• 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!

Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs

The problem with nuclear power is not a liberal/conservative one, but a "I don't want it in my backyard problem".

All sides have some opposition to nuclear power as well as where to store the waste. And I don't see the problem getting any better at the very least until the many Yucca Mountain decisions are made final and there is some data once the moving of waste has happened for a few years.

Me personally, I wouldn't have any problem with a nuclear reactor near me. The safety protocols have been upgraded considerably over the last decade and the jobs it would create would be greatly needed.
 
Nuclear power is a wonderful source of cheap energy....if nothing goes wrong. If it does you have Chernobyl, an area the size of Maryland which cannot be entered for 10,000 years. Can you guarantee that will not happen?
 
Nuclear power is a wonderful source of cheap energy....if nothing goes wrong. If it does you have Chernobyl, an area the size of Maryland which cannot be entered for 10,000 years. Can you guarantee that will not happen?

I think Utah Bill could shed some light on that. One of the few issues I actually agree with him on.

*waits*.
 
Nuclear power is a wonderful source of cheap energy....if nothing goes wrong. If it does you have Chernobyl, an area the size of Maryland which cannot be entered for 10,000 years. Can you guarantee that will not happen?

Yes, with 100% certainty, I can guarantee that no US Nuclear Power Station would ever suffer a Chernobyl like disaster. It's an impossibility.
 
Yes, with 100% certainty, I can guarantee that no US Nuclear Power Station would ever suffer a Chernobyl like disaster. It's an impossibility.

Three Mile Island got pretty close. Closer than you m might think
 
GHOST TOWN - KiddofSpeed - Chernobyl Pictures - Kidofspeed - Elena

THIS site, I recommend to EVERYONE, it is one of the best damn real life reads in the world.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster]Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

A good read on the events, while it IS Wiki, it covers most of it.

A Chernobyl type event could happen at any nuclear power station.

No it could not. There are several specific design flaws in the RBMK that allowed this disaster to happen. These design flaws are not present in Western reactors and certainly not in Generation III+ reactors. First it is important to recognise the conditions under which the power surge occurred.
To summarise, the Chernobyl-4 disaster happened because of five major design flaws not present in Western reactors.

-=-=-

The uranium-graphite-water type is inherently unstable and this was known since the early 50s, which is why since then such a reactor would never have been certified in the West. The misoperation of the reactor allowing xenon-135 to build up only enhanced this failing.
The automatic shutdown system could be overridden by the operators. This cannot be done in Western designs. If the reactor wants to scram, nobody will be able to stop it. After all, a reactor scramming without reason is an inconvenience. A reactor prevented from scramming when necessary is a litigation nightmare.
The control rods could be physically retracted further than regulations allow. In Western reactors, control rods will only be able to be withdrawn as far as deemed safe. They cannot be physically withdrawn further.
The control rods were tipped with graphite, which leads to an increase in reactivity upon first insertion, quite the opposite of what you want if the reactor is scramming.
The RBMK design lacked proper containment, which allowed the radioactive material to escape into the environment.
Freedom For Fission- chernobyl
 
Mr. V for the record I'm very pro nuke energy. And ithink we should look at the technology France has devolped.
 
Three Mile Island got pretty close. Closer than you m might think

NOT EVEN close, three mile Island was proof our systems are safe. No one even DIED from the TMI event.

Thirty years ago this week, a chain of errors and equipment malfunctions triggered the defining event in the history of American nuclear power: the accident at Three Mile Island. Although no one died and the health consequences were insignificant, the mishap was vivid confirmation that things could go wrong with a nuclear reactor. It almost instantly galvanized popular opposition to this form of power, giving rise to lingering misconceptions about one of our nation's largest sources of electricity. 1. Three Mile Island killed the idea of nuclear power

in the United States.

The 1979 accident and the fear it spawned were undoubtedly setbacks to the nuclear power industry. Only recently did utilities even attempt to license new reactors again. But Three Mile Island didn't even kill nuclear power at Three Mile Island. While TMI 2 was destroyed, TMI 1 is still in operation today. In fact, in generating electricity, nuclear power is second only to coal, which produces about half the power we use. Nuclear today produces more electricity than it did at the time of the accident -- about 20 percent compared with 12.5 percent in 1979. 2. Long half-lives make radioactive materials dangerous.
5 Myths on Nuclear Power - washingtonpost.com

Three Mile Island: What Happened

On March 28, 1979, a cooling circuit pump in the non-nuclear section of Three Mile Island's second station (TMI-2) malfunctioned, causing the reactor's primary coolant to heat and internal pressure to rise. Within seconds, the automated response mechanism thrust control rods into the reactor and shut down the core. An escape valve opened to release pressure but failed to close properly. Control room operators only saw that a "close" command was sent to the relief valve, but nothing displayed the valve's actual position.[1] With the valve open, coolant escaped through the pressurizer, sending misinformation to operators that there was too much pressure in the coolant system. Operators then shut down the water pumps to relieve the "pressure."

Operators allowed coolant levels inside the reactor to fall, leaving the uranium core exposed, dry, and intensely hot. Even though inserting control rods halted the fission process, the TMI-2 reactor core continued to generate about 160 megawatts of "decay" heat, declining over the next three hours to 20 megawatts.[2] Approximately one-third of the TMI-2 reactor was exposed and began to melt.

By the time operators discovered what was happening, superheated and partially radioactive steam built up in auxiliary tanks, which operators then moved to waste tanks through compressors and pipes. The compressors leaked. The steam leakage released a radiation dose equivalent to that of a chest X-ray scan, about one-third of the radiation humans absorb in one year from naturally occurring background radiation.[3] No damage to any person, animal, or plant was ever found.[4]
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl: What Went Wrong and Why Today's Reactors Are Safe

However, if you hit the tinfoil hat sites like "commondreams" and other looney sites you can read how "scary" TMI was and how "Much radiation leaked EVERYWHERE" .

Yeah, no. TMI was a minor radiation event, that the media blew out of proportion. Instead of saying "Hey, the reactor had a partial meltdown, some systems failed and errors were made, but look! The safety system worked!" They played the "RADIATION!!! MINDS DECAY!! ELECTRIC FUNERAL PYRE!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!"
 
Mr. V for the record I'm very pro nuke energy. And ithink we should look at the technology France has devolped.

Good! :) I just like to tackle the nuclear issue, it's something I enjoy reading about in my spare time.
 
However, if you hit the tinfoil hat sites like "commondreams" and other looney sites you can read how "scary" TMI was and how "Much radiation leaked EVERYWHERE" .


Yawn okay whatever. That would have my point of discussion in the first place. I most lilely would have used frontline and other sources. But seeing you just want to go on the attack I'm not going to bother.

Btw you do realise the Wash Timesa is the Mooney Times
 
Last edited:
Yawn okay whatever. That would have my point of discussion in the first place. I most lilely would have used frontline and other sources. But seeing you just want to go on the attack I'm not going to bother.

Do you have sources that show radiation leaked and was a danger to plant, animal or humans?

By all means, let's see it. I've looked, never found a credible source that said TMI was a danger to anyone or caused any harm.
 
Finally some sense in our energy policy but of course this would hinge on how many Blue Dogs and Centrist Democrats they can get on board.

Only if you want more government spending, more government involvement in the market, and more of your tax dollars at risk.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/46844-expansion-nuclear-power-requires-more-government.html

Those who bash Obama for expanding government are essentially hypocrites when they call for more nuclear power, but at this stage, I'm frankly amazed if anyone has any part of their ideology logically consistent.
 
Only if you want more government spending, more government involvement in the market, and more of your tax dollars at risk.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/46844-expansion-nuclear-power-requires-more-government.html

Those who bash Obama for expanding government are essentially hypocrites when they call for more nuclear power, but at this stage, I'm frankly amazed if anyone has any part of their ideology logically consistent.

Except you of course right?

And if you removed much of the stupidity with eco-nazi's filing a million and one lawsuits against nuclear plants being built it wouldn't cost nearly as much, and there would be FAR LESS NEED of Government.
 
Except you of course right?

And if you removed much of the stupidity with eco-nazi's filing a million and one lawsuits against nuclear plants being built it wouldn't cost nearly as much, and there would be FAR LESS NEED of Government.

In the future, you really should make a half decent attempt to make it look you even bothered to open that link. It's pretty clear you assumed what you wanted, didn't even do any work and went off on a knee jerk response.

I'll give you another try before I bust your chops.

Put some effort into your posts for a change.
 
In the future, you really should make a half decent attempt to make it look you even bothered to open that link. It's pretty clear you assumed what you wanted, didn't even do any work and went off on a knee jerk response.

I'll give you another try before I bust your chops.

Put some effort into your posts for a change.
Initial investment is high due to many things.

Regulation (at least they ended the double license BS).
Lawsuits
Over all long term construction (three years to build a GIII plant) assuming all goes well.

The ROI for Nuclear power is longer then an oil or coal plant, but the long term operation is financially secure.
 
Yes, with 100% certainty, I can guarantee that no US Nuclear Power Station would ever suffer a Chernobyl like disaster. It's an impossibility.

There is no 100% certainty in ANYTHING, but I agree with you the chances of a Cherynobyl are VERY THIN, we have safety protocols in place to prevent much of what happened to that place.

I will say though Nuclear power is the way to go.

While I will not say we are within 100% certainty preventing a nuclear disaster I will say that nuclear safety technology even since three mile island has increased considerably to the point I wouldn't mind a nuclear plant near my home.

I applaud the republicans pushing this.
 
Last edited:
Only if you want more government spending, more government involvement in the market, and more of your tax dollars at risk.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/46844-expansion-nuclear-power-requires-more-government.html

Those who bash Obama for expanding government are essentially hypocrites when they call for more nuclear power, but at this stage, I'm frankly amazed if anyone has any part of their ideology logically consistent.

Sorry but while I criticize Obama for the bailouts and such, government spending in nuclear is a MUST.

Nuclear power is the way to go as well as refining nuclear waste.

The main reason we don't refine our nuclear waste is it can be seen as prolifering nuclear weapons.

I think we should implement refining nulcear waste with U.N watchdogs because we know those ****ers won't let anything go past the U.S.
 
Nuclear energy is the future, we can use the same rods for about a year and a half, now that is efficient. And if we actually put money into it I bet we can make nuclear much safer and more efficient.
 
Nuclear energy is the future, we can use the same rods for about a year and a half, now that is efficient. And if we actually put money into it I bet we can make nuclear much safer and more efficient.

Actually can use the same rods for about 6 years (3 cycles of about 2 years) IIRC.

I think the major holdup right now on Nuclear is the storage of the nuclear waste and the way it is transported and of course where the plant is located.
 
Last edited:
Actually can use the same rods for about 6 years (3 cycles of about 2 years) IIRC.

I think the major holdup right now on Nuclear is the storage of the nuclear waste and the way it is transported and of course where the plant is located.
Actually the transportation on train is very safe and the chance of a major problem is slim. Yucca Mt right now is the main problem for storage, persoanlly i think it will do a fine job of containing the waste. Though I have heard conflicting numbers as to how much of the nuclear waste Yucca can hold.
 
People die in coal mining disasters every year, or from chronic conditions caused by black lung. Oil rig damage causes leaks into the oceans, polluting people's livelihood.

I know a nuclear meltdown would cause much bigger problems, but this is unlikely. People often cite Russia's ONE disaster without really understanding what happened. A lot has changed since then.

Personally, I would like to see more of an investment in fusion research. So far we are 50 years away from a commercial reactor... I would like to see this time cut in half. Fusion is much safer than current nuclear fission systems, and the energy surpluses would solve human material inequities within a generation.
 
Actually the transportation on train is very safe and the chance of a major problem is slim.

Problem is terrorist attacks I think is the main concern there since they said that it won't be train only but a combination of train and highway travel. Even if it was train only that is still a problem given a train takes almost a 1-2 miles to stop and is quite predictable. The highway travel is also notable given the many things that could happen.

Yucca Mt right now is the main problem for storage, persoanlly i think it will do a fine job of containing the waste. Though I have heard conflicting numbers as to how much of the nuclear waste Yucca can hold.

From what I have heard from others is the main concern is how much it can hold and how safe it will be once it is sealed given the seismic activity in the area.

Given the problems at stake I still think Nuclear is the way to go for power along with other renewable energy sources such as dams, solar, wind, etc.
 
Last edited:
People die in coal mining disasters every year, or from chronic conditions caused by black lung. Oil rig damage causes leaks into the oceans, polluting people's livelihood.

I think the problem comes not with the number of deaths but with the number of deaths due to incident. With a coal miners death the coal miner knows the dangers of the job and accepts it. Civilians that could die to a nuclear power plant accident do not sign such a statement.

I had an uncle die to a coal mining death so I agree with what you said.

However, I think the fear is the fact of the number of deaths due to a nuclear power plant accident is known more simply because 100% of the residents do not sign such a statement of liability due to accident as coal miners do.

IMO it is much like the plane crash scenario. More people die due to highway accidents than to airline accidents, but since the percentage rate of fatality rate of airline accidents is much greater than the percentage of fatality rate of highway accidents, people play that the fatalities of airlines are much worse.
 
Initial investment is high due to many things.

Virtually none of it environmental.

Over all long term construction (three years to build a GIII plant) assuming all goes well.

Which it never does as history shows.

The ROI for Nuclear power is longer then an oil or coal plant, but the long term operation is financially secure.

Perhaps, but the private sector has long disagreed with your bullish attitude on nuclear.
 
Back
Top Bottom