Comments on: Micro-nuclear plants for local power

By: sanjosemike

sanjosemike — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:21:50 +0000

THE FRENCH DO IT

The French have about 87.5% of their power from nuclear. They use (some) breeder reactors and vitrify the unusable waste. This means they reprocess as much as 2/3rds of their nuclear waste for use again. They have the lowest carbon footprint in Europe. They build the plants next to schools and populated areas.

Our raging environmentalists, you know, the ones who drive big SUV’s, eat large steaks and send money to Green Peace have literally stopped nuclear power in the U.S. To them, NIMBY is the key. They want power, but just “not close” to them. They would be fully satisfied with plants in Mexico, as long as they don’t have to “see” them.

Do you get the hypocrasy? I do.

I have eaten vegan vegetarian for 15 years, drive a Prius and have a total household energy-use bill of less than $135/month. Yet I completely support nuclear power. My carbon footprint is 1/8th of most “environmentalists.”

sanjosemike

By: Dzugavili

Dzugavili — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:43:43 +0000

Well, Doctor Aaron Mich, we need to have a quick discussion; nuclear power is remarkably clean compared to the alternatives. When you place it next to coal, natural gas or even the ecological costs of a new hydro development, the actual damage caused by the storage of this waste material is minimal compared to either the carbon footprint of coal or gas, or the massive industrial undertaking that is a dam.
Note that they make no claim in this article that this is “clean” or “renewable”, nor more so than nuclear power would claim. Clean power means you can handle the outputs; we can seal and store nuclear waste indefinitely in concrete and glass (a temporary solution, yes, but ) but attempting to capture CO2 from the common sources, or the industrial waste from the production of solar panels is a process that isn’t practical. That said, the rollout on a large-scale distributed generation system, that which would be required to use solar, wind and hydro power by far rivals the cost of producing even a full scale nuclear reactor; the shift to distributed power can only occur over a length of time and the $25m packed and sealed reactor is a good way to hedge our electric bets on the way to clean power.
And of course, this reactor isn’t massive (considering) and doesn’t require any specialized landscape; from the sounds of things, you could put this thing pretty much anywhere, just buried seems like the best option.

By: Dr_Aaron_mich

Dr_Aaron_mich — Tue, 05 May 2009 04:37:19 +0000

I am so frustrated that we are still debating over this type of nuclear nonsense.

By: Dr_Aaron_mich

Dr_Aaron_mich — Tue, 05 May 2009 04:34:03 +0000

I have one more thing to say about this nuclear debate. If you guys want to write an article about it please tell us the whole story. what is your plan for the nuclear waste that comes from these plants. You make it sound so clean and renewable when it’s really not. you hide far too many facts about nuclear waste just like all the other countries. and as for Mr. Peterson why don’t you use your intelligence to create some type of new sustainable, clean, nontoxic, no byproduct, no waste product energy. Then you would impress me. Otherwise you’re just one of the overpaid in the box waste of talent.

By: Dr_Aaron_mich

Dr_Aaron_mich — Tue, 05 May 2009 04:25:03 +0000

Well John to answer your question. The 4000 plants that need to dispose of their extremely toxic and unmanageable spent rods. Paul Revere will surely take them because he is much brighter than all of us. Nuclear power is not clean energy. Please get that through your head everybody. Sure it doesn’t give off toxic waste while it’s creating energy. But when you need to change out the spent rods and get rid of the nuclear waste. There is one of the biggest environmental hazards on the planet people. Please think before you speak. Nobody wants to deal with nuclear waste. There are many other clean renewable energy sources that don’t have a byproduct of the most toxic thing on the planet.

By: john

john — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:04:05 +0000

and disposal of the spent rods from 4000 plants?? who’s back yard do they go into?

By: Paul Revere

Paul Revere — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:39:05 +0000

cizzi, you are not too bright. You aren’t that shining light you think you are. From what I understand, these local power plants can’t become “critical” like you saw in that movie and what drives your “critical thinking”. I bet you approve of the government “fixing” global warming. They will fix us and mass starvation will ensue when the ice age comes, and the next ice age is inevitable by the way.

By: jetsetjason

jetsetjason — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:22:14 +0000

It may be a good ‘part’ of the solution :)

By: cizzi

cizzi — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 21:12:11 +0000

I do not approve of nuclear power because of the inherit dangers of it. There are clean and efficient sources like sun,wind and water that generate power without considerable risks. Thats my personal opinion.