• 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!

Do we need nuclear power plants?

Do we need nuclear power plants?

  • I'm a right leaning American, yes

    Votes: 7 26.9%

  • I'm a left leaning American, yes

    Votes: 10 38.5%

  • I'm a right leaning American, no

    Votes: 4 15.4%

  • I'm a left leaning American, no

    Votes: 5 19.2%
  • Total voters
    26
C

ConsvLiberal

Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Messages
96
Reaction score
8
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What do you think about nuclear power plants?
 
Build more of them. Lots more. Nuclear power is a key component of weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels. Mainly because unlike wind and solar, nuclear plants can be placed anywhere without losing efficiency.

And while nuclear fuels aren't unlimited, we have a much larger supply of them than we do fossil fuels. And since the cost of generating nuclear power is less dependent on the price of fuel than fossil fuels, costs to generate electricity with nuclear will rise less as fuel becomes more expensive.
 
Absolutely, build more of them.
 
At this stage Nuclear power would benefit from some standardization.
Figure our which design is the safest, most stable, and practical to build,
and streamline the permitting process if they build the standard design.
 
Build, baby, build.
 
If we keep cranking up the price on green house gas emissions by power plants, and petroleum fuels for transportation, moving everyone to electric and / or hybrid cars, you can see the constraining corners coming that we are painting ourselves into: increased demand for electricity and no green house gas emissions freeway to generate it.
 
ConsvLiberal said:
What do you think about nuclear power plants?
Click to expand...



I'm a right leaning American, no. If their meltdown wasn't such a huge threat the environment and spent fuel rods did not need to be put in radiation proof containers and buried deep in the ground I would support it nuclear power. I am sure if a coal plant, natural gas plant, trash to energy plant or some other similar type of plant exploded it can be cleaned up and another one can be built.If a nuclear power plant had a meltdown then we can kiss that area goodbye for a long time.
 
jamesrage said:
I'm a right leaning American, no. If their meltdown wasn't such a huge threat the environment and spent fuel rods did not need to be put in radiation proof containers and buried deep in the ground I would support it nuclear power. I am sure if a coal plant, natural gas plant, trash to energy plant or some other similar type of plant exploded it can be cleaned up and another one can be built.If a nuclear power plant had a meltdown then we can kiss that area goodbye for a long time.
Click to expand...

Technically, we don't have to do everything we do with spent nuclear fuel rods. We should be recycling them, as most everyone else in the nuclear power ran world does instead of being stupidly paranoid and waiting to get rid of them. It is an absolute and unnecessary waste.

And there are plenty of things that could cause issues for us if precautions are not taken. Even coal plants can cause massive widespread pollution if accidents happen. What happens is a dam breaks? Nuclear power has a lot of safety precautions.

What is the worst kind of power plant disaster? Hint: It's not nuclear.
 
molten_dragon said:
Build more of them. Lots more. Nuclear power is a key component of weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels. Mainly because unlike wind and solar, nuclear plants can be placed anywhere without losing efficiency.

And while nuclear fuels aren't unlimited, we have a much larger supply of them than we do fossil fuels. And since the cost of generating nuclear power is less dependent on the price of fuel than fossil fuels, costs to generate electricity with nuclear will rise less as fuel becomes more expensive.
Click to expand...

So do you want to become more dependent on foreign sources for our energy needs?? How do you feel about transporting nuclear fuel/waste across the country? How do you feel about the long term support of mothballed nuclear facilities?? How do you feel about the lack of long term storage/disposal of nuclear waste??
 
ConsvLiberal said:
What do you think about nuclear power plants?
Click to expand...

Nuclear plants are currently the only for producing the most energy, and is the only viable option that allows us to conserve our fossil resources for plastics.
 
faithful_servant said:
So do you want to become more dependent on foreign sources for our energy needs??
Click to expand...

The US and Canada both have a decent amount of uranium, and Australia has a lot more, so getting it from allies isn't an issue. If we switch to thorium reactors, the US has one of the highest concentrations of thorium we know about. So fuel availability isn't really an issue.

faithful_servant said:
How do you feel about transporting nuclear fuel/waste across the country?
Click to expand...

As long as it's done safely it's no big deal.

faithful_servant said:
How do you feel about the long term support of mothballed nuclear facilities?? How do you feel about the lack of long term storage/disposal of nuclear waste??
Click to expand...

This is the one sticking point with nuclear power, but in the long-term, I think this is less of an issue than dumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere and running out of fossil fuels.

Personally, I don't see why they don't just dump spent reactor fuel into the ocean. You'd have to spread it around so there wasn't too much in one place, but thorium and uranium are naturally occurring. It's not like we're adding radiation to the planet that wasn't already there. We're just moving it around.
 
roguenuke said:
Technically, we don't have to do everything we do with spent nuclear fuel rods. We should be recycling them, as most everyone else in the nuclear power ran world does instead of being stupidly paranoid and waiting to get rid of them. It is an absolute and unnecessary waste.

And there are plenty of things that could cause issues for us if precautions are not taken. Even coal plants can cause massive widespread pollution if accidents happen. What happens is a dam breaks? Nuclear power has a lot of safety precautions.

What is the worst kind of power plant disaster? Hint: It's not nuclear.
Click to expand...

But if a coal power had an accident it can be cleaned up and rebuilt in the same area.If a damn busted it can be rebuilt in that same area.Generations of people are not going to prevent generations of people from using those areas.
 
My answer is not a listed option. Yes, but far from where I live.

What I do support however is cities chosen voluntarily by ballot referendum to have mandatory building code enforced solar electric roofing. This would not apply to existing buildings, only new construction and re-roofing projects. The market for solar electric panels this would create would push innovation for more advanced R&D in the area. In the meantime, the cost to consumers would be offset by the savings realized in their electric bills and rebates for sending unused electric back down the power grid.
 
If not for two minor disasters, we'd have plenty of nuclear proliferation.

Stupid media and making it seem like it was the end of the world.
 
jamesrage said:
I'm a right leaning American, no. If their meltdown wasn't such a huge threat the environment and spent fuel rods did not need to be put in radiation proof containers and buried deep in the ground I would support it nuclear power. I am sure if a coal plant, natural gas plant, trash to energy plant or some other similar type of plant exploded it can be cleaned up and another one can be built.If a nuclear power plant had a meltdown then we can kiss that area goodbye for a long time.
Click to expand...

Meltdowns aren't that huge a threat. There's been one very serious meltdown ever (Chernobyl) and one almost as serious disaster at Fukushima. That's essentially it. Far more land is damaged by coal mines and rendered uninhabitable for extended periods of time. The danger from nuclear power is vastly overrated.

One metric I'm fond of for seeing this is looking at number of human deaths per a kilowatt hour. Nuclear is far safer by this metric than coal or oil. See e.g. here.

Solar and wind are nice, but if we're going to deal with energy independence, declining fossil fuel levels, global warming, and generally keeping most of the world clean and pure for our children and grandchildren, nuclear is going to need to be part of our energy profile. In the long run, as batteries get better and solar gets better, we'll be able to eventually switch to complete renewables, and you can do your part to help out (and in many places save money!) by buying your own solar panels for your house. But for at least a few more decades, we're going to need to have nuclear on the grid.
 
Nuclear power should play a major role in the energy production of developed countries for the forseeable future. How much of a role will depend from country to country. On the whole I think it is unwise to exclude building new nuclear power plants, just as it is unwise to rely exclusively or in excessive measure on nuclear power plants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom