Nuke power plant question raised again.

[GHook93]

First, Obama and the Dimocrats were able to put a end to offshore drilling, when the public wants it, because of the BP oil spill. The moratorium on offshore drilling is still going on, despite the fact that oil prices are skyrocketing! It will continue to go on.

Next, the 30 year moratorium on nuclear power was set to end because of political pressure. In 30 years there has never been a meltdown at ANY of the 104 nuclear reactors in this country! NONE! All we had is OVER-BLOWN Three Mile Island incident. NOTHING MORE. Yet for 30 years no new nuclear plants. Now we were set to do it and the Dimocrats are set to put a moratorium on it, because of the Japan meltdown! They say we need to learn from Japan incident before we go forward with more plants. Here is the lesson: Don't build the plants on fault lines or close to fault lines and don't build them were huricane and tsunami are effect them!!! Lesson learned, now build the plants like planned!

Natural Gas is getting attacked because of Fracking (which is a reason issue and concern I might add).

Next Coal will come under attack, because in the words to the Douche Bag in NV, "Coal makes us sick!"

If electric cars are our future and YES THEY ARE OUR FUTURE!!! Then we will need an abundance of stationary power sources. Sorry but wind and solar aren't going to cut the mustard at this point or anytime in the near future!

BBC News - Japan earthquake: Impact on US nuclear energy future?
He notes the comments of Senators Joe Lieberman and Chuck Schumer on Sunday urging caution when it comes to additional nuclear plants.

Mr Lieberman called for Congress to "put the brakes" on building nuclear capacity until the lessons from Japan can be assessed and absorbed.

Robert Alvarez, a nuclear expert at the Institute for Policy Studies, sees the current anti-government, anti-spending mood in Washington also working against the momentum on nuclear power.

"Given the combination of what is transpiring in Japan and the tremendous zeal, especially by the Tea Party element of the Republican party, to make deep cuts in the budget, I think the prospects for [the nuclear] loan guarantees are very dim."

But the most lasting impact of Japan is likely to be on America's existing nuclear facilities.

Political pressure for more stringent oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Committee, America's nuclear authority, is already mounting.

Democrats Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, who authored the 2009 climate bill, are calling for an investigation and hearings into the safety and preparedness of America's nuclear plants, 23 of which have similar designs to the Fukushima plant.

 

[westwall]

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.

Yes, it is. However radiation is not the killer lurking in the shadows, it is disease from all the bodies contaminating the water all over the place. Cholera is a very real possibility along with a whole host of other nasty diseases.

I see it as adding insult to injury......those clouds from reactor explosions are going to be a real bitch to the public health down the road that can't be ignored, and have yet to come to full and terrible fruition.

Within two months the vast majority of ionizing radiation (the dangerous stuff) will be gone. The rest is fairly benign and while you don't want to eat it or sleep in it, it is mild enough as to be no longer a problem.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

We have a huge waste storage problem here. We won't recycle the stuff, or store it sanely.
The non recycle thing goes back to Jimmy Carter wanting to move forward on a SALT treaty. Recycling would result in large quantities of bomb material as part of his rational. We have yet to come up with a logical way to store the spent fuel, (there are lots of competing designs, but no one can on agree on which is best, so the worst possible method, just storing the stuff as is, it what we have wound up doing.)

The problem with Nuke construction is you have a huge up front cost that is not recoverable by any rate plan that is acceptable to US consumers. The capital cost of a nuke plant amortized over its useful life results in a per KWH charge about double any current alternative.

While I personally think Nuke is superior to coal or oil I have to recognize that for a substantial majority of the population don't agree. And that there is not way a nuke plant will ever be built again in my lifetime.

 

[skeptic]

There is a safe form of nuclear energy and we won't endorse it because it doesn't produce weapons grade plutonium as a byproduct:

Thorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Cool web page on what is going on in Japan.

It is mostly a Thorium boosting site.

I never heard of thorium before. It sounds like a cool solution. I don't see it happening, but it sounds intriguing

.

 

[skeptic]

Cool web page on what is going on in Japan.

It is mostly a Thorium boosting site.

I never heard of thorium before. It sounds like a cool solution. I don't see it happening, but it sounds intriguing

.

China should be making Thorium reactors, selling thorium reactors and selling processed thorium fuels.

They could be energy independent and even a net exporter of energy, which would sustain their industrial economy, solve many of their enviro issues and enhance their national security.

Plus they would be doing the world a huge favor.

 

[taichiliberal]

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?

Okay, we promise we won't build them on the Ring of Fire...

Sounds like another neocon/conservative/corporatist wonk who can't deal with facts that contradict his beliefs and opinions. Let's see if I'm wrong.

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

And petroleum has had no negative impact, right?

I never said that it didn't. What is YOUR problem here?

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

Numbers? How many are operating? What are their operating costs compared to other sources?

For starters:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

Nuclear Energy More Expensive Than Some Clean Power, Study Says: Cleantech News and Analysis «

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….

By whom?

FYI:

Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant (NY) News - The New York Times

Feds to weigh Indian Point's effect on Hudson fish | The Journal News | lohud.com

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.

Who denies that disposing of the waste is the biggest hurdle?

The entire nuclear power industry when it continues on the same path of storing the damned stuff DESPITE the fact that the containers will eventually wear out before the waste becomes harmless, or that there is no guarantee as to the effects of merely burying it underground in coming generations. Actions speak louder than words, as we see here:

EDF nuclear waste stored in open air in Russia: report | Reuters


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,

If that's your point, why'd you not get right to it?

Why are you being a picayune little bitch? Given how I had to bring you up to speed regarding basic information surrounding the subject, I'd say my approach was warranted....your obvious aloof and snarky attitude non-withstanding.

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.

Devotion to nuclear?

See above information and responses.....what would YOU call it?

 

[taichiliberal]

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

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.

So I can count you as an enthusiastic supporter of nuclear power now? the only reason we have a problem with nuclear waste in the US is that people like you stopped us from building newer reactors that recycle it. France gets 17% of its electricity from recycled nuclear fuel, and is building the first generation 3 reactor now.

Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy

Yep, and here's a couple of facts about France that willfully ignorant Windbag's don't want to hear about:

EDF nuclear waste stored in open air in Russia: report | Reuters


France reports incidents at 8 nuclear plants

http://texasvox.org/2011/02/22/franc...uclear-plants/


France Moves Ahead With Nuclear Waste Project

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=12837958

 

[taichiliberal]

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

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.

A good start is sending it to breeder reactors

which DOES NOT deal with all the waste and brings along the problem of transportation, temporary storage, etc.

 

[JBeukema]

Sounds like another neocon/conservative/corporatist

That is some funny shit

 

[taichiliberal]

First, Obama and the Dimocrats were able to put a end to offshore drilling, when the public wants it, because of the BP oil spill. The moratorium on offshore drilling is still going on, despite the fact that oil prices are skyrocketing! It will continue to go on.

Next, the 30 year moratorium on nuclear power was set to end because of political pressure. In 30 years there has never been a meltdown at ANY of the 104 nuclear reactors in this country! NONE! All we had is OVER-BLOWN Three Mile Island incident. NOTHING MORE. Yet for 30 years no new nuclear plants. Now we were set to do it and the Dimocrats are set to put a moratorium on it, because of the Japan meltdown! They say we need to learn from Japan incident before we go forward with more plants. Here is the lesson: Don't build the plants on fault lines or close to fault lines and don't build them were huricane and tsunami are effect them!!! Lesson learned, now build the plants like planned!

Natural Gas is getting attacked because of Fracking (which is a reason issue and concern I might add).

Next Coal will come under attack, because in the words to the Douche Bag in NV, "Coal makes us sick!"

If electric cars are our future and YES THEY ARE OUR FUTURE!!! Then we will need an abundance of stationary power sources. Sorry but wind and solar aren't going to cut the mustard at this point or anytime in the near future!

BBC News - Japan earthquake: Impact on US nuclear energy future?
He notes the comments of Senators Joe Lieberman and Chuck Schumer on Sunday urging caution when it comes to additional nuclear plants.

Mr Lieberman called for Congress to "put the brakes" on building nuclear capacity until the lessons from Japan can be assessed and absorbed.

Robert Alvarez, a nuclear expert at the Institute for Policy Studies, sees the current anti-government, anti-spending mood in Washington also working against the momentum on nuclear power.

"Given the combination of what is transpiring in Japan and the tremendous zeal, especially by the Tea Party element of the Republican party, to make deep cuts in the budget, I think the prospects for [the nuclear] loan guarantees are very dim."

But the most lasting impact of Japan is likely to be on America's existing nuclear facilities.

Political pressure for more stringent oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Committee, America's nuclear authority, is already mounting.

Democrats Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, who authored the 2009 climate bill, are calling for an investigation and hearings into the safety and preparedness of America's nuclear plants, 23 of which have similar designs to the Fukushima plant.

To clue in this jabbering jackass Ghook:


--- within two years after 3 Mile Island, you had a spike in infant, child, and elderly deaths along with various cancers (i.e., thyroid) indicative to radiation poisoning.

Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News


--- Nuke power accidents have been happening for decades...but so long as there are no immediate and/or massive numbers of illness/death, the MSM doesn't trumpet it beyond a 72 hour limit

U.S. Nuclear Accidents

Major Nuclear Power Plant Accidents


---- Obviously, our jabbering Ghook is a bit behind the times regarding Obama:

Obama unveils plan to build new nuclear plant
Advertisement


Obama OKs Oil Drilling off U.S. Coasts

Obama OKs Oil Drilling off U.S. Coasts - CBS News

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Build a nuclear power plant on a place where four tectonic plates meet and there's constant earthquakes. Put it at sea level on the coast.

Could the Japanese have put it in a worse place? This wasn't a question of "if", but of "when".

Now we know. We shouldn't build nuclear reactors in earthquake zones or on the coast. Let's keep them away from tornadoes and hurricanes and floods.

Oh my god, I agree with rdean!

Seriously though, Apparently these issues with the reactors melting were caused by the following tsunami, not the quake. Atleast that is what has been reported, even through Japanese media. Only allowing reactors to be built in none high quake zones seems to present an entire host of new problems. However, I 100% agree that these reactors should be built inland, instead of on Shore.

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah I know, They need sea water to cool them. Hey? Spend the fucking money to pipe the sea water inland like they do Oil.

Another thing to consider, is why exactly does Japan have 6 plants on it's East Coast? = Maybe to make sure that the jet stream takes it away from Japan? Actually no. There are 11 on the Western shore, which would bring it across the sea of Japan and into Russia, Korea and China instead of away from it. I counted 19 plants in Japan. Apparently, The U.S has 36 plants that are licensed to operate. California has 4. This isn't taking into consideration how many reactors each site has by the way.

Now, Japan is smaller than California, Japan is 377873 km2, and California is 423970 km2. One has to wonder if they packed too many Plants and / or reactors in a dangerous area, not to mention near shore, it should have been clear that a disaster would eventually happen? ~BH

INSCDB: Maps: JAPAN

 

[taichiliberal]

Yes, it is. However radiation is not the killer lurking in the shadows, it is disease from all the bodies contaminating the water all over the place. Cholera is a very real possibility along with a whole host of other nasty diseases.

I see it as adding insult to injury......those clouds from reactor explosions are going to be a real bitch to the public health down the road that can't be ignored, and have yet to come to full and terrible fruition.

Within two months the vast majority of ionizing radiation (the dangerous stuff) will be gone. The rest is fairly benign and while you don't want to eat it or sleep in it, it is mild enough as to be no longer a problem.

Two hours, let alone two months of exposure to certain levels of radiation will set you up for future cancers and such that may or may not be treatable, if it doesn't kill you outright in a matter of days or weeks. The "fairly benign" stuff you mention will be in the ground, water, food, live stock...and that's a nice set up for future cancers. This is a major FUBB (fucked up beyond belief) syndrome that won't be minimized by NRC, nuclear industry or gov't placating or rationalization.

 

[taichiliberal]

Build a nuclear power plant on a place where four tectonic plates meet and there's constant earthquakes. Put it at sea level on the coast.

Could the Japanese have put it in a worse place? This wasn't a question of "if", but of "when".

Now we know. We shouldn't build nuclear reactors in earthquake zones or on the coast. Let's keep them away from tornadoes and hurricanes and floods.

Oh my god, I agree with rdean!

Seriously though, Apparently these issues with the reactors melting were caused by the following tsunami, not the quake. Atleast that is what has been reported, even through Japanese media. Only allowing reactors to be built in none high quake zones seems to present an entire host of new problems. However, I 100% agree that these reactors should be built inland, instead of on Shore.

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah I know, They need sea water to cool them. Hey? Spend the fucking money to pipe the sea water inland like they do Oil.

Another thing to consider, is why exactly does Japan have 6 plants on it's East Coast? = Maybe to make sure that the jet stream takes it away from Japan? Actually no. There are 11 on the Western shore, which would bring it across the sea of Japan and into Russia, Korea and China instead of away from it. I counted 19 plants in Japan. Apparently, The U.S has 36 plants that are licensed to operate. California has 4. This isn't taking into consideration how many reactors each site has by the way.

Now, Japan is smaller than California, Japan is 377873 km2, and California is 423970 km2. One has to wonder if they packed too many Plants and / or reactors in a dangerous area, not to mention near shore, it should have been clear that a disaster would eventually happen? ~BH

INSCDB: Maps: JAPAN

As usual, you're buying into the party line without doing any critical thinking. Observe and learn:

SAN ONOFRE: Regulatory commission had concerns about generators at nuclear plant

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sd...589b063e6.html


Tokyo Electric to Build US Nuclear Plants
The no-BS info on Japan's disastrous nuclear operators

http://www.gregpalast.com/no-bs-info...axpayer-funds/


And if you do some honest research, you'd know that America already has nuke plants built on fault lines.

 

[taichiliberal]

There is a safe form of nuclear energy and we won't endorse it because it doesn't produce weapons grade plutonium as a byproduct:

Thorium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmm, sounds good but

Thorium reactors

 

[taichiliberal]

Sounds like another neocon/conservative/corporatist

That is some funny shit

Not as funny as what I did to you on Post #27, of which you obviously have no logical or rational response to. Carry on.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

As usual, you're buying into the party line without doing any critical thinking. Observe and learn:

SAN ONOFRE: Regulatory commission had concerns about generators at nuclear plant

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sd...589b063e6.html

Really now? Where did I mention anything about a Party or even Political beliefs? Are you fucking stupid? Do you even read the post that you quote?

Tokyo Electric to Build US Nuclear Plants
The no-BS info on Japan's disastrous nuclear operators

http://www.gregpalast.com/no-bs-inf... You need alot of help don't yuh? :clap2: ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Sounds like another neocon/conservative/corporatist

That is some funny shit

Not as funny as what I did to you on Post #27, of which you obviously have no logical or rational response to. Carry on.

Quote in my post before the last, where you disagree with me? Can you do that, huh you basket case? I'll have you swinging yourself from a rope by the end of this week if you keep this crystal clear bullshit going. ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Build a nuclear power plant on a place where four tectonic plates meet and there's constant earthquakes. Put it at sea level on the coast.

Could the Japanese have put it in a worse place? This wasn't a question of "if", but of "when".

Now we know. We shouldn't build nuclear reactors in earthquake zones or on the coast. Let's keep them away from tornadoes and hurricanes and floods.

Oh my god, I agree with rdean!

Seriously though, Apparently these issues with the reactors melting were caused by the following tsunami, not the quake. Atleast that is what has been reported, even through Japanese media. Only allowing reactors to be built in none high quake zones seems to present an entire host of new problems. However, I 100% agree that these reactors should be built inland, instead of on Shore.

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah I know, They need sea water to cool them. Hey? Spend the fucking money to pipe the sea water inland like they do Oil.

Another thing to consider, is why exactly does Japan have 6 plants on it's East Coast? = Maybe to make sure that the jet stream takes it away from Japan? Actually no. There are 11 on the Western shore, which would bring it across the sea of Japan and into Russia, Korea and China instead of away from it. I counted 19 plants in Japan. Apparently, The U.S has 36 plants that are licensed to operate. California has 4. This isn't taking into consideration how many reactors each site has by the way.

Now, Japan is smaller than California, Japan is 377873 km2, and California is 423970 km2. One has to wonder if they packed too many Plants and / or reactors in a dangerous area, not to mention near shore, it should have been clear that a disaster would eventually happen? ~BH

INSCDB: Maps: JAPAN

As usual, you're buying into the party line without doing any critical thinking. Observe and learn:

SAN ONOFRE: Regulatory commission had concerns about generators at nuclear plant

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sd...589b063e6.html


Tokyo Electric to Build US Nuclear Plants
The no-BS info on Japan's disastrous nuclear operators

http://www.gregpalast.com/no-bs-info...axpayer-funds/


And if you do some honest research, you'd know that America already has nuke plants built on fault lines.

Hey Dummy? Apologize for your mistake, and I won't put my post & your response in my signature. I would apologize if I did it. Listen my Liberal nutjob. Use what brain you have left for once. Just some advice. Otherwise like Drago told Rocky, "I must break you!". ~BH

 

[JBeukema]

Dude, if you think I'm a conservative, you must be a Marxist