• 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
winston53660 said:
I really don't mind the Canadians and Mexicans sending oil here to refine. After all gasoline, Vaseline, kerosine, etc are worth more than some crude.
Click to expand...

Especially the Vaseline, eh? ;)

I don't mind it either, actually. That pipeline isn't going to be any saving grace for US citizens, although a lot of people seems to think so. It won't change our domestic gas prices in the slightest. It will increase our exports of a critical commodity which will be helpful and ultimately beneficial, but not beneficial in regards to US gas prices.
 
EagleAye said:
Especially the Vaseline, eh? ;)

I don't mind it either, actually. That pipeline isn't going to be any saving grace for US citizens, although a lot of people seems to think so. It won't change our domestic gas prices in the slightest. It will increase our exports of a critical commodity which will be helpful and ultimately beneficial, but not beneficial in regards to US gas prices.
Click to expand...

I know that. The Alaska pipeline came with the same hoopla. For people in the oil gig it will be beneficial. Sweet Texas crude is an awful lot easier to refine than tar sands out of Canada.
 
winston53660 said:
I know that. The Alaska pipeline came with the same hoopla. For people in the oil gig it will be beneficial. Sweet Texas crude is an awful lot easier to refine than tar sands out of Canada.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is hard to refine, but there's a lot of it. So it makes sense to make what money you can while you can. Canada makes money of the oil, we make money off the gas. It works out.
 
EagleAye said:
Yeah, it is hard to refine, but there's a lot of it. So it makes sense to make what money you can while you can. Canada makes money of the oil, we make money off the gas. It works out.
Click to expand...

Thank goodness my Grandfather made some investments in West Texas. The stuff bubbles up blonde in color.
 
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 already have one less than 30 miles from where I live.
 
winston53660 said:
I really don't mind the Canadians and Mexicans sending oil here to refine. After all gasoline, Vaseline, kerosine, etc are worth more than some crude.
Click to expand...

Being Canadian I personally think we should refine it here in Canada then we can send it to you guys or the Chinese, whoever pays more :)
 
Surtr said:
We don't have a harbor big enough for oil distribution.
Click to expand...

what? We have some of the best harbors in the hemisphere. Boston, San Fransisco, and Portland aren't big cities just because they happen to host crappy professional sports teams.
 
Quag said:
Being Canadian I personally think we should refine it here in Canada then we can send it to you guys or the Chinese, whoever pays more :)
Click to expand...

Indeed (if you can refine it at cost) you should. And I deplore the idiocy with which we turn down your offers. :(
 
UtahBill said:
The Direct Costs of Energy: Why Solar Will Continue To Lag Hydro And Nukes - Forbes

read it and weep, if we went totally solar we would have to pay double the rate, which would be fine because you will only get it half the time.
Click to expand...


Yo Oracle. I read the article in its entirety. Flawed article. Who would suggest connecting a resource that is most efficient in a local independent environment to a centralized distribution network. That is the first flaw. Second, no costing for mitigation of fossil induced Global Warming was included and that is a certain future cost. As regards nukes, no costing was included for Global Glowing waste in the future. It is the monopoly distribution network and its major partners, the Tax collection agencies, that initiate these articles. Solar and wind are efficient locally. That makes jobs locally. That makes savings locally. That makes maintenance locally. It's the "locally" that the big distributors and tax collectors are worried about, not inefficiencies. It's their bottom lines not local ones.
 
cpwill said:
what? We have some of the best harbors in the hemisphere. Boston, San Fransisco, and Portland aren't big cities just because they happen to host crappy professional sports teams.
Click to expand...

BITE your tongue!! Crappiest sports teams? Boston? I think not.
 
UtahBill said:
Google Architecture 2030 and Better Buildings Initiative, these plans have all kinds of incentives that are NOT from government, the best one is to give preferred interest rates based on how green you build. Edward Mazria is the man behind this, he wrote the best book I have found on the topic of passive solar design and construction. My retirement home has a lot of glass on the south side, the sunlight comes in and warms a lot of tile and granite in the kitchen/dining area. I like to stand in the window on a sunny winter day and feel the warmth while I watch my working neighbors shovel snow.

There was a time that air pollution was due mostly to tailpipe emission, but congress mandated cleaner engines and the auto industry stepped up and in less than a decade we had the computer controlled fuel injected engines that now are putting out more power/torque and better fuel efficiency, and of course, a mere fraction of the air pollution. One thing, tho, that should be an embarrassment to the auto makers, is that MOST of the initial fuel efficiency gains were gained by OLD TECH, the overdrive transmission.
Now, thanks to most of our electricity coming from coal, it is our buildings that are the biggest source of air pollution.

I am in favor of more nukes. If I was in better health, I could get a nice high paying job as a contractor during construction phase, as an Instrument Tech and Metrology Tech. But the Parkinson's has vetoed that. If you saw my unedited typing, you would know what I mean.
Click to expand...

I know about all this, but this is what I am talking about. Make these things known. To me, putting out information about how building energy efficient buildings can save money in the long run and how much it can save is just as much as an incentive as tax breaks. And I like the idea of better interest rates when you build energy efficient.
 
joko104 said:
Is your father still alive?
Click to expand...

My grandfather's friend is and he worked at a site for at least 20 years. He retired from there in I think the 80s. He is in his 80s now. He outlived my grandfather who never worked in nuclear power by over 15 years.

We talked about it when I introduced him to my husband a few years back, since I worked on Navy reactors. He received more radiation back then each year than I did the entire time I worked in it for the Navy. It has become even more regulated and made safer since he worked in it.
 
roguenuke said:
I know about all this, but this is what I am talking about. Make these things known. To me, putting out information about how building energy efficient buildings can save money in the long run and how much it can save is just as much as an incentive as tax breaks. And I like the idea of better interest rates when you build energy efficient.
Click to expand...

I guess the reason most of us don't hear about it is that we are not in the building trades. I have given, for free, Mazria's book, Passive Solar, to a couple of small time developers, hoping that they would use some of that info and make better houses. Doesn't work, you can't change some people... Last one turned out a house with a lot of south facing wall, but hardly any windows on that wall. It is a corner lot, giving ample opportunity to orient the house for some passive solar gain, he didn't take the opportunity. All that wall, minimal windows, so it looks odd...
 
DaveFagan said:
Yo Oracle. I read the article in its entirety. Flawed article. Who would suggest connecting a resource that is most efficient in a local independent environment to a centralized distribution network. That is the first flaw. Second, no costing for mitigation of fossil induced Global Warming was included and that is a certain future cost. As regards nukes, no costing was included for Global Glowing waste in the future. It is the monopoly distribution network and its major partners, the Tax collection agencies, that initiate these articles. Solar and wind are efficient locally. That makes jobs locally. That makes savings locally. That makes maintenance locally. It's the "locally" that the big distributors and tax collectors are worried about, not inefficiencies. It's their bottom lines not local ones.
Click to expand...
is it possible that any article I give you will be flawed?
 
roguenuke said:
I know about all this, but this is what I am talking about. Make these things known. To me, putting out information about how building energy efficient buildings can save money in the long run and how much it can save is just as much as an incentive as tax breaks. And I like the idea of better interest rates when you build energy efficient.
Click to expand...

Build a house like a walk-in cooler/freezer. Tightly insulated in all six directions. Make sure a long wall is solar south oriented, not the same as magnetic. Install 350 square feet of glazing/windows in that south facing wall. The envelope will not lose energy/heat or A/C because it is superinsulated. Energy use will be nominally the same whether 400 square feet or 4000 square feet and varies more with the number of occupants. Now install an air to air heat exchanger to move fresh air in and remove odors and moisture. Think air change occasionally. Humans make the odors and moisture. Windows lose heat when the sun is not shining, so install Solar Reflex Heaters in the south facing windows. There are no other windows. These are insulating panels that are also solar collectors. They automatically turn on/off when the sun shines and off when it is dark or behind a cloud. This design is absolutely 100% solar. Unless you are in an area that might go for weeks without sun, it is a 100% solar home. A small wood stove is reccommended for backup heating because it does not add moisture to the interior. Very small because it is a zero energy use envelope. Solar Reflex Heater pat. 4,971,028. I'm prejudiced.
 
DaveFagan said:
Build a house like a walk-in cooler/freezer. Tightly insulated in all six directions. Make sure a long wall is solar south oriented, not the same as magnetic. Install 350 square feet of glazing/windows in that south facing wall. The envelope will not lose energy/heat or A/C because it is superinsulated. Energy use will be nominally the same whether 400 square feet or 4000 square feet and varies more with the number of occupants. Now install an air to air heat exchanger to move fresh air in and remove odors and moisture. Think air change occasionally. Humans make the odors and moisture. Windows lose heat when the sun is not shining, so install Solar Reflex Heaters in the south facing windows. There are no other windows. These are insulating panels that are also solar collectors. They automatically turn on/off when the sun shines and off when it is dark or behind a cloud. This design is absolutely 100% solar. Unless you are in an area that might go for weeks without sun, it is a 100% solar home. A small wood stove is reccommended for backup heating because it does not add moisture to the interior. Very small because it is a zero energy use envelope. Solar Reflex Heater pat. 4,971,028. I'm prejudiced.
Click to expand...

Which is what I have been saying. But until every building is made this way or some way that is 100% energy independent, we will need power from somewhere, and nuclear is better than coal or NG, and solar and wind and hydro aren't practical for every area.
 
UtahBill said:
is it possible that any article I give you will be flawed?
Click to expand...

It is very possible if you do not address the flaws that I specifically identified. I did not make an ad hoc dismissal of your argument, but addressed specific issues. When you discuss economic issues, all costs must be identified and accounted for. It is that "accounted for" that is missing in all nuke justification arguments. Long term. I know you like nukes because you worked in the industry. I am not attacking you personally, just asking for economic accountability, including Global Glowing (think fuel pools, among others) over the lifetime of the wastes involved.
 
DaveFagan said:
It is very possible if you do not address the flaws that I specifically identified. I did not make an ad hoc dismissal of your argument, but addressed specific issues. When you discuss economic issues, all costs must be identified and accounted for. It is that "accounted for" that is missing in all nuke justification arguments. Long term. I know you like nukes because you worked in the industry. I am not attacking you personally, just asking for economic accountability, including Global Glowing (think fuel pools, among others) over the lifetime of the wastes involved.
Click to expand...
spent fuel is an asset, if we ever decide to reprocess it to make new fuel....
 
Klown said:
Get hold of a KiCKs study conducted by Germany

The incidence of cancer in children living near nuclear power plants is higher than the normal levels

The French also conducted similar studies and found the same effects
Click to expand...

The German study doesn't know what is causing the increase. The study was done using government data and scientific articles. They are attributing it to living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants, but they didn't look for any other reason that those people could have greater numbers.

I did find this though.

Childhood cancer no higher in vicinity of nuclear power plants, Swiss study suggests

And this about coal sites.

NDCA » Cancer Cluster Linked to Coal ? - National Disease Cluster Alliance
Lung cancer alarm near coal-fired power stations - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Coal ash is radioactive too.

Klown said:
In Fukushima post meltdown about 57,000 children were tested and about 42% had abnormal Thyroid glands (the normal Thyroid abnormality rate in children is less than 1%(

Fukushima still melting down and releasing radionuclide

Nuclear power and its waste is the most insane human activity in history

And lets not mention nuclear weapons which is the main reason nuclear power plants are built (ie to get Plutonium which is a by product of nuclear fissioning of Uranium)
Click to expand...

Nuclear power plants are not built for making nuclear weapons any more. When they were first designed, sure. That is not true now, at least not in western countries.
 
fredmertzz said:
When I think of a Nuke plant, I immediately fear it will be a terrorist target, especially if it is near a city.

I personally would not want to live near a Nuke plant, only for that reason; I believe our safety measures are more than satisfactory presently.

I do not believe we should be spending the time or energy building Nuclear plants. I would rather continue on the path we are on now, using natural resources (I live in Frack-country, I'm a nature lover and I fully understand the costs to this suggestion, but the risk/reward ratio deems it the best option IMO) until technology let's us take advantage of renewable energy - we're well on our way there, I believe. It should be within a decade that the technology is here, then it's a matter of implementation.

I do not want to increase our risk for a short-term solution that will be outdated before my kids go to college.
Click to expand...

Every power plant in the world is a potential terrorist target. Because taking out power sources causes confusion, civil unrest, and major problems. It is part of our infrastructure. The terrorists don't care about attacking a nuclear power plant to get radioactive material (there are many more easily accessible places to get that). The only reason they would attack a nuclear power plant is the same reason they would attack the Hoover Dam, or a coal plant, or a natural gas plant, or a solar or wind plant, to take out electricity. And the chances of them doing something to a nuclear power plant that would be worse than any other plant they might attack for that purpose are extremely small.
 
UtahBill said:
we have lots of uranium on hand, so it doesn't need to be renewable...
a "clean" coal plant, with latest scrubbing technology, costs as much as nuclear...
New Jersey is "uninhabitable", yet people live there...:roll:
Click to expand...

Nice collection of assertions. Not true, but nice.

http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...371/the-staggering-cost-of-new-nuclear-power/
The Staggering Cost of New Nuclear Power

Are people ready for their electric bills to go up 300 to 500% - waiting a decade or two on top of that?
 
Last edited:
Pinkie said:

Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?
Click to expand...

All energy is NOT equal. It depends on what we're trying to energize. We already are energy independent in electricity. And despite misconceptions, there is also fuzzy math that says we're also NET energy independent in transportation, currently exporting more oil than we import although we still import.

I find it a little curious that people (usually politicians and pundits) try to link foreign OIL dependance from volatile America hating regions used create gasoline to all energy including electricity, which has little to no relationship to oil.

The Middle East by and large all hates our guts. We are at least entangled with if not dependent upon the Middle East at least enough to have our military engaged in its longest conflict in American history. This not to mention the complete erasure of all privacy from electronic monitoring by our government to not being allowed on an airplane without government agents seeing us naked with hopes that they are decent enough people not to photograph us and/or secretly invite co-workers of the opposite gender not to watch from a secure area for fun while being assured there are "rules" that protect of privacy to the greatest degree possible as if government workers always abide by the rules. All of this rooted in OIL dependency in order to get to work. The solutions, since both gasoline for cars and electricity for homes and businesses are both "energy" pull a shell game switch-a-roo and tell Americans the solution to our need for gasoline can be solved with more nuclear power plants and give it a catchy talking points slogan like "all of the above" :spin:.

Nuclear power will have absolutely zero impact on Middle Eastern geopolitical entanglement unless we're concurrently pushing the phasing out of the internal combustion engine vehicle to be replaced with electric vehicles. I have never in my life heard any politician or pundit who advocates for nuclear power as a supposed measure to free us from Middle Eastern entanglement mention electric cars not only in the same breath but ever and they most often they oppose them. Translation: They have no respect for my intelligence but expect me to vote for them under threat of being labeled a RINO.

To answer the question. I support nuclear power but generally lean not in my backyard although I've lived near nuclear power plants. I would support them more if I could be assured my electric bill would be substantially reduced but I know that will never happen no matter how much money in electrical production is saved. I have greater support for wind and solar electrical production at the point of use such as at home to supplement power grid needs and even support making solar electric roofing and/or backyard wind power code required in some windy and sunny areas as test markets. I'm less concerned with coal and NG as environmental dangers than nuclear and would love to see more coal and NG power plants. I'm fully excited about phasing out of the internal combustion engine vehicle to be replaced with electric vehicles.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom