So what is your take on total environmental impact between nukes and other means of production.

Will, good link. The early nukes ran at a much lower steam pressure than the coal fired. Not sure if that is still true. Tiki, see http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=13 The exposure level in a nuke plant is probably much lower than your current job. Do you wear a doseometer?

Caleb

Caleb

In case you missed it here is the comparison.
"To put this in perspective, you would have to live near a nuclear power plant for over 2,000 years to get the same amount of radiation exposure you get from a single diagnostic medical X-ray. Sources: NCRP and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). See Graphics Gallery for the chart Comparison of Radiation Sources providing a visual format for easy use of this data."

No, I don't wear a dosemeter. Hopefully, there is no need.

I read the aritcle on TMI from the enclosed link. Very impressive. And, Frankly, I'd rather have a nuke than the coal plant that is in the offing here at home.

Nuke or coal, they will be a long time coming. I still don't see why we aren't doing more with wind and solar, and with a greater since of urgency.

Get a Candu reactor...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor

My uncle is a electrician at nuclear powerplants. He said that the sensors can be set off walking into the plant because of high (I think) radon levels in the persons home.

I think he was the one who also told me that the slag from coal power plants was more radioactive than the waste from nuclear power plants.

I also heard an interesting statistic about China today on the radio. China is putting up coal powered plants at the rate of one a week! Wow. I know a couple of years ago 75% of the concrete poured globally was is china. Better learn Chinese

I think the breeders are quite a bit more interesting. Given the quantity of uranium on the planet is fixed, the breeder is nice because it creates more fissile material which can later be used to start another reactor. i.e. we would be able to stretch our supplies MUCH further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

IMHO, the nukes can be more environmentally friendly as the waste can for the most part be containerized as opposed to openly dispersed into the atmosphere. IF the US and other countries would allow re-processing of spent fuel rods, the quantity of waste could be further decreased.

A very good read, thanks for the link(s). The reference to a Fast Breeder Reactor using the lead cooled Russian Naval propulsion does give pause however. [ try to visualize Beaker, of Muppet fame, with hair standing on end!] But, all in all a very positive, forward looking article.

I get so tired of doom and gloom.

As a boni fide tree hugger, I'm about ready to throw in the towel. It is said that culture is much like a river: it will resist change and always attempt to return to its original course. America's energy consumption has always been determined by the market place. I don't believe that will change.

Given the state of current technology, nukes may be a trees best friend.

We're kind of like ****. Hard to kill off, use up all the resources in an area, fill it with waste, and move somewhere else.

Technology has allowed us to push the biological carrying capacity of the Earth upward, but there's always a limit to everything. With greater efficiency, we can continue to thrive underneath this threshold, or multiply and push past it again.

Yuk! We can do better than that.

Okay.... how about locust?

How about centipedes? They're hard to kill and will bite you on the butt when you're asleep.

We have catterpillars - and they squash real easy <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

WillR and TikiPete et al. make excellent, well informed points, and I surely hope we can get standardized nukes built as fast as possible. IMHO, 3 Mile Island LACKED a simple 1/4 inch stainless steel tube running up into the top of the containment vessel to allow the unexpected hydrogen gas to be removed: this H2 bubble drove the water down & caused the core to be exposed. Very bad consequence!

Note: I read that these Brown & Root nukes from 1970 or so (TMI = the Crystal River nuke in Florida) have all been recertified for 20 more years since hydrogen embrittlement of their container steel is apparently not as bad as originally calculated. Good news.

Note: Little or Big NiCad batteries are RECYCLABLE!
Note: We cannot eat Florida freshwater largemouth bass anymore, because they are loaded with mercury. IMHO, coal-fired power plants are the reason. The wild animals generally do not know this, but the pelicans in Tampa Bay are mostly gone, as are most of the seabirds and fish. We have lots of Hummers, Ford 350s etc. tho, permanently plugging up the Tampa Bay bridges, and running over any stupid wild animals that get in their way.....
Note: Fresh water is running out in Sarasota this week.

OK folks- tell me about the bright spots. <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Really, I'm too old to give a [censored]! Probably because I have no children.

Great day at GYC! Where were you?

Apparently whatever you have on the agenda is a pain in the butt for the rest of the world! Sorry but we need to put a big twist on most of the talk on this web it has become very twitchy!

Is that English? Perhaps you had too much ritalin as a child.