Poll: Do you support using nuclear reactors to produce electricity?

[NNN0LHI]

Poll question: Poll: Do you support using nuclear reactors to produce electricity?

I went from being anti-nuclear to being on the fence and back to being anti-nuclear again during my life. I won't be going back to fence sitting either. Not after the triple meltdown at Fukushima this year.

Chernobyl was blamed on those "stupid Soviets", and I admit that I fell for it. I figured that was just a once in a lifetime thing. Turned out it wasn't. This accident involves one of the most technologically advanced counties in the world and and they couldn't keep their nuclear reactors under control and safe. I think that should tell us all something.

Don

[ZombieHorde]

1. No, humans always mess stuff up. If humans were perfect, I would like nuclear power. nt

[the other one]

2. "Nuclear power is a helluva way to boil water" Albert Einstein

[RC]

8. So are coal, oil and natural gas power generating plants. All boil water for steam to drive turbines

So what's you point here? It is just a another heat source.

[dtexdem]

37. Yeah, it's just another source of death, to humans and to the environment.

But nuclear power is particularly dangerous because radioactivity is half of forever.

[midnight]

3. Absolutely not.

[ThomWV]

4. Yes, but tepidly. Its far better than burning coal, somewhat better than damming rivers.

But its worse than the short route of turning sunlight directly into electricity and far worse than harnessing the wind.

[ensho]

5. kick

nt

[Bonhomme Richard]

6. Yes if the CEO and board members had to live within 10 miles of the plant. n/t

[RC]

7. Chernobyl was a very crude, very basic reactor.

In reality, a pile of graphite blocks, that once set on fire could not be extinguished. It was built because it was cheap to do.
No one else has any reactors like this. The United States never had any.
Where do you get "technologically advanced" from this.

[NNN0LHI]

9. I meant that Japan was one of the most technologically advanced countries

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Don

[johnd83]

12. The reactors in Japan were build by.... GE

So, we actually built the reactors that failed. They were designed in the 60s when we were very cavalier about radiation back then and didn't understand how dangerous it was. It is very unfortunate that such a crude reactor was even still in service.

[NNN0LHI]

14. How many reactors of the same design does the US still have in operation?

[johnd83]

28. Not sure of the exact number

there is at least one in Vermont. I support nuclear power, however the old reactors do worry me. The ironic result of the anti-nuclear movement has been to prevent newer plants being built. We still need the power from the old plants, so they are not decommissioned and we are stuck with dubious old reactors.

[RC]

16. Those reactors were built 40 years ago. The designs are over 50 years old.

We have much better, much safer designs to day.
The problem is getting them built because of the ignorant, paranoid Luddites that have so muddied the perceived nuclear power reality that safer, new modern designed plants cannot be built to replace the old, warn out plants that are 10 years past their design life.
Is it any wonder our old, existing nuclear power plants are having problems, especially if we are prevented from replacing them with better, safer plants?

[abogado]

20. Thank you. +100 n/t

...

[johnd83]

10. Much safer designs exist now

Consider how safe a car was during the era that all these reactors were built. I am thinking of the movie "Unsafe at any speed" and the exploding ford pinto. Ironically we have settled on one of the least safe designs, the low enriched light water reactor. It is possible to build far more fault tolerant reactors than the old reactors we run today. Also, I think Thorium is a much safer alternative and has waste that decays a lot faster.

[immoderate]

19. Saf-ER is not the same as safe.

There is plenty of energy available without resorting to nuclear -- or carbon for that matter.

--imm

[johnd83]

26. I suppose there are other alternatives

but if you do the math it is the only source of energy that can replace fossil fuels. I think people forget that coal kills at least 400,000 people a year (wish I remembered the source) from the toxic emissions. Nuclear power MAY kill people, but fossil fuels are guaranteed to kill people.

Also, the production of clean energy technology requires tremendous amounts of material per kW produced, and devices like solar cells require a lot of toxic chemicals. I know this because I work in a silicon device clean room and handle some of these chemicals. Wind turbines depend on aluminum and composites, both of which are not very environmentally friendly. Because solar and wind energy have a relatively low power density, they require a very large investment in physical material.

[RC]

34. Nothing is really safe. Not even shoe laces.

People have been known to trip on them, fall and die when they hit their head on the ground.
So, start a movement to outlaw shoe laces? Mandate replacing shoe laces with Velcro?

[NNN0LHI]

38. Never heard of shoe laces leaving hundreds of square miles uninhabitable for generations to come

Ever heard of a case like that?

Don

[RC]

45. Yeah, it's called strip mining.

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/enlarge/strip-mine.html

[Lance_Boyle]

11. Well I don't support using them to do anything else

so I suppose I'm a yes on this one.

[NNN0LHI]

18. Nuclear medicine?

[Lance_Boyle]

Yeah, I suppose you have to get radioisotopes from somewhere.

Good point.

[closeupready]

13. No, never did, and am even more against in the wake of Fukushima. Greed will always trump

safety for some people; thus, an inherently dangerous technology can never be rendered safe.

[abogado]

17. I believe what you said after "thus," is a tautology...

:shrug:

[immoderate]

22. Nevertheless it should be heeded.

--imm

[closeupready]

30. Well, whatever, I think the general point I'm making is clear.

nt

[abogado]

15. Yes, absolutely...because, for all its faults it is the best, maybe only, way

to meet our energy needs until something better is invented or discovered. Coal mining has killed hundreds of times more people than nuclear power and all its appurtenances.

[immoderate]

21. Never heard of solar?

--imm

[abogado]

25. I'm very well aware of how much energy per square meter comes from the sun

and it isn't nearly enough to satisfy current requirements much less what will be -demanded- in the future. When people are freezing in the dark, they won't give a fig where their power comes from, you can be sure.

[immoderate]

36. Nonsense. Unless you want to guarantee environmental destruction.

So how many square meters will it take to supply our energy needs, and why can't it be done? :shrug:

--imm

[bloomington-lib]

23. I used to be a strong supporter of nuclear energy

My thought process was that the pollution, however deadly it is, can at least be contained. With coal, releasing billions of tons of pollutants every year into the air, water, and soil, moving about freely made containment of nuclear waste seem like the best way to go. That was before the disaster in Japan.

I saw that no matter how much people plan to contain the stuff, shit can always happen. I began thinking what would happen if a global disaster happened. What if a population decimating virus spread throughout the world? A fast moving global warming disaster caused populations to evacuate with little warning? An asteroid or meteor hitting the planet causing who knows what to the population? Basically what happens when the majority of the people are gone?

In disaster movies or books, they usually show the remnants of human civilization coming out of their holes, struggling to survive at first but eventually rebuilding the society. Some have predicted that the people rising from the ashes will build a better society and even going so far as to say that disaster is needed to start from scratch. To finally build utopia is the opportunity such a disaster would bring they say.

That's only possible in a world without nuclear power-plants/waste. As the world is now, without people actively containing the nuclear waste, the poison will be spread throughout the world due to the thousands of plants and storage facilities going through the inevitable meltdowns and leaks.

There would be no rebuilding of civilization. Nothing to come out of the hole for. The planet would only bit fit for the organisms able to adapt to the new radioactivity of the planet. No happy ending for humans and the majority of life on earth.

So I guess this is a long winded way of saying no I don't support nuclear power.

[abogado]

27. The Japan 'disaster' still hasn't killed anyone.

:eyes:

[bloomington-lib]

29. oh come on

For one thing there have been deaths. Google Japan.Nuclear.Deaths and you'll see news articles on it. And that's besides the point.

There are people that have been working and continue to work at containing the meltdown. There have been some deaths and will probably be more in the form of cancer. But what I was talking about is if there were no people to contain the meltdownS (with an S). Most if not all the plants would meltdown if there were no people containing it. Much worse than a single semi-containment in one plant in Japan out of hundreds on the planet, not to mention the storage facilities.

If you want to say, "who cares I'd probably be dead in such a disaster anyway", I could understand that although not have the same feeling myself. But to say "The Japan 'disaster' hasn't killed anyone" is extremely short sighted.

[closeupready]

31. And 3 Mile Island was a success story!

:sarcasm:

[zacherystaylor]

24. Increase clean energy!

Nuclear isn't clean or cheap; there is no benefit!

[dionysus]

32. how bout we phase em out for solar and wind? i don't know if we could instantly get rid of them all.

[PurityOfEssence]

33. Unequivocally NO; it's all about the waste

People bellyache about the nanny state, but that's yet another reason I'm a committed Liberal: people really aren't that responsible. The kind of radiation in nuclear waste is shockingly dangerous, and only takes a couple of mistakes here and there to cause thousands of years of damage.

People forget.

There was a very sobering incident in Fall River, MA a few years back where kids were getting sick. The common element was that they'd all played at a park. Upon research, it was determined that the park was located atop a toxic industrial waste dump from the early 1800s. That's the point: these things get forgotten.

Mistakes also happen. It's just too risky.

We do not have a "right" to the energy we seem to feel we need any more than CEOs have the "right" to make ever more gluttonous compensation; we have a responsibility to make sure we don't destroy our common home: this planet. We are at a crossroads, and the stakes are everything.

[Feron]

40. Well nuke waste would be in a repository.

Think Yucca Mountain. They aren't going to bury it and forget a la Love Canal.

Reprocessing the waste would further reduce the amount needed for long term storage.

Anyhow nuke power is the cleanest, most efficient, and safest thing we have going right now. Although I do want the older plants scrapped and newer designs built in their place.

[hunter]

35. Coal is a disaster that is destroying life on earth as we know it.

The current massive extinction event, which will be one of the great ones in the history of earth, is a direct consequence of our burning fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels make just about any power source look magnificently clean in comparison.

Our first order of business ought to be banning coal and bringing the age of the automobile to a close. Nuclear power itself doesn't bother me so much. If we used nuclear power to replace fossil fuels I might support it. Even an accident as bad a Fukushima isn't nearly so bad as the daily death, destruction, climate changes, and extinctions caused by fossil fuels and our automobile culture.

[immoderate]

39. Slow radiation death is not all it's cracked up to be, either.

--imm

[hunter]

41. You get radioactive waste from coal too.

And anyplace near a highway is a stew of powerful carcinogens and mutagens, not so radioactive, but just as deadly.

[immoderate]

43. Solar powered hover craft is the answer. (Longterm)

I'm not for digging coal either.

I've run the numbers, and I think we could do it green.

I know that manufacturing processes all have some downside, but I think those can be negligible compared to carbon and nuclear.

--imm

[Shagbark Hickory]

42. Other:

There is no "Fuck no!" option

[Safetykitten]

44. Used to. Not now.

[bvar22]

46. If everyone lived as if they were on Solar Panels,

we wouldn't need Solar Panels.

The best way to be transformed into an Energy Miser
is to live on Solar panels.
I always thought I was frugal in my use of electricity.
THEN, I got Solar Panels.
I had NO REAL Concept of How Much energy I squandered every single day
until I had a definite limit on daily electricity consumption
with NO guarantee that the Sun would shine tomorrow.

Living on Solar Panels quickly teaches one that there IS a definite Trade-Off
every single time a switch flipped to the ON position.

Conservation, and developing Mindful Active Awareness of Energy
should be the FIRST step in weaning ourselves OFF Nuclear and other dirty producers of Power.

If everyone lived as if they were on Solar Panels,
we wouldn't need Solar Panels.