It is Inconsistent to Build Nuclear Power Plants While Claiming to "Keep America Safe"

[grahamhgreen]

Obviously, if American nuclear power plants were attacked either by terrorists, or a foreign powers air strikes during a real hot war, the resulting damage to our environment and economy would be devastating.

Just imagine a targeted strike on all 107 of our nuclear plants. That's 107 nuclear disasters the same or worse than the disaster at the GE/Fukushima plant.

The costs would be incalculable (GE/Fukushima has been calculated at over $300 billion), and our way of life would be threatened. Our ability to work, grow food, and even drink water would degenerate rapidly over large areas. Indeed, a single terrorist attack on the Terrorist Attack at Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant has been estimated to cost up to 1/2 million lives and 2.1 trillion dollars (http://bit.ly/epXFPA)

America could be brought to it's knees simply by attacking our power plants.

Continued construction of these plants, while claiming to want to "keep America safe" is logically inconsistent. Nuclear power should be abandoned immediately, America does not need it.




OTOH, building the same amount of power capacity through wind turbines, would make our electricity generation difficult to target (you have to hit hundreds of windmills vs one nuke plant). Not only that, but wind is cheaper than nuclear as we can see from this DEC 2010 DOE chart:

[HopeHoops]

1. I was in nuke plant control rooms in the early 80's. They were vintage early 1960 technology.

I'm not shitting you. Huge black dials, big needle gauges, large neon bulbs, metal toggle switches, the works.

There's a reason for that. The approval process takes YEARS and any changes damn near re-start the clock. Once the control room design is cleared, it is pretty much set in stone. Unfortunately, and the reason for why I was there, it is often necessary for an operator to traverse a long path to accomplish what should be a simple task - throw a switch here, go around to the back to read a gauge, go to another panel to turn a dial, and back to the first place to throw a switch. That's not a great scenario for handling a crisis.

I'm amazed that more of the fuckers haven't melted down.

[upi402]

8. Thanks for the insight.

I'm a little familiar with what you're talking about. DDC control and PLC's can be sketchy too. It's odd that DC, like from solar generation. could give electronics 6 sigma high quality power that make them more stable.

Now we convert DC to AC and then computers' power supplies create heat and noise again converting it back to AC once more. A simple power divider could deliver clean DC, no heat, no harmonic distortion... but we can't waste dimes developing that, we got dollars to spend on nuke plants!:banghead:

[hayu_lol]

2. You fail to note how many 'nuke' plants have been built in the...

past 40 years. Because of our inability to continue research and development, we are still using(warning: anology)propeller driven plants while other parts of the world have graduated to jet driven plants. Compare the death and injury total of the last 40 years in nuke plants/mines etc to coal plants with their poisonous fly ash dumps.

The reactors in Japan operated properly during this earthquake(as designed)but only failed when all outside power was eliminated. Further, all movement(roads)were destroyed by the quake/tsunami.

We have a problem with spent(read contaminated)fuel rods because research and development in the US was stopped years ago by the 'hand wringers.' England and France do process their spent fuel rods in quantity and the processed fuel rods go back into the reactors.

Lots wrong with your one-sided thread starter.

Sabotage in wind farms is much easier than you would think...they are mostly isolated and unmanned much of the time.

You need to take a closer look at the propaganda you posted above.

[neverforget]

3. "failed when all outside power was eliminated" what about the backup

generators in the basement that were flooded by a tsunami? The thing about nuclear power is that you just can't turn it off as it's the gift that keeps on giving.

[grahamhgreen]

5. Interesting that

we hit on the same point!

[grahamhgreen]

4. You state they "only failed when all outside power was eliminated"

So you are saying that a power failure - not even the result of a terrorist or military attack - can result in this?

[hayu_lol]

6. You might want to google Bill Wattenberg...

and do some serious reading.

Of course much of the control systems are out of date...research has been slowed to a trickle over the past 40 years--on reactors as well as reprocessing plants. This allowed England, France, and now, China, to become the leaders in safer nuclear technology.

Hand-wringers might want to turn off the earth's own reactor(in the mantle)where fission is an ongoing process. The heat from this fission has kept our planet relatively warm so that we don't all turn into chunks of ice.

If you are anti-nuke, then do the suggested reading at Bill's site. Compare his 'facts' with your own.

Over the next few years, we will be building over 300 new coal-fired generating plants.

[grahamhgreen]

7. By your statement, a power failure can result in death, food and water contamination,

and massive economic damage (estimated at over $300 billion).

Next, Why would we build coal plants when wind is cheaper, safer, and cleaner?

From the DOE 12/2010: