Nuclear power issue

[Mott the Hoople]

It's interesting that you should mention "risk versus benefit", when the only metrics to measure that I've seen presented here are "no one died!', or "it's the cleanest fuel"!"


I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I am equipped with excellent radar to detect keyboard arm chair experts, and arm-waving faux analysts.

The "no one died" argument is not a comprehensive risk-benefit evaluation of environmental risk. I doubt that anyone's died at a wind turbine farm, or a natural gas power plant either. There are all sorts of environmental risks, which may or may not directly result in a human death. And measuring the "cleanest" fuel is not simply limited to air emissions. Environmental risk, as measured by people who actually know what they're talking about, encompasses the whole range of risks from air quality, to water quality, to land resource impact, to impacts to wildlife, as well as human health.

A cursory review of USEPA's website indicates a broad host of environmental risks associated with nuclear power plants. From the mining of uranium, to water discharge issues, to land resource issues, to waste storage issues.

While I'm not going to proclaim with absolute, 100% certainty, the nuclear fuel is the cleanest, safest, and most environmenally-friendly (I'll leave that to the arm chair experts), I will hazard a guess that natural gas power plants, hydroelectric, wind, solar, and tide all have an aggregate environmental risk that is lower than a nuclear power plant. But, I could be wrong.

They do but the problem is they lack scale and capacity to meet demand. Nuclear is not a sole solution to our energy needs but it is a viable source of energy and, when managed properly, is cleaner and safer then coal for producing electricity. The down side is the catastrophic consequences for when nuclear power is not managed properly.

I'm for developing nuclear energy but not via "free market" controls, that's for damned sure. The market certainly has a place in developing and advancing nuclear energy but considering the risks involved and it's potential for making weapons, this must, by its nature, be a highly regulated industry.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Because you can clean up mercury and arsenic contamination to a degree, and stop the source via proper filtrations, etc. Serious radioactive contamination does go away that easily after stopping the source of contamination...Chernobyl being the example. And that's not all, as you can add the following to post #75

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9422

No you can't. Again you're uninformed. Mercury and Arsenic emitted from coal burning plants are in the form of gaseous hydrides. Both precipitate out of the air via rain water and convert to organic analogs (e.g. methyl mercury) via biological reduction. These analogs in addition to being some of the most toxic compounds known to man but they are also bio-accumulative and there is no known way to clean them up other then the prevent their emission in the first place.

You also keep referencing to post #75 where you link to an unscientific op-ed piece which discounts current waste management practices for LLW and HLW, where there are loads of actual peer reviewed objective research which supports these technologies and methods as the BADT's. You're not passing the credibility test with your arguments.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Any greenie that opposes nuclear power has no idea what they're talking about.

That's a sweeping generality that's not true either. Their are sound good reasons to oppose nuclear power. Safety and Security are foremost. I'd be upset if they made plans to put a nuclear power plant on the Big Island or some other geologically unstable or environmentally sensitive location.

Security and safety issues of nuclear power is of vital public concern and the public needs to be assured that nuclear power has the appropriate controls in place to assure both or it should be opposed.

In our nation those controls have demonstrated a history in which a very dangerous technology has been managed with a higher degree of safety then comparable industries but we sure as hell don't want to become complacent about that.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Well it doesn't matter WHY they died, the fact is they died. Nuclear industries are much more rigorously regulated and monitored for safety, and that was my point. In terms of safety, as well as risk versus benefit, nuclear energy beats everything else hands down. You can argue otherwise, but you will never see a news story about 25 people who died at a nuclear power plant because of lax safety measures.

That's true Dixie but you've never heard of 100,000 people dying because of lax security at a coal mine or coal burning plant. Such a risk with nuclear power does exist and that scares a lot of people. This is not something we should poo-poo as the far fetched whining of some liberal green eco nut jobs. Those are serious and legitimate concerns.

My point being, yes nuclear power in our nation has demonstrated an admirable record for safety and security but it has never done so at the level or scale of coal. Can it we grow the technology to meet increased demand using this technology while maintaining or improving upon that record? I think we can but we can't be complacent about it. One of the reasons nuclear power has the record it does is because of the tremendous public pressures on it to operate safely.

 

[DamnYankee]

1) First you and others mocked me for pointing out that costs of failures in the nuke industry get unfairly passed onto the taxpayer from PRIVATE industry and it's investor/shareholders....

2) For reason known only to God, you seem to think that stubbornly repeating some lame ass excuse will magically make it valid. Hint: it doesn't. You know damned well what we are discussing and why I offer the link...and if you don't, then all you have to do is back step the thread and follow the chronology. If you still don't get it, then get an adult you trust to explain it to you.

Grow the fuck up, Southie.....

1. Earth to Libbie: the investors and corporations own the corporations. They should pay the bills along with the profits.
2. Stop whining and present your point. You're silliness has been going on for days now in this tread, and is the same silliness that you display every time you are losing a debate.

 

[DamnYankee]

No stupid, I actually gave you credit for offering viable alternatives that IN COMBINATION can do the trick (you left out natural gas).

But I forget the games you corporate ass kissers play.....literal translation and a sudden inability to comprehend any concept in discussion that doesn't fit the neocon mantra. I won't make that mistake again....carry on.

Wrong Libbie. Collectively my list can't provide more than a small fraction of the energy to suit our needs. We need nuclear to keep things running.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I don't think that you should place your faith in natural gas so readily.

Peak gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, of the three fossil fuels, natural gas is supposed to run out the fastest. Back in 2000, they predicted 40 years for gas, 65 years for coal, and 100 years for oil. These numbers are now way out of date, but its pretty well understood that gas will be the first to go.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No stupid, I actually gave you credit for offering viable alternatives that IN COMBINATION can do the trick (you left out natural gas).

But I forget the games you corporate ass kissers play.....literal translation and a sudden inability to comprehend any concept in discussion that doesn't fit the neocon mantra. I won't make that mistake again....carry on.

Wrong Libbie. Collectively my list can't provide more than a small fraction of the energy to suit our needs. We need nuclear to keep things running.

Sweet Mother of God...do I have to spell out EVERYTHING?!? Your "list" in conjunction with properly emission regulated coal and oil would eliminate the need for nuclear.

Put it this way......instead of treating all nuke plant problems with the casual "work in progress" attitude we do now, why not weed out all the BS and just DEAL with reality...because quite frankly I do not want to be one of the victims of a cancer "spike" area that the nuke industry will play legal games over for years.

Did you know that over a decade ago a group came up with a safe system to thoroughly decontaminate ALL nuke waste....only to have it shot down due to WALL ST. speculation?!?!? If I can find the article on line, I'll post it here.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No stupid, I actually gave you credit for offering viable alternatives that IN COMBINATION can do the trick (you left out natural gas).

But I forget the games you corporate ass kissers play.....literal translation and a sudden inability to comprehend any concept in discussion that doesn't fit the neocon mantra. I won't make that mistake again....carry on.

I don't think that you should place your faith in natural gas so readily.

Peak gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You forget that for DECADES the US has steadfastly REFUSED to take up the offer of importing the VAST natural gas wealth of Mexico.

I don't put much stock in the "peak" graphs of oil or gas....because there are oil wells that have been producing well past the predicted "peak".

 

[DamnYankee]

Sweet Mother of God...do I have to spell out EVERYTHING?!? Your "list" in conjunction with properly emission regulated coal and oil would eliminate the need for nuclear.

Put it this way......instead of treating all nuke plant problems with the casual "work in progress" attitude we do now, why not weed out all the BS and just DEAL with reality...because quite frankly I do not want to be one of the victims of a cancer "spike" area that the nuke industry will play legal games over for years.

Did you know that over a decade ago a group came up with a safe system to thoroughly decontaminate ALL nuke waste....only to have it shot down due to WALL ST. speculation?!?!? If I can find the article on line, I'll post it here.

Best to have the market decide which technology is best, and I say "all of the above". Again, nuclear is the cleanest and safest, and your fear of it is unfounded.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Sweet Mother of God...do I have to spell out EVERYTHING?!? Your "list" in conjunction with properly emission regulated coal and oil would eliminate the need for nuclear.

Put it this way......instead of treating all nuke plant problems with the casual "work in progress" attitude we do now, why not weed out all the BS and just DEAL with reality...because quite frankly I do not want to be one of the victims of a cancer "spike" area that the nuke industry will play legal games over for years.

Did you know that over a decade ago a group came up with a safe system to thoroughly decontaminate ALL nuke waste....only to have it shot down due to WALL ST. speculation?!?!? If I can find the article on line, I'll post it here.

Best to have the market decide which technology is best, and I say "all of the above". Again, nuclear is the cleanest and safest, and your fear of it is unfounded.

You mean the same market that just prison raped the entire country? You mean the same market that gave us the S&L scandal and Enron?

Again, all one has to do is plant their lips on the ass of Wall St. and IGNORE all the information I've linked in order to parrot your last sentence.

 

[DamnYankee]

You mean the same market that just prison raped the entire country? You mean the same market that gave us the S&L scandal and Enron?

Again, all one has to do is plant their lips on the ass of Wall St. and IGNORE all the information I've linked in order to parrot your last sentence.

Nice deflection, but the fact is "all of the above" is the best strategy, and your fear of the market and nuclear power is unfounded.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Because you can clean up mercury and arsenic contamination to a degree, and stop the source via proper filtrations, etc. Serious radioactive contamination does go away that easily after stopping the source of contamination...Chernobyl being the example. And that's not all, as you can add the following to post #75

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9422

No you can't. Again you're uninformed. Mercury and Arsenic emitted from coal burning plants are in the form of gaseous hydrides. Both precipitate out of the air via rain water and convert to organic analogs (e.g. methyl mercury) via biological reduction. These analogs in addition to being some of the most toxic compounds known to man but they are also bio-accumulative and there is no known way to clean them up other then the prevent their emission in the first place.

You also keep referencing to post #75 where you link to an unscientific op-ed piece which discounts current waste management practices for LLW and HLW, where there are loads of actual peer reviewed objective research which supports these technologies and methods as the BADT's. You're not passing the credibility test with your arguments.

Your first paragraph is not accurate, because there are treatments for arsenic and mercury poisoning TO A DEGREE. You can use certain chemicals to leech the poisons from the human body and the eco-system. BIG DIFFERENCE from what radiation poisoning/contaimination does on the atomic and sub-atomic level. Mild radiation poisoning can be treated to a degree...MILD.

As for your second paragraph...It's NOT an "unscientific op-ed"......you say this because you DO NOT deal with the information and the SOURCES that information is based on. The oldest dodge in the world is to claim that NO information is valid unless it comes from specific sources. That is NOT entirely true...because as you and I both know many of the "scientific" breakthroughs came from "accidental discovery"...lucite, viagra. And remember, the coelacanth was known to the natives of Madagascar for generations...."science" claimed it didn't exist for millions of years until one of the "scientific peers" saw it for themselves.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
1) First you and others mocked me for pointing out that costs of failures in the nuke industry get unfairly passed onto the taxpayer from PRIVATE industry and it's investor/shareholders....

2) For reason known only to God, you seem to think that stubbornly repeating some lame ass excuse will magically make it valid. Hint: it doesn't. You know damned well what we are discussing and why I offer the link...and if you don't, then all you have to do is back step the thread and follow the chronology. If you still don't get it, then get an adult you trust to explain it to you.

Grow the fuck up, Southie.....

1. Earth to Libbie: the investors and corporations own the corporations. They should pay the bills along with the profits.

No shit sherlock...I'VE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR SEVERAL POSTS NOW! I've also been pointing out that when these jokers screw-up, THEY PAST THE LIABILITY COSTS TO YOU AND ME, THE TAXPAYER. Got it now!

2. Stop whining and present your point. You're silliness has been going on for days now in this tread, and is the same silliness that you display every time you are losing a debate.

Again folks, Southie thinks he can bullshit his way past refusing to read information that contradicts his assertions. The chronology of the post shows what an insipidly stubborn jackass he is...but Southie thinks having the last repetition of his dishonest dodge will validate him....which is so much more to pity him for.

 

[DamnYankee]

Again folks, Southie thinks he can bullshit his way past refusing to read information that contradicts his assertions. The chronology of the post shows what an insipidly stubborn jackass he is...but Southie thinks having the last repetition of his dishonest dodge will validate him....which is so much more to pity him for.

Great. So what was your point?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You mean the same market that just prison raped the entire country? You mean the same market that gave us the S&L scandal and Enron?

Again, all one has to do is plant their lips on the ass of Wall St. and IGNORE all the information I've linked in order to parrot your last sentence.

Nice deflection, but the fact is "all of the above" is the best strategy, and your fear of the market and nuclear power is unfounded.

No deflection, FACT...or did you have your head up your ass during the last 20 years?

The "market" that you worship screwed you....it's the same market that controls any new proposal that would decontaminate radioactive waste from the private sector. An article in the Village Voice, 3/31/1997 entitled Moten Meltdown by Thomas Goetz tells the tale of Molten Metal Technology and how the speculative side of Wall St. killed it's proposal.

 

[DamnYankee]

No deflection, FACT...or did you have your head up your ass during the last 20 years?

The "market" that you worship screwed you....it's the same market that controls any new proposal that would decontaminate radioactive waste from the private sector. An article in the Village Voice, 3/31/1997 entitled Moten Meltdown by Thomas Goetz tells the tale of Molten Metal Technology and how the speculative side of Wall St. killed it's proposal.

Why would those seeking profits stop themselves from making them?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No deflection, FACT...or did you have your head up your ass during the last 20 years?

The "market" that you worship screwed you....it's the same market that controls any new proposal that would decontaminate radioactive waste from the private sector. An article in the Village Voice, 3/31/1997 entitled Moten Meltdown by Thomas Goetz tells the tale of Molten Metal Technology and how the speculative side of Wall St. killed it's proposal.

Why would those seeking profits stop themselves from making them?

Why don't you READ what is referenced BEFORE you start asking questions? It would be a change to actually have a mutual reference point for discussion other that your opinion, supposition and conjecture. If you can't find the article on-line, try looking up Catalytic Extraction Process and the progress on that.

 

[DamnYankee]

Why don't you READ what is referenced BEFORE you start asking questions? It would be a change to actually have a mutual reference point for discussion other that your opinion, supposition and conjecture. If you can't find the article on-line, try looking up Catalytic Extraction Process and the progress on that.

Sorry Libbie you know I don't play your game. If you have a point to make then do so. Don't ax me to do it for you.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No deflection, FACT...or did you have your head up your ass during the last 20 years?

The "market" that you worship screwed you....it's the same market that controls any new proposal that would decontaminate radioactive waste from the private sector. An article in the Village Voice, 3/31/1997 entitled Moten Meltdown by Thomas Goetz tells the tale of Molten Metal Technology and how the speculative side of Wall St. killed it's proposal.

Sorry Libbie you know I don't play your game. If you have a point to make then do so. Don't ax me to do it for you.

Translation: this dummy doesn't know and doesn't want to know...but he doesn't dare do any honest research, because that would require an HONEST OPINION BASED ON THE FACTS, and Southie DARE not do so for fear he will be open to criticism that will disprove his contentions.

I get tired of doing homework for willfully ignornant neocons, teabaggers, corporate ass kissers, birthers and bigots. As this thread shows, Southie just doesn't have the stones to even READ what is FREELY OFFERED.

He's done.