Nuke power plant question raised again.

Discussion in 'Energy' started by taichiliberal, Mar 14, 2011.

  1. taichiliberal
    Offline

    taichiliberal BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    3,517
    Thanks Received:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +239
    Okay, so once again a nuclear plant disaster will put the questions to the American people (if not the international community)…..how safe are these things? Do we have a contingency plan that’s reasonable in the face of an emergency?

    Now the first thing that the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) will tell you is that the worst nuclear plant disaster that happened in the USA resulted in NO loss of life or property (Three Mile Island back in 1979) with no negative side effects or problems years later….which is not entirely true Three Mile Island - 25 Years Later
    Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News

    I’m sure that all the industrial countries around the world that have had nuclear power plants operating for decades without any major incidents will look at Japan and call it an unfortunate and unforeseen phenomena, just as Chernobyl was in Russia …. as no one could predict an earthquake and tsunami in Japan affecting the power plants, and no (American) plant has the design of the old Chernobyl plant. They’ll point to the clean efficiency of nuclear power.

    What they WON’T discuss is the following nagging little details…..like the fact that nuclear power plants have NOT delivered the promise of “cheap electricity” in many parts of this country as well as the rest of the world …. like the fact that any changes to surrounding environments due to occasional venting (gas or liquid) is only looked at as non-harmful in the present….or that all the well managed procedures for storage of the deadly waste is just a TEMPORARY procedure that future generations will have to deal with.

    Here’s my point: with hydro, geo-thermal, wind, solar, oil, gas energy sources, even if you have a disaster like a natural gas explosion or oil plant explosion, it is contained within a specific radius, and can in a relative short time be cleaned up and repaired. That is NOT the case when nuclear power is involved. Also, people exposed to cancer causing radiation levels may not show symptoms for decades.

    People should look to Japan as a wake up call and to force their leadership and industry to RE-THINK the devotion to nuclear power in it’s present form.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,517
    Thanks Received:
    19,878
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,525
    My only problem is that if it is a viable form of energy, why can't the power companies build them without Joe Taxpayer standing behind any accident.

    Private insurance companies won't touch them. Something goes wrong.....taxpayers foot the bill
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  3. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    wind and solar will not get us where we want to go, nuclear will. There fore, nuclear should go forward, we have regulatory agencies that vet everything many times, there on plant that has been in build stage for 20 years, each time we learn more we engineer in a new level of protection, there comes a time where in you have to actually operate it, for instance the 2 plants in the south east won't face the same risks that the japanese plants did and do.
     
  4. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Actually, that's incorrect.
     
  5. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,048
    Thanks Received:
    4,751
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,756
    becasue no one is going to wait 50 years or more for a return on the money it takes and even then, in the end, they may just not operate it due to regulatory strictures driven by insane energy policy....then what?
     
  6. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,517
    Thanks Received:
    19,878
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,525
    I have no problem with nuclear being part of our energy solution. How many Americans have died mining coal? Just need to be sure it is safe and evacuation is feasible. A nuclear accident is very low probability but very high potential casualties
     
  7. Midnight Marauder
    Offline

    Midnight Marauder BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    12,404
    Thanks Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    One of the main problems getting better and even safer nuclear plant technology online is regulatory red tape and flaming hoops. Have you seen the "Nuclear Battery?" Can't do them, they are mired in so much red tape and utter crap, we'll probably never see these in production.
     
  8. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    Why do ignorant people thing nuclear power is unsafe?

    Since you are obviously an expert, can you tell me how large of an area will be contaminated as a result of the accident?
     
  9. taichiliberal
    Offline

    taichiliberal BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    3,517
    Thanks Received:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +239
    I would have no problem with nuke plants IF they had the problem of decontaminating that waste/spent rods solved. But they don't, they just store it away and hope someone will solve the problem in the near future.

    That's several decades of nuke waste, man. Not good!

    And you're right about accidents.....case in point here on Long Island, New York investors footed the bill for the failed Shoreham Plant, but eventually the taxpayer got stuck with the clean up and shut down!

    And of course, if there are no immediate deaths or illnesses, the State and the company go into overdrive to deny cancers and deaths of surrounding residents years later.

    I really feel for the people of Japan, because for a lot of folk their hell is just beginning.
     
  10. taichiliberal
    Offline

    taichiliberal BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    3,517
    Thanks Received:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +239
    The "red tape" is born out of the nuke plant companies fudging facts and cutting corners when it suits them. Case in point: in New York, the Indian Point power plant has had so many violations over the years that it should have been shut down decades ago! And if it weren't for people being more involved after 3 mile Island and a Gov. who was realistic about evacuation plans, the flaws in the Shoreham plant would have never come to light, and it would have gone on line with them!

    And thern there is the case regarding a few decades of nuclear waste that no one knows how to decontaminate.

    I say, just have a few experimental facilities to work out all the kinks, then you can use them for public service.
     

Share This Page