Response to Harvey Wasserman

[Stefnir94]

Chances of getting killed in a car accident: 1/8000

Chances of being killed by released radiation from nuclear power stations: 1/10000000

[feelytouchy67]

kuronekoyama, why would ANY business that was profitable (especially for 50 years!) need ANY type of FEDERAL support OF ANY TYPE?

You also leave out the fact the PRICE-ANDERSON act,which has always greatly reduced the liability of the nuclear reactor owners. ONLY with such massive federal guarantees will private insurers cover nukes. The reprocessing of spent fuel rods, decommissioning of plants, storing of waste, nuclear research - you name it - have always been paid for by the taxpayers.

[Darkwizzrobe]

Largely because nuclear power is heavily regulated that it would need some federal support because its intertwine in the interest of the government and of the people.

[Secretservicedentist]

Why do I have a feeling that other companies that produce other forms of energy have a hand in anti-nuclear propositions. I somehow have a feeling that anti-nuclear groups aren't the only ones lobbying against nuclear energy.

[aaltman56]

balanced and educated answer to the hypocrite

[Cr8Joi]

While the nuclear reactors themselves release few greenhouse gases, the nuclear fuel cycle is a significant contributor. In 2001, 93% of the nation's reported emissions of CFC-114, a potent greenhouse gas, were released from the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, where uranium is enriched to make nuclear reactor fuel. These facilities are so energy intensive that some of the nation's dirty, old coal plants exist just to power the nuclear fuel facilities.

[kuronekoyama]

That would be great, except that: A) According to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, page 141, only 0.009 W/m^2 of radiative forcing is caused in total by CFC-13, CFC-114, CFC-115, and the halons put together. This is compared to 1.66 W/m^2 for CO2 and 0.48 for methane. B) USEC has been in the process of phasing out CFC-114 since 1995, sealing leaking pipes, and building new centrifuge designs that don't require halocarbons for cooling.

[kuronekoyama]

In other words, the effect is negligible to begin with, and the company is already working to fix the problem.

[Bleezz]

"These facilities are so energy intensive that some of the nation's dirty, old coal plants exist just to power the nuclear fuel facilities."

Isn't that what were proposing to solve? or is their some reason that those "old dirty coal plants" can't be replaced with nuclear plants? I wasn't aware that only coal plants provided energy... Sorry, but I hear this excuse so often that its literally making me sick.

[1obamaman]

With the extensive use of coal power around the world due to its cheap cost, a few expensive nuclear power plants, even if safe and not a threat to the environment in any way, will not make a dent in the global warming problem.

We need to invest enough money in new technologies to come up with a variety of cost-effective alternatives to coal in ten years. We need to approach it like the Manhattan Project.

[pixman83]

You are correct that the 439 nuclear power plants are a drop in the bucket. But that drop is 3-5 times larger than the amount produced by renewable sources.

I agree that there needs to be a Manhattan Project size effort, but why bother searching for new technology when we already have a viable solution with nuclear power? Getting all of the politicians to agree on anything will be hard enough.

[pixman83]

If we had followed the same route that the french had, we wouldn't even be in this situation. They have an even better safety record than we do, cheaper electricity, and is probably the only country in the EU that is going to surpass its pledge to reduce greenhouse gasses.

[1obamaman]

The threat to our largest nuclear plant on the news today and the report that the security personnel at that plant and others spend much of their time sleeping, only raises more questions about the wisdom of creating more such targets, when we can barely protect the ones we have now.

[kuronekoyama]

Something tells me the numerous alarms that would be tripped by any attempt to infiltrate the plant would probably wake them up.

If it's so easy for terrorists to slip into our nuke facilities and steal radioactive material, why hasn't it happened yet?

If terrorists could fly an airliner into a nuke reactor and kill "millions of people" as Wasserman says, why did they choose just a few big buildings in 2001?

[pixman83]

I just want to know where Wasserman keeps getting this "millions" number from:

According to the WHO Chernobyl will only end up killing less than 4,000 people. 10 times that number of people die in the US from car accidents each year.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined killed less than 250,000 people. Outdoor urban air pollution kills over 800000 people yearly.

With over 11,000 reactor years, nuclear energy looks pretty safe to me.

[RPenta]

@pixman83 What fallacious reasoning. What does the use of atomic weapons have to do with this?

[pixman83]

@RPenta Necro much?

What is fallacious about pointing out that the worst nuclear disaster in history will kill (eventually) less than 2% of those ever killed by nuclear weapons, which is a further 25% less than of the "millions" mentioned above?

Given that Wasserman himself calls nuke plants "redeployed weapons of radioactive mass destruction" I'd say its a completely valid and correct comparison to make.

[RPenta]

@pixman83 Well, asshole, would you like to see some more nukes go off? I know your ego may not permit you to understand this but the atom bombs of 1945 are like firecrackers compared to those of the last 40 years.

[pixman83]

@RPenta "nukes go off?" what the hell are you talking about???

Again, how does the use of nuclear weapons have ANYTHING to do with the use of nuclear energy? Given that that the only 2 nukes EVER used in war happened BEFORE nuclear energy even existed, the answer is NOTHING.

FYI, I am 100% certain I know more about nuclear weapons and power plants (past and present) than you do. Otherwise you wouldn't be making such stupid comments. Try trolling some other thread, one that isn't years old.

[RPenta]

@pixman83 Well, dickhead, either atomic weapons are germane to the argument or not; you cannot be allowed to have it both ways. 

[pixman83]

@RPenta The only ones trying to have it both ways are you and Wasserman, I've just made (repeated) comparisons between the actual fatalities each has caused.

You are the one who somehow thinks having more nuclear power plants equates to "more nukes go off", and trying to make the increase in relative destructiveness of nuclear WEAPONS is somehow relevant. That you think the use of nuclear powerplants and the use of nuclear weapons are related proves the last point I made in my previous post.

[pixman83]

Since nothing actually happened, this should be considered a success of the security.

On 9/11 all 4 planes flew over, or close to, several nuclear plants and didn't hit them. The locations are online (with some really great overhead pics) and they had surprise on their side. Yet they didn't hit these plants because they new it wouldn't do anything significant.

[1obamaman]

They had other more newsworthy targets: the Pentagon, the Capitol, and the World Trade Center. There is no certainty that future terrorists won't aim for one or more of our nuclear plants. Maybe you do, but the Bush administration doesn't inspire me to have the confidence that they are properly protected.

[kuronekoyama]

That's just it, though--if nuke plants are threatened by terrorist attack, if (as Wasserman suggests) an attack on a nuke plant would lead to millions of deaths, why wouldn't that be MORE newsworthy than the Pentagon and the WTC?

[1obamaman]

I make no claim to understand the workings of the minds of the leaders of Al Qaeda. From what I have read, they felt that those sites would be the most devastating to our morale. I think they were right as we know what the impact of hitting just two of those three sites has done to our nation. Nonetheless, their past choices do not provide insurance against an attack on one or more nuclear plants in the future.

[pixman83]

The fact that the containment dome is built like a brick shithouse may have had something to do with why they weren't attacked.

By your standard we should tear down all high rises. Terrorists have already proved that they are targets and can kill several thousand people at once.

[tehKap0w]

you dont claim to understand 'crazified terrorists' but are eager to speculate based on your misunderstandings of basic science, finance AND human nature.

[RPenta]

@pixman83 What a titanic assumption by you; also it begs the question of why whoever ran the 911 terror attacks did not go for the atomic plants.

[pixman83]

@RPenta Because OBL had a degree in Civil Engineering and knew that attacking a nuclear plant in that manner would accomplishing NOTHING of significance.

Given that on 9/11 Flight 11 overflew the Indian Point reactors (located both upriver and upwind of NYC) while Flight 175 flew ~2 minutes away and they chose NOT to hit it shows the terrorists were smarter than you.

Maybe they had seen one of these videos which have been around for decades: watch?v=fC_RQLqbZGo

[RPenta]

@pixman83 You assume, asshole, that the targets of the 911 attackers were interesting in targeting things other than what they targeted---and whom do you assume "they" were; no direct info the OBL was directly involved in planning the attack or target selection. Do you want me debate me on 911, tool of the ruling class?

[pixman83]

@RPenta So you've moved from discussing the science and facts of nuclear energy to conspiracy theories that have NOTHING to do with the matter at hand. Somehow I'm not surprised.

If thats the best you can do, then this pathetic excuse of a conversation is over.

[RPenta]

@pixman83 "Conspiracy Theories"??OMG you have devasted me, you pathetic excuse for a human being.

[pixman83]

@RPenta You are so devastated because you are so thin skinned. Being wrong hurts, get over it.

[RPenta]

@pixman83 You should know, tool of industry.

I have a Mannlicher Cancano rifle that shoots magic bullets I will let you have it for a good price although those fools Penn and Teller offered me a lot of money for it-don't worry-it is authentic-it was never fired by Lee Harvey Oswald.

[pixman83]

@RPenta So it shoots magic bullets... What's the enhancement value? It needs to be at LEAST a +3 to interest me.

[RPenta]

@pixman83 Assuming OBL had anything to do with the 911 attacks, his degree in civil engineering would have caused him to realize that crashing two passenger airplanes into two buildings would not have caused three buildings to vaporize.

[1obamaman]

The person making these rebuttal videos is clearly a shill for the nuclear industry but will not admit it. Instead, he pretends to be a college student completely disconnected from the industry or its public relations arm.

Does anyone believe that? Since he is lying about that, what else is he lying about?

[kuronekoyama]

So amusing... I'm tempted to offer a wager, but parting a fool from his money would be cruel and unethical. And since I'm the teaching assistant for an engineering ethics class this semester... I have to set a good example.

[RPenta]

@kuronekoyama You can start by being intellectually honest.

[tastysalad]

did you EVEN LISTEN TO WHAT HE WAS SAYING!?

you idiot hippies will make up fears in your own little world and refuse to believe otherwise.

[1obamaman]

I only wish I were a hippie. I think that was a fun era but, alas, I am but a lawyer who is interested in a safe and economical source of energy, which won't damage the environment today or thousands of years into the future.

Of course, at the rate we are going, we won't be around as a race to worry much about the long-term future. Although, I can hope.

[tastysalad]

hmm a lawyer?it sounds like your in this for money more so than energy.

[1obamaman]

No. I have no economic interest in this argument. I just have a concerned citizen's viewpoint.

Do you have a stake in this matter?

[tastysalad]

my generations future..

[1obamaman]

same here, I just want it to be an unradiated one

let's get our power from the sun, after all, with global warming, we need to something with that extra heat

[tastysalad]

solar power is not the ssolution.uit produces very little energy and is EXTREMELY expensive.france and japan have MASSIVE nuclear power programs.they are rolemodels for our nations energy future.

[kuronekoyama]

Close. It produces very little energy per unit area. It can produce a LOT of energy (enough sunlight strikes the planet in one hour to power human civilization for a year), but that energy is very diffuse. On average, we only get about 1 kW per square meter of surface area, and that's at high noon.

[kuronekoyama]

As for expensive, the cost is going down with every passing year. Some new manufacturing techniques have it under $1 per watt, which is less than nuclear in terms of cost per watt.

Doesn't get over the intermittency problem...

[1obamaman]

Japan and France had no choice. They are far smaller countries too. We could never locate sufficient safe sites to build even a sliver of the number of nuclear plants to make a dent in global warming.

In addition, the new plants currently being proposed still require millions of gallons of water. That water is being purchased from depleted rivers at the expense of those who need drinking water.

[kuronekoyama]

Availability of water is obviously one of the concerns that's taken into account when making siting decisions.

You still seem to be completely ignoring the fact that we CANNOT practicably rid ourselves of our fossil fuel dependence without nuclear, and the longer we wait to get rid of fossil fuels, the MORE climate change and drought we're going to have.

Careful siting and water rationing is preferable to spending the next few decades making the problem worse.

[1obamaman]

It also does us no good to be building nuclear plants without a solution to the waste issue.

Reprocessing just creates more materials that can be used in a bomb, so that is not an answer. It is difficult enough to prevent what the world has now from getting into the wrong hands.

[tastysalad]

if you listen to the video kuronekoyama explains most of the waste problem is caused by leftists like these who block waste sites.

[kuronekoyama]

It's not a left versus right issue. I'm pretty far left myself. Though as I commented in Libertarianist's video, I'll admit that the overwhelming majority of anti-nuke opposition does come from my side of the political aisle.

[tastysalad]

i c

[Darkwizzrobe]

Not to mention coal and other fossil fuels need water too. Thermal solar and geothermal need water and don't get me started on hydroelectric. The fact is that most water in the plant is returned back into the environment as safe clean water.

[tastysalad]

they did have a choice and saw nuclear energy as a clean and efficient source of power.if it works for them whos to say nuclear power cant atleast contribute here?

[RPenta]

@tastysalad You want to eat some crow now? Maybe you can have a tastysalad with it. What do you and the nimrod who runs this site think would have happened if the earthquake directly hit the nuclear plants.

[RPenta]

@tastysalad Yes all the people near the Fukushima plants (or as close as they can now get) agree with you whole heartedly. Did you also predict a glorious victory for America in Iraq?

[kuronekoyama]

Everything that isn't nuclear, tidal, or geothermal is essentially energy from the sun. That includes fossil fuels too.

Solar, wind, hydro, biomass, biofuels--most all renewable energy sources are directly or indirectly powered by the sun.

As you may have heard in my most recent video, I want to see us using these sources as much as is practically possible.

[pixman83]

For a lawyer you sure don't do a very good job researching before trying to make your case.

Nuclear energy is the best chance we have to reduce fossil fuel dependence. Renewables are great for supporting this endeavor, but they still can't create handle the large demand and growth of the energy market.

[Yougottabeshttinme]

1obamaman, I don't care if he's Bill Clinton. His facts are correct.  Just because you watched too many '50s Hollywood nuclear creep-show movies and terrified yourself from the horse pucky they portrayed doesn't mean you have any basis for your 'rebuttal.'

[DonkeyofHeaven]

Nuclear power does not need loan guarantees unless we need nuclear power, and we don't. Period. Nuclear power is profitable because power companies have a monopoly and get significant costs such as insurance protected by the power company friends in government.

[kuronekoyama]

Indeed we do need nuclear power, because without it our transition off of fossil fuels will be much slower.

Nuclear is profitable because it's dirt cheap once it's built. It just requires risky and long-term investment because the lifetime plant cost is so heavily tilted toward capital expenditure.

[atomicrod59]

Do you have any backing for your assertion? Last year, nuclear plants in the US produced nearly 800 TeraWatt hours of electricity that the market valued at nearly $60 billion dollars. Do you think that people simply used it out of habit and wrote the monthly checks for their power bill because they wanted to indulge the monopoly. Figure it out, electricity is vital to modern society. That's why power outages make headlines. What do you propose as the alternative? Coal, oil, or gas?

[Yougottabeshttinme]

Hey DonkeyofHeaven, where in W Virginia do you live, cause if you don't work with coal, and have an incentive for this kink of BS, you must have either flunked business school or be too lazy to learn the facts. You aren't a philosopher - your logic is flawed!!

[yojox]

Thanks for taking the time to make these point-by-point videos. Only an informed public can make informed decisions.

[bryfryatkos]

Bravo!

Wasserman is also lying about Yucca Mountain. It was the federal government, not private industry, that promised to take care of so-called "nuclear waste," which was set in law by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. To accomplish this, the government imposes a fee on the utilities, which goes into a fee to pay for this solution. The $11 billion that Wasserman mentions came out of this fund, which was paid for by the industry, not by "public dollars."

[kuronekoyama]

I'm assuming that when he says "public dollars" he actually meant that it's the ratepayers who are paying for it, because that cost is passed on to them.

Seems like that's the most responsible model, though, to me. All the costs of externalities are already included in the price, so they don't have to be paid by our grandchildren.

[bryfryatkos]

Well, it's still very misleading. I am inclined to still call it a lie, because Wasserman's claim implies that it is taxpayer money that is going toward this effort. However, even if you call it "ratepayer money," that is still slightly incorrect.

The real way to look at it is that the money of the energy producer (i.e., the utility) is going into this fund. This cost might be passed on to the ratepayer, but not the general public at large, only those who benefit directly from nuclear power.

[kuronekoyama]

I agree, it was misleading--and it seems intentionally so, as he almost said "federal dollars" then quickly corrected himself to say "public dollars" instead. Which suggests he knows it isn't federally funded, but he still ended up giving that impression.

[bryfryatkos]

In terms of economics, however, this all goes directly into the cost of nuclear energy. That is, it directly affects the economic comparison of whether to build a coal-fired plant, a gas-fired plant, a nuclear plant, a farm of wind turbines, or whatever.

So, it is VERY MUCH the case that nuclear power is paying for it's own waste disposal, not the public.