• 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!

Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

Why nuclear? It's massively subsidized and has incredible risks, see, Fukushima.
So tsunamis coupled with massive earthquakes are an 'incredible risk' in North America? I don't think so.
 
you have to pick your battles, and this one is a stupid hill to die on. politics is give and take. give them their useless pipeline and fifty jobs or whatever, and let's build more wind farms and nuclear power plants in exchange. seems like a good trade.

Fifty or so jobs? I found a link that says there will be a great many more. Where did you get your information? The Keystone Pipeline Would Create Thousands Of Jobs - Forbes
 
So tsunamis coupled with massive earthquakes are an 'incredible risk' in North America? I don't think so.

You surely don't believe that the only possible cause of a nuclear meltdown is a tsunami, do you? And can you point to anyone before Fukushima who though those reactors were in a risky location?
 
Fifty or so jobs? I found a link that says there will be a great many more. Where did you get your information? The Keystone Pipeline Would Create Thousands Of Jobs - Forbes

i was being sarcastic. i don't know how many permanent jobs it's going to create. the liberal hacks say fifty. the conservative hacks act like it's going to be fifty thousand.

additionally, i don't care. i want you guys to get your pipeline for just one reason : i'm sick of hearing the right wing complain about it.
 
Why nuclear? It's massively subsidized and has incredible risks, see, Fukushima. I live very near a nuclear plant and don't actually have a problem with it - I'd trade more nuclear plants for coal, or fracking in my back yard, but I'd rather we spend subsidies on less dangerous forms of renewable energy. I certainly see no reason to PREFER nuclear over the others.

If the nearby plant is hit by a domestic or foreign terrorist, I'm in big trouble, and the area just a few miles from me will be wasteland for a generation or two, and who knows how far the river it sits on will take the nuclear fallout or what the long term effects will be for many miles downstream. Etc.

Nuclear really isn't that dangerous.

Some radiation numbers

As far as nuclear disasters go, the fukushima death toll currently stands at 0. Predictions of future deaths range from 0-100-1000 (the 1000 being a non peer reviewed guesstimate). On the other hand, the worst hydroelectric power accident was Banquiao Damn, which caused 200,000 deaths, eclipsing even Chernobyl.

In terms of domestic terrorism, reactor grade fuel isn't enriched enough to be weaponized. Proper enriched stuff would be incredibly difficult to get a hold of. As far as the fallout from such an accident, living in a house 10 miles from Three Mile Island during the accident endows a similar radiation dosage as living in a brick house for a year. It's unlikely terrorists could turn the area surrounding a nuclear plant into a wasteland, their best bet would probably be getting hold of waste materials and pouring them into the water supply, note that the only suitable materials here would be high level waste, which accounts for less than 1% of a reactors total waste (95% of reactor waste is low level waste, which are things like cups and plates that have been used onsite). This would probably increase cancer rates over a number of years, hardly the impact terrorists go for (of course, the terrorists themselves would die awfully painful deaths due to the high doses when retrieving/opening the waste).

Renewable is great in theory but realistically doesn't provide enough to replace fossil fuels.
 
Last edited:
This issue is dead until the next Congress in sworn in. Will Obama Veto the legislation or sign it?

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats on Tuesday defeated a bill, 59 to 41, that would have approved the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, rebuffing a Democratic colleague, Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, who had hoped to muscle the legislation through in advance of her uphill runoff election fight back home.

Forty Democrats and Angus King, independent of Maine, voted against the bill, with just 14 Democrats joining all 45 Republicans in support of the oil pipeline.

snip

Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

It will be approved when the Republican senate takes over.
 
You surely don't believe that the only possible cause of a nuclear meltdown is a tsunami, do you? And can you point to anyone before Fukushima who though those reactors were in a risky location?
No, i do not think so. I'm just going by the example you presented as an "incredible risk", which I believe to be nonsense.
 
i was being sarcastic. i don't know how many permanent jobs it's going to create. the liberal hacks say fifty. the conservative hacks act like it's going to be fifty thousand.

additionally, i don't care. i want you guys to get your pipeline for just one reason : i'm sick of hearing the right wing complain about it.
It's difficult to tell when leftists are being sarcastic or simply expressing their seriously held views.
 
It's difficult to tell when leftists are being sarcastic or simply expressing their seriously held views.

i'll take your word for it.
 
Why would he care? He's not running again is he?

neither was clinton in his second term,but people remember him as a great president,even though most his achievements on the deficit were from comprimise.
 
No, i do not think so. I'm just going by the example you presented as an "incredible risk", which I believe to be nonsense.

But, again, I'm sure you'd have said the same thing if you lived in Japan, right before you and 100,000 others were evacuated, and your house and belongings left behind in what will be a contaminated nuclear wasteland for a few decades. The total costs will exceed $100 billion, perhaps more than double that. Those kinds of costs would fund a lot of 'green' subsidies....

I agree the risks are small, which is why I spend no time worrying about the risk from the local nuclear plant. Just see no reason to prefer nuclear over the alternatives, which don't carry a 12 figure risk of loss, unknown risk of loss of lives, should they 'fail.' Especially since nuclear energy wouldn't exist without taxpayer subsidies and backstop for the losses in the event of a disaster.
 
Nuclear really isn't that dangerous.

Some radiation numbers

As far as nuclear disasters go, the fukushima death toll currently stands at 0. Predictions of future deaths range from 0-100-1000 (the 1000 being a non peer reviewed guesstimate). On the other hand, the worst hydroelectric power accident was Banquiao Damn, which caused 200,000 deaths, eclipsing even Chernobyl.

In terms of domestic terrorism, reactor grade fuel isn't enriched enough to be weaponized. Proper enriched stuff would be incredibly difficult to get a hold of. As far as the fallout from such an accident, living in a house 10 miles from Three Mile Island during the accident endows a similar radiation dosage as living in a brick house for a year. It's unlikely terrorists could turn the area surrounding a nuclear plant into a wasteland, their best bet would probably be getting hold of waste materials and pouring them into the water supply, note that the only suitable materials here would be high level waste, which accounts for less than 1% of a reactors total waste (95% of reactor waste is low level waste, which are things like cups and plates that have been used onsite). This would probably increase cancer rates over a number of years, hardly the impact terrorists go for (of course, the terrorists themselves would die awfully painful deaths due to the high doses when retrieving/opening the waste).

I'm not sure how you're measuring the risk. Just as an example, we know the potential problems - we've seen them with the Fukushima plant. Terrorists could cause it or maybe an 1,000 year flood like they had in Nashville a few years ago, like other similar, once in a 100 or 1000 year natural disasters that happen with seeming regularity somewhere in the country. And many of our plants are located on or near rivers, while Fukushima was able to dump the contaminated water from their reactors into the vast Pacific. Is there some analysis on the damages if nuclear waste water finds its way into the Mississippi?

And the analysis really isn't about the risk of instant death by radiation etc. It's a matter of costs, and subsidies, and picking which of various forms of energy to subsidize. Nuclear if it exists is subsidized by taxpayers - that's just a fact of life. So the question is how to allocate those dollars, not whether some terrorist will blow up the plant near me and incinerate my family. That's not going to happen, but there is a real risk of an eventual nuclear disaster that will cost hundreds of billions in damages, and the question is whether that's what we should allocate scarce resources to, or how much of those resources should we allocate to energy sources that carry that kind of risk.

Renewable is great in theory but realistically doesn't provide enough to replace fossil fuels.

Similarly, that's not the question. No one suggests that in our lifetimes we will replace fossil fuels. The question is what should be our national energy policy with regard to fossil fuels, renewables, nuclear. They will ALL play a roll for the foreseeable decades. And we can certainly replace a good SHARE of the fossil fuels currently being burned - we've already done it, with wind producing up to a quarter of electricity in some states.
 
I'm not sure how you're measuring the risk. Just as an example, we know the potential problems - we've seen them with the Fukushima plant. Terrorists could cause it or maybe an 1,000 year flood like they had in Nashville a few years ago, like other similar, once in a 100 or 1000 year natural disasters that happen with seeming regularity somewhere in the country. And many of our plants are located on or near rivers, while Fukushima was able to dump the contaminated water from their reactors into the vast Pacific. Is there some analysis on the damages if nuclear waste water finds its way into the Mississippi?

And the analysis really isn't about the risk of instant death by radiation etc. It's a matter of costs, and subsidies, and picking which of various forms of energy to subsidize. Nuclear if it exists is subsidized by taxpayers - that's just a fact of life. So the question is how to allocate those dollars, not whether some terrorist will blow up the plant near me and incinerate my family. That's not going to happen, but there is a real risk of an eventual nuclear disaster that will cost hundreds of billions in damages, and the question is whether that's what we should allocate scarce resources to, or how much of those resources should we allocate to energy sources that carry that kind of risk.

Similarly, that's not the question. No one suggests that in our lifetimes we will replace fossil fuels. The question is what should be our national energy policy with regard to fossil fuels, renewables, nuclear. They will ALL play a roll for the foreseeable decades. And we can certainly replace a good SHARE of the fossil fuels currently being burned - we've already done it, with wind producing up to a quarter of electricity in some states.

Well all energy sources are subsidized by the taxpayer, I'm not sure why you're singling out nuclear on that regard.

You're right, our energy solution moving forward should be a combination of different sources. However, issues with renewable energy such as intermittency (you need to build ~4x the required capacity to account for efficiency issues) and practicality (some states simply don't receive much wind/sunlight) means that it is incredibly unlikely that it will be able to meet the bulk of our energy needs. Nuclear energy can. The current split for energy in the US is around 70-20-10 (fossil/nuclear/renewable). I would advocate for something like a 70-30 (nuclear/renewable) split, with renewable only at 30 because countrywide that's probably the highest feasible %. If we can get that % higher, great, but we won't be able to phase out fossil fuels (which should be our overarching energy priority) without investment into nuclear.

I'd also like to add that funding into nuclear does not just mean fission. While the current major international effort into fusion (ITER) is currently way overbudget and is not even thinking about commercialization until 2050 onwards, fusion represents the pinnacle of energy production. It essentially bypasses a layer of inefficiency present in wind/fossil/solar by going straight to the source, fusion as it occurs in the sun.
 
But, again, I'm sure you'd have said the same thing if you lived in Japan, right before you and 100,000 others were evacuated, and your house and belongings left behind in what will be a contaminated nuclear wasteland for a few decades. The total costs will exceed $100 billion, perhaps more than double that. Those kinds of costs would fund a lot of 'green' subsidies....
And the 'green subsidies' will be as wasted as those previous handouts. If people live in constant fear of tsunami earthquakes, no houses would have been built there, or in California and most places in the world, for that matter.

I agree the risks are small, which is why I spend no time worrying about the risk from the local nuclear plant. Just see no reason to prefer nuclear over the alternatives, which don't carry a 12 figure risk of loss, unknown risk of loss of lives, should they 'fail.' Especially since nuclear energy wouldn't exist without taxpayer subsidies and backstop for the losses in the event of a disaster.
Life has risks and we can acknowledge that without living in fear of natural disasters. There has been reference to the "Three Mile Island disaster" in which no one was injured or exposed to radiation, but enough was made of it to slow down its development for years. Barring a combination of tsunami/earthquake proportions they are among the safest and practical sources of energy for heavily populated areas.
 
Back
Top Bottom