Nuclear Power - On Or Off The Table?

[Median Democrat]

I tried discussing this issue on the primary board, but apparently actual issues appear to be irrelevant in the battle of dueling soundbites. So, I pose the question here. Candidate One opposes subsidies for nuclear power development, and believes that energy efficiency and renewable energy sources are better options to pursue. The Candidate Two says that nuclear power should remain on the table and that it unlikely that we will be able to meet our energy independence goals without considering nuclear power.

Now, ignoring the identity of the candidates, and which candidate you may personally support, which position is closer to your position and why?

[MADem]

1. You posted this three times. You have a tricky mouse, maybe?

It's a good question. Good luck getting reasonable answers here. Maybe the energy forum?

Dunno if you have to have a star to play there--I just lost mine, and I'm not renewing...at least for the time being. I am unmotivated by all the bickering.

[Median Democrat]

3. Sorry about that, I think it is my mouse...

For some reason, this has happened to me twice with me getting two duplicate posts write after I post. Any suggestions?

[MADem]

4. Clean the mouse, maybe go into your software and adjust the sensitivity of it.

I had that problem. Shitty old mouse was the issue. I managed by being very deliberate when I clicked the POST MESSAGE bar, and being careful to only click ONCE. It finally was new mouse time.

[patrice]

2. Depends upon which candidate is listening to me and my friends. nt

[mitchtv]

5. I like door number 1

for what it's worth

[demwing]

6. I have an inbetween view

Until we can safely deal with nuclear waste, we have to look elsewhere for energy resources. That day may never come, but if it does, then nuclear chould be one of our foundations in an independent energy society.

[nosmokes]

7. OFF for me the issue of waste trumps the rest, and that's only one of a

long list of cons up against a fairly short list of pros at this point.

[vickitulsa]

8. This is a huge issue which needs discussing, all right.

But it's also a very complex matter, involving "radioactive" political aspects among other things that make it a difficult one for the "average" USian to understand and form a solid opinion on that makes real sense.

The technological complexity alone is just way beyond what most folks can grasp.

In Tulsa, way back in the 70's a significant group of us protested the planned construction of a nuclear power plant not far from the city -- Black Fox, I believe it was called. This was in the days when the Silkwood/Kerr-Mcgee thing was just beginning to draw some attention, and many of us were quite concerned about our own safety. Yet we protested determinedly, and the more knowledgeable among us (that wasn't me) fought tooth and nail with hard data and passion, against having this plant built "in our back yard."

Surprisingly, we won, and Black Fox was cancelled.

Being in a state where the Oil and Gas mafia have long ruled the day (and politics, both here and beyond), I have at times wondered if we would have been worse off with nuclear power instead of the monstrous problems we have using fossil fuels instead.

These are tough questions with no easy or simple answers, is what I think. The 900-pound gorilla in the room on this issue, however, seems to me to be the nuclear waste problem. It's not like they've even begun to solve this one yet, after all, so how can we consider nuclear power to be our possible salvation in terms of an energy solution?

And in a way, it seems that, considering the problems and status of the nuclear power plant industry in this country that does exist, we'd be foolish to imagine that this could be a real answer for us. There are just some areas where "breaksthroughs in technology" are NOT going to reduce risks or solve difficult physical or technical problems. Trying to turn back to nuclear power as a recourse now doesn't really make sense to me. We need a way forward, not going back to something that was tried in the past and didn't work then.

Not that anything we do at this point is really going to solve the country's (or the world's) energy problems, anyway. The entire web is beyond fixing, imo, and linked to so many other unfixable problems modern humanity faces. I don't see ANY easy ways out. The crunch is on, and just gets tighter with every passing month now.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

9. If we could get the nuclear waste materials off the planet

sending it into the sun, it might be a good solution. But I don't know if that would ever be feasible. I'm not sure how much that stuff weighs and how costly it would be to pack it on top of a rocket and send it up. Maybe if they build that giant space elevator they've been talking about, it could be done. I don't like the idea of burying it under ground.

[drmeow]

10. Radioactive waste scares me

The possibility of a meltdown scares me.

There is a nuclear power plant about 5 miles from my house - I'm not happy about it.

[Jack_DeLeon]

11. It should definately be on the table for now...

We need cheap energy to continue our way of life, and its the best chance we have at the moment to transition ourselves off of oil to a degree. We will need it until we can develop fusion or other more advanced energy production methods.

[pokerfan]

12. Needs to be on the table

Liquid-metal-cooled fast reactors (LMFR) combined with breeding and reprocessing significantly (and I mean significantly) reduces waste and most of that is relatively of short half lives. In short, these aren't your grandfather's nukes.

Fusion reactors are the holy grail, of course but we need alternatives to fossil fuels now. Conservation and green sources are only going to get us so far; in addition to global warming, Peak Oil is on its way and yet worldwide consumption of fossil fuels continues to climb.

If you're ever in France, ask a citizen their opinion on nuclear energy. Not only do they generate 70% of their electricity from nukes, France is the world's largest exporter of electricity.

We all wind up driving electric cars, using electric mass transit, heating/cooling our homes, and most importantly feeding people. Ultimately we can breach the dams that don't make sense keeping the ones that are suitable for flood control and irrigation. Screw the "oiligarchy" that's been in charge of this country and let's at least take a sober look at our options.

[Prophet 451]

13. Somewhere between the two

I don't have any idealogical beef with nuclear power but I would dispute candidate two's assessment. I think it's possible and actually quite easily done for the US to meet it's power needs without nuclear power. That said, on a practical level, nuclear might be both quicker and more cost-effective in the short-term (i.e. the next five-to-ten years). I'd also want to know what candidate two would do with the nuclear waste. You can't even begin to think about nuclear until you think about some way of dealing with the waste.

So, somewhere between the two; nuclear still on the table but would have to be examined very closely before taking any decisions.

Incidently, I have no idea which candidate takes which position here.

[JANdad]

14. Not until

Someone returns all the contributions from the Nuclear Power Co's....

[ColbertWatcher]

15. And the Nuclear Regulatory Agency is given teeth...

...and every person in the agency have balls--figurative, not literal balls.

[enough]

16. Cost alone may be the determining factor.

Two recent articles posted by bananas:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x145603
Vermont Yankee wants to raid decommission fund

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x145601
Scientific American: Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth

[ThomWV]

17. Absolutly - go for it - Nuclear Energy will be our power source for the future

We will have Nuclear Power, the point is to do the work to make it safe, not to stick our heads in the sand and hope it will go away; it won't.

[dtotire]

18. I would support Candidate Two

We need nuclear power, and using breeder reactors would produce more fissionable elements.