• 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
LaMidRighter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whether it can remain stable or not, it's not right for this town. We already got ****ed by industrial power. The water is toxic, you can't eat anything you pull out of it, you can't swim in it, the land is ****, it's the middle of November and it's too hot to wear a damned jacket, there's an increase in birth defects, increase in cancer, and some days we're greeted by a putrid sick looking sky with equally disgusting smells. They don't follow environmental practices with the **** we already have, and there's no reason to believe they're going to magically start following environmental guidelines if we replace all the old **** with nuclear power.
 
Surtr said:
Whether it can remain stable or not, it's not right for this town. We already got ****ed by industrial power. The water is toxic, you can't eat anything you pull out of it, you can't swim in it, the land is ****, it's the middle of November and it's too hot to wear a damned jacket, there's an increase in birth defects, increase in cancer, and some days we're greeted by a putrid sick looking sky with equally disgusting smells. They don't follow environmental practices with the **** we already have, and there's no reason to believe they're going to magically start following environmental guidelines if we replace all the old **** with nuclear power.
Click to expand...
WOW, not good. That's one concern I have, that of an unethical company literally not caring if they poison the area around the plant. I always tell people I'm not an environmentalist in the truest sense as they stand today, BUT, I do care about not causing provable and immediate harm with industrial waste, chemicals, or unsafe and negligent practices.
 
LaMidRighter said:
WOW, not good. That's one concern I have, that of an unethical company literally not caring if they poison the area around the plant. I always tell people I'm not an environmentalist in the truest sense as they stand today, BUT, I do care about not causing provable and immediate harm with industrial waste, chemicals, or unsafe and negligent practices.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what happens when stuff like that is privatized by a too big to fail company like Exxon.
 
Surtr said:
Well, that's what happens when stuff like that is privatized by a too big to fail company like Exxon.
Click to expand...
I'm not anti-regulation, however I am a "necessary and proper" proponent before something is issued. Things like Benzine, chlorine, other industrial solvents, and pollutants are more than fair game to control.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I'm not anti-regulation, however I am a "necessary and proper" proponent before something is issued. Things like Benzine, chlorine, other industrial solvents, and pollutants are more than fair game to control.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is come on over and see for yourself. I guess you would also smell it for yourself, too. Stay here long enough and you'll feel like **** every day as well due to the bad air.
 
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...

I voted Absolutely, except that I would like to note that I strike the "every other idea is even worse" theory. We have massive amounts of energy in this country, and it is insane that we do not take advantage of it.
 
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...

It's not the plants or even the deep-sea wells that are the pollution problem - it's the tankers. If you want to reduce pollution and spillage from the oil industry, then you need to maximize domestic production in order to reduce the amount that gets' pulled out of the ground overseas where they care less and then shipped across a couple of oceans to us.
 
cpwill said:
I voted Absolutely, except that I would like to note that I strike the "every other idea is even worse" theory. We have massive amounts of energy in this country, and it is insane that we do not take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

According to some calculations, enough wave energy hits the West coast in a week to power the entire country for a year.
 
cpwill said:
It's not the plants or even the deep-sea wells that are the pollution problem - it's the tankers. If you want to reduce pollution and spillage from the oil industry, then you need to maximize domestic production in order to reduce the amount that gets' pulled out of the ground overseas where they care less and then shipped across a couple of oceans to us.
Click to expand...

You also need to do something about the US shipping refined oil products overseas. That was our #1 export a few months ago.
 
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...

We have a few in Florida. We also have a lot of hydroelectric. I am ok with any kind of power that doesn't use fuel from another country. There are plenty of forms of power plants that don't need nukes, but I think we need to use anything to get us off natural gas.
 
obvious Child said:
According to some calculations, enough wave energy hits the West coast in a week to power the entire country for a year.
Click to expand...

Yup. I imagine if we placed facilities on both coasts and in the Gulf. An advantage of these is that they operate 24/7. No intermittency issues there.

I still think a backbone of nuclear plants is a good idea. We shouldn't place all our eggs in one basket and expect a good result. A mix of energy types would make the national grid solid and reliable.
 
obvious Child said:
According to some calculations, enough wave energy hits the West coast in a week to power the entire country for a year.
Click to expand...

Oh snap. I might have been thinking about another country. Oops. Denmark? I dunno.

US looks like total coastal theoretical generation is about 1/3:

The United States uses about 4,000 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity per year. DOE estimates that the maximum theoretical electric generation that could be produced from waves and tidal currents is approximately 1,420 TWh per year, approximately one-third of the nation's total annual electricity usage.
Click to expand...

EERE News: DOE Reports Show Major Potential for Wave and Tidal Energy Production Near U.S. Coasts

Still not too shabby.
 
Surtr said:
All I'm saying is come on over and see for yourself. I guess you would also smell it for yourself, too. Stay here long enough and you'll feel like **** every day as well due to the bad air.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt you, frankly the company needs to get smacked down for that.
 
cpwill said:
It's not the plants or even the deep-sea wells that are the pollution problem - it's the tankers. If you want to reduce pollution and spillage from the oil industry, then you need to maximize domestic production in order to reduce the amount that gets' pulled out of the ground overseas where they care less and then shipped across a couple of oceans to us.
Click to expand...

We don't have a harbor big enough for oil distribution. Shipping is done by truck and train. Exxon isn't the only plant either. We have Bayer to thank as well.
 
Not just yes, but hell yes.
Lived 12 miles from a plant for 15 years. Could see the cooling tower, clear as day. Literally a dozen relatives work(ed) there. Never gave it a second thought.
Of course, I understand how nuclear power works, so I don't fear it...
 
If they manage to sell enough Chevy Volts, then electricity will become the significant power source. In time, batteries will greatly increase their storage capacity and cars will be designed from the ground up to use this technology. Keeping electricity cheap and plentiful will be important so it is still worthwhile to do this.


UtahBill said:
Apples and Oranges.....
Nukes make electricity, and we have lots of other ways of making electricity, some are 24/7, other are only when the wind blows and the sun shines...
Regardless, our big problem is transportation fuels and no amount of nuclear, or other, sourced electricity will replace gasoline and diesel fuels for power density and long range....
If only WE could make oil in the quantities needed and at a reasonable expense, but WE can't. Mother nature has the patent, and the monopoly, on oil....
Click to expand...
 
Absolutely yes.

Now, I think the main push should be toward individual energy production wherever possible. Encouraging people to upgrade their houses and buildings with solar panels or wind turbines (whichever works best for their area)(I know people in the Seattle area who went solar and are able to sell back some of their energy production to the plants), encouraging energy efficiency for homes and businesses, and highly encouraging public transportation and just plain ol' walking, particularly short distances or even just riding a bike. There should also be a push to make public buildings, structures, anything that needs power to "go green".

I want to see nuclear as a backbone til we might get something or a combination of something cleaner and stable.

I want to see the ban on recycling US spent fuel though removed. I just don't see how it is not worth it to reclaim that last little bit of fuel left from spent reactors.

Also, for those talking about regulation. NRC. Been in place since 1974.
 
Surtr said:
We don't have a harbor big enough for oil distribution. Shipping is done by truck and train. Exxon isn't the only plant either. We have Bayer to thank as well.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here - shipping of oil to our shores by tanker is the actual largest source of oil-pollution. If you want to decrease that, therefore, then you need to decrease the amount getting shipped to us by tankers. There are two realistic ways to do that:

1. Send the US back into a deep recession marked by higher unemployment so that fewer people drive their cars to work
2. Increase domestic production

Given the hugely negative effects of the first, and the moderately positive effects of the second (taken a look at unemployment in South Dakota lately? Oil jobs pay above the national average, and don't require college degrees, to boot), I'll take #2 for several trillion, Alex.
 
obvious Child said:
According to some calculations, enough wave energy hits the West coast in a week to power the entire country for a year.
Click to expand...

If we can harness that at cost, then that sounds fantastic. But I predict efforts to do so will meet a blizzard of lawsuits to protect the sand snails' pristine habitat. Eco's are often their own worst enemy.
 
roguenuke said:
Absolutely yes.

Now, I think the main push should be toward individual energy production wherever possible. Encouraging people to upgrade their houses and buildings with solar panels or wind turbines (whichever works best for their area)(I know people in the Seattle area who went solar and are able to sell back some of their energy production to the plants), encouraging energy efficiency for homes and businesses, and highly encouraging public transportation and just plain ol' walking, particularly short distances or even just riding a bike. There should also be a push to make public buildings, structures, anything that needs power to "go green".

I want to see nuclear as a backbone til we might get something or a combination of something cleaner and stable.

I want to see the ban on recycling US spent fuel though removed. I just don't see how it is not worth it to reclaim that last little bit of fuel left from spent reactors.

Also, for those talking about regulation. NRC. Been in place since 1974.
Click to expand...

* I like this - but I would like to note that I make that contingent on a particular definition of "push".

To what, exactly, are you referring to, there?
 
cpwill said:
* I like this - but I would like to note that I make that contingent on a particular definition of "push".

To what, exactly, are you referring to, there?
Click to expand...

Basically "incentives as encouragement". There could be some effort to change new building regulations to include energy efficiency, but most should be encouraged, not regulated.
 
roguenuke said:
Basically "incentives as encouragement". There could be some effort to change new building regulations to include energy efficiency, but most should be encouraged, not regulated.
Click to expand...

It seems that the cost-savings should already be the incentives. Are you talking about government payment options? You "greened" your windows, so here is a $10 million tax break?
 
I stand for cold fusion. Otherwise, no. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom