Seeking Alpha

The world needs to get ready for the next nuclear plant accident

  • Bloomberg discusses the chances of the next nuclear accident, arguing it is a crisis waiting to happen and could be in a country with little experience to deal with it.
  • While atomic power has fallen from favor in some western European countries since the Fukushima accident in Japan - Germany, for example, is shutting all its nuclear plants - it’s gaining more traction in Asia as an alternative to coal; of the 176 reactors planned worldwide, 86 are in nations that had no nuclear plants 20 years ago.
  • If nuclear is to remain a part of the world’s energy supply, the industry must come up with solutions to make sure contamination - and other consequences, including financial - don't spread beyond station grounds, former NRC boss Gregory Jaczko says.
  • Gregor Macdonald believes nuclear has no future, adding the extinction level event bearing down on global nuclear power is the rise of solar.
  • Nuclear names: URA, NLR, NUCL, CCJ, DNN, USU, URRE, UEC, URG
From other sites
Comments (59)
  • vireoman
    , contributor
    Comments (1101) | Send Message
     
    The populace of China and the rest of the world would be extraordinarily better off if China quit burning coal tomorrow and switched entirely to nuclear energy. Far (far!) more people have and will continue to die from the ramifications from coal-usage than will ever be affected by nuclear energy. The China Syndrome was just a movie.
    4 Apr 2014, 09:01 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (5822) | Send Message
     
    Didn't China just build 10 more nuclear power plants?
    5 Apr 2014, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • Jeb Handwerger
    , contributor
    Comments (630) | Send Message
     
    No mention of solar scandals with big government...? Does one realize how much land mass is needed for solar panels...it is a long ways away from being competitive.

     

    http://bit.ly/1mUJVc1
    7 Apr 2014, 05:41 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (5822) | Send Message
     
    Easy, build on the ocean. There is plenty of "land" there.
    7 Apr 2014, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • Christopher Wallace
    , contributor
    Comments (1175) | Send Message
     
    There is lots of room for lots of different power generation: solar, nuke, gas, oil, hydro, fuel cells, lithium, etc. They all have their place and most likely they all will have their place. To say that nuke is going away because of reactor dangers is wrong; just as wrong as to say solar is going away due to cost, or oil to peak oil theories, etc. (Coal might be going away...) They will all be around for the rest of my life time. The secret here is to buy them at the right time. And U at $35 seems like a good buy, given supply/demand imbalances and costs to extract. Moving beyond the fear, it strikes me as a good value investment in an otherwise pricey market.
    8 Apr 2014, 10:25 AM Reply Like
  • Keystone59
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    When China has more nuclear plants than the US, do we start referring to it as the United States Syndrome?
    11 Jun 2014, 12:53 AM Reply Like
  • Pony01
    , contributor
    Comments (289) | Send Message
     
    Solar, really! How's it working for Germany, Spain, etc?
    4 Apr 2014, 10:08 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (5822) | Send Message
     
    Solar does have a future, but the technology and resources are not there yet. Nuclear already provides 15 times more power than solar in the United States. And one uranium pellet can produce far more energy than one solar panel.
    5 Apr 2014, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Lunchbox
    , contributor
    Comments (564) | Send Message
     
    Solar power is really great! (in the daytime)
    5 Apr 2014, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • manfredthree
    , contributor
    Comments (2469) | Send Message
     
    He should know that solar is great, but you cannot possibly see it as an economical source of long term baseload power. Emphasize long term, emphasize base load. America and Europe have a choice to either add nuclear capacity or lose competitive advantage , to China in manufacturing, and to Russia in trade. And that's OK. But they are going to keep building those nuclear reactors regardless, so all you NIMBY folks don't dare look over your fences.
    5 Apr 2014, 08:14 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (5822) | Send Message
     
    Until we have full spectrum solar panels (and yes, there is research on that), solar will not be able to produce enough electricity. The TeCdN solar cell seems the closest we have gotten to a full spectrum solar cell.
    5 Apr 2014, 02:16 PM Reply Like
  • Nagyfasz
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Solar will never build enough, you will always need to store it, so you loose there, and there always will be time when no sun, if you do the math, and see how much energy it takes to build a solar panel from mining the materials till the done product, ( same with wind) , no matter how big of a tree huger one is, will realize that is far from economical, is does not do any good for the environment when you have to use more energy to make a " renewable" energy source than how much it will produce, right not it works because government subsidies
    8 Apr 2014, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • Dbest1
    , contributor
    Comments (351) | Send Message
     
    Thorium reactors should be considered. No issues with out of control cores, because the nuclear reaction stops if the dlouride salts are not kept at a very high temperature.
    5 Apr 2014, 08:29 AM Reply Like
  • Darrell
    , contributor
    Comments (276) | Send Message
     
    India does have, at the very least, a 100 year supply of thorium; this is the reason why they are committed to making Thorium reactors a viable part of their energy supply! Does anyone know when India will have their thorium reactors up and running?
    5 Apr 2014, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • Ajayyy
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    China is speeding up and financing lots of research into thorium but that is more than a decade away from actual implementation. What are we to do until then?

     

    In a decade solar might be so efficient, we don't even need other sources.

     

    But as it stands, Nuclear is the obvious lesser-of-all-evils choice.
    5 Apr 2014, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • Ajayyy
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    India is not even close to getting their thorium reactors up and running. I don't think they are even on track to build anything for it anytime soon.

     

    There are too many lobby's that are against the potential of thorium. Big oil is getting sidelined by NG, then NG is getting sidelined by SOLAR, coal is being shunned by all, throw in some of the wind-power and the nuclear lobby and you start to see why there is such opposition to thorium.

     

    Also they can't really weaponize thorium. All the more reason to ignore it.

     

    I don't know if it solves all our problems but right now it creates too many problems for too many established interests.
    5 Apr 2014, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (5822) | Send Message
     
    The high temperatures required part reminds me of nuclear fusion. Dr. Octopus can help with that.
    5 Apr 2014, 02:20 PM Reply Like
  • King Rat
    , contributor
    Comments (922) | Send Message
     
    The US actually HAD functioning, net positive thorium reactors some 40 years ago.

     

    The technology is not experimental and when you consider red tape for uranium-based reactors, thorium would probably be the cheaper design in today's world.
    5 Apr 2014, 06:29 PM Reply Like
  • jurkojc
    , contributor
    Comments (176) | Send Message
     
    While I admire the sentiments expressed on behalf of solar, Thorium reactors, etc, my question is fairly basic. Do we really belief in accidents? SNAFU's? yes. Luck? yes. Miss-judgements? yes. But, generally there are no accidents. A truism accepted by mostly everyone in the sciences or industry. Hence the never ending lawsuits in the USA. Having just read Bill Moyers Deep State, I am starting to wonder if 'accidents' are also not planned. Am I being paranoid? http://bit.ly/1iaGwys
    5 Apr 2014, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • asearchforreason
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    Yes
    5 Apr 2014, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • june1234
    , contributor
    Comments (3255) | Send Message
     
    France has derived 75% of its electricity needs from nuclear power for decades allowing France to generate $4B annually from electricity exports Haven't heard of any mushroom clouds over there either
    5 Apr 2014, 08:59 AM Reply Like
  • Ajayyy
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    I think the concerns are not over nuclear by itself but rather the countries installing these reactors. How long before the technology gets better and spreads to all countries. Can you imagine all the other energy sources that will get displaced?

     

    It is better to scare people into opposition of ideas that could set them free.
    5 Apr 2014, 12:26 PM Reply Like
  • tcelling
    , contributor
    Comments (54) | Send Message
     
    Everybody is entitled to their own (stupid) opinion. This is the author's. Everybody gets one. Typically I prefer some basis in fact. Any at all would be nice, but oh well.
    5 Apr 2014, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • llifespanplus
    , contributor
    Comments (23) | Send Message
     
    Check with Argonne National Laboratory. Current nuclear plants run at less than 5% efficiency. At much greater efficiency present US consumption of uranium will supply the whole world with energy. Wise up regarding the Oil Cartel blocking nuclear research.
    5 Apr 2014, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • Philberg
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    from what I've read, much more money should be given to nuclear research. the modern technology is waaay better then the reactors that are installed right now, with their 30 years of life in average! it's just that the oil and coal and renewables lobbies try to convince the people that nuclear is bad. but if the people who work there are trained professionally and you have reactors with safety-mechanisms I don't think that such catastrophes are likely to happen.
    5 Apr 2014, 11:30 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Lunchbox
    , contributor
    Comments (564) | Send Message
     
    I worked in the operations department of a commercial nuclear plant for 15 years and I don't have a problem with nuclear plants. There's so many safety features and back up safety features and oversight that it's hard to make a mistake or have an event.

     

    I've also operated a coal-fired power plant for 13 years and I don't have a problem with coal plants. With modern emission control technology, steam is the biggest discharge from the stack.

     

    The problem with nuclear is the spent fuel. This is a growing problem and it's going to take a long-term (like a 1000-year) solution for the containment of the used fuel rods and other nuclear waste. The fuel pools can only hold so much spent fuel. And the longer the spent fuel is held, the longer there is for something to happen to it (like in Japan).

     

    I can say that no one that operates any kind of power plant wants to see an accident of any kind. Besides being a potential danger to the public, there's a huge loss of revenue when a unit comes off, especially during peak hours. It's in everyone's interest to keep the units running safely and efficiently.

     

    I think we should be using all kinds of power plants. Cheap energy can spur the economy.

     

    We're cutting our noses off to spite our faces when we send all our coal and oil to China. Let's use it here.
    11 Jun 2014, 01:47 AM Reply Like
  • Hubert Biagi
    , contributor
    Comments (713) | Send Message
     
    Coal and nuclear are here to stay. The liberal wacko approach is "not in my backyard". But last time I checked, it was all the same atmosphere. It was all the same earth. Perhaps instead, America should be taking a leadership role to further develop these industries, with more advanced technology, that the rest of the world can emulate. The alternative is to let countries like China and India figure it out. How is that in our best interests?
    5 Apr 2014, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • Pony01
    , contributor
    Comments (289) | Send Message
     
    Hubert, a very sagacious paragraph. Write more on seeking alpha!
    5 Apr 2014, 12:39 PM Reply Like
  • Budavar
    , contributor
    Comments (1393) | Send Message
     
    Pony01 = suggest you also use the "like" prompt to endorse Hubert.
    5 Apr 2014, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • Pony01
    , contributor
    Comments (289) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Budavar...I just did! Still learning.
    5 Apr 2014, 09:34 PM Reply Like
  • Pony01
    , contributor
    Comments (289) | Send Message
     
    Budavar, Thanks, I just did. Always learning!
    5 Apr 2014, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • DIDINO
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    WHO: SEVEN MILLION People die EVERY YEAR due to SMOG and CO2 emission. China is desperately trying to reduce Smog. Until now more human and environments damage from fossil fuels.
    5 Apr 2014, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • Ajayyy
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    For uranium buy CCJ. For nuclear reactors and research buy CBI & BWC. For nuclear power generation buy EXC.
    5 Apr 2014, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • harball
    , contributor
    Comments (343) | Send Message
     
    For reactor construction exposure, add Fluor to the bunch; for emerging nuclear tech exposure check out Lightbridge.

     

    For uranium expolration and developers go with Canadian names, e.g. Fission Uranium, Denison Mines, UEX or juniors (Kivalliq, Azincourt, Forum Uranium). For emerging producers consider Energy Fuels, Ur-Energy, Uranerz, Uranium Energy Co and Australian Peninsula Energy (assets mostly in the US). These junior names will likely be multi-baggers over the next 3 - 5 years if the uranium renaissance plays out as expected (significant supply gap starting in 2016 and growing until 2020).

     

    In terms of more established names in addition to CCJ keep an eye on Paladin. It's quite a banged up stock but they may have resolved their issues for now.

     

    French Areva is a good punt, too, since they are exposed to just about every facet of the nuclear energy scene.
    6 Apr 2014, 06:42 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Lunchbox
    , contributor
    Comments (564) | Send Message
     
    It's my understanding that Westinghouse and GE still make nuclear power plants. Although, after seeing the steam generator replacements at Watts Bar and Sequoyah, I believe the steam generators were made in South Korea or Taiwan. So I guess they're subcontracting a lot of that work out now. (they used to be made in Chattanooga).
    6 Apr 2014, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • Ajayyy
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    Great information. Thanks guys.
    6 Apr 2014, 02:07 PM Reply Like
  • Budavar
    , contributor
    Comments (1393) | Send Message
     
    This entire discussion reminds me of the false popular belief held years ago =
    it was more dangerous to fly than going by car.

     

    If memory serves, we did not have a single nuclear fatality in the USA =
    amid much of the hysteria about nuclear power such basics are submerged
    in politically motivated rhetoric.

     

    Emulate the French plus use our awesome inventiveness to improve all aspects of nuclear power production the entire planet can use/emulate.
    5 Apr 2014, 12:53 PM Reply Like
  • DIDINO
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Fracking with chemicals to extract crude oil and gas polluting our potable water, Tanker accidents and or Rig blowouts like in the gulf of Mexico (deep water drilling ) is a much more imminent possibility for environmental damage than nukes.
    5 Apr 2014, 02:30 PM Reply Like
  • marpy
    , contributor
    Comments (1207) | Send Message
     
    The most critical question really is how safe will these new plants be. My understanding is that there are far safer designs for nuclear plants than the Troubled Japaneses plants.
    5 Apr 2014, 02:33 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Lunchbox
    , contributor
    Comments (564) | Send Message
     
    There's so much to be said on this subject, it won't be easily solved (in this forum anyways!). But I'll say a few words about it. This is just my opinion based on my experience. I live 5 miles from a nuclear plant.

     

    1. The USA is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have hundreds of years worth of coal here. We should be using more of it. With the emissions technology we have today, coal is not all that harmful to the atmosphere and environment (despite what all the media and environmentalists say). If you compare the stack of a coal plant from 1950 to the stack of a coal plant today, you wouldn't believe the difference - the reduction in emissions is tremendous! Plus with the large swings in demand during a typical day, a power plant needs to be able to change it's output with the change in demand. Power can't be stored. This is one of the advantages of a coal plant. It can change power output quickly and over a large range.

     

    2. Nuclear power is safe and efficient. A typical nuclear unit runs 18 months before it needs refueling, then it changes out 1/3 of it's fuel. The nuclear industry is well-regulated (at least in the US), and has performed well since it's inception. There are a few well-documented exceptions to this (like Three Mile Island), but they were handled well and the industry learned and adjusted from it. Of course the news sensationalized it and scared a lot of people needlessly. I don't know who Gregor Macdonald listed in the article is, but it sounds like he was scared, too. The problem with nuclear power is that it can't adjust it's output to match the change in demand (the reason it can't swing load gets into stuff like fission products and hot channel factors and other nuclear physics type stuff, so it's complicated). And also, the load coordinators for the company would have to be licensed nuclear operators to adjust nuclear plant load. So nuclear power plants are fairly well base load operations.

     

    3. Natural gas power plants are good for fast starting and meeting peak load demand. However, they're not meant for continuous use. There are some companies trying to use them continually, but they're finding out that the wear and tear on those units and down time for repair are going to cost more in the long run.

     

    4. Solar only works in the daytime. And the voltage increases and decreases as the sun travels across the sky. And the initial costs are prohibitive. And you can't vary it's output much to meet demand. Oh, it only works in the daytime.

     

    That's kind of a short course on types of power production.

     

    Now about the article. Japan had an unforeseeable event when the earthquake and tsunami hit their plants. Planners and engineers try to envision events that
    might occur and assign probabilities to those events. They prioritize their design according to those probabilities. I don't know if anyone could have envisioned the chain of events that happened in Japan that day. It could have been a lot worse, so I guess the designers did a pretty good job. (Although I question their decision to build them on the coast, where tsunamis are possible.)

     

    If anyone is thinking of Chernobyl, the reason they had that accident is because they were purposefully operating outside of design parameters without engineering review and management authorization. Also, that style of plant does not have containment buildings for their reactors, so there was nothing to keep the radiation contained.

     

    In the US (and in Japan, Europe and most countries), nuclear plants have safety systems and redundant safety systems. They have emergency procedures and they train regularly on those emergencies. The NRC monitors their operation, documentation, training, etc.

     

    If there's going to be a proliferation of nuclear power plants in the world, the US needs to be involved to establish a culture of safety and oversight. (The business aspect of building and supplying parts for nuclear plants, writing procedures, and training would be great, too!) That's probably the only way that the world will be able to go to sleep at night. If just anybody can throw up a plant and start operating it with no safety precautions, then perhaps a catastrophic even might take place - and that's the rub.

     

    The other rub is where to store the spent nuclear fuel. This is an ever-growing problem (kind of like all those used tires that are piling up everywhere). There needs to be a determined effort by the whole world to find an answer to this problem. To me, this is the big issue facing nuclear power.

     

    (I'll get off my soapbox now)
    5 Apr 2014, 03:24 PM Reply Like
  • Pony01
    , contributor
    Comments (289) | Send Message
     
    Very educational...thanks!
    5 Apr 2014, 09:44 PM Reply Like
  • sethmcs
    , contributor
    Comments (3459) | Send Message
     
    Good post. To my knowledge no old commercial nuclear reactor has ever been totally decommissioned. The costs could be astronomical. I even question if we have the current technology to do so.
    6 Apr 2014, 01:45 AM Reply Like
  • krug
    , contributor
    Comments (143) | Send Message
     
    The nuclear industry has not stood still since Fukushima. Much work has been done and is continuing on mitigating and responding to beyond design basis events. The final comment on solar being the extinction of nuclear is just ridiculous.
    5 Apr 2014, 05:39 PM Reply Like
  • Yokyok
    , contributor
    Comments (330) | Send Message
     
    If you like nuclear so much move to China, they're building plenty of them there.

     

    Meanwhile cost of new solar will continue to fall while nuclear continues to rise and the only nuclear plants under construction in the US are experiencing cost overruns (who'd have guessed?).

     

    http://bit.ly/1mS5WIo.

     

    And global production of solar is projected to reach 60GW (that's the equivalent of 60 nuclear power plants) by 2015 with some 40GW estimated to go into service in 2014

     

    http://bit.ly/1mS5VEe
    5 Apr 2014, 07:16 PM Reply Like
  • Hubert Biagi
    , contributor
    Comments (713) | Send Message
     
    Keep in mind that solar is not clean either. The process and chemicals required to make semiconductors are extremely toxic. Solar panels are "clean" because they are fabbed primarily in China, where pollution controls are less stringent. And disposing of these panels will be a problem. Many contain lead and cadmium, among other hazardous materials. And panels are often replaced before their useful life is up, simply because newer "cheaper" more-efficient panels become available. As is the case with many of these alternatives, until you scale them up to the level of a national power grid, the environmental impact will not be fully understood.
    5 Apr 2014, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • Storm Warning
    , contributor
    Comments (157) | Send Message
     
    Scale? You should go to Germany. Solar panels everywhere there.

     

    "In July [2013], the grey-skied country logged 5.1 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity from solar power..."

     

    http://bit.ly/1aGwXJS
    6 Apr 2014, 04:00 AM Reply Like
  • harball
    , contributor
    Comments (343) | Send Message
     
    I know. This is insane. To balance this intermittent supply, Germany has actually increased coal and lignite-fired capacity. There's no chance in hell for them to meet the CO2 targets. Current level or renewables subsidies is not sustainable either, clearly someone is going to get shafted. I have nlthing abainst renewables, that's clearly our future, but for now they should replace coal with nuclear.
    6 Apr 2014, 06:48 AM Reply Like
  • harball
    , contributor
    Comments (343) | Send Message
     
    Coal should be phased out completely. Coal-fired electricity generation is the #1 source of carbon by a wide merging. there are no effective ways to capture carbon. Even if one is found, we'll have a storage issue to deal with. storing it underground is questionable due to sheer magnitude.

     

    The future should be a combination of nuclear for baseload, renewables and storage.
    6 Apr 2014, 04:04 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Lunchbox
    , contributor
    Comments (564) | Send Message
     
    Good luck with that.
    6 Apr 2014, 01:56 PM Reply Like
  • Dbest1
    , contributor
    Comments (351) | Send Message
     
    Light bridge is a company that offers expertise in risk management, as well as patented technology that reduces risk and increases output in current nuclear plant operation. They have uranium as well as uranium/thorium hybrid rods that burn more efficiently and leave less radio active waste. The fact that this company was a thorium based company, now a uranium company speaks to the demand of thorium technology. It is way in the future. There is too much infrastructure in place for uranium to change to thorium. Big money would be fighting all the way!
    6 Apr 2014, 10:55 AM Reply Like
  • Christopher Wallace
    , contributor
    Comments (1175) | Send Message
     
    "The next nuclear accident" is by definition a black swan event. It is being treated here almost as an imminent certainty. I think that uranium investors need to be cognizant of the risk potential and not load everything they have in the sector. Black swans do happen; Fukishima, 3 Mile Island and Chernoble in my life time. But I would not want to bet money on the next one happening. Frankly, I see much more imminent risk in the current state of fuel cell stocks. There is more to investing than simply avoiding a out-of-the-blue catastrophe.
    6 Apr 2014, 06:58 PM Reply Like
  • eromni
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Maybe someday the world will run on renewables. Let’s run the numbers with today’s technology to see what that would really look like.

     

    • It would cost over $29 Trillion to generate America's baseload electric power with a 50 / 50 mix of wind and solar farms, on parcels of land totaling the size of Indiana. Or:

     

    • It would cost over $18 Trillion with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) farms in the southwest deserts, on parcels of land totaling the area of West Virginia. Or:

     

    • We could do it for less than $3 Trillion with AP-1000 Light Water Reactors, on parcels totaling a few square miles. Or:

     

    • We could do it for $1 Trillion with liquid-fueled Molten Salt Reactors, on the same amount of land, but with no water cooling, no risk of meltdowns, and the ability to use our stockpiles of nuclear "waste" as a secondary fuel.

     

    Think of the grid as a river. You can tolerate intermittent flash floods and droughts in tributaries (renewables) without much effect on the flow and navigability of the main water way. If these tributaries get above a certain percent of the total flow you get turbulence and chaotic instability. The river becomes unnavigable. A continuous dense power source is required for grid stability. The Molten Salt Reactor powered by Thorium or the thousands of metric tons of spent fuel produced by the current fleet of 100+ Light Water Reactors can be the backbone for global power needs. China and India are both now working toward this goal.
    6 Apr 2014, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • User 23448413
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    I grew up in the navy nuclear program and have been in training and management for 3 decades at several commercial sites. While it's easy to scare the masses, then prey on their fear; in the end, the result is a pitiful disservice to all of society. To ignore informed sources, and disregard modern safety features in the new reactors quite ignorant and laughable. Just take a step over to NEI.ORG and learn something......Joe
    7 Apr 2014, 03:26 AM Reply Like
  • ecoguy
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Nuclear power plants must be overseen from day one by an international coalition of nuclear power plant and health experts to better prevent future disasters! Every aspect must be controlled from where the power plant is built to lessen the impact on the earths environment to how to deal with ANY and I mean ANY emergency that could possibly occur! As far as Fukushima is concerned, so far TEPCO has only proven that they cannot be trusted to be honest and to do the right thing which would be to give up control of this so called clean up to an international group of nuclear power plant experts and health experts to protect the planet from the poisonous radiation that the Fukushima nuclear disaster has been pumping into our air and water! TEPCO has lied over and over again about how much radiation has been and is still being released and when an American internet company offered them a 100 percent FREE full shipping container of the radiation detox mineral called Zeolite that could have removed radiation from thousands of peoples bodies, TEPCO REFUSED THE FREE ZEOLITE! This alone shows how little TEPCO cares about the people of Japan as well as life on this planet that is also being poisoned by the ongoing radiation being generated in Fukushima!
    7 Apr 2014, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • Pony01
    , contributor
    Comments (289) | Send Message
     
    Ecoguy, I wouldn't want a team on international inspectors as part of a US safety team looking at one of our nuclear power plants: I'm just saying. I would have to confirm parts of this as it's the first I'm seeing it.
    7 Apr 2014, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • jurkojc
    , contributor
    Comments (176) | Send Message
     
    Perhaps this will put you at ease?

     

    http://bit.ly/1iaGwys
    7 Apr 2014, 03:19 PM Reply Like
  • Nagyfasz
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Takes more energy to make a panel than how much it will produce, now is subsidized, but what later?
    8 Apr 2014, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • Ajayyy
    , contributor
    Comments (331) | Send Message
     
    It will be subsidized until it becomes profitable. Solar is the future. Even coal and oil are just solar power trapped long long ago. Take out the time factor and the shortest distance to energy is solar harvesting.

     

    The game changer might be when we don't even need panels anymore. I'm thinking paints, tiles, cement etc that will start trapping solar power (totally non-scientific thinking...I'm just making this up).
    8 Apr 2014, 04:39 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Lunchbox
    , contributor
    Comments (564) | Send Message
     
    When solar will work at night, it might be feasible.
    11 Jun 2014, 01:58 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs