• 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!

The People of Vermont vs. Nuclear Power

Global Warming must be a pretty thing, don't you think? I can stand lots of visual pollution and would just as soon live in the real world and get rid of all the imagery. Actually, a decentralized grid uses 1/8th the current energy when all factors are considered. 87% of current fossil fuels are dissipated as waste heat. Yessir, I must be naive not to want to live in a pretty space that is likely fatal to the inhabitants, long term.

got people dropping like flies up there?
the best way to decentralize is smaller nukes and more of them....lots of them.....
Coal kills...wind and solar cells are supplements dependent on the weather.....going off grid has a very long payback.....
Guess what is easy, takes no new technology, and doesn't cost much?......conservation, better construction methods, energy reducing building codes....
 
Lots of energy goes up into heat energy. It's part of thermodynamics; can't get away from it. As for nuclear energy, it is currently one of the cleanest, safest forms of energy we have. I don't see the real need to be obstructionist towards it. We can do a lot of things to make our energy transportation well more efficient and lower energy lost to various forms of unnecessary work. We shouldn't stagnate on nuclear energy, but we shouldn't be afraid of it.

yeah, if we stopped doing things based on kill rate, cars would be the first to go, then smoking, etc.
Something will kill us sooner or later, if not old age then bad habits....sucks to die from nothing...
 
Vermonters Exercise Their Nuclear Option -- In These Times

How is it possible that the Nuke power companies and Nuclear Regulator agencies could cause citizens to be stuck with a metaphorical radioactive time bomb. Is this more sock puppets and Corporatism? Is this struggle an example of the citizens loss of power in this Nation. Perhaps we are a Corporatocracy?




Cool, you all have no nuke power, make sure you only get your electricity then from non nuke feeds.


Reeks of NIMBY
 
yeah, if we stopped doing things based on kill rate, cars would be the first to go, then smoking, etc.
Something will kill us sooner or later, if not old age then bad habits....sucks to die from nothing...

Yeah, and people can be rather unreasonable when it comes to "radiation". People will freak out and not understand the overall probabilities. Nuclear power is one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy we currently have. We shouldn't be afraid of it and it can be very useful as we continue to investigate and develope other energy sources.
 
UtahBill;Speaking in absolutes is for absolute idiots. Education is expensive said:
Hypocrisy is cheap, eh?
 
UtahBill;Speaking in absolutes is for absolute idiots. Education is expensive said:
Hypocrisy is cheap, eh?

not in any way a post related to the OP, purely a personal attack.

want to read some rules?

but since you are here, want to splain yourself, Lucy?
 
Yeah, and people can be rather unreasonable when it comes to "radiation". People will freak out and not understand the overall probabilities. Nuclear power is one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy we currently have. We shouldn't be afraid of it and it can be very useful as we continue to investigate and develope other energy sources.
Irradiated foods are a useful side benefit of nuclear energy...
A friend told me yesterday that she doesn't want any radioactive foods, tried to explain it to her, but her mind was made up.
Guess she will forego being outside without her lead lined hat, having xrays, sleeping next to a human, etc.
 
not in any way a post related to the OP, purely a personal attack.

want to read some rules?

but since you are here, want to splain yourself, Lucy?
"Each generation should have more opportunities than the last, but not at the expense of the next."

When you leave radioactive waste with a thousands of years half lifes, you are absolutely expensing the future. It is your quote and in absolute opposition to you nuke statements. That would be hypocrisy, nothing personal at all. Just a fact. Duly noted.
 
"Each generation should have more opportunities than the last, but not at the expense of the next."

When you leave radioactive waste with a thousands of years half lifes, you are absolutely expensing the future. It is your quote and in absolute opposition to you nuke statements. That would be hypocrisy, nothing personal at all. Just a fact. Duly noted.

that quote is about education. it is stupid to extrapolate it to nuclear waste....it means you got nothing concrete to say about the topic, so you just get personal and go for the sig...
Name ONE event where people were harmed by the nuclear waste from commercial power plants in the USA......if you can.
Spent nuclear fuel is easily contained even if at great expense, and only a large well armed team of fanatics with a death wish would attempt to steal any of it. They wouldn't survive.
They would do far better stealing land mines, installed land mines, by walking around with iron weights strapped to their boots, blindfolded.
We have non-nuclear wastes generated that DO cause problems. Leaking landfills, tons of waste coal ash spilling into rivers, waste products from the production of solar cells, etc. A lot of electronics waste gets shipped to very poor countries for them to deal with. Their countries get polluted, their people get poisoned. At least nuclear waste is stored at home and not shipped off to poison the environments of poor countries...
However, I am in favor of not building nukes, or coal, or even Combined cycle gas turbine plants, as well as solar and wind.
If we were to stop erecting pisspoor structures, we could soon shut down a substantial percentage of our dirtiest coal plants.
 
When you leave radioactive waste with a thousands of years half lifes, you are absolutely expensing the future. It is your quote and in absolute opposition to you nuke statements. That would be hypocrisy, nothing personal at all. Just a fact. Duly noted.

Ignoring my point that waste can be dealt in a variety of ways doesn't help you. It makes you look incredibly weak. I suggest you not follow the tactics of cowardly users here who ignore whatever they cannot refute.

France generates most of its power from Nuclear with a suprisingly small amount of waste because it constantly reprocesses. Couple that with Thorium Eater reactors and waste becomes a thing of the past.
 
Ignoring my point that waste can be dealt in a variety of ways doesn't help you. It makes you look incredibly weak. I suggest you not follow the tactics of cowardly users here who ignore whatever they cannot refute.

France generates most of its power from Nuclear with a suprisingly small amount of waste because it constantly reprocesses. Couple that with Thorium Eater reactors and waste becomes a thing of the past.

oh, the shame, the FRENCH are ahead of us!!!:shock:
 
oh, the shame, the FRENCH are ahead of us!!!:shock:

Oh yeh! Like all others, they are pretending that they are a responsible agent to take care of a waste product for thousands of generations. These are Corporations giving these assurances. I do not believe anyone should be allowed to give any assurances beyond their own generation. When Corporations no longer make profit from nukes, then bankruptcy follows and the waste are somebody else's problem. That would be a human problem, no longer a Corporate problem. I know, I know, you can absolutely assure me that this waste is manageable for thousands of generations. Sheesh, talk about pie in the sky. It is hypocrisy, clearly.
 
Oh yeh! Like all others, they are pretending that they are a responsible agent to take care of a waste product for thousands of generations. These are Corporations giving these assurances. I do not believe anyone should be allowed to give any assurances beyond their own generation. When Corporations no longer make profit from nukes, then bankruptcy follows and the waste are somebody else's problem. That would be a human problem, no longer a Corporate problem. I know, I know, you can absolutely assure me that this waste is manageable for thousands of generations. Sheesh, talk about pie in the sky. It is hypocrisy, clearly.

The French don't want to freeze in the dark, how stupid of them. They should go totally solar and wind, and freeze in the dark when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow.
I suppose you can make that suggestion to THEM...
What is French for "piss off, yank"......:2razz:
(not to mention chinese and korean, they are putting in new nukes)

again, we could probably conserve our way out of this mess. it might take 30 years of new construction done right, plus retrofitting older buildings, but it beats burning more coal and storing more nuclear waste.

What is your take on dumping spent fuel in the deeper parts of the ocean?
 
The French don't want to freeze in the dark, how stupid of them. They should go totally solar and wind, and freeze in the dark when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow.
I suppose you can make that suggestion to THEM...
What is French for "piss off, yank"......:2razz:
(not to mention chinese and korean, they are putting in new nukes)

again, we could probably conserve our way out of this mess. it might take 30 years of new construction done right, plus retrofitting older buildings, but it beats burning more coal and storing more nuclear waste.

What is your take on dumping spent fuel in the deeper parts of the ocean?

I don't logically envision any safe place for nuclear waste. I remember about 1954-5 and General Electric was promoting nuclear power and stating on television or any other media venue that they had access to , that scientists expected to be able to perfect technology to neutralize the waste within six months. That question was asked to our class of eighth graders "what we thought of this nuclear waste problem/" It was a consensus and nearly unanimous conclusion that GE should wait the six months for the solution before implementing the technology. Of course, the reality is/was that GE knew there was no short term solution for this waste and sold us, as a Nation, a bill of goods. We have the waste we have, stop producing it. I do not envision the oceans having a limitless ability to dilute poisons. That water is as critical to aquatic lifeforms as air is to our lifeform. Hubris, greed, arrogance, ignorance, carelessness, shortsightedness, and any number of non-virtuous character traits are the driving force behind this technology. Technological sophistication without mental and ethical sophistication is a formula for catastrophe. You asked what I thought! Now you know.
 
It may be an exaggeration, you can research it if you like, but as a former nuke operator myself, it is true.
Coal is not pure, it contains lots of radioactive components in small quantities, and when the coal gets burned and the waste goes out the stack, the radioactive stuff goes out as well, along with sulphur, mercury, etc.
Clean Coal does NOT exist....cleaner burning coal fired plants, yes, but there is no such thing as CLEAN when coal is the source, only a bit cleanER...

90% less carbon is MUCH cleaner. Mercury and sulfer are easy to scrub.

"Bow City has been designed from the outset to have the smallest feasible carbon footprint, using super-critical combustion technology to generate the lowest level of CO2 emissions per unit of power of any coal-fired power plant in Canada.


The project is continuing with plans to incorporate an amine scrubbing system capable of removing up to 90% of the project's CO2 emissions.


This will move Bow City's carbon emissions well below the requirements being proposed by government and make it Canada's first true "clean coal" power project, said BCPL.


The scrubbed CO2 is proposed to be permanently disposed of into nearby oil fields for enhanced oil recovery..."






Bow City Power Project continues with CCS plans - Carbon Capture Journal


http://www.carboncapturejournal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=253


High Efficiency super critical boiler have increased efficiency, with special tube metals for increased heat transfer efficiency.



http://environment.alberta.ca/documents/Luscar_PDD.pdf
 
Last edited:
90% less carbon is MUCH cleaner. Mercury and sulfer are easy to scrub.

"Bow City has been designed from the outset to have the smallest feasible carbon footprint, using super-critical combustion technology to generate the lowest level of CO2 emissions per unit of power of any coal-fired power plant in Canada.


The project is continuing with plans to incorporate an amine scrubbing system capable of removing up to 90% of the project's CO2 emissions.


This will move Bow City's carbon emissions well below the requirements being proposed by government and make it Canada's first true "clean coal" power project, said BCPL.


The scrubbed CO2 is proposed to be permanently disposed of into nearby oil fields for enhanced oil recovery..."






Bow City Power Project continues with CCS plans - Carbon Capture Journal


Bow City Power Project continues with CCS plans - Carbon Capture Journal


High Efficiency super critical boiler have increased efficiency, with special tube metals for increased heat transfer efficiency.



http://environment.alberta.ca/documents/Luscar_PDD.pdf

43 New Coal Plants Would Escape Climate Bill CO2 Standards | SolveClimate News

What happened to the 151 proposed coal plants? - SourceWatch

Long on marketing, short on information pertaining to how much cleaner than the average coal plant. It does have the advantage of operating from ONE coal source. Emissions out is highly dependent on how clean the fuel is, and if they have a consistent mix being burned, they can plan for it. Sulphur and CO2 are not the only nasty things coming out of the stacks.
Arsenic, lead, other heavy metals, cadmium, and even uranium is often found in coal, and those pollutants don't get consumed in the coal burning process, so all those things go out the stack...
 
It may be an exaggeration, you can research it if you like, but as a former nuke operator myself, it is true.
Coal is not pure, it contains lots of radioactive components in small quantities, and when the coal gets burned and the waste goes out the stack, the radioactive stuff goes out as well, along with sulphur, mercury, etc.
Clean Coal does NOT exist....cleaner burning coal fired plants, yes, but there is no such thing as CLEAN when coal is the source, only a bit cleanER...

Thank you. That actually makes sense and I will take you at your word that you are a former nuke operator, and thus an expert on the subject. I do appreciate it when such assertions are supported. The original poster should have done so.
 
Arsenic, lead, other heavy metals, cadmium, and even uranium is often found in coal, and those pollutants don't get consumed in the coal burning process, so all those things go out the stack...

Scrubbbers spray water into stack gasses, and remove the impurities. Handling and separating the impurities is a second, necessary step. But removing impurities from the stack is fairly simple and highly effective.

http://www.albuw.ait.ac.th/Group_R/Mercury/pdf-link/hgcontroloptions.pdf


http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf


Scrubber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Research grants for Thorium Power?


http://energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=2401&sid=2e629b5c496e7eae3a86e7c56f0abd40


http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/fnss/fulltext/te_1319_5.pdf



Why is China ahead of the US and West on Thorium power?

http://www.climateactionprogramme.o...surge_to_dominate_thorium_nuclear_technology/




/
 
Last edited:
oh, the shame, the FRENCH are ahead of us!!!:shock:

Yes and no. Nuclear security is pretty appalling in America. Security tests are pretty much rigged with guards told before. Even still, there was an incident where the FBI actually managed to steal some contained waste with a forklift and no one noticed.

So reprocessing may make us more vulnerable.
 
Yes and no. Nuclear security is pretty appalling in America. Security tests are pretty much rigged with guards told before. Even still, there was an incident where the FBI actually managed to steal some contained waste with a forklift and no one noticed.

So reprocessing may make us more vulnerable.

Link? what level of waste was stolen? spent fuel? low level waste?
 
Scrubbbers spray water into stack gasses, and remove the impurities. Handling and separating the impurities is a second, necessary step. But removing impurities from the stack is fairly simple and highly effective.

http://www.albuw.ait.ac.th/Group_R/Mercury/pdf-link/hgcontroloptions.pdf


http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf


Scrubber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Research grants for Thorium Power?


Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum • View topic - US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Research Conference Grant


http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/fnss/fulltext/te_1319_5.pdf



Why is China ahead of the US and West on Thorium power?

China research surge to dominate thorium nuclear technology - Climate Action Programme




/

Wikipedia says scrubbers remove SOME of the pollutants, not all...
meaning some impurities are only partially removed....and/or some not at all...
here is a good read on coal...
How Coal Works | Union of Concerned Scientists
 
Scrubbbers spray water into stack gasses, and remove the impurities. Handling and separating the impurities is a second, necessary step. But removing impurities from the stack is fairly simple and highly effective.

http://www.albuw.ait.ac.th/Group_R/Mercury/pdf-link/hgcontroloptions.pdf


http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf


Scrubber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Research grants for Thorium Power?


Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum • View topic - US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Research Conference Grant


http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/fnss/fulltext/te_1319_5.pdf



Why is China ahead of the US and West on Thorium power?

China research surge to dominate thorium nuclear technology - Climate Action Programme




/

You're not going to get it all. As it stands, nuclear energy is much cleaner than coal. There is a problem with the waste, where to store it and such since a lot of the waste products are going to be around for awhile. However, at the same accord we're not talking about massive amounts of radioactive material here. The nuclear process is fairly efficient and so the mas of the waste tends to be small since you don't need a lot of material to start with. Now there are differences in waste depending on the type of reactor you have. Breeder reactors tend to produce very very little waste; however one of the side products is nuclear grade plutonium. Breeder reactors are the ones designed to run off of thorium (which should now answer your question as to why China is well ahead of the US in terms of breeder reactors).

Storage of nuclear waste can be handled in old salt mines and other places. The radiation risk to everyone else is minimal in these circumstances. Less than going outside on a very sunny day (particularly where I live, since in Colorado the natural radiation received outside is much higher than at sea level). Long term storage is an issue with not only designing containers which will work well enough, but also oddly enough language. Because of the half life of some of the material, particularly from standard (not breeder) reactors is very long; the material will stay radioactive for well longer than any one language has been stable. Which I always thought was interesting. Though the point is not to stagnate on nuclear energy. It's great, it's clean, it's efficient; but there are better things we can develop which can alleviate the waste concerns and we should be pushing towards development of that as well. You never want to stagnate on any one thing, we have to move forward; always pushing. But we should not fear nuclear energy as it is one of the best forms of energy we have currently.
 
but there are better things we can develop which can alleviate the waste concerns and we should be pushing towards development of that as well. You never want to stagnate on any one thing, we have to move forward; always pushing.


What additonal forms of clean energy are promising, for which additional research might prove fruitful?




//
 
Back
Top Bottom