Comments on: Nuclear Energy’s Second Coming

By: Claire

Claire — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 13:35:01 +0000

I agree. Nuclear Energy is much cleaner than other Power like Gas, Coal. Only water,solar or wind-energy is cleaner. But nuclear Energy needs to be handled with care, cause can be very dangerous.

By: Brent

Brent — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:31:07 +0000

I think that lack of education is what is hurting nuclear’s case. I think everybody needs to do the research before coming to a conclusion. New reactors are so much better than the reactors of old. Sure nuclear isn’t sustainable forever, but I think that we need to invest in all the different types of energies. May the best ones win.

By: Drea

Drea — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:16:10 +0000

Fascinating–I never heard a perspective on the nuclear disasters mentioned aside from the Godawful Tragedy versions. I agree that nuclear is the best current technology. It sounds like engineering has improved enough to prevent big disasters like those that occurred in the past. I’m gladdened to hear that, because by all indications, nuclear plants will proliferate in the near future, esp. in the Southeastern US. Here in Colorado, uranium mining has become a bit of a devil issue–I do hope people have engineers on process improvements there, and in mining in general.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:17:05 +0000

Solar and wind are nice because they have no environmental impact after manufacture. Their problem is they can’t come close to the generation capacity of nuclear, and are quite expensive. I have not heard of economically viable alternatives that can replace coal / oil in the near term other than nuclear. By all means, develop alternatives, but nuclear needs to be part of the picture.

By: B Smith @ Wealth and Wisdom

B Smith @ Wealth and Wisdom — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:06:39 +0000

Drea-I’ve got a bit different view on nuclear. I was in the nuclear navy for over a decade and have been in the power industry for even longer. The only incidents that have occurred are due to poor designs. The bad reputation is mostly due to misinformation and a lack of understanding by most people.

In the case of Three Mile Island it was a loss of cooling water that should not have occurred. Basically they formed a steam bubble in the core. Since steam is an excellent insulator it caused core temperature to hit meltdown levels. This all could have been avoided by a natural circulation style of cooling.

Chernobyl had a couple problems. First, it used a moderator that had a positive temperature coefficient. In plain English it means that as temperature increased the core became more active. When all goes well this is more efficient. When life happens it can mean that the core rapidly melts down. Add to this the Soviet disregard for the lives of it’s citizens it is no wonder there was a catastrophe.

France has a history of safe and efficient nuclear power. They standardize on a few reliable designs and operate them safely.

There are still issues that need to be addressed. For example: what do you do with spent fuel cells? What can we do to have less impact as we mine for uranium.

Also we should be looking to grow alternative sources as well. Nuclear is the best current technology. The key is to be developing the next generation power source in parallel.

By: nick

nick — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:38:01 +0000

Nuclear power is a great, clean source of power. And the waste issue is completely overblown (especially if we would allow breeder reactors so the spent fuel could be reprocessed). Do you remember Three Mile Island? One of the biggest non-events in history.

Mentioning Chernobyl is a lame attempt to discredit nuclear power. The failure there is an indictment of Soviet nuclear technology, not nuclear power (especially in the US). Graphite burns, water doesn’t.