Finn dAbuzz wrote:Nuclear Energy!
That's the answer, but the Liberal Luddites of America will have no part of it.
(Unlike their French counterparts)
Better Wind Farms, as long as they don't obscure the scenic view of Walter Cronkite, or present a peril to migratory birds in Texas.
Better ethanol despite the fact that it still cannot economically compete with oil --- despite the high price of oil and considerable government subsidies. And despite the fact that it will lead to higher food prices, and possibly shortages.
Better solar power despite the fact that no one has come up with a feasible way to produce it on a mass scale. Massive power cells in space. What objections will the Luddites have for that?
Better all the cool alternatives. You know, the ones that make you feel as if we are in synch with nature. Since, as we know, petroleum, coal and the splitting of atoms has nothing to do with Nature.
I agree, yet don't believe that the private sector ought to be responsible, nor would they. i support a program that would allow the federal government to run all nuclear power plants run by a "Nuclear Corps," trained just like US Navy's Nuclear School, with both engineers, support, and security as members that rises to the standards and discipline of the American military.
the cost would be national, there would be no need for the convolutions found in the current legislation that curbs damages in event of a nuclear catastrophy.
only the federal government has the resources to build, maintain, support, and protect a nuclear power plant. other avenues will by the nature of the profit motive result in less safe nuclear plants.
and that is the issue, safety. once the public is molified about safety concerns the chance of building these plants will rise.
Three mile island was a private enterprise. I think i would rather go with the governmental angle.
kuvasz wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:Nuclear Energy!
That's the answer, but the Liberal Luddites of America will have no part of it.
(Unlike their French counterparts)
Better Wind Farms, as long as they don't obscure the scenic view of Walter Cronkite, or present a peril to migratory birds in Texas.
Better ethanol despite the fact that it still cannot economically compete with oil --- despite the high price of oil and considerable government subsidies. And despite the fact that it will lead to higher food prices, and possibly shortages.
Better solar power despite the fact that no one has come up with a feasible way to produce it on a mass scale. Massive power cells in space. What objections will the Luddites have for that?
Better all the cool alternatives. You know, the ones that make you feel as if we are in synch with nature. Since, as we know, petroleum, coal and the splitting of atoms has nothing to do with Nature.
I agree, yet don't believe that the private sector ought to be responsible, nor would they. i support a program that would allow the federal government to run all nuclear power plants run by a "Nuclear Corps," trained just like US Navy's Nuclear School, with both engineers, support, and security as members that rises to the standards and discipline of the American military.
the cost would be national, there would be no need for the convolutions found in the current legislation that curbs damages in event of a nuclear catastrophy.
only the federal government has the resources to build, maintain, support, and protect a nuclear power plant. other avenues will by the nature of the profit motive result in less safe nuclear plants.
and that is the issue, safety. once the public is molified about safety concerns the chance of building these plants will rise.
Well, here is we differ Old Friend.
I think we agree that nuclear energy is the answer, but you, with your leftist leanings, believe it's use must be regulated by the State.
No, instead of speaking like an ideologue as you have, I speak as a trained scientist speaking common sense, and have historical evidence to support my position. I am afraid that if left to the private sector the protections necessary for the adequate public safety will not be met. The amount of damages plantiffs can sue private nuclear plants already has been capped by Congress, otherwise insurance companies would not insure the nuclear plants. Even the holy marketplace does not trust the owners of these plants to operate them sufficiently so that the only way to insure them at all requires the government to step in. I can think of no greater debunking of your belief that the market is self-regulating than if you cannot privately insure a business unless the government gaurantees it, and by actual extension it shows that the free market does not believe nuclear power is safe and viable.
That's why the last resort of the society, viz., the government will have to step in and do the dirty work.
I, with my right wing sensibilities, shiver to think that The State can manage to compentently manage nuclear energy, and prefer to rely upon the market place that recognizes that consumers want safety as well as savings.
Well then, you denigrate thousands of American scientists and technicians then, since the US Navy has been using nuclear power on ships for nearly a half a century (my dad built the first containment vessel on the first nuclear sub in the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard in the late '50's), with less severe incidents than Three Mile Island, Peachbottom, or Chernobyl, so in fact the government run nuclear programs appear both safer and less prone to mechanical failure or human mistakes.
That is the important feature of running the plants akin to a military operation.
You are wrong and I am right, but what else is new?
Obviously, facts remain inconvenient to you, and you would rather start from a ideological stance than examine the actual facts of the situation, then propose a solution.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.
Thus, if you worship the marketplace it is the only thing you believe that is effective, but the facts do not support that concerning nuclear power.
rabel22 wrote:Three mile island was a private enterprise. I think i would rather go with the governmental angle.
And what were the ramifications of Three Mile Island?
Please be specific.
Government or private sector, it's HUMANS I don't trust to run nukes. The number of times they connect the wrong pipes, or turn off sensors and forget to turn them back on, or miswire connections, or fall asleep in the control room, or hit the wrong backup circuit, or lack adequate training, or ignore corrosion problems endemic to reactor design, is anecdotally rather staggering. The NRC periodically goes on a screamer about something or other, and they tighten up for a few months, and then it seems to slip back into the old slipshoddiness. One mistake too many, and kablooey(well, no, probably not kablooey, but extraordinarily unpleasant anyway). Triple the number of reactors, triple the possibilities for error, and so0oner or later another one will happen. Pebble bed reactors might be different, but as far as I know they still haven't even gotten anything other than a fractional-power test-of-concept one up and running, so you can't make any rosy predictions about them yet.
only the federal government has the resources to build, maintain, support, and protect a nuclear power plant. other avenues will by the nature of the profit motive result in less safe nuclear plants.
The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) is jointly owned by Southern California Edison (SCE) (75% ownership), San Diego Gas & Electric (20%), and the cities of Riverside and Anaheim. Today, SONGS provides nearly 20% of the power to more than 15 million people in Southern California -- enough power to serve 2.75 million households.
Someone mentioned Cherynobl.
That plant was of a design that has NEVER been allowed to be built in the US because of its design flaws.
mysteryman wrote:
Someone mentioned Cherynobl.
That plant was of a design that has NEVER been allowed to be built in the US because of its design flaws.
I also prefer private enterprise, but with government regulation and oversight. As this type of plant has never been allowed in the U.S., I assume we are in agreement.
Quote:only the federal government has the resources to build, maintain, support, and protect a nuclear power plant. other avenues will by the nature of the profit motive result in less safe nuclear plants.
http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/default.htm?goto=songs
Quote:The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) is jointly owned by Southern California Edison (SCE) (75% ownership), San Diego Gas & Electric (20%), and the cities of Riverside and Anaheim. Today, SONGS provides nearly 20% of the power to more than 15 million people in Southern California -- enough power to serve 2.75 million households.
I used to live within 3 miles of this plant, and they never had a problem.
Private enterprise is the only way to run a nuclear power plant, exactly because they want to make a profit.
Since they want to make a profit, they will do whatever they have to to make sure the plant is safe.
Have there been accidents in the past?
Yes there have.
Have companies learned from their mistakes?
Yes they have.
Someone mentioned Cherynobl.
That plant was of a design that has NEVER been allowed to be built in the US because of its design flaws.
More people have died in the US in coal mining accidents in the last 2 years then have died in accidents involving Nuke plants totally.
Nuke plants can be run for a profit, and run safely.
The two do not cancel each other out.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Nuclear Energy!
That's the answer, but the Liberal Luddites of America will have no part of it.
(Unlike their French counterparts)
I agree, yet don't believe that the private sector ought to be responsible, nor would they. i support a program that would allow the federal government to run all nuclear power plants run by a "Nuclear Corps," trained just like US Navy's Nuclear School, with both engineers, support, and security as members that rises to the standards and discipline of the American military.
the cost would be national, there would be no need for the convolutions found in the current legislation that curbs damages in event of a nuclear catastrophy.
only the federal government has the resources to build, maintain, support, and protect a nuclear power plant. other avenues will by the nature of the profit motive result in less safe nuclear plants.
and that is the issue, safety. once the public is molified about safety concerns the chance of building these plants will rise.
A question for you nuclear power people. Have they solved the problem of how to neutralize the radioactivity of the power rods, besides burying it for 40,000 years?
kuvasz wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:Nuclear Energy!
That's the answer, but the Liberal Luddites of America will have no part of it.
(Unlike their French counterparts)
I agree, yet don't believe that the private sector ought to be responsible, nor would they. i support a program that would allow the federal government to run all nuclear power plants run by a "Nuclear Corps," trained just like US Navy's Nuclear School, with both engineers, support, and security as members that rises to the standards and discipline of the American military.
the cost would be national, there would be no need for the convolutions found in the current legislation that curbs damages in event of a nuclear catastrophy.
only the federal government has the resources to build, maintain, support, and protect a nuclear power plant. other avenues will by the nature of the profit motive result in less safe nuclear plants.
and that is the issue, safety. once the public is molified about safety concerns the chance of building these plants will rise.
The fact is we already have most of what you advocate here, except that it is run voluntarily by the private sector.
Soon after the Three Mile Island fiasco the industry and the government, acting informally together, created the Institute for Nuclear Power Operators - a group initially staffed mostly with Navy nuclear-trained officers and officials. The Institute continuously evaluates the training, standardization, operation and maintenance of the 104 operating nuclear power plants in the country. It is an independent, private body funded entirely by the industry, and designed to promote from within the kind of management and operations integrity that the U.S. Navy (still the largest operator of nuclear powerplants in the world) established long ago.
At the same time the industry is subject to government regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This combination has been highly effective in raising the operating efficiency of our nuclear power plants, while at the same time significantly reducing the number of incidents, unplanned plant shutdowns and radiation exposure to both operators and the public.
Today nuclear power plants are, by wide margins, the cheapest, safest, and most environmentally beneficial sources of electrical power in the country. Though they amount to only about 9% of our generating potential, they produce over 20% of the electrical power we consume, precisely because of their reliability and low cost of operations (about 80% the cost of the next cheapest source, coal). (Hydroelectric power is, of course an exception, being less expensive. However our potential for more such sources is mostly gone).
The fears associated with nuclear radiation are exaggerated by human psychology - the fear of snakes and things unseen. The fact is that, 40 years after the supposedly "horrible" Three Mile Island accident, there is no detectable effect on public health or mortality from the exposure resulting from this accident - none, zero ! The radiation exposure that people get from natural sources including the sun, radon gas from the earth, and man-made ones such as medical testing, airline travel and burning coal - are all individually many times larger than that resulting from nuclear powerplants. Statistically - based on measured data - -the average nuclear powerplant is safer than the average street traffic light.
There is a new generation of nuclear plant designs that are both safer and more efficient than the existing ones. We (the U.S.) already have in hand enough enriched nuclear fuel to power the country for nearly a century. New reactor designs that can make use of lower levels of enrichment and even the ubiquitous U-238 isotope, make nuclear power a nearly inexhaustable resource - every bit as "renewable" as wind or solar, far less costly and, unlike wind & solar, actually capable of replacing a significant fraction of our fossil fuel consumption in a short time.
I suppose you are referring to the Price-Anderson Act which limits the tort liability of nuclear operators who are acting in full compliance with Nuclear Regulatory Commisssion rules.
The fact is that the government already limits the liability of many industries under Tort law. These range from shippers to aircraft designers and many others. In general these provisions come as a result of explicit government regulation and the assumption of liability by the government for those operators who act in compliance with government regulation. Nothing particularly new and unique here.
....Again, a free-marketeer ought to get apoplexic seeing a system where the investor's money is secured potential growth by regulation (of power fees) while liability is shared by the government.
georgeob1 wrote:I suppose you are referring to the Price-Anderson Act which limits the tort liability of nuclear operators who are acting in full compliance with Nuclear Regulatory Commisssion rules.
The fact is that the government already limits the liability of many industries under Tort law. These range from shippers to aircraft designers and many others. In general these provisions come as a result of explicit government regulation and the assumption of liability by the government for those operators who act in compliance with government regulation. Nothing particularly new and unique here.
Actually, I am refering to the federal government being forced to step into the so-called free market because the latter has shown five consecutive decades of not trusting nuclear power to be safe enough to insure against accident.
If Nationwide Insurance or Lloyds of London won't trust the nuclear power industry to insure it enough to cover its potential liabilities, why should anybody? That's the free market equivalent of screaming "Run away!."
btw: see a lot of cargo ships or F-14s cause $1,000,000,000,000 in accident damage, do we?
The Price Anderson Act locks in liability at $750,000,000,000, after that tough luck to whomever gets screwed.
Again, a free-marketeer ought to get apoplexic seeing a system where the investor's money is secured potential growth by regulation (of power fees) while liability is shared by the government.
