Con: U.S. can't afford to scrap nuclear power

Our demand for electricity is largely met using coal, nuclear, large hydro, and natural gas.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Eric

Kocaeli, Turkey

#1 Apr 17, 2011
In my opinion the US has to invest much more into renewable energy. There is enough place on roofs. No habitats are destroyed by installing PV cells on roofs of buildings. Wind energy is not endangering the whole bat and bird species, whereas coal is endangering species like polar bears or other artic animals (extinction), also coral reefs are endangered. I agree that nuclear power plants should only be decomissioned after coal plants. But new plant additions should be 100% renewable. In order to speed up decomissioning of coal plants, a conversion to natural gas may be an intermediate solution.
Adrian in Tacoma

Tacoma, WA

#2 Apr 17, 2011
BPA shutting down windfarms since too much energy available, should sell it to someone back east or so...

“Be green. Help the planet.”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#3 Apr 21, 2011
While it's true that nuclear power does supply the world with energy but we should slowly move away from it. If nature decides to unleash its wrath upon us, I'm not sure the best designed and most hi-tech nuclear plants stand a chance.
tjostemj

Clearlake, CA

#4 Apr 21, 2011
Why would anyone want to shutdown our cleanest and safest energy source which produces 70% of our clean electric power and 20% of the total generation. What we need to shut down is fossil fuel generation. Coal power plants are responsible for 23,000 death annually. Nuclear has not claimed a death in 50 years. Even Fukushima has claim no deaths and it is unlikely that radiation from those reactors will cause any deaths. As an immunologist I know that it is more likely that fewer cancers will occur in the fall-out area because our world is radiation deprived and some increase in radiation stimulates our immune systems which protect us from cancers and other diseases.
44MPG Non-Hybrid

Morehead, KY

#5 Jul 6, 2011
Everybody likes Nuclear Power until an earthquake or terrorism hits, then we all wish we stuck to coal. Yest coal may be dead dinosaurs but this limits supply can be made to last much longer by companies such as G.M. My 2009 Chevy Cobalt EFE can go 0 to 60 if I switch the gears right she can do 0 to 60 in almost 7 seconds flat- gas mileage 25 MPG. Or if I drive it easy like I honestly get between 40 to 47 MPG.

Meanwhile I love Ford, but fail to understand how they get away with saying their 2012 Fusion gets 41 MPG with Hybrid technology and say it is #1 in sedan when I do much better on my all gas engine. Driving habits make the difference. Hybrids are not needed. These new cars can drain over 20 miles with the motor turned off in neutral, while the power brakes work for 6 to 8 pumps and all other dashboard and electrical items continue to work perfectly. Legal or not, it is most difficult to catch a hyper-glider in action, and for the thousands of $$ saved over a hybrid I feel all drivers should learn the safest way of driving a stick switch and in time they can save more money than an expensive hybrid with far less power. It's the only way to go for me, the best of both worlds, POWER and/OR High Avg MPG.
DAGGER OF the MIND

United States

#6 Jul 6, 2011
tjostemj wrote:
Why would anyone want to shutdown our cleanest and safest energy source which produces 70% of our clean electric power and 20% of the total generation. What we need to shut down is fossil fuel generation. Coal power plants are responsible for 23,000 death annually. Nuclear has not claimed a death in 50 years. Even Fukushima has claim no deaths and it is unlikely that radiation from those reactors will cause any deaths. As an immunologist I know that it is more likely that fewer cancers will occur in the fall-out area because our world is radiation deprived and some increase in radiation stimulates our immune systems which protect us from cancers and other diseases.
Immunity from radiation ?? I don't think so. Radiation causes DNA damage and there is no immunity from that. the immune system can not handle this exposure. Severe exposure causes cell death, low level exposure shows up at a later time.

Since: Jul 11

El Monte, CA

#7 Jul 7, 2011
44MPG Non-Hybrid wrote:
Everybody likes Nuclear Power until an earthquake or terrorism hits, then we all wish we stuck to coal. Yest coal may be dead dinosaurs but this limits supply can be made to last much longer by companies such as G.M. My 2009 Chevy Cobalt EFE can go 0 to 60 if I switch the gears right she can do 0 to 60 in almost 7 seconds flat- gas mileage 25 MPG. Or if I drive it easy like I honestly get between 40 to 47 MPG.

Meanwhile I love Ford, but fail to understand how they get away with saying their 2012 Fusion gets 41 MPG with Hybrid technology and say it is #1 in sedan when I do much better on my all gas engine. Driving habits make the difference. Hybrids are not needed. These new cars can drain over 20 miles with the motor turned off in neutral, while the power brakes work for 6 to 8 pumps and all other dashboard and electrical items continue to work perfectly. Legal or not, it is most difficult to catch a hyper-glider in action, and for the thousands of $$ saved over a hybrid I feel all drivers should learn the safest way of driving a stick switch and in time they can save more money than an expensive hybrid with far less power. It's the only way to go for me, the best of both worlds, POWER and/OR High Avg MPG.
Hybrids don't have much power because the ones you look at and ones being built aren't meant to be on a track. Obviously, the buyers don't want or need it to be anyways. High avg mpg for low cost cars are great. Hybrids are the next step for high end cars though. Look at the Tesla Roadster and compare that to your cobalt...
Luneth

Tolland, CT

#8 Jul 7, 2011
Obviously nuclear is too risky. It is a fact that if we further developed other technologies like solar and geothermal. Get real I don't want another nuclear accident.
Storm Warning

De Forest, WI

#9 Jul 7, 2011
tjostemj wrote:
Why would anyone want to shutdown our cleanest and safest energy source which produces 70% of our clean electric power and 20% of the total generation. What we need to shut down is fossil fuel generation. Coal power plants are responsible for 23,000 death annually. Nuclear has not claimed a death in 50 years. Even Fukushima has claim no deaths and it is unlikely that radiation from those reactors will cause any deaths. As an immunologist I know that it is more likely that fewer cancers will occur in the fall-out area because our world is radiation deprived and some increase in radiation stimulates our immune systems which protect us from cancers and other diseases.
what a pack of lies, sounds like a script prepared by nuke publicists, and you have been caught doing this before.

US orders news blackout
on crippled Nebraska nuclear plant
A shocking report prepared by Russia’s Federal Atomic Energy Agency
(FAAE) on information provided to them by the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) states that the Obama regime has ordered a
“total and complete” news blackout relating to any information regarding
the near catastrophic meltdown of the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant
located in Nebraska. According to this report, the Fort Calhoun Nuclear
Plant suffered a “catastrophic loss of cooling” to one of its idle spent fuel
rod pools on 7 June after this plant was deluged with water caused by
the historic flooding of the Missouri River which resulted in a fire causing
the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) to issue a “no-fly ban” over the area.
Located about 20 minutes outside downtown Omaha .... Russian atomic
scientists in this FAAE report, say ... this one of the worst nuclear
accidents in US history.

Tritium leaks from US nuclear sites
Press TV
http://www.presstv.com/detail/185681.html

Radioactive tritium has leaked from at least 48 of 65 sites of commercial
nuclear power sites in the United States, investigations have shown.
According to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission records, tritium —
a radioactive form of hydrogen — has leaked through corroded pipes into
the ground and that the number and severity of the leaks are escalating,
The Washington Post reported.... Any exposure to radioactivity increases
the risk of cancer.

Israel returns nuclear waste to US
Press TV
http://www.presstv.com/detail/185644.html

Head of Israel's Nuclear Energy Commission Shaul Horev says Tel Aviv
has returned nuclear waste from its Sorek nuclear reactor to the United
States. Horev, who spoke at the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) ministerial conference on nuclear safety in Vienna on Monday, did
not specify the exact amount of waste, Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported.
... The operation took place after Israel's Nuclear Energy Commission and
the US Department of Energy signed an agreement for the return of the
nuclear waste over a year and a half ago.... The agreement with the US
does not apply to the Dimona nuclear reactor, where international sources
believe Israel produces fissile material from uranium and makes plutonium
for stockpile of nuclear weapons, and waste from Dimona is not being
returned to the US.

Since: Jul 11

El Monte, CA

#10 Jul 7, 2011
Luneth wrote:
Obviously nuclear is too risky. It is a fact that if we further developed other technologies like solar and geothermal. Get real I don't want another nuclear accident.
Nuclear fission is dangerous yes. But nuclear fusion isn't. To stop r and d on the revolutionary one because of another is completely stupid. Continue R&D. Stop dangerous nuclear disasters.
polaris

United States

#11 Jul 7, 2011
44MPG Non-Hybrid wrote:
Everybody likes Nuclear Power until an earthquake or terrorism hits, then we all wish we stuck to coal. Yest coal may be dead dinosaurs but this limits supply can be made to last much longer by companies such as G.M. My 2009 Chevy Cobalt EFE can go 0 to 60 if I switch the gears right she can do 0 to 60 in almost 7 seconds flat- gas mileage 25 MPG. Or if I drive it easy like I honestly get between 40 to 47 MPG.
Meanwhile I love Ford, but fail to understand how they get away with saying their 2012 Fusion gets 41 MPG with Hybrid technology and say it is #1 in sedan when I do much better on my all gas engine. Driving habits make the difference. Hybrids are not needed. These new cars can drain over 20 miles with the motor turned off in neutral, while the power brakes work for 6 to 8 pumps and all other dashboard and electrical items continue to work perfectly. Legal or not, it is most difficult to catch a hyper-glider in action, and for the thousands of $$ saved over a hybrid I feel all drivers should learn the safest way of driving a stick switch and in time they can save more money than an expensive hybrid with far less power. It's the only way to go for me, the best of both worlds, POWER and/OR High Avg MPG.
You must remember the hybrid can drive around using no gas and your car cannot. If you just make short trips,you burn no gasoline....your car does. They still beat your car overall.
BDV

Leominster, MA

#12 Jul 8, 2011
Risks and costs associated with geothermal, solar, wind and hydro are somehow perfectly acceptable, but the (smaller) risks associated with nuclear are completely intolerable and unacceptable. Not to mention the costs and risks of coal and oil.
.
Does anyone even REMEMBER the brave men burned to death in last year's coal mine and oil platform explosions?
jimmyjoebobjr

Paducah, KY

#13 Jul 8, 2011
DAGGER OF the MIND wrote:
<quoted text>Immunity from radiation ?? I don't think so. Radiation causes DNA damage and there is no immunity from that. the immune system can not handle this exposure. Severe exposure causes cell death, low level exposure shows up at a later time.
Exactly right dagger. Give it 10 or 15 years cancer rates will sky rocket in Japan and so will birth defects. It's sad but it's true the levels were relatively low but they are still fighting constant radiation levels there. Low levels over time will ultimately lead to problems in the future instead of right away.
BDV

Leominster, MA

#14 Jul 8, 2011
In 10-15 years the doomsayers will be nowhere to be found. Their masters from the petroleum industry will be laughing all the way to the bank due to sheeple's gullibility.
.
At Fukushima we're talking Denver, Colorado levels of radiation background, post accident. And I must be missing the enormous cluster of cancers and birth defects there.
.
But again, picocuries! Bequerels! Milisieverts! Bawk!Grays! Ray-deeashun!
.
Run scared, sheeple, run!
CODEBLUE

Cambridge Springs, PA

#15 Jul 8, 2011
Yea....Three Mile Island was a laughing success wasn't it. Cancer rates were up in those areas after that disaster. Study Links Three Mile Island Radiation Releases to Higher Cancer Rates

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 24, 1997; Page A06

Researchers have linked radiation releases from the Three Mile Island nuclear plant to higher cancer rates in nearby communities in a study that could reopen debate over the nation's worst commercial nuclear accident.
jimmyjoebobjr

Paducah, KY

#16 Jul 9, 2011
Yup codeblue is on the right track. Radiation leads to cancer and birth defects that's a proven fact that can't be argued. Like I said give it about 10 plus years and japan will be on the top countries for cancer rate rises. I mean think about it the place is still radiating that crap and people are still around there keeping it stable and fixing the cooling systems to even cool them down enough to dispose of everything. The place is still too hot and not stable enough to start disposal operations. You might not hear about what's going on at the plant anymore because it's finally met stable criteria. All they are doing now is fixing things to cool it down enough over the several months so that they can get in there and pour the concrete to encase the reactors. That disaster is worse than the Japanese government let the public know about. It will take years or decades to clean up that place it's classified as a level 7 accident which is the cap on scale and is the worse nuke disaster to date 3 of the 6 reactors had serious melt downs with high level of radioactive
K Chernobyl was a lvl 7 accide and people are still effects to this day. to I just don't disaster like the futur is more than enough nuke p in the world
John T

Aurora, MN

#17 Jul 9, 2011
Due to radiation hormesis the residents of Fukushima Prefecture in years to come will have a lower cancer rate then others living in areas outside of the irradiated areas because we live in a radiation deprived world.. As an immunologist I know that it is more likely that fewer cancers will occur in the fallout area because our world is radiation deprived and some increase in radiation stimulates our immune systems which protect us from cancers and other diseases. We evolved in a world with higher levels of radiation and just as radiation from sunlight stimulates vitamin D production, moderate levels of radiation stimulates DNA repair enzymes that remove and repair damaged DNA. Many sources of mutagens, including our own metabolism cause DNA damage. As to birth defects, not even the bombs caused a detectable increase in birth defects.
CODEBLUE

Perryville, MO

#18 Jul 9, 2011
John T wrote:
Due to radiation hormesis the residents of Fukushima Prefecture in years to come will have a lower cancer rate then others living in areas outside of the irradiated areas because we live in a radiation deprived world.. As an immunologist I know that it is more likely that fewer cancers will occur in the fallout area because our world is radiation deprived and some increase in radiation stimulates our immune systems which protect us from cancers and other diseases. We evolved in a world with higher levels of radiation and just as radiation from sunlight stimulates vitamin D production, moderate levels of radiation stimulates DNA repair enzymes that remove and repair damaged DNA. Many sources of mutagens, including our own metabolism cause DNA damage. As to birth defects, not even the bombs caused a detectable increase in birth defects.
Nice theory....but still BS. That's almost like saying more cancers are caused by not smoking in a pollution deprived world ....i call BS on this one.
BDV

Boston, MA

#19 Jul 10, 2011
Why can't you pro-nuclear fools see that ray-deeayshun is EVIL? Evil I tell you!
What is this nonsense about nuclear costing less - money and lives- than the alternatives? It is evil and needs to be banished.
.
Big Oil's bottom line demands it is so.
John T

Aurora, MN

#20 Jul 10, 2011
You bet! Not only does Big Oil demand the banishment of nuclear power so does big Natural Gas and King Coal. Have you noticed all of the ads that are currently running that tell us of the wonders of Clean Gas and how bountiful it is? Nuclear power must really be EVIL because I can't even remember the last time that I saw an ad promoting nuclear power.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
XsunX Reports Commercial Solar Systems Sales In... Thu karland 3
Fudging the Future Thu karland 1
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) Thu Earthling-1 28,063
Tea party pushes for solar power in Fla. Wed Solarman 3
Cheap gas helps Saudi Arabia fight global push ... Jan 27 SpaceBlues 1
For Saudis, Falling Oil Demand Is More Worrying... Jan 27 jeffry 1
Transmission Line Approved That Could Bring Win... Jan 26 Solarman 1
More from around the web