Tea Bagging nuclear power?

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/business/energy-environment/11power.html?_r=1&ref=business

Constellation just pulled out of negotiations to build a nuclear power plant in Maryland. They say the governmet subsidy is too small. Also, they were counting on natural gas to cost twice as much and the climate bill to give them 25 dollars a ton on co2. The Baggers will certainly kill the climate bill. Plans are still underway to build in NC and GA because they both have regulated energy markets and the suppliers can pass along costs for a nuclear plant, even it cost way more than a conventional plant. When the Tea Baggers take over those states, I assume those nukes plants will be goners as soon as the Baggers deregulate energy.

So, what can Tea Bagging America expect in the way of Nuclear Power?

First off, I assume they will end government subsidies for building nuke plants. Then they will abolish all regulations in regard to safety, etc. I wonder if the ability to make a nuke plant without any government mandated safety regs will equal out? Clearly no one will make a nuke plant today, but if energy prices go up, will they be made?

Secondly, would the Tea Baggers remove the governments protection of nuke plants against lawsuits if the plant has an accident and kills people or destroys property? Hmm.

Third, I guess the cost of fuel for nuke plants will go up, since the government will no longer make the fuel and sell it at a loss to the nuke plants?


So, here's my guess. Once energy prices go back up, privately set up corporations for each new nuke plant would be set up. Since the corporations only asset is the plant, if it melts down, the investors will only be out their money, but the utilities will still be in business. The cheapest possible plants would therefore be made. Since there would be no OSHA or
EPA plant workers could be exposed to however much radiation the plant owners decide is safe. Cutting down on costs for shielding.
The big savings for nuke plant owners will be the fact they no longer need to put away money for decommissioning. Once the plant is no longer economically viable, they will just declare bankruptcy and walk away.
 
Last edited:

rcpratt

Lifer
Jul 2, 2009
10,433
110
116
Yay, we haven't had a nuke thread in awhile.

edit: The nuclear industry absolutely could regulate itself (see: INPO) if they had to.

I have a fair amount of experience here, seeing as I'm working on the project that is likely to be the first approved COLA under the new regs. We are going to be building this plant eventually, likely with a partner or investor, pretty much no matter what happens. Guess what, natural gas isn't going to remain at rock-bottom prices for the rest of eternity.
 
Last edited:

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
I am pretty sure its the "tea baggers" who want nuclear power but its the tree hugging hippies who have been stopping it.

You know, the same people that block the construction of cell phone towers in Berkley because they cause cancer.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
My fingers broke through the toilet paper this morning and I'm certain those teabaggers are to blame. They're responsible for everything that's wrong in America.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
I am pretty sure its the "tea baggers" who want nuclear power but its the tree hugging hippies who have been stopping it.

You know, the same people that block the construction of cell phone towers in Berkley because they cause cancer.

The fundamental tenets of the tea baggers are to remove federal regulations and government subsidies.

And if you read the article nuke plants aren't being built because without government subsidies they are not economically feasible.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
73,155
34,470
136
I am pretty sure its the "tea baggers" who want nuclear power but its the tree hugging hippies who have been stopping it.
Nope. It's the capitalists who killed nuclear power. It costs too much to build and no one wants to insure it. Too much financial risk for too little gain. Natural gas plants are cheaper to build and easier to insure. Capital moved past nuclear. Only when government steps in to distort the market does nuclear look good from a financial perspective.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
I am pretty sure its the "tea baggers" who want nuclear power but its the tree hugging hippies who have been stopping it.

You know, the same people that block the construction of cell phone towers in Berkley because they cause cancer.

Nope. It's the capitalists who killed nuclear power. It costs too much to build and no one wants to insure it. Too much financial risk for too little gain. Natural gas plants are cheaper to build and easier to insure. Capital moved past nuclear. Only when government steps in to distort the market does nuclear look good from a financial perspective.

It's actually pretty shocking how little the right wing actually knows about the world.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
The fundamental tenets of the tea baggers are to remove federal regulations and government subsidies.

No they aren't.

Got any other straw man arguments you'd like me to refute in 2 seconds flat for ya?
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Nope. It's the capitalists who killed nuclear power. It costs too much to build and no one wants to insure it. Too much financial risk for too little gain. Natural gas plants are cheaper to build and easier to insure. Capital moved past nuclear. Only when government steps in to distort the market does nuclear look good from a financial perspective.

Well nuclear power sure was cost effective and cheap in the 60's and 70's, so much so that it was thought electricity would soon become "too cheap to meter". So what changed? What made the plants become so expensive when they were originally such a bargain?
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Gee, it couldn't be unrealistic government regulations causing that high cost could it? Nyah!

BTW - What sexual innuendo would we refer to the democrats as? They're donkeys, and they screw America.. maybe the "Ass Packers"? I wonder if I would be allowed to make a bunch of threads using 'Ass Packer' in the title..
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
73,155
34,470
136
Well nuclear power sure was cost effective and cheap in the 60's and 70's, so much so that it was thought electricity would soon become "too cheap to meter". So what changed? What made the plants become so expensive when they were originally such a bargain?
Nuclear power was heavily subsided from the start through the 70s. The government built the enrichment plants, subsidized uranium exploration and development, and agreed to handle generated waste (yeah they lied but it kept the life cycle costs down at the time). Pre Three Mile Island no one gave much thought to catastrophic loss potential (yes, I know there were no losses at TMI but it got insurers thinking about the possibilities, rightly or wrongly).
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
I'm with the Teabaggers on this one. If nuclear power isn't commercially viable, it shouldn't be done. The right and much of the left (including myself until recently) plays down the risks and costs because that seems to be the trendy thing to do.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,817
6,778
126
Home schooling isn't big on nuclear physics but they remember the Tea Bag Island nuclear disaster.
 

rcpratt

Lifer
Jul 2, 2009
10,433
110
116
Well I did a search for Nuclear Power on that page and it generated 120 hits. I'll get back to you next September.
You're looking for 10CFR1 thru 10CFR200. Mostly 50 and 52. It'll probably take you longer than next September.

I'm with the Teabaggers on this one. If nuclear power isn't commercially viable, it shouldn't be done. The right and much of the left (including myself until recently) plays down the risks and costs because that seems to be the trendy thing to do.
nukepra.png


Look at those crazy risks. And that's from the 70s. Risks now are even lower.
 
Last edited:

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
73,155
34,470
136
Well I did a search for Nuclear Power on that page and it generated 120 hits. I'll get back to you next September.
So you admit then that you were talking through your ass when you suggested unrealistic regulation? Good, that is the first step on the path to wisdom.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
rcpratt, I'm not worried about fatalities at a nuclear power plant. I'm worried about the fact that the same kind of people who ran the Deepwater Horizon rig are the ones who run nuclear power plants. Yeah, no fatalities is real nice when your region is permanently contaminated by radioactivity. The risk is small but the effect is astronomically catastrophic. That's enough for me to simply choose to build a house and live elsewhere. This is one case where NIMBY really applies.
 
Last edited:

RedChief

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
533
0
81
I'm with the Teabaggers on this one. If nuclear power isn't commercially viable, it shouldn't be done. The right and much of the left (including myself until recently) plays down the risks and costs because that seems to be the trendy thing to do.

The problem though is the left thinks that if it isn't solar or wind, we shouldn;t be building it.

Regardless, nuke power would be much more viable if we moved away from plutonium/uraniume/etc to thorium based reactors.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
No they aren't.

Got any other straw man arguments you'd like me to refute in 2 seconds flat for ya?

From Wiki:

Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation

Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%)

Wow. Found this in under 10 seconds. It gets more interesting when you hear the tea bag candidates.
 

rcpratt

Lifer
Jul 2, 2009
10,433
110
116
rcpratt, I'm not worried about fatalities at a nuclear power plant. I'm worried about the fact that the same kind of people who ran the Deepwater Horizon rig are the ones who run nuclear power plants. Yeah, no fatalities is real nice when your region is permanently contaminated by radioactivity. The risk is small but the effect is astronomically catastrophic. That's enough for me to simply choose to build a house and live elsewhere. This is one case where NIMBY really applies.
I can only assume you know nothing about the nuclear culture in American plants. Putting it on the same level as DH is frankly hilarious.

Example - the outage at a nearby plant may be delayed because the crane, a non-safety system, had some licensing "issues" identified. The probabilistic risk assessment for the crane during a seismic event (for the few hours that the crane is in operation [plant shut down]) was found to be less than an order of magnitude off from the initial safety analysis report (and we're talking 10^-9 here) due to some new computer calcs. The outage may be delayed and millions of dollars per day could be lost...despite the fact that this scenario could not possibly involve any kind of radionuclide release.

The consequences might be "astronomically catastrophic", but the corresponding probability is even more astronomically infinitesimal.

Also, the residents of the town where a nearby potential new reactor is in the licensing phase are giddy about the prospect of a new plant. And it's a nice town. Go preach NIMBY to them, I suppose. Maybe they've just been huffing the I-131 for too many years to know the difference, eh?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,817
6,778
126
That one disaster that caused zero adverse health effects?

March 24, 2009

30 Years and Counting
People Died at Three Mile Island
By HARVEY WASSERMAN

People died--and are still dying--at Three Mile Island.

As the thirtieth anniversary of America's most infamous industrial accident approaches, we mourn the deaths that accompanied the biggest string of lies ever told in US industrial history.

As news of the accident poured into the global media, the public was assured there were no radiation releases.

That quickly proved to be false.

The public was then told the releases were controlled and done purposely to alleviate pressure on the core.

Both those assertions were false.

The public was told the releases were "insignificant."

But stack monitors were saturated and unusable, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission later told Congress it did not know---and STILL does not know---how much radiation was released at Three Mile Island, or where it went.

Using unsubstantiated estimates of how much radiation was released, the government issued average doses allegedly received by people in the region, which it assured the public were safe. But the estimates were utterly meaningless, among other things ignoring the likelihood that high doses of concentrated fallout could come down heavily on specific areas.

Official estimates said a uniform dose to all persons in the region was equivalent to a single chest x-ray. But pregnant women are no longer x-rayed because it has long been known a single dose can do catastrophic damage to an embryo or fetus in utero.

The public was told there was no melting of fuel inside the core.

But robotic cameras later showed a very substantial portion of the fuel did melt.

The public was told there was no danger of an explosion.

But there was, as there had been at Michigan's Fermi reactor in 1966. In 1986, Chernobyl Unit Four did explode.

The public was told there was no need to evacuate anyone from the area.

But Pennsylvania Governor Richard Thornburgh then evacuated pregnant women and small children. Unfortunately, many were sent to nearby Hershey, which was showered with fallout.

In fact, the entire region should have been immediately evacuated. It is standard wisdom in the health physics community that---due in part to the extreme vulnerability of human embryos, fetuses and small children, as well as the weaknesses of old age---there is no safe dose of radiation, and none will ever be found.

The public was assured the government would follow up with meticulous studies of the health impacts of the accident.

In fact, the state of Pennsylvania hid the health impacts, including deletion of cancers from the public record, abolition of the state's tumor registry, misrepresentation of the impacts it could not hide (including an apparent tripling of the infant death rate in nearby Harrisburg) and much more.

The federal government did nothing to track the health histories of the region's residents.

In fact, the most reliable studies were conducted by local residents like Jane Lee and Mary Osborne, who went door-to-door in neighborhoods where the fallout was thought to be worst. Their surveys showed very substantial plagues of cancer, leukemia, birth defects, respiratory problems, hair loss, rashes, lesions and much more.

A study by Columbia University claimed there were no significant health impacts, but its data by some interpretations points in the opposite direction. Investigations by epidemiologist Dr. Stephen Wing of the University of North Carolina, and others, led Wing to warn that the official studies on the health impacts of the accident suffered from “logical and methodological problems.” Studies by Wing and by Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry official, being announced this week at Harrisburg, significantly challenge official pronouncements on both radiation releases and health impacts.

Gundersen, a leading technical expert on nuclear engineering, says:
“When I correctly interpreted the containment pressure spike and the doses measured in the environment after the TMI accident, I proved that TMI's releases were about one hundred times higher than the industry and the NRC claim, in part because the containment leaked. This new data supports the epidemiology of Dr. Steve Wing and proves that there really were injuries from the accident. New reactor designs are also effected, as the NRC is using its low assumed release rates to justify decreases in emergency planning and containment design."

Data unearthed by radiologist Dr. Ernest Sternglass of the University of Pittsburgh, and statisticians Jay Gould (now deceased) and Joe Mangano of New York have led to strong assertions of major public health impacts. On-going work by Sternglass and Mangano clearly indicates that "normal" reactor radiation releases of far less magnitude that those at TMI continue to have catastrophic impacts on local populations.

Anecdotal evidence among the local human population has been devastating. Large numbers of central Pennsylvanians suffered skin sores and lesions that erupted while they were out of doors as the fallout rained down on them. Many quickly developed large, visible tumors, breathing problems, and a metallic taste in their mouths that matched that experienced by some of the men who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, and who were exposed to nuclear tests in the south Pacific and Nevada.

A series of interviews conducted by Robbie Leppzer and compiled in a “a two-hour public radio documentary VOICES FROM THREE MILE ISLAND give some indication of the horrors experienced by the people of central Pennsylvania.

They are further underscored by harrowing broadcasts from then-CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite warning that “the world has never known a day quite like today. It faced the considerable uncertainties and dangers of the worst nuclear power plant accident of the atomic age. And the horror tonight is that it could get much worse.”

In March of 1980, I went into the region and compiled a range of interviews clearly indicating widespread health damage done by radiation from the accident. The survey led to the book KILLING OUR OWN, co-authored with Norman Solomon, Robert Alvarez and Eleanor Walters which correlated the damage done at TMI with that suffered during nuclear bomb tests, atomic weapons production, mis-use of medical x-rays, the painting of radium watch dials, uranium mining and milling, radioactive fuel production, failed attempts at waste disposal, and more.

My research at TMI also uncovered a plague of death and disease among the area's wild animals and farm livestock. Entire bee hives expired immediately after the accident, along with a disappearance
of birds, many of whom were found scattered dead on the ground. A rash of malformed pets were born and stillborn, including kittens that could not walk and a dog with no eyes. Reproductive rates among the
region's cows and horses plummeted.

Much of this was documented by a three-person investigative team from the Baltimore News-American, which made it clear that the problems could only have been caused by radiation. Statistics from Pennsylvania's Department of Agriculture confirmed the plague, but the state denied its existence, and said that if it did exist, it could not have been caused by TMI.

In the mid-1980s the citizens of the three counties surrounding Three Mile Island voted by a margin of 3:1 to permanently retired TMI Unit One, which had been shut when Unit Two melted. The Reagan Administration trashed the vote and re-opened the reactor, which still operates. Its owners now seek a license renewal.

Some 2400 area residents have long-since filed a class action lawsuit demanding compensation for the plague of death and disease visited upon their families. In the past quarter-century they have been denied access to the federal court system, which claims there was not enough radiation released to do such harm. TMI’s owners did quietly pay out millions in damages to area residents whose children were born with genetic damage, among other things. The payments came in exchange for silence among those receiving them.

But for all the global attention focused on the accident and its health effects, there has never been a binding public trial to test the assertion by thousands of conservative central Pennsylvanians that radiation from TMI destroyed their lives.

So while the nuclear power industry continues to assert that "no one died at Three Mile Island," it refuses to allow an open judicial hearing on the hundreds of cases still pending.

As the pushers of the "nuclear renaissance" demand massive tax- and rate-payer subsidies to build yet another generation of reactors, they cynically stonewall the obvious death toll that continues to mount at the site of an accident that happened thirty years ago. The "see no evil" mantra continues to define all official approaches to the victims of this horrific disaster.

Ironically, like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island Unit Two was a state-of-the-art reactor. Its official opening came on December 28, 1978, and it melted exactly three months later. Had it operated longer,
the accumulated radiation spewing from its core almost certainly would have been far greater.

Every reactor now operating in the US is much older---nearly all fully three decades older---than TMI-2 when it melted. Their potential fallout that could dwarf what came down in 1979.

But the Big Lie remains officially in tact. Expect to hear all week that TMI was "a success story" because "no one was killed."

But in mere moments that brand new reactor morphed from a $900 million asset to a multi-billion-dollar liability. It could happen to any atomic power plant, now, tomorrow and into the future.

Meanwhile, the death toll from America's worst industrial catastrophe continues to rise. More than ever, it is shrouded in official lies and desecrated by a reactor-pushing “renaissance” hell-bent on repeating the nightmare on an even larger scale.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
From Wiki:

Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation

Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%)

Wow. Found this in under 10 seconds. It gets more interesting when you hear the tea bag candidates.

So because the tea party is against cap & trade, and for the allowing off-shore oil drilling, you therefore conclude that:

The fundamental tenets of the tea baggers are to remove federal regulations and government subsidies.

... which according to you, means trashing all regulations on nuclear power safety?

Wow, I'm 3/3 in only 6 seconds! Would you like any more more 2-second straw man debunkings?