Nuke power plants are just another way to loot our treasury

[upi402]

"Further underscoring the risk to taxpayers is the fact that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that nuclear utility companies will default on loans for new reactors 50 percent of the time.
This, combined with the fact that nuclear utilities have no way to safely store or dispose of the hundreds of tons of highly radioactive waste generated by reactors, makes nuclear power simply too risky to pursue."

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=3049

Because of all the spam of nuclear supporters here lately, I fell this needs to be talked about. We scrapped this energy source when there was an opposition to corporatism in America. When our tax dollars went to build America and help Americans. Now that the treasury has become a trough for the hogs of socialized capitalism, it's necessary to push back against this fascism.

I'd love that work. But that would be selfish and short sighted. Better to push our fearless looters into renewable energy jobs like wind, solar, and battery storage.

[wtmusic]

1. And this isn't anti-nuke "spam" exactly why, again?

Talk away. Try opening your mind, while you're at it.

[upi402]

2. Open my mind, or open my wallet

Do you work in an industry that would benefit from a nuclear program?

[wtmusic]

4. Not at all.

I do use electricity, and I'm concerned about global warming.

[MadHound]

5. Well I did work in the nuclear industry, and frankly I'm in a position to know just how bad it is

The two big problems we simply can't fix, namely what to do with the waste and how to prevent human error. Those are two big nuke killers there.

Another thing, solar and wind are actually cheaper than nukes when it comes to generating energy these days, and that milestone was achieved without the massive injections of federal money that the nuclear industry has enjoyed.

The thing that many energy producers hate about solar and wind is that it would lead to a decentralized energy generation model and they would be left out in the cold. But the truth of the matter is that a decentralized model is exactly what is needed in this country.

Oh, and if you're as concerned about the environment as you claim, then you really should take a look at what uranium mining does to the surrounding environment.

[wtmusic]

8. The production tax credit for wind outstrips nuclear subsidies by 2:1

About $7B since 2002 (yes, a tax credit is a subsidy too).

It's not necessary to prevent human error to safeguard the public. That's why there are so many redundant safety systems, which have made nuclear statistically even safer than solar (thanks to people falling off roofs putting up panels).

Irresponsible mining or dumping of anything can be toxic to the environment, including waste from pvc production that we're currently dumping on the Chinese.

The waste should have been put in Yucca, but Obama needed Harry Reid to get elected. Well, it looks like old Harry isn't long for the Senate, and NV badly needs some jobs. I think next year we might find Yucca getting a second look.

[MadHound]

10. Gee, seven billion

Take a look at the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That provided 15 billion in subsidies to the nuclear industry, the latest in a long line of federal subsidies that total well over 120 billion over the past sixty years. Seven billion for wind, wow.

It is essential to prevent human error in the nuclear industry, it is the leading cause of accidents and exposure incidents. Yes, there are redundant safety systems, but they can, and have been proven ineffective in the face of some of the stupid things people do. And while the worst that can happen if somebody falls off a roof is that one person dies, when something goes wrong at a nuclear plant, thousands are exposed to radioactive material, with all the hazards that poses.

As far as waste and Yucca Mt. goes, well that just shows your ignorance. Yucca Mt. sits at the intersection of three fault lines. Water regularly inundates the lower levels of the facility, coming up through cracks. The EPA did a dye test on those cracks and found that within two weeks it was into the ground water of Las Vegas. If that was radioactive material instead, a lot of people would be screwed.

[wtmusic]

11. Adjusted for what wind has contributed to the US power mix

(about 1/2%, compared to 20% nuclear) the wind subsidy is $280B. Far too costly.

Water hasn't "inundated" the Yucca tunnels, ever. And for someone who supposedly worked in the nuclear industry, you must have never seen high-level nuclear waste. It's vitrified - glass. Maybe you can explain to me how a glass disc can seep into groundwater. :shrug:

[MadHound]

12. Oh, so now you're simply reduced to making up numbers to fit your "facts"

Let me revisit this for you again. 15 billion passed by law in 2005. Over 120 billion since 1950. Most of that 120 billion was front loaded and I could give it to you in 2010 dollars, but I won't because just the solid numbers themselves are good enough to show you that nuclear is a far more subsidized industry. All the experts, both pro and con, agree on this, but you're reduced to making up numbers to back your ass up with. Sad, really, really sad.

As far as inundation goes, this was known fourteen years ago,
<http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/chlorine.htm> Yeah, it happens "only" every fifty years or so, but really, given the time horizon of tens to hundreds of thousands of years of half life for nuclear wast, that's a lot of water rushing through.

Yes, you're right, spent fuel is vitrified. The trouble is that spent fuel isn't the only sort of nuclear waste, which ranges from paper swipes to activated aluminum cans to the decommissioned containment vessel itself. Most of this is not vitrified, mostly it's just packed into steel cans and stored.

But back to glass. You do realize that it is a liquid, it flows over time. Given the tens of thousands of years of half life, vitrified waste can and will be exposed as the glass slowly flows away from the spent rods.

[wtmusic]

14. Nothing made up at all.

Wind contributes virtually nothing to the US power mix, and thus gets a hugely disproportionate share of funding. It's unpredictable and backed by natural gas for the most part, so accomplishes even less toward GHG mitigation.

"Inundation" is your word - all the evidence shows is that "some" water made it down to that level at some point in the last 50 years. A drip? A drop? It's dry as a bone right now, and will be for a long, long time:

"The fractured and faulted volcanic tuff that Yucca Mountain comprises reflects the occurrence of many earthquake-faulting and strong ground motion events during the last several million years, and the hydrological characteristics of the rock would not be changed significantly by seismic events that may occur in the next 10,000 years. The engineered barrier system components will reportedly provide substantial protection of the waste form from seepage water, even under severe seismic loading."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_mountain

Unlike the 120+ places across the country where nuclear waste is stored now, all near major waterways. You believe that is preferable? And you assume that the material will remain there, when 4th gen nuclear available within 50 years will be able to recycle all of it.

I always find the concern of a radiation leak ten thousand years in the future odd, when given the current rate of global warming there will be no possibility of life on earth by then. :silly:

[upi402]

17. I just feel your concern from global warming is falsely based

when you deem nuclear as our salvation. It's the one energy source that can doom us if there's a fuckup. And as history proves, there is ALWAYS a fuckup, if not just the unforeseen. There are releases that make down-winders very very ill. And who really knows what Chernobyl did.

Do you propose we GUESS what "some water seepage" means? And ASSUME that if we don't know exactly, that it's therefore okay?

Do you want "some" rat poison in your soup? I don't, and bet you wouldn't either. And I don't want someone like you telling me just how much rat poison is okay-fine for me to ingest. The penalty for forgetting Murphy's law is worse with nuclear than the muti-pronged mobilization of solar, wind, storage, and conservation.

But getting sidetracked with "clean coal" and "safe nuclear" is going to end our window of opportunity.

[wtmusic]

24. There is rat poison in your soup.

Take it to a laboratory, you will find trace amounts of arsenic. You can freak out and stop eating soup, but you'll find radioactive potassium in that banana, uranium in your potatoes, the list goes on.

What's missing from this discussion is a sense of proportionality. There have been fuckups at nuclear facilities and there always will be, just like the pilot on your jet occasionally fucks up. But because so much is at stake there are multiple safety backups which have proven themselves time and time again. Will they always work? Maybe not. But even still, statistically, you are at far greater risk from breathing airborne carcinogens from coal power than ever being injured by radiation poisoning.

And as wonderful as it would be for wind/solar to provide all of our power, there's absolutely no practical scenario where this could happen in the forseeable future. We have far less than the forseeable future to take action.

[MadHound]

26. Well thank you for finally admitting the truth

Yes, there will always be fuck ups at nuclear power plants, and given the law of large numbers, those safeguards will, at some point or another, fail. Which leaves all of us screwed. In fact given the fact that nuclear plants don't age well, and their support systems fail, it is bound to happen if we continue down the nuclear path. Example, the plant that I worked at, thirty five years old at the time, did a standard test of its emergency fill system. The water pipes were so corroded (the ones that led to the facility, not the ones in the facility) that when the pressure slammed through them, they burst and we had a geyser on the front lawn. Now, imagine if that had been a real emergency fill, and the water crapped out as it did. I wouldn't be here now and there would be a big glowing hole in the Midwest.

You are caught in a mindset that it an either/or proposition, that we have to either go with nukes or go with coal. As I keep showing you, that is not our only choices. Before we fuck up again, perhaps we should look into our other choices. After all they're out there, available, and cheaper and cleaner than nuclear or coal.

[wtmusic]

28. No it doesn't "leave all of us screwed" any more than Chernobyl did.

I am all for other possibilities to absolve us of all risk. But there aren't any realistic ones.

[MadHound]

31. Chernobyl killed lots of people immediately

And many, many more over time. Not to mention rendering several thousand square miles of the countryside uninhabitable to this day.

If you are "all for other possibilities to absolve us of all risk." then you should be very much for solar and wind. But you aren't. Wonder why that is?

[MadHound]

21. Of course you're making shit up,

You are extrapolating numbers based on percentages, that is simply making shit up.

Yes, wind and solar is currently contributing 2-3% of the country's energy needs. Why's that? Oh, yeah, because nuclear, coal and other centralized production has been heavily subsidized. We need to go to a decentralized power generation system, combined with a smart grid, which would be fully capable of filling our energy needs. In fact there are now thousands of households that are completely off the grid, generating their own energy, with plenty left over to sell back to the grid.

I guess you didn't read my link above concerning water flow, I suggest you do. Here's something in less technical terms for you to peruse
<http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/yucca/0797yuccaupdate.htm>

As far as how the waste is being stored now, you're right, it's dangerous and stupid. So is storing it in Yucca. The fact is there is no good way of dealing with nuclear waste, which is why we need to forget about nuclear altogether.

And yes, I'm just as concerned about global climate change as you are. However with wind, solar, decentralized power generation and a smart grid we could have all the clean energy we want or need without leaving future generations a nuclear mess to clean up.

Oh, and those fourth generation reactors you're going on about, they still won't be able to recycle any waste but fuel waste. Which still leaves all that other waste, which is just as dangerous and deadly. Can we bury it in your backyard? I didn't think so.

Nuclear power is an outmoded, dangerous way of generating power. The only advantage it offers is that it makes an incredible amount of money for a few corporations. Why are you so intent on defending these corporations greed, greed that is being satisfied at the expense of our health and welfare?

[wtmusic]

25. A little bit late to "forget about nuclear altogether".

I too would like to forget about the thousands of tons of nuclear waste currently stored nationwide. But that doesn't make it go away, does it?

Less technical terms are fine, but your link is nonsense: the lowest repository level proposed at Yucca is 1,000 ft above the water table, not '600-800 ft'. It's clearly a biased source.

There's no peer-reviewed evidence that solar/wind can practically provide enough of our power needs to make a difference in time. Smart grids are part of the answer, and wind and solar can help. But nuclear is essential. It's a relief that Obama and Stephen Chu recognize this, and the solid science behind it.

[MadHound]

30. I guess you didn't read that report very thoroughly did you

About how the upper part of Yucca ground water is only 600 ft under the surface. Just like you didn't read the other report very well (or you have little scientific knowledge, otherwise you would realize the levels of Chlorine 36 they found is indicative of large quantities of water).

As far as peer reviewed sources, try this one on for size. There is a 1993 DoE report that found there is enough potential wind energy in three states, North Dakota, Kansas and Texas to power our country, including factoring in growth, through 2030. And this was done using 1993 wind tech, which has advanced incredibly since then (did you realize that you can now put a non-turbine wind array on your roof that generate electricity at wind speeds as low as 4mph). I'm not suggesting that we pave over those states with wind turbines, but it does go to show just how much energy we can harness.

As far as time goes, well geez dude, it takes a good eight to ten years to put up a nuclear plant, and that's using an average of two thousand men in the construction process. A ten man team can put up a 5MW turbine in three weeks. Let's see now, 200 groups of men can put up 1000MW of turbines in three weeks, that means that in a year they can put up 17,000 MW of turbines(and that's with three weeks of vacation time). In eight years, the time it takes to construct a 2,000 megawatt nuclear facility you can put up 136 GW worth of wind turbines. Seems like a poor investment of time and money, especially how much (9-16 billion) it takes to build a nuclear plant. Hmm, 2,000 vs 136 GW, seems to me like you get more for you effort by putting up turbines:shrug:

Nuclear isn't essential, it's a dinosaur technology that only hangs on because it makes a few people very rich. Are you one of them?

[upi402]

32. I forgot something

Thank you.
:patriot:
I'm just surprised there aren't more swarming this. Like sipping from a firehose, trying to keep up with it all. Please don't get discouraged, it wont ever let up. Hasn't for the decades I've been fighting it.

[upi402]

6. Did you like Reagan taking Carter's solar panle off the WH roof?

I would potentially get a lot of income from nuclear power, btw.

To divert money from conservation, efficiency, solar, wind, storage- and put it into nuclear power generation when we have yet to invent "NukeAway" is not congruent with someone claiming that global warming is a prime concern.

Did you read the link? Do you know more than the authors? Follow the money, always.

[wtmusic]

9. Or course not

The goal is an 80% reduction by 2050 to stabilize global warming. An idea of how serious the problem is: if the world were to go 100% carbon-free nuclear tomorrow, cut our electrical consumption by 30%, cut transportation emissions by 30%, and maintain those levels for the next 40 years - we would achieve a 50% reduction in atmospheric carbon.

Solar and wind won't even get us close.

[kristopher]

18. Renewables get us there faster, cheaper and safer than nuclear can.

That is all there is to it.

[kristopher]

13. Start reading at post #9

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x234405

[upi402]

15. "Plenty radioactive - for only about 5 years"

(Post #9)
but it seems a bit crazy to be spending $15B/yr (approx) on exploring space when there are extremely urgent problems to be dealt with here.

For example, they could be developing RTGs for transportation: stick a two-inch cube of 210Po into a car and watch it run for 6 months without refueling. Plenty radioactive - for only about 5 years. Can't make a bomb out of it

[wtmusic]

16. Since your post 8 minutes ago 16 people have died from fossil fuel pollution

How many have died from radiation exposure? Any idea? :shrug:

[upi402]

20. false flag, straw man argument

Bogus "clean coal" and "safe nuclear" propaganda is causing us to run out of time. We MUST get solar, wind, storage, and conservation programs going NOW!

Our window of time is being closed by this distraction and propaganda.

[kristopher]

19. Promoting polonium for personal transportation is insanity.

Did you read the rest of that subthread?

[MadHound]

22. I did, it is insanity, and contrary to the poster's fantasies, it can be used in a bomb,

A dirty bomb. Not to mention the health hazard you are posing by exposing people to that much radiation over time. You could not provide enough shielding to protect people because if you did, the car wouldn't go much over a few miles an hour, if at all.

[wtmusic]

27. Bullshit.

140kW of power are available from that source, exactly that of a 2011 Toyota Sienna van. Shielding required would be 25mm of lead, or a cube about the size of your fist.

[upi402]

23. wtmusic is not the only propagandist here

promoting this kind of crap. It's insidious and deceptive.

[msongs]

3. what's the phrase? privatize the profits and screw the taxpayers/customers? that's nuclear lol nt

[Radical Activist]

7. Yep. Just like the carbon capture scams.

[SlingBlade]

29. More corporate B.S Democrat Style

Change, That will take your fucking breath away

k&r