Please sign this petition

mammasan

krzzzymary wrote:

Nuclear power is not profitable. If it could compete in the market with wind power or solar energy they wouldn't need loan guarantees for it.

Do you think they can be protected from terror attacks.
That will be real nice - radio active mass destruction

It doesn't need to compete with wind and solar because wind and solar can never replace fossil fuels on a large scale. Nuclear power is the only form of energy, that we now possess, that can replace fossil fuels.

Nice use of fear mongering by the way. Can we protect our large oil refineries froma terrorist attack? That would be reeal nice - giant explosion fueled by thousands of gallons of oil consuming towns in the vacinity. Toxic fumes blowing into the air while oil seeps down into our water table contaminating the areas drinking water.

Also yes we can protect our nuclear power facilities.

Kel Varnsen

krzzzymary wrote:

Nuclear power is not profitable. If it could compete in the market with wind power or solar energy they wouldn't need loan guarantees for it.

Do you think they can be protected from terror attacks.
That will be real nice - radio active mass destruction

The main reactor in a nuclear plant is usually in a building surrounded by a ton (well many tonnes actually) of concrete. How exactly would you attack it? If you are going to talk about power plants and terrorist risk, a terrorist would have about a good a chance blowing up the Hoover dam, and now that would cause mass distruction. Besides a nuclear reactor is not a nuclear bomb.

polaris

jlew24asu wrote:

this is where you lost me. most of your stuff is just made up propaganda anyway but this one is up there.

feel free to back up your statement ... i can make silly accusations in a post as well ...

do you know how much a new nuclear power plant costs?

mammasan

polaris wrote:

the only reason it is viable is because it is subsidized - the same reason as oil ... gov'ts do NOT subsidize renewables like they do oil, nuclear and coal ... our province has a huge debt because of our financing of our old nuclear reactors ... they take like 10 years to build and billions of dollars ... then they are running for like 3 before they have to be repaired ...

the ones we have go offline for repairs often and that again is tax payer dollars ... we still haven't paid for our reactors and we're gonna build new ones ...

those billions of dollars can be put into conservation programs and renewables with more payback and less risk ...

we are not even factoring the environmental consequences of mining uranium nor what we do with the waste ... right now, we store them in swimming pools - how long can we do that for?

Ok find me a better alternative then. Until we come up with something better nuclear is what we have to fall back on because face it people are not going to turn the lights off, turn the Ac's off during the summer, or turn down the heat during the winter. It would be nice if they did but they will not so wind and solar will never be a suitable replacement for oil. We need something else and that something right now is nuclear.

jlew24asu

polaris wrote:

feel free to back up your statement ... i can make silly accusations in a post as well ...

do you know how much a new nuclear power plant costs?

billions. and it will provide energy to millions of people for many years.

polaris

mammasan wrote:

Ok find me a better alternative then. Until we come up with something better nuclear is what we have to fall back on because face it people are not going to turn the lights off, turn the Ac's off during the summer, or turn down the heat during the winter. It would be nice if they did but they will not so wind and solar will never be a suitable replacement for oil. We need something else and that something right now is nuclear.

why not? ... why won't people turn off the lights? ... if you are left with the option of no electricity or conservation ... people will do it ... we saw it during the oil crisis back in the 70's ... the solutions to our problem are already available ... we do not need to wait for some super new invention ... it's available right now!! ... my home is completely powered by renewable energy ... but at the same time - it uses very little power ... just by being conscientious and investing in current technologies ...

there are people who have homes that can be off the grid ... it is an absolute myth that we NEED nuclear ... these are the constraints by which certain interests want you to operate ...

polaris

jlew24asu wrote:

billions. and it will provide energy to millions of people for many years.

so ... what part of my post was made up then?

do the math on the energy produced and the cost to run and operate and maintain a nuclear reactor for 10 years and find out what would need to be charged per kwh for it to break even ... WITHOUT subsidies ... it can't beat wind ...

Kel Varnsen

polaris wrote:

why not? ... why won't people turn off the lights? ... if you are left with the option of no electricity or conservation ... people will do it ... we saw it during the oil crisis back in the 70's ... the solutions to our problem are already available ... we do not need to wait for some super new invention ... it's available right now!! ... my home is completely powered by renewable energy ... but at the same time - it uses very little power ... just by being conscientious and investing in current technologies ...

there are people who have homes that can be off the grid ... it is an absolute myth that we NEED nuclear ... these are the constraints by which certain interests want you to operate ...

Even with conservation, which I am totally for, the current power plants still all have a limited life cycle and will eventually need to be replaced. For replacing those plants I think nuclear is the best option. Renewables are good too, but do not deliver as constant power.

Delaware Vol

mammasan wrote:

Trust me I will not sign the petition, but I do find it funny that people will protest our dependency on foreign oil, how gas emissions and coal emissions are damaging our environment, but when a clean viable option is presented such as nuclear power they protest that as well. Solar, wind, and hydro power are not going to cut it so the otnly other viable option is nuclear. At this point we probably could have reduced our dependecy on oil to some extent if every damn granola eating, Birckenstock wearing, tree hugging environmentalist wasn't always protesting the building of a new nuclear power plant.

Tell me how many accidents have occured world-wide in a nuclear power plant that have caused an environmental hazard?

The answer 2. Since 1954 there have only been two meltdowns Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I don't know about you but that is a pretty damn good safety record.

Great Post, you pretty much stole my thunder---but that's ok because it saved me from having to type it all out.... Haha!!

Also, I'm not sure 3 Mi Island technically melted down, most who I've talked to about that say it was a "near" accident, that it was averted.... I don't remember, I was to young.... Based on that you can cut the meltdown/accidents down 50%.....

know1

polaris wrote:

so ... what part of my post was made up then?

do the math on the energy produced and the cost to run and operate and maintain a nuclear reactor for 10 years and find out what would need to be charged per kwh for it to break even ... WITHOUT subsidies ... it can't beat wind ...

I think that depends. Yes - to produce a small amount of energy, wind is far cheaper.

But - how costly is it to use wind to produce as much electricity as you can with the power plant?

polaris

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Even with conservation, which I am totally for, the current power plants still all have a limited life cycle and will eventually need to be replaced. For replacing those plants I think nuclear is the best option. Renewables are good too, but do not deliver as constant power.

conservation has to be the focal point

polaris

know1 wrote:

I think that depends. Yes - to produce a small amount of energy, wind is far cheaper.

But - how costly is it to use wind to produce as much electricity as you can with the power plant?

always be cheaper ... granted you'll need quite a few wind turbines to equal that of a nuclear power plant but you won't have the maintenance costs like one either ...

that's why conservation has to be part of the plan ... first and foremost, we cannot continue to waste energy like we do now ... especially here in north america - it is absolutely ridiculous ...

mammasan

polaris wrote:

why not? ... why won't people turn off the lights? ... if you are left with the option of no electricity or conservation ... people will do it ... we saw it during the oil crisis back in the 70's ... the solutions to our problem are already available ... we do not need to wait for some super new invention ... it's available right now!! ... my home is completely powered by renewable energy ... but at the same time - it uses very little power ... just by being conscientious and investing in current technologies ...

there are people who have homes that can be off the grid ... it is an absolute myth that we NEED nuclear ... these are the constraints by which certain interests want you to operate ...

Powering your home of renewables is one thing, but what about cities. I work in NYC city when on an average business day has 12 million people in Manhattan alone. NJ Transit trains, Metro North trains, Long Island Railroad, NY/NJ Path, the MTA Subway all run on electricity. Never mind all the electricity that is needed to run all the thousands of businesses in the city, the traffic lights, the giants pumps that keep the water from flooding the subway tunnels, the giant air pumps that keep all the fumes out of the subway tunnels, Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, Holland Tunnel, Lincoln Tunnel, and the Queens Midtown Tunnel. Solar and wind would never be able to generate the amount of electricity that is needed to keep this city going. You would have to cover every building, street, and sidewalk with solar panels and turn long island into a giant wind farm in order to do so. Those forms of renewable energy will not work for cities and other large urban centers because of their limitations. Nuclear power right now is the only alternative form of energy that can do so. So like I said I'm all ears if you could provide another viable alternative.

Kel Varnsen

polaris wrote:

conservation has to be the focal point

It is true that conservation is very important, but what do you do when the power plants you have now are old and have to be decommissioned? Even if people are conserving as much as possible, you still have to generate the power to meet the remaining demand.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

we are DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!!!!

mammasan

polaris wrote:

conservation has to be the focal point

I agree but the majority of people will not conserve the necessary amount of energy that it will take for us to solely rely on solar and wind. Also as I stated in large urban areas and major cities conservation will not cut it. Just the bare minimun off electricity needed to run NYC would be too much for wind and solar to provide.

Delaware Vol

polaris wrote:

that's why conservation has to be part of the plan ... first and foremost, we cannot continue to waste energy like we do now ... especially here in north america - it is absolutely ridiculous ...

I agree with your assertion , however you and I both know we live in the the real world and not a theoretical idealistic world. Some people just don't understand the concept of conservation or just don't care, period end of story... It sucks, but that's the way it is... That's what I'm talking about when I speak of living in a theoretical world...

Kel Varnsen

mammasan wrote:

I agree but the majority of people will not conserve the necessary amount of energy that it will take for us to solely rely on solar and wind. Also as I stated in large urban areas and major cities conservation will not cut it. Just the bare minimun off electricity needed to run NYC would be too much for wind and solar to provide.

I read an interesting article about renewables once in an engineering journal. It said how useful they were but the problem was that since they are not consistently reliable, so you basically need to build traditional power plants anyways. For example wind power is great, but the highest electricity demand days are usually the hottest days of the year (due to A/C use) and those days are typically also the days with the least amount of wind. So basically if you are using wind the rest of the year on those days you would still need to build other power plants and keep them on stand by so that you could meet the demand.

polaris

mammasan wrote:

Powering your home of renewables is one thing, but what about cities. I work in NYC city when on an average business day has 12 million people in Manhattan alone. NJ Transit trains, Metro North trains, Long Island Railroad, NY/NJ Path, the MTA Subway all run on electricity. Never mind all the electricity that is needed to run all the thousands of businesses in the city, the traffic lights, the giants pumps that keep the water from flooding the subway tunnels, the giant air pumps that keep all the fumes out of the subway tunnels, Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, Holland Tunnel, Lincoln Tunnel, and the Queens Midtown Tunnel. Solar and wind would never be able to generate the amount of electricity that is needed to keep this city going. You would have to cover every building, street, and sidewalk with solar panels and turn long island into a giant wind farm in order to do so. Those forms of renewable energy will not work for cities and other large urban centers because of their limitations. Nuclear power right now is the only alternative form of energy that can do so. So like I said I'm all ears if you could provide another viable alternative.

it's simple ... take your consumption down a measley 10% ... why do you need to build a new reactor?

polaris

Delaware Vol wrote:

I agree with your assertion , however you and I both know we live in the the real world and not a theoretical idealistic world. Some people just don't understand the concept of conservation or just don't care, period end of story... It sucks, but that's the way it is... That's what I'm talking about when I speak of living in a theoretical world...

well ... then they will HAVE to pay ... right now we subsidize all these energy sources that are bad ... those subsidies have to stop ... people will then be forces economically to conserve energy ...

if we aren't paying the TRUE cost of energy - of course there is no motiviation ... but this isn't about some fantasy world - it's about giving everyone a kick in the ass ... because we can't continue to operate status quo ...