• 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!

First US Nuclear Power Plant License since Early '90s

As with many nuclear plants Watts Bar is on or near a fault line. My wish is that we continue to search for alternative forms of safe energy. I don't believe any one source at present will be the answer, but combined sources may be.
 
Fenton said:
Good news, its a actual viable alternative to fossil fuels
Click to expand...

Radionuclides associated with the fission process. None of these occur naturally on earth, without nuclear fission:

technetium-99, carbon-14, iodine-129, tritium, cesium-137, strontium-90, nickel-59,
plutonium-241, nickel-63, niobium-94, cobalt-60, curium-242, americium-241,
uranium-238, and neptunium-237.

All are dangerous, and can even be lethal, both in large and small doses. Long-term containment cannot be guaranteed. Proliferation of nuclear wastes is a bad idea, unless you hate your children, grandchildren, great grand-children, great-great...
 
Media_Truth said:
Radionuclides associated with the fission process. None of these occur naturally on earth, without nuclear fission:

technetium-99, carbon-14, iodine-129, tritium, cesium-137, strontium-90, nickel-59,
plutonium-241, nickel-63, niobium-94, cobalt-60, curium-242, americium-241,
uranium-238, and neptunium-237.

All are dangerous, and can even be lethal, both in large and small doses. Long-term containment cannot be guaranteed. Proliferation of nuclear wastes is a bad idea, unless you hate your children, grandchildren, great grand-children, great-great...
Click to expand...

 
Winchester said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...22/AFQUbyQC_story.html?utm_term=.7c8b4b8c45b7
Click to expand...

I live in St. Louis, and there's a continuous fire under a land fill, that they have been stumped on how to put it out safely. This fire has actually come into contact with nuclear waste. There was a little segment on the evening local news, there have been studies done by WashU, that shows there are more occurrences of cancer closer to the nuclear waste compared to further away, and there are an increase of people diagnosed with cancer at a faster rate over the entire city since the fire.

True, there's a fire.

At the same time, it's stuff like this that can happen and complicate things. I don't get why we are so gung ho over nuclear when there is nuclear waste, when there are perfectly other viable options that don't produce any waste. And then there won't be any situations like the one in St. Louis.
 
We'd be much better off researching and building energy storage, LFTRs, and renewables than we would uranium power plants. Still, uranium power is less bad than coal, which is pretty much the bottom of the barrel.
 
TheGoverness said:
I don't have a problem with using nuclear energy. Seems like a good alternative to me.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh...and I imagine you have no prob with the spent fuel being deposited in yer front yard either.
 
sookster said:
I live in St. Louis, and there's a continuous fire under a land fill, that they have been stumped on how to put it out safely. This fire has actually come into contact with nuclear waste. There was a little segment on the evening local news, there have been studies done by WashU, that shows there are more occurrences of cancer closer to the nuclear waste compared to further away, and there are an increase of people diagnosed with cancer at a faster rate over the entire city since the fire.

True, there's a fire.

At the same time, it's stuff like this that can happen and complicate things. I don't get why we are so gung ho over nuclear when there is nuclear waste, when there are perfectly other viable options that don't produce any waste. And then there won't be any situations like the one in St. Louis.
Click to expand...

Oh please do tell of these other viable options that don't produce any waste.
 
sookster said:
I live in St. Louis, and there's a continuous fire under a land fill, that they have been stumped on how to put it out safely. This fire has actually come into contact with nuclear waste. There was a little segment on the evening local news, there have been studies done by WashU, that shows there are more occurrences of cancer closer to the nuclear waste compared to further away, and there are an increase of people diagnosed with cancer at a faster rate over the entire city since the fire.

True, there's a fire.

At the same time, it's stuff like this that can happen and complicate things. I don't get why we are so gung ho over nuclear when there is nuclear waste, when there are perfectly other viable options that don't produce any waste. And then there won't be any situations like the one in St. Louis.
Click to expand...

And where did said nuclear waste come from that ended up in said landfill?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Uh-huh...and I imagine you have no prob with the spent fuel being deposited in yer front yard either.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of this:

18b6f11e788bd430d8b331f453cecc26.jpg
 
A - I am against the government giving incentives to ANY form of energy. Either that segment can be profitable on it's own or it is not worth building, imo.

B - I was more for nuclear before seeing detailed documentaries about Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl (and please save the excuses about those three accidents - I am not remotely interested in them).
I am not against it per se...but I do not think they should be built ANYWHERE remotely near a fairly densely populated area. And there is no way I would buy a house/condo anywhere one.
 
nuclear is an important tool in moving on from fossil fuels. i'd especially like to see them do more research into thorium technology. the problem with building nuclear power plants privately is largely cost and red tape. i would support building and running them publicly if that's what it takes to expand our electrical grid.
 
sookster said:
I live in St. Louis, and there's a continuous fire under a land fill, that they have been stumped on how to put it out safely. This fire has actually come into contact with nuclear waste. There was a little segment on the evening local news, there have been studies done by WashU, that shows there are more occurrences of cancer closer to the nuclear waste compared to further away, and there are an increase of people diagnosed with cancer at a faster rate over the entire city since the fire.

True, there's a fire.

At the same time, it's stuff like this that can happen and complicate things. I don't get why we are so gung ho over nuclear when there is nuclear waste, when there are perfectly other viable options that don't produce any waste. And then there won't be any situations like the one in St. Louis.
Click to expand...

I'm originally from Saint Louis (go Cardinals!). I have read about all of the problems there. The problems in Berkeley are from World War II waste. At that time, Malinckrodt contracted with the federal government to produce the refined Uranium for the atomic bombs (including those used against Japan). The containment has deteriorated, and radiation is leaking out. This will be far more commonplace in the future. Up until the mid-70s, most countries were dumping their radioactive waste into the oceans. This was outlawed in 1972 by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Association), an arm of the UN. However, it is still abused. The mafia has been illegally dumping waste off the coast of government-less Somalia for years, and they've had serious health problems, including deaths.
 
Helix said:
nuclear is an important tool in moving on from fossil fuels. i'd especially like to see them do more research into thorium technology. the problem with building nuclear power plants privately is largely cost and red tape. i would support building and running them publicly if that's what it takes to expand our electrical grid.
Click to expand...

We will agree to disagree.
 
DA60 said:
A - I am against the government giving incentives to ANY form of energy. Either that segment can be profitable on it's own or it is not worth building, imo.

B - I was more for nuclear before seeing detailed documentaries about Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl (and please save the excuses about those three accidents - I am not remotely interested in them).
I am not against it per se...but I do not think they should be built ANYWHERE remotely near a fairly densely populated area. And there is no way I would buy a house/condo anywhere one.
Click to expand...

Actually remotely is probably worse. The fact that Fukushima happened near the Pacific Ocean is better than if it happened inland (if this can be considered a POSITIVE). A similar accident, inland, would severely compromise waterways, but because the Pacific Ocean is so large, overall levels, far from the scene, haven't risen that dramatically. Cesium37 is the main isotope that contaminated the area around Chernobyl. It has an extreme chemical affinity for water. You can view this on YouTube, where a speck of Cesium is added to some water, and it literally explodes. The Chernobyl exclusion zone (i.e. "hot zone") is about 1000 sq. miles.
 
It's beyond me why we haven't converted to Thorium reactors yet.

They've been viable since the 60's, and sidestep all of the major issues of uranium reactors.
 
TheGoverness said:
:roll:
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised that the depth of your response to the toxic radioactive waste issue is summed up.....in an emoji. It is what the "slightly liberal" do, it is the expression of their breadth and width of understanding of the issue, APPARENTLY.
 
DA60 said:
A - I am against the government giving incentives to ANY form of energy. Either that segment can be profitable on it's own or it is not worth building, imo.

B - I was more for nuclear before seeing detailed documentaries about Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl (and please save the excuses about those three accidents - I am not remotely interested in them).
I am not against it per se...but I do not think they should be built ANYWHERE remotely near a fairly densely populated area. And there is no way I would buy a house/condo anywhere one.
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the NRC? This is an entire branch of the Federal Government, to overlook the Nuclear industry. That's a much larger tax burden than a few renewable energy tax credits. Also, the original post had a link. The cost of this plant was over $6 billion, versus the estimated $330 million. I hope people from Tennessee don't mind large electri bills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom