Are you for or against building more Nuclear Power plants?

[Quixote1818]

Poll question: Are you for or against building more Nuclear Power plants?

[Dogmudgeon]

1. ObSarcasm

:popcorn:

--p!

[dkf]

2. We are running out of oil.

We have to be prepared to use whatever we can.

[Bobbieo]

4. Not until we can find a safe place to store the existing nuclear waste

and is is not in a Nevada mountain called Yucca that has several geologic fault lines running through it.

[RC]

25. Not store, reprocess the used fuel and recycle it.

That would greatly cut down the amount of waste. Other countries do it, why can't we, the United States?

[bananas]

30. Other countries pretend to do it, we could pretend to do it, too.

But that really wouldn't solve the problem.

[MadHound]

50. The thing is, most of the volume of nuclear waste doesn't come from expended fuel

It comes from ordinary, everyday trash that is now radioactive. Things like paper swipes, gloves, tools, aluminum cans, etc. etc., not to mention the reactor itself when it is finally decomissioned. You really can't reprocess any of that, and such waste is by far the largest amount of waste coming out of a nuclear plant.

[Barack_America]

35. The recycled waste has a lot of uses.

Particularly in biomedical research.

I use it.

[Occam Bandage]

3. Completely, totally, unabashedly for--I'm a strong environmentalist.

[bananas]

19. Nuclear is more expensive than the alternatives

Right now, you can build wind cheaper and faster than nuclear.
The same will be true of solar within a decade.
"Nuclear Costs Explode" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x129741

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jan/15/bz-nuclear-costs-explode

Nuclear Costs Explode
By RUSSELL RAY, The Tampa Tribune
Published: January 15, 2008

Progress Energy Florida is going to have to spend more than originally planned to build two nuclear reactors in Levy County, the utility's top executive said.

The St. Petersburg-based utility won't disclose how much more expensive the project will be until it's presented to state regulators within 90 days. Based on new industry estimates, the revised cost could be two to three times more expensive than the projection Progress issued more than a year ago.

<snip>

FPL, based in Juno Beach, said recently that the "overnight cost" of its two-reactor project would range from $12 billion to $18 billion, more than twice as high as Progress Energy's December 2006 estimate. Overnight estimates exclude the interest paid on the loan and are based on commodity prices when the estimate is made.

<snip>

"Moody's is closer to the reality we're seeing," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a nonprofit group opposed to nuclear power. "Even before they start building, the costs are going up. Meanwhile, the cost for solar, wind and energy efficiency are on a downward trend."

<snip>

[wintersoulja]

47. lol

tell me another one!

[babylonsister]

5. Good question. How about nuclear vs. coal?

No one will enjoy either options.

[Occam Bandage]

6. And that is why I am in favor of nuclear plants.

Nuclear waste? Coal plants are responsible for more radioactive pollution than nuclear plants are, in addition to the disastrous effects of global warming, in addition to contributing to smog and air pollution, in addition to contributing to acid rain, etc., etc.

[babylonsister]

8. LOL! I was thinking a poll would be good! I hear ya! nt

[Bobbieo]

9. Occam - Tell that to the Navajo Indians!!!!

[Occam Bandage]

11. Dear Navajo Indians:

Nuclear plants, while certainly deeply flawed, are less harmful to humanity than coal plants.

Love,
Occam Bandage.

[Bobbieo]

15. You have to have uranium to build nuclear plants and that stuff has been mined

in New Mexico and when the pice of uranium dropped before Bush got us into this God Dammed war - the corporations dropped the mines in the 70s and never bothered to clean up the mess. The Navajos and others who worked in the mines have been dying of cancers ever since and no one ever gave a shit. Now, that the price of uranium has gone up with Bush's God Damned war, the corporations are back on Navajoland trying to reopen those mines.
There are some real horror stories there for anyone interested in researching the topic - Uranium mining in the West.

[Tellurian]

37. They should be thinking in terms of natural sources wind and sun

The technolgy is out there. There is no need to poison the earth for thousands of years and endanger the health of every living thing just to heat/cool your home or power a city. We don't have the right to destroy the earth and all that inhabit it by poisoning it forever.

[izquierdista]

7. Nuclear power has its place

Which is deep underground, like at least half a mile, where it can't contaminate the biosphere. One mine shaft to take stuff down, and a big extension cord to bring the power out. That way, when the time comes, it can be abandoned in place.

[lapfog_1]

18. Not possible with todays technology...

The one essential ingredient for current plant designs is water, lots and lots of water, like a major river amount of water.

Sodium cooling and heat exchangers have been experimented with, but that technology simply isn't available. Not to mention that:

1/2 a mile isn't deep enough.

1/2 a mile would make building a operating a plant prohibitively expensive (if you are talking about 1/2 mile down from sea level, drilling into the side of a mountain would put you 1/2 a mile underground, but still way above the aquifer water table).

I think nukes might well be part of the answer.

But we have to take a big gamble...

Yucca mountain is not the permanent dumping ground, but if we gamble that future generations will have a much better solution, then a storage facility like Yucca would not HAVE to be designed to store for thousands of years, but maybe only 100 or 200. Yucca, or sites like it, might well be "safe" for a hundred years... but we count on technological progress that will require our great grand children to solve it.

I don't like doing that. We are already putting some huge burdens on future generations. But I don't like melting the ice caps either. Or starving.

Not a lot of good options here. Green technologies will be here... but maybe not fast enough to help... we only have about 10 to 20 years to address global warming before the effects are devastating (my prediction... and I'm a pessimist).

[izquierdista]

22. Yes, it is possible

WIPP is half a mile down, and would be a fine place for a nuclear power plant, only problem is that it is a long way to the power consumers. Half a mile is UNDER the water table in most areas, depending on the geology of the area. Also, there are many abandoned mines (coal, salt, potash, etc.) that would be likely places to site a reactor.

Yes, it would require the development of closed loop heat exchange, but that is not an insurmountable technical problem. If a nuclear reactor can be stuffed into the confines of a submarine and work as a propulsion unit, I see no reason why it can't be built as a power station underground.

[lapfog_1]

24. umm... you do realize that submarines

as well as all other nuclear powered Navy vessels, have a very ready and near infinite cooling mechanism at their disposal, right? And even if they don't duct ocean water to a heat exchanger for the power plant, the entire hull (of a submarine, for example) is a passive excess heat exchanger.

As for the 1/2 mile "down"... it all depends on what you mean by "down". abandoned mines are usually drilled into the side of a mountain (the exception are salt mines, which might indeed be 1/2 miles down and under the water table). 1/2 mile under the surface is not a sufficient marker. Also, heat generated by the earth's core and carried to the surface in magma upwellings make the conditions of 1/2 mile down from sea level kinda difficult to work in. And getting rid of the excess heat from the plant will be an issue.

Anyway, I don't think any make nuclear power company is contemplating this so, while entertaining as an academic exercise, it's not likely to enter into the debate about new nuclear power plants.

[izquierdista]

28. The earth itself

Is your "near infinite cooling mechanism". At the WIPP facility, the temperature is a constant 82F year-round, so there is your way to get rid of excess heat.

It's not an "academic exercise" to come up with a solution to the problem of nuclear wastes. If the plant can be built, operated, and decommissioned in-situ, then the advantages far outweigh the technical problems.

[bananas]

32. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

"If a nuclear reactor can be stuffed into the confines of a submarine and work as a propulsion unit, I see no reason why it can't be built as a power station underground."
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
You guys crack me up!
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[hogwyld]

10. We don't need no stinkin' power

Horses, hand pumps, sailing ships. Let's all leap back to the 18th century.

[Konza]

12. Yes-but hire the French!

[ConcernedCanuk]

13. Against - - 10 to 20 Billion per plant would fund a lot of solar/wind NOW!

.
.
.

And waste problem is not worth mentioning

Most can be recycled/reused, even reclaimed as other forms of energy (heat for local plants, etc.)

Also Solar and Wind can be constructed much quicker

less environmental impact,

therefore no long environmental assessment needed.

[babylonsister]

14. I'd love to use natural resources, but is that realistically doable

to satisfy all of us heathens?

[Konza]

17. Yep.

Solar power in the US West, even at the levels of technology we have today would augment our domestic energy supply substantially. Wind is another great alternative. Hydro as well, but there environmental consequences for large scale hydro power.

What is important is that while we cannot shift entirely over to solar/wind today, we could in the future if we were willing to make the investment. If we are willing to make the commitment today, we could be using clean, renewable energy by say, 2050.

Places to look to are countries like Denmark, which supplies a large portion of its energy from wind power. In fact, the Danes are on the cutting edge of this tech. They took the lead after Reagan gutted American invensment in alternative energy. (Reagan went so far to prove his allegiance to big oil that he had Carter's solar panels removed from the White House a few days after his inauguration!)
Holland also utilizes wind power to some extent. Other EU nations are relying on a Nuclear/Renewable mix . France is leading in this area. The Eu is literally 50 years ahead of the US in energy policy and planning.

Now, throw in conversion to alternative transportation fuels, such as biodiesel or alcohol fuels, and we have fundamentally transformed our economy, our national security and cleaned up our environment. Add to this a reinvestment in public transportation and America in 2050 will be a really cool place for our kids and grandkids!

Or we can let Dick Cheney, his buddies and the Saudis run things a little while longer.

[Yukari Yakumo]

21. Not even close

Not with a steady supply of sunlight or wind.

And just where does anyone put it?

There is also a problem of distance decay. You lose power as it travels down the line.

Plus there's the seemingly annual wildfire season, which has a nasty habit of blotting out the sun.

I think we can brainstorm more problems that would complicate matters.

[Konza]

23. respectfully differ

At conversion rates that we have today (roughly 15% utilization) converting to pure solar not be a viable solution. The key then is to reduce the cost of PV cells and increase efficiency of PV technology, both of which are easily doable.

Think about it, over 3800 ZJ of solar power hits the Earth annually, while global energy consumption is less than .5 ZJ per annum. We are not even touching the ability of solar power to provide energy for industry, transport, etc.

As for the chimera of "What about when it's dark?" there are several basic responses:
1. distributed networks-Remember, it's always daytime somewhere and the wind blows at night too!
2. batteries (and by battery, don't lock your mind into a box and assume I'm talking chem bats. While chembats have their uses, there is a much simpler system-water.) I was at a conference last year where a community explained how they got around the "night trap" and were still self sustaining. Their ingenious solution was to rely on a trifecta of renewable energy: wind, solar and hydro. As demand decreased during evening, solar output also collapses as dusk. But you still need some power so what to do?
Well, wind often blows at night so harness this. But what if there is no wind? Well, humans are ingenious lil buggers, and these folks remembered that gravity never took time off.
So during the daylight a portion of solar/wind power was diverted into pumping water into a man made lake. As evening approached locks were released to rush water into a hydro station. Rainfall augmented the lake/battery. Now, some homes did augment their power with individual wind/solar cells that was stored in personal battery banks. But they could also tap the local grid that was powered during the evening hours by water power. People are pretty crafty.

I grant you one of the major problems we face is power loss over distance, but we face that problem with current energy distribution networks. Perhaps thats one area we need to research.
Also, a complete immediate conversion to 100% renewable is not likely now or in the next decades. We will have to "band-aid" our way across the 21st Century. Oncreased use of renewable and yes, some nuclear power seems to be the sensible solution.

I also respect your opinion that there are unforeseen issues we need to come to terms with if we are going to transfer to renewable energy sources.
But it's really not a debate of "should" we move away from fossil fuels, it's only a question of how will we.
As world petro supplies are tapped, we reach a peak oil problem. This will be compounded with global population growth, which will further strain our already precarious energy supply. Now, for the final monkey wrench, global prosperity. As 1.2 Billion Chinese and over 1 Billion Indians increase their living standards, they will demand more energy. One of the firt things they will buy is a private automobile, for ease, comfort as well as status of an emerging middle class. That is why you will pay more for gasoline from now until it runs out.
So we will have less supply and much more demand. Eventually this will lead to a global energy crisis and the end of the fossil fuel age that we have lived in for only 150 years out of the last 10,000. We often forget that the vast majority of human history was powered by people and animals. Eventually we harnessed the wind, but that was it for millennia. The civilization we live in today is but a blip in human history, so we better plan the next 100 years wisely.
Yes, we do have coal reserves and natural gas. And we can tap them. But that still doesn't remove the supply/demand dilemma that global population growth and prosperity present us.

And the final coffin nail to the fossil fuel age is the environmental consequences we will face in a world of 2107. Imagine 12 Billion people who all want to live like a middle class American! The only way to win this game is to stop playing it.

I understand there will be problems. But we still have a chance if we try.

[Konza]

16. What about making each state/region develop

a regional energy strategy and use the federal gov't as a conduit for this exploration. Some places can quickly turn to solar/wind. Some can use coal (with more clean technology). Other regions can develop nuclear.

I'm just thinking if we did it this way each region or state can realize their energy demands as well as their real energy opportunities. When it comes to 21st century, one size does not fit all. It'll also help some regions focus more on conservation.

My problem with only nuclear is it is large scale, corporate government involvement. Not saying we won;t need it, but wind and solar can be done by communities, region or even individuals. Unleash people to develop reliable large scale alternative energy, and if we have to, use nuclear power as a band-aid to wean us off of fossil fuels. Imagine where we could be with 25 years of serious support for alternative energy.

Oh, and We should also plan ahead and do this with water...'cause that's the next one a coming!

[all.of.me]

43. We should all try and do our part.

Imagine if every household generated some of its own power. That would ease the loads on the grid reducing the need for coal and nuclear.

Not everyone can afford this option right now, but those that can pull it off should. It should be a long-term goal for homeowners - put up a wind turbine, solar thermal, solar pv with net metering, geothermal. The more we can do ourselves, the better. In twenty years, that would be a lot of energy that was not needed at the source.

[Cleita]

20. I live near a nuclear power plant.

We get pills distributed to us in case of radiation poisoning. We have sirens like air raid sirens that are tested routinely incase of a meltdown. No other type of power plants have this kind of cautionary security. We are also sitting on major earthquake fault lines here. I really hope my community does something about converting to solar as much as they can because nuclear is not a good option IMHO.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. And yet you continue to live near the nuclear plant

I suppose it isn't that bad, or you would move.

[bananas]

29. And yet you continue to live in Dubya's America and Jeb's FLorida

What are you, a Republican?
Apparently you think Dubya and Jeb's policies are wonderful,
otherwise you would have moved.

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. Jeb is no longer Governor of FL and Bush will be out of the White House in 369 days

When is the nuclear power plant near your house scheduled to close?

[Cleita]

46. Best to start looking at what's going on in your back yard.

With global warming a fact, the state of Florida will be one of the first landmasses to become underwater as the polar caps melt and the oceans rise.

[Cleita]

45. I'm retired on a limited income. Moving isn't an option for

me without incurring dire hardship perhaps even homelessness. We who live here have tried to get alternative energy options in place and almost succeeded with the power plant working at very low capacity before Bush was selected. Since then and with Enron screwing the state of California and the recall of Governor Grey Davis who was working on this, the power plant is powered up again because of dirty partisan conservative politics.

[Essene]

26. Absolutely for safe nuclear energy

And we can do it without freaking people out.

All the arguments against this are stuck in paranoia.

[MadHound]

51. Where are you going to put the waste then?

How are you going to make a nuclear plant 100% human error proof?

Sorry, but until those two big questions are answered fully and satisfactorily, nuclear power should be off the table. Especially since we can provide all of our power with clean alternatives, like wind, solar, biomass, etc.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Fossil fuels can only be short term, and renewables only long-term

In the medium term, the only way to meet the world's power needs is nuclear power.

[bananas]

34. Nope.

In the medium-term, wind and solar are cheaper and way more than adequate to meet the world's needs.
See the Keystone report paid for by the nuclear industry and the electric utility industry and several public interest groups,
http://climateprogress.org/2007/06/18/nuclear-power-no-climate-cure-all/
Since then, nuclear cost estimates have "exploded" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x129741

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

33. That depends.

I'm for it, but only if it's done alongside decomissioning old coal plants and extensive funding of renewables. Nuclear power is not a cure-all.

[IndianaJones]

36. present. I'd like to see how the poll goes. nt.

[jlake]

38. Against. Against. Against.

[Barack_America]

39. Nuclear energy *might* contaminate our environment. Fossil fuels DO.

Perfect solution? No. But our dependence on oil is currently killing us, economically and environmentally.

And like I said above, recycled waste from reactors has a lot of uses. Particularly in medicine and biomedical research.

[cloudythescribbler]

41. I'm APPALLED at the degree of SUPPORT for nuke energy; progressives have our work cut out for us

First off, the notion that nuclear energy only MIGHT pollute while fossil fuels DO is an illusion. Nuclear energy DOES pollute and carries the risk of catastrophe. Without special legislation (Price-Anderson -- on the books in some form since 1957) arbitrarily limiting liability, nuclear energy is COMPLETELY uninsurable, even by Lloyd's of London.

In terms of price, the external diseconomies of fossil fuels and nuclear are ENORMOUS -- as even if some safe method to handle the waste was found (and there is NO such thing as nuclear energy w/o unrecyclable nuclear waste) -- while wind, solar, and (underrated) hydrogen have little or no such drawbacks. In short, an energy policy devoted to the public interest has ENORMOUS room, requiring massive public investment and policy direction, for (1) Conservation, eg by rising auto efficiency mileage, etc (2) wind (3) solar thermal (4) Solar voltaic and (5) Hydrogen. Of the existing major sources of energy (oil, gas, coal, nuclear) gas is clearly environmentally the best in terms of emissions. (And overall).

The notion that 'oh alternative energy is only marginal' is a DEPENDENT variable based on policy, which of course has been true for the 30 years that it's been said, while the policies have continued on fossil fuels and (maintaining)nuclear (there have been no new nuclear plants licensed or started in the US for 30 years). Even voices that should know better (eg the NEW YORK TIMES) argue about how "dangerous" hydrogen is to transport, when in fact it can take the form of COMPLETELY safe canisters of magnesium hydride crystals, which are not prohibitively expensive to produce from hydrogen at all. (While SOME available sources for hydrogen exists, finding ENOUGH CHEAP hydrogen for any sizeable proportion of US/global energy needs remains a technological problem, one that has been known and somewhat talked about for 30 years). All in all, there are SO many CHEAPER ways to conserve or produce energy safely than nuclear power it isn't funny.

But of course, the whole system of 'justifying the lying' has people confused. You can see the problem with all the (OBVIOUS) swarms of creeps/trolls here at DU as well as in other progressive venues. We live in a system devoted to the power and profit of the elite, w/fact truth left as a variable dependent on "justifying the lying".

[Essene]

44. No. Stop assuming progressives have to be anti-nuclear energy. Thanks.

[wintersoulja]

48. heck no

only sane, scientifically minded people need oppose it.
Certainly not our pre(GE)ordained candidates!
Gettin harder and harder to laugh at people who contest evolution and global warming..

[cloudythescribbler]

53. In real life, many "progressives" so-called support HIV/AIDS denialism

which to me is a litmus test issue also.

[cloudythescribbler]

52. To me, being antinuclear energy* is as basic to being progressive as including sexual orientation...

*with present or reasonably foreseeable technology

among those categories (like gender, race, etc) that are protected in employment and many other spheres from discrimination by federal law. Obviously, the principles of the latter, while in the short run surely not likely to be interpreted at the federal level as mandating recognition of gay marriage, WOULD be a major step and would, in my arrogant opinion, significantly encourage efforts to establish such recognition in states.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a Supreme Court likely to mandate recognition of gay marriage.

Obviously, the question of what are 'litmus' issues or not is intrinsically problematic. I would include opposition to the Iraq War, to Star Wars (and from my perspective as an anti-imperialist, the Kosovo War as well), along with support for major changes in the ME to protect individual and national self-determination rights for Palestinians. The list goes on, but there are bound to be lots of disagreements.

[donsu]

42. can you say Waste - poisonous waste that never goes away

nt

[David Zephyr]

49. Hillary on Video About Nuclear Energy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cZqtrvDIVs