The possibilities are endless.

[Skull Pilot]

Modern nuclear power is perfect at only twice the price and still the possibility of catastrophic failure. Fukashima was not supposed to happen, Three Mile Island was not supposed to happen, and there have been others like DB that should have been caught long before they were a danger. How many nukes with 2 to 5 times as many spent rods in them as designed for along the New Madrid fault? How many would go underwater if the dams on the Missouri and Mississippi failed, as almost happened in 2011?

Yet, no body died in those accidents, Fukashima is an old plant, very old. We operate the same plants in the USA with zero problems. Three Mile Island did not hurt one person, not one. At TMI it was an operator error, they did not believe what the instruments told them. Well now we have self-overriding systems that prevent that from happening again. We still have a plant exactly like Three Mile Island operating, so no problem there.

How many would go underwater? Old Crock, Water is a natural Neutron Absorber, we would prefer them to be underwater if there is an accident. Fukashima failed because they lost the power to keep water pumping in. All they had to do was have the back-up diesel generator on high ground and there would not of been a failure.

We shut our plants down on the rivers in the spring, if the water crests above a certain level, so to answer your question, our plants are safe from flooding.

We have to mothball the old light water reactors

It's time to move nuclear power forward

We already have proven designs that not only do not need huge amounts of water for cooling but are also self limiting
These new reactors can be installed virtually anywhere

 

[elektra]

We have to mothball the old light water reactors

It's time to move nuclear power forward

We already have proven designs that not only do not need huge amounts of water for cooling but are also self limiting
These new reactors can be installed virtually anywhere

I like the old ones, I make a living inspecting them. Some neat facts. Despite shutting many of our nuclear power plants down, we have actually increased the power of the existing ones so that we now produce more power from nuclear energy with less. Some of our current reactors operate continuously 400-500 days in a row.

But, yes you are right, many can be replaced with newer designs. But they operate and operate safely providing huge profits and low electric bills.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Cost of Nuclear Power

Cheap dreams, expensive realities
In the dawn of the nuclear era, cost was expected to be one of the technology's advantages, not one of its drawbacks. The first chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis Strauss, predicted in a 1954 speech that nuclear power would someday make electricity “too cheap to meter.”

A half century later, we have learned that nuclear power is, instead, too expensive to finance.

The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.”

The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.

Cheap nuclear power? Haven't seen it yet. Just unfulfilled promises.

 

[there4eyeM]

Nuke plants are so safe that it required 'socialism' to insure them. Companies would not accept the rick. Limits to damage could not be actuarially established. That's what experts thought of the situation.

 

[Old Rocks]

And that is the primary problem with present nuclear. A major accident, whatever the reason, would be so catastrophic that we would be paying for it for generations.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And that is the primary problem with present nuclear. A major accident, whatever the reason, would be so catastrophic that we would be paying for it for generations.

Not really

We can all agree that Chernobyl was a major accident right? Let's ignore the fact that the design was faulty and that design has never been used anywhere else in the world for the moment.

Then tell me why are there people and wildlife thriving in the so called hot zone?
Why are there no statistically significant cases of cancer?
Why is the background radiation lower than what you get in many major cities?

And once again all you use for your examples are the ancient tech of light water reactors when there are designs that are already proven to be much safer than even the light water reactors which already have a stellar safety record by any measure

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nuke plants are so safe that it required 'socialism' to insure them. Companies would not accept the rick. Limits to damage could not be actuarially established. That's what experts thought of the situation.

That fear has nothing to do with the reality of the nuclear safety record

In fact if you factor in all nuclear use including that of the military on ships and subs the safety record is better than any other form of energy in history

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Cost of Nuclear Power

Cheap dreams, expensive realities
In the dawn of the nuclear era, cost was expected to be one of the technology's advantages, not one of its drawbacks. The first chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis Strauss, predicted in a 1954 speech that nuclear power would someday make electricity “too cheap to meter.”

A half century later, we have learned that nuclear power is, instead, too expensive to finance.

The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.”

The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.

Cheap nuclear power? Haven't seen it yet. Just unfulfilled promises.

How much of that is regulation and frivolous law suits?

And how does construction of old light water reactors compare to the new smaller self contained nukes that are not dependent on vast quantities of water for cooling, can be buried underground, do not need to be refueled for 30-60 years, are self limiting and incapable of melt down and will provide emission free power reliably and at a scale large enough to meet all of our current and future demands?

As you do every time nuclear is discussed you have your feet cemented in the past and refuse to look at new technology

 

[Old Rocks]

No form of energy receives more government subsidies than does nuclear. Yet it continues to be a very dangerous and expensive form of energy generation. You say I won't look at the new designs for the reactors. So, when are these new designs going to be built without government subsidies? That is what so many 'Conservatives' are demanding of solar and wind. And now that solar and wind are able to go head to head with fossil fuels, they are making false claims concerning the pollution from these sources. Nuclear may be able to actually deliver on the promises, but past performance does not indicate that.

 

[there4eyeM]

No other energy source has as great potential for disaster.

 

[elektra]

No other energy source has as great potential for disaster.

The USA has never suffered a Nuclear Power disaster.

 

[elektra]

No form of energy receives more government subsidies than does nuclear. Yet it continues to be a very dangerous and expensive form of energy generation. You say I won't look at the new designs for the reactors. So, when are these new designs going to be built without government subsidies? That is what so many 'Conservatives' are demanding of solar and wind. And now that solar and wind are able to go head to head with fossil fuels, they are making false claims concerning the pollution from these sources. Nuclear may be able to actually deliver on the promises, but past performance does not indicate that.

Post a link to the Government Subsidies Old Crock or wear your title you like to throw at others, LIAR.
Dangerous? Not at all in the USA, if you have something other than LIES, quote and post and link.
Again, post a link to the subsidies, and not some cheap googled propaganda site making a declaration.
Wind and Solar go head to head with Nuclear? Maybe if you are able to increase the production of Hydrocarbons to manufacture a 100 million solar panels and Wind Turbines while destroying more than 100,000 sq. miles of pristine wilderness you might have the beginning of a discussion.

Solar does not work at night So lets go head to head with Nuclear power, at night. Solar loses.

The wind is not blowing today, again, Wind Loses in a HEAD to HEAD with nuclear power.

Yes the government uses our money to build these, that does make it seem like they are cheap.

so post your links, that should be as easy as PIE

 

[Old Rocks]

Not a single nuke would be built without the government guarantees every step of the way. Without government money every step of the way. And the minute the government fails to sit on the shoulders of the operators we get a Three Mile Island, or one of the other potential disasters that were close enough to raise the hackles.

Problem with a nuclear disaster is that it only takes one to take a toll like that of a war.

 

[elektra]

Not a single nuke would be built without the government guarantees every step of the way. Without government money every step of the way. And the minute the government fails to sit on the shoulders of the operators we get a Three Mile Island, or one of the other potential disasters that were close enough to raise the hackles.

Problem with a nuclear disaster is that it only takes one to take a toll like that of a war.

Prove it, show the subsidies, show the grants, show that Nuclear power gets all the gifts that Renewables get. You can not do it. You are mouth, LIAR, if should be as east as PIE.

Nuclear Disaster, never happened in the USA and there is zero potential of a Nuclear Disaster, Old Crock again has zero understanding of how things work. Maybe at 72 years old, Old Crock, you could go to college and learn something.

So give us your proof, that the USA is going to suffer a Nuclear Disaster or that Nuclear has the subsidies and free money that Renewables get.