• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is the building of new nuculer power plants a good idea.

Build new nuculer power plants?

  • No.

    Votes: 3 8.6%
  • Yes, just not near me.

    Votes: 2 5.7%
  • Yes.

    Votes: 28 80.0%
  • Other. (please explain)

    Votes: 2 5.7%

  • Total voters
    35

AndrewC

Active member
Joined
Nov 2, 2005
Messages
351
Reaction score
71
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The ideal solution would be for individuals to be able to purchase affordable means to produce their own power. I also would like to see focus put on conservation and increased efficiency. That said, Arkansas has not had any major problems due to nuclear power. So build a few if you must, but it is not a complete solution.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
30,279
Reaction score
8,858
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
NoMoreDems-Reps said:
What about the FACT that Nuke Plants use/generate radio active
materials. And just because the ship it deep into the Nevada
ground does not make it disappear.

This is true. But deep underground it also does not present much (if any) of a problem.

NoMoreDems-Reps said:
Look we can make more Nukes and have cheaper energy "NOW"
but we will have to deal with the radio active by products(Spent Rods)
sooner or later!

Also true. So? If we have to deal with radioactive waste now, we store it underground, where it will not cause problems untill later (or never). And there will be better ways to deal with it later.......Just as there are better ways to build nuclear plants now than there were a few decades ago.

NoMoreDems-Reps said:
So why don't we just bite the bullet and Ramp up a "Clean Energy"
industry in the U.S.?

This is a good idea, but we should do both. The nuclear plants will help to lessen our dependance on oil, cause even if we used hydrogen to power cars, the power to split the H2 off of H2O has to be generated somewhere.

And most research requires power, so if we build nuclear plants now, cut back on the ammount of oil we need, develop new tech, discover better ways to generate power.......it seems to me that nuclear plants are a very good idea, at least for untill something better comes along.

NoMoreDems-Reps said:
If we started investing in Solar, Wind, Hydrogen and other clean energies
we could/would be world leaders! Because all countries will be forced to
use clean energy sooner or later! Look at China, India, and even Japan

I agree, the US should invest more in clean energies. I have a problem with the Hydrogen though, as it uses quite a bit of power to strip the hydrogen out of water.

NoMoreDems-Reps said:
And I know having a viable "Clean Energy" industry will not happen overnight.
And we should not expect it to! i.e. we don't expect the Cars of the 1920's
to be like the cars of today!

Of course, it won't happen right away. But it could be moving faster, I think.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,169
Reaction score
565
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Volker said:
Yes, for Germany Chernobyl was the reason to stop building nuclear power plants. One of them was almost ready for operation, but it was stopped, when the Chernobyl accident happened. They sold it to China later.

Was that a East German or West German plant?

The disposal of spent rods is still a problem. The energy industry and the government are looking for place and it looks like Gorleben will be this place, but so far it is still a problem.

It's not a problem here in the States but that doesn't stop the environmentalist from opposing nuclear energy.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
30,279
Reaction score
8,858
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Stinger said:
It's not a problem here in the States but that doesn't stop the environmentalist from opposing nuclear energy.

Actually, I hear some environmentalists want nuclear plants built.....It's better than global warming from coal and oil power plants, you see.
 

Arthur Fonzarelli

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
446
Reaction score
0
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Imagine if every state built at least one nuke plant in the coming decade...

first thing that comes to mind is - JOBS!

first you have the construction...sure it's a huge cost but also it would create a huge influx of revenue.
second you have manpower to operate such a facility.

While there are certainly some dangers & possible drawbacks no serious accidents have happened in the USA with nuke power (three mile island was a scare - no deaths occurred due to the "valve" failure - it was handled swiftly & all was well - except for panic).

I live not far from a nuke plant & work even closer to it. My step-father worked there several years ago. Not even a single scare from that facility.

so yes - it's a good idea.
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Mark said:
Actually, I hear some environmentalists want nuclear plants built.....It's better than global warming from coal and oil power plants, you see.

Most envirowackos don't want ANYTHING built.
 

XShipRider

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Other: Only if 'nuculer' plants are better than 'nuclear' plants.:mrgreen:
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,169
Reaction score
565
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The Mark said:
Actually, I hear some environmentalists want nuclear plants built.....It's better than global warming from coal and oil power plants, you see.

I think you are correct in that there are a few who are coming around and realizing we have to have nuclear, even to create other forms of alternative energy.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
30,279
Reaction score
8,858
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
XShipRider said:
Other: Only if 'nuculer' plants are better than 'nuclear' plants.:mrgreen:

Sorry for the spelling mistake.:3oops:

But it probably attracts a bit of attention to the poll, so maybe it's better this way.:smile:
 

Volker

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2006
Messages
6,592
Reaction score
141
Location
Germany
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Stinger said:
Was that a East German or West German plant?
It's a West German plant, it's in Kalkar, this is close to the border to the Netherlands.
Maybe I mixed something, because the China negotiations were in the press a few years ago, but the whole equipment seems still to be here and not in China. So maybe the Chinese were interested, but did not buy it in the end.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
30,279
Reaction score
8,858
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Arthur Fonzarelli said:
Imagine if every state built at least one nuke plant in the coming decade...

First thing that comes to mind is - JOBS!

First you have the construction...sure it's a huge cost but also it would create a huge influx of revenue.
Second you have manpower to operate such a facility.

A good point. However, there might also be some loss of jobs in the oil industry, but only if enough nuclear plants are build to eliminate the need for oil power plants.

There also might be some loss of jobs in the environmentalist field, as there will be less call for work against oil power plants fouling up the skies. :mrgreen:

Arthur Fonzarelli said:
While there are certainly some dangers & possible drawbacks no serious accidents have happened in the USA with nuke power (three mile island was a scare - no deaths occurred due to the "valve" failure - it was handled swiftly & all was well - except for panic).

I don't think there is much panic anymore. I live about 30 miles west of Three Mile Island, and I have no reason to be scared of it (then again, I wasn't alive at the time). If anything, it's probably one of the safer plants because people who work there can look back and remember what almost happened, so they will be less likely to relax and let something get out of hand.

Arthur Fonzarelli said:
I live not far from a nuke plant & work even closer to it. My step-father worked there several years ago. Not even a single scare from that facility.

So yes - it's a good idea.

In so many ways.

Hey, I just thought of another one. If we build nuclear plants, we can use some of the energy generated to power experiments in the fusion field (I hear that it takes alot of power for those experiments).
 

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The Mark said:
A good point. However, there might also be some loss of jobs in the oil industry, but only if enough nuclear plants are build to eliminate the need for oil power plants.
We dont have that many oil plants. Most of our fossil plants are coal.

There also might be some loss of jobs in the environmentalist field, as there will be less call for work against oil power plants fouling up the skies. :mrgreen:
Oh, damn.
 

XShipRider

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
The Mark said:
Sorry for the spelling mistake.:3oops:

But it probably attracts a bit of attention to the poll, so maybe it's better this way.:smile:


I'm happy you knew I was only ribbing you. Too many at debatepolitics.com
would have taken it as some sort of personal attack, coming unglued then
counterattacking.

I'm not for building more plants. I would have nothing against more plants
if we could just find a way to either a) safely dispose of the waste, or b)
safely re-use the waste.

Here's hoping science can come up with something besides burial.
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
30,279
Reaction score
8,858
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Goobieman said:
We dont have that many oil plants. Most of our fossil plants are coal.

Ok, then just add "oil and coal" wherever you see "oil", my mistake, but it still applies.

Goobieman said:
Oh, damn.

I knew someone would be unhappy about that. :mrgreen:
 

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
30,279
Reaction score
8,858
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
XShipRider said:
I'm happy you knew I was only ribbing you. Too many at debatepolitics.com
Would have taken it as some sort of personal attack, coming unglued then
counterattacking.

Thanks.

I agree with you, some people seem to have no sense of humor, or else think the worst of some comment when they see it.

XShipRider said:
I'm not for building more plants. I would have nothing against more plants
If we could just find a way to either a) safely dispose of the waste, or b)
Safely re-use the waste.

Here's hoping science can come up with something besides burial.

I have the same hope, and I still don't like the underground idea, but IMO it is important that we start using cleaner energy generating processes soon.

Wind, water, solar, etc. All of these are quite nice, but are not developed enough to take over from coal and oil (as far as I know).

Nuclear has had a longer development period, and new nuclear plants can be designed to lessen (but not eliminate) the amount of waste generated. They can also be designed to withstand a meltdown, thus preventing a repeat of the Chernobyl disaster.
This is one of the reasons I say we should replace our old nuclear plants with new ones....safety.

They can be designed to have more prevention against natural and unnatural (terrorist) damage.

Personally, I would feel safer living next to a new nuclear plant than an older one.

Now, about the waste disposal. Underground seems the best idea at the moment.

Some places have it stored above ground, and think what would happen if a terrorist crashed a plane into one of those sites (Maybe they are protected against that, but I saw a picture of one such site and it looked like big tanks just sitting in a enclosure.).

I'm not fully aware of all the possible problems that could be caused by underground storage, and I'm sure that if I go searching on the internet I'll find some which are conspiracy theories.

If any who are against building new plants want, feel free to post such information for our enjoyment.

I'm not sure what other ideas are out there for waste disposal, maybe there are none.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
XShipRider said:
I'm happy you knew I was only ribbing you. Too many at debatepolitics.com
would have taken it as some sort of personal attack, coming unglued then
counterattacking.

I'm not for building more plants. I would have nothing against more plants
if we could just find a way to either a) safely dispose of the waste, or b)
safely re-use the waste.

Here's hoping science can come up with something besides burial.

Burial inside of a solid granite mountain in a geologically stable zone does "safely" dispose of the waste. So does dropping the canisters in the middle of the oceanic abyssal plains.

What do you want, perfection?
 

XShipRider

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Burial inside of a solid granite mountain in a geologically stable zone does "safely" dispose of the waste. So does dropping the canisters in the middle of the oceanic abyssal plains.

What do you want, perfection?

Yes.:mrgreen:
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
XShipRider said:
Yes.:mrgreen:

Why? Name any aspect of life that's perfect.

Hell, define "perfect".

Meanwhile, if you demand "perfection", can we assume you don't use any Microsoft products?

You clearly have to walk everywhere you go, since all forms of motorized transport are "imperfect" and clearly much less safe than any nuclear power plant.

You must live in the dark since the electrical systems of any residence has potentially deadly flaws.

You haven't had a drink of anything in years, since no water system is "perfectly" safe, and more people have died from cryptosporidium infections than were killed in TMI2.

So why the big insistence on "perfection" in the nuclear power industry when it's both already safer than any other industry you can name, and undergoing constant improvement already? You're showing signs of blind prejudice born of flat ignorance, coupled possibly with a disturbing propensity to swallow the droppings of an emotional propaganda campaign promulgated by persons with agendas not beneficial to the interests of the American people.
 
Top Bottom