I'm disappointed in the nuclear-power article, and not just because it's a cut and paste of a Newsweek article. The paragraph on alternative fuels seems ignorant of the technological solutions to every negative mentioned about wind, solar and ethanol. For the first two, we've known how to store energy since the battery was invented (one could argue that the concept goes back further), so it seems childish to claim that the fickleness of sun and wind are an issue: the sun's not going anywhere soon, and thanks to the fact that the planet spins on its axis, neither will wind. No mention is made of tidal-energy generation, or any other methods of taking advantage of natural energy sources.

Second, there is no mention whatsoever of newer nuclear technology, for example, eliminating the rods-in-water system of the older plants, like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, to ensure that no meltdowns can occur. Worse, the issue of nuclear waste isn't even touched on. Some of the most egregious examples of mishandling these byproducts are poisoning the former Soviet Union to this day: there are areas that make Chernobyl look like a vacation spot.

In a world of howevermany billion people, you can't discuss a techology without factoring in the cost of the back end: where does the waste go? How do we protect it, how do we protect ourselves from it? The article's shortsighted argument that nuclear power plants here and elsewhere have been humming along without incident since the TMI disaster is not proof of the technology's safety, any more than a jumper's survival from the top of the Empire State Building to the 40th floor is an argument for the safety of launching oneself into the air.

Iso:

Do I know you??? and what brings yo here?

"nuclear waste isn't even touched"

Some how disposing of nuclear waste in the ground whether porous rock (and all rock is porous) or whatever seems somewhat shortsighted. I would prefer to launch it into the sun and dispose of it that way.

Nice to see you around these parts.

"The article's shortsighted argument that nuclear power plants here and elsewhere have been humming along without incident since the TMI disaster is not proof of the technology's safety..."

Um, yes, proof of the technology's safety is exactly what it is.

Interesting idea for waste disposal, but talking about adding a back end load to operating costs!

"The article's shortsighted argument that nuclear power plants here and elsewhere have been humming along without incident since the TMI disaster is not proof of the technology's safety"

How exactly did you arrive at such an ignorant conclusion? What exactly is your basis for claiming they aren't safe? It sure can't be their accident rates, nor their instability, training programs, lifespans, or incident response programs. Are you basing that on the fact that the rebar used in the plant's construction could potentially cut someone and cause tetanus?

to describe a logical conclusion. Apparently you and the Titanic designer need a simple lesson in entropy. Things decay. Although we're doing a great job so far of keeping problems minimal in the US, these old technologies are falling apart. Several nuclear power plants have had leaks and other problems, causing some to be shut down. An example is a boric acid leak that caused the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio to be shut down. Quad Cities Station in Illinois had to be shut down because of a pump breakdown upline from the reactor core. recently Near misses like that are going to increase as the plants continue to age, and as regulatory inspectors continue to be stretched too thin. I'm not at all saying that nuclear power should go the way of the pterodon, just that it's foolish to say, "Oh well, we haven't had any problems since a core meltdown destroyed a large area of the Ukraine and poisoned crops and killed people, rendering the area unliveable for generations."

Do you take the same attitude when a toddler has a loaded gun? Oh well, he hasn't shot himself yet.

...the US has already sprayed them all over tarnation. got another load to dispose off? just start a mini-war so the boys can play with their guns, and unload the plutonium somewhere overseas.

"You related to the guy who designed Titanic?"

As a Titanic buff, I can't let this go unchallenged. Titanic didn't sink because she was poorly designed. She sank because she hit an iceberg. Encounters between ships and truly massive solid objects never favor the ships.

The lifeboat debacle can't be attributed to Titanic's designers either. The chief designer provided for enough lifeboats for all passengers and crew. He was overruled by the executives of White Star Line and, to his everlasting credit, he quit over the issue.

Titanic's sister ship, Olympic, plied the trans-Atlantic route for a quarter century until obsolescence caught up with her. Titanic's other sister ship, Britannic, was built with a double hull but that didn't prevent her sinking after hitting a mine during the First World War.

Actually the flaw in the Titanic had to do with an expansion joint that buckled, causing her to sink before rescue could be had. One of the reasons Titanic had fewer lifeboats than she should have was because the owners argued successfully that she could act as her own lifeboat even if she were damaged beyond repair. Britannic had the same expansion joint in the original design, however the design was altered after Titanic sunk, to compensate for the flaw.

<link>

Interestingly, the joint on Titanic was redesigned after the Olympic's expansion joint seemed to be weaker than anticipated.

My comment referred to the oft-repeated story that the Titanic was supposed to have been unsinkable, due to its revolutionary design. Assuming that nuclear power plants will never have accidents can lead to worse misery than the Titanic ever caused.

"Actually the flaw in the Titanic had to do with an expansion joint that buckled ..."

That's an interesting article you referenced. Thanks.

The story that Titanic's owners declared her to be unsinkable is only one of many myths about the vessel. The word "unsinkable" originated with the English press. The owners, to say nothing of the designers, knew better.

The Soviets recklessly assumed that their archaic graphite-core reactors were safe and they didn't build containment buildings around them. That's what caused Chernobyl. Sheer recklessness.

The Americans designed for the worst-case scenario and built massive containment buildings around all commercial reactors. Three Mile Island vindicated the American approach.

stopping at 70s technology for nukes, any more than it does Victorian tech for boats. Containment is vital, and safer energy-generation systems that can't melt down are the way of the future, but we've still got to figure out what to do with the waste, and the Simpsons in the industry.