Nuclear power poll [Archive] - Debate Policy

Nuc

04-22-2007, 10:30 PM

Although I am neither particularly liberal or conservative, I voted "liberal and for nuclear power". I am an environmentalist, which you guys probably think of as liberal, but I think environmentalism is conservative. This terminology is a slippery slope. But I'm in favor of nuclear power as long as the science and controls are done properly. I don't like seeing loser places like Korea and Iran having it though because I don't trust their governments to do it properly. Remember Chernobyl? Not sure if I trust our government either.

badger

04-23-2007, 01:19 AM

Liberal and for it. Don't know why there isn't more being built. Accoriding to the poll so far, it seems both sides are for it.

1. Very expensive to build. Much more expensive than coal plants.

2. Take a very long time to build. Last plant completed took 24 years to build: Watts-Bar 1 reactor near Spring City, TN. See below:

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/wb.jpg

4. Plant security and terrorism are issues. Waste can be used for terror weapons.

5. No clear plan for waste. Leaves operators responsible for waste indefinitely. Current waste stored onsite. Everyone wants the waste disposal site to be in Nevada; except, of course, the people of Nevada. A related issue is the degree of difficulty in transporting nuclear waste.

6. Including Canadian capacity, there is currently more power generating capacity than needed; except for California.

In short, market forces are not moving operators to build new nuclear power plants. If the public wants these planets to be built, then the government will have to provide incentives or subsidies. I think that nuclear power plants are currently the best solution to cut the Middle East umbilical. But we must provide incentives, speed up plant construction, and solve the waste issue. We need a President that has a real long-term energy policy that will be continuously pressed until implemented. There are currently no contracts for new nuclear power plant construction in the US.

Pale Rider

04-23-2007, 03:06 AM

5. No clear plan for waste. Leaves operators responsible for waste indefinitely. Current waste stored onsite. Everyone wants the waste disposal site to be in Nevada; except, of course, the people of Nevada. A related issue is the degree of difficulty in transporting nuclear waste.

So true. The only thing I agree with dingy harry on is, he wants Yuka Mountain closed down. The hollowed out mountain proposed to be used as a radioactive waste storage site here in Nevada.

Why can't they just load the crap up on a rocket and shoot it into space?

Against it, until they find a way to dispose of the waste that isn't just shoving it into the ground somewhere.

5stringJeff

04-23-2007, 10:44 AM

While I balk at the "conservative/liberal" labels, I am 1000% for the use and expansion of nuclear power.

loosecannon

04-23-2007, 10:59 AM

loosecannon

04-23-2007, 11:02 AM

While I balk at the "conservative/liberal" labels, I am 1000% for the use and expansion of nuclear power.

Why 5String?

After 50 years and no plan yet developed for permenent waste storage how does one justify continuing to overlook such a critical part of the process?

Every waste disposal facility I have ever heard of had massive problems. Hanford, Yuca.

The waste disposal plan is basically DU weapons and nuclear weapons.

I had a freind who died from contamination at 3 mile island.

5stringJeff

04-23-2007, 11:21 AM

Why 5String?

After 50 years and no plan yet developed for permenent waste storage how does one justify continuing to overlook such a critical part of the process?

Every waste disposal facility I have ever heard of had massive problems. Hanford, Yuca.

The waste disposal plan is basically DU weapons and nuclear weapons.

I had a freind who died from contamination at 3 mile island.

I think Yucca Mountain is a viable waste disposal option. It will not expose people to more radiation than what you get living in high elevations, or taking a cross-country airplane flight once a year.

And I'm sorry for the loss of your friend; however, I don't understand how he could have died from contamination at TMI. Everything I've ever read about it said that the emergency features worked just as they should have, and the residual radiation around TMI is almost negligible.

Pale Rider

04-23-2007, 11:39 AM

I think Yucca Mountain is a viable waste disposal option. It will not expose people to more radiation than what you get living in high elevations, or taking a cross-country airplane flight once a year.

Us people of Nevada don't, and the people along shipment routes don't either. At some point in time, the containers WILL start to leak. What if by some odd chance man is still here? What if that land is needed for something else at that point?

No, I don't think burying it is a viable plan at all. We need to get the waste off our planet if we're going to continue to use it.

loosecannon

04-23-2007, 11:57 AM

I think Yucca Mountain is a viable waste disposal option. It will not expose people to more radiation than what you get living in high elevations, or taking a cross-country airplane flight once a year.

And I'm sorry for the loss of your friend; however, I don't understand how he could have died from contamination at TMI. Everything I've ever read about it said that the emergency features worked just as they should have, and the residual radiation around TMI is almost negligible.

He was the head of the EPA and he was inspecting the facility during the "meltdown" that was begining at the plant. There were several periods when high level radiation had to be exhausted out of the plant. He was exposed to radiation inside during the inspection and died a year later with brain tumors. The official versions of the event downplayed the seriousness of the meltdown that could have occured.

The argument that Yucca will be a safe storage option with the levels of exposure you cite ignore the potential for accidents, mistakes and higher exposure experienced by people working with the materials.

50 years and no plan in place to deal with waste speaks volumes to me.

And there is an urgency to develop a site regardless of whether we took all the plants offline today. We have a massive backlog of waste yet to be permanently disposed.

Birdzeye

04-23-2007, 03:25 PM

There is none. KISS.

Not quite. I'm against it for safety reasons (that spent waste is going to be radioactive for a LONG time!), but because I don't have a better alternative to offer right now (wind and solar still have drawbacks), I'm not asking to have the nuclear power plants shut down.

glockmail

04-23-2007, 03:26 PM

1. Very expensive to build. Much more expensive than coal plants. Financing, design standardization.

2. Take a very long time to build. Last plant completed took 24 years to build: Watts-Bar 1 reactor near Spring City, TN. See below:

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/wb.jpg Overegulation and union labor- get rid of both

4. Plant security and terrorism are issues. Waste can be used for terror weapons. Easier to secure a plant than a Middle East country. Fertilizer and bleach can be used as a terror weapon. Ban them?

5. No clear plan for waste. Leaves operators responsible for waste indefinitely. Current waste stored onsite. Everyone wants the waste disposal site to be in Nevada; except, of course, the people of Nevada. A related issue is the degree of difficulty in transporting nuclear waste. Most can be recycled, the rest: Yucca Mountain. Nobody wants to lose the lottery, pay them for any provable financial issues (there are none). There has never been an accident transpoting the stuff.

6. Including Canadian capacity, there is currently more power generating capacity than needed; except for California. So you'd rather pollute the earth by burning coal then embrace a proven technology. Why not just say that instead of bring up a non-issue?

In short, market forces are not moving operators to build new nuclear power plants. If the public wants these planets to be built, then the government will have to provide incentives or subsidies. I think that nuclear power plants are currently the best solution to cut the Middle East umbilical. But we must provide incentives, speed up plant construction, and solve the waste issue. We need a President that has a real long-term energy policy that will be continuously pressed until implemented. There are currently no contracts for new nuclear power plant construction in the US. There are no contracts because it is a political hot button issue. There are no technical issues to be solved, just political ones.

Birdzeye

04-23-2007, 03:29 PM

Hey, I know the perfect place to store that waste! Glockmail's back yard! He won't mind; it's safe as hell, right? :coffee:

glockmail

04-23-2007, 03:31 PM

So true. The only thing I agree with dingy harry on is, he wants Yuka Mountain closed down. The hollowed out mountain proposed to be used as a radioactive waste storage site here in Nevada.

Why can't they just load the crap up on a rocket and shoot it into space?

Against it, until they find a way to dispose of the waste that isn't just shoving it into the ground somewhere.

The risks of having a rocket explode in the atmosphere are extremely high compred to the riskes of sealing it underground at Yucca Mountain.

Radioactive Waste
The radioactive waste products from the nuclear industry must be isolated from contact with people for very long time periods. The bulk of the radioactivity is contained in the spent fuel, which is quite small in volume and therefore easily handled with great care. This "high level waste" will be converted to a rock-like form and emplaced in the natural habitat of rocks, deep underground. The average lifetime of a rock in that environment is one billion years. If the waste behaves like other rock, it is easily shown that the waste generated by one nuclear power plant will eventually, over millions of years (if there is no cure found for cancer), cause one death from 50 years of operation. By comparison, the wastes from coal burning plants that end up in the ground will eventually cause several thousand deaths from generating the same amount of electricity.

The much larger volume of much less radioactive (low level) waste from nuclear plants will be buried at shallow depths (typically 20 feet) in soil. If we assume that this material immediately becomes dispersed through the soil between the surface and ground water depth (despite elaborate measures to maintain waste package integrity) and behaves like the same materials that are present naturally in soil (there is extensive evidence confirming such behavior), the death toll from this low level waste would be 5% of that from the high level waste discussed in the previous paragraph.
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm

glockmail

04-23-2007, 03:33 PM

....

I had a freind who died from contamination at 3 mile island. Bullshit. No one has died from a nuclear accident at a US power plant.

glockmail

04-23-2007, 03:35 PM

Us people of Nevada don't, and the people along shipment routes don't either. At some point in time, the containers WILL start to leak. What if by some odd chance man is still here? What if that land is needed for something else at that point?

No, I don't think burying it is a viable plan at all. We need to get the waste off our planet if we're going to continue to use it. You should educate yourself about the facts in the link posted previously.

glockmail

04-23-2007, 03:36 PM

Hey, I know the perfect place to store that waste! Glockmail's back yard! He won't mind; it's safe as hell, right? :coffee: Typical liberal tactic and not worth a response. :pee:

Birdzeye

04-23-2007, 03:56 PM

So, Glock, if nuclear waste is as safe as you claim it to be, does that mean you'd have no problem with having a nuclear waste storage facility in your back yard, so to speak?

I think that's a legitimate question worthy of a straightforward answer.

Abbey Marie

04-23-2007, 03:58 PM

Increasing nuclear power is an issue I haven't decided upon. Despite the facts and figures, it does scare me on some level. But then again, so does dependance on Arab oil.

loosecannon

04-23-2007, 04:01 PM

Bullshit. No one has died from a nuclear accident at a US power plant.

He didn't die at the location. He died from exposure.

loosecannon

04-23-2007, 04:03 PM

You should educate yourself about the facts in the link posted previously.

You should educate yourself to the real world example of Hanford where the nation's nuclear waste has been stored. It is a disaster by any measure.

50 years and no plan for waste disposal.

Ask yourself why.

Hagbard Celine

04-23-2007, 05:01 PM

For it.

MtnBiker

04-23-2007, 06:23 PM

I had a freind who died from contamination at 3 mile island.

The accident at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, was the most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history(1), even though it led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community. But it brought about sweeping changes involving emergency response planning, reactor operator training, human factors engineering, radiation protection, and many other areas of nuclear power plant operations. It also caused the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to tighten and heighten its regulatory oversight. Resultant changes in the nuclear power industry and at the NRC had the effect of enhancing safety.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

hmmmmmm

TheStripey1

04-23-2007, 06:30 PM

Are more libs for it or against it?

from the poll it looks like more are for it than against it... and obtw, I am the sole "lib" against it...

why you might well ask...

well, it's because of the waste... whereas the power derived from the nuclear plant is indeed clean, it's waste is not... and it lasts for a hell of a long time, millions if not billions of years... so until we have someplace to put it that won't endanger any future inhabitants of earth... I'm against it...

manu1959

04-23-2007, 06:35 PM

http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste%20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm

interesting article on nuclear waste....

badger

04-24-2007, 02:28 AM

6. Including Canadian capacity, there is currently more power generating capacity than needed; except for California. So you'd rather pollute the earth by burning coal then embrace a proven technology. Why not just say that instead of bring up a non-issue? So you apparently have a reading comprehension problem? In the sentences following your criticism I state:

I think that nuclear power plants are currently the best solution to cut the Middle East umbilical.Incidently, regarding coal, you ought to at least know what you are talking about before we are subjected to your opinion. “FutureGen” is a $1 billion technology demonstration project that will reduce emissions from burning coal by 90 percent. The participants include the governments of the US, India, and South Korea. The coal industry is footing $250 million of the cost. FutureGen will be a 275 megawatt power plant located in either Illinois or Texas. Construction will begin in 2009 with scheduled completion in 2012. FutureGen will almost completely eliminate sulfur dioxide emission and convert the carbon dioxide emission so that it can be economically recovered and stored. CO2 storage has already been demonstrated in Norway. Electricity generated by FutureGen will probably be at least 30 percent more expensive than current coal generated power. http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/

glockmail

04-24-2007, 06:54 PM

glockmail

04-24-2007, 06:55 PM

He didn't die at the location. He died from exposure.Bullshit. No one has died from a nuclear accident at a US power plant.

glockmail

04-24-2007, 06:57 PM

You should educate yourself to the real world example of Hanford where the nation's nuclear waste has been stored. It is a disaster by any measure.

50 years and no plan for waste disposal.

Ask yourself why.

Hanford was a government facility run when we didn't have the proven technology that we have now. It is not comparable to any existing facility.

glockmail

04-24-2007, 07:02 PM

http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste%20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm

interesting article on nuclear waste....

"in 1977 President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order that banned the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the United States. The rationale was that the Plutonium could possibly be stolen, and terrorists might be able to use it to make atomic bombs.

Never mind that in the real world, it is essentially impossible to separate out the Plutonium-239 from the other isotopes in sufficient purity to use it for bomb making. The British tried it, the Russians tried it, the French tried it, and we tried it, but nobody did it very well, even though we had the best scientists and all the money in the world to throw at it.

If you try to make a bomb with such a mixture of Plutonium isotopes, forget about it - it won't work, ever. We're talking about the laws of physics, Greenpeace notwithstanding. Unless you have pure Plutonium-239, your bomb will fizzle. So throwing away all that valuable nuclear fuel to prevent terrorists from making a bomb that won't work anyway is just plain dumb."

Did not know that Carter did that. I knew he was dumb, just not that dumb.

glockmail

04-24-2007, 07:03 PM

....
Incidently, regarding coal, .... You ever been to a strip mine? Is that what you want?

badger

04-25-2007, 01:34 AM

You ever been to a strip mine? Is that what you want?Now you are dodging and weaving. I told you already that I favor nuclear power. But regarding strip mines, have you ever heard of land reclamation? Moreover, much high value coal come from underground. In the future, electrical power generation in the US will consist of many methods, including nuclear and clean coal technologies.

glockmail

04-25-2007, 06:07 AM

Now you are dodging and weaving. I told you already that I favor nuclear power. But regarding strip mines, have you ever heard of land reclamation? Moreover, much high value coal come from underground. In the future, electrical power generation in the US will consist of many methods, including nuclear and clean coal technologies. Coal mines pollute groundwater and surface waters. Burning of coal releases CO2, a supposed greenhouse gas. Nuclear power is much better environmentally than coal.

loosecannon

04-25-2007, 10:37 AM

Bullshit. No one has died from a nuclear accident at a US power plant.

No, 1 person did die because of exposure at 3MI. I knew him and I watched him deteriorate.

glockmail

04-25-2007, 10:44 AM

No, 1 person did die because of exposure at 3MI. I knew him and I watched him deteriorate. Prove it.

loosecannon

04-25-2007, 10:46 AM

Hanford was a government facility run when we didn't have the proven technology that we have now. It is not comparable to any existing facility.

Dubious.

The Hanford Site is a facility of the government of the United States, established during World War II to provide plutonium necessary for the development of nuclear weapons. It was established in 1943 as the Hanford Engineer Works, part of the Manhattan Project, and codenamed "Site W." It is no longer used to produce plutonium, but is currently the nation's most contaminated nuclear site.[1]

Currently, the Hanford Site is engaged in the world's largest environmental cleanup,

Most of Hanford's reactors were shut down in the 1960s but nuclear waste still remains at the site. More than 40 billion gallons (151 billion litres) of contaminated water were dumped directly onto the soil and there have been radioactive leaks from storage ponds and tanks. About 11,000 workers work to consolidate, clean up, and mitigate waste, contaminated buildings, and contaminated soil. They have to dig up ten million tons of contaminated soil and dispose of some 54 million gallons (204 million litres) of radioactive waste from 177 underground tanks of which about a third were reported as leaking in 2001. Cleanup to a nationally accepted level will likely take until 2030 and cost $50 billion at least [4]

Under the present cleanup plan, lower-level hazardous wastes are buried in huge lined pits that are sealed and that will be monitored with sophisticated instruments for many years. The high-level nuclear waste, as well as tanks full of highly toxic chemicals, pose a much more difficult problem. As an example, plutonium has a half-life of 24,100 years, and a decay of ten half-lives is required before a sample is considered to be safe. Disposal of plutonium and other high-level radioactive wastes and toxic chemicals is a difficult problem that continues to be a subject of intense debate. Currently, the Department of Energy is investigating vitrification, a method that would combine these dangerous wastes with glass to render them stable, but a final decision has not yet been made.

IOW the technology doesn't yet even exist to safely store wastes.

And as best as i know Hanford is the ONLY waste disposal site as most nuclear waste is still in temp storage at nuclear reactor locations.

glockmail

04-25-2007, 10:54 AM

.....
IOW the technology doesn't yet even exist to safely store wastes.

And as best as i know Hanford is the ONLY waste disposal site as most nuclear waste is still in temp storage at nuclear reactor locations. Great. Comparing 1940's technlogy with Yucca Mountain. Is that your argument? You just made my point.

loosecannon

04-25-2007, 11:05 AM

Great. Comparing 1940's technlogy with Yucca Mountain. Is that your argument? You just made my point.

No I am comparing 2007 technology with Yucca Mt.

Read the link and/or the quoted excerps.

glockmail

04-25-2007, 11:51 AM

No I am comparing 2007 technology with Yucca Mt.

Read the link and/or the quoted excerps. I read your post.

MtnBiker

04-25-2007, 02:18 PM

No, 1 person did die because of exposure at 3MI. I knew him and I watched him deteriorate.

I had a freind who died from contamination at 3 mile island.

The accident at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, was the most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history(1), even though it led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community. But it brought about sweeping changes involving emergency response planning, reactor operator training, human factors engineering, radiation protection, and many other areas of nuclear power plant operations. It also caused the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to tighten and heighten its regulatory oversight. Resultant changes in the nuclear power industry and at the NRC had the effect of enhancing safety.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

hmmmmmm