To "Baron Scarpia" any tax incentives that the nuclear power receive is
much better than what the wind and solar power industries get. When power is
purchaed from a nuclear power plant it includes the cost to build the plant,
maintain it, fuel, projected decomissioning costs, and insurance for
accidents.We don't have to pay to store the waste. Much of the
waste can be turned into new fuel for nuclear reactors. We are wasting a
valuable fuel source.To "Open Minded Mormon" I hate to bring
some reality to you, but nuclear power is blocked primarily by leftist
environmental groups. The Tea party is all for the nuclear power plants because
it is a cheap solution to our power needs.
It is a statement of faith for the leftist No Nukes that nuclear power is not
acceptable. Some of them are slowly confronting reality and admitting that their
years of obstruction and costly legal challenges are counterproductive for the
environment. Japan is ending nuclear power rather than admitting that it was
their own incompetence by failing to update technology. While not a member of
the Tea Party, I am unaware of their stand on nuclear energy and bringing them
into the conversation is irrelevant.
1. I went to college, I was in the military, and have worked around nuclear
facilities for years - I'm not afraid of it at all.2. I lived
in Seattle for 20 years. Bonneville Power used nuclear facilities for their
"base load" [thanks for mentioning that Johnny Moser] and augmented the
peak loads using hydro and wind during the day. Nuclear can't ramp up and
down on a daily cycle, but are ideal for the base loads.3. Us
"tree-huggers" are not opposed to nuclear, even the President of
GreenPeace has written in support of it. It's the coal loving burn
baby burn GOP Tea-Partiers who oppose it, because it costs taxpayers $Billions
build and subsidize them.4. Socialist countries use nuclear power
because even though it's more expensive, it's for the common good.
Besides, they have gullible people in Utah who will GLADLY take their waste.
@ PiperIt is difficult for America to compare to socialist countries
(e.g., France, Japan) that can pay all the subsidies for nuclear power where
citizens are willing to pay them. Americans have a difficult time
just raising taxes to educate our kids, let alone build multi-billion nuke
plants and then spend billions to store waste or reuse spent fuel rods (note
that reusing rods still costs money and warrants more tax dollars to dispose of
them). Let's not forget the tax dollars for the insurance for
nuclear disasters -- where Uncle Sam is responsible for clean up and liability
to citizens and property damage in America. It's a sweetheart deal for
nukes. Consider this: We, U.S. tax payers, are still paying for
the storage of nuclear waste left from the energy used by our grandparents 50
years ago. Creating waste that warrants guarding and maintenance decades later
isn't a good use of tax dollars. (yes, it creates jobs, but still any
economist will tell you it is essentially wasted tax money)Water is
the other big issue. Utah's dwindling water supplies in the face of
exploding population makes nuclear a non-starter here.
The main danger of nuclear power is that anti-nuclear sentiments and
short-sighted politicians will continue to block the construction of new, safer
reactors and so the old unsafe reactors will keep operating well beyond their
designed lifespans. That's what the real problem at Fukushima was.As to those who worry about nuclear waste, you could simply grind it up and
spew it out a smokestack into the atmosphere like a coal plant does. That's
not a good idea- we have better options- but it'd still be better than a
coal plant. For a given amount of energy production, a coal plant produces 100
times as much radioactive waste as a nuclear plant does, simply because it
exposes radioactive elements in the coal. With a nuclear plant we can decide
what to do with its tiny amount of waste, but with a coal plant we're stuck
blowing 100 times as much radioactive matter, along with a tremendous amount of
other pollutants, directly into the atmosphere.
You have to give it to France. They generate the vast majority of their
electrical needs through nuclear power and even then reprocess their nuclear
waste to make new fuel rods. China, Russia and South Korea are not far behind.
Hopefully we come around sooner than later to see that we can reduce our carbon
footprint through nuclear power.
@Open Minded MormonYou are being misleading. There is a
difference between global warming and MAN-MADE global warming.OF
course there is global warming and global cooling, it is perfectly natural, and
is nothing to be concerned about.What can be legitimately denied is
man-made global warming.In any case, nuclear energy is a terrific
solution that is cheap and clean., is the ignorant naysayers and protestors
would just get out of the way.
The really important piece that nuclear brings to the puzzle of powering any
economy and society was likely missed by the average reader of this article. It
was in the last paragraph:"so we don't see alternatives for
a base load resource for power"Once you understand HOW power
gets put on the grid and what "base load" means you know the only
environmentally sound decision is nuclear. If you don't know what "base
load" means now consider that it to be the most important thing you will
need learn. It makes the argument about power and where it comes from make sense
and puts nuclear in a completely different perspective.If you
don't know what it means and you are still in the argument about where
power comes from and what we need, you don't look credible in your argument
without knowing what "base load" means.
@ Open Minded MormonThat is probably because a lot of them remember
back in the 70s how the scientists said we were going into a global cooling.Scientists still don't know what is going on with the climate. I
just read an article yesterday at the Washington Post that stated "Antarctic
sea ice has grown to a record large extent for a second straight year, baffling
scientists seeking to understand why this ice is expanding rather than shrinking
in a warming world.""On Saturday, the ice extent reached
19.51 million square kilometers, according to data posted on the National Snow
and Ice Data Center Web site. That number bested record high levels set earlier
this month and in 2012 (of 19.48 million square kilometers). Records date back
to October 1978."Care to explain that to me? The Climate
scientist in the article had no clue why the ice grew so much.
The 1st hurdle to jump over here in Utah is for MOST to realize that Global
Warming is REAL, The 2nd hurdle to jump is how are we going to deal with
it?At least the Scientists are proposing answers and solutions, the Global Warming deniers I'm surrounded by won't even acknowledge
there is even a problem!