Skip to main content

View Diary: Nuclear Power is our Friend (110 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Apologies for the patronage (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HeyMikey

    If you'd like to contest any of it with facts rather than name-calling, I'm all ears.

    I'm telling you there is a safe solution.  I'm not an expert on waste storage, but I've talked to many.  It hasn't been implemented yet because too many people think like you do.

    Future generations don't have to do anything with the repository, that's the whole point.

    First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

    by Cream Puff on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 10:57:47 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  It hasn't been implemented yet because (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      S F Hippie, brasilaaron

      there is no practical way to store and safely maintain waste material (fuel rod assemblies, for one of many examples) for the timespan necessary, ie tens of thousands of years.

      I think you know this already.

      “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

      by ozsea1 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 11:03:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did you skip over the part (0+ / 0-)

        about the radioactivity of isotopes with long half-lives?  There's plenty of radiation already in the earth's crust, even natural nuclear reactors (albeit low power ones).

        There are many, many places on planet earth that have remained stable for millions of years. Sandia labs have set sample fuel casks on fire and blown them up, to no avail.  The darn stuff is too tough and stable.

        First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

        by Cream Puff on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 11:20:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Degrees of "safe." (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          raoul78

          The idea that power sources can be neatly classified into "safe" or "not safe" is false.

          Of course coal causes all kinds of diseases and early death (depending on how much mercury, sulfur, etc. is scrubbed from the emissions). Both coal and natural gas contribute to global warming, which is bound to cause significant human suffering. Even solar panels and wind turbines depend on mining and manufacturing operations that are conducted with varying degrees of attention to environmental consequences.

          Nuclear doesn't have to be 100% safe; nothing else is. The question is whether nuclear is safer than the practical alternatives. And what's practical depends in part on politics.

          IMHO we should impose a tax on greenhouse emissions and let the market do its work. Investment would flow into both nuclear and renewables, making both more efficient. Call me crazy.

          "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

          by HeyMikey on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 12:08:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  True (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            HeyMikey, brasilaaron
            Nuclear doesn't have to be 100% safe; nothing else is. The question is whether nuclear is safer than the practical alternatives. And what's practical depends in part on politics.
            But sometimes ya gotta use shorthand.  It's also true that the fission process in a nuke plant is inherently dangerous because it generates so much heat in a small space.  My main argument is that technology has mitigated the danger to an extent that it's as safe or safer than most other industries.

            I'm all for a carbon tax too.  Somehow I don't think Boehner will bring it up for a vote though.

            First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

            by Cream Puff on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 12:47:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is cute... (0+ / 0-)
              It's also true that the fission process in a nuke plant is inherently dangerous because it generates so much heat in a small space.
              The strength of nuclear power is that it generates large amounts of power in a small space using small amounts of fuel and producing small amounts of waste. Amusing to hear this suggested as an inherent danger.
              •  Why cute? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                scotths

                It's both an advantage in terms of power output and a danger because it's hard to cool efficiently.  Where's the contradiction?

                First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

                by Cream Puff on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 08:58:29 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It just feels to me like pointing out the (0+ / 0-)

                  glass is 1/8th empty given the benefits of such a highly efficient form of energy, but I do see your point.

                  It's both an advantage in terms of power output and a danger because it's hard to cool efficiently.  Where's the contradiction?
        •  nope, from the Scientific American (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          S F Hippie, Roger Fox

          http://www.scientificamerican.com/...

          So you're propagating nuclear power industry squawking points, proven false again and again.

          I've uprated the thorium comment immediately downthread. I'm not against all nuclear-power generation, no.

          Just in the current business model, of which your partiallity is made clear.

          “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

          by ozsea1 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 12:19:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hanford? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raoul78

            You think by linking to the cleanup problems at Hanford, you've "proven" that we can't create a safe repository for spent reactor fuel?

            Hanford's been producing weapons-grade plutonium since 1943.  All but one of their reactors were for weapon materials.  The issues are very different and in any event, we've learned a thing or two about waste disposal techniques in fifty years.

            It's great that you uprated a comment about thorium, though I don't see the relevance.  Trying to appear even-handed?  A better way might be to avoid using prejudicial terms like "squawking points" and accusing people you're arguing with of bias and repetition of falsehoods.

            First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

            by Cream Puff on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 01:43:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  thank you for your "concern" and "advice" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Roger Fox

              but seriously, DKos has seen much better pro nuclear power propagandaadvocacy than this puff piece.

              “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

              by ozsea1 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 02:06:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well I tried. (0+ / 0-)

                Have you noticed that every other commenter with likely similar views to yours was able to express them without being a jerk about it?

                I'll take your non-responsiveness and repetitive prejudicial labeling as a sign of surrender on the repository issue.

                Have a nice day.

                First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

                by Cream Puff on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 02:41:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  given (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Roger Fox

                  the planet-affecting risks associated with nuclear powerplant accidents (Fukushima being just one example) and utter failure of the industry to effectively deal with it; no, this industry and its business model is not safe.

                  Your diary is just one of many attempts to spread pro nuclear industry propaganda; and its condescending tone doesn't move me to be polite.

                  “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

                  by ozsea1 on Thu Nov 07, 2013 at 03:11:54 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  There's always Thorium (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cream Puff, HeyMikey, Uncle Cosmo, raoul78

        Instead of using Uranium, which has a long half life, can be weaponized and hard to store, Thorium based reactors could be used.

        So when we talk about the waste, one of the things that skeptics of the liquid fuel thorium reactor ignore is the fact that because the core is a liquid, you can continually process waste, even from existing conventional reactors into forms that are much smaller in terms of volume, and the radioactivity drops off much, much quicker. We're talking about a few hundred years as opposed to tens of thousands of years.

        So to say that thorium reactors, like any other reactor, will create waste that needs to be handled and stored, et cetera, is true, but the volume, we're talking tenths of a percent of the comparable volume from a conventional reactor. And not only that, but we've got all that waste from our existing nuclear reactor fleet, just sitting around, and we've got no plan for it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site