Local Matters

Recent comments

Community Sponsors

November 8, 2018 - 10:35am

Today's Poll: Should there be more nuclear power plants built in the U.S.?

posted by Howard B. Owens in polls.
Daniel Norstrand
Daniel Norstrand's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 21 hours ago
Joined: Jul 18 2016 - 10:27am

I'm truly amazed that people engaged enough with public discourse to take the time to read and vote on polls, could be so disengaged with reality. Nuclear power may at some point be reinvented to be a safe and clean source of power but as of yet that has not happened. Every now and then a GLARING (glowing?) example of how the human mental and emotional frailties that allowed nuclear power to become an "industry" continue to destroy our planet. 3 mile island, Chernobyl, and Fukishema are the most notable. Of course the bought and sold out media has all to do with that. Check here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/02/wherever-it-rains-in-the-united-...
Nuclear radioactivity is invisible, doesn't smell or taste,or even feel unless present in a high dosage. Very low dosage can be the beginnings of a myriad of illnesses. At least 20,000 years until the area around Chernobyl will be safely habitable. However, the radiation spewed forth by the meltdown was spread around the globe and will continues to cause untold illnesses for God knows how long. Fukushema is still in a state of "controlled" out of control. Check here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/16/japan-plans-flush-fukushima-...
The radiation from Fukushema, while highly diluted, is certainly spread as far and wide as the tsunami debris from the same event. Which means all across the Pacific. Dilution may not be a solution. A contaminated molecule making its way through the food chain could conceivably do DNA damage to a human and start the chain reaction to cancer.
These Nuclear power plant "accidents" were incidents that the lying industry had to have known would happen. Greed, the ever powerful aphrodisiac to those with mental and emotional frailties, continues to seduce those in government, media, and commerce who have given the public an impression of safe, clean energy.
The possibilities of terrorism and attack from the many enemies we have created around the globe heightens the risks. And the whole mess is created and maintained with subsidies that make us pay through the nose for our own annihilation. Check here:
https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power/nuclear-power-su...
Please people, end nuclear power as we know it. Solar should be receiving the subsidies as solar is the cleanest, safest, most reliable source we could hope for. And provided free of charge. That is exactly why all of the greedy, needy, psychopaths are against it.

Tim Miller
Tim Miller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 29 min ago
Joined: Jun 20 2010 - 9:51am

I have to agree with Daniel (except for the "Of course the bought and sold out media has all to do with that" snark... but then, that's Daniel!). Until we manage to create a safer nuclear plant, and especially with wind and solar energy technology becoming more and more efficient and effective, we should not expand nuclear power plants.

Howard B. Owens
Howard B. Owens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 14 hours ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 3:05pm

Solar vs. Nuclear is not an either/or question.

However, currently, nuclear power is about 1/6 the cost of solar. It also takes less land to produce more energy (if you're talking industrial solar farms).

Nuclear power is a steady energy source. The big issue with solar right now is that when there's no sun, there's no power and we've yet to find an effective way to store the energy generated while the sun shines at scale. Finding a solution to this problem will be expensive.

Nuclear power plants have a lifespan of 40 to 60 years. Solar farms are built to last only 25 years.

My version of the energy future is nuclear plus solar and very little fossil fuel use.

Tim Miller
Tim Miller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 29 min ago
Joined: Jun 20 2010 - 9:51am

I don't disagree with your solar vs nuclear cost issue, Howard... however, the damages we've seen from failed nuclear plants outweighs, I believe, *additional* nuclear plants until we have improved upon the nuclear plant design.

I've always been a fan of nuclear - even took the side of nuclear plants during a debate in high school. Sadly, even though that debate was after Three Mile Island, I cannot justify my stance of that time after seeing Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Daniel Norstrand
Daniel Norstrand's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 21 hours ago
Joined: Jul 18 2016 - 10:27am

The need for storage of power generated from solar would seem to be mainly in small scale (off grid) use. The systems attached to the grid can utilize the power immediately while reducing generated power from other less safe and more environmentally irresponsible sources. As transportation continues to increase its electric power evolution, any "need" for storage will decline as the proliferation of solar increases. With the virtual elimination of transportation pollutants, the use of a comparatively small number of fossil fuel plants could be used to facilitate a solar based grid without exacerbating global warming.

Howard B. Owens
Howard B. Owens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 14 hours ago
Joined: Apr 23 2008 - 3:05pm

That would be a might big grid ... with a pretty big carbon footprint to create and other environmental damage.

Tim, on a cost-benefit analysis, combined Three Mile, Chernobyl, and Fukushima prove nuclear is a very safe option.

No human activity is without risk. And the risk of climate change is global and potentially civilization-ending and the need for swift action far outweigh concerns about a nuclear plant problem, where failures have been limited to local areas. Nuclearly is our most robust, swiftest course of action to reduce carbon emissions.

Daniel Norstrand
Daniel Norstrand's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 21 hours ago
Joined: Jul 18 2016 - 10:27am

Also, as far as your $$$ numbers are concerned Howard, you can't compute the costs of nuclear. The storage and disposal of the waste is a conundrum that is still to be solved. So while the numbers you cite may be out of pocket cost, that industry is constantly accumulating a debt that is incalculable... in many ways. Check here: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42219616/ns/business-us_business/t/us-storage-...

Daniel Norstrand
Daniel Norstrand's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 21 hours ago
Joined: Jul 18 2016 - 10:27am

Here are some other pending disasters BRILLIANTLY ignored by supporters of nuclear energy. Or as one huge fan refers to it: NEWK-YUH-LER. The last "Check here" would get a pg 13 rating for vulgarity. The language is saintly in comparison to the vulgarity of the reality the performance purveys. It's some pretty good levity regarding an unbelievable game of charade, or is it Russian roulette.
Check here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/california-wildfires-r...

And here: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nepnvd/californias-woolsey-fi...

And here: https://www.cbsnews.com/video/underground-fire-burning-near-nuclear-wast...

And here: https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/video/3861926-tons-of-nuclear-waste-outs...

And here: https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2018/10/19/nuclear-waste...

And here: https://thinkprogress.org/rick-perry-accidentally-told-the-truth-about-d...

And here: Watch "‘Ticking Time Bomb’: Giant Stockpile of Nuclear Waste Endangers US" on YouTube https://youtu.be/dKhTbrVrxPM

And here: Watch "Nuclear Waste: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)" on YouTube https://youtu.be/ZwY2E0hjGuU

Post new comment

Log in or register to post comments

Calendar

S M T W T F S
 
 
 
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
 

Copyright © 2008-2018 The Batavian. Some Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license.
Contact: Howard Owens, publisher (howard (at) the batavian dot com); (585) 250-4118

blue button