• 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

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Given what's taking place in Japan's reactors after the earthquake, this is certainly a topical question. Not much to add.
 
I support nuclear power plants but only built in the most stable areas of the US.
 
There are no stable areas in the U.S. or anywhere else.
 
I favor it, but believe it to be dangerous.

We all know how much corruption, corner-cutting and other hi-jinks goes on in normal businesses and the same would likely happen at nuclear power plants. Except when you cut corners or give the job to the lowest bidder, a hole gets blasted in the earth making the surrounding region uninhabitable.
 
if we're ever going to get away from oil, not only do I have nuclear power, but I don't think we can survive without it.
 
Given what's taking place in Japan's reactors after the earthquake, this is certainly a topical question. Not much to add.

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.
 
Given what's taking place in Japan's reactors after the earthquake, this is certainly a topical question. Not much to add.

Reactor problems are certainly a big deal when they happen, but due to the engineering involved, they are rare enough that they are not as much as a concern as the daily pollution of a coal plant.
 
The chances of a 9.1 quake hitting anywhere in the vast majority of the country are incredibly slim. It is important to note that far more coal miners die in mine accidents each year than people die in nuclear accidents. I'm also not sure about American coal plants' effects on public health, but coal plants have led to more deaths in this country than nuclear plants (meaning that deaths from coal pollution have been higher than three since 1961).
 
Given what's taking place in Japan's reactors after the earthquake, this is certainly a topical question. Not much to add.

I voted "Other."

I think that, eventually, our nation's energy needs will advance so much that we will be forced to adopt nuclear energy in order to keep pace with them.

However, I don't think private corporations should be the way to go. Privatization will reduce costs, yes, but their purpose isn't to put out a quality product - it's to make profits for their shareholders.

Therefore, I think the best way to pursue nuclear energy is through the public sector. But I don't think the majority of the United States favors something like that with our current sociopolitical culture.

So while I do favor nuclear power, I don't think the U.S. would implement it in the way that I prefer it be done.
 
I favor nuclear power 100%.
 
I believe nuclear power is too dangerous to handle, so it should be phased out, but inevitable for the time being, so I am against an immediate stop:

I don't buy into the propaganda by energy companies nuclear plants are "safe". Accidents often take place. And while complete meltdowns à la Chernobyl or Fukushima may be seldom, the resulting damage is potentially way too big in case it happens after all. The company running the Fukushima plant in Japan has documented in the past years that they're not credible. So maybe a meltdown only takes place, statistically, once in 100 years -- but even that is way too much, IMHO.

On the other side, what's the alternative? More fossil fuels. They cause pollution too, and even if you don't believe in climate change due to CO2, you will acknowledge that pollution in general is not a good thing. On top of that, relying on fossil fuels increases dependence on not so nice regimes in not so nice countries.

So it's a choice between pestilence and cholera.

I'm all in favor of pushing and subsidizing regenerative and alternative energy sources, but they won't be able to meet the demand anytime soon. So for a while, we'll probably have to live with dirty energy sources. I'd say nuclear energy should be part of that too, to balance the problems with fossil fuels.

But long term goal should be a phase out.
 
I think it's irrelevant whether I favor nuclear power or not; after the last two days, the American people will never allow another nuclear power plant to be built anywhere near them ever again.

See also: After Tokyo 2011: It's the end of [nuclear power] as we know it

You do know that after a few instances in the past, that very same notion from anti-nuclear power advocates was being promoted, right?

It's a premature notion being spread by the activists.
 
I think it's irrelevant whether I favor nuclear power or not; after the last two days, the American people will never allow another nuclear power plant to be built anywhere near them ever again.

See also: After Tokyo 2011: It's the end of [nuclear power] as we know it

An earthquake of a once-in-a-generation magnitude caused this...it sucks for Japan but what makes you think people all over the world should freak out at using nuclear power?
 
I believe nuclear power is too dangerous to handle, so it should be phased out, but inevitable for the time being, so I am against an immediate stop:

I don't buy into the propaganda by energy companies nuclear plants are "safe". Accidents often take place. And while complete meltdowns à la Chernobyl or Fukushima may be seldom, the resulting damage is potentially way too big in case it happens after all. The company running the Fukushima plant in Japan has documented in the past years that they're not credible. So maybe a meltdown only takes place, statistically, once in 100 years -- but even that is way too much, IMHO.

On the other side, what's the alternative? More fossil fuels. They cause pollution too, and even if you don't believe in climate change due to CO2, you will acknowledge that pollution in general is not a good thing. On top of that, relying on fossil fuels increases dependence on not so nice regimes in not so nice countries.

So it's a choice between pestilence and cholera.

I'm all in favor of pushing and subsidizing regenerative and alternative energy sources, but they won't be able to meet the demand anytime soon. So for a while, we'll probably have to live with dirty energy sources. I'd say nuclear energy should be part of that too, to balance the problems with fossil fuels.

But long term goal should be a phase out.

What do you think of government regulations that would
1) require multiple redundancies in order to ensure safe operations and reduce catastrophic accidents happening from disasters and
2) an automatic penalty of death sentenced upon anyone who engages in any type of corruption regarding the building, operation, and investigation of a nuclear power plant?
 
I favor it, just don't build anything within 25 square miles of a plant. Then you don't have to worry as much about evac.
 
I favor it, just don't build anything within 25 square miles of a plant. Then you don't have to worry as much about evac.

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.
 
I favor it, just don't build anything within 25 square miles of a plant. Then you don't have to worry as much about evac.

25 square miles of land is likely worth far more than the nuclear plant's construction costs, especially if its not wilderness. Energy costs would be huge enough that it would not be feasible to build one.
 
What do you think of government regulations that would
1) require multiple redundancies in order to ensure safe operations and reduce catastrophic accidents happening from disasters and
2) an automatic penalty of death sentenced upon anyone who engages in any type of corruption regarding the building, operation, and investigation of a nuclear power plant?

While I don't necessarily agree with the death penalty, I think these ideas are helpful minimizing the risks as long as we still have to rely on nuclear energy.

Still I am skeptic this would solve the problem entirely. Humans just make mistakes. A small risk will always remain. So the long term goal of a phase out is still preferable.
 
While I don't necessarily agree with the death penalty, I think these ideas are helpful minimizing the risks as long as we still have to rely on nuclear energy.

Still I am skeptic this would solve the problem entirely. Humans just make mistakes. A small risk will always remain. So the long term goal of a phase out is still preferable.

I believe a better perspective is would be the least harm perspective. What causes the least harm? Living with 1800s technology and no electicity, coal, nuclear, green, etc along with the various tradeoffs and our current level of technology.

Just because nuclear has the potential for harm, once that harm is computed and compared to other possibilities, we have an answer.

Big blowups are bad, but if they are rare enough, they are not really a problem.
 
absolutely favor it. I also favor it to be further researched and studied in order to prevent like these things happening.
 
Back
Top Bottom