Why do democrats hate nuclear power again?

[oreo]

Democrats have always been against nuclear power--especially Obama--the only time they're for it--is when they're in front of their constituents campaigning.

Notably Republicans put up a bill--as a counter to the Cap & Trade bill--that would have required that we build 20 new nuclear power plants over the next 20 years-- DEMS. VOTED NO & instead voted for the Cap & Trade bill.

 

[Zoom-boing]

where do we dump the waste? really? shoot It at the sun? are you mad? what would be the consequences? and then, how would we store it all and what about an accident?

I say, too risky. let some genius figure it all out. maybe/hopefully another energy source greater and cleaner than the nuclear process we currently understand will be developed.

We already have a place to store it, and it is called Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Storage Site.

There will never be any waste stored there. What a waste.

There are countries that are much less capable of doing this than us and they are already doing it.

Yucca is history.

Yup, we should be looking to France as a model for nuclear energy. Why aren't we?

France's nuclear solution
What if there were a way to get around nuclear energy's big problem— radioactive waste? There is.

America gets one-fifth of its power from nuclear power plants. Nuclear is far and away the cheapest and most reliable alternative to carbon-emitting coal. Yet we all know that nuclear energy carries one great big negative: the problem of nuclear waste, the radioactive residue from enriched uranium.

Now, suppose there were a solution to this problem? A solution that reduced the amount and the toxicity of nuclear waste by 80 percent or more? That would be useful, right?

Well guess what—it’s doable. Better yet—it’s done.

This week, I visited a facility in Normandy where France reprocesses the water from France’s 58 (soon to be 59) nuclear reactors, as well as waste from reactors in other European Union countries and Japan.

Used uranium is removed from reactor cores and chemically manipulated to restore its radioactivity. This process creates new fuels—and only small amounts of waste byproducts. The process can be repeated a third time and perhaps a fourth.

Yet in the United States, where reprocessing was invented, used uranium is simply discarded.

The result is highly wasteful: The once-used uranium still retains 96 percent of its energy potential. The result is likewise highly dangerous: That 96 percent potent uranium also retains a corresponding proportion of its toxicity to human life. So why do we not reprocess?

The decision was not made by accident. Back in the 1970s, the U.S. made a conscious policy decision to shut down its reprocessing facilities. The decision had nothing to do with energy policy, and everything to do with that era’s arms control illusions.

One of the byproducts of reprocessing uranium is plutonium. The plutonium produced by a civil reactor is not weapons-grade. It can be used as a fuel itself, and in France it is. But theoretically, this low-grade plutonium could be reprocessed again and again and enriched to a point where it could be used as a weapon.

On the basis of this fact, the Carter administration decided that the U.S. must eschew reprocessing altogether. It reasoned as follows: If the U.S. civil nuclear program permitted any reprocessing, even for fuel purposes only, that would compromise U.S. efforts to persuade other countries not to reprocess. And (the reasoning continued) an across-the-board ban on reprocessing was the only way to ensure against nuclear proliferation.

France's nuclear solution - THE WEEK

 

[Zoom-boing]

Democrats have always been against nuclear power--especially Obama--the only time they're for it--is when they're in front of their constituents campaigning.

Notably Republicans put up a bill--as a counter to the Cap & Trade bill--that would have required that we build 20 new nuclear power plants over the next 20 years-- DEMS. VOTED NO & instead voted for the Cap & Trade bill.

Interesting, isn't it? If they really want 'green, carbon friendly' energy, you'd think nuclear would be at the top of the list. Well, I'm sure it would be if Immelt and Gore had jumped on that band wagon.

Granted, Republican amendments—as many as 400 have been threatened—are as much a stalling tactic as policy proposal. But the spat raises a very important question: Is Washington trying to promote cleaner energy in general, or just certain types of energy?

Nuclear-power proponents are puzzled by what seems a logical inconsistency on part of Democrats who consistently shoot down the proposals. If the goal is to promote low-emissions power sources, then nuclear power should be part of the mix. If the goal is to promote new power sources, then existing wind and solar power facilities shouldn’t be showered with federal goodies. That is, states that already have loads of wind power would be half-way to meeting new renewable-energy targets without building any new clean energy.

Even neutral observers, such as MIT, said as much this week in criticizing nuclear power’s exclusion from nearly all state and the proposed federal renewable-energy standards.

Is Nuclear Power Renewable Energy? - Environmental Capital - WSJ

 

[Sweet Willy]

We already have a place to store it, and it is called Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Storage Site.

There will never be any waste stored there. What a waste.

There are countries that are much less capable of doing this than us and they are already doing it.

Yucca is history.

Yup, we should be looking to France as a model for nuclear energy. Why aren't we?

Cause they're a bunch of limp wristed pansies?

The waste issue has just been solidified as an object of fear for the left. Even on the right the NIMBY crowd pops up. But in general, the way the right feels safe with guns, the left feels safe just not having deadly toxic waste around. It's a stuck on issue and it's not going away or leaving the democratic platform anytime soon.

 

[Liberty]

the waste would vanish before it comes even close to the sun's surface. hell, just shoot it all off into space randomly (out of our orbit, obviously). I think this issue is proof positive that democrats aren't for the people at all, they are just for more power.

 

[jillian]

Interesting, isn't it? If they really want 'green, carbon friendly' energy, you'd think nuclear would be at the top of the list. Well, I'm sure it would be if Immelt and Gore had jumped on that band wagon.

No... it wouldn't be at the top of the list... not until it can be safely disposed of. If it's not done properly, nukes are an environmental disaster and health problem waiting to happen.

Don't believe me? You can ask my neighbor who used to live in Chernobyl... he might not be able to answer you, though, they removed his vocal chords a year or so ago cause of the cancer...

 

[Zoom-boing]

the waste would vanish before it comes even close to the sun's surface. hell, just shoot it all off into space randomly (out of our orbit, obviously). I think this issue is proof positive that democrats aren't for the people at all, they are just for more power.

What if another Challenger incident were to happen with a payload of nuclear waste? France seems to be doing it right; let's try that first.

 

[KittenKoder]

the waste would vanish before it comes even close to the sun's surface. hell, just shoot it all off into space randomly (out of our orbit, obviously). I think this issue is proof positive that democrats aren't for the people at all, they are just for more power.

The government wants your money, they'll do anything for it, so they can funnel it into pet projects.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Or we could do like Zoom said and follow the example of France's nuke power and their handling of the "waste"

C'mon people is not too tough to read and comprehend his post.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Interesting, isn't it? If they really want 'green, carbon friendly' energy, you'd think nuclear would be at the top of the list. Well, I'm sure it would be if Immelt and Gore had jumped on that band wagon.

No... it wouldn't be at the top of the list... not until it can be safely disposed of. If it's not done properly, nukes are an environmental disaster and health problem waiting to happen.

Don't believe me? You can ask my neighbor who used to live in Chernobyl... he might not be able to answer you, though, they removed his vocal chords a year or so ago cause of the cancer...

Please read the link I provided a few posts up about disposing nuclear waste (the one from The Week).

 

[Sweet Willy]

the waste would vanish before it comes even close to the sun's surface. hell, just shoot it all off into space randomly (out of our orbit, obviously). I think this issue is proof positive that democrats aren't for the people at all, they are just for more power.

Rockets explode a little to often, even now, to start shooting nuclear waste up in them. And once we were safe enough with that, we won't be shooting it into the sun. Maybe the moon or mars or somewhere but not the sun. Too many questions.

 

[Xenophon]

where do we dump the waste? really? shoot It at the sun? are you mad? what would be the consequences? and then, how would we store it all and what about an accident?

I say, too risky. let some genius figure it all out. maybe/hopefully another energy source greater and cleaner than the nuclear process we currently understand will be developed.

It probaly escapes you that that a large part of the US Navy uses nuclear reactors since the 1950s, and that they refuel every five years and the waste has never had an accident or a problem storing it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

where do we dump the waste? really? shoot It at the sun? are you mad? what would be the consequences? and then, how would we store it all and what about an accident?

I say, too risky. let some genius figure it all out. maybe/hopefully another energy source greater and cleaner than the nuclear process we currently understand will be developed.

It probaly escapes you that that a large part of the US Navy uses nuclear reactors since the 1950s, and that they refuel every five years and the waste has never had an accident or a problem storing it.

people aren't supposed to hear the facts

 

[Sweet Willy]

Interesting, isn't it? If they really want 'green, carbon friendly' energy, you'd think nuclear would be at the top of the list. Well, I'm sure it would be if Immelt and Gore had jumped on that band wagon.

No... it wouldn't be at the top of the list... not until it can be safely disposed of. If it's not done properly, nukes are an environmental disaster and health problem waiting to happen.

Don't believe me? You can ask my neighbor who used to live in Chernobyl... he might not be able to answer you, though, they removed his vocal chords a year or so ago cause of the cancer...

In a perfect world, we'll get rid of nukes too. But as long as we've been sitting here on the edge of nuclear destruction anyway........why so unconmfortable? We're storing WEAPONS GRADE nuclear material all over the world in underground bunkers and submarines. Have been for years. For the purpose of killing people, we get to keep this shit around but for the purpose of giving us energy, we can't use it? Makes no sense. If we can keep it around for war, and we are anyway, can we please make some electricity? And then we'll force the same military to store the waste in the old missile silos and keep it just as safe as a nuclear missile.

 

[oreo]

Democrats have always been against nuclear power--especially Obama--the only time they're for it--is when they're in front of their constituents campaigning.

Notably Republicans put up a bill--as a counter to the Cap & Trade bill--that would have required that we build 20 new nuclear power plants over the next 20 years-- DEMS. VOTED NO & instead voted for the Cap & Trade bill.

Interesting, isn't it? If they really want 'green, carbon friendly' energy, you'd think nuclear would be at the top of the list. Well, I'm sure it would be if Immelt and Gore had jumped on that band wagon.

Granted, Republican amendments—as many as 400 have been threatened—are as much a stalling tactic as policy proposal. But the spat raises a very important question: Is Washington trying to promote cleaner energy in general, or just certain types of energy?

Nuclear-power proponents are puzzled by what seems a logical inconsistency on part of Democrats who consistently shoot down the proposals. If the goal is to promote low-emissions power sources, then nuclear power should be part of the mix. If the goal is to promote new power sources, then existing wind and solar power facilities shouldn’t be showered with federal goodies. That is, states that already have loads of wind power would be half-way to meeting new renewable-energy targets without building any new clean energy.

Even neutral observers, such as MIT, said as much this week in criticizing nuclear power’s exclusion from nearly all state and the proposed federal renewable-energy standards.

Is Nuclear Power Renewable Energy? - Environmental Capital - WSJ

There was not ONE SINGLE PENNY in the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill that was dedicated to Nuclear Power. That should give everyone a clue--DEMOCRATS are against it.

They have always been against it--again the only time they are for it--is when they are out there campaigning for re-election.

But here is the idiosy: They passed the Cap & Trade bill that would have skyrocked electricity prices to consumers--in the worst recession we have had in decades--WITHOUT providing clean green infracstructure FIRST. Unbelivable.

 

[Xenophon]

The waste has been stored in mountains far from populated areas for years.

There has been complaints about it, but the complaints come from people that hate nuclear power and just want it shut down.

BTW, socialist France has almost all its electrical power from reactors.

 

[Fatality]

where do we dump the waste? really? shoot It at the sun? are you mad? what would be the consequences? and then, how would we store it all and what about an accident?

.

Fearmonger.

I fear nuclear power.:

all liberals do, kinda like a black cat crossing your path huh?

 

[jillian]

Please read the link I provided a few posts up about disposing nuclear waste (the one from The Week).

I appreciate the link. And Frum's opinion is interesting, but I suspect he'd be a bit less cavalier about radiation if the nuclear plant was built behind his house. he doesn't ever address HOW nuclear waste gets transported...which was one of the huge issues in terms of nuclear power.

And no one has yet addressed the risks of another Three-Mile-Island

once those issues are resolved, i suspect a lot more people would accept the concept of nuclear energy, in theory.

until then, I wouldn't live next to a nuclear plant. would you?

 

[Xenophon]

Three mile island was due to cost cutting in safety and low bid contracts.

If a plant is designed with safety in mind, and carefully inspected it would be fine.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Please read the link I provided a few posts up about disposing nuclear waste (the one from The Week).

I appreciate the link. And Frum's opinion is interesting, but I suspect he'd be a bit less cavalier about radiation if the nuclear plant was built behind his house. he doesn't ever address HOW nuclear waste gets transported...which was one of the huge issues in terms of nuclear power.

And no one has yet addressed the risks of another Three-Mile-Island

once those issues are resolved, i suspect a lot more people would accept the concept of nuclear energy, in theory.

until then, I wouldn't live next to a nuclear plant. would you?

Lived a few miles from two of them. Never had any problem. The one I live about 10 miles from now has some great fishing in the cooling resevoir. Some of the cleanest water around.