Why are the environmentalists against nuclear energy?

[quentinterintino]

Wow, so much misinformation here!

First, reprocessing still produces waste. You extract some of the Pu in a PUREX process, but the other actinides are all in a waste stream.

Second, most of the heat load comes from Cesium and Strontium, which does dissapate after several half lives (hundreds of years)

Third, the long term heat load is caused by the "major" tranuranics - Np, Pu, Am, Cm... these won't decay for tens of THOUSANDS of years

Fourth, a coal plant does produce some radioactive flyash - but not nearly as much radioactive waste (measured either by activity or quantity) as a commercial nuclear power plant.

Fifth, in order for us to reduce our waste, we need fast spectrum breeder reactors to transmute the fuel. This will eliminate the need to mine for new uranium (it 'produces' it's own fuel) and it can change the nasty transuranics listed in 4) to other shorter-lived isotopes.

I can go on but I've got stuff to do.

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: dug777
Long term strorage issues.

The potentially massive impact of a mistake/attack (sure it's incredibly unlikely, but the potential dangers posed are awesome, look at Chernobyl)

Those are the main two, and they're both extremely valid points that can't be ignored in a sensible debate.

Then there's NIMBYISM, to which i suspect many of you would subscribe, even tho you're so blase and keen online about nuclear power...

Read about the problems and causes of the Chernobyl accident.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: freegeeks

I vote for the socialist party in Belgium. For American standards I'm a communist, in Belgium I'm a "liberal"

i'm still trying to figure out how the word liberal became so twisted. for some reason has become synonymous with the all-powerful, all-knowing, health & safety nanny-state.

Because it usually stands contradictory to many fundamental American principles - the rife individualism that is at the core of western culture.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: chambersc
I am against it for nuclear waste. Fix that and call me.


I don't care how much energy it produces -- for me it's all offset by the potential for danger with the waste that is produced.

yes since all other ways to get energy are so much cleaner :roll:

Well, as long as it doesn't produce N-U-C-L-E-A-R W-A-S-T-E then it's definitely cleaner. I will forever be against nuclear technology for this reason.

Please provide a number on how many are killed in the US by nuclear waste each year.

Compare that to the tens of thousands killed each year by lung diseases caused by fossil fuel emissions.

Get a clue.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: chambersc
I am against it for nuclear waste. Fix that and call me.


I don't care how much energy it produces -- for me it's all offset by the potential for danger with the waste that is produced.

yes since all other ways to get energy are so much cleaner :roll:

Well, as long as it doesn't produce N-U-C-L-E-A-R W-A-S-T-E then it's definitely cleaner. I will forever be against nuclear technology for this reason.

its really sad. here you argue about something you really do not have a clue about.

Tell me how Nuclear power doesn't produce Nuclear waste. EVERY other minute aspect of Nuclear power I do not care about. The ONLY thing I care about with this technology is its negatives. Show me how the waste isn't bad or doesn't have the potential for bad and you'll convince me. Other than that concede defeat.

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: chambersc
I am against it for nuclear waste. Fix that and call me.


I don't care how much energy it produces -- for me it's all offset by the potential for danger with the waste that is produced.

yes since all other ways to get energy are so much cleaner :roll:

Well, as long as it doesn't produce N-U-C-L-E-A-R W-A-S-T-E then it's definitely cleaner. I will forever be against nuclear technology for this reason.

Please provide a number on how many are killed in the US by nuclear waste each year.

Compare that to the tens of thousands killed each year by lung diseases caused by fossil fuel emissions.

Get a clue.

Read me edit. I'm against Coal as well.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Savij

Originally posted by: dug777
Long term strorage issues.

The potentially massive impact of a mistake/attack (sure it's incredibly unlikely, but the potential dangers posed are awesome, look at Chernobyl)

Those are the main two, and they're both extremely valid points that can't be ignored in a sensible debate.

Then there's NIMBYISM, to which i suspect many of you would subscribe, even tho you're so blase and keen online about nuclear power...

Read about the problems and causes of the Chernobyl accident.

The point is not the problems directly - but the fact that humans have the ability to err, and as long as we do, their is ALWAYS a possibility of an accident, no matter how small it may be. All of the failsafes in the world could be packed into a nuclear plant, but the possibility still exists.

 

[quentinterintino]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: chambersc
I am against it for nuclear waste. Fix that and call me.


I don't care how much energy it produces -- for me it's all offset by the potential for danger with the waste that is produced.

yes since all other ways to get energy are so much cleaner :roll:

Well, as long as it doesn't produce N-U-C-L-E-A-R W-A-S-T-E then it's definitely cleaner. I will forever be against nuclear technology for this reason.

Please provide a number on how many are killed in the US by nuclear waste each year.

Compare that to the tens of thousands killed each year by lung diseases caused by fossil fuel emissions.

Get a clue.

I agree with you, but can you prove how many lung diseases are caused SPECIFICALLY by fossil fuel emissions rather than stochastic or extraneous effects ?

Edit: spelling

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Savij

Originally posted by: dug777
Long term strorage issues.

The potentially massive impact of a mistake/attack (sure it's incredibly unlikely, but the potential dangers posed are awesome, look at Chernobyl)

Those are the main two, and they're both extremely valid points that can't be ignored in a sensible debate.

Then there's NIMBYISM, to which i suspect many of you would subscribe, even tho you're so blase and keen online about nuclear power...

Read about the problems and causes of the Chernobyl accident.

I have, your point?

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: freegeeks


bs, I'm a liberal (if I was living in the USA you would probably label me as a communist).
nuclear energy is just common sense, and "liberal" countries like France and Belgium depend on it for 70% of their energy production

commies aren't liberal.

I vote for the socialist party in Belgium. For American standards I'm a communist, in Belgium I'm a "liberal"

So you just explained the difference between Liberals in American and Liberals in Europe. Oh wait, not really - they're pretty much the same thing.

Its just unfortunate that Kids my age especially, take everything their college professor's say as gospel and don't bother doing any research of their own. And unfortunetely, they're (college professors) all singing the same tune around the country.

 

[everman]

Please, just stop mentioning Chernobyl as good reason for not wanting nuclear energy. It's not a credible argument, modern designs are very different and very safe.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: everman
Please, just stop mentioning Chernobyl as good reason for not wanting nuclear energy. It's not a credible argument, modern designs are very different and very safe.

Not to mention that Chernobyl wasn't safe even in its time. The russians cut so many corners, that they knew then they shouldn't have cut - its shocking. And the knowledge we've gained on nuclear power since that disaster is 10 fold.

 

[Savij]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: Savij

Originally posted by: dug777
Long term strorage issues.

The potentially massive impact of a mistake/attack (sure it's incredibly unlikely, but the potential dangers posed are awesome, look at Chernobyl)

Those are the main two, and they're both extremely valid points that can't be ignored in a sensible debate.

Then there's NIMBYISM, to which i suspect many of you would subscribe, even tho you're so blase and keen online about nuclear power...

Read about the problems and causes of the Chernobyl accident.

I have, your point?

Find a single nuclear reactor based on that...what was the word positive coefficient system in the free world.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: everman
Please, just stop mentioning Chernobyl as good reason for not wanting nuclear energy. It's not a credible argument, modern designs are very different and very safe.

not to mention we put more money into them then the Russians did.


though IL had one closed because the people running it (think com ed) was not keeping it up. they found something like 22 major problems and forced them to close down. this was like 3 years ago or so.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: everman
Please, just stop mentioning Chernobyl as good reason for not wanting nuclear energy. It's not a credible argument, modern designs are very different and very safe.

You miss the point of using Chernobyl as an example. It's being used here to illustrate what COULD happen if stuff did go badly wrong, by an incredibly unlucky chance event, or more likely a terrorist attack, in terms of fallout range/effects/etc...

No one is saying it's likely, or that it will happen in the same way, but imagine a nuclear meltdown on mainland USA, with unfavourable winds that might carry fallout over ten states and potentially hundreds of millions of people?

It's not an argument in itself

 

[Kwaipie]

We are moments away from our own Chernobyl. Check out how quickly waste is migrating towards the Columbia River courtesy of Hanford. We do not have the technology to safely transfer or store waste. Leave it to the conservatives to put today's problems onto future generations. I love that people want to put this stuff on a rocket and fire it at the sun. Someone is watching too much Johnny Bravo.

In an age of terrorism when we're only checking 5% of incoming cargo containers, you want to drive nuclear waste around the country? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: everman
Please, just stop mentioning Chernobyl as good reason for not wanting nuclear energy. It's not a credible argument, modern designs are very different and very safe.

not to mention we put more money into them then the Russians did.


though IL had one closed because the people running it (think com ed) was not keeping it up. they found something like 22 major problems and forced them to close down. this was like 3 years ago or so.

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

This one?

 

[quentinterintino]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We are moments away from our own Chernobyl. Check out how quickly waste is migrating towards the Columbia River courtesy of Hanford. We do not have the technology to safely transfer or store waste. Leave it to the conservatives to put today's problems onto future generations. I love that people want to put this stuff on a rocket and fire it at the sun. Someone is watching too much Johnny Bravo.

In an age of terrorism when we're only checking 5% of incoming cargo containers, you want to drive nuclear waste around the country? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

If you think that they transport HLW or SNF across the country un-checked....

 

[Pantoot]

Originally posted by: Savij
Find a single nuclear reactor based on that...what was the word positive coefficient system in the free world.

Ignalina in Lithuania. (Although it is scheduled to shut down #2 in 2009.)

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: chambersc
Read me edit. I'm against Coal as well.

So you are against coal that produced 49.8% of energy in 2004. You are against nuclear that produced 19.6% of energy in 2004. What will replace them if we end nuclear and coal today? Oil? If we use 5 times the amount of oil that we currently use, what would happen to oil prices? How long will that last us? Is there even the capacity to provide that oil?

 

[Kwaipie]

Originally posted by: quentinterintino

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We are moments away from our own Chernobyl. Check out how quickly waste is migrating towards the Columbia River courtesy of Hanford. We do not have the technology to safely transfer or store waste. Leave it to the conservatives to put today's problems onto future generations. I love that people want to put this stuff on a rocket and fire it at the sun. Someone is watching too much Johnny Bravo.

In an age of terrorism when we're only checking 5% of incoming cargo containers, you want to drive nuclear waste around the country? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

If you think that they transport HLW or SNF across the country un-checked....

Oh, I feel better now.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: everman
Please, just stop mentioning Chernobyl as good reason for not wanting nuclear energy. It's not a credible argument, modern designs are very different and very safe.

not to mention we put more money into them then the Russians did.


though IL had one closed because the people running it (think com ed) was not keeping it up. they found something like 22 major problems and forced them to close down. this was like 3 years ago or so.

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

This one?

yeah i think so. ok so my time fram is a little off though hah!

 

[dug777]

Of course, a much easier option is to try using less power...

I would think that a nationwide program to educate people about using CFLs, turning devices off rather than using standby, bulding codes that reduce reliance on AC and heating, putting more emphasis and compulsory power usage ratings on equipment could have a dramatic influence on power requirements if done correctly and effectively

EDIT: not that it will solve the problem of where the power comes from, i was just musing to myself

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We are moments away from our own Chernobyl. Check out how quickly waste is migrating towards the Columbia River courtesy of Hanford. We do not have the technology to safely transfer or store waste. Leave it to the conservatives to put today's problems onto future generations. I love that people want to put this stuff on a rocket and fire it at the sun. Someone is watching too much Johnny Bravo.

In an age of terrorism when we're only checking 5% of incoming cargo containers, you want to drive nuclear waste around the country? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

And the ignorance continues...

Meanwhile tens of thousands die each year from fossil fueled plant output.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: glen
?

Environmentalists are those who believe the earth would be better off without people living on it.

 

[Kwaipie]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We are moments away from our own Chernobyl. Check out how quickly waste is migrating towards the Columbia River courtesy of Hanford. We do not have the technology to safely transfer or store waste. Leave it to the conservatives to put today's problems onto future generations. I love that people want to put this stuff on a rocket and fire it at the sun. Someone is watching too much Johnny Bravo.

In an age of terrorism when we're only checking 5% of incoming cargo containers, you want to drive nuclear waste around the country? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

And the ignorance continues...

Meanwhile tens of thousands die each year from fossil fueled plant output.

Oh, please teach me. Cure me of my ignorance. But please give me your home address so I can hire a hitman to take you out when Hanford dumps its load into my river.

I wish I was smart like you. While you're at it, how about something to backup your "tens of thousands" claim. Preferably a source that isn't Pro-nuke.