• 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!

Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

Are You Interested In More Nuclear Power?

  • Total voters
    101
EagleAye said:
Exactly. Why make an impossible assault on an American nuclear plant when they probably won't even have to "buy" it from Iran?
Click to expand...
with the terrorist discount, and free shipping, any terrorist can have their own little dirty bomb....
We missed a good chance to sell small tactical nuclear weapons to both sides during the Iran/Iraq war. we could have sold nuclear hand grenades to both countries....
 

That would have simplified the middle-east equation, wouldn't it. I like the idea of giving an idiot enough rope to hang himself with.
 
Tolerate it?! I'm a strong supporter of it!

I live about 20 miles away from a nuclear power plant, we have never had a scare in my lifetime. The closest thing that could be regarded as a "scare" was when a car load of 'Arab' looking men were scouting out the area near one of the fences about a year or so after 9-11. They were driven off by security and that's the last anyone ever heard of the incident.
 
EagleAye said:
And that's why I would like to see Thorium nuclear plants (one of many reasons). It's not easy to misuse for weapons.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, the only way to use Thorium for nuclear weapons is to run in through a special type of breeder reactor to produce plutonium. Basically, only India is doing this as it never signed the NPT and needs a way to generate large amounts of fissile material for weapons. For everyone else, it's just easier to buy or mine uranium. Converting over to thorium with a strict construction code effectively eliminates the production of fissile material for weapons.
 
EagleAye said:
Because people start to panic at the mere mention of nuclear without even thoroughly understanding the facts. People look at the Fukushima disaster which involved extraordinary circumstances that NOBODY ever imagined possible.
Click to expand...

Granted though, TEPCO kind of screwed up its safety and the Japanese government wasn't a very good regulator when it came to TEPCO.
 
If asked, "Would you like an almost completely clean source of efficient renewable energy instead of your coal plants to avert the destruction of the environment?" I cannot see any sense in me replying with a "no".
 

That's not what I'm talking about.

The issue is potential bombing of on-site storage facilities. Just imagine the release of nuclear wastes in to the environment - the surrounding environment could become inhabitable, there increased risk of cancers and various diseases, not to mention groundwater contamination.
 
It would take a lot of effort, and there are far easier targets. These buildings are guarded, and the water tank is thick walled concrete.

Why would a terrorist stop at just making a few acres uninhabitable when he can kill thousands by poisoning our water or spreading some nasty disease....
 
 
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Granted though, TEPCO kind of screwed up its safety and the Japanese government wasn't a very good regulator when it came to TEPCO.
Click to expand...

Well, there you go. Follow the safety guidelines and nuclear is very safe. It takes a long chain of circumstances to cause the trouble that people worry so much (too much) about. It's far less safe to cross a busy street than live near a nuclear plant.
 
 
If the terrorists haven't attacked nuclear facilities now, then why would they after we build a few more? It's extraordinarily impractical to attack a nuclear power plant, when there are cheaper/easier, and more deadly ways to wage terrorist activities.
 
 
 
I support the Keystone pipeline, getting more natural gas and drilling more of our oil as well as more nuclear power. I think we should go for the most cost effective method that results in energy independence (or at least has us getting more energy from Canada and virtually none from the Middle East).
 
apparently the Saudi govt sees the handwriting on the wall and are getting into electricity in a big way...solar and nuclear....google saudi nuclear

lots of good stuff to read...
 
No justification for nukes. They have to be done with gov't money. They are not insurable, and that is because the potential liability is huge. We don't need the energy. There is plenty of wind and sun. So why build nukes anyway? Read carefully. They plug in to the existing centralized distribution of electricity network and tax collection network. Guess what. Wind and solar are only truly efficient when placed locally. Who gets cut out of the loop? That would be the centralized distribution of electricity network (monopoly) and the tax collection network (state and federal gov'ts). Who'd a thunk it that the Utilities and gov't are partners in the business. That's why nukes. That's why TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima, 9 nuclear subs, and who knows how many unreported events? Not needed at any price. Not safe at any price. Always on a major freshwater source. That's a huge threat. What do bankrupt nuke corporations do with big waste problems. Look at Fukushima and TEPCO has been Nationalized and that is another way of saying that the taxpayer will now be responsible for the nuke waste at Fukushima. This is standard business practice or modus operandi as some might say. How old is your nuclear reactor?
 
The Big Potential of Micro Nukes | Alternative Energy | DISCOVER Magazine

Unfortunately, the terrorist threat keeps us from any real energy solution. Micro nukes can be converted into bombs. Simply withdrawing our demand for oil will further destabilize the ME. We have to advance to a higher level of social evolution before the problem of energy can be solved. We have the knowledge and tech to move to energy independence, but he wave the wisdom not to do it at the stage of evolution. Myth and legend are filled with great empires who fell by their own hands because they reached for power before they were ready.
 

You know the oil from that pipeline isn't even intended for us? The plan is to use the refineries in the gulf and then export the resultant gasoline. But yeah, energy independence is really important. For me, I'd prefer no oil from the middle-east as soon as possible. Ultimately, no oil from Canada and Mexico either. They aren't so unstable so eliminating the need for their oil isn't as much of a rush job. When all the oil we need is produced right here in the US, we'll be in very good shape.
 


I really don't mind the Canadians and Mexicans sending oil here to refine. After all gasoline, Vaseline, kerosine, etc are worth more than some crude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…