Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 8:32:59 AM   
defiantbadgirl


Posts: 2988
Joined: 11/14/2005
Status: offline 		http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear
I understand the importance of eliminating dependence on foreign oil, but why nuclear? What's wrong with solar, wind, and water? Even Obama is for nuclear power. I thought democrats were against it. What part of accumulating toxic radioactive waste lasting hundreds of thousands of years don't politicians understand?

_____________________________


Only in the United States is the health of the people secondary to making money. If this is what "capitalism" is about, I'll take socialism any day of the week.


Collared by MartinSpankalot May 13 2008
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 8:45:03 AM   
bipolarber


Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline 		Nothing wrong with 'em at all. Nuclear is just dependable, and relatively compact. If they could figure out to make the plants vastly safer, and a way of storing the waste that didn't threaten the saftey of large tracts of the US, I'd be much more comfortable with it. But, as it stands now, we've had Chernobyl, we've had 3 Mile Island, and lord knows how many near misses with other reactors. We've almost lost Chicago, and Las Vegas because of it.

When you put a company in charge of building these things who are worried about their profit margin, wouldn't YOU worry about living downwind of it?

And McCain wants to build 47 new plants, as quickly as possible, throughout the lower 48. Because, somehow, by increasing the amount of electricity being produced, it will put more gasoline in our tanks... (wha-?)

(in reply to defiantbadgirl)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 11:01:56 AM   
rexrgisformidoni


Posts: 578
Joined: 9/20/2008
Status: offline 		I lived near a huge nuclear research facility, and it is a lot safer than people think. Modern reactors have so many fail safes and automated systems, that it would be vary hard for one to go critical and meltdown. Those reactors were old designs, and while many of those are still in service they have been retrofitted with many of the fail safes. Also yucca mountain in Nevada is a perfect place to store the waste, needs to be glassified (INEEL in Idaho does that) then shipped in casks and sealed into the salt caverns forever. Problem is it takes a long time to build reactors and the fuel isnt just laying around to be picked up. 

_____________________________

when all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like nails

“I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”

Genghis Khan

(in reply to bipolarber)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 11:19:38 AM   
bipolarber


Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline 		Well, that's true R, but then, all of these alternatives will take time to build and get online. The only one that seems to be catching on all on it's own, is wind power. The companies seem to be realizing that with a very small allocation of land, you can pump out a good consistent power stream with little to no pollution for 50 years at a stretch.

Hummm... which would I reather have in my back yard? A windmill, or a nuclear reactor?

Well, let's see... if terrorists were to steal a 747, and plow it into a windmill, chances are things could be picked up and repaired.... if they did the same to a nuclear reactor's containment dome, or if they were to get a good shot at the cooling system... I doubt the outcome would be so benign.

This is something I worry about now, since my home town is less than a half an hour from Nuclear One, the huge plant out by Russleville, Arkansas. If it were to melt down, the radioactive steam would take out my neck of the woods almost no matter which way the wind was blowing that day. Depending on it's direction, an attack/ meltdown could take out Little Rock, or St. Louis, or OKC, or Memphis, or New Orleans... Or several of them, depending on how fast we could contain the disaster. The water runoff would eventually end up in the Missisippi, and it could kill off most of the ecosystem between central Arkansas, and the gulf coast... and god only knows what the damage would be once it got into the gulf stream.

Yup... I'll take a windmill and a solar panel on the roof any day.

(in reply to rexrgisformidoni)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 11:43:51 AM   
rexrgisformidoni


Posts: 578
Joined: 9/20/2008
Status: offline 		Bear. They have actually tested the domes with high speed (much higher speed than commercial jets) and it just spreads smoke and shards of metal. and the coolant systems are usually in between buildings and there is more than one pump set up. But living in LR, I would be freaked out if Nuke 1 were to go bad. 

_____________________________

when all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like nails

“I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”

Genghis Khan

(in reply to bipolarber)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 12:53:47 PM   
bipolarber


Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline 		Just so I'm hearing you correctly:

You are saying THERE IS NO CHANCE THAT ANYTHING CAN GO WRONG... GO WRONG... GO WRONG....GO WR...?"

The domes are built to specs, the saftey inspections are all done correctly, and that somehow the laws of thermodynamics have been suspended for nuclear plants, and that nothing will wear out, jam, corrode, melt, or otherwise age over time?

And as far as an act of terrorisim goes: Arthur C. Clarke said it best- "You can engineer against accidents, sure. But you can't engineer against deliberate malice."

(in reply to rexrgisformidoni)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 1:23:01 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline 		I had not heard that Obama was for Nuclear power, except in the research of Nuclear Fusion plants.

As it stands now, Oxford University in England has the only operating Fusion reactor, and as of last report I read, they still had not broken the "takes more power to run than it produces problem."

However, I may point out that right after the H bomb (fusion device) was developed, the US began funding Fusion power generation, which was stopped by Tricky Dick, (for those too young to remember, I refer to Richard M. 'I am not a crook' Nixon.)  With the US out of the loop for research, the brits took to it with zeal, and even with all the tea breaks, managed to achieve in 10 years what the US hadnt in 30.

Now, as for solar, at present the best solar panels are just over 50% efficient, however, if you were to put solar panels on every house in the LA basin, there would be enough electricity to power all of LA, and southern california for that matter.

Wind turbines are now so efficient that you can run your house off one, without going on to the main grid.  The best combination for homes are a solar/wind unit, storing power in large deep cycle lithium batteries, and using what you need when you need it.

For those who live next to a stream that flows year round, you can make your own AC hydro electric unit, and to keep from over loading your transformers with unused power, set up heat sinks in a large pool of water, use that to provide heat in the winter, and in the summer just bleed it back into the stream.

In other words, there are so many ways to go off grid, if we could just get the support of 50% of the US population to work together we could put the power companies out of business.

There are also plans available to build high mileage electric cars, this would impact the oil companies.

Now personally, I really dont think it will matter much, since I am constantly reviving my plan to put subtee in as a figure head for world ruler.....


_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to rexrgisformidoni)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 2:06:41 PM   
smilingjaguar


Posts: 271
Status: offline 		*fast reply*

I live within 100 miles of TWO nuclear power plants (Port Gibson, MS, and St. Francisville, LA), and they don't scare me a bit. Every form of energy has a negative, and it wouldn't bother me in the least if they put another in down here.  I'm not afraid of terrorist attacks, either.  There are just too many targets that make more sense...you can't exactly invade and take over land that's destroyed by a nuke explosion unless having genetic disorders in common with those around Chernobyl is a goal.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 2:13:06 PM   
Raechard


Posts: 3513
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: S.E. London U.K.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: smilingjaguar
...you can't exactly invade and take over land that's destroyed by a nuke explosion unless having genetic disorders in common with those around Chernobyl is a goal.

Invade? They don't want to invade they want to eliminate I'm told. That is why all the guns in the world won't help a single person in the end.

_____________________________

えへまにんへえや
Nobody wants to listen to the same song over and over again!

(in reply to smilingjaguar)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 2:17:05 PM   
corysub


Posts: 1492
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		Windmills!   Yes...like Don Quixote, Obama and the democrat party would spend tens of billions of dollars over the next ten years for "windmills" and tidal whatevers...  You do know, of course, that "windmill farms" REQUIRE a backup generator, fossil fuel at the moment, since the wind cannot be depended upon to always be blowing.  Just a minor problem there...

All of this concern here in the USA fed by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and other greenies has stopped the United States which was a leader in this field from building nuclear plants while the rest of the world is moving ahead and freeing themselves from dependence upon the Mideast or Russia for oil.

Numerous countries around planet earth now secure over 50% of their energy requirments from nuclear, including:
France, Sweden, Belgium and countires like the Ukraine and Slovakia.
Switzerland and "South Korea" of all places get about 40% source aobut 40% of their energy requirements from nuclear.
Numerous other countries secure between 20% and 40%...and all over the world new construction is moving ahead...except in the soon the be third world country of the USA.   The UK, Japan, Germany, even  Armenia get more than we do of their energy from nuclear. 

Just keep listening to Barack, Pelosi, Reid...and other "leaders" of our country...as we gallop off into the sunset chasing those windmills, like children looking at the pretty pictures in a book of fairy tails.
             

(in reply to bipolarber)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 2:50:08 PM   
bipolarber


Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline 		Yes, cory, and they all have the same problems with waste disposal.

I'm not entirely sure where you are getting some of your "facts" but the simple truth behind windfarms is, that they work very well. Naturally, you are gung ho for nuclear plants, because the GOP says you should be. But, if you take the time to look at the data, and think for yourself a little bit,  you'll find that there are some major concerns with even the latest of reactor designs. I'm quite certain that nuclear plants these days are rated at 99% safe... blah, blah, blah...  Yet, when a windmill goes wrong, it doesn't lay waste to a large fraction of the state it's in, rendering it uninhabitable for generations to come. Solar panels (especially the new "j nano" IR panels just hitting the market) can produce power for 4 hours after sundown, since they capture power from ambient heat, and not just photons. 

jlf's post is fairly accurate, as far as it goes. Pv cells are about 50% efficient, but they also don't pollute and they are quite safe. Just a few years ago, they were ten times as expensive, and only 17% efficient... the reason so many are jumping to solar is because they've finally become cost effective. The technology has evolved, and continues to do so. This is why Germany, (along with several other of the countries you mentioned) are also building solar and wind farms. Germany plans on getting almost 30% of it's electrical power from Pv by the end of the decade. How?  Because the government offered incentives to start the ball rolling. Because the technology is established, and can be put together by relatively unskilled labor. As such, indepentant land owners can build a Pv "farm" on their land, and charge the power companies to connect to it. (Or to lease the square acreage, which animals can still graze on while making money for "Solar Farmer Bob." Same with windmills. Most of these rows of turbines you see while driving down the road are built on land leased from American farmers. It's a gauranteed income stream for the folks who could use it. Also, the way they are built these days, it doesn't take much of a breeze to get them up to a fair percentage of capacity. If you look at the stats from NOAA, you'll find that America's "wind corridor" down through "flyover country" has winds of 2 to 3 mph on an almost daily basis.

So, sure... let's build nuclear plants. But we sure as hell don't need to build them badly, or in a rush.

I realize you're just being negative, trying to get people's goats on this list. But you really might want to look at the facts before you start pontificating about technologies you are obviously about 25 years behind on.


(in reply to corysub)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 2:52:21 PM   
NumberSix


Posts: 1378
Joined: 12/30/2006
Status: offline 		corysub, when you plagarize so heavily from another, no matter that it is profoundly insipid, you should attribute same.

6

_____________________________

"Who are you?"
"The new Number Two."
"Who is Number One?"
"You are Number Six.".
"I am not a number — I am a free man!"

Be seeing you...

(in reply to corysub)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 4:15:01 PM   
asyouwish72


Posts: 69
Joined: 11/2/2004
Status: offline 		The reason that "even the democrats" are for nuclear power is that it flat-out works, in a way that renewables simply don't at present.

Despite not having completed a new commercial plant in decades, nuclear reactors represent 20% of the electric generating capacity of the United States of America. Solar, wind, and biomass combined amount to less than 1%. Globally, reactors account for 17% of the electric generation in the entire world. The average nuclear power station has a generating capacity of over 1000 MW. Only a single U.S. wind farm is comparable to this (FPL's Horse Hollow facility in Texas); the second-largest is on the order of 300 MW and the rest are substantially smaller.

Reactors can also much more easily match grid load, something that is essentially impossible with wind or solar (where output is obviously determined by wind speed or solar intensity). Operating costs, at present, are in the range of 4 cents per kilowatt-hour. This is comparable to coal and cheaper than natural gas.

Globally, the record of nuclear plant safety is extremely good. The only catastrophic failure to ever occur was at Chernobyl, and was based on serious design flaws that are now well understood. Three Mile Island, despite being frightening, was an example of safeguards (barely) working. France, which generates virtually all of its power with reactors, has never had a single significant problem.

The problem of waste disposal is the most significant issue. While it is certainly far from trivial, it is manageable. The plans for Yucca Mountain are actually quiet good. The disputes at present boil down to whether it needs to be 100% safe for 10,000 years (which is achievable) or for several hundred thousand (which is much more difficult, mostly due to the impossibility of predicting all possible scenarios over that kind of timeframe). Also, it should be noted that radiation release is not stricty a nuclear issue- coal plants release measurable amounts of radiation with their stack emissions owing to inclusions of radioisotopes in their fuel.

Long-term (like 50-100 years) wind and (especially) solar will likely be the heavy lifters of our energy supply, but if we need to scale up our non-fossil fuel based generating capacity meaningfully in a shorter timeframe, nuclear will almost have to be part of the mix.

< Message edited by asyouwish72 -- 10/10/2008 4:16:26 PM >

(in reply to NumberSix)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 5:33:10 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear
I understand the importance of eliminating dependence on foreign oil, but why nuclear? What's wrong with solar, wind, and water? Even Obama is for nuclear power. I thought democrats were against it. What part of accumulating toxic radioactive waste lasting hundreds of thousands of years don't politicians understand?


Nuclear works, and we have the plans already drawn up, so the engineering is well understood.

The real issue of 'what do you do with the waste', is almost a non-issue, as storing it on-site in big casks seems to be working pretty well right now.

I'm biased, of course, in my preference for a constellation of satellites, collecting solar energy, converting it, and beaming it down to United States groundstations, so we have a 4 billion year supply of almost-free energy.

Reagan *could have* started down this road, and we'd have capacity coming on-line now. So -- Whenever y'all choose to get of your asses and start BUILDING THE DAMN THING, 25 years from then, you have energy to burn.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to defiantbadgirl)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 5:35:51 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline
quote:

Well, let's see... if terrorists were to steal a 747, and plow it into a windmill, chances are things could be picked up and repaired.... if they did the same to a nuclear reactor's containment dome


The containment dome would shrug off the airliner. It's what they're designed to do.

Conversely, construction in NYC is so shoddy, I'm kinda surprised nothing fell down earlier of it's own accord, although from what I understand, the Citicorp Tower was touch-and-go there for a while until they actually welded in the needed steel.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to bipolarber)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 5:59:29 PM   
bipolarber


Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline 		Well, as I said in an earlier post, I'd feel much more comfortable with nuclear, IF they could solve these concerns. I'm sorry, but saying "Well, we'll never have another Chernobyl, since we know what went wrong there." Well, yeah, but what about all the other problems that could arise? Rex made a good point that the containment domes are fortified, and the cooling systems are placed so a plane couldn't get to them... but what about a suicide bomber? How about an earthquake? How about sabotage?

Like I said, something goes wrong with a solar array, or a windmill, it's no big deal... something goes wrong with the core of a reactor, you're looking at a ton of real estate being uninhabitable, and tens of thousands of people dead from radiation poisoning.

Did anyone else catch the TV show called "Life Without People?" In that show, they used a town in the USSR that had to be evacuated due to Chernobyl, as an example of how quickly things fall apart when there are no humans there to repair them. Frankly, I don't like the idea of several US counties being turned into that kind of mildly radioactive ruin. Not to mention, they didn't really follow up on how many people got sick and/or died from exposure in that accident.

For that matter, does anyone remember the lesson of the movie "Jurrasic Park?" The more we try to control nature, the more chaos theory makes it difficult to do so. To say that "everything is perfectly safe" is just invoking. You're asking the universe to kick you in the nuts.

(in reply to asyouwish72)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 7:24:14 PM   
rexrgisformidoni


Posts: 578
Joined: 9/20/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bipolarber

Just so I'm hearing you correctly:

You are saying THERE IS NO CHANCE THAT ANYTHING CAN GO WRONG... GO WRONG... GO WRONG....GO WR...?"

The domes are built to specs, the saftey inspections are all done correctly, and that somehow the laws of thermodynamics have been suspended for nuclear plants, and that nothing will wear out, jam, corrode, melt, or otherwise age over time?

And as far as an act of terrorisim goes: Arthur C. Clarke said it best- "You can engineer against accidents, sure. But you can't engineer against deliberate malice."



Didn't say nothing can go wrong. I did say that an airplane crashing into a containment dome wouldn't do hardly anything, they are almost 6 feet thick with multiple layers of reinforcement. Coolant pumps are triple redundant, or were last time I ask my Granpa (who has been around reactors for 45 years until he retired). Didn't say things don't corrode, or whatever, but there are things called preventive maintenance. So compared to solar or wind or whatever, imho, they are the best option at present for power generation. Just my thoughts from growing up near a huge nuke research lab, nothing which ever happened and was a mundane place. J


_____________________________

when all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like nails

“I am the punishment of God...If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.”

Genghis Khan

(in reply to bipolarber)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 7:50:35 PM   
corysub


Posts: 1492
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NumberSix

corysub, when you plagarize so heavily from another, no matter that it is profoundly insipid, you should attribute same.

6


Excuse me, but the numbers I quoted were from the report of the World Nuclear Organization whose link
is shown below.  If someone else quoted from this source congrats to them, but I did not see it.  I do my own
research, contrary to many who get their info from Daily Kos.or green organizations.  You should try "Google"
sometime...it's a pretty good search engine....

                                                  http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf01.html

(in reply to NumberSix)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 7:52:53 PM   
NumberSix


Posts: 1378
Joined: 12/30/2006
Status: offline 		Windmills!   Yes...like Don Quixote, Obama and the democrat party would spend tens of billions of dollars over the next ten years for "windmills" and tidal whatevers...  You do know, of course, that "windmill farms" REQUIRE a backup generator, fossil fuel at the moment, since the wind cannot be depended upon to always be blowing.  Just a minor problem there...


Ja, stick that in "Google".  You are dismissed.

6 

_____________________________

"Who are you?"
"The new Number Two."
"Who is Number One?"
"You are Number Six.".
"I am not a number — I am a free man!"

Be seeing you...

(in reply to corysub)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option - 10/10/2008 8:09:28 PM   
Irishknight


Posts: 2016
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline 		Actually, a plane crashing into the domes of these plants would not cause the nuclear doomsday that everyone keeps whining about.  I've worked at one of these plants.  Once again, the screams of Chernobyl and 3-Mile Island ignore two facts.  1) The damage done by 3-Mile Island is still being blown out of proportion with the real facts.  More people suffered radiation related problems from buying red fiesta ware dishes in Mexico than were harmed by 3-Mile Island.  2) Russian reactors used weapons grade fuel which burns hotter than anything allowed in the US.  A Chernobyl CANNOT happen in the US.  By the time Chernobyl happened, we had already ensured that weapons grade material would not be allowed in commercial facilities.  For that kind of an accident, there has to be weapons grade material.

Also, 3-mile island was not a melt down.  That is a misreporting of facts that the mainstream news never saw fit to correct.  It was near enough that safety changes out the ass were made. 

(in reply to NumberSix)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Nuclear: a toxic alternative energy option Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125