Our Nuclear Future

Our Nuclear Future

There are 9 comments on the WhirledView story from Jun 22, 2008, titled Our Nuclear Future. In it, WhirledView reports that:

John McCain wants to build 45 nuclear plants by 2030. Barack Obama says nuclear is worth considering.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WhirledView.

TGD

United States

#1 Aug 5, 2008
It is hard to imagine a nuclear power plant and all the money that goes into building one for the sole purpose of heating water to create steam to run steam generators.
Surely there is a more economical way to heat water.
John

Tower, MN

#2 Aug 5, 2008
TGD wrote:
It is hard to imagine a nuclear power plant and all the money that goes into building one for the sole purpose of heating water to create steam to run steam generators.
Surely there is a more economical way to heat water.
No one has found a cheaper way yet. It looks as if it may be decade or even centuries before any source of energy is found that is cheaper, safer and in adequate supply for the worlds energy needs.
Jennifer

United States

#3 Aug 6, 2008
TGD wrote:
It is hard to imagine a nuclear power plant and all the money that goes into building one for the sole purpose of heating water to create steam to run steam generators.
Surely there is a more economical way to heat water.
They are not jus heating water. It is a complex process that allows this steam to have high amounts of energy to turn very large turbines. nuclear plants may be expensive to build but the advantage to the enviroment and use of a bountiful resource like uranium, far out way the expense. Especially with the depleting supply of coal or oil that we are so dependent on now.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4 Aug 7, 2008
TGD wrote:
It is hard to imagine a nuclear power plant and all the money that goes into building one for the sole purpose of heating water to create steam to run steam generators.
Surely there is a more economical way to heat water.
Its purpose is to generate electricity, as well you know, not to heat water.

And, yes, at present there is a "more economical way". It's called coal; it requires the destruction of vast swathes of countryside, kills miners in its extraction, wastes energy in its transportation, kills thousands with its exhaust and alters the atmosphere of our planet more than any other process.

But, on simple finance, it's cheaper, which seems to be all you're interested in.
BDV

Elburn, IL

#5 Aug 7, 2008
Joffan wrote:
But, on simple finance, it's cheaper, which seems to be all you're interested in.
It's cheaper because they externalize their health costs.

E.g., I pay for my daughter's inhaler, and we all pay for the care of MEDICARE/MEDICAID enrolled COPD (chronic bronchitis) patients.
jessie

Pella, IA

#6 Aug 7, 2008
Jennifer wrote:
<quoted text>
They are not jus heating water. It is a complex process that allows this steam to have high amounts of energy to turn very large turbines. nuclear plants may be expensive to build but the advantage to the enviroment and use of a bountiful resource like uranium, far out way the expense. Especially with the depleting supply of coal or oil that we are so dependent on now.
the nuclear waste is an issue though. Ask up around WA how they're doing on that. Likely to polute countryside and water. They know no way to dispose of this waste from uranium.
Dan

United States

#7 Aug 7, 2008
jessie wrote:
<quoted text>the nuclear waste is an issue though. Ask up around WA how they're doing on that. Likely to polute countryside and water. They know no way to dispose of this waste from uranium.
Jessie you are talking about the waste at hanford which is from the production of nuclear weapons. You are right this is not a good situation but it is being cleaned up by DOE. Should have been done sooner but High level waste (fuel) is not the material that is in Hanford's tanks
jessie

Pella, IA

#8 Aug 7, 2008
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Jessie you are talking about the waste at hanford which is from the production of nuclear weapons. You are right this is not a good situation but it is being cleaned up by DOE. Should have been done sooner but High level waste (fuel) is not the material that is in Hanford's tanks
You perhaps are correct. I thought it around Richland(?) I noted a few yrs. back, this was waste eating through thick steel tanks fixing to start leaking into the area...and yes, this was from WWII...I think. Can't remember as exact as I did. I did know DOE was sending funds up there and 'creating' so many jobs. Just a concern.

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#9 Aug 8, 2008
BDV wrote:
<quoted text>
It's cheaper because [coal power stations] externalize their health costs.
E.g., I pay for my daughter's inhaler, and we all pay for the care of MEDICARE/MEDICAID enrolled COPD (chronic bronchitis) patients.
Exactly. So "simple finance", as I put it, is not a very good measure of which system is preferable.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Eunice Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Say it in six words (Jul '08) 1 hr So_da_lish_us 10,506
Probation and Parole of LEA COUNTY (Sep '08) 11 hr Herd 75
Guidance Center of Lea County shut down 20 hr Devin 4
Tell it to me straight 23 hr Ashley 27
Guidance Center of Lea County Jan 2 Homie 12
The new pelican Restraunant in eunice Dec 26 Robert cook 4
the music thread (Jan '12) Dec 24 Musikologist 54

Eunice Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Eunice Mortgages