I'm against building nuclear power plants..

[fadedrose]

They may be safe to operate, but they still don't know what to do with the waste.

Did the Dems win the election or was I dreaming?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Then don't build any.

Some of us prefer it to coal, which is what's powering your computer right now.

[DrToast]

2. That won't work. I'm going to build TWO now to make up for it.

[golfguru]

14. LMAO...you are hilarious!!!

[Syntheto]

19. I've become more concerned with...

...how technologically-based societies become more vulnerable to the effects of EMP, naturally induced or artificially produced... if such an event knocked out not only electrical power, but destroyed the infrastructure of transmission lines, transformers and such, as well as burning out sensitive computer-derived control systems and other electronic components, you'd have runaway nuke plants on your hands.... I've read where all through Central Europe there remain hot spots of radioactivity from the Chernobyl event in 1986.

Of course, I suppose that back-up emergency diesel fueled generators could be used at the nuclear power plants to run control panels and alarm systems, but that just seems a bit too much of an ironic juxtaposition.

BTW, totally off subject, but always cracks me up, a poll awhile back of high school seniors in the U.S., found that many of them thought that 'Chernobyl' was her full name!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Pff.

Well if we had thermonuclear explosions going off that could shut down nuclear power plants then we'd probably have more important things to worry about than runaway nuke plants.

Thermonuclear explosions, for example.

[Syntheto]

53. Actually...

....I'm mostly worried about naturally occurring solar storms. Coronal Mass Emissions happen a lot, but to really do damage, one would have to roll over the planet directly, which happens occasionally. Something like that wouldn't do much more than cause the manifestation of an Aurora Borealis over, say, the city of Rome in 45 B.C., but would deal our technologically-dependent societies catastrophic blows which they would never fully recover from because of political fragmentation; martial law and so on. An EMP attack is possible, but I doubt anything like that would happen because of the strategic problems involved, namely, developing a strategy and delivery system for a high altitude, massive yield nuke. You'd probably have to put twenty or so up, with twice that many dummies, which still have to be launched, costing much dinero per unit. A so-called suitcase nuke wouldn't do it, even if detonated at commercial airline altitudes. It's got to be high, and it's got to be big. The nightmare for us remains the dirty bomb. Yes, a suitcase nuke could mess up the Loop for the next fifty years.

[fadedrose]

3. I don't think I'd take single-payer health as a compromise

to build nuclear power plants.

[ChicagoSuz219]

4. I don't have a problem with building them...

...operating them.. that's a different story. The jury's still out on that one...

[earth mom]

5. Obama is the one pushing for Nukes. What does that tell you? nt

[Cha]

9. It tells me that he thinks it's a good idea.

[timeforpeace]

23. That he's done something to really benefit this country.

[Cha]

33. Presdient Obama has done a lot to benefit our Country!

[Forkboy]

41. With all due respect, Cha (and you know I do respect you)...

I truly hope you think about issues deeper than whether Obama says it's good or not. The country and the world need far better than that level of blind acceptance, no matter who it's in. I wouldn't give any politician that automatic level of trust, and it scares me when I see it.

[Fire1]

39. It tells me he's thinking in the 21st century. It also tells me he's

tired of our dependence on other countries for energy sources.

[sandnsea]

6. I oppose them too -- but

The Administration has established a task force with the specific task of figuring out a safer method of handling the waste. So yes, the Dems won the election and are doing exactly what we would expect Dems to do. Move forward pragmatically and solve the problems as we go.

"The Commission should conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including all alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. This review should include an evaluation of advanced fuel cycle technologies that would optimize energy recovery, resource utilization, and the minimization of materials derived from nuclear activities in a manner consistent with U.S. nonproliferation goals."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-blue-ribbon-commission-americas-nuclear-future

[Cha]

10. Thanks sandnsea..ever the facts on the issue

instead of just accusations.

[nyc 4 Biden]

20. the problem is...

...that when the (brace yourself) rethugs get back in office (hopefully not for a long time) they will defund and deregulate the agencies tasked with monitoring these facilities, thus putting us all at risk.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091207/parenti/single">Zombie Nuke Plants (The Nation)

[sandnsea]

42. They would defund single payer too

Is that a reason to not go forward with health care reform? They defund housing projects, we don't stop the loan program for those. They nearly gutted the EPA, we can't do away with coal electricity tomorrow. If some people got everything they're "fighting" for - they'd really need to just off themselves because there's no means to live on this planet and not affect it negatively.

[nyc 4 Biden]

43. Defunding nuclear power plants creates an inherent risk to the nation.

Not the same as defunding entitlement programs(as bad as that may be).

"there's no means to live on this planet and not affect it negatively."

I think the Native Americans among others were doing that successfully until US.

[sandnsea]

44. We were discussing nuclear oversight

I indicated that I'm comfortable with this project moving forward because Obama has also created a task force to attempt to improve storage and implement the safety features that are known. That's where the fear of defunding came in.

As to Native Americans, been to a buffalo jump?

There is no means to live on this planet and not affect it negatively.

[Clio the Leo]

7. There's one about 10 miles from my house...

... and sure, I have 8 toes on one foot, but other than that, everything's perfectly fine. (that's a joke!)

What I remember about it more than anything growing up was them always having difficulty getting it to work ... but things are apparently better now.

And it's apparently clean...
http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/ranking.tcl?tri_id=37379STVSQSEQUO

As for the spent fuel .... why cant we just turn it into cheese and sell it to China. Seems to be the most logical solution.

more....

Proponents of nuclear energy’s revival stress that the lessons of the ’70s and ’80s are being kept very much in mind as utilities proceed with nuclear projects. While many first-generation nuclear power projects were speculative, they say, today’s projects are based on sound planning and a much better understanding of electricity fuel options and their environmental implications.

Ashok Bhatnagar, TVA’s senior vice president for nuclear generation development and construction, said the utility’s aggressive nuclear expansion agenda is necessary to help meet the 2 percent annual growth in electricity demand across the Tennessee Valley region.

“We think right now that in a carbon-constrained world, nuclear offers very good options,” Bhatnagar said. “It’s not only emissions-free, but we’ve had proven, sustained performance from our existing units for the last two decades. They operate very consistently and safely and at a reasonable cost.”

Elected officials also have said that the city’s recent nuclear power investment is consistent with a broader nationwide shift toward cleaner energy, including the development of baseload electric power sources that do not contribute to global warming.

Bob Corker (R), the former Chattanooga mayor who was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006 and serves on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has touted nuclear power as “a zero carbon producer,” and “the type of power production we need to embrace for electricity.”

The industry resurgence comes with the help of local lawmakers like Corker, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R), and Rep. Zach Wamp (R), whose district includes the Chattanooga metro area. All supported last year’s energy spending bill providing more than $970 million in appropriations for new nuclear power plant development.

“Nuclear should be part of the solution,” Wamp told the Chattanooga Times-Free Press earlier this year. “You have to bring on new capacity, and nuclear does that quicker than other electricity-producing measures. We need a nuclear renaissance.”

http://www.earthportal.org/news/?p=1069

[Zoeisright]

25. It takes 10 YEARS to get a new nuke plant online.

That is hardly bringing capacity quickly. It's the exact opposite.

Whereas solar and wind machines take days to assemble and bring online.

Jesus Christ.

[DesertFlower]

8. maybe we could learn from france.

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtm

[retread]

35. Maybe?

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4786672,00.html

[proud patriot]

46. Hmm page not found now

:think: :tinfoilhat:

[DesertFlower]

47. sorry it was there when i posted it. nt

it described the whole lengthy process.

[Bennyboy]

58. Link does not work^^^^^

[ChoralScholar]

11. I grew up 10 miles from Arkansas Nuclear One

They seem to have done well operating the facility. I hope it stays that way.

[jonathan_seer]

12. Hey we could use the same solution for the waste from fossil fuel

Just pretend it doesn't count.

That is what you are doing when you express fear of nuclear power in a vacuum without factoring in the clear and present and ever growing severe damage to the entire planet from fossil fuels.

LIKE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!

If the world had adopted Nuclear Power like France did decades ago There would BE NO GLOBAL WARMING crisis on the horizon.

Of course the question is the cost to France due to their nuclear plant accidents a TOTAL OF ZERO in that time.

How many major oil spills have we had in that time?

How many mountaintops blown up and leveled bulldozed into valleys to reach the coal underneath as cheaply and environmentally damaging as possible in that time?

The Storage issue is a RED HERRING

The problem is one of "making a decision" NOT lack of solution.

Every recommendation is inevitably blocked by the senator(s) of the state being suggested as the best place to locate a waste storage facility.

Regardless, given the amount of time since then, and as rapidly as our technology has progressed I'm confident we would have found a solution to the storage problem.

As long as the "solution" is to a "paranoia induced fantasy problem" no "real" solutions will be developed. That's just how we are.

It's a catch 22, and one that has hurt us far more than anything.

Oh and as far as a "safe solution" the problem is paranoia levels like yours so high that nothing short of a 100% guarantee will satisfy the critics.

Nothing in life is 100% safe.

Oil certainly is NOT risk free.

In fact I'd wager that the environmental damage due to oil and coal extraction results in more genetic mutations and early deaths than a nuclear accident ever could.

Don't ask me, ask the animals who have turned The Rocky Mountains Flats and Chernobyl into nature parks where absent man, wildlife has thrived. Which kind of makes me think the "radioactivity" that could result from a nuclear industry is a bit overblown.

Yes it exists, yet their impact on nature seems insignificant vs. a vs. oil and coal production and use.

From what I understand the leveled mountaintops are still very much dead wastelands years later, even reclaimed areas suck.
Remember Fossil Fuels brought us Global Warming.

Nuclear energy would have PREVENTED GLOBAL WARMING.

All the NEGATIVE effects of Global warming MUST BE CHARGED TO OIL and COAL when trying to make a common sense judgment re: the risk of nuclear vs. fossil fuel.

Not doing so is being blind deaf and dumb to logic and reason.

[provis99]

13. "Nuclear reactors are safe" (except for over 300 accidents)

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html

[Zoeisright]

26. [phone]

[joeglow3]

31. ????? What is that supposed to tell me?

There is ONE event on that list that happened in 1996 and one in 1995. the majority are 40-50 years old. Additionally, I hardly consider bombing Japan support for not building a power plant.

Are you saying technology does not improve? Last time I checked, we didn't stop building farm equipment because so many people were maimed by farm equipment 60 years ago.

[golfguru]

15. Thousand times more people have died in Coal+gas+oil than nuclear

Coal mining accidents, coal miners lungs, sulphuric acid rain, gasoline refining fires,
greenhouse gases from fossil burning power plants....etc etc have killed thousand times
more people than nuclear power plant accidents, radiation effects from waste etc.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. 10,000 alone from black lung in the past decade.

Ten fucking thousand black lung deaths. Ooooh but there was a transformer fire at one plant a month ago that caused a partial shutdown! (no radioactive leak could be measured)

[Zoeisright]

27. So??

That's a false dichotomy (look it up).

The choice isn't between coal and nuclear. It's between dirty energy (coal and oil and nuclear) and clean energy (solar and wind).

Good God.

[joeglow3]

32. Long term, I agree.

Short and mid term, no there is no feasible choice between just those 2 options.

[golfguru]

45. Correct you are, green energy good for very long term, nuclear best short term n/t

[insanity]

57. Solar and wind have problems, too

For one, no one wants installations in their backyard. Secondly, both solar and wind are not storable, so they only provide energy while they are in use (and there are many times when there is no wind and no sun). Thirdly, investing a shit ton of money into a power we have little control over might be incredibly short sighted and if we've learned anything from burning fossil fuels to death it should be that reliance on any one form of energy is foolish.

Nuclear power, on the other hand, has its problems too. The waste issue is important to address, but fission power may one day lead to a breakthrough in fusion power which has the theoretical potential to be the greatest energy advancement in human history.

[scheming daemons]

17. Majority of Dems support Nuclear power... as they should

The french have it right.

[Sebastian Doyle]

24. So why don't we follow the French example on health care?

Because we're gonna need it when all these nukes melt down :evilfrown:

[scheming daemons]

51. I wish we WOULD follow the French example on health care..

[Zoeisright]

28. Oh really? Read this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7522712.stm

You're wrong. And so are the French.

[retread]

36. Hmmm.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4786672,00.html

[Gravel Democrat]

18. Here's a proven alternative that is clean, immediately available and provides lots of jobs

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.

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

[Zoeisright]

29. +1000000000000000

Thank you. It's about time somebody posted this.

[jberryhill]

40. One plant at 10 MW and one at 14 MW

Do you understand how little power that is, relative to a smallish conventional generating plant?

[zulchzulu]

49. There are former auto plants in Michigan now retrofitted to make wind turbines

More jobs and you keep the factory in the town!

[Codeine]

52. So one of the largest PV arrays in North America

provides just enough energy to provide one quarter of the power needs of a single Air Force base?

[ensho]

21. agree

nt

[timeforpeace]

22. Only way this can happen (finally) is with a Dem president. Otherwise opposition from the left would

doom it.

[polichick]

34. It's incredible to me that the prez would support this and offshore drilling...

...without even negotiating to get Republicans on board for cap and trade or a carbon tax.

Is he the worst negotiator in the universe, or is his agenda different from the one he campaigned on?

[Jennicut]

37. Maybe he just believes in nuclear energy?

[polichick]

38. So what? He's also for green energy and cap and trade...

A smart negotiator would have used the nuclear power and offshore drilling support to get concessions from the right on green energy and cap and trade.

[zulchzulu]

48. Based on just construction time, getting on grid and kW hour cost, nukes are literally unaffordable

It takes between 7-12 years to construct a nuclear power plant at a cost of $10-20 billion and an additional few years to get online on a smart energy grid. Add cost overruns and other construction costs and the price for a kilowatt hour of energy gets into literally $2000-5000/hour.

Clean coal technology should be where the investments go toward. Between coal, solar, wind, biofuels and other types of energy alternatives, the kW/Hr costs are a fraction of what nukes are.

Add that energy companies can offload the costs of construction to end users in their utility bills to pay for the costs and you have an additional ridiculously expensive "solution".

Forget the nuclear waste problem. That's not even in the mix when it comes to costs.

Here are some interesting FACTS on just how expensive nuke projects were in Canada before the projects were aborted halfway:Clean coal
http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/15/nuclear-power-plant-cost-bombshell-ontario/

[Teaser]

50. I'm for them...

because the alternative, runaway global warming, is far more dangerous than nuclear waste.

[slackmaster]

54. Send the waste to New Jersey. The Guantanamo detainees too.

Problem solved.

[polichick]

55. Not nice. You must not be very familiar with the garden state. nt

[slackmaster]

56. I've driven through it a few times - the southern part is quite nice

My uncle used to live in a community called Mountainside in the north. It's basically a mountain, with forest and furry woodland creatures, surrounded by luxury homes.

People are always ripping on my state, so I spread it around.

[polichick]

59. Yes, the southern pinelands are lovely, and the northern hills...

...and I love the shore and all the fruits, flowers and veggies that are grown.

What's your state?

My home state is Floriduh. :)

[slackmaster]

60. Kahleeforneea

Or "Occupied Californistan".

[polichick]

61. LOL