Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

how has nuclear power become politizized?



seriously, the right says Japan is no problem. Left says, calamity.

Does everything have to be either or?

God damn you middle-ground, thinking types!

I think it says in the bible that we're supposed to stone you now.

It doesn't have to be either. It is a sensative subject, and goes beyond normal political boundaries.

It is funny how freaked out some people are - and how clueless about radiation in general people are.

From the left, anything nuke=bad. From the right, there is an anti-environment backlash being led by the rightwing media, that really racheted up during the Gore years - as a way to attack Clinton/Gore.

it just seems like a topic that should be neither left or right, but somehow it has become one.

What about those of us who don't really give a sh!t either way..?

Chizzang wrote:What about those of us who don't really give a sh!t either way..?

I agree. I have no idea aboat the whole uproar over minor levels of radiation floating over the Pacific. But it seems to be a major calimity in the making if you watch the news. F'ing what ever.

It takes an earthquake and tsunami to get this kind of damage with nuclear power - it just takes a Tuesday morning to see huge damage in a coal mine. Not arguing over sources of energy here, but you very rarely hear of severe nuclear issues vs. mining problems.

ASUG8 wrote:It takes an earthquake and tsunami to get this kind of damage with nuclear power - it just takes a Tuesday morning to see huge damage in a coal mine. Not arguing over sources of energy here, but you very rarely hear of severe nuclear issues vs. mining problems.

Agreed..!!!
Fossil fuels are obsolete and dragging our nation into a pit from which we might never return
Our obsession with Oil and Coal is ridiculous

ASUG8 wrote:It takes an earthquake and tsunami to get this kind of damage with nuclear power - it just takes a Tuesday morning to see huge damage in a coal mine. Not arguing over sources of energy here, but you very rarely hear of severe nuclear issues vs. mining problems.

Yup

andy7171 wrote:how has nuclear power become politizized?



seriously, the right says Japan is no problem. Left says, calamity.

Does everything have to be either or?

It is no problem. This disaster isn't happening because of the dangers inherent in nuclear power. It's happening because the plants were only built for quakes up to 7.0 on the Richter Scale. If plants are in an area where earthquakes are a problem then that should be taken into consideration. Many buildings on the east coast are built with once-in-a-lifetime hurricanes in mind, why aren't buildings on these active fault lines built the same way?

Pwns wrote:

andy7171 wrote:how has nuclear power become politizized?



seriously, the right says Japan is no problem. Left says, calamity.

Does everything have to be either or?

It is no problem. This disaster isn't happening because of the dangers inherent in nuclear power. It's happening because the plants were only built for quakes up to 7.0 on the Richter Scale. If plants are in an area where earthquakes are a problem then that should be taken into consideration. Many buildings on the east coast are built with once-in-a-lifetime hurricanes in mind, why aren't buildings on these active fault lines built the same way?

A couple of things - the earthquake had an effective force of 7.0 at the plant - was built for a 7.7. The plant survived the earthquake fine. It was the power lines that got knocked out/and the diesel generators by the tsunami. This was the flaw - they didn't anticipate a 30' tsunami there. Had they, they would have been fine.

not as many libs as you think against nuclear power... the anti-nuke crowd is just very loud. and very ignorant.

the anti-nuke movement has been messing themselves over the growing support for nuclear power as part of a greener energy movement - they NEED to parlay this in to stopping it... this is a big moment for them (as they see it, it's the end of nukes...)

it's not so much conk v donk as it is two sides of the green movement pro nuke and anti nuke

Meanwhile Obummer is in Brazil visiting our old deep water drilling rigs

What I don't get is how people get all in a tither when risks they know to exist are realized. At least in some instances.

Like, 30 to 40 thousand people die each yearin the US in traffic accidents. We know that every time we get into a motor vehicle there is a risk. So do we suggest ceasing motor vehicle operation whenever we see that there was a motor vehicle accident?

We take risks when the benefit justifies it.

What has happened with the Japanese nuclear power plants should not change anybody's outlook on nuclear power plants. Nothing has happened to suggest that the level of risk is any different than it was thought to be. Japan knew it has earthquakes. Japan knew its coastal areas could be impacted by tsunamis.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:not as many libs as you think against nuclear power... the anti-nuke crowd is just very loud. and very ignorant.

the anti-nuke movement has been messing themselves over the growing support for nuclear power as part of a greener energy movement - they NEED to parlay this in to stopping it... this is a big moment for them (as they see it, it's the end of nukes...)

it's not so much conk v donk as it is two sides of the green movement pro nuke and anti nuke

The number continues to shrink with improvements in the field.

It appears we all agree that

1. nuclear power is not the bugaboo some greens make it out to be

and

2. nuclear power is the future

I'm onboard with that.

CID1990 wrote:It appears we all agree that

1. nuclear power is not the bugaboo some greens make it out to be

and

2. nuclear power is the future

I'm onboard with that.

1. nuclear power is not the bugaboo it was 30 years ago.

2. nuclear power is the short/medium term future.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:It appears we all agree that

1. nuclear power is not the bugaboo some greens make it out to be

and

2. nuclear power is the future

I'm onboard with that.

1. nuclear power is not the bugaboo it was 30 years ago.

2. nuclear power is the short/medium term future.

1. Natural gas is the only thing that will work in the short term.

2. Nuclear is the medium to long term b/c it will be at least 2020 for a plant that starts construction today.

3. The future is ?

HI54UNI wrote:

houndawg wrote:

1. nuclear power is not the bugaboo it was 30 years ago.

2. nuclear power is the short/medium term future.

1. Natural gas is the only thing that will work in the short term.

2. Nuclear is the medium to long term b/c it will be at least 2020 for a plant that start construction today.

3. The future is ?

Fusion, hopefully. But that's definitely long term, if at all.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:It appears we all agree that

1. nuclear power is not the bugaboo some greens make it out to be

and

2. nuclear power is the future

I'm onboard with that.

1. nuclear power is not the bugaboo it was 30 years ago.

2. nuclear power is the short/medium term future.

Other than fusion (if we ever figure it out), what will take the place of nuclear? What gives us a replenishable ability to crack water (without continuing present carbon emissions that we obsess about so much) for hydrogen other than nuclear?

Solar and wind won't even come close. When all the fossil fuels are either gone or too expensive, what else will there be?

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:

1. nuclear power is not the bugaboo it was 30 years ago.

2. nuclear power is the short/medium term future.

Other than fusion (if we ever figure it out), what will take the place of nuclear? What gives us a replenishable ability to crack water (without continuing present carbon emissions that we obsess about so much) for hydrogen other than nuclear?

Solar and wind won't even come close. When all the fossil fuels are either gone or too expensive, what else will there be?

Traveling wave reactors seem pretty promising; they might even make fusion unnecessary.

http://www.terrapower.com/Home.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, there's a danger to nuclear power, but it's been radically overblown in MSM. So long as a plant is properly constructed and there are proper disaster response SOPs in effect, it can be a VERY eco-friendly way to produce power.

You just gotta make sure someone trained by Hyman Rickover or one of his associates is building and operating the place. His group just about NEVER has problems. What happened in Japan was a fluke mass conflag which probably could have been foreseen and prevented. (Not the earthquake and tsunami, but how they affected the plant.)

andy7171 wrote:how has nuclear power become politizized?

This is nothing new, is it? I think for many people nuclear engery = nuclear weapons.

SuperHornet wrote:Yes, there's a danger to nuclear power, but it's been radically overblown in MSM. So long as a plant is properly constructed and there are proper disaster response SOPs in effect, it can be a VERY eco-friendly way to produce power.

You just gotta make sure someone trained by Hyman Rickover or one of his associates is building and operating the place. His group just about NEVER has problems. What happened in Japan was a fluke mass conflag which probably could have been foreseen and prevented. (Not the earthquake and tsunami, but how they affected the plant.)

You, Sir, are spot on.

I was going to mention ADM Rickover earlier.

There's a reason why Rickover's Navy is a good example to follow but an impossible goal to realize on the civilian side.

Navy reactors are small. That is one of the things that makes them inherently safe. They use much less fissile material, and are much stronger due to their smaller size. They are much more disaster proof than the big civlian reactors, and take exponentially less coolant. The US Navy has never had an at sea accident and ADM Rickover was absolutely obessive about safety.

On the civilian side, nuclear reactors are behemoths. The reactor vessels at the Daichi plant alone are each as big as a small house. They are much more difficult to harden properly, take oceans of water to keep cool, and when there's a big rumbler we all see what can happen. If the northeast Japanese coastal cities we each being powered by their own little reactors this would not be nearly the issue that it is.

Each town has its own reactor. Why won't that fly? Because of the fear of proliferation. Politically, there cannot be a nuke reactor in every village. People know so little about the technology that they believe what they see on the news as well as even in movies. It will be a long time before the layman will understand the inherent safety in smaller, Navy-style reactors. Even so, there is another reason why we have a few giant reactors instead of a bunch of little ones. The government has not figured out how to safe them from bad actors, so the conventional wisdom is to put all your dangerous nuclear fuel in one place, making it easier to protect. There is merit to this, but I think that there are some creative ideas out there to secure the smaller reactors. Nobody has trotted out any significant ideas however, because again, the layman will not be convinced that it is beneficial and actually safer to have a little reactor 2 miles away than it is to have a behemoth one 100 miles away. And so we will continue with the status quo for now.