62% of Americans Support Obama on Nuclear Power (record high)

[Statistical]

A majority of Americans have typically favored using nuclear power to provide electricity for the United States since Gallup began asking about this topic in 1994. Support has edged up in the last two years, eclipsing 60% this year for the first time. In addition, 28% of Americans now say they "strongly favor" nuclear power, also the highest Gallup has measured since the question was first asked in 1994.

This year's results, from a March 4-7 Gallup poll, came after President Obama announced federal government loan guarantees to build the first nuclear power plants in the United States in three decades.

Obama's support for nuclear power apparently hasn't done much to change how Democrats view the issue, as a slim majority of 51% favor it, virtually unchanged from last year. Most of the increased support for nuclear energy over the past three years has come among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, who have consistently been more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to favor the use of nuclear energy.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126827/support-nuclear-power-climbs-new-high.aspx

[JitterbugPerfume]

1. nuclear energy----

a dangerous proposition

[Statistical]

3. We have been hearing that nonstop for three decades now.

When we stopped building nuclear plants in the late 70s we start building coal. We had an explosion in number of coal plants in this country.

Almost 60 years (and 50 million combined operating hours), not a single person has died from commercial power reactors in the United States.

Meanwhile couple hundred thousand people have died from fossil fuel pollution, another million died in auto accidents, and tens of millions have died from Obesity.

Big Mac is more dangerous than a reactor.

[Donnachaidh]

5. now that's some serious assed SPIN

Bravo!

"Big Mac is more dangerous than a reactor" :rofl: :rofl:

Of course, Big Mac doesn't have a half-life of several THOUSAND years..... :eyes:

[Statistical]

6. Nope it kills you much faster.

I stopped being afraid of boogeymen when I stopped being a child.

Reality is in almost 60 years:
0 civilian deaths from commercial nuclear power in the United States.
hundreds of thousands of deaths from fossil fuels
millions of deaths from auto accidents
millions of deaths from Obesity
millions of deaths from war

One is "scary" and the others are real.

When we solve every real thing that is killing Americans then maybe we can start solving the imaginary problems.

[ShortnFiery]

11. What's a little RADIATION with a side of possible Nuclear Reactor Meltdown among friends, aye?

:wow:



http://www.thelandesreport.com/AmericanMeltdown.htm

[SidDithers]

15. Ahhhh. Now I see why you're so misinformed...

you get your "information" from movies.

:rofl:

Sid

[ShortnFiery]

17. How about journal articles?

There's a lot of money to be made by the banksters and the bloated cretin predator classes. However, not even their gated communities will hold back the radiation.

http://cleanenergycleanfuture.com/wp-content/uploads/nuclear-factsheet.pdf

[Go2Peace]

146. And you get your information from "Greenwashing" corporate propaganda

like this one.

How about a little greenwashing site called "nogreenhouse.com"? Yes, lots of honesty and truth in there. The sooner you realize that what went on with the tobacco companies is what you are seeing here the better off we will all be.

http://www.nogreenhouse.com/

[PVnRT]

172. Wow, are you psychic?

Sid didn't even post information, yet you somehow are convinced he's a corporate tool shilling out their propaganda? Wow!

[PVnRT]

173. Yeah, radiation is bad

Good thing those coal plants don't give it off.

Oh wait: EPA - Radiation in coal ash

This is even more interesting, from someone at ORNL: http://www.gdr.org/radiationincoal.htm

"...each 1000 MWe of coal combustion disperses some 27 metric tons/year of radiological material in the biosphere...What I find curious is that every coal-fired steam plant has throughput of non-trivial quantities of radiological material (given average concentration data for U and Th), but they are subject to no regulations. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry is heavily constrained by regulations to
track trivial, or even supposed, radiological material - at enormous cost."

In other words, nuclear plants have to control their radiation release much, much more than coal plants do.

As for the NRC being in the pocket of the nuclear industry (one of the typical arguments), ask someone who has worked on nuclear projects how friendly the NRC is to their work. Be ready for a very long reply, little of it favorable.

Your link has nothing to do with the topic hand, despite having MELTDOWN in the title.

[harkadog]

144. Not counting those who have died mining coal.

[jefferson_dem]

2. Good news.

Thanks for posting.

[no limit]

4. Awesome!

[ShortnFiery]

7. Three Mile Island type awesome? AND I raise you with ONE Chernobyl Accident?

[Statistical]

9. Science Fail

30 years of study (by govt, NGO, universities) all concluded not a single person killed a TMI.

Chernobyl was a positive void graphite moderated reactor.
Identify the reactors in the US which can create a positive fission feedback loop in a Loss of Cooling Accident.

Your scare tactics are losing effect. Support is slowly climbing. 16% in a decade. I think it will increase another 16% over next decade.

[sudopod]

38. It also had no steel containment vessel.

It was housed in a concrete block building.

[Go2Peace]

148. That is so much bullshit

You should be absolutely ASHAMED to treat humanity like that in your effort to propagandise.

Watch this and tell me nbody died!!! I can provide many more but I doubt you will back off.

http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/chernobyl

[Statistical]

154. You should be ASHAMED for your lack of reading skills.

I said nobody died at TMI. Three Mile Island as in the accident at a reactor in the United States.

You call it propaganda and link to a resource on Chernobyl.

You are aware that TMI is in the United States?
You are also aware that Chernobyl is not in the United States?

[PVnRT]

174. Your weak efforst at waving a bloody flag are bullshit

Try reading about what actually happened at Chernobyl sometime. Bad design, bad oversight, untrained personnel and lack of safety features led to that accident, nonoe of which are widespread in the U.S. nuclear industry.

[DCKit]

8. Only until NIMBY kicks in. It's all good in theory, but nobody wants to live with one.

And Dog help them if "teh peoples" ever find out the true financial costs of Nnnuclear. Support will evaporate faster than cesium off Chernobyl.

[Statistical]

10. No there is a nice solution for that.

See the existing plants were designed for between 4 & 8 reactors.

When nuclear reactor construction stopped in the 70s most sites only had 2 reactors (on plots of land designed for 4 to 8).
We can build another hundred reactors just at existing sites.

The irony is once reactors are built you have a reverse NIMBY effect. People become educated about nuclear power.

When they voted to shutdown Vermont Yankee do you know what town is the ONLY town who voted to keep it open?
The town closest to the reactor.

Nuclear energy jobs are high paying and towns receive low cost energy and substantial tax revenue.
Not to mention most of the high salary incomes get spent in the town helping out everyone from the movie theater to the barbershop.

[MajorChode]

34. The French don't seem to mind too much

France has about 6.5% of the land mass compared to the US and a much higher population density. They have 59 reactors compared to 104 in the US and they get almost 80% of their power from nuclear compared to less than 20% in the US.

[DCKit]

46. The French also DEMAND far tighter regulations to justify that trust.

We, on the other hand, outsource the building and operation of those plants to contractors (the same folks doing such a bang-up job in the M.E.) and oversight to industry insiders. Keeps operating costs as low and revenues as high as possible. Why not? If there's an accident, the U.S. government has agreed to cover all costs.

The French are also up-front with the cost to build and operate those plants. They don't give the people a bill for $400 million, then tell 'em they're in for another $7 Billion to finish the job.

There's a lot more to it, but I think you know that.

[MajorChode]

71. Do you have any sources for your incredible claims?

The biggest reason for cost overruns in the US is because it takes many years to build a nuclear power plant and when regulations are constantly changing, the cost increases significantly on redesign. France hasn't had this problem because they haven't imposed new changes on plants under construction, which has me baffled on your claims they "DEMAND" higher regulation. The opposite is closer to being true. After TMI, the NRC demanded much higher safety standards, even from plants that were already under construction. This is what led to massive cost overruns. France didn't have that problem.

The reason why France can build nuclear power plants more efficiently is because almost all of them are based on the same design (a US design, BTW). When you are building 59 of the same thing over and over, it's pretty easy to estimate what the cost is compared to the last one built. The US doesn't have that luxury because the stigma of nuclear power has not allowed them to proliferate as they have in France and each one must be designed to fit the situation it's in. There's no evidence that France would do any better job of controlling costs on new reactor designs and in fact the evidence suggests otherwise. The new nuclear plant in Finland is currently 3 years over schedule and 50% over budget, so far. It's being built by the same French company that builds their reactors.

[SidDithers]

12. Kick and rec...

good.

Sid

[ShortnFiery]

13. OMG! Let's all huddle under "a mushroom cloud." I can't believe the gullibility of some folks here

More Nuclear Power Plants? Hell to the NO!

Some of you folks break out in a sweat at the thought of Plane or Train acts of Terrorism.

Can you even BEGIN to consider Nuclear Sabotage of our Power Plants? :wow: :nuke:

Dirty and Unsafe
Nuclear Power No Relief From Energy Woes
Wind, solar, biomass and geothermal sources are the wave of the future.
by Susan Sargent

Nuclear power is a dirty, expensive, unsafe power source that costs U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars each year. Advocating a new generation of nuclear power plants as a long-term energy solution leads our country in the wrong direction.

Since taking office, Vice President Dick Cheney has touted the industry's mantra regarding the "clean" advantages of nuclear power over fossil fuels, hoping to use the energy policy as a catalyst for nuclear renaissance. Contrary to claims by Cheney and the industry, however, nuclear power cannot be accurately characterized as clean or green.

Both the Better Business Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission have agreed that such claims are unsubstantiated. Nuclear reactors do not emit the traditional air pollutants produced by fossil-fuel powered electricity plants, but they do carry the potential for significant public health risks when it comes to addressing the storage of radioactive waste.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0519-04.htm
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Nuclear-Power-Unsafe-in-a-by-JohnPeebles-080905-316.html
http://archive.greenpeace.org/nuclear/reactor/turkey/safety.html

[Echo In Light]

16. 62% of Americans, but no rec'ing support @DU to speak of

[ShortnFiery]

21. Gee, what are the odds that our Rulers are tasking the M$M to "manufacture consent?"

And far too many dumb bunny USA citizens are "buying it."

Take your Orwell off of the shelf ... it's about time for another 5 minutes of Hate against those of us who still defy Big Brother's "Ministry of Truth."

[Statistical]

23. So why did these all powerful rulers wait 30 years? Seems kinda stupid.

If you can manufacture support why not do it decades ago? Silly all powerful rulers.

[ShortnFiery]

35. You have an answer for everything. How convenient. They wait until the people forget

the HORRORs of the accidents, then it's full bore ahead.

Sadly, the American People have a short memory. Even now, we seriously don't have our acts together to be trusted with Nuclear Power at "a plant level."

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

If the American people basically "go nuts" at the thought of a sniper attack at bus or train stations, how will they react to the DISTINCT PROBABILITY of Nuclear Plant Attacks/Terrorism? :wow: :nuke: :crazy:

The INITIAL funds will be only a "cash cow" to the investors.

I guarantee you that no Nuclear Plant will become active = a big waste of our Taxpayer Dollars. :(

[Statistical]

39. I guarantee you new reactors WILL go active.

You are aware the largest purchasers of nuclear reactors are NON-PROFIT public utilities.

Like MEAG (Municipal Electrical Authority of Georgia). Given they are NON-PROFIT and have safely operated reactors for three decades I trust them with new ones.

MEAG has already received loan guarantees and they have already issued $2.5 billion in bonds on private market. Construction began almost a year ago (site prep while they wait for final approval from NRC).

These reactors will be built. The regulatory loopholes which allowed antinukers the ability to financially sabotage reactors under construction have been closed.

So someone who is so sure no new reactor will go active you are aware construction on a partially completed reactor at Watts Bar has been going on for 2 years now with no problems. Once again managed by the non-profit TVA. It will be complete in 2013.

[ShortnFiery]

72. BULLSHIT! The reactors will NOT be built. We will go broke on Afghanistan FIRST.

I'm bookmarking this page, just in case you are still posting here in 2013.

NO, it's just a way to stash down the corporate "money pit."

I sincerely doubt that we have the technical know-how and skill to stay on budget and get the reactors up and going.

Catch ya in 2013, Mr. "I love nuclear power plants" corporate bud?

[Statistical]

76. What does money in Afghanistan have to do with reactors.

You are aware that TVA is not a corporation right? They are a publicly owned utility, about as close to socialism we are going to get in this country.

They need no money. They are cashflow positive and they issued a $2.8 billion in bonds in 2007 to resume construction.
They already have the money to build the reactor. Construction has been going on for 3 years now.

Unit 2 remains partly completed (several of its parts being used on other TVA units), but on August 1, 2007 the TVA Board approved completion of the unit. Construction resumed on October 15, 2007, with the reactor expected to begin operation in 2013.<1> The project is expected to cost $2.5 billion, and employ around 2,300 contractors. Once finished, it is estimated to produce 1,180 megawatts and create around 250 permanent jobs.<2> This is a landmark project in that Unit 2 will be the first new nuclear power plant to come online in the USA in more than a decade.<3> Once completed, Unit 2 is expected to receive a 40 year operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).<4>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Generating_Station#Unit_2_Construction_Project

Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant though.

Check back in 2013 (fall of 2013).

[SidDithers]

103. Apparently, TVA is financing the war in Afghanistan...

:rofl:

Sid

[sudopod]

40. OH NOES, NOT TERRORISM!!!111one nt

[ShortnFiery]

65. You would trust our government to build a nuclear plant next door to YOUR home?

Probably not. But next door to another's home or another pre-existing plant is A OK.

Not all that unlike, it's Peachy Keen for our troops to be overseas KILLING AND DYING, as long as you don't have to do any of the "dirty work" of RADIATION exposure or experience any of the "heart ache" of having a loved one come home in a body bag.

How damn laudable. :eyes:

[Codeine]

94. I totally would.

I wish they'd do it, in fact. I'm not as easily put into pants-wetting mode as you seem to be.

I guess some people just frighten more easily than others. :shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

98. Wow! Your world must be very comfortable ... unfortunately, I live in the REAL world where

there is much to fear and total trust of ANY ONE PERSON or GOVERNMENT is a fool's Paradise. I've worked for the government in numerous positions and I've served in the military. I know the real world and TRUST should not ever be a part of IMO, a critical thinking person's agenda.

Two important rules to follow here:
1) All Governments LIE to their populace; and
2) If you follow the money you will uncover EXACTLY what motivates (all guiding factors) most people who are promoting "a product."

[Codeine]

108. Or maybe you're just a little hysterical and easily wound up.

About 2600 people died in Chinese coal mine accidents in 2009 alone. You're fighting the kind of power generation that can avoid those accidents while still maintaining a high quality of life, and you're doing it based on movie-of-the-week fear ginned up by people who don't know science from a hole in the ground.

[ShortnFiery]

113. You term "caution" as "hysterical" ... I think it unsound to promote the use of

nuclear power plants. I might even go as far as consider all this excitement to expand an already POORLY regulated industry "a death wish" for the continued existence and/or thriving of ours and other biological species.

I consider the foregoing opinion, no mere exaggeration. ;)

[sudopod]

129. I've worked in one.

My degree specializes in radiation protection.

I can tell you exactly how and why radiation damages living tissue, and I can tell you why nuclear plants aren't a danger to the entire world...if you'd like to hear it.

I don't see what any of this has to do with the god damned hateful war, though.

[Echo In Light]

29. lol...good graphics

[cherokeeprogressive]

91. I rec'd it.

[Statistical]

22. I will trust the DOE over anti-nukkers anyday.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html
http://www.progressivefix.com/clean-energy-guaranteed-why-nuclear-energy-is-worth-the-cost



You know the Obama administration Department of Energy.
The guys whose salaries we pay taxdollars for in order for them to figure out stuff like where to get I don't know ENERGY.

[Johonny]

27. That's never what I heard at the DOE

The DOE never priced out nuclear power as a long term winner for America. I guess times change or something. And no I don't believe the long term costs are worth the short term gain, if there are short term gains at all because of the construction lag time. Nuclear power has long term costs that exist and are no way determined by your chart.

[Statistical]

32. Well you haven't been listening then.

DOE does an "annual energy outlook" AEO each year.

For every year going back at least a decade they show nuclear energy as the lowest cost emission free source of power.

The problem is coal is awfully cheap so while we should support nuclear (solar, wind, hydro, geo, biomass, etc) we need to deal with low cost coal. Carbon tax is likely necessary to raise cost of coal. This will initially cause a switch to natural gas which is far superior to coal in terms of emissions and pollution. It will also make nuclear (and all other low-emission sources of power) more competitive.

[Go2Peace]

141. The DOE? Come on. They have been in bed with the Nuclear industry for years

[Go2Peace]

142. The DOE? Come on. They have been in bed with the Nuclear industry for years

[CBR]

14. Yup... people I know who are left and right support nuclear power.

I am undecided on the issue but both my Dad (conservative) and Husband (liberal) try to sway me to the support column constantly.

[ShortnFiery]

18. They are IMO, fucking insane to support Nuclear Power. How can they forget the accidents

not to mention the high probability of sabotage.

If we choose nuclear power and have a melt down - there's no fucking "reset" button.

[CBR]

19. Seeing that we all grew up around coal and mountaintop removal

and despise it, I think we are looking for a new way.

[ShortnFiery]

25. When you are talking about half lives of THOUSANDS of years, when an melt down occurs.

That's WHEN, not IF, there's no putting that genie back in the bottle.
It's NOT worth the risk. Not by a long shot.


Paths of radiation exposure.

Subsequent studies in the Ukraine, Russia and Belarus were based on national registers of over one million people possibly affected by radiation. By 2000, about 4000 cases of thyroid cancer had been diagnosed in exposed children. However, the rapid increase in thyroid cancers detected suggests that some of it at least is an artefact of the screening process. Thyroid cancer is usually not fatal if diagnosed and treated early.

In February 2003, the IAEA established the Chernobyl Forum, in cooperation with seven other UN organisations as well as the competent authorities of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. In April 2005, the reports prepared by two expert groups - "Environment", coordinated by the IAEA, and "Health", coordinated by WHO - were intensively discussed by the Forum and eventually approved by consensus. The conclusions of this 2005 Chernobyl Forum study (revised version published 2006i) are in line with earlier expert studies, notably the UNSCEAR 2000 reportj which said that "apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 14 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure." As yet there is little evidence of any increase in leukaemia, even among clean-up workers where it might be most expected. However, these workers - where high doses may have been received - remain at increased risk of cancer in the long term.

The Chernobyl Forum report says that people in the area have suffered a paralysing fatalism due to myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation, which has contributed to a culture of chronic dependency. Some "took on the role of invalids." Mental health coupled with smoking and alcohol abuse is a very much greater problem than radiation, but worst of all at the time was the underlying level of health and nutrition. Apart from the initial 116,000, relocations of people were very traumatic and did little to reduce radiation exposure, which was low anyway. Psycho-social effects among those affected by the accident are similar to those arising from other major disasters such as earthquakes, floods and fires.

The average radiation doses for the general population of the contaminated areas over 1986-2005 is estimated to be between 10 and 20 mSv, and the vast majority receive under 1 mSv/yr. These are lower than the natural levels to which many people are exposed. Some people have moved back into the exclusion zone, which remains contaminated, and this is allowed as long as annual dose rate (mainly from diet) is projected to be below 15 mSv/yr - a bit less than the internationally-accepted maximum occupational dose rate.

[Statistical]

36. Did you read what you posted?

[ShortnFiery]

42. Yes, that's one portion, but there's also other articles of lingering birth defects and an actual

increase in cancer rates. I wanted to emphasize that beyond the noted "physical risks" that linger for generations, there's a "psychological fall-out" that affects the populace for years.

Not unlike PTSD in Veterans returning from war, people who are near a Nuclear Plant Meltdown experience EXTREME emotional stress that may have long term psychological effects.

Beyond the obvious COST, need to dispose of radiated wast products, the CLEAR risk of terrorism and/or sabotage, the RESULT of an actual non-terroristic CORE melt-down would have devastating physical and psychological effect on the populace of THOUSANDS surrounding the nuclear plant.

[Statistical]

20. The high probability of sabotage?

Did you know one of the hijacked planes on 9/11 flew within 30 miles of a nuclear reactor.
Terrorist chose easy targets. Nuclear reactors are built very strong with containment building designed to survive a jet strike, have armed guards and you can't force a reactor to meltdown.

If reactor gets to hot it simply shuts down no matter if the operators (or terrorists) want it to.
There is no giant "release radiation" button for terrorist to press.

[sudopod]

43. Clearly you haven't watched enough Simpsons. nt

[CBR]

50. ...

[ShortnFiery]

48. Yes, all the guards are sober and all the doors are locked.

:sarcasm:

What is that "Nuclear Reactor Security" in Disneyland? Because that's not how it is in The Real World.

Yeah, even in the illustrious "post 9/11" real world, things are not that STRAC. You know it and I know it!

The Army and The Marines are "top notch" but when you want the best you go with the creme of the creme: Special Forces and Recon. That is, those little-league minimum wage Guards for our Nuclear Power Plants are not ALWAYS motivated and firing on all eight cylinders 24/7.

YES! Sabotage is a very real possibility at one of our Nuclear Power Plants in the future. There's no need to create even MORE TARGET RICH ENVIRONMENTS for the enemies of our Country?

[Go2Peace]

151. It's "GreenWashing". There is a marketing push by the industry.

[cbdo2007]

24. Nuclear power is the only cost-effective way to sustain our love of electricity.

And No - getting people to consume less doesn't work. The U.S. is NOT the place for personal responsibility.

[ShortnFiery]

28. We can and we must. Nuclear power is dirty and will end up DESTROYING our planet.

Hell, us humans can't be trusted with "the basics" much less be tasked with SAFELY storing nuclear wastes and protecting our population against nuclear sabotage.

Nuclear Power is FILTH! :thumbsdown:

[cbdo2007]

49. No, the lack of people caring and willing to change will end up destroying the planet...

but that's just how people are.

Imagine if a news report came out tomorrow that said smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer. How much do you want to bet that people will continue smoking or do you think they will all quit?

Many will quit. Most will keep smoking because that's what they like to do.

[ShortnFiery]

59. What part of you can't put "the radiation genie" back in it's bottle can you not understand once

a full meltdown has occured.

Remember the LOST City of Chernobyl? It's still abandoned.

How large an area was affected by the radioactive fallout?

Some 150,000 square kilometres in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine are contaminated and stretch northward of the plant site as far as 500 kilometres. An area spanning 30 kilometres around the plant is considered the “exclusion zone” and is essentially uninhabited.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/Chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml

[Statistical]

67. Chernobyl was postive void and had no containment.

If it had either there would have been no radioactive release.

The Soviets killed a lot of people. They had very little value for human life. They gambled because they believed human life was cheap (they intentionally starved 10 million of their own people in the Ukraine). Economic & Political power was worth more than cost of safety.

Positive void reactors are prohibited in the United States.
Reactors without containment capable of surviving a jet crash or reactor explosion are prohibited in the United States.

[ShortnFiery]

70. Chernobyl was a fucking disaster.

I'm done with you and your "happy" talk with a sound explanation for every damn thing. Money can buy you the explanations but it can't fully mop up a NUCLEAR MELTDOWN.

No sale! :thumbsdown:

[DatManFromNawlins]

89. I bet if you lived during the caveman days

You'd have been against fire because it wasn't something you could hold in your hands without hurting yourself.

[ShortnFiery]

101. NO, but I know that Nuclear Power Plants are TARGETS and we don't need any more soft targets

for "terrorists."

People wet their pants here in D.C. when the Snipers were active. I even volunteered for a couple of my neighbors to go to the gas station and fill up their tanks because they were too afraid to "get out and about."

I'm not afraid of terrorism, but I sure as hell don't want to give "a terrorist" an EASY TARGET.

If you can imagine a scene where terrorists use automatic weapons and machine guns to kill a few hundred people in an open public area, try ENVISIONING what HORRORS Nuclear Terrorism of a Power Plant can accomplish?

Yeah, that frightens me and I'm justified in THAT logical fear. I'm unashamed to say "Hell NO!" to Nuclear Power Plants.

[Statistical]

115. TERRA TERRA TERRA.

I must be having flashback to Shrub and 2002-2008. I thought we left all that mindless the terrorist are behind every corner and goona get you thinking behind when Obama was elected?

Nuclear reactors are secure, designed to shutdown in any unforeseen event (like killing all the operators) and physically hardened to survive Soviet missile strikes and collisions with jet airliners.

[ShortnFiery]

140. Hyperbole doesn't become you. They are, without a doubt, soft targets. In fact today ...

there were three reported fires at nuclear power plants.

They are NOT safe and are viable "soft targets" for those who would wish to foment terrorism.

[NeedleCast]

175. and what was the result of those fires?

Two firefighters suffered injury. Fires were put out. What's the problem?

You keep insisting they are soft targets. Please explian why such soft targets that (you think) will cause massive casualties have never been attacked.

[NeedleCast]

92. This post is why it's hard to take the anit-nuke crowd seriously

"I'm done with you and your "happy" talk with a sound explanation for every damn thing (rabble, rabble, rabble).

Poster you are repsoning to has shown a long list of facts and links supporting those facts. You've showen that you have an opinion, and no amount of facts is going to change that.

[Codeine]

96. Facts only confuse them and make them think too much.

A good spittle-flying rant is much easier for them to wrap their heads around.

[ShortnFiery]

100. I've posted journal sources above and have given a reasoned argument.

You want The EASY WAY. There's no easy way to glean Nuclear Energy: It's dirty and dangerous.

You know that but yet, there's MUCH money to be made. It's an unsound, dirty and expensive way to glean energy but you want it because some people will make a whole shit-load of money and the upper-middle class will have all the electricity that they desire. That's just spoiled, selfish and vile.

Instead of an entire program that involves conservation, you want to go for "the shiny object."

No, quick fixes don't work. It takes commitment and dedication to an entire program that does NOT, in the age of Terrorism and Sabotage, include Nuclear Power Plants.

[NeedleCast]

107. Nearly all of your postings on this topic seem to revolve around the danger of these plants

Yet, you've provided no instances of these terrorists you appear to believe are running around all over the country-side actually doing anything to our softly secured, easily sabotaged nuclear plant sites.

You've posted a bunch of eerie pictures taken from random sources and suggested that they are what's going to come to pass when just one technician falls asleep on the job - despite the fact that it's been pointed out to you over and over again that nuclear safety uses passive fail safes that require no human input - or one terrorist with a brick of C4 shows up and marches through the front gates (due, I'm sure, to security guards asleep on post).

You've posted a lot of non sequitor about how dangerous and filthy these plants are, but you haven't posted any examples of these dangerous, filthy plants actually being dangerous and filthy.

[Statistical]

118. "whole shit-load of money" PUBLIC UTILITIES are buidling reactors.

Non-Profit Public utilities are about the closest thing to socialism we will ever see in the United States.

The only two entities currently building reactors are
TVA - publicly owned non profit utility
GA consortium - reactors will be partially owned by 5 companies. Public non-profit utilities own 55% of future reactor

So are these non-profits somehow stupid? They have 40 years experience building and operating nuclear power. They have no shareholders, no fat cat CEO. There is no profit motive. They chose nuclear power after looking at all the options.

[Statistical]

31. Well we likely will need to force people to conserve.

By taxing moderate efficiency items, banning wasteful items, and providing credits for high efficiency items.

For low income Americans we need to be serious money into grants for weatherizing homes (better insulation, replace worst/lowest efficiency heating/cooling, new windows/doors, etc).

Also we should fully rollout out wind and solar. While not cost competitive we do need them in the mix.

Still even with all that we are going to need nuclear.

Everything all 100%
Nuclear
Wind
Solar
Conservation

will be required to even make a dent in GHG emissions.

[Robb]

26. It's a plank of the Democratic party platform, no? nt

[ShortnFiery]

30. Hell to the NO! Not this democrat's platform.

;) :evilgrin:

[Statistical]

33. It should be. Maybe Obama can get it added.

Doesn't need its own plank just a plank on supporting emission free sources of power (nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, etc).

[ShortnFiery]

37. Terrific, give the GOP even more time to rule all three of our Governmental Branches.

Bravo, Corporate Democratic "Leaders."

Could you folks be any more tone deaf? :(

[Statistical]

41. Tone deaf? 62% support nuclear power.

Obama & Democrats supporting something supported by most Americans will cuase them to lose control of government?

How does that work exactly?

[ShortnFiery]

45. You pulled that number out of the M$M's POLLING posteriors? I don't believe it.

No Virginia, I still don't love Big Brother. :evilgrin:

[Statistical]

47. So why didn't "big brother" lie last year or year before or decade before.

Why 62% why not 82% or 90%?

Gallup showed Obama winning the election. Why didn't they lie about that too.
Gallup shows Obama having >50% popularity. Why didn't they lie about that too.

Now on the other hand if Gallup showed only 30% supporting nuclear you would "believe" that. Right?

[ShortnFiery]

52. As a person who was once hired by the government to conduct Survey Research ...

let me just say, I'm wary of both the methodology as well as the findings of these surveys.

Do you even have to ask? When you LIE with statistics, you must at least make the numbers look half way plausible. Not accurate, but potentially believable. :evilgrin:

Again, I would have to see the construction of the survey questions as well as the sampling environment before I'd give any of the numbers you quote "as gospel" (it's only a snap shot) of democratic opinion.

[Statistical]

57. The exact question and possible answers are provided in the OP graph.

[NNN0LHI]

44. That number would change significantly if they asked would you like to live downwind from one?

I have seen this movie before.

I already know the ending.

Don

[Statistical]

51. Only town in Vermont that voted to keep Vermont Yankee Reactor open....

was the town directly next to the plant. :hi:

In related news:

Scottsboro urges TVA to build Bellefonte plant (reactor)
http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/local.ssf?/base/news/126812976093710.xml&coll=1

Given there is enough space at existing plants to build another hundred or more reactors it would seem the easiest to build reactors where existing reactors already are (and public support is high).

[ShortnFiery]

53. Let's see? Why could that be? Could it be JOBS and the HERE AND NOW take

priority over the risk of RADIATION POISONING?

That's not proof of any objective nor thoughtful mental energies going into such an endorsement. :(

[Statistical]

55. The plant has been there 40 years and hasn't hurt a single person.

It has provided 4 decades of good jobs. That is long term thinking in my opinion.

The point is NIMBY is a myth when it comes to adding reactors to existing plants because local communities have had decades to realize the "fear mongering" is just that and the benefits are real.

[ShortnFiery]

60. And one act of sabotage and/or a technician asleep. All it takes is ONCE.

You can't clean RADIATION up like "it never happened."

You're right I'm fear-mongering but with SOUND RATIONALE. There's much to fear. :scared:

[Statistical]

No it isn't sound.

Reactor operate on passive safety. The reactor simply can NOT sustain fission outside certain parameters. Reactor gets too hot, fission slows (fission rate is inversely dependent on temperature because fuel rods expand reducing criticality). Reactor loses coolant, fission slows (because reactors are water moderated, lack of moderation prevents fission).

Operator falls asleep, reactor loses signal from control center, terrorist blow up control rod, electrical outage, etc. Power to control rods is lost and they (held up by electromagnets) lower (by gravity) and stop fission. Temperature gets too high and it melts seals holding back nuclear poison which absorb neutrons and prevent fission.

It doesn't take an operator to stop a nuclear reactor. It take an operator to prevent reactor FROM stopping.
Lack of input means fission fails.

[ShortnFiery]

66. Bullshit! I'm not your product and there's mistakes made at these plants more

often than the government is willing to admit.

No, I don't trust the government to run nuclear sites. No way! No how! I don't have faith in their capabilities within MY neighborhood and I'm not ashamed to admit it. :shrug:

[Statistical]

68. Well you are in the small (and shrinking minority).

Obama doesn't need 100% support. 51% support will give him political cover. 62% support is just gravy.

[ShortnFiery]

74. I sincerely doubt your stats. Sadly, you may get your ACCIDENT before people wake the hell up.

It's so sad that people are tempted to believe what you are "selling" them. Just pathetically SAD because I know you will win in the short term. SAD. :(

[Statistical]

78. 50 million operating hours and counting = 0 civilian deaths.

In 50 years not a single person has been killed by Comercial Nuclear Energy in the United States.
Not one. The 104 reactors (and older shut down ones) have been online a combined 50 million hours.

No other industry has a safety record like that. Still I see I will never convince you (and you won't convince me), nobody agrees on everything. No hard feelings. :hi:

[ShortnFiery]

79. ONE mere MELT DOWN = thousands of birth defects and cancer cases. Yeah, that's sound. eom

[Statistical]

82. It is possible for core to melt down and radiation to be contained by containment.

Chernobyl had no containment. When core melted down it was exposed to open air.

All nuclear reactors in US have a containment structure that consists of 6 inches of steel surrounded by 7 feet steel reinforced concrete.

A meltdown would be inside containment. No reactor in US has every rupture the pressure vessel but even if one did the radiation would be inside containment (which has no people when reactor is operating).

[Confusious]

147. TMI

One core melted, the other core is still operational.

[Go2Peace]

160. wow, that is an incredibly naive statement.

There is no such thing as a controlled "meltdown". This isn't a "fire" this is fission. I don't begin to know how to respond to that. But as I see you are willing to stretch the truth to any degree not to admit even partially the potential dangers I fully expect you to provide a fantasy view of an out of control fission reaction.

[Statistical]

164. Nobody said controlled. CONTAINED.

At TMI the core overheated and it partially melted. However it never melted through reactor pressure vessel.

However EVEN IF IT HAD there is a airtight containment building made of 7 feet of steel reinforced concrete and 6" sold steel liner.

The radiation would have been CONTAINED inside the CONTAINMENT.

Got it?

That is kinda the reason we build containment structures strong enough to survive a hydrogen explosion or impact with jet liner.
So in any serious accident the radiation would be contained INSIDE containment.



See the pair of can shaped building made of heavy concrete in the middle of photo. That is the containment building which is airtight and houses the reactor and fuel pool. The square building to the left is turbine building.

[Gravel Democrat]

166. Billions of dollars (many hidden) Ooodles of Tech, just to heat water

Lots of people that lack any kind of education in this subject
assume that somehow this electricity is generated by fission or
fusion or the like. At least the people I run across in my daily life.

But all you're doin' is heating water.

Billions and Billions of dollars, Years of construction and de-construction
and all you're really doing is heating water.

And taking the chance that redundancy is flawless.

Because if something goes wrong, your childrens children will have to
deal with it and pay for it.

[Statistical]

169. Virtually all power comes from turbines and the majority of that involves steam.

The question then becomes how much fuel does it take to produce the same amount of energy (in the form of steam).

Current reactor designs achieve fuel efficiency of 60GWd/MTU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnup

That is 60 Gigawatt days per metric ton of uranium.

Someday we may be able to achieve 200, 500 or even 1000 GWd from same ton of uranium.

Most people don't think of energy in GWd so converting it to kWh that is 1.44 billion kWh (24 hours per day and 1 mil kW per GW).

So 1 ton of uranium fuel produces 1.44 billion kWh of thermal energy.
Now that is thermal energy and like you said we need to use that to "boil water". Most reactors are about 35% thermally efficient.
So 1.444 billion kWh thermal = 504 million kWh electrical.

From a single ton of uranium current reactors can achieve 504 million kWh of electricity.


To produce the same amount of power from coal.
Average thermal content of a ton of coal is 6150kWh. Assuming 35% thermal efficiency that is 2152kWh of electricity per ton of coal.

To produce the 504 million kWh of electricity produced by a single ton of uranium requires 235,000 tons of coal.

So yeah it is just boiling water.
Nuclear Reactors + 1 ton of uranium = Thermal Plant and quarter million tons of coal

[Rebubula]

93. Jebus Christ...

...aren't you just the doom and gloom cheerleader

50,000+ die a year on the roads in car accidents. Math wise that is more than 1 million over 20 years.

NOT ONE FROM NUCLEAR POWER.

Keep whining about POSSIBLE problems and ignore the advances in safety and the lack of any deaths in the US (Chernobyl was a clusterfuck).

Now....if you wished to debate the fact that the uranium is dangerous to the future of the planet - we could talk. However, if you keep insisting on beating a dead horse - talk to yourself.

[ShortnFiery]

97. There have been more "accidents" than what has been reported. If you believe the above

then, you're very gullible.

Why don't we start small? In the most POWERFUL country in the world, we can't help "our underclasses and disenfranchised Americans" who are living homeless on our city streets. Yet we bitch and moan about getting that extra bang-for-our-buck out of nuclear power plants and bombing those little brown people in Afghanistan to kibbles and bits.

The United States of America has not only lost track of it's priorities, it's lost it's soul.

[Go2Peace]

161. Anyone who has paid attention in years past knows coverups in reporting abound

in this industry. What is amazing is how well this industry is controlling the dialog and greenwashing. What we will do and say for money.

There is an argument to be made on risk vs benefit, but that requires a transparent discussion that I have yet to see from the proponents.

[NNN0LHI]

54. You can live fairly close to one and be safe ... depending on the prevailing winds

For instance no one would ever get away with building a reactor in Indiana where the prevailing winds would bring any fallout directly across Lake Michigan and over Chicago.

That was tried once. Didn't work. Fighting it in court became cost prohibitive. NIPSCO canceled the program a couple of decades ago.

Lot of variables. No two cases alike.

:hi:

Don

[Statistical]

56. Agreed no two cases are alike.

That is why of 26 proposed new reactors 24 are at existing sites.

If existing site is approved, and towns around that reactor have been benefiting for decades, and have good jobs and the potential for MORE good jobs and have been to the plants, and know people who work at the plant. The likelihood that any opposistion will be strong is substantially reduced.

Would you agree?

"Town Finds Good Neighbor in Nuclear Plant"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/us/04vernon.html

BTW: I grew up in Surry county, VA about 15 miles from Surry Nuclear reactor. People in that area (in my totally unscientific experience) tend to be more pro-nuclear than general public. Dominion power plans to build a third reactor (2 already onsite) and there isn't much local opposition so far.

[NNN0LHI]

58. Why did they stop building at these 24 existing sites when they did?

Wasn't court injunctions was it?

Don

[Statistical]

62. Well that is a long answer.

The regulatory structure was very poorly defined in the 1970s. It allowed a company who had obtained a reactor license, built the reactor in good faith, was properly inspected, and perfectly functional from ever obtaining the license to sell power.

Essentially companies could build reactor and end up with billion dollar paper weights. In hindsight that was kinda stupid.

The worst example was Shoreham Nuclear reactor. $6 billion dollars, perfectly functional. Never sold a single kwh of retail electricity.

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

Also groups could sue while reactor was under construction and delay construction (interest costs accumulating) they knew that every day would cost the company $x millions of dollars in delayed interest charges. A lot of utilities simply cut their losses.

In 2000 the regulatory structure was changed. The nearly 3 dozen permits, licenses, and procedures were simplified into one massive COL (combined construction and operating license). If company has a valid license, follows approved procedures, and build reactor to design certification they can't be denied power license.

Maybe the special interest groups will still bring down reactor projects but it is much harder. Also public opinion has changed. Climate Change is a real concern as it reliance on fossil fuels. Many communities near reactors have 40+ years history that they are safe.

The first couple reactors will give us a lot of insight on how this will all shake out.

[ShortnFiery]

63. Lord, just the thought of depending on "prevailing winds" and "nuclear fall-out" doesn't

seem like it's worth the risk. :(

I bring up the issue of government control because independent laboratory analysis is not readily available in the nuclear industry. The lack of transparency offers opportunities for abuse, as well as conflicts of interest in this age of cronyism in government.

Another reason to distrust government evaluations is high stakes litigation between nuclear power providers and nearby residents and workers who might be contaminated like Silkwood. Silkwood sued Kerr-McGee; a initial jury verdict in her favor was overturned on appeal. In 1986, Silkwood's estate settled out of court; the Kerr-Mcgee plant closed in 1975, according to the report.

The recent Exxon Valdez settlement demonstrated the Supreme Court's willingness to let victims wait, as well as reduce the damages awarded. Should a nuclear accident occur, it's unlikely the full damages would be paid--this doesn't mean however that insurers and the capital markets will ignore the potentially huge verdicts that could be rendered, should the Supreme Court not intervene.

The invisible and insidious penetration of radiation, combines with its persistence, make radioactive fuels and weapons especially odious.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Nuclear-Power-Unsafe-in-a-by-JohnPeebles-080905-316.html

[ParkieDem]

61. Count me as one of them.

Nuclear power isn't some panacea that will solve our energy problems, but it definitely could use some expansion.

[upi402]

64. trolling this propaganda here again?

:nuke:

[MadHound]

69. And a majority voted in Bush, and supported the Iraq War. Your point?

Just because something is popular doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do. It just means that effective propaganda has been employed, that 's all.

Nuclear power is more expensive now than solar or wind. Also, it is impractical until you eliminate the problem of waste and human error. Until you eliminate those two major problems, it is useless to talk about nuclear power.

[Statistical]

73. 62% of population & 51% of Democrats supported Bush? That is news to me.

This isn't just a majority it is a super majority.

Also the DOE disagrees on your costs assessment.

[ShortnFiery]

75. Your STATS are bunk. eom

[Statistical]

84. Take it up with the Obama Administration Department of Energy.

It is their stats, I just posted them.
"Shooting the messenger" and all that.

Here is link to original source.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html

Publish Date: January 12, 2010

[MadHound]

77. Actually much more than sixty two percent of the American people supported the Iraq War

Did that make it right?

Oh, and your DOE report is including all the taxpayer subsidies that we all get to pay into the nuclear industry. Strip those away, put everybody on a level playing field, and nuclear is much more expensive.

And again, what are you going to do about the waste issue, and human error?

[Statistical]

80. Actual the costs are levelized costs. They exclude all subsidies

They are the cost to produce each type of power. Subsidies don't make costs go away. Costs remain the same with subsidies it simply means the govt is picking up a portion of the cost.

However wind and solar are subsidized substantially more than nuclear.

Subsidies per MWh (megawatt hour):
Nuclear $1.59
Wind: $23.43
Solar: $24.57

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf
page 6 (Notice the source is Department of Energy)

I support high subsidies for wind/solar however it is only those high subsidies that make wind/solar even close to economically competitive however lets be honest about how subsidized each industry is.

Remove all the subsidies nuclear is still cheaper than wind & solar however coal is even cheaper. Which means utilities will burn more coal which is not a good thing.

[MadHound]

85. So you agree that we shouldn't burn coal because of pollution

So again, why should we embrace nuclear when we haven't figured out what to do with the waste, or how to eliminate human error? As far as subsidies go, why are you only giving stats for a couple of years? Why are you giving out bogus stats, in so much that wind and solar do not make up the entire category of "renewables".

But really, I would like to hear from you why we should expand a technology where we don't have a plan for the waste, nor how to eliminate human error, please, address that if you can.

[Statistical]

87. I provided the link. Stats are available for every source of power (even coal).

If you want to copy all of them by hand feel free. You mentioned wind/solar and the topic was nuclear so I included those.

[MadHound]

88. No, you didn't, you're being disngeuous

Your link takes one to a PDF file that has only two years as a reference points. And while interestingly enough, it shows wind and solar getting the largest subsidy per unit, in total nuclear is getting far more, per your own link.

Now then, do you care to discuss what do we do with nuclear waste and human error, or do you just want to keep avoiding those topics (yeah, I'd avoid them too if I were you).

[Statistical]

90. Nuclear provides more power. Subsidies are usually tied to performance.

Nuclear utilities get about 1/10th of one penny per KWh they generate. Solar & wind get about 15x as much. That is the reality. Stats were provided by DOE.

Waste:
It simply needs to be stored securely. It has been sitting onsite at reactors in secure casks for decades now and hasn't hurt a single person. They don't require a lot of resources. Tbey simply sit there and slowly decay into safe material.

Human Error:
Human error would cause a reactor to stop (SCRAM). Reactors don't rely on human skill to stop. They aren't fail-open, they are fail-closed. Human error, abnormal conditions, loss of communication, or loss of power the reactor simply shuts down. Ensho posts dozen times a year about a reactor shutting down due to adverse conditions. It requires human skill to keep a reactor running. Fission can only occur under certain conditions. The safety is passive. If those conditions are exceeded physics (not humans) prevents fission from happening.

[MadHound]

138. LOL, now you finally get around to it.

Waste, it isn't sitting around either securely or benignly. It is leaking out in fairly great quantities, no matter how it is stored. You yourself have probably ingested radioactive material due to irresponsible handling of waste. We all probably have.

Human error causes releases, incidents and accidents all the time. Having worked in the industry I had access to many of those reports, reports that you can't get without a FOIA. I suggest you get one, go do some research and find out for yourself just how much human error has cost us. Or you can simply look to Chernobyl and TMI to see.

There is no safe way of dealing with radioactive waste. There is no way to prevent human error. Until you take care of these two problems, we have no business building more reactors. It is that simple.

[Confusious]

157. waste

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/

Human error, that's what backups and safeties are for.

[MadHound]

163. Hmm, that would take care of less than half the waste generated by a nuclear plant

More than half the waste, by volume, generated by a nuclear plant are things ranging from paper swipes to activated aluminum cans (which can scorch for a few thousand years) to the containment vessel itself when it is finally decommissioned. None of this waste can be recycled, much of it is truly, dangerously hot, and what is done with it now is it is simply packed in large steel drums and stored, either on site, or on some other site.

What to do with that waste?

Backups only go so far. They don't help when some idiot mistakenly decides to crank open a valve that's been red carded, or throw a switch not in proper sequence, etc. Or decides to override established protocols. That's why we're constantly getting these minor incidents, these small releases, and once in a while, something big, like Chernobyl.

Human error cannot, at this point, be eliminated. And really, in nuclear power, there's no such thing as a small oopsy.

[Confusious]

165. Obviously you've never taken a chemistry class

Two things. If it can "scorch" then it will be radioactive for only a few HUNDRED years.
If it's radioactive for a few thousand, then it's nothing to worry about. You could dump concrete on it, bury it, and it's fine. Radiation contained.

the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long.

carbon14 has a half-life of 5,000 years. Why do I mention it? Because you take it into your body every day. Caused by humans? no. created by the earth.


You have also obviously not read or cared about the posts before. nuclear reactors are designed to shutdown, unless stopped by human intervention so

"crank open a valve that's been red carded, or throw a switch not in proper sequence, etc. Or decides to override established protocols."

If someone did, the reactor would shutdown, and if not, passive features would keep the reactor from melting down. You may not learn from experience, but

science does.

Chernobyl was a poor design and the Russians knew it, and didn't care. American reactors have containment and a much better design. You people are like 5 year olds. have to keep repeating the same thing over and over and over.

[MadHound]

171. You know, there is actually an internet out there that you can reference

I would suggest that you make good use of it, because your claims are simply making you look like an idiot, it's that simple.

Let me go over this with you slowly so you understand.

First off, I've not only taken chemistry classes, but I actually worked in the nuclear industry for a number of years as both a lab tech and an HP (those folks who go around making sure that the plant is running safely). I know whereof I speak because I not only have the theoretical knowledge, but the practical experience. What do you have? Oh, yeah, hot air, whatever.

Now then, in regards to activated aluminum. Yes, there is a very short lived aluminum isotope, 29Al. But there is also a much longer lived isotope, 26Al, which is indeed quite hot. I could give you the TMI, but I doubt that you would understand that, so let me just tell you this, you don't want to be in the same room with it for longer than a few minutes at most. It also has a half live of 730,000 years. Go look it up.

Oh, and as far as your contention that hot isotopes only last a few hundred years, well that's disproven by the half lives of any number of radioactive elements, but I'll give you big, obvious, glaring one, plutonium, which has a half life of 24,000 years. Any other stupidity you would like to expound on this topic?

As far as putting stuff in concrete and burying it, again, stupid move. Concrete lasts only a few years when buried before is starts cracking and fracturing. Pretty soon that radioactive material you've set in concrete is able to leech its way into the soil and our groundwater. Not good.

Not all incidents of human error in a nuclear plant result in a scram, though some do result in a radiation leak. The most obvious of these was the TMI incident, but there have been many others throughout the years. As an HP I had access to these records, but you can get access to them also if you really want. Go file an FOIA for the DOE and/or NRC to obtain these records. They really are quite alarming.

Even human error not directly involving the reactor itself can potentially be problematic. An example. The reactor where I worked was doing an emergency fill drill. This involves a water loop from that isn't normally used, one that is maintained by the city. As the water pressure slammed through the loop, the old pipe burst and we had a nice little geyser erupt in the middle of the street in front of the reactor. Oh, and there was no emergency fill. If this had been the real deal, we would have been screwed and I wouldn't be talking to you right now.

This sort of infrastructure deterioration is quite common, insidious, and dangerous. Many reactors are located in rural areas, and while their own waterpipes are new and strong, the surrounding pipes that get the water to them, pipes maintained by a county or city, are decades old and in bad shape. The kind of pressure changes brought on by emergency, even non-emergency fills are tremendous and can burst them, leaving the reactor itself high and dry.

And that's but one problem among many.

That is the reality of the matter, and while you may not like it, it is reality. Pro-nuke folks seem to want to suspend disbelieve, ignore the unsolvable problems of radioactive waste and human error. We've tried that before, with disastrous results. Until we acknowledge those two problems, and solve them, we have no business using nuclear power. That's the reality of the matter.

[Confusious]

176. Maybe it's time for you to go back to school

"Oh, and as far as your contention that hot isotopes only last a few hundred years, well that's disproven by the half lives of any number of radioactive elements, but I'll give you big, obvious, glaring one, plutonium, which has a half life of 24,000 years. Any other stupidity you would like to expound on this topic?"

You could handle Pu239 and Pu238 without protective gear, as long as you don't have enough Pu239 to create an explosion. Pu238 is an alpha emitter, so you don't need any protection. Which was my point, but you missed.

It's all a matter of degrees.

Now then, in regards to activated aluminum. Yes, there is a very short lived aluminum isotope, 29Al. But there is also a much longer lived isotope, 26Al, which is indeed quite hot. I could give you the TMI, but I doubt that you would understand that, so let me just tell you this, you don't want to be in the same room with it for longer than a few minutes at most. It also has a half live of 730,000 years. Go look it up.

Yes, and its something that does not occur naturally in nature. I WOULD think that engineers would be AWARE of this, and BUILD a reactor out of MATERIALS that can WITHSTAND NEUTRON bombardment without becoming RADIOACTIVE. That's why they use STAINLESS STEEL and not ALUMINUM.

"As far as putting stuff in concrete and burying it, again, stupid move. Concrete lasts only a few years when buried before is starts cracking and fracturing. Pretty soon that radioactive material you've set in concrete is able to leech its way into the soil and our groundwater. Not goo"

I was being flippant. Of course, if you want to be serious, vitrification will take care of that. Bury it in a subduction zone.

"Even human error not directly involving the reactor itself can potentially be problematic. An example. The reactor where I worked was doing an emergency fill drill. This involves a water loop from that isn't normally used, one that is maintained by the city. As the water pressure slammed through the loop, the old pipe burst and we had a nice little geyser erupt in the middle of the street in front of the reactor. Oh, and there was no emergency fill. If this had been the real deal, we would have been screwed and I wouldn't be talking to you right now."

That's why you test something before you need them. I do that on my car, after I fix something. Of course, nuclear engineers would NEVER think of that. Or did they? You're still here.

Waste

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/

I get the feeling you would have thought humans had no business going faster then 5 miles an hour or flying.

[MadHound]

179. Please, please, don't ever go into the nuclear industry

You have absolutely no fucking clue as to what is going on or what you're talking about.

Yes Pu238 is an alpha emitter, a very strong one. However that's not what is used in fuel rod, that would be Pu239, which is a beta emitter. Neither are safe to handle without protection, which is why you see those big protective casks made out of DU roaming the countryside shipping fuel from one place to another.

Never did I say that they constructed a containment vessel out of aluminum, just that it is used in reactor operations. It is, usually as sample cans or some other such like purpose. Don't assume things, it makes you look foolish and discredits your argument.

Yes, you do test systems, pretty regularly. But say we had needed to do an emergency fill for real, the day before our test run. Oh. . .yeah.

And again, as far as the waste goes, like I mentioned before, the greatest amount of waste, by volume, comes from things like paper swipes and gloves to aluminum cans and containment vessels. Sorry, you can't feed that stuff into a hybrid reactor.

As far as your proposal about vitrification and throwing the stuff in a subduction zone, really now, are you that ignorant in geography? Don't you realize what would happen? Go revisit what happens in and around, especially around a subduction zone. Idiocy, sheer idiocy.

[tammywammy]

81. I agree with increased nuclear energy usage. n/t

[NeedleCast]

83. Good

The woo-woo fear of nuclear power is starting to fade.

[ShortnFiery]

99. Here's a peek into our potential future? Some forces of nature should not be messed with

especially NOW when everyone is bat shit crazy with fear of TERRORISM.

It's just too damn easy for one of these plants to be sabotaged ... we need LESS nuclear energy, not MORE.

[NeedleCast]

104. You appear to be the only one on this thread spreading fear of terrorism

Considering the level of security at nuclear reactor sites and the difficulty in breaching containment there are an inumberable amount of "softer" targets for these terrorists of yours to strike at. With due respect, you sound like G-dubs railing on about how the terrorists are coming to get us...

If it were easy (as you claim) for one of these plants to be sabotaged, one would think it would have happened already. Despite your opinion, these plants are, in fact, very diffuclt to sabotage.

Posting scary pictures taken from fictional accounts of things that haven't happened doesn't scare me.

[ShortnFiery]

106. I may be the only one posting, but I know from past experience that I'm not the only one

considering the profound risk of Nuclear Plant sabotage. As I mentioned before, this industry is minimally regulated which leaves it rife for cronyism and corruption.

Further, although the security guards take their jobs seriously, I doubt that they are being paid much above minimum wage. Especially in this era where corporate profits trump all. The foregoing is not a sound formula for a STRAC system to PROTECT these power plants from being breeched by God-knows who may have ill-intent.

Think about this: We couldn't even protect our PENTAGON on 9/11, what makes you so confident that terrorists could not attack and/or sabotage any number of active MUCH LESS SECURE Nuclear Power Plants?

Simply Put: Why create more targets when a combination of "conservation and other eco-friendly resources" could solve our energy problems without the INVITATION to terrorists with these big FAT Nuclear Targets?

[NeedleCast]

110. Using your logic, we should just stop building things

lest "The Terrorists" (which you appear to think are hiding under every rock and behind every tree) pop up and sabotage them.

Again, if these plant sites are such easy targets, why hasn't anyone breached them? They have a nearly 40 year history of near flawless activity....something else which has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

I have no doubt that terrorists could attack a nuclear site but what does that mean? Yeah, terrorists managed to attack the Pentagon but other than the people killed and the structural damage done (and I'm not putting a low impact on the lives lost, I had a friend badly injured there), the military continued to function and overall the attack had little functional impact. Again - as had been pointed out to you over and over - reactor plants run on passive fail safes. Even if one of your terrorists walked into a reactor site, somehow managed to bypass security and detonated a block of C-4 inside the core, the explosion would be contained and other than the reactor needing repair, nothing else would happen.

Again, you're making the same TERROR argument used by G-dubs and friens to convince the country that we were at huge risk of terrorist attack if we didn't start a bunch of wars to stop them. Most people don't believe this argument anymore.

[ShortnFiery]

111. Your logic is flawed. I could use the same argument and apply it to The Pentagon.

Again, some temptations one should not breech especially when we have human kind and the unsettled world we live in.

I'm not a bed-wetting progressive and I'm not afraid of terror. However, continuing to milk out Nuclear fuel is a temptation to put an end to our species.

I know you think it's too "new age" weird, but I honestly believe we should not be TAMPERING with Nuclear Power. Not unlike our worries about Iran, it's just too tempting to BUILD A WEAPON and/or our enemies to target "a nuclear plant" for sabotage.

Just because it has not happened YET, doesn't make it any less possible.

[NeedleCast]

123. Now we get to it

Sooner or later, it always comes back to weapons.

Of course, if we followed your logic to it's end-game - the argument that we shouldn't do or try things that are scary - we'd still be living in caves eating raw meat while the shamen tells us that fire is bad! Reminds me of the old Frankenstein skits on SNL. FIRE BAD!

We're not "tampering" with nuclear power, we've made quite a bit of progress in working with it. There's been a remarkable decrease in the number of nuclear weapons in the possession of the US and Russia over the last three decades, so obviously simply having nuclear reactors sitting around doesn't seem to be the enticement you think it will be to build lots of nuclear weapons "becasue we can." Reminds me of those who were hand-wringing over the CERN collider because they were afraid it would create an earth gobbling black hole or the woo-woos who though dropping an empty metal cannister on the moon was going to knock it out of it's orbit.

"Just because it has not happened YET, doesn't make it any less possible."

That risk analysis is true of practically every action you can take, ever. Using that argument, I can show that it's a HELL of a lot riskier to drive an automobile to the local grocery store than it is to run a nuclear power plant. Considering that the death toll in the U.S. from nuclear reactor related meltdowns for 2010 is currently zero, you have an infinantly great risk of being eaten by an orca whale at SeaWorld (current 2010 death rate: 1).

[Statistical]

125. "you have an infinitely greater risk of being eaten by an orca whale at SeaWorld"

"you have an infinitely greater risk of being eaten by an orca whale at SeaWorld (current 2010 death rate: 1)."

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

133. Bookmarking. You know this is a great risk - but won't admit it.

There's far too much money to be made in this wholly UNREGULATED industry.

What could possibly go wrong? :crazy:

[ShortnFiery]

132. The risk-analysis is 100% when it happens.

:eyes:

[NeedleCast]

167. That's true of practically everything, and a horrible argument

It's like predicting the end of the world without giving a date.

ShortnFiery says: "SOMETHING BAD WILL HAPPEN AT SOME POINT!"

Well, you're absolutly right about that. It's the amount of time you spend being wrong that's the real issue.

[Statistical]

112. Well the pentagon wasn't designed to survive impact from a plane...

If we built the pentagon out of 6" solid steel inside 7 feet of steel reinforced concrete anchored to 20 foot deep concrete foundation in a shape that geometrically absorbs the maximum amount of energy before failing ....

well in that instance the attack on 9/11 would have failed.

Thanks for proving how safe nuclear reactors are.

[ShortnFiery]

119. Did I mention that Security Guard PAY is not "top of the line" at these nuclear power plants nor

is this industry regulated AT ALL other than being one huge "cash cow?"

[Statistical]

121. Ever heard of the NRC?

Anyone other industry you know has policies that shutdown operation completely when anything onsite fails or reports a problem.

Power transformer fails - reactor shutdown safely (despite fact that reactor has backup power).
Fire onsite - reactor shutdown safely (despite the fact that fire is no where near reactor building).
Backup Diesel Generators fail or indicate problem - reactor shutsdown safely (which aren't being used).
One of cooling pumps fails - reactor shutsdown safely (despite the fact there are 4 and only 2 are needed to cool reactor).

You think the industry isn't regulated? NRC Onsite inspectors work at the plant and live within 10 miles of plant. You really think they "don't really care about safety"? Would you look the other way if you had to work there and your family was within miles of the plant?

BTW: I support the effort of some Congressmen to make nuclear security personell federal employees of Dept of Energy.

The nuclear "boogeyman" from 1970s is turning out to be a bunch of fear mongering. Fear mongering that unfortunately lead to a massive increase in coal power.

[ShortnFiery]

128. NRC, that's the unregulated Nuclear Industries "janitors" right?

:rofl:

[backwoodsbob]

162. terra terra terra

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[PVnRT]

178. LOL - a screencap from Fallout 3?

That happened after nuclear weapons went flying in the game's backstory. You are really being pathetic now.

[SidDithers]

180. Movies and video games...

that's what qualifies as accurate information 'round these parts.:banghead:

Sid

[Statistical]

86. What is interesting is the Rec is 0. I assume it is heavily recced and unrecced.

I figure that means DU is about equally split on the idea of nuclear power (recs = unrecs = net is 0).
I wish we could see separate recs & unrecs.

[Nikki Stone1]

95. That's because they've been sold the idea that is it green technology. LOL!

Thank you GE.

[JonLP24]

102. Kick & Rec

Not because I agree for more nuclear power, but that there is a good discussion in this thread with good points (I think) made by both sides. If you want to know where I stand I guess I'm on the fence but more on the side of woo woo anti-nuke.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tammywammy]

116. Agreed about ethanol, it's a horrible source of energy. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

120. Every SOURCE is cheaper and cleaner than Nuclear Energy. eom

[Statistical]

122. According to your (unsubstantiated) claims but not according to the DOE. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

130. Yes, the DOE would not ever lie to us, would they?

Rule #1 of Politics: GOVERNMENTS LIE. :evilgrin:

[Liberation Angel]

109. Nuclear Power Kills People: If Americans weren't so Clueless they'd oppose new plants

I worked in the nuclear industry myself, albeit briefly, and have worked with whistleblowers and downwinders. The studies I trust say that MILLIONS of people are dying and are damaged in many other ways. (BTW I worked in worker safety and environmental medicine departments, including radiation exposure of workers and civilians, assessing risks and harm and exposure)

Here are some conclusions from the executive summary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk :

10. The committee concludes that the present cancer epidemic is a consequence of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959-63 and that more recent releases of radioisotopes to the environment from the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle will result in significant increases in cancer and other types of ill health.

11. Using both the ECRR's new model and that of the ICRP the committee calculates the total number of deaths resulting from the nuclear project since 1945. The ICRP calculation, based on figures for doses to populations up to 1989 given by the United Nations, results in 1,173,600 deaths from cancer. The ECRR model predicts 61,600,000 deaths from cancer, 1,600,000 infant deaths and 1,900,000 foetal deaths. In addition, the ECRR predict a 10% loss of life quality integrated over all diseases and conditions in those who were exposed over the period of global weapons fallout.

http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm


New studies on uranium and other updates of the studies and research of the European Committee on Radiation Risk may be found here:

http://www.euradcom.org/

[ShortnFiery]

117. Thank Heavens for one more on the "woo woo it's not worth it" side.

Thanks for the well considered information and commentary. :thumbsup: :hi:

[Codeine]

124. Woos of a feather

manipulate data together.

[ShortnFiery]

127. How remarkably vapid. eom.

[Liberation Angel]

149. The pro-"nukular" woo woos are a hazard here

But not as big a hazard as what they promote.

Fortunately they are in the minority here.

But unfortunately the corporate disinformation here is thick.

That is why I bother.

I worked in the industry and also worked on a Congressional staff that dealt with these issues. These experiences and participation in nuclear safety and regulatory hearings made me realize how much the industry lies and to what lengths they will go to deny the deadly nature of their nuclear pollution and propaganda.

[NeedleCast]

168. "Fortunately they are in the minority here"

Not according to your push-poll: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8056721

Sucks when you crush your own argument, huh?

[Liberation Angel]

170. Time will tell - my poll is just getting started

But I do not expect that industry shills will not try to game it so we'll just see...

[NeedleCast]

177. Such Rhetoric

I see. So if you win your poll it's what, all knowledgable anti-nukker people voting with their hearts...and if you lose your poll, it's because industry shills are gaming it.

Pretty easy to make an argument when you insure that you can't lose it by labeling your opponent "industry shills."

But you knew that....

[Statistical]

126. Anyone else notice the inclusion of ATMOSPHERIC NUCLEAR WEAPON TESTS

think that might skew the report slightly?

let me do a study on number of deaths from playing with firearms while drunk COMBINED with number of deaths playing with carrots while drunk.

OH NOES!!!!!!! Lots of people die from being drunk with a carrot (or firearms).

The organization could do a study JUST of deaths from nuclear energy but that wouldn't get the fake numbers they want (kinda like a study of just deaths from being drunk around ONLY carrots).

[ShortnFiery]

131. Yes, the DOE would never fake the numbers? Only those evil liberal trial lawyers.

Lies. Damn Lies. DOE Statistics and Polling Data.

Here's to all who SKEW their reports! :toast: :evilgrin:

[NeedleCast]

134. Are all statistics and polls that disagree with your (unsubstantiated) opinion lies

or just the ones published by the DOE and the Gallop poll in the OP?

[ShortnFiery]

135. Hint: Some industries work "hand in glove." eom

[Cetacea]

137. Lot's of "corporate woo woos" here

We must have compassion for the blind believers, whether those beliefs are in god-as-science or god-as-profit margins.

[defendandprotect]

114. Doubt it . . . unless we have that many uninformed citizens?

and where is all the nuclear waste going?

This is criminal use of taxpayer money --

[Cetacea]

136. Some of you put a lot of faith in corporations

Young or just inexperienced?

[ShortnFiery]

139. Just Today! = Fires reported at THREE Nuclear Power Plants. Yes, they're all completely SAFE.

:evilgrin:

Fires Reported at Three Nuclear Power Plants

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/30/headlines#11

Three US nuclear power plants have reported fires in recent days. Two of the fires occurred at plants owned by Progress Energy in the Carolinas. The third occurred near Cleveland, Ohio at a plant owned by FirstEnergy. Two firefighters were injured in the Ohio blaze. The fires come at a time when the Obama administration is pushing for the construction of the nation’s first new nuclear power plants since the early 1980s.

[Confusious]

150. Someone else posted that

And someone else showed why it was crap.

One was because of a heating pad catching on fire (not near the reactor), another was a breaker which had caught on fire, and then another breaker caught on fire ( again, not near the reactor )

FEAR FEAR FEAR FAIL!

[ShortnFiery]

152. Yes, THREE fires and other data above that supports the thesis that Nuclear power is FILTHY,

will be dismissed by the folks who are looking to make all that $.

I copy. :eyes:

[Confusious]

155. And I'm shure thousands of tons of coal ash

is a lot cleaner

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/us/27sludge.html

Save your hyperbole. You really haven't offered up any other solutions. Just fear. I don't listen to fear-mongers and tune them out right quick.

And as far as you copying, you don't. The difference between you and I is that I respond to reason. Give me a reason. Solar cells suddenly drop in price and are cheaper then sliced bread to make. Americans come to their senses and don't want to drive anymore, and love public transportation. Or a solution. realistically , it's the only one I can see for the near future. Magical ponies who are going to give us all solar cells which run off the glow from our happy natural holistic smiles is NOT realistic.

You have your fantasies, and you'll stick with them, no matter the proof or what any expert says. Kinda like a fundie.

[ShortnFiery]

156. Yes, SAFE nuclear energy makes about as much sense as CLEAN coal. eom

[Confusious]

158. Figures

No reason, just slogans.

[lbrtbell]

143. As someone who used to live near a nuke power plant

Screw that noise. That thing had to be shut down so many times to prevent "problems", I lost count.

Even if nothing bad happens, where do you put the resulting radioactive waste?

*crickets*

[Confusious]

145. I think the crikets are telling you to look harder

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/01/27/nuclear_hybrid/

[ShortnFiery]

153. Roger! Not to mention that this industry has LITTLE to NO REGULATION.

They wouldn't admit it if there was a problem and your goldfish were found belly-up "glowing in the dark."

[Greyhound]

159. Assuming this is true,

we are expected to acquiesce to an opinion held by the same majority of people that can't point to Canada on a map or even fathom the intricacies of a four-way stop sign?

Thank you, no.