LTTE on Nuclear energy in Maine paper. Anyone care to make the rebuttal?

[GreenPartyVoter]

I don't think it matters if you aren't from around here. This guys isn't. (Since I just got my PLame leak letter in they may not take another one from me so soon.)

[email protected]

Nuclear energy urged

Scott Denman's op-ed, "No future in nuclear" (BDN, July 13), ignores the economic and environmental contributions of nuclear energy to America's energy portfolio.

Nuclear energy provides

electricity to one in five homes and businesses, and is by far

the nation's largest emission-free source of electricity. With a projected 50 percent increase in the demand for electricity over the next 20 years, the United States will need to rely on nuclear energy, along with other sources of electricity generation and enhanced conservation efforts, to meet our energy needs and reduce emissions

of greenhouse gases.

By operating today's 103 reactors more efficiently and reliably, the U.S. nuclear industry already has added the equivalent of

26 power plants to the electrical grid during the past 15 years.

Denman's well-intentioned recommendation of renewable energy sources is part of a comprehensive energy solution. Even after government support for the past 30 years, renewables remain only a small fraction of overall electricity supply. Few consider them a practical solution to address the growing need for reliable, 24-7 supplies of electricity.

For example, construction of the wind-power projects that Denman touts ground to a halt in 2003 during a lapse in the federal production tax credit for new wind farms. In fact, the lack of such incentives has brought to a standstill the development of Maine's first wind-power project on Mars Hill Mountain.

That speaks volumes about the economics of wind energy.

Renowned environmentalists, including James Lovelock, Patrick Moore and Stewart Brand, have endorsed nuclear energy in recent months as part of the solution to meet growing energy needs and reduce greenhouse gases. Would Denman have us believe these icons of the

environmental movement are disingenuous in their support of clean, domestic energy sources?

Or is he simply part of an ever- shrinking anti-nuclear community that would leave Americans literally in the dark?

Scott Peterson
Vice president
Nuclear Energy Institute
Washington, D.C.

[phantom power]

1. I happen to agree with him.

[Solo_in_MD]

9. As do I

Its a choice of two negatives, and nuclear appears to be a better choice than fossil fuels. Its wastes can be contained and its impact managed far better than fossil fuels. Like others concerned about our planet, I did not have this position 10+ years ago.

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. Welcome to DU :^) Thanks for adding your two cents to this thread

[karlrschneider]

15. I also agree given the current situation. But I still believe fusion has

potential and needs to be R&Dd more.

[Massacure]

2. It doesn't need a rebuttal.

Better to have waste right where we know it is than to throw it into the environment. I look forward to seeing new and improved reactors built. Our current ones are getting old and scare me.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. I would just as soon not need nuclear energy. No waste is preferable

to known waste in my book. (If they can figure out cold fusion, grand.. but until then..)

[phantom power]

13. some good news: the "waste" can be reprocessed, and reused.

We don't just have to store it and wait around for it to decay.

[MadHound]

14. Umm, only some of the waste can be recycled

The rest still is going to have to be stored for the rest of its half life.

[Massacure]

23. 300 years. Big Improvement over 100,000. :)

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Yes, but I would like some regulations put in place so that ammunition

is not one of those ways to reuse it.

[phantom power]

20. certainly, nuclear should be well regulated (I'm such a democrat)

[jody]

3. I believe the LTTE is basically correct but we must find a viable method

for storing nuclear waste.

[wuushew]

10. The current method seems okay to me

The sum total of nuclear fuel waste from power plants and nuclear ships over 50 years would fit comfortably in a high school football stadium.

Problems with Yucca aside there is no reason to believe that long term burial/storage in underground facilities is not appealing. Many areas of the United States and Canada are not geology active at all, especially the North American craton. Nevada was railroaded because of its small political representation and it serves them right for voting red.

How does one deal with the waste products of fossil fuels? They are many times more dangerous and plentiful than any radiation danger from nuclear waste.

[TahitiNut]

5. I sometimes suspect that the fossil fuel industry ...

... is the greatest roadblock to finding safe and reliable methods for storing and disposing of radioactive waste and creating safer reactor technologies.

When I consider the IMMENSE human and ecological damage of fossil fuels, I'm inclined to be VERY subdued in my opposition to nuclear power. Clearly, there are problems to be solved and ameliorated - not the least of which is the 'Chernobyl-effect.' Nonetheless, when compared to the human toll of the fossil fuel industry, it's hard to make an objectively persuasive case against nuclear power.


It should be noted that, by far, the greatest problem of radioactive waste is not the result of nuclear power but of nuclear weaponry. The Hanford Reservation itself is a Devil's Nightmare of toxic radioactive wastes resulting almost entirely from Cold War weapons manufacture (plutonium enrichment). Radioactive waste from the nuclear power industry pales in comparison.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Good point there about the Fossil Fuels.

[VelmaD]

7. Since when is nuclear power "emissions free"?

This guy is on crack. Last time I checked plenty of nuke plants had their filters "crack" and spewed radioactive emissions into the air.

[noamnety]

8. It's important to make a distinction

between fission and fusion when you discuss the issue.

There's a good summary here:
http://www.focusfusion.org/what/vs.fission.html

Rather than replying in a "nuclear power is good/bad" way, take the time to educate the readers about the difference, and why fusion, rather than fission, addresses the problems the writer correctly identifies, but in a safer way.

From the website:

fission power plants have three problems with radioactivity:

* The fuel is radioactive.
* The reaction byproducts are radioactive.
* The high energy neutrons can take ordinary materials in the reactor building and make them radioactive.

(snip)

Instead of splitting atoms, a fusion power plant takes small atoms such as hydrogen and fuses them together to make bigger atoms. This produces much less radioactive waste, and if the right atoms are chosen it produces none at all.

Nuclear power can have a place in a comprehensive energy plan - but it needs to be the right kind of nuclear power.

[Tikki]

11. Well, I certainly hope a wind-powered generator doesn't...

fall on you and kill you...(one in a trillion chance)

...and I hope the poisons created in Nuclear energy processes don't get loose or an explosion happens that puts killer radiation in the air you breath or the water you drink or the soil that grows the foods you eat or where animals you eat or drink from graze...

Oh wait...that has already happened and has killed and debilitated thousands upon thousand of people around the world....

Mom, please, can I have the keys to Dad's Corvette...I promise I'll keep my eyes on the speedometer and I won't drive too fast...I promise, I promise, I promise....

[skids]

17. Save the rebuttals.

If you want to fix the problem, vote with your dollars. Get yourself off the grid. They'll have a hard time justifying more nuke plants if they cannot sell the electricity.

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. I would LOVE to get off the grid.. But I can't afford to build

a "green" house right now. And even if I could afford solar panels I can't imagine our landlord would let us put some up here in the trailer park.

[MadHound]

18. It is sad to see that in this time of energy shortage

That people are being buffaloed into restarting this lethal technology, nuclear power.

There are two huge problems with nuclear power. The first is called human error. It is the number one cause of nuclear accidents, and with nuclear, even a small accident will effect hundreds and thousands of people. I don't care how safe you build a reactor, human error is still going to occur.

The second is what to do with the waste. Even if we recycle what we can, there is still going to be tons of waste produced from the nuclear process. Dye tests were done on Yucca Mt., and within a couple of weeks, the dye put into the cracks of the Yucca Mt. facility had worked their way into the Las Vegas water supply. Yet if we continue with the current method of storing this waste, it means that groundwater across the US is, can and will be contaminated with nuclear waste. Not good, not good at all.

And then there is the largest waste problem of all, what are you going to do with old reactors? Can't bulldoze them, can't take them apart, expensive to sit on them, so what do you do? Apparently nobody knows, so like the other nuclear waste problem, these mothballed plants just sit there, disintigrating away.

There is no need for nuclear energy in the US energy policy. With a wide range of alternative energy solutions, why should we favor a plan that is so potentially lethal to such large groups of people? Rather, let us go with a mix of solar and sun. After all, according to the US DOE, the US has enough harvestable wind energy in three states, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas to supply the electrical needs of the entire US through the year 2030. Add biodiesel to the mix, and we have a huge step forward towards a bright, renewable, non-polluting energy future.

Let nuclear die, it is for the best.

[wuushew]

21. A few decades time is not an eternity

In the case of nuclear reactors, about 99% of the radioactivity is associated with the fuel which is removed following permanent shutdown. Apart from any surface contamination of plant, the remaining radioactivity comes from "activation products" such as steel components that have long been exposed to neutron irradiation. Their atoms are changed into different isotopes such as iron-55, cobalt-60, nickel-63 and carbon-14. The first two are highly radioactive, emitting gamma rays. However, their half life is such that after 50 years from closedown their radioactivity is much diminished and the risk to workers largely gone.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip13.htm



For the usable energy they produce the land foot print is incredible small, something that other green forms of energy cannot match. As for the waste storage problem I suggest abandoned nickel or iron mines. Being the worn down nubs of ancient cambrian mountain ranges and being higher than both the local and regional water tables such sites would be ideal. I would certainly welcome the influx of money, jobs and transportation infra-structure to my state.

[MadHound]

22. Well, this little article leaves out a couple of huge exceptions

Surface contamination isn't the only type of contamination, there is also fixed contamination, which will be a large factor in decommissioning a plant. You just can't wipe it off, it has become a part of whatever surface it is on, hence the term fixed.

Also, there are many many more things in a reactor core that become activated besides steel, and they have very long half lives. Aluminum for one, and it is very very hot, with a half life of 750,000 years. Then there is lead, carbon, various silicon compounds, various polymers, the wristwatch the Fred dropped into the pool, etc. etc. ALL of these have half lives longer than a few decades, and most of these are too dangerous and/or bulky to safely move.

And while I appreciate your volunteering Ni or Fe mines near you, I think you had better talk with your neighbors first. Also, realize that being above the water table won't help, insomuch as gravity will pull everything down, and some of the radioactive wastes are water and other liquid. Judging by some of the abandoned Fe mines I've seen, water will be able to go through cracks, etc in them just as easily as in Yucca Mt. Not good friend, for if a radioactive source, no matter how small, gets inhaled or ingested by you, you've got huge problems.

I agree, they produce huge amounts of energy, but they also have huge downsides, and with human fallibility the way it is, it isn't a risk we should take if we don't have to. Besides, do you really want to pass the nuke waste problem on to future generations? Because we're not talking about storing this shit for years or decades friend, we're talking about storing this for millenia. I don't think that this is a wise course to persue, especially when we have much more acceptable alternatives in wind, solar and other renewable alternatives.

[lifelong Democrat]

24. Psst. The pyramid on your head is showing

and the magnets in your pockets have reversed polarity.

The US military has had considerable experience decomissioning reactors, removing the radioactive materials and leaving no trace. The same technology will be used in civilian plants. The wastes are contained in stainless casks that withstand corrosion or are glassified to encapsulate them and stored.

The worry about the time it would have to be maintained will become moot when the technology to process the wastes to extract the radioisotopes for re-use is perfected. The waste will suddenly become a very valuable commodity and will no longer pose a threat.

Green technology gives a warm, fuzzy feeling, but it can't compete economically with nuclear energy. It is also much more susceptible to terrorist attack, harder to secure and defend and has a history of interfering with the local wildlife. Birds have been blinded by flying into the sun's reflection off solar panels and endangered eagles and others have are regularly killed when they fly into the blades of wind generators.

Nothing is 100% safe, but nuclear will go a long way toward self-sufficiency until controlled fusion or some other energy source takes over.