Nuke Power Plants = Nuclear Weapons FYI

[Razoo]

Nuclear Power is NOT Clean Energy Rather than making rate-payers bail out these dangerous and uneconomic facilities, the proposed $3.5 billion of subsidies should be invested in wind, including the rapid deployment of off-shore wind, hydroelectric, tidal, and the installation community- and utility-scale solar, as well as storage and energy efficiency measures. Nuclear energy is NOT clean or carbon-free. While nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide at the point of power generation, the nuclear fuel chain is responsible for carbon emissions during mining, milling, enriching, construction, transportation, and decommissioning. From cradle to grave, nuclear reactors pollute the environment and threaten

human health and safety. Uranium fuel is mined in or near indigenous communities and communities of color. After mining, milling generates vast amounts of radioactive and toxic tailings that are deposited on the ground or in open ponds. The nuclear fuel is then enriched in an energy-intensive process. Approximately 25,000 pounds of mining waste (rock, mill tailings, and depleted uranium) are generated for each pound of nuclear fuel delivered to New York’s reactors. Nuclear plants routinely and accidentally release radioactive isotopes to air and water, including newly- generated radioactive carbon, C-14, which results from nuclear fission. The so-called “spent” nuclear fuel rods, which emerge from the reactor, are approximately one million times more radioactive than when they entered, and must be stored on-site indefinitely, with inadequate decommissioning plans or funds to ensure that this is done safely. Bailing out nuclear reactors is corporate welfare subsidized by ratepayers: Under Tier 3 of the proposed Clean Energy Standard, by 2020, nuclear power will become the most heavily subsidized energy source in New York. These subsidies will benefit the Exelon Corporation, which owns Ginna and Nine Mile Island, and the Entergy Corporation, who has already announced plans to retire its FitzPatrick reactor. These companies would merely have to show the Public Service Commission how much money they need in order to continue operating, and the cost of the subsidies will automatically be set to that amount. No other criteria will be used for setting the price of the subsidies, and there is no cost-cap proposed. This cost will be borne by local and county governments, colleges and universities, hospitals and health care facilities, large and small businesses and residential customers, including low- and moderate-income families. Further, the jobs argument is equally faulty.

Support off-shore wind. New York has enormous offshore wind potential to meet its goal of 50 percent renewable energy generation by 2030. NYSERDA has already completed a well-researched environmental impact study of the potential impacts of off-shore wind on the marine ecology and has given this technology a clear green light. The Clean Energy Standard proposal assumes a very modest decrease in electricity demand due to energy efficiency, but does not mandate that utilities invest in energy efficiency retrofits. Energy efficiency is a key component of a low-carbon energy future. It is the most affordable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and displace fossil fuel and nuclear generators

https://www.clearwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Clearwater-Comment-and-List-of-Upcoming-Public-Hearings-on-the-Clean-Energy-Standard-5.7.16.pdf

 

[EdwinWillers]

You're conflated nuclear weapons and nuclear power generation - they're two different entities.
Probable was wind and solar power is that they require backup from conventional gas or coal-fired plants.

I guarantee he's going to return after reading [whatever] with no change of mind whatsoever. Inevitably, this argument will end up nowhere.

 

[Razoo]

Nuke Power is not insured. That's right nuke power cannot find insurance coverage thus taxpayers become the insurance for a giant profit industry. Nuke power is considered too dangerous and too expensive.

 

[Craig234]

Nuclear energy is NOT clean or carbon-free. While nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide at the point of power generation, the nuclear fuel chain is responsible for carbon emissions during mining, milling, enriching, construction, transportation, and decommissioning. From cradle to grave, nuclear reactors pollute the environment and threaten

How much, compared to the fossil fuel use it replaces? under 1%? I think we need to strongly consider nuclear energy. The way to ban nuclear weapons is to ban nuclear weapons.

 

[Bullseye]

It would not eliminate the radio active nuclear waste problem and all that is associated.......

The are too many other sources for generating electricity. The Wall Street Journal once stated that the reason new plants were not coming on line is the expense of nuke power plants and thereafter.

Nuke weapons are simply too dangerous ...... they simply cannot be used safely.

Nuclear weapons are stored and handled within the most security safe process conceivable - every step is monitor by at least two qualitified observers and is performed by scrupulous attention to written checklists. I can't get into detail about the actual employment but suffice it to say there are numerous built in procedures.

 

[Bullseye]

I guarantee he's going to return after reading [whatever] with no change of mind whatsoever. Inevitably, this argument will end up nowhere.

I started reading his link but couldn't get past the second page - so much gobbledegook, half truths and babble.

 

[Razoo]

To help prevent the worst consequences of climate change, the United States must achieve economy-wide net-zero emissions by or before mid-century. This requires swiftly decarbonizing the electric sector, one of the largest sources of US carbon emission.

But deep decarbonization isn’t easy. Difficult decisions need to be made around whether aging, unprofitable nuclear reactors should be kept online or replaced—and what should replace them.

Policymakers facing these issues should consider the climate impacts, costs, safety, and public health implications. They should also strengthen policies that support other low-carbon technologies.

Nuclear Power

Low-carbon electricity, with serious economic and safety issues.

ucsusa.org

 

[Bullseye]

Nuclear Power

Low-carbon electricity, with serious economic and safety issues.

ucsusa.org

Sorry, not convincing at all.

 

[Razoo]

The Fukushima disaster of 2011 showed what can happen when a nuclear power plant's safety systems fail. The US nuclear industry responded with familiar reassurances that it can't happen here.

We know better. Enforcing fire and earthquake regulations, addressing flood risks, and safer on-site storage for nuclear waste are just a few of the ways we can help prevent nuclear accidents.

Since its founding in 1969, UCS has served as a nuclear safety watchdog. We help ensure that the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission enforces its safety regulations—and we try to prevent them from reducing safety standards and oversight in response to industry pressure.

We believe that a well-regulated nuclear industry is in everyone’s best interest—especially the industry itself.

Security​

EXPLAINER

Nuclear Plant Security​

Terrorists pose a real and significant threat to nuclear power plants.
Accidents aren’t the only potential threat to nuclear facilities.

A successful terrorist attack could kill, sicken, or displace large numbers of people and cause extensive long-term environmental contamination. Protecting nuclear reactors and safeguarding nuclear material should be a central concern for everyone interested in nuclear power.

Unfortunately, the NRC has regularly downplayed the threat of nuclear terrorism, relaxing its requirements for security exercises in response to industry pressure to lower costs.

Nuclear Power

Low-carbon electricity, with serious economic and safety issues.

ucsusa.org

 

[Razoo]

I suggest you blind supporters of Nuke Power and Nuke Weapons move to a safe radioactive storage area if you can find one .......... put your lives where your unfounded positions are......

All of you sound like a panel of the NRC aka Nuclear Regulatory Commission of which I have sat before many times plus offered a few inquiring thoughts.

A nuke power plant was defeated in Oklahoma over loss of nearby property values. Which was one way to get the job done.

 

[Bullseye]

I suggest you blind supporters of Nuke Power and Nuke Weapons move to a safe radioactive storage area if you can find one .......... put your lives where your unfounded positions are......

All of you sound like a panel of the NRC aka Nuclear Regulatory Commission of which I have sat before many times plus offered a few inquiring thoughts.

A nuke power plant was defeated in Oklahoma over loss of nearby property values. Which was one way to get the job done.

Maybe YOU should flee to tunnels deep underground protected by foot thick lead doors. My position is well founded, Based on years of training, education and experience.

 

[Bullseye]

Good grief - first, "nuclear proliferation" refers to NUCLEAR WEAPONS, not generation. That's an entirely different discussion and totally irrelevant to this one (save perhaps for the fact that you obviously don't like anything with "nuclear" in the name).

Nuclear waste - yes, that's a factor we need to address in how we dispose of spent reactor cores. That said, it's doable, and has been doable for quite some time and will be doable for quite some time to come.

Nuclear incidents. Chernobyl - the worst of all. Piss poor manufacturing, operation, and materials. Need I say more? Fukushima - yes, an accident, but one that was preventable.

But what you're completely ignoring is - as just ONE EXAMPLE - the 5,400 reactor years of operation - accident free. Point being - IT IS EMINENTLY DOABLE, and doable SAFELY, if done properly.

As I understand it there have been big enhancements in recycling used fuel rods and reducing waste.

 

[BirdinHand]

I had a very good friend that went from working on nuclear subs to a civilian life traveling and working on nuclear power plants.

He echoes other sentiments here about how safe and efficient nuclear power is.

I trust the word of a guy that spends his entire life working with it.

 

[Razoo]

Is the Union of Concerned Scientists legitimate?





The Union of Concerned Scientists is a national nonprofit organization founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Our mission: to use rigorous, independent science to solve our planet's most pressing problems.

About | Union of Concerned Scientists​

https://www.ucsusa.org › about

 

[EdwinWillers]

I started reading his link but couldn't get past the second page - so much gobbledegook, half truths and babble.

It's patently obvious he simply doesn't like nuclear power and for largely nonsensical reasons fears nuclear power. He comes to the issue wholly biased against it and therefore cannot listen to any arguments for it, regardless how sound they are. There's no point in arguing with such an individual; he's already made up his mind and no one's going to change it.

 

[Bullseye]

It's patently obvious he simply doesn't like nuclear power and for largely nonsensical reasons fears nuclear power. He comes to the issue wholly biased against it and therefore cannot listen to any arguments for it, regardless how sound they are. There's no point in arguing with such an individual; he's already made up his mind and no one's going to change it.

If you investigate the URL it points to "American Friends . . ." which I believe is another name for Quakers "

 

[EdwinWillers]

Is the Union of Concerned Scientists legitimate?

No. Good grief, they're a hippie activist group that formed at the height of the Vietnam war. Their name alone screams leftist lunatics. "Union" (strike 1) "Concerned" (strike 2) "Scientists" (we'll call that a foul ball....)

Just because they sport the name "Scientist" means practically nothing - particularly these days. It's yahoos like these that give "science" and "Scientist" a bad name - yet they lean on both - hard - as some sort of badge of honor that gives them self-ascribed authority to spew their social, environmental and political biases.

Pure, unadulterated crap. And if that's where you're getting your "information" from (I saw their blurb on nuclear power), you need to sanity check your source material.

 

[Questerr]

@Razoo

If you oppose nuclear power because it’s not “carbon neutral” during its mining, processing, transportation, and disposal stages, do you also oppose solar power?

Because it’s no carbon neutral during those stages either.

 

[Razoo]

Radioactive waste has a extreme number shelf life years with no place to safely store. It can poison water sources = we cannot see radioactivity. Nor can we run from radioactive waste.

Uranium is all over the place ....... left in the ground not processed does not hurt anyone.

Uranium-235 (U-235)
Half-life: 700 million years

Uranium-238 (U-238)
Half-life: 4.47 billion years

Mode of decay: Alpha particles

Chemical properties: Weakly radioactive, extremely dense metal (65% denser than lead)

What is it used for?

Uranium “enriched” into U-235 concentrations can be used as fuel for nuclear power plants and the nuclear reactors that run naval ships and submarines. It also can be used in nuclear weapons.

Depleted uranium (uranium containing mostly U-238) can be used for radiation shielding or as projectiles in armor-piercing weapons.

Where does it come from?

U-235 and U-238 occur naturally in nearly all rock, soil, and water. U-238 is the most abundant form in the environment. U-235 can be concentrated in a process called “enrichment,” making it suitable for use in nuclear reactors or weapons.

What form is it in?

Uranium is an extremely heavy metal. Enriched uranium can be in the form of small pellets that are packaged in the long tubes used in nuclear reactors.

What does it look like?

When it has been refined and enriched, uranium is a silvery-white metal.

How can it hurt me?

Because uranium decays by alpha particles, external exposure to uranium is not as dangerous as exposure to other radioactive elements because the skin will block the alpha particles. Ingestion of high concentrations of uranium, however, can cause severe health effects, such as cancer of the bone or liver. Inhaling large concentrations of uranium can cause lung cancer from the exposure to alpha particles. Uranium is also a toxic chemical, meaning that ingestion of uranium can cause kidney damage from its chemical properties much sooner than its radioactive properties would cause cancers of the bone or liver.

For more information about U-235 and U-238, see the Public Health Statement by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/substances/ToxSubstance.aspx?toxid=77, or visit the Environmental Protection Agency at https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-uranium#uraniumhealthexternal icon.

For more information on protecting yourself before or during a radiologic emergency, see CDC’s fact sheet titled “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About a Radiation Emergency” at emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/emergencyfaq.htm, and “Sheltering in Place During a Radiation Emergency,” at emergency.cdc.gov/radiation/shelter.htm.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) protects people’s health and safety by preventing and controlling diseases and injuries; enhances health decisions by providing credible information on critical health issues; and promotes healthy living through strong partnerships with local, national, and international organizations.

CDC Radiation Emergencies | Radioisotope Brief: Uranium-235 (U-235) and Uranium-238 (U-238

Information on terrorism and public health. Provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

www.cdc.gov

 

[HangLow]

Good grief - first, "nuclear proliferation" refers to NUCLEAR WEAPONS, not generation. That's an entirely different discussion and totally irrelevant to this one (save perhaps for the fact that you obviously don't like anything with "nuclear" in the name).

Nuclear waste - yes, that's a factor we need to address in how we dispose of spent reactor cores. That said, it's doable, and has been doable for quite some time and will be doable for quite some time to come.

Nuclear incidents. Chernobyl - the worst of all. Piss poor manufacturing, operation, and materials. Need I say more? Fukushima - yes, an accident, but one that was preventable.

But what you're completely ignoring is - as just ONE EXAMPLE - the 5,400 reactor years of operation - accident free. Point being - IT IS EMINENTLY DOABLE, and doable SAFELY, if done properly.

​

 

[EdwinWillers]

Radioactive waste has a extreme number shelf life years with no place to safely store. It can poison water sources = we cannot see radioactivity. Nor can we run from radioactive waste.

Uranium is all over the place ....... left in the ground not processed does not hurt anyone.

First let me say, no - let me reiterate for I've already said it - nuclear energy has its dangers and threats, particularly nuclear waste; and no one is denying that - but handled, operated, and treated responsibly such dangers / threats are easily managed - as, for example, the US Navy has demonstrated over the last 50+ years with over 5,400 reactor years of safe operation. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for commercial reactors - yet. However, demonstrated that such operation is both doable and doable safely when done properly, there is no reason commercial nuclear power cannot achiever similar operational safety levels as the Navy's. Does that mean no incidents or accidents ever? No, of course it doesn't. But then, what is "safe?" Wind turbines burn, fall, decimate bird populations and are extremely difficult to dispose of. Solar panels degrade rapidly, can burn, and their process of manufacture is anything but "carbon neutral." Same for batteries. Do you garage your EV vehicle? You might think twice about doing so if you know the danger that posed to your home. EV vehicles can burn, last only about 8-12 years, max and then must have their batteries replaced a exhorbitant expense - and the recycling of their materials? Not good at all.

And what about other commercial and industrial uses of radiation and the waste they create? Irradiators are regularly used to eliminate pathogens and bacteria in our foods. We use radiation to test the strength of metal welds in innumerable products, including ships, airplanes, and a host of other products we buy. We use radiation for all sorts of things in everyday life. Ever had an X-Ray? No one denies either that nuclear power would produce MORE waste, but produce waste all the time we are already doing now. Plus, it's been in the employ of nuclear power, or radiation sources, that we've made immense advances in both how to reduce actual radiation levels/toxicity and how do dispose of their sources.

But back to your statement about uranium in the ground not hurting anyone. Do you know what RADON is? Were you aware radon is a byproduct of natural, unprocessed uranium and is one of the leading causes of certain types of cancers? One simply cannot say uranium in the ground does not pose a threat to anyone.

Look - nothing is always "safe." We need to learn the risks of anything, learn how to mitigate and/or manage them, and then do so so we can take advantage of them. We build dams that create vast reservoirs of water for irrigation, recreation, and hydroelectric power. But in their building we can damage or destroy local ecosystems, displace homes and businesse; and dams can break causing flooding and untold damage downstream. Nuclear power is no different. Yes, the half-life of their radionuclides is unbelievably long - so long they're basically permanent. But that doesn't mean we haven't the resources to deal with it.

 

[oneworld2]

Today, as the world community attempts to address the pressing issue of global climate change, the nuclear industry is hailing nuclear power as a green alternative to fossil fuels. With the industry calling for a “nuclear renaissance,” it is more important than ever to oppose nuclear power in favor of truly renewable energy that does not endanger our safety.

When utility companies say that nuclear power plants cannot explode like an atomic bomb, they are correct; such an explosion is a physical impossibility for conventional nuclear power plants. Nevertheless, there are valid links between the two issues with which many people are not familiar.

Nuclear Reactions
First, the nuclear reaction which takes place in nuclear power plants is identical to the nuclear reaction which took place in the Hiroshima bomb— the splitting of the uranium-235 atom. Thus, the radioactive “daughter” elements produced in the two reactions—including krypton-85, xenon-133, strontium-90, and cesium-137 among many others—are identical.

Also, the dangerous radiation produced is the same.This radiation is principally of four types: alpha particles (similar to helium nuclei), neutrons, beta particles (electrons), and gamma rays. This radiation does not penetrate directly through the walls of a nuclear power plants because the plant is too heavily shielded.

However, significant amounts of radiation can and do penetrate from nuclear power plants into the environment because of emissions of radioactive daughter elements which, in turn, decompose by emitting radiation.

At Hiroshima, enormous levels of radiation contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of people immediately and produced the painful, lingering deaths from radiation sickness in countless others.

Even with the very much lower levels that such radiation is emitted from nuclear power plants in the United States, such radiation has been linked to the dramatically increased incidence of cancer, leukemia, and terminal gastro-intestinal disorders.

Daughter elements produced in nuclear power plants can escape into the environment in two different ways: first, through “routine” emissions—that is, when the plant is operating normally and no mistakes occur; and, second, through accidents which suddenly release a large

https://www.afsc.org/sites/default/files/documents/Power%20Plants%20and%20Nuclear%20Weapons%20pdf.pdf

The environmental cost of making the components of solar panels kind of exclude it, along with cloudy days.

The wind turbines only work enough when its windy

Why not tides? At least they never fail to appear.

 

[EdwinWillers]

View attachment 67376944​

I have no clue what point you're attempting here - but one view of Putin's horde seizing the most dangerous couple of acres on earth isn't entirely negative, that is if you're not a fan of them. And given the site is starting to churn again, I seriously question their wisdom in getting anywhere near it. Nor do I have a clue what possible strategic value it could be for them - but then he's megalomaniacal so who knows?

 

[EdwinWillers]

The environmental cost of making the components of solar panels kind of exclude it, along with cloudy days.

The wind turbines only work enough when its windy

Why not tides? At least they never fail to appear.

And batteries - not exactly an environmentally friendly process there either.

And wind turbines - which last only about 25 years, which blades cannot be recycled, and - this one's good - which foundations leave a circular or octagonal block of concrete in the earth that is on average 500-600 cubic yards in size.

For perspective, that's 50-60 large concrete truck's worth of concrete, and roughly 50 tons of rebar - give or take.

 

[Razoo]

What are the top 5 best renewable energy sources?


Five of them remains the most popular in both usage and development: solar, wind, hydro/water, geothermal, and biomass.
...
We'll begin with the most popular one; the power that we can harness from our Sun - Solar energy.

• Solar Energy. ...
• Wind Power. ...
• Hydro Power. ...
• Geothermal Power. ...
• Biomass Power.

Jul 28, 2016

Top 5 Renewable Energy Sources That Are Available To Us ...​

Between the above 5 we can live without Nuke Power which generates ingredients for nuke weapons. No nuke weapons is a safe weapon. As of now there is no safe storage for radioactive waste....the NRC is well aware.

The military does a lot of things very well whereas the corporate world cannot compete regarding quality control. This requires above average ethical discipline. Stereo I believe is a byproduct of a DOD endeavor.

Pushing solar, wind, hydro/water, geothermal, and biomass can certainly be generating lots of new employment which the USA is in need.