• 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
UtahBill said:
2 to 3 times? I don't think so, got some links to prove your claim?
BTW, do you think coal isn't subsidized?
Click to expand...

I had a link, yesterday. :)
Can't find it now.

I think we should wait, instead of dashing to nuclear, better to use gen 4 or better plants that have a higher efficiency rating on fuel usage or possibly using fusion reactors.
Those may be available in the next 20 years or so.
 
UtahBill said:
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...
Click to expand...

I wasn't advocating just building CCGT plants, just stating that that is what tends to happen when you leave it to the 'free market'.

In the UK, electricity was privatised in the mid to late 80's, since then nothing but CCGT and some wind farms have been added to the grid. Thus we have a supply crunch looming from about 2017 onwards, when all the older coal and nuclear power stations, built by the state in the 70's, are decommissioned.

I agree there are technical problems with having too much CCGT, we haven't reached that level in the UK yet, but, under the 'free market', that would just be a matter of time. The government is now anxiously trying to rush reforms through parliament in order to facilitate the construction of a new generation of power stations, probably nuclear.

But, my main point is that energy is 'special', it's not just another commodity and can not be entirely trusted to the free-market. Government has to be active in designing energy policy otherwise the lights will go out!
 
Nuclear power is cheap and safe. There is no reason what so ever that any of our electrical power here in the USA ought be provided by fossil fuels.

We should be building at least 1,000 nuclear power plants. That would be a good start.

As big and as bad as this natural disaster was in Japan, the safety system on these nuke power plants are working.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not to mention that almost every level of it is subsidized by the government, from fuel collection to construction.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but what isn't? I mean even oil companies get some.
 
a777pilot said:
Nuclear power is cheap and safe. There is no reason what so ever that any of our electrical power here in the USA ought be provided by fossil fuels.

We should be building at least 1,000 nuclear power plants. That would be a good start.

As big and as bad as this natural disaster was in Japan, the safety system on these nuke power plants are working.
Click to expand...

We probably don't need so many reactors. But there's no reason to be scared of nuclear energy. It's very clean and reliable. We shouldn't stagnate on it either, we should always be pushing the limitations of our abilities to construct new and better energy sources.
 
Tucker Case said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL. For sheer egotism, sanctimony and condescension, your post takes the prize. Congratulations!
 
Chappy said:
LOL. For sheer egotism, sanctimony and condescension, your post takes the prize. Congratulations!
Click to expand...
He was probably just trying to offer the constructive criticism you claimed you'd welcome.

Chappy said:
I welcome constructive criticism and additional information.
Click to expand...
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I had a link, yesterday. :)
Can't find it now.

I think we should wait, instead of dashing to nuclear, better to use gen 4 or better plants that have a higher efficiency rating on fuel usage or possibly using fusion reactors.
Those may be available in the next 20 years or so.
Click to expand...

Fusion is too far out....
Next gen nuclear is the way to go....
 
Chappy said:
LOL. For sheer egotism, sanctimony and condescension, your post takes the prize. Congratulations!
Click to expand...

So, what are your qualifications on the topic? Tucker makes a good point, and you just throw mud.
 
Slainte said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yuh.

Ya think that might be because the concept of "public utilities" established regional monopolies on electric distribution and discouraged free markent entreprenurialism? The people willing to invest in "public utilities" aren't venture capitalists seeking to make big returns because there's no free market to work with.
 
UtahBill said:
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...
Click to expand...

Nobody builds BWRs because the condenser air ejectors suck out contaminated steam that has to be filtered and handled.

PWR's are just fine, it's perfectly safe to place those on ...umm... the ground...when the design includes acceptable load factors for expected seismic activity. After all, not one American reactor has failed due to "seismic activity".
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I had a link, yesterday. :)
Can't find it now.

I think we should wait, instead of dashing to nuclear, better to use gen 4 or better plants that have a higher efficiency rating on fuel usage or possibly using fusion reactors.
Those may be available in the next 20 years or so.
Click to expand...

We don't have two decades.

We should have been permitting new reactors, new coal plants, and new refineries when Reagan was president.

Right now we have a fool president who took care to not waste the BP crisis and his moratorium on off shore drilling is effective to this day.
 
a777pilot said:
Nuclear power is cheap and safe. There is no reason what so ever that any of our electrical power here in the USA ought be provided by fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Coal is cheap and safe and despot-free.

We should be building at least 1,000 nuclear power plants. That would be a good start.
Click to expand...

So do we really need five to ten terawatts of electric power in the near future? Sounds like a bit much...

As big and as bad as this natural disaster was in Japan, the safety system on these nuke power plants are working.
Click to expand...

No, they're not. But the anti-nuclear people are ignoring the fact that those reactors were almost forty years old. Technology has improved significantly, not the least of which is the modern use of computers in structural and mechanical design.
 
Yes, until we come up with something more favorable and safer.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Coal is cheap and safe and despot-free.



So do we really need five to ten terawatts of electric power in the near future? Sounds like a bit much...



No, they're not. But the anti-nuclear people are ignoring the fact that those reactors were almost forty years old. Technology has improved significantly, not the least of which is the modern use of computers in structural and mechanical design.
Click to expand...

Actually they are the plant automatically shut down the reactor after the quake.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Ya think that might be because the concept of "public utilities" established regional monopolies on electric distribution and discouraged free markent entreprenurialism?
Click to expand...

The whole purpose of privatisation and liberalisation in the UK was to reduce monopoly and allow for 'competition' between electricity suppliers; customer switching, spot markets, etc.

Since then 'free market entrepreneurialism' has failed to construct any generation assets except CCGT and wind farms.

Why risk investing £10 billion in a nuclear plant that will take 8-10 years to consent and pay you back over 40 years of generation, at a variable rate as nuclear is not a price-setting plant, when you can invest £1 billion in a CCGT that will take a year to consent and begin getting you returns in a fraction of the time. The only thing you need to worry about is increasing fuel costs, but as CCGT is the price-setting plant you can just pass those on to the consumer anyway.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
Yuh.

Ya think that might be because the concept of "public utilities" established regional monopolies on electric distribution and discouraged free markent entreprenurialism? The people willing to invest in "public utilities" aren't venture capitalists seeking to make big returns because there's no free market to work with.
Click to expand...

building the power plant is just the start, then there is the grid. it takes a lot of money, and utilitlies should be allowed some protection. who wants to build a local grid and them make it available to competition? a certain amount of monoply is expected. Once a utility builds a system in a given area, that area should be theirs without competition, but not without regulation.
 
Believing nuclear power to be more dangerous than it actually is doesn't change the facts. It is still safer than the methods we currently use, much cleaner, cheaper to operate (obviously there are upfront costs, but they will be accounted for in future savings), and would allow us to stop depending on foreign oil. I get that people are afraid of meltdowns and contamination, but if one of the worst earthquakes that Japan has ever seen isn't enough for a real nuclear disaster, I doubt anything will. Please remember that Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were the results of shoddy equipment. A new plant with modern technology would be infinitely safer. Also, we don't get earthquakes that bad, and we can certainly build the plants in places where we barely get any.

Nuclear power is mostly safe. Our current methods guarantee death. How can guaranteed death be better than probable safety?
 
Paschendale said:
I get that people are afraid of meltdowns and contamination, but if one of the worst earthquakes that Japan has ever seen isn't enough for a real nuclear disaster, I doubt anything will.
Click to expand...
Stay tuned.
 
I voted "Not Sure". I think there's a lot of benefits and dangers to nuclear power, but I think the question is going to be irrelevant once the US wises up and looks into space-based solar energy collection and power beaming.
 
Paschendale said:
Believing nuclear power to be more dangerous than it actually is doesn't change the facts. It is still safer than the methods we currently use, much cleaner, cheaper to operate (obviously there are upfront costs, but they will be accounted for in future savings), and would allow us to stop depending on foreign oil. I get that people are afraid of meltdowns and contamination, but if one of the worst earthquakes that Japan has ever seen isn't enough for a real nuclear disaster, I doubt anything will. Please remember that Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were the results of shoddy equipment. A new plant with modern technology would be infinitely safer. Also, we don't get earthquakes that bad, and we can certainly build the plants in places where we barely get any.

Nuclear power is mostly safe. Our current methods guarantee death. How can guaranteed death be better than probable safety?
Click to expand...

I am as pro nuclear as one can get, but until we have many millions of electric cars on the roads, nuclear generated electricity will not help with the oil problem....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom