It's sounding like this is a 'storage facility' where natural gas, methane, and other gasses are pumped to 'storage tanks' over 8000 ft below ground (and I'm fairly certain the term 'storage tank' means 'a gas pocket we sucked dry 45 years ago', not an actual tank. This means this is not the only 'tank' at the facility, and blowing one up isn't a good idea, blowing them ALL up would be pretty disastrous, and probably release far more gas than the current disaster.

Well, allow me to respectfully say that you (and he) are wrong.
Absolutely I would still save money without the grid. I already have paid to have a small battery bank in my system (>1KWH), so it wouldn't cost me much more to be completely grid free. As it is I barely send power to the grid, as I use most of my electricity as I produce it by doing housework during the daytime. (EDIT: If @Asmo did that, maybe just by using timers on large appliances to run them during the daytime, he would save a lot more, like up to 4.5 times as much as he saves today.) In the short run I would not save as much as I do currently, because I would need to buy more panels and a larger battery bank, and the batteries would need replacing sooner, but it would still be a huge savings in the end over buying grid power. The suggestion that it's not economically viable without the grid is simply wrong.
Once flywheels become popular, it will be far cheaper than it is today to store your own electricity, I'll probably get one to replace my batteries when they eventually die.
EDIT: A micro-hydro system could also store the power cleanly, but requires 2 large storage tanks, one raised as far as possible above the other, and a pump/turbine to move the water. For those with the space, that seems a good solution for power storage, and it's how some electric companies do it on a large scale already.

EDIT: I did the math, and to be completely grid free would cost me about $3000 more, and the upgrade would pay for itself in 2-3 years. Hmmm, now you've got me thinking.....Oh yeah, I forgot, my system can't run my large welder, the electric oven and stove together, or the hot tub directly, that's why I stuck with a grid tied system in the first place, I use too much electricity at once sometimes. Solar systems DO have some limitations, mine can only put out 6500 watts at once, max.

Interesting. My other half's Russian and despises the separate taps. I knew about not drinking from the storage tank, but what I hadn't considered is the backwash concept, where one household's unclean water could contaminate the mains.

Safe nuclear refers to many different new gen4 reactor units that rely on passive safety instead of engineered safety. The real difference comes with a slight bit of understanding of how nuclear tech works now, and why that isn't optimal.

Let us first consider this, even with current nuclear technology, the amount of people that have died as a direct and indirect result of nuclear is very low per unit energy produced. The only rival is big hydro, even wind and solar have a great deal of risk compared to nuclear as we do it and have done it for years. The main difference is when a nuclear plant fails, everyone hears about it...but when a oil pipeline explodes and kills dozens, or solar panel installers fall off a roof or get electrocuted and dies...it just isn't as interesting.

Pound per pound nuclear is already statistically very safe, but that isn't really what we are talking about, we are talking about what makes them more unsafe compared to new nuclear techs. Well, that has to do with how normal nukes work. So, firstly, normal reactor tech uses solid fuel rods. It isn't a "metal" either, it is uranium dioxide, has the same physical characteristics as ceramic pots you buy in a store. When the fuel fissions, the uranium is transmuted into other, lighter, elements some of which are gases. Over time, these non-fissile elements damage the fuel rod to the point where it can no longer sustain fission and need to be replaced. At this point, they have only burned about 4% of the uranium content, but they are all "used up". So while there are some highly radioactive fission products contained in the fuel rods, the vast majority is just normal uranium, and that isn't very radioactive (you could eat it and not really suffer any radiation effects, now chemical toxicity is a different matter). The vast majority of nuclear waste, as a result of this way of burning uranium, generates huge volumes of waste products that aren't really waste products, just normal uranium.

But this isn't what makes light water reactors unsafe compared to other designs. It is all about the water. Normal reactors use water to both cool the core, extract the heat, and moderate the neutrons to sustain the fission reaction. Water boils at 100c which is far to low a temperature to run a thermal reactor on, you need much higher temps to get power. As a result, nuclear reactors use highly pressurized water to keep it liquid. The pressure is an amazingly high 2200psi or so! This is where the real problem comes in. If pressure is lost catastrophically, the chance to release radioactivity into the environment increases. This is further complicated by the lack of water then cooling the core. Without water, the fission chain reaction that generates the main source of heat in the reactor shuts down, however, the radioactive fission products contained in the fuel rods are very unstable and generate lots of heat. So much heat over time, they end up causing the rods to melt if they aren't supplied with water. This is the "melt down" you always hear about. If you start then spraying water on them after they melt down, it caries away some of those highly radioactive fission products with the steam. This is what happened in Chernobyl, there was also a human element that overdid all their safety equipment, but that just goes to show you the worst case.

The same thing didn't happen in Fukushima. What happened in Fukushima is that coolant was lost to the core and they started to melt down. The tubes which contain the uranium are made from zirconium. At high temps, water and zirconium react to form hydrogen gas. Now modern reactor buildings are designed to trap gases, usually steam, in the event of a reactor breach. In the case of hydrogen, that gas builds up till a spark of some kind happens and causes an explosion. These are the explosions that occurred at Fukushima. Both of the major failures and dangers of current reactors deal with the high pressure water; but water isn't needed to make a reactor run, just this type of reactor.

The fact that reactors have radioactive materials in them isn't really unsafe itself. What is unsafe is reactor designs that create a pressure to push that radioactivity into other areas. A electroplating plant, for example, uses concentrated acids along with high voltage electricity in their fabrication processes. It "sounds" dangerous, and it is in a certain sense, but it is a manageable danger that will most likely only have very localized effects in the event of a catastrophic event. This is due mainly to the fact that there are no forces driving those toxic chemical elements into the surrounding areas...they are just acid baths. The same goes for nuclear materials, they aren't more or less dangerus than gasoline (gas go boom!), if handled properly.

I think one of the best reactor designs in terms of both safety and efficiency are the molten salt reactors. They don't use water as a coolant, and as a result operate at normal preasures. The fuel and coolant is a liquid lithium, fluoride, and beryllium salt instead of water, and the initial fuel is thorium instead of uranium. Since it is a liquid instead of a solid, you can do all sorts of neat things with it, most notably, in case of an emergency, you can just dump all the fuel into a storage tank that is passively cooled then pump it back to the reactor once the issue is resolved. It is a safety feature that doesn't require much engineering, you are just using the ever constant force of gravity. This is what is known as passive safety, it isn't something you have to do, it is something that happens automatically. So in many cases, what they designed is a freeze plug that is being cooled. If that fails for any reason, and you desire a shutdown, the freeze plug melts and the entire contents of the reactor are drained into the tanks and fission stops (fission needs a certain geometry to happen).

So while the reactor will still be as dangerous as any other industrial machine would be...like a blast furnace, it wouldn't pose any threat to the surrounding area. This is boosted by the fact that even if you lost containment AND you had a ruptured emergency storage tank, these liquid salts solidify at temps below 400c, so while they are liquid in the reactor, they quickly solidify outside of it. And another great benefit is they are remarkably stable. Air and water don't really leach anything from them, fluoride and lithium are just so happy binding with things, they don't let go!

The fuel burn up is also really great. You burn up 90% of what you put in, and if you try hard, you can burn up to 99%. So, comparing them to "clean coal" doesn't really give new reactor tech its fair shake. The tech we use was actually sort of denounced by the person who made them, Alvin Weinberg, and he advocated the molten salt reactor instead. I could babble on about this for ages, but I think Kirk Sorensen explains that better than I could...hell most likely the bulk of what I said is said better by him



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw

But the real question is why. Why use nuclear and not solar, for instance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

This is the answer. The power of the atom is a MILLION times more dense that fossil fuels...a million! It is a number that is beyond what we can normal grasp as people. Right now, current reactors harness less that 1% of that power because of their reactor design and fuel choice.

And unfortunately, renewables just cost to darn much for how much energy they contribute. In that, they also use WAY more resources to make per unit energy produced. So wind, for example, uses 10x more steal per unit energy contributed than other technologies. It is because renewables is more like energy farming.

http://videosift.com/video/TEDxWarwick-Physics-Constrain-Sustainable-Energy-Options


This is a really great video on that maths behind what makes renewables less than attractive for many countries. But to rap it up, finally, the real benefit is that cheap, clean power is what helps makes nations great. There is an inexorable link with access to energy and financial well being. Poor nations burn coal to try and bridge that gap, but that has a huge health toll. Renewables are way to costly for them per unit energy, they really need other answers. New nuclear could be just that, because it can be made nearly completely safe, very cheap to operate, and easier to manufacture (this means very cheap compared to today's reactors as they are basically huge pressure vessels). If you watch a couple of videos from Kirk and have more questions or problems, let me know, as you can see, I love talking about this stuff Sorry if I gabbed your ear off, but this is the stuff I am going back to school for because I do believe it will change the world. It is the closest thing to free energy we are going to get in the next 20 years.

In reply to this comment by ReverendTed:
Just stumbled onto your profile page and noticed an exchange you had with dag a few months back.
What constitutes "safe nuclear"? Is that a specific type or category of nuclear power?
Without context (which I'm sure I could obtain elsewise with a simple Google search, but I'd rather just ask), it sounds like "clean coal".

The thing with looking at the danger of nuclear power is you have to make a more complicated comparison. It's not just nuclear power or "safe."

For fossil fuels you have to consider every:

* Oil spill, Oil Rig Fire, other fossil fuel related disasters (tanker truck fires, gas station fires, CO poisoning in houses, etc.) Recall for instance, in New Orleans during the flood the contents of refinery storage tanks were spread all over the city, and the Deep Water Horizons disaster that killed more people than Fukishima and caused fantastic amounts of ecological damage.

* The broad diffuse pollution of fossil fuel power stations and refineries (including particulates, global warming from C02, other heavy metals and nastiness released). This is released not only from power stations, but every tailpipe of the millions of cars in the world.

* The damage caused by getting fossil fuels out of the ground. Drilling, fracking, strip mining for coal, and the nastiness released from this.

* Wars. (ie. fossil fuels are running out, but we got enough fissile material to last a long, long time--not that there couldn't be wars over this too (lots of it is in unstable parts of Africa)).

In short, fossil fuels do a huge amount of damage, it's just not as acute and widely reported as when something goes wrong with nuclear, and doesn't carry the same, often irrational, fear that the media loves so much. For instance, some area of land infused with heavy metals is just as unlivable as an area of land infused with radioactive substances, but one we accept as normal pollution, and the other is worldwide, front page news.

The overall comparison is very complicated. My inclination is to think nuclear is better, but that's difficult because it involves mostly *potential* problems, not actual quantifiable problems as with fossil fuels. There will probably never be a good study comparing the two given how much irrational fear and corporate interest is involved.

Wind, solar, and geothermal are very nice and should always be part of the equation, but it's pretty well accepted that it can't actually come near to replacing fossil fuels or nuclear in terms of energy output at any cost.

efficiency in heating water is no more or less efficient then current natural gas and nuclear tech

Solar is inefficient in the sense that it costs more money to produce per watt of energy. It takes 25 years for a solar facility to break even. That's 25 years of citizens paying bigger power bills to subsidize a questionable technology.

you would have seen they has solved the day night cycle problem by storing the heat

Molten salt heat storage has existed at least since the early 1980s. I remember watching an episode of NOVA as a kid talking about this. The Spain plant is the first one in the world to use salt thermal storage tanks to run the plant for between 6 to 8 hours without sunlight.

Even in ideal locations, sunlight is interrupted by weather, cloud cover, and normal day/night cycles. These all reduce power generation capacity. Heat storage is not enough to make up the gap unless you live in close proximity to a few very specific geographic locations. Solar plant in "non ideal" locations require a fossil fuel backup for 75% of their total capacity. Essentially, the solar plant you see is just a coal-fired plant that burns 25% less coal.

Of course that fact that there are no fuel cost or waste by products mean that solar towers and the like will have no harmful impacts on the future like every other method of providing electricity out there.

Well, I'd debate your language a bit on this. There are fuel costs in the sense that you have to buy solar cells, and so forth. They require rare earth metals and other materials. There is waste also because you have to replace those things every few years. Modern nuclear plants are just fine, as are most modern US coal plants (if they would just let them be built).

Darn zombie fuel storage tanks! They always come back.