I would think that operating a small nuclear reactor on a ship, is not anything at all like a Three Mile Island facility. Of course I may be wrong to think that, but don't see how it could be wrong.

NO one here has explained how it is possible the two could be similar as to size, or the amount of nuclear waste developed. So to bring up the subject here about nuclear power plant in boats is a Red herring, or perhaps better stated; A load of bull-crap.

Oh my gosh, ___ PAUL MAGILL SMITH___ uses blue letters on his name and he's NO troll. Probably one of the brightest bloggers here at Common Dreams. ___ He makes radiation detectors and they work. You can click on his name any time.

Kem,

You are right, you are always right, just ask yourself.

Looking back on what I wrote, I am clearly not saying that a shipboard nuclear reactor is anything like TMI. Operating at sea is a much more difficult and dangerous environment.

I also, quite clearly did not say anything about waste. You are once again reading things just the way you want them.

I could probably say that you were an instructor at the Air Force Academy and you would reply "that it is not too, so located in Colorado, you scumbag".

Would you please forget that I exist. I am sick to death of your non-sequitirs, blind refusal to acknowledge anyone else's opinion, and willful ignorance of chemistry/physics.

Sure I can easily pretned that you don't exist ~KENDPOTTER~, would love to, but that would be as false as your opinions often are. If I'm always right as you state and then you say I'm always wrong, then you must always be right. BTW, I never mentioned your name here till now, nor attempted to use any chemistry or science to support my opinions on the dangers of nuclear power.

Science, or being a nuclear physics wizard is not necessary to know nuclear power is frightenng and dangerous, or that burning coal is also. A fifth grader with an IQ of 85 can fully understand that.

It was ~Sigurdur11~ who first brought up the use of nuclear power for ships and for some strange reason criticized the author for neglecting to mention that off topic point. ___ Then a ~M__B~ chimed in and said ~Sigurdar11~ is soooo right about navy ships using nuclear power. ___ Then later Mr.~Kendpotter~ says they are both right-on, and gives us all a long disartation about nuclear power on ships. __ Who cares? ___ That's not the issue here.

Finally, there are about 30 others here who are against the use of nuclear power and about four who are pro on the issue, and so you jump on my case once again.___ LOL. ___

Well at least you didn't tell me to go fuck myself, as you have done previously when I had the audasity to disagree with your scientific opinions on the subject. You didn't say anything about nuclear waste? __ I know it, I can read. I did, when questioning the reasoning for bringing up the dumb subject of ships in the first place.

Chernobyl's disastrous radioactivity release occurred because the plant had no containment dome and was run in a reckless and incompetent manner, as well as being an inherently unstable design. Three Mile Island actually melted down, but thanks to the containment dome there was no significant release of radiation (claims otherwise do not withstand serious investigation). TMI would also not have happened if the reactor had not been under-instrumented and mishandled. With more and better sensors, computer control and operator training, such accidents would not happen in even these same types of reactors, but newer generations of reactors will be inherently safer or completely immune to any possibility of a meltdown or other catastrophic operating accident.

Harvey Wasserman is committed to opposing anything nuclear without regard to global warming, the energy needs of growing economies like China and India, the global oil crisis, and the technical complexities of the issue.

I am not sure I want to say there should be a large increase in nuclear power, as opposed to any other solutions, but it is hard to see how it can be avoided since at present the only alternative that is always available for building a big power plant is coal.

What I am sure of is that there is no particular reason why we can't continue to use and expand use of nuclear power without there ever being another Chernobyl or even TMI.

We CAN provide electrical power 24/7 with renewable energy, but the nuclear industry has gotten the attention of Bush, so this is what we hear.

With geothermal, solar thermal, wind, PV and pumped hydro, we would never have to build another nuclear plant. Give us IGCC plants with sequestration and we can provide base load anytime.

And the nuclear power industry has two advocates for the fall campaign: Barack Obama and John McCain.

Once again, American voters won't have much of a choice (except, basically, on the issue of a woman's right to choose). Because that's not all McSame and Obama agree on:

the death penalty
illegal economic sanctions against Cuba
support for the criminal government of Colombia
opposition to the democracies in Ecuador and Venezuela
increasing the number of troops
leaving the contractors in Iraq
going more aggressively into Afghanistan
free trade
HMO run health insurance
keeping the world wide U.S. empire of over 700 military bases
increasing defense spending
failing to support homeowners adequately to keep their homes in the mortgage crisis
failure to support the just cause of the oppressed Palestinian people

and on and on...

You watch, in the debates, this fall, folks: McSame will get Obama to agree with him on far more than he agrees with Barack. And that is unacceptable from a progressive point of view or realistic expectations of how a Democrat should campaign or govern.

1) I would imagine, as with so many things, that more liberals in The White House and Congress would help us be thinking more like RFK Jr., Gore, Nader, etc. than like Cheney and his friends on this nuclear (or nucular, as Bush says) reactor debate. This is the year to add some lefties and merely slow down the Republican rush to nukes.

2) We hear a lot about "moral hazard" these days, always applied to INDIVIDUALS who might, for instance, overuse doctor privileges if given universal health care, or who might walk away from adjustable-rate mortages when the interest rates go up arbitrarily, etc.

To me, the greater "moral hazards" we face now are what we allow corporations to do that may overwhelm PEOPLE, and the trend of our government to insure THEM (with your money and your risk), while trotting out the "moral hazard" argument to decline insuring you. Medicare D was an example of this.
So is federal terrorism insurance. Now nuke risk. Enough?

3) Mark Abram makes a possibly good point above about a capability to build and run safer reactors. If so, are they safe enough to gather private insurance from groups of wealthy people such as the Lloyds of London model? If not, why would we consider them? Because of China? What?

4) Wind and solar are under-utilized, although growing.
Let's elect the politicians that want to grow them more.

Mark, you are so right on. Mr. Wasserman seems to forget how many reactors there are on US Navy ships, and have been running for years and years without a major glitch.
Why do you think Europe is weathering the increase in oil prices? Because a very large percentage of their power comes from nuclear.
Such small thinking on Mr. Wassermans' part.

Mark Abram said: "Newer generations of reactors will be inherently safer or completely immune to any possibility of a meltdown or other catastrophic operating accident."

So, accidents DON'T happen? Did you have your fingers crossed when you said that?

The following is from the current issue if Mother Jones:

"In March 2002, during a scheduled refueling outage at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in Ohio, workers discovered that boric acid deposits had gnawed a "pineapple-sized" hole into the six-inch-thick steel cap bolted to the top of the reactor. Had the corrosion gone just a third of an inch deeper, radioactive steam would have flooded the containment dome, and Davis-Besse might have been the next Three Mile Island."

"As frightening as the near-accident, was the way Davis-Besse owners FirstEnergy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission responded: by soft-pedaling procedural flaws and scapegoating plant workers, in particular Andrew Siemaszko, a systems engineer who they claimed had failed to report the corrosion. The NRC has since barred Siemaszko from working in the nuclear industry, and in 2006 he was indicted on five counts of lying to the government and falsifying records. But documents show that Siemaszko repeatedly told his employers the reactor head needed a thorough cleaning. FirstEnergy didn't complete that job because it was taking too long (keeping the reactor idle was costing the company $1 million a day)—and the NRC delayed a scheduled inspection of the reactor at FirstEnergy's request."

"The Davis-Besse incident puts into sharp relief a history of regulatory neglect that goes back for decades. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has counted 47 incidents since 1979 in which the NRC failed to adequately address issues at nuclear power plants—until the troubles got so bad the plants had to be shut down for repairs. In some cases, "the NRC allowed reactors with known safety problems to continue operating for months, sometimes years, without requiring owners to fix the problems."

See:
www.motherjones.com
"The Nuclear Option" (see: page 2)

See also: "How We Almost Blew Up Ohio," at motherjones.com

It is estimated that a major nuclear plant accident could cost upwards of $500 billion, when all the costs are accounted for. The nuclear industry is self insured, but that insurance fund is woefully underfunded, so if something happens the U.S. Government and the tax payers will have to pick up the tab.

mark abram ...

so according to you it would be wrong to conflate the lies spouted about the Iraq invasion with the 'straight talk' about nuclear energy -- much as the sources in the political sector are roughly identical?? --

and also, 'new' nukes are a horse of a different color from 'old' nukes, and we can safely tout them as THE 'solution', because the science, at this stage, is roughly invincible, impervious to all dispute -- having surpassed any intermediate stage where the facts might be reasonably questioned -- even though it has been touted as safe by proponents at every stage of development?

the facts are, your logic has holes in it big enough to fly a plane through -- not discounting the occasion upon which one might be used to decommission said 'safe' reactors --

sure, Chernobyl failed due to a lack of technology -- without the containment dome, blah, blah, blah --

tell me succinctly, what is the standard blast level tolerance for present day containment domes?

essentially, this is a texas no-limit hold 'em game where each new reactor represents a winning 'all-in' play --
-- nukes just win and win and win -- until a hand gets called by some indescribably obscure scenario where the oddball deuce hits on the flop and millions die --

currently...we have solar technology advances that could take every new home off the power grid -- we have other tech advances that, when combined with conservation design, threaten to put demand levels to bed permanently --

...except for our slavish devotion to a non-ecologic and somewhat dangerous solution like nukes --

I hope whoever pays you, pays you a lot -- but that certainly is the case with nuclear power, isn't it?

there's plenty to go around

Interesting debate, but perhaps just a little wide of the mark in terms of the most prevalent nuclear dangers to humanity.

Seems to me that the tonnage of "depleted" uranium that is being dispersed deliberately around the globe on a daily basis could turn out to be at least as significant in the long run as the uncertain likelihood of an accidental reactor malfunction.

And does anyone remember the original rationale for the whole nuclear program? Wasn't it driven primarily by fear that some nasty fascist regime might acquire the technology and use its horrifying potential for world domination.

Who could have known that the facsist regime we needed to fear the most was the one closest to home that actually succeeded and whose "defense strategies" are now centered on "full spectrum dominance" and policies that include first use, even against non-nuclear nations. Iran may seem far away, but air currents travel far and fast and they recognise no borders.

Worry about the possibilites of a second Chernobyl or TMI incident if you must. But spare a moment or two for the actual and ongoing threats that surround you right now with no end in sight.

What Mark Abram is sure of, is nothing. Nuclear waste is killing and hazardous for generations, longer than civilization has existed on this planet, obviously much longer than any particular civilization has lasted. We simply are not at a scientific nor societal level that can handle nuclear energy(or weapons for that matter) He stated: 'no significant release of radiation (claims otherwise do not withstand serious investigation).' But its his claim that does not withstand serious investigation as demonstrated right here on the pages of common dreams: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/29/7954/

So, is Mark simply ignorant? Or is he a shill for the nuclear industry? Not sure but either way, not creditable and not worth listening to.

I went to one of the few protest against transferring nuke de-commitioning costs and unrealized investor's profits (from nuke plants that will never boil a drop of water)to the "rate payers in Gov. Wilsons face in 1996.
Three people were with us. Read your electric bill.
I went to the two public hearings on "Blue Book" deregulation in Southern California in 1995 and 1996. 12 to 15 people showed up, along with dozens of PUC and Power Co. reps.
(The "blue Book" never will allow uncompetitive power production in this state by the homeowner or apartment building owner.)
The product of all these plants is boiling water and weapons grade uranium and plutonium.
Never again will governments need to spend their Treasury dry building TVA and Oakridge.

At the CA. statewide Democratic Convention last year, Nuke proponents controlled the debate with a hundred delegates singing in Accapella to drown out their opposition.
In democracy, you get what you've earned.

Mark.
And they still haven't found a safe place to store the waste after all these years.

The marvels of modern technology.

All those new computers that You say make accidents impossible could crash and a pissed off American could send some rockets into the place and with the computers down what happens to the safety with the engineers blown up...what about a canister missing from a truckload of waste or a hijacked truck for dirty bombs?. What about the cost overruns with the new plants that we can't afford? And with inflation and the falling dollar nobody knows when these new plants will be running and who will run them.

Oh yeah they got their own insurance like the banks that are failing have insurance too. Insurance companies go broke and get bailed out by the government that is already broke.

Accidents or sabotage will happen in our War economy but not in your new tech world.
And what about some glitch in the "new technology" that always has new bugs. One big accident even in the older worn out plants would leave zero money for Social Security and everything else... I think an accident as bad as it would be is the only thing that would wake you up, Mark.

Florida has got sunshine up the ass and we don't need no stinking Nukes.

Rene April 26th, 2008 4:57 pm -- So, is Mark simply ignorant? Or is he a shill for the nuclear industry?
Ad hominem remarks like that add nothing to your argument and do not reflect well on your own character.

There are, without question, many valid safety concerns about nuclear power generation. At the same time, every aspect of life and every kind of technology involves some element of risk, not excluding electrical energy itself regardless of how it is generated. Moreover, even where fundamental facts are not in dispute, reasonable people may see them from differing perspectives without being a "shill" for any particular vested interest.

We are still paying stranded costs for nuclear power built 40 years ago and there is still no safe way to store the waste. Decommissioned plants stand erect because no one wants them, Indian reservations have become the dumping ground because the people are starving and they already have the lowest life expectancy of any industrialized nation. The process to obtain fuel is still contaminating the environment and children play on the mining waste. In Scotland they still have to test the milk for radioactivity from Cherynoble. You never hear the whole story...

Sorry Arvy, but we are talking about our survival here.

So far logic alone has not dented the government stooges and the Nuke power proponents...It is time for some real emotion when it comes to ours and future generations. We are not talking about flower gardens here.

Well, I can get quite passionate about flower gardens, but emotion (its presence or absence in this or any other debate) really wasn't my point. Surely CDers should appreciate more than most the folly of arguments that are based on attacking the character or motives of an opponent rather than on making the case for or against the pertinent issues on their own merits.

I will admit that, in my own case, whether its roses, daffodils, or atomic energy, I'm much more likely to be persuaded by facts and logical argument than by anyone's emotional appeals. But, in any case, there's certainly no lack of arguments to be made on both sides and plenty of them to evoke emotional concerns if one chooses without any need whatever for attributing bad motives to those who may differ with some or all one's own opinions.

In fact, I generally learn more from those who disagree with my position on any subject than I do from those who merely reinforce it. And, since they're the ones I'm trying to persuade ... Well, enough said.

The French, Fins, Russians, Canadians, Chinese, Japanese (even Iranians?) might just be right. Nuclear power is part of their solution to global warming and energy independence.

If global warming gets really bad, even calamitous, we might have to "go cold turkey" on fossil fuels. Ration it for agriculture and essential services only. Those nations and regions with a high percentage of nuclear power will do much better.

Nuclear or renewable, its getting late in the global warming game. Maybe too late.

Agreed, Jim. The majority of Americans seem to have broken bullshit detectors. If the cited article is ballpark accurate:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/29/7954/

then what exactly is there to argue about, "logically" or otherwise? But no, let's pretend this is a debate and every side is simply airing heartfelt opinions on a "controversial" and "complicated" issue, and as such each side is entitled to the utmost respect. At the end of the day let's just trust that those we elect into office to understand such "complicated" issues for us will decide "logically" which solutions best serve the "national interest" after weighing all "fair and balanced" opinions.

WHAT ABOUT THE WASTE???

Now that we control over 80% of the uranium supplies, we will be bringing nuclear power back online since we can control who gets it. We will in effect be the OPEC of Uranium, and by keeping the price high, we will limit who gets it to those who keep their markets open for us to plunder.

Nuclear power is the solution to water shortages (nobody talks about how 50% of the water we get for consumption is from the ground and is being depleted and not being replensihed by rainfall). Nuclear desalination plants is the solution.

A 4th generation pebble reactor is a solution to farming woes, as it can help provide water in drier lands not readily able to be irrigated.

Chernobyl was either bad accident due to faulty Soviet technolgy, or it was sabotage, as was TMI, to discredit nuclear power and keep nations dependent on oil. The fact that it happened in the Ukraine, an area Stalin intentionally starved, killing 7-12 million people in his war on Christians, makes me wonder. Gorbachev had been in power for 1 year and he was our man, whose mission was to break up the Soviet Union. Chernobyl helped to this end.

Nuclear power could lead us to the promised land, if the elite monsters who prefer genocide could be eliminated. Technology and innovation could allow this planet to easily feed 2-3 times the current population. Thats why it is being suppressed, in order to justify population reduction, and those who are going to be reduced, seem to be the most gullible in accepting this myth.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3405_nuclear_myths.html

Mr. Wasserman,

Have you taken a single course in nuclear physics or nuclear engineering?

I am getting very tired of your shrill, emotional arguments on nuclear power based on zero expertise. The Chernobyl graphite moderated reactor is about a different from a light water reactor as a oak-log fire is to a keg of gunpowder.

Shouldn't you be worrying more about the micro-black holes the CERN large hadron collier might produce when it starts up next month? These black holes have the potential to end the world - literally collapse the entire earth to a black hole with an event horizon 0.9 mm in diameter. The foremost physicists - Higgs, Hawking and others assure us that such a scenario is science fiction. But do you trust them?

Mark A; has the answer on what to do with the waste come tell us MA what do you do with stuff that will be unsafe for longer than man has been on the planet so far?

No doubt engineering can make Nukes safe, or safe enough for the sheeple who aren't paying attention or who have been bought, such as Stewart Brand. The Nuclear Power Scientists just can't do anything to shorten the half lives of the resulting radionucleides produced. And there is not the political willingness nor the engineering ability to safely exclude these poisons from our environment for the time required, irregardless of how long several administrations have promised a solution is around the corner - sounding just like the promises of Victory in Iraq.

For instance, the half life of Technicium is equivalent to the span of time between Peking Man and the present day. 40,000 years ago we were living in caves and were just beginning to understand the concept of clothing. 10,000 years ago Seattle was covered by two miles of glacier. The time spans required to isolate Plutonium from the environment are much longer than this.

We were promised energy too cheap to meter and instead we have Hanford where the compositions in several waste tanks built un the 40s and 50s and meant to last only 20 years and are now leaking are unknown. One waste plume underneath has required the drilling and emplacement of large refrigeration coils several hundred feet into the ground to turn this inverted cone of crust into permafrost. One tank developed a large hydrogen bubble and they were worried it could blow up chemically, releasing a toxic mess. Another leaking tank and its plume had to be excavated and contained - all by remote control. Look at Hanford with Google Maps and one might understand the geographic scope of the problem.

We had the nuclear power industry try to locate a reactor on Bodega Head north of San Francisco despite the fact that the San Andreas ran right through the site, which they failed to note until Joel Hedgpeth pointed it out to them and then they tried to minimize its significance. We had the Trojan Nuclear Plant in Oregon along a possible fault that pushes the Columbia northward for 60 miles and later analysis revealed it was built on a thrust fault slice. The Sumatran Sized earthquakes we could get here finally shut it down but the spent fuel remains, like at every other commercial reactor on the planet. The utilities tried to downplay the risks.

There is then the issue of where the fuel is coming from. Most of what is being used now is not being mined out of the ground. Instead it is coming from decommissioned Nuclear Weapons. Like oil, gas and most other minerals Uranium has peaked. All the large deposits were mined in the Cold War. We have passed Peak Uranium. Many of the miners died from cancer, after breathing in tailings.

The State of Oregon voted several times to shut down the Trojan Plant yet they were always able to fight it in the courts using loopholes the Feds provided. PGE, the former owner was bought out by Enron. In Washington State we had WPPSS - well known as "Whoops!" and the largest municipal bond default in history. The plumbing in one of their reactors which never got finished was installed backwards. Do we really want these geniuses of finance playing with our future and radionucleides? They are more interested in making stockholders wealthy as soon as possible, which is their mandate - at minimal cost. They are not interested in saving the planet. They are just trying to greenwash their way to riches.

No doubt engineering can make Nukes safe, or safe enough for the sheeple who aren't paying attention or who have been bought, such as Stewart Brand. The Nuclear Power Scientists just can't do anything to shorten the half lives of the resulting radionucleides produced. And there is not the political willingness nor the engineering ability to safely exclude these poisons from our environment for the time required, irregardless of how long several administrations have promised a solution is around the corner. This sounds just like the promises we are being told of Victory in Iraq, just around the corner.

For instance, the half life of Technicium is equivalent to the span of time between Peking Man and the present day. 40,000 years ago we were living in caves and were perhaps just beginning to understand the concept of clothing. 10,000 years ago Seattle was covered by two miles of glacier. The time spans required to isolate Plutonium from the environment are much longer than this.

We were promised energy too cheap to meter and instead we have Hanford where the compositions in several waste tanks built in the 40s and 50s and meant to last only 20 years and are now leaking are unknown. One waste plume underneath has required the drilling and emplacement of large refrigeration coils several hundred feet into the ground to turn this inverted cone of crust into permafrost. One tank developed a large hydrogen bubble and they were worried it could blow up chemically, releasing a toxic mess. Another leaking tank and its plume had to be excavated and contained - all by remote control. Look at Hanford with Google Maps and one might begin to understand the geographic scope of the problem. Sure these were for nuclear weapons production but the half-lives remain the same. And many of the people responsible are the same.

We had the nuclear power industry try to locate a reactor on Bodega Head north of San Francisco despite the fact that the San Andreas ran right through the site, which they failed to note until Dr. Hedgpeth pointed it out to them and then they tried to minimize its significance. We had the Trojan Nuclear Plant in Oregon along a possible fault that pushes the Columbia northward for 60 miles and later analysis revealed it was built on a thrust fault slice. The Sumatran Sized earthquakes we figured out that we could get here finally shut it down but the spent fuel remains, like at every other commercial reactor on the planet. The utilities tried to downplay the risks. Fortunately the Cascade Subduction Zone will keep any nukes from being built near here - we hope.

There is then the issue of where the fuel is coming from. Most of what is being used now is not being mined out of the ground. Instead it is coming from decommissioned Nuclear Weapons. Like oil, gas and most other minerals Uranium has peaked. All the large deposits were mined in the Cold War. We have passed Peak Uranium. Eventually they will run out of this nuclear stockpile. Many of the miners died from cancer, after breathing in tailings.

The State of Oregon voted several times to shut down the Trojan Plant yet they were always able to fight it in the courts using loopholes the Feds provided. PGE, the former owner was bought out by Enron. In Washington State we had WPPSS - well known as "Whoops!" and the largest municipal bond default in history. The plumbing in one of their reactors which never got finished was installed backwards. Do we really want these geniuses of finance and engineering playing with our future and radionucleides? They are more interested in making stockholders wealthy as soon as possible, which is their only mandate - at minimal cost. They are not interested in saving the planet. They are just trying to greenwash their way to riches. They could care less about global warming - but are just using this as a marketing tactic.

Mark Abram: but newer generations of reactors will be inherently safer or completely immune to any possibility of a meltdown or other catastrophic operating accident.

The capitalists said the same kind of thing at the start of the nuke age. They say the same kind of thing when they push all their opiates. We've been burned, burned again and again. It's insanity to expect a different result each time we hear the same tired old capitalist sales pitch - and listen - we all want to give the capitalists a chance - and we gave the capitalists chance after chance, you know? It's only gotten worst. Sure, we've made regulatory progress in the 1970s, even the 1980s, even the 1990s. But now it's regression time with the White House criminals declaring an eight year free for all, collapse of political opposition, all reason down the drain in Washington, ehh? And you want to give the capitalists yet another chance? You know why they like nuke power? Because it is a fantastic lever of economic/political control, oppression over the people. Screw that! We're going solar, wind, biofuels - things that your local small farmer and craftsman can produce without "capital finance", without "intellectual property". Splendid future to look forward to - a capital-less future - wow! Problem solved - now we have something REAL to celebrate - heh heh - what a novelty.

BILLY: I am in no position to argue the chemistry of nuclear power, BUT anything Bush does has to be suspect given the entire legacy of his egregious false presidency. So to your comment, "The Bush administration is considering reprocessing used nuclear fuel." I would fully expect these bastards to send the spent fuel in shipments disguised as something else, leave it on the shores of some 3rd world place like Haiti and let the populace be damned quite literally. How different is this from the judicial outrage the people exposed to Dow Chemical's explosion in Bhopal was? How different from the deplete uranium being designed INTO weapons currently under use? This playing with the fire of the gods on the part of highly wounded and thus dangerous egos has no rationale given all that CAN and often does go wrongly.

CBWIM: Interesting posting.

When it comes to technology, there's a chance humans will make mistakes with design or operations.
However, I haven't worked in a nuclear facility, so maybe their maturity level is more advanced than less mission critical systems.

Our energy corporations manipulate the government institutions to dominate world energy policies.
Obviously energy is the main reason the U.S. government attacked and occupy Iraq.

I want improvements in cheaper solar energy options for my home, combined with a new conservation movement.
I want new energy options for individuals to leverage, in hopes for a dramatic change, similar to the personal computer revolution that took off in the 80's.

The corporations and government institutions cannot and will not solve this issue in time.
The best thing that could happen is to limit our dependence on them.

It's likely this innovation will occur outside of the U.S. due to issues with corruption, politics, and fear in the American society.
It does not matter where these options comes from, we just need the options available at the individual level.

Thanks rene for posting the article on the Cancers from 3 mile island that was "safely contained" as Mark assures us.
It amazes me how these government apologists talk like they were a gallon of cooling water...no emotion .. Are they logical? Only if they talk the propaganda and run when the questions come pouring in. Is that why they show no emotion? They never talk about what to do with the waste. What would you say to a store that sells toilets that can't flush? (I know they already do)

What about the waste? Yucca mountain...Yeah, and today there was an earthquake in Nevada...
That excuse that TMI was sabotaged is a beaut. What about sabotage? If 3 mile was sabotaged when times were better in the 70's then Now and the economy is getting worse, what about it? I don't think Cheney cares.

Let China and Iran learn and deal with those problems...we are in Debt like they will never see.

Desalination can be done much safer with wind wave and solar power.

Mark. your the expert...got the solution?
The USA is in a position from economic necessity (certainly not from moral values since the falling dollar rules) to lead the industrial world to a new energy solution. The Politicians are always talking about America leading the world ... now we can.

If they can't answer these questions about cost, sabotage, waste storage and the risk of catastrophic accidents, Cancer and Dirty bomb material in trucking it all over the world maybe it would be a good idea to have Israel bomb the new plants before they are completed.

It is true nuclear war ships have much stronger and safer power plants...thats because they are designed to take most of whatever an enemy can throw at them They are designed to survive intense Warfare!

Oh and those who say Obama supports new nuke plants are making it up.

He said there are many safety concerns to address first... You gotta read his total statement.

Why is anyone seriously discussing insurance?
The real problem is nuclear power plants and the possibility of an accident that could permanently wipe out a land area for safe use the size of New york and New Jersey combined and kill millions of people.

Is that likely? __ NO, is it possible?__ Yes. There has never in history been a man made object that either didn't or couldn't eventully fail. Why take the risk when it is not necessary, even if we had insurance that fully covered any losses. How much is a child worth in dollars anyway?

We've already had the Three mile accident that very luckily wasn't a major disaster. There have been several other close calls. Lets say we add twenty or more nuclear power plants to the 104 now in operation and some day there is a major disaster, caused by an earthquake, a human error, sabatoge, equipnent failure, or a tornado. Impossible? Nope, not at all. When that accident happens, what do we say? __ "Oops, I just hate it when that happens."

We have a choice, either totally clean energy, which is affordabe, feasable, totally clean, no atomic waste to worry about, no major accidents to worry about, and no mineing of uranium to be concerned about.

Or, we can go with atomic power and have all of the above problems to worry about and when the major accident does arrive, then we'll go with the other option. __ Bet on it. So why not just take the better option now and forget about nuclear power?

And Billy, nice a man as you are, your bean counting arguments just don't wash. NO sensible person can honestly deny the possibility of a major nuclear disaster is always present at every single one of the 104 plants now in operation. And the accidents documented with nuclear waste are too numerous to list here, not counting the use of DU for weaponry. ___ Google nuclear accidents.

Finally, we need fast action, we don't just need it we must have it. A massive effort to develop enough clean energy to enable us to shut down every one of the coal fired plants and then start phasing out the nukers. We don't have time to argue and then build more nuclear plants. Put that money into Geo, wave, tidal, wind and solar and do it now.

Yeah and if Obama is our next president those safety concerns he mentions will be addressed to his satisfaction. He'll make a terrific speech and he and we will have nuclear energy. General electric is supporting Obama and they want nuclear power. Money still talks.

Hey KEM, Billy, Siouxrose, et al, and thanks all for having a dicussion on such an emotionally laden subject in a civil manner. Hey Billy, I'm in Richmond, and it would be interesting perhaps to meet F2F sometime. Just because I don't agree with you on some points doesn't mean I don't respect you & your knowledge. I know KEM & I have learned a lot from you, and I hope you feel the same about research we've come up with. KEM is correct, though, we need to make some sort of mutually satisfactory move on the power issue because time is running short. We also can't allow such important decisions to be made based on politics or corporate greed. The people need more of a voice in such a matter that will affect us all, and could prove detremental or even fatal to many. Unfortunately, some of the sanest most rational people seem to be always excluded from formulating the most important policies. Regardless of position on this issue everyone should be included in the debate, and any propaganda or 'spin' must be excluded. A difficult task indeed given the current polarized political climate we live in.

My two-bits is that "atomic power" is a misnomer. It's just a heat source to heat the water to turn the turbines.

If the heat source is coal, it's a "coal-fired" power plant - "not coal-" or "oil power".

"Water-" and "wind-power" is correct, because the wind and water kinetic energy is directly used to turn a turbine to make power. Likewise with "solar energy", when applied to the silicon wafers or, for that mattter, grass and trees --

It would be premature to get overly excited about nuclear power plants having private insurance before reading the "fine print".

Hurricane Katrina victims of insurance companies are just one example of how simple it is for insurers to take your money in the form of protection premiums and then tell you to take a hike when you ask for compensation from loss.

And Kem is right on target. This is about people - not money.

For my money, Arvy's post @ 4:30 pm was the most telling. What happens--paraphrasing the implicit question--if legally empowered terrorists like Bush/Cheney take control of a nation's nuclear power industry? Safety measures are all but irrelevant.

nukes are viable for the same reason solar/other ecologically sane energy sources are not --

energy providers can exploit people with it whether there's a disaster or not --

anyone can make a solar panel -- and once it's done, there's no endless set of calculations regards cost to a ratepayer --

with nukes, you control the source, you control the output, you control the ability to extract payment for the energy

disasters are incidental --

aside from all this, one issue no one really touches is the 'opportunity costs' -- of course, you would invest in geo-solar-wind --- ...but the nukes come first and they have a tendency to eat money, so the rest will have to limp along on scattered tidbits of finance regardless of viability --

if the pentagon could build houses or water purification systems for a billion dollars each, they might do it, but people would wonder what's up --

no one can challenge the invisible costs of a bomber or hi-tech weapon-- after all, who knows what they're supposed to cost? (and they're so important to have around) so the opportunity to invest in humanity and humane solutions to the world's problems just goes by the wayside ----
which of course is just another opportunity for some 'more suitable' solution, as in gm crops for the hungry --

--- when the planet's population finally gets decimated --
the logical conclusion to the confluence of events regardless of whether we're projecting ten years or a hundred into the future, the remaining population will find wonderful accommodations in empty missile silos and equally useless federal office buildings

Three Words - Con Ser Vation.

We generate way more than we need already. Building retrofits across the board could save enough to not have to build new generating capacity for years, maybe decades now that it's getting economically unviable to build more monster homes and big box stores.

No-one mentions waste heat capture. This is where some clever monkey hooks up power generators to industrial stacks that are already in operation. If this were fully exploited, supply would outstrip demand for a long, long, long time.

The article states - "Every dollar invested in increased efficiency saves seven times the energy a dollar invested in nukes can produce." This is true of all your other forms of generation as well, with perhaps a different number in tow. And the savings (and the "extra" power you get) last forever. Much like nuclear waste.

It saddens me to see people fight over how they want their power generated. Use less! Waste Less! Don't put solar panels on your roof until you've weather sealed and replaced all your light bulbs.

Of course, if demand for power goes down, the power companies will not be able to honour the future pay-outs they've promised, the governments and central banks will slide them a "liquidity injection" and the powercos will invest it where it is sure to grow - food futures. Then only people who can get liquidity injections will be able to afford food. Seems fair.

Mark,
Your "statistical fluctuations" argument about caner around TMI which you say can be made about living near flowers is the same kind of arguments used against Global Warming. Of course statistics fluctuate, that is why they are statistics... It is the degree of fluctuation that is important and the way the government most always dismisses any scientific fact that tells them they must change. You say waste is too dangerous for terrorists to handle... but for nuclear waste haulers it is safe right? Nobody in the government we are told thought terrorists could handle a jet airline too...until it happens.. and why would suicide bombers care about the safety anyway? They could hijack a truck and put on some protective gear and cut into some canisters, load some bombs-in or around it and crash it anywhere lots of people go...If I can think of a way around your "Waste is too dangerous for terrorists but is fine for us" then I think they could figure a way around your assurances of the safety of highly radioactive waste. What to do about the waste? you are dodging that by implying it is safe for everyone but some suicidal terrorists... nice job, you should work for the government.

Kem, I agree with everything you said but your claim of knowing what Obama would do about Nuclear energy is just speculation from your dislike of Obama.... I guess the Clintons and Lieberman are more in line with your concerns, eh?

Dubs,
you make great points I would like Mark to address and also we can openly find out the truth with all alternate fuel but it is because of the threat of endless war that the government and Nuclear Corporations who get their money from the citizens that we will never be told the truth about what they are doing...it is against the law to tell the truth about "Natioanl Security" matters and whatever they do will be kept secret.

I don't understand why you keep saying I dislike Obama ~Jim~. I don't dislike him, I just don't believe he will do the best as president. Do you think every person who didn't vote for him dislikes him? Clinton has voted more progressive than Obama, far more. That's a fact and she is not in line with Lieberman. I'm sorry to see a nice person like you so messed up on facts. But whatever makes you happy, have fun. If Obama is the nominee, I'll send him a big check and support him and vote for him.

Sigurdur11, you are so right on. "Mr. Wasserman seems to forget how many reactors there are on US Navy ships, and have been running for years and years without a major glitch." Yes, the loss in 1963 of the nuclear submarine Thresher with 129 crew on board was only a minor glitch.

>> Jim Glover April 27th, 2008 10:33 am

Mark,
Your "statistical fluctuations" argument about caner around TMI which you say can be made about living near flowers is the same kind of arguments used against Global Warming. Of course statistics fluctuate, that is why they are statistics… It is the degree of fluctuation that is important and the way the government most always dismisses any scientific fact that tells them they must change. <<

Jim,

If the only evidence of global warming were articles by political activists listing incidents of hot or extreme weather, I would not believe in global warming. However, decades of work by hundreds of careful scientists has established beyond doubt that global warming is real and is caused primarily by CO2 emissions. This is the result of careful data analysis and modeling, not a compilation of anecdotes.

The difference between professional industrial handling of nuclear waste and any plausible terrorist operation is the large scale of facilities and time available for industrial operations. It is barely plausible that terrorists could hijack a waste shipment truck, but these shipments are and will be so carefully guarded and monitored that if I were a terrorist I'd bet on another type of operation. If spent fuel did get into the hands of terrorists, the worst they could do with it is make a dirty bomb, which would cause great panic and economic loss but probably not kill anybody.

The waste disposal problem is mostly a matter of NIMBY politics. For the time being, waste storage in ponds or dry casks gives us as much more time as we need to study long-term geological storage issues and come up with a plan that can be implemented politically

As interesting as this thread has been to read, and as much as I've learned about about nuclear power, I still can't help saying (with respect) blah, blah, blah. We wouldn't be having this debate if mankind could only learn that the real solution is to breed less and buy less. Face it, we all were screwed when we got out from behind our ox and started shoveling coal into a steam engine, without the slightest thought to where we might be headed. And,let's not forget that we've largely ignored solutions to an "energy crisis" because they weren't profitable.

We're strapped to the tracks of the future we've chosen, and consequences are less than 1/4 turn of the locomotive's wheel away from our heads. Mankind's history on the planet is brief, in real time, to say nothing of the insignificant blip that "modern" industrial society has been. In health care, it's shown that 90% of expense goes to keeping one alive in the last 2% of one's life.

Civilization, particularly Western, has squandered its chances. I think we greatly overestimate our own importance.

The fact is indisputable, that mankind has caused global warming, which is actually excess C02 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and coal. That in turn has created the "Green House" effect on our water world and heat cannot escape from our upper atmosphere as it should. That excess Co2 does not just evaporate in a few years time, we can be breathing C02 which was emmitted from the Civil War Merrick and Monitor ships and Henry Ford's first model T.

We must attempt to stop the insanity of burning coal and fossil fuels and do it now, time is running out for mankind and all other life. ___ Last month, Russian scientists were not only shocked at what they had seen with their own eyes in the Arctic, it scared the crap out of them. There are large, now unfrozen lakes which are literally boiling from escaping methane gas. Those lakes had been frozen over for more than five million years.

Why is that so frightening? Here is a link with an article which was penned in 2004, few paid any heed. The author is a world renouned geologst and has spent his entire adult life in that field of expertise. It takes about two minutes to read his article, and if any have any doubts of what global warming is doing, they should read it. If any are unawre of the real life dangers of methane gas escaping into our atmosphere, they should read it.

Perhaps the most interesting sentence is the one where he states,__"Once it starts, there is NO turning back, __ NO do-overs, once the methane starts to "burp" out into the atmosphere, it will likely play itself out."

We don't have the time to argue, we have to have clean energy and have it world wide, that's it, ___ that's the bottom line. __ Deny and die.

http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html

And you stay there?

Mark,
That was my point, nuclear waste is material for a dirty bomb, anybody with a torch could cut into a cannister and a dirty bomb would be worse than 9/11.

Also the expense of trying to store it safley when this stuff will be dangerous for thousands of years.... that means with the cost of inflation and our falling dollar we will have money to store it and have money for nothing else if our future generations are lucky to be around in a hundred or so years to deal with this time bomb...
alternatives have none of these endless problems of nukes.

Kem, sorry if I thought you did not like Obama... my mistake. But I don't thik he is for building new Nuke plants when he is confronted with the cost now and the future endless and growing costs.