Posted on 08/01/2008 6:22:47 PM PDT by kellynla
Against
1 Nuclear power is clearly a dead-end technology. It is not sustainable since there is only a 50-year supply of uranium left in the world.
2 Nuclear power plants are not cheap. They incur high capital costs. The industry is surviving thanks to heavy hidden subsidies in reprocessing and deferred costs of decommissioning.
3 Nuclear energy is highly glorified. It is neither cheap nor clean, and definitely not safe. Its concerns are environmental, ethical, social and political.
4 It is leaving behind a legacy of contamination. The accidents so far have been serious. The radioactive waste, including spent fuel, till date contains some 100 billion curies of radiation, which is 1,000 times more radioactivity than was blown out of Chernobyl.
5 The reactor blast at Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island meltdown continue to claim lives. No accurate assessment of their overall impact has been conclusively made.
6 Nuclear power plants age dangerously. Equipment breakdowns, pipe cracks, clogging and generator bursting have caused more than 50 fires or other safety hazards in the US alone.
7 The last 35 years have witnessed a popular movement against nuclear power based on the fear of possible accidents. Till date some 110 reactors have shut down.
8 Phase out of nuclear operations has led to development of alternatives. Renewable clean source of energy such as windmills, solar panels, biomass and hydropower are becoming more popular. 9 Countries like Germany, Spain and Belgium have phased out their nuclear programmes.
For
1 Huge amounts of energy are produced from small amounts of uranium. There is also a gradual shift to thorium-based reactors.
2 Low fuel costs and ease of transport more than compensate for these high costs. The overall cost of nuclear generation of electricity is 50% to 80% that of other fuel sources.
3 It is but another victim of threat perception and false propaganda generated by ill-informed environmentalists and activists.
4 It is relatively clean and climate friendly, compared to a coal-fired power station that produces 1,000,000 tonnes of CO2, causing global warming. Even the waste it generates is compact, and considered a ‘strategic fuel reserve’ for future.
5 For every unit of electricity, hydropower causes 110 fold, coal 45 fold and natural gas 10 fold more deaths than nuclear power. It has a better safety record than fossil fuels.
6 All power plants age as they have a finite life and need to be decommissioned within time. Power plants always have inherent risks, which can be muted with vigilant management.
7 Nuclear plants are safely and profitably operating in 31 countries around the world. 24 new nuclear reactors are under construction in 11 countries.
8 Installing solar cells to replace a $2.56bn nuclear power plant would cost $92bn, which is 36 times more expensive, and the cells would cover 150 sq km area. Alternatives will prove to be expansive.
9 Countries like India, China and Russia are expanding their nuclear programmes.
Oops! Wrong thread! LOL
For a pro position on nuclear power check this out.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=02
Of course we should build more nuclear power plants. You can pretty much advocate anything the Rats oppose and be confident you are on solid ground.
Contract with the US Navy to build base load nuke barges, and hook them up to the grids of all waterfront communities.
???
I have to question that too. I've never heard that 50 year figure. Also, there are a number of sources for fuel besides uranium. And isn't it true that what we now consider nuclear waste actually contains vast amounts of energy that can be captured with existing technologies?
“5 The reactor blast at Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island meltdown continue to claim lives. No accurate assessment of their overall impact has been conclusively made.
6 Nuclear power plants age dangerously. Equipment breakdowns, pipe cracks, clogging and generator bursting have caused more than 50 fires or other safety hazards in the US alone.”
Check this out on the safety of nuclear vs other forms of energy... a real eye opener.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html
What? We have enough weapons grade uranium (95% pure U235)that can easily mixed with depleted uranium to make reactor grade uranium (20% pure U235) that if every coal fired plant were replaced with a nuke, we could power the country for 500 years. The US produced over 226,000 lbs of plutonium for nuclear weapons which can be mixed with low enriched uranium for use in producing electricity. And since plutonium emits alpha radiation when it decays, it is easily shielded.
I'd like to see the source for that little tidbit of information. There's a heck of a lot more uranium than that, and (if our government got their heads out of their butts) fuel rods can be recycled since they retain a good portion of the energy when they're "depleted".
2 Nuclear power plants are not cheap. They incur high capital costs. The industry is surviving thanks to heavy hidden subsidies in reprocessing and deferred costs of decommissioning.
One of the biggest cost issues occurred right after 3 Mile Island. Look at the construction cost of plants built before 1979 versus those completed after. Over-regulation is the cause of a great portion of the cost.
3 Nuclear energy is highly glorified. It is neither cheap nor clean, and definitely not safe. Its concerns are environmental, ethical, social and political.
Actually, it is cheap - almost as cheap as coal. And it's clean. And very safe. Lake Chappaquiddick has taken more lives than nuclear power.
4 It is leaving behind a legacy of contamination. The accidents so far have been serious. The radioactive waste, including spent fuel, till date contains some 100 billion curies of radiation, which is 1,000 times more radioactivity than was blown out of Chernobyl.
Two issues with the waste - first, the federal government hasn't held up it's end of the bargain. They have refused to develop the repository in the Yucca mountains as promised. Second, fuel rods can be recycled but again, our government has decided that this isn't permissible. I would say that the only contamination here is the stain of liberalism.
5 The reactor blast at Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island meltdown continue to claim lives. No accurate assessment of their overall impact has been conclusively made.
First, there is no reactor designed like Chernobyl in the US. And there won't be. Second, the Three Mile Island incident was NOT a "meltdown". Not even close.
6 Nuclear power plants age dangerously. Equipment breakdowns, pipe cracks, clogging and generator bursting have caused more than 50 fires or other safety hazards in the US alone.
Monitor and maintain, just like any other machine. There is no greater risk of problems at a Nuke than at any other large industrial operation. In fact, the risk is far less at a Nuke due to the excessive oversight. As for the "50 fires", these idiots need to visit a steel mill or a coal-fired power plant. Stuff happens daily.
7 The last 35 years have witnessed a popular movement against nuclear power based on the fear of possible accidents. Till date some 110 reactors have shut down.
Popular movement has been steered by the left-wing media for the last 35+ years. They've been told things that aren't true (kind-of like this article). I would like to see a list of reactors that have been shut down - I doubt that there's anything near 110, and of the ones that have, most have been decommissioned after reaching the end of their life cycle.
.8 Phase out of nuclear operations has led to development of alternatives. Renewable clean source of energy such as windmills, solar panels, biomass and hydropower are becoming more popular. 9 Countries like Germany, Spain and Belgium have phased out their nuclear programmes.
What Spain and Belgium have done is irrelevant. There are no renewable resources that can match the capability of a fossil or nuclear-powered power plant. Wind mills only work when it's windy. Solar only works when it's sunny. Biomass is not available in significant amounts. Hydro is respectable, but the enviros don't like dams either. Except for Hydro power, none of the competitors to fossil and Nuclear can be operated in a manner where generation can be adjusted to meet load requirements.
All the comments of kellynla are either untrue or irrelevant.
Chernobyl cost lives. Three Mile Island did not and has not from any chronic effects either. More anti-nuclear misinformation.
Point 1 against is dead wrong. Uranium is plentiful. Its just that there was a stockpile for 25 years, there was no exploration due to the low price. Only 50 years of supply is pure hogwash.
That number is made up bullshit. The US alone produced over 103,000 kg of plutonium 239, which is easily mixed with low enriched uranium and used in nuclear reactors. 16 kg is critical mass so you can use no more than that in a reactor. There are other types or reactors that use much less and more common fuel than conventional fission reactors such as molten salt reactors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Fluoride_Reactor
Three Mile Island was not a meltdown. If it was Jimmah Carter would have never left Washington. The safety systems worked. I worked for B&W back then, and spent some time with one of their safety experts on a plane discussing the subject. The whole idea of a meltdown came from Michael Douglass and Jane Fondle in China Syndrome. Also TMI had a containment vessel; something Chernoble didn’t. Some radioactive steam was released to reduce the pressure in the containment vessel.
Chernobyl is a RBMK type reactor that used graphite for moderation and water for cooling. TMI is a PWR type that uses pressurized water for cooling a moderation. The RBMK type is considered very unstable. PWR’s are second generation reactors and the most popular design.
At the Chernobyl site there was a major radiation release, and the reactor was burried on site including pumping in concrete underneath it to prevent further meltdown. At TMI, the reactor, fuel, and water have been removed and the site is being monitored - no meltdown.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.