Digg

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Nearly 7 of 10 Americans Favor Nuclear Energy

optionsbuddy.com — Nearly seven of 10 Americans favor nuclear energy and 68 percent support building a new reactor at the existing nuclear power plant closest to where they live, according to a recent public opinion poll conducted for the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Bury

pherbio 2 years 67 days ago, made popular 2 years 67 days ago

612 diggs
digg it

108 Comments
Who Dugg It?

awa64, on 10/12/2007, -6/+41Dugg because nuclear energy is cool.

Trying to figure out how to undigg because "The Nuclear Energy Institute" publishing a survey that says people like nuclear energy doesn't seem that credible.
- ImTheDarkcyde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11not sure if it was a serious question or not, but to undigg go to your profile and on all of the stuff you have dugg, 'digg it' is replaced with 'undigg'
- Socialist, on 10/12/2007, -21/+10"Dugg because nuclear energy is cool."
  
  I don't understand whats cool about it. Sure it's better than coal and oil but nuclear energy is a short-term solution. IMO The money would be better spent on renewable and sustainable energy.
  
  Btw, how many people support buildning a nuclear wastedump next to their houses?
- MaddDog, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16Nuclear power is cool because it doesn't pollute and its very high tech - not everything has been invented yet when it comes to nuclear power, and there are massive amounts of research into producing the latest and greatest technology. And nuclear waste? All nuclear waste can be used in breeder reactors as a fuel source for the future.
- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Trying to figure out how to undigg because "The Nuclear Energy Institute" publishing a survey that says people like nuclear energy doesn't seem that credible."
  
  As opposed to whom publishing a survey? Do you think an group opposed to nuclear energy would publish a survey showing most people disagree with their position? In all actuality, I would have more doubt about a survey from a group who opposes nuclear energy showing support for their side because I have experienced their underhanded behavior. Their question for whether someone would support a nuclear power plant being built:
  
  "Would you support the building of a dangerous nuclear plant that could release radiation near your community?"
- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19@Socialist:
  
  Really? Are you a nuclear scientist? Do you have any training in nuclear technology? I do, thanks to the U.S. Navy.
  
  So, tell me, what are these "renewable and sustainable energy" sources that will provide as much power as nuclear enegy? Existing technology please. Nothing that harms the environment, like wind turbines that kill birds.
  
  Some have suggested developing a technology to tap into the power of the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic. Yet, how would that effect the climate? After all, one would be directly affecting one of the primary heat distribution systems of the world.
  
  I have the perfect solution to nuclear waste. Drill 5000ft deep holes into the abyssal plain of the Pacific ocean fill with 4000ft of pelletized nuclear waste, top with 100 ft of radioabsorbative material, 500ft of concrete, and 500ft of sand.
- azzageddi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5DaveV, I agree that nuclear energy has a lot of good advantages, and I think it should be a major part of the fight against global warming. I only wonder about the effects on heating the ocean floor if we bury nuclear waste down there. Don't want to do anything that'll warm it and release more methane to bubble up.
- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@azzageddi:
  
  Pelletized nuclear waste does not generate heat. I am fairly certain that there is little to no methane hydrates in the abyssal plains. And, if that is really a concern, we can drill to 10,000ft and cover the top with 5000ft of backfill
- hokieaudi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Socialist - What's cool about nuclear energy is that, given proper recycling, we have enough fuel on hand for several thousand years worth of energy production. In addition the "problem" of disposal of used nuclear fuel is greatly blown out of proportion. If one took all of the used nuclear fuel from the entire 50 year's worth of production in the U.S. you would fill the area of a football field to a depth of about 12 feet. That's the rough volume of waste we're talking about. Yes it is radioactive and yes, it is dangerous if not properly handled but these are problems that have existing engineering solutions, using today's technology and resources that we can produce domestically and import from friendly nations around the globe.
  
  Per Kilowatt-hour coal power releases about three times as much radiation to the environment as nuclear power in the form of trace amounts of radioactive elements that become concentrated within furnaces. If fly ash came from a nuclear plant it would be regulated as nuclear waste by the NRC. Not to mention the millions of tons of CO2 emissions that are avoided, along with smog production NOx and SOx compounds, mercury, arsenic, etc that are all byproducts of coal combustion.
  
  Food for thought.
- NoHandle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1@hokieaudi
  
  Link please?
  
  It was my understanding that massive amounts of water were used in the process (Nuclear energy is basically a steam engine) and all the water became contaminated. The problem with radioactive waste is that it doesn't go away, for a really long time. One free radical in your system can give you cancer and kill you.
  
  Couple this with the short term thinking of government and you have a serious problem on your hand.
- bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Why would you waste all the uranium by dumping it a mile below the ocean floor? I have said this in here before, and I will say it again, the nuclear waste problem is only a temporary problem. Here is why I say that:
  
  When we first started refining crude oil, we used the heavy oils and even up to kerosene. Gasoline was a dangerous volatile waste product. At the time there were no uses for it, it was burned off, or dumped into the rivers and streams. Nowadays, we use it like mad. I strongly feel as nuclear energy get out of the infancy it still is in, then we will find ways to make that waste into new types of nuclear fuel. Besides the reprocessing that is done now.
  
  Not too mention, that pebble bed reactors are designed fail safe from the start.
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@NoHandle
  
  It is true that Nuclear Power is basically a steam engine. You are incorrect that massive amounts of water are contaminated in producing nuclear energy. Traditional nuclear plants (which are very dirty by comparison to modern ones) had two separate systems to channel the heat. One mass of water was in more-or-less direct contact with the fuel rods. That water did become contaminated. However, that part of the system was usually closed and reused over and over. They were not pumping new water into that part of the system on any frequent basis. That part of the system was separated from the water that was used to spin the turbines. The water used to spin the turbines was (if done right) never contaminated.
  
  Those were the old, dirtier nuclear generators. The newer designs are a lot cleaner.
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@"I have the perfect solution to nuclear waste. Drill 5000ft deep holes into the abyssal plain of the Pacific ocean fill with 4000ft of pelletized nuclear waste, top with 100 ft of radioabsorbative material, 500ft of concrete, and 500ft of sand."
  
  Bad idea due to tetonic shifts and earthquakes in the Pacific area.
  
  There are reasons they put nuclear waste into areas that never had earthquakes in the past 500 years.
  
  Not that nuclear power is bad... I live within 40 miles of 2 of them and we get more polution from the oil refineries.
  
  But one of the better methods of alternative energy will be solar when they can get the price of cells down. Mostly because we only need to get 1% of the energy that hits the earth's surface to get the amount of power we use today.
  
  The real beneift to solar is decentralization... Otherwise known as not relying on the powercompany for most of your energy consumption.
  
  But we won't see cells getting cheap enough til 2008 or 2010.
OBDriftwood, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16Despite the source the survey may be accurate. It's been almost 2 generations since Chernobyl and the fallout was not as dire as initially predicted. Plus, with all the push for alternative energy sources nuclear energy is a viable alternative.

Coulter had a good take on nuclear energy in Godless. To paraphrase: When anti-nuclear energy people voice their opposition always bring up Chernobyl as an example of why to not pursue nuclear energy. C'mon. It's the Russians! The Russians could screw up Jello. They go to the Worlds' Fair and look at a flush toilet like it's a rocket ship. Of course the Russians screwed up nuclear power.
- daigakuinsei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21There's a old book written by one of the Chernobyl scientists (if I can find the title, I'll post it) that claims that the Chernobyl disaster occurred because obvious safety regulations were neglected. It's the opinion of the author that those higher up wanted to see what would actually happen if they didn't take necessary precautions. They were in essence just asking for a catastrophe. Thus, Chernobyl is a really bad example of the implementation of nuclear power.
- VTStevenVT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@OBDriftwood
  
  "C'mon. It's the Russians! The Russians could screw up Jello"
  
  Our (Unitied States) nuclear record isn't as clean as you think....
  
  http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html
  
  But taken the thousands of employees and workers that deal with nuclear material having these few accidents across the years is considered extremely safe compared to most industrial operations.
- AlexApetrei, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9yeah, the first people in space didn't know the difference between a flushing toilet and what they where going to be using to get out of the earths atmosphere.
- edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14"There's a old book written by one of the Chernobyl scientists (if I can find the title, I'll post it) that claims that the Chernobyl disaster occurred because obvious safety regulations were neglected."
  Forget an old book, try the official report, and every investigation since. The design was inherantly dangerous ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK ) and the WRONG DOCUMENTATION was suplied for it.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
  With current designs, it'd be nigh-impossible to even deliberately cause a meltdown without intimate knowledge of and access to the safety mechanisms around the reactor itself, and some designs (such as the pebble bed) shut down when coolant is removed due to the very design of the reactor core (i.e. meltdown-proof).
- schwit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22Soviets, SOVIETS! Chernobyl is in the Ukraine, but the country was the Soviet Union, not Russia. Using the term Russia to describe the USSR is like saying Texas when referring to the US.
- StevoCJ, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5"the fallout was not as dire as initially predicted"
  
  Unless you happened to live in Belarus and wanted children.
- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@VTStevenVT:
  
  I just read that little website you posted. The author decided to mix nuclear weapons in with nuclear power. The author also mixes Soviet accidents into an article that is supposed to be about American nuclear shortcommings. The information provided by the author does not support his claim.
  
  In short, the article is worthless and both the author and yourself are dumbasses.
- Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Besides, it isn't like Chernobyl was the absolute safest design of nuclear reactor possible anyhow. Pebble-bed reactors make meltdowns impossible, because (unlike a normal reactor), when pebble bed reactors heat up, fission slows down. If you shut down every single piece of equipment in the power plant (Hit it with an EMP, or cut all power to all equipment, whatever), it doesn't melt down. It just heats up to an idle temperature where nothing happens. In order to restart the reaction, they cool it down so that fission starts up again.
  
  The whole concept behind a pebble bed reactor is that whereas adding heat to a normal reactor speeds up fission, in a pebble bed reactor it SLOWS DOWN fission. Really, the only issue with a PBR reactor is what to do with the waste. And as DaveV has pointed out, disposal isn't a problem. Heck, I figure one day we'll be able to do something with that waste anyhow. If it's still emitting radiation, there's still energy potential that can be exploited. Unless I'm mistaken, NASA uses radioactive decay to power some unmanned spacecraft. Besides that, who knows what power generation and processing techniques might be developped in the future that allow radioactive waste to be used for further power generation.
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm actually dissapointed that the fallout wasn't as dire... I was hoping for mutant superheroes to come from it. Lord knows we could use a Hulk Hogan or other mutant-powered-superhuman to moderate the Middle East situations...
- smcavoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Please do not mention ann coulter in any serious way. nucking futz is ***** nutz even with a glimmer of sanity.
Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -28/+6Nuclear energy is great for the US. However, if you're brown and we don't like you then you're out of luck.
- illynova, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16iranians aren't brown.... they're actually fairly similiar to europeans in looks
  
  ... but the Indians and Pakistani's are "brown". And they both have nuclear weapons.
- betacmag4u, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2The 1994 Agreed Framework de al gave North Korea the capacity to generate enough nuclear fuel to produce almost 100 nuclear bombs per year. A 1999 congressional study undertaken by the House North Korea Advisory Group warned,
  
  "Through the provision of two light water reactors [LWRs] under the 1994 Agreed Framework, the United States, through KEDO, will provide North Korea with the capacity to produce annually enough fissile material for nearly 100 nuclear bombs, should the Democratic People's Republic of Korea [DPRK] decide to violate the Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT]."
  
  In April 2002 the Bush administration announced that it would release $95 million of American taxpayer's dollars to begin construction of the 'harmless' light water reactors. Bush argued that arming the megalomaniac dictator Kim Jong-Il with the potential to produce a hundred nukes a year was, "vital to the national security interests of the United States." Bush released even more money in January 2003, as reported by Bloomberg News,
- Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2@illynova
  
  Who said I was talking about Iranians? Sounds to me like you're projecting your own prejudice.
- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Arkonnan:
  
  Name some other country we are trying to prevent from developing nuclear capabilities?
- mdmadph, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4North Korea. Of course they're more of a very light burnt sienna.
fdw2006, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I'd be curious to know if 7 out of 10 Americans even understand what Nuclear Energy even is. (yes, I am an American and not US-bashing)
- edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I'm suprised it was that high. Most americans I've met (either in person or online), upon hearing the word 'nuclear', immediately ink it to nukes, and kneejerk against any explaination that modern nuclear plants are safe.
- StevoCJ, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Who cares if they're safe or not? The pollution lasts for 10,000 years. You won't be the one explaining to your great-great-great grandchildren that they can't walk or see and won't live beyond the age of 10 because the nuclear dump that everyone forgot was there under their house was pierced by a mineshaft.
- Software2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I love how Luddites (and hippies in general) try to make an argument against the logical solution to a problem (be it world hunger or energy) by pulling the most bizarre scenario out of their asses.
- cogen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@STevoCJ
  
  "Who cares if they're safe or not? The pollution lasts for 10,000 years."
  
  Start going to nuclear engineer conferences, they've got 10,000 year storage already. Actually, I believe they're (regulatory commissions) asking for storage one or two orders of magnitude longer now.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1edzieba, I get the same reactions. "Nuclear" = DANGER to most people. Most people also don't seem to understand what nuclear energy really is.
4answer2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I'd like to see the exact wording of the poll.
- zoxed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Question 1: Do you
  a) support nuclear power
  b) prefer to live in a cold cave.
- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I would like to see the exact wording of a number of poles. Especially those done by activist groups.
- mdmadph, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10the exact wording of a bunch of polish people?
Aliarse, on 10/12/2007, -18/+6And over 50% of Americans favor GWB, says it all really.. ;)

Nuclear powers great, until something goes wrong, then you're screwed.
- remotecontempt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"Nuclear powers great, until something goes wrong, then you're screwed."
  
  You know, the same could be said about coal mining, but you don't see anybody using it as an argument against using coal-fired power plants.
- dualscreenman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The thing is it can't go wrong nowadays.
- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Nuclear powers great, until something goes wrong, then you're screwed"
  
  And what training do you have in nuclear technology and nuclear power plant operation?
- Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Look up Pebble Bed Reactors (PBRs). Something CANNOT go wrong. The hotter they get, the slower fusion goes, until they enter an idle state ands top getting hotter. For this reason, they are physically incapable of melting down. So, even if everything went wrong, and all the safety equipment failed, the thing just shuts down.
- vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@"And what training do you have in nuclear technology and nuclear power plant operation?"
  
  If your radiation badge turns red then take the cyanide pill.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Something going wrong is very unlikely to happen these days. The early days of nuclear power there were some mis-steps, but rarely did it pose a threat to civilians.
- BadgerOU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To those that are saying that *nothing* can go wrong now-a-days -- something can (and probably will) go wrong. Just because a 'traditional' melt-down cannot occur with more modern reactor, doesn't mean something else can't go wrong.
  
  That said, I completely support nuclear power, and think we should be investing in the new nuclear technologies our scientists are working on (check out Argonne Nat'l Lab http://www.ne.anl.gov/ for examples)
schwit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I would love to see the heavy polluting(coal) electrical generators replaced with nuclear and those that use oil. Getting the US off of the imported oil tit would have benefits on so many levels.
Shorties, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I personally like Nuclear energy, I don't think I would worry about meltdown happening in the plant near my city, they have that stuff under control. The major downside currently is the radioactive waste that they produce. If we ever found a way to convert that waste into something non toxic or non radioactive I think Nuclear Energy would be unstoppable compared to the horrible pollutant energy currently dominating the market.
- edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14We already have a way to get rid of most of it: Fast breeder reactors. Problem is, there's a small chance that the products of fast breeders could be refined to the degree that they can be sued to create nuclear weapons, so most plants have been shut down (never mind that refining nuclear material to weapons-grade is a really difficult thing to do, far more so than getting a reactor up and running in the first place). The remaining products are all of either incredibly short half life, or incredibly long (i.e. they require minimal shielding, if any, and simply need to be kept away from drinking water sources). Plus you get extra power out of your waste.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Presumably they use the waste they have now, which isn't buried, in breeder reactors?
  
  The only problem I have with nuclear is the massive costs they quote the clean up to be (10s of billions i think). I presume they will make it more cost effective as the process evolves though.
- flipside3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7We have found a way to convert waste, at least partially.
  
  It's called Nuclear Reprocessing:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
  
  But Jimmy Carter was afraid of nuclear weapons proliferation, so he said we can't do it. We're the only country that doesn't refine our nuclear waste to pull out useful material. I think if money were dumped into recycling the waste instead of just sticking it in a hole in the ground, we wouldn't have a nuclear waste problem at all.
  
  I've also read somewhere about technologies to make radioactive material inert... I think it was in the UK and used lasers or something.
- Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Nuclear reprocessing doesn't make the waste less dangerous, it just tries to extract more usable fuel out of it. It also may prevent future uses of the waste when new technologies come up with ways of producing energy from the waste.
LucasVB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I don't think most people know enough about nuclear power to make a solid decision on the subject. Maybe this is just a push poll. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll )

Now if only we spent more resources trying to find methods to deal with the waste (and hopefully even neutralizing it), I don't see why shouldn't we go for it. Given maintance costs and space-efficiency, nuclear power would be the way to go if a proper waste management was in order.
- AlexApetrei, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This guy gets it.
  
  It's not a fallout anyone should be worried about, it's the waste.
  
  There is evidently a very bib PR problem that nuclear energy is having. Strangely the Chinese where able to look past that and have embraced nuclear energy with open arms.
- VTStevenVT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Do a google search on Yucca Mountain... It was promised years ago but never happened...
  
  I took a Geology class ( easy elective ) and we talked about this extensively... we need to seriously start reconsidering Yucca Mountain if we are going to start building nuclear reactors again.
- perryb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3AlexApetrie
  "There is evidently a very bib PR problem that nuclear energy is having. Strangely the Chinese where able to look past that and have embraced nuclear energy with open arms."
  
  I don't think the Chinese government would let a little thing like public safety concerns get in the way of economic progress now would they?
  
  I don't get the impression that pollution from petrochemicals is much of an issue there either.
- bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Alex,
  
  The Chinese have embraced nuclear energy, because they are using the safest reactors ever made the pebble bed reactors. They were at least designed by the germans in the 40's. The US built one in the early 50's. At the time, they could not shrink it small enough to fit inside a USN ship or sub, so all work was abandonned for water cooled reactors, (a mistake). PBR's are designed fail safe. They use helium, and if the helium flow stops, they shut off. Helium can not pickup the radiation, so leaks just give you a funny voice.
JockTroll, on 10/12/2007, -19/+1Iranians are far smarter and better-looking than Europeans. So are Indians.
- AlexApetrei, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2I disagree.
  
  The proud people of Pakistan are the ones who are the most far smarter and better-looking than Europeans.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3I can honestly say that you are a moron.
- thewaz, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1the JEWS
- antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1No one can beat the hot Inuits.
- Desolite, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3we wouldn't know, you guys cover yourselves up so much in blankets you could claim you have 6 arms and i'd probably believe you.
Bhima, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11If you do a little research you'd quickly discover it's not the nuclear power plants that need so much research & development (although they do). But *massive* work needs to be done in the field of reprocessing spent fuel. This is the area that the US needs to develop the furthest…. Calling a fuel rod “spent” when as little as 4% of the fissile material is consumed is ridiculous. Not reprocessing in the US because of proliferation concerns, no longer makes any sense (if it ever did). It's time to start reprocessing and it’s time to learn how get every calorie out of this fuel instead of sticking in the ground somewhere.
- flipside3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I am in total agreement. It's not the technology that's been the problem for all these years, it's the policies surrounding it. The government should be dumping money into recycling and reclaiming as much of all the resources it uses. It's not just nuclear waste that's a problem, but waste in general. Don't you think our tax dollars should be spent keeping as much garbage in general out of the ground?
thewaz, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2i hope this is true! but knowing that 27% of americans still love bush its hard to believe.
zoxed, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3From TFA: "The survey was conducted Sept. 7-10 by Bisconti Research Inc."

Google gives: http://www.bisconti.com/background_bisconti.htm
"Dr. Bisconti was previously a vice president with Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)..."

Why am I not surprised ?
thatsiebguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Breeder Reactors.. :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_Reactor
- ninjasquirrel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm assuming that you're referring to using a breeder reactor to process the spent fuel... although they can have this effect, they are more commonly used to reprocess weapons grade fuels. CANDU reactors are a better solution, as they can use 'spent' fuel that is at an energy level too low to be useful in a regular reactor.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candu
  
  I guess you'll have to copy the link... Digg wants it for it'self.
Gammage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Then, on 28 March 1979, on Three Mile Island in the Susquehanna River near Harrisburg, there was the most serious nuclear accident in American history. Actually, there was no broadcasting of any significant quantity of radioactivity, and no danger to human life, even though there was near panic for a few days" (Asimov Asimov's 479).

"Spent nuclear fuel-the stuff intended for permanent disposal at Yucca Mountain- retains 95 percent of its energy content. Imagine what Toyota could do for fuel efficiency if 95 percent of the average car's gasoline passed through the engine and out the tailpipe." (Schwartz and Reiss 1). The solution used by France, Japan, and Britain is recycling.
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I don't think anyone disputes that there is potential energy in nuclear power. The argument is about whether it is worth the price, both environmentally and in terms of risk.
- ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And with global warming, increasing cost of oil, and great leaps in reactor design and technology, the claim is that those risk are negligible.
SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10If people only know how much radiation coal-burning released into the atmosphere, maybe they'd cry over that too.

Nuclear waste is a problem, but its a solvable problem.
Id have a nuke reactor in my backyward, and get rid of all the coal fired plants. Help clean up the air.
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Do coal-powered plants leak radioactive waste into the groundwater under them? I wonder how many dirty bombs you could make out of spent coal ... a literal dirty bomb I guess.
- Mousse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@jerbaker
  
  Nuclear power plants don't leak radioactive waste you 'tard.
- bemenaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I grew up near Fernald, one of the uranium enrichment plants run by the DOD. Well, former, there is nothing there anymore. Talk about radiation contamination. That site alone leaked more uranium than all the nuclear accidents in the world. And the funny thing is, it was all contained onsite. Even the groundwater contamination was extremely limited.
lebaige, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Wind and Solar energy have the potential with some refinement to power this nation's non gasoline energy needs almost exclusively. Nuclear is interesting but IMHO of decreasing relevance.
- remotecontempt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Wind power has environmental problems of it's own. We really don't know what the effects of many large windfarms would have on the climate. Taking energy out of the wind that regulates and controls the earth's climate, on a large enough scale might have more of an immediate impact on the planet than the Greenhouse Effect. Now that's not to say that small scale wind power projects for individual communities should be scrapped, because those do help. But to say that wind power will/should one day replace fossil fuels is a pipe dream.
- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Yeah cause clear cutting forests for wind turbines is great for the environment. (Not to mention killing migrating flocks of birds, and problems with ice damage in the winter)
  
  And solar panels where it snows from early November until mid March are just so useful!
- hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Thats a nice fairy tale, but wind turbines simply do not provide enough power.
- Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Solar has future potential; the current efficiency of solar power is extremely low. And, of course, there is still a great deal of sunlight in the winter. Of course, snow IS a problem, but not an unsolvable one. For example, what if the mirrors or panels of a solar plant were built so that they could periodically rotate upside down and shake themselves off? Not to mention the fact that normal solar panels (although probably not the centralized type of solar power generation used in plants) can still function with a bit of snow covering them.
  
  Of course, why not tailor the type of power generation to the locale? Solar would make a great deal more sense in areas with a lot of sun where it doesn't snow. In my province, hydroelectric power makes a lot of sense (And provides nearly all our power), since there are a lot of hydroelectric potential (And Hydro IS renewable. The environmental damage is one-time. Once the damage is done, it's done, whereas coal power plants keep on damaging). Nuclear power also makes sense in Canada, since Canada produces about a third of the world's Uranium (and has about 9% of the world's uranium reserves).
  
  Besides, this is all just burning time until we can get fusion going and switch everybody over to that ;)
h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I've been all for Nuclear Energy. Now if the damn greenies would let us BUILD more without bitching and moaning and telling us to use solar power and granola to power our homes...
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Simpsons mentioned a device to power cars with the human sense of self-satisfaction... too bad that doesn't work for those with low self-esteem...
hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Nuclear power generation is the only realistic solution to attaining a hydrogen economy where the power generated could separate hydrogen from H2O and all our cars would run clean and we wouldn't have to shovel money into oil rich countries.
gathas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What we really need is a more heterogeneous energy infrastructure. We need Fossil, Nuclear, Wind, Cow Flatulence, etc. This hedges against the ills of reliance on a single source (geopolitical, environmental). That's why electric cars are so useful, not that they save energy, but that electricity is a common carrier of energy generated from any source.
DigitalBrian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Hey humans are risktakers so why not?
RodeoRobot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Make nukes, not hippies.
ogletree, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3But all Americans agree that it should be in another state.
jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Ask these wacky people who are in support of nuclear power WHY they are in support of it. They will tell you that it's the answer to the problem of global warming. Then ask them what they think of global warming and they will tell you that it's all a bunch of alarmist environmentalists. Hmmmm. Since they don't even believe in their own arguments for nuclear power you have to wonder just why exactly they really support more nuclear power. Maybe they want more incidents like where it was discovered this year that radioactive water from a nuclear plant had penetrated to the groundwater in California. I like radioactive tap water ... mmmm yummy!

"In recent years, tritium leaks have been found at more than a dozen nuclear plants across the nation, prompting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to form a task force this year to study the cause of the contamination"

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060826/GPG0101/608260412/1207/GPGnews
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/4039/1/32/
- LordBytor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Nice straw man you've constructed there, I like many people believe in global warming and support nuclear power.
  
  You do realize that nuclear power has killed far less people in its entire history than conventional power sources do in a year right?
BigManOnCampus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow, This is bizarre..

http://www.stoic-epicurean.com/humor/images/nukedigghumor.jpg
ajslugger83, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Nuclear energy is the right wings solution to alternative energy. Nuclear energy is dangerous because it leaves behind toxic waste materiels that stay toxic forever. It's also very costly, when you consider not only the cost of producing the energy but ALSO the cost of waste disposal it's probably more expensive than oil or fuel cells. Instead of focusing on nuclear technology we should be thinking about ways we can improve solar cells to make them more cost effective. A company called nanosolar is doing this as we speak and is already producing results, goto http://www.nanosolar.com. They have actually come up with a way of producing cells which can be roll printed like paper. The bottom line is nuclear technology even when used for beneficial purposes is NOT cool. Don't be victims of right wing propoganda.
ajslugger83, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2It's even more expensive when you consider the cost of mining the uranium and extracting it from the ore. The type of Uranium used in nuclear reactors is a very rare isotope and the earth doesn't have an abundant supply of it. When you take everything into consideration Uranium kind of sounds like the next oil, only a lot more dangerous.
Twango, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Huh. Strange. Cuz I just took a poll, and 7 out of 10 are against nuclear power.

We must be some bunch of sheep, if making up authoritative-sounding poll results will change minds. Another tool for The Matrix.
Burritovision, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2i don't think 7 of 10 americans support nuclear power.

all nuclear plants purposefully release toxic and lethal levels of radioactivity, particularly unfilterable radioactive gas, on a *biweekly basis*, for the duration of their operation.

radioactive gasses are noble and therefore cannot be filtered.

i believe it is krypton-90, which is harmless when it leaves the reactor, but it quickly degrades into strontium-90, which plain kills you if you breathe it in. lung cancer, dead. because it is harmless when it leaves the reactor, the nuclear regulatory committee says it is not the nuclear plant's responsibility.
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Do you have any actual data to back up those enviro-wacko talking points or were you just speaking from your butt?
  
  Krypton-90 would be a noble gas plus 18 Neutrons, which would have to be so amazingly unstable it couldn't last more than a few seconds:
  http://www.topix.net/forum/tech/nuclear-energy/TER5B31FB1N9MESJU
  Strontium-90 wouldn't be a gas, it would be a metal, so how exactly would you breathe it in?
  
  The rest of your post just baseless fear mongering, the same kind of stuff that convinced a lot of people of WMD's in Iraq, and we know how that ended up.
addicted68098, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The only problem is the waist produced by the plants, my idea is to dig deep into a mountain (atleast 1km) and create a 300,000 foot automated warehouse we would be covered for haundreds of years.
- ajslugger83, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0plants don't produce waistlines, ha ha.
skytomorrownow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i'm actually for some of the new nuclear technologies that have been developed, but this source is pretty biased. it's a mouthpeice for the nuclear industry posted on PR newswire, which is a service, not a source.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nuclear_Energy_Institute
V93R, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Solar Power Requires:
Massive ammounts of land to be cleared or they can be placed on houses.
Massive ammounts of metal to be mined along with other chemicals to be refined.
Complex manufacturing to achieve desired production quality which produces waste.

Wind Power Requires:
Massive ammounts of land to be cleared and can kill birds when running.
Massive ammounts of metal to be mined along with other chemicals to be refined.
Complex manufacturing to achieve desired production quality which produces waste.

Nuclear Power Requires:
Relatively small amounts of land when compared to other means of energy production.
Massive ammounts of metal to be mined along with other chemicals to be refined.
Complex manufacturing to achieve desired production quality which produces waste.

To me all forms of power production produce waste, however some take up less room and produce more power. Radiation is given off by all pollutants, just the radiation from nuclear power stays around longer. Nuclear power, today, is relatively safe as it is practically meltdown proof. We also have means to recycle and contain its waste.
- ajslugger83, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How do you figure that solar power requires massive amounts of land to be cleared when you are putting the panels on roof tops?? If you go to http://www.nanosolar.com you will see that their production process is actually QUITE SIMPLE.
- smcavoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1massive amounts of land to produce massive amounts of electricity.
  If you want to run a hot water heater or some fans I'm sure panels on the roof would be fine. Running an entire A/C'd house hold on only the panels on the roof doesn't sound plausible with today's solar power... not to mention cloudy days :)
ajslugger83, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nuclear power actually requires relatively large amounts of land in order to establish a safety zone.
- smcavoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1relative to what? nuclear? I think not.
Libberkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nuclear power is a bad, bad idea.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Nuclear_Power_is_Not_the_Answer
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Nearly 7 of 10 Americans Favor Nuclear Energy

Login or register to add a comment