So, have we learned our lesson about nuclear power?

[MadHound]

After four major accidents, and numerous smaller incidents. After hundreds of deaths, and untold injuries. After laying waste to thousands of square miles. After causing hundreds of billions of dollars.

Have we finally learned our lesson?

Nuclear power simply is simply too dangerous to mess with.

Have we finally learned that lesson? Is it now perfectly clear?

We don't need nuclear, it has been shown that green renewables are now capable of taking up the power load for our country.
<http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>

So we can put away that false, bipolar argument of either nuclear or fossil fuels. It no longer holds water, not that it ever really did.

Has it now become so painfully obvious that everybody in this country sees it, feels it, tastes it, fears it? We should not invest one more dime in nuclear power.

Don't try to blow smoke and yammer on about new designs. There are no new designs that prevent the two biggest problems with nuclear power, namely human error and waste disposal.

Don't yammer on about too cheap to meter. We have subsidized nuclear power to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Wind and solar are now cheaper per kilowatt/hour than nuclear, so your economic argument is gone.

The simple, plain, baldfaced fact of the matter is that nuclear power is a dinosaur, a relic of our Cold War past.

It is time, past time, to relegate nuclear power to the dust bin of history.

Anything else is simply inviting future disasters, future deaths, and future destruction.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. I remain suspicious of future nuclear power plants.

Japan built their plants with earthquakes incorporated into their design and got hammered by losing power due to the tsunami. Theoretically Japan was prepared but not entirely.

Now consider the proposition behind the design and construction of nuclear power plants in this country. Free market. Build them at the lowest possible cost. Regulations are costly and impinge on profitability. I went out with a guy who worked at such a plant and he told me of sales representatives of companies that made parts for these plants. The parts were substandard to say the least but with enough financial incentive, they could be purchased and installed in plants with the assumption nothing bad would happen. I'm not convinced.

Japan was semi-prepared. I don't believe we are. There will be unexpected surprises that will not be foreseen or predicted and not easily remedied once they come into existence. Because our way of doing business does not properly incorporate safety over profits. Plants will be built over fault lines. Employees who aren't qualified or trained will work in these plants. And short-sided planning of spent fuel rods is also an unaddressed issue.

[Autumn]

2. Some of us "little people" have learned. however

the ones who count in making these decisions are still praising it. Nothing is clear to them except contributions.

[hlthe2b]

3. Only a few short days ago, a boisterous few here were posting...

how safe Nuclear is and how "no one had ever been harmed by nuclear power plants in the US," and how those of us concerned over the situation in Japan were just "fear mongering." Further, they expressed outrage that anyone would even suggest a halt or reassessment of planned US nuclear plants. The majority of us had no desire to be "right"...

One can only hope that all nations reassess.

[MadHound]

4. So far, Germany and the Swiss are the only ones reassessing,

Let's hope that others will follow.

[retread]

36. Wonder if they are the same ones who derided and ridiculed anyone expressing

concern over the Gulf oil disaster. In the 1st couple of days heard right here on DU that it was minor or even non-existent and those saying otherwise were unscientific know-nothings.

[girl gone mad]

49. They always throw out the luddite/ant-science canard.

Which is ironic since their posts are generally chock full of misinformation and disinformation.

[MadHound]

5. kick to counteract the pro-nuke bullshit. n/t

[undeterred]

6. Just like we've learned our lesson about offshore oil drilling.

NOT.

[truebrit71]

15. +1

..

[Obamanaut]

7. But on the other hand, could we consider the damage done by fossil

fuel derived energy? How about those oil spills? Mine cave ins? Have any dams, hydro-electric power, ever caused any damage? Have these dams been the source of contention re diverting water from one place to another? Ever?

It is possible that no source of energy we use will be safe and/or free from voices raised in anger by opponents?

[MadHound]

8. True, but no other energy disaster has laid waste to thousands of square miles.

And again, since nuclear is so uneconomical, since it isn't needed, why bother with it? Why take the chance of laying waste to further thousands of square miles?

[Obamanaut]

14. The Gulf recently, the Exxon spill in Alaska. You're right, of course. nt

[Statistical]

9. The largest loss of life from a power plant disaster was .... a hydroelectric power plant.

The Banqiao Reservoir Dam the largest hydroelectric plant in China at the time broke in 1975.

The resulting flood waters caused a large wave, which was 10 kilometers (6.2 mi) wide and 3–7 meters (9.8–23 ft) high in Suiping (遂平), to rush downwards into the plains below at nearly 50 kilometers per hour (31 mph), almost wipe out an area 55 kilometers (34 mi) long and 15 kilometers (9.3 mi) wide, and create temporary lakes as large as 12,000 square kilometers (4,600 sq mi). Seven county seats, namely Suiping, Xiping, Ru'nan, Pingyu, Xincai, Luohe, Linquan, were inundated, as were thousands of square kilometers of countryside and countless communities. Evacuation orders had not been fully delivered because of weather conditions and poor communications. Telegraphs failed, signal flares fired by Unit 34450 were misunderstood, telephones were rare, and some messengers were caught by the flood. While only 827 out of 6,000 people died in the evacuated community of Shahedian just below Banqiao Dam, half of a total of 36,000 people died in the unevacuated Wencheng commune of Suipin County next to Shahedian, and the Daowencheng Commune was wiped from the map, killing all 9,600 citizens. Although a large number of people were reported lost at first, many of them returned home later. Tens of thousands of them were carried by the water to downriver provinces and many others fled from their homes. It has been reported that around 90,000 - 230,000 people were killed as a result of the dam breaking.

According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, in the province, approximately 26,000 people died from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. The death toll of this disaster was finally declassified in 2005.

-------------------

Nuclear power has a remarkably good safety record.

[MadHound]

11. Yeah, right, laying permanent waste to thousands of square acres is a great safety record

:eyes:

[hlthe2b]

16. Lasting environmental effects are worst than the bombs dropped on HIroshima/Nagasaki

How anyone can diminish the harmful risks from Nuclear Power escapes me. Good safety record, indeed. All it takes is one Chernobyl. The results of one serious nuclear accident, last for countless generations. Such events may be rare, but the consequences are so horrific, that is cold comfort.

Ever wonder why life could go on at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the area was not left a vast waste land, unlike Chernobyl?

a) The bombs that went off over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were air-bursts, so the neutron flux from the explosion created what is called induced radioactivity -- neutrons captured by the elements in the soil change their isotopes from stable to radioactive ones. Fortunately, induced radioactivity generally has a very short half-life (typically a matter of days), so the radioactivity decayed rapidly back to background levels. The long half-life isotopes were in the bomb itself, and those dissipated in the cloud material which drifted out to sea.

b) At Chernobyl, 400 times the amount of radioactive material of the Hiroshima bomb was released -- six TONS of radioactive material! The fire caused a plume of smoke containing volatilized long-lived radioactive isotopes, which settled to the ground along the trail of the smoke plume. So the ground in the area was contaminated with isotopes of plutonium-239 (the fuel), iodine-131, and strontium-90. Plutonium-239 has a half-life of more than 24,000 years, iodine-131 has a half-life of 8 days, and strontium-90 has a half-life of 29 years.

[WatsonT]

39. And yet the world refused to learn

we still utilize hydro power.

[SidDithers]

17. The Banqiao Dam in China burst in 1975...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province,<5> in the province, approximately 26,000 people died from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected.

Sid

[MadHound]

18. And again, did that disaster permanently lay waste to thousands of square miles?

No, it did not.

[Statistical]

19. Yeah it only killed quarter million people. A magnitude than any other power plant disaster ever.

[MadHound]

20. No denying that,

But the fact of the matter is that the death toll for nuclear power is unknown and untold. Why? Because unlike a big bang disaster like a dam collapse, radiation release is the gift that keeps on giving and giving, for generations. There are children of Hiroshima survivors who suffer from defects and odd cancers. The children of Iraq continue to suffer from the effects of ingesting and inhaling DU. On and on this goes, and the death toll quietly mounts.

[WatsonT]

53. Whoa FULL STOP

you are claiming hiroshima and depleted uranium rounds as the effects of nuclear power?

That would make as much sense as claiming any weapon produced by electricity from a dam as a victim of hyrdo electric.

[MadHound]

56. No, I'm not,

But apparently reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits.

[WatsonT]

57. Oh good, so you didn't type:

"But the fact of the matter is that the death toll for nuclear power is unknown and untold. Why? Because unlike a big bang disaster like a dam collapse, radiation release is the gift that keeps on giving and giving, for generations. There are children of Hiroshima survivors who suffer from defects and odd cancers. The children of Iraq continue to suffer from the effects of ingesting and inhaling DU. On and on this goes, and the death toll quietly mounts. "?

[MadHound]

59. Apparently you don't understand the use of the English language,

And the use of illustrative examples. Apparently you are stuck in that level of cognitive development where everything that a person says is taken literally. Most folks grow out of it by the age of eight.

[WatsonT]

62. So to clarify your point

you don't believe that DU rounds or nuclear weapons have anything to do with nuclear power and believe it would be disingenuous to make such a comparison?

Excellent. We are in perfect agreement.

[SidDithers]

21. Permanently is a long time...

Are you saying that the exclusion zone around Chernobyl is dead and will be forever?

Sid

[MadHound]

23. If people in charge have any sense, it will be closed off for thousands of years

Look at the half life of the material that was released, ten thousand years, twenty thousand years. In the scale of human civilization, yes, that is pretty damn permanent.

[WatsonT]

42. Closed off to people perhaps, but the wildlife is flourishing

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0426_060426_chernobyl.html

[MadHound]

55. Yes, irradiated wildlife and plantlife

The nuclear boars and other nuclear animals. So are you proposing that we move people back there, just because the wildlife is back? Wanting to consign people to die of cancers, suffer from birth defects? Your post is nonsensical.

[WatsonT]

58. Your hysterical rant aside

my point was that even the worst nuclear disaster in history caused by horrific government safety standards, was not nearly the permanent death sentence you and your ilk like to describe.

And 'nuclear boars/nuclear animals'? Really?

[MadHound]

60. Yes, really

There were even articles about nuclear wildlife, specifically nuclear boars, in various newspapers around the world.

And you think that permanently laying waste to thousands of square miles isn't horrific? You think Chernobyl was minor?

Wow, do you have a fucked up sense of perspective.

[WatsonT]

63. I see some people have based their understanding of such issues

on 1950s B science fiction movies.

"And you think that permanently laying waste to thousands of square miles isn't horrific? "


Look up "permanent" and "waste".

[WatsonT]

40. No but it did permanently kill a lot of people

[SpoonFed]

64. yeah

we all stand corrected by you.
it only temporarily killed alot of people.
good work!

[SpoonFed]

65. oops

my mistake, I thought you were talking about Chornobyl
and how great that was, still.

sorry for my confusion.

[gratuitous]

10. The lesson I've seen

Is that nuclear power plants on the verge of melting down need better PR and better message control. Also, radiation is good for clearing up your complexion.

[Zoeisright]

12. Those who are capable of learning have.

Others, not so much.

[BeFree]

13. Yep

I have learned that I want a suitcase sized nuke plant.
Y'know, like a gas generator on wheels but smaller.

That way if it starts to blow, which it will, just toss it in the ocean.
That's what they are doing in Japan.
Where do you think all that seawater they are flooding the plants with goes?

This planet could sustain 10-20 billion more people if we all had suitcase nukes.

Sure, it's like burning the house down to stay warm for one night.
But what do any of us have but one more night?

Live it up!
GE.... some more nukies for me. Fill 'er up, dude.

[slackmaster]

22. Substitute "automobile" for every instance of "nuclear power" and put your mind in the year 1920

;-)

Personally, I have a vested interest in having the nuclear industry hobbled for the next 20-30 years. I'm making a significant investment in a rooftop grid-tied photovoltaic power system for my house. A crippled nuclear industry will, in the medium run, mean higher costs for power generated from fossil fuels or renewables such as wind.

[MadHound]

24. Except that cars, even in 1920, didn't lay waste to thousands of square miles if they exploded

But a nice try to make little and light of a serious subject.

[slackmaster]

25. The cumulative damage from automobile-related pollution and accidents dwarfs what nuclear has done

But a nice try to make little and light of a serious subject.

Consider it "little and light" at your own peril. I meant it very seriously, and I stand by what I wrote.

[MadHound]

26. Ah, I see, you're trying to engage in that false dichotomy of either fossil fuels or nukes,

Sorry, but my link in the OP disproves that false dichotomy. It is no longer an either/or situation, we have a third option, namely green renewables. Gee, perhaps we should go with it.

Or we can continue to pollute our air and/or lay waste to our countryside.

[slackmaster]

28. No, I'm saying that nuclear technology is young, and that I believe it can be made safe.

Just as automobiles and aircraft have been made much safer than they were in their early years.

[MadHound]

30. And just as with the auto industry, you can't eliminate human error from the nuclear industry

Despite a hundred years of automotive advancement, the vast majority of auto accidents are caused by human error.

Likewise, all of the nuclear incidents and accidents are caused by human error.

The difference is that human error accidents in autos kill a relatively few people and perhaps some temporary damage to the land. In nuclear accidents, untold numbers are killed over a period of years, and thousands of square miles are permanently laid to waste.

I simply don't think that we can afford to have the same sort of learning curve with nuclear power that we have with automobiles.

And why should we? Green renewables are now cheaper than nuclear power, and can produce all of the energy we need.

[slackmaster]

31. The same can be said of any industry. Big machinery that handles lots of power poses risks.

Risks that can be mitigated through engineering, government regulation, etc.

The difference is that human error accidents in autos kill a relatively few people and perhaps some temporary damage to the land.

I don't regard the 44,128 people killed in vehicle incidents in 2007 to be a "relatively few" people.

I can't find any figures on how many people have died because of nuclear accidents. It's certainly not zero.

[Statistical]

32. Autombile accidents don't kill a few people.

The number of people killed in each incident don't matter the total number of people killed does.

Sure only a few people get killed in each automobile accident but in aggregate that is roughly 400K per year, or 20 million people since we started using nuclear power.

Hydro, fossil fuels, airplanes, automobiles have all killed a magnitude more people than nuclear power. Where is your call to ban hydro and airplanes, and autos?

[jacquelope]

41. Exactly.

Plus they acidify our oceans, too.

That said, I want to see more electric cars and SUVs. For starters. Yay Tesla Motors.

[WatsonT]

44. Hundreds of millions of average people drive cars

I doubt hundreds of millions of average people will be trusted to operate nuclear power plants.

More like a handful of trained professionals.

[retread]

37. So a moratorium until such time?

[slackmaster]

38. A deep, objective technical review of every plant in production or in planning

I see no need for a moratorium unless specific technical reasons for one are discovered.

[retread]

46. You said it is young and can be made safe. With existing technology??

[slackmaster]

51. What a ridiculous thing to say

I work in a technological field. "Existing" technology will be superseded TOMORROW.

[retread]

48. If this technology can be advanced why would we build long-lasting, dangerous "model T's"

http://www.americanscientist.org/my_amsci/restricted.aspx?act=pdf&id=36745203226947

[slackmaster]

52. Maybe we're not devoting enough public resources to the problem

:hi:

[SpoonFed]

54. uh...

maybe you need to turn on the TV?
There is like this thing going on with nuclear power generation in Japan right now. You might be interested...

[slackmaster]

61. Maybe you need to turn yours off

;-)

[WatsonT]

43. How much land has been paved over to provide roads

parking lots, gas stations, automobile factories, etc?

More so than have been devastated by nuclear power.

[TheKentuckian]

27. We don't do learning.

[LanternWaste]

29. I imagine there is more than one lesson...

I imagine there is more than one lesson that may be taken away from this. Depending on perspective, education and bias, these lessons may range from outright bans to better designs (apologies for ignoring your preemptive imperative) to additional redundant safety protocols.

So, rather than asking "have we learned our lessons?", I would hazard the fundamental question in the here and now is, "what precisely are the relevant lessons to be learned, and how do we best apply them?" My money is that the best and the brightest out there will not have the questions, let alone the answers for quite some time...

ed: grammar

[Johonny]

33. I think the answer is no

"If it was anybody else, I'd say what's going to happen to you would be a lesson to you. Only you're going to need more than one lesson. And you're going to get more than one lesson."

Some people really want nuclear power. They are going to need more than one lesson as to why it's not very attractive. Unfortunately for the rest of us they're going to get more than one lesson. The whole bridge, car crash, plane crash analogy sounded lame when Lamar Alexander used it yesterday, not sure why it sounds better today with some people. I guess it convinces the people that are already convinced?

[Keith Bee]

34. We're AMERICANS, dammit!

We haven't learned a goddamn thing! :patriot:

[apocalypsehow]

35. Ah, yes: advice from the "nuclear engineer"... Yah know, I printed out a post of yours and showed

it, over lunch, to an old Frat brother of mine who is an actual engineer.

He read it thoroughly, and pronounced it "pseudo-scientific gibberish." Actually, he pronounced some other things regarding it, all apt, but, alas, not keeping with my kinder, gentler nature, so I will not repeat them here. PM me if you want the details of his further elaborations.

Your posts have zero credibility as far as I'm concerned.

And, oh yeah, UnRec.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

47. We've learned -- people have always known ... Q is re the $$ people being deterred or not???

And Obama has been right in there pushing HUGE loan guarantees for nuclear

industry and a new generation of them here in US!!


:nuke:

[One_Life_To_Give]

50. Our Arrogance won't allow it.

We may fret for a time. But sooner or later the lure of the apple combined with our arrogant belief in ourselves. Will compel us to create yet another Titanic. Be thankful we are still only playing with Popguns, there are far worse toys to come.

[PurityOfEssence]

66. No, we have not.

The only good thing is that they're so expensive to build, and so expensive to insure.