Japan reactors pose no risk?

If you've ever read this guy you will swear this piece is satire, but he appears to be serious. Interesting times we live in.

http://mg.co.za/article/2011-03-22-w...-nuclear-power Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Yes, when I saw that Monbiot apparently had a somewhat stunning change of heart, I almost fell out of my chair!

Along the same vein, here's another short piece:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-atomic-energy

I suppose you could say that he isn't so much pro-nuclear as he is anti-coal. (But of course it's all relative!)

It's just a little tough to get where we need to be with windmills and solar panels. Windmills are great for the folks getting production tax credits. For everyone else? Well, maybe not so much.

But perhaps the biggest obstacle of all facing the development of nuclear power is economic. Few private entities can even consider carrying the cost of new reactors on their balance sheets. They would need assurances that the rules won't change in the middle of the game, as well as large loan guaratees.

I read recently that a nuclear industry executive opined that natural gas prices would have to rise to around $8/MCF or higher before investors can justify the amortization of new nuke plants. Right now, the gas price is about half that, and less than one-third the level of about five years ago. Huge new discoveries in the Haynesville and Marcellus shale formations mean that we have several times more recoverable gas that we thought we did a few years ago.

So it's much easier -- and looks better on quarterly statements in the earlier years -- for utility executives to just build a few new gas-fired plants to throw into the coal/natural gas mix while claiming that they're "environmantally responsible" -- since natural gas burns cleaner than coal.

Personally, I'd rather move toward a major expansion of natural gas as a transportation fuel. It's been said that with all the new discoveries, we're the "Saudi Arabia of natural gas." And an MCF of natural gas (about $4 at current prices) contains several times more energy than a gallon of diesel fuel.

Instaed, we're killing ourselves by importing huge amounts of oil. Not only is that bad from a geopolitical point of view, the huge addition to the negative trade balance has terrible import for our economy over time.

Why the hell can't we get guys like this to run for office? Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Multiple reasons:

• financial disclosures
• financial lockbox (trustee of assets)
• ethics issues
• wrestling in the mud
• challenge of bureaucracy
• They're too smart to do it

And a bunch of others.

I stand corrected. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I stand corrected. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I suspect this will be reposted multiple time all over all forums.

Whatever floats your boat.

Here's an article on why cost issues may do even more than fear to prevent a nuclear power renaissance:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,639053.column

Hey, I'm all for $8/mcf natural gas. What can I do to help? My royalty checks have been a bit light lately.

Hahaha ...can't do that this second, but I can oblige before Tuesday is over.

For the time being I'll throw up a color altered version quick pic for Tues. As the regular version is on my personal sites, I'll be changing it back to my original avatar or a new photo at the end of the day. Originally Posted by Grad Girl Next Door

Tuesday is over........

Hey, I'm all for $8/mcf natural gas. What can I do to help? My royalty checks have been a bit light lately. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Hey, I'm all for $8+/MCF natural gas, too. I have some mineral interests in several Barnett Shale locations. But at least you're getting royalty checks! I got some lease bonuses a few years ago, and a couple of operators did seismic on my properties, but nobody drilled. Now all the rigs seem to have skedaddled for Haynesville and other ultra-hot areas.

What can I do to help? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Well, you and your buddies could sue the nuclear power industry out of existence. Force 'em to close down all those potentially deadly existing plants!

That would do wonders for the natural gas industry, since utilities would have little choice but to rush development of a bunch of new gas-fired power plants.

(Of course, that plan wouldn't be very good for anyone who isn't a tort lawyer or an owner or producer of natural gas assets.)

(Of course, that plan wouldn't be very good for anyone who isn't a tort lawyer or an owner or producer of natural gas assets.) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You better explain this concept to TTH.

(Of course, that plan wouldn't be very good for anyone who isn't a tort lawyer or an owner or producer of natural gas assets.) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Those of us currently breathing coal plant emissions would appreciate being added to that list.

Those of us currently breathing coal plant emissions would appreciate being added to that list. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

then stop breathing................coal plant emissions

Those of us currently breathing coal plant emissions would appreciate being added to that list. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Breathing coal plant emissions is a problem for many of us in Texas, too.

That's one of the main reasons I've long hoped that nuclear power generation could take over more baseload capacity.

Natural gas burns cleaner than coal, of course, but I'd still rather see it used primarily as a transportation fuel, since that would greatly reduce our dependence on imported oil.

Imagine, for instance, how much better off we'd be (from both the standpoints of cleaner air and reduced imported oil dependency) if we converted most of our 18-wheelers to natural gas. My understanding is that it would cost about $50-60K per truck, but that it wouldn't take that many years for the changeover to pay off since the cost of diesel fuel is so much higher.

Breathing coal plant emissions is a problem for many of us in Texas, too.

That's one of the main reasons I've long hoped that nuclear power generation could take over more baseload capacity.

Natural gas burns cleaner than coal, of course, but I'd still rather see it used primarily as a transportation fuel, since that would greatly reduce our dependence on imported oil.

Imagine, for instance, how much better off we'd be (from both the standpoints of cleaner air and reduced imported oil dependency) if we converted most of our 18-wheelers to natural gas. My understanding is that it would cost about $50-60K per truck, but that it wouldn't take that many years for the changeover to pay off since the cost of diesel fuel is so much higher. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

+1

I'd love to see safe nuclear and mandatory clean fuel for transport - including public transport.

It's getting past the industry push-back that's the problem.

I read the original article in original form when it was first published. It seems to make sense.

But it's all out the window that that it appears #2 has either cracked or is otherwise failing containment. We're only getting the story the Japanese Government chooses to give us, but that's their affair. I read speculation on #2 a few days ago, but it was not repeated.

I've lived in Japan, faced the threats of earthquakes and typhoons. I've seen evidence of construction which is superior to any other place I've lived. I lived in a reinforced concrete house 1 mile from the ocean and faced 145 mph eye wall winds one time, and the windows didn't even rattle, my only audio clue there was a problem outside was a trash can being slammed into a car. I didn't even lose power or Internet access and spent 2 1/2 days inside while the storm subsided.

When I see a nuclear plant by the sea, on an island with potential for Mag 9.0 earthquakes for one and sitting right on the ocean facing the prospect of a direct strike from a 155 mph Super Typhoon with a 40 ft storm surge, I wonder what the builders were thinking. Building it inland of course removes it from emergency cooling water, which wouldn't have been necessary if the wall of water didn't take out the backup generators for the pumps. My point is, something failed to happen.

The fact they couldn't hook up emergency portable generators due to "incompatible connectors" tells me that someone isn't wargaming out a major failure of all systems to look for weaknesses. They could have modified that connector in advance, or had adapters constructed to ensure compatibility with any kind of unit which might be brought.