View Poll Results: Do you support "well regulated" nuclear power?
I am to the right of center and I support nuclear power. 24 12.31%
I consider myself a right leaning centrist and I support nuclear power. 22 11.28%
I am a left leaning centrist and I support nuclear power. 65 33.33%
I consider myself a "leftist" and I support nuclear power. 60 30.77%
I consider myself to right of center and I do not support nuclear power. 0 0%
I am a right leaning centrist and I do not support nuclear power. 1 0.51%
I consider myself a left leaning centrist and I do not support nuclear power. 8 4.10%
I am a "leftist" and I do not support nuclear power. 7 3.59%
Currently, I really don't have an opinion one way or another on nuclear power. 4 2.05%
This is a fishing expedition isn't it; I will not answer your invasive questions! 4 2.05%
Voters: 195. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-04-2017, 09:05 AM
Happy Fun Ball Happy Fun Ball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The down hill slope
Posts: 3,111
How do you feel about nuclear power?

I was reading this GD thread a few days ago about whether nuclear power is economical and I was a bit annoyed by the first line of the OP:

Quote:
Originally Posted by boffking View Post
I think I might be the only leftist who isn't morally opposed to nuclear power. <snip>
I consider myself a centrist but I am sure many people would feel that the term leftist could fairly apply to me (especially in the current partisan political climate). Yet with my political leanings, I have supported nuclear power since the early 90s (the first time I thought about it). Reading the comments in that thread, it seemed to me that a lot of other self identified leftists also supported nuclear power. So to clear this up once and for all, I thought I would make a poll to see if boffking's stereotype is true, are leftists against nuclear power.

There is (or will soon be) a poll attached to the OP that uses the words "well regulated nuclear power". For those of us who flinch at the word regulated (you know who you are), please assume that well regulated means "minimally but sufficiently regulated to protect the populace and workers from danger, but not overly regulated". I really would rather avoid discussions or consideration of all the nimbyism and outdated regulations that surround the nuclear industry; this poll is meant to gauge peoples opinions in an ideal world.
  #2  
Old 08-04-2017, 09:09 AM
chrisk chrisk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Southern ontario
Posts: 6,588
I definitely consider myself a supporter, and said so in a GQ thread just this morning.

It does make some sense to me that the cost of nuclear power should include some money for a "care trust fund" intended to make sure that the byproducts can be well taken care of in the future, so that we're not entirely dumping the trash on our descendants, as it were. The same idea should probably apply to all energy sources with CO2 emissions...
__________________
Stringing Words Forum
Aspiring writers and authors supporting each other.
Goals and resolutions our particular specialty - also sharing commiseration and triumphs.
Join today!
  #3  
Old 08-04-2017, 09:21 AM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,316
Left-leaning centrist here. I strongly support well-regulated nuclear power as well as research to make it safer, cleaner, and cheaper. In light of the climate change threat, we need to replace all fossil fuels with nuclear right now.

After doing that we have some space to start replacing nuclear with the cleanest, safest, renewables. But the priority right now should be to halt all carbon emissions post-haste. Nuclear is the quickest and most effective way to reach that goal.

Last edited by HMS Irruncible; 08-04-2017 at 09:22 AM.
  #4  
Old 08-04-2017, 09:26 AM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,160
Very liberal - have long opined that increasing nuclear power generation only makes sense.
  #5  
Old 08-04-2017, 09:34 AM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,489
Liberal. Pro nuclear power in replacing fossil fuel power generation.
  #6  
Old 08-04-2017, 09:52 AM
PastTense PastTense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,715
Mostly liberal. I don't have a problem with nuclear power on safety/moral/environmental grounds. However I have a problem with it on economic grounds. Despite having been around for decades costs escalate out of control. Conversely wind and solar prices are steadily declining. So right now I believe the best approach for the next couple decades or so is to continue research on nuclear, but for the big power generation investments do solar and wind. [Some investments may be needed in natural gas, but nothing in coal.]

Last edited by PastTense; 08-04-2017 at 09:54 AM.
  #7  
Old 08-04-2017, 10:19 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
I don't but the premise that this is a left/right issue. I haven't seen a lot of nuclear power starting up in solid red states. NIMBY is a huge political factor that runs it's own course independent of other political ideologies.

For the purpose of this thread I'll call myself a left-leaning centrist and say I'm opposed to nuclear power expansion with the current regulatory and operational infrastructure.
  #8  
Old 08-04-2017, 10:22 AM
control-z control-z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 12,384
Right-leaning centrist. I think the cost, safety, and waste disposal issues of nuclear are significant. There is a nuclear plant near me and no waste from it has ever left the site, it's stored in big casks for future generations to deal with. Solar and wind power are at this point cleaner, cheaper, and safer.
  #9  
Old 08-04-2017, 10:27 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? What Exit? is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,447
I can't vote, you provided a nice selection of options but none fit me.

1. I support US Navy Nuclear Power. They have a great if not perfect record.
2. I support the idea of Nuclear Power but don't trust the average power company to do a safe job.
3. I'm in the center but lean left on many issues and right on several.
4. I would like to see increased Nuclear power in use but with the caveats of not civilian controlled and that proper waste disposal procedures not only be in place but be used.
  #10  
Old 08-04-2017, 10:28 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
I can't vote, you provided a nice selection of options but none fit me.

1. I support US Navy Nuclear Power. They have a great if not perfect record.
2. I support the idea of Nuclear Power but don't trust the average power company to do a safe job.
3. I'm in the center but lean left on many issues and right on several.
4. I would like to see increased Nuclear power in use but with the caveats of not civilian controlled and that proper waste disposal procedures not only be in place but be used.
Very much how I feel about this.
  #11  
Old 08-04-2017, 10:32 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,463
I doubt that this poll will mean much, because this board is both much more liberal and more technophilic than the population as a whole. So it's no surprise that the two left/pro options are in the lead, but it doesn't mean anything for the bulk of liberals or pro-nuclears.
  #12  
Old 08-04-2017, 12:56 PM
richw211 richw211 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 32
Left-leaning centrist, former Navy Nuke and former commercial nuclear power plant Systems Engineer. I think the cost and safety of nuclear are very significant, but can be managed/regulated. I do not, however, support commercial nuclear power due to the waste issue. As control-z stated "There is a nuclear plant near me and no waste from it has ever left the site, it's stored in big casks for future generations to deal with." I would expand on that statement to: There are many nuclear plants (>100) in the USA and no waste has EVER left ANY these sites (that I am aware of). Commercial nuclear power has been going for 50-60 years and we still don't have a plan where to put the high level waste.

I don't think that full-scale switching to nuclear power to save the environment is a good idea either. I'm not certain it would actually work and, once we move to nuclear, I believe it would be a tough sell to shift to other technologies.
  #13  
Old 08-04-2017, 01:34 PM
Pábitel Pábitel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Hardwick, VT
Posts: 1,390
Lefty here, used to support nuclear power before the Chernobyl and Japan disasters. Now I think other alternatives, and especially solar, are a far better investment.
By the time a single nuke plant could be proposed, designed, licensed and built you could build many times the output using safer methods and probably for less cost.
  #14  
Old 08-04-2017, 02:34 PM
Corry El Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,071
It's largely moot in the US at this point without assuming big changes in policy. One of two projects for new nuke plants just cancelled for massive cost overruns and bankruptcy of the designer (Toshiba/Westinghouse), other project is even money to follow suit.

The practical question would be whether people favor the much larger subsidies it would require for nuclear to compete in the environment otherwise. Or whether it's taken for granted the US should have much stricter anti-carbon policies which would give nuclear any chance without much bigger direct subsidies. But without that and given a) the fracking revolution and b) the long hiatus on nuclear development and production, and corresponding skills deficit which is a big part of the Toshiba/Westinghour fiasco, nuclear plants make no sense economically compared to gas fired gas turbine combined cycle plants for the main base load

There could be a side debate about gas plants v solar/wind, where it's one thing when solar and wind are some small % of generating capacity, another kettle of fish to try to boost that beyond about 1/4* or something. That requires lots more investment in energy storage or long rang transmission which isn't free. Happy talk about solar/wind getting close to nat gas in cost is without counting the extra costs required for the renewables had to support the base load all the time. Nuclear and gas are more interchangeable as full time baseload sources. But it's gas no contest right now without big new subsidies for nuclear.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/c...-carolina.html

*on average all the time. Another happy talk theme is how certain weather conditioned have resulted in some European countries recently getting almost all their electricity from windmills, for a few days while those conditions hold, but a lot of the rest of the time a lot of fossil generation is still required, and especially when certain weather conditions (stable fronts, cloudy not windy) pretty much sideline the renewables. And if the fossil plants are sometimes required, they have to replaced eventually, which isn't free, neither is a big new super grid to always get power from where weather conditions are favorable. It's not anti renewable, just anti renewaable-unrealism.

Last edited by Corry El; 08-04-2017 at 02:38 PM.
  #15  
Old 08-04-2017, 02:38 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,215
Left of center and totally support nuclear power.
  #16  
Old 08-04-2017, 02:40 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 19,944
No option for centrists, libertarians, or commies?

Last edited by Sage Rat; 08-04-2017 at 02:40 PM.
  #17  
Old 08-04-2017, 03:04 PM
Dinsdale Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 17,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by richw211 View Post
...I would expand on that statement to: There are many nuclear plants (>100) in the USA and no waste has EVER left ANY these sites (that I am aware of). Commercial nuclear power has been going for 50-60 years and we still don't have a plan where to put the high level waste.
...
The fact that political NIMBYs handcuff the transportation and longterm storage of the waste does not mean that it is undoable. The risks from existing storage methods are (IMO) grossly exaggerated.

Waste could be hugely reduced with recycling, which only makes economic sense with centralized facilities - which requires transportation.

Last edited by Dinsdale; 08-04-2017 at 03:05 PM.
  #18  
Old 08-04-2017, 03:25 PM
carnivorousplant carnivorousplant is online now
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 56,906
My FIL, a geologist, suggested dumping nuclear waste into the Marianas Trench, where it would return to the earth.

I am a more or less Liberal, and I support nuclear power.
Waste from Arkansas Nuclear I and II goes to a facility in South Carolina.
  #19  
Old 08-04-2017, 04:14 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,135
Averagely centrist here. UK, though, so probably a commie in American terms . I support nuclear power.
  #20  
Old 08-04-2017, 06:23 PM
seal_cleaner seal_cleaner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Northwest Arkansas
Posts: 2,035
Very liberal. I'd love for nuclear power to be safer. Were I president, I would offer a billion dollars to anyone who could solve the spent fuel disposal problem.
  #21  
Old 08-04-2017, 07:47 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 20,877
Sorry to be "that poster" but does "support" mean that I want it getting public economic support? I'm a left leaning centrist but not sure I have an option in the poll.

I'm all for monetizing the costs of carbon and letting nuclear fairly compete for plant lifetime total costs inclusive of external costs, as a mature technology whose period of public subsidies (direct and indirect) is done. That's a pretty strongly held opinion.

If serious analysis has it able to compete on that basis then having it as part of a diverse mix of energy generation is something I'd strongly support.

But right now natural gas is hard to compete against even if the carbon and other external costs were priced in and my impression is that many renewables' cost arcs are looking like they'll be ready to compete better than nuclear can fairly soon.
  #22  
Old 08-04-2017, 08:50 PM
SCAdian SCAdian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,505
Retired bubblehead (coner). Definitely to the right of centre, and definitely support nuclear power.
  #23  
Old 03-12-2018, 01:10 PM
richw211 richw211 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 32
High or Low Level Waste?

Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
My FIL, a geologist, suggested dumping nuclear waste into the Marianas Trench, where it would return to the earth.

"I am a more or less Liberal, and I support nuclear power.
Waste from Arkansas Nuclear I and II goes to a facility in South Carolina.
"

Is high level waste (i.e. spent fuel) from Ark I/II being shipped to South Carolina? When I was in commercial nuclear power, the low level waste from my facility was being shipped to SC, but the high level waste remained at site. The unresolved high level waste storage issue is the main reason I don't support nuclear power.

As for dumping high level waste in the Marianas Trench, "they" better be absolutely certain it will "return to the earth" instead of coming back to bite us later. I assume it would be next to impossible to clean up a radioactive mess at that depth. There's many places that high level waste could be sent to: deep space, the sun, buried far underground in salt mines,...etc. However if something goes wrong with any of these scenarios, you could have a huge problem to hand down to the next 50 generations or so.

And here we sit, still generating high level waste with nowhere to send it.
  #24  
Old 03-12-2018, 01:25 PM
mikecurtis mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,237
I'm disappointed in nuclear power. . . we have figured out how to unleash the awesome energy stored within the atom - a feat which truly must be considered one of mankind's most spectacular achievements - and what do we do with it? we boil water!

mc
  #25  
Old 03-12-2018, 01:31 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? What Exit? is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
I'm disappointed in nuclear power. . . we have figured out how to unleash the awesome energy stored within the atom - a feat which truly must be considered one of mankind's most spectacular achievements - and what do we do with it? we boil water!

mc
We also brought a swift end to the largest war in the history of the world.

What we of course need, is sustained fusion power. Someday we may finally get there though in my life it doen't seem like the time frame has gotten any closer and I've been following it for about 40 years now.
  #26  
Old 03-12-2018, 01:43 PM
Fear Itself Fear Itself is online now
Friend of Cecil
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 35,242
I am very liberal, and I oppose nuclear power because of the waste storage issue. On site storage is just insane, no one wants a secure storage facility near them, and none of the other proposals seem feasible or prudent.
  #27  
Old 03-12-2018, 01:44 PM
jz78817 jz78817 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 11,481
I'm for it in principle, but only in the manner of replacing the 40-year-old reactors (of 60-year-old technology) with newer designs.
  #28  
Old 03-12-2018, 02:08 PM
beowulff's Avatar
beowulff beowulff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Scottsdale, more-or-less
Posts: 15,810
I didn't vote in the poll.

I think that nuclear power would be a reasonable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but only if some long-term solution to the waste storage issue is in place. The current "plan," which is basically ignore the problem, makes the whole system unsupportable for me right now.
  #29  
Old 03-12-2018, 02:34 PM
jz78817 jz78817 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 11,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulff View Post
I didn't vote in the poll.

I think that nuclear power would be a reasonable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but only if some long-term solution to the waste storage issue is in place. The current "plan," which is basically ignore the problem, makes the whole system unsupportable for me right now.
according to Scientific American, as of that publishing the spent fuel we have in this country would cover roughly a football field several yards deep.

that really isn't that big. we don't seem to have much trouble putting football fields in the middle of densely-populated areas in only a few years; surely this country has enough "middle of nowhere" regions we could fit this stuff in. once the spent rods no longer need active cooling, cask 'em up, bury 'em, and forget about 'em.
  #30  
Old 03-12-2018, 03:41 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
I'm for it in principle, but only in the manner of replacing the 40-year-old reactors (of 60-year-old technology) with newer designs.
And specifically, newer types of reactors that are able to use fuel with reduced amount of processing and enrichment while achieving nearly complete burnup of fuel, require less active controls and reliance on training and maintenance for safety, and are designed to be dismantled and remediated once they are at end of useful life. Such designs, like the molten salt reactor, actually exist on paper and have been demonstrated through proof of concept, but the nuclear industry is fixed on Generation II and III designs and the inefficient nuclear fuel cycle underlying them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
according to Scientific American, as of that publishing the spent fuel we have in this country would cover roughly a football field several yards deep.

that really isn't that big. we don't seem to have much trouble putting football fields in the middle of densely-populated areas in only a few years; surely this country has enough "middle of nowhere" regions we could fit this stuff in. once the spent rods no longer need active cooling, cask 'em up, bury 'em, and forget about 'em.
No. First of all, just because the fuel itself physically fits in that volume doesn't mean you can pack it in asshole to elbow. Aside from the thermal energy produced by still decaying fuel there is also the neutron release which will result in criticality accidents if the material is too closely packed without adequate shielding. Second, the "cask 'em up, bury 'em, and forget about 'em" plan is about as thoughtful as burying a bunch of toxic waste in an abandoned canal because who is ever going to build a suburban housing development or school on top of it? Nuclear waste--not only the high level residual fuel waste, but also the intermediate level waste produced by the ton in the fuel refining and enrichment process--is a serious issue that has to be addressed with in any scheme for a large scale expansion of nuclear fission power. Notwithstanding the costs and risks of burying 'spent' fuel and other waste underground and hoping it doesn't leak into the outside environment in the next ten thousand years, there is the fact that current once-through fuel cycles use at best around 5% of the total available energy of the fissile material, which requires extracting, processing, and enriching more fuel material with the attendant environmental costs. The argument against reprocessing is the cost and waste that is produced from processing current oxide fuels, where as metallic or liquid salt fuels could be more easily processed.

There is another set of issues, however, with the expansion of nuclear power. One is the lack of a fuel enrichment infrastructure to support more use. The current US nuclear power industry is already buying fuel from foreign sources, partially because it is less expensive but also because there simply isn't enough domestic production to feed even current demand, much less the order of magnitude increase in nuclear fission plants it would take to replace all hydrocarbon power generation. Another is the lack of skilled labor to build hundreds of plants; we'd be doing well to build and staff a dozen nuclear power plants concurrently at this point, and even then we'd probably need to import some skilled labor and incentivize students to get training as nuclear engineers and technicians. It would likely take a couple of decades even with an intensive effort to be able to build and operate several hundred new nuclear power facilities. And of course, these facilities--particularly Generation II/III systems--have a large immediate carbon footprint; while the lifetime atmospheric carbon generation of nuclear power is lower than coal fired or even much cleaner natural gas plants, the initial energy for producing and transporting materials to build a plant add significant carbon output.

For all of these reasons, it makes more sense to have a coordinated plan which phases out the most polluting of fossil fuel plants and encourages remediation and efficiency schemes while building out sustainable energy (wind and solar) as a scalable alternative while investing in research on advanced types of nuclear fission plants and building those out in stages, thereby not being locked into a single type of plant that may turn out to be less than optimum. Moving to types of fission plants that require less fuel processing and produce minimum waste through nearly complete burnup also reduces both the carbon footprint and the fuel mining and processing demand, particularly if we can transition to using mixed uranium-thorium fuels or even a predominately pure thorium fuel infrastructure. (We produce an abundance of thorium from rare earth mining and processing anyway, so up to the point that we exceed that amount it is not much of an additional burden in terms of remediation or environmental damage.) And ultimately, we can hold out hope that controlled nuclear fusion will become viable and cost-effective, although the ultimate form that will take and when it will occur are still unknowns that defy efforts at practical planning at this point.

Stranger
  #31  
Old 03-12-2018, 05:27 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 29,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
Another is the lack of skilled labor to build hundreds of plants; we'd be doing well to build and staff a dozen nuclear power plants concurrently at this point, and even then we'd probably need to import some skilled labor and incentivize students to get training as nuclear engineers and technicians.
I find this difficult to believe given the extensive use of nuclear reactors by the US Navy.
  #32  
Old 03-12-2018, 05:44 PM
gaffa gaffa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 10,991
I'm a life-long lefty and am appalled at my compatriots who have opposed something that is the only practical solution to global warming.
  #33  
Old 03-12-2018, 06:55 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I find this difficult to believe given the extensive use of nuclear reactors by the US Navy.
The United States has ten operating nuclear powered aircraft carriers in addition to the fleet ballistic missile and attack submarines numbering somewhere over 100. However, these are all powered by naval reactors which, while they are pressurized water reactors of relatively similar design to one another, are not very much like commercial power generating nuclear reactor plants; in particular, they are designed to be highly compact, to not require incremental refueling, and to operate with more in the way of active control than their commercial counterparts. The Navy aggressively tries to retain (good) nucs because of the long time it takes to train engineers and operators while purging unreliable performers early as part of their institutional discipline. These engineers and technicians are also not heavily trained in the design of new reactors because they are operating and maintaining a small class of very similar types of reactor, and are not familiar with many of the safety and maintenance systems commonly found on commercial reactors.

The sum total is that the nuclear technicians and engineers you will most readily get from the Navy are most likely to be those they did not find worthy of retaining and promoting, are not familiar with the design and operation of commercial reactor systems, do not have experience in large civil construction in power generating facilities, and there are still not enough of them to make more than a modest-sized dent in the hundreds of thousands of skilled engineers and operators needed to support increasing nuclear power generation on the scale of hundreds of new plants. This is, of course, not an insoluable problem; you simply have to intentivize capable people to become engineers and technicians, and then put them in positions where they can be mentored and gain experience until they are knowledgeable enough to mentor others, but this is the work of a couple of decades to expand the set of qualified workers to the necessary scale; you can’t do it overnight by creating a “NukeCorps” program and running a bunch of bright kids through a nuclear engineering boot camp.

Stranger
  #34  
Old 03-12-2018, 07:08 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,811
If this link isn't already in this thread, it ought to be. Ice Wall Fails to Freeze Fukashima's Toxic Water Buildup (Reuters)

Just no.
  #35  
Old 03-13-2018, 08:31 AM
DrCube DrCube is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 6,981
My understanding is that coal produces more radioactive waste than nuclear plants, except we just pump it into the atmosphere for everyone to breathe. "Burying and forgetting about it" is infinitely preferable to that, in my opinion.
  #36  
Old 03-13-2018, 09:47 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 8,500
Socially I'm center leaning leftist with a nasty streak of communal objectivitiness except I'm south of ignorant on abortion, fiscally I'm hard core reactionary and think the 16th Amendment should be repealed ...

The poll didn't give this option so I clicked one of the tofu-puker choices in favor of nuclear power ...

We need the energy ... when these billions and billions of people outside the current industrialized club start using their fair share of the energy production ... we're going to have to build thousands of nuclear power plants, burn fossil fuels like they'll last forever, dams across every river at every bend, wind mill on every hill tops and solar panels covering every place where food doesn't grow as well ... the good news is that most of the environment on land is ruined anyway, so it's not like humans will damage anything more with this plan ... don't worry about tidal and wave electrical generation, humans have used a sieve to removal all animal life in the oceans larger than a roof rat ...

The problem is that nuclear power will be used instead of conservation ... for every plant brought on-line, humans will just use more energy ... fossil fuel plants will not be removed from service ...

Stranger is spot on correct, we can build nuclear power plants that produce very very little radioactive waste ... the breeder reactors ... they're just really expensive ... ideally, we can put in Uranium-235 and pull out Carbon-12 ... then just throw it in the ocean and let what little is left of the biology deal with it ...

Of course, all this is out the window if we can discover how to unlock solar energy's full potential ...
  #37  
Old 03-13-2018, 10:04 AM
kopek kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 13,256
In favor. And if we ever get cold fusion going consider me radically in favor.
  #38  
Old 03-13-2018, 11:04 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,136
Interesting. I didn't know leftists actually called themselves leftists. I thought that was a term that immediately alerted you to the fact you were talking to a conservative.

Anyway, nuke power all the way. Just harden them to accidents and terrorism.

I think it's absolutely dumb to move to all-electric or hydrogen without it.

Last edited by Ashtura; 03-13-2018 at 11:06 AM.
  #39  
Old 03-13-2018, 12:04 PM
jz78817 jz78817 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 11,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post

No. First of all, just because the fuel itself physically fits in that volume doesn't mean you can pack it in asshole to elbow. Aside from the thermal energy produced by still decaying fuel there is also the neutron release which will result in criticality accidents if the material is too closely packed without adequate shielding.
for sure I wasn't saying "go ahead and pack it all into a football-field size hole," the article I linked made the same point you did. my (oblique) point is that the actual volume of spent fuel and associated waste is just not that big.
  #40  
Old 03-13-2018, 11:32 PM
The Plutonium Kid The Plutonium Kid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 85
We need nuclear, and it's at least as safe as any other source of energy. Let's face it, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric and wind power aren't enough to support industrial high-tech civilizations. And if the wheels stop, an awful lot of people are going to starve.
  #41  
Old 03-13-2018, 11:55 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,073
Liberal. I don't know what % of energy demands can be met with wind, solar and batteries alone. Of the other choices nuclear is the next best option for power (after hydro and geothermal).

Supposedly the new generation plants do not meltdown. But what about natural disasters like what happened in Japan?
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 03-13-2018 at 11:56 PM.
  #42  
Old 03-14-2018, 12:07 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 23,347
I'm not against nuclear power; I am against nuclear waste.
  #43  
Old 03-14-2018, 02:12 AM
AHunter3 AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 19,803
I am a cautious supporter of nuclear power; I don't think it is intrinsically and unsolveably dangerous, but I do think it is the kind of technology where an unregulated profit-motive industrial corporation could do a shitload of damage. I suppose my inclination would be to pursue nuclear power with an exemplary power plant built in Washington DC and others in politicians' home neighborhoods.

There's no way to acquire energy without some ecologically destructive potential being involved.
  #44  
Old 03-14-2018, 02:17 AM
FoieGrasIsEvil's Avatar
FoieGrasIsEvil FoieGrasIsEvil is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 17,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Liberal. I don't know what % of energy demands can be met with wind, solar and batteries alone. Of the other choices nuclear is the next best option for power (after hydro and geothermal).

Supposedly the new generation plants do not meltdown. But what about natural disasters like what happened in Japan?
Don't build a nuclear power plant next to an ocean in a country that has regular tsunami threats.

I cannot believe the amount of money spent on research and development of the Yucca Mountain site, all for naught. Fracking is a-ok, but storing nuclear waste at Yucca isn't?

And yes, I understand the concerns...water table, transport of waste to the facility, seismic activity, etc...but we've poured so many resources into that site and even partially built the facility just so people can tour it like a museum? The proposed site is even already located within a former nuclear test area.
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns
  #45  
Old 03-14-2018, 02:25 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 5,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoieGrasIsEvil View Post
I cannot believe the amount of money spent on research and development of the Yucca Mountain site, all for naught. Fracking is a-ok, but storing nuclear waste at Yucca isn't?
It's because a large majority of Nevadans oppose it, and one of their senators was the Senate majority leader for eight years.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 03-14-2018 at 02:26 AM.
  #46  
Old 03-14-2018, 03:31 AM
jz78817 jz78817 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Under Oveur & over Unger
Posts: 11,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
It's because a large majority of Nevadans oppose it, and one of their senators was the Senate majority leader for eight years.
well, when everyone is saying "do it but NIMBY," eventually someone is going to have to have the spine to say "sorry, but your back yard is the best option. Tough shit."
  #47  
Old 03-14-2018, 10:02 AM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,179
Well, that’s the fundamental problem. Nobody wants to play host to a nuclear waste repository. States like California and Illinois are fine with build and getting significant portions of their electrical power from nuclear plants but when it comes to disposing of waste! that is SEP (Sombody Else’s Problem), preferably a state like Nevada which, at the time the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository was proposed, had little influence or power in Congress, which is precisely why it was selected over locations with greater long term impermeability (e.g. salt caverns). In theory, given a sufficiently robust containment storage system, high level waste could be stored virtually anywhere that is above the water table and isn’t subject to massive seismic activity, but Nevada was chosen because it was (at the time) a desert state with few people and little revenues, and Yucca Mountain was built and intended to be operated largely at the public expense.

But this sidesteps the biggest issue with permanent underground storage of ‘expended’ fuel; it is actually an energy-rich material that could be used to generate more energy with only a modest amount of reprocessing, provided we use the right nuclear fission technology. Vitrifying it and burying it underground in permanent deep storage, trying to somehow dump it into the Marianas Trench, or launching it into the Sun at great expense and risk are all ‘solutions’ trying to solve the wrong problem. It’s like giving your server a $20, getting back $17.54 in change, and then going to find a toilet to flush down the money because you think it might be unclean. Our natural reserves of high grade uranium are not unlimited and are only found on a few sites on the planet, and are extracted and milled with some amount of unavoidable contamination of the nearby environment; we should be making the best use of the fuels we have while trying to develop a genuinely carbon neutral energy production source in controlled nuclear fusion, not burying mostly unused fuel elements in an out-of-site-out-of-mind scheme that renders it very difficult to access for future use.

Stranger
  #48  
Old 03-14-2018, 11:05 AM
CelticKnot CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: 2 hours from somewhere
Posts: 730
Paleo-Libertarian. I support Nuclear power. I also support R & D going towards dealing with nuclear waste and improving the technology instead of going towards wind and solar, which cannot support 21st century Western society.
If we had spent the last 40 years working on nuclear power instead of letting stagnate, we would be 40 years closer to a solution.
  #49  
Old 03-14-2018, 11:41 AM
AHunter3 AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 19,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by jz78817 View Post
well, when everyone is saying "do it but NIMBY," eventually someone is going to have to have the spine to say "sorry, but your back yard is the best option. Tough shit."
As I said above, let's start with the politicians' own back yards. That gives me some measure of faith, even if it's an attenuated measure thereof, that there will be some modicum of common-sense safety protocols and a minimum of corner-cutting / cost-saving shortcuts.
  #50  
Old 03-14-2018, 05:48 PM
CelticKnot CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: 2 hours from somewhere
Posts: 730
We've gone past NIMBY to BANANA: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017