why americans hate nuclear power

[evirus]

Does anyone have a link to this article, i remember reading it a while back and i think it raised some pretty good points.

[Caution]

1. fear and distrust of technology?

Anything else?

[AndyTiedye]

8. The Tendency For People Who Live Near Nuke Plants to Drop Dead of Cancer..

...might have something to do with it too.

[evirus]

21. wow, aircraft carriers and nuclear subs must be floating death traps then

seriously, lets see how many people who have lived on these nuclear powered ships (which need to generate power "on site" 24/7) have died of cancer

[Bluerthanblue]

25. you are trying to compare

the equivilent of your bathtub overflowing and the flooding in NOLA=

Do some research- Nuclear power plants and nuclear powered subs or aircraft carriers have little true comparison- This I have an understanding of-

There are ways of producing power from nuclear materials that don't produce as much waste, but we have yet to figure out a truly safe way of doing that- Fussion vs. Fission. One is far more effective, but unstable- and difficult to control- the other is less efficient, and very dirty, leaving behind much deadly debris.

[Caution]

29. Please do a little bit of research

nuclear power plant son ships and nuclear power plants on land do in fact have a LOT in common, modern nuclear power plants are in fact much safer than those that currently provide 20% of the power used in the US.

Fusion plants will use deuterium pulled from sea water. It isnt the material that is inherently dangerous it is the radiation caused by the nuclear reaction. The problems with nuclear power stem from the waste material. The good news is that much of the material which is currently considered waste will likely be used for fuel in the future and be rendered safe.

Do some reading on the subject, here is a good place to start.

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

your characteriszation of the differences between fusion and fission are not particularly accurate either. Fusion is neither more effective, unstable or difficult to control. The problem with fusion in current applications is that it requires more energy to create the nuclear reaction than the reaction provides, making it currently useless for power generation. Nuclear fission is MUCH more efficient and is responsible for much of the power around the world (approximately 70% of France's power comes from nuclear energy). Nuclear fission is dirty but not as nearly as dirty today as it was in the past and doesn't leave behind nearly as much material as it used to.

It's a shame that public perception of nuclear power has been so bad. As a result economically it has been difficult to maintain good research into more efficient, cleaner reactor design.

[Bluerthanblue]

36. I'll go with

the honest knowledge my very conservative and also very intelligent father imparted to me.
He worked the field- and was far more knowledgeable and HONEST about the danger, short-comings
and potential possible with nuclear power than anyone I've ever met- The most salient point he and I agreed on,(there were not many) was that nuclear power should NOT be promoted or used, until we have devised a CLEAR workable way of coping with the waste-

And power produced by fusion has been far more difficult to generate- But it does NOT require more 'energy to create than the reaction provides'- Two real benefits of fusion over fission is that it can be powered by very easily obtainable materials, water and lithium, is far less likely to explode, releasing harmful radiation into the surrounding atmosphere, or radioactive steam clouds- The radioactive waste it produces aren't 'spent fuel rods'- and contaminated water, but contaminated 'components'- In other words, 'dirty dishes'-. The sun is the most well known 'nuclear fusion plant' there is-

No one is against 'research' my father spent his life devoted to it- but putting systems into practice without having dealt with the problem of waste- and how to deal with it- (as opposed to sweeping it under the rug-- quite literally) Is insanity- and a monster that is going to come back bite us.

[lectrobyte]

2. NIMBY. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl didn't help any...

[sendero]

3. The biggest..

... problem is that of nuclear waste. It is a problem that I believe could be solved, but it will take leadership, and we don't have any of that.

People might as well get used to the idea of nuclear power, because we arent' going to have a lot of choice in the matter.

[politicat]

14. Do you realize that most nuclear waste comes from coal ash?

Coal, being carbon and very old, is a great sink for stray alpha, gamma and x-ray particles entering the atmosphere from space. It's had a long time to collect such particles, too, and is often found in close proximity to naturally occuring radioactive sources like radon gas and uranium. Oak Ridge National Lab has done extensive studies comparing the radiation dose rates of those who live near coal plants to those who live near 1970s tech level nuclear plants, and found that those who live near coal plants receive doses about 100 times higher than those who lived near compliant nuclear plants. Further, coal power generators put 801 tons of uranium in the environment (using 1982 numbers), compared to less than a just under 6 tons from U-235 sources. (US numbers only; 1982 used as a representative year.) Very little of this waste gets put into a nice safe repository to quietly turn into lead.... most of it is in the air, the water and the soil as ash. Some gets used in concrete, and for cinder blocks.

And this stuff is accumulative - the radioactive coal waste produced in 1950 is still hanging around, as is the waste produced in 1951, 52, 53, 54, etc.... The half-life is basically eternal in terms of human life.

http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/factshts/163-97/FS-163-97.html

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

The safest place to live is in a community that uses nuclear power. The waste constitutes a fraction of the waste and a fraction of the danger of that waste and danger produced by smelters, silicon chip manufacturers, plastics manufacturers, oil refineries and hospitals.

[longship]

4. Irresponisble nuclear policies.

It's simple. The US has never done things right with regards to nuclear power. The rules are fairly simple. First you figure out how to do it, then you do it.

The extent to which you do not plan on the disposal of nuclear waste, which is *not* a natural thing on this earth, is the extent to which you have not completed step one. It's a very tough question, and putting it inside a mountain in the midst of an earthquake zone might not be a good idea.

Until this particular knotty problem is solved--I mean solved in a way that we do not have an entire state's residents protesting about the waste being stored in their territory--we should not be pursuing further nuclear power development. This may mean that we *never* again build a fission-based nuclear power plant.

Given that there are sufficient resources available to satisfy all our needs without nuclear fission I suggest that we tap those resources first. Solar, geothermal, etc., I know these need development, but it is foolish to pursue a resource where we have not solved the technical issues. And let us be clear here, until we solve the spent fuel problem we haven't done that.

[High Plains]

11. We are not going to be able to avoid resorting to nuclear power

if we want to keep the lights on. I don't think the alternative energy miracle is going to be sufficient.

We've still got coal...

Hydroelectric is pretty much maxed out...

Natural gas is running low...

Oil is running low and getting more expensive...

It looks like nukes or back to the 19th Century.

[oscar111]

15. u forgot solar and wind

danes using a lot of windmills.. or is it germany? Offshore windmills

eno wind power in texas and the dakotas for the entire national grid to be powered.

solar is also there... barstow calif using solar boiler and mirrors.

nuke power equals nuke war, in the third world. Nuke power is just a sham to get their hands on the fuel for a bomb. That is a good reason to ban nuke power globally. war is quite expensive side cost of nuke power plants, absent from wind and solar.

[High Plains]

19. I don't think solar and wind are going to make the difference.

I think we have some real hard choices staring us in the face and we, as a society, are simply covering our eyes. I don't think any combination of alternative fuel sources is going to replace oil.

The sacred "American way of life" is running out of gas.

[Nutmegger]

5. Waste is the issue

I also believe it can be solved but I don't think any company will spend extra $$$$$$$ to research something for the good of the world. Until that is solved, we need to concentrate all of our resources in non-renewables such as wind and hydro. The power company here introduced a plan where you can choose to have your power come from non-renewables. All you have to do is check a box on the bill; you will spend a little bit extra but it's a great program because now that it's easy, demand for non-renewables is increasing.

[evirus]

23. the problem is that people dont realise radioactive materals degrade

...over time, half life is the term used to the amount of time the materal burns off 50%

[MercutioATC]

30. Do YOU have 713 million years to wait?

The half-life of U-235 is 713 million years.

http://vcourseware.calstatela.edu/VirtualDating/files/2.0_HalfLife.html

[MercutioATC]

31. self-delete..

.

[MercutioATC]

32. Damn! self-delete again.

.

[Loonman]

6. France has a bunch of nuclear power plants

They never seem to have any problems.

[SoCalDem]

10. I thought I read somewhere that they are trying to

get away from nuclear power..:shrug:

[Nutmegger]

18. Well they are building that nuclear fusion plant.

Check it out from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239.stm

[MadHound]

12. That is because the French are a bit smarter than we are

They recycle their fuel rods, melt down the waste metal, burn the combustibles, filter the liquids and wind up with a much smaller volume of waste than the US does. However they still store this waste either above or below ground, there to emit for a long, long time.

[Bluerthanblue]

22. where and what do they

do with their spent fuel? Its a REALITY- we should not be using any nuclear
power plants until we come up with a TRUE and WORKABLE way of dealing with the
left over but seriously dangerous by-product.

I fought the Seabrook Nuclear Powerplant with all i had- to no avail. And then had to
protest the DOE trying to make our area the nuclear waste dump for the north-east.
Their idea was to bury it in heavy duty plastic, in the granite that is so prevelant
where we live- Yeah, right-

We 'won'- but we are all losing. The 'half life' of all the shit being produced in all
the nuclear plants in this country is going to be a disaster when people look at the issue,
instead of sweeping it under the 'rug'- NO ONE has an adequate plan on how to deal with it.
And it is deadly- There was a law (federal I believe) passed after our fight with the feds,
that requires every state to keep their own nuclear waste within their states boundries-

We shouldn't be using something to produce energy, when we haven't fully dealt with the
implications of our actions-

you'd think we'd learn-

our children will, and theirs, if there are any.

[evirus]

24. do you honestly beleave a waste dump is hazardous all the time?

i mean think, they arnt gonna come up in dump trucks and just dig a hole and fill it up with the stuff, there are regulations on how the waste is stored

[Bluerthanblue]

27. do some research- you'll be amazed

at how poorly we have dealt with this VERY serious disaster in the making-
You want to talk about 'dirty bombs'????

They'd be tea parties. I'm serious, and I'm more aware than I want to be- My father was a "Rocket Scientest"- literally- and even he- a republican, non-tree hugger, pragmatist, warned that we were playing with something FAR worse than fire.

He said Fusion was the answer, but it was a challenge that no one had truly gotten a handle on- It is far more dangerous to use this method, but the 'debris' is far less toxic-

He designed and patented a nuclear powered heart pump- that the company he worked with had scrapped, because if the person with the 'pump' were to be run over by a train (yeah, pretty unlikely eh?) the amount of radiation the general population around the victim was exposed to would be unacceptable- According to the FEDERAL GOVT- (known for a lack of concern for the dangers of exposure to potential radioactive hazzards)- this was in the late 80's

You honestly trust this government to be safe with nuclear materials? Or honest???
i was young once too- for a very very short time.

[kenny blankenship]

26. It's a nationalized industry too.

they are a net energy exporter because of it, selling electricity to Italy among other countries.

[orwell]

7. The first step...

...is to insulate our houses. We recently built a superinsulated home (R40 roof, R32 floor, R22 walls, Low E windows) and our energy bills are $60 to $70 per month in Winter.

There is no simple answer for the increased needs for energy as GDP grows. New power generation will never keep up. Conservation on the other hand has dramatic effects on the need for new plants.

[MadHound]

13. Actually alternatives are an off the shelf technology that will work

If we would simply implement them. There was a study done in 1991 by the DOE of all of the US energy resources. It found that there is enough harvestable wind resources in three states, North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas, to supply the entire US electrical needs, including those factored in for growth, through the year 2030. Hook this up with things other off the shelf technologies, like solar, biodiesel, etc., and you have an easy, simply plan for supplying the energy needs of the US. It is simply a matter of getting the government and corporate America to start thinking beyond the next quarter's financial statement in order to implement this.

[Odin2005]

9. 3-Mile Island.

The Eco-Luddites used that to go fearmongering.

[oscar111]

16. that doesnt mean they are wrong.. by coincidence, they are right

Or maybe not just coincidence... i think they use good logic in their ideas, much of the time. Judge them issue by issue. See my re further up this thread

[Raydawg1234]

17. we are going to need more nuclear power, with the reality of the scaceity

of oil. Must use it safely though.

[evirus]

20. from what i remember

there are several issues addressed in the article, from memory ill some up the points

3 mile island: vary low resualting injury/death
(wikipedia:In the end, the reactor was brought under control. No identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred (a government report concluded that "the projected number of excess fatal cancers due to the accident ... is approximately one."))

charnobal: old reactor design compared to today's standerds

materal useable for nuclear weapons: the materal's are structured specificly for nuclear power and takes a lot of work to restructure for weapons purposes

waste: waste can be reduced as the materal after use is still radioactive and can be used for further power generation

radiation: held by the plant's structure(duh, this is kind of obvious dont you think?)

thats all i can remember right now about the article

[greendog]

28. You might find this interesting...

...

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

[Bluerthanblue]

34. Even more than interesting- Ghost Town ... please DO go

look and read this link- it is very honest- interesting, and depressingly real.

(I was just showing this sight to my son- and we were discussing some show he saw years ago, where some woodcutters came into the hospital very sick with radiation poisoning- turned out one of the trees they felled broke open an old 'cesiium' powered navivation light- for some aircraft from during the cold war years-)

Everyone who believes that nuclear power isn't harmful, and is safe should read this womans site.
Sure Cherynobl was a 'bad design' and a series of unfortunate events, but the reality that we have yet found a way to neuturalize the danger of radioactive waste is enough reason to not play with matches in a fireworks factory.

[stevedeshazer]

35. I just read that whole thing, I recommend everyone read it

Chernobyl. Wow.

[MercutioATC]

33. I have no doubt that nuclear power plants have fewer harmiul emissions...

...what concerns me is the 713 MILLION year half-life of the fuel (and the fact that we have no idea how to provide long-term storage or disposal).

[baldguy]

37. Remember when Bush first took over?

They talked about building 300-500 new nuclear power plants? They were gonna solve our energy problems once & for all.

Funny, you don't hear them talking about that anymore.