So, Fukushima...

[Doktor Howl]

One thought I have had about all this is that proponents of nuclear energy are, fundamentally, Utopians; they fall into the same general category as Libertarians, Anarchists, and Communists, in that their argument is always essentially the same: under ideal conditions when everything goes as expected and everyone behaves ideally, nuclear energy is perfectly safe.

Well, I approach it from a pragmatic angle...Something's gotta keep the lights on, and burning coal and fuel oil ain't the way to do it.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Solar. Wind. Somethin'...

[Don Coyote]

Solar. Wind. Somethin'...

Still need consistent and constant power generation.

[Cain]

Solar. Wind. Somethin'...

Still need consistent and constant power generation.

Renewable energy can meet four times the current energy requirements of the USA.

[Cain]

The problem is, sure, nuclear power, heavily regulated and thoroughly tested, could be safe.

Only, those two things are never going to happen, so it's a pipe dream, like having an unregulated market lead to better conditions of wealth for everyone, or that if we abolished the State people would just get along in perfect harmony.

Nuclear power is vital for nuclear weapons and for providing the energy to keep the state running.  As a consequence, all its mishaps and red flags and corner cutting actions will be over looked.  Secondly, we've had this song and dance before.  When Chernobyl went kaboom, the entire French nuclear industry, including large numbers of French physicists and nuclear scientists, went on the record as saying the fallout would not hit France, even as its eastern hills were lightly peppered with radioactive material for months.  Why?  They wanted to counter "negative public perceptions" of nuclear power - to the point they outright lied about what was happening and put people at risk.

And why did Chernobyl go critical in the first place?  Because safety protocols were ignored.

[Faust]

Solar. Wind. Somethin'...

Still need consistent and constant power generation.

Renewable energy can meet four times the current energy requirements of the USA.

That doesn't sound right to me. What kind of renewable energy source?
Where did you see that?

[Cain]

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf

The gross resource has been quantified by state, water depth, distance from shore, and wind class throughout a band extending out to 50 nautical miles from the U.S. coastline.

This total gross wind resource is estimated at more than 4,000 GW, or roughly four times the generating capacity currently carried on the U.S. electric grid.

Now, obviously, there are issues with that.  Actual energy capture would be closer to 60%.  And there would be serious technical hurdles to overcome in integrating an entirely new energy grid, intermittancy and so on.

Nevertheless, 60% still represents more than the US currently use by far.

Furthermore, the larger the system put in place, the more issues of intermittancy become irrelevant

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/earth/12wind.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Mr. Kempton of the University of Delaware and Mr. Wellinghoff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said the backbone would offer another plus: reducing one of wind power's big problems, variability of output.

"Along the U.S. Atlantic seaboard, we tend to have storm tracks that move along the coast and somewhat offshore," Mr. Kempton said.

If storm winds were blowing on Friday off Virginia, they might be off Delaware by Saturday and off New Jersey by Sunday, he noted. Yet the long spine would ensure that the amount of energy coming ashore held roughly constant.

[Faust]

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/49229.pdf

The gross resource has been quantified by state, water depth, distance from shore, and wind class throughout a band extending out to 50 nautical miles from the U.S. coastline.

This total gross wind resource is estimated at more than 4,000 GW, or roughly four times the generating capacity currently carried on the U.S. electric grid.

Now, obviously, there are issues with that.  Actual energy capture would be closer to 60%.  And there would be serious technical hurdles to overcome in integrating an entirely new energy grid, intermittancy and so on.

Nevertheless, 60% still represents more than the US currently use by far.

Furthermore, the larger the system put in place, the more issues of intermittancy become irrelevant

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/earth/12wind.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Mr. Kempton of the University of Delaware and Mr. Wellinghoff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said the backbone would offer another plus: reducing one of wind power's big problems, variability of output.

"Along the U.S. Atlantic seaboard, we tend to have storm tracks that move along the coast and somewhat offshore," Mr. Kempton said.

If storm winds were blowing on Friday off Virginia, they might be off Delaware by Saturday and off New Jersey by Sunday, he noted. Yet the long spine would ensure that the amount of energy coming ashore held roughly constant.

That is roughly 5000 turbines...

Currently the worlds largest offshore windfarm has 102.

It's ambitious and will be awesome if it happens as described.
The largest part of the cost incurred is in the construction of the turbines which to date the US doesn't do very well (not at all for offshore). It would be a huge amount of cash to hand over to another country, however it would be the most responsible and prudent investment a country could make in the energy sector.

[Cain]

Oh yeah, it'd be a hugely ambitious and costly project, no arguing there.

On the other hand, it'd still be cheaper than building nuclear power plants, have less risk of going critical, and pay for itself much more quickly.

[hirley0]

...seems the news \ is perfectly safe.

5 update due at 9

the size of N.power Past\Present\Future
in the past? so called soverien GOVERNMENTS have built artifacts to themselves
(as usual}
large nuclear power plants
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa at 8,212 MW v Three Gorges Dam in China. installed capacity to 21,000 MW
v
Composition of Electricity by {{aLL}} Resource 20,261 (TWh per year 2008)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation
/\/\/\ /\/\/\ Never mind bragging rights
REMember at this time 3&1/3 hrs REMaing till poist. My 1 electron version
V their Many! assumes 1. that that Elecron can appear in one of three forms
as a particle {the ice form) 2: as a liquid {the field form) 3? as a Gas
{this is the aether form and will not be discussed as they could nOT UNderstand)
UNDERSTAND? Assume for a while thought that they are correct | that there are Many
\/\/\/ \/\/\/
A question arises about What % {percentage) of the global surface electrons are
found running along the (Um}? electrical grid, & what does it imply about the
REMinder. This is a question about the concept of source & sink & is just tossed
in to muddy the waters {so to speak) and has littel to do with the present
other than the fact it does use the electron {OR electrons) have it your way. U know
_
OK moving along to the future / the portable device / Away from fixed position
{Bigger is better)(to smaller is easier to transport long distances}
Lemme suggest i try to compare Submarine production {portable nuclear) Small v
Large



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_submarine
Current generations of nuclear submarines never need to be refueled throughout their 25-year lifespans.
The design has two 35 MWe units based on the KLT-40 reactor used in icebreakers ( refueling 4 years).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion

? ? ? ?
please think that i do not suggest TW/CENT OR GW/DECADE OR MW/Year
i speak of PORTABLE units & probably in terms of KW/ per Min OR
fractions thereof. No i do NOT think Go.Mints think along these lines
i think they think BIG & will continue to do SO. "RongLii" 3 hrs to post TIME 9B

_http://futurismic.com/2007/12/18/personal-nuclear-generator/_

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The problem is, sure, nuclear power, heavily regulated and thoroughly tested, could be safe.

Only, those two things are never going to happen, so it's a pipe dream, like having an unregulated market lead to better conditions of wealth for everyone, or that if we abolished the State people would just get along in perfect harmony.

Nuclear power is vital for nuclear weapons and for providing the energy to keep the state running.  As a consequence, all its mishaps and red flags and corner cutting actions will be over looked.  Secondly, we've had this song and dance before.  When Chernobyl went kaboom, the entire French nuclear industry, including large numbers of French physicists and nuclear scientists, went on the record as saying the fallout would not hit France, even as its eastern hills were lightly peppered with radioactive material for months.  Why?  They wanted to counter "negative public perceptions" of nuclear power - to the point they outright lied about what was happening and put people at risk.

And why did Chernobyl go critical in the first place?  Because safety protocols were ignored.

Not only will they never happen, but even the idea that it could be safe with heavy regulation and thorough testing is a bit optimistic, because we can't test for unforeseen situations, and even if we could, we still have the still-unresolved question, after 60 years, of what to do with spent fuel rods.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Additionally, we cannot currently make use of breeder reactors that would significantly improve the viability of nuclear power, because of the perceived risk of the plutonium being used for nuclear bombs.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Obligitory sensationalistic but real pics
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mutation-Watch/330100447017280?sk=photos

[Junkenstein]

That is roughly 5000 turbines...

Currently the worlds largest offshore windfarm has 102.

It's ambitious and will be awesome if it happens as described.
The largest part of the cost incurred is in the construction of the turbines which to date the US doesn't do very well (not at all for offshore). It would be a huge amount of cash to hand over to another country, however it would be the most responsible and prudent investment a country could make in the energy sector.

More an observation than anything, but the drive for nuclear power seems to be more interesting to "Western" thought than "Eastern". It's quick, cheap and the problems are someone else's. I have a feeling that if we see any real large scale renewable programs it's going to be coming from somewhere like China where taking on multi generational projects is more commonplace.

It also occurs that projects like this could solve employment woes in several nations. Realistically it needs a large upfront investment, but should leaders of countries not be playing the long game?

[Faust]

That is roughly 5000 turbines...

Currently the worlds largest offshore windfarm has 102.

It's ambitious and will be awesome if it happens as described.
The largest part of the cost incurred is in the construction of the turbines which to date the US doesn't do very well (not at all for offshore). It would be a huge amount of cash to hand over to another country, however it would be the most responsible and prudent investment a country could make in the energy sector.

More an observation than anything, but the drive for nuclear power seems to be more interesting to "Western" thought than "Eastern". It's quick, cheap and the problems are someone else's. I have a feeling that if we see any real large scale renewable programs it's going to be coming from somewhere like China where taking on multi generational projects is more commonplace.

It also occurs that projects like this could solve employment woes in several nations. Realistically it needs a large upfront investment, but should leaders of countries not be playing the long game?

Realistically the decommissioning of existing plants for offshore would result in a loss of jobs. But in places countries using only fossil fuels it creates new jobs and has expedient return on investment. A lot of European countries vetoed the use of nuclear power in their countries so it will be widely adopted by Europe.
In the east I don't see them using renewable energy in any of the developing countries like china or India, renewables take planning and lump investment which gradually pays off, there are a lot less complications with Nuclear. Especially if you are just dumping waste into the sea or down a mine.