• 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!

Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

Are You Interested In More Nuclear Power?


  • Total voters
    101

Pinkie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
12,316
Reaction score
3,220
Location
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
We humans cracked the atom sometime in the early 1940's; built the first nuclear power plant anywhere on the planet in 1954 in the USSR. The US currently has 104 nuclear power plants.

Nuclear Energy Institute - U.S. Nuclear Power Plants

I can't believe I'm asking this, but I am. I'd rather have another one in my county than to have fraking for natural gas going on, or coal mining, or that benighted Keystone Pipeline.

What say you? Could we achieve energy independence via building more nuclear power plants, and if so, would you be willing to do so?
 
They are building another nuke plant within 20 miles of where I sit, along with the existing three-within-100-miles I already have.


I'm fine with that. Bring it on.
 
We humans cracked the atom sometime in the early 1940's; built the first nuclear power plant anywhere on the planet in 1954 in the USSR. The US currently has 104 nuclear power plants.

Nuclear Energy Institute - U.S. Nuclear Power Plants

I can't believe I'm asking this, but I am. I'd rather have another one in my county than to have fraking for natural gas going on, or coal mining, or that benighted Keystone Pipeline.

What say you? Could we achieve energy independence via building more nuclear power plants, and if so, would you be willing to do so?

I'm fine with it only as long as it's run by a government agency rather than by a private sector business.
 
of course; i'm not against nuclear power at all. i'd like to see us explore thorium technology, also.

it's my guess that nuclear will be a stopgap solution, though. as important as domestic energy innovation is becoming in the 21st century, i'd be surprised if nuclear is the best we can do long term.
 
If they can put a "nuclear power plant" on a submarine and air craft carrier then they can put one in my back yard anytime.
 
I see a lot of promising solar power technologies under development... it is my hope that within the next 10-20 years these will being the currently-prohibitive startup costs down and change the alt-energy equation dramatically.


Until then.... build those nuke plants.
 
Im ok with it as long as its ran by a government agency or is extremely regulated by the government.
 
I'm against it. I don't believe we've fully exploited our hydro resources, nor are we close to where transmission isn't a major stumbling block for us. Even leaving improvements in the techs out of the picture for now, with current tech, we could generate a whole lot more from hydro.
 
I'm against it. I don't believe we've fully exploited our hydro resources, nor are we close to where transmission isn't a major stumbling block for us. Even leaving improvements in the techs out of the picture for now, with current tech, we could generate a whole lot more from hydro.

Every major waterway in the US already has a hydro plant, clownboy.

I'm not sure (and doubtless, that's my fault) what you're suggesting?
 
They are building another nuke plant within 20 miles of where I sit, along with the existing three-within-100-miles I already have.

I lived about 15 miles away from one in the UK for a while & the only scare they ever had was when they got a report of a suspected Al-Qaeda bomber heading towards the plant, along a rail line, carrying a bomb.

Of course there was a massive security turn out, we had every shade of alphabet agency running around with guns before they eventually found the suspect who turned out to be a drunk Greek waiter, taking a short cut home, & the bomb was a parcel of meat he was taking home as a peace offering to his wife for his drunken state and his late arrival home.

My neighbor at the time was a saftey executive at the plant & he said a bomb wouldnt have done anything anyway as it doesnt work that way.

Anyway, the fact that the saftey executive chose to live within 15 miles of the plant always told me he was fairly confident about the plants saftey & he's the expert so I was happy to go with his opinion.
 
of course; i'm not against nuclear power at all. i'd like to see us explore thorium technology, also.

it's my guess that nuclear will be a stopgap solution, though. as important as domestic energy innovation is becoming in the 21st century, i'd be surprised if nuclear is the best we can do long term.

You are such a smart guy, Helix.

What is "thorium" technology?
 
I lived about 15 miles away from one in the UK for a while & the only scare they ever had was when they got a report of a suspected Al-Qaeda bomber heading towards the plant, along a rail line, carrying a bomb.

Of course there was a massive security turn out, we had every shade of alphabet agency running around with guns before they eventually found the suspect who turned out to be a drunk Greek waiter, taking a short cut home, & the bomb was a parcel of meat he was taking home as a peace offering to his wife for his drunken state and his late arrival home.

My neighbor at the time was a saftey executive at the plant & he said a bomb wouldnt have done anything anyway as it doesnt work that way.

Anyway, the fact that the saftey executive chose to live within 15 miles of the plant always told me he was fairly confident about the plants saftey & he's the expert so I was happy to go with his opinion.

Well, there is danger, and it's not just terrorism. Remember Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the nuclear power plants that released radiation in Japan after the tsunami?

Thing is, in the 1970's, I never have been willing to believe we'd be successful at managing those risks -- and now I think we may well be. Certainly better than we're managing the risks associated with fossil fuels.
 
I see a lot of promising solar power technologies under development... it is my hope that within the next 10-20 years these will being the currently-prohibitive startup costs down and change the alt-energy equation dramatically.


Until then.... build those nuke plants.

I don't think it's one or the other. I'd love to see wind, solar, geo-thermal, etc. take off.
 
Thanks to Harry Reid we have no place to dispose of nuclear waste (not to mention a few thousand less jobs in the highest unemployment area is the USA - thanks a lot Harry) and until we resolve this problem, it's hardly a good idea to create more toxic waste.

Otherwise, sure, build them VERY carefully AFTER finding a legitimate waste disposal system that Asshat Harry doesn't interfere with.

atomic cat.jpeg
 
Well, there is danger, and it's not just terrorism. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the nuclear power plants that released radiation in Japan after the tsunami.

Thing is, in the 1970's, I never have been willing to believe we'd be successful at managing those risks -- and now I think we may well be. Certainly better than we're managing the risks associated with fossil fuels.

Yeah, I remember Three mile island & Chernobyl & certainly after Three mile island there were some very genuine & serious safety concerns at all such plants but we've moved on a long way since then.

At the time I was quite negative about such power stations, & was for a while afterwards, I had quite a few heated debates with friends who were a lot more pro on the subject but I do believe that with what we know now, & with the serious safety advances we've made that if these plants are correctly constructed, & in the right places, they really are much more of a viable option now.
 
Apples and Oranges.....
Nukes make electricity, and we have lots of other ways of making electricity, some are 24/7, other are only when the wind blows and the sun shines...
Regardless, our big problem is transportation fuels and no amount of nuclear, or other, sourced electricity will replace gasoline and diesel fuels for power density and long range....
If only WE could make oil in the quantities needed and at a reasonable expense, but WE can't. Mother nature has the patent, and the monopoly, on oil....
 
Every major waterway in the US already has a hydro plant, clownboy.

I'm not sure (and doubtless, that's my fault) what you're suggesting?

I don't think that's true, I'll have to look. But that's just it, there are plenty more than major waterways. Just because it can't provide a city's worth of electricity doesn't mean it doesn't add to our generation landscape. I can think of two of three waterways in my old home town that, if exploited, could provide the entire town and it's neighbor with juice.

I'm suggesting everything from micro-hydro on up. But what I'd really like to see is a rebuilding of our grid so we don't lose near 47% of the electricity in transmission.

There are so many other ways to skin this cat before we start doubling down on tech that will leave us with waste we cannot handle.
 
Last year I got involved with a California solar company. The only reason its feasible is due to the high cost of electricity and low price of Chinese solar panels. Well obama wants to impose 30% taxes on the Chinese panels and so there goes "feasibility" but even worse is you have states lik Oklahoma, Texas and others where electricity costs .08/.12 per kilowatt hour and the cost of solar runs $.20/.25 and that is "IF" the property has a nice southern exposure. Nuclear power is by far less expensive and if we could just get on board wtih the technology we invented and gave to France regarding recycling of nuclear waste we can enjoy lower cost power.


I see a lot of promising solar power technologies under development... it is my hope that within the next 10-20 years these will being the currently-prohibitive startup costs down and change the alt-energy equation dramatically.


Until then.... build those nuke plants.
 
Apples and Oranges.....
Nukes make electricity, and we have lots of other ways of making electricity, some are 24/7, other are only when the wind blows and the sun shines...
Regardless, our big problem is transportation fuels and no amount of nuclear, or other, sourced electricity will replace gasoline and diesel fuels for power density and long range....
If only WE could make oil in the quantities needed and at a reasonable expense, but WE can't. Mother nature has the patent, and the monopoly, on oil....

O, true, but if electricity were significantly cheaper, electric cars would be far more appealing to the average consumer.

I find it hard to believe we're stuck with the internal combustion engine in perpetuity.
 
Yeah, I remember Three mile island & Chernobyl & certainly after Three mile island there were some very genuine & serious safety concerns at all such plants but we've moved on a long way since then.

At the time I was quite negative about such power stations, & was for a while afterwards, I had quite a few heated debates with friends who were a lot more pro on the subject but I do believe that with what we know now, & with the serious safety advances we've made that if these plants are correctly constructed, & in the right places, they really are much more of a viable option now.
Every nuclear screwup has been caused, in part if not in full, by stupid humans.....there should be ZERO tolerance for the kind of stupidity that was displayed at all 3 of the screw-ups that we like to bring up in this kind of debate....
TMI, operators turned off the emergency cooling system. The right thing to do was.....nothing. The safety systems were working until they turned them off.
Chernobyl, poor design, no containment, used for power and research, and no clear chain of command for operations vs. research.
Japan, back up cooling powered by back up generators subject to flooding, while they had perfectly good hills behind them where they could have put in emergency cooling reservoirs that operate by gravity. So far, no human has been able to screw up gravity, and God help us if we ever figure out how to do such a thing.
 
I havent seen anything that can provide enough power and not have the co2 emissions aside from nuclear so its seems like a no brainer to me.
 
O, true, but if electricity were significantly cheaper, electric cars would be far more appealing to the average consumer.

I find it hard to believe we're stuck with the internal combustion engine in perpetuity.

Some day, some way, all our dreams will come true.....but we will probably be paying royalties to China for the minerals needed for the better batteries that haven't quite been perfected yet.

just for you...lyrics from "It's just a matter of time".

Songwriters: BENTON, BROOK / OTIS, CLYDE LOVERN / HENDRICKS, BELFORD

(Brook Benton/Belford Hendricks/Clyde Otis)
[ Lyrics from: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/r/randy_travis/its_just_a_matter_of_time.html ]
Someday, Someway You'll realise that you've been blind
Yes Darling, you're going to need me again
It's just a matter of time
Go on, go on Til you reach the end of the line
Cause I know you'll pass my way again
It's just a matter of time
After I gave you everything I had
You laughed and you called me a clown
Remember in your search for fortune and fame
What goes up must come down
I know, I know That one day you'll wake up and find
That my love is a true love
It's just a matter of time

Words are spoken with chords played
Someday and Someway
Girl you'll realise that you've been blind
Yes Darling, I know you gonna need me again
It's just a matter of time

After I gave you everything I had
You laughed and you called me a clown
But remember in your search for fortune and fame
What goes up must come down
I know, I know That one day you'll wake up and find
That my love was a true love
It's just a matter of time
 
Last edited:
After Fukishima? Not really.

But if they must to keep power costs reasonable, I don't want to live anywhere near the things.
 
Well, since the idea seems to appeal across the board -- what's the hold up? Why aren't we building nuclear power plants rather than debating the Keystone Pipeline and handing out fraking licenses like candy?
 
After Fukishima? Not really.

But if they must to keep power costs reasonable, I don't want to live anywhere near the things.

I'm no scientist, but I doubt many of us live far enough away from an existing nuclear power plant not to be radiated if it melted.
 
Back
Top Bottom