An observation about the arguments against Nuclear Power Plants

[ThomWV]

There is a sizable minority of people who are dead set agains the expansion of our nuclear power industry. They are vocal. This is what I have noticed about them. They use the exact same scare taticts to fight building new plants that the Republican Party uses to advance its objectives.

They are as dishonest in their arguments as most zealots, its just irresponsible fear mongering.

[KittyWampus]

1. could you be a little more specific? I posted a thread last night pointing to nuclear having the

same inherent problems as petroleum.

It actually solves nothing but kicks a serious, debilitating problem down the road.

The longer you refuse to face problems, the worse it is trying to solve them and move on.

Oh, and as far as safety- it's pretty damned obvious that the USA is incompetent when it comes to oversight and regulating Industry. Industry simply installs its flunkies in Congress and in the Agencies. Rules are written by them and interpreted by them.

Even if you started new nuclear plants under Democrats who'd at least try for oversight etc, it is just a matter of time until political power gets reversed and regulations are relaxed, ignored.

Example, see Coal Mining Deaths under Bush/Cheney.

[el_bryanto]

5. All energy presents potential problems

But society runs on energy. Unless we are prepared to seriously scale back the American lifestyle and potentially our population as well, we need energy.

Bryant

[KittyWampus]

8. Petroleum/Nuclear = Energy dispensed by centralized source using materials requiring

extraction and transportation over long distances.

Thermal Depolymerization/Solar/Wing = Energy dispenses by much more localized source using local materials collected and not extracted.

The massive amount of energy spent just transporting gas/nukes and SECURING them makes them a waste of money.

[el_bryanto]

10. Can Solar Wind and Thermal Depolymerization produce enough power

to keep society going at it's current level of energy consumption?

Bryant

[KittyWampus]

15. Yes, especially if money being spent on new Nuclear was spent on retrofitting infrastructure

for energy efficiency.

[el_bryanto]

18. Could you point me to some information that would back up this assertion

Because my experience is that many of those arguing that we need to abandon Nuclear Petroleum and Coal have also argued that as a society we need to make do with less in general. So it's refreshing to see someone argue we can maintain our current standard of living with this switch.

Bryant

[KittyWampus]

23. Insufficient but this one link is a meager start-

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy/2006-04-01/The-True-Costs-of-NUCLEAR-POWER.aspx?page=5

Please also look up thermal depolymerization. It makes oil from garbage. It nets energy because it doesn't waste energy by driving water out. It turns wet garbage into oil. It also means local municipalities can manufacture garbage from collected local material.

http://www.thermaldepolymerization.org/
http://catalyticdepolymerization.org/energy_politics.php
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Thermal_depolymerization

[Gravel Democrat]

32. Examples of working large scale solar projects: Proof Solar works now

Solar One and Solar Two

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

Solar One operated successfully from 1982 to 1988, proving that power towers work efficiently to produce utility-scale power from sunlight. The Solar One plant used water/steam as the heat-transfer fluid in the receiver; this presented several problems in terms of storage and continuous turbine operation. To address these problems, Solar One was upgraded to Solar Two, which operated from 1996 to 1999. Both systems had the capacity to produce 10 MW of power.<5>



The unique feature of Solar Two was its use of molten salt to capture and store the sun's heat. The very hot salt was stored and used when needed to produce steam to drive a turbine/generator that produces electricity. The system operated smoothly through intermittent clouds and continued generating electricity long into the night.<7>

Nellis Solar Power Plant

In December 2007, the U.S. Air Force announced the completion of a solar photovoltaic (PV) system at Nellis Air Force Base in Clark County, NV. Occupying 140 acres (57 ha) of land leased from the Air Force at the western edge of the base, this ground-mounted photovoltaic system employs an advanced sun tracking system, designed and deployed by PowerLight subsidiary of SunPower. Tilted toward the south, each set of solar panels rotates around a central bar to track the sun from east to west.<10> The 14-megawatt (MW) system will generate more than 30 million kilowatt-hours of electricity each year and supply approximately 25 percent of the total power used at the base. The Nellis Solar Power Plant is one of the largest solar photovoltaic systems in North America.<11><12>



Mojave Solar Park

Solel has signed a contract with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) to build the world's largest solar plant in the Mojave Desert. When fully operational in 2011, the Mojave Solar Park will deliver 553 megawatts of solar power, the equivalent of powering 400,000 homes, to PG&E’s customers in northern and central California. The plant will cover up to 6,000 acres (24 km2) of land.<3><14>
*******************

All nuclear energy does really is heat water to make steam to spin turbines.
It's highly centralized, highly technical and one wrong move, stuck valve
or Murphy and his silly law could make a large area uninhabitable for centuries.
A plant approved and financed today won't be operable for years.

It's not surprising that so few know about the Solar projects that show it works. Is it.

Germany could be a "teachable moment" if we'd listen. They have, over the past 20 yrs,
become a world leader in Solar while the US was spending half a trillion every year on
fancy killing machines. Ask yourself how it is possible that Germany is not just leading
the US regarding Solar energy but Roundly *Kicking Our Ass*

Cloudy Germany a Powerhouse in Solar Energy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402466.html

ESPENHAIN, Germany -- When it opened here in 2004 on a reclaimed mining dump, the Geosol solar plant was the biggest of its kind in the world. It is so clean and green that it produces zero emissions and so easy to operate that it has only three regular workers: plant manager Hans-Joerg Koch and his two security guards, sheepdogs Pushkin and Adi.
(much more)

google germany solar for an eye opener

[Statistical]

37. Very good example. That giant solar plant is 1/100th the annual output of the new reactors.

Thats right it would take 1000 of those giant solar plants to equal the output of the pair of new reactors being planned for GA.

The new reactors are 2300MW w/ 0.92 capacity factor.
2300 MW * 24 * 365 * 0.92 = 18,536,160 MWh

Solar Two was (it has been shutdown) 10MW w/ 0.20 capacity factor.
10 MW * 24 * 365 * 0.20 = 17520 MWh annually

So even if we went from building one or two solar plants per year to building hundreds it would STILL produce less annual output than a single nuclear reactor.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0802a.html
In 2008 we burned fossil fuels to produce 2.8 TRILLION kWh of generation in the United States.
Solar Two produced 17,520 MWh = 17 million kWh.

To replace all fossil fuel generation with solar would require the equivalent of 1.6 million plants like Solar Two. Say hypothetically we increase wind & solar rollouts by 100% (likely never going to happen but for sake of argument we did). It would take 48 years to build out that much infrastructure.

Anyone who thinks wind & solar alone can replace the utterly mind boggling amount of generation produced by fossil fuels is lying to themselves.

[KittyWampus]

46. thermal depolymerization, solar paint. Newer classes of insulation. Sorry, you are wrong.

[Statistical]

48. No not wrong. You simply don't have the right scale in your mind.

While solar, wind, and other green technologies are great and we should agressively pursue them alone it will take decades to replace coal. Eliminating nuclear would mean coal stays around EVEN longer.

One nuclear reactor produces more power in a year than all solar power facilities in the United States combined.

Even if you increased that 1000% (which would be an amazing job) one reactor would STILL produce more power in a year.

A 10x increase in installed capacity of solar during Obama first term would be a major accomplishment but even that while laudable wouldn't material affect our demand for energy. It would move solar from 0.01% of all electrical generation to 0.1%. Even a 100x increase (which is well beyond our ability to manufacture and install in short term) would move it from 0.01% to an amazing 1%.

To kick coal anytime in next 30 years will require building wind, solar, AND nuclear virtually nonstop. Even with all three it will still take decades. By major investment I mean something on the scale of 20-30 major solar plants, thousands of wind turbines, millions of homes w/ PV panels on roof and dozens of reactors a year added a year, year every year, nonstop for decades.

Thinking on any smaller of a scale will expand the time horizon for eliminating coal by lifetimes.

[OregonBi]

69. No, you are so far off base

it is scary.
My partner has worked in the energy sector and there is absolutely no way solar can ever keep up with nuclear energy production.
A single nuclear power plant that produces 1500 megawatts of energy can produce more power than 1000 solar ones and twos.
By reading your posts, it is glaring apparent you have zero knowledge of how the energy production sectors work.
Solar one and solar two work at approximately 30% efficiency max and silicon solar has yet to surpass 15% efficiency. Nuclear on the other hand easily hits 90% plus in efficiencies. That is plain and simple laws of physics.
Additionally, nuclear energy production is one of the safest sectors in the world to work at. They are ALL run by union work forces and they have the safest work environments in the nation let alone the world.

They have 50 years of data to back that up too.

The problem down the road is dealing with the waste. The French powers 75% of their nation via nuclear power and they vitrify the waste. They have been doing so for over 30 years now with ZERO incidents of safety failures or worker injuries. If the French can vitrify their nuclear waste, we can surely do the same.

Thermal Depolymerization?? Great idea!! Ahem...it takes MORE energy to convert organic mass, even with composting decay, than is produced by the process:

"Hydrous pyrolysis refers to the thermal decomposition which takes place when organic compounds are heated to high temperatures in the presence of water.

Steam cracking is used in the petroleum industry to produce the lighter alkenes. Steam cracking uses water in the gas phase, whereas many hydrous pyrolysis processes use superheated water in the liquid phase."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrous_pyrolysis

Where will the energy come from to produce the superheated water and pressures needed to crack the organic masses? If you want to say the process itself will produce it then fine. You just invented the perpetual motion machine - go out and get rich with that, if you can.

At this point in the history of humans, nuclear energy is the most efficient and safest energy in the world. The big problem is dealing with the waste and as you stated about the "flunkies in Congress and in other (sic) the Agencies, therein lies the problems.
Follow the French, super fast track building 50 nuclear power plants that will come on line in five years (which will create more than TWO MILLION jobs), and our national energy crisis will end over night.
BONUS: Oil and coal rapists will find themselves OUT OF BUSINESS PRONTO!

[OregonBi]

71. Solar paint and insulation?

Which types of this new insulation and paints do you speak of?
I would like to see their specifications and their 'R' values.

Linky?

[damyank913]

65. What are you thinking?

140 acres to power 25% of an Air Force base. How many acres to power NYC or LA? We need to refine this technology It is simply not ready. In the meantime what happens? Think People. Nuclear power is NOT the final solution but it can get us there.

[OregonBi]

70. WOW! 10 Megawatts of power!

I can do that with three car batteries and a damn in my garden's water feature.

[damyank913]

64. You say yes but you're wrong.

I've met people that don't want to see the windmills off the coast because they consider them eyesores. How do you deal with this crowd when they go to court? The delays that these stalling maneuvuers could cause can cost us everything. Not to mention that the green technologies are NOT up to snuff yet.

[damyank913]

63. Completely true...

How many of the naysayers here would do without their car or turn their t-stats down to 60 degrees-not many I bet. Use your brains people! Stop with the programmed talking points!!!

[spanone]

2. dishonest? zealots? minority?

1. Meltdowns

If there is a loss of coolant water in a fission reactor, the rods would overheat. The rods that contain the uranium fuel pellets would dissolve, leaving the fuel exposed. The temperature would increase with the lack of a cooling source. When the fuel rods heat to 2800°C, the fuel would melt, and a white-hot molten mass would melt its way through the containment vessels to the ground below it. This is a worst case scenario, as there are many precautions taken to avoid this. Emergency water reservoirs are designed to immediately flood the core in the case of sudden loss of coolant. There are normally multiple sources of water to draw from, as the low pressure injection pumps, containment spray system, and refueling pumps are all potentially available, and all draw water from different sources. The disaster at Three Mile Island was classified as a partial meltdown, caused by the failure to supply coolant to the core. Although the core was completely destroyed, the radioactive mass never penetrated the steel outlining the containment structure. Several feet of special concrete, a standard precaution, was capable of preventing leakage for several hours, giving operators enough time to fix the flooding system of the reactor core. The worst case of a nuclear disaster was in 1986 at the Chernobyl facility in the Ukraine. A fire ripped apart the casing of the core, releasing radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere. Thirty-one people died as an immediate result. And estimated 15,000 more died in the surrounding area after exposure to the radiation. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are just examples of the serious problems that meltdowns can create.

2. Radiation

Radiation doses of about 200 rems cause radiation sickness, but only if this large amount of radiation is received all at once. The average person receives about 200 millirems a year from everyday objects and outer space. This is referred to as background radiation. If all our power came from nuclear plants we would receive an extra 2/10 of a millirem a year. The three major effects of radiation (cancer, radiation sickness and genetic mutation) are nearly untraceable at levels below about 50 rems. In a study of 100,000 survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there have been 400 more cancer deaths than normal, and there is not an above average rate of genetic disease in their children. During the accident at Three Mile Island in America, people living within a 50 mile radius only received an extra 3/10 of one percent of their average annual radiation. This was because of the containment structures, the majority of which were not breached. The containment building and primary pressure vessel remained undamaged, fulfilling their function.

3. Waste Disposal

The byproducts of the fissioning of uranium-235 remains radioactive for thousands of years, requiring safe disposal away from society until they lose their significant radiation values. Many underground sites have been constructed, only to be filled within months. Storage facilities are not sufficient to store the world’s nuclear waste, which limits the amount of nuclear fuel that can be used per year. Transportation of the waste is risky, as many unknown variables may affect the containment vessels. If one of these vessels were compromised, the results may be deadly.

[OregonBi]

76. Meltdowns do NOT exist!

The 60's are OVER! You read too many naysayer magazines.
Nuclear technology is millions of times different today than it was even 20 years ago let along 40 years ago with Three Mile Island. Oh, the reactor core of Three Mile Island did indeed "melt down" but as we ALL know today, there was ZERO "white-hot molten mass" that melted through the containment vessel and burned up a bunch of Chinese.

The new fuels used now, by FEDERAL MANDATE, are vastly different than they were again, 20 years ago.

The new fuels contain materials that when they reach a specific temperature, far less than the "meltdown" you alluded to, the fuel, which is contained in zirconium rods, begins to break down which causes a release of among other other things, xenon gas. The xenon gas will poison the reactivity of the fuel thus limiting or stopping the release of neutrons which in turn will stop the overall reaction. This in turn will passively shutdown the reactor without the use of ANY additional coolant or control rod insertion.
The nuclear engineering industries are THE most investigated, researched, studied, and knowledgebased industires known to mankind!

Additionally, if you get cancer and the treatment is radiation treatment, which by-the-by saves thousands of lives every year, the radioactive isotopes used for those treatments come from operating nuclear reactors. Not from the local pharmacy!

I suggest you visit the web sites for EBR 1 & 2 located in the Idaho desert. My partner is there now doing consulting work. Read a little and discover why loss of coolant scenarios are no longer an issue because they loss of coolant DOES NOT MATTER ANY MORE!


From EBR II:
WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING WATER COOLANT PUMPS!!

"Safety advantage

The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) design gains safety advantages through a combination of metal fuel (an alloy of uranium, plutonium, and zirconium), and sodium cooling. By providing a fuel which readily conducts heat from the fuel to the coolant, and which operates at relatively low temperatures, the IFR takes maximum advantage of expansion of the coolant, fuel, and structure during off-normal events which increase temperatures. The expansion of the fuel and structure in an off-normal situation causes the system to shut down even without human operator intervention. In April 1986, two special tests were performed on the EBR-II, in which the main primary cooling pumps were shut off with the reactor at full power (62.5 megawatts, thermal). By not allowing the normal shutdown systems to interfere, the reactor power dropped to near zero within about 300 seconds. No damage to the fuel or the reactor resulted. This test demonstrated that even with a loss of all electrical power and the capability to shut down the reactor using the normal systems, the reactor will simply shut down without danger or damage. The same day, this demonstration was followed by another important test. With the reactor again at full power, flow in the secondary cooling system was stopped. This test caused the temperature to increase, since there was nowhere for the reactor heat to go. As the primary (reactor) cooling system became hotter, the fuel, sodium coolant, and structure expanded, and the reactor shut down. This test showed that an IFR type reactor will shut down using inherent features such as thermal expansion, even if the ability to remove heat from the primary cooling system is lost."

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

My partner has/is been there, done that and makes a shitload of money consulting there!

[MadHound]

3. Really?

Tell you what, when we have a completely save way of storing the thousands of tons of waste so that it is secure and harmless for tens of thousands of years, then I will consider nuclear.

When we make nuclear plants completely one hundred percent impervious to human error, then I will consider nuclear power.

But since can not currently, nor in the foreseeable future, come anywhere close to meeting those two conditions, nuclear should be scrapped.

There is also the issue of uranium mining. It is a environmental disaster, one that kills people all the time. Not a good thing at all

Then let us look at the economics of nuclear. We the taxpayer have to provide billions in subsidies in order to make nuclear power a reality. Meanwhile, with minimal governmental funding, solar and wind have become cheaper than nuclear power. So why should we consider running our grid on an expensive, dirty, economic unfeasible dinosaur of a power generation source when if we switched to decentralized power generation using alternative green source we would have a power grid that is fully capable of supplying our power needs using wind and solar?

Nuclear simply doesn't make sense on an environmental or economic level. The only way it makes sense is if you want to do what is in the best interests of the corporate and wealthy rather than the planet and the people as a whole.

This is not fear mongering, this is fact. I am not using Republican tactics(by the by, way to demonize those you disagree with, very Rovian of you), I'm stating fact. How do I know these facts? Because I worked in the nuclear industry for a number of years and have done academic presentations on the use of green alternative energy in our country. I have done the research, I know the field. What is your claim to fame concerning this?

Oh, yeah, just another nuclear fanboy who has nothing to back himself up with except hot air. Have you worked in the nuclear industry? Have you done peer reviewed presentations in the academic world? No, you're just another keyboard commando shilling for the nuclear industry.

[KittyWampus]

4. Because Nuclear keeps the profits in the hands of a few centralized distributors just like Petrol

that's why it's being pushed.

Corporate overlords don't want decentralized Energy in this country.

Too much money to be extracting and shipping crap long distances.

Nuclear is just the new Petroleum. Same model. Same problems. Same abuses.

[MadHound]

9. Yep, decentralized power would, in the long term, be cheaper for the people

You would essentially have to front load your energy bill when you put in the energy generating and energy saving systems. But with a payback time of seventeen years, that leaves you with thirteen years of pure profit(as you sell your excess energy back to the grid) and free energy. You could easily save up to buy your next solar and wind arrays, and the process becomes self perpetuating.

But this means cutting out our current energy cartel, and they don't want that to happen. So they use every resource they have to fight it.

Sad to say, many many people are sucked into their propaganda bullshit, don't pay attention to the actual reality of what is going on, and proceed to become a simple propagandist for big business, acting against their own interests. Sad, truly sad.

[KittyWampus]

11. I grew up in a town about 30 minutes east of NYC. There was municipal electricity

Kept rates down.

Maybe people don't get that there are two different social/business models?

Centralized v. Municipal?

[paulk]

44. this is, of course, the correct answer

you can't limit the sun or the wind

it's there for the taking

[KittyWampus]

47. it's not just sun/wind. It's also garbage. Using what we produce as waste & turning it into energy

[damyank913]

67. Calm down keyboard boy.

There is no minimal govt funding to make wind and solar a reality because they cannot (at this point in time) compare to the output of nuclear power PERIOD. Think Man. We need a bridge to get us there until the technology catches up, and we need it now! Maybe you wanna ride your bike everywhere but I don't. And despite all the protests in this post most of these folks aren't giving up their cars either. Quit barking and think!

[OregonBi]

79. True...true...true!

The last thing I want to do is have to ride my bike in a blowing torrential downpour to the local restaurant and liquor store just to enjoy my little corner of American life just because wind power failures caused the price of gas to skyrocket to 12 dollars a gallon!

[OregonBi]

77. We already do:

It's called VITRIFICATION!

Read: http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1757-899X/2/1/012002/mse9_2_012002.pdf?request-id=408cebb7-16e7-421b-ae5f-ebf3e1cae616

Enlighten: http://www.allbusiness.com/nonmetallic-mineral/glass-glass-manufacturing/722088-1.html

Know: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html

Become Educated: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5530174.html

Embrace reality!

[OregonBi]

78. dupy from above

naw

[spanone]

6. your op is not an observation of the argument. it's an observation of those who argue.

name calling is not a good way to start a conversation.

[ThomWV]

13. Hmmmmm

You are correct, it is an observation about the arguers, but also the argument.

I don't recall calling anyone any name though. I said they were in the minority, and in fact they are. I said they used dishonest arguments, and in fact they do.

I called them for using scare tactics, which in fact they do, and the test for it is pure and simple. Do they rail against what is happening or what they expect to happen? If they were reporting on actual incidents which posed real threat to people then this post would never have been made, but they don't. What they do instead is exaggerate the silliest of problems, try to make problems at power plants that have absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power sound like they are nuclear related, and avoid science like anti evolutionists.

This is not the stuff of sound energy policy, it is the stuff of zealots - which I also called them, in fact.

[KittyWampus]

14. How did Regulation of Coal Mining fare under Bush/Cheney? How about Oversight of Banks?

Why would someone seriously suggest Nuclear would be different?

[damyank913]

68. So then, you're saying that no govt regulation works?

[madokie]

21. In that caseI have the same opinion of you

Talk to us about Chernobyl or three mile island or Hanford or the Navaho's plight. Lets not gloss over the fine print here

[OregonBi]

82. what happened at Hanford?

Never heard of it!

[spanone]

28. nuclear waste is not a 'silly problem' nor is a meltdown

[Jamastiene]

7. Debunk them/us then.

That seems to be your best bet in this case.

I'll admit I am on the fence and still learning about advances in nuclear energy. I know some about basic electricity and electronics, and I'm still excited by the idea of a smart grid using a combination of wind, solar, and hydroelectric.

But I realize that there is a lot I don't know about advances in nuclear technology. Quite honestly, just like a lot of people, I don't think I have the patience, time, or energy to read zillions of pages of data to find out.

On the one hand, from what I do know, I can see some positives about a properly functioning nuclear power plant, but I have worries and qualms and real suspicions too.

1. How can we be sure to avoid a Chernobyl type disaster in our own backyard?
2. What can we do with all the nuclear waste from spent fuel?
3. What about the health dangers involved with nuclear plants? People who work there? People who live near the plants? People who handle the waste?

I just honestly want to know the answers to those 3 main questions (and maybe a few more) without needing a degree I could not afford to get, but wish I could have gotten. :(

Would you be willing to break it down for me in layman's terms?

[ThomWV]

22. OK, hows it really going to work - this flood of 'free speech' money

Chernobyl was an uncontained reactor facility - there is not one uncontained reactor, even a research reactor, in this country. Its like comparing apples to oranges from Jupiter.

It may come as a surprise to you to learn that the Government does have storage for nuclear waste, it is the individual states which will not allow transportation of civilian waste - no matter how many safeguards are taken - to move the spent fuel from civilian reactor sitesf (where the old rods are stored in water pools) to the DOE facility (Waste Isolation facility in New Mexico).

Nuclear plant workers are constantly monitored and in fact have a relatively low annual dosage limit. I was amazed to find out that the guys who change fuel rods work as independent contractors and their story is interesting. As a general rule nuclear plants change a third of their fuel rods periodically. The rods are assembled in bundles of three and one in round-robin fashion they are replaced as they are spent. Wondering crews are hired for this very specialized work and the guys who do it move around the country. Each worker is extremely well trained for what is essentially a heavy construction job with horrible hazards for anyone who is inattentave. Each of them has an annual exposure limit and it follows them from job to job. Most of these guys meet their limit my mid year and by September its hard to find any licensed workers left. Of course the work must be done so I'll leave it up to you to guess how much the fellows who still have working time left on their annual exposure make in those last few months.

Next questions ...

[KittyWampus]

26. How is a government incapable of Overseeing and Regulating Banks and Coal legitimately

considered capable of Overseeing/Regulating Nuclear?

[Gravel Democrat]

35. you nailed it

like a carpenter

"How is a government incapable of Overseeing and Regulating Banks and
Coal legitimately considered capable of Overseeing/Regulating Nuclear?"

[Statistical]

42. Because onsite NRC regulators are required to live near the plant.

If you and your family lived near the plant you were in charge of monitoring would you take your job seriously?

Every nuclear power plant has 2 full time NRC "onsite resident inspectors" and federal regulations require them to live in the town or locality nearest the plant they are assigned to.

[KittyWampus]

56. how easy it to buy a house in any location so you "live near a plant"? Further, there are leaking

plants in existence right now (Vermont, for instance).


And if the Banking scandals don't illustrate to you that our culture today allows and encourages malfeasance on Management and Regulatory levels you need to step back and see the big picture.

[OregonBi]

80. Leaking?

Oh really?
What are they leaking and how much?

Stats, links, PROOF?

You are apparently proving more and more to be a nutcase not worthy of any consideration of that which you post.

Here is an idea, open the main electrical breakers to your home and let others have that which you do not want to ensure the nation needs.

Fracking leaking indeed!

[Don Caballero]

12. Totally agree.

Those opposing the new nuclear initiatives are either naive or stooges for the oil companies. We have a real chance at lowering CO2 emissions with the expansion of nuclear energy. We can become a shining beacon of light to the rest of the world with a diminishing carbon footprint. Let's do it. Ignore those with silly or concealed objections to the progress of our nation.

[KittyWampus]

16. Nuclear is the new Oil. Same type of problems.

[Don Caballero]

20. Except that man made climate change could be reversed

with nuclear energy. This is about the health and survival of the planet. The oil barons have exhausted their use. We must support our President in his quest for carbon reducing nuclear power.

[KittyWampus]

24. It could also be reversed using alternative Green technologies that are locally based and don't

require extraction of materials, transporting materials over massive distances.

The issue some don't see is that Petroleum and Nuclear work on a highly centralized business model where millions of people are dependent on an extremely few sources for a necessity.

[damyank913]

29. Not fast enough.

All we need is another supply shock with oil and we'll all be paying big bucks for EVERYTHING. So far green technology, while promising, has a long way to go. We need something to fill the gap in the interim.

[KittyWampus]

31. "supply shock"? First, nuclear plants don't sprout fully formed from the ground like mushrooms.

The time and massive amounts of money spent building them should be spent on Green Energy retrofitting.

Furthermore, since Nuclear Energy is run on the same business model as Petroleum, there could just as easily be "supply shocks" there, too.

When a minute handful of private corporations own/control a centralized resource, supply shocks are inevitable at some point. That's because they are artificially created economic events.

[damyank913]

61. Neither do windmils...

I live in VA and I can already tell you that there are many ppl I know that do not want the windmills based on the way they look off the coast-you couldn't even see them from the shoreline! Add to that the number of windmills it would take to replace just one nuke plant and I can tell you we're all screwed. Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die.

[OregonBi]

81. 10/4!

Exactly!
We and President Obama are THE visionaries. The others are uneducated ignorant nay-Sayers that should not be allowed serious consideration of their comments.

[Common Sense Party]

57. No, diferent problems. One big problem nuclear will eliminate is the

need to import vast quantities of oil from foreign nations that are hostile to us.

Or am I incorrect? Will we be importing nuclear energy from Saudi Arabia?

[OregonBi]

83. How does nuclear create CO2?

Show us your chemistry skills.

[NightWatcher]

17. I'll sign on for nuclear energy just as soon as someone finds a safe way to dispose of the waste

and NO, burying it under poor people's land is NOT a proper place to dispose of it

[zipplewrath]

55. Done, now what.

Tis' been around for some time. The US has a problem with the methodology, but it would get rid of the vast majority of the waste and make it "useful" in the process.

[damyank913]

62. At least we can contain the waist.

and perhaps find a use when technology advances. Better than going without-will you give up your car or heating your house?

[madokie]

19. I'll tell you right up front

I'm against nuclear power and have been for years and will continue to be as long as we have the present mindset in the nuclear industry where they think they have to lie to me/us and up until they figure out a safe and viable way to deal with the very dangerous for a long long time waste. You want an argument when you post something as you have and I suspect you will get plenty of it. I've been paying attention to this subject for 40 plus years and its always been the same, the industry is not to be trusted in any way shape or form. Proof just check out any number of nuclear plants and see how honest they are about reporting to the authorities or to us as citizens, some of who, no many of who are living close by one of these things. Tell me they didn't lie to me about TMI or are not lying about turkey point today, I want to hear how they are a trusting and good neighbor. No ThomWV you are way off base with your assumptions.

We stopped one that was under construction up wind about 20 miles of me and I'll be out on the streets protesting any other attempts at placing one near here.

[NNN0LHI]

25. I am all for more nuclear power. I just know it will never happen

I have seen this movie before. Decades ago. Let me give you a quick synopsis.

State A wants to build a new nuclear reactor. State B which shares a border with state A says no fucking way and sues to prevent the reactor. After state A spends big money to defend itself in court against state B, state A then decides it is no longer cost effective to build the new reactor and cancels the project.

Wash, rinse and repeat.

Don

[Statistical]

50. That and dozens of other delay were due to stupid regulation.

Under the regulatory framework in the 1970s it required literraly dozens and dozens and dozens of licenses, certifications, permits.

Some were not obtained UNTIL the reactor was already built. Think in hindight on how stupid that process is. You build a reactor, you meet all requirements and then state/NRC doesn't give you aproval to turn it on.

Congressional action changed that in early 2000s.

There are now only 2 licenses requires.

1) Design certification - certifies a particular nuclear reactor design. For example AP1000.
2) Combined Operating License - certifies that a plant can be constructed, operated, and sell retail power.

The COL is only valid if the plant is built EXACTLY according to the design certification. Until now all nuclear power plants were essentially custom built.

The AP1000 looks to be the first GENIII+ plant to get final design certification (likely in late 2010 early 2011). With that any utility wanted to build an AP1000 can get a COL (after completing years of aproval process). However once construction begins no further license is needed.

Many of the lawsuits, petitions, and other stupidity that happened in 70s was due to an utterly incomprehensible regulatory framework.

Then again people act like reactors are going to be built tomorrow.

AP1000 design certification timeline:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.html
"Phase 6 – Final SER issued 12/10" 12/2010 estimated.

Vogte GA Combined Operating License
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/vogtle/review-schedule.html
Final SER Tentatively - 04/12/11
COL issues - TBD (to be determined)

[doc03]

27. I agree we should have been building nuclear plants

over the last 30 years. Europe isn't afraid of them and we let a small minority of zealots shut them down over here.

[quinnox]

30. oh hell

Fine, go ahead and build all your nuclear plants, but build them in your city. All the people who seem to love nuclear better have no objections to have them built right next to them. Meanwhile, leave us alone in the West, we don't like them and keep the vast majority over there in the east, so if one blows its top we won't be as harmed over here. Build a million plants over there in the east, I don't care. Just keep them away from my beautiful states here in the west. (yes I know there a few nuke plants in this region, but hardly any really compared to the East usa)

I love all these nuclear industry shills who dismiss the dangers, its like an ostrich head in the sand.

[BeFree]

33. WTF?

Go sit by a pile of nuke wastes and get back to us.
Better yet, walk unprotected into a fired up nuke plant. (you probably could, security is still slack)
You do know the material is handled by robots, right? Humans have been warned to stay away from the shit.

And:

If anybody is using teabagger tactics it is you. Just like them you totally ignore reality.

[OregonBi]

84. You are a moron!

Thousands of Americans work in hundreds of operating nuclear power generating and research facilities EVERY DAY and ZERO of them are dead, injured, radioactive, or glowing.
Thousands of medical personnel work in the nuclear medicine fields every day CURING cancers of their patients and NONE of them are injured.
Nuclear industry workers are about 95% good paying and good benefit union jobs too! Should we just fire all of them because of your lack of real knowledge of the matter?
The ignorance you just displayed is beyond pale.

If you are so against Nuclear power and against REDUCING GREENHOUSE GASES, turn YOUR lights off and stop being part of the problem!

[eilen]

34. I read an article discussing the adoption of Thorium powered nuclear

plants instead of uranium. It is more plentiful, the waste is a fraction of uranium based generators and it needs to be stored for much less time. I guess the country went with uranium because the by products could be weaponised as we were in an arms race with the Soviet Union. I think it is worth looking into. It is my belief that we should be using diversified energy sources and not rely entirely too much on one. There are always going to be variations in climate. If I had to rely on solar in my geographic location, I would be cold and hungry for much of the winter.

here is a link: thorium blog

[Statistical]

39. yup that is the only reason.

In 1950s there was a debate of uranium or thorium. We eventually went 100% uranium for nuclear energy. The DOD put a lot of pressure on the DOE. The irony is that capacity was never used. Despite having 100+ uranium power reactors not a single one was used to produce bombs.

The DOD built special non-power reactors optimized for plutonium production to make rapid deployment of nuclear weapons easier to manage.

The US power industry was stuck with uranium and that capacity was never used.

[paulk]

36. scare tactics:

Chernobyl

http://englishrussia.com/?p=293http://englishrussia.com/?p=293

[hayu_lol]

40. If you are a proponent of all green energy production...

in the future with a burgeoning population, then prepare to scale back your lifestyle. Prepare for a terrible shortage of power because that is what will happen.

The nuclear power plants now being designed are vastly different than the old plants now operating. Coal will not do it--we will collectively die from the pollution they cause. To cover the deserts of the west with solar will limit expansion room for a doubled population. That same 'worthless' desert land would bloom for agriculture provided desalinization plants are used to produce the water needed(nuclear powered of course).

Leading scientists at the major labs across the country have been saying for years that so-called 'green' energy production will not produce, by itself, the power we need.

Lead time for nuke plant construction is so long that unless we take our collective heads out of the sand soon...we will not have the power we need in the not-too-distant future.

[paulk]

43. I'm commenting on the absurdity of the OP

it's not exactly a "dishonest" position to be concerned about nuclear power.

It only takes one fuckup - no matter how much you tout the safety of modern plants - to ruin your whole day...

[paulk]

38. double post

[Bluerthanblue]

41. radioactive waste isn't a 'scare tactic' it's the ELEPHANT in the

middle of the planet when it comes to "Expanding Nuclear Power" industry.

What is DIS-HONEST imo are people who live in complete denial about the problem we are currently just stockpiling for the future.

So many people find it unconscionable to "burden the next generation" with debt- well, how about the burden of all the nuclear tainted waste that harms not only we humans, but the entire planet and the life which inhabits it??

The notion that all that matters is "us" and our present "needs" (screw the planet & all other species) is something I associate more with the Republican Party- not our party .. I find your post pretty discouraging-

:shrug:

(I actively participated in protesting the construction of Seabrook,it's licensing and activation- and cannot support any new construction until we come up with a genuine RESPONSIBLE solution for the waste and contamination that it produces)

[NYC_SKP]

45. Few really understand ALL of the Pros and Cons of different Energy Sources.

And, maybe more importantly, few appreciate all the resistance, political, institutional, and behavioral, to the changes that would need to be made, and the speed at which they'd need to be made, to wean ourselves from Coal.

One thing is certain.

All of our ranting, good ranting, has made the nuclear industry the most regulated, watched, highly trained, and (arguably) safest production method among all the non-renewable sources.

This is a good thing that our resistance has accomplished.

[Better Believe It]

49. Move along now folks, nothing to see here, just fear mongering liberals

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7731763

[grahamhgreen]

51. Seems like you're attacking the messengers of the foolishness of nukes - not their arguments...!

The concerns I have seen expressed are valid and backed up by facts and historical events.

[SidDithers]

52. What I find comical is the breathless reporting...

of every minor incident that happens at nuclear generating facility.

The contrast with a natural gas power plant explosion, which actually kills 5 people, is striking.

Sid

[ensho]

53. we do not use 'scare tactics' - we use facts

I'm surprised you would say that

[damyank913]

66. Facts, HAH-you mean talking points. This is the kind of crap I expect from republicans.

Where do you get your facts?

[zipplewrath]

54. Almost any topic is as such

You'll find poorly informed zealots on just about any subject. We have at least two "dungeon" topics in DU which will provide a wide variety of examples on either side of their subject. That there are such folks says little about the larger topic.

There are some very "dated" arguments against nuclear power that keep being repeated around here. We also see regular references to "Cherynoble" and "TMI" which just don't have much to do with the current reality.

That doesn't mean there aren't "good" up to date arguments to be made. It's just the reality of any technically based topic. Most folks flat out won't know what they are talking about, haven't really read up lately on the subject, and therefor are operating out of some general sense of "this is bad".

[Donnachaidh]

58. mr. pot, mr kettle is on line two.

"They are as dishonest in their arguments as most zealots, its just irresponsible fear mongering."

Name calling is also a Republican tactic to marginalize dissent -- Bravo! You get an A+! :sarcasm:

[conscious evolution]

59. Would you mind if we store nuclear waste

in your backyard?

[TheKentuckian]

60. I'll deal with them as a rest stop en route to fusion AND

with the concession to fully move away from big carbon and an ever increasing reliance on clean renewables as the technology improves.

However, since we are just giving them away instead of using them as a bargaining chip then I give out the gas face in response to the initiative.

[Quantess]

72. Too late to Unrecommend.

[upi402]

73. unrec in spirit

these guys are like robots

[fan of the arts]

74. I'm all for dumping all nuclear waste in WV

I'm really a zealot about it as one lousy state's population is worth sacrificing for my microwave burritos and toaster tarts. Don't you agree?

[anonymous171]

75. Funny, I feel the same way about solar panels and wind turbines

Every supporter of solar should be willing to vacate their area of residence for the latest 100 acre solar "power plant". Same thing for wind turbines (c'mon, they aren't THAT loud.)