• 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!

Do You Favor Nuclear Power?

Do You Favor Nuclear Power?

  • Total voters
    93
celticwar17 said:
absolutely favor it. I also favor it to be further researched and studied in order to prevent like these things happening.
Click to expand...

I think this is a case of the 80/20 rule. How often do we have earthquakes like this? Especially on such an old facility.
 
The biggest problem with nuclear plants is that it is hard to get both safety and cost effectiveness at the same time. It is possible to build an ultra-safe plant in the middle of nowhere, but you could afford 100% safe power at that kind of cost. The real problem with nuclear power is that private enterprise won't touch it without serious government incentives. I would say at this point government incentives could probably get a better return for solar power.
 
I favor but, a nuclear power industry of the free market.
 
I do not favor nuclear power, however that is the opposite view I've taken in the past. I grew up about 3 miles south of the Indian Point power plant on the Hudson river outside NYC. Safety was never a problem with me. But

  • Nuclear plants are very expensive to build.
  • Nuclear power is very expensive.
  • Just the power to mine/process the nuclear fuel takes itself a lot of fossile fuels, so I don't think they give the benefit, that most people think they do.
  • Nobody will insure a nuclear plant, so the U.S. govenment must do it.
  • People fear them, so this a huge stumbling block.
 
Of course I favor nuclear power. For all those who don't know this, the "nuke" part of my screen name is from my Navy job. Nuclear power is not nearly as bad as people think it is. The media hypes up nuclear power to make it sound as if we are within minutes of a nuclear meltdown or worse, a nuclear explosion, anytime there is any mention of a problem in nuclear power.

Now I do know that there is a difference between how civilian plants and Navy plants are run, but I also know that those civilian plants must meet many of the same requirements that I faced as a Navy nuke operator. And I know that the majority of workers in civilian nuclear plants were once Navy nukes. I also know that they are regulated by the NRC. Since TMI and Chernobyl, our government takes the safety of nuclear power plants very seriously.

Actually, one of the things that I find most amusing about this is how much people like to complain about nuclear power being close to them, especially people near Navy cities, who fail to realize that they probably have a nuclear reactor or two operating right there in their harbor. I am currently sitting in a hotel room across from at least three (probably more), less than a mile away. They aren't operating at the moment but all of them will most likely be operating at least once in the next year, in the very place they are now parked.
 
pbrauer said:
Given what's taking place in Japan's reactors after the earthquake, this is certainly a topical question. Not much to add.
Click to expand...

Even in the face if the rare, inevitable incident, nuclear power is the cleanest, most efficient form of electrical energy we have.
 
Jerry said:
Even in the face if the rare, inevitable incident, nuclear power is the cleanest, most efficient form of electrical energy we have.
Click to expand...

Yep, Jerry's completely right when we're talking about long-run consequences.
 
megaprogman said:
25 square miles of land is likely worth far more than the nuclear plant's construction costs, especially if its not wilderness. Energy costs would be huge enough that it would not be feasible to build one.
Click to expand...

I don't know the ins and outs of building nuke plants, but keeping all residential occupancies 5 miles away in any direction, why is that a big deal? Just run power line/transformer stations.
 
Even with the risk of a meltdown or other disaster (which is quite small) I favor nuclear power. It's less harmful to us and the environment long term than fossil fuels.
 
megaprogman said:
I believe a better perspective is would be the least harm perspective. What causes the least harm? Living with 1800s technology and no electicity, coal, nuclear, green, etc along with the various tradeoffs and our current level of technology.

Just because nuclear has the potential for harm, once that harm is computed and compared to other possibilities, we have an answer.

Big blowups are bad, but if they are rare enough, they are not really a problem.
Click to expand...

In theory, I agree. But I doubt this risk consideration can feasibly be performed and lead to action in practize. How can we measure the damage resulting from fossil fuels, for example? Although by far most scientists on that field agree that is the case, there is not even a majority accepting that CO2 emissions lead to climate change. And even acknowledging that makes it impossible to really calculate the costs resulting from climate change (may be relatively benign, or very high, or bad for others yet not so bad for us -- depending on the models you use for the calculation). And how can we really trace back pollution related illnesses, cancer i.e., to pollution due to fossil fuels? We don't know what exactly caused the cancer, and we don't know how large the contribution of pollution was.

So a merely rational, sober calculation of risks and opportunities, pros and cons is impossible in practize. Especially in a liberal republic where actors equipped with strong resources (like energy companies and lobbies) are skewing public opinion.

Those scientists and administrators concerned with estimating risks rely on a formula: A risk is too high, when the product of event probability (likelihood of a meltdown, i.e.) and damage in case of the event, is too high. That means a particular procedure gets too risky, when either the event likelihood is low, but damage very high, or vice versa.

So, because a really encompassing, sober calculation is not possible, I say as a rule of thumb that nuclear power is clearly a case when event likelihood is low, but damage extremely high -- and the product too high to justify that technology, at least compared to regenerative energies. That's why I believe those should have priority. But until they can cover a sufficient share of the demand, I guess a certain share of nuclear energy is tolerable in contrast to mere fossil fuel use.
 
Last edited:
I see lots of female children in Japan's future.
 
I am entirely in favor of it. Japan is irrelevant, any time there's a massive disaster, any power plant is going to have problems. The benefits far, far, far outweigh any potential downsides.
 
megaprogman said:
25 square miles of land is likely worth far more than the nuclear plant's construction costs, especially if its not wilderness. Energy costs would be huge enough that it would not be feasible to build one.
Click to expand...

This shouldnt be a problem in several states. The federal government owns a few million square miles of land across the country. Much of it not in use for anything we couldnt live without.
 
Of course I favor nuclear power. We need clean energy sources, and we need to move away from fossil fuels. The planet won't survive without nuclear energy, so we'd better figure out how to get it right.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Montana, North Dakota, provided you are not around the Red River areas (flooding)
Click to expand...

You may be right but I do know Yellowstone, albeit in northern Wyoming, is in fact a massive caldera, one of the largest volcanoes in the world.

And, of course, the problem with positioning power plants in Montana or North Dakota is that a significant cost of electricity has a lot to do with transmission distances. Not a lot demand in the immediate vicinity of Montana and North Dakota.
 
I support a solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and tide supported energy economy.

In the long term, a few decades down the road we'll perfect nuclear fusion, which uses heavy water, and doesn't pollute to a large extent either. Plus it's overwhelmingly efficient. It's just a matter of getting us to that point. Therefore, I'd prefer if large rebates were given to people to buy solar panels for their own home, while the government can exploit the other methods I listed.

It's not perfect, but the US has such amazing renewable energy resources.
 
StillBallin75 said:
An earthquake of a once-in-a-generation magnitude caused this...it sucks for Japan but what makes you think people all over the world should freak out at using nuclear power?
Click to expand...

Once-in-a-generation magnitude caused this? Reminding us once again that some “just once” outcomes are enough not to do something at all.
 
Chappy said:
Once-in-a-generation magnitude caused this? Reminding us once again that some “just once” outcomes are enough not to do something at all.
Click to expand...

To a degree. On the other hand, many of our other sources of energy also run into similar public relations problems. Yet, we cannot exactly trap the Genie, now can we?
 
Chappy said:
You may be right but I do know Yellowstone, albeit in northern Wyoming, is in fact a massive caldera, one of the largest volcanoes in the world.

And, of course, the problem with positioning power plants in Montana or North Dakota is that a significant cost of electricity has a lot to do with transmission distances. Not a lot demand in the immediate vicinity of Montana and North Dakota.
Click to expand...

Yellowstone isn't expected to erupt for another, I believe, 750,000 years or so.
I think we'll be good.


In favor of nuclear power. It has risks, but everything has risks and I think these are some of the most minimal.
 
Yes, I favour it. It is the safest, cleanest, and most efficient power source we have. But the flaws of spent fuel rods is a problem. It is my most favoured power source right now, but once breakthroughs in other sources are made, my mind will change.
 
iamitter said:
Yellowstone isn't expected to erupt for another, I believe, 750,000 years or so. …
Click to expand...

And Tokyo wasn't suppose to be subject to such severe earthquakes. Just sayin'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom