Is Nuclear Energy Worth the Risk?

[iamkeri1]

We don't know what the heck we're doing with nukes, and the risks are too great. I have been opposed for my entire life to this source of energy and I feel more certain now than ever that I was right.

NO NUKES!!!

Smooches,
Keri

[Laidbackgrly]

Look at what is happening in Japan need i say more?

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Laidbackgrly

Look at what is happening in Japan need i say more?

Yup.... wake up! We ought to add up all the $ spent on the key nuclear plant accidents and figure out just how it does measure up in terms of being less expensive energy. ALL of the costs, including health care expenses and long term monitoring of accident and nuclear waste sites. Add in R & D costs.

Just in terms of economics, makes no sense. And utility corporations since 3-Mile island in the US are not jumping to invest in more plants. The ones that are proposed may never be funded and built. Good, these ought not be "shoe-string" projects.

[Passionaria]

Very simply, NO. I think nuclear energy is a reflection of man's blind audacity, and irreverence for the natural world.

[Sachita]

yesterday over lunch my sister is complaining about the cost of electricity. This is after I just finished paying 600.00 at the power company and thats for one month. For almost an hour she's ranting about MY BILL and how the government needs to do something about it.

well I guess in a way they did. We demanded more energy and all along we were told the risk. We kept using, using and buy big ass cars and trucks, consuming huge amounts of energy without ever considering where it came from. Now we're face with all the backlash and issues of our demands.

The earth has always shifted and changed. This we can't stop but because of our greed and need for power when the earth does take it's natural course our stupid solutions back fire on us. nuclear energy is what will ultimately destroy our planet.

[Toughy]

What happened to 'American ingenuity'? Nuclear power is the best we can come up with to frigging boil water, creating steam to run a turbine to produce electricity??????

We need a paradigm shift in how we think about energy production and distribution. Right now we operate on the idea that everyone should be hooked up to the local power plant grid and ALL the electricity for an area must be produced and distributed by the local power company. That power company is most likely a for profit corporation and they are sucking up your dollars (your energy bill) in order to make a profit. All utilities should be publicly owned and not for profit.

If every new building built had solar or wind panels on it, the amount of power needed from the grid could be reduced, significantly in many cases. A home building company here in CA has decided to put solar panels on all their new homes. How about all the acres of parking lots with cars baking in the sun? In SF, there is a parking lot with solar panels over the parking spaces..........energy created and stored, cars in the shade and asphalt not putting off 120 degree heat.

We need a bit more of the 'can do' spirit instead of the 'nope, too expensive' lie.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Toughy

What happened to 'American ingenuity'? Nuclear power is the best we can come up with to frigging boil water, creating steam to run a turbine to produce electricity??????

We need a paradigm shift in how we think about energy production and distribution. Right now we operate on the idea that everyone should be hooked up to the local power plant grid and ALL the electricity for an area must be produced and distributed by the local power company. That power company is most likely a for profit corporation and they are sucking up your dollars (your energy bill) in order to make a profit. All utilities should be publicly owned and not for profit.

If every new building built had solar or wind panels on it, the amount of power needed from the grid could be reduced, significantly in many cases. A home building company here in CA has decided to put solar panels on all their new homes. How about all the acres of parking lots with cars baking in the sun? In SF, there is a parking lot with solar panels over the parking spaces..........energy created and stored, cars in the shade and asphalt not putting off 120 degree heat.We need a bit more of the 'can do' spirit instead of the 'nope, too expensive' lie.

Yes, this is exactly the kind of BIG changes in thinking and doing we need. I think we are lied to about most of this, too. All of a sudden, after decades of cars and trucks that never got more than 12 miles a gallon, there are hybrids and second generation electric vehicles. These could have been produced 20 years ago.

Some larger SUVs are hybrids now. People can have hybrid mini-vans. Even argricultural vehicles and equipment that are gas powered get more MPG now. In some instances, like trucking, the need for gas will most likely be around- although, development of transit hubs much like high speed rail could change how much gas/oil is used in these cases.

Rapid/Public transportation system infra-structures must be developed in the US now. They do need to be easy to use and get people to places on time. And we need to begin education (and modeling) a public transit state of mind to future generations.

I have re-thought my needs for vechiles a lot lately. I use the public transportation here a lot and realized my car sits in the garage most of the time. Yet, I pay to insure it and license it. I drive the dog to the dog park daily in a camping van- same expenses and my I just can't go on the road trips I used to. So, it is time to change this. I have always loved cars, but my life is different now and I'm retired. I know we all come from differing regions and have different needs for vehicles and transportation. But, the kinds of things you write about here, Toughy, could go a long way in cutting down energy use and costs in the long run. It does take changes in building right from the start. Good place to begin is with new construction- both residential and commercial. I have seen some great "Green" residential areas in which this has taken place. The thing I see most is a very different consciousness of the people that live in them.

[Rockinonahigh]

When the powers that b play with fire ..especialy this kind of fire...u are going to have something bad happen no mater how u try to prevent it.I never thought nukes were the way to go,nothing will change my mind its just to dangerous.Useing wind,solor or any safe way will be the thing that will save the planet.If I could afford it I would be driveng a hybred car or convert my cadi to natural gas,last year I looked into puting solor panels on the roof or a pad in the corner of my back yard..the cost is way out of sight and will be for a while.I know that ppl want to do better but greed as well as oppertunist can get even more money in there already well lined pockets greed will contenue.

[iamkeri1]

A 7+ "aftershock" has just occurred in Japan, causing loss of power to additional nuclear plants. For weeks now the Japanese have been spilling radiated water into the ocean whoch has been read at 3000 times the level of radiation considered SAFE by the industry. Do we imagine that that radiatio will not circulate throughout the world?

The ocean is our life. If ocean life dies, humans will die as well.

The answer to every economic worry the USA has, lies in putting our money into development of durable sources of energy. Just think where we would be if we had put all the money spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan (and now the Lybian) wars on development of alternative energy sources. If we needed revenge against those who attacked us on 911, what better revenge than to stop buying their major product?

We are now 10 years post 911. Had we sought to "Live well" (Living well is the best revenge!) rather than kill hundreds of thousands of people and tank our own economy, we could be 50-90% of the way along to eliminating reliance on first foreign oil and eventually ALL oil. This could be translated to reduction of nuclear energy as well. I have said this (ranted this?) on other threads. It is my particular "issue"

Localization of energy provides much of the answer. Individual homes, particularly newly constructed homes as AtLastHome points out, can be powered individually, reducing or eliminating their "draw" on the grid. In areas where wind is consistent, local grids should be developed to access this source. Sun, heat, and water flow can be used in other areas. This is a national security issue as well. The entire east coast is powered under one huge grid. Sabotage of this grid would cripple the country for an extended period of time

Garbage is a universal problem, but the decomposition of garbage creates huge amounts of methane gas which is pretty much just wasted. Using this gas to power electricity is an idea which has been circulating for at least a century (Link to article written in 1906 -http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/electricity-from-garbage.html ) Communities everywhere could access this source of energy and solve two problems at once.

Well, I DO run on but the shot version is,

NO NUKES!!!
Smooches,
Keri

[Toughy]

I"m curious about the 'cost way out of sight'. Is it way out of sight because you are trying to get completely off the grid? Is it way out of sight to use solar for half your electricity? What is making the cost way out of sight? Is it the panels themselves, the batteries and/or the cost of labor for installing them? Is it cost prohibitive in the short term or does that extend 10 years out?

What is driving the cost so high? Are there government programs to help defray the cost?

My mother came from poor ass dirt farmers. They had a couple of windmills that pumped water into water tanks for the animals on the farm. Those windmills had batteries attached to them and those batteries stored power and that's how they had some electricity on the farm. This was in the 20's and 30's.

Let's look at General Electric, with a 5.1 billion dollar profit for 2010, for a minute. (http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.co...-ges-tax-bill/)

<snip> Samuels said at a tax forum in February that GE needs a tax system that will let it compete effectively with giant, foreign-based multinationals like Mitsubishi, Siemens (SI), and Phillips. However, their effective tax rates for earnings purposes last year were 40%, 31% and 26% respectively, compared with 7% for GE. (GE says its tax rate's been artificially low the past few years, and will soon rise.)

a bit more on GE:

In the period between 1991 and 2009 GE's pretax income is cumulatively $293 billion on which however the firm has paid only $25.2 billion in current domestic taxes, or a 8.58% cumulative tax rate.

Yet where it gets wild is the narrower period between 2002 and 2009, during which time frame the firm made a generous $164.4 billion in pretax net income (not to mention $639 billion in domestic revenue, just over half of total revenues of $1.2 trillion) it paid only $5 billion in domestic current taxes, or a 3.17% tax rate! So our question to the administration is how does $639 billion in domestic revenue, and $164 billion in total net income, result in $5 billion in taxes?

Source: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/how...mestic-revenue

If that doesn't piss you off nothing will. GE has paid a smaller percentage in taxes than probably 98% of folks on this website. Yet the asshole corporatist in Congress are going to shut down the government because 'we don't have enough money' for health care and education and must cut the budget.

And folks can't afford to put solar panels on their homes or small business.

sorry I kinda ranted off subject for a minute or two...........

[Glenn]

We need another Tesla.

[Sachita]

You know I refinanced my home to break away and give me 25 acres free and clear, It has a spring, long creek, woods and pasture. I wanted freedom to know no one could take it from me. Often I fantasize about packing up my tents, my dogs and just hitting the back 40 without electric, running water and trying to be as sustainable as possible. BUT I get scared. Although I bitch about commercialism and our government I'm just as responsible and dependent on the luxuries I afford myself. I support the very thing I bitch about.... lol as I sit here opening boxes from Amazon containing foods I can't get locally. I also broke down and cried like a big ass a few winters ago standing in all that snow, pipes busted, cold, wet... how the hell would I ever survive? I guess i would if I had to.

But there is a tread of resentment in me when I pay that stupid ass power bill that could easily house a small family. Meanwhile I see our government sending millions overseas. There is resentment when I'm busting my ass and helping to pay to do it. My best defense in the ebb of all this resentment is continue and refine my "fuck you" plan and learn to be even more sustainable. I wear more clothes and even put coats on the dogs. If it's super cold we all huddle together and cuddle. I plan my trips to town- shopping, seeing Mia and my family. This year my garden will be even larger and I'll preserve more food. I can't bitch about something I'm not willing to do anything about. We all make excuses and even though we can't snap our fingers for change we damn sure could all start stepping towards it proactively.

[iamkeri1]

Sachi
Back in the 1950s, we went to Houghton Michigan to visit friends of my Dad who had moved there. One guy had bought a home on ten acres. He was retired so he time on his hands. The first summer he was there he dug a trench around the outside of his property and was able to hook it up to an artesian well (naturally free flowing well.) A spring or river would work as well, if you had access to one.

He built downhill slants and drops into this trench to increase the speed of the flow of the water. He built several paddle wheels into it and close to the house he had a windmill that was powered by both the water and wind as well.

Anyway, long story short, he generated enough electricity to power his whole house and sell enough power back to the electric company that he powered his house for free the rest of the year. It's cold where he lived, so this system was probably working less than six months of the year.

Now this was in the late 1950's so imagine how much more knowledge is out there that would let you have a good power source right on your own property.

I did find one link to an article telling how to do it, but I found it a little technical. You may find it easier. Also there is probably lots of other info out there.

http://www.ehow.com/how_5937675_make-hydro-electricity.html

You can do it!!!
Smooches,
Keri

[AtLast]

FYI- I posted this to Breaking News thread also-

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,2410014.story

Japan raises nuclear crisis rating to highest level
The level 7 rating for the crisis at the quake- and tsunami-stricken Fukushima power plant is based on the amount radiation released. A day earlier, three new quakes hit as Japan announces plans to expand the evacuation zone.



April 12, 2011
Reporting from Tokyo and Rikuzentakata, Japan— Japanese nuclear regulatory officials Tuesday raised the severity rating at the earthquake- and tsunami-damaged Fukushima Daiichi power plant to the highest level by international standards, equaling the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown in the former Soviet Union.

The country's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency announced that because of the amount of radioactive material released from the plant after the magnitude 9 earthquake a month ago, the rating would be changed to level 7, a "major accident" on the International Atomic Energy Agency's scale, up from a level 5, an "accident with wider consequences."


In a nationally televised news conference, the agency's spokesman, Hidehiko Nishiyama, said the decision was based on the amount of radioactive iodine and cesium spewed from the power plant in Fukushima, north of Tokyo.

Nishiyama stressed that the radiation from the Fukushima nuclear plant was 10% of the amount at Chernobyl. He also said that unlike at Chernobyl, there had been no deaths linked to the accident at Fukushima.

"At Chernobyl, the reactor itself exploded," he said. "At Fukushima some radioactivity has leaked from the reactor, but the reactor itself continues to keep most of the radioactive material inside. In that sense, this is different from Chernobyl."

Before the rating was elevated, the disaster had been rated at the same level as the 1979 Three Mile Island accident near Middletown, Pa.

But Minoru Ogoda of Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said the change in the severity rating came because "the impact of radiation leaks has been widespread from the air, vegetables, tap water and the ocean," the Associated Press reported.

Measuring severity on the international scale involves factors including the amount of radiation released, how wide an area it reaches and how long any problems may last.

Officials said the rating reflects the severity of the problem at the outset, when radiation levels were highest. Those levels have since fallen sharply, they said.

Experts, nevertheless, say it will take years to recover from the damage incurred at the Fukushima plant.
More than 27,000 people were left dead or missing as the disaster last month, centered in the northeast, destroyed fishing towns and caused severe damage to homes, businesses and almost everything else along more than 200 miles of coastline. The government has estimated economic losses of as much as $300 billion, not including costs such as the cleanup of the Fukushima plant, which is operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co.

The announcement by nuclear agency officials came the day after three powerful aftershocks struck already jittery northeastern Japan within the span of 10 minutes, as the government announced new plans to expand the evacuation area near the stricken nuclear plant due to high radiation levels.

Japan is trying to rebuild after the March 11 quake triggered a deadly tsunami that also left tens of thousands homeless. The tsunami has caused several fires and explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi plant, which has leaked dangerous isotopes into the air, soil and water.

The first of Monday's temblors, which trapped some victims in collapsed homes and vehicles, hit at 5:16 p.m. near the coast in Fukushima prefecture, registering a magnitude 7.1 at a depth of 6 miles underground, according to the Japan Meteorological Agency.

It was sizable enough to rock buildings in Tokyo, about 150 miles to the south. A magnitude 6 quake hit a minute later in the same area, followed by another temblor, measuring magnitude 5.6, nine minutes after that.

Aftershocks continued hours later, the agency said. In neighboring Ibaraki prefecture, one man died after falling and hitting his head during the shaking, according to the local Ryugasaki fire department.

The quakes also triggered a landslide that buried three homes in Iwaki city. Two people died in the landslide, including a 16-year-old girl, according to public broadcaster NHK. Three other men pulled from the rubble were unconscious and taken to a hospital, NHK said. Rescuers continued their efforts Tuesday.

Officials issued a tsunami warning after the quakes but later lifted it.

The quakes temporarily knocked out the power to the Fukushima plant and led to a 50-minute stoppage in the water-spraying operations to cool four of the plant's six reactors. Highways were closed, bullet train services to the region were halted briefly, and as many 220,000 homes in Fukushima prefecture were without power.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. said a fire broke out on the plant's premises Tuesday morning at a building where batteries are stored. Within minutes, firefighters put out the blaze, and there appeared to be no impact on workers' efforts to cool four of the reactors, the company said in a statement.

On Monday, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said the government would expand a 12-mile evacuation area near the nuclear plant, adding to the ranks of the thousands who have already been told to leave their homes.

Unlike the government's previous evacuation orders, the new one is based on data that show higher than normal radiation levels extending to towns and villages that lie beyond the 12- to 18-mile zone around the plant. The government has advised residents in the zone to stay indoors.

It was unclear how many residents would be affected by the new order, which the government plans to carry out over the next month. Edano noted that the risk of a massive radiation leak from the Fukushima plant was "considerably lower."