• 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
Hello everyone! :2wave:

Looking at the title of the thread, "Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?" I selected Hell no! Remember Chernobyl?.

I interpret the question as asking about independence from other energy sources here in the U.S. (such as coal); and not asking about independence from other countries' energy sources (such as the importation of oil from the Middle East).

I believe that currently the U.S. receives less than 10% of its energy supply source from nuclear power (and 100% of that energy supply is in the form of electrical power). While current energy supply could be increased with the building of more nuclear power plants, I am against expanding their role in the country's energy production.

I have never been convinced by the arguments of those who advocate that nuclear energy is clean. Even when these plants are functioning safely, the waste they create is long lasting; damaging to the environment, and deadly. Spent fuel rods and contaminated water and equipment must be isolated and stored. Unfortunately, no matter how many precautions are taken when doing this, contamination still happens. Often, companies will seek to find the cheapest alternatives to store contaminated equipment and waste, and this does not usually equate to the safest methods.

Also, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has (in the past) been viewed as complacent in their approach to the nuclear industry. This complacency can lead at minimum to reactionary (instead of proactive) approaches to regulation of the industry itself and in the worse case scenarios would lead to, as Barrack Obama once phrased it, an NRC that would become "captive of the industries that it regulates."

Terrorists (both home grown and international) logically view nuclear power plants as targets for potential attacks. This places these plants in danger from computer, electronic, and physical attacks that not only the industry but the local/state/federal governments must also prepare for and prevent. Finally, as seen by more recent events in places like Japan, natural disasters can bring about catastrophic events at these plants.

While some of these problems are shared by other plants using different fuel sources, the nature of the fuels and means of producing energy by nuclear plants makes them far more dangerous when considering the previously mentioned points. In the instances where these types of plants have failed; the consequences are on a larger scale, longer lasting, and more deadly than in the cases of failed plants using other fuel sources.

I believe that current, as well as future energy policies should include all possible sources. In the case of nuclear power though, I would advocate a policy that would keep nuclear power production at current levels; and if future resources and technology permit growth in production that can keep up with the demands I would even suggest decreasing the role of nuclear energy.

Please Note: Being new to the site, I thought that perhaps this would be a good place to start practicing debating. If the post was too long for a reply to a poll thread, I apologize.
 
I would have said absolutely if we had a plan for long term entombment of the tons of plutonium we will create as waste product. Besides being the easiest material to make atom bombs out of, Plutonium is the most deadly POISONOUS substance on the planet, it doesn't even exist in nature. It would be extremely foolish to manufacture large quantities of it and leave it sitting around, waiting for something to go wrong.
Human folly could really end us this time.
 
Last edited:
Hello everyone! :2wave:

Looking at the title of the thread, "Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?" I selected Hell no! Remember Chernobyl?.

I interpret the question as asking about independence from other energy sources here in the U.S. (such as coal); and not asking about independence from other countries' energy sources (such as the importation of oil from the Middle East).

I believe that currently the U.S. receives less than 10% of its energy supply source from nuclear power (and 100% of that energy supply is in the form of electrical power). While current energy supply could be increased with the building of more nuclear power plants, I am against expanding their role in the country's energy production.

I have never been convinced by the arguments of those who advocate that nuclear energy is clean. Even when these plants are functioning safely, the waste they create is long lasting; damaging to the environment, and deadly. Spent fuel rods and contaminated water and equipment must be isolated and stored. Unfortunately, no matter how many precautions are taken when doing this, contamination still happens. Often, companies will seek to find the cheapest alternatives to store contaminated equipment and waste, and this does not usually equate to the safest methods.

Also, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has (in the past) been viewed as complacent in their approach to the nuclear industry. This complacency can lead at minimum to reactionary (instead of proactive) approaches to regulation of the industry itself and in the worse case scenarios would lead to, as Barrack Obama once phrased it, an NRC that would become "captive of the industries that it regulates."

Terrorists (both home grown and international) logically view nuclear power plants as targets for potential attacks. This places these plants in danger from computer, electronic, and physical attacks that not only the industry but the local/state/federal governments must also prepare for and prevent. Finally, as seen by more recent events in places like Japan, natural disasters can bring about catastrophic events at these plants.

While some of these problems are shared by other plants using different fuel sources, the nature of the fuels and means of producing energy by nuclear plants makes them far more dangerous when considering the previously mentioned points. In the instances where these types of plants have failed; the consequences are on a larger scale, longer lasting, and more deadly than in the cases of failed plants using other fuel sources.

I believe that current, as well as future energy policies should include all possible sources. In the case of nuclear power though, I would advocate a policy that would keep nuclear power production at current levels; and if future resources and technology permit growth in production that can keep up with the demands I would even suggest decreasing the role of nuclear energy.

Please Note: Being new to the site, I thought that perhaps this would be a good place to start practicing debating. If the post was too long for a reply to a poll thread, I apologize.
no nuclear power plant in the USA has been attacked in any way...it is a waste of time.
If terrorists want to terrorize us, there are many easier ways to do it....
I can think of several unguarded locations where it would be easy to cause serious illnesses or even death to thousands. How hard would it be for a terrorist to spread anthrax from a small plane? or put something in our water supply? shoot down a commercial airliner with a small rocket?
 
I would have said absolutely if we had a plan for long term entombment of the tons of plutonium we will make as waste product. Plutonium is the most deadly substance on the planet and it would be foolish to manufacture large quantitys of it and leaving it sitting around and waiting for something to go wrong.

again, there is no connection between commercial nukes and plutonium....
and nothing is "sitting around".
People who think like this have clearly never worked at a commercial nuke plant, and most of them have never taken a chemistry or physics class.
 
Hello everyone! :2wave:

Looking at the title of the thread, "Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?" I selected Hell no! Remember Chernobyl?.

I interpret the question as asking about independence from other energy sources here in the U.S. (such as coal); and not asking about independence from other countries' energy sources (such as the importation of oil from the Middle East).

I believe that currently the U.S. receives less than 10% of its energy supply source from nuclear power (and 100% of that energy supply is in the form of electrical power). While current energy supply could be increased with the building of more nuclear power plants, I am against expanding their role in the country's energy production.

I have never been convinced by the arguments of those who advocate that nuclear energy is clean. Even when these plants are functioning safely, the waste they create is long lasting; damaging to the environment, and deadly. Spent fuel rods and contaminated water and equipment must be isolated and stored. Unfortunately, no matter how many precautions are taken when doing this, contamination still happens. Often, companies will seek to find the cheapest alternatives to store contaminated equipment and waste, and this does not usually equate to the safest methods.

Also, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has (in the past) been viewed as complacent in their approach to the nuclear industry. This complacency can lead at minimum to reactionary (instead of proactive) approaches to regulation of the industry itself and in the worse case scenarios would lead to, as Barrack Obama once phrased it, an NRC that would become "captive of the industries that it regulates."

Terrorists (both home grown and international) logically view nuclear power plants as targets for potential attacks. This places these plants in danger from computer, electronic, and physical attacks that not only the industry but the local/state/federal governments must also prepare for and prevent. Finally, as seen by more recent events in places like Japan, natural disasters can bring about catastrophic events at these plants.

While some of these problems are shared by other plants using different fuel sources, the nature of the fuels and means of producing energy by nuclear plants makes them far more dangerous when considering the previously mentioned points. In the instances where these types of plants have failed; the consequences are on a larger scale, longer lasting, and more deadly than in the cases of failed plants using other fuel sources.

I believe that current, as well as future energy policies should include all possible sources. In the case of nuclear power though, I would advocate a policy that would keep nuclear power production at current levels; and if future resources and technology permit growth in production that can keep up with the demands I would even suggest decreasing the role of nuclear energy.

Please Note: Being new to the site, I thought that perhaps this would be a good place to start practicing debating. If the post was too long for a reply to a poll thread, I apologize.
you are very well misinformed about the topic....
 
Consistent. Wrong again. Solar charges batteries, preferably nickel/iron, some still being used since 1900. They use up electrolyte, potassium hydroxide, not the metal plates. Inverters are use to make the alternating current. Many small inverters, 2-400 watts availavle at $29-79 at Harbor Frieght. The cooling fans in the larger cause diminishing returns, but are necessary for appliances with motors. A generator with the exhaust pipe plugged in to a hot water heater so when you do need a little extra juice, you can use the 75% of energy usually wasted out exhaust to make hot water. Potable or baseboard. Now the big factory down the street might not be able to do this, but does that mean we are subsidizing them with centralized distribution of energy or as you refer "the grid," and if they are using big current, they are responsible for larger line losses and should pay more. Tip o' the iceberg, bucko.

except for local use, solar remains supplemental....
for those who have the skills to install it, maintain it, etc., good for them.
 
IMO the basic concept of "clean energy" is a misnomer. Such a thing does not exist. Even the sun puts out radiation which is harmful to us. No organism is clean as each produces wast, likewise every power source also produces wast.

The key is not to eliminate waste, but to properly manage it.
 
except for local use, solar remains supplemental....
for those who have the skills to install it, maintain it, etc., good for them.


I enjoy the debate with you. I know your previous employment in the industry makes it difficult to think of the negative viewpoints. Same for me as regards the opposing viewpoint. I'm committed to Green energy because of Global Warming and the shortsighted nature of human planning. It's hard to plan outside one's projected lifetime and that is what our Energy policy requires. I suppose it's "do the right thing and don't give up." Gonna die anyway. Inevitable, goes with humanity. I have lots of kids, grandkids, and feel obligated to impact their futures in a positive manner.
 
again, there is no connection between commercial nukes and plutonium....
and nothing is "sitting around".
People who think like this have clearly never worked at a commercial nuke plant, and most of them have never taken a chemistry or physics class.

No, I never worked in a nuclear power plant and I hope you never worked in one either, you clearly don't understand nuclear fission at all.

Plutonium is a man-made waste product of nuclear fission, which can be used either for fuel in nuclear power plants or for bombs.
In the year 2000, an estimated 310 tons (620,000 pounds) of civilian, weapons-usable plutonium had been produced.
Less than 8 kilograms (about 18 pounds) of plutonium is enough for one Nagasaki-type bomb. Thus, in the year 2000 alone, enough plutonium was created to make more than 34,000 nuclear weapons.
The technology for producing nuclear energy that is shared among nations, particularly the process that turns raw uranium into lowly-enriched uranium, can also be used to produce highly-enriched, weapons-grade uranium.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is responsible for monitoring the world’s nuclear facilities and for preventing weapons proliferation, but their safeguards have serious shortcomings. Though the IAEA is promoting additional safeguards agreements to increase the effectiveness of their inspections, the agency acknowledges that, due to measurement uncertainties, it cannot detect all possible diversions of nuclear material. (Nuclear Control Institute)

Issues: Nuclear Energy & Waste: Nuclear Energy Fact Sheet
 
I enjoy the debate with you. I know your previous employment in the industry makes it difficult to think of the negative viewpoints. Same for me as regards the opposing viewpoint. I'm committed to Green energy because of Global Warming and the shortsighted nature of human planning. It's hard to plan outside one's projected lifetime and that is what our Energy policy requires. I suppose it's "do the right thing and don't give up." Gonna die anyway. Inevitable, goes with humanity. I have lots of kids, grandkids, and feel obligated to impact their futures in a positive manner.
I am committed to green energy as well, and nuclear is as green as solar. There are some hinky chemicals involved in the production of solar cells and batteries. I am also committed to conservation of all forms of energy, green or otherwise.
We waste too much of it..
Conservation is the greenest thing we can do, it is easy, and it is low tech.
 
No, I never worked in a nuclear power plant and I hope you never worked in one either, you clearly don't understand nuclear fission at all.



Issues: Nuclear Energy & Waste: Nuclear Energy Fact Sheet

The plutonium is locked in the spent fuel, it has to be extracted. Commercial power plants store their spent fuel on site. They do not make weapons grade material on site. Plutonium is usually made at breeder reactors. Google is your friend...
 
No, I never worked in a nuclear power plant and I hope you never worked in one either, you clearly don't understand nuclear fission at all.



Issues: Nuclear Energy & Waste: Nuclear Energy Fact Sheet

from your own source.....

Though some countries reprocess nuclear waste (in essence, preparing it to send through the cycle again to create more energy), this process is banned in the U.S. due to increased proliferation risks, as the reprocessed materials can also be used for making bombs. Reprocessing is also not a solution because it just creates additional nuclear waste.

a liberal education does not equip the average person with the ability to understand science nearly as well as a scientific education does...
and your source is clearly liberal....it states incomplete "facts" and then blends them to lead the technically ignorant astray.
It looks like a way of lying without actually saying anything that is untrue. We with the more balanced education call it propaganda....
 
from your own source.....

Though some countries reprocess nuclear waste (in essence, preparing it to send through the cycle again to create more energy), this process is banned in the U.S. due to increased proliferation risks, as the reprocessed materials can also be used for making bombs. Reprocessing is also not a solution because it just creates additional nuclear waste.

a liberal education does not equip the average person with the ability to understand science nearly as well as a scientific education does...
and your source is clearly liberal....it states incomplete "facts" and then blends them to lead the technically ignorant astray.
It looks like a way of lying without actually saying anything that is untrue. We with the more balanced education call it propaganda....

Technically that would be spin propaganda.

Spin would be like claiming that solar energy is just as dangerous as nuclear energy.
 
Technically that would be spin propaganda.

Spin would be like claiming that solar energy is just as dangerous as nuclear energy.

consider the injuries from falling off the roof while installing solar panels and it may be....:2razz:
 
Everyone has to face a reality....Solar, Wind will never bring energy to the mass's its a fail. Coal is dirty and eventually will run low...Natural Gas is a good choice, but how much of that do we have....Ive lived around nuclear plants and I do right now...I also lived around a coal burning power plant that had installed a MULTI MILLION dollar govt demanded air purifier...this filter was supposed to purify the air being expelled from the plant...it did turn the air from dark black to grey...but every single morning my car was COVERED in soot...the same soot I and my family were inhaling...
Ill take my chance with nuclear
 
from your own source.....

Though some countries reprocess nuclear waste (in essence, preparing it to send through the cycle again to create more energy), this process is banned in the U.S. due to increased proliferation risks, as the reprocessed materials can also be used for making bombs. Reprocessing is also not a solution because it just creates additional nuclear waste.

a liberal education does not equip the average person with the ability to understand science nearly as well as a scientific education does...
and your source is clearly liberal....it states incomplete "facts" and then blends them to lead the technically ignorant astray.
It looks like a way of lying without actually saying anything that is untrue. We with the more balanced education call it propaganda....

Thats' correct, we don't reprocess the plutonium because it is so easy to make a nuclear weapon with it. Instead we leave it inside the spent fuel rods that are stored on site at many reactors. Tens of thousands of these rods which each contain 1 to 2% pure plutonium are now scattered arond the country with no place to go. You are the one who has no technical knowledge I'm afraid.
 
Thats' correct, we don't reprocess the plutonium because it is so easy to make a nuclear weapon with it. Instead we leave it inside the spent fuel rods that are stored on site at many reactors. Tens of thousands of these rods which each contain 1 to 2% pure plutonium are now scattered arond the country with no place to go. You are the one who has no technical knowledge I'm afraid.

and how does one get the plutonium out of the spent fuel rods?
They would have to take it to France, where there is a spent fuel processing facility....
'splain that, Lucy....
 
Thats' correct, we don't reprocess the plutonium because it is so easy to make a nuclear weapon with it. Instead we leave it inside the spent fuel rods that are stored on site at many reactors. Tens of thousands of these rods which each contain 1 to 2% pure plutonium are now scattered arond the country with no place to go. You are the one who has no technical knowledge I'm afraid.

as for no technical knowledge, 2 years of electronics training and a year of nuclear power school in the Navy, and 3 years towards a Bachelors of Electronics Technology in 8 years of night classes University of Idaho.....ask anybody who has been to the Navy Nuke school, it is NOT easy...
what is your education?
 
as for no technical knowledge, 2 years of electronics training and a year of nuclear power school in the Navy, and 3 years towards a Bachelors of Electronics Technology in 8 years of night classes University of Idaho.....ask anybody who has been to the Navy Nuke school, it is NOT easy...
what is your education?

Good for you. That does not explain why you first denied that plutonium was made in a nuclear reactor at all? Then when I called you on it you then said we don't process the plutonium. Plutonium is MADE in all modern nuclear reactors as a "waste product". Plutonium is deadly to all life for 100's of 1000's of years and we need a place to put it where it will be safe for that long BEFORE we start building more reactors and making tons more of it. Storing tons of high level radioactive material on site in dozens of locations is asking for trouble and will only get worse and worse. That was my point and many scientists agree.
 
Last edited:
Good for you. That does not explain why you first denied that plutonium was made in a nuclear reactor at all? Then when I called you on it you then said we don't process the plutonium. Plutonium is MADE in all modern nuclear reactors as a "waste product". Plutonium is deadly to all life for 100's of 1000's of years and we need a place to put it where it will be safe for that long BEFORE we start building more reactors and making tons more of it. That was my point and many scientists agree.
so, nothing on your resume' ? any college at all?
Show me where I denied plutonium is made in commercial fuel bundles......I said commercial reactor spent fuel is not processed for plutonium extraction in the USA. Therefore there is no connection with spent fuel and bomb making.
However, you have missed a point ....plutonium is not only dangerous as you say, it is also very poisonous. Not that anyone cares, as you can't get any of it.....if you could, it would probably kill you before you can make a bomb with it.
 
Greetings UtahBill! I thank you for taking the time to respond to my initial post.

no nuclear power plant in the USA has been attacked in any way...it is a waste of time.
If terrorists want to terrorize us, there are many easier ways to do it....
I can think of several unguarded locations where it would be easy to cause serious illnesses or even death to thousands. How hard would it be for a terrorist to spread anthrax from a small plane? or put something in our water supply? shoot down a commercial airliner with a small rocket?

While there has not been an attack on a nuclear power plant in our country (thankfully), I am sure that we can agree on the point that just because something has not happened in the past does not mean that it cannot happen in the future. Also, I do agree that there are easier ways to go about acts of terrorism (unfortunately, we have seen it happen in our lifetimes); however, I am sure that you would agree that this does not prevent a nuclear power plant from becoming a potential target.

Without going too far off topic from the original poll question, I would like to link below a report from the Congressional Research Service, dated August of this year. This report was created by Mark Holt and Anthony Andrews.

Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities

A couple of statements taken from the summary at the beginning of the report should indicate its value to our discussion:

More than a decade after the 9/11 attacks, security at nuclear plants remains an important concern.

During the 136 inspections, 10 mock attacks resulted in the simulated destruction of complete target sets, indicating inadequate protection against the DBT (Design Basis Threat)…

Nuclear power plant vulnerability to deliberate aircraft crashes has been a continuing issue.

Other ongoing nuclear plant security issues include the vulnerability of spent fuel pools, which hold highly radioactive nuclear fuel after its removal from the reactor, standards for nuclear plant security personnel, and nuclear plant emergency planning.

While this is just a single government report on the issue, there are many other reports (governmental and otherwise) out there that do agree with concerns presented here.

you are very well misinformed about the topic....

I appreciate your candor, and do not conclude that it is some form of argumentum ad hominem. One of the reasons that I registered here at Debate Politics was to challenge my beliefs about subjects and to learn from others. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain a bit about where I am misinformed, or at the least direct me to sources that may explain the issues clearer to me?

In any event, I hope that you enjoy the rest of the holiday weekend, and look forward to a reply at your convenience!
 
so, nothing on your resume' ? any college at all?
Show me where I denied plutonium is made in commercial fuel bundles......I said commercial reactor spent fuel is not processed for plutonium extraction in the USA. Therefore there is no connection with spent fuel and bomb making.
However, you have missed a point ....plutonium is not only dangerous as you say, it is also very poisonous. Not that anyone cares, as you can't get any of it.....if you could, it would probably kill you before you can make a bomb with it.

His resume means about as much as your does.
 
Greetings UtahBill! I thank you for taking the time to respond to my initial post.



While there has not been an attack on a nuclear power plant in our country (thankfully), I am sure that we can agree on the point that just because something has not happened in the past does not mean that it cannot happen in the future. Also, I do agree that there are easier ways to go about acts of terrorism (unfortunately, we have seen it happen in our lifetimes); however, I am sure that you would agree that this does not prevent a nuclear power plant from becoming a potential target.

Without going too far off topic from the original poll question, I would like to link below a report from the Congressional Research Service, dated August of this year. This report was created by Mark Holt and Anthony Andrews.

Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities

A couple of statements taken from the summary at the beginning of the report should indicate its value to our discussion:

More than a decade after the 9/11 attacks, security at nuclear plants remains an important concern.

During the 136 inspections, 10 mock attacks resulted in the simulated destruction of complete target sets, indicating inadequate protection against the DBT (Design Basis Threat)…

Nuclear power plant vulnerability to deliberate aircraft crashes has been a continuing issue.

Other ongoing nuclear plant security issues include the vulnerability of spent fuel pools, which hold highly radioactive nuclear fuel after its removal from the reactor, standards for nuclear plant security personnel, and nuclear plant emergency planning.

While this is just a single government report on the issue, there are many other reports (governmental and otherwise) out there that do agree with concerns presented here.
We can't prepare for every potential threat, there isn't enough money for that. so we prepare for what is most likely...
There is a lot of misinformation about this topic available, and too many people with some kind of agenda. Certainly any site that encourages donations to their cause should be considered as having less than honorable motivations.



I appreciate your candor, and do not conclude that it is some form of argumentum ad hominem. One of the reasons that I registered here at Debate Politics was to challenge my beliefs about subjects and to learn from others. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain a bit about where I am misinformed, or at the least direct me to sources that may explain the issues clearer to me?

In any event, I hope that you enjoy the rest of the holiday weekend, and look forward to a reply at your convenience!

Your profile is NOT empty, a refreshing deviation from the norm....
What does low voltage technician mean, specifically? I have been several different kinds of technician in the navy and civilian world, also a reactor operator, and it doesn't scare me. What does scare me is the occasional PERSON who lacks the respect, or fear, for what can happen.
It isn't the nuke plant design, equipment, spent fuel, or even the terrorist we need to worry about, it is the plant employee who manages to be very creative in doing stupid things.

anyway, terrorist want maximum impact and there are far easier ways to accomplish their goals without trying to steal something they can't even use. Crashing a plane is the most likely scenario but it would not likely drain the water off, and I am pretty sure that spent fuels don't even have drain plugs......highly trained commandos can come in and make the local security force look foolish, but their mission isn't prevention, it is delay. You can bet that there are direct phone lines to state and federal and even military groups who could respond quickly. I spent a lot of years at nuclear facilities, and there are some people at these places whose job is to be paranoid about what might happen and to prepare for it.
 
His resume means about as much as your does.
we won't know that if he doesn't post it...
when you have questions about your car issues, you ask an educated trained mechanic, right? not the cleaning crew for the dealership....
If you don't want to learn from someone who knows something about the topic, by all means, ask the janitor....
 
I don't think anybody is using these anymore. NiMH are more common these days.

A better solution for electrical storage with intermittent energy source like Wind and Solar are Flow Batteries. They can hold a charge for a very long time. Some are already being used for industrial applications.

Storing That Power: Flow Batteries -

That said, I think it makes sense to employ several different energy solutions. There are advantages and disadvantages to each one. Properly positioning the various energy types can take advantage of the strengths of each while compensating for the weaknesses. Solar is an excellent idea in Tempe, AZ but a lousy one in Seattle, WA. I see people arguing for their favorite energy source as though they expect it to be the last type ever used. I don't see that as possible. We'd like cheap electricity but also pollution-free electricity. Well, "you can't always get want. But if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need." We might have to accept a certain number of nuclear plants and a certain number of Natural Gas plants, all sprinkled in amongst Wind, Solar, and Wave plants. Many types of energy working together can provide energy independence, cleaner air, and reasonable costs. It's all about placing the right kind of energy where it is most suited.

I like that a Rolling Stones reference.:thumbs:
 
Back
Top Bottom