Part 3 (final) Once this technology matures enough, then it would be no different than any other form.  We still need to find a way to handle the radioactive by products that are being called waste, but that too comes with time. Plutonium becomes a form of Uranium, why can we just recycle it to be used in another reactor type that can "burn" it? The fuel cycle eventually ends as Lead and will eventually get there is left in the ground, so why not use that energy to produce electricity instead of wasting it in storage facilities? The short answer is money, it cost someone to recycle it, and the fuel is not quite the same as the first time around so capitalization has created this conundrum. Force recycling and the "waste" will just become lead, which we use to shield the reactors anyway. Eventually, like fossil fuels we will have nothing left but by products and we will be looking for another source but 15 to 20 thousand years of power by recycling should be enough time to learn how to capture power from another source or two.

Part 2 There are some things I have a problem with when nuclear is involved, mostly it is because humans are involved and the all mighty dollar is the final point. Nuclear reactors should not be built above ground level and should look to simpler emergency cooling ideas. Ever wondered on how a coffee maker works? If a reactor was built beneath a lake (man-made) that was three times larger in volume of what the reactor would use in water flow per day then one would simply set the system on percolate if the reactor SCRAM'ed. Better yet have the system automatically revert to that setting. If the reactor ever went critical and melted down, then all we would have to do is seal the reactor chamber and flood it. Beyond popular belief, nuclear reactors DO NOT explode, in light water reactors (Chernobyl) it was the pressure vessel that exploded due to extreme pressures that the system was not designed for. The Three Mile Island meltdown (another light water reactor) is evidence of this fact as it did have a core meltdown but did not explode. Heavy water and liquid salts reactors though are built and engineered differently are still just as safe, despite the added complexity of intercooling and reactor decoupling of the work medium. So armed with this knowledge, if a reactor under water cooling it's self by means of percolation, it would stop production of steam and thus no more pressure. This can be simply controlled by venting the core to the surrounding cooling water or by using the surrounding cooling water as uptake water from the bottom of the core and using the steam produced to generate electricity to run the control systems until cold shutdown (core temperature of 100 degrees C or less) has been attained, at this point it still produces hot water but no pressure.

Part 1 Before you read this I am neither pro-nuclear nor anti-nuclear, this is just some straight if not only slightly biased information to be considered. I am pro-alternative energy, but limit it to limiting our dependence on fossil fuels. John Ritch aside and despite what may be believed, All forms of electrical power production has had its share of development issues, have cost lives and damaged the environment. If you don’t believe this ask Rudolf Christian Karl Diesel and his engine, or the high pressure boilers used in coal, gas and oil power plants. Like nuclear power plants, conventional power plants require outside (may be by a low power generator (1MW or less) on site or off site) power to supply startup and shutdown energy. Power generation hasn't really changed much, we still boil water to make steam and that pressure and volume flow to a power converter (today we use turbines that in North America spin at 3600rpm or roughly 60 times a second). All we have done in the last 100 years is change the fuel type. Yes nuclear is a newer type, but as for environmental considerations, it is just as clean as solar and wind while being more reliable. I am pro-solar and wind, but the technology has the flaw of relying on nature to provide for it. It is just power when available, If you had to convert your house to solar alone you would see the limits.

Do you think us to be like the sheeple RT?  Don't be a gaggle of kochs u russian fawkers.  Don't publish garbage spewed by a fawking fool and expect us to be happy either.  fohk you.

Rich's manipulative, bizarre, lying doublespeak is tired and should be roundly dismissed. &nbs p; The old saw that "nobody dies from nuclear power" is like saying that nobody dies from smoking because they don't fall over dead when they take a puff.  The effects of radiation are long-term and cumulative, unless you happen to be unfortunate enough to be directly under a detonating nuclear weapon or entering a Fukushima plant's reactor.   There have been some chilling recent documentaries about the tens of thousands of sick, dying, and malformed children in the areas surrounding Chernobyl, which have been hidden from  us until now by the Russians and the international nuclear lobby.  It will be much harder to hide such a catastrophe at Fukushima, but we won't be able to see it for 10-20 years anyway, as the radiation needs time to work its dark magic.

I personally think nuclear power should be an important part of our energy future, but the lying, corner-cutting, manipulative, corrupt approach to developing it that the nuclear industry continues to practice must be completely eradicated first.   Removing John Rich from media exposure is a great way to start.

Every time a new plant comes on line increases the chance of another Fukushima..

evidence is now starting to surface that says that it was the earth quake that damaged the reators.  Some have even said that even without the tsunami that a partial meltdown was enevitable.  It is all too soon to tell what the extent of the damge to the plants were since the radiation is far to high to get into the buildings and do an inspection.  I think the true measure of what the price is is what the price would be if there wasn't money involed.

 Why did not you notice the most important thing?    Dangerous object - the atomic power station "Fukushima-1" (in Japanese - 福岛 第一 原子 力 発 电 所) - was built in the wrong place.

Just what the dotocr ordered, thankity you!

Well if the nuclear industry has to rely on other sources of power for safety then they should shut down because all other sources fail time to time, how many power outages in your area have occurred in the last year. How stupid is that. Any other power source would be repaired and started up with no danger. Like the nuclear industry says there has not been one person who has proven to die from atmosphere conditions. We do know how many workers at Chernobyl are on permanent disability after incasing their plant (50,000+) and the deformities of children is unbelievable, they look like a degenerative none human race. But the pro-nuclear people except this as minimal problems with the industry.

The nuke lobby has no shame, no concern for the health and safety of anyone or anything other than their bank accounts.

Hal f the planet could be a glowing nuke wasteland and people like John Ritch would be telling us it's really not as bad as it seems. Any amount of suffering and destruction is acceptable to these people - as long as it's not happening to them and the nuke Ponzi Scheme is still pulling in the $$$s.

New nukes? No, thanks!

Andy,John Ritch depolitizes the topic.  It's about time.  We (public) shamefully allow ourselves to be led by ignorance.  We remain ignorant.  There is nothing in nuclear power that can't be utilized if we are careful and thoughtful to begin with.  Again for some reason the thought part of thoughtful evades us.  Is the car the pariah due to accidents?  Is the gun due to murders?  Are weapons due to despots?  No, it's people and their mistakes of pride.  
Oh, by the way you MUST favor coal or natural gas if you don't favor nuclear.   Otherwise the end of the world situation you describe might as well begin now.  

This lobbyist can double speak himself in a circle.  He forgot about the meltdowns  in '59 in California.  He forgot that a huge part of the problem is the fuel pools in Fukushima.  He has also forgot that the pools in Nebraska are, right now about to be in trouble.  He has also forgot that half of the reactors in the US have admitted that they leak.  So if you think that it is so safe and that 14% of the energy that we use is worth killing and sicking the whole planet, chock on a nuclear turd.  We could spend half what we spend now and have enough solar and wind power to shut world wide experiment off and cool them for the next 5-10, and then infinite dry cask storage (I might recommend that you figure out how to put that crap on another planet or something). Funny thing, if all human life were to disappear tomorrow then all life on earth would follow in about 36 hours when all the reactors world wide explode because someone has to push the buttons to cool it all down.

Using the same logic, I suppose we can say that the explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not atomic because the initial explosions which forced the chain reaction were sub atomic. By raising the amount of radio activity which is safe to humans we can declare the areas around Fukushima and Chernobyl safe for human habitation. We could store the spent fuel in schools... We could build the atomic power stations in city centres. John  Ritch should be given a 2 week holiday in Fukushima so he can tell the population that its not a nuclear disaster. 

Photodisintigration (hard x-rays) would be a good way to render radioactive waste harmless and generate energy at the same time.