http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...apped.html

I wish the US would move forward. We have some great locations available.

Good choice!

I'll never understand why the treehuggers are so against nuclear power. In the USA I believe there was only one major accident, Three Mile Island, and that's it - I'd say that's a darn good record. And if some Russian didn't take it upon himself to turn off safety equipment to perform an unapproved test, that Chernobyl thing probably never would have happened.

I'm no tree-hugger, but I believe that the risks outweigh the reward IRT nuclear power.

(10-18-2010 10:30 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  I'm no tree-hugger, but I believe that the risks outweigh the reward IRT nuclear power.

There's no empirical data to back up your claim. As smn posted, we've had but one accident in Harrisburg, Pa. No one died. It doesn't make sense to compare us to the USSR. They were known to cut corners because of their finances and the fact that their people really didn't mean a damn thing to them.

The US taxpayer has paid Russia billions to help contain and clean up their Chernobyl mess. What did we get in return. Nada, nothing, bupkiss, in spades.

I don't know why the blame is on tree huggers.. if conservatives really wanted nuclear power they'd already have it. They've been in power while we weren't building power plants.

Edit: I'm all for nuclear power myself, live within an hour of a plant. Just pointing out this isn't a partisan issue, both sides have had plenty of opportunities to get it done. To blame it on tree huggers is ridiculous. If tree huggers had any pull in congress we'd all be driving electric cars and there'd be no SUV's on the road. Tree huggers are the liberal fringe, no one in congress is bending over for those people.

(10-18-2010 10:30 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  I'm no tree-hugger, but I believe that the risks outweigh the reward IRT nuclear power.

The risk of the plant melting down, or the risk of the spent fuel and waste?

The PLANT
Pebble bed, breeder and thorium reactors are safer than a 10 year old coal fired power plant. The new nuclear reactor designs will not melt down. There, I said it - the new designs can not, will not, and will never melt down. Now, someone will come in and try to be all level-headed and say something like "well, yes X reactor can melt down if the staff is all drunk and 75 switches are all pressed in this exact order and the power failed and there are terrorists in the command room with nuclear engineering degrees from the US Navy nuke school, so it can happen." DO NOT LISTEN!

The WASTE
Always remember this talking point = Nuclear waste is designed by the anti-nuclear crowd to be a problem that's impossible to solve. And the anti-nuclear crowd is currently in control of the discussion, or at least has the loudest voice.

These nuclear power opposers tend to minimize the fact that nuclear power shouldn't be compared to an ideal 100% clean fuel source (nuclear is not as safe as wind turbines! nuclear is not as safe as solar! :eyeroll:) but rather to the sources we use now - which primarily means coal. Dirty, nasty dangerous coal. Coal that requires strip mining mountains, provides a wonder retirement full of black lung disease, emits toxins directly into air, and leaves mountains of coal ash, which is more dangerous than just about anything that humans bury in the ground and build gold courses and strip malls on.....

Yet nobody suggests that coal plants have to figure out waste storage facilities that will last billions of years, because that would be silly.

To criticize nuclear power because of waste disposal when the waste that coal plants spew out daily is disingenuous.

In order for nuclear to suceed, the nuclear power industry has attack the idea that you have to store nuclear waste until it isn't dangerous, because we don't do that for anything else.

VOTE ISOTOPE!

(10-19-2010 08:56 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-18-2010 10:30 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  I'm no tree-hugger, but I believe that the risks outweigh the reward IRT nuclear power.

The risk of the plant melting down, or the risk of the spent fuel and waste?
The PLANT
Pebble bed, breeder and thorium reactors are safer than a 10 year old coal fired power plant. The new nuclear reactor designs will not melt down. There, I said it - the new designs can not, will not, and will never melt down. Now, someone will come in and try to be all level-headed and say something like "well, yes X reactor can melt down if the staff is all drunk and 75 switches are all pressed in this exact order and the power failed and there are terrorists in the command room with nuclear engineering degrees from the US Navy nuke school, so it can happen." DO NOT LISTEN!
The WASTE
Always remember this talking point = Nuclear waste is designed by the anti-nuclear crowd to be a problem that's impossible to solve. And the anti-nuclear crowd is currently in control of the discussion, or at least has the loudest voice.
These nuclear power opposers tend to minimize the fact that nuclear power shouldn't be compared to an ideal 100% clean fuel source (nuclear is not as safe as wind turbines! nuclear is not as safe as solar! :eyeroll:) but rather to the sources we use now - which primarily means coal. Dirty, nasty dangerous coal. Coal that requires strip mining mountains, provides a wonder retirement full of black lung disease, emits toxins directly into air, and leaves mountains of coal ash, which is more dangerous than just about anything that humans bury in the ground and build gold courses and strip malls on.....
Yet nobody suggests that coal plants have to figure out waste storage facilities that will last billions of years, because that would be silly.
To criticize nuclear power because of waste disposal when the waste that coal plants spew out daily is disingenuous.
In order for nuclear to suceed, the nuclear power industry has attack the idea that you have to store nuclear waste until it isn't dangerous, because we don't do that for anything else.
VOTE ISOTOPE!

Absolutely.

Love nuke or hate it, the one fact this is indisputable is that we can't solve our energy problems without it. The numbers simply don't work without it. Wind and solar aren't big enough or dependable enough. Coal is too dirty. Oil we know about. Natural gas sounds great, except if you get past Jimmy Carter's mistakes and start using it as we should, those "endless" supplies don't seem so endless any more.

Eventually we can all hope for some renewable, non-polluting solution. If we expect to have people still living then, we need nuclear--and all those other things--to get from here to there.

(10-19-2010 08:52 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  I don't know why the blame is on tree huggers.. if conservatives really wanted nuclear power they'd already have it. They've been in power while we weren't building power plants.

Edit: I'm all for nuclear power myself, live within an hour of a plant. Just pointing out this isn't a partisan issue, both sides have had plenty of opportunities to get it done. To blame it on tree huggers is ridiculous. If tree huggers had any pull in congress we'd all be driving electric cars and there'd be no SUV's on the road. Tree huggers are the liberal fringe, no one in congress is bending over for those people.

Then blame the safety-conscious soccer moms. Nuclear has a stigma in the US, one that's undeserved.

(10-19-2010 09:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-19-2010 08:56 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(10-18-2010 10:30 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  I'm no tree-hugger, but I believe that the risks outweigh the reward IRT nuclear power.

The risk of the plant melting down, or the risk of the spent fuel and waste?
The PLANT
Pebble bed, breeder and thorium reactors are safer than a 10 year old coal fired power plant. The new nuclear reactor designs will not melt down. There, I said it - the new designs can not, will not, and will never melt down. Now, someone will come in and try to be all level-headed and say something like "well, yes X reactor can melt down if the staff is all drunk and 75 switches are all pressed in this exact order and the power failed and there are terrorists in the command room with nuclear engineering degrees from the US Navy nuke school, so it can happen." DO NOT LISTEN!
The WASTE
Always remember this talking point = Nuclear waste is designed by the anti-nuclear crowd to be a problem that's impossible to solve. And the anti-nuclear crowd is currently in control of the discussion, or at least has the loudest voice.
These nuclear power opposers tend to minimize the fact that nuclear power shouldn't be compared to an ideal 100% clean fuel source (nuclear is not as safe as wind turbines! nuclear is not as safe as solar! :eyeroll:) but rather to the sources we use now - which primarily means coal. Dirty, nasty dangerous coal. Coal that requires strip mining mountains, provides a wonder retirement full of black lung disease, emits toxins directly into air, and leaves mountains of coal ash, which is more dangerous than just about anything that humans bury in the ground and build gold courses and strip malls on.....
Yet nobody suggests that coal plants have to figure out waste storage facilities that will last billions of years, because that would be silly.
To criticize nuclear power because of waste disposal when the waste that coal plants spew out daily is disingenuous.
In order for nuclear to suceed, the nuclear power industry has attack the idea that you have to store nuclear waste until it isn't dangerous, because we don't do that for anything else.
VOTE ISOTOPE!

Absolutely.

Love nuke or hate it, the one fact this is indisputable is that we can't solve our energy problems without it. The numbers simply don't work without it. Wind and solar aren't big enough or dependable enough. Coal is too dirty. Oil we know about. Natural gas sounds great, except if you get past Jimmy Carter's mistakes and start using it as we should, those "endless" supplies don't seem so endless any more.

Eventually we can all hope for some renewable, non-polluting solution. If we expect to have people still living then, we need nuclear--and all those other things--to get from here to there.

Then why do you suppose that people's perception is so blatantly false, and unrealistic. What you say is common sense, why is that completely disregarded when it comes to nuclear. I'll never understand.

(10-19-2010 09:46 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Nuclear has a stigma in the US, one that's undeserved.

And I have a great example of that. I was at a DHS meeting a few years ago (they toured the nation meeting with local governments) about emergency response policies. When asked how many people died in the Three Mile Island accident none of the 80+ local leaders (mix of elected leaders, school officials, police and fire chiefs, etc.) knew the answer was 0. They all thought that dozens or even hundreds had died. They then pointed out that the primary cause of the Chernobyl accident was the Russians ignoring safety measures that are routine practice here. And then they pointed out that the majority of deaths from Chernobyl were not from direct radiation, but rather from eating contaminated crops and drinking contaminated dairy.

(10-19-2010 09:58 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Then why do you suppose that people's perception is so blatantly false, and unrealistic. What you say is common sense, why is that completely disregarded when it comes to nuclear. I'll never understand.

I have a couple of posts re: public schools that may shed some light.

(10-19-2010 09:58 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Then why do you suppose that people's perception is so blatantly false, and unrealistic. What you say is common sense, why is that completely disregarded when it comes to nuclear. I'll never understand.

Visuals.

People's visuals of nuclear....



People's visuals of other forms of renewable energy......



Like I said, the environmental movement currently owns the talking points on nuclear, just like they own it on DDT, on electric cars, on CLF lighbulbs etc.

The nuclear power industry needs a PR campaign to rival Smokey the Bear, Farm Aid and Apple, combined.

(10-19-2010 08:52 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Tree huggers are the liberal fringe, no one in congress is bending over for those people.

You are not giving them enough "credit!"

Here are a few examples of treehuggers influencing global health:

DDT usage
CFL bulbs
No smoking
Car safety standards
EPA regulations up the gazoo
Stopping hydroelectric dams
Trans Fats
Etc
Etc

I'm not debating that some of the above may not have merit, but the health, safety and environmental wings have greatly impacted both US and global leaders and decison makers

No smoking is a tree hugger thing? I think you're giving tree huggers a lot more credit than they deserve. You don't have to be some hippie to think it's not acceptable to smoke in a public place.

(10-19-2010 08:52 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  I don't know why the blame is on tree huggers.. if conservatives really wanted nuclear power they'd already have it. They've been in power while we weren't building power plants.

Conservatives just can't wave their magic wand and the plants start appearing. There's the local, state and federal permits, the public hearings, the law suits.....

SMN, you really think the conservative government in charge, couldn't have found a conservative state to make it happen? They had the supreme court, president and congress. There are plenty of conservative states out there with conservative local and state governments. If they wanted to make it happen, they could have. This is a bi-partisan issue. One of a very few, but to treat it as a partisan issue will not get you anywhere.

We're getting two more reactors at Plant Vogtle in the Augusta area.

(10-19-2010 10:45 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  SMN, you really think the conservative government in charge, couldn't have found a conservative state to make it happen? They had the supreme court, president and congress. There are plenty of conservative states out there with conservative local and state governments. If they wanted to make it happen, they could have. This is a bi-partisan issue. One of a very few, but to treat it as a partisan issue will not get you anywhere.

It really doesn't matter who is in charge - a liberal with a lawyer can cause a lot of damage regardless of the color of the state.