Bad News About New Energy Bill

[big sky brad]

The new energy bill being worked on by Congress has been stalled in the Senate by the Republicans, most notably by South Carolina's Lindsey Graham. According to Capital Hill sources, in order to get the new energy bill out of the Senate committee, the Democratic committee chairmen have agreed to allow amendments to be included in the proposed legislation to provide for a call for more offshore oil drilling in the Gulf Coast states, and off of the coasts of the states of Florida and California; easing restrictions on oil exploration within the United States, such as drilling in Alaska's ANWAR region; and, perhaps the most controversial proposal, the construction of 3 new nuclear power plants within the next 10 years.

[Xena]

Bad news indeed.

[dgdavisjr]

All of those amendments were probably written by lobbyi$t$.

[N.U.]

Ask what the end goal is. If it's to remove our dependency on foreign oil, I get it. The exceptions I take to this, though, is that the issue isn't drilling; it's lack of refinery capacity. We need more refineries, if this is the direction they're looking to go.

[Christine]

All of those amendments were probably written by lobbyi$t$.

Probably? You have to just KNOW that they were....so how do we get rid of the lobbyists? Seems they get thier sticky fingers in everything...they have got to go!

[big sky brad]

Ask what the end goal is. If it's to remove our dependency on foreign oil, I get it. The exceptions I take to this, though, is that the issue isn't drilling; it's lack of refinery capacity. We need more refineries, if this is the direction they're looking to go.
It's not. From what I read about the bill, it doesn't force the oil companies to do a damn thing. They haven't built a new oil refinery in this country for over 25 years.

In fact, they have idled some small refineries since the oil embargo of 1973. There used to be a small refinery located at Sinclair, Wyoming. It really stunk up the air when it was in operation. My family would pass by it on our way to Colorado when we would take our annual vacation to go back and see our relatives in Colorado.

But, in 1973 or 1974, they closed down that refinery and Sinclair practically became a ghost town after that. While driving through Wyoming we could see that almost all of the oil pumps were stopped from pumping. Those oil pumps were those those odd designed ugly black things that moved like a children's rocking horse with large oblong hammerheads that went up and down from about a 60º angle to -30º angle from their fulcrum. The head was connected to a rod that swiveled with the hammerhead of the pump to keep it on track. Those pumps dotted the landscape all along I-80 and were everywhere in Wyoming. But that year, only about 10% were pumping any oil out of the ground at all.

[big sky brad]

Probably? You have to just KNOW that they were....so how do we get rid of the lobbyists? Seems they get thier sticky fingers in everything...they have got to go!
It's insane, but I found out a few days before Christmas when the story broke out in the news here that two counties in Western Idaho may wind up in court to see which county gets to have a nuclear power plant built in it. That was the first I had heard of it. But, evidently, behind our backs, in order to get this damned energy bill out of the Senate, they are actually going to look into the possibility of locating one of those nuclear power plants out here.

When I first heard this, I was floored. Payette County was arguing with their neighboring county over who would get to have the nuclear plant in their county. Payette County is located next to the Oregon border and that state border is defined by the Snake River. The Snake River Alliance, a pro-environmental group that has fought the nuclear power advocates for decades out here, will probably scream bloody murder if a plan even gets announced to have a viability study conducted for the area.

One thing they learned back in the 70s was to stop those advocates in their tracks before they even get started looking for the funding for such studies. The pro-nuclear advocates always find that the project should be approved and given the go ahead with these projects, or else those same advocates for nuclear power complain that we just wasted $4 million dollars of the taxpayers money to conduct the study.

[Icky]

Maybe I'm off base... but the Nuclear Power Plants are the least controversial item for me.
I think Nuclear is going to be huge in the future...

ANWAR? Really?

OK Warriors, start making those calls and writing those eMails!!

[Sejanus]

How to get rid of lobbyists? The first thing we do is to kill all lawyers. Shakespeare

[dgdavisjr]

The trouble with Nuclear as it is presently configured is what to do with the waste and spent fuel.
DOD wants it made into high density bullets so they can spray them all over someone else's country. No one wants it stored anywhere near their communities.
And it lasts and lasts and lasts and lasts....

Come up with a viable, safe and reasonably cost effective disposal method and I would be right there with you. Come up with a workable fusion reactor and we all will be with you.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

The trouble with Nuclear as it is presently configured is what to do with the waste and spent fuel.

That is the BIG problem with nuclear. The reactors themselves have been "ok", but the major problem is the waste.

[dgdavisjr]

You did notice I didn't say "Neucular", right?

[Crazy Guggenheim]

You did notice I didn't say "Neucular", right?

Heck yeah!!

[Icky]

I am aware of the problem... but... :shrug: I dunno what else is realistic going forward. There are going to be a LOT more people on this planet in a very short time. Something is going to happen... IF we're able to maintain that many people then they (we) will need energy... Nookyular is the biggest bang... no pun intended.

Don't know what to do with the waste... Launch it to the sun!!! :p

[dgdavisjr]

Think of it this way, Icky: You know that chemotherapy is poison, right? but it might save your life by killing a cancer so you take it. And the cancer is controlled but not killed. So you're told you have to take chemo for the rest of your life. How long do you suppose that would be?
And would it bother you that your insurance company won't foot the bill for a better treatment because it might not work? So they keep paying the chemo guys and you keep taking it until....

[Icky]

Think of it this way, Icky: You know that chemotherapy is poison, right? but it might save your life by killing a cancer so you take it. And the cancer is controlled but not killed. So you're told you have to take chemo for the rest of your life. How long do you suppose that would be?
And would it bother you that your insurance company won't foot the bill for a better treatment because it might not work? So they keep paying the chemo guys and you keep taking it until....
So... do you choose a slooooo[Only registered and activated users can see links] painful death? (Nookyular)
..or just a quick death? (No nooks)

[dgdavisjr]

You find another way. You fund alternate energy research until solar costs are brought down. You help in the creation of hydrogen production, sales and vehicle conversion. You push for more efficient batteries for hybrid and electric cars. You fund wind and solar power projects and build the needed transmition infrastructure, none of wich needs to be poisonous. And you start today.
Tomorrow may never come.

[Icky]

You find another way. You fund alternate energy research until solar costs are brought down. You help in the creation of hydrogen production, sales and vehicle conversion. You push for more efficient batteries for hybrid and electric cars. You fund wind and solar power projects and build the needed transmition infrastructure, none of wich needs to be poisonous. And you start today.
Tomorrow may never come.
GREAT! Love it...
There's a ways to go...
Will it be ready in time?


...in the meantime?

[dgdavisjr]

There is no "meantime". There is only this time. Every day we suck 90 times more oil out of the rest of the world tan we produce ourselves. ANWAR is a stopgap at best and more likely a pipe dream. Every day's delay is another $2 billion handed over to the Saudis and others like them ([Only registered and activated users can see links]).
How much infrastructure could you build for that? How many people could you put back to work? It's a dollars-and-sense question and this is the only sense to make of it.
If we keep sending that much money overseas, and keep sending troops and treasure overseas so that we can keep on sending the money over there, pretty soon we are broke.
If we build nuke plants at about $13 billion apiece ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), you will have an enormous carbon footprint from the building of it and and even more gigantic one from obtaining the fuel to run it. Contrary to much popular thought, nukes are not "green". Not even close.
Then you have the costs of maintenance, decommissioning and disposal of the waste, fuel and eventually the plant itself. Want to guess at the cost of cleaning up Three Mile Island? Neither do I.
Basically we've been run into a corner by decades of neglect here. No president since James Earl Carter has made much of an effort to get us off of the oil teat or to fund alternative energy research and development projects. They were considered to chancy, too new, too much "not oil" projects. Hell, man, Reagan ripped Carter's solar panels off of the White House roof.
We have to do it now. Today. Write an e-mail or two to your Rep, Senators and the White House. Tell 'em screw taking orders from Lobbyi$t$. They are our employees, regardless how much campaign cash they've let themselves be bribed with. Make a tomorrow for yourself and everyone else.

[N.U.]

I have no issue with ANWR being drilled, except that no crude oil from Alaska comes to the US; it gets shipped to Japan as the closest US refinery to Alaska is Galveston, TX!

[Icky]

There is no "meantime". There is only this time. Every day we suck 90 times more oil out of the rest of the world tan we produce ourselves. ANWAR is a stopgap at best and more likely a pipe dream. Every day's delay is another $2 billion handed over to the Saudis and others like them ([Only registered and activated users can see links]).
How much infrastructure could you build for that? How many people could you put back to work? It's a dollars-and-sense question and this is the only sense to make of it.
If we keep sending that much money overseas, and keep sending troops and treasure overseas so that we can keep on sending the money over there, pretty soon we are broke.
If we build nuke plants at about $13 billion apiece ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), you will have an enormous carbon footprint from the building of it and and even more gigantic one from obtaining the fuel to run it. Contrary to much popular thought, nukes are not "green". Not even close.
Then you have the costs of maintenance, decommissioning and disposal of the waste, fuel and eventually the plant itself. Want to guess at the cost of cleaning up Three Mile Island? Neither do I.
Basically we've been run into a corner by decades of neglect here. No president since James Earl Carter has made much of an effort to get us off of the oil teat or to fund alternative energy research and development projects. They were considered to chancy, too new, too much "not oil" projects. Hell, man, Reagan ripped Carter's solar panels off of the White House roof.
We have to do it now. Today. Write an e-mail or two to your Rep, Senators and the White House. Tell 'em screw taking orders from Lobbyi$t$. They are our employees, regardless how much campaign cash they've let themselves be bribed with. Make a tomorrow for yourself and everyone else.
Europe (and many other countries) seems to think nookyular is "worth it"... :shrug:
I assume there are some politics about this... but then there's politics around Oil and "Green" technologies, too... so...

We get approximately 20% of our power from Nuclear plants already (in the US)...

Waste is more of a political problem than a physical one... IMVHO. Since the US does NOT Reprocess spent fuel since President Carter... (They do in Europe, however)... we can store the spent fuel in the form of a glass but it takes up about 10 times the volume it should... If reprocessed, one years worth of spent fuel from one plant would take up 0.5 Cubic Meters of space. That's very small... But because we don't reprocess, we'd have to store it in a 5 cubic meter size... Still... that's a pretty small amount... And the stuff would likely be stored in the desert where we conducted our underground Nuclear tests... The place is perfectly designed for the job. The Glass is extremely stable and may be reprocessed at a later date.

Apparently there's enough Uranium in sea water that mining wouldn't be necessary for a very long time... AND there's enough Uranium in COAL that contains WAY MORE energy than the coal itself... I'd hate to see the use of Nuclear Plants as a justification for more coal mining... but, like I said, the sea water is easy to grab and process, so coal likely wouldn't be economically enticing.

As far as the expense involved: The energy required to build nuclear plants, operate them, and mine and process the uranium may be so large as to cause a net energy deficit. Here's a thorough Energy Analysis of Power Systems ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) including nuclear energy and its competitors. The basic fact about nuclear energy is that the input energy is 4.8 percent of output energy if gaseous diffusion is used to enrich uranium and 1.7 percent if the newer centrifuge technology is used. Another way of looking at the same facts is that if gaseous diffusion is used for enrichment, the energy invested in building the plant is paid back in 5 months, whereas if centrifuges are used the payback time is 4 months.

And the "risks" of nuclear power? There are lots of Risks...
The risk to an individual of harm from a nuclear accident is an involuntary risk, as compared to the much larger risk from driving a car, which is voluntary. This comparison ignores much larger involuntary risks, e.g. the risk of emphysema from coal burning, the risk of an airplane hitting your house, and the risk of a flood when a dam breaks. Each of these risks is larger and comes from a human activity. There are other large risks, such as that of a flu epidemic, which are only partly caused by human activities - such as allowing international travel or having pre-schools where children transmit infections to each other.




A lot more information from Stanford can be found here along with all references and other links:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

_____________________________________________

The point is: It is economically prudent. It is "safer" than burning coal or flying airplanes or any number of other human endeavors. Waste really isn't a problem for a VERY LONG TIME and the land to be used is already glowing hot... There's estimated BILLIONS of years of fuel available (That should give plenty of time to develop Hydrogen Fusion <--- The ultimate goal!)
It's a technology that is already developed, "shovel ready", if you will... and solves a big problem right now.
Just seems like the next logical step to me... :shrug:

[N.U.]

I grew up pinned between Salem, NJ's Nuke plant, Three Mile Island, and Peach Bottom. No ill effects. Even with the scare at TMI back in the late 70s, the end result was a scram with no radiation released to the surrounding area. These things have safeties upon safeties, and if we were smart, we'd work with the French for the most up to date reprocessing of spent fuel rods.

You cannot step away from petroleum to a greener tech without the awkward intermediate phase. Think of it like a child. They may be great as a child and great as an adult, but they had to survive the awkward teenage years to bridge that gap.

If this is viewed as a bridge from one to the other, then great.

[Icky]

It's insane, but I found out a few days before Christmas when the story broke out in the news here that two counties in Western Idaho may wind up in court to see which county gets to have a nuclear power plant built in it. That was the first I had heard of it. But, evidently, behind our backs, in order to get this damned energy bill out of the Senate, they are actually going to look into the possibility of locating one of those nuclear power plants out here.
Got link? I can't seem to find this...
Are you saying there will be a new Nuclear Plant in Idaho?
Or just more talk?

[Xena]

In regard to the stability of glass, just remember, Ickster, glass is a liquid. Over time (if I may use a totally inappropriate quote here) it melts, thaws and resolves itself into a dew. Just look at the windows of any 19th century house to see how fast it happens.

[Icky]

In regard to the stability of glass, just remember, Ickster, glass is a liquid. Over time (if I may use a totally inappropriate quote here) it melts, thaws and resolves itself into a dew. Just look at the windows of any 19th century house to see how fast it happens.
The glass assumes we don't reprocess....

Even then, after 500 years, the radioactivity is less than it was before we used it.
I don't think the glass would melt in that short a time... 200 year old glass in windows has moved very little, afterall.
Frankly... I'm not sure if this particular glass is the same as house glass... it might be way less liquid... Lemme go find out :)

[big sky brad]

Got link? I can't seem to find this...
Are you saying there will be a new Nuclear Plant in Idaho?
Or just more talk?
It was on teevee.

If 2 counties are already talking about going to court over it, I would think that it just more than talk.

The problem is a lot worse than some think. The first city powered with nuclear power in the world was Arco, in Eastern Idaho.


Arco was the first community in the world ever to be lit by electricity generated by nuclear power. This occurred on July 17, 1955, powered by a reactor (see BORAX experiments) at the nearby "National Reactor Testing Station" (NRTS), which is now the Idaho National Laboratory. NRTS made further history on January 3, 1961, when the SL-1 reactor melted down, causing three deaths. It was the world's first (and the U.S.' only) fatal reactor accident.
Here's a link to have a teaching moment -
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Geologic studies conducted in the 1940s came to the conclusion that it was a safe place to build that nuclear reactor, but later studies found that it was built on a ground fault, one of the longest faults in the entire state.

That plant leaks.
And it leaks into the Snake River aquifer, contaminating the Snake River plain.
That's why the Snake River Alliance was first formed.
To stop the processing of nuclear material at that plant, and to shut it down.


The INEEL was established in 1949 as the "National Reactor Testing Station" (NRTS).[1] In 1975, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was divided into the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Idaho site was for a short time named ERDA and then subsequently renamed to the "Idaho National Engineering Laboratory" (INEL) in 1977 with the creation of the Department of Energy (DOE) under President Carter. After two decades as INEL, the name was changed again to the "Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory" (INEEL) in 1997. Throughout its lifetime, there have been more than 50 nuclear reactors of some type throughout INL for testing. Many of them are shut down by now.

To learn more about the INEEL here's a link -
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

The Hanford site in the central portion of Washington state, just north of Richland, is another nuclear waste dumping grounds site that was shut down in the late 80s. The Hanford site leaks into the Columbia River where the Yakima and Snake Rivers converge with the Columbia River.


The Hanford site was established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project in the town of Hanford in south-central Washington, the site was home to the B Reactor, the first full-scale plutonium production reactor in the world.[1] Plutonium manufactured at the site was used in the first nuclear bomb, tested at the Trinity site, and in Fat Man, the bomb detonated over Nagasaki, Japan.

Environmetal Concerns -


A huge volume of water from the Columbia River was required to dissipate the heat produced by Hanford's nuclear reactors. From 1944 to 1971, pump systems drew cooling water from the river and, after treating this water for use by the reactors, returned it to the river. Before being released back into the river, the used water was held in large tanks known as retention basins for up to six hours. Longer-lived isotopes were not affected by this retention, and several terabecquerels entered the river every day. By 1957, the eight plutonium production reactors at Hanford dumped a daily average of 50,000 curies (1,900 TBq) of radioactive material into the Columbia.[42] These releases were kept secret by the federal government.[4] Radiation was later measured downstream as far west as the Washington and Oregon coasts.[43]

More at [Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Schneibster]

There's this kind of important distinction between government laboratories and utility power generation plants that you really need to keep straight. Otherwise you start believing propaganda.

Hanford and INEL were both government laboratories. And we all already know that the US government was unconscionably lax about radiation for a very long time, and we all know why.

If we don't build nuclear power plants the economic chaos you see right now in the US is nothing compared to what's coming. It's going to be really, really ugly. I don't think you have any realistic understanding of just how ugly it's going to be. Radioactive contamination would probably be preferable.

[big sky brad]

Fine with me - build the motherfucker in Monterey!!

Then let YOUR grandchildren be born with 3 eyes, shorter legs, and stumped arms.

[big sky brad]

Olbermann talked about this on his program tonight. About how Kerry and Lindsay Graham have "struck a deal" to get the damned bill out of the Energy Committee.

Evidently the "cap and trade" bill is going nowhere in committee yet.

[Schneibster]

Fine with me - build the motherfucker in Monterey!!

Then let YOUR grandchildren be born with 3 eyes, shorter legs, and stumped arms.I never saw this or I'd've responded.

Please stop quoting bad '50s science fiction movies as if they had anything to do with reality.

ETA: and it appears the energy bill is dead anyway; hysteria wins again. Good job, people. Now we get at some point to sit in the dark. I wish people would take the time to understand what is involved instead of referencing badly done thrillers from fifty years ago.

[Christine]

I dunno Schneibster...what's wrong with solar power and wind power? The Southwest could power damn near the whole country and jobs could be had building a new framework to get it out there....when I think nuclear I think of worst case scenario...like Chernobyl. What's the worst case scenario for Solar or wind?

[Xena]

It's not the plant itself, it's the waste that is the problem. Although I wouldn't want a plant in my back yard either. When something goes wrong, it goes very, very wrong.
I never saw this or I'd've responded.

Please stop quoting bad '50s science fiction movies as if they had anything to do with reality.

ETA: and it appears the energy bill is dead anyway; hysteria wins again. Good job, people. Now we get at some point to sit in the dark. I wish people would take the time to understand what is involved instead of referencing badly done thrillers from fifty years ago.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

It's not the plant itself, it's the waste that is the problem. Although I wouldn't want a plant in my back yard either. When something goes wrong, it goes very, very wrong.

That's the BIG issue with nuclear! The waste!

[Icky]

Look back at what I wrote earlier... IRS really NOT that big problem.
Put it in glass. Bury it in already radioactive locations. Done.

I think the "On Site" radiation might be more problematic.. But even that may be less risky than getting into your car and driving to the store....

I'm "all-in" with Schneibon this.

[Icky]

I should say that Ben Burch is wise on this... He's pointed out that building enough Nuclear sites to really make a big difference would take 20 years or so...

Sooooo..... :shrug:

[Icky]

IRS not that big a problem????!?!?!???!? :rofl:

Posting via iPhone.... Gah!!!!

'It's' not that big a problem.

To be sure, the IRS is s big problem :rofl:

Look back at what I wrote earlier... IRS really NOT that big problem.
Put it in glass. Bury it in already radioactive locations. Done.

I think the "On Site" radiation might be more problematic.. But even that may be less risky than getting into your car and driving to the store....

I'm "all-in" with Schneibon this.

[Schneibster]

I dunno Schneibster...what's wrong with solar power and wind power? The Southwest could power damn near the whole country and jobs could be had building a new framework to get it out there....It's not enough. Not by a long, long way. We have to shut down coal-fired plants, and we have to do it now. If you think people are going to vote to sit in the dark, I got news.


when I think nuclear I think of worst case scenario...like Chernobyl. What's the worst case scenario for Solar or wind?Chernobyl isn't worst case for us. Engineering rules in the US prevent building a Chernobyl-style reactor here. Not to mention liability/insurance concerns as well as legal requirements for safety.

Hysterical objection to nuclear power will, not may, WILL, result in runaway global warming. That's the worst-case scenario for the dangers of coal. They seem to me to far outweigh the dangers of nuclear.

It's time to choose. It's been time for a decade or more.

[Schneibster]

It's not the plant itself, it's the waste that is the problem. It's not. The "hotter" (that is, more radioactive) the waste is, the shorter it lasts. It works exponentially. Really dangerous "hot" nuclides last seconds or minutes; things that last hundreds of thousands of years aren't very "hot." And it's exponential; the activity drops off exponentially as the half-life increases. Basic nuclear physics.

Meanwhile, the hysterical run around screaming about levels of radiation exposure that are half what people currently living in areas where there is more than the normal amount of uranium in the soil live in all their lives; naturally deposited there millions of years ago. Entire cultures live there, no increased incidents of cancer or birth defects, no radiation sickness, no debilitating diseases, nothing. It's hysteria. Nothing more.


Although I wouldn't want a plant in my back yard either. When something goes wrong, it goes very, very wrong.That depends on the design.

I'm going to point out here that the French are going nuclear in a very, very big way and don't seem to be having any trouble.

Fine; put it in my backyard. No whining when we all have jobs and you can't find any.

[Schneibster]

I should say that Ben Burch is wise on this... He's pointed out that building enough Nuclear sites to really make a big difference would take 20 years or so...

Sooooo..... :shrug:That's indeed a problem. OTOH, it also depends on a number of things, because building the physical plants doesn't take nearly that long. More like about five.

[dgdavisjr]

Engineering rules in the US prevent building a Chernobyl-style reactor here.

Did you ever hear of a place called Three Mile Island? We missed having a Chernobyl, but not by much. Mistakes there ruined a multi-million dollar reactor, have cost more than a billion in clean up,irradiated the site and vented a so-called "safe" level of radiation into the surrounding environment, which may have contributed to a rise in cancer and leukemia rates in the area. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Icky]

Did you ever hear of a place called Three Mile Island? We missed having a Chernobyl, but not by much. Mistakes there ruined a multi-million dollar reactor, have cost more than a billion in clean up,irradiated the site and vented a so-called "safe" level of radiation into the surrounding environment, which may have contributed to a rise in cancer and leukemia rates in the area. [Only registered and activated users can see links]
As I understand it, current reactor designs are MUCH safer.
The likelihood of such a disaster is really reduced... Bigtime!

The likelihood of complete and total disaster by continuing with coal is much greater...

[dgdavisjr]

The accident at TMI, like the one a Chernobyl, was caused not so much by reactor design as by human error and incompetence. The same is true for coal mining accidents. Keep in mind that I am no fan of coal. Much the reverse. It kills just as surely as radiation from a leaking reactor casing will.
But nukes are billion dollar boondoggles. They are impossible to render safe in the long run and produce enormous carbon footprints when you take into account the mining of uranium ore, it's processing, the building and day-to-day plant operations, the waste handling and the eventual decommissioning of the site.
Their capacity for large scale damage due to accidents and sabotage makes them incredibly risky, even in areas with low population densities.

I just don't believe that they are a reasonable path for future investment when there are no currently operating reactors that any underwriter aside from the government of the country they operate in will insure. Also, there is a cost per kilowatt hour factor that clearly shows nukes to be economically infeasible. The following links take you to sites sponsored by the American Wind Energy Association, the World Nuclear Association and Coaleducation.org..
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Using their own numbers as a comparison, coal costs about 7.62 cents per Kw/h (Kilowatt Hour), nukes cost 7.7 c Kw/h, and wind costs 4.8 c Kw/h.
These numbers are only for generation costs and do not reflect distribution or mitigation of pollution, of course.

[Icky]

Wind ain't enough to do the trick. Nor solar.
Perhaps Schneibstrr can elaborate, but I think current reactor designs have been engineered to make TMI and Chernobyl style accidents impossible.
We already get approximate 20% of our electricity from nuclear power... And there's plenty of fuel in ocean water which reduces the need for mining (see my previous posts on the matter from earlier in this thread)

[Xena]

No one thing is the answer, but while we dick around debating which is better, it's getting later and later. We have to incorporate all possible sources of energy right now, and maybe down the line we can develop renewable energy sources to the point where they will prevail. In the mean time check this out. Many of you seem to have missed this post. [Only registered and activated users can see links]!
Wind ain't enough to do the trick. Nor solar.
Perhaps Schneibstrr can elaborate, but I think current reactor designs have been engineered to make TMI and Chernobyl style accidents impossible.
We already get approximate 20% of our electricity from nuclear power... And there's plenty of fuel in ocean water which reduces the need for mining (see my previous posts on the matter from earlier in this thread)

[Xena]

And this poped up with my post on solar roadways. Things are improving all the time.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Xena]

And while we're at it, check this out. [Only registered and activated users can see links]