Keith says "good night" to American nuclear power (and I agree with him!)

[gauguin57]

Thank you, Keith. No matter how "green" everyone says nuclear power is, it can never be completely safe (human error, natural disasters ...); and the stakes are just too damn high for the environment when something goes wrong.

http://foknewschannel.com/and-good-night-nuclear-power/

From Keith Olbermann's FOKNewsChannel

And Good Night, Nuclear Power

Posted on March 11, 2011

This is not to minimize the horror or the suffering of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, but for our purposes here the headline is a stark and inarguable one: Japanese Power Company Says It Has Lost Control Of Three Nuclear Plants.

There is really very little else to say. The perfected, flawless, clean-operating, state-of-the-art, ideal future of energy has in 32 years given us Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now the nightmare scenario of one company saying there is rising pressure at three of its nuclear facilities and it really doesn’t have a damn thing it can do right now except tell everybody to run.

Time to shut down this nation’s nuclear energy program. For good. Already, nuclear energy apologists are formulating their “yeahbuts” ...

The virtual freeze on nuclear development in this country since the near-hit of Three Mile Island has been a useful stall, but it is only a first step. And instead of enabling the resumption of building such Doomsday Devices here – as he pledged to do a year ago last month – President Obama should officially reinstate the unofficial moratorium, and pledge to begin the process by which we dismantle these sleeping monsters. Nobody with a brain wants to increase our reliance on fossil fuels but if I’m required to choose two of the following options: a) rapid development of truly safe alternatives, b) continuing fossil fuel utilization at current or slightly increased levels and then scrubbing the planet a little harder a little sooner, or c) living in a world where we can hear “Southern California Edison says it has lost control of San Onofre, so if you’re near San Diego, Anaheim, Los Angeles, areas of New Mexico, Arizona, and northern Mexico, please flee” – guess which two I’m taking?

[Tansy_Gold]

1. It's impossible to rec this enough.

But I'll give it my one vote anyway.

[Divernan]

65. Earthquakes linked to fracking: 800 earthquakes w/in 10mi. area in past 6 months

Starting out with hundreds of little quakes, starting 6 months ago and culminating in a 4.7 quake. Who knows how much stronger the quakes will get as the fracking increases for thousands more wells? Well, in a word - NOBODY KNOWS. At least the Arkansas governor has the intelligence to defer to scientists to figure it out and the human decency and courage to stand up to Big Oil and halt operation at some wells. But don't worry about Big Oil continuing to make obscene profits. They're all headed up to Pennsylvania where Frack Ho Governor Corbett (GOP, of course) financed his campaign in very large part with Big Oil contributions and in anticipation of even more contributions has publicly and proudly proclaimed that Pennsylvania alone, of all oil producing states, will not impose an extraction tax on big oil. Further he has given a former coal company executive a government appointment and the power to override any pesky regulations standing in the way of development. PLUS he has taken action to gut many of the protective regulations left in place by Democratic former governor Rendell. We're talking the Wild, Wild West of oil production!

Arkansas earthquakes linked to fracking. 2 gas disposal sites suspended Updated at 7:25 AM

http://planetsave.com/2011/03/08/arkansas-earthquakes-l...

Arkansas has been rocked with earthquakes and now scientists are investigating their relationship to fracking, as two natural gas companies have agreed to temporarily suspend use of injection wells in central Arkansas where earthquakes keep occurring. The high-pressure wells are used to dispose of waste water from natural gas drilling.

The two drilling operations are Chesapeake Energy and Clarita Operating. They have ceased operation of the wells near Greenbrier and Guy pending a panel meeting on the matter on March 29.

According to the Seattle Times there have been 800 EARTHQUAKES IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS WITHIN A TEN MILE AREA, culminating in a 4.7 quake, THE STRONGEST IN ARKANSAS IN 35 YEARS, which hit there February 27th.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/20143...

The Arkansas Oil and Gas commission says there is likely a link between the wells and the earthquakes. There have been more than 800 quakes in the area in the past six months. with a magnitude 4.7 quake, the strongest in Arkansas in 35 years, hit there Sunday.

Geologists have been studying a swarm of recent quakes - most of them tiny - in the Greenbrier-Guy area for months in an attempt to determine if there is a connection between the seismic activity and activities of gas-drilling companies in the Fayetteville Shale formation. The area of north-central Arkansas that includes Guy and Greenbrier - less than 10 miles apart in northern Faulkner County - has endured MORE THAN 800 EARTHQUAKES over the past six months. Seismologists say the quakes are not connected to the New Madrid Fault, a historically active fault in northeast Arkansas, more than 200 miles away.

Gov. Mike Beebe said he supported the commission's decision to take a close look at the injection wells.

"I'm going to listen to the scientists, and if the scientists say that it's worth making some changes in the areas where they think changes should be made, then I'm going to listen to our scientists and support them," Beebe told reporters at the state Capitol.

[kristopher]

71. The alternatives to coal and nuclear are both cheaper and faster to deploy

There is absolutely no REASON to build nuclear power plants other than to feed the corporate maw.

As originally published:
Abstract

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge. Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs. Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs. Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs. Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85. Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended. Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended. The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85. Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality. The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss. The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs. The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73 000–144 000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300 000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15 000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020. In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2009/EE/b809990c

Broken apart for ease of reading:

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

http://pubs.rsc.org/services/images/RSCpubs.ePlatform.Service.FreeContent.ImageService.svc/ImageService/image/GA?id=B809990C


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Demeter]

110. I can think of another reason

to poison the earth and the people unlucky enough to live within range of these engines of death and destruction, all the while congratulating oneself on the obscene profits and the remote, gated community which appears to shelter the self-styled Elite (but doesn't really, and couldn't, but let's make our own reality, shall we? After all, this is the Land of deNial..).

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. After Windscale and Chenobyl - that's enough

[BOHICA12]

3. I'll take two or three more here in geologically stable Florida!

Please!

[spanone]

5. yea, let's stick em in sand

[BOHICA12]

6. No, we have wonderful limestone cask ..... and

cement pilings have worked wonders for 2K years.

[Sugarcoated]

26. Fla can have them all

[tpsbmam]

41. No effing way -- I'm too close! There are few things I'd be nimby about --

nuclear plants are DEFINITELY one of those things.

:scared:

[russspeakeasy]

48. We have enough shit here in Florida..Give em to Nebraska, Texas.

[Demeter]

112. In the direct path of the next Hugo, Katrina, or Ike

Especially in this time of Climate Change, which promises to make all previous storms look like pikers in comparison....

[druidity33]

7. yeah...

Lord knows, hurricanes don't do any damage...

:eyes:

[BOHICA12]

10. they don't ....

not inland ... they plow down trees, kick up tornadoes but damage a containment building .... I don't think so.

[spanone]

14. think about it as the nuclear steam is being released in japan. think about it.

[BOHICA12]

17. The ground moved, shifted, changed position in a big way ....

...hurricanes don't do that! Please!

[jwirr]

57. How far away from Haiti are you? That earthquake could have happened anywhere

in that area including Florida.

[Jamastiene]

50. You have got to be shitting me.

Have you forgotten what the tornado did to Greensburg, Kansas? It was 95% of a town wiped off the map in one night.

You want them? You got them. I, personally, think you are not thinking this through in the face of tornadoes and what damage they can do.

[dbonds]

70. They build the reactors close to the beach so they can have access to the sea water.

It is supposed to be a failsafe measure against meltdown - as long as there is power to run the water pumps. They are almost all close enough to the beach to be damaged by a hurricane. Not to mention any other crisis from normal operations that go awry and the shoddy inspection regime for them.

[TBF]

94. Well, you are amusing.

Enjoy your stay. :popcorn:

[VoteProgressive]

18. Are you serious or joking?

[BOHICA12]

24. Absolutely serious ....

if your serious about climate change and coal related pollution, you better be a friend of the atom and its fission. 21st Century Nuclear technology way safer than mid-20th Century stuff. Live next to a Nuke or next to Dick Cheney and his shotgun ..... I know which one I would choose.

[VoteProgressive]

27. I disagree 100%

[tpsbmam]

42. Great. You live next to one. I would fight like hell if they tried to build one near me. nt

[abqmufc]

62. WRONG! n/t

GOP myth. Water issues for plants, the mining of uranium, the milling of uranium, the storage of waste MUST be factored into the concept of "safe clean nuclear". When you factor those items into nuclear energy is not clean, nor safe.

[sabrina 1]

73. And there's no other alternative?

Okay, if you say so. :eyes:

Just heard from our president less than a year ago, that offshore drilling was now completely safe also. We were so advanced technologically, he told us, that the chances of a rig blowing up were practically nil.

18 days later, 11 men lost their lives and the Gulf was destroyed. How many people will eventually die as a result of our advanced, totally safe offshore drilling, tragically remains to be seen.

But, hey, profits over people. It's just not pragmatic to be worried about a few human commodities as opposed to the potential massive amounts of money to be made, is it?

I'll take your absolutism with the same grain of salt I took the president's at the time.

[closeupready]

43. At 31 posts, probably just here for kicks.

nt

[fascisthunter]

44. callous and sociopathic

you should be made to live in one.

[Jamastiene]

53. I hear Chernobyl has plenty of empty houses and squatters

seem to be fairly well tolerated from what I have read. I mean, apparently, there are people who like living amidst high radiation. Why? I don't know. Whatever floats their boat.

I do know there is no way I would openly volunteer to have any more nuke plants near me than are already here.

[Union Scribe]

88. No more so than salivating at the idea of a radiological disaster

for political points.

[jwirr]

54. Geographically stable? Sinkholes, rising sea water, etc.

[Blecht]

56. LOL

Yes, there has never been a natural disaster of any kind in the state of Florida, and they have top-notch regulators in place! What could go wrong?

[abqmufc]

60. Then you mine uranium, mill uranium, and

store the waste in your state please. The issue I have with your desire for plants in Florida is we in Arizona, New Mexico, Navajo Nation, and Laguna Pueblo will be forced to open the uranium mines again and its mills. It also means that we will again look for a safe storage of waste in the American Southwest. My state already has the low level storage facility, as well as two nuclear weapons labs, one of which is about to contaminate Albuquerque's aquifer with its radioactive waste pile (Sandia National Lab), etc, etc, etc. You get the power and I get the health impacts and the legacy of nuclear industry. The last time they were in this part of the country they left nearly 320 uranium tailings piles so that people die form their health impacts on Navajo Nation land.

The industry has done zero in the way of responsibility of the people on the Colorado Plateau.

[Tansy_Gold]

84. What you said. +1000

[grahamhgreen]

78. How bout a terrorist attack - you ready for that? Or a hot war? And who will insure it? Not US.

[tinrobot]

99. Florida, the hurricane state?

Florida also sits pretty low in the water, a tsunami would not be kind to it, either.

[spanone]

4. arrivederci

[HockeyMom]

8. Indian Point, NY

If something were to happen there, there are appromiately 12 Million people in it's disaster path. That is precisely why the 9/11 terrorists originally targeted Indian Point.

[Sirveri]

9. Lets make long term decisions in the middle of an ongoing disaster!

Or we could just wait and see how this plays out to see if the claims about nuclear safety advances are true, and make a decision once we have a full view of all the facts of the situation.

[k2qb3]

11. These are 40 Y/O plants...sooo based on this argument,

When it turns out the worst disaster imaginable for a nuclear powerplant that's fueling this hysteria doesn't result in any giant mutated lizards or measurable health effects can we get on with building better, modern plants so we don't all end up living in a F'n desert already?

It's a little steam, and a little tritium. It's possible things are so screwed up it'll be a bit worse than that, so far the radiation in the control room, right next to the reactor, isn't enough to cause a health concern for the technicians, even if they were in there for months.

But we'd rather keep on burning coal...

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Yep. GE Mark 1 BWR's.

Different design than Chernobyl, which had no containment housing, and TMI's PWR reactor design.

This is a good dry run. See how safe this stuff really is. These reactors are essentially the same as:

Browns Ferry units 1, 2 and 3
Hope Creek
Brunswick units 1 and 2
Cooper
Dresden units 2 and 3
Duane Arnold
Hatch units 1 and 2
Fermi unit 2
FitzPatrick
Monticello
Nine Mile Point unit 1
Oyster Creek
Peach Bottom units 2 and 3
Pilgrim
Quad-Cities units 1 and 2
Vermont Yankee

I predict no catastrophe.

Also, Keith is misrepresenting 'lost control', that's not what they said. Pretty good example of how information is garbled by the 'telephone game'.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Control rooms are possitive pressure

environments but I am sure you knew that... probably not.

[jp11]

13. Disaster or no disaster the argument for technology that at worst results

in what, solar cells getting broken by meteors, torn up by storms oh maybe it is wind generators making too much noise, or breaking and tossing a blade, breaking and falling down, wave generators breaking and smashing other generators, falling into the sea etc. The most destructive clean energy source is probably a damn breaking/failing everything else results in no more damage than just about a hundred other things we live with in our world/lives planes falling from the sky, buildings collapsing, etc. Renewable clean technology poses such small risks compared to the possible disasters that any nuclear facility poses.

I'm 'for' nuclear power for one reason it is one of a few renewable sources of 'clean' technology I can actually see our stupid country getting behind significantly. I don't see us doing any of the others in significant quantities to A) replace all nuclear power facilities or B) replace fossil fuel plants C) keep up with or exceed out power needs going into the future. We are making tiny baby steps towards real clean technology but that won't cut it to do A, B, or C so what is left burn more fossil fuels or make more nuclear reactors while we take stupid token steps towards renewable clean safe energy.

We should be making huge leaps into clean renewable energy production ALONG with upgrading our inefficient old power grid but we aren't.

[Sirveri]

16. I don't disagree with any of this. Nuclear isn't renewable but it's the most likely bridge available

I wouldn't call it renewable, but our future only holds two things before we go renewable, coal or nuclear. I'd rather have nuclear than coal.

[jwirr]

61. And we have enough nuke plants to make that bridge already.All

we are saying is that we do not need any new ones. We need renewable energy instead.

[Sirveri]

66. nuclear accounts for only about 10% of our current power supply. Coal is 40%

Solar and wind are a whole lot less, around 1-2% depending on what numbers you use.

The way I see the future we will have two options, coal or nuclear. Depending on how quickly prices for oil and nat gas rise we will pretty much have to fall back on one of those two options simply because we don't have the manufacturing base needed to expand our solar and wind production at the rate we would require to transition with any semblance of speed. I'm not saying we shouldn't expand renewables, quite the opposite, coal and nuclear are both finite fuel cycles compared to solar and wind, which will expire when our star dies. But combined with peak oil, corporate lobby's, open space considerations, and other issues that I'm forgetting, I just don't see a path to a true green transition without shifting to either nuclear or coal as a crutch or bridge.

[kristopher]

67. Bullpuckey - building renewable is cheaper and faster than building nuclear.

You are parroting the sales pitch of the nuclear industry.

[Sirveri]

86. it might be cheaper and faster, but that doesn't mean we have the factories to do it.

Or the space, solar plants typically take up a lot of land area per kwh generated. Wind farms are even worse on that front. There was already talk here in CA about building solar out in the desert, but then we had environmentalists fly in and stomp it dead. So it's not as simple as you make it out to be. Everything is a big balancing act, our difference is simply in where we think that balance can fall. You can't just convert to fully solar and wind tomorrow, you need to get permits, find a good site, actually build the equipment, then get it there and set it up. There are problems at every leg of that journey.

[kristopher]

106. The nuclear industry is no more trustworthy than the coal industry - less in fact.

Your claims are without merit; they are nothing but propaganda that originated with the nuke lobby and are completely refuted by the information in the OP.

You can continue to trust information sourced to a huge industry trying to force its wares on an unwary public or you can assign the same value to information from the nuclear industry as we all do to other similar entities like the coal or fossil fuel industries. It is your choice.

[niyad]

32. and where do you suggest we put the spent nuclear material? yucca mountain? you know, the one in

an earthquake zone??? and how do we get it wherever we are putting it? driving it across country?

renewable???

[Sirveri]

38. Should I post the videos of them shooting missles at the transport casks?

Transport is one of the things I'm least worried about compared to long term viability and ground water contamination risks. In any event the federal government said they would build a long term storage solution, so they need to put it somewhere.

[jp11]

58. In your house of course.

Or if you don't want it there we can fill some plastic water bottles and dump them in the ocean.

OR maybe it could be stored on site, buried deep underground in sealed containers cemented over, not that any answer would satisfy you.

[skepticscott]

64. And where are we putting the spent material

from coal and oil? Right into the atmosphere.

[jmowreader]

120. There's 2500 acres outside Crawford, Texas, that would work

It's the perfect place:

in the middle of fucking nowhere
probably far from geologic problems like Yucca Mountain has
owner hasn't been out there since January 2009, and would let it go cheap

Getting the waste to the pig farm would involve lots of driving, but once it's there, no huge problems.

[inwiththenew]

28. Get out of here with your calm and rational thoughts

This is a time for knee jerk reactions and hysteria.

[fascisthunter]

46. I guess you have no problem with being a victim of a tragedy then

seems to me, as long as it doesn't effect you, it's a-ok. You should be made to see the people suffering. We'd all be better off.

[Sirveri]

68. All I said is that we shouldn't make a decision until we have all the facts.

Since this casualty has yet to finish we do not yet know all the facts. Lets not jump to conclusions that we will receive confirmation of in a few days.

[sulphurdunn]

89. We have the facts.

We have Three Mile Island. We have Chernobyl, and now this. The technology is perilous. It is not cost effective to neutralize that risk to the full extent of which we are capable. We can't even agree on what to do with the waste. An advanced civilization could probably build safe nuclear reactors. Unfortunately, that ain't us.

[Sirveri]

90. We don't have all the facts because this casualty is still in progress.

Unless we can see into the future, since this is still ongoing it seems a bit early to declare that an entire industry is a total loss. Unless of course you already held that opinion and are simply using this as an excuse to say what you already wanted to say. I'm fine with that too, but at least be honest about it like you were in your last post.

[liberation]

96. There is a thin line between "facts" and "stalling."

It is not like this is the first nuclear accident and stuff...

[Sirveri]

103. Except TMI and Chernobyl were both operator driven casualties.

This is NOT. Yes that difference is important. The nuclear industry keeps saying they're safe, now we get to see if they're actually correct. But lets see what actually happens first.

[liberation]

109. Well yes, all fatalities due to juggling chainsaws are also due to operator driven casualties

which is why we need more data regarding whether or not juggling chainsaws is a good idea. I can see your point.

[sulphurdunn]

98. It was only luck or the grace of God

that kept Three Mile Island from contaminating large parts of Pennsylvania and New York. That's not an opinion but a fact that even the nuclear industry recognizes. The potential catastrophes of nuclear power and their magnitude are well documented (Chernobyl really happened). Like coal fired plants and deep seal drilling rigs, nuclear power plants have the potential for causing global catastrophes on an enduring scale. Your argument suggests that just because that has yet to happen with a nuclear plant (with the exception of Chernobyl) that we should reserve judgment until the facts are in. Here are the facts: if at least one of those Japanese plants doesn't melt down it will be due to another act of God. I have little more faith in the divine than I do in nuclear technology. How about you?

[Sirveri]

104. You were anti before, so I wasn't talking to you, there isn't any point to it.

If your mind wasn't made up before, then you should wait until this scenario resolves, if it was anti before then it doesn't matter. Nothing I say will sway you, the hard work of the operations staff in that plant won't sway you, so there's no point. I know quite a lot about the physics behind this, the science involved in them, I also had access to classified information regarding both the TMI casualty and the Chernobyl casualty. So why would I trust some random guy on DU about the 'facts'? Why would I trust Olbermann, a sportscaster with no formal training on the subject?

[sulphurdunn]

111. You don't know a thing about

my background. What you do know is how to manufacture logical fallacies. The appeal to authority is one of the oldest. Your knowledge of nuclear power plants doesn't amount to fact, nor does it validate your opinion. Obviously, rational discussion is not your forte. So sorry.

[Maru Kitteh]

63. And let's do it because the Kult of Keith hath proclaimed it! n/t

[Overseas]

15. K&R! Yes Please! //nt

[GKirk]

19. Nothing is safe...

... the dam that broke in Japan swept away 1,800.

[closeupready]

45. And eating can lead to choking, and sex to AIDS.

Yet, we seem able to manage those risks. The risks of a nuclear fail are too great - the downside is mass death and permanent destruction of arable land areas.

[liberation]

75. Let us know how many people have ever been killed by a disaster involving solar panels, wind turbine

geothermal wells, or tidal nets.

[MikeW]

81. let us know how many cities the size of NY or Tokyo are powered by solar or WIND LOL

[liberation]

85. I bet your great grandpa used the same argument when he laughed at the first electrification efforts

when cities used to be lighted by oil lamps.

LOL indeed.

[MikeW]

93. hmmm not even close

Nukes, coal and oil all generate far far more power than solar or wind are capable of.

Its the unfortunate truth, but solar and wind tech are not up to the task yet.

[liberation]

95. Well, sure

... original light bulbs were notoriously expensive and unreliable, so we should be still using oil lamps obviously. And it is not like I did not mention things like Geothermal energy production, which uses the same vapor turbine generation approach than nuclear generators.

BTW:

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

[MikeW]

97. you could

Combine solar, wind, hydro and geothermal together and they still wouldnt meet the US grid energy demands.

All ways to produce power need to be utilized to reduce our dependency on carbon based fuel which is

the primary problem.

[liberation]

107. Which is why I said we should be back to use oil lamps

since the two light bulbs Edison produced were clearly not enough to light a house, never mind a city like New York.

[GKirk]

115. Let me know how far

back in the dark ages we would be if we had to rely on those sources for our current energy needs.

[TheWebHead]

20. okay, so people on here complain about

oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear ... all of which combine for 91% of our current energy usage. Even the "dirty" forms of fuel on their own can't scale to our global energy needs on their own. of the four, I prefer nat gas but that of course is flamebait on DU. Having nuclear facilities in earthquake prone Japan, maybe not a good idea. The problem appears to be a backup power generation issue, something that probably is correctable.

[Raine]

21. KO should be right but I doubt he is

the ones who support and push this stuff will never give up, they'll find a way to spin it. :-(

[progressoid]

22. Yeah, and lets replace 20% of our electricity with...?

[glinda]

30. And don't forget Obama's speech today... 80% alternative by 2035. I say alternative by 2012.

[liberation]

77. No, we need to take our sweet time so that the current energy cartel can figure out

how to keep making money, after the cheap sources of solar energy trapped in fossil matter, which they have monopolized, start to run out. That should be our priority, of course.

[buddysmellgood]

33. Exactly. I'd love to replace nukes and coal, but we just don't have it yet and

we don't take green energy seriously.

[fascisthunter]

59. how about we slow the fuck down so we don't NEED nuclear power plants

and whether people like it or not, making humans sacrifice for what some consider to be essential should never be part of the equation for a solution. Energy is supposed to work for us, not kills us.

[Terry in Austin]

72. "Our" electricity

Says it right there -- Americans assume they're entitled to the amount of energy we currently use.

With the rise of petroleum and other extractive fuels (fossil and fissile), we've gotten used to living beyond our means, energy-wise. Now that oil is in decline, we will soon come to realize that we've basically squandered our energy inheritance on a big consumer-industrial party, and will have to begin living within our means using renewable energy sources.

Renewables, of course, won't come anywhere close to the energy levels we've come to take for granted, so the future is about learning how to have a decent life getting by on a lot less.

[MikeW]

82. good luck with that theory

[liberation]

83. I disagree.

The earth is showered by the sun with more energy in a day, than we have used in a big chunk of our history.

The earth radiates an inmense amount of geothermal energy, since it is basically a big furnace (a big percentage of our planet is actually molten rock not solid).

We have plenty of energy, what we do not have is plenty of "cheap" solar energy trapped in fossil matter. Remember that the concept of "cheap" is completely arbitrary, since it is an economic concept, as such it is purely subjective/abstract and has little to no natural/physical basis.

So IMHO, the problem is not with the "entitlement" of people to energy (we're showered with almost infinite energy, in human scale, as it is), the issue is more with the "entitlement" to profit some people have regarding the "production" (which is really transformation) and "distribution" of energy. That is a different issue of human scale, not natural scale.

[Terry in Austin]

123. Amount isn't as important as concentration

The earth has plenty of energy, but we don't actually have it until we concentrate it. You'd need to have a solar array the size of Vermont to provide just the current electricity needs for the US, for example.

That's no small project, and you have to be realistic about how likely it is to get done. Even given the ever-elusive "political will," that still leaves the financial feasibility -- it would take up a majority of the world's capital-formation capacity for years on end.

Energy isn't useful until it's concentrated, and it takes energy to concentrate energy. That's why renewables have such a low net-energy yield compared to fossil fuels.

That was the great thing about fossil fuels: thousands of centuries of geologic processes concentrated very diffuse biomass energy into a source that was very convenient to burn, and we built an industrial civilization on it. Now, that foundation is slipping away, and industrial civilization is in need of a "forklift upgrade" that's very unlikely to happen.

[liberation]

76. Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal...

... there are even more.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

91. replace it with nothing...

Every single one of us could reduce our energy use by 20% if we really wanted to, but conservation is apparently not allowed to be part of the solution.

[Demeter]

118. Conservation

The end to light pollution alone would probably do it. And we could see the stars at night.

[meow mix]

23. k&r

[Sugarcoated]

25. I hope you're right

and Keith, too

[glinda]

29. Yup. MN. just opened up new proposals for them.

[tblue37]

31. Well, despite the deep water disaster this past year, the

government is quite eager to allow more deep water oil wells. Nothing seems to be enough to stop them from okaying such things. I doubt that a major disaster of this sort is going to make them reconsider the wisdom of nuclear generatos.

[Dappleganger]

34. Hmmm, the sockpuppets are all over this topic.

[Major Hogwash]

35. Totally coherent and logical, rational thought, Keith. Which is why they won't listen to you.

They don't care.

[upi402]

36. Agreed. Now to fight the robots promoting this insanity here

effemall, this is too dangerous to not call out the loons who push this energy source.

They claim sustainable energy and practices can't do it. But it can - it has only ben repressed until now. Our Prez gives it lip service, lets see him get off his hands and do something aside from letting the window of opportunity close.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

37. One of Obama's biggest campaign contributors was a nuclear power corp.

Just sayin....

[no limit]

39. If this actually melts down I will agree. If it doesnt then I think this is a good case FOR nuclear

[tinrobot]

100. Just the fact that it's close to melting down is enough for me.

[Bozvotros]

40. Are there safe nuclear power plants?

This guy seems to think so....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/climate-bill-ignores-our_b_221796.html?ref=fb&src=sp

He says the latest plants actually use the depleted uranium that we don't know what to do with, and use it to make safe power with virtually no dangerous waste and radiation. He says that this technology was developed here but has been entirely ignored for 20 years while the rest of the world is jumping on it.

I don't know much about this topic but I do know that the greedhead corporate pimps that run our fossil fuel businesses would rather have us blow each other to kingdom come with nuclear weapons than give up our dependence on their filthy nineteenth century technology before they have milked us for every last cent. And I do know that the ignorant political whores that dominate Washington would do their bidding for some fast campaign cash. That much I do know.

[mrfrapp]

80. Good Summary

That's a good summary of fast reactor technology. Recommended reading.

[Bozvotros]

117. Did any one else in this discussion read it?

I didn't realize we had so many nuclear scientists here. I didn't know most of what was in that article and I don't know if any or all of it is true. But if it is as described then I could see it as an important component in getting off of fossil fuels. A summary of Integral Fast Reactors that I found else where included these factoids...

* Can be fueled entirely with material recovered from today’s used nuclear fuel.
* Consumes virtually all the long-lived radioactive isotopes that worry people who are concerned about the "nuclear waste problem," reducing the needed isolation time to less than 500 years.
* Could provide all the energy needed for centuries (perhaps as many as 50,000 years), feeding only on the uranium that has already been mined.
* Uses uranium resources with 100 to 300 times the efficiency of today’s reactors.
* Does not require enrichment of uranium.
* Radioactive fuel and waste less useful to terrorists -- short half-life would kill them before they even got the bomb built.
* Has less proliferation potential than the reprocessing method now used in several countries.
* 24×7 baseline power (unlike solar or wind).
* Can be built anywhere there is water. That means no new grid wiring.
* The power is very inexpensive (some estimates are as low as 2 cents/kWh to produce).
* Safe from melt down because if something goes wrong, the reactor naturally shuts down rather than blows up.
* And, of course, it emits no greenhouse gases.

And the downside? That maybe there is some kind of unforeseeable catastrophe? I feel I am in the middle of a catastrophe every freaking day we stay dependent on oil and coal. Why can't we build one of these? Maybe surround it with troops we bring home from Afghanistan for a year or two.

[bongbong]

47. For the billions

We can do better than having the taxpayer spend billions and billions on oil company subsidies, and the billions on nukes (ratepayers pay for some of it, the Dept of Energy pays for some of it). We could subsidize solar panels by the same amount and they would suddenly become cost effective. If a large number of people got solar panels on their houses it would lessen demand for centralized power & they would need fewer new/refurbished power plants.

But that sane approach will NEVER EVER NEVER happen. Why? The PTB are deathly afraid of decentralized power. It takes away their guaranteed profits.

[upi402]

49. Yep, and we need wind, methane, geo thermal and tidal

Solar's great for daytime loads, but the other DER (Distributed Energy Resources) like methane and wind are needed to power us at night... unless a miracle battery is invented. But we don't need it.

We need to plug leaks, conserve, and install DER energy generation everywhere - and not wait for the government to actually DO something - we need to just do it.

[bongbong]

102. Solar is to take load off

Using solar allows fewer large plants to be built. And the advances in batteries are coming fast & furiously. Also, new and rapidly-improving supercapacitors function as batteries with an near-infinite amount of charge/discharge cycles.

But none of these things are going to happen in any large scale. Simply because a few hundred rich billionaires want to stay as feudal lords over humanity, and keep their centralized energy monopoly intact.

[upi402]

116. Yep, solar reduces demand during peak demand hours

It's great. And we need to leap-frog the elites on this one. Venture capital is seeing it but there are scant few opportunities. And early adopters are hedging.

[on point]

51. Besides operating problems, there is NO solution for the waste!

The operating problems are bad enough, but the waste that lasts for THOUSANDS of years is even worse.

We have no solution for this. The waste will remain deadly poisonous thousands of ears longer than any human civilization has existed. Creating it should stop until we have a solution for it. Burying it in concentrated form with skulls and cross bones everywhere for humans thousands of years from now is unethical and down right stupid.

BTW,, II know no animals at this point who can read and so once these waste dumps fall into disrepair a thousand years from now, humans may stay away, but I doubt animals will.

Here is another argument. Nuclear power is neither energy efficient, nor cost effective. If you include all the energy and dollar costs to build, maintain, decommission and then protect the waste of these plants, they are a net loss in energy terms and tremendously expensive in dollar terms.

[azul]

87. If nuclear plants were a wise inventment, why will no insurance companies

underwrite construction? Why does the industry require, require government backing and liability exemptions to build plants?

They are not competitive in the real world.

[bullwinkle428]

113. Exactly - they couldn't survive at all in the Randian wet-dream world

of a wing-nut!

[RC]

55. A couple of points that were missed -

Coal is radio active and the exhaust from burning it is put into the atmosphere. Burning coal releases more radio activity in a year than a nuclear power plant in it's life time.

More people are injured or killed because of burning coal (and oil) than by using nuclear.

Also the spent fuel rods can be recycled into more fuel.

[skepticscott]

69. So what is his point? That nuclear energy is not 100% safe?

Ask the people living along the Gulf Coast how safe oil is. Or the people who have died in coal mine accidents. Or all the people who have died or suffered health problems from poor air quality attributable to fossil fuel power plants. Or all the people who will suffer the effects of global warming. And let's not forget all the people who have died because they couldn;t pay their heating bills because power was too expensive.

Olbermann, like all other attention whores in the media, likes to play off of concentrated disasters that they can use to scare people, but ignores long term, chronic issues that cause far more deaths.

[gauguin57]

74. Crap. When I started this thread, I forgot to bring the butter, the salt and the ...

[grahamhgreen]

79. Wow, the nuclear lobby is out in force today, because they expect these events to occur.

[bengalherder]

92. When I was young, an eon ago,

I was on a debate team in school. Our subject that year was energy, alternative vs conventional.

I have learned two things.

One, everything that has happened from peak oil to nuclear accident was predicted even then.

Two, the most likely candidate for energy is biomass/diesel from quick-growing, no-fuss plants such as hemp and bamboo grown on marginal land, which can also be used for fiber, paper, etc. Also good would be methane from silage and cow poop. Wind and solar have their place as well and the tidal stuff (which was in it's infancy in '78) is very promising.

I've watched for thirty years as the supposed 'smart people' who supposedly 'got this' have ignored reality in order to prop up the artificial life span of big oil- who could have been heroes if they'd put their money into these alternatives rather than be ruled by greed.

[madrchsod]

101. replace with what?

[Terry in Austin]

124. We're guaranteed a replacement?

[meow mix]

105. and good riddance

[Demeter]

108. Keith Olbermann: Speaking Truth to Power

or, casting pearls before the swine.

Long may he speak, and success follow his efforts to inform and persuade.

[Better Believe It]

114. Nothing to see here folks .... move along now .... nothing to see.

[Atypical Liberal]

119. I disagree.

I disagree.

The fact of the matter is, our entire way of life depends on low-cost, reliable energy.

Most of us are looking for an advancement of our civilization, not a retreat, and that means we are going to need even more energy in the years to come.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html

I am all for solar and wind initiatives. But the sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow. According to the video above, we have enough depleted Uranium to provide our energy needs for centuries.

[Qutzupalotl]

121. At least near fault lines, FFS.

[BklynThirtyThree]

122. as a former nucelar energy supporter

I think we should focus on solar/wind/geothermal as much safer alternatives.