• 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
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.



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!
as for informing you, I hope you can be willing to learn...the year I spent in Nuclear Power School was academically the hardest thing I have ever done. You have to test very well for the recruiters just to get into the school and you have to have an "A" school in electronics, or electrical or mechanical trades first. Then nuke school is balls to the wall saturation training.... Class all day 5 days a week, lots of homework, math,physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, metallurgy, radiation types and their effect on the human body, etc. is the first half, then you go to prototype training (12 hours a day shift work, 7 days, a day off, 7 swings, 2 days off, 7 mids, 5 days off) at an operating reactor and study it with the goal of understanding (and drawing from memory) all the systems that allow us to operate them safely, and more. Mine was in 1966, not sure what they do now, but I suspect it hasn't changed much. after all that, you get to go to a ship and pretty much repeat the prototype school training. They don't let just anybody operate their reactors.
I would expect you to read and try to learn, but there is no way I can duplicate for you what the Navy taught me.
 
Last edited:
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....

Depends if that janitor served in the military and what their MO was.
 
except for local use, solar remains supplemental....
for those who have the skills to install it, maintain it, etc., good for them.

I was watching one of the educational channels not long ago and as an FYI solar electric power is on the verge of a huge breakthrough. Scientist and trying to figure of how to harvest energy from a spectrum of light that when they do will increase the power from solar electric cells 500%. All this technological advancement is driven by improvements on existing technology already on the market. Moore's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
as for informing you, I hope you can be willing to learn...the year I spent in Nuclear Power School was academically the hardest thing I have ever done. You have to test very well for the recruiters just to get into the school and you have to have an "A" school in electronics, or electrical or mechanical trades first. Then nuke school is balls to the wall saturation training.... Class all day 5 days a week, lots of homework, math,physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, metallurgy, radiation types and their effect on the human body, etc. is the first half, then you go to prototype training (12 hours a day shift work, 7 days, a day off, 7 swings, 2 days off, 7 mids, 5 days off) at an operating reactor and study it with the goal of understanding (and drawing from memory) all the systems that allow us to operate them safely, and more. Mine was in 1966, not sure what they do now, but I suspect it hasn't changed much. after all that, you get to go to a ship and pretty much repeat the prototype school training. They don't let just anybody operate their reactors.
I would expect you to read and try to learn, but there is no way I can duplicate for you what the Navy taught me.

You described pretty much exactly what I went through in '99/'00. I don't know if you guys got to take your books/notes back to barracks, but we didn't. So we spent more time after school at the school building doing homework and studying. Some people were on mandatory 40s, meaning they had to log in at least 40 hours a week after class time or they got dropped. We started with over 600 going into Power School, ended with less than 400.
 
Their are 104 nukes in the USA and if a thousand fuel rods are stored at each site, that is over 100,000 fuel rods spread all over the country. That is just the commercial reactors. Military, educational, secret, etc. are unknown. The root problem is not that this potential thousands of years of contamination is all over the place, but that it was created in the first place. Now UtahBill and RogueNuke are successful military projects because you don't want anyone operating nukes that doesn't absolutely believe in them and they admit to considerable conditioning by this military. The military job is to teach one-sided propaganda to make true believers and it works, eh? Both are technically knowledgeable but are of absolutely partisan nuke beliefs, or they would not have been allowed to work at their jobs.
 
Their are 104 nukes in the USA and if a thousand fuel rods are stored at each site, that is over 100,000 fuel rods spread all over the country. That is just the commercial reactors. Military, educational, secret, etc. are unknown. The root problem is not that this potential thousands of years of contamination is all over the place, but that it was created in the first place. Now UtahBill and RogueNuke are successful military projects because you don't want anyone operating nukes that doesn't absolutely believe in them and they admit to considerable conditioning by this military. The military job is to teach one-sided propaganda to make true believers and it works, eh? Both are technically knowledgeable but are of absolutely partisan nuke beliefs, or they would not have been allowed to work at their jobs.
are you wearing your party specific tin hat today? or your paranoia before breakfast tin hat?
:2razz:
 
You described pretty much exactly what I went through in '99/'00. I don't know if you guys got to take your books/notes back to barracks, but we didn't. So we spent more time after school at the school building doing homework and studying. Some people were on mandatory 40s, meaning they had to log in at least 40 hours a week after class time or they got dropped. We started with over 600 going into Power School, ended with less than 400.
I had a routine for the first 6 months at MINSY, and the only entertainment was 1 movie a week, 1 trip into town a week, 3 one hours sessions a week working out, jogging twice a week. and twice a week to the EM club for a steak sandwich with frys and some kind of libation.
Friday nights a group of us would play nickel/dime/quarter poker half the night. There was no TV in my schedule.
The next 6 months, there wasn't as much time for frivolities...
But it was worth it....I developed an understanding of how things work.
 
U.S. Navy Nuclear Power School
Nuclear Power School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.navycs.com/navy-nuclear-power-test.html
http://www.military.com/ASVAB/0,,ASVAB_MOS_Navy.html
top 10% just to get IN, and once I got there, they tested us again, and I got placed in the top 10% again, meaning I was in the top 1% of navy enlisted ranks....
my mother used to tell me how stupid I was....but once I became a civilian and used my education, training, and experience to make as much as a college graduate, THEN she wanted to come spend winters with me. That didn't happen, she would have driven our kids crazy...
 
Last edited:
are you wearing your party specific tin hat today? or your paranoia before breakfast tin hat?
:2razz:

That post was and is a factual observation. Objectively correct.
 
That post was and is a factual observation. Objectively correct.

partisan? propaganda? doesn't matter the color of the koolaid, it is still koolaid, right? yours just happens to be colored solar...
 
Until we solve the energy storage problem of solar and wind, Nuclear Fission is about the cleanest game in town.
In the US we need to standardize the plant type and plant permitting, so every plant is the same type, and can be built quicker.
I knew some people who worked on the South Texas Project, they joked about the paperwork weighing as much as the containment domes.
 
Until we solve the energy storage problem of solar and wind, Nuclear Fission is about the cleanest game in town.
In the US we need to standardize the plant type and plant permitting, so every plant is the same type, and can be built quicker.
I knew some people who worked on the South Texas Project, they joked about the paperwork weighing as much as the containment domes.


That storage problem is an opinion. Locally, a half dozen or dozen batteries solve the problem. On a commercial scale, the storage is a big problem. So why are deployment incentives NOT aimed at LOCAL solar and wind instead of behemoth wind and solar. If you start in the wrong spot, you will end in the wrong spot. No entity can presume the right to create a hazard that extends the hazard beyond their lifetime. That would be Nuclear waste.
 
That storage problem is an opinion. Locally, a half dozen or dozen batteries solve the problem. On a commercial scale, the storage is a big problem. So why are deployment incentives NOT aimed at LOCAL solar and wind instead of behemoth wind and solar. If you start in the wrong spot, you will end in the wrong spot. No entity can presume the right to create a hazard that extends the hazard beyond their lifetime. That would be Nuclear waste.
The storage of energy is a big problem when we consider how most people live.
A real energy solution would be distributed, to share the extra power generated, we need some way to store that energy
so the it can be used at a later time.
Currently, excess power from grid tied systems, must have a load, or is lost. (mostly heat dissipation)
Batteries are getting better, but still have a ways to go before they could support the power grid.

As to the Nuclear Waste, it can be recycled, we choose not to.
Most of our problem with Nuclear waste, is what we define as Nuclear waste, actual high level radioactive waste
is quite small in volume.
 
I don't want to support the power grid. I want to support LOCAL. I think INDUSTRY needs the grid far more than families. I want energy support at LOCAL levels to build local jobs, local maintenance, local savings, to generate spending savings locally, to build local infrastructure as a National program that produces jobs and pays for itself and INDUSTRY should be approached as needing subsidization of its power requirements and acknowledge the "welfare" nature of its continuing existence. I'm saying we subsidize industry in this country to the detriment of the living, breathing Citizens, as opposed to the Citizens United Supreme Court definition of citizens.
 
I'm fine with using nuclear power, but I think we should start mining coal and make more coal power plants. The fact that we have the largest coal reserves in the world would definitely help our economy. In my opinion, coal to us would be like oil is for the Middle East. It's a gold mine that we're not digging up.
 
I don't want to support the power grid. I want to support LOCAL. I think INDUSTRY needs the grid far more than families. I want energy support at LOCAL levels to build local jobs, local maintenance, local savings, to generate spending savings locally, to build local infrastructure as a National program that produces jobs and pays for itself and INDUSTRY should be approached as needing subsidization of its power requirements and acknowledge the "welfare" nature of its continuing existence. I'm saying we subsidize industry in this country to the detriment of the living, breathing Citizens, as opposed to the Citizens United Supreme Court definition of citizens.
I can go along with that idea. I still think even the local group needs some sort of energy storage for odd events, no wind, several weeks of cloudy weather, ect.
 
My only issue with nuke plants is the disposal of waste and used plant parts. Outside of disposal, I think nuke plants are ecologically sustainable and even beneficial on rare occasions (see: Turkey Point and crocs).
 
I'm fine with using nuclear power, but I think we should start mining coal and make more coal power plants. The fact that we have the largest coal reserves in the world would definitely help our economy. In my opinion, coal to us would be like oil is for the Middle East. It's a gold mine that we're not digging up.

Coal is filthy, "clean" coal (oxymoron) is less filthy, "very clean" coal costs as much to build as a nuke plant....
and coal has billions of tons of waste products stored right out in the open....along with the waste products that are floating around in the air....
 
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?
I do not think that energy independence is absolutely necessary....this could be Japans horrific mistake..
What we must have is trade balance (in our favor,of course).
Another thing we must have is honesty/openness....I do not think people trust the big companies and the government.
And for good reason (particularly big business).....
These things we must work on, then make a choice of nuclear or natural gas..(which, IMO, looks to be good)..
 
I don't want to support the power grid. I want to support LOCAL. I think INDUSTRY needs the grid far more than families. I want energy support at LOCAL levels to build local jobs, local maintenance, local savings, to generate spending savings locally, to build local infrastructure as a National program that produces jobs and pays for itself and INDUSTRY should be approached as needing subsidization of its power requirements and acknowledge the "welfare" nature of its continuing existence. I'm saying we subsidize industry in this country to the detriment of the living, breathing Citizens, as opposed to the Citizens United Supreme Court definition of citizens.

What do you mean by, "LOCAL?" If you're just talking about solar cells on individual rooftops, that's fine and even a good idea. But such setups cannot support their power needs at night unless they overbuild (more cost) and add in storage (even more cost). A large solar plant can afford storage and is thereby better able to support the community. Individuals with solar can reduce demand from the grid, but you would still need a large central plant that is primary power. And even that large solar plant should have nuclear or NG as a backbone for when the primary solar plant is getting enough power.
 
What do you mean by, "LOCAL?" If you're just talking about solar cells on individual rooftops, that's fine and even a good idea. But such setups cannot support their power needs at night unless they overbuild (more cost) and add in storage (even more cost). A large solar plant can afford storage and is thereby better able to support the community. Individuals with solar can reduce demand from the grid, but you would still need a large central plant that is primary power. And even that large solar plant should have nuclear or NG as a backbone for when the primary solar plant is getting enough power.

No that's not correct. When the home envelope is correctly designed, it leaks zero energy. That means it does not lose heat in cold climates or absorb heat in hot climates. Night lighting should be LEDs averaging 1.5 watts per each. Battery storage is adequate. For nighttime air circulation, it is possible that a one horsepower generator might be added to drive a 3/4 horsepower motor. It is overkill to want to use a multi million horsepower central source, always cranked up, always on, even when demand is reduced. Nothing is more backward than to think Centralized Distribution Network for power. That is the problem. Although it has built a wonderful country, the realities of CO2 and Global Warming must turn our direction to true efficiency not demand overkill. Solar and wind are only efficient locally and I do mean locally on citizen occupied homes. I will repeat something I have said often. When energy becomes LOCAL, two entities are cut out of the dollar profit loop. That is the Utility directly affected and that Utilities partner that it collects and distributes tax money to, the Tax collecting entity, whether it be local, state, or, Federal. That is the bottleneck in solar implementation. When you cut somebody out of the money loop, they are likely to talk bad about you and not help you. Pretty simple.
 
No that's not correct. When the home envelope is correctly designed, it leaks zero energy. That means it does not lose heat in cold climates or absorb heat in hot climates. Night lighting should be LEDs averaging 1.5 watts per each. Battery storage is adequate. For nighttime air circulation, it is possible that a one horsepower generator might be added to drive a 3/4 horsepower motor. It is overkill to want to use a multi million horsepower central source, always cranked up, always on, even when demand is reduced. Nothing is more backward than to think Centralized Distribution Network for power. That is the problem. Although it has built a wonderful country, the realities of CO2 and Global Warming must turn our direction to true efficiency not demand overkill. Solar and wind are only efficient locally and I do mean locally on citizen occupied homes. I will repeat something I have said often. When energy becomes LOCAL, two entities are cut out of the dollar profit loop. That is the Utility directly affected and that Utilities partner that it collects and distributes tax money to, the Tax collecting entity, whether it be local, state, or, Federal. That is the bottleneck in solar implementation. When you cut somebody out of the money loop, they are likely to talk bad about you and not help you. Pretty simple.

I agree that the power grid should be modernized. But batteries are just as wasteful as using a centralized power source. And its impossible to actually design and upgrade every house to meet what you consider efficient standards. How would we implement such a requirement? Would we monitor privately owned houses tell them to turn off something or close a window?
 
I agree that the power grid should be modernized. But batteries are just as wasteful as using a centralized power source. And its impossible to actually design and upgrade every house to meet what you consider efficient standards. How would we implement such a requirement? Would we monitor privately owned houses tell them to turn off something or close a window?

It needs to be a serious National program to succeed. This would be a program that creates local jobs and a permanent infrastructure. Once initiated, it becomes self supporting at the expense of the Utilities and lost taxes. It also is the serious step toward mitigation of Global Warming and CO2 in the atmosphere. The current energy status quo can initiate wars to maintain its continuity and imagery is presented to make us believe it is logical and morally right. Horse puckey! It just ain't so. Do not confuse implementation with enforcement. I do not see great loss in nickel/iron batteries. Just a minor note. In the current configuration, windmills are about 8 times (or more) as efficient when located at the end user's house with battery storage.
 
It needs to be a serious National program to succeed. This would be a program that creates local jobs and a permanent infrastructure. Once initiated, it becomes self supporting at the expense of the Utilities and lost taxes. It also is the serious step toward mitigation of Global Warming and CO2 in the atmosphere. The current energy status quo can initiate wars to maintain its continuity and imagery is presented to make us believe it is logical and morally right. Horse puckey! It just ain't so. Do not confuse implementation with enforcement. I do not see great loss in nickel/iron batteries. Just a minor note. In the current configuration, windmills are about 8 times (or more) as efficient when located at the end user's house with battery storage.

When one figures the efficiency of power supply you have to figure in all costs. Are batteries sustainable? Batteries are already very expensive and hinder most people from using solar/wind power. For most people the start up price fopr switching to solar/wind + batteries is more money than they would spend for electricity for a couple years. How long do batteries last? When they die you have to buy new batteries further adding to the cost of your new electric bill. Add on top of that the fact that most people do not have the time or know how to maintain and keep their system working which means that they must hire someone that has a clue, so add more to your new electricity bill. And some homes just do not have the room for solar panels and windmills.


Im all for a localized power grid and for some people to get off the power grid altogether, but lets be realistic not everyone can and the start up money is high and even then people have to change their lifestyle and that really is not an option for some people. And you really are not helping anything by turning this into some political avenue for changing the country to meet ideological wants. .
 
When one figures the efficiency of power supply you have to figure in all costs. Are batteries sustainable? Batteries are already very expensive and hinder most people from using solar/wind power. For most people the start up price fopr switching to solar/wind + batteries is more money than they would spend for electricity for a couple years. How long do batteries last? When they die you have to buy new batteries further adding to the cost of your new electric bill. Add on top of that the fact that most people do not have the time or know how to maintain and keep their system working which means that they must hire someone that has a clue, so add more to your new electricity bill. And some homes just do not have the room for solar panels and windmills.


Im all for a localized power grid and for some people to get off the power grid altogether, but lets be realistic not everyone can and the start up money is high and even then people have to change their lifestyle and that really is not an option for some people. And you really are not helping anything by turning this into some political avenue for changing the country to meet ideological wants. .

I did not consider Global Warming and Greenhouse to be ideological wants, but a realistic alternative to mitigate same because they are National and International problems. As regrds the batteries, I specifically stated nickel/iron batteries that use up their electrolyte not their metallic plates. The start up price is high and that is why it must be a National program creating new industries Nationally, that'd be jobs at local levels, much like Roosevelt's CCC and WPA. I do not see "Nukes" meeting these needs..
 
Back
Top Bottom