Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: axial who wrote (42021)	1/9/2013 5:37:22 PM
From: Rob S.	Respond to of 46821

During my undergraduate college days, I took Nuclear Safety class option as part of the EE program. I considered that as a career, thinking it would be job that would last through ups and downs in the economy etc. Having worked to pay for school, job security was a priority, or so I thought. I visited a nuclear plant as part of the class assignments. years latter I got involved with Rockwell International and made visits to Hanford Nuclear Reservation and a few nuclear power plants in Washington, Idaho and Oregon states. That was about 25 years ago. The problems with waste containment and disposal are yet to be resolved. I was surprised recently to hear that among the same issues that were supposedly being worked on are still present: large containment tanks that were supposed to have been for temporary storage until longer term solution would be found still exist and, in some cases have been found to have eroded, releasing contamination into the sub-soil. The mediation efforts including glassification have proven to be difficult and subject to the bane of 'in need of further study'. Years ago I concluded that there is no easy fix if there is a fix. Its one bloody mess. I still don't know what the answers are or if nuclear power is any more damaging to human survival or well being in the long, long run. We are all maggots, feasting on the last scrap of the carcass when it all boils down to it! ; ^)

To: axial who wrote (42021)	1/9/2013 10:51:42 PM
From: Larry S.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Axial, Thank you for your comments/thoughts. I agree with most of what you said but the big problem with Nuclear is the run away problem. However, the pellet alternative doesn't have that problem, though I agree there can be other problems I've never heard of one that could cause a major loss of life. My Nuclear expert friend believes just a safe as any of the existing power plants. There have been problems/failures with plants of all types that have caused loss of life. From what I understand a new nuclear plant wouldn't be less safe and modern power plant. And Thorium eliminates the core concern and is more plentiful than Uranium. I understand that China and a couple of other countries are building Thorim-based plants. I can't remember more. I do remember verifying a year or more ago that we had a Thorium-based plant operating in the 60s but we shut it down. But I can't remember the reasons given. I was going to sign off but it occurred to me that you might have an answer to a question I’ve tried unsuccessfully to get my power company to answer. The question is simply: What is the cost to the rest of us for keeping power plants operating to provide power when the wind stops blowing and/or the Sun stops shining. A close friend had solar panels installed this Summer on his roof and he didn’t pay anything. The installing company sells extra power to the power company and that apparently covers their costs. Getting a clear understanding of who pays what is very difficult here in NJ because the power company doesn’t produce its own power. I would also like to know the cost in terms of pollution. The pollution per unit of power output goes up as the plant power output is reduced Larry