• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fukushima operator starts hazardous year-long fuel removal

I'm under the impression that we will be bathed in decommissioning costs, while those that profited handsomely will doing Mai Tais and hi fives in Tahiti. It's our grandchildren that will be bathed in radiation.

How about we reduce nuclear waste by 99% by recycling it?
 
Actually, there is one problem that ought to scare the bejesus out of us all. If there is an earthquake on the New Madrid fault line the size of the one that occurred in 1811-12, several nuclear power stations could end up with a Fukushima type event at the same time. If that happened, then a fairly large part of the central US could be rendered uninhabitible.
 
Dave, is there a personal reason you hate nuclear energy? Your reaction to this topic and the information provided does not seem rational.

In a manner of speaking. The Nuclear Industry is not bankable. IJt is completely subsidized by the taxpayers. The liability potential of disasters is and has been recognized as too great to make it a good investment. Ergo, all Nuclear Energy is gov't subsidized. The same monies should have gone into genuine renewable energy projects that would simultaneously mitigate Global Warming. The monies were derailed by Big Money lobbying, politicking, and MIC scheming to maintain the Centralized Distribution Network of electricity . This keeps the fat cats fat. Renewable Energy is fought at every turn because it hurts the fat cats of Centralized Distribution. Distributed Energies is old money networks maintaining the status quo at the expense of the citizens. Nukes are the worst manifestation of this greed at any cost. If that is personal, so be it, but I would view it as a financial analysis of why a problem persists. A really BIG problem, getting bigger.
 
Actually, there is one problem that ought to scare the bejesus out of us all. If there is an earthquake on the New Madrid fault line the size of the one that occurred in 1811-12, several nuclear power stations could end up with a Fukushima type event at the same time. If that happened, then a fairly large part of the central US could be rendered uninhabitible.

A few things I'd raise:

1. The 1811-1812 earthquake is estimated at a 6.4-6.6 magnitude with later quakes coming in at 5.0-5.5 or being too low to adequately measure. In short it is not believed to be a very active or dangerous fault zone. Even if we did get another quake on that magnitude I'm not sure there is any reason to believe it would destroy any of our nuclear plants, it doesn't sound anywhere near strong enough. The biggest issue with Fukashima was the tsunami, not the quake itself.

2. Any quake widespread enough and violent enough to wreck our plants would already have wrought damage unprecedented in modern history with or without the plants.

3. Even if it did happen it almost certainly wouldn't render the region uninhabitable.

I've found a few research briefs and excerpts of plausible future earthquake events and while severe none seem to consider the destruction of nuclear facilities as likely events.

https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/14810
 
In a manner of speaking. The Nuclear Industry is not bankable. IJt is completely subsidized by the taxpayers. The liability potential of disasters is and has been recognized as too great to make it a good investment. Ergo, all Nuclear Energy is gov't subsidized. The same monies should have gone into genuine renewable energy projects that would simultaneously mitigate Global Warming. The monies were derailed by Big Money lobbying, politicking, and MIC scheming to maintain the Centralized Distribution Network of electricity . This keeps the fat cats fat. Renewable Energy is fought at every turn because it hurts the fat cats of Centralized Distribution. Distributed Energies is old money networks maintaining the status quo at the expense of the citizens. Nukes are the worst manifestation of this greed at any cost. If that is personal, so be it, but I would view it as a financial analysis of why a problem persists. A really BIG problem, getting bigger.

Renewable energy is, at this point a joke. We've wasted far too much throwing good money after bad. Nuclear energy is the cleanest for of energy that we got. And as far as the liability concerns, you know that France relies that most on Nuclear Energy. Never heard of an accident there. The worst we ever had here was three mile island that was more of a scare than an actual disaster. It's people in the "Green Movement" who can't learn to be pragmatist that are the environmentalist, and the countries, worst threat at this point to rebuilding a robust economy. If the green initiative was going to take off, it would of with T. Boone Pickens throwing a billion at it, or the untold millions or billions Obama has thrown at it.
 
Renewable energy is, at this point a joke. We've wasted far too much throwing good money after bad. Nuclear energy is the cleanest for of energy that we got. And as far as the liability concerns, you know that France relies that most on Nuclear Energy. Never heard of an accident there. The worst we ever had here was three mile island that was more of a scare than an actual disaster. It's people in the "Green Movement" who can't learn to be pragmatist that are the environmentalist, and the countries, worst threat at this point to rebuilding a robust economy. If the green initiative was going to take off, it would of with T. Boone Pickens throwing a billion at it, or the untold millions or billions Obama has thrown at it.

Ah yes , of wise one. That is why Germany is 60% renewable. That would be Industrial Germany, the most prolific manufacturer in the EU. If it works in Germany the only thing that could prevent it working in the USA is conspiring to prevent it. Wake Sleeping Buddha. Smell the peas as they're in blossom.
 
Renewable energy is, at this point a joke. We've wasted far too much throwing good money after bad. Nuclear energy is the cleanest for of energy that we got. And as far as the liability concerns, you know that France relies that most on Nuclear Energy. Never heard of an accident there. The worst we ever had here was three mile island that was more of a scare than an actual disaster. It's people in the "Green Movement" who can't learn to be pragmatist that are the environmentalist, and the countries, worst threat at this point to rebuilding a robust economy. If the green initiative was going to take off, it would of with T. Boone Pickens throwing a billion at it, or the untold millions or billions Obama has thrown at it.

Nonsense. Pickens was trying to corner the market and set up central distribution that all paid back to him. Obama just foolishly spent as PR. There has been a marked increase of off the grid living whether complete or partial. NONE of it relying upon nuclear. People outside the urban environment have gotten the clue that they can roll their own, heck my brother sells enough power back during the summer to pay for any grid usage during the long winter.

The model we should be seeking is appropriate local generation with the grid for backup. The problem becomes the urban centers where Obama's mind lives.

Hydro kicks nuclear's ass in every regard.
 
In a manner of speaking. The Nuclear Industry is not bankable. IJt is completely subsidized by the taxpayers. The liability potential of disasters is and has been recognized as too great to make it a good investment. Ergo, all Nuclear Energy is gov't subsidized. The same monies should have gone into genuine renewable energy projects that would simultaneously mitigate Global Warming. The monies were derailed by Big Money lobbying, politicking, and MIC scheming to maintain the Centralized Distribution Network of electricity . This keeps the fat cats fat. Renewable Energy is fought at every turn because it hurts the fat cats of Centralized Distribution. Distributed Energies is old money networks maintaining the status quo at the expense of the citizens. Nukes are the worst manifestation of this greed at any cost. If that is personal, so be it, but I would view it as a financial analysis of why a problem persists. A really BIG problem, getting bigger.

The Price-Anderson act is the nuclear indemnity agreement I think you must be referring to. The way it works is that the first $12.6 billion of damages are funded by a pool created by the nuclear industry (as mandated by the act) after that Congress promises to raise the funds to cover potential damages. As 2013 only $40 million has ever been paid out and that was from 3 Mile Island which was and remains an extremely minor nuclear incident (hence the relatively minor damages). Nuclear power is safe, and federal insurance is not a massive hidden cost. Limitation of liability is something used for almost every major industrial project, most of which have some sort of government protection. This is true for oil, nuclear, gas, hydro (especially hydro), etc plants. Because most large industrial objects have the possibility of serious issues if things go wrong.

This is why if a large reservoir dam breaks and floods the urban basin below the company is not responsible for the full cost of the damages. Otherwise no one would ever build a hydro plant or any other sort of power plant for that matter. We have a federal risk pool to ensure that the private sector remains involved in these projects and that a need is met. After Hurricane Katrina we didn't expect the constructor of the levees to be responsible for ALL the damage done to New Orleans, otherwise who the hell would build levees? This is the same thing.
 
Ah yes , of wise one. That is why Germany is 60% renewable. That would be Industrial Germany, the most prolific manufacturer in the EU. If it works in Germany the only thing that could prevent it working in the USA is conspiring to prevent it. Wake Sleeping Buddha. Smell the peas as they're in blossom.

Err... only 20.5% of Germany's electricity is generated from 'renewable sources' and it is extremely expensive hence the encompassing debate that is sweeping Germany today (literally, they had a Central Bank report on it this morning). They have also been shifting to greater use of coal, its share of generation rose 4.5% a huge number, ever since the decision came to idle their nuclear plants where possible. It is a terribly sad situation.
 
Ah yes , of wise one. That is why Germany is 60% renewable. That would be Industrial Germany, the most prolific manufacturer in the EU. If it works in Germany the only thing that could prevent it working in the USA is conspiring to prevent it. Wake Sleeping Buddha. Smell the peas as they're in blossom.

A heavily subsidized energy sector. What I'm talking about is an energy sector that can be as efficient as the other forms of energy. I looked into this for myself, as I thought having my own solar panel would be cool. But the money to put into it just wasn't enough to offset what I'd save. Yes we could go all green energy if we wanted. It probably end up either bankrupting the country, or having everyone pay out the ass for energy costs.. but yes, it can be done. I'm glad you bring up Germany by the way:

Germany’s Effort at Clean Energy Proves Complex

Germany’s Clean Energy Revolution Hits Speed Bumps

Germany's Renewable Energy Subsidies Threaten Economic Growth

Nonsense. Pickens was trying to corner the market and set up central distribution that all paid back to him. Obama just foolishly spent as PR. There has been a marked increase of off the grid living whether complete or partial. NONE of it relying upon nuclear. People outside the urban environment have gotten the clue that they can roll their own, heck my brother sells enough power back during the summer to pay for any grid usage during the long winter.

The model we should be seeking is appropriate local generation with the grid for backup. The problem becomes the urban centers where Obama's mind lives.

Hydro kicks nuclear's ass in every regard.

Hydro only works where there are water sources. You aren't going to see very many Dams on the open plains.
 
Hydro only works where there are water sources. You aren't going to see very many Dams on the open plains.

True, and that's why we use energy generation appropriate to the local environment. That'd be wind on the open plains. Something the government killed with the REA because they wanted us all to use centralized power. We are rich with hydro potential, large, small and micro, not to mention the ocean and our coastlines. Largely untapped. Take another look at micro hydro.
 
True, and that's why we use energy generation appropriate to the local environment. That'd be wind on the open plains. Something the government killed with the REA because they wanted us all to use centralized power. We are rich with hydro potential, large, small and micro, not to mention the ocean and our coastlines. Largely untapped. Take another look at micro hydro.

Same problem as what is in Germany. There has to be money to be made in it for people to invest in it. I assure, if T-Boone could of made money in it, he would of. The guy threw close a billion dollars at it! I truly do wish the reverse was true, because that would solve a lot of foreign policy headaches, but it just isn't.
 
How about we don't generate any Nuclear waste.

Fun fact: there is more uranium in the waste from a coal plant than there is in a nuclear plant. Which do you think is stored better?
 
Actually, there is one problem that ought to scare the bejesus out of us all. If there is an earthquake on the New Madrid fault line the size of the one that occurred in 1811-12, several nuclear power stations could end up with a Fukushima type event at the same time. If that happened, then a fairly large part of the central US could be rendered uninhabitible.

You are wrong.
 
Fun fact: there is more uranium in the waste from a coal plant than there is in a nuclear plant. Which do you think is stored better?

Not quite, you need to reread that scienticic american article.

As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

Source
 
Not quite, you need to reread that scienticic american article.

I didn't read that article and I was referring to volume.

Unshielded, yes, nuclear waste is more radioactive because its more concentrated. But if we're going with unshielded nuclear waste, I get to go with unfiltered coal waste spit into the atmosphere, right?
 
In a manner of speaking. The Nuclear Industry is not bankable. IJt is completely subsidized by the taxpayers. The liability potential of disasters is and has been recognized as too great to make it a good investment. Ergo, all Nuclear Energy is gov't subsidized. The same monies should have gone into genuine renewable energy projects that would simultaneously mitigate Global Warming. The monies were derailed by Big Money lobbying, politicking, and MIC scheming to maintain the Centralized Distribution Network of electricity . This keeps the fat cats fat. Renewable Energy is fought at every turn because it hurts the fat cats of Centralized Distribution. Distributed Energies is old money networks maintaining the status quo at the expense of the citizens. Nukes are the worst manifestation of this greed at any cost. If that is personal, so be it, but I would view it as a financial analysis of why a problem persists. A really BIG problem, getting bigger.

To my uninformed ears, parts of your argument sound very tinfoil-hat. Do you have any grounds to base your statements or expertise upon which you base your conclusions? I know the military is not the best of examples, but we stick sailors in a metal tube hundreds of feet underwater with a nuclear generator. If they are willing to do that, why not use them on land where safety systems can be much more detailed and contain more redundancies? If the "waste" is almost entirely recyclable and the remaining can be stored with little-to-no impact on the environment, why not use the energy source to create jobs and cheaper energy - which can help sustain efforts to develop more alternative sources of energy?

Note: I say I am uninformed. For the most part that is true, but I have several friends who were nuclear engineers on submarines and in land-based power plants. Everyone I've ever met who worked around nuclear energy has told me they wouldn't be able to cause a worst-case scenario in the new facilities if they tried to.
 
To my uninformed ears, parts of your argument sound very tinfoil-hat. Do you have any grounds to base your statements or expertise upon which you base your conclusions? I know the military is not the best of examples, but we stick sailors in a metal tube hundreds of feet underwater with a nuclear generator. If they are willing to do that, why not use them on land where safety systems can be much more detailed and contain more redundancies? If the "waste" is almost entirely recyclable and the remaining can be stored with little-to-no impact on the environment, why not use the energy source to create jobs and cheaper energy - which can help sustain efforts to develop more alternative sources of energy?

Note: I say I am uninformed. For the most part that is true, but I have several friends who were nuclear engineers on submarines and in land-based power plants. Everyone I've ever met who worked around nuclear energy has told me they wouldn't be able to cause a worst-case scenario in the new facilities if they tried to.

The problem scenario is the accumulation of deadly waste, tons and tons and tons. I think there are 400 tons at Fukushima alone. The agents responsible for the permanent handling of this waste are CORPORATIONS. Corporations are a legal entity designed to minimize liability for the Corporations owners. They are in this business because they are making a large profit. When the profits stop, so do Corporations. They file bankruptcy. At that point the waste belongs to you, me, Grandma and the dog. Not to worry because the waste is only going to be really dangerous for half a million years or so. But, alas, no more profit, screw you, the waste is yours. Already, Japan is financing lots of cleanup at Fukushima. Nuclear Power is a welfare Industry. It is not bankable and it is not insurable. Potential liability confirmed by actuarial tables keep the insurance companies away and also keeps bankers away. Ergo, these Nukes are always built with "public" or taxpayer monies, but the taxpayers don't get the profit. The taxpayers will get the waste when the Corporate bankruptcy is filed. Standard Operating Procedure in the USA. Privatize (give to corporations) the profits and Socialize (baptize the taxpayer) the liabilities. You are watching this scenario everyday with the "too big to fail" banks. You cannot ruin the planet's water and air and not take responsibility for those actions. That is what all Nukes are about.
 
The problem scenario is the accumulation of deadly waste, tons and tons and tons. I think there are 400 tons at Fukushima alone. The agents responsible for the permanent handling of this waste are CORPORATIONS. Corporations are a legal entity designed to minimize liability for the Corporations owners. They are in this business because they are making a large profit. When the profits stop, so do Corporations. They file bankruptcy. At that point the waste belongs to you, me, Grandma and the dog. Not to worry because the waste is only going to be really dangerous for half a million years or so. But, alas, no more profit, screw you, the waste is yours. Already, Japan is financing lots of cleanup at Fukushima. Nuclear Power is a welfare Industry. It is not bankable and it is not insurable. Potential liability confirmed by actuarial tables keep the insurance companies away and also keeps bankers away. Ergo, these Nukes are always built with "public" or taxpayer monies, but the taxpayers don't get the profit. The taxpayers will get the waste when the Corporate bankruptcy is filed. Standard Operating Procedure in the USA. Privatize (give to corporations) the profits and Socialize (baptize the taxpayer) the liabilities. You are watching this scenario everyday with the "too big to fail" banks. You cannot ruin the planet's water and air and not take responsibility for those actions. That is what all Nukes are about.

How many nuclear power companies have declared bankruptcy anyway?
 
How many nuclear power companies have declared bankruptcy anyway?

Glad you asked. When a "Nuke" plant stops making money for a corporation, it becomes a liability. The USA "nukes" are nearing 60 years and when the profit stops and you are a corporation, what will you do? Will you lose money day after day babysitting your dead horse? Will you be wasting corporate assets to maintain your "Dead horse?" Will you be building more fuel storage pools for fuel rods as the existing ones crack and corrode? Not very Corporate ( a legal entity to limit liability ). You could take a bad check for the "Nuke" plant from Morey HiJinks Corporation and be done with the problem. Morey scraps anything they dare get close to and abandons the plant, bankrupt, of course, after paying himself and his help. Standard Operating Procedure in USA Corporate business per usual.
 
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?FileName=OJPed_2013030716594887.pdf&paperID=28599

I've mentioned this before; while Fukushima is not some cataclysmic event, to claim its "no big deal" is somewhere between ignorant and delusional.

Yes, we are exposed to all sorts of radiation all the time, yes exposure to small amounts of radiation can cause your cells to learn how to repair that damage...there is that grain of truth.

In the big explosion radioactive debris was found 20km away, and the smoke, dust, and flames sent all sorts of particles into the atmosphere where it's now circling the earth.

Then you start using the numbers and projecting models where you allow yourself to make false equivalences; like the "banana equivalent dose". It tries to equate radioactive potassium to radioactive iodine, or other heavy metal radioactive particles, but your body will not handle these particles all the same way.

It does not consider that it's not just the easily detected gamma emissions, but the alpha and beta emissions...

Next, it would treat an X-ray of your chest as X-rays emitting from your chest if you happened to inhale a hot particle.

Or potassium, which is maintained in certain levels in your body, where a certain percentage of the particles are emitting gamma rays every so often... Well, that's already got a mechanism to cope to that radiation.

Whereas, if you ingest a particle of radioactive iodine, your thyroid will absorb the iodine, but then it will not be able to handle that iodine and you end up with that hot particle directly damaging your thyroid gland for a few months before the particle decays. Then years later that damage cumulates with other stressors and you get thyroid cancer...

But if 10 years has passed since exposure, how are you going to make that connection when you have no idea that you even got exposed??

Back to Fukushima, that's devastating for the people living in the vicinity, and will, possibly irrevocably, damage their fisheries. In America, the only risk is to those on the east coast, even in a worst case scenario, it wot be cataclysmic, but it might destroy Japan as a nation.

That said, the nuclear industry has really only been around 50-60 years, an thousands of above and below ground tests, the background radiation of the northern hemisphere is now double the southern hemisphere. Also there have been at least 3 MAJOR incidents in the past 100 years... How many more chances are there??
 
Also there have been at least 3 MAJOR incidents in the past 100 years... How many more chances are there??

Only one resulting in fatalities.

How many people has air pollution from coal plants killed in that same period?
 
Only one resulting in fatalities.

How many people has air pollution from coal plants killed in that same period?

That's simply false... On all three counts.

Which I could detail, but we all know your penchant for ignoring facts contrary to your opinions (like the link I provided saying there's already been a 28% surge in thyroid problems in north America that can be attributed to Fukushima.

Even TMI had a cancer cluster of those exposed that was 7 times higher than the expected rates in the area... But of course, and as I pointed out, since the cancer might not show up for years after exposure it's easy to gloss over and pretend that no harm was done.
 
Back
Top Bottom