Nuclear Energy? Yes or No?

[Chicago Democrat]

Poll question: Nuclear Energy? Yes or No?

Nuclear Energy? I live in Illinois and we have alot of Nuclear power plants. Do you support nuclear energy?

[mopinko]

1. if st ron hadn't pulled the plug

on the renewable energy tax credit, imagine where we would be now. i knew when he took that hot water heater off the roof of the white house that he was an empty headed puppet.

[IronLionZion]

14. Jimmy was a smart guy who pointed us in the right direction with energy

too bad Ronnie had to fuck it all up. He had research in all kinds of renewable fuels. Ray-Gun was in with the oil companies so he shut it down.

[DireStrike]

58. Delete

[Jamastiene]

2. I've heard

good and bad about it. Not sure if I have formed an informed opinion on it. Anyone knowledgeable who is willing to point out the pros and cons?

[proReality]

4. TMI nuclear melt down and Chernoble

The officials don't tell you till it's too late. Not to mention all the waste they haven't figured out how to dispose of or keep safe.

Edited to add a word.

[Chicago Democrat]

5. Some Nuclear plants are designed badly and some are designed well

Sometimes humans make mistakes. Some terrorists might attack a nuclear power plant. Basically a risk, that can be minimised perhaps to a degree such that a facility might be deemed safe. I dont actually live near any of the plants.

[klyon]

83. OK the bad is

We have no solution for the nuclear waste that is created.

Shall we shoot at the sun and risk contaminating the atmosphere? NO

Shall we bury it in salt mines that will eventually leak and contaminate the ground? No

Shall we dump it in the deepest part of the ocean and hope it never surfaces? Don't know

We have not answered this question, in the past we said we would solve this problem but I am still waiting for a real solution.

I say no to nuclear power back then, now and forever, there must be better ways to get power. We need to look harder. Having two oilmen in charge is not helping matters.

KL

[Tux]

3. I'm for it

As long as it's fusion.

[Chicago Democrat]

6. On the plus side.. electricity with zero emissions

except rods of uranium. Some used in weapons.

[Mr.Green93]

57. They emit

water vapor the number one greenhouse gas.

[whistle]

7. Think of it, literally billion of dollars spend on nuclear....

...energy plants which present such an outrageous risk to the safety and health of millions of people. We should be closing nuclear plants, not building more! Conventional plants using renewable energy is what our focus as a nation and throughout the world should be. The only reason nuclear plants had any feasibility was their proliferation of the nuclear arms race. Dump the idea of nuclear, focus development on renewable forms of energy.

[kysrsoze]

40. An extremely simple solution: uranium "pebble" reactor - check this link

www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html

[0rganism]

8. Solving the nuclear waste disposal problem is the first thing on the list

Everything else is manageable, as long as the people who build and run the refineries and power plants aren't cutting corners left and right -- which is more policy than theory. But so far the problem of what to do with the spent fuel rods and other contaminants has been pretty well intractible. Bury them underground and hope they don't cause a problem? Yeah, right; this ain't your grandma's coffin we're talking about here. We need something better before nuclear energy becomes a truly viable long-term solution.

[Lilith Velkor]

71. And no,

making bullets from it and shooting them at Iraqis doesn't count. :mad:

[Kool Kitty]

9. If they figure out a way to deal with the waste

safely, then we can talk about it. Maybe.

[Viking12]

10. The real problem is Nuclear Proliferation

Are we ready to allow for the basic building blocks for nuclear weapons to spread?

[wuushew]

13. Sure

the alternative is continued use of fossil fuels. A limited nuclear exchange would kill fewer people than the sum total damage of global warming,air and water poisoning.

Unfortunately the human psyche and political thinking in general responds more to newsworthy catastrophes than risk adjusted reality.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

75. I wonder

if all those that automatically think of a meltdown and how unsafe it is has kept up with how many refineries have blown up and how many people have died there?

[klyon]

85. pointing out that something else is bad or worse is not

an argument that carries any weight.

KL

[Silverhair]

98. Yes it is.

If your are already doing "A", and if "B" is not as bad as "A", then it is an argument for doing "B" instead of "A".

[Darranar]

110. Not if you can do "C." n/t

[Shadowen]

11. Properly funded, staffed, and maintained...

...then yes.

There are a lot of things that can go wrong...but the way to keep them from happening is (relatively) so simple.

[Tactical Progressive]

12. They are going to become a necessity soon

like them or not.

I've always tended to favor them. France gets something like 70% of its electric power from nuclear. We probably will too. With serious controls they could be safe, and that's where I think the fear many have will be put to good use, translated into caution in building and running them.

[klyon]

86. Isn't France closing them and not building more?

KL

[The Magistrate]

15. In The Short Run, Sir

There really is no other feasible way to cope with the problem of carbon emissions. Energy use per capita is not going to be much reduced....

[Chicago Democrat]

16. interesting take

How about new construction?

[The Magistrate]

19. New Construction Of Reactors, Sir?

It will have to be done. My view in this is not one taken either lightly or with pleasure. The waste materials are a real problem, and my confidence that a complex system will fail is absolute. But a great reduction in energy use per capita is the same thing as a great lowering of the standard of living, and that is something people will not ever voluntarily do, and will attempt rebellion against when it is forced upon them. Various other alternatives to carbon fuels may well prove feasible in time with adequate research and some breakthrough developments, and it may well be we could be more advanced along those lines today had different decisions been made in the relatively recent past. But in the present circumstance, the only quickly available means of reducing greenhouse emmission in any useful quantity is the use of controlled fission.

"If a team of engineers is assigned to draw up a list of ten thousand ways in which a complicated system might fail, among the first six breakdowns in actual use will be at least one thing not on that list."

[klyon]

87. I disagree

there are alternative fuels and with a little money and research along with the desire we can have clean, efficient power, I know it. So far there has been know desire. If we had started for real in the 70's we would be their now.

KL

[Vladimir]

92. For sure there are regional solutions

like wind, tidal, hydroelectric, solar power etc... and more power to those countries who can get by on them alone. But not everyone is in this position, and if energy consumption continues to rise, there is only one solution available *now* for the rest of us, and that is fission. Global warming ain't gonna wait while we revisit the 70s and cry over spilt vinegar...

This is not to say we shouldn't invest in other enrgy sources, of course we should, and extensively. But if we don't do something about global warming in the next 10-20 years (if not less), we are fucked whatever long-term solutions may come our way later.

[klyon]

94. I hate to inform you but fission is not now,

fission is not up and running and may never be. What happens when a nuclear fission power plan is bombed? Will radiation be released? What happens if a windmill is bombed? Will radiation be released.
We can spend money on many different technologies and solve the problem in any number of ways,possible one we haven't thought of yet, but safety and the environment must be considered. The cost of cleaning up after nuclear anything needs to be factored in.
KL

[DrWeird]

108. Oh, I'm pretty sure fission works.

Maybe you're thinking of fusion.

[The Magistrate]

109. Perhaps, Sir

You meant that fusion is not yet a practical process?

Fission reactors are in operation throughout the world today, and have been or many decades past. There are certainly problems and dangers associated with their operations, but that is true of all power generation technologies currently commercially feasible on a large scale.

[Vladimir]

118. Assuming you meant fusion...

no radiation would be released if it was bombed, and a fusion power plant would produce next to no waste and have absolutely no possibility whatsoever of a catastrophic meltdown associated with it. Theoretically speaking, if it was bombed and containment failed, the reaction would be shut down almost immediately by the resulting drop in heat and pressure and nothing that exciting would actually occur at all. But that is in any case for the future... for the here and now fission is cleaner short-term than oil. Long-term, we need to do better but long-term is only something we can afford to worry about if we can avert the short term disaster waiting to curb-stomp us around the corner.

[driver8]

121. You are confusing fission with fusion

I operated nuclear power plants for the Navy for six years. Believe me, fission is now.

[Vladimir]

32. You are so right

of course if we were to invest more in fusion research, then the problem may go away sooner rather than later. But ultimately its a case of concrete solutions to concrete problems as one of my favourite historical figures may have said... and fission is gonna have to be part of most countries' solution if we are serious about this.

[The Magistrate]

44. It Is Always A Pleasure, Sir

To find oneself in agreement with a sound and hard-headed thinker like yourself.

Happy hunting!

[Vladimir]

45. The pleasure, Sir, is all mine n/t

[Igel]

54. I've been a fusion advocate since the early '70s.

I was excited when I heard the physicists say they knew what had to be researched, gave numbers on how much money they needed, and made predictions.

I repeated the excitement for the better part of a decade, and followed developments as best as I could. Many things didn't work out as expected, but new ideas took their places.

Then, in the late '80s, I heard the same claims: physicists said they knew what had to be researched, gave numbers on how much money they needed, and made predictions. But I didn't get excited.

I think we should put a fair amount of money into it, but not bank on it happening in our lifetimes. That leaves nuclear (I won't bother to diss the "renewable energy sources" right now).

My only concern is that we won't shift early enough. Oil's used for a heck of a lot more than energy. Think of all the plastics that we use.

[Vladimir]

55. As someone who actually worked on the worlds biggest

fusion reactor as an undergrad (well, worked on a bit of spectral deconvolution really, nothing that advanced), the claims are reality. The JET reactor in Abingdon can run, just that at the moment it costs more to run energy wise then it outputs. But its a question of scale, and one that will be resolved (according to the vast majority of opinion on the subject) once enough money is given to built the full scale prototype, ITER, which has been delayed as much by politics as by anything else.

[Igel]

62. I know that they've gotten fusion to work. But the claims were

more along the line of fusion reactors that would put out more energy than they took in, and do it in some sort of usable fashion. I'd really like to see it happen. And still want the government to invest money in it. It's been underfunded since forever. Don't know that it's ever been successfully funded.

But the ideas that were sure to work long ago have been replaced, hopefully by more workable. But my initial excitement's been replaced by something that can go the distance, I think.

[NAO]

17. We Must Build Many N-Plants ASAP, before the oil runs out

this may create a waste disposal problem, but at least it will allow civilization to continue so someone can work on the waste problem.

If oil runs out as quickly as some suggest, there is not enough time to build nuclear power plants, and there will be massive starvation, death, and the utter collapse of civilization with the resultant extinction of "petroleum man".

Every bit of food we eat, everything we do, including making the parts for windmills and solar panels, growing food, shipping food --requires oil.

If oil were to actually run out, there would be no way to recover from the crisis...at least with nuclear plants we might have some energy to use to try to save civilization.

[Igel]

63. I've actually read a sci fi story that explored this.

Civilizations arise, using easily available materials.

They collapse. But they can't rise again, because they lack easily available resources and don't have the ability to get to the hard-to-reach ones.

[Osamasux]

18. There is so much potential in renewables that we don't need them.

This is just one more area where the whole planet lost out. Both Gore and Kerry had big, realistic, executable programs for renewable energy. * has this fixation with Hydrogen fuel cells simply because it is something else Exxon Mobil can sell.

Wind and solar can be made affordable just by simple tax incentives to spur development. I plan on using solar roofing tiles the next time I have to redo my roof. A friend of mine had a geothermal heating and cooling system put in with assistance from the local power company about six years ago. It has already paid for itself.

There is so much more we could be doing if we had a real president, it is sickening.

[mopinko]

27. those are cool, but

geez they are expensive. i am looking into renewable energy as part of our retirement planning. i worry that things won't last long enough to really pay off.
it's ronnie's fault. (see post #1)

[Osamasux]

43. The more they sell, the more the price drops.

You're right, Reagan did really set us back decades.

I like the work they are starting to do with off shore windmills and also underwater turbines, but state and local governments can only go so far. There is too much "not in my backyard" about the windmills. that has to be addressed. Verdant Power installed test turbines as a proof of concept in the East River off NYC. A moderately sized array of them could supply power for 7,000 to 10,000 homes.


There is so much power waiting to be harnessed in wind, solar and ocean currents it is staggering, but we need an administration which will push it. (For evidence, think Grand Canyon, Hurricanes, Tsunami, etc.)

[mopinko]

53. i could probably do both solar and wind

here in the windy city. (i know, it was the politicians that were windy, but i am 6 blocks from lake michigan, near the top of the only hill in town.)
have a good south exposure. but we are talking $30-50,000.

[mopinko]

68. underwater turbines

my father was a crazy frustrated inventor. back in the early 60's he built a prototype, and tried to get a patent on a wave turbine that he wanted to put on the edge of the continental shelf off california.
which is to say, how hard is this shit to figure out? how come we didn't do this a long time ago? something doesn't add up. oh. someone's finger is on the scale.

[Osamasux]

73. Both Gore and Kerry knew that with a little push

this stuff could take off. What finally got momentum for the turbine idea was the August 2003 blackout. NYC receives most of its power from the Robert Moses Niagara Power Plant. With the grid the way it is now after deregulation, they can not count on that anymore. NYC has a tough time finding politically acceptable locations for supplementary generators, so they were open to trying something new.

Verdant is doing this partly as a proof of concept, but it is a good solution for many places. They designed the units so they can be lifted out of the water easily for maintenance. They will be in salt water, after all, which is extremely tough on equipment. They will need regular maintenance and this approach eliminates the need for divers for routine work.

Your father was just a bit ahead of his time or didn't have the right angle.

[AngryAmish]

41. #ush has geothermal heating out in Crawford

[Zynx]

48. Renewables simply do not put out enough juice - period

You can run little niche buildings on them. You cannot use them to power the country or generate electricity for cracking hydrogen, which we will need to do to replace oil. The math simply does not work.

[Osamasux]

80. That is just plain wrong. Hydroelectric plants already produce 8 to 10%

of US power consumption. Currently, there are about 75 million kilowatts of hydroelectric generating capacity in the United States. That's equivalent to the generating capacity of 70 large nuclear power plants.

An the US is not even the leader in these efforts. Follow the underwater turbine links in #43 above. Or look at the offshore wind farms other countries are putting up. The Dutch Nysted Offshore Wind Farm at Rødsand built in 2003 produces 165 megawatts. Denmark's Horns Rev produces 160 megawatts. Yes, a lot of US farmers put up one or two turbines to help bring in a little cash. But this is not a cottage industry anymore. Denmark expects to meet 40% of their electric power requirements with wind power by 2030. The UK has a goal of 20% of power generation from renewables by 2020.

The experiments with tidal power generation are also going well. So far they are drawing on tidal rivers and estuaries. Much, much more power is available from installations along the ocean coasts. They need to work out the details, but there are some solid designs. One of the approaches is to take in water at the shoreline, run it through a pipeline containing turbines and let the natural pull of the ocean drive them. The Chinese are working on another approach, where the water is stored on the incoming tide, then released into turbines during the ebb tide. Both provide a constant source of enormous power.

[One_Life_To_Give]

81. Still won't supply base load requirements

Current Hydro generation makes a healthy contribution to base load. But there is not enough to supply all of the Base Load required. And we know the problems with trying to create more conventional hydro installations.

If you want a idea of the problems faced by coastal wind generation in the US. Take a look at theCape Windproject.

For the underwater turbine I noticed the project linked above uses a "dead" river. Probably because a 5 meter blade spinning at 40RPM would do alot of damage to a Humpback Whale, not to mention the slow moving Right Whale.

And for all their improvement over current practice the latter two still cannot provide BaseLoad power. Which leaves Coal, Oil, NG and Nuc. And of those Coal kills far more people each year than the rest.

[Osamasux]

112. Interesting reading on Cape Wind. Thanks.

A lot of the trouble seems to be of the "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) variety mentioned in # 43. The NY area ran into that when a farm was proposed for Long Island.

Yes, the East River is certainly a Dead River. (No Sopranos jokes needed.) They will be putting this farm along the untraveled shore of the river, so it won't impact boat traffic. The NIMBY crowd is actually helping push this through. NYC has been trying for years to place more small oil or gas fired plants in the area, but neighborhood reaction is strong. It is made clear to the neighborhoods that the underwater turbines will reduce the need for more fossil fuel plants.

[One_Life_To_Give]

116. Won't replace plants

It is made clear to the neighborhoods that the underwater turbines will reduce the need for more fossil fuel plants. Reducing the run time of plants, Yes. Do away with Fossil Plants, No. Not unless New Yorker's can be convinced to tolerate 20 minute brownouts every six hours.

[Osamasux]

120. The plants in question are not primary power.

They are supplemental for heavy loads and when power delivered from outside the city becomes less available. Also, they are not looking at taking existing plants down, just not building more. This is strictly additional capacity that they do not have now.

NYC used to be able to rely on Robert Moses Niagra Power, but with other growth in the Northeast and the newly national and (cross border) nature of the market, they realize they can not trust it anymore.

I agree that these turbines could not be their only source (and do the planners).

[tinanator]

89. thanks

for talking sense to the GE stockholders here and for pointing out those cool tiles!

[T Town Jake]

20. Safely maintained and run, then not only yes...

...but HELL yes! We should move to any alternative that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels as soon as feasibly possible, IMHO. Nuclear power plants, Windmill farms, Solar panels, Geo-thermal, the entire mix of environmentally friendly alternatives should be vigorously pursued. But let's be honest: the vast bulk of such environmentally friendly energy will have to be produced by Nuclear Power - the math doesn't lie.

[Chicago Democrat]

21. Amazing...I voted Yes but I didnt realise I was a majority in my party

[Igel]

65. Surprising, wasn't it? n/t

[DrGonzoLives]

100. Same here

One less thing that makes me persona non grata at DU.

[ConsAreLiars]

22. The sheer deliberate waste created by "market" dynamics

applies to both materials and energy requirements. Reducing waste is far preferable to poisoning our world with hydrocarbon or nuclear waste. Posing the choice as being between nuclear vs. oil burning accepts the con. It is a classic example of disinformation and false framing by the corporatist media agents.

(edit - delete superfluous word)

[Liberal In Texas]

23. Nukes are the stupidest form of energy on the planet!

If nothing else, you have to store the waste someplace for the next several half-lives of the spent fuel. Like thousands of years.

Wind
Hydro
Solar
Crops

anything but what we are doing.

Fusion might be good. Some day in the dim wonderful future, but it does not work yet.

We buy our power from a wind company now that Texas has seen fit to deregulate the monopoly. We pay a bit more, but I feel better about it.

[Hobarticus]

31. Relying on fossil fuels is the stupidest form of energy...

When the last time we went to war for a nuclear plant?

I think all of your options are extremely important, hand in hand with nuclear energy. We can't dismiss anything. Not everyone has a wind farm nearby.

[klyon]

88. We may not go to war over a nuclear plant but what if one is

bombed we have a big mess. I live near one and it does effect the environment. The heated water that is dumped in the river is killing fish.

KL

[Lindacooks]

76. I absolutely agree.

To people who think that wind and solar power are expensive, why don't you add up the REAL cost of nuclear power? When you add up the initial costs of construction, the costs of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, potential for accidents, cost of cleanup, storage, monitoring, increased protection and security, nuclear power is NOT inexpensive.

Projected and real costs of some nuclear power plants:

1. Diablo Canyon, California: original estimated cost $450 million; actual cost $4.4 billion.

2. Shoreharn, New York: original estimated cost $242 million; actual cost $4 billion.

3. Midland, Michigan: original estimated cost $267 million; actual cost $4.4 billion.

4. Marble Hill, Indiana: original estimated cost $1.4 billion; actual cost $7 billion, before being abandoned.

"One of the most prominent indirect subsidies is the practice of not factoring into the price of nuclear generated electricity the external costs associated with the entire nuclear fuel cycle – from the mining of uranium to the storage of high level and low level radioactive waste. The external costs of nuclear power include the cost of environmental damage, the effect on human health and society following an accident, damage to human health and the environment during routine operation of nuclear facilities and also long term problems associated with nuclear waste and decommissioning of nuclear facilities.

‘Externalities’ that can be translated to monetary quantification include economic effects, employment, environment, environmental impacts, health effects & government subsidies. When such quantifiable social costs are added to the core price of electricity, the total costs of nuclear power are extremely high and nuclear power no longer stays competitive against the latest generation of renewable energy."

<SNIP>

And take a look at this:

• According to a July 2000 report by the Renewable Energy Policy Project, the U.S. government has spent approximately $150 billion on energy subsidies for wind, solar and nuclear power--96.3% of which has gone to nuclear power.

<SNIP>

"...according to a November 1, 1982 Congressional Subcommittee Report, based on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's "Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences" ("CRAC-2") model, a worst case scenario accident at a U.S. nuclear reactor could cost as much as $500 billion in damages. The economic consequences of a severe nuclear waste transportation accident could cost as much as $271 billion. The sizable discrepancy between the coverage available under Price-Anderson and the calculated consequences of severe nuclear incidents leaves the public unprotected and the industry unaccountable in the event of a serious accident."

http://www.riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/indian_point/the_facts/269

In contrast, a windmill that will provide power to more than 5,000 homes was recently built in my community for ONE MILLION DOLLARS. That's it. No risk of accident, no toxic byproducts, no environmental damage, no monitoring, no risk of terrorist attack. Of course, also little profit to Bush's rich friends.

[OxQQme]

24. A friend was Navy

aboard a nuke submarine. It makes enough electricity to power up a city the size of Honolulu.
Maybe the solution is many more, smaller nuclear generators rather than humongus ones built by Bechtel/Halliburton companies.
I also was just reading in a magazine about re-using the 'spent' rods. The article claimed many more uses that didn't require the 'heat' of the massive facilities. Sorry can't remember for sure but think it was the Skeptic edition couple months old and seemed to be an intelligent 'pro-nuke' POV.
I'm more in favor of ZERO waste products.

[Klapaucius]

26. It has to be done correctly....

Navy, submarine, worked back in the engine room.

If it's done *CORRECTLY*, then I have no problem with it.

It is a very political issue, even within the Navy, when I was in, there was little/no tolerance for mistakes. If it has to be done, do it right , and don't let the companies skimp on *ANYTHING*. Huge penalties for cutting corners, etc. We were safety tested for operations at least once a year. These plants need to be safety tested in the same manner and also, they need to impose penalties for mistakes. Being complacent about the operation of the plant is probably the biggest mistake you can make. It's where I get my habit of at least triple-checking myself when I'm doing something. I don't like making mistakes.

I was a mechanic, but when I went through the schools, we were taught cross-rate things, like circuit analysis and electrical power equations, in addition to the applicable knowledge of the rate I was in. At one point, you could ask me what would happen if a particular breaker tripped, and I could tell you what was powered off of it, and how it would affect everything in the plant, and everything that needed to be done to keep things in a safe state. Also, I could tell you how it directly affected the watchstation I was on.

The people associated with running any new plants should have that kind of knowledge level of their systems, should be trained and tested regularly on their knowledge level. Tie it to their pay increases, and you might get their attention.

[driver8]

122. I was a nuc mechanic also...

I was on a nuc carrier, USS Eisenhower.

You are absolutely right. If nuc plants are to be built, there can be no skimping at all. Everything needs to be tested and re-tested and operators need to be tested every year like we were. Material conditions must be monitored always.

The sad thing is, this will never happen. Utility companies are too worried about the bottom dollar. They will not do what is necessary to make sure these plants are safe.

[neweurope]

25. The nuclear threat is the worst threat mankind - and the whole rest of

the planet - has ever experienced. It is irresponsible to the highest degree to use a technique without knowing how to handle the unwelcome side effects. They don't know what to do with the rods (to a small degree the US do of course, fill some rocket heads with the depleted uranium and fire them on Third World countries) and they will never know what to do with the rods. This endangers all future generations.

There are alternatives even now. The first is: use less energy. One example:

In Germany we need one additional electricity plant ONLY BECAUSE OF CHRISTMAS LIGHTS.

And Germany is a very small country and our Christmas decoration per capita is really nothing compared to the US.

Because of some * Holiday illumination we crave other people's fossil energy... and build nuclear reactors.

Insulating houses better, solar and wind energy etc. etc. and over all a little less unthinking luxury are real alternatives. Of course the military industrial complex doesn't earn as much money this way.

But nuclear energy? Hell no. And no and no and no.


----------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[ProfessorGAC]

28. The Goal Should Be To Make Them Safe & Clean

The second goal should be to hire some good project managers so that they get done on time and underbudget. The biggest issue within industry is that they cost too much to complete. The biggest issue outside the industry is safety.

There are ALWAYS ways to make things safer than they already are. While that adds cost, more efficient construction management offsets that cost. And, as a dozen industrial insurance companies have shown, the more safely an industrial facility is run, the lower the long run operating costs.

I support it, but only with proven safe designs and only if the cost of construction can be brought under control.
The Professor

[Hobarticus]

29. Nuclear energy's time has come...

The waste is a problem, but other than that, it's time.

[Tighthead Prop]

30. Hell yeah.

Great alternative to fossli fuels and it provides great entertainment if anything goes wrong.

[JerseygirlCT]

33. I'm old enough to be nervous

and until they figure out a safe way to dispose of the waste, I'm uncomfortable.

I was in college during Three Mile Island... and only 25 miles or so away. It was really scary.

[ikri]

34. I support Nuclear Energy (with caveats)

Potentially nuclear energy can supply us all with as much energy as we ever need. Yes there's waste, right now that's something that's unavoidable.

Nuclear energy is one issue however where the normal free-market rules should never apply. Government projects are usually open to tender whereby the lowest bidder wins. This can often lead to lax oversight and low quality workmanship. In something that can potentially wipe out all life within 100 miles, low quality workmanship and lax oversight are things to be avoided at all costs.

A well run, built and maintained nuclear power plant is nothing to worry about. The ones built by the lowest bidder are the dangerous ones.

[MadHound]

35. No, shut them down, now

There isn't, nor will there ever be a reliable way to dispose of the waste. There is also no way that a nuclear plant could be guaranteed not to have a radioactive release of one sort or another. And the thing is that with nuclear plants, you have to be right every single time, every single minute. If you aren't then many thousands will die, and large swathes of the country will be rendered uninhabitable.

The nuclear industry is the one industry in which you have to have a guarantee, and you simply can't make that. The best that can be done is to pass the problems on to our children and grandchildren, and quite frankly, we're passing on enough problems already.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

36. NO NUKES!...spent my 20's and 30's prostesting nuke power

NO NUKES

[hunter]

51. So did I...

In my late teens and early twenties I did a lot of dumpster diving and trespassing for the "NO NUKES" cause. During the course of my activism I met Dr. Helen Caldicott twice, and the second time she recognized me and my friends -- if not by name then by our, um, "interesting" reputations. Yes, that's what she said, "interesting..." as she looked around for some quick escape...

Once upon a time, in a cheap Riverside California motel, three cops busted in on me and my friends a few hours past midnight, after we'd completed a small bit of "NO NUKE" mischief. They claimed to be looking for drugs, but they didn't find any, and we were very careful they didn't drop any. I'm certain they were ready to do that...

It was a very creepy experience, and it pretty much killed any last bit of faith I had in my federal government.

"We the people" need always be vigilant.

Nevertheless I am now indifferent towards nuclear power development. If we wish to maintain our current lifestyles and economies, nuclear power is the only option. Coal will kill us.

Coal fired power plants as they now exist, and various proposed coal-based synthetic fuel industries, dump far more radioactive and non radioactive waste into the environment than any well-run nuclear power plant.

I would rather live next to a nuclear power plant like California's Diablo Canyon than any coal fired power plant or coal mine.

Nuclear waste is almost a trivial concern compared to the toxins spewed out by the coal industry. A coal fired power plant emits tons of radioactive and non-radioactive toxins directly into our air and water. The waste from a nuclear power plant is mostly contained.

It's utterly stupid to complain about nuclear waste having a half-life of so-and-so years when you don't complain about, say, the mercury emmisions from a coal fired power plant. Mercury is very toxic, it rots your brain, and it has a "half-life" of forever.

If you are complaining about the mercury in something like vaccines or canned tuna, and you live next to a coal fired power plant or a coal mine and you are not complaining about that mercury pollution even louder, you are entirely misguided.

In my imaginary utopia humans would live a very low energy lifestyle, with maybe a twenty hour work week being all anyone needs to provide basic healthcare, food, shelter, and clothing for themselves and their families. You wouldn't need a car, and you could purchase 95% of your needs within walking distance of your home.

Ah, but that's my utopia... In my less-than-utopia world there is nuclear power. It's not an entirely hopeless world. The urban subways are pretty nice, and nobody is cold and starving.

But in coal-fired hell I buy rifles and ammunition and defensible land in the foothills.

[klyon]

90. we can solve the mercury problem easier than the spent rod problem

Scrubbers need to be installed now. We all know letting the coal industry police themselves is getting us nowhere. We need to think about really clean technologies, nuclear is not one. Oil, gas and coal need to be fazed-out as clean technologies are brought on line. We can do it I have confidence in humans to our energy problems.

KL

[Poppyseedman]

37. Nuclear energy should be a

considered a national security problem.

If we don't fund non petroleum based energy projects now, including nuclear power, we will eventually set energy policy as a national security issue

"No Oil for You" in my best soup Nazi imitation

[twenty2strings]

38. We'll probably have to...since we only respond to crisis...

We...just..ugh...can't...grunt...do...anything...feet heavy...mind weak...rapture..coming...must buy new truck..UHHHHHHHH.:nuke:

[ProgressiveConn]

39. Yes until we have something better. nt

[theophilus]

42. No! Not until the everlasting waste problem is solved.

It is horrendous to pass the deficit on to our children. Passing along nuclear waste to how many generations? What would we be thinking? Just about us, obviously.

The argument that we can't give up any of our "blessed way of life" is preposterous. We will do it by choice or we will do it by necessity. For ONCE, let us make the right choice for conservation and environmentally friendly energy sources.

I don't want to give Cheney and his energy cabal even more money. Dump the Hummers and wise up, America!

[Karenina]

46. Two score and two years ago

I was of the opinion that until the WASTE can be dealt with, the idea SUCKS. It's an opinion that has not changed. Why create a problem one is ill-equipped to handle? :shrug:

[Zynx]

47. YES! Build more nuke plants NOW!

Seriously, the new reactors are meltdown proof. Solar and wind simply don't put out nearly enough energy for us, and they can't be realistically used to crack hydrogen for vehicle fuel.

We need to go to nuclear-hydrogen until we get fusion to work.

[MadHound]

49. Yeah, and back in the fifties, that new generation of reactors

Was deemed meltdown proof, as has every new generation of reactors. Don't fall for the hype friend. By the very nature of a reactor, something will happen, an unlikely sequence of events, and poof, down melts that reactor. It may not be the fault of the mechanism itself, in fact the genesis of the problem will most likely be human error.

And quite frankly, if a reacotr is FUBARed, and goes into complete meltdown, there is no material in this world, none, that can contain the material and radiation for any length of time. If the water goes on a reactor, that reactor is screwed.

And rather than buy into this hydrogen pipe-dream, whose economical application is still decades away, why not go with what we've got now, things like building more efficient vehicles, hybrids, biodiesel, etc. We can get real benefits out of these off the shelf technologies now, rather than chasing the hydrogen chimera.

[G_j]

78. My parents worked at Hanford (I vote NO)

both my parents worked on the Hanford reactor.
My mother had patents invovled with the safety systems.

Years later mom came to the conclusion that nuclear reactors were not safe.

As an aside, both my parents eventually died from lung cancer.

[klyon]

91. cracking hydrogen does NOT take much power

only a trickle.

KL

[Zynx]

111. And where exactly are you going to get the power?

Hydrogen requires more energy to make than you will get out of it, that is a simple fact of physics.

It makes no sense to use anything other than nuclear (or geo-thermal where it exists) to crack hydrogen for fuel cells.

[UdoKier]

50. I put no, BUT...

If we had a MUCH safer and better way to dispose of the waste, and there were about three times as many safeguards as there are now, I would support it as an interim solution to our energy problems, until more clean energy sources were online, and conservation becomes more a part of life.

[DrWeird]

52. what's more cost effective?

A nuclear power plant or a large scale wind farm?

[One_Life_To_Give]

64. At 4AM

At 4AM the wind farm is likely to be a zero. I havn't heard of a location yet that will give better than 70% Up Time.

As for current costs to build and operate. Nuc's are running somoething like 3 cents per KWHr less than wind. IIRC

Hopefully our resident Nuc expert, from the environmental forum, will chime in on this.

[Osamasux]

113. How do these figures account for down time of nuclear plants?

[One_Life_To_Give]

115. Down Time - Overall or UnScheduled.

Well the Nuc Industry has been raising the bar for total up-time. I beleive thay are running between 90 and 95% currently. But those down periods are mostly scheduled maintenance. So a alternate generator has been planned to make up for the loss. I am not aware of any statistics for unintended down time of Nuc's.

More importantly the majority of Nuc's are not likley to be down for maintenance at the same time. Solar has an 18 hour gap when none are generating and areas that can generate wind power in the thousands of megawatts have periods of hours when none of them are functioning.

[Osamasux]

119. It looks more and more like a comprehensive plan is needed

The more that can be generated by renewables and the better the conservation efforts, the lower the requirements from Nuclear, Oil, Gas and Coal.

What kind of daily cycles do the big hydroelectric facilities like Grand Coolee and Churchill Falls have? Those are producing 24x7, aren't they?

[Lindacooks]

77. See my post above.

When you figure in ALL of the costs, including the subsidies, nuclear power is much, much, MUCH more expensive than solar or wind power.

Plus the fact that with nuclear, face it, we're just polluting the earth. There's no getting around that.

[Mr.Green93]

56. No new nukes

shut down the existing ones ASAP.

[DireStrike]

59. I used to think Uranium lasted forever.

Back in the day in school, they would tell me how nuclear power plants would run for billions of years. An inexhaustable energy source! Hahaha.

[amazona]

60. as there is no solution to the waste problem...no

Our knowledge of physics tells us what it has told us for the last 50 years -- there is no safe way to handle the waste. Not quite fair to poison thousands of future generations just so I won't be a tad inconvenienced.

When I first went to college to study physics, we were 20 years away from safe fusion. Now we're 50 years away.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[One_Life_To_Give]

61. Base Load Generation

The only solution available for "Base Load", which does not emit CO2 is Nuclear Fission.

Solar energy only supplies power 25% of the time. Coastal wind farms supply power perhaps 70% of the time. Biomass releases carbon that had been removed from the atmosphere.

[Johonny]

66. Not the future

It's not a renewable resource and all reports I've read it is not viable to run the world energy for very long on nuclear fission. Fusion however is the wave of the future, and probably always will be...

[Jane Austin]

67. Not until we figure out what to do with the waste.

n/t

[Massacure]

69. In it's current form no. Europe and Canada have good systems.

The CANDU reactor looks like a good one .

[Bonhomme Richard]

70. I am all for it IF...........................

ALL the top executives, and their families, live within 10 miles of the plant.

[jcappy]

72. I'm on wrong boards

Jesum, talk about Republicans being thick-headed, this proves that well over half of Dems here are even worse.

what a shocker!!

[FreakySally]

103. What do you mean?

You're totally against nuclear power even if the waste is handled? Look at how many plants are operating in this country with zero incidents.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/states.html


And check this out from Alabama's Browns Ferry Plant....



Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Delivers Record Performance


April 10, 2002

ATHENS, Ala.—TVA's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit 3 generated a world record 17.8 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, operating nonstop for 669 days. It was the second-longest continuous run of a commercial power-generating reactor in the United States, based on information available to the industry...



--Press Release, Tennessee Valley Authority

[superconnected]

74. I was for it

until I heard about the effects of the super micro polutants it puts in the air and that many scientist believe those power plants are responsible for the high asma(sp?) instances in kids, hundreds of miles away.

[Massacure]

79. super micro pollutants? What the heck?

Maybe it is the carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, sulfer oxides, VOCs, and fly ash that coal plants released? Just maybe?

I want to see the article you read.

[superconnected]

95. It was on npr

yes, the powerplants are releasing ultra fine particles that come from them burning coal and natural gas.

If you search "ultra fine particles" and power plants, you come up with it, and that is the discussion I heard on npr.

I'm gathering from your response you already did, and probably found this .pdf, on air pollution and asthma.

http://www.environmentcolorado.org/reports/UnhealthyAirUnhealthyKids04.pdf

[FreakySally]

105. nuclear not mentioned

Just coal fired plants, auto exaust, etc...

[12345]

82. SHOULDN'T THE QUESTION BE 'NUCLEAR WASTE, YES OR NO?'

I say no nuclear waste in my back yard. Do you want it in yours, or should we put it in someone else's?

[superconnected]

96. It's in my back yard

I live in Washington state where in the 80's, 3/4th of the worlds nuclear waste was buried. Maybe more or less now, I don't know.

The immediate threat with the power plants are the deaths by the ultra fine particles they are releasing though.


here's one that says

"Research done by Abt associates has found that an estimated 30,000 deaths occur each year in the United States due to fine particulate pollution from powerplants."

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Xfvil89TiPcJ:www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/3116_PollutionWithoutBorders.pdf+%22power+plants%22+ultra+fine+asma+deaths&hl=en

[DrGonzoLives]

101. Uh

What does that article have to do with nuclear power?

[superconnected]

106. good point.

nada, when I googled nuclear power with ultra fine particles, I kept getting them together on the web pages, and didn't realize only the fossile fuel plants were doing the ultra fine particles.

So yes, the question is nuclear waste.

[inslee08]

84. Until solar/wind/etc

becomes more efficient, nuclear power is definitely the best choice. So long as they keep it away from densely populated areas, it shouldn't cause too much harm, assuming the safety officer is slightly more competent than Homer Simpson.

[klyon]

93. "it shouldn't cause too much harm, "

How about death is that enough. The DU weapons used in Iraq should be proof enough of what will happen if nuclear power is allowed to spread. There is the problem of other counties like Iran "misusing" nuclear technology to make weapons that can kill millions. If Iran didn't go down the nuclear road then the only reason we would have to invade or bomb would be for their oil. MAD only works if people don't want to die.

KL

[superconnected]

97. I've got to brag

My grandmother was arrested when she was 68, while protesting a power plant that was being built in Washington state.

She died on her 69th birthday, back in the 70's. I was a small child when she died, but grew up with a larger than life image of the 5'0 woman. My family always rembers fondly, what an activist she was. :)

[KissMeKate]

99. Hydro electric kills river systems. Coal kills everything. We need safe

nuclear. its not an oxymoron, it can be done- read the article. It is VERY different from the old nuclear power.

[FULL_METAL_HAT]

102. Stealing from the future is neither sustainable nor right

Here's the simple way I see the greatest problem with Nuclear Energy:

It was only 45 years that the first commercial nuclear reactors were created. That commercialization made a number of rich men even richer, and many of them have lived out their lives and have died. But the costs of their profits are still here. So they made all this money by putting off the biggest costs to future. Now we have a horrible environmental problem that is TOO COSTLY to solve, both in terms of money and in continued risk.

It's not a good deal if someone gets paid today but makes huge problems after they're gone.

Without any doubt this is theft from the future, robbing from one's own children.

When you look at it like this, it's obvious how bad the problem really is.

[FreakySally]

104. Solar energy from satellites

I saw a show on the Discovery channel several years ago about an idea to actually collect solar energy from an orbiting satellite and then somehow beam it to a receptor station on earth. I guess the idea is that it's much easier to collect the energy in space than through the atmosphere. Anyone else hear about this one?

[tinanator]

107. every plant I meet tells me

solar power is the hot ticket. no need to look further.

[One_Life_To_Give]

117. Many advantages

too having the solar collectors in space. But it has a couple drawbacks as well. The cost of putting the equipment in orbit is probably the single biggest reason. But beaming the power back has some concerns as well.

[wadestock]

114. DUH

Why...because anyone with any fucking brains understands that hydrogen power could power the entire fucking planet.

Nuclear power is the lowest form of brain dead engineering, endorced by scum bag businessmen.