• 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!

The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Vermonters Exercise Their Nuclear Option -- In These Times

How is it possible that the Nuke power companies and Nuclear Regulator agencies could cause citizens to be stuck with a metaphorical radioactive time bomb. Is this more sock puppets and Corporatism? Is this struggle an example of the citizens loss of power in this Nation. Perhaps we are a Corporatocracy?
 
Vermonters Exercise Their Nuclear Option -- In These Times

How is it possible that the Nuke power companies and Nuclear Regulator agencies could cause citizens to be stuck with a metaphorical radioactive time bomb. Is this more sock puppets and Corporatism? Is this struggle an example of the citizens loss of power in this Nation. Perhaps we are a Corporatocracy?

Yeah, because we know that getting power from coal and oil is SO MUCH better...

The article compares Vermont Yankee to Chernobyl and Fukushima #1. Chernobyl was a very different plant in the USSR while Fukushima #1 (and #2 BTW) were affected by a natural event that will NEVER occur in Vermont unless we have a 2012-style tsunami...
 
Yeah, because we know that getting power from coal and oil is SO MUCH better...

The article compares Vermont Yankee to Chernobyl and Fukushima #1. Chernobyl was a very different plant in the USSR while Fukushima #1 (and #2 BTW) were affected by a natural event that will NEVER occur in Vermont unless we have a 2012-style tsunami...

So we should trust those engineers. Fukushima was designed to the max and did not include design consideration of this "never happen" event. Murphy's Law. The event at Fukushima was natural, but the nuke plant was not. It is a blatant advertisement of "design failure."
 
So we should trust those engineers. Fukushima was designed to the max and did not include design consideration of this "never happen" event. Murphy's Law. The event at Fukushima was natural, but the nuke plant was not. It is a blatant advertisement of "design failure."

Both Fukushima #1 and #2 were designed to withstand an 8.0 magnitude quake. In reality, they withstood the mag NINE quake. It was the resultant tsunami that caused the power loss in #1 that was so catestrophic and the lesser problems in the #2 plant. That isn't design failure... the design was adequate to withstand anything from known Japanese history. This event exceeded anything that had ever happened in the country.

Now, even considering the kind of event that would happen once in ONE THOUSAND YEARS or more, what threat is faced in Vermont that would cause the same problems as faced at Fukushima #1. And, given that, how does that compare to the CONTINUOUS reality of emissions from oil and coal powered electrical plants on a 24/7/365 basis?
 
QUOTE"Now, even considering the kind of event that would happen once in ONE THOUSAND YEARS or more, what threat is faced in Vermont that would cause the same problems as faced at Fukushima #1. And, given that, how does that compare to the CONTINUOUS reality of emissions from oil and coal powered electrical plants on a 24/7/365 basis?" End QUOTE

I have never supported oil, coal, natural gas, nor Megawatt windmills. I don't now. Alternatives and renewables are the answer. It is the Centralized Distribution Network that is the fly in the ointment. This worked wonderfully until we realized the future costs. It is past time for change. Power must be made in-house. Eliminate the multiplying inefficiencies of the Centralized Distribution Network that is the reason we have nukes in the first place. It is actually Centralized Collection of Monies and the raison d'etra. In-home solar. In-home windmill. In-home electric generator with collection of waste heat. Installation makes jobs. Repair makes jobs. Energy and dollar savings are likely spent in the local marketplace, making more jobs. We exported our manufacturing base so we have to restart somewhere. What better place than to make jobs by actually solving problems. You sock puppet is being paid by the Corporate hand to not do this. So what would we change?
 
The average coal plant spits more radioactive material into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant generates in its entirety, and that's when things are going well.
 
QUOTE"Now, even considering the kind of event that would happen once in ONE THOUSAND YEARS or more, what threat is faced in Vermont that would cause the same problems as faced at Fukushima #1. And, given that, how does that compare to the CONTINUOUS reality of emissions from oil and coal powered electrical plants on a 24/7/365 basis?" End QUOTE

I have never supported oil, coal, natural gas, nor Megawatt windmills. I don't now. Alternatives and renewables are the answer. It is the Centralized Distribution Network that is the fly in the ointment. This worked wonderfully until we realized the future costs. It is past time for change. Power must be made in-house. Eliminate the multiplying inefficiencies of the Centralized Distribution Network that is the reason we have nukes in the first place. It is actually Centralized Collection of Monies and the raison d'etra. In-home solar. In-home windmill. In-home electric generator with collection of waste heat. Installation makes jobs. Repair makes jobs. Energy and dollar savings are likely spent in the local marketplace, making more jobs. We exported our manufacturing base so we have to restart somewhere. What better place than to make jobs by actually solving problems. You sock puppet is being paid by the Corporate hand to not do this. So what would we change?

I also support the development of renewables. However, at this point, we do not have the technical ability to fund our energy needs entirely from rewnewables. Hopefully, one hundred years from now, this will not be the case. Also, renewables are prohibitively expensive, especially for LEDCs... nuclear (at least in Taiwan) is far less expensive than the dirtier coal and oil alternatives. Even Germany, which has a very aggressive alternative energy program, will only be up to 40% of alternative energy use (if they meet their targets) by 2020.

We are still many decades away from sole reliance on alternative clean energy like solar, geothermal, wind and tidal. In the meantime, nuclear is a FAR better option than oil and coal powered generation plants.
 
DaveFagan, that article is pretty bad.

First of all, it makes no distinction between types of reactor. This is absolutely key. Chernobyl had no containment systems. Fukushima used an active cooling system. Both are mistakes and have been corrected in newer designs. Furthermore, there are newer designs being tested that cannot meltdown even with complete loss of cooling.

Second, reprocessing like France would eliminate much of the storage problem. furthermore, a theoretical modification to thorium reactors currently under discussion at I believe MIT would produce energy from nuclear waste in such an efficient manner that only something like 10% of the waste would remain.

Just because ONE type of nuclear reactor had a real problem does not mean nuclear as a whole should be rejected.
 
DaveFagan, that article is pretty bad.

First of all, it makes no distinction between types of reactor. This is absolutely key. Chernobyl had no containment systems. Fukushima used an active cooling system. Both are mistakes and have been corrected in newer designs. Furthermore, there are newer designs being tested that cannot meltdown even with complete loss of cooling.

Second, reprocessing like France would eliminate much of the storage problem. furthermore, a theoretical modification to thorium reactors currently under discussion at I believe MIT would produce energy from nuclear waste in such an efficient manner that only something like 10% of the waste would remain.

Just because ONE type of nuclear reactor had a real problem does not mean nuclear as a whole should be rejected.

Oh yeh! and nuclear fusion is just six months away, and if, maybe, woulda, coulda, and the moon is made of green cheese. I repeat myself. " It is the Centralized Distribution Network that is the fly in the ointment. This worked wonderfully until we realized the future costs. It is past time for change. Power must be made in-house. Eliminate the multiplying inefficiencies of the Centralized Distribution Network that is the reason we have nukes in the first place. It is actually Centralized Collection of Monies and the raison d'etra. In-home solar. In-home windmill. In-home electric generator with collection of waste heat. Installation makes jobs. Repair makes jobs. Energy and dollar savings are likely spent in the local marketplace, making more jobs. We exported our manufacturing base so we have to restart somewhere. What better place than to make jobs by actually solving problems. You sock puppet is being paid by the Corporate hand to not do this. So what would we change?"
 
The Daichi Fukushima power plants exceeded its design specifications in that it was able to withstand a 8.0M when it was designed to withstand much lower earthquakes. The problem was not the earthquake, but the tsunami which destroyed their cooling systems since all the pumps/systems got wet. (Water and electricity don't mix) So, it was not a "design failure." The reactors did not crack from the earthquake, but the pressure from the fuel rods which were shut down due to the early warning system japan had, which gave them less than a minute to shut down power production before the earthquake hits. Fuel rods are still active and need to be cooled continuously even after the reactor is "off". So before you start spouting off the "design flaw," there was no way someone could assume a 50 ft tsunami is going to hit them. If we build 100-ft tsunami walls, then mind as well everyone build inland, but Japan doesn't have that luxury, so they have to build with what they have.

And as a voter, if you all don't like it, petition and add it to the bill. Stop being sue-happy and be active in getting things done for your state. If your local politician likes nuclear power and you don't, then don't vote for him next time.
 
Quote"The Daichi Fukushima power plants exceeded its design specifications in that it was able to withstand a 8.0M when it was designed to withstand much lower earthquakes.:End Quote

So you admit it was a design failure. Me too. Another failure of the human element. Hubris, arrogance, pride, and profit. As for the politicians, I didn't vote for him last time. It seems that persons who think independently are not allowed to run. Is there an alternative? Wait it out? Revolution? Vote????? What Corporation are you voting for? Where are the vestiges of the Rockefeller empire and are they still functional? My candidate only has a billion dollars, ergo he has no power? Who got de power? TEPCO got de power and dey just stuck some up your nose!
 
Last edited:
Quote"The Daichi Fukushima power plants exceeded its design specifications in that it was able to withstand a 8.0M when it was designed to withstand much lower earthquakes.:End Quote

So you admit it was a design failure. Me too. Another failure of the human element. Hubris, arrogance, pride, and profit. As for the politicians, I didn't vote for him last time. It seems that persons who think independently are not allowed to run. Is there an alternative? Wait it out? Revolution? Vote????? What Corporation are you voting for? Where are the vestiges of the Rockefeller empire and are they still functional? My candidate only has a billion dollars, ergo he has no power? Who got de power? TEPCO got de power and dey just stuck some up your nose!

I think your definition of "design failure" and my definition are two different things.... It exceeded what it was supposed to do, that means it was a "design success". I really don't care about the politics in this one because there is no right answer, but the nuclear reactors are built much better than what most people give them credit...
 
Oh yeh! and nuclear fusion is just six months away, and if, maybe, woulda, coulda, and the moon is made of green cheese.

Fusion is at least 25 to 50 years. But pebble bed reactors and thorium self regulating aren't. Right now pebble beds are being used for research purposes into new designs.

I repeat myself. " It is the Centralized Distribution Network that is the fly in the ointment. This worked wonderfully until we realized the future costs. It is past time for change. Power must be made in-house. Eliminate the multiplying inefficiencies of the Centralized Distribution Network that is the reason we have nukes in the first place.

You really think the electrical grid of the US is centralized? Do you realize the LACK of centralization is one of the major problems with widescale use of wind power? The various differing grids across the US are one of the reason why Texas wind power cannot be used efficiently across the country. A decetralized approach is holding up solar as well. You appear to be operating from a position of ignorance.

It is actually Centralized Collection of Monies and the raison d'etra. In-home solar. In-home windmill. In-home electric generator with collection of waste heat. Installation makes jobs. Repair makes jobs. Energy and dollar savings are likely spent in the local marketplace, making more jobs.

By that measure we should ban all imports. If everything must be done in house, we should just do everything in our own neighborhood.

We exported our manufacturing base so we have to restart somewhere. What better place than to make jobs by actually solving problems. You sock puppet is being paid by the Corporate hand to not do this. So what would we change?"

Really? Care to guess who's the #1 manufacturer by volume and dollar value? Hint, it ain't China. Or Germany. Or Japan.

Tell me, what makes you think you are able to discuss this subject well when you treat nuclear as a single entity with no variation between designs?
 
Quote"The Daichi Fukushima power plants exceeded its design specifications in that it was able to withstand a 8.0M when it was designed to withstand much lower earthquakes.:End Quote

So you admit it was a design failure. Me too. Another failure of the human element. Hubris, arrogance, pride, and profit. As for the politicians, I didn't vote for him last time. It seems that persons who think independently are not allowed to run. Is there an alternative? Wait it out? Revolution? Vote????? What Corporation are you voting for? Where are the vestiges of the Rockefeller empire and are they still functional? My candidate only has a billion dollars, ergo he has no power? Who got de power? TEPCO got de power and dey just stuck some up your nose!
Interesting and your objections seem to be worthy and that being said, what would you do for a alternative energy source, any idea's? We hear complaints and condemnation of those who attempt to supply us with energy, yet those who do the complaining have no viable alternative plan.
...because anarchy definetly isn't the answer nor is big government and it's welfare cases both private and corporate.
 
Interesting and your objections seem to be worthy and that being said, what would you do for a alternative energy source, any idea's? We hear complaints and condemnation of those who attempt to supply us with energy, yet those who do the complaining have no viable alternative plan.
...because anarchy definetly isn't the answer nor is big government and it's welfare cases both private and corporate.

"It is actually Centralized Collection of Monies and the raison d'etra. In-home solar. In-home windmill. In-home electric generator with collection of waste heat. Installation makes jobs. Repair makes jobs. Energy and dollar savings are likely spent in the local marketplace, making more jobs."
In home is the solution. It cuts Centralized Distribution out of the loop. Now do you know why there is so much big money, organized opposition to independent energy, alternative energy and renewable energy. Money talks. Corporate is the name on the hand up your Legislative (Senator or Representative) sock puppet's ass. Spell that Entergy, Nuke Power, Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, BP, Duke Energy, just to name a few. Study your Congressman's campaign donation list. And hot damn, mon, it's not a bribe. Nosiree. Definitely not. But if it looks like chit, smells like chit, and feels like chit, might be de same ol' chit.
 
"It is actually Centralized Collection of Monies and the raison d'etra. In-home solar. In-home windmill. In-home electric generator with collection of waste heat. Installation makes jobs. Repair makes jobs. Energy and dollar savings are likely spent in the local marketplace, making more jobs."
In home is the solution. It cuts Centralized Distribution out of the loop. Now do you know why there is so much big money, organized opposition to independent energy, alternative energy and renewable energy. Money talks. Corporate is the name on the hand up your Legislative (Senator or Representative) sock puppet's ass. Spell that Entergy, Nuke Power, Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, BP, Duke Energy, just to name a few. Study your Congressman's campaign donation list. And hot damn, mon, it's not a bribe. Nosiree. Definitely not. But if it looks like chit, smells like chit, and feels like chit, might be de same ol' chit.
Corporate welfare in exchange for monies, well this is corruption and this being the case the people have the power to throw them out, except the government offers the voters free stuff in exchange for remaining in office, I am wit you on this . Now for getting off the grid is admiral endeavor but currently not achievable by most citizens, it to expensive currently in the short term. It takes a lot of energy to make these products from soup to nuts, and I see what your referring to is the finish product. On the scale we would need to get off the grid will take a lot more than any mandates can achieve and in our current situation, this will be put on hold for a very long time. Oil, gas, coal and nuclear is all we have currently and will be required at a reasonable p[rice to be able to achieve some alternate fuel,and of course a change in the mindset of the American people......100 years this will take or more. the American people are reactionary and not proactive, never have been and probably never will be.
 
So we should trust those engineers. Fukushima was designed to the max and did not include design consideration of this "never happen" event. Murphy's Law. The event at Fukushima was natural, but the nuke plant was not. It is a blatant advertisement of "design failure."

I don't claim to be as smart as you folks. But I seem to remember reading about the number of deaths becuase of coal se to be in the thousands per year. Due to the dirty air people near their plants have to breath, plus the people killed in coal mines.

I understand is it fun the sit around and postulate worst case situations for everything/anything. I am sure there are corrupt politicians continuing to allow the production of automobiles although we know tens of thousands of people die in autos each year. we keep the beaches open, probably a conspiracy with the medical industry so they get to threat skin cancer.

Take this arguement to it's logical extreme and we should all move back in caves and eat nuts found in the woods.
 
Corporate welfare in exchange for monies, well this is corruption and this being the case the people have the power to throw them out, except the government offers the voters free stuff in exchange for remaining in office, I am wit you on this . Now for getting off the grid is admiral endeavor but currently not achievable by most citizens, it to expensive currently in the short term. It takes a lot of energy to make these products from soup to nuts, and I see what your referring to is the finish product. On the scale we would need to get off the grid will take a lot more than any mandates can achieve and in our current situation, this will be put on hold for a very long time. Oil, gas, coal and nuclear is all we have currently and will be required at a reasonable p[rice to be able to achieve some alternate fuel,and of course a change in the mindset of the American people......100 years this will take or more. the American people are reactionary and not proactive, never have been and probably never will be.

It is not too expensive to get off the grid. It just requires a National effort. The biggest supporter of the grid is governments. Take a look at any utility bill and add up the taxes in the bill. This is free money to governments and if you shut down the grid, the governments no longer get their "vig" as an alternative power group calls it. The gov'ts are addicted to these revenues like mainline heroin and that is the resistance to change, "inertia" that prevents our movement to alternative energy. If you use a gasoline engine generator with an exhaust heat exchanger to make hot water for heating as well as potable uses, energy use is about 1/8th of what is used on the current grid. The existing distribution network is a case of multiplying inefficiencies generating huge amounts of waste heat and that is its major flaw. Solar panels, 3-400 watt windmills, an gasoline electric generator (likely less than 2 horsepower), and batteries (preferably rebuildable), and inverters. These must be in homes insulated like walk-in coolers and have heat exchangers to periodically deal with stale air. 1 watt LED light bulbs. Make your own wind generators with wooden props and DC motors. Does that sound complicated? It is the reality. Make note that the government doesn't collect any tax revenue as you produce your own power. Add up what the gov't would lose and you know why gov't really doesn't get behind this movement. This is just a quick overview but the Alternative Energy people don't own any sock puppets. The big Energy people own lots of sock puppets.
 
Last edited:
The average coal plant spits more radioactive material into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant generates in its entirety, and that's when things are going well.

Interesting statement... can we have a cite, or will "Deuce says so" be sufficient?
 
Our actual major concern should be that it is supposed to be government "of the people, by the people, for the people" and this smacks of Corporate intimidation to go against the "people." Here you go, "stick this nuke plant up your arse!" DaveFagan Some might suggest that this is an over-simplication, but if you are for the people, it is the only solution.
 
QUOTE"Now, even considering the kind of event that would happen once in ONE THOUSAND YEARS or more, what threat is faced in Vermont that would cause the same problems as faced at Fukushima #1. And, given that, how does that compare to the CONTINUOUS reality of emissions from oil and coal powered electrical plants on a 24/7/365 basis?" End QUOTE

I have never supported oil, coal, natural gas, nor Megawatt windmills. I don't now. Alternatives and renewables are the answer. It is the Centralized Distribution Network that is the fly in the ointment. This worked wonderfully until we realized the future costs. It is past time for change. Power must be made in-house. Eliminate the multiplying inefficiencies of the Centralized Distribution Network that is the reason we have nukes in the first place. It is actually Centralized Collection of Monies and the raison d'etra. In-home solar. In-home windmill. In-home electric generator with collection of waste heat. Installation makes jobs. Repair makes jobs. Energy and dollar savings are likely spent in the local marketplace, making more jobs. We exported our manufacturing base so we have to restart somewhere. What better place than to make jobs by actually solving problems. You sock puppet is being paid by the Corporate hand to not do this. So what would we change?

A building properly designed and built relative to its location/climate needs about half the energy of existing buildings.
That means we need about half the power plants, or solar/wind, etc.
You might already know about Archtiecture 2030, if not look it up. You'll like it. Edward Mazria wrote the best passive solar book there is, 32 years ago. IF we had been building like he says we should build for the last 32 years, we wouldn't need a large percentage of the plants we have NOW...

That said, there is no good reason to eliminate nuclear from the mix. The BWR reactors are no longer being built, new designs are available, and we can always build away from known faults and/or elevations too close to sea level...
 
Last edited:
It is not too expensive to get off the grid. It just requires a National effort. The biggest supporter of the grid is governments. Take a look at any utility bill and add up the taxes in the bill. This is free money to governments and if you shut down the grid, the governments no longer get their "vig" as an alternative power group calls it. The gov'ts are addicted to these revenues like mainline heroin and that is the resistance to change, "inertia" that prevents our movement to alternative energy. If you use a gasoline engine generator with an exhaust heat exchanger to make hot water for heating as well as potable uses, energy use is about 1/8th of what is used on the current grid. The existing distribution network is a case of multiplying inefficiencies generating huge amounts of waste heat and that is its major flaw. Solar panels, 3-400 watt windmills, an gasoline electric generator (likely less than 2 horsepower), and batteries (preferably rebuildable), and inverters. These must be in homes insulated like walk-in coolers and have heat exchangers to periodically deal with stale air. 1 watt LED light bulbs. Make your own wind generators with wooden props and DC motors. Does that sound complicated? It is the reality. Make note that the government doesn't collect any tax revenue as you produce your own power. Add up what the gov't would lose and you know why gov't really doesn't get behind this movement. This is just a quick overview but the Alternative Energy people don't own any sock puppets. The big Energy people own lots of sock puppets.

Have you seen pictures of "decentralized" grids? Visual pollution is an ugly thing..
 
Interesting statement... can we have a cite, or will "Deuce says so" be sufficient?

It may be an exaggeration, you can research it if you like, but as a former nuke operator myself, it is true.
Coal is not pure, it contains lots of radioactive components in small quantities, and when the coal gets burned and the waste goes out the stack, the radioactive stuff goes out as well, along with sulphur, mercury, etc.
Clean Coal does NOT exist....cleaner burning coal fired plants, yes, but there is no such thing as CLEAN when coal is the source, only a bit cleanER...
 
Have you seen pictures of "decentralized" grids? Visual pollution is an ugly thing..

Global Warming must be a pretty thing, don't you think? I can stand lots of visual pollution and would just as soon live in the real world and get rid of all the imagery. Actually, a decentralized grid uses 1/8th the current energy when all factors are considered. 87% of current fossil fuels are dissipated as waste heat. Yessir, I must be naive not to want to live in a pretty space that is likely fatal to the inhabitants, long term.
 
Lots of energy goes up into heat energy. It's part of thermodynamics; can't get away from it. As for nuclear energy, it is currently one of the cleanest, safest forms of energy we have. I don't see the real need to be obstructionist towards it. We can do a lot of things to make our energy transportation well more efficient and lower energy lost to various forms of unnecessary work. We shouldn't stagnate on nuclear energy, but we shouldn't be afraid of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom