• 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 You Favor Nuclear Power?

Do You Favor Nuclear Power?


  • Total voters
    93
LOL. Who owns Indian Point is irrelevant to which power company serves Westchester County and NYC.

But it is relevent to making the assumption that Indian Point was the one that Tashah was taliking about because he said "My home receives power from a ComEd nuclear reactor".

Even if you misread that as ConEd, you still didn't point to a ConEd reactor.
 
Given what's taking place in Japan's reactors after the earthquake, this is certainly a topical question. Not much to add.

Absolutely yes. Clean, safe, cuts ties with despot laden oil, provides radio-isotopes for medicine and engineering, forward looking.

Properly designed reactors are safe.

Period.

Mayor Snorkum is watching that fool Lieberman bad mouthing nuclear power. Of course, couldn't be more typical for the left to rush out an politicize the issue.
 
I would argue that it is far from a topical question, or at least it is a question for which you are only soliciting ill-informed opinions.

I think we really need to understand what is really happening in Japan before you can have intelligent discourse on this subject. Any current discussion is just amongst people that have rigid, preconceived ideas on the subject.
'

Not really.

How about not building nuclear reactors at sea level where they can be damaged by tsunamis?

How about if new reactors have low power densities making catastrophic LOCA/LOFA events impossible?

Lots and lots of design options making Chernobyl/TMI/Fukushima impossible.
 
Well, nuclear power plants are limited in where they can build. They have to build close to a waterway in order to ensure a large enough supply of water to act as a coolant and to use as steam.

You mean like in the Idaho National Laboratory, where all those reactors are out in the middle of the desert?
 
No, I don't - never have.

Seems futile to depend on a power production process that has the capability of wiping out the entire population it's suppose to be helping.

Seems ****ing stupid, really.

Ah. You MUST be referring to the reliance in Tokyo on charcoal braziers to heat homes and prepare meals before the 1920s earth quake. That power source burned Tokyo to the ground after a major earth quake. The Japanese no longer cook food and hence the rise of sushi as a dietary fad.
 
Isn't that the point of the free market? No government regulation?

Only for the ignorant who don't want to expend the effort to understand the concepts.

Everyone who isn't a thirteen year old anarchist is aware that the government has a specific function to perform, pertaining to the protection of the individual from physical attack, financial fraud, and libel and slander.
 
not counting chernobyl, a bad design, I am pretty sure that nuclear power has caused NO deaths....

The Army's SL1 reactor killed three, one was pinned to the ceiling for three days before anyone thought to look up...
 
As an avid scifi fan and technology nut, I support nuclear power in theory. However, I do not trust private enterprise to operate nuclear power plants in the safest manner possible. Including dealing with the waste.

Last years BP debacle illustrates this well.

However, I don't have much more confidence in the govt. either. For other reasons.

If someone like the Dalai Lama, or whoever, took over operation of nuclear power, some group who took their safe operation as some kind of "sacred mission", I think that might work. I think Heinlein wrote a story along these lines.

Nuclear power could save us all, if corporate greed or govt bureaucratic incompetency didn't kill us all first.

Therefore I voted other.

Nuclear Jedi, anyone?

Just curious, how much nuclear waste was released by BP last year?
 
Only for the ignorant who don't want to expend the effort to understand the concepts.

Everyone who isn't a thirteen year old anarchist is aware that the government has a specific function to perform, pertaining to the protection of the individual from physical attack, financial fraud, and libel and slander.

Ok, so how do you have a free market nuclear power plant?
 
“This is a continuation in a sense of the cold shower that we got in Sumatra - these mega-earthquakes take place in places we do not expect them.”[/URL][/B][/I] — Emile Okal, a Northwestern University geophysicist

MAN! That is one damn ignorant geophysist. He didn't expect a major fault ripping earthquake from the Pacific subduction zone off the coast of Japan, the most tectonically active place on the entire planet? You'd figure a Norwestern geophysist would know more about the planet than most people pick up from the Discovery Channel, but looks like geophysics diplomas are handed out to the needy like welfare checks.
 
Ok, so how do you have a free market nuclear power plant?

You don't.

You have free market electricity and the electrical suppliers make their own decisions about the economic viability of the various generation alternatives, which will naturally all require some form of permitting, even something as idiotic as roof-top solar collectors and bird-churners.
 
Re-read your statement.
Something is not CLEAN if it produces such toxic waste that we have to hull out a mountain to store it. And for how many mellenia will this 'clean nuclear waste' be stored safely before it leaks and destroys the surrounding eco-system or worse?

Never, that's why Yucca mountain was chosen.

But, if you wish for permanence and the ultimate in evironmental stability in a barren region, I recommend the mid-Pacific abyssal plains as the waste depository. When needed we can always hire James Cameron to recover some deposits if we need to make a withdrawal. That would have the added advantage of keeping him from making yet another boring movie.
 
Nuke power is just not cost efficient, we already have cheaper natural resources that can secure our power needs for at least the next century.
Nuke power costs on average 2-3x more per kilowatt hour.

Not to mention that almost every level of it is subsidized by the government, from fuel collection to construction.

Drilling domestically for oil and gas is an acceptable alternative as is further mining of coal. So long as we get away from despot laden oil, we'll be cool.
 
You don't.

You have free market electricity and the electrical suppliers make their own decisions about the economic viability of the various generation alternatives

This just gives you a 'dash for gas', because CCGT plants will give investors the quickest return on investment.

No private company will choose to build a new coal or nuclear power plant, which might take 20 years to give them a return on investment, when a CCGT plant can do it in under 10.

Plus, as most of the cost of a CCGT is in fuel and not capex, and CCGT will be the price setting plant in most electricity markets, you hedge your bets and eliminate the risk of low electricity prices hurting your returns.

The 'free-market' has failed to deliver anything other than gas and some small wind farms. It's great at sweating existing assets, poor at constructing new ones.
 
But it hasn't been for nearly a decade so what it used to be doesn't really affect my point.

LOL. Not that you had much of a point to begin with.

It appears that instead of addressing nuclear power plant safety you would rather quibble about nuclear power plant ownership: Was Indian Point situated in one of the “least favorable sites” (pdf) in the region versus was Indian Point a ConEd facility?

I know you think this is indicative of a broader point about me, as follows:

Even if you did misread ComEd as ConEd, the fact that Indian Point is not owned or operated by ConEd implies that you make assumptions about things without taking the time to check the facts.

This does not inspire confidence in your opinions on issues, because it becomes impossible to discern what is a legitimate piece of information and what is a baseless assumption not founded in fact.

Tucker Case, you are entitled to your opinion and I admire your firm commitment to facts and research. I feel I make a significant effort to rest my opinions and posts on established facts, but I am no scholar, and everyone reading my posts should of course determine for themselves the soundness of the information I present. I welcome constructive criticism and additional information.
 
Nuke power is just not cost efficient, we already have cheaper natural resources that can secure our power needs for at least the next century.
Nuke power costs on average 2-3x more per kilowatt hour.Not to mention that almost every level of it is subsidized by the government, from fuel collection to construction.

2 to 3 times? I don't think so, got some links to prove your claim?
BTW, do you think coal isn't subsidized?
 
This just gives you a 'dash for gas', because CCGT plants will give investors the quickest return on investment.

No private company will choose to build a new coal or nuclear power plant, which might take 20 years to give them a return on investment, when a CCGT plant can do it in under 10.

Plus, as most of the cost of a CCGT is in fuel and not capex, and CCGT will be the price setting plant in most electricity markets, you hedge your bets and eliminate the risk of low electricity prices hurting your returns.

The 'free-market' has failed to deliver anything other than gas and some small wind farms. It's great at sweating existing assets, poor at constructing new ones.

Texas recently found out that CCGT has its limitations....too much demand on the gas delivery system caused the pressure to drop below what is needed to run the plants. Nukes have the advantage of having all the fuel they need already installed inside the reactor, enough to run for a year or so before needing to be refueled.
And it is very easy to store replacement fuel on site if necessary, as new unused fuel can be safely handled. It is "spent" fuel that is dangerous.
Certainly there are better, newer, designs for nukes, altho the PWR reactors are still viable. Can't remember the last time a BWR was built...
 
LOL. Not that you had much of a point to begin with.

It appears that instead of addressing nuclear power plant safety you would rather quibble about nuclear power plant ownership: Was Indian Point situated in one of the “least favorable sites” (pdf) in the region versus was Indian Point a ConEd facility?

But was it relevent to what Tashah had said? No, it wasn't.

All I'm saying is that when someone wants to begin lecturing people about something, it's important to show that they are a reliable and credible source for information.

When one imediately jumps to conclusions that are easily discovered to be erroneous in order to begin their lecture, it does not inspire confidence from the audiance that the person as a reliable and credible source of information. They tend to be ignored.

I'm just giving you solid advice here.

Receptiveness of the audience is a major aspect of debate. If you undermine your own credibility by making incorrect assumptions and running with them unabated, you cannot succesfully argue a position becuse people will not want to bother putting in the fact-checking efforts involved when they know the source is unreliable.
 
What better, safer, cheaper way to generate electricity is there? No carbine emissions, no off/on conditions found with windmills and solar panels, just hot rods and boiling water. With all the safety devices in place, and more added as needed, the vital water supply will continue to flow.

ricksfolly
 
Back
Top Bottom