Excellent and well reasoned post by JayDee. I would love for all the people who are anti-nuclear energy to make sure they research pollution from coal, as well.

I know you have, Kem Patrick.

JAYDEE, good post.

The one thing you wrote that made the most sense is, (before we construct another nuclear power plant we must resolve the nuclear waste storage issue.) That issue alone should insure we never construct another nuclear power plant.

Since the first one was put into operation, it has been well proven that safely storing nuclear waste for even 60 years is not possible, much less storing it forever. The number of leaks of nuclear waste into our enviroment, our ground waters, lakes and rivers sounds to be unbelievable. But it's not, it's a fact.

Why we even consider building any nuclear plants is beyond any sensible reasoning. The cost factor alone should make it a moot issue. Put the money into clean energy, with no fear factors, or the forever storing of nuclear waste to even think about. The three Mile Island accident was very close to a disaster that could have wiped out the land areas of eastern Penna, NJ and parts of NY and Delaware, steralized them for thousands of years. It was only minutes of a total meltdown. It could happen again, most of the plants in operation are old and a major disastor could occur at any of them because of a failed valve, a broken pipe, a faulty switch. There is nothing man made that won't fail at some time. Nothing, and the risk is far too great too consider using nuclear power. Someday we will see___ we are bucking the odds___and it won't be pretty.

You lost me after the third sentence. Whatever my own particular feelings about what a new generation of reactors might portend, I must say that the author's disinformation certainly doesn't help him make his case:

"...which is what they said about the last crop, including Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and..."

No one ever made such a statement about the Chernobyl power station. The plant at Chernobyl was designed and built by the Soviets, who did not adhere to the kind of stringent design, construction and operating standards which were, and still are, followed by most other nuclear nations. In fact, they basically built their plants where and how they pleased, without any citizen input, because they didn't care what the people wanted or thought. That is precisely why their plant exploded, caught fire, and spewed radioactity over half of Europe.

Contrast that with the Three Mile Island accident. There the plant operated under strict NRC controls. The accident ocurred because of a series of unrelated minor problems which led to a large one. There the core of the reactor also melted down, but releases to the outside consisted of limited emissions of radioactive iodine-131. There was no long-term contamination of air, soil, or water outside the plant, and no deaths. The different results between this incident and Chernobyl are attributable to the tighter controls exercised here vs. there.

Even the releases of radioactivity were manageable, again in contrast to Chernobyl. The biological effects of excess exposure to radio-iodine are pretty easy to spot; it usually causes thyroid tumors. Any evidence of of a cluster of thyroid tumors in and around Harrisburg or TMI? Not that I'm aware of. Anyway, exposure is easily preventable with iodine tablets, which as I recall were handed out to all those in the vicinity.

One has to conclude, then, that the author included Chernobyl simply for shock value, since the accident there is not connected in any way to US reactor operations, which is ostensibly what he is arguing against. And the threat from TMI has been grossly overblown. Yes, it was a serious accident. I wouldn't deny that. But I'm sure many, many times more people have been harmed by the discharge from coal-burning power plants than from nuclear ones. And the mistakes made at TMI which led to the accident were studied and made part of the learning process for reactor operators. That's why there hasn't been a repeat.

Most of the public fears regarding nuclear power are ill-founded, and are constantly whipped up by articles like these. Don't get me wrong, I'm not shilling for the nuke industry. I just think people should make informed decisions based on facts, not media-induced hysteria.

That said, the nuclear industry in this country has NO BUSINESS constructing another power plant until the issue of long-term waste storage has been resolved. On that, the author and I can agree. I've never liked the Yucca Mountain alternative. It was chosen simply because it happens to lie within an existing government nuclear test site already contaminated from hundreds of nuclear weapons tests. It is far from an ideal location, as it lies in a region which is geologically very active, and as such is prone to frequent earthquakes, some of which could be quite large. Last thing I would like to see is a huge quake cracking open a repository crammed full of high-level waste. There are other locations much more stable and suitable.

I could go on debunking some of the author's other misconceptions (and there are many), but I don't want to be too long-winded, and others have covered most of them. But if I desire to leave one thought fixed in the memories of any who read this, it would be that which I said earlier: Don't make any decisions on this issue out of fear or hysteria. Study, read up, learn something about the nuclear process, how it works, what its strong points and failings are, and then make an INFORMED decision. Too many people are scared of all things nuclear simply because they don't understand the science behind them.

There's a real investment opportunity for MtnGoat and all the like-minded who assume that nuclear power's problems can be solved: set up a privately-financed insurance company that will issue liability insurance for nuclear power companies.

If nuclear power is truly safe, there'll be no claims, you'll have essentially monopoly power, you can charge whatever you want so you'll make a mint. Easy money. So why don't you line up a group of investors, Goat? Otherwise you sound a little like someone who wants to have a war but doesn't want to volunteer to fight. Know what I mean?

MtnGoat - you give me great hope for the possibility of restoring real debate here. Too many people want to pontificate their opinions regarding problems without thinking about a possible solution. Part of our problem is the lack of reasoned debate in the US nowadays.

You wrote - "We have a growing nation and expanding economy, and the energy density of a power plant is impossible to reproduce with renewable means on the same footprints."

- First it should be said that you have to pause and consider the implications of an "expanding economy" that is based on jobs leaving the US and unemployment going up. The shareholders need to drive profits up each and every year is costing many of them their own jobs.

- Second - What appears to me both the safest means and most sustainable means of meeting the growing power needs of our country is to implement a combination of renewable energy sources both in the home and at the power plant. When the home source is unable to keep up with demand then the utilities could kick in as a backup. Of course expect to lose some teeth fighting with the likes of Southern Co. and PG&E. As for nuclear power it is neither sustainable nor renewable. It also leaves waste product that our so called super power of a nation's entire scientific community has not yet found a safe solution for disposal of it. The other fact is that we simply use too much power and do not consider ways of conserving at the house and even less at the office.

you also wrote - Simply writing off such a potent energy source, even because of well founded concerns, in all cases doesn't seem like an appropriate action in my opinions.

True - to a point - I would never write anything off without first educating myself on the subject. That said - exactly how would you propose we dispose of nuclear waste? I don't see how use of this "source" is justified when the end result of the waste is fatal to humans. So fatal it will continue to kill long after our great grandchildren are dead.

Any thoughts on that?

billy_y4:

Are baseless allegations (such as yours) supposed to be of value?

Shane:

It is hardly necessary to penetrate the reactor containment vessel to cause a radioactive catastrophe. There are plenty of "soft targets" outside the reactor itself, e.g. elements of the cooling system, which could cause either shutdown or meltdown if interfered with. (Merely interrupting the reactor's electricity supply would do the same, since reactors typically don't run off of their own power.) There are also large quantities of radioactive waste stored on-site in storage pools and other places outside the relative safety of the containment vessel.

Also, your post claims that only a "full-yield nuke" would be capable of breaching a US-built reactor containment vessel. I am unfamiliar with this technical designation. Is it anything like a "full-yield earthquake?"

MtnGoat:

The question is not, "Can these technical problems be overcome." The question is, "Is it a good use of time and money to attempt to overcome them, when there are easier, better, cheaper, and above all, SAFER solutions close at hand?"

You ask, "Are there challenges for insuring against disasters[?]" - this is like asking if it's hard to breathe the air on the moon. In the US at least, NO private insurance company has EVER insured a nuke plant.

You state that the technical challenges are easier than the political ones. I say that the political challenges exist BECAUSE of the technical challenges. What do you do with the waste? Any ideas? Any at all?

Your reference to "clean" nuke power is completely absurd. The fact that nuke power is "dirty" is what makes it work. No radiation = no heat = no electricity generation.

"Every lefties [sic] favorite nation, France" has a terrible environmental record. It's also far from the most left-wing country. Or do you assume that because Fox News hates France, that every lefty must automatically love it?

Your talk about "footprints" leaves out the fact that nuke plants require uranium-mining operations to function... and the fact that they require a constant inflow of cold water, and emit a constant outflow of hot water... and the fact that they sometimes "go Chernobyl" -- leaving a very large footprint indeed.

In every sense, nuke power is a failure, we know it's a failure, and it's long past time to accept this and move on.

The only time Nuclear power is clean at the most is pobibilt doing the generating of electricity.
Nobody ever looks at the mining and refining of the uranium, which both create many environmental longterm problems.

Now the after part of what to do with radioactive waste from a safety badge to the fuel rods has been documented plenty of times, but not a real longterm solution has been made a reality.

Oh another thing how comes the Nuclear companies gets all this public money ,but the rate payers of this their electricity keeps getting electric bill hikes?
If we are to have these nuclear plants then lets our government run them rather then a bunch of invisible people that answer to no one?

Hey, we can actually start shutting down all types pf Electric plants today if you the reader would just turn around from your computer and turn off all unessary lighting and yes open a window instead of turning up the air conditioning,

Some cartoon once said "We Have Met The Enemy And It Is Us" Truer words then them are hard to find.

I live in Japan and I was shocked at the number of cover-up attempts made by Tokyo Electric (owners of the nuclear plant that caught fire) to try and hide the scale of the damage, not to mention the fact that the plant was not built to spec in the first place.

And just to clear up one fact, it was not "most of Canada" that was blacked-out, just southern Ontario which sits on the Great Lakes and was tied into the grid with the American side.

Rebel Farmer, stock up on supplies and do have those community meetings. You will need some strong leaders and some who are well schooled in defensive tactics. You'll be ok.

expat: I agree with your posting for the most part, but where does the double digit inflation number come from? Is it for the whole US economy or for specific items like food and/or gas?

I have always said that I would not even consider nuclear power until they figured out what to do with the nuclear trash. Well, here we are, 40 or so years later, and there still isn't an answer to that question.

I'm not sure what the "footprint" arguement is about. There are an awful lot of roofs out there that already have a footprint. Even in Oregon I could put enough solar panels on the roof to power my house (and probably an electric car!). They have done this in Germany where whole towns are energy independent.

I agree with KEM in terms of where we put the tax payors' money for energy. The footprint of a nuke may be small, but it's financial cost is huge in comparison.

MtnGoat, let me point out some of your mistakes. The U.S. is not a growing nation. It's birth rate is essentially below negative. Any increase in numbers comes through immigration and despite its best imperial efforts in Iraq, is not adding any land space. The U.S. does not have an expanding economy unless you foolishly believe white house figures. I suggest shadowstatistics for a look at the real numbers. Suffice to say, inflation has been double digit for years and this makes gdp negative for the last 6 years as well. Only by continually pumping the money supply does the fed create the illusion of growth. Finally, National Geographic estimates that solar panels on only one third of the nations roof tops would generate enough electricity to run the nation. Your problem is you continue to think in big corporate energy ways, instead of distributed grid. Also, you fail to realize that nuclear is the MOST EXPENSIVE power there is, relying on giant federal government welfare and using huge amounts of energy to create its fuel source. It is simply not viable as an energy source, only as a welfare scheme for corporate America.

Hi MntGoat. A growing nation and an expanding economy? It looks to me as if we are growing in China and they have our nuts in a vice as far as our economy is concerned.

There are many scientific studies available on the internet on the subject of solar and wind power, that explan in detail, that we have ample days of sunshine in the United States and ample prevailing winds to produce twice as much electrical power as we could use. We just need to do it.

Fossil fuel and uranium mine owners have the money to control congressional votes and everyone knows it. Clean energy will never happen until we do experience a disaterous nuclear power plant accident. It will happen someday, no one beats the odds forever.

I respectfully disagree. We have a growing nation and expanding economy, and the energy density of a power plant is impossible to reproduce with renewable means on the same footprints. This is not a big deal in places with lots of land and sun available, but for places where it is not, especially in winter, there will always be a place for high output power plants. They may not be as numerous as they once were depending on how things work out, but it seems to me it will still be necessary. Simply writing off such a potent energy source, even because of well founded concerns, in all cases doesn't seem like an appropriate action in my opinions.

I appreciate the reasoned disagreement which is better than I got from the one poster.

MtnGoat, you write these are all problems that can be overcome, refering to the problems of nuclear energy. You are correct, they could be, the problem is they won't be.

If those problems could be overcome, they have never been and ample time to overcome them has long since passed. That comment of proven facts is seasoned dialogue.

The truth is, nuclear power is playing with fire, a fire that could forever destroy a land mass area the size of Texas, or Penna, NJ, Delaware and Maryland combined. It has almost happened on more than one occasion.

If we put a quarter of the money we have given to he nuclear power people, we would have ample clean energy and be able to shut down every nuclear and coal fired plant in our country. We would not have to insure them against a meltdown or a horrible, forever lasting, nuclear waste leak.

Boy, that represents some reasoned dialogue!

The truth is we are perpetually poisoning Posterity. Stop this Manifest Insanity NOW!

This article has a great list of problems but is very short on solutions save the typical call for a ban. What you do with engineering and finanical problem is...solve them, not whine about them and assume the sky is falling.

Is waste dangerous? yes. Are reactors a very tricky and high technology way to generate power? Yes. Are there challenges for insuring against disasters. Yes, yes and yes.

These are all problems that can be overcome. The technical challenges are actually easier than the political ones, since the opposition to nuclear power is emotionally simple and very pervasive.

However, given the potential for clean power from a small footprint with a very high energy density output per footprint is enormous. There are already nations which generate a huge chunk, if not the bulk of their power using nukes, including every lefties favorite nation, France!

Let's sit down and work out the issues and move forward, instead of just laundry listing a big list of scary things and arguing to just give up.

No one is addressing the underfunded insurance for the 100 nuclear power plants that we have now, let alone new ones. The fund is suppose to be self funded by the industry, but less than 5% of the reserve funds have been submitted, even after all of these years. The government has to pick up the tab if anything goes wrong and the last estimate for cleaning up a meltdown was $500 BILLION dollars.

Yeah Billy__y4, if the article was only ten percent factual, we should shut down every nuke power plant tomorrow. Of course it is factual enough and as an employee of nuclear power you know it. There have been many nuclear waste leaks that were not mentioned in the article, they would fill several scary to read pages.

I do tend to fully argee with Shane on the terrorist threat to a nuclear power plant, but the nuclear waste dumps are not all protected from an attack Shane, and they could be just as, or more deadly, for vast areas of our land.

And so was the Pentagon but a whatever penetrated its reinforced walls there, so the thought of a jetliner wouldn't penetrate a reactor,well enough said

I am not a nuclear engineer, but my own research indicates that it would be nigh impossible for a terrorist attack (of almost any kind except a full-yield nuke) to breach a US-built reactor containment vessel. These things are sealed by hundreds of tons of hi-grade reinforced concrete. Anyone associated with trying to remove the concrete bunkers and submarine pens built during WWII knows that even hundreds of tons of high-explosive will do nothing except burn the surface and expose a little reinforcing steel. Buildings are much easier and softer targets.

I would love to be able to pass this article on but although it is interesting it is of very little use to me. I have been fighting nuclear power for years and I believe everything I have read here; but this article would have far more persuasive power, and far more value in the losing fight against nuclear power, if we could see your sources for ourselves. The people I argue with always ask "Where did you get that information?" Legitimate question! I need attribution.
Great article, but help us out here. A list of footnotes would be powerful. MSM attributions, to the skeptics who still believe what they read in the NYT or see on CNN, would be gold.

Think Karen Silkwood.

Is a rant of half-truths (to be generous) supposed to be of value?