So the US is thinking twice about nuclear power--rather like we thought twice about deep sea drilling for oil. Yeah we thought twice about drilling, then we went ahead again and awarded the first deep sea drilling contract after the freeze.............wait for it........TO BP! Ta da!

I'm sure that after a thinking period, the US will continue developing nuclear power. We just need to appear thoughtful.

One thing that's sort of surprised me, checking in with friends over in Japan, is that they are all pretty disgusted by how the US media has been portraying this. One friend, watching CNN on Sunday in Kobe, commented that they kept saying that Japanese people were being kept uninformed, as if most, even in shelters, didn't have access to the wild speculation.

And as scary as this all sounds, a friend (who happens to be a nuclear physicist for Toshiba) points out that the various watch dog groups are still rating this a 4 out 7- a step lower than Three Mile Island, which also was scary, but did little damage to the general public.

I think we're suffering a bit from over-sensationalism and information overload, here.

We realy need a long-term energy policy or road-map that deals with modernization of our base-load power production. Part of the reason modernization of the nuclear portion has not happened and we still have similarly old nuclear plants in fault areas is ironically due in part to pressure against building new nuclear plants.

While it may be desirable to begin to decommission the oldest nuclear plants, it is impossible to do so without replacing the base-load power generation they represent. Right now the only comparable source of base-load generation would be either another nuclear plant or a coal power plant. With the safety and design improvements made in the last 40 years, we can build passively-safe nuclear power plants that would not be succeptable to the multiple simulataneous failures that have resulted in the accidents in Japan. These newer designs (EPR, APBWR, ESBWR, etc.) also produce more power per reactor, do so more efficiently, and have greatly reduced maintenance costs. Were they built, they could gradually allow the older designs to be decomissioned, produce more total power, and not increase the total nuber of nuclear plants in operation.

The other option for base-load production at this time is coal power. Coal plants do not have the same possibility of catastrophic failure but they have a certainty of creating significant ammounts of pollution and release significant ammounts of radioactive materials and toxic compounds during normal operations. The choice between a relatively small posibility of a frightening accident vs the certainty of significant pollution and non-trival ammounts of radioactive materials and chemical poisons (such as arsenic and mercury) is not an easy one.

Ironically, the reason we have so many aging nuclear plants in less than ideal sites is in-part due to the efforts made to stop the building of newer plants. The other significant challenge to new plant construction is their high initial construction and financing costs - in single largest cost of operating a nuclear plant is servicing the debt incurred in its construction.

So, if you're concerened about these aging nuclear plants there are two rational options. The first is to support modernization of the nuclear portion of our base-load power production. I know many people would rather not have nuclear power plants at all and that's an option as well.

However if you want us to move away from nuclear plants it is irresposible simply to oppose constructing new ones - as that is part of the reason we have so many of the oldest plants in the first place. You also have to push your political representatives and utility companies to build new non-nuclear plants. That means if you protest against the construction of a new nuclear plant one month and then against the construction of a large coal plant the next you are working at cross purposes with yourself. You would need to protest the nuclear plant and then advocate the coal plant's construction - likely an uncomfortable prospect.

In the long term - 30-40 years,, we should be able to move towards something other than either coal or nuclear for base load power generation. That is assuming we focus efforts in researching grid technology, molten-salt solar plants, high-efficiency nano-capcitors, and several other technologies. That's another reason we need a commitment to a long term road map. Those technologies could allow us to almost entirely on an assortment of green sources of energy. They are, however, nowhere near ready to replace the base-load production of either coal or nuclear. The generation aspect must be made much more efficient and the distribution and storage technologies are not ready to make them reliable for base-load production.

In the medium term the choice is between coal and nuclear for that base-load generation. I would argue for new nuclear plants while decomissioning old ones rather than switching to coal. Yes in the long term we need to move towards solar, wind, and tidal generation as much as possible - that too requires attention but also time and research. Both modernization of our nuclear energy production and the long term conversion to solar, wind, and tidal power (as much as we can) should be parts of an energy policy road map.

How many people have to die from radiation poisoning before the world abandons nuclear power plants??  Sen. Lieberman, WHY NOT STOP BUILDING THEM??

There's simply too much money to be made off of 'em!  -- Sad but true...!

Not to downplay what has happened in Japan, but what is happening in our waters because of oil disasters and greed seems like a bigger priority if we are prioritizing.

We need clean energy. Now more than ever.

I live within the 5 mile zone of a nuclear plant. One of the oldest in the US, I've lived here all of my life. I know that if something dramatic happened to that plant, I would most likely die a pretty painful death.

Being that this area is not prone to quakes, I don't know what the plant is rated for quake wise, but I will say that I have no illusions about the damage that would be caused if a tsunami were to hit this area. The topography is flat and there is no kind of sea wall, though there is a barrier island between the ocean and the bay, that certainly wouldn't stop something like what hit in Japan.

I really think it is time to put our resources toward alternative energy. If even half of the homes and business had solar panels on the roof and wind generator towers there wouldn't be a need to use radioactive material to make steam.

A friend is a nuclear physicist in Japan at the moment (but he is currently working in Kobe, not Fukushima, although he is familiar with the plant). He points out that yes, a lot of this sounds scary, but they are still rating this a 4 out of 7- a step BELOW Three Mile Island, which also sounded really scary, but did not do much harm.

I think the biggest problem with nuclear power here in the United States is the regulation. Fukushima is currently Japan's oldest reactor, and was meant to be decommissioned within the next year- but the US, using outdated systems and plants well beyond their safety approval is normal. I highly doubt Republicans would want to 'stifle US business' by voting in strong enough regulations to ensure that we even have the level of regulations that Japan has.

If you look at the Japanese situation, you'll see that the problems with the reactors, like so much else that has happened over there, is the result of the tsunamis rather than the quake itself. If the plants had been situated on higher ground, or a few miles inland, they would not be in the situation they are in. Water from the tsunamis has gotten into the electrical systems that help run the cooling systems, leading to the issues going on right now. Unfortunately, many reactors around the world, including many in the US, are located by the ocean, making them vulnerable to tsunami damage in the future.

I am a Nuc Reactor Eng Tech. The EXTREME earthquake in Japan and the Amount of NUCLEAR REACTORS % wise, was not bad. Just as Japanese buildings were survived in the quake but at a LESSER %, The Reactors were better built and NOW we have better knowledge for building and safety precautions. I feel better about going ahead with USA Nuc Reactors than going ahead with OFF SHORE DRILLING!!

FOR THOSE WHO ARE USING THE BIG $$$ excuse on OIL and COAL and NUKE think about this.... How many windturbines or solar panels or hydroelectric plants have killed anyone? Is there not money$$$ in safe ecological energy producing ideas like that? WHY CAN"T PEOPLE THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX and realize there are more than one to tow ways to create energy?

eh, government regulations... why can't we get the gov't off energy companies backs? ain't that right joe barton and rand paul? regulations get in the way of energy profits, that's why we give them subsidies to keep us safe. you know, like the bp spill in the gulf, three mile island, and the exxon valdez, etc., etc.

republicans want to cut funding for controls on "loose nukes", and i think the ability of the japanese, (so far) to avert a global disaster just proves we can cut safety regulations on nuclear plants too.

all those pesky regulations protecting our water, air, land, and planet... they just get in the way of the free market. hey while your at repubs and obama, yeah president obama, the guardian of the chamber of commerce, hey let's cut the epa too, they keep bothering those coal companies to keep their workers safe. and everyone knows, workers are just a commodity and a cost to the energy companies balance sheet.

why can't people just start paying their fair share to bankroll energy companies, wall street, and banks. c'mon america, where's your sense of pride and patriotism?

Let's watch and see how this plays out. It's not yet clear the extent of the damage. While I'm not gung ho nuclear nor am I necessarily against it, I'm rather impressed that a natural disaster of this magnitude does not seem to have caused a much worse nuclear disaster. But I could still be proved wrong.

It does seem that placing nuclear plants on known and active major faults is kinda... dumb.

so...they have a 40 year old reactor that did not immediately and will most likely never reach critical meltdown that actually made it through the worst events in history on one of the most volatile land masses and the critics here want us to slow down or stop... when clearly newer technology and engineering could rebuild our aging plants safer and more efficient and of course we should not be lumping all of the continental US in the same category as Japan...Hawaii, CA, Alaska maybe ...but I think Eastern seaboard is faiily stable....but that does not make a good headline and does not scare people enough

Where I live, they've been proposing building a nuclear power plant near my city within the next few years. There's been strong opposition towards it. Not because people here are anti-nuke specifically, mostly because the amount of water that would be needed for it from the Guadalupe River is more than the river can produce, would damage our wetlands/ecology from using vast amounts of our river water. Also Exelon, the company that's coming here, has an unflattering history of poor regulation (contamination of water supply in Illinois) as it is.

I'd be more supportive of nuclear energy if or until they find a smart way to get rid of the nuclear waste and that nuclear companies were more strictly regulated. I understand it doesn't pollute the environment in the way oil and coal does, but the radioactive waste is worrying. The cons of nuclear energy are more frightening in the event something bad happens, and permanent.

I'm getting pretty annoyed at all those who want to stop all development of nuclear plants because of the lack of a backup generators at the plant in Japan. The earthquake didn't cause the problem it only cut off the electricity. Had there been sufficient backup generators on site we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Let's not overreact and dump the entire nuclear program before we have all the facts. The Japan program has held up, without any nuclear disasters, in a country that is more seismically unstable then any part of the US for over 40 years.

Perspective People!!

Odd- comment I posted shows in my history but not in thread. Did I say something rude?

Rachel, I really wish you'd talk to some plasma physicists engaged in doing fusion research, instead of simply fearmongering over nuclear power. They'll tell you that nuclear power is the future. But it won't be nuclear fission (the kind that can lead to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island). It'll be fusion power, which is currently in the R&D phase, with some successes here and there, but without the political will to really make it viable. The question is whether "future" means 2020, or 2050. The sooner, the better.

The dangers of fusion power are dramatically less than with fission. A major release of radiation simply cannot physically happen with a fusion reactor.

We had the electric tokamak at UCLA, which actually achieved plasma way back in 1999, but then when Bush won in 2000, his administration cut off funding through the Department of Energy for the project, and by 2005, we had to completely shut it down, unfortunately. We lost so much valuable research time because of that.

From what I understand, we currently HAVE the technology to build a fusion reactor. But like those early computers that took up entire rooms to operate, it'd be too big, where one reactor could power 1/3 of the United States. So if it were to fail, well, 1/3 of the country would go dark, and that wouldn't be good. Because of that, it'd also be THE biggest terrorist target in the world. Take it out, and think of the damage if 1/3 of the country goes dark. So we're not ready to build one right now that supplies power to our country. But as with every other technology, we should be able to make them more compact, to the point where one of them supplies as much power as any ol' regular power plant would. But to do that, we need R&D, and that means federal funding for nuclear physicists at our top research universities.

I guess we could go back to living like the Amish do. Our society wants heat and electricity, we only have a few sources to choose from at this point in time. Clean, safe energy is the goal but we aren't there yet. Most of us aren't wild about drilling for oil here (me included), we don't want to rely on foreign oil, hydraulic fracking may prove to be very dangerous, and we don't like dirty coal. We aren't prepared yet to power our country on wind and solar alone ... so unless we want to live like the Amish, we are going to have to take some risks.

I'm more worried about our decaying infrastructure and earthquakes, old worn out gas lines etc ... We won't ever have a tsunami here like Japan had so I think the media is making a lot of drama over wondering if it could happen here. I'm sure the oil barons just love the idea of Americans panicking themselves away from nuclear power. I can just hear Sarah Palin now, "drill baby drill'. I'm just not going to give my energy to worrying about something that has very little chance of happening here.

First, I am not a nuclear reactor engineer. However, I do know that modern reactor designs using pellet technology are light years ahead of the old rod designs, and from what research I've read, appear to all but eliminate the chances of meltdowns like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the current situation in Japan. Second, nuclear recycling technology has also greatly advanced leaving dramatically less waist to be managed and stored. Third, there are large regions within the United States/North America that are geologically stable, flood free, resource rich, and centralized. Bottom line is that the world and the US need electricity, and that need is constantly increasing. I love the idea of 'clean' energy, as do most of us. 'Clean' coal is only so clean but must be part of the solution. Renewable energies like wind and solar must also be part of the solution. Modern nuclear energy must also be part of the solution.

SUN AND WIND -POWERS NEVER KILLED ANYONE! However, the American people, being the energy addicts they are, will NEVER give up their gluttonous habits. There will have to be room for nuclear energy as it's the only power that can compare to that of oil's. It's not my desire, but it WILL happen. There's only about 20 years of ever-more expensive oil in the Earth, according to many drilling scientists who work for the oil industry. And it's being grabbed by more and more developing countries.

Meanwhile, the Earth keeps getting hotter! Oceans of Methane are just waiting to pour out of the permafrost.....

Well I *AM* advocating nukes, and you have made exactly the correct point here. Allow me to expound:

In a natural disaster where close to a million people were killed, we're going to focus on the impact from the problems at the *nuclear plants*? Before we even know the magnitude of the harm from that tiny component of this disaster? And by so doing, we're going to advocate for more coal power generation (by default)?

If you think that we ought to reconsider nuclear power in light of what happened to a few nuclear plants during the earthquake / tsunami, do you also think that we ought to reconsider buildings and bridges? Houses? Boats? Cars? Because I'm guessing a few people died when those were damaged, as well. Probably a lot more than were / will be killed by the freakin' nuclear plants. Everybody needs to get a grip.

So far, so good but I graduated just a couple months AFTER the Chernobyl disaster and those fears are very much there.
Whoever's dumb idea it was to put electric generators in the basement of an earthquake/tsunami prone area, should be given the dummy of the century award.
This has raised my awareness of nuclear power plants and it sounds to me like the disaster here probably won't be like Chernobyl, baring any thing else because the containment shell is still intact, but I wonder if there are other nuclear power plants in the world, especially the US, that has an electric pump system, rather then gravity force. I think if there are any plants who are still on electric pump system should be upgraded to gravity. Duh.

I still hate nuclear energy because the consequences of a meltdown are widespread, but yearly nuclear power plants emit far less radiation then coal burning power plants.

I think it's irresponsible to not have a permanent storage facility for the waste. Yucca Mountain should be finished and utilized. I understand that the people in
Arizona are not too keen on having it because who wants that in their backyard, but all this money has already been pumped into and lets be realistic, nuclear testing has been there for half a century already. Might as well keep the waste in Yucca Mt.

I agree.
The shutdown and safety systems worked.
This is the energy form needed for now!
People should know that the center of the earth is a giant nuclear reactor.
Uranium fission is the source of the heat in the center of the earth.

Just heard on NHK English as a "this just in" live update-

Core MAY have been fully exposed - at one point at least the water level dropped below the guage.

Pressure valve sealed and workers had been (not clear if this is still the case) unable to reduce pressure by venting.

Currently they have been having significant difficulties injecting coolant and cooling the core

Here's some older information from NHK that is a bit older but that I can quote without having to paraphrase from memory:

Tokyo Electric Power Company is battling to cool a reactor to prevent another explosion at its nuclear power plant in quake-hit Fukushima Prefecture.

The utility firm said on Monday afternoon that fuel rods are exposed at the Number Two reactor of its Fukushima Number One plant after the level of coolant water dropped. At around 6:20pm, the power company began pumping in seawater.

Tokyo Electric says it had to halt the process due to fuel loss for the pumping system, possibly leaving the fuel rods in the reactor exposed. The firm says a core meltdown might have occurred.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency says that pumping seawater into the reactor is working now.

Earlier in the day, the firm told the government that the reactor had lost all cooling capability due to a failure of the emergency power system.

Since then, the company has tried to circulate the coolant by steam instead of electricity. But attempts to lower the temperature inside the reactor chamber have not worked well.

Glad they evacuated so proactively. Of course part of the reason this sounds so scary is because they do not know how bad it is - only that it MAY be pretty bad. There is a good chance this is not as dire as it sounds - and the dry-well is a far stronger structure than the secondary containment building that exploded earlier. Hope to hear updates soon on whether or not they have regained the ability to vent pressure from the reactor vessel.