Time for a new Nukes poll

[Liberation Angel]

Poll question: Time for a new Nukes poll

Obama is supporting new multi-billion dollar subsidies for nuclear power.

I think that is crazy and dangerous

Lots of action here at DU on the subject and mixed "recs" results.

So.

What so you all think right now?

Feel free to defend your position but PLEASE post links when making claims re: safety, cost, reliability and other issues.

[grahamhgreen]

1. Please help keep the nukes out of my state (GA).

[Liberation Angel]

5. There are some pretty good activists in Georgia (especially on issues related to Savannah River)

Nukes have polluted it terribly and fishermen eat the fish and are getting seriously dosed.

My family is from Georgia (on one side) and so I feel for you and for that state.

Unfortunately the redneck teabaggers swing a lot of weight there - so for them the industry is just fine, i imagine.

That makes it a tough battle.

Keep the faith though. And network with the activists there. They are trying hard to awaken folks.

[kristopher]

49. Here are general polling numbers: nukes and coal are supported by same groups

When looking at the poll results be sure and bear in mind two things - the strongest support base for nuclear is the "drill baby drill" crowd who also support more coal plants; and

what you are conducting is an online poll that can easily be scammed by the very dedicated representatives of the nuclear industry that camp out here. Just because the site bills itself as a progressive haven doesn't mean that nuclear industry astroturfing is able to be excluded.

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[JVS]

2. I don't like giving corporations money for this. The Government should collect the money for the...

power generated.

[hayu_lol]

7. For the moment, we have sufficient(barely)power generation...

our options are not good. Coal is out for a number of reasons. That leaves green power of some sort and nuke plants. Green alone will not provide our growing needs for the future.

We have put off building the new nuke plants for so long, that the older plants now producing our electricity are nearing the end of their useful life. We must have solid sources for the bulk of our power generation and that means building new plants now.

[Zoeisright]

8. Where's your proof that green energy won't provide for our needs?

And not from some nuke nut source.

Statements don't cut it.

[FBaggins]

12. Lol

Wouldn't ANY such "proof" be considered a " nuke nut" source by definition?

In reality, there are only a few people who would try to claim that "all green" was possible... And they are firmly inthe "nut" category as well (by which I mean clearly biased).

So what's the point of your request?

[Kaleva]

18. Can't prove a negative.

[kristopher]

56. Sure you can.

I can prove that nuclear isn't the least expensive most easily deployed option to meet our energy security and climate change needs.

If the technology or resource base is not adequate to meet our energy needs, it is easy to do an analysis of the amount needed, the costs, and the resource/technology and determine what will and will not work.

In fact such analyses have been done and they show that nuclear is a third rate solution.
Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


And here is one based on costs:
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse



http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[kristopher]

50. Nuclear is a third rate solution to energy security and climate change

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security.

Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. In a world where our primary source of cheap and plentiful energy is drying up...

we must come up with other means of energy production.

Biofules are not the answer, we can not make enough to meet our needs. Solar requires the use of large amounts of land. I feel that nuclear is one option, along with others, that should be used to meet our energy needs.

However, I am not Jiggy with anything, and I don't define things by their suckiness quotient.

[BeatleBoot]

4. By socializing energy

not only can you offer free energy to every household in your state, but you can offer incentives to businesses to re-locate there with the jobs to follow.

not an idea that is popular on DU, but an argument I have heard.

Also, I have heard that you can build the plants inland - away from the waterways, since water is no longer needed to cool them.

Not making the argument, so shoot it down.

[MrSlayer]

6. I don't know that I'm "Jiggy" about it.

As I don't use ridiculous terms like that. But I do know nuke plants are an incredible boon to the construction industry. Of course, if we would do massive solar and wind overhauls that would also be great for my particular industry. I would rather the latter but will take the former.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

9. Could you have possibly posted a more slanted poll?

"Nukes"
"Jiggy"
"givaway"

Try: "Subsidizing an existing low-carbon energy resource".

[Statistical]

20. Also they are loan guarantees.

If the plant gets built it costs taxpayers nothing.

Still even with it being a complete push poll nuclear energy is holding a 50/50 split.

People are getting tired of the same old scare tactics.
Decades of generating trillions of kWh of safe, clean, reliable energy.

[kristopher]

57. That isn't true...

Getting the plant built is just one obstacle. They then have to sell the power at a rate that is competitive. Both the Congressional Budget Office and private investment banks are predicting the electricity from new nukes will be so expensive that between 50-70% of COMPLETED new nuclear plants will default.

This is a political boondoggle of the first order:
"... we argue that political will and political perception of economic variables rather than actual economic factors is the single most important driver for new nuclear construction and that in itself should be a concern for equity investors."

[NYC_SKP]

10. One interesting way to analize the issue: The Princeton Climate Change Stabilization Wedge Game:

Stabilization Wedges


To get on track to avoiding dramatic climate change, the world must avoid emitting about 200 billion tons of carbon, or eight 25 billion ton wedges, over the next 50 years.

This is the heart of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative's (CMI) Stabilization Wedges concept, a simple framework for understanding both the carbon emissions cuts needed to avoid dramatic climate change and the tools already available to do so.

Since the wedges concept is becoming a paradigm in the field of carbon mitigation, CMI has developed this website both as an educational resource and as an archive of resources for those who'd like to incorporate the wedges into their own presentations and workshops. Our graphics and other materials may be used freely for non-commercial purposes; we just ask that you credit the "Carbon Mitigation Initiative, Princeton University."



http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/

:patriot:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. That's totally whack, yo.

Word to the mother. Who let the dogs out? Who? Who Who?

[azmouse]

13. I lived near the Three Mile Island plant in 1979 and

now live near the largest nuke plant in the US (Palo Verde) and I'd have to say "hell no" to new plants.

[jmowreader]

14. I am totally jiggy with it

I am even MORE jiggy with declaring Eminent Domain on Casa de Shrub in Crawford to use as a nuclear waste storage facility.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Nukes ought to be the last resort

where is the massive investment in geothermal, wind, solar, and other renewable carbon neutral energy sources?

[DefenseLawyer]

16. Another military industrial complex boondoggle

No more, no less.

[Echo In Light]

34. .

[Sebastian Doyle]

17. Fuck nuclear energy AND offshore drilling

Jesus Christ, I thought this was the 21st century, and we elected a DEMOCRAT in 2008? Where is all this backwards right wing bullshit coming from? :wtf:

[Statistical]

19. 30 years ago we played this game.

We stopped building nuclear reactors. Instead we built 127 coal plants.

Now the United States burns a CUBIC MILE of coal overy 6 years.
Try to visualize that for a second. You are standing at corner of a cube. It goes up into the sky one mile (disappears into clouds) to your right and left it extends another mile.

We rip that much coal out of the earth every 6 years and burn it. The world burns a cubic mile every 2 years.

Stopping construction of new reactors in the late 70s was the single worst thing we did for the environment.
We could be like France today and produce the majority of our power by nuclear energy but instead we produce 51% by the worst fuel ever discovered by mankind.

I am not playing this game again. We went down that path and have 30 year track record of building more and more and more coal plants.

I hope we build not twenty or thirty new reactors but 100 reactors. Double our energy generated by nuclear energy from 20% to 40%.

[proteus_lives]

21. +1

[Sebastian Doyle]

22. And where should we put the waste from those 100 reactors?

How about in your backyard? Literally?

I mean it's so safe, right? :eyes:

[Statistical]

29. A deep geological repository 1300ft BELOW my backyard in solid bedrock?

No problem.
Of course I expect that nice disposal fee charged to utilities paid in cash each month.

Hell if the geology at my house doesn't support safe storage I would gadly move to where it does, build a house there and let them "bury it in my backyard". Just be sure to go down 1300ft.

(Utilities pay govt $1.44 million per ton to store spent fuel based on 0.1 cents per kWh generated and 60GWd/MTU burnup. To date the govt has collected every cent and done absolutely nothing.)

If it is good for Finland (one of the most progressive countries around), it is good enough for US.

[midnight armadillo]

51. Use it as fuel

Breeder reactors (after reprocessing) and the proposed traveling wave reactors can use the "waste" as fuel. No need to throw it away.

[kristopher]

60. 100 reactors won't make a dent in carbon emissions. Try 5-10 thousand...

It would take at least 500-600 just to displace coal in the US.

[Statistical]

62. Of course that assumes we did NOTHING but build nukes.

Only way out of this whole is a comprehensive strategy.

http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/intro.php

10 wedges to bring CO2 emissions down below 350 ppm. Nuclear is just one piece of the puzzle.

http://www.wri.org/stories/2006/12/wedge-approach-climate-change

[kristopher]

63. Nuclear is an overly expensive, dangerous and unneeded "piece of the puzzle".

The highly touted renaissance of nuclear power is based on fiction, not fact. It got a significant part of its momentum in the early 2000s with a series of cost projections that vastly understated the direct costs of nuclear reactors. As those early cost estimates fell by the wayside and the extremely high direct costs of nuclear reactors became apparent, advocates for nuclear power turned to climate change as the rationale to offset the high cost. But introducing environmental externalities does not resuscitate the nuclear option for two reasons. First, consideration of externalities improves the prospects of non-fossil, non-nuclear options to respond to climate change. Second, introducing externalities so prominently into the analysis highlights nuclear power’s own environmental problems. Even with climate change policy looming, nuclear power cannot stand on its own two feet in the marketplace, so its advocates are forced to seek to prop it up by shifting costs and risks to ratepayers and taxpayers.

The aspiration of the nuclear enthusiasts, embodied in early reports from academic institutions, like MIT, has become desperation, in the updated MIT report, precisely because their reactor cost numbers do not comport with reality. Notwithstanding their hope and hype, nuclear reactors are not economically competitive and would require massive subsidies to force them into the supply mix. It was only by ignoring the full range of alternatives — above all efficiency and renewables — that the MIT studies could pretend to see an economic future for nuclear reactors, but the analytic environment has changed from the early days of the great bandwagon market, so that it is much more difficult to get away with passing off hope and hype as reality.

The massive shift of costs necessary to render nuclear barely competitive with the most expensive alternatives and the huge amount of leverage (figurative and literal) that is necessary to make nuclear power palatable to Wall Street and less onerous on ratepayers is simply not worth it because the burden falls on taxpayers. Policymakers, regulators, and the public should turn their attention to and put their resources behind the lower-cost, more environmentally benign alternatives that are available. If nuclear power’s time ever comes, it will be far in the future, after the potential of the superior alternatives available today has been exhausted.

http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[Statistical]

64. So you claim. The DOE, MIT, Obama, non-profit utilities, and other disagree.

We will know in 2016 when first reactors are completed.

If they come in at $5000 per KW then that great escalation hype is meaningless.

[kristopher]

65. MIT doesn't agree. They hedge at best...

[spoony]

25. +1

I'm tired of letting regressives make policy decisions. You'd think we were Victorians with this coal mess we're still stuck in.

[bananas]

45. Wrong wrong wrong - for one thing, we stopped new reactors in the early 70s

You wrote, "Stopping construction of new reactors in the late 70s was the single worst thing we did for the environment."
That's wrong for several reasons.
Stopping construction of new reactors was one of the best things we did for the environment.
And we stopped in the early 70s, not the late 70s; in 1974, reactor orders crashed and cancellations began.
The main reason we stopped was because they were so expensive.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2009/0813/the-bumpy-road-to-nuclear-energy


http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2009/0813/nuclear-power-s-new-debate-cost

[miyazaki]

23. Ironic that the greenies have ultimately caused more harm

-to the planet by killing nuclear power decades ago.

[Liberation Angel]

38. Riiiiiiggggghhhtttt! (not)

Nuclear power has been killing millions of people (mostly through birth defects, infant death, spontaneous abortions, cancer, immune system destruction, thyroid disease, hormonal disruption and mutations) since the birth of the nuclear age (not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki which was also a nuclear industry gift).

I suppose if you think population reduction is a GOOD thing then maybe I understand your perspective. But with this industry of death comes much suffering.

[Rebubula]

39. Citation, please

Obviously, there were deaths in Japan due to bombs. Chernobyl was a fucked up mess from the word GO.

Please show other deaths resulting from the use of Nuclear energy in this country or France? Just one.

[Liberation Angel]

42. European Committee on Radiation Risk study concludes MILLIONS of cancer deaths (link)

These are from both nuclear testing, accidents (Chernobyl) AND commercial reactor radiation emissions.

The study summary is here:

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

Some highlights/excerpts are below and I recommend you look at their site www.euradcom.org for further data

Nuke shills attack them, but they have credible experts and data.

9. The committee reviews the evidence which links radiation exposure to illness on the basis that similar exposures define the risks of such exposures. Thus the committee considers all the reports of associations between exposure and ill health, from the A-bomb studies to weapons fallout exposures, through nuclear site downwinders, nuclear workers, reprocessing plants, natural background studies and nuclear accidents. The committee draws particular attention to two recent sets of exposure studies which show unequivocal evidence of harm from internal irradiation at low dose. These are the studies of infant leukemia following Chernobyl, and the observation of increased minisatellite DNA mutations following Chernobyl. Both of these sets of studies falsify the ICRP risk models by factors of between 100 and 1000. The committee uses evidence of risk from exposures to internal and external radiation to set the weightings for the calculation of dose in a model which may be applied across all exposure types to estimate health outcomes. Unlike the ICRP the committee extends the analysis from fatal cancer to infant mortality and other causes of ill health including non-specific general health detriment.

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.


Finally the following two website have comprehensive reliable research and data that backs up my position and of those who oppose nuclear power as dangerous and expensive and deadly:

www.radiation.org

www.nirs.org

Both these sites have excellent sources and links:

[Sugarcoated]

52. Don't you know Angel

that to many here we're "woowoo" to take those facts seriously.

It's just collateral damage, right?

[Liberation Angel]

54. Industry propaganda machine is well greased and oiled

with the blood of innocents and martyrs like Karen Silkwood.

[Ignis]

58. "the greenies"

:eyes:

Someone missed that left turn at Albuquerque, I think.

[Liberation Angel]

84. Yeah - Us Greenies are a dangerous lot

we just want to save and protect the planet from murderous corporations and knuckleheaded neanderthal technologies of mass destruction.

[Ignis]

85. Lock up yer machinery: Hayduke lives!

:rofl:

[underseasurveyor]

101. Better to kill nuclear power than living things

Says the proud Greenie!

[Kitsune]

24. The problem is that nuclear plants are net carbon producers due to startup costs.

This of course leaves aside the issue of nuclear waste production that we still haven't got the faintest idea of how to get rid of.

Personally, monkeying around with stuff this toxic inside our only biosphere strikes me as somewhat ridiculous, but I suppose nobody ever said the human race was sane.

[Statistical]

30. All powers sources are net carbon producers. All. Every single one.

Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, tidal.

So setting nuclear is "net + carbon" is silly and dishonest.

Per the IPCC findings.

Total life-cycle GHG emissions per unit of electricity produced from nuclear power are below 40 gCO2-eq/kWh (10 gC-eq/kWh), similar to those for renewable energy sources (Figure 4.18). (WEC, 2004a; Vattenfall, 2005). Nuclear power is therefore an effective GHG mitigation option, especially through license extensions of existing plants enabling investments in retro-fitting and upgrading. Nuclear power currently avoids approximately 2.2–2.6 GtCO2/yr if that power were instead produced from coal (WNA, 2003; Rogner, 2003) or 1.5 GtCO2/yr if using the world average CO2 emissions for electricity production in 2000 of 540 gCO2/kWh (WEC, 2001).

Total lifecycle GHG emissions include constructions, mining, enrichment, fuel fabrication. The entire lifecycle GHG emissions divided by energy delivered.

Nuclear: 40 gCO2/kWh (other emission free sources of power have similar carbon footprints)

Coal: 980 gCO2/kWh
Natural Gas: 590 gCO2/kWh
World Average: 540 gCO2/kWh

So what we call "emission free" power is technically low emission. Nuclear is low emission technology. It emits roughly 96% less GHG compared to Coal for producing the same amount of power.

Then again maybe the IPCC should be added to the long list of nuclear shills?

[DainBramaged]

26. I like pie

seems to be relevant here.

[name not needed]

28. More relevant than the OP's bullshit push polling.

[Onceuponalife]

27. Yes to new nukes

We should have done this decades ago. It's time to clean the granola out of your beard. It's not 1971 anymore.

[underseasurveyor]

102. Yes, says Once upon a life

Does anyone else see the irony here......

[Onceuponalife]

104. Meaning?

As if you had an inkling what my name means...

[Statistical]

31. So even with the slanted push polling nuclear energy is popular & Obama actions supported by DU

Thanks I couldn't have said it better myself.

[ShortnFiery]

44. Yes, and judging by the lovely "popular leader" type situation with the country of Germany ...

during the mid to late 1930s, we all know the POPULAR and AVIDLY PROMOTED positions are always the wisest course of action?

No, let me assert from the onset President Obama is NOT like Hitler, but "our country's mood" is rife for a right wing take over if President Obama does not show more respect for his BASE.

That is, many of us Progressives will stay home and our country will fast forward into full blown RW fascism under a GOP President.

[NeedleCast]

32. Looks like you're not getting the results you wanted

Even though you basically posted a push-poll.

[Liberation Angel]

35. It's early yet...

But I know the pronuke entities here are well organized and vote early and often.

Give it a while.

(Besides -the industry is well invested in getting their messages out and DU is no less likely to be gamed by elaborately resourced multiple usernames than any other site. No Nukes folks are notoriously under-resourced and not as perfidious)

[Statistical]

36. And Denial is a river in Egypt.

EPA releases reports saying no death from nukes = in pockets of pro-nuke
DOE release reports saying nuclear is cheapest emission free power = in pockets of pro-nuke
Gallup releases polls showing 62% of Americans support nuclear power = in pockets of pro-nuke
DU members vote pro nuke in your totally biased push poll = in pockets of pro-nuke

I am starting to see a trend here.

Of course any junk science absurd claim about millions of deaths from nuclear energy = Gospel.

I guess you need to add dozens of Universities, IPCC, American Cancer Society, CDC, the IPCC, Cancer Institute, NRC, IAEA, WHO and many more to this massive and all encompassing scope of people in the pockets of pro-nuke.

:rofl:

[Echo In Light]

37. Yes. And frankly, per the poll, their numbers aren't anything to write home about

[Moochy]

40. exactly see how it's citing this rigged gamed poll?

note that this poster is citing this poll in the other thread.

Gamed polls are awesome!

[ShortnFiery]

47. You got that right!

"No Nukes folks are notoriously under-resourced and not as perfidious"

All I could thoughtfully add is --> I, for one, don't draw "a paycheck" as a consequence for posting at this laudable site.

[NeedleCast]

76. I see

So if you were winning the poll, it would all be what, grass roots anti-nukkers voting to stop nuclear power.

And when you're losing the poll, it's pro-nuke "entities" (you used the word shills in another thread) gaming the poll using multiple usernames and other evil tactics.

Either way, you win, right?

[Statistical]

78. Sounds doubleplus akways-good to me!

[ThomWV]

33. I am pro Nuke, but I don't know what Jiggy means and have no crystal ball on subsidy success

[Moochy]

41. Pro Nuke Posters, be sure to log in with all of your screen names!

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Statistical]

61. You are aware the President supports nuclear power right.

Wants to expand number of reactors and increase R&D spending.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean it isn't support but at least SOME Democrats.

[kristopher]

66. And coal and drilling

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[hack89]

97. No problem! nt

[ShortnFiery]

43. Nuclear power belongs in the past

The nuclear industry remains mired in accidents, lies, cover-ups and incompetence. Today's 'renaissance' reactors are threatening to become tomorrow's Chernobyls. Dangerous situations such as uncontrolled nuclear reactions, near reactor melt down or failure of crucial safety systems, have happened in the last ten years in Japan, US, UK, Sweden, Bulgaria and elsewhere.

The recent scandal we exposed in the Spanish Ascó nuclear plant, again confirms this deadly pattern. Numerous errors and safety system failures resulted in radioactivity being released. Initially, the management did not report the accident to the nuclear safety authority nor did they warn the public. In fact, several groups of school children were visiting the plant while the leak was ongoing. When radioactive particles were found on public land, the plant's operators were forced to admit the accident, but with the cooperation of the state safety authority the scale of the accident was downplayed for several days. The radioactive leak was in fact several hundred times bigger than was initially announced, more than a thousand people needed to be screened. Dangerous radioactive particles were found as far as 60 kilometres away. Greenpeace Spain has called for criminal charges against operator and called upon the European Commission for an independent investigation.

The French nuclear industry is pushing for more global business, but behind the PR the same failings remain. It's new "European Pressurized Reactor" (EPR) project is promoted as being safer, cheaper and more reliable. However, this new flagship of the nuclear industry is already a fiasco in Finland. After less then three years of construction, it is two years behind schedule, 1.5 billion Euro over budget and plagued by serious safety issues in its concrete base, reactor vessel, piping and protective containment.

A second EPR construction started last December in France with assurances it would be a model project. But, the list of problems inspectors have discovered after just three months of construction is damming: the reactor's concrete base has been poured incorrectly, the concrete base slab for the reactor has developed cracks, steel reinforcing bars have been wrongly arranged, in the containment liner one-quarter of the welds are deficient. Hardly a record to inspire confidence in any building project, let alone a nuclear plant.

[Liberation Angel]

46. agreed --- got a link for this excellent info?

Thx

[ShortnFiery]

48. Oh yes, excuse me.

I meant to include it above:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/nuclear-power-chernobyl-280408

[Liberation Angel]

53. Thanks much - the more ammo we have on these pronuke lies the better

I appreciate the support

The pronuke folks here are much better organized than us smart antinuke folks.

So I can use all the help I can get.

[grahamhgreen]

67. Nuclear power is SIMPLY MORE EXPENSIVE AND DANGEROUS THAN THE ALTERNATIVES.

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf

Lazard’s analysis indicated the range of costs/kWh for new nuclear power plants, estimated by
Lazard to be approximately 10 to 13 cents/kWh in 2007 levelized dollars, are now projected to be
higher than the price available for virtually any other power generation option.

The Lazard analysis compared the costs of technologies already widely in service by U.S. utilities
— wind power, natural gas combined cycle, and coal’s current technology. Lazard’s projections
of 2007 levelized costs for these existing technologies, which already have well-known costs from
actual experience, indicated new nuclear’s projected costs were significantly higher than costs for
wind power (4 to 9 cents/kWh), natural gas combined cycle (6 to 12 cents/kWh which includes a
wide range of prices for natural gas fuel), and coal’s existing technology (approximately 7 to 10
cents/kWh also incorporating a range of fuel prices for coal).

Lazard also examined costs/kWh in 2007 levelized dollars for several other generation technologies
which are now becoming more widely utilized: geothermal electric power generation (4 to 7
cents/kWh), landfill gas (5 to 8 cents/kWh), biomass direct (5 to 10 cents/kWh), and solar thermal
electric generation (9 to 15 cents/kWh).

Significantly, some new electric generation technologies are on downward cost curves because they
are primarily not built on-site, but instead are mass produced in factories. For example, Lazard’s
analysis projected costs by 2010 for solar photovoltaic - thin film technologies should be in the range
of 8 to 12 cents/kWh. Lazard also noted that solar manufacturing costs are actually projected
to further decrease – indicating a projected generation cost in the range of only approximately 6
cents/kWh by 2012 for solar thin-film photovoltaic.

[Statistical]

70. Let me know when I can buy PV solar for 8 cents / kWh installed. LOL

:rofl:

For example, Lazard’s analysis projected costs by 2010 for solar photovoltaic - thin film technologies should be in the range
of 8 to 12 cents/kWh. Lazard also noted that solar manufacturing costs are actually projected
to further decrease – indicating a projected generation cost in the range of only approximately 6
cents/kWh by 2012 for solar thin-film photovoltaic.

So last time I checked a calender it was 2010. Solar is now where near 8 cents per kWh. Not even close.
If I could get a PV array for 8 cents per kWh installed I would do it tomorrow!

[Ignis]

59. Amazing how many people love nukes now that Obama does, too.

A fickle wind, indeed.

[Liberation Angel]

71. Yeah - it's f---in' scary. And a dangerous course for humanity

Obama and others promoting nukes as green is like Hitler promoting Naziism as Socialism or John Birchers painting Rockefeller and Nixon as Communists

[Statistical]

73. Godwin's Law hold true only took 71 posts!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

[Liberation Angel]

77. Shoulda been sooner: Comparing nuclear power to the Nazis makes sense

Both were/are the machinery of mass death.

[tedk_355]

68. Good idea IMO

[SidDithers]

69. If you fail, try, try again...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8522636

Are you gonna self-kick this thread 20+ times too?

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

72. Its a poll so of course it needs a few bumps up the ladder of noticeability

With the new greatest and recs unrecs features I can better gauge stuff too.

But as people do not generally rec polls in order to be seen it needs to be kicked.

Thanks for helping.

BTW the numbers at DU are pretty much the same as last time I did a poll (as you note) so far --- and this means more info and education and advocacy is needed by those opposing this insane and deadly pollution of our world.

But again if I kick it will they come?

We'll see. It is early yet.

[Statistical]

74. Looks pretty consistent with National Democrats.

DU is a little higher than national average but that doesn't surprise me. The level of knowledge about energy issues, climate change, and scope/immensity of the problem is much higher than national average.

[anigbrowl]

75. Well, maybe you're just in the minority here

I am jiggy with it. I have been for many years. I used to be against the idea, but as I've got older I just changed my mind. You seem to assume that people who support nuclear power do so because they lack information and education and are brainwashed by the nuclear industry. I think it's fine that you are standing up for what you believe, but I suggest you consider the possibility that other people can be just as well or even more informed about an issue, and simply hold a different opinion from you.

[Liberation Angel]

79. That is the scary thing: people are propagandized by the nuke industry

They are lied to and misinformed and uneducated about the death rates downwind or downstream from the emission and effluents which cause mutations in cells,mutations and death in infants in utero, cause birth defects, cause infant deaths, cause cancer and hypothyroid disorder, immune system breakdown and the destruction of our quality of life and health.

I assume that people are malinformed by the industry and not more informed but less informed and actually ignorant or willfully stupid.

If people knew knew how many deaths this industry has caused they could not support nuclear power unless they were fascists. That is my opinion.

[anigbrowl]

87. So...you assume everyone who doesn't agree with you is either brainwashed or a fascist?

That sounds like a religious rather than a scientific argument to me. I do read the stuff you and other anti-nuclear advocates post here on DU regularly. Some of it useful and helpful in advancing the debate. But some of it just isn't credible, or sometimes people overestimate the significance of a news report and draw unsustainable conclusions from it. I am sorry to say that you sound like the sort of person who is simply not willing to consider the possibility of being mistaken.

"I assume that people are malinformed by the industry and not more informed but less informed and actually ignorant or willfully stupid."

Well, that's a rather grand assumption. Of course, the benefit of such an assumption (for you) is that it is equivalent to believing that you are always right. That's religious thinking, not scientific thinking. Anyone can say they assume everyone who disagrees with them is wrong or evil and ignore any information which does not agree with their existing opinion.

[tammywammy]

81. +1 n/t

[SidDithers]

82. Well said...

but I'm afraid your soundly reasoned post will fall on deaf ears.

Sid

[TheKentuckian]

80. Barely not jiggy. Not interested in financing robberbarrons and

only accept nukes as a part of a truly comprehensive policy that cleans up the air and water while reducing need for carbon aver time and hopefully reducing user end cost.

[Liberation Angel]

83. why accept them at all?

They are dangerous, unnecessary and not cost effective.

Subsidizing them takes money away from much better alternatives.

[Liberation Angel]

86. Kick for the evening crowd

join the fun, folks

nuclear power is winning these rounds

and it looks like there will be MORE radiation poisoning our kids

[apocalypsehow]

88. People are not going to return to power consumption levels of 1910, no matter how much you scream at

them about what evil environment-killers they are. They simply aren't.

So, your question becomes: do we continue to burn massive amounts of fossil fuels, or do we start building massive numbers of nuclear power plants? :shrug:

It is as simple that. Period.

On a side note, may I state how pleased I am that your poll currently shows your stated position is on the losing end, as it nearly always is in these nuclear power polls here at DU - despite your steadfast efforts to "rig" the poll with slanted language.

[Liberation Angel]

89. Wrong and wrong again. Nuclear power DOES kill people by emitting deadly radiation

into the air and water.

It is not EITHER nukes or fossil fuels. Neither is compatible with the survival of the planets inhabitants.

Renewables are the solution and we CAN get there if we STOP wasting resources and money on deadly death-causing technologies.

We could be at 100% renewables in 30-40 years but ONLY if we start now.

And, for the record, if we keep on destroying our planet we WILL be looking at an environmental stone age where survival REQUIRES going back to pre-1910 consumption of energy resources.

I say we prepare for that now by getting OFF the addiction to oil, nuclear power and massive consumption and waste.

It CAN be done and NOT to do it is suicide.

So I will keep on speaking out.

Despite the opposition to my voice here at DU.

[Pavulon]

90. Opposing irrational thought is good

there is no substitute for nuclear power now. Not from all the windmills and solar that could be build. You still have two choices for base load, coal or nuclear.

[Liberation Angel]

91. Solar and wind are NOT the only renewable energy systems we need

But to say there is no substitute for nukes is plain wrong. Natural gas can run the turbines at shut down nuke plants.

[Pavulon]

93. No it is more complex actually

those turbines are set up for steam, not NG.

[apocalypsehow]

100. I was quite right in all of my assessments, of course. WHICH IS WHY YOU'RE SHOUTING with CAPS.

While we're on the topic, I would ask you to live up to the stated ground rules for your own OP, remember?

"Feel free to defend your position but PLEASE post links when making claims re: safety, cost, reliability and other issues"

as regards your (untrue) statements in the reply above:

"Nuclear power DOES kill people by emitting deadly radiation into the air and water...We could be at 100% renewables in 30-40 years"

And links to peer-reviewed scientific data sites (PDF is okay), please - not to anti-Nuke opinion websites with ideological axes to grind.

[Robb]

92. Can I be cautiously optimistic instead of "jiggy"?

It seems to be the best stand on a lot of things lately.

[Posteritatis]

94. Why are DUers so insistent on loading the hell out of their poll questions? (nt)

[Jennicut]

95. And it was still 55% to 41%.

Among all Americans, per Gallup:

The Gallup Poll, conducted March 4-7, found 62 percent of Americans favor the use of nuclear energy for electricity, including 28 percent who strongly favor it. That is the highest favorability score since Gallup began asking the question in 1994.http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/congressman-fattah-cites-gallup-poll-americans-favor-nuclear-energy-88853542.html

[harun]

96. I am more surprised by how many still complain about them. Don't like them, make your own damn poll.

[scheming daemons]

98. So even with a push poll worded extremely favorable to your side, you STILL lost

Not getting the responses you expected from this poll.... even though you worded it like someone who works for Fox News.

pwned!

[underseasurveyor]

99. Goddess help us

No no NO nukes ----------> EVER Again!!!

[Liberation Angel]

103. kick

[apocalypsehow]

105. Now up to 55% approval for Nukes - despite your loaded push-poll language.

Sucks to have to post such loaded push-polls to an audience more intelligent than average, as DU'ers are, and made up largely of folks who aren't likely to fall for that kind of thing, huh? :shrug:

[Liberation Angel]

106. shucks

well

just goes to show ya...

people never learn from history or their mistakes

with these results here

we are pretty well f---d