Nuclear Power: Boon or bane

we need to bring nuclear power to the forfront. and phase out the coal fired plants.

upset wrote:

we need to bring nuclear power to the forfront. and phase out the coal fired plants.

I certainly second your suggestion.
Nuclear power is an energy source that has proved itself over decades to be safe, clean and economic yet it is perceived as being dangerous, dirty and expensive. Nuclear power technology is well understood and information is so easy to obtain yet it is the subject of such wild ignorance as demonstrated by Mayer the author of the article, Nuclear Power Boon or bane.

Nuclear power is economic. During the last few years the IEA has found nuclear power to be cheaper than coal. Only hydro power is cheaper to produce.

Nuclear power reduces greenhouse emissions. Over the full energy cycle, including fuel processing, operation and decommissioning, nuclear has among the least, emissions per unit of electricity produced of any energy source.

Nuclear power is sustainable. Uranium is massively abundant in the earth's crust and in the sea. Furthermore there is at least three times a much thorium as uranium, and thorium can be used as a nuclear fuel.
Nuclear power is clean and has the least waste problem. One pound of uranium contains as much energy as three million pounds of coal. One pound of coal produces three pounds or CO2, therefore fissioning one pound of uranium in place of burning coal saves nine million pounds of CO2 from entering the environment.
Nuclear power is safe. Nuclear power has by far the best safety record of any energy source. No deaths in the USA and only 60 deaths world wide in the nuclear power industry ever.

I do not "third" your suggestion. Ask yourself: why does nuclear power have such a bad reputation if it is so "safe, clean and economic"? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, pollutes like a duck", it is a nuclear power plant! We have been burdened with this form of "energy" to compensate for, and obfuscate, its use in the development of killing weapons. Nuclear energy is SO dangerous and SO unmanageable, despite the hubris of those who think they can manage it, that all nuclear plants should be immediately put under the control of nuclear physicists and other scientists who have no vested economic interests. But, no! The most dangerous, most unmanageable, most irresponsible, and most impossible to trace form of "energy" is put in the hands of BIG ENERGY companies. And we know their bottom line is NOT our safety. People, please! WAKE UP!

Ellen Mattaban wrote:

I do not "third" your suggestion. Ask yourself: why does nuclear power have such a bad reputation if it is so "safe, clean and economic"?

Too many liars work for newspapers and magazines.

Ellen Mattaban wrote:

I do not "third" your suggestion. Ask yourself: why does nuclear power have such a bad reputation if it is so "safe, clean and economic"? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, pollutes like a duck", it is a nuclear power plant! We have been burdened with this form of "energy" to compensate for, and obfuscate, its use in the development of killing weapons. Nuclear energy is SO dangerous and SO unmanageable, despite the hubris of those who think they can manage it, that all nuclear plants should be immediately put under the control of nuclear physicists and other scientists who have no vested economic interests. But, no! The most dangerous, most unmanageable, most irresponsible, and most impossible to trace form of "energy" is put in the hands of BIG ENERGY companies. And we know their bottom line is NOT our safety. People, please! WAKE UP!

WHAT AN IDIOT! Nuclear power has been used safely for over 30 years around the world. The only real accident was through faulty design. Newer generation reactors are even safer.

We need small, community or neighborhood reactors. Much cheaper to build and maintain and will all of a communities needs - including hydrogen generation and electirc vehicle power at relatively low cost.

Get an education and find out about the REAL world. Luddite.

The Truth Matters wrote:

<quoted text>
We need small, community or neighborhood reactors.

The Canadians have Slo-Poke and Toshiba has a similar design. I would like one in my back yard, or even my front yard, literally.

Ellen Mattaban wrote:

Ask yourself: why does nuclear power have such a bad reputation if it is so "safe, clean and economic"?

Mostly because people do not understand nuclear power and have no science background and cannot assess risks.

Here are two accidents that occurred on the same day one year apart:

On March 27th, 1980, the semi-submersible platform Alexander Kielland suddenly capsized during a storm in the North Sea, because one of its five vertical columns supporting the platform was broken off. 123 workers among the 212 people were killed.

The accident at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, was the most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history(1), even though it led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community.

I could have used coal mine disasters, boiler explosions, petro chemical plant explosions, corn elevator fires etc. Now you tell me which is the most risky energy source.

Donnie wrote:

<quoted text>Too many liars work for newspapers and magazines.

Oyster Creek nuclear plant in south Jersey just "scrammed" Tuesday morning. On Wednesday, Oyster Creek's spokeswoman Leslie Cifelli said that no radiation was released. On Thursday, NRC spokesperson Neil Sheehan said that tritium was released at Oyster Creek. It looks like Oyster Creek's PR people LIE also.

The Truth Matters wrote:

<quoted text>
WHAT AN IDIOT! Nuclear power has been used safely for over 30 years around the world. The only real accident was through faulty design. Newer generation reactors are even safer.
We need small, community or neighborhood reactors. Much cheaper to build and maintain and will all of a communities needs - including hydrogen generation and electirc vehicle power at relatively low cost.
Get an education and find out about the REAL world.Luddite.

Dear Sir: I am a 58 year old woman, with a solid education, and I live 14 miles away from one of those badly designed abominations of a nuke plant that you mention. Don't you spew your venom my way, Young Man. My son is an structural engineer with his own company; my daughter was an All-American at Stanford. What or WHOM have YOU produced??? Be careful whom you disparage. HM

Tjernobyl

3 Mile Island

Jap nuclear power plant

Boon, I say.

GigaTOE wrote:

<quoted text>
Mostly because people do not understand nuclear power and have no science background and cannot assess risks.
Here are two accidents that occurred on the same day one year apart:
On March 27th, 1980, the semi-submersible platform Alexander Kielland suddenly capsized during a storm in the North Sea, because one of its five vertical columns supporting the platform was broken off. 123 workers among the 212 people were killed.
The accident at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, was the most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history(1), even though it led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community.
I could have used coal mine disasters, boiler explosions, petro chemical plant explosions, corn elevator fires etc. Now you tell me which is the most risky energy source.

Nuclear reactors ROUTINELY release tritium, among other things. If you check out the NRC factsheet on "Tritium, Radiation Protection..." and click onto the EPA link at the end of the NRC's factsheet, you will come across the following quote from the US EPA under the "Health Effects of Tritium": "exposure to tritium increases the risk of developing cancer." Out of the mouth of the NRC! I don't want to live near a carcinogenic nuke, thank you. I suggest that all of the pro-nuclear advocates spend some time on the NRC website and read some of the thousands and thousands of documents available to the public. THEN you can really talk about "assessing risks" in a meaningful way. EM

Amazing, absolutely amazing. There are risks in any endeavor. "Tritium exposure increases the risk of developing cancer." No Sh$$! At was concentrations? How much is the increased statistical risk? Sex increases the risk of contracting AIDS. Is the AIDS thing as scary as the big C?
Note: Ellen "lives" within fourteen miles of one of those abominations. Most French "live" within a hundred miles of one of those abominations. Members of the US Navy often "live" within a couple of hundred feet of one of those abmoninations.

Ellen Mattaban wrote:

<quoted text> Dear Sir: I am a 58 year old woman, with a solid education,

An education in what?

Ellen Mattaban wrote:

<quoted text> Dear Sir: I am a 58 year old woman, with a solid education, and I live 14 miles away from one of those badly designed abominations of a nuke plant that you mention.

A badly designed abomination? What standard do you have for declaring something an abomination? What is wrong with living 14 miles away, is that too far?

I KNOW! I KNOW!

Build domes over all the highways, and at the tops of the domes have huge generators for all the CO2 that rises from the cars!

And make it unlawful for cigarette smokers to put out their cigarette butts. The extra smoke will only help.

And if a car breaks down or if a person doesn't have a license, registration or insurance, BURN the car right there! MORE SMOKE! And make the TV helicoptors PAY to look in through the dome.

Yeah! They pay into a fund for chemists that develop more carcinogenic food additives!

Sorry, I got off topic.

Ellen Mattaban wrote:

I do not "third" your suggestion. Ask yourself: why does nuclear power have such a bad reputation if it is so "safe, clean and economic"? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, pollutes like a duck", it is a nuclear power plant! We have been burdened with this form of "energy" to compensate for, and obfuscate, its use in the development of killing weapons. Nuclear energy is SO dangerous and SO unmanageable, despite the hubris of those who think they can manage it, that all nuclear plants should be immediately put under the control of nuclear physicists and other scientists who have no vested economic interests. But, no! The most dangerous, most unmanageable, most irresponsible, and most impossible to trace form of "energy" is put in the hands of BIG ENERGY companies. And we know their bottom line is NOT our safety. People, please! WAKE UP!

because idiots like you do not know the difference between a nuclear weapon and a nuclear power plant.

Ellen Mattaban wrote:

<quoted text> Dear Sir: I am a 58 year old woman, with a solid education, and I live 14 miles away from one of those badly designed abominations of a nuke plant that you mention. Don't you spew your venom my way, Young Man. My son is an structural engineer with his own company; my daughter was an All-American at Stanford. What or WHOM have YOU produced??? Be careful whom you disparage. HM

Dear idiot,

I'm doing a masters degree in theoretical physics at the 5th best university in the world, and I'm telling you: You're uneducated on this subject.

Ellen Mattaban wrote:

<quoted text> Dear Sir: I am a 58 year old woman, with a solid education, and I live 14 miles away from one of those badly designed abominations of a nuke plant that you mention. Don't you spew your venom my way, Young Man. My son is an structural engineer with his own company; my daughter was an All-American at Stanford. What or WHOM have YOU produced??? Be careful whom you disparage. HM

Sorry, Ellen. Your education regarding the nuclear industry is based on unreasonable fears.

I'm a contemporary of yours and live in a state with 5 nuclear plants and have lived within 15 miles of 3 of those plants at one time or another and boat in the waters around those plants [as close as the discharge canals]. I also have friends that work in the plants.

The nuclear industry is the safest power generating industry in the world with the lowest emissions [radiation or CO2]. Your unreasonable fears have you blinded to the benefits of nuclear power. Our generation of reactors have a proven safety record over the last 30 years. Newer reactors can use a variety of fuels, including thorium, and are even safer than the last generation.

Take a look: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-0...
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news...

It's time to build more. We, here in Florida, welcome them.

I propose a challenge to the anti-nuke fearmongers: Instead of brandishing your only weapon, fear, try to offer an alternative that can replace nuclear power which is just as clean, safe, reliable and abundant.

And before you jump in with ignorant appeals to wind and solar as alternatives, let's get that out of the way immediately. Wind and solar are intermittant suppliers and nuclear is a baseload source. They do not compete, now or ever. Maybe you are thinking, how about the ever-popular hypothetical batteries and various other storage devices to enhance wind and solar? Not a chance. Even the batteries (or other storage units) will need recharging by a RELIABLE source or there will be the risk of having dead batteries during a power shortage crisis. If we truly want a lot of reliable and clean electrical energy on a small piece of real estate, our primary choice is nuclear.

Fear is the name if the game for all these anti-nuke nutcases. I can't wait to see if this Ellen responds to the education question (my guess is liberal arts degree from a community college, now making "organic" pottery).

The line about increasing cancer risks is one of the funniest things I have ever read on this board, it even takes coolmind and jdv.

If you don't like nuclear power, move to France... oh wait, nevermined. Try Afghanistan, they probably don't have a reactor.

Nuclear power is safe. The next generation of nuclear power plants will be even safer. We need to move ahead, quickly, with Yucca Mountain to ease disposal concerns. We need to build new plants in every state. We need to permit and bring new mines into production. We need to diversify all our energy production.

I feel a safe and effective ratio goal would be 25% coal and natural gas, 50% nuclear, and 25% renewable (hydro, solar, wind, etc). We could do that in under 20 years, probably 15 if the environuts don't get in the way.