Comments on: The American Plan to Build Nuclear Power Plants in the Ocean http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/02/the-american-plan-to-build-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-ocean/ A history of the future that never was Fri, 17 May 2013 21:40:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4 By: royal s http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/02/the-american-plan-to-build-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-ocean/#comment-1866 royal s Mon, 04 Mar 2013 19:42:30 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/?p=8009#comment-1866 solar has not worked yet neither ha wind looks like for the time being we have oil and coal until a more viable solution is found. we can not just stop drilling or digging until then. solar has not worked yet neither ha wind looks like for the time being we have oil and coal until a more viable solution is found. we can not just stop drilling or digging until then.

]]> By: JR http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/02/the-american-plan-to-build-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-ocean/#comment-1865 JR Mon, 04 Mar 2013 17:09:37 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/?p=8009#comment-1865 People will think it's a good idea until there's lots of dead sealife floating around. Nothing like this is completely safe. People will think it’s a good idea until there’s lots of dead sealife floating around. Nothing like this is completely safe.

]]> By: Mykeljon http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/02/the-american-plan-to-build-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-ocean/#comment-1863 Mykeljon Sun, 03 Mar 2013 18:05:41 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/?p=8009#comment-1863 Coal mining and coal fired power plants are far more damaging to life and the environment than nuclear energy. World wide, thousands of miners die every year in accidents. Coal miners who avoid death by accident suffer serious and life limiting lung disease. Coal mining waste seriously pollutes the surrounding environment. We really should give nuclear energy another chance. Coal mining and coal fired power plants are far more damaging to life and the environment than nuclear energy. World wide, thousands of miners die every year in accidents. Coal miners who avoid death by accident suffer serious and life limiting lung disease. Coal mining waste seriously pollutes the surrounding environment. We really should give nuclear energy another chance.

]]> By: Phoenix Woman http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/02/the-american-plan-to-build-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-ocean/#comment-1862 Phoenix Woman Sun, 03 Mar 2013 17:28:51 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/?p=8009#comment-1862 One thing the too-cheap-to-meter nuclear fans won't address: Capitalism has taken a long hard look at nuclear power and said: Nope, don't want any part of it. Too many risks. And that's with the giant Get Out Of Jail Free card known as the Price-Anderson Act protecting the nuclear industry in the US, as well as the massive amounts in government subsidies available to anyone wanting to build a nuker. We're talking 80% of project costs here -- and nuke plants start at around $10 billion apiece. (Imagine if the Solar Roadways people (http://www.solarroadways.com) had 80% of $10 billion to play with. They would already have a few hundred miles, if not a few thousand miles, of asphalt roads converted into power-generating roadways.) In Europe, nukes are in trouble as well. The Fukushima disaster caused Angela Merkel to reconsider Germany's commitment to nukes, and even France, currently nuclear power's biggest backer, has to contend with a moribund industry that, as in all other nuclear nations, wouldn't exist without massive and continuous government support. Here are some handy links: http://www.alternet.org/story/84042/a_nuclear_energy_renaissance_wouldn%27t_solve_our_problems%2C_but_it_would_rip_us_off http://www.solarroadways.com http://www.economist.com/node/17627569 http://www.thenation.com/article/159997/nuclear-dead-end-its-economics-stupid# One thing the too-cheap-to-meter nuclear fans won’t address: Capitalism has taken a long hard look at nuclear power and said: Nope, don’t want any part of it. Too many risks.

And that’s with the giant Get Out Of Jail Free card known as the Price-Anderson Act protecting the nuclear industry in the US, as well as the massive amounts in government subsidies available to anyone wanting to build a nuker. We’re talking 80% of project costs here — and nuke plants start at around $10 billion apiece. (Imagine if the Solar Roadways people (http://www.solarroadways.com) had 80% of $10 billion to play with. They would already have a few hundred miles, if not a few thousand miles, of asphalt roads converted into power-generating roadways.)

In Europe, nukes are in trouble as well. The Fukushima disaster caused Angela Merkel to reconsider Germany’s commitment to nukes, and even France, currently nuclear power’s biggest backer, has to contend with a moribund industry that, as in all other nuclear nations, wouldn’t exist without massive and continuous government support.

Here are some handy links:

http://www.alternet.org/story/84042/a_nuclear_energy_renaissance_wouldn%27t_solve_our_problems%2C_but_it_would_rip_us_off

http://www.solarroadways.com

http://www.economist.com/node/17627569

http://www.thenation.com/article/159997/nuclear-dead-end-its-economics-stupid#

]]> By: Adam http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/02/the-american-plan-to-build-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-ocean/#comment-1861 Adam Sun, 03 Mar 2013 15:00:55 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/?p=8009#comment-1861 Surely this is a reprint from The Onion or some satirical mockery of a dystopian future. Anyone interested in nuclear should look at the known sources of Uranium ore and the exponential increase of demand – it doesn't work. The only energy source sufficient for needs is the sun. Sure, we could build wave and tide, geothermal, but these are just derivatives of the big ball of flames in the sky. Surely this is a reprint from The Onion or some satirical mockery of a dystopian future.
Anyone interested in nuclear should look at the known sources of Uranium ore and the exponential increase of demand – it doesn’t work.

The only energy source sufficient for needs is the sun. Sure, we could build wave and tide, geothermal, but these are just derivatives of the big ball of flames in the sky.

]]> By: Matt Novak http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/02/the-american-plan-to-build-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-ocean/#comment-1855 Matt Novak Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:26:41 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/?p=8009#comment-1855 Thanks Jane! Fixed those typos! Thanks Jane! Fixed those typos!

]]> By: Jane http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/02/the-american-plan-to-build-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-ocean/#comment-1851 Jane Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:10:20 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/?p=8009#comment-1851 You could do with spell-checking/proof-reading the text from "Godron P. Selfridge’s 1975 paper" (which should be Gordon P. Selfridge by the way) as the following sentence made me giggle a lot: "The possibile ecological impact of running half our river water through nuclear power pants has led many to conclude that such plants would be better built in the coastal zone." (the word possibile could do with being fixed too!) So much so that I wrote you a blog post and drew you a picture at http://jane.dallaway.com/nuclear-power-pants-or-why-proof-reading-matters You could do with spell-checking/proof-reading the text from “Godron P. Selfridge’s 1975 paper” (which should be Gordon P. Selfridge by the way) as the following sentence made me giggle a lot:

“The possibile ecological impact of running half our river water through nuclear power pants has led many to conclude that such plants would be better built in the coastal zone.”

(the word possibile could do with being fixed too!)

So much so that I wrote you a blog post and drew you a picture at http://jane.dallaway.com/nuclear-power-pants-or-why-proof-reading-matters

]]> By: Roland http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/02/the-american-plan-to-build-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-ocean/#comment-1841 Roland Thu, 28 Feb 2013 06:23:50 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/?p=8009#comment-1841 Two videos that give a very good explanation http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Yjdp9jctZgY http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=98frSed0F5s#! Two videos that give a very good explanation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Yjdp9jctZgY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=98frSed0F5s#!

]]> By: Roland http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/02/the-american-plan-to-build-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-ocean/#comment-1838 Roland Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:18:53 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/?p=8009#comment-1838 Wind, solar and all other renewables are a total waste of time. Human civilisation is closely linked to the energy density of the power sourced that have been used. Historically power use basically started with man power, then animal power, then renewables like wind and then with the industrial revolution we used coal, oil and gas. The immediate future is most likely the use of coal seam gas as it will be very cheap and the technology is available. The future however is nuclear predominately Thorium as it will have the potential to be less costly then gas and coal. Wind and solar will play no part in the future as the use of these out-dated energies is artificially driven by subsidies; let’s think a bit ahead, Star Ship Enterprise cannot be powered by wind or solar. Wind, solar and all other renewables are a total waste of time. Human civilisation is closely linked to the energy density of the power sourced that have been used. Historically power use basically started with man power, then animal power, then renewables like wind and then with the industrial revolution we used coal, oil and gas. The immediate future is most likely the use of coal seam gas as it will be very cheap and the technology is available. The future however is nuclear predominately Thorium as it will have the potential to be less costly then gas and coal. Wind and solar will play no part in the future as the use of these out-dated energies is artificially driven by subsidies; let’s think a bit ahead, Star Ship Enterprise cannot be powered by wind or solar.

]]> By: Bill http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2013/02/the-american-plan-to-build-nuclear-power-plants-in-the-ocean/#comment-1837 Bill Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:32:23 +0000 http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/?p=8009#comment-1837 As dreadful as Fukushima was the World Health Organisation (WHO) published a study over a year ago documenting that the radiation released was minimal and would not cause an elevated number of cancers, and certainly no measurable deaths. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) confirmed and endorsed these findings. Subsequent news articles compared the Fukushima doses to high backgound doses in Denver, Colorado where there are no demonstrable elevated cancer risks. It is fun to engage in fearmongering but certainly not supported by the facts. An offshore Fukushima plant would have been safer since the tidal wave would only be a few feet high offshore. Not intuitive, but this makes a lot of sence if you think outside the box. As dreadful as Fukushima was the World Health Organisation (WHO) published a study over a year ago documenting that the radiation released was minimal and would not cause an elevated number of cancers, and certainly no measurable deaths. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) confirmed and endorsed these findings. Subsequent news articles compared the Fukushima doses to high backgound doses in Denver, Colorado where there are no demonstrable elevated cancer risks. It is fun to engage in fearmongering but certainly not supported by the facts. An offshore Fukushima plant would have been safer since the tidal wave would only be a few feet high offshore. Not intuitive, but this makes a lot of sence if you think outside the box.

]]>