark 

[/quote]

I think it's in the 58th state, the one Obama forgot about. 

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,  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 trophies) 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.  It's just disheartening that France is leading the way in nuclear power, about 80% 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  (Am I on the wrong forum?  How did I get over here!)

[quote user="robertts12"]Retired at 48, do you know it there are civil ships, freight ships moved by nuclear energy?
[/quote]

 There are none.  There was one experimental freighter type ship which tried nucpwr decades ago, , but quickly stopped as unfeasible.  The various safety aspects, controls, very thick, heavy metal containment, specialized training, etc does not make nuclear attractive.  And cruise ships would have to be training passengers foreever. 

I suspect if one did a rigorous cost analysis they might conclude it is not effective even for submarines, but it is an awesome weapons system.  No need for fuel (goes about a decade), self-sufficient, hardened against blasts, quiet, gives nuc subs great advantages.

We have nuc power aircraft carriers, but escorts are not, except for one set of destroyers which are nuc pwr, but the line was not continued.

retired at 48

Chernobyl...what state is that in?

Mark 

[/quote]

It is in Urkraine.  Those interested may want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster.

Chernobyl...what state is that in?

Mark 

[/quote]

It is in Urkraine.  Those interested may want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster.

[/quote]

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

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.

retired at 48