No Government Subsidies for New Nuclear Plants

KEM PATRICK wrote "Wind/solar energy is viable and the means to produce all of the electrical power we will ever need by those methods has been proven to be both feasible and affordable." Wrong again -- except maybe solar thermal if anybody can stay in business doing it. If the entire land area of the United States was as consistently windy as North Dakota (which it isn't) we could satisfy all of our power needs using only 115% of the land area of Texas. Wind isn't good enough. At best we can get 12-15% of our energy needs from wind. The energy payback for solar photovoltaic is 3+ years, and this only counts the cells themselves, not the mountings, transportation, mining, milling, .... If we were to embark on a campaign to increase solar photovoltaic by 30% per year for the next ten years (which would increase its contribution to 9.6% of our needs), the increased solar energy output of each of those ten years would go entirely to producing the next year's solar cells. Solar thermal might work better. If solar thermal could be made to work, the southwestern US could supply all the electricity for North America. But so far everybody who's tried it has gone bankrupt. It just takes too much stuff to keep it going at a finite cost. Same for windmills -- just drive down San Gorgonio Pass toward Palm Springs. About 1/4 of the thousands of windmills are dead from worn out gears.

KEM PATRICK wrote "students had much to do with helping to end the war in Vietnam." Good for them. They should be proud of what they accomplished. After Nixon won the war, South Vietnam was invaded by more NVA than all Americans who had ever served in Vietnam, and the ARVN threw them out. Three years later, after Teddy "Swimmer" Kennedy and Tunney halved, halved, then cut off aid completely (notwithstanding US promises not to do so), South Vietnam collapsed. Then, the magnanimous victors killed 2.5 million more, or 60% of the total casualties of the war. Jack Kennedy and Johnson were trying to prevent exactly what happened. If the Viet Cong and NVA hadn't killed my in-laws near Saigon they would be thanking Jack Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon, and cursing Teddy Kennedy and Tunney (and Ho Chi Minh).

Paul Bramscher wrote "I challenge ANY pro-nuclear shill to add up the cost of real estate ... security, monitoring, .... Explain, also, the ethics of leaving such a burden to future generations." Integrated Fast Reactor or IFR (google is your friend) can destroy existing stocks of "waste" (which is really just 1%-used fuel). What comes out of IFR is 1% of what comes out of the current generation of nuclear power plants, and it's radioactively dangerous for a few hundred years instead of a few hundred thousand. IFR consumes all the actinides in the fuel, and especially the plutonium that's produced. With IFR we wouldn't be leaving an enormous plutonium mine in Nevada for our descendants.

Mark Abraham wrote "Nuclear has the possibility for creating the largest single catastrophes, but the likelihood of that occurring (again) can be reduced with better technology." 1. Hasn't occurred yet. Nobody was injured by Three Mile Island. UN Chernobyl Forum says 56 died. 5000 coal miners died last year alone. Which is a catastrophe? 2. The Integrated Fast Reactor or IFR (google is your friend) is designed to be inherently safe. Before Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, a prototype reactor was "compromised" in the two known ways to destroy one -- one of which happened to Three Mile Island and the other to Chernobyl. In both cases the prototype shut down without any dependence on moving parts. IFR has a negative thermal coefficient, which means "the hotter the reactor the slower the reaction." If the current generation of reactors were replaced by IFR we would never need to worry about a core meltdown, let alone an explosion (which is impossible with the current generation of western reactors).

Dr. Zimmerman Robert says "If nuclear power is so safe, then put a nuclear power plant on 10th Avenue." How many people were injured by Three Mile Island's destruction? Zero. How much did insurers pay out? $70 million, all to ConEd. How many people have been killed by radiation-related accidents at commercial nuclear power plants in the US since the first one was installed? Zero. How many people were killed by Chernobyl? The UN Chernobyl Forum says 56. The Chernobyl reactor was an accident waiting to happen. It was a stupid design (graphite core, no containment building), and the operators essentially intentionally blew it up. Nobody plans to build anything like it again.

ezeflyer says "Nukes mean cancer forever." Balderdash. The radiation level outside a nuclear reactor at sea level (say San Onofre) is less than the background at Denver. Coal-fired power plants emit far more radiation (and mercury, and ...). Last year, US coal-fired power plants produced 100 million tons of toxic solid waste and 2.46 billion tons of CO2. Coal is far more dangerous.

andersdl says that nuclear power produces greenhouse gases. This is silly without numbers. How much per megawatt hour? The current generation of nuclear power reactors produces 0.43 megawatt hours per gram of uranium oxide fuel. A coal-fired power plant produces 0.00000212 megawatt hours per gram of coal. U.S. coal-fired power plants produced 1,990,926 gigawatt hours of electricity, and 2,459,800,000 metric tons of CO2 (and 100,000,000 tons of toxic waste) last year. That's 1.24 metric tons of CO2 and 0.05 tons of toxic waste per megawatt hour. How much does mining, milling, refining, fabrication, transportation,... of nuclear reactor fuel produce? andersdl doesn't have an answer.

Hi there,

I am totally new to the debate about Nuclear Power. Let me say that right up. I read all 78 posts, researched several articles on Wikipedia, and read an article by a Professor called Bernard Cohen who specialised in Physics and Radiation Health at Pittsburgh University.

I have always been intrinsically anti-nuclear, perhaps as a result of being born in the 70's. However it has been really interesting to read this debate. I am afraid that a lot of the anti-nuclear posters come off as more superstitious then knowledgeable. (sorry it just seems that way)

I had no idea there were already over 400 plants in the world. I had no idea that France derives 80% of their power from Nuclear, or Japan over 30%.

It seems there are two well known incidents, 3 mile island and Chernobyl. I once saw a documentary on Chernobyl and the workers there look like they would have not managed a chook raffle well let alone a nuclear plant.

In terms of deaths caused by the worlds 400+ nuclear plants verse those killed by Coal power and it's myriad side effects there is no competition I can see. Have you know faith at all in Scientists to improve both the efficiency of the process and the containment or recycling of the waste? What if after any of the many deaths suffered whilst understanding and improving supply of electricity we had given up and said. Where would humanity be now?

Where are great examples of a country the size of France deriving 80% of their power from Wind, Solar, Tidal Flow, etc., I happen to believe all energy producing technologies are fantastic and should be highly invested in by Governments of the world. But seriously show me a technology capable of putting out the energy of one of the new series of reactors such as the AP1000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000) for the same cost and with the same pollution equivalent.

OK. I have probably made a fool of myself. But anyway those are the thoughts of someone new to the concepts.

Kem,
I believe the word Agnew used was 'effete' snobs, but to update it a bit we are now threatened as a species by the 'elite' SOB's. You saw what happened to the VP & the Prez of that day, eh? Ultimately, history has a way of sorting out the good guys from the bad, regardless of 'spin' attempts of the day. So, too, will historians resolve if the choices we are currently making regarding energy sources were right or wrong. The 800 pound gorilla in this room of time is the question of the 'IF'. The 'IF' with nuclear is 'IF' there will even BE any future historians, because this is a contamination/pollution that doesn't go away.

It all boils down to trust. Do you trust the greedy CEO's, who have proven time & again when it comes to a choice between grubbing for a buck, at the expense of the health of a nation's citizens (any nation), the public at large pays dearly? Do you trust our elected (LOL) representatives, many of them only in place because they were better at fooling people in fund raising, then doing whatever they damned well pleased? Do you trust the psychotic deranged bimbos who view the 'Rapture' as the ultimate solution to man's problems on this Earth? Do you trust those who would spend hundreds of billions incarcerating people for the innocuous weed pot, while denying Americans access to universal health care? Do you trust highly secretive governments & administrators who have withheld information from the public about 'accidents' involving nuclear materials? Do you trust those ethnocentric people who have gained control of the MSM & our government, that want the tail (Israel) to wag the dog (America)? Do you trust people in positions of power in the US who would rather kill going on two million people, and spend two trillion dollars to gain control of another area's energy resources, rather than spend it more wisely on renewable energy sources in this country? Frankly, anyone who does so is a blithering idiot.

As far as those who think nuclear is the only energy source capable of 'base load' power generation, how about re-directing your time, human energy, and financial resources toward heavily developing geothermal, since there is more potential there than with ANY amount of nuclear power power plants we could EVER build, non-pollutng as well. Get your priorities straight.

Kem, you're absolutely correct, "...protecting our environment is the most important thing hmanity can accomplish." For those who disagree I only have one question:

What planet are you planning to live on?

(Note: End Timers need not respond since 'spaced out' is not equivalent to going into 'outer space')

DBOYLON, You don't have to write ignorant comments to determne if I am part of the crowd that believes protecting our enviroment is the most important thing hmanity can accomplish. I will shout it out to any, that I am labeled an enviromentalist. I am not one of the rabid ones however.

For example, if we don't stop polluting our oceans and killing off the phytoplankton, we will destroy ALL life on our only know water world. When the birds are dying from our pollutions it is a grim warning of what will eventulally happen to all life, brown, white, black, yellow, green and red skinned humans.

It wasn't just the birds Carson was concerned about, it was humanity at large and the life of our planet. The reason people die from malaria is not just because DDT has been banned. Long before DDT was dreamed up, we managed to eradicate, and or control malaria in the Panama Canal Zone so the Canal could be completed, the French had given up on it because of Malaria.

I feel good about being one of THOSE as you write. I don't wish to see our children and theirs, on thru perpatuity, have a dead planet caused by our ignorance, greed, and stupidity. I won't say you are greedy, but you do display a high degree of ignorance and stupidity, you are one of THOSE ___ and you so well prove it.

I had to throw that DDT thing out there just to see if you were part of that same crowd. I knew it. Our pet beliefs over human lives. Who cares if a bunch of brown skinned third worlders die of malaria. At least we know the birds will be safe!!!

Hi Paul Smith, you have been able to do much more research on the subject than I have and I really do apreciate your comments. I do know that if we manage to kill off the phytoplankton by another 20 to 25%, we won't be here to ask why. I also know that it is near impossible to take an undersea photograph in any ocean, in any location, without having a hunk of plasitc float in front of the camera lens. That was so in 1974.

I also know that much of what America now produces besides war materials, is plastic and chemicals. We are not only the worlds worst polluters, we also make the most pollutants. Guess China is right in there fighting for first place. That is great to hear about the college students, students had much to do with helping to end the war in Vietnam, I do believe you may have been one of those radical, infinite snob, hippies, as our 'honest' VP Spiro at the time so stated. ___ Good for you.

BBR-001, France is a prime example of what nuclear power can and will manage to do to this planet. They took the easy road, or so it seemed for them at the time. They and we and all, were warned by those who had the sense to see the consequences. Few listened and that is still the case. It's primarily greed and those who really control almost everything on Earth that sets the stages, those who only care for themselves.

Hey Kem:

Did a little research. Turns out the French recycling breeder reactors aren't quite up to speed, and they have a nasty growing mess on their hands. The theory is breeders recycle waste from other plants and produce small amounts of radioacive waste with half lives less than 100 years. They have to face an ugly reality at the moment.

The Russians might take the waste off their hands! I guess they figure Chernobyl and surroundings are already toast! Now I know why they had us read "Candide" in college.

Kem,
I agree it is insanity to reject recycling, and whoever made the comment that plastic is not worth the effort to re-cycle needs to have their head examined. Recycled plastic can be made into bricks to build houses, and car bodies could even be made of it. In fact, there is an experiental model three bedroom ranch style just a few miles from me built ENTIRELY of recycled trash, and it looks the same as any of the surrounding houses in the suburbs. It was built back in the '70's, BTW, so recycling technology should have advanced considerably since then. Since numerous studies have shown our greatest source of energy to be conservation of the energy we currently use recycling should be in the forefront of our energy considerations. It's a no-brainer.

Kem, since you have previously shown concern for phytoplankton you might find these facts interesting. Tonight on TV it was reported that every bit of plastic EVER made is still with us, since the 'shelf life' is around 25,000 years. Also, they stated that the amount of discarded plastic in the whole Pacific Ocean now OUTWEIGHS all the plankton. Could this be the explanation you have been seeking for the rapid demise of oxygen producing phytoplankton in the oceans, since another report I read said as soon as you open a plastic bottle it starts generating carcinaogenic substances?

I found some enouragement hearing about the 6,000 college student environmental activists who gathered this past week at U of MD. Some of them noisily & forcefully testified in Congressional committees, and their progressive platform was no subsidies for oil, coal, or nuclear, and adequately funding 'green' alteratives instead. These are the people who will face the liabilities of continued hydrocarbon, or future nuclear, usage, and it was encouraging to hear all these youth had their heads screwed on properly. Their main chants were "20 by 30 and 80 by 50" (percent renewables by year), and "We want more" (meaning 'green' energy). They represented colleges & students from Alaska to Florida. What is that they say?..."Out of the mouths of babes..."

And what has France done with a goodly amount of their nuclear waste? It was a Frenchman, Jacques Cousteau, that warned mankind some 60 some years ago, that nuclear power would eventually be the end of the human race and most of all other life on this little blue and white water planet, the only one known to exist in the entire universe.

Instead of studying what the French have done, we should study what the ones have done with clean and safe energy alternatives. You should listen to Paul Magill Smith, and read his posts and the links he provided on this thread.

If you sit at the toll booths for at the Pennsylvania turnpike entrance from New Jersey for 24 hours and count the 92,000 pound tractor trailer loads of garbage coming from New York, heading all the way to Ohio, you would be truly amazed at the volumn. If the recyables had to be trucked there also, it would almost double just that traffic.

Hillary should be appointing a bi-partisan "blue ribbon" commission that includes qualified engineers and scientists to critically examine the success and problems of the French nuclear program. She should do it now, not wait 14 months, as the global warming curve is starting to fly.

In a nutshell, the French have 50 some large nukes with standardized technology. They produce almost 80% of France's electricity (balance largely hydro), and 15% is exported for profit. They have experimented with breeder or "fast" reactors that would greatly expand the supply of nuclear fuel and substantially reduce (recycle)nuclear waste from the other plants. France is in the best position of any country to take it to the next level - an all electric or electric/hydrogen economy.

The French designs are proven and state-of-the art, and we could start replacing coal and oil fired generation with large scale compatible equipment immediately.

LUCKINGFAME: You say go nuclear, it's the ONLY way we can power this planet without pollution. Really? It is a shame, so many are so misinformed, and many are misinformed by comments such as you posted.

WmC wrote posts and gave links that give excellent imformation on the subject of clean, safe and non polluting energy alternatives for any who are not one sided on the issue to read ____ and learn.

Yeah, sure, just take all of the trash and dump it into landfills and or the oceans. In landfills, the poisons eventualy end up in the water. It's not sensible to recycle? Are you insane?

DBOYLON, The Arizona State Game and fish commisson should listen to you. They inform us that in certain streams, rivers and lakes they specify, that is is not safe for anyone to eat ANY of the fish caught because of DDT in the waters.

Since DDT use was finally banned almost everywhere, our bird populations began to make a comeback. Is that of any importance? Well, when certain poisons are killing wildlife, birds, inscets, plants, etc. It is a warning to all of mankind, that that particular poison will be harmful to us also. Another great example of a killing poison is DU.

If you wish to be critical of Carson, you should perhaps take all of her message into account. There are other excellent methods of eradicating or controlling mosquitoes than using DDT. What you say sounds like tricloretholine is safe for use because it does such a wonderful job of cleaning oil and other harmful residue and spills. It does too, but it's a killer.

and, the luddites continue with their quaint worldview.

i find it amusing that all the solutions to your global warming problem go against everything the environmentalists stand for, just short of living in shambles pre-industry style.

want to stop green house gases?
- stop recycling... the energy used to transport, recycle and process waste causes more harm than just leaving it in the ground. besides, recycling anything besides pure commodities like aluminum and copper is worthless anyway

- go nuclear, its the only way we can power this planet without pollution. and it's safe. contrast the deaths from nuclear energy to that of any other power source and you'll see for yourself.

And look guys...the government is already funding all this...and it will continue to fund all this. You are already way behind in organize support against it.

just my 2 cents.

Nuclear Hydrogen
INL supports DOE's Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative to help demonstrate the economic commercial-scale production of hydrogen using nuclear energy by 2015, and thereby make available a large-scale, emission-free, domestic hydrogen production capability to fuel the approaching hydrogen economy. See also: DOE's Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative
http://nuclear.inl.gov/

Billy,

Did you not bother to read my post? Making Hydrogen from Nuclear power...GM and others making serious attempts at making hydrogen cars. 2+2 = 4

Please read post before commenting.

Humans either have to learn to do with less or nuclear power will make a comeback. I am for doing with less myself. I am for conservation. I am a very practical man though. The rest of my American patriots are not going to settle for such a thing. When push comes to shove Nuclear power will make a comeback.

As for Paul...Some nasty stuff has gone on at INEL. That is for sure. I should know I used to work there. Drove by the sarcophagus every day. :)

Americans are not going to give up their cars and all become tree huggers because you guys think it is best for them. Not a big fan of American lifestyles myself...as I mentioned. I don't live anything like most Americans do. I'd rather go for a hike in the mountains than go jet skiing on a lake...but I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and not recognize that Americans are going to rally behind any politicians who promises them not to put a cramp on their lifestyles. That being said...I see Nuclear power as a much better source of power for both electricity and as a future substitute for gas in hydrogen.

And as I said before...maybe our rulers would be a bit less inclined to drop bombs on middle eastern people. I am all about droping less bombs on middles eastern people.

Some of you guys remind me of the DDT crowd. The environment above everybody...no matter how many deaths we cause.

"The widespread spraying of DDT had caused a spectacular drop in malaria incidence--Sri Lanka, for example, reported 2.8 million malaria victims in 1948, but by 1963 it had only 17. Yet Carson's book made no mention of this. It said nothing of DDT's crucial role in eradicating malaria in industrialized countries, or of the tens of millions of lives saved by its use.
Instead, Carson filled her book with misinformation--alleging, among other claims, that DDT causes cancer. Her unsubstantiated assertion that continued DDT use would unleash a cancer epidemic generated a panicked fear of the pesticide that endures as public opinion to this day."

You're very welcome.

"I must need help. "

You'll thank me some day. Thanks for your time. :-)

WmC ____ I understand you. Maybe we both need help, but I believe otherwise. Thank you for your appropriate posts.

No, I meant demand. If we wish to consume anything, we have to ask for it, or demand it, if we wish to have it.

You're right, you are way over my head. I must need help. _____ Or, you have been reading too many books that don't make any sense.

Two questions for you advocates of nuclear energy:

1) If you have the option of subsidizing energy sources that generate no negative externalities, why would you ever choose to subsidize sources that do?

2)If we have the option of designing an energy policy that would free us from our dependence on both fossil fuels AND nuclear energy within, say, 40 years, wouldn't we be foolish not to adopt it?

Think it can't be done? This study says it can: http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/summary.pdf

Paul Bramscher,
Thanks for the enlightening comments and broader perspective. They remind me of David Korten's speech about transitioning from "Empire to Earth-based Community". Also, I recently read Gary Snyder's "Back On The Fire" collection of essays. Very Educational. I would reccomend it to anyone who is interested in living like a human being in a healthy environment.

"Because the demand didn't rise 500% in six years."

You must mean "consumption" above. Demand in the Supply/Demand equation isn't merely consumption. Demand represents what buyers are willing to pay based on a number of factors, expectations of consumption being only one. Other factors in the demand part include expectations or speculation over future prices and supplies, which will affect what a buyer is willing to pay. Demand in this respect cannot be quantified the way consumption can.

"X equals P times the modifer, minus Z equals the average of who is setting prices of oil and peanut butter. Whch makes as much sense as your equations."

I don't mean to be condescending, but I can only conclude from a response like this one that you are not very familiar with logical fallacies and how they work. Here is a good resource:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

You will note that many are or can be expressed as algebraic equations. That leaves us to plug in the particular elements germane to a given discussion.

The price of all fuel and everything else has risen in a dramatic manner. Our country is now bankrupt thanks to Bush, however this article is about atomic power and we should have used our money to develop clean and SAFE alternatives for our electrical needs.

To argue over how one uses words, or that we could have had clean and safe energy if we hadn't wasted our money fighting wars is really very childish, especialy so when it is obvious you are quite an intelligent person JAKE. You're intelligent, but you lack common sense or just like to argue over word usage and make yourself feel better in a childish manner. Were you an ignored or abused child?

X equals P times the modifer, minus Z equals the average of who is setting prices of oil and peanut butter. Whch makes as much sense as your equations.

Because the demand didn't rise 500% in six years.

" To your way of thinking, it's alright to use our decaying infastructure as an example, but not say to use clean energy alternatives as an example"

I said no such thing. In fact, as I already told you, I merely stated a standard logical fallacy in generic terms. For the last time:

""if we took the money spent on x, we could now have y""

You, and others here, made posts where we can simply substitute for x and y above. I did the same to show additional examples of the same substitution. The *point* is that you should avoid the fallacy. Who sounds dumb?

"When Bush took office, the price of sweet crude was near $20 bucks a barrel, it's now $97 and going up. Supply and demand? Nope, it the unstable political and economic situation of the countries in the mid-east, a situatin the Bush administration primarly created and a potential attack on Iran which is causing the problems in that regard. "

It was not my intention to discuss this, but I will indulge you. The undeniable instability in the mid east, regardless of it's causes, effects people's perceptions regarding future supply. Supply and Demand applies.

Yet I must point out your failure to mention the continued demand here in the US and in places like China for oil and products derived from oil. Supply and Demand applies. Why did you neglect to acknowledge this additional undeniable factor regarding high oil prices?

dboylon;

I am as much an advocate of nuclear power as anybody but, generally speaking, it won't help with the oil supply, in the US or France. Nuclear plants compete with coal or, to a lesser degree, with natural gas.

Very little oil is burned for electric power generation. In the US, it is generally used only in remote areas not served by gas pipelines. Almost all the oil in the US goes into the transportation industry.

Bill

JAKE, do you have any idea of how dumb you sound? Apparently not. To your way of thinking, it's alright to use our decaying infastructure as an example, but not say to use clean energy alternatives as an example. Your're playing games with words.

Then your economic math is not sensible at all, it's as goofy as the bean counters in the Pentagon and that of Greenspan. When Bush took office, the price of sweet crude was near $20 bucks a barrel, it's now $97 and going up. Supply and demand? Nope, it the unstable political and economic situation of the countries in the mid-east, a situatin the Bush administration primarly created and a potential attack on Iran which is causing the problems in that regard.

Again, my point was and is, we have wasted more than a trillion borowed dollars on the unjust war in Iraq, the money wasted could have been better spent on many other things rather than on an unjust, uncecessary war. Among those things, development of clean energy, your arguments are nothing other than arguments with no helpful comments or opinions.

Funny that you mention France. Bush's new friend in the war on terra...I mean terror.

They certainly feel strongly about nuclear. Strong enough to sink a Greenpeace ship, the Rainbow Warrior, eh?

dboylon,

The "like it or not" dynamic is always there with nuclear, isn't it. Strange that such a series of anti-democratic situations follow around that form of energy wherever it goes.

Idaho is a poster-child for what not to do with energy. INEL should spend a little money cleaning up the Snake River basin and acquifer. I've been out that way a couple times. They dumped contaminated water into the acquifer as late as the 1980's: http://www.snakeriveralliance.org/.

Good try, though.

Any candidate willing to allow any advance at all in nuclear energy is unacceptable.

In Love All Ways

Mark knows what he is talking about. Wishful thinking is not a solution to our energy problems. The idea that nuclear power can not be a solution to our dependence on foreign oil is a rather large leap considering what the French have already done in this regard. A shift to Nuclear power has helped France at least keep a seat at the table of world powers. If they had not gone nuclear the collapse of their empire would have been far more dramatic. India and China are not building new nuclear plants because they do not provide a good source of energy. Our government isn't funding a mulit-billion dollar nuclear test facility at INEL to look at the most effecient means of producing hydrogen from nuclear power for no good reason!!! Sorry folks...We will be building nuclear plants again. Like it or not. As our gas prices continue to climb...and they will continue to climb...the naysayer crowd will get smaller and smaller.

Whatever danger comes from Nuclear power it is far more noble to put ourselves in danger than continuing our morally bankrupt policies in the middle east. Sorry guys...I'm against you on this one.

JohnR & others,

Those energy sources which hold the most promise, IMHO, are those which:

* Have as little carbon relative to hydrogen (the case for a hydrogen economy).
* Interfere with living biomes as little as possible (geothermal, solar, etc.)

What shows the most promise for a future, more democratic/individualistic/empowered society, IMHO, are those energy sources which can be community (and even individually) owned and maintained, leave little or no emissions or poisonous waste for future generations to contend with, the whole thing is managed at the community level, etc.

I would say this about everything, not just energy. Whether law enforcement (Posse Comitatus), education, bioregional thinking (see Gary Snyder), economics (like Ithaca Hours), etc. It's a key tenet in the Green Ten Key Values: community-based economics.

Indeed, I view self- and community-determination/freedom/democracy to be the most critical factors in energy adoption, far more important than claims to efficiency.

Indeed, it may be "efficient" to do away with freedom whatsoever, and obey 100% whatever some unnamed people at the nucular regulatory commission, GE, Westinghouse and their government contract managers claim. But it wouldn't be democratic (small-d) in the least, would it?

Absolutely! I saw a piece on the news the other day showing energy being generated by buoys bobbing in the ocean's waves. That was new to me. I suspect there are hundreds of methods for capturing high-quality energy sources with very little environmental impact. Winona LaDuke said that windmills operating in the Great Plains could power America. If we have the will to resist the corporate warlords, we could secure our energy and environmental needs indefinitely.

"Well pardon me for being a dunce Jake. I thought you were replying to my prior post, where I stated the trillion dollars we wasted on an unjust war in Iraq would have been better spent on developing clean energy for everone in the world. "

There was your comments and a few others similar. You took two issues and arbitrarily compared them. You could have paired somethiong else like "repair our infrastructure" instead of "develop clean energy" or "subsidies to farmers" instead of "costs of Iraq war". Far better to discuss the issues on merits than point to opportunity cost which is often merely a given.

"Perhaps your's is the type of reasoning of why our country is now bankrupt and the price of oil rose from $20 a barrel to $97 a barrel in seven years and we now owe our asses to China."

I'll remind you again that I simply stated a well established fallacy of logic in generic terms. My intent was to remind the participants. Oil prices are best explained by supply and demand and the situations that effect those two factors. Foreign debt should not be considered in a vacumn, but should be *compared* to other things such as GDP. Regarding these two examples, there are numerous *nuances* worthy of discussion around each. These examples have nothing to do with "my" reasoning about the fallacy of binary thinking which I pointed out, which really isn't reasoning but more like an algebraic rule.

Hello everyone (Kem, Paul B., Dr.Zim, Billy, andersdl, ezeflyer, and even you Jake),

I see we're at it again on a new thread with few opinions changed. I've been doing quite a bit of research on the underlying causes of world problems, who is pushing us into various wars, media control & propaganda, false flag operations, government corruption globally, who is pressing for nuclear & hydrocarbons over renewables, and WHY. After countless hours of seeking (and finding) it's pretty much boiled down to a single family, instigators of the Zionist movement, and who at one time reputedly controlled the world because they owned half of its assets. Although claimig to be Jewish they are actually Khazars from the Georgia area of Russia. Through a philosophy of merciless financial conquest by any means they have had(and still maintain) control over more land, people, governments, & minds than any conquerors in history.

The Rothschilds control 80% of the world's uranium. Given the criminal immoral anti-social history of this family spanning hundreds of years does this make you feel safe? They have funded both sides in numerous wars THEY caused, killed presidents, czars, & kings, been responsible for the deaths of literally hundreds of millions of world citizens, manipulated the world economy into financial depressions (including 1907 & 1929), and could care less about anyone but themselves. Naturally, since they control the uranium & the media, they are pushing us toward nuclear (large centralized power production they will profit immensely from), rather than renewables, which will be more benefitial for the people, because they seek control & domination of the world, control of energy production being a prime factor.

Here is a link to their nasty history. It's on a time line stretching hundreds of years, but you can scroll to years or events you are curious about. Many of you might be famiiar with what these historical events were about, but this is an explanation of HOW they came to happen and WHO caused them:

http://iamthewitness.com/doc/RothschildsTimeline-filer/frame.htm

www.communitysolution.org

> "You don't know what you are talking about MARK, neither does PJD."

Well, I would think if you were going to launch an attack on someone for lack of knowledge, you would at least get your facts straight.

> "There are several isotopoes in plutonium, one is AM-241, the result of the beta minus decay of Pu-241. AM-241 is an external dose hazard, since it's decay mode is to emit a 59.5 KeV photon. The other plutonium isotopes are alpha particle emitters and not particularly dangerous unless inhaled or swallowed. The same as ionized DU is deadly if inhaled or eaten."

First, recall that I said PJD was right about the relative toxicity of arsenic and Pu-239. There is only one isotope in Pu-239 by definition. But of course, pure Pu-239 does not exist. Whether you'd be willing to stuff a plutonium ball next to your balls might depend on whether it is weapons-grade or reactor-grade plutonium.

Yes, Pu-241 beta decays to Am-241 which is usually the major source of gamma radiation from a plutonium sample. All other plutonium isotopes are both alpha emitters and weak gamma emitters, and all also undergo spontaneous fission, especially Pu-240, which is thus a significant neutron source. Neutrons are another thing I don't want radiating the family jewels.

> "I never knew that all of those radiation deaths in Japan were caused by arsenic poison. And I still wonder why it is so vitally necessary to take extreme caution when storing plutonium."

If by "all those radiation deaths in Japan" you mean the A-bomb victims, most of that radiation dose was not due to plutonium but short-lived, highly radioactive fission fragments. Extreme caution is used in storing plutonium mainly because people tend to be very concerned about even minor radioactive hazards and correspondingly strict laws and regulations are enforced; or if the amount of plutonium is sufficient to be of use in making a nuclear weapon, the need for security is obvious.

Darn I tried to edit that last post three times and correct the spelling. It won't edit.

Well pardon me for being a dunce Jake. I thought you were replying to my prior post, where I stated the trillion dollars we wasted on an unjust war in Iraq would have been better spent on developing clean energy for everone in the world. If your argument was not geared to that comment, I apologize for assuming. If it was in reply to that, then your argument does not make any sense to me.

Perhaps your's is the type of reasoning of why our country is now bankrupt and the price of oil rose from $20 a barrel to $97 a barrel in seven years and we now owe our asses to China.

You don't know what you are talking about MARK, neither does PJD.

There are several isotopoes in plutonium, one is AM-241, the result of the beta minus decay of Pu-241. AM-241 is an external dose hazard, since it's decay mode is to emit a 59.5 KeV photon. The other plutonium isotopes are alpha particle emitters and not particularly dangerous unless inhaled or swallowed. The same as ionized DU is deadly if inhaled or eaten.

Therefore PJD, I would not wish to stuff an ounce of plutonium in my shorts, there wouldn't be room for another ounce anyway.

I never knew that all of those radiation deaths in Japan were caused by arsenic poison. And I still wonder why it is so vitally necessary to take extreme caution when storing plutonium. I can purchase arsenic at a drugstore and it's used in rat poison. Sure it's poisonous. But as Billy, noted it isn't radioactive. SoPJD, careful when stuffing your shorts boy, ya might glow in the dark, or have the gals say you were a real hot-rod.

HI Billy, you know I was just pulling your chain a little. How you been? Don't know where Paul M Smith is lately, guess he's tied up with his music and concert tours. Wish he were here to debate you. Glad t see you back also.

Yea Bonnie! Let's give 'em somethin' to talk about!

PJD is correct about the relative toxicity of arsenic and plutonium-239 (other Pu isotopes are more dangerous).

I don't agree that fusion is the solution, though. It isn't true that the US is out of the running and others are ahead of us in fusion. It is a global effort and, after 50 years, the promise is that in another 50 years, maybe, we'll have a pilot plant, but nobody can guarantee it. Basically, fusion looks like a boondoggle, going nowhere.

I believe solar is the ultimate solution. But, contrary to what some people claim, solar is not ready to do the job today. Neither is wind. Wind energy is cost-competitive per kWh, but it is only available when the wind blows; without a cheap storage technology, the cost to make wind a baseload (always available) supply is prohibitive.

No one can say where solar, wind, and other "renewables" would be today if the investment had gone into them 30 or 50 years ago. But the fact is that today we don't have the technology that can satisfy the demand for more energy, particularly in the developing world. For India, China, and any new electric capacity anywhere on the planet, the basic choice is coal vs. nuclear. I don't think that leaves us with any choice.

The US and maybe Europe can still go for "negawatts" of conservation, but the world as a whole needs more juice (and so do some still growing urban areas of the US). Over the the next 20 years at least, the only way to supply that power and avoid climate disaster, oil wars escalating to global holocaust, or both, is almost certainly a huge expansion of nuclear fission power.

At the same time, we should, of course, invest heavily in solar technology, wind, energy storage and conservation. No question. But the "NO NUKES!" position is environmentally irresponsible, because if you consider what is inevitably going to happen in most of the world, it basically means "GO COAL!"

"It may well take more energy to operate, through its life cycle, than it gives back in energy. It's an energy Ponzi scheme. It makes no net energy,"

Are you guessing or not?

"Really JAKE. That sounds like double speak to me."

Not really, it's straight out of any number of basic online guides to logical fallacies.

"If I spend a hundred bucks for something I personally may like to have, but it is unarguablly wasteful, such as a truckload of sheep shit to pour on my neighbors lawn in the middle of the night. Or instead, I spend that hundred bucks on something I'd like and also need, such as a brake job on my car, how could your equation possibly be correct? "

First off, there was no "equation". Second, your example above presumably involves much more than simply stating things in the generic form I outlined, but instead were demonstrated through arguement to be desireable or not so.

The problem arises not with silly examples such as you presented that didn't really need the arguement to begin with, but instead with things that are widely disagreed on, such as how the so called war on terror should be fought, or whether it's appropriate the government should subsidize nuclear plants or hybrid cars.

In 1956, when Atoms for Peace was being considered, scientists projected that investing instead in renewable clean energy development would supply half the power in the US by 1976. The concern about the disposal of nuclear waste was answered by the corporations determined to build nuclear power plants. They assured us that in ten years, that problem would be resolved. Later they would assure us that by 1980 they would have the disposal problem licked. Of course, after both Chernobyl followed by TMI Americans became leary. But the promise of a solution by 2000 was proffered anyway. Meanwhile, those storage pools around the aging plants are just about filled to capacity with no place to go. Now, shall we believe them again or shall we do what the scientists advised in 1956? Wind power; solar power, both passive and active in communities, collectors on roofs, in back yards. Remember when Reagan took down the solar collector panels on the White House roof as soon as he took office? You don't? Well he did?Mandate better insulation in new construction and renovations. Geo-thermal includes stable underground temperatures that make a far superior efficiency heat pump. I attended a local rally supporting a viable off-shore wind farm. The Powers That Be want to cut back the size so that the local coal power plant, notoriously polluting, can continue. A smaller wind farm makes the kilowatt hours more costly. So now they say it won't be viable which is hogwash. Build the original plan. Meanwhile, eighty miles north, there's a nuclear power plant that is known for it's chronically poor management. If it becomes another Chernobyl, what almost happened to TMI but for Carter, we'll be gone.

"Tell you what Bill, if you had the option of having an ounce of plutonium in your shorts for a week, or an ounce of arsenic, which one would you stuff in there?"

I'd rather have neither, but if I was forces to, I'd rather have the plutonium, of course.

The Plutonium is an alpha emitter. All it take is the outermost skin layer to block the alpha particles. As long as the plutonuim isn't in the form of respirable dust, it is just a heavy, metal. Even if a few respirable particles rubbed off and I inhaled them, it would still be about 20 years before the increased cancer risk showed itself, by then I'll be in my mid 70's, and lots of other old-age cancers and heart ailments will be a greater worry.

Arsenic is crumbly, highly water soluble absorbed through the skin, or easily ingested or inhaled. And it can kill in a matter of minutes. It would be impossible for plutonium to do such a thing.

Your assertations about plutonium being some kind of Pure Evil Ultra Poison clearly lie in the realm of superstition rather than fact. So, I doubt this will change your mind on the matter.

Mr. Bramsher, The storage issue is a non issue - yes it's final repository has to be secure (although the spent fuel is so rich in a source of additional fissionable isotopes, it can hardly be called waste), but the quantities are tiny! What "pharoic curse"!! We are talking about all the high level waste fitting in a underground space the area of a few football fields! Even if someone drilled into Yucca Mountain a couple thousand years from now, it would result in...nothing... except at worst, some radiation exposure to a few people around the borehole, that would be far from fatal or even particularly harmful.

At any rate, convention fisson power (along with wind and solar) only has to hold us over until Fusion technologies are perfected. Thanks to the absurd levels American technophobia and technological ignorance displayed so well on this site, (Jack Kennendy is rolling over in his grave) Fusion is being entirely developed in Europe and Russia.

Kem,

You are quite right; plutonium is a proximity hazard whereas arsenic is not.

There are far more people dying today from arsenic than from plutonium. Rural folks in Bangladesh are being sickened and die from arsenic tainted well water. These are real deaths, not hypothetical. Water purification (at least using western technology) requires electricity which is in short supply in Bangladesh.

I post on CD because of a heart felt conviction that the best shot humanity has at avoiding self destruction is nuclear power. I post on my own time from home. My employer does not review or, to the best of my knowledge, know of my postings (however, because of my security clearance, the government probably does).

I don't generally believe people who disagree with me to be half-wits or stupid. Some are, but so are some of the people who do agree with me.

Your friend and my sparring partner, Paul, is certainly bright and articulate. We differ on whose data we consider more reliable.

Regards,

Bill

And depleted ammunition.

Nuclear power takes oil to build and to decommission. It may well take more energy to operate, through its life cycle, than it gives back in energy. It's an energy Ponzi scheme. It makes no net energy, it just rips the public off and causes global warming. And thyroid cancers.

Hey, thanks so much Bonnie for reminding us of all the Anti-Nuclear movement has gone through. I remember seeing you on the mall in DC in 1979 BEFORE Three Mile Island. I think you were there to draw a crowd for filming the movie of Hair, and you used your time to educate the crowd on the huge problems that come with the Nukes. Later that year we got the big surprise, and the Anti-Nuclear movement went into high gear. I saw Micho Kaku and Helen Caldicott speaking to small crowds at the Ellipse, and there was the HUGE May 6th coalition march and rally; a half million people, maybe more.

These reactors are a terribly inefficient way to boil water, and they give us problems for many many generations to come.

Yes, spend a fraction as much to save the energy in conservation, renewables, and efficiency.

Really JAKE. That sounds like double speak to me. If I spend a hundred bucks for something I personally may like to have, but it is unarguablly wasteful, such as a truckload of sheep shit to pour on my neighbors lawn in the middle of the night. Or instead, I spend that hundred bucks on something I'd like and also need, such as a brake job on my car, how could your equation possibly be correct?

Even worse, if I borrowed the hundred bucks at a high interest rate to buy the sheep shit and my kids had to pay the interest for years after, it would be doubly wasteful and hurtful also. Then suppose I didn't have the money for the necessary brake job. Your math is silly Jake, ___ try again.

"if we took the money spent on x, we could now have y"

False dichotomy. It could be that *both* x and y are desirable, or it could be demonstrated that y is undesireable regardless of the desirability of x. Arguements that take this form without making a fair assessment of both x and y are bad reasoning.

HI there Billy, knew you would arrive for this one, how ya doin? See you are still stupid. Sorry about that too, because you really are a swell guy.

Tell you what Bill, if you had the option of having an ounce of plutonium in your shorts for a week, or an ounce of arsenic, which one would you stuff in there? Now please don't tell us there wouldn't be room for another ounce. Of course if one swallowed an ounce of arsenic, they'd likely die quick. If one had a microscopic speck of plutonium in their body, it would take awhile to kill them. Why is it we don't carefully attempt to store away arsenic in heavily shielded containers for millions of years?

Aother reason is they don't make as much profit by using uranium for fuel. There is still the nuclear waste to store forever and to date that has not been a success story. Then there is always the danger of a meltdown, or an earthquake, or a zillion other reasons nuclear power is a danger for everyne. There is no such danger from wind, solar, geo-thermal, tide, hydro-electric.

Hey Bill, do you get a bonus from your nuke company to post your comments and reply to half-wits like me?

I challenge ANY pro-nuclear shill to add up the cost of real estate on acreage (adjusted for increasingly expensive valuation in future centuries), security, monitoring, etc. for thousands of years -- and explain how it's better TCO than other alternatives to coal. Explain, also, the ethics of leaving such a burden to future generations.

Past generations left us the great wonders of the world. We'll be leaving them a bona fide pharaonic curse with nuclear waste. Indeed! This is not hyperbole on my part. The DoE has hired anthropologists to create obelisks lasting centuries to warn of buried poisons 10,000 years hence: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0711_020711_yuccaspikes.html

But as I mentioned, in addition to cost there is the political management. Nuclear requires federal decision-making, where/when to build, how to (mis)manage waste, and of course sends more money into the coffers of those who bring good things to nuclear war...er...light.

KEM,

The plutonium produced in PWR and BWR reactors (those currently in operation in the US plus all those under commercial consideration) can be used as fuel in fast reactors.

Fast reactors are somewhat more expensive to build and operate than PWRs and BWRs. That is the reason they are not in commercial service at this time.

Plutonium is far to valuable to be buried as waste.

BTW, ounce for ounce arsenic is more toxic than plutonium.

Bill

anyone read James Lovelocks interview in the Rolling Stone, current issue, startleing, in most ways 'cept for those that have known about these facts for some time, also statleing was his insistance that it was to late to stop the massive human dieoff, and massive global change, head North, was his statment,,,,also then strangley, Nuclear power odd he must have stock.

I'm on Edwards side also, but he won't win.

That's right Paul and let's not forget tidal. There are so many decent totally clean alternatives and the oil and insurance companies have the money to initiate it, develop it, and keep their stock holders happy.

Well, you'd better tell Hillary and Barack.

Edwards is already on your side.

Kem,

Geothermal is also often overlooked. I'm not aware of any theoretical problems in drilling into hotspots, areas where the crust is thin, the Pacific Rim, etc. and tapping into the natural heat down below.

It would seem to be a bonanza of energy, for all practical purposes an unlimited source of heat.

A thousand fission nucler power plants world wide, will produce 400,000 pounds of plutonium every year. That plutonium, arguably the most poisonous substance known to exist in the entire universe, will have to be safeguarded for thousands of years, or we may as well say, ___ forever. It is well established, that safeguarding nuclear waste is impossible to accomplish, to say nothing about NOT safeguarding the spent fuel rods, which are given to munitions factories to make depleted uranium weapons, which of course are "perfectly safe" to use.

MARK ABRAM. I'm not surprised to see your comments, which are wrong, ___ as usual. Wind/solar energy is viable and the means to produce all of the electrical power we will ever need by those methods has been proven to be both feasible and affordable. The money wasted on the unjust and unnecessary Iraq war and occupation, would have been far enough to convert to wind/solar energy for most of the world's populations.

I do agree that coal fired plants are worse, at least as far as polluting our atmosphere goes. The nuclear power plants are perhaps the stupidest thing mankind has ever done. Some day there will be another serious accident at a nuclear power plant and one could easily steralize a land area larger than the size of Texas and do so forever. Just one example. Don't touch the water downstream of the nuke plants in Tennessee, or eat any fish which you may find to be alive. There are hundreds of examples, many worse than that.

But I agree; direct giveways to an industry using a mature technology like nuclear power generation is not a good idea. Instead there should be stong incentives to reduce the carbon output of a companies power generating portfolio - that way wind and solar development would be encouraged as well.

I think a lot of the perceptions regarding nuclear power come from a misconception of the volumes of material involved.

A few pounds of uranium in the plant in the lower left produces as much energy as the several bargeloads of coal seen in the upper right.

Let's look at two power plants, neighbors to each other, in Shippingport, PA...

Open this URL in a separate window:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=k&om=0&ll=40.631347,-80.419922&spn=0.0...

The plant on the upper right is the 2025MW capacity Bruce Mansfield coal burning plant. It produced about 18 million tons of CO2 per year. Even with advanced scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators, it also produces thousands of tons of S02 and NO2, and particulates, about a half-ton of mercury, and hundreds to thousands of pounds of vearious highly toxic and carcinogenic substances including dioxins.

Oh yes, I forgot about all the thousands of tons of bottom ash, seen on the far upper right ofteh picture that leaches nasty stuff into the groundwater and Ohio River.

Of course there is also all the pollution involved in mining, processing and shipping the 6 million tons of coal this plant burns per year - the total production of two large longwall mines further up river.

The plant on the lower left is the Beaver Valley Nuclear power plant. it produces a bit less electricity, about 1750 MW. The pollution released into the air or water from this plant is....nothing.

This plant does produce spent fuel assemblies - which are very radioactive of course, but are of such small volume that the entire amount of waste produced over the life of the plant will easily fit in secure deep storage pools on site - which you notice is much smaller than the ugly coal power plant up river. In fact the entire volume of spent fuel from nuclear power plants so far would fit on a single football field about 20 feet deep. Ultimtately, perrmanent repositories will be needed for this high-level waste, but there is no particular rush due to the safe onsite storage of the small volumes involved.

There is however a considerable urgency to halting the huge volumes of waste spewing from the plant on the upper right, and it's sister facilities spread all over the US.

Has nuclear power ever been outlawed? No

Is anybody suggesting that it be outlawed? No

Opposition is limited to the nuclear industry's demand for taxpayer subsidies, corporate welfare, call it what you will.

As originally drafted in 2002 this legislation would not only subsidize the construction of nuke plants. It would also subsidize (taxpayer money again) the difference between the cost of producing the power and the market value of the power. This would allow the nuclear industry to cook the books to prove they were losing money and further extort taxpayers' money. It would also encourage inefficient plant design. Hopefully this section of the legislation has been deleted.

these people's ancestors probably tried to outlaw the use of fire.

Good try Mark Abram.

If during the past 65 years the same amount of US taxpayers' money that was used to subsidize the nuclear industry was invested in developing non-petroleum burning cars and developing solar technology, 100% solar houses and non-petroleum burning cars would have been prolific, cost effective and affordable ten years ago.

The United States is currently experiencing a monumental crisis. The people's confidence in the federal government is almost completely shattered.

Recognizing this, the capitalists are feverishly trying to consolidate their control over our society with such predictable strategies as this attempted expansion of nuclear energy - a particularly effective instrument of control.

Paul summed it up nicely - nuclear energy fails both politically and economically.

People are today under the most relentless assault by the beast capital. Individuals may do their civic duty to help reign in the beast by shifting their individual exchange/association away from the power centers and toward their local economies.

Renewable energy produced by local small independent farmers, craftsmen and merchants is the responsible and sustainable way.

It is unfortunate that everybody seems to be pursuing fantasy land "solutions" that simply do not work. Nuclear as it exists is one of these. The cold hard calculation of energy out - energy in = net seems entirely neglected in many cases. Nuclear simply has never penciled...... it simply moves visible pollution and stink to another location. The generating plant produces "clean" energy ONLY if one looks at the generating site and time and not at the other sites associated with the plant including mining & processing sites, waste disposal sites, and ultimately the decommissioning energy costs. There can be little doubt that to date the total energy costs that have gone into nuclear power exceed the output. It is a futile exercise to pump fosssil fuels into a process like this when ultimately the net is negative.
I was horrified to see so called "biofuels" being listed as "sustainable"..... they are anything but sustainable and environmentally friendly... they are in fact an unmitigated disaster in which not only is the "net" very close to negative if not actually negative, but the economic and environmental consequences are immense. Nobody who knows anything about agriculture and economics, and is capable of even the most rudimentary math...... and willing to do it...... could possibly consider "bio fuels" as either environmentally friendly or sustainable. The only reasonable nich for biofuels is where so called "waste" products can be used, and this is but a tiny nich in the scheme of things.
The hydrogen fantasy is equally outlandish when one runs the numbers and looks at the logistics........

There may be ways to become independent of fossil fuels, but these three technologies are NOT worthwhile paths to take..... they are dead ends. The very first priorities must be conservation with a capital C, and population reduction to a level that can be sustained without depleting the resources we depend on and destroying the environment we live in at an unconscionable rate.