EPA Carbon Emission Reduction Proposal gimps Nuclear Energy-HELP CHANGE IT BY DEC. 1st - Polidicks

[quote=Article]The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan has gained favor with some nuclear energy advocates. An extensive analysis of the proposal, however, reveals that current nuclear generating capacity would largely suffer under the new carbon rules. [B]In fact, the results of an evaluation performed by my fellow graduate student [URL="http://bredesencenter.utk.edu/grads/knowles.shtml"]Justin Knowles[/URL] and myself show that 15 states are actually incentivized to shut down all of their nuclear units and replace them with natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) generation.[/B] In effect, this plan allows for increasing carbon emissions; a far cry from the stated goals of the Clean Power Plan. ... Reading the entire 130-page rule is a daunting task, but the root of our concern [URL="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-18/pdf/2014-13726.pdf#page=42"]can be found in the section[/URL] titled “New and Preserved Nuclear Capacity” (page 34870 of the [I]Federal Register[/I]), which states that current nuclear generation is given 5.8 percent credit for replacing fossil-fuel energy. While seemingly arbitrary, this figure comes from an Energy Information Administration (EIA) [URL="http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/archive/aeo13/source_nuclear_all.cfm#nucpower"]report[/URL] that states that six reactors in the United States (equivalent to 5.8 percent of U.S. nuclear generation) are at risk of being shut down. The EPA recognizes that keeping current nuclear generation is the only way this plan will be able to achieve its goal, but[B] erroneously attributes only 5.8 percent of the energy [/B]produced from nuclear plants to calculating a state’s emissions reduction goal. [/quote] [url]http://ansnuclearcafe.org/author/sskutnik/[/url] SUMMARY OF ARTCILE -EPA's "Clean Power Plan" aims to reduce emissions by 30% by 2030 -In calculating a state's emission, only 5.8% of Nuclear Energy counts as "emission-free" (Solar and Wind are 100% by comparison) -As a result, states can lower their energy prices and still meet the guidelines of the plan by decommissioning their nuclear plants and replacing them with natural gas plants. -As a result, the bill actually promotes states to increase carbon emissions in order to follow the plan. -Additionally, nuclear plants that are [B]under construction[/B] are counted as though they produce energy. This prevents states from wanting to construct new plants since they have to account for energy they don't even have. The American Nuclear Society just had a teleconference on this a few hours ago. The EPA is taking comments on the plan so that when it can be adjusted for when it goes into effect around Summer 2015. The ANS has created a page for people who want to make a comment to the EPA. [B]Use this link to make a comment to the EPA to treat Nuclear Energy as the clean source of energy it is. [/B][url]http://www.ans.org/epa/[/url] [B]Comments close by[U] December 1st ([I]THIS SUNDAY![/I])[/U][/B] The plan already has about a million comments, many of which are cut & paste. If you write a custom comment and identify who you are (ANS member, student, environmentalist, ect.) then it encourages the EPA to respond to the concerns addressed in the comment.

Someone find us that Facepunch post where a guy rips another guy's asshole open with like an 8 paragraph post when he mentions the nuclear disasters. Good motivation.

God fucking [I]damn it,[/I] EPA! You had one job!

Anytime I see something on or hear about EPA, I just hear Abe Simpson screaming "Eepaaa!!!" in my head and can't focus.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;46581176]Someone find us that Facepunch post where a guy rips another guy's asshole open with like an 8 paragraph post when he mentions the nuclear disasters. Good motivation.[/QUOTE] [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1336387&p=43252922&highlight=#post43252922[/url] [img]http://facepunch.com/image.php?u=458276&dateline=1381624811[/img] Based Snowmew

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;46581571][url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1336387&p=43252922&highlight=#post43252922[/url] [img]http://facepunch.com/image.php?u=458276&dateline=1381624811[/img] Based Snowmew[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;CJt7XySKqYI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJt7XySKqYI[/video] oh damn

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;46581571][url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1336387&p=43252922&highlight=#post43252922[/url] [img]http://facepunch.com/image.php?u=458276&dateline=1381624811[/img] Based Snowmew[/QUOTE] His post is missing the fact that there are less deaths from nuclear energy because fossil fuels account for most of the world's energy consumption, unsafe working conditions in coal/other mines in poor countries like Argentina, and the fact that nuclear waste has to be contained for thousands of years before it is safe. We have NO place for that waste able to contain it for that long anywhere in the world. Just something to keep in mind, we'll see if nuclear energy is really any better if it can catch on at this point.

[QUOTE=space1;46581936]His post is missing the fact that there are less deaths from nuclear energy because fossil fuels account for most of the world's energy consumption, unsafe working conditions in coal/other mines in poor countries like Argentina, and the fact that nuclear waste has to be contained for thousands of years before it is safe. We have NO place for that waste able to contain it for that long anywhere in the world. Just something to keep in mind, we'll see if nuclear energy is really any better if it can catch on at this point.[/QUOTE] I am pretty sure the death counts are per unit of energy produced so the "most of the world's" comment doesn't stand. And there's nothing to indicate that the current plans for storing nuclear waste are not going to work just swimmingly (just bury it in geologically stable areas).

[QUOTE=space1;46581936]His post is missing the fact that there are less deaths from nuclear energy because fossil fuels account for most of the world's energy consumption, unsafe working conditions in coal/other mines in poor countries like Argentina, and the fact that nuclear waste has to be contained for thousands of years before it is safe. We have NO place for that waste able to contain it for that long anywhere in the world. Just something to keep in mind, we'll see if nuclear energy is really any better if it can catch on at this point.[/QUOTE] Death per kilowatt hour, nuclear is the least lethal even up against solar and wind, which produce far less of the worlds power. If you scale up nuclear production the deaths will not come close to coal. [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/[/url]

[QUOTE=space1;46581936]His post is missing the fact that there are less deaths from nuclear energy because fossil fuels account for most of the world's energy consumption, unsafe working conditions in coal/other mines in poor countries like Argentina, and the fact that nuclear waste has to be contained for thousands of years before it is safe. We have NO place for that waste able to contain it for that long anywhere in the world. Just something to keep in mind, we'll see if nuclear energy is really any better if it can catch on at this point.[/QUOTE] This is why we invented per capita.

My point is that nuclear waste takes up space, and so do radioactive accidents. If we upscale it more, there is more room for error to occur and we'll have large amounts of unusable land due to carelessness. I'd rather have a bit of smog than warehouses full of very dangerous materials that can be made into mini atomic bombs. There is a lot of potential for bad stuff to happen because of it, but hey, you can all completely ignore the risks entirely. Right now it's a lot easier to manage, just hide it in a small mountain vault in Utah, but with widespread facilities, IT WILL NOT BE THAT EASY. Cost is probably another limitation. As soon as someone even begins to suggest disagreement on Facepunch, they're rated dumb. No debate. I never said either is better, I'm just saying it isn't as perfect as you're all chalking it up to be.

[QUOTE=space1;46582311]My point is that nuclear waste takes up space, and so do radioactive accidents. If we upscale it more, there is more room for error to occur and we'll have large amounts of unusable land due to carelessness. I'd rather have a bit of smog than warehouses full of very dangerous materials that can be made into mini atomic bombs. There is a lot of potential for bad stuff to happen because of it, but hey, you can all completely ignore the risks entirely. Right now it's a lot easier to manage, just hide it in a small mountain vault in Utah, but with widespread facilities, IT WILL NOT BE THAT EASY. Cost is probably another limitation. As soon as someone even begins to suggest disagreement on Facepunch, they're rated dumb. No debate. I never said either is better, I'm just saying it isn't as perfect as you're all chalking it up to be.[/QUOTE] Nothing is without a drawback, but nuclear energy is simplest the best method we have. And advancements within it reduce the danger of nuclear waste as it can be used as fuel in Gen IV reactors.

[QUOTE=space1;46582311]My point is that nuclear waste takes up space, and so do radioactive accidents. If we upscale it more, there is more room for error to occur and we'll have large amounts of unusable land due to carelessness. I'd rather have a bit of smog than warehouses full of very dangerous materials that can be made into mini atomic bombs. There is a lot of potential for bad stuff to happen because of it, but hey, you can all completely ignore the risks entirely. Right now it's a lot easier to manage, just hide it in a small mountain vault in Utah, but with widespread facilities, IT WILL NOT BE THAT EASY. Cost is probably another limitation. As soon as someone even begins to suggest disagreement on Facepunch, they're rated dumb. No debate. I never said either is better, I'm just saying it isn't as perfect as you're all chalking it up to be.[/QUOTE] Although that is assuming we cant use that waste to generate more power in the future. And even though nuclear power isnt completely and utterly perfect, it is a damn sight better than anything else we have right now.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;46581571][url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1336387&p=43252922&highlight=#post43252922[/url] [img]http://facepunch.com/image.php?u=458276&dateline=1381624811[/img] Based Snowmew[/QUOTE] I posted two above this and yet I never read it. Is GiGaBiTe still alive after that?

[QUOTE=space1;46582311]My point is that nuclear waste takes up space, and so do radioactive accidents. If we upscale it more, there is more room for error to occur and we'll have large amounts of unusable land due to carelessness. I'd rather have a bit of smog than warehouses full of very dangerous materials that can be made into mini atomic bombs. There is a lot of potential for bad stuff to happen because of it, but hey, you can all completely ignore the risks entirely. Right now it's a lot easier to manage, just hide it in a small mountain vault in Utah, but with widespread facilities, IT WILL NOT BE THAT EASY. Cost is probably another limitation. As soon as someone even begins to suggest disagreement on Facepunch, they're rated dumb. No debate. I never said either is better, I'm just saying it isn't as perfect as you're all chalking it up to be.[/QUOTE] Imagine being this stupid. None of us are going to "debate" with you because you're putting literally zero effort into an argument. If you maybe actually gave us some figures and sources, and presented an actual argument instead of bullshit you made up or heard on your ham radio while talking to your Rosewill conspiracy theorist group, maybe we would do more than just dumb your dumb posts.

[QUOTE=space1;46582311]My point is that nuclear waste takes up space, and so do radioactive accidents. If we upscale it more, there is more room for error to occur and we'll have large amounts of unusable land due to carelessness. I'd rather have a bit of smog than warehouses full of very dangerous materials [I][B]that can be made into mini atomic bombs[/B][/I]. There is a lot of potential for bad stuff to happen because of it, but hey, you can all completely ignore the risks entirely. Right now it's a lot easier to manage, just hide it in a small mountain vault in Utah, but with widespread facilities, IT WILL NOT BE THAT EASY. Cost is probably another limitation. As soon as someone even begins to suggest disagreement on Facepunch, they're rated dumb. No debate. I never said either is better, I'm just saying it isn't as perfect as you're all chalking it up to be.[/QUOTE] As far as I know spent nuclear fuel is basically unusable as fission bomb material, and it's not like it's gonna fuse very well either (how about using hydrogen instead). In other words, the "very dangerous materials" can't really be made into mini atomic bombs without [I]a lot[/I] of work. Sure, there's a bit of U235 and Pu239, but that is separated from the (I would assume it is most of the time, but I'm not really an expert of any sorts) spent fuel and probably reused (?). Even new nuclear fuel needs to be enriched immensely before it's weapons grade - something even Iran had trouble doing last I checked.

[QUOTE=space1;46582311]My point is that nuclear waste takes up space, and so do radioactive accidents. If we upscale it more, there is more room for error to occur and we'll have large amounts of unusable land due to carelessness. I'd rather have a bit of smog than warehouses full of very dangerous materials that can be made into mini atomic bombs. There is a lot of potential for bad stuff to happen because of it, but hey, you can all completely ignore the risks entirely. Right now it's a lot easier to manage, just hide it in a small mountain vault in Utah, but with widespread facilities, IT WILL NOT BE THAT EASY. Cost is probably another limitation. As soon as someone even begins to suggest disagreement on Facepunch, they're rated dumb. No debate. I never said either is better, I'm just saying it isn't as perfect as you're all chalking it up to be.[/QUOTE] You can't make nuclear waste into bombs. Smog kills thousands of people per year.

So you put the nuclear waste on a rocket and fire it into the sun, which is already a nuclear reactor.

[QUOTE=darunner;46582716]So you put the nuclear waste on a rocket and fire it into the sun, which is already a nuclear reactor.[/QUOTE] Or you can use it in newer reactors that can run on nuclear waste. There's literally no argument against using modern nuclear plants, you'd have to be a cock smoking retard to think otherwise.

This has lobbying just written all over it

[QUOTE=space1;46582311]My point is that nuclear waste takes up space, and so do radioactive accidents. If we upscale it more, there is more room for error to occur and we'll have large amounts of unusable land due to carelessness. I'd rather have a bit of smog than warehouses full of very dangerous materials that can be made into mini atomic bombs. There is a lot of potential for bad stuff to happen because of it, but hey, you can all completely ignore the risks entirely. Right now it's a lot easier to manage, just hide it in a small mountain vault in Utah, but with widespread facilities, IT WILL NOT BE THAT EASY. Cost is probably another limitation. As soon as someone even begins to suggest disagreement on Facepunch, they're rated dumb. No debate. I never said either is better, I'm just saying it isn't as perfect as you're all chalking it up to be.[/QUOTE] The combined area that nuclear waste takes up is less than a football field, and stored on site and newer reactors can reduce it being dangerous to from thousands of years to 300. Try again(or dont because you have no valid argument).

[QUOTE=space1;46582311]warehouses full of very dangerous materials that can be made into mini atomic bombs. As soon as someone even begins to suggest disagreement on Facepunch, they're rated dumb. No debate. I never said either is better, I'm just saying it isn't as perfect as you're all chalking it up to be.[/QUOTE] You're being rated dumb because you seem to lack any kind of understanding of how nuclear material works. The kind of uranium used in bombs is completely different from that used in reactors, and nobody stores them in warehouses. This isn't Counter-Strike where a bunch of hooligans can just stick a packet of C4 on a container of nuclear material and irradiate a country with the resulting explosion.

[QUOTE=OvB;46582041]Death per kilowatt hour, nuclear is the least lethal even up against solar and wind, which produce far less of the worlds power. If you scale up nuclear production the deaths will not come close to coal.[/QUOTE] I fully believe those numbers but I'm always wondering how far removed from the source of power they look to get those death figures. I assume deaths associated with solar includes industrial accidents involved with the installation of the panels. So in these studies, do they also include deaths during the construction of nuclear plants? Do deaths associated with wind include deaths incurred during the mining of the materials necessary to make the turbines? If so, how do they account for the fact that not all copper/iron/etc mined will go into wind turbines? Same with coal - coal mining kills a huge number of people but should that really count as a death associated with coal power generation? If a solar panel fell off a roof and crushed someone, or if a truck carrying nuclear waste ran someone over, would those count?

[QUOTE=space1;46582311]My point is that nuclear waste takes up space, and so do radioactive accidents. If we upscale it more, there is more room for error to occur and we'll have large amounts of unusable land due to carelessness. I'd rather have a bit of smog than warehouses full of very dangerous materials that can be made into mini atomic bombs. There is a lot of potential for bad stuff to happen because of it, but hey, you can all completely ignore the risks entirely. Right now it's a lot easier to manage, just hide it in a small mountain vault in Utah, but with widespread facilities, IT WILL NOT BE THAT EASY. Cost is probably another limitation. As soon as someone even begins to suggest disagreement on Facepunch, they're rated dumb. No debate. I never said either is better, I'm just saying it isn't as perfect as you're all chalking it up to be.[/QUOTE] It takes a specific type of reactor to breed u-235 in sufficient quantities to be used for bombs. People are rating you dumb because you lack the knowledge required to "debate" your point in regards to this topic.

Gee, good thing we fine internet citizens are here to keep the EPA from ignoring those scientist guys who know what they're talking about. Im sure the EPA won't be damaged at all by recent actions by congress either.

[QUOTE=SexualShark;46581585][video=youtube;CJt7XySKqYI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJt7XySKqYI[/video] oh damn[/QUOTE] [img]http://imgkk.com/i/_o73.png[/img]

[QUOTE=space1;46582311]My point is that nuclear waste takes up space, and so do radioactive accidents. If we upscale it more, there is more room for error to occur and we'll have large amounts of unusable land due to carelessness. I'd rather have a bit of smog than warehouses full of very dangerous materials that can be made into mini atomic bombs. There is a lot of potential for bad stuff to happen because of it, but hey, you can all completely ignore the risks entirely. Right now it's a lot easier to manage, just hide it in a small mountain vault in Utah, but with widespread facilities, IT WILL NOT BE THAT EASY. Cost is probably another limitation. As soon as someone even begins to suggest disagreement on Facepunch, they're rated dumb. No debate. I never said either is better, I'm just saying it isn't as perfect as you're all chalking it up to be.[/QUOTE] Spent nuclear fuel is kept on-site at the power plants. Every plant has its own personal storage space for its fuel, and it still holds all the spent fuel its ever produced. I agree with you that Yucca Mountain and similar ideas are dumb. Getting a hold of radioactive materials is incredibly difficult from financial, political, and security viewpoints, and for whatever reason people want to lock it up underground, when the neat thing is that we can still use this spent fuel. Reactor designs have existed for years to consume spent fuel. The bits people are worried about from a security and environmental viewpoint are Uranium and Plutonium, which can be refabricated into explosives, in addition to having incredibly long half lives. We arbitrarily consider the radioactivity from Uranium found in the ground to be the "safe" level of radiation. These 2 elements, which make up about 5% of spent fuel, require millions of years and whatnot to decay to that level. The rest of the material takes about 500-800 years. The reactor designs take that Uranium and Plutonium and burn it into the other types of fuel. While 500-800 years seems like a long time, it is comparable to plastics and other materials we use that we don't even consider as compostable. Additionally, while plastics will start to break down after that time, the radiation decay is constant, meaning that every moment there is less radioactive material. Eventually we might even find use for this stuff in the new technology that develops over 800 years. While everyone can explain the reactor accidents to you, I will let you know that all of those reactors were Generation II reactors that were built in the late 50's, 60's, and 70's. They're old and flawed, and will be nearly completely gone by 2050. We are currently building Generation III+ reactors, none of which have the same flaws found in Generation II reactors. Additionally, the Generation IV reactors, which are the ones that can consume spent fuel, use thorium, operate without water, cannot melt down since the fuel is liquid, ect. are doing well in the computer simulations and other testings that measure their feasibility. And the last note on Health Physics: our understanding of the effects of radiation is incomplete. The only scientific data that we have comes from the low-level exposure tested on those who work with radioactive materials, and those who were victims of atomic bombs (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, fisherman after Bikini Atoll testing, ect.). There is a conservative measure that says the correlation between high level and low level effects is linear, which sets the regulations used at power plants and other nuclear facilities. There is much support for Hormesis, which says that as your body is damaged by radiation, it learns how better to repair it, much like how your immune system grows stronger with the more germs you are exposed to. Unfortunately, it cannot be proven on humans since using human subjects for testing is unethical, so lab rats are used instead.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;46583267]Gee, good thing we fine internet citizens are here to keep the EPA from ignoring those scientist guys who know what they're talking about. Im sure the EPA won't be damaged at all by recent actions by congress either.[/QUOTE] What's it feel like, you know, functioning on an intellectual level lower than that of sand?

[QUOTE=draugur;46583564]What's it feel like, you know, functioning on an intellectual level lower than that of sand?[/QUOTE] Jesus, I don't have anything against nuclear energy but you're acting like a real asshole. This is not how you facilitate an informative discussion.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;46581176]Someone find us that Facepunch post where a guy rips another guy's asshole open with like an 8 paragraph post when he mentions the nuclear disasters. Good motivation.[/QUOTE] You mean that majestic fuck Snowmew? Its a nuclear related thread, he'll be in here before long.