Is the U.S. Ready for New Nukes?

I agree with the posts entirely. There is one aspect missing from the discussion. The presently operated and proposed reactors are the generation 1 kind, harking back to the very first reactors developed for the Navy. In the ensuing 60 years 3 further generations were developed. All better, and all designed to be failsafe, in the sense: when something breaks, by design it stops functioning. Example is the pyrolithic carbon coated pellets with helium cooling. If temperature moves away from optimum, or pressure drops, reactor activity stops. It is designed that way. One each was operated already in Germany and USA already, so the data is here.

Other generation already addressed automatic shutdown by boron loaded water by gravity alone. Good design, not even rocket science. With such one, Fukshima could not happen as it did.

By the way, China has 30some reactors of most diverse designs at various stages. Obviously, with their technology transfer policy they will learn all, and after that build what they like. And neither they nor India pays attention to the enviros.

And therein is a profound statement..The Indian and Chinese nations will likely lead the way with some mishaps here and there...much like science-fiction prognosticators of at least the 60's and 70's...To control the nuclear power inherent in matter would see us get to the stars by and by as a planetary whole i hope...Perhaps the money makers will see the folly of their ways and pitch in here as well as there..

I rather make a Kurzweil type of prediction. While we are dithering and navel gazing with the absolutely technically and economically illiterate, the chinese and indian learn the best and safest, and leave us in the dust of our ignorance and sissification. You may not mind it, but I came to this country for something better.

The Fukushima problem is a nasty one. Underestimated and mishandled. Plenty of people suffering, but 99,xx%? from the tsunami. Now no sane person blames that on the reactors, do they now?!?

I happened to live on the US east coast. A railroad switching yard is too close for comfort. THAT scares me. Do yo remember Bhopal, India or Seveso, Italy. Garden variety chemical mishap. Nearly 10thousand died. Folks, life is never a cakewalk, and nobody promised you a rosegarden, without paying for it.

So, man up, know or learn your real odds, and live with it without flinching. Whining does not take courage, knowledge or convictions.

Many writers comment on safety of nuclear power plant. There are two more immediate concerns, less often mentioned. (para) Nuclear power plants consume and/or warm a great deal of water. As Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) probably wrote, "Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over." (para) The average nuclear plant in the USA is powerful enough to supply about a million houses with power. When they are out of service for refueling, about 17 days every eighteen months, other supplies are required. If breakdowns of other plants occur during refueling there are power shortages. Japan is suffering that right now. The large size of each power plant greatly exaggerates this problem. (para) The power needs of a country and districts are much better served by a large number of smaller power plants. Transmission losses can be reduced. Smaller plants in some countries supply district heating and hot water. Bigger is not better.

Yep, that is exactly, I was talking about. Whining, instead working toward an or many solutions.

I pick the first item, for convenience: warming and needing water. As far as I know, the basic CARNOT CYCLE of physics was not repealed, and I see no prospect it will either. If you want energy via a heat engine, 50-70% gets dumped. If you can do better, go to the head of the class, and I (plus all scientists and engineers who count) will sit up and salute. If you yourself want to live without it entirely, you have my blessing. Keep us up-to date.

On the other hand, a nuclear or other plant DOES NOT NEED WATER. Not inherently. A natural gas powered turbine engine runs entirely dry, for example. A cooling tower can be wet or dry. Wet is cheaper. That's it. No problem. Was built, will be built. Next!

Have in mind that the level of radioactivity around the wrecked Fukushima plants is below 200mS/year - only inside the plant this is higher.

200mS/year is the level of natural radioactivity in regions of natural monazite sands because of Thorium content. No unusual damage to humans by this level of radioactivity is reported from these sites in India and Brazil.

RHABE

The USA's 104 nuclear power plants all use water for cooling. At a considerable cost they COULD use dry cooling, but they do not now. (para) About 98% of all electricity generation in the USA uses water for cooling or operation. Nuclear power plants consume the most water of all the options. www.world-nuclear.org/info/cooling_power_plants_inf121.html and www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/4731807.pdf (para) When the USA shifts to the use of smaller power plants, that is: wind, PV and solar thermal with storage the need for cooling water can be dramatically reduced. Wind and PV need very little water. Distributed solar thermal with thermal storage makes using wind and PV more practical. Also, a significant amount of the waste heat from distributed solar thermal plant can be used for domestic and other uses. (para) Do not dismiss any of these developments as pipe dreams. It is all emerging as practical and economic NOW. I will keep you posted. What is not practical and economic, in the USA southwest, is nuclear power plants. Water use, safety, waste management and community concerns for nuclear plant will remain significant issues, no matter what anyone writes here. Germany and Japan may resolve these concerns most quickly.