Skip to main content

View Diary: Breaking: Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So what? (7+ / 0-)

    I appreciate your effort to brave the group-think about nuclear, so I applaud you.
    However, nuclear energy still involves powerful mega-corporations holding the little guy hostage and squeezing the last dime out of his increasingly feeble hands. It's very capital-intensive.

    I could be led to support nuclear power under these conditions:
    1. We come to a national consensus on what to do with the waste that is the safest of all alternatives.

    2. We make the spearpoint of our effort the development of 4th generation reactors that can use up almost all of the spent fuel from conventional reactors and from military nuclear bomb stockpiles.

    3. Cost savings from nuclear energy accrue to the taxpayers who paid for the research, not Wall Street or mega-utilities.
    Ultimately, I don't think nuclear stands a chance in the long run against wind (which is a type of solar energy, if you think about it) or solar. When the bottom drops out of energy costs I don't think nuclear can compete, so we should at least have reactors which can clean up and reduce existing stockpiles of spent fuel and bomb material.

    In the long run, all forms of energy should be evaluated honestly, including wind and solar, (which create their own environmental issues), and we should move in  the most sensible direction.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:08:28 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well, as far as I know of (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      6412093, Paul1a, Gary Norton

      all energy production involves powerful mega-corporations holding the little guy hostage and squeezing the last dime out of his increasingly feeble hands. And I agree with the points you make. I am a proponent in the sence that I believe nuclear is a stop gap measure between truly dangerous energy production like coal and gas and more positive and environmentally friendly alternatives like wind and solar. I would rather have nuclear with all its problems than coal though.

      Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

      by psilocynic on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:23:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Solar doesn't have that same problem (0+ / 0-)

        Point of use generation allows for more consumer control and can lead to power companies paying customers. We have solar and we have the ability to set up a lot of it. We don't need a stop gap, we just need to fund the switch over.

        If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

        by AoT on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:31:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Again, I wasn't talking about solar just then (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Paul1a

          but solar is not a viable alternative to nuclear yet and it might not be for some time. When it is I hope it overtakes nuclear entirely. As of right now, nuclear is cheaper than solar and safer than coal.

          Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

          by psilocynic on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:34:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why are you going off of two standards? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            codairem

            If we want the safest why not just go for the safest?

            It has the added benefit of not being nearly impossible politically.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:46:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So we burn coal (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Johnny Nucleo, alain2112

              until solar catches up? Great plan.

              Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

              by psilocynic on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:15:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, please pay attention (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                codairem

                Solar is more expensive but safer, so we pay more and install solar. It's not like we can just magically switch to nuclear, it takes at least three years to bring a plant online, assuming the best political climate for it. Your accusations are absurd and your "plan" to ignore the safety issues with nuclear is absurd. How much solar could we get up for the 26+ billion it takes to build a nuclear plant? And how much will future supply of solar increase if we spend the money on that instead of nuclear? Spending on nuclear instead of renewables is throwing good money after bad. We need to build up renewables as quickly as possible and nuclear gets in the way of that, no matter what sort of nonsense catastrophism you might want to push. We can do this in a reasonable way without nuclear.

                If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                by AoT on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:26:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's not a realisting solution. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Johnny Nucleo

                  I really wish it were, but it's not.

                  Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

                  by psilocynic on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:37:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Of course it is (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    jgnyc, codairem, Roger Fox, Joieau

                    You think that building 1.5 trillion dollars in new nuclear plants is reasonable and not spending the same money on solar and other renewables. That's not reasonable. You just really want there to be a big switch to nuclear. I understand it seems like the only way, but it isn't.

                    If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                    by AoT on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:43:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Actually, nuclear can't put a dent (0+ / 0-)

                      in worldwide GHG output shy of at least a thousand new 1,000+ Megawatt reactor plants. And that's new capacity, not replacement for the ~400 antiques worldwide on their last legs. Minus 52 of Japan's, since they'll probably not be generating 'trons again in the foreseeable future.

                      $1.5 trillion dollars is only 50 plants at $20 billion apiece [current tag] and getting more expensive every day that goes by. That's just the first round of cost overruns on new units that won't come on line for at least another decade and a half. That won't replace the antiques that will go down for good in that amount of time, a predictable half our current fleet. They're dropping like flies and will continue to drop - Crystal River, Calhoun, Yankee, San Onofre 2 and 3, two at North Anna and two more at Diablo, several on the Mid-Atlantic coast and Florida that simple sea level rise will put an end to. Three rickety clunkers at Browns Ferry and all the rest of the Mark I and IIs - 23 of 'em in this country of a design proven far too dangerous to justify, just like the same models in Europe now shuttered or scheduled for quick exits. MitsubishiHI is facing divisional bankruptcy as both GE and Siemens got out of the nuclear business and are going heavy with renewables. There's no future in it, the actual industry is aware of that even if the news is slow to trickle down to the minions.

                      It's all about the floating cash at this point. Who can monopolize the most of what governments must of course be investing if there is to be any future at all. Nukes are not a good investment.

                      $1.5 trillion dollars would go a long way toward ending King Coal's reign with kinetic sources and solar, site generation and a much more distributed supply. Which can be deployed right now and start contributing to the grid tomorrow. Probably still have gas contributing for the next couple of decades, but we could definitely cure the worst of it.

                      If you add in the capital costs, annual direct and indirect subsidies (including loan guarantees, passes on water regulations and taxpayer liability for those trillion dollar meltdowns that happen often enough to matter), decommissioning and long term waste management (if they ever get around to it), nuclear is no bargain. Might as well count the true costs.

                •  SOlar is tied @ 11 cents per KWH (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AoT, Paul1a

                  See my citation up thread. Solar price points are trending down, fission is trending up.

                  ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                  by Roger Fox on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 03:15:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Also, by going rooftop solar we create possibly (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, jgnyc, Wee Mama, JeffW, codairem

          millions of sustainable, non-exportable, middle class and working class jobs, esp. in the inner cities where there is a great job deficit.

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:39:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I appreciate your point of view, the realism (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        psilocynic

        involved is why I would support 4th gen. reactors. But I'm closer to AoT's thinking.

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:37:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site