The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!
Hi, (not you?) | Member Center | Sign Out
Global Warming... Thread
Reply (38)
Why do we need nuke power?
There isn't any Global Warming. So why Nuclear Power? It is only plausible because of government subsidies. It's only advantage is no CO2. It costs more to build a reactor. It costs more to operate, The electricity generated costs more. It generates toxic wastes that must be stored forever and can they be stored safely? When there is a mishap, and it is only a question of when, they are catastrophic.
The Nuclear Regulation Commission Chairman at the time of Three Mile Island said yesterday (3/31/2011) there is no need for nuke power and it is not a good business decision at this time.
Natural gas is a better choice. It is plentiful & domestic and cheap. It is cleaner than coal.
Posted by PainInTheButtocks at 09:55 a.m. April 03, 2011
Why are nuke supporters so short sighted? Japan had a 9.0 earthquake that is true but what about Three Mile Island? A valve stuck open. What caused Chernobyl, not a big earthquake. Most problems occur because of something small.
We have hundreds of years of natural gas. That is virtually forever. That gives us time to develop the technical advances that wind & solar need to become economical. Natural gas gets us off of imported oil now. It is an instant savings. We are cutting the budget and you want to continue subsidies for experimental power sources when we have proven technology that works now. Natural gas is renewable. Every landfill and sewerage treatment plant produces natural gas.
Posted by ConfoundedSociety at 04:31 p.m. April 03, 2011
If you think hundreds of years is virtually forever, then I'm pretty sure I have you figured out. Since you won't be around when it runs out, then why should you care, is that it? (let's see if I can do some temp formatting here.)
-----------------------------------------------paragraph-------------------------------------
And again, Three Mile Island = No injuries, no deaths. If you can't earthquake proof them, don't build in California, but that leaves 49 other states that you have no argument against. And again, Chernobyl was built WITHOUT any containment or safety features by the Soviet Union. Everything they build was cheap and shoddy (a necessity of anyone operating under socialistic rules.)
-----------------------------------------------paragraph-------------------------------------
Lastly, there's nothing experimental about nuclear energy. We have the technology now to make the plants far better than the ones being used, but since wackos refuse to allow any new ones to be built, we have to continue with 30 year old technology.
Posted by PainInTheButtocks at 08:51 p.m. April 05, 2011
300 years is longer than this country has existed. When it is gone we can generate more (it is renewable). So you don't have me figured out, but I think I have you figured out. During that time we can figure out how to use wind and solar so they do not need government subsidies to be commercially viable.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Three Mile Island didn't need an earthquake to destroy it. It only took a stuck valve. Tell me how to design around a broken part. Parts wear out, every one of them. You can't design a safe nuke plant. Chernobyl didn't need a natural disaster either. Simple things can take out a nuke plant. That doesn't even take into account a terrorist attack. Just because no one died doesn't mean it is a good idea. Where are you going to store all of the nuclear waste safely? Please design a container that will last longer than the half life of the waste. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nuclear reactors were originally built not for the electric power but for nuclear material for atomic bombs. That need is gone. There is no need to take chances with nuclear toxic wastes. What is your reason for supporting nuke plants. What makes them necessary?
Posted by ConfoundedSociety at 10:54 p.m. April 05, 2011
Nice. An eco liberal to play with. ____________________________
____________________________________________________
Hey, look at that - (http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html) ____________________________________
______________________________________________________
Strange that your argument against nuclear power and for natural gas is safety. Natural gas kills more people. ________________________
______________________________________________________
Yeah, wind and solar... and if you live somewhere where there's not enough wind or sunny days, you can just move, I guess. _________
____________________________________________________
"You can't design a safe nuke plant." Sure you can. Yes, things break down. Nothing is perfect. The safety features that were in place successfully prevented anyone from being hurt at Three Mile Island. How many natural gas explosions since then? __________________
_______________________________________________________
Wow, Chernobyl again. Another guy who can't be bothered to actually read anyone else's posts (in other words, see previous post.) _______
____________________________________________________
Ahh, storing the waste. We have missile silos in this country that were built to withstand a nuclear strike. Many of these silos are no longer in use. It would take (probably only one, but we'll be liberal about this) two to store all of the waste produced on the planet to date. Hmmm.. who's stopping us from using them? If there aren't any big enough, build something similar. You know we have the technology. The only problem is, nobody wants to allow it "in their back yard", even if that place is 200 miles from anybody's back yard. _________________
_____________________________________________________
Again, I have already made this point in the post you obviously didn't bother to read, but I'll repeat myself. Portability. It isn't windy everywhere and it isn't sunny enough days of the year everywhere. Natural gas is a good answer for now, but is NOT a renewable resource (you want to claim nuclear power is experimental, but then go and claim we will definitely be able to produce as much natural gas as needed in the future. tsk tsk.) Nuclear is a very long term answer and can be built wherever the power is needed. Also, further development of nuclear power may one day lead to practical fusion reactors, which will be much cleaner.
Posted by PainInTheButtocks at 11:25 a.m. April 06, 2011
I'm not sure you are reading or understanding my point of view. First I am about a conservative as you can get. You take facts and twist them to fit your argument. Stats relative to Deaths related nuke power is a joke. No one has died in a nuclear accident until Japan where 12 people died being evacuated from a hospital in the affected area. But no one tracks every resident in an accident area. Someone could get cancer 5, 10, or 15 years later. So your "facts" are bogus. When a gas plant explodes and I can't remember one happening but I can remember 3 nuclear accidents. The area isn't contaminated for hundreds to thousands of years. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------You don't need to live near wind or sun. Ever hear of energy grids? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Three Mile Island was destroyed only 13 months after construction was completed. The latest technology & design for the times. All gone because of a stuck valve. How do you prevent that? Billions of cost to build & produce 13 months of electricity. ------------------------------------------------------Storing waste isn't that simple. You have a place not a container. Lets make it easy. Lets say the waste is toxic for only 10,000 years. What kind of barrel are you going to put the waste in that will last for 10,000 years? Are missile silos water & air tight to prevent leakage? NO. Do you even understand the problem? NO. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't answer anything else just tell me Why we NEED nuclear power? What is wrong with natural gas that makes nuclear better?
Posted by PainInTheButtocks at 03:02 a.m. April 06, 2011
And how many years of nuclear fuel is hidden in the Earth? Nuclear fuel isn't renewable. What happens when we run out? What then? I know you won't be around when we run out, so why do you care?
Posted by ConfoundedSociety at 01:00 a.m. April 07, 2011
Fair point, but I think I have shown that nuclear needs to be in the mix for the next couple hundred years (or until we find an alternative.) It's just that wind and solar are definitely not permanent solutions. Until we have something else, nuclear needs to be a part of it.
Posted by PainInTheButtocks at 10:55 a.m. April 07, 2011
Why does nuclear need to be part of the mix? What is so special about nuclear?
Posted by AAB at 08:39 a.m. April 11, 2011
Reply to PaininThe Buttocks: Nuclear energy needs to be not only in the mix but needs to become our main source of electrical energy in this country. Think of this, a coal fired plant burns about two (2) pounds of coal per hour for each customer it serves. 100,000 customers= 200,000 lbs of coal PER HOUR. It never slows down, it never stops for holidays or when you turn the lights off at night, it runs 24/7. You do the math for the rest of the year. A nuclear plant can provide the same electric energy for a pickup load of fuel. The coal is never replaced, the nuclear fuel can be put in storage (Yucca Mt. 1.5 Billion spent and we will never use it) in salt deposits for the next 10,000 years. -------If we had the population of 1900 (79,000,000) we could do with just wind and solar, but we do not. So, unless you want to go back to living like your great grandparents did, nuclear is the only option. As I told another post: Its not magic. We have 300 million people that want all the power they can afford and until someone invents a fission reactor, nuclear is the only way to go.
Posted by Intensero at 09:14 p.m. April 03, 2011
The reason all energy is expensive is because of the huge regulatary costs to get started. Try opening a oil refinery in the US. Its a 20 year process BEFORE you can even break ground. Try getting an investor to give you money for that. Let alone the fact that in 20 years there is a good chance the next politicians will hinder you even more. Nuclear energy is a viable option but I think we need to look into other areas for the longterm solution. I returned to college to work on this problem. I am currently studying Physics and Chemistry to find a solution.
Posted by PainInTheButtocks at 03:31 p.m. April 06, 2011
Nuke power is only viable because of government subsidies. If it were not for them no one would build one.
Posted by ConfoundedSociety at 11:20 p.m. April 03, 2011
We already have "longterm" (sounds like you are using this to mean permanent) solutions, they just need to be made cost effective.
Posted by PainInTheButtocks at 03:36 p.m. April 06, 2011
There are no permanent solutions. As technology evolves things change. I would guess that nuclear fusion would be the ultimate solution, but who knows! We just need to use the cheapest option at any point in time, and that is going to change over time.
Posted by fairlycrazy23 at 04:13 p.m. April 06, 2011
I'm not for any energy plan that requires government subsidies to survive.
I believe that nuclear power could be done without subsidies as long as regulations where streamlined, however, if they can not produce a product without government help then no we shouldn't be pushing for more nuclear power.
Posted by SgtPugh at 07:15 p.m. April 06, 2011
Use them all. As long as they make money, I'm for them. End the subsidies. I only want energy that is grounded in good business. Where's the eco-lib? I want a piece.
Posted by AAB at 11:20 a.m. April 07, 2011
I have been in the electrical industry for over 40 years and have always found it odd that public policy governing the electrical industry is made by those who understand it the least.
Electricity is as real an energy as water. You would never say, we are going to build a dam in New Mexico and ship the water to Atlanta, at a low price, to supply the city with drinking water. It can not be done.
But, the same people want to build wind and solar "power stations" in New Mexico and ship the power to Atlanta, it can not be done.
Enough wasted space, those who understand need no explanation. Those who do not understand, no amount of explaining will be enough.
But, think about this, the average household uses 4 times the power it did in 1970 and our "grids" were built for the population that existed 50 years ago.
Posted by smelch at 11:06 a.m. April 08, 2011
I hate to call you a liar, but you're a liar, sir. You absolutely can do that with electricity, we already do it. We are overdue for an upgrade to our grids but we're already working on that.
Posted by AAB at 11:34 a.m. April 10, 2011
To those like smelch who think we are already "shipping" electricy across the nation through the grids. I doubt if anything I would say will convince them otherwise but here goes. Power can only be effectively "shipped" at 1,000 volts per mile, after that the frequency starts to fall and it just becomes to unstable to turn motors or to be used for lighting. A 230 thousand volt line can deliver effective power for approximatly 230 miles, a little more with capacitors etc.
I know, wasted space on my side but we have been trying to convince the fantasy people forever and have not changed anyones mind yet.
And the "grids" are more than just the transmission lines, they are every peice of equipment that delivers power. Walk five minuites from your house and you will find electrical equipment that has been there for 50 years.
It is not magic smelch, we have to produce it, ship it, and distribute it, its not magic.
Post Your Reply
If you would like to reply, please Sign in or register
Neal Boortz's Latest Tweets
.
Portions of Content Provided by Rovi
Corporation. © 2012 Rovi Corporation
Posted by ConfoundedSociety at 10:34 p.m. April 01, 2011
The problem with you argument is that natural gas (as well as coal and oil) are finite resources. No matter how carefully we manage them, there will come a day when there is no more at all. Solar works some places, wind works in fewer still, and there's hydro-electric. The only long term power that you can put wherever you need it (at the moment anyway) is nuclear. And how do you define catastrophic? Chernobyl had no containment and few if any safety features. In Japan, it took a 9.0 earthquake, and it still could have been a lot worse than it was (start paying attention to the victims of the actual earthquake and tsunami people.) Three Mile Island was hyped way more than it should have been and was not even close to catastrophic levels. You have any examples other than that? If not we can start looking at the accidents in coal mines, oil rigs and pipelines if you want.