Poll: Nuclear power

[Ron Wenrich]

Expires 6-05-05

[Linda]

Isn't that typical..."Yes, but not in my backyard!"

We have one 12 miles away.   No problems yet. 8)   Built in 1970, So the clock is ticking! smiley_whacko

[DanG]

I can't make up my mind on this issue, mostly out of ignorance.  In principle, I suppose, nuke power is safe enough, IF all the people involved do their jobs the way they're supposed to.  But, what are the chances of that happening? ???  Just in the last month they found some illegal aliens doing clean-up work in a nuclear facility.  How did that happen?  Somebody wasn't doing their job, plain and simple.  If that sort of stuff can get through, what sort of other mishaps can we expect?

It is said that burning what our planet has produced for us causes pollution and we're all gonna die because of it, but I have no evidence to support that.  In my estimation, everything we have to burn came from this earth, and all the particles we exhaust will return to the earth to be recycled naturally.  That seems like a pretty good system to me.  I voted no on the question at hand.

[etat]

I voted 'yes but not in my backyard' 

[J_T]

I'm with Ck  8) But he want's it in my backyard and I want it in his ??? ;D :D

[Gary_C]

How many people are killed every year by nuclear power plants vs. how many are killed every year by lighting?

Every day you hear about how many of our soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the fighting began while there were 42,000 killed on our highways in just one year (2002).

What if electricity was just discovered and the question was:

Do you favor having electric wires run all over the country?

The same answers apply.

I think people are getting to expect absolute safety in everything to the point where progress is being held back in favor of a no risk environment.

I voted Yes.

[Furby]

I gotta say that that was well put Gary_C!
I think we have come along way since we built the last nuke plant, and I would hope we can now build a pretty good plant.
But like DanG said, humans screw up!

[Brucer]

The real issue is not the operation of the plant (3 Mile Island excepted) so much as what to do with the radioactive waste. After 6 decades the nuclear industry still has not come up with a practical and safe way to deal with the byproducts -- except to store them until they become a nuisance and then bury them in someone else's back yard.

Kinda like building an outhouse without digging the hole ???.

[fstedy]

I agree with the nuclear idea. We have to start doing something to free ourselves from arab oil. What ever happened to the breeder reactor wasn't that supposed to eliminate the waste disposal problem?

[submarinesailor]

I voted YES.

After almost twenty years on nuke powered submarines, I know they can be operated safely.  My only problem is the waste.  Why can't we reprocess like most of the other nuclear power counties in the world.  If we reprocessed, most of the waste problem would go away.

On the safety issue, the newly designed reactors are very, very safe.  Do a little research on the new generation of reactors.  I think they are called Generation IV reactors.

subsailor

[submarinesailor]

Just can across this in today's powermarketers.com:

NuStart Announces Top Sites Selected to Build New Nuclear Units

LCG, May 20, 2005-- NuStart Energy Development, LLC yesterday announced its six top sites for constructing new nuclear reactors. Following further review, including discussions with state and local agencies, NuStart will select two finalists in October of this year. NuStart will then prepare applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a combined construction and operating license (COL). One application will be for a General Electric (GE) Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor and one application will be for a Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 reactor.

The six finalists sites are: Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Alabama, owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA); Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Mississippi, owned by Entergy Nuclear; River Bend Nuclear Station, Louisiana, owned by Entergy Nuclear; Savannah River Site, South Carolina, a Department of Energy facility; Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Maryland, owned by Constellation Energy; and Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, New York, owned by Constellation Energy.

NuStart was founded in 2004 and includes Exelon, Entergy, Southern Company, Constellation, Duke Energy, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Florida Power & Light, Progress Energy, EDF International, and the two reactor vendors, GE and Westinghouse Electric.

Earlier this week, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman outlined plans designed to reduce nuclear project risks in order to alleviate investor concerns regarding project delays. The Energy Department plan would create a $3 billion insurance pool to protect investors with respect to interest, operating, maintenance and construction costs caused by regulatory delays. The insurance would apply to each of the first two plants built using the new Westinghouse design and the new General Electric design. Insurance premiums would be waived for orders placed before 2009.


subsailor

[TN_man]

It actually creates very little waste, and things can be done to recycle that waste even. I vote yes.

[Engineer]

I voted no, only because of the waste issue.  Nobody's figured out yet how to efficiently and cost-effectively dispose of it, at least here in the USA.   As long as we have to keep burying it in a cave somewhere, I don't think that the concept is well planned enough to continue to built new plants.

I think a much better solution would be trash-to-power plants.  Vermont used to have one in Rutland, and it was shut down years ago.  If the environmental concerns surrounding buring trash can be solved, it's a great way to get rid of the garbage, stop filling up landfills, and do something useful with our waste.   Here, in VT, we have no good way to get rid of trash anymore.  Our local landfill is closed now, and I think it all heads out of state.

[tnlogger]

i voted yes  we have come a long way since the 70's as far as safety. and our coal stocks will not last forever.
But more inportant we need to keep coming up with alternet fuels for vehcles . Methane and soy based fuels are here but are not utized as much as they could be.

[Gary_C]

I am quite sure the waste problem has been solved. However the technology would probably be very useful for terrorists and nations like North Korea that the technology is being kept under tight security.

Our government has probably concluded it is safer for us to store the wastes for now rather than to release this very sensitive information. That does not mean that we should not use nuclear power as they are seem to be storing it safely now.

Just guessing of course, but I think the waste issue is a justifiable risk that either has been or will be solved.

[Dan_Shade]

i'm another "not in my backyard guy"  :(

the waste is the scary part, that and people doing what they're supposed to do...

[Buzz-sawyer]

I am certain that the stored nuc waste will one day be mined as a valuable commodity....just like all the landfills that no one likes.......future treasure!

[Ron Wenrich]

I voted that I don't know.  On the plus side, it is a fairly clean way to generate electricity.  On the minus side, I don't really trust business enough to run one and I dont like the waste issue.

I lived through the TMI disaster.  The company did nothing but lie to the government and the people.  Their butt was in a sling and they didn't know how to handle it.  Their bottom line was more important than public safety. 

Exelon has bought TMI.  They are a British company.  Their security is great at the front gates, especially when the National Guard and the State Police were there.  Even then, they had armed men land on TMI on several occassions.  Seems that some hunters just don't get the message.  But, several hunters have landed and were not discovered.  The Guard and Police have since moved on.

I also question how good of an investment is it when the government has to make a number of guarantees and grants.  The Price-Anderson Act has limited their liabilites, in case of an accident.  I don't think it was repealed. 

I would much rather see investments in renewables.  Trash to steam with a methanol plant to use trash steam seems like a better investment.  Clean coal technology is also a better investment.   

[Vermonter]

I voted yes, but it's only part of the equation.
As many of you know, I put on a lot of miles up and down the east coast recently.  As I was driving through most of the cities at night, it's amazing the amount of power we burn through to have light at night.  The only reason I could come up with was to prevent crime.  How much does crime really cost us?  I like the trash to power idea, but throw in a few years of decomposition and burn the methane.  We're building one in northern Vermont, and upstate New York around Geneva has a couple.  In fact, when I went to the Empire Farm Days a couple of years ago, I saw trash trucks from Vermont (5 hours away).
How about Wind.......
How about biodigesters for farms (2 operating here)
How about conservation?

[OneWithWood]

I voted no.  The simple truth is we do not have a means to handle the waste.  The government ( you and me ) is picking up the tab to store the waste which has a half-life longer than humanity is likely to exist.  If we put all that money into renewables we would have something.  As long as we are willing to put our heads in the sand and build more nukes creating waste we cannot deal with, the dollars will not be available for renewables.
I wish for once we could use some common sense.

[beenthere]

Vermonter
Your observance of the night lights apparently for crime, gives me the notion that every (or nearly every) night light, be it the parking lot, street corner, or the business lighting up their new and used cars, etc, could be connected to a motion detector, and come on only when there is motion.  eh? If the business is open, not closed, then lights could be on.

All-night lights just 'light the way' for everyone, be they criminals or ones trying to be safe. Seems our electric needs could be drastically cut if we would darken the cities. Then we could 'follow' the movement.

I don't mind lights on when there is a purpose, but I don't buy the all-night, on-all-the-time lights on poles hardly at all. 

[Jason_WI]

I voted yes. I live within 70 miles of 2 nuke plants that are in Two Rivers and Manitowoc. So far no problems.  WPS wants to add more wind power in Door County, but people are against that due to the noise from the blades. : :  Anybody that voted NIMBY should live in the dark as far as I'm concerned.  Progress has a price. Most of the power grids in the US are too old to support the current summer usage. Expect to see more brown outs and blackouts. Currently in Kaukauna WPS or WE energies, don't know which, is building a natural gas "kicker" plant to support the peak demand times. I heard that 5 of these plants are being built throught WI.

Jason

[Daren]

I voted yes, I think we need alteratives to fossil fuels. There is a plant within 40 miles of me. I am not sure how long it has been in operation without problems, but I read in the paper about 2 poor linemen who were killed the other day fixing storm damaged powerlines from another source. The transmission of high voltage electric energy for all our modern conviences (like my computer) has a price. Is that price dependance on oil from people who can dangle our dependance in front of us like a carrot? We are a country that uses alot of energy, either we make it or we buy it. I worked at a nuke as a pipewelder. I saw enough safety related paperwork every day to heat my home (I often though maybe we sould start a pulp co-gen and scrap the nuke), the N.R.C. does not want any misshaps. Back to fossil fuels, how many lives have been lost due to refinery explosions, tanker ship wrecks, tanker truck wrecks, coal train wrecks, black lung, mining accidents, oil rig fires....

[Don_Papenburg]

I voted NO ,becasuse of the waste also.  30 years ago I worked at a factory that welded up steel boxes that would be lead lined and fille d with nuke waste and then dumped into the ocean.  Still don't like that idea.   Then there is the government (our tax money ) makeing the fuel rods and selling them at below cost to the nuke plants.  I think that our tax dollars could be use far better.

[Ron Wenrich]

I saw where night lights were using photovolaics for remote areas of India.  That always seemed like a good idea, if you absolutely need the light.  But, night lights are on when electricity demands are low, which probably helps in generation. 

We probably could get by with a lot less electricty then we are using right now.  My area produces lots of electricity.  Within 50 miles there are 5 nukes, a wood fied co-gen, a couple of trash to steam, a lot of waste coal (culm) plants, and several natural gas.  With all that production, you would think that our rates would be lower.