Skip to main content

         I found it very troubling listening to Bush's inept inadequate, anemic energy proposals and then listen to the idiot say how superior they are to Democratic proposals. As I say often, I am sick of him touting obviously inadequate proposals and then bragging about it and getting away with it. We always pay the price and you will may agree but will see that this will be pricey and no exception.
        Thursday Bush was at one of the most expensive accident prone nuclear power plants in the country touting the superiority of his plan over the Democrats plan and after reading the comparison and learning more about the Browns Ferry Power Plant he was bragging about and using to highlight his "great" plan I was stunned again.
       First though as usual I am continuously disappointed that there is not a focus on a real viable and "Green" energy alternative such as hydrogen but not surprised. I am disappointed that nothing is being said about the fact that refineries are purposely keeping their function the bottle neck in order to keep prices artificially inflated in a time when per Barrel prices are going down.

I refuse to believe that if this President especially wanted a new refinery built that it wouldn't get done. That said!
         Power plants are important but so is fuel. I found that the last refinery was built in 1976. even more troubling than that is the fact that there is a small refinery in Utah that is not even being used. Gee, what a coincidence.
http://www.dune-buggy.com/...
        With an obvious bottleneck produced by the industry for their gain I am dumbfounded that Bush's advisers have recommended a veto of the energy bill if it contains a provision that would make oil industry price gouging a federal crime. They say targeting ``unconscionably excessive'' prices for petroleum products amounts to price regulation and could lead to supply shortages. I am so sick of this no oversight, no control abuse of the people and our America.
         Price regulation, bull, but maybe it is needed. As for shortages, supplies are purposely controlled by refinery limitations to keep the prices up. We are being controlled for their gain and Bush does not want it to end. I found the differences Bush was making between his proposal and that of Democrats to be worthless nitpicking.
        The centerpiece of Bush's energy proposal is nuclear power and he chose to highlight it at Browns Ferry nuclear power plant. he is pushing expanding nuclear power that has stalled since the 1979 partial meltdown at 3 mile Island. Bush called it energy that is abundant, affordable, safe and clean. I don't know about that but I decided to look into the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant he made his speech at and was touting as a great example of success.
         Instant red alert! I hate that he will point out the good parts of something but leaves you in the dark as to the real picture as he knows how bad it is. I just can't stand this and it is all day every day. Bush came to the plant that is home to the first U.S. nuclear reactor to go online in more than 20 years. Browns Ferry's Unit 1 reactor began producing power again last month after being shut down for safety reasons in 1985. Its other two reactors returned to service in the 1990s.
         The reactor was shut down two days later after its restart when a leaky pipe burst and spilled non-radioactive fluid. Such problems prompted Greenpeace to call Browns Ferry ``a strange poster child for a nuclear future.''  Hearing that it was the first to go on line in 20 years I thought okay that's cool I guess. Then I see it had to shut down two days when a leaky pipe burst.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/...
         I can see pushing nuclear power here and around the world would leave us and a few other countries to control the countries of the world as we control the supposed future power industry. I don't know what you think of Greenpeace but when I learned the following about this safe, clean, cheap source Bush was bragging about I was stunned and most certainly agree with them.
         When it was built, Browns Ferry-1 was the largest and supposedly safest reactor in the country. However it turned out to be a classic example of how the nuclear industry often fails to meet expectations. The place was accident prone from the beginning. Its main claim to fame is the major accident on 22 March 1975 in which a meltdown was narrowly avoided and which caused US$100 million damage Hmm, safe and cheap yeah!
         Further incidents followed. During an attempt to shut down reactor 3 on 28 June 1980, nearly half the control rods failed to insert, and three attempts were needed to shut down the reactor. There were also several leaks of radioactive cooling water (3, 4), including one that contaminated the Tennessee River in January 1983. There was years of restarting and shutting down various reactors.
         Even then, Browns Ferry's problems were not over. There were multiple problems with the core shrouds cracking due to the steel that was used. The restart alone of unit 1 is expected to take five years and cost around $1.8 billion. This exceeds by more than $100 million the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)'s highest cost estimate for building a new reactor.
          Now you have to ask what is Bush's motivation here. The TVA already bankrupt doesn't know where they will get the money. This is the success Bush is pointing to? This is the future he wants for us? Safe and economical? Oh yeah small oversight, no blueprints. No Blueprints! How the hell do you lose the blueprints to a nuclear power plant?
http://www10.antenna.nl/...
       I am sick of this selfish agenda lying crap, what is happening? We have to start making a difference. America can not take much more of the daily obvious abuse and misuse and succeed into the future!

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

Originally posted to jmsjoin on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 01:28 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Accident prone? (3+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Colossus, G2geek, Doc Sarvis
    Hidden by:
    peace voter

    Please.  Noone in this country has EVER died due to nuclear power.  It is the only practical and immediate solution to global warming.  If you don't care about global warming, than please feel free to oppose nuclear power.

    •  do you think we're idiots? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jmsjoin, rickievaso

      "Noone in this country has EVER died due to nuclear power."

      — The Scientific Liberal

      I'm sorry, but I just had to troll rate your comment.  How dare you suggest that people who oppose nuclear power don't care about global warming or that no one has died from cancer induced by exposure to ionizing radiation.



      ````
      peace

      •  I didn't troll rate that but I didn't agree with (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peace voter

          To me it is the many other issues not discussed of course. Look at the link. The Browns Ferry nuclear Power Plant, Its exorbitant cost being $100 million more than building a new one at a cost of $1.8 Billion, A bankrupt TVA, another problem right after restart, and that is Bush's great example. We need better than that and what is really behind that power plant and spending all that money? What is wrong with us?

        Repug credo: If you can't Dazzle them with Brilliance Baffle them with Bullshit! http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

        by jmsjoin on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 01:56:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  how "dare" he...? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jmsjoin

        Who appointed you King?  

        If you have no tolerance of people with opposing opinions, what the hell are you doing on DKos in the first place?  

        •  I am not intolerant... (0+ / 0-)

          of opposing opinions - but I have little patience for b.s.

          Perhaps you share the "opinion" expressed by "The Scientific Liberal" that opponents of nuclear power "don't care about global warming".  That "opinion", however, has no basis in reality.

          And the "opinion" that "Noone in this country has EVER died due to nuclear power", ignores the deaths of all of the people who have died from cancers induced by exposure to ionizing radiation.  

          ````
          peace

          •  Who, specifically,has died? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            G2geek

            And you may CARE about reducing global warming, but your actions don't match your words, if you oppose nuclear power.  In other words, your "caring" have no basis in reality.  As does your opinion that people have died in any nuclear accident at a power plant.

            •  are you revising your statement? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chigh, rickievaso

              here's what you wrote:

              "Noone in this country has EVER died due to nuclear power."

              The Scientific Liberal

              And now you ask, who "has died?"

              I'll start by pointing out that we will probably never know the names of many of the victims of cancer induced by exposure to ionizing radiation.

              How about the Navajo uranium miners and the communities adjacent to the mounds of uranium tailing blowing in the southwest winds?

              How about the kids paid minimum wage to clean and operate the washing machines at the laundries that clean the uranium, cobalt and strontium off the uniforms of workers at nuclear power plants and uranium mines?  How about the kids who play on the soccer fields watered with the radioactive effluent flushed into the municiple waste water system in Santa Fe?

              Will we ever be able to count the deaths?  Will we ever be able to name all of the victims?  Where are the base line studies?  Where is the excellent medical system that tracks the exposure and tracks the deaths?

              Do you really think that people have not died due to exposure to ionizing radiation?  Do you think that no one has died due to cancer induced by exposure to radionuclides released during the accident at Three Mile Island?  


              ````
              peace

              •  Any number of studies.. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                G2geek

                Have indicated that there was no increase in cancer among residents of the areas surrounding Three-Mile Island.  Also that there is no increase in cancer due to living near nuclear power plants.  Feel free to check out this NCI study, among many, many others, which have thoroughly tracked mortality near plants.

                http://www.cancer.gov/...

                As for miners - you are probably right there.  Of course miners die all the time in coal plants.  But most likely some did die due to radiation.  This can probably be more attributed to mining uranium for weapons production well before we knew all the risks of radiation.  I am certain you cannot find any evidence that such practices continue to this day, given the level of OSHA monitoring of anything involving radiation exposure.  I will concede however that probably a few hundred or so people treated horribly died in mining accidents in the early days of nuclear power.  

                •  Tell that to... (0+ / 0-)


                  Paula Obercash: acute lymphocytic leukemia

                  Gary Villella: chronic myelogenous leukemia

                  Leo Beam: chronic myelogenous leukemia

                  Joseph Gaughan: thyroid cancer

                  Lori Dolan: Hurthle cell carcinoma

                  Jolene Peterson: thyroid adenoma

                  Ronald Ward: osteogenic sarcoma (right leg)

                  Pearl Hickernell: breast cancer

                  Ethelda Hilt: adenocarcinoma of the ovaries

                  Kenneth Putt: bladder cancer, acoustic neuroma.



                  ```
                  peace

              •  to be clear (0+ / 0-)

                you make a couple of distinctions - your first assertion was that noone in THIS COUNTRY had died from nuclear power.  As opposed to those who have died in other countries - say Russia.

                Then you qualified your assertion to limit the deaths to those caused by ACCIDENTS.

                The truth is that we will probably never have a reliable number of deaths due to nuclear power because we do not track exposure, and we don't have enough base line studies.

                Since you qualify your statement to rule out death outside of this country & non-accidental deaths, do you concede that people have died due to nuclear power?


                ````
                peace

                •  I specifically was referring to this country... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  G2geek

                  The criminal incompetence of the Soviet Union has no bearing at all on the performance of nuclear power plants everywhere else in the world.  

                  During nuclear power plant operations everywhere ELSE, there were a few deaths in Japan a few years back... and that's it.  

                  And I am not exempting non-accidental deaths.  There has been no evidence of any rise in deaths due to living near nuclear power plants under ordinary conditions.  The exposure of plant workers is tracked in-depth, and is far, far below the level of radiation they are exposed to by the Sun or by radon gas in any year.    

                  I have conceded that some miners may have died in the early days of uranium mining, ergo (very slightly) retracting my statement.  I am conceding that this is POSSIBLE though I haven't researched this specific issue (and you've provided no positive evidence).  

                  Can you HONESTLY say that you were aware that none of the workers, for instance, who responded to Three-Mile Island died in the following days?  Most nuclear-power opponents I've met are under the impression that several thousand people died in the few days following TMI.  

                  •  Death in slow motion... (0+ / 0-)

                    is still death.  

                    Most nuclear-power opponents I've met are under the impression that several thousand people died in the few days following TMI.  

                    — The Scientific Liberal

                    Say what?  Let me see if I follow the argument implied by your statement.  Are you asserting that since "most nuclear-power opponents [you've] met are under the impression that several thousand people died in the few days following TMI", that no one died due to cancer induced by exposure to the release of harmful levels of ionizing radiation?


                    ```
                    peace

                    •  Exactly, it is deceptive (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      peace voter

                      to ask who has died as a direct result when radiation takes years to manifest, metastasize and murder...especially when Industry has a stake in "direct links of deaths" by their product. How can anyone say that their "death" 20 years later was caused by a slow acting poison? How can anyone claim that anancephalic babies in Matamoros are directly linked to toxins released into the water???? Why even bring this up if not to cast doubt???? The fact that there is no direct link because our inability to show it, does not mean that such an ability will not exist in some future....but coincidence is like a three-day- old fish sitting in the fridge. I guess no nuclear-powered submarines ever sank, and Litvenenko was not poisoned by Plutonium...I guess the IFR is a great idea....just don't live too close to the reactor and don't YOU work there....the rich and successful manage to live in exclusive areas or a reason while the rest of the peons without money or health care get to experience all  the joys of "technology" and "Industry" up close and personal. So who do YOU trust? Halliburton? Ask the relatives of the dead in Bhopal, India how much "Big Business" and American Industry has helped them.
                      Maybe the "good" Dr would like to bathe in the "safe" waste water from the the plant? Because he allegedly bathed, that is no "proof" that any side effect or illness would be caused by nuclear power. It is all environmental. The amount of microwaves bombarding us in our society today may or may not reduce fertility rates....but that is no "death", right? They may or may not affect IQ, or cause changes in chromosomes....they may or may not shorten life spans, but that is no death....Maybe the advocates of nuclear power need to reside close by a "safe" plant and let us view the results of studies conducted on these "test cases" before we make our judgement....perhaps after a few generations we can absolutely "rule out" any negative efects.

                      All I want from Congress is...IMPEACHMENT!

                      by Temmoku on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 04:23:45 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Considering that many studies have already been.. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        G2geek

                        performed on those living near nuclear plants, showing no increase in cancer, your concerns are already alleviated.

                        I would not think twice before moving near a plant, nor would I protest if they decided to build one one mile from my house.  

                    •  At TMI? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      G2geek

                      I am specifically stating that numerous studies have found no increase in cancers among residents near TMI.

                      http://www.ans.org/...

                      "Are you asserting that since "most nuclear-power opponents [you've] met are under the impression that several thousand people died in the few days following TMI", that no one died due to cancer induced by exposure to the release of harmful levels of ionizing radiation? "

                      No logical reading of my statement could let you think that I am under the impression that the thoughts of nuclear power opponants regarding how many died at TMI led me to believe that NO ONE died at TMI.  I am merely stating that most opponents of nuclear power (when I was at college, recently, with people who weren't alive in 1978) think that thousands died within a few days, a la Chernobyl.  They are surprised to find that this is not the case.  

                      And again, many major, thorough studies by the NCI, and by many public and private universitites, have found no increase in cancer in the region in the years since.  

    •  Nuclear isn't as dangerous as people like to (3+ / 0-)

      believe.  I would much rather have our money go into wind and solar however, or if it ever pans out nuclear fusion.  I don't think you should be modded down for your opinion, even though I don't really agree with it.

      •  I do not think operably that it is excessively (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Colossus

        dangerous. As you read about the Browns Ferry plant, it can be exorbitantly expensive. At $1.8 Billion that is $100 MILLION more than building a new one, and the TVA is bankrupt and does not know how to pay for it, that is not the end of it either.
             Reading the constant problems they have had there and the fact that it was down 20 years and had a problem right off the bat, it seems we should be concerned with other alternatives if there was no ulterior motive.
            Myself I am an advocate of hydrogen power and do not understand why that is not being headlined. It could be the new great source if they really wanted one.

        Repug credo: If you can't Dazzle them with Brilliance Baffle them with Bullshit! http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

        by jmsjoin on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:04:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I totally agree (0+ / 0-)

          Make your arguments against nuclear with cost and waste storage.  You don't need to invent a nuclear isn't safe strawman.  Hydrogen is just as far away as fusion.  Maybe someday we will figure out how to safely store it but that day isn't today.

      •  How about the IFR? (0+ / 0-)

        Using recycled Plutonium?  Or haven't you heard about this one?

        All I want from Congress is...IMPEACHMENT!

        by Temmoku on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:51:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Let us tackle this in a different manner ... (5+ / 0-)
      1.  There is no such thing as a single SILVER BULLET solution. This includes nuclear power.  The requirements are too large, the industrial/other impediments too great, such that even if everyone snapped their fingers and said 'yeah merrily' to nuclear power, the time line for getting on line would not adequately deal with GW issues.
      1.  We need a holistic response -- energy efficiency, renewable energy, usage pattern change, and -- to some extent -- additional nuclear power.  
      1.  Commitments for serious change on Global Warming would include:
      • Seeking near elimination of coal-fired electricity (and other coal burning) in the next 20 years (unless sequestration works) via that holistic response
      • Reversal of deforestration -- especially in the tropics / tropical forests
      • Electrification of ground transportation (as much as possible)

      etc ...

      Nuclear is, at best, only part of a package of solutions ... it is, at best, just one of the wedges for the strategy to pursue.

      We need to be doing many things to Energize America toward a sustainable and prosperous energy future.

      Blogging regularly at Ecotality Blog for a Sustainable Future.

      by A Siegel on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 01:50:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  nuclear is not a solution (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jmsjoin

        because the problem of what to do the lethal, radioactive waste has not been solved.

        It's irresponsible to suggest that we can allow the waste to continue to pile up.  

        Nuke boosters must clean up their enormous mess.

        Radionuclides are on the loose and wrecking havoc.


        ```
        peace

        •  your information is out of date (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Colossus, jmsjoin

          I used to be opposed to nuclear power due to the waste issue.  

          However, France has been successfully recycling nuclear waste into new nuclear fuel for 20 years.  That's an empirical fact on the ground, and facts trump opinions.

          Meanwhile, fossil fuel waste goes right into the atmosphere where we can't see it or protest against it, but there is is, killing the planet.  

          •  Do you know why our country has decided (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jmsjoin

            against reprocessing waste?  I've heard people say it is just a security risk transporting highly radioactive material around the country but I don't buy that as a primary reason.

            •  To me it is NIMBY again. I was under the (0+ / 0-)

              impression that we and the French were cornering the nuclear waste reprocessing business and that is why we are pushing nuclear power. It seems like a good way to control the future if that is what they call the future.
                  A lot of people are afraid of nuclear power and waste and that will never change. Just think of how much is here and it will never go away. Add everything else we have done to the environment and you have a nightmnare regardless of what they tell you.

              Repug credo: If you can't Dazzle them with Brilliance Baffle them with Bullshit! http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

              by jmsjoin on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:33:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I knew one of the sources was old but since (0+ / 0-)

            the information it was talking about had not changed and it fit my story I used it. You are right!
                The French and us having that ability lends the nuclear future to be our domain and you have to think that is why Bush pushes it.
                We also have to stop using fossil fuel yesterday but that will never happen. I have discussed what we are doing in retrieving the largest oil reserves in the world right here.
                We have more than the entire world combined in shale oil and after 100 years they are closing in on making its capture economical. Makes you think why Bush is willing to gum up the Gulf and why there is no serious effort here to find an alternative.

            Repug credo: If you can't Dazzle them with Brilliance Baffle them with Bullshit! http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

            by jmsjoin on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:26:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  first clean up the waste. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jmsjoin, chigh

            Last time I checked it was still a big problem here.

            We don't have to choose between nuclear & coal, or nuclear and fossil fuel.  And no matter how many times this simple truth is pointed out, nuke boosters continue to present using radioactive material to create steam to turn turbines as some kind of panacea.

            I call b.s.


            ```
            peaceBR>

            •  The waste isn't a big problem at all. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jmsjoin

              Nuclear power plant waste is currently contained on-Site.    Not the best solution, but an okay one.  And Yucca Mountain is a very good solution.  Just because political cowards keep derailing it doesn't mean it isn't a scientifically grounded engineering solution.    

              Most plants have powered literally MILLIONS of homes for decades, and all the waste combined could fill a standard suburban swimming pool.

              Please let me know how you are are going to handle the fossil fuel waste we are currently spewing into the atmosphere, killing tens of thousands annually even WITHOUT the global warming.  

              •  I know what they say about nuclear but it (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                peace voter

                is the biggest concern to me in running a nuclear power plant. As for fossil fuel. I thiught this was a marvelous idea but it would some to continue to abuse.
                   Gore, Branson $25 million virgin Earth Challenge an Awesome Idea poses 3 important Questions...
                Gore, Branson $25 million virgin Earth Challenge an Awesome Idea That poses 3 important Questions in light of Bush!
                As most know by now, Sir Richard Branson and Al Gore have set up a new global science and technology prize – The Virgin Earth Challenge - which will award $25 million to the individual or group who are able to demonstrate a commercially viable design which will remove at least 1 billion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year for at least ten years without harmful effects. The removal must have long term effects and contribute materially to the stability of the Earth’s climate. It is the largest science and technology prize ever offered.

                The Virgin Earth Challenge will initially be open for five years; the judges will meet annually to determine whether a design has been submitted during the previous year that in their view should win the prize and, if so, they may award the prize without waiting for the five year period to elapse. If no winner has been selected at the end of five years, the judges may decide to roll the prize forward for a further five years.
                Branson called on governments and members of the international community to join in The Virgin Earth Challenge by matching or adding to the prize available to encourage the greatest number of entrants of those who could come up with a solution which could save our planet. "If the greatest minds in the world today compete, as I’m sure they will, for The Virgin Earth Challenge, I believe that a solution to the C02 problem could hopefully be found – a solution that could save our planet - not only for our children but for all the children yet to come," Branson said. http://www.environmentalleader.com/...
                This is an absolutely phenomenal idea and I do believe it will be done. However remembering a while back where some scientists were advocating pumping tons of pollutants into the air to act as a buffer to the depleting ozone, I have to ask 3 important questions. One: Is it really doable as I believe? Two: If it is doable will it only serve to allow bush type idiots who refuse to admit there is a problem, to pollute even more thereby negating any improvements?
                And most importantly! Three: Knowing we seem to be insistent on heading towards WW 3 and worsening the situation exponentially by attacking Iran and involving the entire world, will it make a difference?

                Repug credo: If you can't Dazzle them with Brilliance Baffle them with Bullshit! http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

                by jmsjoin on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:50:03 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  You know you are right but when (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              peace voter

              you take into account the weapons they use with depleted uranium tips including now, Iraq and Afghanistan this waste will never get cleaned up. I remember hearing more than 30 years ago where it was dumped overboard sometimes, also excess jet fuel and oil, unofficialy of course to meet IG requirements.

              Repug credo: If you can't Dazzle them with Brilliance Baffle them with Bullshit! http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

              by jmsjoin on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:40:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  nuclear waste vitrification (0+ / 0-)

            Long term storage of nuclear waste has also been accomplished with vitrification (essentially making glass out of the waste) so that even when containers are compromised the waste doesn't go anywhere. Unfortunately there is still no facility to put this waste.

            rickievaso

            quinny buzz strollers

        •  You're right! I just got through saying that to (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peace voter, Temmoku

          someone else. Once it is produced it is here to stay. It would be interesting but overwhelming to know just how much is here? There is I am sure tons of nuclear waste due to weapons and equipment affecting the environment that we are not told about on top of all the other stuff. I believe hydrogen is our answer if they really wanted one but they don't.

          Repug credo: If you can't Dazzle them with Brilliance Baffle them with Bullshit! http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

          by jmsjoin on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:18:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Excellent points (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peace voter, jmsjoin, rickievaso

        We also need to redesign our society around sustainable cities. Getting long-distance trucks off our highways and transporting goods by rail is another necessary step.

        And hydrogen is not an answer at all. Not enough energy returned on energy invested.

        •  Couple things ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jmsjoin

          in a post is far too short a place to deal with everything, from smart growth to sustainable agriculture to solar power to ...

          Hydrogen ... actually ... different way ... hydrogen is not some "silver bullet", even though it already offers some silver buckshot (small buckshot) utility and has the potential, in future decades to grow from narrow niche value into something greater.

          Blogging regularly at Ecotality Blog for a Sustainable Future.

          by A Siegel on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:14:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree and what you mentioned as you know (0+ / 0-)

            is just scratching the surface. Like you I think Hydrogen could be the wave of the future if they were looking for one seriously but they are not. there is so much to really be discussed and worked on but it just seems no one realizes the brevity of our situation but us and we are routinely ignored.

            Repug credo: If you can't Dazzle them with Brilliance Baffle them with Bullshit! http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

            by jmsjoin on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 03:03:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  hydrogen chemical energy (0+ / 0-)

              Hydrogen is not a cure all. Hydrogen production is produced using electricity and if the electricity comes from coal what have we gained? Hydrogen's benefit is that it is a convenient way to store energy chemically but I don't think if we analyzed the true efficiency of the process there would be much benefit.

              A more interesting energy storage method would be using physical properties. Cars have already been produced in India and Australia that use compressed air. I'm not sure how efficient this is (compressing air has adiabatic heating issues - heat: lost energy: bad) but it is attractive from the standpoint of emissions.

              rickievaso

              quinny buzz strollers

        •  You are right about redesigning society but (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          A Siegel

          that will never happen Getting rid of trucks and moving to rail is the right thing to do but is counter to the way our society is moving.  
              Everything has a life cycle including societies and ours is being sped up by Bush but heading the way of the Roman Empire. I think we could turn it around but there are not enough around that realize it or willing to do anything about it. You may be right but I still like hydrogen!

          Repug credo: If you can't Dazzle them with Brilliance Baffle them with Bullshit! http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

          by jmsjoin on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:57:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Society's direction and hydrogen (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            peace voter, A Siegel

            I agree our society has a limited lifespan, and we can measure that lifespan on the same chart as cheap oil.

            Forget about hydrogen. It takes far too much energy to separate hydrogen from oxygen to make a hydrogen economy viable. Better to just use the electricity directly instead of losing a good portion producing hydrogen.

            At this point, though, it ain't worth arguing. Our children will figure out a sustainable society, somehow, some way. It probably won't resemble what we've enjoyed and built, but it may provide our progeny a comfortable existence. Maybe.

      •  I agree with you 100%. The thing never mentioned (0+ / 0-)

        with nuclear power is once it is here there is no getting rid of it. The waste included has an endless life span. They still have no way of satisfactorily disposing of it. Couple that with, forget 3 mile island, but the extreme amount of problems at Browns Ferry and the fact that at $1.8 billion its problematic restarting is $100 million more than building a new one. Too many concerns and questions there for me.

        Repug credo: If you can't Dazzle them with Brilliance Baffle them with Bullshit! http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

        by jmsjoin on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:12:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some countries (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jmsjoin

          seem to do nuclear reasonably well ... Japan and France, for example ...

          The US also has roughly 20% of its electricity coming from nuclear power.

          And, DO NOT TAKE THIS AS DISMISSING WASTE ISSUE, but when we talk relative risk, should we comparing the known impacts of coal-fired electricity waste (including carbon with also a very long-life cycle) to that of nuclear power.

          Nuclear power -- even if leary of it -- is to me part of a strategic approach to keep coal where it belongs, in the ground.

          Blogging regularly at Ecotality Blog for a Sustainable Future.

          by A Siegel on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 02:16:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You are sooo right! If we can just get the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        A Siegel

        current idiots out of power, we can hopefully get some meaningful dialogue going and a plan in place to move forward.

    •  you are right but look at the record of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peace voter

      The Browns Ferry nuclear Power Plant, Its exorbitant cost being $100 million more than building a new one at a cost of $1.8 Billion, A bankrupt TVA, another problem right after restart, and that is Bush's great example. We need better than that and what is really behind that power plant and spending all that money?

      Repug credo: If you can't Dazzle them with Brilliance Baffle them with Bullshit! http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

      by jmsjoin on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 01:51:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re "noone" ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peace voter, jmsjoin, NRG Guy

      NNadir strongly advocates nuclear power. As a key part of that, he emphasizes the need to understand risk and implications, and compare them reasonably.

      If one talks systems-of-systems, it is simply not factually true that nuclear power has not had a role in the death of a single American.  Construction worker?  Miner?  Lab researcher? Etc ...  

      Now, you want to argue that Americans (and many around the globe) don't understand relative risk.  Absolutely, I agree.

      You want to make a case that nuclear power represents a lower relative risk, especially compared to coal.  My ears are open.

      You want to make a case that radioactivity from a nuclear power plant is near impossible to trace to a single death. I will listen though I am unsure ...

      But, simply asserting "noone" is not something that is supportable when you consider energy as a systems-of-systems equation, which we should do.

      Blogging regularly at Ecotality Blog for a Sustainable Future.

      by A Siegel on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 01:54:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is really simple. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jmsjoin

        The radiation from living near a nuclear power plant is orders of magnitude less than the radiation from living under THE SUN, or the radiation from living in an area with soil that is naturally high in radon.  

        And I don't think you should consider deaths due to CONSTRUCTION.  Someone will die during construction occasionally of any sort of plant.  The relevant number is those who may die due to causes SPECIFIC to nuclear power.  

        Certainly when you compare that to the THOUSANDS who die every year due to exposure to uncontained fossil fuel waste, the case for nuclear power is blindingly obvious.

    •  peace voter TR'd you for that. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dr Colossus, jmsjoin

      That's TR abuse.  

      Hey PeaceVoter, why don't you have the courage of your convictions and stand up and say something?   You want to dispute SciLib's points, do so.  But let's have none of this intolerant hit-and-run crap.

      •  Abuse? Hit & Run TR? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jmsjoin, chigh

        I explained why I troll rated the comment.  Perhaps you didn't see my explanation.

        I troll rated the comment penned by "The Scientific Liberal" because he/she made the assetion that "noone has EVER died due to nuclear power", and for claiming that the diarist (and those of us who oppose nuclear power) don't "care about global warming".

        Two patenly false claims in one comment - if I could have given it double donuts, I would have done it.


        ```
        peace

        •  Still doesn't deserve to be tr'ed (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          G2geek, jmsjoin

          He wasn't obscene and the global warming comment is only slightly insulting.  His opinion might be totally wrong, and it definitely is, but it doesn't deserve a tr.  Also he said that no one in this country has died from a nuclear power accident.  Not that no one anywhere has died from a nuclear accident.

          •  afaik false statements are troll worthy (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Temmoku, chigh

            The statement that "Noone has died from nuclear power" is patently false.  The charge that the diarist doesn't "care about global warming" is inflammatory.

            And it's not as if we don't see a constant stream of this kind of nuke booster disinformation here on dkos.  It gets rather tiresome, and it rises to the level of spam.


            ````
            peace

            •  and ...so ...what? (0+ / 0-)

              The charge that Senator Clinton's supporters are closet neocons... the charge that Kuchich's supporters have their heads up their rear ends...  the endless stuff over Israel and Palestine... the fight over whether impeachment is only a virtue or also a necessity...  Oh yes, plenty of heated lanuage all'round, enough to keep us cozy warm over the winter and make us open a few more windows in the summer.  

              It's called feisty debate & arguement.  It's as American as baseball and apple pie.  I love it.  

  •  a hell of a lot safer than.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jmsjoin, The Scientific Liberal

    anything to do with fossil fuels.

    Uncontrolled release of dangerous fossil fuel combustion waste is what's killing the planet right now.  

    Tens of thousands of people die every year from respiratory complications due to fossil fuel wastes spewed into the air.

    Burning coal puts far more radioactive material into the atmosphere per KWH of power delivered, than the entire nuclear fuel cycle per KWH.  

    And Brown's Ferry is being rebuilt & upgraded to deal with its technical issues.

    I've done design engineering for utility-scale wind projects.  Wind is good for about 25% of grid capacity.  Solar is good for another 25%.  This is a scaling issue so it's true regardless of conservation: that is, if we can cut back 50% due to conservation & efficiency, we can still get, at most, 50% of grid capacity via solar and wind.  The issue here is intermittency.  

    The rest has to come from somewhere.  For that, nuclear is our best bet.  

    And not only that, but nuclear is also the best bet for enabling the maximum use of renewables.  

    And not only that, but the new-generation reactor designs are intrinsically safe.  That means melt-proof.  And the spent fuel issue is solved: France has 20 years' of track record on this, and new technology makes it possible to recover up to 95% of the spent fuel as new fuel.  

    If we are going to prevent a climate catastrophe, we have got to include nuclear in the mix.  

    And just because President Chimpy endorsed Brown's Ferry does not mean we should all knee-jerk against it.  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

  •  I used to live in Tennessee (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jmsjoin

    and know all about TVA's experiment with nuclear power.  They had massive problems in the 70's and 80's.  I don't think that nuclear is the energy save-all that Shrub claims but I do believe that it is part of the solution.  But, we need to focus on things like LEED that reduces our consumption.  If we start building nuclear plants again then the regulation standards must remain in effect or become even tougher.  Because we all know that the power companies will look for every shortcut and loophole they can find.  Must stay on the TXU's of the world with their non-clean coal proposals before they got bought out.

    Funny story about TVA.  One of my professors in college thought TVA was great because we had cheap power and it was from water and all.  Then I explained Browns Ferry, Sequoyah and Watts Bar and that ended that conversation.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site