Tucker: Anyone Who Doesn't Back Nuclear Technology Is Not Forward-Thinking
By Nicole Belle Tuesday Jan 15, 2008 9:15pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t BillW.)
Leave it to Tucker Carlson to find yet another way to be annoying and obtuse. In discussing the Nevada Democratic Debate, Tucker Carlson had a little issue with the three candidates saying that they were against nuclear power.
I was struck—this is a small thing but I thought it was really telling last night. All three candidates were asked about nuclear power and all three of them basically said, ‘you know I’m against nuclear power.’ And it seems to me that we’ve reached this place where we can be more honest about certain things like nuclear power. If you’re against nuclear power just reflexively in 2008, you’re not a forward-thinking person, it seems to me.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->Yeah, how unprogressive to be worried about nuclear waste, especially in the state where Yucca Mountain is located. Tucker actually says that nuclear power is cleaner, except for the waste part, like it's a little thing. Just for those less reflexive types that think Tucker might have a point:
- Nuclear waste is produced in many different ways. There are wastes produced in the reactor core, wastes created as a result of radioactive contamination, and wastes produced as a byproduct of uranium mining, refining, and enrichment. The vast majority of radiation in nuclear waste is given off from spent fuel rods.
- A typical reactor will generate 20 to 30 tons of high-level nuclear waste annually. There is no known way to safely dispose of this waste, which remains dangerously radioactive until it naturally decays.
- The rate of decay of a radioactive isotope is called its half-life, the time in which half the initial amount of atoms present takes to decay. The half-life of Plutonium-239, one particularly lethal component of nuclear waste, is 24,000 years.
- The hazardous life of a radioactive element (the length of time that must elapse before the material is considered safe) is at least 10 half-lives. Therefore, Plutonium-239 will remain hazardous for at least 240,000 years.
Hey Tucker, I'll just give you two words: wind power
Login or Register to post comments.
New Test Finds Depleted Uranium 20 Years After Exposure
http://www.newstarget.com/022503.html
I thought Tucker was against forward thinking.
"But those windmills will ruin the scenery," they'll cry. That seems to be the major complaint I see from people, and I don't really get it. It's a matter of taste, I guess, but that shouldn't be enough to discount such a simple, efficient technology.
Shorter Tucker Carlson:
Kyle @ 2:
Tucker can't think forward far enough to make it worth his time!
i believe tucker carlson has gotten those two words.....wind power
and the amount of empty air that comes from his head out of his mouth
could power 1/3 of manhattan island, ny
240,000 years?
I'm no humanologist but I think I'll be dead by then. I'm a forward thinker.
The Obama brigade is full tilt in favour of expanding nuclear power.
Yaaaaaeeerrgggghhhhh!
We could do like France IS doing.
They even solved most of the nuclear waste problem.
I hate to say it, but I mostly agree with Mr. Carlson on the issue of nuclear energy. If you "reflexively" state that you are against nuclear energy, especially for political reasons, you aren't being very forward thinking.
Yes, nuclear energy creates some very dangerous wastes, but isn't everything that is "waste" considered dangerous anymore? We went from paper bags to plastic bags in order to save trees. Now we are trying to rid ourselves of plastic bags. When will it stop.
By the way, Ms. Belle, I am guessing you haven't read the reports that wind-farms are causing changes in the migratory patterns of birds. I guess we shouldn't worry too much about the birds, right?
In our search to rid ourselves of dependency on fossil fuels, particularly oil, should we really be shutting the door nuclear energy?
Tucker's always been what Jon Stewart called him to his face: "A Dick."
But our power problem won't really be solved until we figure out how to cheaply utilize hydrogen. The alternatives are helpful (some of them like solar and wind...but not biofuels: an incredibly wasteful use of our resources), but the candidates in particular piss me off that they won't stand up for the need of investing heavily into research for real alternatives to coal, oil, and nukes.
Does Tucker say 'nuclear' or 'nukular'?
How to sustain our unsustainable lifestyles.
Tough one.
Now I think Carlson is as big a tool as the next guy, but nuclear power is a viable option. Using newer technologies you can definitely make cleaner nuclear power. It is amazing the information gap that exists on the subject (I would recommend reading up on Breeder reactors). Also there is no form or energy production that doesn't produce waste. What you have is varying degrees of waste production. Nuclear power, when done correctly, is much cleaner then coal or oil, and produces energy on the scale necessary to start to largely replace those two. Is it a perfect solution? No. But it
is closer to it then we currently are. I guess my point is it isn't something that should just be dismissed out of hand. With the current state of wind and solar power technologies, they just don't out put enough power.
he's still on? next.
No frigging way. This peon actually said that? What about solar power or wind power? How about using natural resources safely? What a butt wipe. Why is Tucker still on anyway? He is an embarassment. How about David Shuster? he would be perfect. Nuclear power indeed. Okay Tucker, will build the Power Plant next to your house.
Phoenix Justice @ 10:
Not just that. I live near 4 new wind "farms". They are ungodly ugly. They make way more noise than what you are told. They are only in use 20% of the time...that's right, they need very regular maintenance or they become obsolete very fast....AND you need one heckuva pile of them to power any kind of city. That isn't mentioning the cost, which is usually way more than anyone ever suggests. The taxpayer in my area pays for the installation though, so that's a plus to the greedy companies that run them.
Doesn't France get 70% of their electricity from nuclear power? What do they with their waste? Ship it to Africa?
So Tucker is in favour of Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology?
wind power will be widely used when those with the gold can manipulate the wind supply.
That is blasphemous Archae, speaking of solving this problem. Nuclear waste - bad. That is all you need to know.
You guys don't seem to understand than there would not enough wind mills & solar panels to feed our need for energy. We have a high demand and whatever we come up with THAT WILL MEET THE DEMAND will have a negative side effect. Nuclear energy is the best best, its a manageable risk! It will help us get of foreign oil!! So calm down and realize what we have and what we can do..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Nuclear_waste_locatio...
It's knee-jerk articles like this one that sometimes make me embarrassed to be a liberal. Breeder reactors and waste reprocessing eliminate the vast majority of nuclear waste. France does it, and they're not exactly raging fascists.
Okay, I saw Nicole's hatred for the idea of Nuclear power right off the bat but when I clicked on her link I saw this:
The main difference in the various types of steam-electric plants is the heat source. Coal, oil, or gas is burned in other power plants to heat the water. Heat from a chain reaction of fissioning Uranium-235 boils the water in a nuclear power plant. Some have compared this process to using a canon to kill a fly.
"Some have compared" ?
Sounds like a GOP Geo W Bush speech tactic. "Some have said things aren't going well in Iraq".
Based on that I don't trust Nicole's posting. I believe nuclear power is the best way to go to minimize future global warming. The wastes can be confined. Perhaps disposed of on the seafloor near undercutting subduction zones. One method. More wind turbines will kill more migratory birds.
At least the waste from nuclear power eventually decays. The mercury and solvent waste from the production of photovoltaic solar panels has a half-life of *infinity*. I think I'll be even deader by then...
C&L sure hates them some Tucker...
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton: FORWARD THINKERS
Phoenix Justice @ 10:
Nothing else creates waste that is as dangerous or long lasting. If we had a safe way to store it, you might have a point. But conservationist have problems with things that don't decompose in something like the 20-50 year timeframe. We're talking about a deadly substance that will remain deadly for a quarter of a million years!!!!!!! We have to be able to do better than this.
There are few places in this country that don't have earthquakes, floods, large population centers or groundwater below. We've been trying to find a place for decades to take care of this, and Yucca Mountain isn't that place, even though it's being forced down Nevada's throat.
Chernobyl.
Three Mile Island.
Nuff said.
KCThinker @ 18:
No, Russia.
Dan, why is it you think you should be able to decide for another country how they provide electricity for themselves? I know, they are crazy, and we should deny them what we already have. This makes perfect sense, we are well suited to carry out this responsibilities, we know what's best for other countries.
Most people that support nuclear power don't take in to account the cost of human life as almost slave labor is used just to get “yellow cake” and then you must refine it so as to use it in reactors and then the cost of storing the waist that will not pollute the environment.
So is he a greater douchebag with the bowtie or without it?
AlphaFactor @ 34:
In this particular case it is not the clothes that make the douche bag.
Might I add that in the Shiprock area on the Navajo Reservation, site of active uranium mines over many decades, they have the highest rate of birth defects in the country as well as exceptionally high levels of cancers. This is a direct result of radioactive contamination of the soil and groundwater from the mines. Similar results are reported from the Laguna Reservation in New Mexico, site of the largest open pit uranium mine in the US, which has been closed since 1985. Safe and clean are not words I would associate with nuclear power.
Plus, there doesn't seem to be enough uranium on the planet to mine to give us the energy we will need for the next hundred years. If we replace oil.
I wonder if Tucker wouldn't mind if one was built near his home?And wind power has been proven to kill migratory birds and golden eagles..but the fix for that would be to build a guard around the blades.similar to a house fan....nuclear power?now that's thinking backward.
SFnomad @ 29:
Hydrogen powers waist is water!
At one time, hydro-power from damning rivers was "the" solution to our electric production needs. Now I read that over $1 billion will be spent to destroy a hydro-electric dam in order to restore the migratory patterns of salmon.
There is no "one" solution to our energy production issues and not one person is talking about conservation. Oh sure, former President Carter was blown off for suggesting we all wear sweaters and to keep the temperature in our homes lower in the winter, but he was on to something. Even Ms. Belle neglects to talk about conservation of energy in her rant against Mr. Carlson (who I loath), but only talks up wind power, which has its own drawbacks. Where does she think the energy to create the steal turbines comes from? Its not wind power.
Johnny2Bad @ 28:
If you saw last night's debate, nuclear power is more Obama's plan since his main finance source is Excelon.
Clinton proposed bio-fuel energy as a main source.
I wish my waist was water.
The actual power generated by nuclear is CO2 free. However, significant CO2 is released during the curing of the massive concrete reactors and containment structures. Mining, extraction, transportation, and refining of Uranium generates significantly more CO2 than oil or coal, since these processes are heavily dependent on fossil fuels. The facilities are ripe terrorist targets. And then there's that pesky little problem of radioactive waste disposal. Perhaps Tucker can do his part by making his property a storage facility. For his generosity, all of the taxes on his trust funds can be forgiven. He can then use the windfall to pay for private security to protect him from his angry neighbors.
I do my homework @ 39:
Awright! And where do we get enough hydrogen from?
Hey Tucker, I’ll give you just two words:
Go fuck yourself. What are you going to do when MSNBC fires your ass because you suck. Nobody watches you. Go take your act to Fox News. You’ll fit right in. Dickhead!
BOPOHOK @ 44:
Hydrocarbons?
(Just dreaming...)
efficiency is the answer. the days of wasteful consumption are ending.
Okay, the plutonium is bad, but Uranium 238 has a half life of 4,470,000,000 years. Mind you, it's an alpha emitter, so you could safely carry it in your hands and it wouldn't even penetrate your skin, but if ingested, you die.
RomanX @ 14:
The biggie is, what do we do, when there's no wind or sunlight?
Sorry Nicole, but Tucker's exactly right.
Wind power is a fundamentally inconsistent source of power which must have a place in the future, but not as any kind of main source. Ditto solar.
If we are going to think towards the future, we have to have clean reliable power that we can get using today's technology to form the backbone of the power grid. Fission is the only technology that fits that bill. Despite everyone's Simpson-esque view of leaky barrels of green glowing goop(as much as I love that show, they've done quite a bit to worsen the environment by making it seem reasonable to hop back onto coal power plants), the waste from a nuclear power plant is minimal and safe.
The used Uranium is either vitrified into a class case and shipped to a holding facility or recycled in a breeder reactor. And holding onto the stuff is not that huge a deal(although there does need to be somewhere to put it) because it gets exponentially less radioactive as time goes on. The only waste biproduct of the reaction that gets released back into the environment is hot water. The fears of a meltdown are silly because since Chernobyl every reactor has passive protection: that is, if something goes wrong, you lose power or what have you, the reactor defaults to shutting down without any further input. Chernobyl in this light was just a product of shitty design. Three Mile Island, rather than the title of scorn it currently has should be viewed as a triumph of that design. Even if everything and everybody screws up, there's no meltdown and the radiation stays inside. And today's nuclear plants are even better, built to withstand any sort of inside or outside issue.
So yeah. Long story short I think Tucker's right. You should ignore your preconceptions of nuclear plants and just look at the facts. Nuclear power is certainly not perfect, but it's the only power source that makes sense.
My grandfather ran a one man hydro electric power plan on the White River in South Dakota for most of his adult life (well into his 80's) Don't look for it on "the google" or in wikipedia--it seems to be a blind spot--I'll fix that. During the energy crisis of the 70's he was listed as the only private individual producing commercial power in the united states.
I was hooked on and plugged into alternative energy early on and cut my teeth reading all of the alternative energy proposals that came in month after month through popular science at the time. I feel that I have some cred in that department.
My dad (on the other side of the family, oddly enough) helped open the Nuke plant on Prairie Island in the late 1960's--back then it was an "on the job training" proposition to get into the control room and my dad did just that, having previously been just a wicked smart meter reader that had never been to college. The control room was, and still is 1970's kitchen colored avocado green with burnt orange star trek swivel chairs. At that time the computer system was punch card controlled an monitored on deckwriters. Phones had dials back then--remember? Just to give some perspective
I myself never ended up a mechanical engineer like I wanted to--but I do make my living in software development and am no slouch. I also built a cabin in Alaska and lived off the grid--carrying water--for 3 years.
Let me tell you this and I never want you to forget it--you are stupendously ignorant if you don't recognize two things (and I don't mean to get all prickish but its true):
* Wind power and solar cannot reliably power all cities
* We will have the ability to safely dispose of nuclear waste in space far sooner than even 100 years
* Nuclear energy is exponentially safer now than it was in the 60's and continues to improve to becoming truly negligible danger.
* Peak oil is real, and it wont mean that we will simply be forced to switch at that point--because you need a transitional period.
* If we do not have a transitional period, a shitload of people are going to die in unpleasant ways
* We will, with 100% certainty, be able to then replace nuclear power in unimaginable and wonderful ways--probably fairly quickly
Now don't get me wrong--I am a huge proponent of alternative energy, decentralized/decommoditized yummy and sexy alternative energy, and I am very excited to see the huge gains we have made in both wind and solar just in the last year even, but idealism is a pretty thin soup when you think about the real human risks posed by peak oil.
I like the way you invoke "wind power" like it's a magical fairy that will solve all our problems. Wind, solar, hydro, they are all usefull, but they cannot give us enough power to stop burning coal. So the choice is which is worse, nuclear or coal? Take a look at the amount of mercury in fish sometime, you will never eat swordfish again.
And to the idiot who thinks that Chernobyl and TMI are similar, you obviously know nothing about the incidents.
HEMP.
Here is an ambitious proposal to not only help the environment and create jobs, but to lessen our consumption of energy (no matter where it comes from.)
Mass Transit on a grand scale. Jobs, jobs jobs for the next 50 years. Fewer and fewer car owners. Less dependancy on oil and it would cost a lot less than war in Iraq or anywhere else.
Bit NOLA @ 11:
I agree-he is a prick. I do need to offer a friendly reminder though...hydrogen just stores energy, doesn't create it
*blink*
Wake me up when solar and wind power generators produce as much electricity in their lifetime than is required to make them.
xoites defends Constitution @ 46:
Ha-ha-ha! Good one!
Now, what about that oil dependency?
CO2, that will be released when converting your oil into H2?
bvac @ 56:
How do you like your coffee?
Tenmile @ 51:
sorry, way more than two things :-P
A.B.F.F.: Anything but fossil fuels!
Steve Charb @ 60:
that you Charbonneau?
Our problem is and always has been our dependancy on automobiles. Mass Transit is at least half the solution. I am not talking about a subway line her or there. I am talking about a massive interconnected, inter urban, interstate system of rail lines. It will take massive resources to create, but it will create thousands upon thousands of jobs and products and reduce oil consumption and we can do it.
Chernobyl babies are just what the General Electric doctor ordered
Even counting Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki (notice I don't include three mile island, because hey, nothing happened!), deaths and health problems from nuclear energy pale in comparison to coal. Yet I don't see the year-round protests over black lung. Any major source of power is going to have environmental problems associated with it. At least with nuclear it's containable.
I'm so tired of this irrational fear people have of nuclear power just because it's invisible. The way some people talk, France should have a bright blue glow that can be seen from outer space by now considering they get 80% of their power from fission.
If you want America to get off it's oil dependence people need to start getting realistic. Wind, hydro and geothermal power are only local solutions and solar has a pretty big disadvantage seeing as it can only be taken advantage of in the day time when it's not raining. Even at their peak efficiency these secondary sources can't provide even a tenth of the power the country uses.
Find ways to make coal more efficient and cleaner and get over your fear of nuclear power or start praying science can pull a big one out of thin air.
A smug, privileged little jerk who would be a nobody if not for Daddy. And what's up with a grown man dressing like Daddy?
Wind and solar have a major problem: They don't continuously generate power.
You need something that keeps the lights on when its cloudy and calm.
If you don't want to use fossil fuels, you are left with hydro, geothermal and nuclear. Hydro and geothermal don't generate enough electricity (and are very regional). Nuclear is your only clean backup using technology that currently exists.
Marshall @ 64:
I don't see protests over anything.
xoites defends Constitution @ 58:
With radioactive isotopes in it
bvac @ 68:
The nuclear issue is completely marred by people not even bother to do any research. What releases more radiation in the environment; a single day of operation for a coal plant or a nuclear plant over its entire life cycle? Its the coal plant. Airline pilots get hundreds the times of radiation exposure that workers at nuclear power plant get. Anyone here even know what the federal limit for radiation is? (Its your age in REM) Yes, Nuclear power can be dangerous but there is no industry in this country with a better safety record and more stringent regulations to follow. And unless we want to go back to the stone age, we need to develop out energy supplies. It is simply safer and easy to deal with the concentrated pollution from nuclear waste than the resultant pollution from using fossil fuel burning plants. This is what annoys me about Americans, we feel the need to comment without any prior knowledge. "The China Syndrome" was not a documentary.
Well, to keep it short, I was a Navy trained nuke technician. I used to be a big believer in nukes. I no longer am. Solar power, if placed on every roof, could replace virtually all other sources of daytime power for home, local industry and local transportation. At night, when demand is down, the power plants could be assisted with wind. This might not cover ALL our needs, but damn sure a good percentage. This could have been done all along. We accept the need for new cars, new houses, new computers, etc, why not an ongoing investment in new solar technology as it comes along, which it has. No one alternative will do it all, but the resistance from the oily types and their enablers has made progress much slower than it should have been. Imagine if every house had 4k on it's roof.
Paticularly ironic -- Dan @ 19 sums it up best.
What level of immorality could possibly justify leaving tons of high level radioactive waste for future generations to deal with? What, it's a sin to leave trillions of dollars of debt to our progeny, but leaving ever increasing piles of dangerous poison scattered around the globe is OK? How selfish is that? What kind of ignorant fool thinks we can safeguard this toxic shit for thousands of years? THOUSANDS of years! Give me a break. The world's first atomic reactor is out in the desert here in Idaho on top of one of the largest aquifers in the country. The waste there is a time bomb. The Feds promised to clean it up years ago but there it sits. Over 300,000 people rely on this water source. There are plans to build two nuclear reactors in Idaho now and thankfully there is a strong pushback. It is simply irresponsible to create more nuclear waste without a viable solution.
http://www.snakeriveralliance.org/
Okay, so being opposed to a dirty, hazardous, expensive form of power that was discredited by Three Mile Island and Chernobyl almost thirty years ago is not forward thinking, but refusing to believe in Evolution (as several of the GOP candidates have publicly declared) is? Uh, thanks Tucker. Thanks a lot for clearing that up for us.
#67
Try opening a nuclear power plant near your town and count how many protests you don't see.
Dr. Helen Caldicott knows more about this than most of us do.
seevee @ 72:
that existing plant sucks, fo sho--but you need to pull off your daisy goggle and read this whole thread
Diablo @ 70:
No, but the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island nuclear plant accidents were real. What bothers me is idiots who post talking points while ignoring history. THAT'S what annoys me.
Tenmile @ 76:
paryicularly # 70--that is dead on
gene214 @ 77:
You are showing you ass gene--he's clearly not an idiot
xoites defends Constitution @ 75:
Nuclear bombs are not the same as nuclear power. If you want to debate lowering power consumption however, I'm all for it.
A breeder reactor, as the name implies, produces more nuclear fuel than it consumes. Play god with nuclear isotopes and discover hell.
Marshall @ 80:
If you watch more than the first two minutes of it you will actually get to the point.
I'll support it, if and only if Tucker agrees to store the waste products in his backyard.
ex nuke @ 81:
Wikipedia:
A breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor that consumes fissile and fertile material at the same time as it creates new fissile material. These reactors were initially (1950's and 1960's) considered appealing due to their superior fuel economy; a normal reactor can consume less than 1% of the natural Uranium that begins the fuel cycle, whereas a breeder can use much more with a once-through cycle and nearly all of it with reprocessing. Also, breeders can be designed to utilize Thorium, which is more abundant than Uranium. Renewed interest is also due to the dramatic reduction in waste they produce and especially long-lived radioactive waste components.
In the United States the answer is Mass Transit.
Mass Transit
Mass Transit
Mass Transit
On a grand scale.
In the 1950's Eisenhower had a choice. Mass Transit or an Interstate highway system. He chose the Interstates so he could, if he had to, move massive amounts of troops around in a hurry.
Well we have a Interstate Highway System and it is fifty years later and it is time to look beyond that.
Tenmile @ 76:
I read the whole thread. You think the waste out in the Arco desert is just from that one reactor? You don't know what you are talking about. You, brother or sister, have the googles on, and they are painted black.
xoites defends Constitution @ 82:
You're trying to debate four different topics at once. Do you want to talk about health and public safety, power consumption, global warming or power generation?
Marshall @ 87:
Are you pretending these things are not all related?
seevee @ 86:
ok--I'll relegate my knowledge and experience to you, because you say so.
that seems to be the pattern here
Is there any doubt that we can, if we choose, create a country that promotes safety, reduces power consumption, enriches our health and reduces it needs on energy?
That question was a huge missed opportunity. Here’s the actual question:
RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, you say you’re against nuclear power.
But a reality check: I talked to the folks at the MIT Energy Initiative, and they put it this way, that in 2050, the world’s population is going to go from six billion to nine billion, that CO2 is going to double, that you could build a nuclear power plant one per week and it wouldn’t meet the world’s needs.
Something must be done, and it cannot be done just with wind or solar.
----
I agree that nuclear (fission) power is an option and a good stopgap until we can get to reliable fusion power. As for nuclear waste, “one man’s waste is another man’s resource” but make sure nobody gets the recovered plutonium!
HOWEVER…
There are two parts to the question: Power and POPULATION!
What a great opportunity this would have been for someone to talk about BushCo denying funding to UNFPA and to talk about “choice” and family planning.
Sustainability is where the answer is…and part of that answer is curbing human population growthn -- even six billion is, I suspect, too many.
I have hope, but I’m no Cornucopian.
Don't forget two important things :
First, nuclear plants are subsidised. It's not even cost-effective to run the damn things.
Second, uranium is rarer than oil, and will hit a "peak" just as easily when mining of it is upscaled.
Of course, none of these things matter to Republicans, who think Jesus is coming back in their life time and that the National Debt is something for other people to worry about.
Tenmile, go take some nuclear physics. Wiki won't cut it.
Tenmile @ 89:
Hey, you're the one who started the insults.
There's no magic solution. In an ideal world we'd all ride bicycles and shop out of local, self-sustaining markets and only use cars for cross country trips. The problem is this country is just too damned big and there's 100 years of road infrastructure getting in the way. Unless we completely wipe the slate clean like Europe did after WWII the logistics of changing all that and switching to a mass transit society is impossible. Not to mention the field day all the lawyers and politicians would have. Recommit to nuclear power, put most of our chips into R&D, hope for the best and start growing your own gardens just in case.
Exactly, Zlad!
I am tired of arguing over the bits and pieces of the deck chair arraingement as the ship goes down.
Marshall @ 95:
And i suppose a bomb shelter as well.
No, i can't go for your vision of a future that is unsustainable.
Sorry.
Tucker, you're on vacation in western Utah, driving US 15 from Salt Lake City to Las Vegas. A train de-rails at a rail-crossing a hundred yards from your location, blocking your SUV on the road... and conjestion, panic, and confusion blocks your escape. After a frustrating hour on your cell phone trying to report the accident, an Utah Highway Patrolman (dressed in bright yellow HAZ-MAT protective gear) stops to inform you that the train cars were carrying radio-active Plutonium for delivery to YUCCA MOUNTAIN, Nevada, and, unfortunately, you have been exposed to fatal levels of contamination. That's why you are starting to feel sick to your stomach... and you gums are starting to bleed. You scratch your head to try to figure out who to sue... and a clump of hair falls to the ground.
THIS is the ultimate "having a bad day" scenario that is a VERY REAL POSSIBILITY for anybody within a THOUSAND MILES of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. YOU send your mother to retire there... and then tell us how you would feel about storing plutonium for the rest of the country. BETTER YET... tell the citizens of Nevada that it's OK for the government to deliver American plutonium TO THE BASEMENT OF YOUR HOUSE for safe-keeping for the next TEN-THOUSAND YEARS!
Sorry, but Tucker's right. It's time for the old line environmentalists to come to terms with the fact that 1) you're not going to get everyone on earth to change their way of living in a short enough timeframe to prevent global warming catastrophes, and 2) nuclear is potentially dangerous, but can be done safely and without polluting the whole world.
And we don't have a choice. We need power, and we need a way to produce it that doesn't worsen global warming. And that's nuclear - it generates the most power of all the options, it's reliable, and it works quite well in other parts of the world. It just needs to be done right by responsible individuals whose priorities are the safety and wellbeing of the public rather than the profitability of the companies they used to work for. Which is a big condition, I know. But we don't have a lot of other options.
Also,
Yes. Very much.
xoites defends Constitution @ 97:
How often it comes back to religion.
ex nuke @ 93:
I guess that I am at a loss here, and clearly by your tag-name you are a nuclear physicist, so please explain to me how a breeder reactor creates more waste while creating the same amount of power?
your point is? what? exactly? I only need a logic class to beat that.
gene214 @ 77:
Hey, you're the one who started the insults.
wasn't insulting you jackson--I like daisy goggles, just not in regards to this topic
read my first post...I'm a friendly :-P
gettin solar or wind as a source of energy for your own personal needs is a personal matter.It depends on where you live and the typical type of weather you get....you know,percentage wise.But I find having both take care of my needs very well.Now,....if you have a wind turbine...it doesn't have to be any larger than a 3 ft diameter,and with a wind moving at 3-4 miles per hour...it will charge your batteries in very little time..similar for solar...the more panels,the more juice you get...but you need the storage capabilities(batteries).Batteries are the big issue,they have come out with gel filled, no maintenance batteries.They seem to solve alot of problems.Batteries needed maintenance.and when those rare days when there is no wind or sun.....a small generator.for just a few hrs to top off your batteries......not a big deal.
xoites defends Constitution @ 98:
Hate to break it to you, but perpetual motion machines don't exist. There's no such thing as a sustainable future. What we can do however is make sure our grandchildren will still have a civilization instead of another dark age.
phleabo @ 100:
Sorry but Tucker hasn't been right about anything except where to poop since he was potty trained. Solar is VERY promising right now and more is on the horizon. Cutting daytime use of fossil fuels would be a HUGE relief. This is VERY possible now. Nuclear has many, many drawbacks.
gah, forgetting to close the quote. :/
phleabo @ 100:
Only if we all get out of suburbia and move into big cities.
Mass transit just doesn't work in suburbia.
www.endofsuburbia.com
I thought I heard something recently about solar power cells becoming super cheap to produce, even cheaper than coal. ANd on the issue of Nuclear power, I think overall it's better than fossil fuels because:
1: No more dependence on foreign oil, which MIGHT limit our foreign entanglements (though I think we would find some other country to screw around in so some industry gets rich)
2: Nuclear waste would be centralized in a soild form, carbon dioxide is everywhere. It would also be something we would be responsible for, not this "China contributes to Global Warming, so we can too". And I think we'll find a way to deal with nuclear waste before we could reverse global warming.
Tenmile @ 90:
Maybe you should quit pretending you have the only opinion (note I said opinion and not fact) that matters.
Marshall @ 106:
I dunno, if you put your long-lookers on you realize that fossil fuels are really built out of solar energy--there is a lot of potential there--just not soon enough for a system built like ours.
we need to start changing for sure, but it will not be soon enough
I'm stickin with solar and wind..............you'll never get it to power cities,but you can get it to power your own personal needs.....which reduces the need for Nuclear plants....
Sarah @ 111:
Not really an opinion actually, its an estimated guess with a lot of fact to back it up.
but thanks for whatever it is that you added to the thread with that
Cowboy Bob from Austin @ 99:
There are thousands of ways that you could suddenly die in an unexpected accident. I assume you have no qualms about driving to work, even though statistically the accident rate on the road is very high and there has never been an accident transporting nuclear waste in this country (or maybe not even anywhere in the world - I'm not entirely sure about this). Also, nuclear waste is transported in enormous thick canisters. I believe they are designed to withstand extreme shock and temperatures, and should survive a derailing. And the potential background radiation per year to Nevada residents due to Yucca Mountain is less than you would get on one cross country flight. I would have absolutely no problem with my mother retiring there.
While radiation and nuclear waste sounds all scary, the reality is that the risks are very low. I assume people get so upset and afraid because the topics are unfamiliar and exotic.
Tenmile @ 112:
I'm not saying commit to nuclear power at the expense of everything else, I'm just saying it absolutely cannot be taken off the table.
Tucker is right.
This is a long thread so some of these things may already have been said:
Nuclear Power does generate waste, and that is obviously the majority of the concern with it. Don't fool yourself into believing that coal or oil are clean power sources though, as they are filling our air with greenhouse gasses.
Imagine what we could have done if instead of spending countless billions of dollars killing people to protect the US OilDollar, it had been spent on R&D towards finding things to do with the waste, or even better: figuring out how to make fusion work.
Bringing up chernobyl is a joke. It is well documented that they didn't know how to maintain the plant, they did so many things wrong, it was guaranteed to fail eventually. In countries with regulations and standards that are properly protected this kind of thing would not occur. I can unequivocably state I would happily live next to a nuclear power station, if only it didn't destroy my property values. ;(
Obviously more environmentally friendly power sources such as wind, and arguably hydro (thats a debate for another thread) are preferable, but they alone are not going to provide the levels of energy we need.
There is NO REASONABLE rationale for supporting nuclear power generation.
Parse arguments all you want about storeing nuclear waste products... the truth is that EVERYBODY WANTS TO PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE... as long as it's NOT NEXT DOOR.
We are now three-hundred-million people.
We have to learn to live with LESS.
We have to REVERSE HUMAN POLULATION GROWTH.
We have to re-define progress and success.
Tenmile has brought evidence to the table. Most everyone else here is talking crap. Hey pal, some of us are listening.
mudshark @ 113:
Solar is great if you live in the Southwest, and wind is great if you live in Cape Cod. Indeed, any actual solution will involve nuclear, solar, and wind. But nuclear (fission and then fusion) will have to be the majority, since you can build plants anywhere you'd like and they operate at a constant output.
Sterculus @ 115:
Cowboy Bob from Austin @ 118:
Personally, I think it is much more socially acceptable to create nuclear waste and bury it in the middle of nowhere with essentially no risk to anybody (compared to other things like heart disease) than somehow force reverse human population growth. How on earth are you going to do that? Start wars to enforce such a mandate in India and China? Maybe just nuke all the people away?
I'm not sure you saw my comment earlier. Yucca Mountain represents less background radiation to Nevada residents than one cross country plane flight per year.
Tenmile, you need a comprehension course first. Nuclear fuel (what I wrote) is not nuclear waste (your revision of what I wrote). Then take a nuclear physics class or join the Navy. They'll inform you.
Sterculus @ 120:
you can't just build them anywhere.to idea is to draw less from the grid.Solar and wind actually give back to the grid when your batteries are topped of.If people went solar or wind on their homes,the draw would be dramaticly less.....and the excess would go back to the grid.
Please tell me, any nuclear power supporters on here, which insurance company is stepping up to insure the new, wonderful plants of the future?
That's right. None of them will touch it with a 100 mile pole.
The sucker taxpayer will get stuck doing that, along with paying to dispose of the waste, along with giving the energy companies subsidies to the tune of billions of dollars to build them.
Great solution for the man with the money. Not so much for you and me.
It's been clear since this jerk showed up on TV - he's a spoiled horse's ass - so why are we seeing his image posted here? The best thing to do with the Carlsons of the media is to ignore them, don't watch them, and certainly don't post them. Let them naturally wither away and dry up from lack of attention.
mudshark @ 124:
Indeed, but those rely on a stable grid. And that stable grid will be nuclear based. I certainly agree that solar/wind solutions are great for individuals to use to reduce their own consumption, and if I ever own my own property a solution that I would certainly implement. However, the grid is still nuclear. If everything was solar, say, you couldn't give back to the grid during the day because everybody has an excess then and is trying to draw more. And nobody has excess power at night to draw from. Thus, a baseline nuclear grid.
BOPOHOK @ 109:
Well, it is already there. The commitment to make it work better may not be there but it is in use. It can be expanded and improved. I am not just talking about buses either. During the night in D.C. there are 600,000 people but during the day there are over three million. Without the Metro (subway system) they built over the past thirty years nobody would be able to get to work.
Sterculus @ 122:
If we don't slow/reverse human population growth, nature will...and nature's way ain't pretty. You are correct though -- you either have to slow down births or increase deaths. I agree that increasing deaths is not a good moral choice, which leaves....
Progressive Australian @ 117:
I have hapilly lived next to one...and that one is one of the older ones.
Towards the end of my dad's tenure at NSP they moved him to the training facility. One day he showed me how badly you have to fuck up to create a meltdown in the replica of the control room(not even reall possible now) he shut down the imaginary cooling pumps an in 30 seconds it was like a German disco in there...you just have to be willfully dumb to make that happen.
As another note, and this is something I rarely notice in posts where I AGREE with the original poster (which is 99% of threads on this blog), the title is a horrible mis-quote.
I agree with Tucker when he says being REFLEXIVELY against nuclear power is not forward thinking. He didn't say what the topic claims he did, that anyone who doesn't back nuclear technology is not forward thinking. It's ok to be against nuclear power if you at least have a reason. To be reflexively against nuclear power, as in, being against it without even thinking, is not very progressive.
There are more than enough people saying stupid or ignorant things that you can accurately quote, without having to concoct quotes from thin air.
KO has given people worst/worser awards for less obvious misquoting than this job.
crazylikeafox @ 125:
Only because it's such a taboo subject. Get some strong public leaders talking about it rationally instead of bringing up bomb shelters (rolls eyes) and start changing public opinion.
And you can't just have one reactor at any given location.There has to be two.....to shut one down for maintenance.....
Progressive Australian
"I can unequivocably state I would happily live next to a nuclear power station, if only it didn’t destroy my property values. ;("
This is a joke right?
crazylikeafox @ 125:
The 'sucker taxpayers' are the ones using the power. And I'm certain you could get "nuclear meltdown insurance" or whatever if there was a plant close to your house. Insurance is, in essence, a bet with the company. All it is is mathematics. And modern nuclear designs are incredibly safe. The worst accident in US nuclear history (40 years of it) caused no injuries, deaths, or any measurable increase in cancer rate.
I used to roll my eyes until one slipped down a drain pipe. The plumber cost me a fortune!
ex nuke @ 123:
again, the waste is reprocessed (into another serviceable fuel) and run again, thats how it works. And without digging deeper (I gotta go to bed soon) I think it can be cycled again.
It doesn't just magically "breed" like tribbles.
and really...do they have breeder reactors on ship? Interesting
I for one don't trust the Big Corporations or the Govt to do it safely.....Big Corporation are prone to cut corners...and the govt is prone to turning a blind eye...just to get them done and running.They"ll fix them later....
The thing about nuclear power generation... is that it's THE EASY SOLUTION.
It's not the SMART soltuion.
It's not the GREEN solution.
It's not the SAFE solution.
It's just the EASY solution.
I just traded MY Dodge Super-Cab RAM 1500 pickup for a TOYOTA PRIUS.
Now if I can do THAT... then, GODDAMMIT... WE can figure out a way to live WITHOUT NUCLEAR POWER.
Zlad! @ 129:
And how do you plan on enforcing a global mandate to reduce births? How is that even remotely possible? A focus on renewable measures and more dense populations (cities), we can easily grow to a much larger population on Earth.
seevee @ 134:
Wrong. Next question?
Cowboy Bob from Austin @ 139:
My mini van is going to be replaced by a four cylinder this weekend.
Sterculus Says: And I’m certain you could get “nuclear meltdown insurance” or whatever if there was a plant close to your house.
Yeah, I'm certain you could get "whatever". But instead I would prefer my tax money went directly to my choice of power, say solar panels, that took the energy company out of my life.
Cowboy Bob from Austin @ 139:
I don't see how covering several southwestern states with solar and wind power is somehow more green than a few discrete reactors and underground waste storage. Not to mention disposing of that vast amount of stuff every 5-10 years as it wears out. We'd have to be constantly making new windmills and solar panels and dumping them somewhere.
Sterculus @ 135:
The one at San Onofre Calif....accidently spilled radioactive water into the ocean..back in the mid 80's...but knowbody heard about it...except the surfers who live in the area.
You don't enforce it, you educate and hand out condoms.
The poor's biggest resource is their children. One solution might just be to end poverty.
There is plenty of wind and solar power we haven't tapped yet.
I hope Tucker gets replaced soon by Rachael Maddow.
crazylikeafox @ 143:
Mainstream power generation is going to come from a large energy company no matter what the source. Unless you plan on living on a farm with your own independent system of solar panels and batteries. For those of us who live in urban areas that's not exactly a feasible solution, not to mention any sort of business or industry in the country.
Tucker has been a major shill for nukes for a long time now, nothing new.
Ok, nukers, time for your myths about France "solving" the waste problem . . .
Of course they haven't, but nuke supporters aren't exactly in tune with the facts when it comes to this issue.
So... Perhaps someone should point out to Mr Carlson that he just supported Iran in its quest for nuclear power since it's the forward-thinking thing to do.
Go him!
Login or Register to post comments.