PickensPlan

nuclear power option

Listened to Mr. Pickens on Larry King last night. Why no questions on Nuclear power?? Isn"t Nuclear a better long term solution??

Views: 32

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Brian Tepesch on August 5, 2008 at 11:35am
While nuclear is a very efficient way of producing electricity it is also potentially the most dangerous of all options. The plants are military targets, and the waste is by far the most dangerous substance on the planet. If the waste was to spill or be attacked it would be devastating to every form of life in the region and would leave the region uninhabitable for thousands of years. We already have more of this nuclear waste than we know what to do with, so why would we support creating more of for our children to deal with when there are safe alternative options? Also, nuclear energy supplies nuclear weapons, and mankind needs to eventually end our use of this technology in order to end the threat of nuclear warfare. We need to keep pushing forward new safe technology and stop investing in the old technologies that we know are dangerous. That is my opinion anyway.
Permalink Reply by charlie mandeville on August 5, 2008 at 12:39pm
Brian. Please do some research on the nuc option before counting it out as an option. WRT the radioactive issue research the half life of the radioactive components. French experience has been positive. Yucca Mt. and other locations such as deep shaft coal mines cound be nuc storage locations without putting the environment or personnel at risk. Just my opinion.
Permalink Reply by William Robinson on August 5, 2008 at 11:46pm
Excuse me Charlie but the French experience is and was controlled by a government that cares for its people not for its corporate buddies. Until Big Business is removed from American politics any federally sanctioned construction will be risky.
Permalink Reply by b. bullard on September 11, 2008 at 6:23pm
HELLO THERE WILLIAM,

I AM BEV BULLARD AND I AM NEW TO THE PC THING, BUT I LOVE THE PICKENS PLAN. IF MY RESPONSES CAN BE READ, OUR NAVAL SHIPS HAVE BEEN NUCLEAR FOR 60 YEARS (SUBS TOO). THE ONLY ACCIDENT WE HAD, WHICH WAS CONTAINED WAS 3 MILE ISLAND.

BUT, AS I SAID, WE HAVE MANY MORE OPTIONS, NUCLEAR THE LAST, BUT IT IS NECESSARY.

WHAT DID GERMANY DO IN WW2, THEY USED COAL TECH IF I UNDERSTOOD HISTORY RIGHT. I COULD BE WRONG.

I AM MERELY TRYING TO SPARK A DEBATE, TO LIGHT A FIRE, AND TO SEE DISCUSSION; AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, ACTION.

BACK IN THE CARTER YEARS WE HAD AN ENERGY CRISIS. WHAT HAPPENED. NOTHING.

WELL, IF WE HAD STARTED SOMETHING, EVEN DRILLING, THAT WOULD PUT US AHEAD OF THE GAME.

AND I BELIEVE GOVERNMENT NEEDS LEFT OUT. WHAT HAS STALLED WHAT HAS BEEN FORSAW BACK IN THE 1970'S.

THIS IS JUST MY OPINION. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I ACTUALLY JOINED A CAUSE.

BEV BULLARD
Permalink Reply by Ty on September 13, 2008 at 1:52pm
HEY BEV BULLARD,
I AM NOT NEW TO ENERGY, POWERPLANTS OR NUCLEAR POWERPLANTS, INCLUDING IN THOSE NAVY SHIPS YOU TALK OF.
ESPECIALLY SINCE 3, THATS RIGHT, 3 AMERICAN SUBS HAVE HAD LIFE ENDING>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ACCIDENTS DUE TO REACTOR ISSUES. AND GUESS WHAT, 2 SUBS LOST 1 WAS DEFINITELY A REACTOR ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BUT, LETS GO EVEN FURTHER THAN JUST THE "U.S." NAVY, HOW ABOUT THOSE PESKY RUSSIANS................HOW MANY "NAVAL NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS" THAT ARE ON "RECORD". TRY THE NUMBER 4, YEP, 4 ON RECORD. OH, WAIT, YOU SAY THERE'S EVEN MORE,
WHY YES JOHNNY, LETS SHOW BEV WHAT "REALITY" IS IN THE NUCLEAR REACTOR WORLD. BEV MENTIONS 3 MILE ISLAND, AND I HAPPEN TO BE FROM NY. WOW! A NEAR CATASTROPHE AVIODED. BUT NEAR NONE THE LESS. THEN, LETS HIGHLIGHT THIS CONVERSATION/DEBATE WITH JUST ONE WORD: "CHERNOBYL"

IF THE POINT IS CLEAR TO YOU FROM THE OUTSET THEN I PITTY YOU.
TO PUT THE ENVIROMENT AT RISK IN ANY "UNECESSARY" FORM IS JUST PLAIN STUPIDITY.

JUST AN INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICIANS HUMBLE OPINION.
Permalink Reply by Charles W. McDonald on September 23, 2008 at 9:19am
"CHERNOBYL"= Russia's poorly designed reactor.

Does the U.S. use the same design as the Russian's? NO!!!!!!!

You need to update yourself on nuclear technology. It is the safest, cleanest most efficient form of energy.

www.thoriumpower.com
Permalink Reply by Craig on September 26, 2008 at 10:08pm
Which events are you refering to? No subs were lost due to reactor issues. One was lost due to a non-nuclear sea water pipe issue and the other lost due to a torpedo issue. No other US Nuclear Submarines have been lost. I served on Nuclear Submarines, I'm guessing you did not.
TMI BTW was 30 years ago now and less radiation was relaesed than a coal plant releases every day. Just what kind of safety record are you looking for?
Do you understand the design of reactor containment? No less than two, seperate 3 foot concrete, re-enforced barriers and several redundant safety systems.
Permalink Reply by Lock Piatt on September 26, 2008 at 11:41pm
Craig,

the environmentalist spread so much false information about reactors and TMI, Japan and Russia that uneducated folks are scared stiff about radition. The founder of the Sierra Club now says he was wrong about nuclear power and sorry he spread false info and now supports the construction of more reactors as it is the only GREEN power source.

Just to stop the downers - people live in both cites in Japan and have normal children - people have reoccupied the Chernobyl area and eat the food and drink the water, yes they are still alive. TMI did not let out as much radiation as you would receive by having a picnic next to a granite boulder which gives off radiation as it decomposes.
Permalink Reply by CCVirginia on September 27, 2008 at 12:36am
It is clear what is going on here: MONEY!

Now that there is a public sentiment for alternatives to carbon fuels due to foreign dependence, economic troubles and global warming everyone is lining up for handouts to fix it. So there is COMPETITION among alternative energy sources, and particularly between Nuclear and “renewables” or even CNG. So you have to put down the competition to get your handout. Even “experts” who may have worked in the Nuclear industry but now get their $ from other energy sources will say the same thing. Everyone involved in the energy business is, by human nature, bias – this isn’t evil, but do watch where the info is coming from.

So it seems like a lot of the nuclear “fear factor” is, of course, $ driven.

It is kind of ironic that the people that made Nuclear expensive for the last 25 years (environmental activists funded by big oil & coal) are now the ones claiming it is impractical because it is expensive! If we could build plants for what we did in 1970s, it would look free ($170 million each x inflation = 960mil in 2008). My hope is that the new, smaller and factory produced plants will be so quick and inexpensive to deploy that we can get closer to where we were 35 years ago in cost, but with today’s safety.
Permalink Reply by Lock Piatt on September 27, 2008 at 12:44am
CC,

you are right on point, if we fast tract the approval process and block law suits to delay projects, plants can be constructed from a standard design (like the French) and site them for safety from earthquakes and floods. We can have 50+ on line producing energy for around $ .05 to .08 per KWH. No other sources can produce power at anywhere near that number in the amounts required to make America independent.
Permalink Reply by Lock Piatt on September 29, 2008 at 9:51pm
Nancy,

Reprocess and reuse and recycle the spent fuel rods, place the vastly reduced volume in glass and bury it it the already radiated h*** in the earth created by underground bomb test for years in the New Mexico and Nevada deserts.

If what the uneducated mass fear supporters are correct the sites in New Mexico and Nevada are already spoiled for an million years so what is a little more spoiling going to hurt ???

People live and reproduce quite well in Japan and in the Chernobyl sites the advertised death and forever spoiled their is disproved, There is no 100 year fear problem>
Permalink Reply by John Henry on September 30, 2008 at 4:07pm
And then everybody believed burning fossil fuel was that much better?

If we continue to burn fossil fuel the way we do, we won't survive as a civilization to see the end of those "100's of years from now".

The Pickens Plan, along with solar farms, corporate sun roof tops… can all help. But then none of these technologies come with inertia. Without inertia, expects to see lots of blackouts.

You can always pay emergency rates for people to have their "dirty" plants sit idle as spinning reserves to support all these green power. Just don't expect that to be cheap.

You can build pump storage plants, of course. But the moment one tries to do that, they will get lots of law suits from the environmentalist. "You are drowning those poor worms!"

And I wonder what the National Audubon Society thinks about the Pickens Plan?

Every plan has a poison in it. Take your pick.

Let's make a deal: if you agree to stop using your air conditioner, I'll start riding my bike to work. How’bout it? :-)

RSS

© 2013   Created by PickensPlan.   Powered by

Badges  |  Community Guidelines  | Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service