Any Lefties Anywhere Want To Tell Us How Great Cancelling Nuclear Plants Was?

One area in which I wish we resembled the French is in the area of using nuclear power as a major energy source.

Considering the negative effects of our petroleum dependency - oil spill and national security risks - do any of the Lefties want to explain why closing nuclear power plants and preventing new ones from being built was such a good idea?

WHOT?!

Nuclear Energy Institute - New Nuclear Plants

Some 17 companies and consortia are considering building more than 30 nuclear power plants. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is actively reviewing 13 combined license applications from 12 companies and consortia for 22 nuclear power plants.

U.S. Approves Support to Build Nuclear Reactors in Georgia - NYTimes.com


Did you actually read the info at the link to the Consortia? Here's the current status of the plants - note note one is in California.

Summary by state (total 35, could be off a bit as I quickly tabbed these):

TX 6
SC 5
FL 4
NC 3
AL 2
GA 2
ID 1
IL 1
LA 1
MD 1
MI 1
MS 1
NJ 1
NY 1
OH 1
PA 1
TBD 1
UT 1
VA 1


4579412153_69572a5265_o.jpg



It's good to see some progress - but we have a long way to go.

I never implied there was any plant ready to open its doors tomorrow. I responded to a usual all-inclusive statement made by you, in this case "do any of the Lefties want to explain why closing nuclear power plants and preventing new ones from being built was such a good idea?" which is simply NOT true.

Why do you do that?
 
Nope. All planes crash, regardless of who builds them. People involved in an airplane crash do not do better on an American made plane vs a Soviet built one. If you think so, I suggest you are nuts.

How many times an accident at a Nuke plant happens is irrelevant. I'm not even saying I would be 100% against a Nuke reactor anywhere any time, but the risks are understated. One accident is usually catastrophic. What happened with Chernobyl?

If Nuke energy is relatively safe and the waste can be taken care of...all executives of energy companies and their families should put it i their back yards. I suggest you but a house near one. Every time I've been near one I get the creeps.

Dante, I'm telling you to compare the Crash rates and Failure rates from Soviet/Russian Built Jets to American Made...

My point, We have different ways to deal and handle Nuclear energy, we're smart and know how to deal with it so Accidents don't happen..

Hell, 15 miles away from there's a local Power Plant, nothing to worry about, been there for years..

I don't hate Government and Progressives... Hate is a strong word..

I do trust Private companies.. You obviously haven't read my posts on Corporations.. It's actually the Progressives who don't trust Corporations..

I hate them so much? Dante you talking out of your ass again and putting words in my mouth?

I'm not proposing a Nuclear Energy Only plan.. I'm for anything that benefits us..

Like Boedicca said, if the French can do it, so can we.

Chernobyl happened in '86.. That's exactly 24 years ago.. are you implying that the risks of another Chernobyl happening are still the same?

The French have not dealt with a long term plan for nuclear waste. Until somebody comes up with a plan on how we could safely deal with waste, I am leery.

then there is the accident scenarios. Will the benefits outweigh the costs? I hear/see very few honest calculations over the years. Then there is the US Nuke Industry and the US Government and their failed responses during Three Mile Island.

Now, maybe I'd support nuke plants...next to Millionaires row on a coastal resort far away from me...and hopefully NOT down wind. See what happened all over the world for months after Chernobyl had it's 15 minutes of fame?

How many people died in the Three Mile Island incident?
 
How many people died in the Three Mile Island incident?

Directly? In the building...thankfully, none (as far as we know). but if that's your standard for clean and safe energy...

The costs were very high. Costs that equal and surpass the costs of many declared national emergencies due to natural disasters...which are mostly unavoidable. And TMI was a catastrophic disaster avoided through luck.

you may want to read about it before you make uninformed comments. Three Mile Island accident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cleanup started in August 1979 and officially ended in December 1993, having cost around US$975 million.

...early scientific publications on the health effects of the fallout estimated one or two additional cancer deaths in the 10-mile area around TMI[
 
Last edited:
I never implied there was any plant ready to open its doors tomorrow. I responded to a usual all-inclusive statement made by you, in this case "do any of the Lefties want to explain why closing nuclear power plants and preventing new ones from being built was such a good idea?" which is simply NOT true.

Why do you do that?


Because many have been decommission or prevented from going into operation due to leftwing politics.

Here's a good example of the agenda:

List of nuclear power plants in America
 
How many people died in the Three Mile Island incident?

Directly? In the building...thankfully, none (as far as we know). but if that's your standard for clean and safe energy...

The costs were very high. Costs that equal and surpass the costs of many declared national emergencies due to natural disasters...which are mostly unavoidable. And TMI was a catastrophic disaster avoided through luck.

you may want to read about it before you make uninformed comments. Three Mile Island accident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cleanup started in August 1979 and officially ended in December 1993, having cost around US$975 million.

...early scientific publications on the health effects of the fallout estimated one or two additional cancer deaths in the 10-mile area around TMI[

Hey stupid, I didn't make an uninformed comment, as a matter of fact I didn't make a comment at all. I asked a question.

I would think that no lives being lost is a good standard, but you seem to be at odds with that standard.

Of course the cleanup cost was high, it usually is, but the lessons learned were invaluable.

In the aftermath of the accident, investigations focused on the amount of radiation released by the accident. According to the American Nuclear Society, using the official radiation emission figures, "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."[32][58]

Based on these low emission figures, early scientific publications on the health effects of the fallout estimated one or two additional cancer deaths in the 10-mile area around TMI.[33][unreliable source?] Disease rates in areas further than 10 miles from the plant were never examined.[33] Local activism in the 1980s, based on anecdotal reports of negative health effects, led to scientific studies being commissioned. A variety of studies have been unable to conclude that the accident had substantial health effects.

The Radiation and Public Health Project cited calculations by Joseph Mangano, who has authored 19 medical journal articles and a book on Low Level Radiation and Immune Disease, that reported a spike in infant mortality in the downwind communities two years after the accident.[33][59] Anecdotal evidence also records effects on the region's wildlife.[33] For example, according to one anti-nuclear activist, Harvey Wasserman, the fallout caused "a plague of death and disease among the area's wild animals and farm livestock", including a sharp fall in the reproductive rate of the region's horses and cows, reflected in statistics from Pennsylvania's Department of Agriculture, though the Department denies a link with TMI.[60]
 
Hey stupid, I didn't make an uninformed comment, as a matter of fact I didn't make a comment at all. I asked a question.

I would think that no lives being lost is a good standard, but you seem to be at odds with that standard.

Of course the cleanup cost was high, it usually is, but the lessons learned were invaluable.

No lives being lost was a wonderful thing...it is a deflective side topic. All lessons learned are invaluable. We do not know the lessons were learned. We do know more was understood, which proves how little we were assured we knew.

get it? Nuke energy is dangerous. It may be necessary at some point, i don't know...but I would never support it just to get off of oil. Stupid short sighted reasoning...maybe jumping from a frying pan into the fire.
 
Hey stupid, I didn't make an uninformed comment, as a matter of fact I didn't make a comment at all. I asked a question.

I would think that no lives being lost is a good standard, but you seem to be at odds with that standard.

Of course the cleanup cost was high, it usually is, but the lessons learned were invaluable.

No lives being lost was a wonderful thing...it is a deflective side topic. All lessons learned are invaluable. We do not know the lessons were learned. We do know more was understood, which proves how little we were assured we knew.

get it? Nuke energy is dangerous. It may be necessary at some point, i don't know...but I would never support it just to get off of oil. Stupid short sighted reasoning...maybe jumping from a frying pan into the fire.

Compare nuclear accidents to oil spills.
 
Hey stupid, I didn't make an uninformed comment, as a matter of fact I didn't make a comment at all. I asked a question.

I would think that no lives being lost is a good standard, but you seem to be at odds with that standard.

Of course the cleanup cost was high, it usually is, but the lessons learned were invaluable.

No lives being lost was a wonderful thing...it is a deflective side topic. All lessons learned are invaluable. We do not know the lessons were learned. We do know more was understood, which proves how little we were assured we knew.

get it? Nuke energy is dangerous. It may be necessary at some point, i don't know...but I would never support it just to get off of oil. Stupid short sighted reasoning...maybe jumping from a frying pan into the fire.

Compare nuclear accidents to oil spills.

Damage and costs to society. I also compare Nuke energy to oil drilling and refining. They are all dirty. The euphemisms used around nuke energy keep people from ever discussing it honestly. The nuke energy people have taken a few chapters from the oil Baron's books.

Look what coal did to cities, then what oil did to cities...look at the social costs and the lives lost...most of it is hidden in the framing of the discussions. I am NOT anti-energy. I AM anti-bullshit and smoke up my ass by people looking to make a profit at my expense, or the expense of innocent human beings.

Stop denying the costs of providing energy and start thinking about how to provide energy with the l-e-a-s-t amount of damage. pretty simple to do
 
No lives being lost was a wonderful thing...it is a deflective side topic. All lessons learned are invaluable. We do not know the lessons were learned. We do know more was understood, which proves how little we were assured we knew.

get it? Nuke energy is dangerous. It may be necessary at some point, i don't know...but I would never support it just to get off of oil. Stupid short sighted reasoning...maybe jumping from a frying pan into the fire.

Compare nuclear accidents to oil spills.

Damage and costs to society. I also compare Nuke energy to oil drilling and refining. They are all dirty. The euphemisms used around nuke energy keep people from ever discussing it honestly. The nuke energy people have taken a few chapters from the oil Baron's books.

Look what coal did to cities, then what oil did to cities...look at the social costs and the lives lost...most of it is hidden in the framing of the discussions. I am NOT anti-energy. I AM anti-bullshit and smoke up my ass by people looking to make a profit at my expense, or the expense of innocent human beings.

Stop denying the costs of providing energy and start thinking about how to provide energy with the l-e-a-s-t amount of damage. pretty simple to do

Wow you are stupid. I thought you were only pretending.
 
I never implied there was any plant ready to open its doors tomorrow. I responded to a usual all-inclusive statement made by you, in this case "do any of the Lefties want to explain why closing nuclear power plants and preventing new ones from being built was such a good idea?" which is simply NOT true.

Why do you do that?


Because many have been decommission or prevented from going into operation due to leftwing politics.

Here's a good example of the agenda:

List of nuclear power plants in America

Vermont's nuclear power plant will be decommissioned, and here's why:

Vermont Senate Votes to Shut Down Nuclear Plant

The state legislatures decide on the future of existing nuclear power plants based on recommendations from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which doesn't change its advisory staff every time there's a new president. The problem has ALWAYS been the dangers inherent in maintaining the plants (as described in the link above) and of course the nuclear waste storage. To imply it's always political is just another one of your blanket, inaccurate, statements.
 
One area in which I wish we resembled the French is in the area of using nuclear power as a major energy source.

Considering the negative effects of our petroleum dependency - oil spill and national security risks - do any of the Lefties want to explain why closing nuclear power plants and preventing new ones from being built was such a good idea?

Do you support shutting down all offshore drilling and building nuclear plants instead?
 
One area in which I wish we resembled the French is in the area of using nuclear power as a major energy source.

Considering the negative effects of our petroleum dependency - oil spill and national security risks - do any of the Lefties want to explain why closing nuclear power plants and preventing new ones from being built was such a good idea?

I'm not a leftie, but here goes...one word...Chernobyl

chernobyl.jpg

Until we know how to dispose of the waste properly it is not much better than the results we have seen from oil.

Here we go again.

Why is it you libbies who are supposed to so into the new technological breakthroughs and hold scientists up on some kind of fucking pedestal constantly ignore advances in nuclear power?

Could it be partisan hackery?

Listen up. New small nukes being developed right now are self limiitng meaning that if the cooling system fails the reactor simply goes out.

And there is really very little so called nuclear waste even in fuel hungry breeder reactors.

95% of all nuclear fuel is nothing but the same uranium that is in your granite counter tops. Of the remaining 5%, 40% of that can be reused as fuel, some of the remainder can be used for medical isotopes leaving only a few percent to be stored until some use can be found for it.

I just posted these so please read and learn.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/115779-the-big-idea-small-town-nukes.html#post2268883

then read this

Bad idea. The waste get's shipped where ?
By what method ?
Who is going to install them ? Halliburton ?

Quake rattles Chilean-U.S. uranium move - UPI.com

What you do not seem to understand because you blindly subscribe to the rampant misinformation regarding nuclear waste is that there really is very very little reactor fuel that cannot be recycled. But we here in the USA are so afraid of nuclear power that we have laws prohibiting the recycling of nuclear fuel.

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste - WSJ.com
Ninety-five percent of a spent fuel rod is plain old U-238, the nonfissionable variety that exists in granite tabletops, stone buildings and the coal burned in coal plants to generate electricity. Uranium-238 is 1% of the earth's crust. It could be put right back in the ground where it came from.

Of the remaining 5% of a rod, one-fifth is fissionable U-235 -- which can be recycled as fuel. Another one-fifth is plutonium, also recyclable as fuel. Much of the remaining three-fifths has important uses as medical and industrial isotopes. Forty percent of all medical diagnostic procedures in this country now involve some form of radioactive isotope, and nuclear medicine is a $4 billion business. Unfortunately, we must import all our tracer material from Canada, .....

What remains after all this material has been extracted from spent fuel rods are some isotopes for which no important uses have yet been found, but which can be stored for future retrieval. France, which completely reprocesses its recyclable material, stores all the unused remains -- from 30 years of generating 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy -- beneath the floor of a single room at La Hague.

The supposed problem of "nuclear waste" is entirely the result of a the decision in 1976 by President Gerald Ford to suspend reprocessing, which President Jimmy Carter made permanent in 1977.

We are operating under a delusion that is nearly 40 years old( probably older than you) and you are falling for it.

And did you read the article where it mentioned the new Toshiba "nuclear battery" would last 30 years (a longer life span than fuel rods in large reactors) before needing to be refueled? Certainly waste is not the issue you believe it to be.

I find it curious that people who want to look to the future and new technology ignore the advances in a proven, emission free power producing technology due to baseless fears that have been propagated for decades.

And if you're at all interested in learning how to all but eliminate fossil fuels for household use read this.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/115803-truly-green-energy-efficient-construction.html
 
Last edited:
Vermont's nuclear power plant will be decommissioned, and here's why:

Vermont Senate Votes to Shut Down Nuclear Plant

The state legislatures decide on the future of existing nuclear power plants based on recommendations from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which doesn't change its advisory staff every time there's a new president. The problem has ALWAYS been the dangers inherent in maintaining the plants (as described in the link above) and of course the nuclear waste storage. To imply it's always political is just another one of your blanket, inaccurate, statements.


23 out of the 30 VT state senators are Democrats or Progressives.. They have an agenda - even you should understand that.
 
One area in which I wish we resembled the French is in the area of using nuclear power as a major energy source.

Considering the negative effects of our petroleum dependency - oil spill and national security risks - do any of the Lefties want to explain why closing nuclear power plants and preventing new ones from being built was such a good idea?

Do you support shutting down all offshore drilling and building nuclear plants instead?


No. Most offshore drilling is done quite safely - even Obama himself must think that as he didn't order all offshore drilling to cease (he just called for a moratorium on new exploration).

It's not an either/or thing. We have too much infrastructure invested in petrol; we need to wean towards other forms in a manner that doesn't trash our economy.
 
One area in which I wish we resembled the French is in the area of using nuclear power as a major energy source.

Considering the negative effects of our petroleum dependency - oil spill and national security risks - do any of the Lefties want to explain why closing nuclear power plants and preventing new ones from being built was such a good idea?

Do you support shutting down all offshore drilling and building nuclear plants instead?


No. Most offshore drilling is done quite safely - even Obama himself must think that as he didn't order all offshore drilling to cease (he just called for a moratorium on new exploration).

It's not an either/or thing. We have too much infrastructure invested in petrol; we need to wean towards other forms in a manner that doesn't trash our economy.

So not having nuclear plants has nothing to do with this. You just shot down the premise of your lame OP.
 
I don't know where you get that, bub. I'm all for having more nuclear power plants; we need the electricity. They are not mutually exclusive with continuing offshore drilling for petroleum based energy.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top