Con: U.S. can't afford to scrap nucle...

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

There are 21 comments on the The Janesville Gazette - Janesville, Wisconsin story from Apr 16, 2011, titled Con: U.S. can't afford to scrap nuclear power. In it, The Janesville Gazette - Janesville, Wisconsin reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Janesville Gazette - Janesville, Wisconsin.

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

Kelseyville, 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

La Habra, 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

Ellington, 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.

Since: Jul 11

La Habra, 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

Worcester, 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

Mount Juliet, TN

#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

Worcester, 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

United States

#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

Mount Juliet, TN

#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

Embarrass, 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

Afton, OK

#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

United States

#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

Embarrass, 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.
logan

United States

#21 Jul 10, 2011
Big oil will in coming years, price themselves out of the business. As the worlds oil reserves drop and prices continue to rise, people will go another direction . They will have no choice.

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
News TVA customers expected to see savings in June s... Mon Clean energy 24
News PG&Ea s Solar Choice Program Brings Clean Energ... May 20 Solarman 1
News FT: The Big Green Bang: how renewable energy be... May 20 Solarman 1
News Duke Energy Indiana and NSA Crane celebrate com... May 20 Solarman 1
News Indiana governor signs bill aimed at dimming so... May 19 nnono 2
News Trump budget expected to slash research into re... May 19 Solarman 1
News Solar energy seminar to give cost saving tips May 18 Solarman 1
More from around the web