Can we all agree, at least, that nuclear power is not "clean"?

[grahamhgreen]

"So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.

Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all -- and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen."

- President Obama, SOTU, 2011.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Ferret Annica]

2. March 1988 I was arrested for protesting Nuke weapon's testing at Yucca Flats NV

No nukes! not in weapons, not for power and not sent into orbit.

[RC]

11. What about Nuclear Medicine?

And while you are at it, define 'Nuclear Power'. (Please do some research first.)
That is like saying 'Battery Power'. What kind of battery? How big?

[Ferret Annica]

19. What is your problem?

I know the issue, don't be insulting. And I was not talking about nuclear medicine. First and last post to you. If I wanted crap like your bait, I'd be posting in FReeperland.

You are on ignore.

[RC]

23. Reality must hurt, huh?

Nuclear medicine requires nuclear reactors. And my earlier question was a legitimate one. With Nuclear power, one size does not fit all.

That is the problem with some people, you for example, their minds are made up and no amount of new information will ever change it.
Me? I check out the new information here and elsewhere and even though the situation is bad in Japan, I under stand Nuclear technology well enough to know it is here to stay. You might as well except it.
It is fairly easy for me to separate the BS from facts on this subject. All that is needed is a reasonable open mind and some curiosity. Google helps too.

And since I am on ignore because you cannot except any information contrary to your cast in stone views, everyone but you will see this response. :silly:

[Ferret Annica]

27. But you don't know the difference between accept and except ;-)

Actually, I apologize for my terminal annoyance, but I post on many forums, and I just permanently signed off on one because a racist poster from another site I migrated away from to get away from him has nested there. So it goes. You were kind of in the prop wash of my ugly feelings about that.

I also know what the nuclear power generation and weapons industries are, and I have zero intention of compromising my intense opposition to these open Pandora boxes. And I will never stop opposing either. I never said I opposed all nuclear reactors. New information about blights and cancers on this planet don't change the fact weapons and nuclear power generation are blights and cancers on this planet.

I intend on working locally to help revive and grow opposition that will stop any more of these plants from ever being built in the U.S. again. I have done much non-violent protesting and grass roots work, so it is nothing more than life going on with me having to move back to a bigger priority that what I've been working on.

I am not opposed to aspects of nuclear medicine or nuclear power on deep space probes, so I have zero interest in talking about either.

Nuclear power plants generate too much waste, and the plants are too big. That leaves nothing to argue there, as no amount of talk or Googling will ever change that.

As for nuclear weapons, they need to be dismantled. Every single one of them, and international laws need to be passed making the ownership of any of these a death sentence for any government making them. And I'm here to tell you I absolutely am set in stone on that point.

Thanks for responding anyway. I am a reasonable person, and though I wish this situation in Japan never happened, you better believe it will be used to aggressively jump start the protest movement. And I like many others will in no way tolerate any new nuclear power plants in any situation whatsoever.

[yawnmaster]

3. Define "clean" please. eom

[Gregorian]

5. Clean is proportional to population.

Population is proportional to demand. Demand is why we needed the Bosch-Haber cycle to make nitrogen for fertilizer to feed more people. That alone takes 1% of all power used by our country. But it isn't just energy that is proportional, but water use, lumber (deforestation), and everything else.

So the bottom line once again is that clean comes back to sustainable. And sustainable comes back to what the planet can sustain with it's natural equilibrium process (which is now compromised due to global warming).

It's all about demand. Even politics.

[grahamhgreen]

6. Dictionary.com

clean
- 12 dictionary results

3.
free from pollution; unadulterated; pure: clean air; clean water.

16.
(of a nuclear weapon) producing little or no radioactive fallout.
17.
not radioactive.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clean

[yawnmaster]

12. according to those definitions, no power is clean. eom

[grahamhgreen]

16. So you agree, nuclear is not clean?

The presidents statement is untrue?

[yawnmaster]

28. I agree, that according to the definition of "clean" that you posted, no energy source is clean,

including solar, wind, coal, oil, and nuclear.

[grahamhgreen]

41. That is the dictionary definition. We agree that nuclear energy is not clean, yes?

And that a clean energy future can not include nuclear, yes?

[grahamhgreen]

46. Further, it is the radioctive waste that is one of the larger problems at Fukushima,

just as it is the waste from fossil fuels that make both of these methods of power generation dirty, not "clean".

There is little waste generated from wind, solar, tidal, geothermal or hydro, which is what makes them clean.

Nuclear and fossil are not in the pool of what most reasoned people would consider clean.

[FormerDittoHead]

4. Why are you against JOBS???

You know, like nuclear waste clean up, xray services, cancer treatments and burial services?

[unblock]

7. "clean" coal and natural gas aren't "clean" either

no form of energy extraction, production, and transmission is perfectly safe.

even solar energy causes deaths, for instance from falling.

the thing about nuclear energy is that its risk profile is very much like airplane travel. when it works, it produces a great deal of energy at an extremely low fatality rate. when it fails, it can fail spectacularly. we obsess over airplane crashes because they're spectacular and sudden, and it coulds our judgement of the long-term risks vs. something like natural gas or "clean" coal, which i have no doubt is vastly more lethal than nuclear on the whole, but the lethal nature of those forms of energy usually aren't as spectacular (though there is the occassional mining disaster or pipeline/tank explosion).

personally, i think a mix would be good, and of course i like things like solar and wind and geothermal, but i think the most important thing by far, now, is getting off petroleum, particularly oil. i'm willing to accept nuclear as part of the mix, though i insist that it be HEAVILY monitored and regulated.

[grahamhgreen]

8. But you agree, nuclear is not "clean"?

[unblock]

25. when it's working properly, then it's "clean"

but of course, you have to allow for times when it's not.

[RegieRocker]

38. Working properly? Can you say spent fuel? Not clean for eons.

[unblock]

40. you want 100% safe and pollutant free? stop using energy.

when you're talking about energy, "clean" or "risk" is a relative concept.

petroproducts and other chemicals are nasty forever, or nearly so.

spent fuel does have the advantage of being containable, although it takes constant vigilence against corporate greed and laziness to minimize risk. which is one of several reasons why i think utilities should never be privatized, but that's another story....

[grahamhgreen]

42. Fact is, we can all agree now that nuclear is not in the pool when when reasonable people talk about

clean energy.

It Is one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet.

[Spoonman]

9. Can we all agree, at least, that a nuclear power plant

SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BUILT NEAR ONE OF THE WORLDS MOST ACTIVE FAULT LINES?

Is there no one else in this world that realizes this was CAUSED by an earthquake?

There a hundreds of threads on DU that blame the technology, and not where and by whom it was located!

[uponit7771]

17. +1

[grahamhgreen]

43. Which will always be a problem with nuclear. There are too many

Variables to make it safe enough tO be cost effective.

[Zorra]

45. An earthquake can happen anywhere at any time.

Doesn't matter where a nuclear reactor is located.

Putting a reactor on a fault line is what happens when you place control of extremely dangerous but highly profitable technology in the hands of greedy multi-national corporate interests.

And greedy multi-national corporate interests control them all.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[grahamhgreen]

15. clean

Dictionary.com

clean
- 12 dictionary results

3.
free from pollution; unadulterated; pure: clean air; clean water.

16.
(of a nuclear weapon) producing little or no radioactive fallout.
17.
not radioactive.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Dappleganger]

13. Definitely agree, it should all be shut down.

[Johonny]

14. hasn't coal already stolen that word

Synonyms antiseptic, chaste, fair, immaculate, pristine, spick-and-span (or spic-and-span), spotless, squeaky-clean, stainless, unsoiled, unstained, unsullied



I'd go with Chaste. Chaste Nuclear

[uponit7771]

18. I don't think any energy source is 100% "clean", nuke power CAN be one of the safest techs out there

...BUT we have to deal with people who build plants near fault lines and run them past their expiration date.

I blame human error more than the technology here.

[grahamhgreen]

21. So what was Obama talking about then?

[BeFree]

22. Possibly safe

But it is not safe now. The waste problem is unsafe. Deadly.

[grahamhgreen]

24. NOT CLEAN, NOT SAFE, NOT a part of a clean & renewable energy future.

[underseasurveyor]

26. Nuclear power is NOT clean!!!!!

Agreed:thumbsup:

[Codeine]

29. Clean is a relative term, like anything else in life.

In a strictly comparative sense nuclear energy is quite clean, if not in an absolute sense. A good thing the real world rarely runs on absolutes.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

31. what about radioactive waste from nuclear plants?

That is the antithesis of CLEAN

[Codeine]

32. It's also contained and controllable, when handled correctly.

As opposed to other major sources of energy, where the waste is simply pumped wholesale into our atmosphere and lungs. By that standard it's much, MUCH cleaner.

That said, storing in on the fourth floor of the reactor enclosure is a poor idea. I Unrec that design.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

33. clean as compared to, say, wind or solar energy?

[Codeine]

34. Those are sideshows in the energy world.

We need actual energy to run our civilization. Solar and wind are novelties. The heavy lifting needs to be handled by nuclear.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

35. Let's turn them into the main attractions and find new ones that are equally clean.

I don't believe it would be that hard to do.

[jacquelope]

36. Solar = NOT a sideshow. Please read this link.

http://www.livescience.com/4824-solar-power-rule-20-years-futurists.html

[Codeine]

37. Solar has been the "next big thing, just around the corner"

since I was a kid. I don't believe the hype.

[jacquelope]

39. Don't believe the fossil fuel propaganda, either

We had electric cars back in the mid 1800's. We have the technology to put solar on every rooftop now.

What happened to both technologies?

The fossil fuel industry propaganda wiped them out and is laying them low.

[grahamhgreen]

44. Renewables provide 20% of the worlds power. Not a sideshow. A major player.

[Sabriel]

30. Did you miss your nightly pill?

I'll see that Nurse Ratched brings it for you.

In the meantime, have some more of this delicious koolaid-type drink.

[grahamhgreen]

47. Thanks!

I need it!