why are greens/others opposed to nuclear power?

[MB_722]

?

[Hereford]

Enviros are usually opposed to anything that represents progress.

[sync pulse]

New designs for nuclear reactors in the last thirty years preclude accidents such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.  Three Mile Island was caused by expansion of fuel rods rupturing their cladding.  Research has shown that if you take the expansion of overheating into account in fabricating the fuel rods, the expansion from overheating will make the core go non critical during an overheating episode.  Chernobyl: 1.had no containment structure.
2.had operators performing a test for which they were not qualified or authorized. 3. was built with flammable material as a moderator.

Nuclear power is the only alternative energy source that has any hope of operating a technological civilization.

[IFBBwannaB]

This might sound silly but maybe it's not.  What if a rock from space slams into the reactor?  What if some idiot goes crazy that works there?  What if there is an attack on one like 9/11 or Oklahoma?  What if a major earthquake hits one?  Some what ifs are probably crazier than others but there are enough unknowns that make me question, are they worth losing half the country over if one of these what ifs happen?

If a rock from space (asteroid genius) hits the earth it won't really matter where it falls.Also space agencies will see it in advance and if it's not big enough to threaten humanity yet can wipe out a reactor than it can also be easily redirected to the ocean.

Not to mention that new age reactors are built deep in the earth with an emergency automatic (you talked about crazy employees) system that drops the whole reactor deep deep into the earth and covers it with concrete.

Don't you think that having thusends of ships,trucks,fuel pipes and so on filled with explosive liquids in the middle of crowded places are more dangerous?

For the meantime atomic energy is by far the greenest one, especially with new age recycling, IIRC even the old rods today get recycled and just about nothing is turned into radioactive waste.

Now if you want a more broad energy program than invest a fraction of that bailout to Thermoelectric conversion (increasing just about any process on earth efficiency dramatically, including the inefficient turbines that dominate power production) and start building more solar stations and invest money in reducing the fabrication costs of Ga-As multi junction solar cells.

There is already a company that won some big projects with concentration dishes but they use a special Sterling motor, which is a great invention by itself.

Piezoelectric have a great future too, they got to 98% efficiencies, that's nothing short of amazing that's as efficient as anything can be.

Most of the technology is already here, all that is missing is the money and contract to mass produce and make it financially feasible.

Your Obama is a sham, he can dramatically change the entire power grid by the time for the next election.

[sync pulse]

Solar, wind, tides: no matter how you slice it, these forms of energy are more expensive by at least a couple of magnitudes.  (Because they are diffuse.) A great deal of the stagflation of the Carter administration was due to the higher costs of energy and restricted supplies of same.  The same can be said of our present economic malaise, higher costs and restrictions on supply. 
 The reason why the economy did so well under the Reagan administration is because he took steps to lower the cost of petroleum and increase access to same. (The first thing they did was turn the hot water on in the public restrooms in Washington D. C., and restore the lighting schemes in public places.)
  I didn't like the Reagan administration's social views, and I never voted for him, but energy costs and access to supplies trump everything in most people's minds.

[IFBBwannaB]

It's called a meteorite genius, not an asteroid.  If we get hit by an asteroid, it's all over.  I didn't call it a rock because I didn't know what it's called.   I think everyone who's not severely retarded has that figured out.  You should probably turn in your genius card there buddy, they would not be able to calculate the impact of a meteorite to an exact location.  Most earth impacts are not the mega disaster size and yea I know it's a long shot that probably wouldn't happen.  The point is I'm asking how long is the list of long shots?  It doesn't really matter which long shot happens does it.  The result will be the same either way. 

Well smartass, if you will learn to read you might understand what I wrote. If a rock  will be on a collision course, at some point it will be detected, and if it's not a gigantic fucker that will erase us all anyway and will be in course to a nuclear reactor it can be deflected since a rock  in that size can be moved off course quite easily.

Now read about this :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_tower_(downdraft)  cool technology that finally start to see some prototypes popping up, these can actually really help 3rd world nations since many of them are found on the crucial areas that the tower need to be built in.

[Benny B]

?

Three Mile Island

[Slapper]

New designs for nuclear reactors in the last thirty years preclude accidents such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.  Three Mile Island was caused by expansion of fuel rods rupturing their cladding.  Research has shown that if you take the expansion of overheating into account in fabricating the fuel rods, the expansion from overheating will make the core go non critical during an overheating episode.  Chernobyl: 1.had no containment structure.
2.had operators performing a test for which they were not qualified or authorized. 3. was built with flammable material as a moderator.

Nuclear power is the only alternative energy source that has any hope of operating a technological civilization.

And whose research shows that nuclear reactors are safe? 

I live close to a nuclear facility (Indian Point) and we get updated emergency evacuation documents every 5 years and drills every 3-4 months.

[MB_722]

I'm still pro nuclear.

There is no way we are going to survive with the alternative sources of energy we have now. Solar/Wind isn't going to cut it.

[MB_722]

Cold Fusion Proven True by U.S. Navy Researchers - Will Suppression of this Science be Repeated?

The world owes Fleischmann and Pons a huge apology: The cold fusion technology they announced in 1989 -- which was blasted by arrogant hot fusion scientists as a fraud -- has been proven true once again by U.S. Navy Researchers. In papers presented at this year's American Chemical Society meeting, scientist Pamela Mosier-Boss presented data supporting the reality of cold fusion, declaring the report, "the first scientific report of highly energetic neutrons from low-energy nuclear reactions."

Technically, it's not the first report at all, however. It might be the five-hundredth report, given how many people have been working on cold fusion since 1989 in laboratories across the world. Following the politically-motivated assassination of cold fusion credibility in 1989, the cold fusion movement went underground, renaming itself to LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions). As LENR, cold fusion has been proven true in literally thousands of experiments conducted over the past two decades.

I first went public with the true story about the conspiracy against cold fusion in 1998. It described this classic conspiracy against a new technology, schemed up by desperate defenders of old technology -- hot fusion researchers who, after hundreds of billions of dollars in research money, have yet to produce a single sustainable hot fusion reaction that produces more energy than it consumes. The arrogant hot fusion researchers have the same snooty attitude as cancer researchers: "Just give us another billion dollars," they say, "and we'll find a cure!"

It's been the same story for nearly three decades now, and hot fusion still doesn't work. A working cold fusion unit, however, can be built on a kitchen countertop for less than $2,000, and it doesn't require a doctorate in physics to pull it off, either. It is precisely this simplicity that offends the arrogant hot fusion pushers who act much like medical doctors in the vicious defense of their territory.

Cold fusion applications
Cold fusion isn't some magical free energy machine. It produces excess heat, but slowly. So don't go thinking this is some kind of Mr. Fusion device that you can feed some banana peels and expect to get clean electricity out the other end.

Rather, cold fusion converts mass to heat energy, slowly losing a bit of mass through very low-energy nuclear reactions (hence the LENR name) that generate excess heat. In practical terms, cold fusion produces hot water.

And why is hot water useful? Because with hot water, you can produce steam. Steam turns turbines that generate electricity. This is how coal power plants work, too, except they're burning coal to heat water instead of using cold fusion. Conventional nuke plants work the same way, too, using much higher-energy nuclear reactions to heat vast amounts of water that drive electricity-generating turbines.

So heating water with cold fusion is a big deal. If the technology can be scaled up and applied properly, it could spell an end to the era of dirty coal power plants.

http://www.naturalnews.com/025925.html

[Hugo Chavez]

I'm still pro nuclear.

There is no way we are going to survive with the alternative sources of energy we have now. Solar/Wind isn't going to cut it.

hard for me to go along with nuclear when there hasn't even been a legit effort in finding an alternative.  We should have another national drive like the space race but for energy.  There are vast quantities of energy all around us.  I can't fathom the only two viable ways to tap it are both potentially self destructive.

[IFBBwannaB]

hard for me to go along with nuclear when there hasn't even been a legit effort in finding an alternative.  We should have another national drive like the space race but for energy.  There are vast quantities of energy all around us.  I can't fathom the only two viable ways to tap it are both potentially self destructive.

You should look into it deeper, the solutions are here all that is needed now is some help to make it more financially feasible.

For example , using basically 19 century technology:

http://www.stirlingenergy.com/projects/default.asp


If your Messiah will move a fraction of the money he sent his AIG buddies (yeah we all remember he was on their top receivers list) he will be able to make an impact, or at least start the snowball rolling.

[Hedgehog]

?

I don't really oppose nuclear power per se.
But the arguments against it are pretty compelling.

I recently visited a place where there were a mining company prospecting for uranium.
Even from the small holes drilled the health of the local population were effected.
The question MB - Are you and your family prepared to live next door to a uranium mine?
   If the answer is no, I don't see how you can support nuclear power as a long term solution.
This is really one argument that I understand. If we're gonna use uranium - we can't expect it to be mined and stored 'somewhere else'.
 
One argument is that if a waterfall power plant blows up it will create disaster - for the immediate surrounding and for a few months or a couple of years.
But if a big nuclear power plant have a meltdown - then it spells disaster for a big area. But also for years to come there will be lots of defects on infants and environment. Additionally - the area right around the nuclear plant will be a dead zone for generations to come.

That's a big difference.
One more thing - as long as we're not prepared to accept any country to build a nuclear power plant I don't think there is much argument.
We can use nuclear power - but Iran can't?
I bet many people don't even know that USA and Israel are protesting against Iran even getting nuclear power. 
As for what Iran's intentions are - I don't know. But they're not even allowed to build a normal nuclear power plant.

[Hugo Chavez]

You should look into it deeper, the solutions are here all that is needed now is some help to make it more financially feasible.

For example , using basically 19 century technology:

http://www.stirlingenergy.com/projects/default.asp


If your Messiah will move a fraction of the money he sent his AIG buddies (yeah we all remember he was on their top receivers list) he will be able to make an impact, or at least start the snowball rolling.

dude, you fuckers need to stop calling him my messiah.  I'm quite sick of it you sack of human garbage.  I never oogled or cried or any of that shit for Obama.  I voted for him, I don't worship him.  end that crap

Amazing, you guys want the government to heavily subsidize the nuclear power plants?  So my guess is their plans are not economically sound or viable without money handed to them?  Looks like that's true from what I read on it. Wow, you guys are really hypocrites.  You go free market huh

IFBB, you barely believe in global warming and have stated that it's only happening to a small degree.  MB_722, you've stated, "Global warming is bullshit"

If you guys don't believe there is a real need to fit an alterative, why do you want to subsidize nuclear?  Coal is actually profitable without the governments help and there's plenty of it left.  So what's the real motivation here?  Now I'm really wondering WTF

(added: OK, sorry for the harsh post, I've had my coffee now )

[doison]

Chernobyl accident is equivalent to 500 nuclear bombs used in Hiroshima in 1945.

The releases contaminated an estimated 17 million people to some degree.

143,000 people have been evacuated from contaminated areas of Ukraine

600,000 people took part in liquidating effects of the disaster, 100,000 of which already died or are now handicapped
 
Cases of leucosis and thyroid cancer exceed average by 2 and 5 times correspondingly among the Chernobyl victims.
 
There are 1.8 million people residing on the territories of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus, which are still defined as contaminated

For the 14 years since the disaster 300,000 died in Ukraine alone from the radiation sickness

http://www.chernobyl.com.ua/ChernobylFacts.htm

How does that disaster compare with the deaths and injuries from coal mining/manufacturing over the past 14 years? 

[IFBBwannaB]

dude, you fuckers need to stop calling him my messiah.  I'm quite sick of it you sack of human garbage.  I never oogled or cried or any of that shit for Obama.  I voted for him, I don't worship him.  end that crap

Amazing, you guys want the government to heavily subsidize the nuclear power plants?  So my guess is their plans are not economically sound or viable without money handed to them?  Looks like that's true from what I read on it. Wow, you guys are really hypocrites.  You go free market huh

IFBB, you barely believe in global warming and have stated that it's only happening to a small degree.  MB_722, you've stated, "Global warming is bullshit"

If you guys don't believe there is a real need to fit an alterative, why do you want to subsidize nuclear?  Coal is actually profitable without the governments help and there's plenty of it left.  So what's the real motivation here?  Now I'm really wondering WTF

(added: OK, sorry for the harsh post, I've had my coffee now )

I doubt nuclear plants are not profitable but could be since the initial build cost is so huge.
But that have nothing to do with free market, the free market will lead to slavery if you let it, no one ever said the market need to be havoc, just like freedom of speech is limited , just like you can't do anything you like, limits and government intervention in order to create a macro level change are sometimes good,necessary and mandatory.

Now about building nuclear powerplants in the neighborhood, that's bullshit, plenty of deserts and mountains to build them in them, just lose one or two more percentiles due to longer transmission lines.

[Hugo Chavez]

How does that disaster compare with the deaths and injuries from coal mining/manufacturing over the past 14 years? 

I don't know, post up some stats if you have them.  Keep in mind that "that disaster" is far from over.  It could even get worse.  Look at the total cleanup cost alone.  Most expensive disaster ever and one they'll be paying to contain when we are ancient history.  95% of the material is still in the reactor area.  5% caused all that contamination.

[Hugo Chavez]

actually the subsidy thing was lame to mention since they subsidize a ton of other things like solar too.

[Decker]

Nuclear power is not the answer b/c

*each reactor is a terrorist target-a WMD waiting for detonation...unless of course the threat of terrorism is overblown

*If the number of reactors in this country were at least doubled in number to meet energy demands, waste storage facilities like in the Yucca flats would be full every 4 years or so.  What the hell do we do with the radioactive waste?  It's lethal for 100,000 years and represents another rich target for any terrorist.

*nuclear power generation is not emission free

[IFBBwannaB]

Nuclear power is not the answer b/c

*each reactor is a terrorist target-a WMD waiting for detonation...unless of course the threat of terrorism is overblown

*If the number of reactors in this country were at least doubled in number to meet energy demands, waste storage facilities like in the Yucca flats would be full every 4 years or so.  What the hell do we do with the radioactive waste?  It's lethal for 100,000 years and represents another rich target for any terrorist.

*nuclear power generation is not emission free

1.Defending a reactor from terrorists is quite easy, why aren't you afraid a terrorist will steal a F15 ? Same shit.

2.New age recycling of nuclear waste really change most of what we know, plus no one ever said that nuclear will be the end goal but it might help allot in the transition period while you move on to 100% green energy.

[Decker]

1.Defending a reactor from terrorists is quite easy, why aren't you afraid a terrorist will steal a F15 ? Same shit.

Is it as easy as defending two giant towers in the heart of the nation's largest city?

2.New age recycling of nuclear waste really change most of what we know, plus no one ever said that nuclear will be the end goal but it might help allot in the transition period while you move on to 100% green energy.

What do we do with the nuclear waste?

[MRDUMPLING]

My understanding is that solar is our best bet.  We have plenty of desert, I have read that the only real thing holding us back from that is the battery technology to store the energy at night/long periods for backup power.  I will have to look it up, but I remember reading an article that one square acre of solar panels in the desert for one day can power New York for a week if I remember correctly.

I agree with Hugo as to there are other alternatives to energy that we have available.

[Hugo Chavez]

1.Defending a reactor from terrorists is quite easy, why aren't you afraid a terrorist will steal a F15 ? Same shit.

2.New age recycling of nuclear waste really change most of what we know, plus no one ever said that nuclear will be the end goal but it might help allot in the transition period while you move on to 100% green energy.

epic credibility problems.  We're supposed to take your arguments serious when you think a stolen F15 is the same as a terrorist attack on a reactor?  LOL The only reason you might say something like that is if you're thinking the F15 will be used to take out a nuclear reactor.  Then it's a terrorist attack on a nuclear reactor which validates the concern in the first place dummy.

2. industry doesn't work that way.  history shows the ones profiting under the status quo will do everything in their power to prevent change no matter what technology comes along.  Many examples of this happening here in America.  So you can't just lay it out there like it's a transition technology until you address that fundamental problem.

[Benny B]

I haven't even read much of this thread...I just know nuclear power has to be included in our options for energy independence. All options have to be on the table. France has been utilizing the power safely for some time. We have to get over the Three Mile Island screw up of thirty years ago.

Read Fareed Zakaria's article about Energy Independence I just posted today.

[IFBBwannaB]

epic credibility problems.  We're supposed to take your arguments serious when you think a stolen F15 is the same as a terrorist attack on a reactor?  LOL The only reason you might say something like that is if you're thinking the F15 will be used to take out a nuclear reactor.  Then it's a terrorist attack on a nuclear reactor which validates the concern in the first place dummy.

2. industry doesn't work that way.  history shows the ones profiting under the status quo will do everything in their power to prevent change no matter what technology comes along.  Many examples of this happening here in America.  So you can't just lay it out there like it's a transition technology until you address that fundamental problem.

Since I don't have much time to answer I will explain it in an easier way for you who have no ability to understand analogous statements.

You have tons of weapons including nuclear weapons, notice WEAPONS not a reactor , that can be found at bases or remote silos all over th US, yet you never feared they will get stolen or bombed, why is that?
Because they are properly secured, remote location + military discipline and zero tolerance to intruders make all those weapons safe.

I see no problem to properly secure a reactor from terrorist factions, next argument please.

Oh and about that WTC ...please...apples to oranges, not to mention that the outer shell of reactors that are in danger like the one in Israel are nothing short of a bunker, a direct hit from a plane will hardly make a dent.