Good points Dave.
I always thought it was silly to store waste fuel on-site. The accidents in Japan make it abundantly clear it is not a good idea to do so.
There is no second chance with nukes. I believe they can be made safe, but only if all the parts and pieces are in place, like long term disposal or reprocessing of the spent fuel. The designs have to consider the worst case possible, i.e., lost of power, lost of communication, lost of coolant, just as we have seen happen in Japan.
Nearly everything that could go wrong has happened or is happening in Japan. We have to look at the events that are developing in Japan and take a serious look at our plants to see how they would fare under similar circumstances. The Tsunami they experienced was horrific, but it wasn't the worst in historical terms relative to the height of the wave recorded.
Disasters are like bad welds, rarely is it just one thing that goes wrong, it is a multitude of things that go wrong. When taken in the sum the results are more terrible than expected. Bad welds are similar in that rarely is the weld rejected for one reason. The unacceptable weld is usually rejected for a series of unacceptable conditions such as using the wrong polarity, using the wrong technique, undersized, poor fit-up, etc.
We were lucky in the case of Three Mile Island, we only lost some coolant and we only experienced a partial melt-down that was contained. What would have happened if they had lost all power for several days just as they have in Japan? I don’t have an answer.
Every source of energy has problems. Fossil fuels pollute the air. Hydroelectric dams hinders fish migration and silts up the rivers. The wind farms apparently chops up the migratory birds and insect eating bats and sets up harmonic vibrations that can disturb nearby residents. I believe nukes can be built to mitigate the dangers, but there will always be some set of unforeseen circumstances that will render our safeguards impotent. What happens when a large meteor hits the plant? I have been pro-nuke and I think I still am, but the politics have to be settled so the spent fuel is properly and safely stored and or reprocessed. As mentioned, the designs have to be failsafe and that is the part I am not sure we have a good handle on. None of the designs are failsafe in the event everything goes wrong at once.
I wish i could say I have the answer, but I can't. I don't have a solution. Even my wood/charcoal burning stove contributes to air polution, but at least the fuel is renewable. Now if I only had time to build my new boiler so I could power my small steam turbine! I've had my turbine sitting in the crate for at least several years. It is driving me crazy!
Best regards - Al
Jock Dempsy, who wrote that post worked with His fathers company designing and building equipmet to service nuke plants. I guess He has changed His position since those days.
I damn sure hope Excelon Limerick is safe, I can see the plume from the cooling towers from My house [that is colser than Russia is to Palin's house].
I would like to see technology to use coal with less environmental impact, as We have so much of it domesticly.
We heated with wood for years ['till Mom got fed up with the dust in the house], but I don't see it as a widespread solution.
I don't have any real solutions either, but when I lived on My boat, My "household" energy needs were usually met by burning 1/2 gallon of diesel per day.
That kept the batteries charged, the fridge cold, freezer frozen and the water heater hot. I tried to stay where I didn't need heat, but used some propane after I installed a propane heater. Then I put in a propane stove, used a little propane for cooking. Previously I cooked mostly with onboard generated electricity, and sparing use of compressed natural gas. I lived close to the bone back then, something I can not do now.