Goodbye nuclear power plants? Please, heavens no. The alternative is worse!

[jacquelope]

How much damage did Chernobyl do versus the constant environmental damage that is being done by coal-fired power plants?

Coal ash that comes from coal power plants is more radioactive than nuclear waste.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Then there are the dangers of coal mines and coal seam fires. In layman's terms that's the type of underground coal vein fires that you see in places like Centralia, PA - but there are far worse ones in China. These things belch tons of pollutants into the air and ground and water supply and everything else.

Granted, it would be nice if we could replace nuclear power plants with solar plants, but it's hard (but not impossible) to build one that runs at night. To say goodbye to nuclear power is to condemn us, practically speaking, to coal power, and we all saw the devastation that was unleashed when a "clean coal power" plant had a boo-boo: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2008/2008-12-23-091.html


Before you say this disaster in Japan is a good reason to get rid of nuclear power, just ask yourself... what could have happened if those nuclear power plants were replaced by coal power plants?

Most importantly... what are we going to replace nuclear power plants with?

[ixion]

1. Distributed, Renewable Energy Systems.

'nuff said.

[bbinacan]

7. Not yet practical.

Or in the near future.

[KittyWampus]

10. Waste to energy is incredibly practical and already being done.

[Iwasthere]

14. Consistant response, "Not yet ready"

Not yet, not yet, not yet, JESUS CHRIST! I realize that we cannot switch over to alternatives over night but we had better start working hard at this NOW! Millions of jobs could be created too, retrofit car makers and manufacturing plants. Invest in alternatives instead of bankers.

[jacquelope]

23. I totally agree.

We need to de-fund the war in the Middle East (the day before=Afghanistan, yesterday=Iraq, today=Afghanistan AGAIN, tomorrow=?) and use all that money toward alternative energy research.

But right now what do we build? Coal, or nuclear? I'm talking about for night-time power generation, as opposed to solar for the daytime.

[Zoeisright]

46. Exactly. The Koch brothers have been claiming this for DECADES.

It's about time we started throwing lots of money at safe, renewable energy.

And anyone who thinks otherwise is either stupid or has his head up his ass.

[jpak]

16. Nuclear power - not yet practical

and sorry - California is permitting thousands of MW of solar energy capacity - today.

Some solar projects already produce power below the cost of natural gas-fired electricity.

yup

[Richard D]

35. Nothing is really practical . . .

. . . until people decide to make it so. there's such a small amount of money being pumped into alternative energy. Were there a (sorry for the cliche) Manhattan Project style push to make renewable energy practical, it would happen and it would happen quickly.

[ixion]

53. I'm responding to your post on an off-grid system

so it is not entirely impractical.

[EstimatedProphet]

57. Bullshit

[kristopher]

59. Bullpuckey

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

[CanonRay]

84. Then spend the f'ing money and get them ready!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

92. This is a good idea; the other one wasn't.

"Spend lots of money on research into improving renewable energy" is a good idea.

"Attempt to replace nuclear power with current forms of renewable energy" is not.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. Viable, but not as the sole source

Given current and future demands, a blended solution is required for the foreseeable future. We will have the choice, carbon emissions or nuclear waste.

[ixion]

54. I disagree. A properly designed hybrid system can function as a sole source

it simply takes the desire to make it so.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

60. If it was that easy, why haven't any major city gone that way?

Note also that no recognized authority in urban planning agrees with you either.

Its great stuff, we need to move that way and continue to research and invest in renewables, however, we can not make it our only option at this point.

[ixion]

65. why not? Big Energy.

To be clear, I'm not saying there are not hurdles that we'd have to over come, but it is most certainly possible to do. The primary reason it doesn't happen is because it would affect Big Energy's revenue stream.

[Jamastiene]

33. +1

[LAGC]

2. There's a reason why the co-founder of Greenpeace changed his tune and endorsed nuclear.

Lest we forget...

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/04/12/a-renegade-against-greenpeace.html

Nuclear is the only cost-effective intermediate hope we have of fighting global warming.

No IFs, ANDs, or BUTs about it.

[jacquelope]

11. And the author of the Gaia theory says nuclear power is necessary

James Lovelock:

http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/Nuclear_lifeline_en.pdf

[KittyWampus]

13. You are wrong. Waste to energy is the future. The only benefit from nuclear goes to corporations

who are able to control the mining, distribution and use of nuclear fuel.

Nuclear energy prevents the localization of energy production.

It is totally inefficient and filthy.

Turning our waste into energy can be done locally. By municipalities.

Another DU'er was right. Nuclear proponents are religious in their zeal and impervious to facts.

[LAGC]

17. I agree that ideally we should have localized energy production.

Reduces our dependence on a central energy source, which is prone to accidents/outages.

But right now the cost of not just solar panels but the BATTERIES required to store energy for use throughout the night is prohibitive.

Maybe if the government was really serious about solar they'd greatly increase the subsidies?

I imagine in 50 years we might be at a point where wide-scale solar becomes practicable.

The only question is: what do we do in the meantime? Keep burning coal?

[RC]

55. Rigth now we have a surplus of waste because it has been piling up for a hundred years

When that is gone there is no way that we would then have or produce enough waste to supply our energy needs.
Coal is the energy source that is totally inefficient and filthy.
Nuclear actually is a clean long term power source. Nuclear is more efficient than coal, which has to be continually mined for the power plant to work.


Solar can't provide all of our power. Sun doesn't shine at night.
Wind can't provide all of our power. Wind doesn't blow all the time.
Batteries can store power for both, but batteries are very expensive to replace.

Burning waste can't provide all of our power. Not enough waste.
Coal can't provide all of our power. Dirty and ratio active. Dangerous to mine.
Hydro can't provide all of our power. Some place have no suitable water.
Geo-thermal can't provide all of our power. Not enough heat in most places.
Nuclear can provide all of our power. Very expensive to set up. Big multi-hundreds of megawatt plants are most efficient, which means the need to be centralized, which would involve having long inefficient transmission lines, such as we are now using.

But for the time being all have a place in supplying our power needs

"The anti-nuclear proponents are religious in their zeal and impervious to facts."
There, fixed it for ya.

[jpak]

19. He's a contrarian nutcase that believes clear cutting is good for forests and global warming is OK

try again

:rofl:

[grahamhgreen]

44. What that? Money? Nukes are not cost effective when you factor in disasters and waste.

[dbonds]

3. Why do you think coal is the only alternative?

There are many green sources of energy.

[LAGC]

5. Yeah, but none that can generate enough power reliably and cost-effectively.

Once solar becomes as cost-effective as nuclear, then we may have a winner.

[KittyWampus]

15. Again, waste into energy is quite efficient, cost effective and can be done locally.

[LAGC]

18. See post #17.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jacquelope]

32. Too dirty. n/t

.

[bobbolink]

37. !

:rofl:

[Jamastiene]

36. Just the hot air that comes out of their mouths could provide enough

energy for the entire planet for at least 100 years. And that's just the ones that got elected last time around. If we used teabagger hot air out as a resource also, we would have it solved for a couple generations at least.

[jpak]

30. A company in California just signed a PPA to provide solar electricity BELOW the cost of natural gas

Wind and solar power production compliment each other to produce reliable power throughout the day and seasons.

Nuclear is more expensive than wind

and new nuclear is NOT cost effective - in Florida, the cost of two 1100 MW nuke is now estimated to be $17-22 billion - and they are charging Florida rate payers $10 a month to build them.

yup

[jacquelope]

8. Such as?

How will they match the output of nuclear power?
And how will solar work at night?

[LAGC]

9. Once we see the cost of high-efficiency large-scale energy storage mediums (batteries) come down...

Unfortunately, we aren't there yet.

[jacquelope]

21. And I'm all for replacing nuclear power with that

when that technology matures.

But as I said in my OP, right now our main alternative to nuclear power is even more radioactive and more pollutive coal power.

I'd rather be living next to a nuclear plant than a coal powered plant.

[EstimatedProphet]

62. Space based solar power is one way

And we have people working on developing it right now - just not enough of them.

[hlthe2b]

4. Not an "either or" but a NEITHER, NOR....

Alternative renewable energy.... and necessary conservation until we can build these industries sufficiently.

[grahamhgreen]

43. +1

[NightWatcher]

6. decentralize the grid and use renewables. Florida, use solar. Texas, solar and wind, DC, methane

[roamer65]

12. We need to start the decomissioning of West Coast nuclear plants.

We simply cannot have these current plants operating in the Pacific Northwest subduction zone, nor along the San Andreas fault.

[Iwasthere]

20. At the very least the plants should be required to withstand a 10.0

Which would essentially shut them down.

[jacquelope]

22. And replace them with what?

What do we have available to replace them with now?

[roamer65]

26. Newer design plants further inland that can withstand large eathquakes.

Minimize the amount of plants needed by augmentation with solar, wind, geothermal, etc.

[former9thward]

34. Dosn't work. Power plants -of any sort- need to be near population centers.

You can't distribute efficient power from 1000 miles away.

[roamer65]

81. Power from Hoover Dam is sent to Southern California...

Power from Northern Quebec is sent to the Northeastern US. There is some loss, but obviously not enough to make it unfeasable, from the examples I have given. You are wrong.

[stevedeshazer]

64. There aren't any such plants in the Pacific Northwest.

The only ones are at the Hanford reservation in southeast Washington.

Satsop, near the Washington coast, was never completed. Trojan, on the Columbia River in Oregon has been dismantled.

The Hanford plants are a problem, but not subject to tsunami as they are around 200 miles inland in a remote area.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Nuclear Power, in addition to being a ticking mega A-Bomb, is capital intensive and centralized.

THAT's why it was and is pushed, the same long list of corporate players get to profit from it while freezing out citizen based energy systems and effective conservation. That's shy Atomic energy got/gets massive subsidies and legislation to shield it from accountability while funding for true alternatives stays paltry under Democrats and virtually non-existent under Republicans.

It seems like the only viable alternative to Oil BECAUSE the Big energy operators and construction conglomerates WANT it to seem like the only viable alternative.

[upi402]

25. Choice: shoot foot or shoot hand

How about we take the guns away from the lunatics?

[tabasco]

28. Don't waste your breath on the utopians.

They think they are ready to live w/o electricity now.

Magic fairies will collect jars of fireflies to provide light in their wonderful new world without nuclear energy.

They can set up their little utopia in West Virginia on top of a mountain, destroyed for a seam of coal.

[jacquelope]

31. I don't think of anti-nuclear people in those terms.

They're not luddites. Nuclear power has its clear and obvious risks. It's just not as devastating to the environment as coal power.

I agree that we should spend TRILLIONS working toward a renewable energy infrastructure that is more localized than centralized and does not contribute to pollution. The problem I am addressing is the short term.

Right now we need more nuclear power plants, for no other reason but to replace the far dirtier option of coal power. But I hope that the day comes soon that we won't need nuclear power, either.

[MineralMan]

38. Perhaps they'll build one you can see from your house.

Uff da!

[tabasco]

50. Maybe they'll build a coal-fired plant where you can see it.

Same to you, pal.

[MineralMan]

51. There is one that I see when I fish on a nearby river. There's also

a nuclear power plant on a different river. I see that one, too. In fact, I've been known to fish near it. The warm water attracts game fish, and it's a great fishing spot, although a bit far from me to be a regular spot.

[tabasco]

49. Until people drastically reduce their electric usage,

renewable energy production as a major source is a pipe dream.

Japan will continue to use nuclear, despite their location in a major earthquake zone. It is their only practical alternative and, unless we continue to foul our world with coal dust and despoil our mountains to dig coal, it is our only practical alternative.

Nuclear is being used safely around the world and we need to use more here.

[jacquelope]

52. Renewable energy production as a major source is NOT a pipe dream.

Not in the long term, it's not.

[Jamastiene]

39. To be honest, I don't like either.

Our government should spend way more money on alternative energy sources AND allow those who can find a house by house solution to sell it and get people off the grid. The problem is that is never going to happen, because both parties want their funding from the energy companies.

What's messed up is that most of the energy generated in my home town and the surrounding area is mostly hydroelectric AND our hydro dams provide enough energy to supply us, but I realize that not everyone can use hydro, unfortunately. To top it all off, we are a county in poverty, so we have to keep business dealings any way we can. So, we share some of our hydro by being on the grid like coal, nuclear and everything else. Believe it or not, there is an article in my local paper today about including another county in the mix too now.

The grid (overall) is woefully outdated and inadequate for the size of our current population using the amount of energy we use today. Asking that the grid be decentralized and made into smaller, more easily managed grids (and safer from attacks) is like asking them to move a mountain. Oh wait, that's right. They already move mountains for coal, but Heaven forbid they break up the grid and provide grants for tons of ideas that never get tried because the big energy companies want to keep all their profits.

The solution is probably out there right now, but it won't get tried because the energy companies want their profits. So, we are told we have no choices but coal and nuclear. That's the bottom line I guess.

The truth is that our options are not nearly as limited as big energy companies would have us believe. In the future, we will look like idiots for not REALLY working on alternative forms of energy sooner, instead of just paying it lip service like every politician does nowadays.

[jacquelope]

48. Solar on every roof. Why not that?

I wonder how many coal power plants can be taken offline if we put solar on every rooftop.

I have solar on my roof and out in the back yard - when the sun is beating down on us in the summer our meter is ticking backwards and we're making money.. if I leave almost all my computers off, that is.

[fascisthunter]

40. self-delete

[grahamhgreen]

41. Typical prepared response from industry lobbyists. Go clean it up yourself, and pay for it.

This would be the same response if all of japan were destroyed.

[JackRiddler]

67. It's so disgusting -- almost stunning. No low to which capitalist interest won't make a man stoop.

[MadHound]

42. This is no longer an either/or choice, we have other options

Green renewables have now reached the point where they can meet all our energy needs.
<http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>

Since this option is now in play, I suggest that it is the path we follow. No nukes, no oil, no coal, what a concept.

[PhillySane]

45. How about

energy conservation for a start. Stop crying about not having enough power and decrease your usage.

[LAGC]

79. You first.

Try living without your computers or heat/air-conditioning, hot showers, etc. before you lecture the rest of us to reduce our energy consumption.

The more technologically advanced a society becomes, the more power its industries need to thrive.

We aren't going to be reducing our energy foot-print any time soon. We need power, the only question is what is the most cost-effective way of getting it while minimizing potential harm to the environment?

[PhillySane]

88. I practice

conservation every day of my life. I am constantly aware of the energy I'm using and try to use less all the time. All I ask is that everyone else do the same. There isn't enough energy in the world to satisfy the current demand. The only answer is to demand less.

[EFerrari]

47. This disaster in Japan is a good reason to get rid of nuclear power.

[EstimatedProphet]

56. Why is nuclear the only alternative?

[lpbk2713]

58. Doesn't Halliburton build nuke plants?

If they do, as long as they have political connections they will still be building them.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

61. Carbon

[JackRiddler]

63. Is the middle of a possible MELTDOWN really the right time for your pro-nuclear talking points?

Can't you wait at least until we see what happens? Shame on you.

Coal is not the only alternative.

God I hope the disaster is averted.

But if it happens will you still be spouting this nonsense.

[me b zola]

66. Sometimes I wish that I could throw a over-ripe tomato at a post

Your OP is one of them. Given the crisis that is occurring, with no way of knowing how bad it will be, you are shilling for the nuclear industry. :thumbsdown:


Risk benefit analysis. That is what you to weigh the benefits of an action or thing against the potential harm that could happen as a result. I have difficulty understanding people who look at the potential risk of nuclear power and believe that it is acceptable. Would you live next to a nuke plant? Would you place your children at risk?

WTH

[jacquelope]

70. I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant

than significantly further downwind of a coal power plant. A coal power plant is killing me and my family slowly even if it is a hundred miles away. It is directly responsible for the mercury content in the fish I buy. The potential risk of a nuclear plant versus the very real damage being done by traditional energy sources? The choice is obvious. Nuclear today, replaced by solar and renewable energy tomorrow.

And may your over-ripe tomato not be poisoned by coal-fired mercury.

[me b zola]

93. So you have come to accept that we are going to be poisoned

by people's greed, and you have chosen your poison.

No thanks for me, I will continue to demand safe & clean renewable energy. I may not get what I want, but I won't accept as okay what they are doing to us.

[spanone]

68. no nukes

[Cleita]

69. Why is it you nuke lovers keep putting in the only

alternative for nuke is coal or oil? It's disingenuous of you to ignore other sources in your propaganda attempts. We now have a more sophisticated technology with solar and wind. We still have hydropower, which keeps the lights of Las Vegas going. Also, the world did without electricity until the nineteenth century. So I'm sure as we wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and nuke energy, we may have to use less at first until we get power going with alternative energy. I mean really, have you ever seen the lights in Tokyo? I'm certain that waste usages like that of electricity, and like in Las Vegas can be powered down.

[jacquelope]

71. Hydroelectric power = damage to the environment

My view is replace fossil fuels with nuclear today, and replace nuclear with renewable sources in the future.

[Cleita]

73. Why don't you just skip that nuke step and go straight to

renewable sources? If you are so concerned about the environment, then you really should be very concerned with the nuclear risk factor to the environment.

[jacquelope]

76. Find a way to make that possible and I'll sign right up. n/t

.

[Cleita]

77. It's up to you to make it possible. You have to insist on

it. I, for one, am exploring the possibility of getting a petition up to shut down our nuke plant in favor of solar and wind energy, plenty of which we can produce in my area. But that takes activism. What do you think you can do?

[jacquelope]

85. I put solar on my roof and back yard. That's what I did.

I got one of those old RAV4-EVs, too. Waiting for Tesla Motors to come out with the new version.

Not trying to sound like a broken record but I'd take down the coal plants first; they generate more radioactive waste than nuclear plants, and they cause acid rain, mercury poisoning, global warming... when you do the math the coal plants are worse.

Frankly I don't know who to kick in the shins to get more solar going. And wind power can kill birds that fly through. I'd rather go for waste-to-energy plants or geothermal.

Maybe put a tube to Rush Limbaugh's mouth and ears and capture all that methane? :think:

[kristopher]

72. +1000

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

[chaska]

74. When you consider the fossil fuel inputs that go into building a....

nuke plant, the term "nuclear energy" is an oxymoron. Over its lifetime a nuclear plant will produce about as much energy as it took to build it.

Building nuclear plants is a stupid, dangerous, highly human thing to do.

We need to powerdown, way down, on ALL energy fronts.

[LAGC]

78. You first.

Try living without your computers or heat/air-conditioning, hot showers, etc. before you lecture the rest of us to reduce our energy consumption.

The more technologically advanced a society becomes, the more power its industries need to thrive.

We aren't going to be reducing our energy foot-print any time soon. We need power, the only question is what is the most cost-effective way of getting it while minimizing potential harm to the environment?

[chaska]

75. When you consider the fossil fuel inputs that go into building a....

nuke plant, the term "nuclear energy" is an oxymoron. Over its lifetime a nuclear plant will produce about as much energy as it took to build it.

Building nuclear plants is a stupid, dangerous, highly human thing to do.

We need to powerdown, way down, on ALL energy fronts.

[meow mix]

80. "Nuke is the only option" defeatism...

is just propaganda. guess the reinforcements are here

[upi402]

82. Welcome to DU jacquelope, but good luck with your agenda here

:hi:

[bhikkhu]

83. Here's my vote for "Using Less"

Its not hard either - you just do less stuff, buy less stuff, use less, travel less, accumulate less, etc.

[LAGC]

86. Why should we have to do less?

Energy does work for us, it gets things done. The more energy, the more productive people are.

Try living without your computers or heat/air-conditioning, hot showers, etc. before you lecture the rest of us to reduce our energy consumption.

The more technologically advanced a society becomes, the more power its industries need to thrive.

We aren't going to be reducing our energy foot-print any time soon. We need power, the only question is what is the most cost-effective way of getting it while minimizing potential harm to the environment?

[bhikkhu]

87. More a suggestion than a lecture

from one who has found that using less, doing less, consuming less, etc, can lead to a healthier and happier life.

[Terry in Austin]

94. Yeah, our American way of life is "not negotiable"

>> We need power, the only question is what is the most cost-effective way of getting it while minimizing potential harm to the environment?

Need or greed?

It's what got us into this mess in the first place. Abundant cheap energy from fossil fuels put us into this entitlement mentality, but as we finish squandering our fossil energy inheritance, we'll be forced to live within our means, energy-wise.

That means renewables, which can't even come close to replacing the sheer amount of energy that fossil fuels have given us. Oil peaked in 2005, coal isn't far behind.

Reduction in energy consumption won't be a matter of choice, so get it while you can!

:evilgrin:

[madokie]

89. Good f**king riddence

our chances of survival is much better with education and our present coal plants. Education to do better, Education to know better, than to rely on the nuclear power.

[Gravel Democrat]

90. Of course you can't get solar at night but you can store the energy, so you aren't up to date

on the tech

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

Solar One operated successfully from 1982 to 1988, proving that power towers work efficiently to produce utility-scale power from sunlight. The Solar One plant used water/steam as the heat-transfer fluid in the receiver; this presented several problems in terms of storage and continuous turbine operation. To address these problems, Solar One was upgraded to Solar Two, which operated from 1996 to 1999. Both systems had the capacity to produce 10 MW of power.<6>



The unique feature of Solar Two was its use of molten salt to capture and store the sun's heat. The very hot salt was stored and used when needed to produce steam to drive a turbine/generator that produces electricity. The system operated smoothly through intermittent clouds and continued generating electricity long into the night.<8>

Try to keep current

[etherealtruth]

91. Drastic reduction in the amount of energy we consume is the only answer

All methods of large scale energy production have grave consequences associated with them.

Diversification of the way we generate power is necessary .... but without a dramatic change in consumption we are simply trading risks (in the long run).