• 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!

Is this an accurate description of the Nuclear infrastructure especially financial?

Is this an accurate description of the Nuclear infrastructure, expecially financial?

  • Total voters
    8
  • Poll closed .
DaveFagan

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
"Responsible Nuclear EnergyOxymoron or just moronic?
We're going to get busy making a bunch of poison that will linger on the planet for a whole bunch of lifetimes. Lots more lifetimes than the people who generate it. A wonderful legacy. Not moronic, insane. Hey, that's the tip of the iceberg. We put this in the hands of fictitious entities (corporations), because of the awesome responsibility. They pocket lots of money (centralized collection of capital) whilst waiting for their equipment to wear out. Gonna be a big headache here, don't you think? Nope, when the plant gets old, sell it. Take a bad check if necessary, but get rid of that millstone around the company wallet. Can't get rid of it, you say. No problem. Bankruptcy. Baptize the dopes who have been buying your product all these years with a little nuclear waste and some decommissioning fees. Don't worry, they'll have to keep paying you your salary to manage the whole operation. This is the stuff "dreams are made of", you say. Nope, this is the way it works.
Why would we want these Nukes in the first place. Shortage of power? Nope, fooled you on that one. Make a ton of jobs? Nope. Raise property values in their community? Nope. Produce cheap electric power? Nope. Make big money for Big Money with no real long-term liabilities. Now we're gettin' warm. Make big tax revenues for the government? I think we're narrowing it down. It's about money. You probably thought those power lines to all the houses were about "centralized distribution of energy," but you were only half right. They represent "centralized collection of capital" for both the fictitious entities and governments, because our fictitious entities collect and deliver the governments piece of the pie. Like they're partners, sort of in business together.
One detail worth noting is that it takes really big money to get in this business, and it takes construction companies that can afford to finance presidents to build these poison producers with no liability. Lucky for us, we're stupid and don't notice. Now we have understanding. Nuke plants plug in to the existing money collection system, like having your own arcade game. Turn the key and get the money out. Don't sweat the liabilitiy, we're fictitious, and not just that, there's always justice. The lawyers say you're not guilty unless you've been convicted. Fictitious entities, lawyers, bankruptcy, asset sales, is there no end to the advantages of being able to afford justice.
Next thing you know someone will be standing on a soap box and touting alternative energies. This would not only stop some insanity, it would cut fictitious entity jobs, lawyer jobs, banker's jobs (who finances), cut some government bean counters and in the pocket regulator jobs, and even worse, not make a pollutant that is also making jobs. What the hell kind of fools do those wacko environmentalists think we are? These are very important big money jobs and capital flows. I can hear them now, talking how alternatives make local jobs, local industries, eliminate pollutants, put more money in the local economic engines, and disconnect from "centralized collection of capital," that suctions the local economy better than the all night Tuesday special at Mabel's Hookers and Horn Dogs. These eco-wackos are un-American. They're probably gonna say that the whole damn energy system is flawed. They just do not understand money. For chris'sake, the whole world financial system is the real lubricant that makes the oil flow. They'll be trying to say this system causes global warming. Get the lawyers on that, make sure we're fictitious entities. "

The writing is 17 years old.
Is it accurate?
It is an analogy to simplify a complicated infrastructure.
Does it enlighten?

Yes!
No!
Other, please explain.
 
DaveFagan said:
"Responsible Nuclear EnergyOxymoron or just moronic?
We're going to get busy making a bunch of poison that will linger on the planet for a whole bunch of lifetimes. Lots more lifetimes than the people who generate it. A wonderful legacy. Not moronic, insane. Hey, that's the tip of the iceberg. We put this in the hands of fictitious entities (corporations), because of the awesome responsibility. They pocket lots of money (centralized collection of capital) whilst waiting for their equipment to wear out. Gonna be a big headache here, don't you think? Nope, when the plant gets old, sell it. Take a bad check if necessary, but get rid of that millstone around the company wallet. Can't get rid of it, you say. No problem. Bankruptcy. Baptize the dopes who have been buying your product all these years with a little nuclear waste and some decommissioning fees. Don't worry, they'll have to keep paying you your salary to manage the whole operation. This is the stuff "dreams are made of", you say. Nope, this is the way it works.
Why would we want these Nukes in the first place. Shortage of power? Nope, fooled you on that one. Make a ton of jobs? Nope. Raise property values in their community? Nope. Produce cheap electric power? Nope. Make big money for Big Money with no real long-term liabilities. Now we're gettin' warm. Make big tax revenues for the government? I think we're narrowing it down. It's about money. You probably thought those power lines to all the houses were about "centralized distribution of energy," but you were only half right. They represent "centralized collection of capital" for both the fictitious entities and governments, because our fictitious entities collect and deliver the governments piece of the pie. Like they're partners, sort of in business together.
One detail worth noting is that it takes really big money to get in this business, and it takes construction companies that can afford to finance presidents to build these poison producers with no liability. Lucky for us, we're stupid and don't notice. Now we have understanding. Nuke plants plug in to the existing money collection system, like having your own arcade game. Turn the key and get the money out. Don't sweat the liabilitiy, we're fictitious, and not just that, there's always justice. The lawyers say you're not guilty unless you've been convicted. Fictitious entities, lawyers, bankruptcy, asset sales, is there no end to the advantages of being able to afford justice.
Next thing you know someone will be standing on a soap box and touting alternative energies. This would not only stop some insanity, it would cut fictitious entity jobs, lawyer jobs, banker's jobs (who finances), cut some government bean counters and in the pocket regulator jobs, and even worse, not make a pollutant that is also making jobs. What the hell kind of fools do those wacko environmentalists think we are? These are very important big money jobs and capital flows. I can hear them now, talking how alternatives make local jobs, local industries, eliminate pollutants, put more money in the local economic engines, and disconnect from "centralized collection of capital," that suctions the local economy better than the all night Tuesday special at Mabel's Hookers and Horn Dogs. These eco-wackos are un-American. They're probably gonna say that the whole damn energy system is flawed. They just do not understand money. For chris'sake, the whole world financial system is the real lubricant that makes the oil flow. They'll be trying to say this system causes global warming. Get the lawyers on that, make sure we're fictitious entities. "

The writing is 17 years old.
Is it accurate?
It is an analogy to simplify a complicated infrastructure.
Does it enlighten?

Yes!
No!
Other, please explain.
Click to expand...

No....
 
Nuclear power is an abomination. No long term waste storage plan. Wastes that must be safely isolated for hundreds of thousands of years are stored in containment rated for 200 years. The industry, both on-line plants and storage facilities, are an accident waiting to happen. Chernobyl has a 1000 sq mile exclusion zone. Most active nuclear reactors in the US are near high population areas (East, Southeast, Mideast). Can you imagine the devastation if the US would have to declare such an exclusion zone?
 
Media_Truth said:
Nuclear power is an abomination. No long term waste storage plan. Wastes that must be safely isolated for hundreds of thousands of years are stored in containment rated for 200 years. The industry, both on-line plants and storage facilities, are an accident waiting to happen. Chernobyl has a 1000 sq mile exclusion zone. Most active nuclear reactors in the US are near high population areas (East, Southeast, Mideast). Can you imagine the devastation if the US would have to declare such an exclusion zone?
Click to expand...

Although I agree with you on the problem of waste disposal, comparing the primitive "Graphite" reactor in Chernobyl to the modern nuclear power generating reactors in use today here is false and misleading. The chances of an event like in Russia are virtually nil and rightly so. For example, Chernobyl did not have a concrete containment vessel covering the reactor core.

The Chernobyl nuclear plant explodes in 1986 - NY Daily News
 
Media_Truth said:
Nuclear power is an abomination. No long term waste storage plan. Wastes that must be safely isolated for hundreds of thousands of years are stored in containment rated for 200 years. The industry, both on-line plants and storage facilities, are an accident waiting to happen. Chernobyl has a 1000 sq mile exclusion zone. Most active nuclear reactors in the US are near high population areas (East, Southeast, Mideast). Can you imagine the devastation if the US would have to declare such an exclusion zone?
Click to expand...
One factor never discussed is that Nukes require large volumes of water for cooling and are therefroe located on major fresh water waterways/rivers/lakes/etc, and that is the potential for downstream contamination all over the Nations where they operate, Contamination of our fresh water supplies. Used fuel rods are stored in local Nuke plant storage pools instead of in a remote depository, although nobody wants them in their backyard. Gee, I wonder why. Great engineering, like Fukushima, where they ignored tidal markers placed years ago to warn of high tides from tsunamis. Now there are three meltied cores working on burning through the secondary concrete containment adjacent to EARTH. It won't stop burning when it burns through just keep descending until it slows in a watery strata. OTOH, it's very profitable for Centralized Collection of Monies, don't ya' know?./
 
iguanaman said:
Although I agree with you on the problem of waste disposal, comparing the primitive "Graphite" reactor in Chernobyl to the modern nuclear power generating reactors in use today here is false and misleading. The chances of an event like in Russia are virtually nil and rightly so. For example, Chernobyl did not have a concrete containment vessel covering the reactor core.

The Chernobyl nuclear plant explodes in 1986 - NY Daily News
Click to expand...

Concrete certainly has it's issues. Just look around at the number of fortress-like concrete structures that have been demolished in recent years. For longevity, one is better off building with stone. An event could happen here. There are a number of scenarios.
1. Natural action, such as a seismic event.
2. Terrorist action.
3. Human error.
4. Cutting corners to keep costs down, because nuclear is already so expensive.
 
Media_Truth said:
Concrete certainly has it's issues. Just look around at the number of fortress-like concrete structures that have been demolished in recent years. For longevity, one is better off building with stone. An event could happen here. There are a number of scenarios.
1. Natural action, such as a seismic event.
2. Terrorist action.
3. Human error.
4. Cutting corners to keep costs down, because nuclear is already so expensive.
Click to expand...

I am somewhat suspicious and cynical about Nuclear Engineering. Gosh, I don't know why? Or not!
Three Mile Island = Human Error
Chernobyl = Human Error
Fukushima = Human Error
The Engineers ignored Stone Tidal Markers warning of prevous Tsunami levels. That would be the "geniuses," eh? Now Fukushima is leaching into the Pacific and will continue to do so at increasing levels in perpetuity.
 
DaveFagan said:
"Responsible Nuclear EnergyOxymoron or just moronic?
We're going to get busy making a bunch of poison that will linger on the planet for a whole bunch of lifetimes. Lots more lifetimes than the people who generate it. A wonderful legacy. Not moronic, insane. Hey, that's the tip of the iceberg. We put this in the hands of fictitious entities (corporations), because of the awesome responsibility. They pocket lots of money (centralized collection of capital) whilst waiting for their equipment to wear out. Gonna be a big headache here, don't you think? Nope, when the plant gets old, sell it. Take a bad check if necessary, but get rid of that millstone around the company wallet. Can't get rid of it, you say. No problem. Bankruptcy. Baptize the dopes who have been buying your product all these years with a little nuclear waste and some decommissioning fees. Don't worry, they'll have to keep paying you your salary to manage the whole operation. This is the stuff "dreams are made of", you say. Nope, this is the way it works.
Why would we want these Nukes in the first place. Shortage of power? Nope, fooled you on that one. Make a ton of jobs? Nope. Raise property values in their community? Nope. Produce cheap electric power? Nope. Make big money for Big Money with no real long-term liabilities. Now we're gettin' warm. Make big tax revenues for the government? I think we're narrowing it down. It's about money. You probably thought those power lines to all the houses were about "centralized distribution of energy," but you were only half right. They represent "centralized collection of capital" for both the fictitious entities and governments, because our fictitious entities collect and deliver the governments piece of the pie. Like they're partners, sort of in business together.
One detail worth noting is that it takes really big money to get in this business, and it takes construction companies that can afford to finance presidents to build these poison producers with no liability. Lucky for us, we're stupid and don't notice. Now we have understanding. Nuke plants plug in to the existing money collection system, like having your own arcade game. Turn the key and get the money out. Don't sweat the liabilitiy, we're fictitious, and not just that, there's always justice. The lawyers say you're not guilty unless you've been convicted. Fictitious entities, lawyers, bankruptcy, asset sales, is there no end to the advantages of being able to afford justice.
Next thing you know someone will be standing on a soap box and touting alternative energies. This would not only stop some insanity, it would cut fictitious entity jobs, lawyer jobs, banker's jobs (who finances), cut some government bean counters and in the pocket regulator jobs, and even worse, not make a pollutant that is also making jobs. What the hell kind of fools do those wacko environmentalists think we are? These are very important big money jobs and capital flows. I can hear them now, talking how alternatives make local jobs, local industries, eliminate pollutants, put more money in the local economic engines, and disconnect from "centralized collection of capital," that suctions the local economy better than the all night Tuesday special at Mabel's Hookers and Horn Dogs. These eco-wackos are un-American. They're probably gonna say that the whole damn energy system is flawed. They just do not understand money. For chris'sake, the whole world financial system is the real lubricant that makes the oil flow. They'll be trying to say this system causes global warming. Get the lawyers on that, make sure we're fictitious entities. "

The writing is 17 years old.
Is it accurate?
It is an analogy to simplify a complicated infrastructure.
Does it enlighten?

Yes!
No!
Other, please explain.
Click to expand...

The sad part is that this post is an absolutey accurate analysis of the Nuke Industry in layman terms and real World impacts, personal and especially financial. The story is about "financial," not necessities, not energy, not the electorate. Except for long term liabilities that will belong to the electorate. Hot dam, who'd a thunk it?
/
 
Sure, nuclear has it's issues. But even the consequences of nuclear disasters pale in comparison to the 4.5 million people killed annually by fossil fuel pollution. Even hydroelectric power, one of the few reliable renewable resources, has killed 230,000 people, far more than nuclear.
 
spud_meister said:
Sure, nuclear has it's issues. But even the consequences of nuclear disasters pale in comparison to the 4.5 million people killed annually by fossil fuel pollution. Even hydroelectric power, one of the few reliable renewable resources, has killed 230,000 people, far more than nuclear.
Click to expand...

Who dies from hydro? Are we counting everyone who has died in dam construction since the first dam was,uh, constructed? And everyone who has died building and maintaining transmission lines?
 
Grand Mal said:
Who dies from hydro? Are we counting everyone who has died in dam construction since the first dam was,uh, constructed? And everyone who has died building and maintaining transmission lines?
Click to expand...

Grand Mal:

Waterborne mercury poisoning, other heavy metals poisoning and dioxin poisoning are all associated with hydroelectric power generation and the equipment used to transform the hydropower into electrical energy. Chromosomal damage can result from exposure to high intensity electromagnetic fields. Finally, as stated before, dam failure is always a worry and can be catastrophic when it occurs.

Cheers?
Evilroddy.
 
One need only look to the US Department of Energy’s Hanford nuclear site in Washington State to see the appalling neglect and deterioration of this waste uranium and plutonium storage facility which covers almost 600 sq. miles of remote Washington wilderness. The place is in such disrepair that tunnels are collapsing, exposing the stored former weapons-grade fissionables and contaminated/irradiated heavy equipment and infrastructure directly to the environment. The place is so "hot" that decontamination and repair/maintenance crews can't effectively prevent the degradation and deterioration from progressing. It's a bloody mess and it's getting worse each day. The latest collapse I saw reported was this past August (2017) IIRC.

Cheers?
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
One need only look to the US Department of Energy’s Hanford nuclear site in Washington State to see the appalling neglect and deterioration of this waste uranium and plutonium storage facility which covers almost 600 sq. miles of remote Washington wilderness. The place is in such disrepair that tunnels are collapsing, exposing the stored former weapons-grade fissionables and contaminated/irradiated heavy equipment and infrastructure directly to the environment. The place is so "hot" that decontamination and repair/maintenance crews can't effectively prevent the degradation and deterioration from progressing. It's a bloody mess and it's getting worse each day. The latest collapse I saw reported was this past August (2017) IIRC.

Cheers?
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

You left out the best parts...we are spending over $2 billion a year, they don't plan to start dealing with the worst of it till 2036 but with the way this has been going it will really be 2050..and all it will take is one earthquake to ruin much of the state with nuclear waste in the meantime.

Our government, not working.
 
Last edited:
The only real reason that anybody builds nuclear plants is to make bombs.
 
Tim the plumber said:
The only real reason that anybody builds nuclear plants is to make bombs.
Click to expand...

Only one reason. The Corporate profit motive that "privatizes the profits and socializes the liabilities" is the other main driver.
/
 
DaveFagan said:
The sad part is that this post is an absolutey accurate analysis of the Nuke Industry in layman terms and real World impacts, personal and especially financial. The story is about "financial," not necessities, not energy, not the electorate. Except for long term liabilities that will belong to the electorate. Hot dam, who'd a thunk it?
/
Click to expand...

Absolutely accurate?

No.
 
DaveFagan said:
You would be so kind to identify the inaccuracies. With explanations, no less.
/
Click to expand...

1. Hyperbole.

2. Opinion.

3. Inaccuracies.

For example...

Produce cheap electric power? Nope.

Yep.

When compared to Fossil Steam electricity production.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html

I notice too no mention of Greenhouse gases.... Why is that?

What is the CO2 production of the average 1KW reactor?

And China, India and S. Korea are looking to rapidly expand their Nuclear energy footprint.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Big Money? China? Corporate interests?

No, the OPINION piece is the usual "hate capitalism" spiel...
 
Fledermaus said:
1. Hyperbole.

2. Opinion.

3. Inaccuracies.

For example...

Produce cheap electric power? Nope.

Yep.

When compared to Fossil Steam electricity production.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html

I notice too no mention of Greenhouse gases.... Why is that?

What is the CO2 production of the average 1KW reactor?

And China, India and S. Korea are looking to rapidly expand their Nuclear energy footprint.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Big Money? China? Corporate interests?

No, the OPINION piece is the usual "hate capitalism" spiel...
Click to expand...

Don't change ths subject when you are wrong. Nuke electric is the most expensive electric in the USA. Any topic I did not discuss can't be wrong because it is not a topic of discussion. Your airballs are a great accomplishment to be generated by a vacuuos cerebellum. Your OPINIONS are noted as non-factual BS.
/
 
DaveFagan said:
Don't change ths subject when you are wrong. Nuke electric is the most expensive electric in the USA.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html

DaveFagan said:
Any topic I did not discuss can't be wrong because it is not a topic of discussion.
Click to expand...

You stated a falsehood. I responded.

I added what your precious OP neglected to address.

And I questioned some of your hyperbolic nonsense.

DaveFagan said:
Your airballs are a great accomplishment to be generated by a vacuuos cerebellum. Your OPINIONS are noted as non-factual BS.
/
Click to expand...

You presented a BS hyperbolic rant about Nuclear Power that is factually incorrect.

And you have the gall to insult?

Try LEARNING about what you intend to write about forehand.
 
Fledermaus said:
Incorrect.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html



You stated a falsehood. I responded.

I added what your precious OP neglected to address.

And I questioned some of your hyperbolic nonsense.



You presented a BS hyperbolic rant about Nuclear Power that is factually incorrect.

And you have the gall to insult?

Try LEARNING about what you intend to write about forehand.
Click to expand...

Nuclear power is very expensive, especially when all the costs are factored in. The funding of the NRC alone makes the case. Plants have had huge construction overruns, which drives up the cost per KWH. It is irresponsible to NOT factor these into the cost. There is another huge factor:

Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power | PSR

DIRTY, DANGEROUS, AND EXPENSIVE from the Physicians for Social Responsibility
The most important subsidy for the nuclear industry and the most expensive for U.S. taxpayers comes in the form of loan guarantees, which are promises that taxpayers will bail out the nuclear utilities by paying back their loans when the projects fail. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the failure rate for nuclear projects is “very high well above 50 percent.”(12) The nuclear industry is demanding $122 billion in federal loan guarantees for 21 reactors. If these guarantees were authorized, taxpayers would be on the hook for at least $61 billion.
 
Media_Truth said:
Nuclear power is very expensive, especially when all the costs are factored in. The funding of the NRC alone makes the case. Plants have had huge construction overruns, which drives up the cost per KWH. It is irresponsible to NOT factor these into the cost. There is another huge factor:

Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power | PSR

DIRTY, DANGEROUS, AND EXPENSIVE from the Physicians for Social Responsibility
The most important subsidy for the nuclear industry and the most expensive for U.S. taxpayers comes in the form of loan guarantees, which are promises that taxpayers will bail out the nuclear utilities by paying back their loans when the projects fail. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the failure rate for nuclear projects is “very high well above 50 percent.”(12) The nuclear industry is demanding $122 billion in federal loan guarantees for 21 reactors. If these guarantees were authorized, taxpayers would be on the hook for at least $61 billion.
Click to expand...

As of 2012, France's electricity price to household customers is the seventh-cheapest amongst the 28 members of the European Union, and also the seventh-cheapest to industrial consumers, with a rate of €0.14 per kWh to households and €0.07 per kWh to industrial consumers.[6] France was the biggest electricity exporter in the EU in 2012, exporting 45TWh of electricity to its neighbours.[7] With very inclement weather, when demand exceeds supply, France infrequently becomes a net-importer of electricity in these rare cases, because of the lack of more flexible generating plants.[8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
 
Fledermaus said:
As of 2012, France's electricity price to household customers is the seventh-cheapest amongst the 28 members of the European Union, and also the seventh-cheapest to industrial consumers, with a rate of €0.14 per kWh to households and €0.07 per kWh to industrial consumers.[6] France was the biggest electricity exporter in the EU in 2012, exporting 45TWh of electricity to its neighbours.[7] With very inclement weather, when demand exceeds supply, France infrequently becomes a net-importer of electricity in these rare cases, because of the lack of more flexible generating plants.[8][9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
Click to expand...

Has anybody ever told you that Wikipedia is not the best source? That said, I believe your information to be accurate. It's what is not said that is the problem. France still does not have a deep repository to store it's Long-Term wastes. As a matter of fact, not one country in the world has an active deep repository. Also, do you know if the billions that France has spent on their deep repository effort is factored into their cost of electricity?

How France is disposing of its nuclear waste - BBC News
France generates around three quarters of its electricity from nuclear power but despite decades of activity it is no nearer a solution to the perils of nuclear waste.
...
Despite advanced schemes in Finland, not a single country worldwide has an operational underground repository.
...
"There are still risks of water ingress especially from the shafts and the top," says Mr Ouzounian, so they are testing ways to seal the waste using a bentonite clay plug.

French law requires companies to build a retrievable scheme, meaning that for the first few hundred years at least, they can remove the waste again should future generations find a better way to get rid of it.

In the US, this waste is stored at the actual power generating facilities, which are usually near heavy population centers on the East Coast, the Southeast, and the Mideast. Despite wastes with half-lives of hundreds of thousands of years, the containment is only rated for 200 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom