Plebeian
New member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2012
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 11
- Location
- Colorado, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Hello everyone! :2wave:
Looking at the title of the thread, "Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?" I selected Hell no! Remember Chernobyl?.
I interpret the question as asking about independence from other energy sources here in the U.S. (such as coal); and not asking about independence from other countries' energy sources (such as the importation of oil from the Middle East).
I believe that currently the U.S. receives less than 10% of its energy supply source from nuclear power (and 100% of that energy supply is in the form of electrical power). While current energy supply could be increased with the building of more nuclear power plants, I am against expanding their role in the country's energy production.
I have never been convinced by the arguments of those who advocate that nuclear energy is clean. Even when these plants are functioning safely, the waste they create is long lasting; damaging to the environment, and deadly. Spent fuel rods and contaminated water and equipment must be isolated and stored. Unfortunately, no matter how many precautions are taken when doing this, contamination still happens. Often, companies will seek to find the cheapest alternatives to store contaminated equipment and waste, and this does not usually equate to the safest methods.
Also, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has (in the past) been viewed as complacent in their approach to the nuclear industry. This complacency can lead at minimum to reactionary (instead of proactive) approaches to regulation of the industry itself and in the worse case scenarios would lead to, as Barrack Obama once phrased it, an NRC that would become "captive of the industries that it regulates."
Terrorists (both home grown and international) logically view nuclear power plants as targets for potential attacks. This places these plants in danger from computer, electronic, and physical attacks that not only the industry but the local/state/federal governments must also prepare for and prevent. Finally, as seen by more recent events in places like Japan, natural disasters can bring about catastrophic events at these plants.
While some of these problems are shared by other plants using different fuel sources, the nature of the fuels and means of producing energy by nuclear plants makes them far more dangerous when considering the previously mentioned points. In the instances where these types of plants have failed; the consequences are on a larger scale, longer lasting, and more deadly than in the cases of failed plants using other fuel sources.
I believe that current, as well as future energy policies should include all possible sources. In the case of nuclear power though, I would advocate a policy that would keep nuclear power production at current levels; and if future resources and technology permit growth in production that can keep up with the demands I would even suggest decreasing the role of nuclear energy.
Please Note: Being new to the site, I thought that perhaps this would be a good place to start practicing debating. If the post was too long for a reply to a poll thread, I apologize.
Looking at the title of the thread, "Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?" I selected Hell no! Remember Chernobyl?.
I interpret the question as asking about independence from other energy sources here in the U.S. (such as coal); and not asking about independence from other countries' energy sources (such as the importation of oil from the Middle East).
I believe that currently the U.S. receives less than 10% of its energy supply source from nuclear power (and 100% of that energy supply is in the form of electrical power). While current energy supply could be increased with the building of more nuclear power plants, I am against expanding their role in the country's energy production.
I have never been convinced by the arguments of those who advocate that nuclear energy is clean. Even when these plants are functioning safely, the waste they create is long lasting; damaging to the environment, and deadly. Spent fuel rods and contaminated water and equipment must be isolated and stored. Unfortunately, no matter how many precautions are taken when doing this, contamination still happens. Often, companies will seek to find the cheapest alternatives to store contaminated equipment and waste, and this does not usually equate to the safest methods.
Also, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has (in the past) been viewed as complacent in their approach to the nuclear industry. This complacency can lead at minimum to reactionary (instead of proactive) approaches to regulation of the industry itself and in the worse case scenarios would lead to, as Barrack Obama once phrased it, an NRC that would become "captive of the industries that it regulates."
Terrorists (both home grown and international) logically view nuclear power plants as targets for potential attacks. This places these plants in danger from computer, electronic, and physical attacks that not only the industry but the local/state/federal governments must also prepare for and prevent. Finally, as seen by more recent events in places like Japan, natural disasters can bring about catastrophic events at these plants.
While some of these problems are shared by other plants using different fuel sources, the nature of the fuels and means of producing energy by nuclear plants makes them far more dangerous when considering the previously mentioned points. In the instances where these types of plants have failed; the consequences are on a larger scale, longer lasting, and more deadly than in the cases of failed plants using other fuel sources.
I believe that current, as well as future energy policies should include all possible sources. In the case of nuclear power though, I would advocate a policy that would keep nuclear power production at current levels; and if future resources and technology permit growth in production that can keep up with the demands I would even suggest decreasing the role of nuclear energy.
Please Note: Being new to the site, I thought that perhaps this would be a good place to start practicing debating. If the post was too long for a reply to a poll thread, I apologize.