Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
Member
PostThu Dec 18, 2014 7:31 pm 
Ski wrote:
bottom line: the government has not demonstrated an ability or willingness to clean up the existing mess at Hanford. radioactive waste is leaching into the Columbia River. clean up the mess over there first before proposing we invest more resources into anything "nuclear".
So, trying to fill in the gap in your logic, we shouldn't build any more nuclear plants until Hanford is cleaned up because.... only then will we know that the gov't is able & willing to clean up such a mess? Or because you assume future nuclear sites will create similar messes? Or what? I'm not following you. Do you feel that every industry that has created a mess in the past should come to a halt until all such messes are cleaned up? Which industries would still be operating today under that scenario? Try to remember that Hanford is a huge site (586 sq miles) that was largely constructed during wartime and operated mostly before the environmental movement came about, at a time when not much thought was given to environmental concerns. It's a mess, no question, but hardly representative of a modern operation.
Quote:
you are free to tag my statements as "non sequitur" and ignore the point. it only serves to make you appear oblivious to the problems which presently exist that have not yet been dealt with
Being pro-nuclear doesn't depend on being oblivious to either past or present problems, or potential future problems for that matter. Any major undertaking has mistakes in its past, but that has little bearing on what it might do for us in the future.

John
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Jake Neiffer
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 825 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lexington, OR
Jake Neiffer
Member
PostThu Dec 18, 2014 7:49 pm 
Ya, I mean I get the concerns with Hanford but isn't there like 104 active nuke plants in operation currently?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
Member
PostThu Dec 18, 2014 8:14 pm 
Jake Neiffer wrote:
Ya, I mean I get the concerns with Hanford but isn't there like 104 active nuke plants in operation currently?
Yes, and Hanford was a completely different animal, not just a civilian reactor site for generating electricity. Wikipedia has made me an expert so I know these things.... Pretty staggering estimated cleanup costs, actually. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site Department of Ecology's Hanford faq: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/nwp/faq.htm

John
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12797 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostFri Dec 19, 2014 1:14 am 
re: Parked Out: we shouldn't build any more nuclear plants until Hanford is cleaned up because.... only then will we know that the gov't is able & willing to clean up such a mess? > yeah, that's pretty much the gist of it. Or because you assume future nuclear sites will create similar messes? > when they haven't figured out how to deal with the problems they've already created, yes. that would be called "a reasonable assumption". Do you feel that every industry that has created a mess in the past should come to a halt until all such messes are cleaned up? > that would certainly provide some real incentive for them to clean up the messes they made, wouldn't it? as much as I doubt such a thing would actually happen in the real world, as the biggest messes have been made by huge multi-national corporations, many of which no longer exist or have changed ownership, it would be nice to see the Guggenheim family clean up the mess from the smelter down the street from me that spewed arsenic all over north Tacoma and the south end of Vashon Island. I'd love to see all the former board members of Anaconda pony up the bucks to clean up the mess in Butte. I could list more, but I'm sure you get the idea. Which industries would still be operating today under that scenario? > many. not all industries poison rivers, lakes, and groundwater or dump toxic sludge into open pits. our government, however, seems to have made an art of it. (ever read about all the PCBs they dumped into all those tiny little lakes just northwest of what is now DuPont (Northwest Landing)?) (your tax dollars at work.) Try to remember that Hanford is a huge site (586 sq miles) that was largely constructed during wartime and operated mostly before the environmental movement came about, at a time when not much thought was given to environmental concerns. > so? that absolves the US government from its responsibility for creating a toxic mess that has made people sick, killed people, poisoned the ground, and poisoned the second-largest river on the continent - one which arguably supported the world's largest runs of anadromous salmonids? I don't give a goddam that it was "constructed during wartime". the federal government created the mess - it's their responsibility to clean it up. they have not yet done that. the "during wartime" or "national security" argument just doesn't cut it with me. sorry. I trust our government almost as much as I believe that tomorrow morning I'll wake up with wings and be able to fly. you touted above the notion that private money would build these fabulous new "thorium" nuclear plants. sorry, I don't see anything like that happening without federal money backing it up. federal money = all the big hogs at the trough = contracts to the lowest bidder = shortcuts and cheating and corruption up the yazoo. (hey, sounds just like Hanford!) if it's such a great idea, let's see private money ante up the bucks and start building.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
spamfoote
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Oct 2014
Posts: 860 | TRs | Pics
spamfoote
Member
PostFri Dec 19, 2014 2:09 am 
So, if there is a bad apple or two on a tree cut the whole tree down! Boo Yea! With the logic train you espoused Ski, you should ban all airplanes, railroads, cars, and bicycles. Oh yea, shoes as well. They are dangerous in their initial conception. Or here is a thought, create reactors that eat the radioactive waste. They exist and have existed for quite some time, but need a little work. Naturally, there is no money for them as they do not create weapons grade Plutonium. If we had an NRC/PE administration worth a damn... As for PCB's, every industry worldwide had the same problem. No one knew. Naturally, the cheap and easy way to get rid of the problem the F'ing bureaucrats and eco freaks will not let them do. Dredge. Instead they want Panacea(no dredging), giving the end result of still allowing them to wave the bloody flag keeping them in the moral high ground(claiming to be for cleaning up the environment) when in fact they are the stumbling block to progress. In this case cleaning up someone else's "progress" from 50 years prior.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
Member
PostFri Dec 19, 2014 7:25 am 
Ski wrote:
I don't give a goddam that it was "constructed during wartime". the federal government created the mess - it's their responsibility to clean it up. they have not yet done that. the "during wartime" or "national security" argument just doesn't cut it with me. sorry. I trust our government almost as much as I believe that tomorrow morning I'll wake up with wings and be able to fly.
Okay, but envision Grandson of Ski 100 years down the road. Instead of griping about Hanford, now he's griping about how the US continued to burn fossil fuels for generations after they knew it was a bad idea, buggering up the atmosphere, acidifying the oceans and killing *all* the salmon. He might think old anti-nuke Grampa is as guilty of screwing the next generations as the Hanford folks were. I'm not unsympathetic to the points you make but I don't think they justify the do-nothing attitude that you're effectively espousing. Don't be so quick to admit defeat.
Quote:
if it's such a great idea, let's see private money ante up the bucks and start building.
I don't much like or trust our government either, but that doesn't mean they can't accomplish things that need to be accomplished that are beyond the means of private capital.

John
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Klapton
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 940 | TRs | Pics
Klapton
Member
PostFri Dec 19, 2014 7:58 am 
Since we are forbidding government to do anything where it has proven itself untrustworthy... Take away the Department of Defense until government proves it will only use it for defense. Take away the police until they stop killing unarmed people and getting away with it. Take away all the regulatory agencies until they stop being run by executives from the industries they are supposed to regulate. Take away education until we have at least one generation that can actually think for themselves. Take away social security until the prove they can keep their damned paws off OUR money. Take away their power to issue currency until they can demonstrate they will stop undermining its value through inflation. Oh wait... They GAVE that power to a private banking cabal already so the government doesn't own the banks, the banks own the government. You can add pretty much anything government does to this list, because everything they do is corrupt, inefficient, inept... Seriously... Name one thing government does that it doesn't suck at.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
HunterConservationist
Member
Member


Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Posts: 663 | TRs | Pics
Location: Renton, WA, USA
HunterConservationist
Member
PostFri Dec 19, 2014 11:57 am 
OP is correct, nuclear is an practical solution to our energy needs. A far better choice than government subsidized wind or solar, and greener too. We need several things for a renewed nuclear program. 1. Open Yucca Mountain, screw that obstructionist Harry Reid. 2. Clean up past nuclear sites many of which were for weapons work, not energy. Send the waste to Yucca Mountain. 3. A Fast Breeder reactor to assist with clean-up of isotopes 4. A set of pre-approved, standardized large-scale designs. 5. A set of pre-approved, alternative small-scale designs than can be situated near where energy is consumed. Pebble bed, LiFTR, etc. 6. Pre-approved site locations within each state.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
coldrain108
Thundering Herd



Joined: 05 Aug 2010
Posts: 1858 | TRs | Pics
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
coldrain108
Thundering Herd
PostFri Dec 19, 2014 12:49 pm 
HunterConservationist wrote:
6. Pre-approved site locations within each state.
if those sites are in the "rich neighborhoods" then we will have safe reactors. If not, then we will have cut corners and substandard materials being used by said rich folks to increase their profit margins at the expense of the "expendable" people - us.

Since I have no expectations of forgiveness, I don't do it in the first place. That loop hole needs to be closed to everyone.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12797 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostFri Dec 19, 2014 1:04 pm 
Quote:
"...envision Grandson of Ski..."
nice fantasy scenario, but I don't have any children because I chose not to. most of the rest of that stuff above is really kind of off the rails... was I supposed to try to respond to it? it's been clearly demonstrated they (the government) has neither the capacity, willingness, or wherewithal to deal with the mess that's already been created. lacking that, do you honestly feel you can trust them to take it a step further? apparently you do. I do not. feel free to misinterpret, twist, turn, and otherwise manipulate what I've said in your attempt to make some "point". if in your mind that validates your arguments, I'm happy for you.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
straydog
slave to a monolith



Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 1456 | TRs | Pics
Location: North Bend
straydog
slave to a monolith
PostFri Dec 19, 2014 1:05 pm 
Ski wrote:
it's reasonable to assume they're going to be built with public funds (read: "the government".)
uh, no. Commercial nuclear power plants are funded by the owner/operator. The only funding the US government provides is for:
  • Advanced nuclear power plants and research under the 2005 Energy Policy Act.
  • Federal loan guarantees for advanced nuclear reactors or other emission-free technologies up to 80% of the project cost (BTW, this doesn't mean the Fed is doing the loans. They are just backing them)
  • Production tax credit of 1.8 or 2.1 ˘/kWh from the first 6,000 MWe of new nuclear capacity in their first eight years of operation (the same rate as available to wind power on an unlimited basis).
  • Price Anderson Act for nuclear liability protection
  • Support for advanced nuclear technology Nuclear power != Government

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12797 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostFri Dec 19, 2014 1:14 pm 
okay, groovy. so if it's such a great idea and private money is supposed to be able to build these new plants, where is it happening on the ground?

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
Member
PostFri Dec 19, 2014 2:01 pm 
Ski wrote:
feel free to misinterpret, twist, turn, and otherwise manipulate what I've said in your attempt to make some "point".
Leaving aside for the moment the question of government involvement in future nuclear power generation, do you understand the idea that continued large-scale burning of fossil fuels may have serious environmental consequences for future generations? And if so, do you feel any responsibility to support alternatives to fossil fuels? Sorry, just trying to understand your attitude here.

John
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostFri Dec 19, 2014 5:23 pm 
Ski wrote:
so if it's such a great idea and private money is supposed to be able to build these new plants, where is it happening on the ground?
Where decisions are driven more by economics and engineering, and less by politics?
Nuclear Power is Booming in Asia wrote:
China now has 20 operating reactors for about 18 GW in capacity. There are also another 28 units under construction, which will bring the total capacity to 46 GW by 2019. There are numerous other projects on the drawing board, with upwards of 100 units potentially being added by 2030 South Korea... targets some 29 percent of generation from nuclear by 2035. It will take another 20 units to meet that target in addition to the five to six projects underway today. India... operates 21 nuclear power plants and has six under construction, it is making plans for many more. India's energy policy calls for 25 percent of electricity to be generated from nuclear by 2050. Japan's... Kyushu Electric's Sendai nuclear power plant could restart in late 2014 or early 2015... Two reactors in Japan under construction – Shimane 3 and Ohma 1. Others... Pakistan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand are likely export markets... Japan, South Korea and China are likely to remain or become world leaders in nuclear power and their influence will be felt worldwide.

"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir "the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
Member
PostFri Dec 19, 2014 5:33 pm 
Potential waste burner in China: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Chinese-fast-reactor-completes-full-power-test-run-1912144.html
Quote:
The Chinese Experimental Fast Reactor (CEFR) was brought to full power at 5.00pm on 15 December and operated at this level continuously for three full days, CNNC said yesterday. The sodium-cooled, pool-type fast reactor was constructed with Russian assistance at the China Institute of Atomic Energy (CIEA), near Beijing, which undertakes fundamental research on nuclear science and technology. The reactor has a thermal capacity of 65 MW and can produce 20 MW in electrical power. The CEFR was built by Russia's OKBM Afrikantov in collaboration with OKB Gidropress, NIKIET and Kurchatov Institute. The CEFR project was approved by the Chinese State Council in 1992, with final approval given in 1995. The China Experimental Fast Reactor is one of the major energy projects under the national high-tech research and development program of China's "National 863 Program". The China Institute of Atomic Energy (CIAE) is the organizer of the project's construction.

John
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum