I think that nuclear power may still be safer than coal.

[LoZoccolo]

[Paradoxical]

1. It is safer than coal.

[kristopher]

61. That is moot, both are bad and we can replace both.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150

Thorium isn't a viable alternative either. It is 30+ years away from market IF they get the kinks worked out, which is not likely given how long they've tried.

False claims being made by the nuclear industry

1. nuclear power is cheap;

2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;

3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;

4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;

5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;

6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.

[davidinalameda]

2. I don't think you have to worry about a coal plant

poisoning the surrounding area for how many hundreds of years if it blows but a nuke plant blowing up or whatever is certainly the exception to the rule

building a nuke plant in an earthquake prone area, no matter how well the plant may be built, is just not a good idea

all it takes is one big quake and you're looking at a major disaster

[Nevernose]

3. Google "thorium reactors"

They require less water, produce no radioactive waste, and a meltdown is impossible. First hypothesized in the 60s, the material science and general technology didn't exist to actually build one until now. Chin's working on the world's first one now, and instead of even seriously researching the option, we're being controlled by Exxon-Mobil and the tea baggers...*sigh*

[maryf]

5. sadly we don't have these yet...

until we do, and I'm still on the fence, nothing is more dangerous to the entire world than nuclear...

[name not needed]

55. Yet another thing China and India are beating us to the punch on.

[pinto]

4. I think that starting a discussion on any volatile issue is best done by starting a discussion.

Gauntlets rarely result in a constructive discussion. Just my 2 cents. :hi:

[leftstreet]

6. Yeah, but you can't put it in someone's Christmas stocking n/t

[LoZoccolo]

7. I read it on the cover of Wired magazine some years back that people liked nuclear power again.

In a lot of ways they look like these really epic structures. We think we're high-tech but when you think about it, a lot of design went into those power plants.

[lbrtbell]

8. Then put your life where your mouth is

Move to Japan, right near the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

It's real easy to spout off opinions, when you're not in harm's way. Have you learned nothing from the abnormally high instances of cancer all these years after Chernobyl?

There are alternatives to coal. Nuclear energy is not a safe alternative.

[Paradoxical]

9. I live 50 miles from the largest nuclear power plant in the United States.

Directly downwind too.

[leftstreet]

11. How long have you been a downwinder?

:shrug:

[Paradoxical]

12. I've lived in Phoenix for the last 17 years.

So since I was a small toddler.

By "downwind" I mean in the path of stream currents. The current moves from west to east.

[lbrtbell]

18. I lived in Phoenix for nearly 30 years

You need to educate yourself on how "safe" Palo Verde is. Point your browser to http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist1.htm and check out some of the problems that have plagued this plant:

Aug., 2001: Valve failure causes leak of radioactive cooling water from the irradiated fuel-cooling pool into the reactor containment building, forcing a reactor shutdown. (Source: OC Register.)

March 14th, 1993: Hundred of liters of contaminated water gush from a leaking steam generator tube at Palo Verde (Source: Greenpeace; unit unknown). May 14th, 1986 Power lines to the Palo Verde nuclear power plant sabotaged (Source: Greenpeace; Unit unknown)

The APS web site has virtually no information about its nuclear plants.

Also, there's a big difference between living near a plant that has yet to have a major catastrophe, and one that is actually in the throes of a catastrophe. You're living the adage, "Ignorance is bliss."

Comparing living near Palo Verde to living near Fukushima Daiichi is also disgustingly insensitive to the people who are currently being evacuated, and now live with the threat of unusually high chances of developing cancer for the rest of their lives.

[Paradoxical]

27. I know how unsafe Palo Verde is. I did an entire report on it's safety violations.

[devilgrrl]

28. Have a link to that report?

:popcorn:

[Paradoxical]

29. Uh no. It was a report from my junior year of high school.

If you find it, please let me know. I was actually pretty proud of it and it got lost when I switched computers.

[LoZoccolo]

10. I live in Illinois.

[Tx4obama]

19. My aunt lives 7 miles from a nuclear plant, she's in the 'red zone'.

LaSalle County Nuclear Plant.

[Bluebear]

39. !

[upi402]

13. Shooting off my foot is better than shooting off my hand???

How about the loonies put the guns down, eh?

[AlabamaLibrul]

14. Okay. n/t

[snappyturtle]

15. What's the half life of coal? Just sayin'................nt

[Statistical]

42. Infinite. Just saying. n/t

[Incitatus]

16. good 4 u.

[Electric Monk]

17. I think you post threads like this merely to annoy, not to engage in real thoughtful discussions.

[Bluebear]

31. Bingo

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

36. I think that too, in addition to water being wet. -nt

[Forkboy]

60. Yep

[old mark]

20. I think you are probably right, barring a major accident...

The waste from burning coal affect everyone who breathes for a long time...

[MadHound]

21. And the funny thing is that we don't need either nukes or coal.

Just renewables.
<http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>

Gee, don't have to play that toxic game of dichotomy anymore.

[Desertrose]

22. Living downwind of TMI in '78...I'd disagree.

I still remember the bizarre giant leaves and strange plant aberrations we got in the following spring. Nope, don't agree with your OP at all.

Even today lots of cancers still in that area of PA.

[Gravel Democrat]

23. Of course you do

Largest Solar Plant in Europe Set to Open in Italy

SunEdison announced yesterday that it will be opening up the largest solar plant in Italy later this year. The American company is building the plant in Rovigo (near Venice) on an area as massive as 120 soccer fields and when it is complete, it will cover 9.15 million square feet and be able to produce 72 megawatts of power. According to SunEdison, the plant will be able to meet the electricity needs of 17,000 households and will prevent 41,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere

The plant will cost between $273 million and $342 million (200 million and 250 million euros) and is set to be fully operational by the end of the year. In a statement for SunEdison, general manager for Italy, Liborio Francesco Nanni said, “The photovoltaic park in Rovigo province is a milestone in the development and establishment of solar energy in Italy.”

When the Rovigo solar plant is complete, it will overtake the current biggest plant in Europe which is located in Spain. The second biggest is in Germany.

[Yo_Mama]

24. Heck, no means of power production is safe

Not even hydropower. Think what would happen if Three Gorges ever ruptured. Over a million dead. A dam with all that water represents a mass of kinetic energy that is potentially highly destructive.

Overall, nuclear power probably has a better safety record than almost any other power type. It doesn't mean that it isn't dangerous.

[MadHound]

25. So you think that laying waste to twenty eight hundred square miles is a better safety record?

No other industrial energy accident has even come within a tenth of that amount of destruction.

[Yo_Mama]

30. No, not really.

But Chernobyl didn't have the most minimal safety precautions - it's not representative of nuclear power as it is used today.

And in any case, no credible authority attributes more than 2,000 deaths to Chernobyl. Accidents in coal mining in one year alone utterly dwarf that body count.

Some estimates of human deaths for Chernobyl are less than 500. The total release of radioactivity from Chernobyl was at least 100 times less than that released in nuclear arms testing. Admittedly, it was more concentrated and so able to do more harm. More than 20 years later, it still appears that there was little long term damage.

I wasn't comfortable with the OP's suggestion, but I just spent half an hour comparing stats, and it appears that far more environmental damage is done by coal mining, that far more people are killed in one year than in the 40 year history of nuclear power, and that coal is far more of a pollutant.

It is also true that background radiation levels are elevated around coal plants.

[Statistical]

43. The single largest loss of life caused by a power plant in history of mankind ...

was the failure of a hydroelectric dam.

[coalition_unwilling]

47. Small point, but the stored-up water represents "potential energy".

If I remember my Physics class correctly, that potential energy would become kinetic energy were the dam ever to suffer a catastrophic failure.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

26. Why?

[joshcryer]

32. There's a reason EPA says living near a coal plant exposes you to higher radiation than a nuclear...

...plant.

[meow mix]

33. throw them both in the trash, this argument gets old after 10 fucking years of it

why do DU people endlessly deflect the failings of one system onto another, instead of dealing with the topic at hand.

[Raine]

37. I agree. I don't know why we have to choose from two

really really bad choices, that's ridiculous. There has to be alternative choices, more than two crappy ones.

[certainot]

54. nuclear is flat fucking stupid and until we get a manhattan project for alternatives

the nukes choice is a lie from energy monopolies who want to keep power centralized and have, along with fossil fuel industry (both of which have been subsidized for trillions, wars, etc) have actively obstructed necessary moves to efficiency and sustainables along with global warming denial.

again, nukes are stupid- the mining, refining, waste disposal and storage, govt guarantees, etc.are not included in the sales job. and apparently it takes 15 years of operation before it pays off the CO2 of constructing the plant and mining and refining.

[Rex]

34. I think that solar power may be safer than nuclear power.

Er...wait.

[Bluebear]

35. You said it.

[Statistical]

44. I think the sun doesn't shine at night. n/t

[Electric Monk]

45. I think guns don't kill people.

[Rex]

58. I think water is wine.

White wine...

[MadHound]

46. Well gramps, they have these neat, nifty new things called "deep cycle batteries"

I know, I know, new tech and all, but don't be frightened. Batteries simply store the power generated during the day so that you can use that power later on when the sun isn't shining. In fact most standard solar battery packs can allow the user to run their household for a couple of days or more without recharging.

[Statistical]

48. Prohibitively expensive and not viable for powering an entire nation.

Using batteries requires a larger solar system (needs to be sized for peak usage not just average annual usage) and nearly doubles the cost. Not to mention the huge amounts of lead and the fact that they need to be maintained and replaced periodically.

Gridtie systems are the only ones that even close to being viable.

[MadHound]

49. Educate yourself

<http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/7_12/Cost/calculate_solar_cost.htm#Cost%20of%20batteries%20as%20a%20function%20of%20energy%20usage>

And please note, these examples are from 2005, the costs, due to increased production and the effect of technology over the past six years, have gone down.

What you are simply doing with this is paying for your electricity costs up front rather than spread out.

Yes, tying into the grid is probably a good thing to do, but it is not necessary. There are far too many people living off the grid, safely and economically, that show otherwise.

But if you really want to have a good backup to your solar panel system, you can always tie in a windbelt array. They generate power even at windspeeds as low as four mph.

[Bluebear]

50. +

[Rex]

52. LOL!

True, for YOU. Did YOU forget the side that it DOES shine on (the Earth is actually a sphere and gets never ending shine)!? Here is a hint, the Sun hits the Earth with shine 24/7...can't think of a way to capitalize on your pithy hours of daylight? Then stop BTing at night! :P

[PurityOfEssence]

38. Not a dime's worth of difference, eh Mr. Nader?

Look! Over there, some rabble to be roused!

Look! A parade! Hoof up a rain dance!

[Bluebear]

40. 'Look! A parade!'

:)

[Bluebear]

41. yeehaw!

[tahrir]

51. what about the moon?!

[Rex]

53. Well you can think whatever you want to...doesn't make it true.

GOSH, if that was the case this place would be called 'Democratic Rex and Everyone That Agrees With Him 24/7'. :rofl:

[killbotfactory]

56. People seem to prefer being poisoned and killed slowly and steadily over time

with coal and oil.

[Bluebear]

57. Any updates?

[Jersey Devil]

59. So two wrongs make a right?

Both coal and nuclear are extremely dirty, nasty, dangerous ways of producing power.