More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

http://www.tcbmag.com/peoplecompanie.../126483p1.aspx

Just thought I'd share this article for anyone who cares.

My company got an article published about them and Nuclear Power in Minnesota. We only have 2 Nuke plants in Minnesota, and there has been a ban in place for awhile, not allowing any new ones to be built. Sounds there may be a change of heart though, and some of our representatives are on board to try and lift that ban.

And, apparently Obama is starting to back nuclear power generation as well now, which I think is great.

Anyhow, just thought I'd share, and can't wait to hear Tom talk about how much of a travesty it is to have more nuclear plants :)

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

I think it's a great idea. Technology has made leaps overseas and we just keep limping along with the older designs. A bit of genius, that.

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

Agree, great idea!

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

I love nuclear power, ::rolls eyes:: I just wish they would find a way to properly dispose of the waste it produces without affecting the environment. (and burying it in an indian reservation is not the proper way).

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. What would you prefer, the countryside littered with inefficient wind generators and solar panels, or coal and gas plants polluting the air? I'd say the current ways that spent nuclear fuel is disposed of doesn't pose a threat to conservation of natural resources any more or less than the other forms for energy production. Storage pools are becoming full, but with the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel ramping up it turns nuclear power into being cleaner than anything else.

http://www.ctaps.yu.edu.jo/stpne/Sym...processing.pdf

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

There are groups that protest solar and wind farms--the solar panels blight the natural landscape and wind farms are that and harmful to birds. Dams disrupt all kinds of wildlife...

All these people do is support burning fossil fuels, which *everybody* knows is bad and unsustainable.

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

Honestly, I feel that if they can find a way to use the spent nuclear waste it would be great and wouldnt have any issues with it. But building more nuclear plants is investing in the wrong kind of energy. I believe Efficiency comes with R&D. Therefore instead of making wind farms, and solar farms, develop the energy farms at a smaller environment, then after they can say, "We have harnessed the power of the sun and wind" Then push the efficient farms and get rid of the nuclear power and coal. So a few birds get cut up, but at least they can breath clean air. So there are some eyesores in the desert. NO ONE LIVES THERE!

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

Oh, I know. I'll take any alternate energy production over the use of fossil fuels. There are wind farms popping up all over southern Minnesota and Iowa, and they're always among fields of corn and such rarely ever ruining any amount of land. I've looked into what it takes to invest in something like that but could never find anything.
Reprocessing the spent nuclear fuel is doing just that, using it in other ways to create more energy and to make the unusable parts less harmful. The nuclear power plant is only 57 years old, with the first one producing a whopping 5 megawatts, and new ones producing over 1 gigawatt. Wind and solar energy are gaining ground every day, instead of electrical solar panels they are now using reflectors that heat a water pipe that in turn powers steam turbines. Efficiency does come with R&D, but it doesn't happen overnight.

The bad part about solar and wind is that it's unpredictable, where as nuclear is always there. The benefits of nuclear far outweigh those of any other renewable source of power we have right now.

Tom, in case you forgot.
;)

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

Yes and no. Obama is happy to say nuclear is great all of the sudden, but then he trashes Yucca mountain, a waste repository that we spent $13.5B on and spent 25 years building. So we can build more plants but have less places to put the waste. Typical of this administration, dumb as a box of fucking rocks. I hope they all get sent to Guantanamo in 2012 for crimes of stupidity against the American people.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul...ion/na-yucca30

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

Lucky guess.

Anyway, nuclear is awesome, I hope they build more. I think people have been educated and are less afraid of it now compared to 10 or 20 years ago.

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

I completely agree that renewable sources such as wind and sun are great. But like Matt said, they are not 100% guaranteed. In my opinion, you can not have a stable power grid that is only based off Solar/Wind types of energy. Sure it may be a good idea in Arizona, but what about here in Minnesota where we could go a week with cloudy weather? Nuclear is guaranteed power. It's power we create how much we want, when we want. Not power that is based on differing weather conditions.

I guess in the end I believe in diversity. Relying on only a couple means of anything is not ideal in my mind. Having a diverse market is good. In the energy market, everything comes with pro's and con's. Minnesota has had a ban on building Nuclear plants. So to me, that is not allowing for equal diversity. So I see it as a positive thing to lift the ban, to allow for more diversity.

I think wind farms are great, solar farms are great, but I also feel you need guaranteed electricity production which they can't always do.

As for R&D creating efficiency. Yup it sure does. So don't compare the 20 year old nuclear power plant over in Red Wing to the one that would get built today as well. The US hasn't built any new Nuke Plants in a long time, and companies like mine have had lots of time to do R&D. The Westinghouse modular AP1000 unit uses so much less materials than the old designs, smaller footprints, has safer emergency systems based off laws such as gravity rather than relying on energized components, yet are still putting out 1000MW each. Any idea what size of footprint would be required for a wind or solar farm to put out that kind of power?

I believe in R&D for all of these. Not 1 over the other.

I do agree nuclear waste is bad. But if you are going to say who cares about some stuff in the middle of the desert where no one lives, then does that mindset also not apply to Yucca Mountain where they plan to dispose of nuclear waste?

One last plug. Any idea how many jobs would be created with not only the construction of these plants, but even post construction operation of the plant. Construction of these plants takes years. Thousands of construction and engineering jobs created locally, and all the local work created for those who run and maintain the plant after it is online. If you've never worked in a nuclear plant, the way they work is safety is by far the top importance over anything and everything. Not just personal safety, but nuclear safety. That's why a nuclear plant creates so many jobs. It doesn't take one person to install a bolt. It takes 2 mechanics so one can check the work after, a planner to ensure that you have planned the work to the point where you receive as little radiation exposure as possible, possibly a tech to be with you to measure radiation levels depending on the area you have to go, and a decon person to ensure that you do not spread any contamination and clean up after you. They create a LOT of jobs at just one plant.

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

I think the power grids should move towards nuclear power in replacement of power plants that burn fossil fuel. My company (GE) is on the cutting edge of energy production and management, but it is still very very expensive.

Tom, It is not the billions of dollars in wind turbines that is the expensive part. It is creating the power grid to get to the turbines in the desert that is the expensive part. You can't just "plant" a wind turbine and hope it grows power, these aren't trees we are talking about. Let alone all the maintenance and upkeep requirements.

Solar power=Great where it is sunny.

Nuclear is clean and relatively safe. I think there needs to be more concentration put into where we can store the waste fuel safely and efficiently and more research into renewable energy. At least with more nuclear power there will be hopefully a lower demand on fossil fuel based plants.

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

I hope they build more for the sole purpose that i want to work at one :)

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

I hope its in Tom's backyard.

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

Nuclear is the energy of the future, but we haven't built a new plant since 1976 due to the greenies whining about it, and probably three mile island, although I doubt anyone here is old enough to remember that. For all the press that it got, it actually wasn't bad in terms of actual problems, but it sure made the headlines for years.

Considering that your average cellphone now has more computing power than a 1970's supercomputer, I'd also guess that nuclear technology has improved exponentially since then. We need to shitcan the Sierra club and build some of these damn things, the dems will tax the shit of them, but we'll have clean, reliable and relatively inexpensive power and everybody will be happy. Windmills are a joke, they're great for some farmer htat has one, but trying to build reliable power grids around them has so far failed miserably.

I still think we should just shoot a rocket full of nuclear waste whenever it's needed at the sun, it'll disintegrate harmlessly and won't affect anyone ever again. Clean and simple.

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

Yucca mountain is insanely wrong on so many levels. First and foremost, IT IS NOT AMERICANS PROPERTY. As much as you guys want to think it is, its not. It is owned by the Native Americans, A soverign nation apart from the USA. Therefore he is right in trashing yucca mountain. Imaging, the government building a nuclear storage plant under your house.
Steve i would leave yucca mountain out of this because its a lost battle over property we dont own. Its bad enough the travisties we have done in the past to the indian people that our "modern" and "moral" society does not need to create more.

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

Any on a second note: Lets put the nuclear waste in the white peoples neighborhood, see how many people complain then? they will be crying and in an uproar, but yet the genocide that happened to the indian people in the past seems to just be a normal thing that we put in the past like the slave trade.

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

I don't take responsibility for what somebody else did before I was born. None of us get to choose what country we are born in so why accept the baggage?

As far back as recorded history goes the 'owner' of a piece of land is the country/person that can defend it. The US military would defend this land...that makes it American property in my opinion.

Taking your argument to its logical extreme then you must have guilt about how you've defiled caveman land...or Adam & Eve?

Re: More Nuclear Power in MN??
 

It is in the white people's neighborhood, this is America, we own it. It's time to quit apologizing for something that happened hundreds of years ago. We're hands off as they run their own sovereign nations, governing themselves even when it endangers others(ask the cops that have to drive through reservations up north). They operate casinos that generate billions of dollars of profit, and they pay no taxes on it, even though they use the same roads and other facilities the rest of us pay dearly for. Sorry, but I'm done apologizing, if you want something, pay for it, the days of handing stuff out for free should be long over.