We Need The Help Of ALL Earth Loving Souls Opposed TO Nuclear Energy

Relax. Nuclear isn't going anywhere fast. There are few investors, and nuclear can't exist without government subsidies. New energy is being provided much more by renewable sources, which does draw substantial investment.

Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute writes about why nuclear energy isn't feasible. There are much better options.

http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E05-08_NukePwrEcon.pdf

Ha! Thats what you think!. There are plans to build at least 17 new nuclear power plants, they are in the process of getting their COL s or Construction and Operating License from the NRC. Also, Any fear of a nuclear plant, nowadays, is totally unjustified and irrational. Back up systems have been created to disable a nuke reactor in the case of any minor to major malfunction. Three Mile Island and Chernoybl are things of the past.

"Three Mile Island and Chernoybl are things of the past."

Ha! That's what you think!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071700130.html

"There are plans to build at least 17 new nuclear power plants, they are in the process of getting their COL s or Construction and Operating License from the NRC."

Personally, I'm not willing to pay the taxes to support these projects. They cannot exist without subsidies. Subsidies should go instead to renewables, wind, solar, hydrogen, because those subsidies will one day disappear - unlike nuclear. Investors are going with renewables.

Also, your icon (Justin W.) is another great reason for opposing nuclear - but I can see that nuclear bombs do something for you.

"A fifth of the world's electricity and a quarter of the world's new electricity comes from micropower -- that is, combined heat and power (also called cogeneration) and distributed renewables. Micropower provides anywhere from a sixth to over half of all electricity in most of the industrial countries. This is not a minor activity anymore; it's well over $100 billion a year in assets. And it's essentially all private risk capital."

"So in 2005, micropower added 11 times as much capacity and four times as much output as nuclear worldwide, and not a single new nuclear project on the planet is funded by private risk capital. What does this tell you? I think it tells you that nuclear, and indeed other central power stations, have associated costs and financial risks that make them unattractive to private investors. Even when our government approved new subsidies on top of the old ones in August 2005 -- roughly equal to the entire capital costs of the next-gen nuclear plants -- Standard & Poor's reaction in two reports was that it wouldn't materially improve the builders' credit ratings, because the risks private capital markets are concerned about are still there."

"So I think even such a massive intervention will give you about the same effect as defibrillating a corpse -- it will jump but it will not revive."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19995726/

Steve, do you know anything about a nuclear power plant? Have you ever been to one? Do you understand the concepts behind nuclear power? A nuclear reactor is expensive!!! They cost a lot to make safe. A nuke power plant spends the first 20 years making up the money for their constuction. Most have been generating profit for at least 7 years, with most of the older ones generating profit for more than 15. Many nuke plants are coming up on their 40 year running license, most if not all of the plants are expected to receive a twenty year extension. Why? Because they are safe and reliable generators of power. They produce a hell of a lot more power than wind or solar combined, from far less plants.

Also, the amount of radiation released from the Japanese reactor was less than 1 MeV (Mili-Electron Volt) or less than 1.6X10^-13 Joules of energy, in laymens terms, an incredibly small amount of radiation. If your worried about the radiation leak in Japan, then you should be scared of just walking outside, cosmic rays give out more radiation than that every day!!!!

"Also, your icon (Justin W.) is another great reason for opposing nuclear - but I can see that nuclear bombs do something for you."
And on a personal note, I THINK MUSHROOM CLOUDS LOOK COOL THANK YOU VERY MUCH! But that does not mean I wish the world to be covered by them! They demonstrate the unharnessed power of nuclear technolgy that should hopefully never be used.

"Steve, do you know anything about a nuclear power plant?"

I have no interest in nuclear. As I said, I'm not willing to pay the taxes to support them, especially since there are cheaper, non-dangerous alternatives.

I hope Amory Lovins is right, and hydrogen will be our future energy source. Do you know anything about hydrogen? If not, RMI is a good source.

https://www.rmi.org/

Also, your claims about nuclear safety remind me of how the Titanic was said to be unsinkable. I linked the article about a very serious, near disaster in Japan. That fact that it wasn't a major disaster is a function of luck rather than design, as the article clearly states, "Tokyo Electric Power, which operates the plant, said the quake was stronger than anything its seven-reactor Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant had prepared for." And further, "Japan's 55 nuclear reactors, which supply 30 percent of the country's electricity, have had a long string of accidents and coverups." Your minimization of this event is the exact kind of denial that leaves me extremely distrustful of nuclear energy.

I'm not interested in nuclear energy in the least; I am not willing to pay one penny to subsidize it. I don't care to know anything about it. I will vote against any politician that supports it, and I will contribute $$$ to their opponent(s).

Read the Lovins quote I posted above. If micro-power accounted for "...11 times as much capacity and four times as much output as nuclear worldwide..." in 2005, and it is safer and more economical, why would I opt for nuclear?

Justin: "I THINK MUSHROOM CLOUDS LOOK COOL THANK YOU VERY MUCH!"

Well, you know what Oppenheimer said when he saw the first one, don't you? He quoted the the Bhagavad-Gita:

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"

In a book by Erich Fromm, "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness," the character trait, necrophilia, is described. It is the fascination/obsession with such powerful purveyors of death and destructiveness.

I'm not interested in nuclear energy in the least; I am not willing to pay one penny to subsidize it. I don't care to know anything about it. I will vote against any politician that supports it, and I will contribute $$$ to their opponent(s).

If you have no knowledge in nuclear technology then how can you oppose it. You must at the very least understand the concepts behind something in order to oppose it. Also, politicians USUALLY dont understand nuclear technolgy, so most are in the same position as you!

I did not minimze the Japanese accident. The released radiation was a patheticly small amount. The reactor avoided a massive disaster BY DESIGN. Containment buildings are constructed with 10 ft thick concrete walls!!! And all kinds of power plants have problems. Coal and gas plants sometimes explode due to neglect! Wind and solar power can be unreliable!

Your attacks on my picture shows how you have some sort of insecurity with your argument. Just because I think a mushroom cloud looks cool does not mean i am infatuated with them, and I definitely do not promote the use of nuclear weapons! I like all clouds, meteorology is one of my hobbies. I think all clouds look cool, especially cumulonimbus clouds (thunderheads). You just decide to attack me rather than listen to whaty i am saying.

Justin: "If you have no knowledge in nuclear technology then how can you oppose it."

I also don't know exactly how arsenic kills, but I know enough not to ingest it.

Justin: "...politicians USUALLY dont understand nuclear technolgy, so most are in the same position as you!"

Excellent! I'm very happy to hear that!

Justin: "The reactor avoided a massive disaster BY DESIGN."

Were you just ignoring this ("Tokyo Electric Power, which operates the plant, said the quake was stronger than anything its seven-reactor Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant had prepared for."), or do you just think it doesn't matter? Either represents "minimizing" the Japanese incident.

Justin: "Coal and gas plants sometimes explode due to neglect!"

True enough. But if they explode, they don't poison the region for thousands of years with radioactive fallout. I know you say Chernobyl is history and couldn't happen again, and I recognize that Chernobyl was a fatally flawed design. But..., Chernobyl is poisoned, worse than useless now. You don't get that with coal/gas explosions, tragic as they are.

Justin: "Wind and solar power can be unreliable!"

Well, not really. That's the spin. There's plenty of wind and solar potential to provide our energy needs many times over. What's needed is a storage mechanism for reliability. Hydrogen fits that bill quite well.

Justin: "Your attacks on my picture shows how you have some sort of insecurity with your argument."

No. My attacks on your picture show my insecurity with your picture!!! I think I make that pretty clear.

Justin: "Just because I think a mushroom cloud looks cool does not mean i am infatuated with them, and I definitely do not promote the use of nuclear weapons! I like all clouds, meteorology is one of my hobbies. I think all clouds look cool, especially cumulonimbus clouds (thunderheads)."

Your promotion comes with posting the picture. I'm not saying you're itching for global catastrophe, but you're flirting with it. Do I really need to point out that there's a world of difference between a nuclear bomb and meteorological phenomena? Hey, I love clouds too, and I never feel insecure in relation to them (unless they have a funny kind of funnel shape). Clouds are actually closer to wind and solar energy than they are to nuclear - surely, you can see that.

Justin: "You just decide to attack me rather than listen to whaty i am saying."

You are not going to change my mind about nuclear energy - period. My attack is not just a diversion. It's a serious consideration. If you were just intrigued with fire (as in playing with fire), then it would just involve you - maybe a few others. But this is different. Even Oppenheimer saw that, and Fromm warned about it. You treat it far, far too lightly.

Justin: "Just because I think a mushroom cloud looks cool does not mean i am infatuated with them, and I definitely do not promote the use of nuclear weapons! I like all clouds, meteorology is one of my hobbies. I think all clouds look cool, especially cumulonimbus clouds (thunderheads)."

I showed this quote to my wife, and her response was that Exlax looks alot like chocolate too, but Exlax can be quite explosive!

Oppeneheimer was worried about nuclear war, not necessarily the use of nuclear power plants.

So we'll leave it at this. You don't like nuclear power and I don't like wind and solar, and many people agree with me and you. So we'll just agree to disagree.

On a last note, I do agree that hydrogen would be a great fuel source after we can be sure no one wants to turn a pressurized hydrogen tank inside a car into a good sized bomb. (That was a purposeful run-on)

See, Justin? Even between the two of us: Hydrogen 2, Nuclear 1.

Justin: "I do agree that hydrogen would be a great fuel source after we can be sure no one wants to turn a pressurized hydrogen tank inside a car into a good sized bomb."

At least you have a sense of humor. But in case someone else reads this thread, I have to respond to the myth of exploding hydrogen. From Lovins:
__________
Myth #2. Hydrogen is too dangerous, explosive, or "volatile" for common use as a fuel.

The hydrogen industry has an enviable safety record spanning more than a half-century. Any fuel is hazardous and needs due care, but hydrogen's hazards are different and generally more tractable than those of hydrocarbon fuels.34 It's extremely buoyant — 14.4 times lighter than air (natural gas is only 1.7 times lighter than air). Hydrogen is four times more diffusive than natural gas or 12 times more than gasoline fumes, so leaking hydrogen rapidly disperses up and away from
its source.35 If ignited, hydrogen burns rapidly with a nonluminous flame that can't readily scorch you at a distance, emitting only one-tenth the radiant heat of a hydrocarbon fire and burning 7% cooler than gasoline. Although firefighters dislike hydrogen's clear flame because they need a viewing device to see it in daylight, victims generally aren't burned unless they're actually in the flame, nor are they choked by smoke.

Hydrogen mixtures in air are hard to explode, requiring a constrained volume of elongated shape. In high-school chemistry experiments, hydrogen detonates with a "pop" when lit in a test tube, but if it were in free air rather than a long cylindrical enclosure, it wouldn't detonate at all. Explosion requires at least twice as rich a mixture of hydrogen as of natural gas, though hydrogen's explosive potential continues to a fourfold higher upper limit. Hydrogen does ignite easily, needing 14 times less energy than natural gas, but that's of dubious relevance because even natural gas can be ignited by a static-electricity spark.36 Unlike natural gas, however, leaking hydrogen encountering an ignition source is far likelier to burn than to explode, even inside a building, because it burns at concentrations far below its lower explosive limit. Ignition also requires a fourfold higher minimum concentration of hydrogen than of gasoline vapor. In short, in the vast majority of cases, leaking hydrogen, if lit, will burn but not explode. And in the rare cases where it might explode, its theoretical explosive power per unit volume of gas is 22 times weaker than that of gasoline vapor. It is not, as has been claimed, "essentially a liquid or gaseous form of dynamite." 37
__________

https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf

Finally, I read your caption for your mushroom cloud picture. If you are looking for a career in the energy field, I would suggest you look at the long-term prospects of nuclear energy. You may do much better to look elsewhere.

Great article