• 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!

Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

Are You Interested In More Nuclear Power?

  • Total voters
    101
Ask Japan.
 
yes and Yes
 
Pinkie said:
We humans cracked the atom sometime in the early 1940's; built the first nuclear power plant anywhere on the planet in 1954 in the USSR. The US currently has 104 nuclear power plants.

Nuclear Energy Institute - U.S. Nuclear Power Plants

I can't believe I'm asking this, but I am. I'd rather have another one in my county than to have fraking for natural gas going on, or coal mining, or that benighted Keystone Pipeline.

What say you? Could we achieve energy independence via building more nuclear power plants, and if so, would you be willing to do so?
Click to expand...

Uh....how does nuclear power fix our energy independence problem? Our energy problem is more of a liquid fuel issue. Granted, if we moved to a hydrogen based vehicle system, nuclear power could solve it that way, but right now how does Nuclear power solve our energy problem when our energy problem is liquid based?
 
Pinkie said:
O, *duh*. Of course.

Still, if you want off the grid, there are technologies around that might could get you there -- one thing we all need is the right to sell excess power to the electric company, so none of needs a huge battery to store it. Parts of California have this -- maybe the whole state.
Click to expand...

One of my projects is to get off the California grid completly. I am doing a solar electrical and thermal, wind, battery, and conventional micro turbine combined cycle system. I wont have to pay PG&E another dime more when I am done. Meter will be removed at that point. In the central valley and most other parts of the state except LA and San Francisco we have a 4 tier rate system which is quite confiscatory in teirs 3-4. The rate teirs are based on usage. The more you use the more they charge per kilowatt. In the summer out here in the central valley and the deserts it can get to over 110 routinely. That means using air conditioning continuosly. That get very expensive if you are not on some program. LA and San Francisco only have to pay the first 2 teir rates no matter how much electricity they use. Sounds fair dont it? Its another in a long line of reasons our state is so divided.
 
Pinkie said:
O, true, but if electricity were significantly cheaper, electric cars would be far more appealing to the average consumer.

I find it hard to believe we're stuck with the internal combustion engine in perpetuity.
Click to expand...

Why? We're still using steam. A nuclear power plant is effectively a steam power plant. Only PV solar, wind, and hydroelectric aren't using steam to generate power.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Not so much politicians but more the people themselves and the people who work for those politicians.
Click to expand...

Well, the politicians in my state have recently approved the construction of a new lignite coal power plant which has gone $400 million over projected budget and is based on a design that most engineers have agreed is "questionable" as to level of its efficient "power output to cost of operation" ratio. The regional power cooperative has now been "forced" to pass on the extra cost of construction to the consumers in the form of a 35% increase in electricity bills over a 3-year period. For what it's worth.....I also live in one of the "poorest" states in the Union. This is just one reason why I have very little confidence in politicians when it comes to acting in the best interest of the citizenry. :shrug:
 
FluffyNinja said:
Yes, because we all know our government is so very efficient when it comes to running and/or regulating any industry............I thought the idea was cheaper, cleaner and more efficient.............under this premise, are you certain you want the federal govt running things? :shrug:
Click to expand...

When it comes to nuclear plants: absolutely. Private business is around to make money. Safety costs money. And nuclear plants require huge amounts of safety. It's questionable that nuclear plants can actually make money without the subsidies they get per kilowatt. Cheaper does not equate to better. Especially if that cheaper comes at the cost of safety. TEPCO's problems somewhat stem from weak regulation. They made a lot of cost savings measures that cut safety. And look where it got them.
 
Pinkie said:
We humans cracked the atom sometime in the early 1940's; built the first nuclear power plant anywhere on the planet in 1954 in the USSR. The US currently has 104 nuclear power plants.

Nuclear Energy Institute - U.S. Nuclear Power Plants

I can't believe I'm asking this, but I am. I'd rather have another one in my county than to have fraking for natural gas going on, or coal mining, or that benighted Keystone Pipeline.

What say you? Could we achieve energy independence via building more nuclear power plants, and if so, would you be willing to do so?
Click to expand...

This area is already a toxic waste site, so why not add radiation to the mix.
 
obvious Child said:
When it comes to nuclear plants: absolutely. Private business is around to make money. Safety costs money. And nuclear plants require huge amounts of safety. It's questionable that nuclear plants can actually make money without the subsidies they get per kilowatt. Cheaper does not equate to better. Especially if that cheaper comes at the cost of safety. TEPCO's problems somewhat stem from weak regulation. They made a lot of cost savings measures that cut safety. And look where it got them.
Click to expand...

The domestic oil production industry was/is also supposedly "strictly regulated" by the fed govt........and we see how well that worked out in my back yard (the Gulf of Mexico) regarding the BP platform disaster. :shrug:
 
FluffyNinja said:
Well, the politicians in my state have recently approved the construction of a new lignite coal power plant which has gone $400 million over projected budget and is based on a design that most engineers have agreed is "questionable" as to level of its efficient "power output to cost of operation" ratio. The regional power cooperative has now been "forced" to pass on the extra cost of construction to the consumers in the form of a 35% increase in electricity bills over a 3-year period. For what it's worth.....I also live in one of the "poorest" states in the Union. This is just one reason why I have very little confidence in politicians when it comes to acting in the best interest of the citizenry. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Its not so much "co$t" im worried about its more about safety, and safety standards when dealing with the people and communities that surround them. Also i believe something as dangerous as nuclear power should not be put in the hands of a for profit business.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Its not so much "co$t" im worried about its more about safety, and safety standards when dealing with the people and communities that surround them. Also i believe something as dangerous as nuclear power should not be put in the hands of a for profit business.
Click to expand...

The "profit" for politicians ........comes in the form of votes. If you are under the illusion that elected officials haven't and won't "cut corners" and jeopardize community safety for the sake of getting re-elected or for moving up the political ladder........you should re-evaluate your confidence level in regards to the average elected official.......IMHO of course. :shrug:
 
We hate nuclear power. Have one near us - broken - and they talk of building 2 more at tens of billions of dollars of cost. They added 50% to everyone's electric bill in anticipation of maybe fixing the broken one and building 2 more - maybe ready to use in 10 to 20 years. We have about the highest electric bills in the country.

I have NO doubt if they had to blow off radioactive steam they'd never tell anyone.

As for safety, they don't allow anyone to work in the facility for more than 2 years due to accumulated radiation. Most quit much sooner despite being the highest pay around.
 
joko104 said:
We hate nuclear power. Have one near us - broken - and they talk of building 2 more at tens of billions of dollars of cost. They added 50% to everyone's electric bill in anticipation of maybe fixing the broken one and building 2 more - maybe ready to use in 10 to 20 years. We have about the highest electric bills in the country.

I have NO doubt if they had to blow off radioactive steam they'd never tell anyone.

As for safety, they don't allow anyone to work in the facility for more than 2 years due to accumulated radiation. Most quit much sooner despite being the highest pay around.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't the plant, it's who owns it. Private enterprise involved with the water and power supply leads to increased rates (and often inferior quality).
 
joko104 said:
We hate nuclear power. Have one near us - broken - and they talk of building 2 more at tens of billions of dollars of cost. They added 50% to everyone's electric bill in anticipation of maybe fixing the broken one and building 2 more - maybe ready to use in 10 to 20 years. We have about the highest electric bills in the country.

I have NO doubt if they had to blow off radioactive steam they'd never tell anyone.

As for safety, they don't allow anyone to work in the facility for more than 2 years due to accumulated radiation. Most quit much sooner despite being the highest pay around.
Click to expand...
in the USA?
I doubt it....
 
FluffyNinja said:
The "profit" for politicians ........comes in the form of votes.
Click to expand...
The difference is if the people dont agree with it then the people dont vote for them.

If you are under the illusion that elected officials haven't and won't "cut corners" and jeopardize community safety for the sake of getting re-elected or for moving up the political ladder........you should re-evaluate your confidence level in regards to the average elected official.......IMHO of course. :shrug:
Click to expand...

When we have tough standards set up by the government then its hard to cut corners even for a elected official.
 
Depends on the variables. How stable is the environment around the reactor, i.e. will an earthquake, hurricane, wildfire or other natural disaster in the immediate area be enough of a threat to destabalize it and cause a meltdown. As well I would want to make sure the newest techs are employed and it's as safe as possible. If it's not a threat to the public and waste is disposed of properly absolutely.
 
obvious Child said:
Where did you get that notion? Want to see a regulated industry? Go to banking. Oil's got nothing on banking.
Click to expand...

and yet it is the bankers who are most adept at gaming the system for personal gain...
 
LaMidRighter said:
Depends on the variables. How stable is the environment around the reactor, i.e. will an earthquake, hurricane, wildfire or other natural disaster in the immediate area be enough of a threat to destabalize it and cause a meltdown. As well I would want to make sure the newest techs are employed and it's as safe as possible. If it's not a threat to the public and waste is disposed of properly absolutely.
Click to expand...

Pretty much everywhere in the US has some natural disaster issue. Whether it be tornados, hurricanes or earthquakes. Granted, building on a fault line is dumb idea, but it's pretty much impossible to get a 100% natural disaster free zone.

That said, we should build either thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors. It will take more space, but they will be far safer, not only in operation but in the waste problem.
 
UtahBill said:
and yet it is the bankers who are most adept at gaming the system for personal gain...
Click to expand...

That is partially because the past 10 years we pretty much let them do what they wanted. And many bankers simply got stupid. However, to be fair a lot of industries got stupid.
 
obvious Child said:
Pretty much everywhere in the US has some natural disaster issue. Whether it be tornados, hurricanes or earthquakes. Granted, building on a fault line is dumb idea, but it's pretty much impossible to get a 100% natural disaster free zone.

That said, we should build either thorium reactors or pebble bed reactors. It will take more space, but they will be far safer, not only in operation but in the waste problem.
Click to expand...
Yeah. As long as the risk to the public is statistically low I'm good with it. I saw something on the pebble bed reactors a few years back, was impressed not as familiar with thorium but if it works let's do it.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Depends on the variables. How stable is the environment around the reactor, i.e. will an earthquake, hurricane, wildfire or other natural disaster in the immediate area be enough of a threat to destabalize it and cause a meltdown. As well I would want to make sure the newest techs are employed and it's as safe as possible. If it's not a threat to the public and waste is disposed of properly absolutely.
Click to expand...

You know, that's a really good point. It seems like every two years we either have a catastrophic hurricane, or one of the ****ing plants around here blows up (Looking at you BP). So on top of the actual hazards it presents, and the utter lack of responsibility when it comes to industrial waste disposal, we'd have that too.
 
Surtr said:
You know, that's a really good point. It seems like every two years we either have a catastrophic hurricane, or one of the ****ing plants around here blows up (Looking at you BP). So on top of the actual hazards it presents, and the utter lack of responsibility when it comes to industrial waste disposal, we'd have that too.
Click to expand...
There's a reactor around the Baton Rouge area of Louisiana, it's in a sparsely populated area and from what I understand it can withstand a Cat 4, possibly a 5. I think the structures can survive and protect the reactor but the concern becomes manpower, does the plant hold it's own if the roads are impassible or manpower is scattered and if so, how long will it remain stable, things like that are just as important as structural integrity.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Yeah. As long as the risk to the public is statistically low I'm good with it. I saw something on the pebble bed reactors a few years back, was impressed not as familiar with thorium but if it works let's do it.
Click to expand...

In theory, a PBR cannot meltdown due to design and total potential heat generated. And some thorium designs are self regulating so that heat generated cannot exceed a certain level before automatic system shutdown. Apparently a large number of nuclear engineers are sketch on the thorium designs because it's such a radical departure from the constant supervision and massive safety engineering that goes into current systems. But a system designed to shut off once heat reaches a set point is pretty cool.
 
obvious Child said:
In theory, a PBR cannot meltdown due to design and total potential heat generated. And some thorium designs are self regulating so that heat generated cannot exceed a certain level before automatic system shutdown. Apparently a large number of nuclear engineers are sketch on the thorium designs because it's such a radical departure from the constant supervision and massive safety engineering that goes into current systems. But a system designed to shut off once heat reaches a set point is pretty cool.
Click to expand...
Definitely worth a look, I am kind of wary of low supervision systems because even the best safeguards can fail, but it sounds promising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom