WHY DO YOU FEAR..........NUCLEAR ENERGY?

by Terry 50 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • Terry
    Terry


    The United States is energy dependant. Like a substance abuse addict, the U.S. will sacrifice anything for the thrill of driving huge sporty vehicles at high speeds, it seems. Well, lets be more precise. SOME of the consumers in America will pay high prices at the pump to enjoy whatever whimsical cool car suits their lifestyle choices. Moreover, northern states are reliant on oil for heating in bitter winters that cover vast areas with snow for months on end.


    It isn't as though there are NO alternative power sources available. Many creative inventors have given us the fuel cell, the hybrid, solar energy cells, windmills, geothermal units and a vast array of nuclear resources to replace our oil habit.


    But, activists killed the Nuclear solution by rhetoric, propaganda and a focus on "what if" scenarios that scared the bejeezus out of public will to continue building Nuclear Power Plants locally.


    The strategy worked. Activists would picket and disrupt the building of local power plants causing cost over-runs, delays and pushed the bottomline into the red.


    Activists then pointed to the soaring costs and declared that it was the lying of bureaucrats, waste and fraud that created the problem.


    There are liars, frauds and outright connivers in every group. Human greed and ideology cannot be escaped. What is needed to solve problems is less fingerpointing and more rational discourse, however.


    What is your opinion of building more Nuclear Power Plants?


    Let us look at France as an example of a program that works. Here is only part of an article. I will post another part shortly to discuss the downside AS PERCEIVED by opponents who wish to create fears and public backlash over issues rather mundane.


    But, for now---read this and give your opinon as to why the U.S. doesn't start an alternative power source policy focusing on Nuclear energy.


    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Why the French Like Nuclear Energy by  FRONTLINE producer Jon Palfreman

    Civaux in southwestern France is a stereotypical rural French village with a square, a church and a small school. On a typical day, Monsieur Rambault, the baker, is up before dawn turning out baguettes and croissants. Shortly after, teacher Rene Barc opens the small school. There is a blacksmith, a hairdresser, a post office, a general store and a couple of bars. But overlooking the picturesque hamlet are two giant cooling towers from a nuclear plant, still under construction, a half-mile away. When the Civaux nuclear power plant comes on line sometime in the next 12 months, France will have 56 working nuclear plants, generating 76% of her electricity.

    In France, unlike in America, nuclear energy is accepted, even popular. Everybody I spoke to in Civaux loves the fact their region was chosen. The nuclear plant has brought jobs and prosperity to the area. Nobody I spoke to, nobody, expressed any fear. From the village school teacher, Rene Barc, to the patron of the Cafe de Sport bar, Valerie Turbeau, any traces of doubt they might have had have faded as they have come to know plant workers, visited the reactor site and thought about the benefits of being part of France's nuclear energy effort.

    France's decision to launch a large nuclear program dates back to 1973 and the events in the Middle East that they refer to as the "oil shock." The quadrupling of the price of oil by OPEC nations was indeed a shock for France because at that time most of its electricity came from oil burning plants. France had and still has very few natural energy resources. It has no oil, no gas and her coal resources are very poor and virtually exhausted.

    French policy makers saw only one way for France to achieve energy independence: nuclear energy, a source of energy so compact that a few pounds of fissionable uranium is all the fuel needed to run a big city for a year. Plans were drawn up to introduce the most comprehensive national nuclear energy program in history. Over the next 15 years France installed 56 nuclear reactors, satisfying its power needs and even exporting electricity to other European countries.

    There were some protests in the early 70s, but since then (with one important exception discussed below), the nuclear program has been popular and remarkably non controversial. How was France able to get its people to accept nuclear power? What is about French culture and politics that allowed them to succeed where most other countries have failed?

    Claude Mandil, the General Director for Energy and Raw Materials at the Ministry of Industry, cites at least three reasons. First, he says, the French are an independent people. The thought of being dependent for energy on a volatile region of the world such as the Middle East disturbed many French people. Citizens quickly accepted that nuclear might be a necessity. A popular French riposte to the question of why they have so much nuclear energy is "no oil, no gas, no coal, no choice."

    Second, Mandil cites cultural factors. France has a tradition of large, centrally managed technological projects. And, he says, they are popular. "French people like large projects. They like nuclear for the same reasons they like high speed trains and supersonic jets."

    Part of their popularity comes from the fact that scientists and engineers have a much higher status in France than in America. Many high ranking civil servants and government officials trained as scientists and engineers (rather than lawyers, as in the United States), and, unlike in the U.S. where federal administrators are often looked down upon, these technocrats form a special elite. Many have graduated from a few elite schools such as the Ecole Polytechnic. According to Mandil, respect and trust in technocrats is widespread. "For a long time, in families, the good thing for a child to become was an engineer or a scientist, not a lawyer. We like our engineers and our scientists and we are confident in them."

    Thirdly, he says, the French authorities have worked hard to get people to think of the benefits of nuclear energy as well as the risks. Glossy television advertising campaigns reinforce the link between nuclear power and the electricity that makes modern life possible. Nuclear plants solicit people to take tours--an offer that six million French people have taken up. Today, nuclear energy is an everyday thing in France.

    Many polls have been taken of French public opinion and most find that about two-thirds of the population are strongly in favor of nuclear power. It's not that the French don't have a gut fear of nuclear power. Psychologist Paul Slovic and his colleagues at Decision Research in Eugene, Oregon, discovered in their surveys that many French people have similar negative imagery and fears of radiation and disaster as Americans. The difference is that cultural, economic and political forces in France act to counteract these fears.

    (snip)

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    I love nuclear power.The more it is used the more research will be done. The more research that is done the more we will find ways to make it safer and to handle the waste. If I was God o the president I would build a whole raft of about 20 nuclear pwoer sations. I would also harness tidal power and do a load of research into alternatives. This will reduce the western world dependence on oil/black goldTexas tea - that will be good politically and economically - but as always when one uses the n word people seem to go into a panicked frenzy - no logic really. Almost as silly as those that will not travel by air when as anybody with any sense knows, air is a far safer form of transport than the automobile

  • Sparkplug
    Sparkplug

    Terry- I see no solution except to start all over with horse and buggy and I bet the activist have a problem with the use of horses. My ex-cousin by marriage works on nuclear cores and would tell us how there is to be no more plants built with nuclear and all the other solutions have been x'ed by activist also.

    He is really big on letting me know to have an alternative way to run my home, etc. He said brown outs are to be very common in the coming years. That was two years ago.

    "It is kind of freaky because he will work for 3-6 months and make more than most of us do in a year or two. His card that he wears slowly climbs the acceptable amount of exposure he can get. When it reaches its limit...he goes home to dry out."

  • Daunt
    Daunt

    Ah finally somebody commenting about the energy source with so much controversy. I do not know the exact numbers of profit coming from nuclear energy vs. fossil fuels, but just over all besides nuclear waste and the rare nuclear meltdown of a plant, I do not see much that is keeping us away from nuclear fuel besides politics. I'm not the most knowledgable person in this area so if anybody has anything else to contribute would be greatly apreciative. But over all I do not see why we aren't using it for most of our fuel needs.

  • Terry
    Terry
    But over all I do not see why we aren't using it for most of our fuel needs

    Fear is used by many groups to control them. The Watchtower uses fear of world events to filter every member's view and channel it into interpreting daily happenings as SIGNS of the end.

    Political groups create fear of all sorts of people, policy and such.

    Fear of Hillary Clinton brings in millions from donors who quake at the thought she might be President.

    Fear of Bush brings in millions who see him as the idiot-king taking us into ruin.

    The New Left is AGAINST many things and for exasperatingly little that would benefit society as a whole.

    The Right is AGAINST entitlement programs, choice, taxes and diversity.

    We each have a duty to our own selves FIRST before aligning with any group. We must seek to UNDERSTAND what the important issues are by staying informed. Otherwise, we'll be manipulated by our spokesman du jour on our favorite news program or our favorite religious leader or our favorite activists yanking our collective chain.

    Finding out facts and learning about things as they are is our duty to ourselves. We may end up being a lone voice crying in a wilderness of superstition and activism--but, at least we won't be swept away by fashionable nonsense and rhetoric.

    T.

  • Sunnygal41
    Sunnygal41
    What is your opinion of building more Nuclear Power Plants?

    I think that there are other safer alternatives, that don't have the backing of the wealthy or "connected" people here in the USA. So, they are pushed aside, and in some cases, are supressed or the patents are bought out. But, I'm one of those crazy, mystics.......so, my opinion may not hold much weight with you...........

  • Daunt
    Daunt

    Ah yes, fear is used by every side. That is why subscribing to labels is so dangerous, you might actually become that label through the pressures that come from that label. When you have the sanity of a nation at stake, people will fall for almost anything. I highly doubt that a populace of people will actually study the issues for themselves though. There's a lot of out of touch people around this country, let alone around the world.

  • upside/down
    upside/down

    Terry....nice read.

    I find it hilarious...(as do many French) that Germany decided AGAINST nuclear energy...while France dedided to go with it...

    So France builds the plants on it's side of the border....and now SELLS IT TO GERMANY!

    I wonder who laughs all the way to the bank?

    u/d(of the wants Homer Simpson's job class)

  • DannyHaszard
    DannyHaszard

    I worked at the last nuke plant to go online seabrook station new hampshire usa for 5 years

    It went onlne 23 years ago original cost projection was $900,000,000 for BOTH units one and two

    Cost overrun was 1,000% We cannot build them that way.

    1,200 million watts output (746 watts equals one horsepower)

    The heart is a turbine the size of a small bus that barely hums with no vibration.

    The (Sir) Charles Parson 1884 full admission steam pressure reaction turbine,when he fitted his design on the British navy the Queen Knighted him.

    Talk about old tech the design has not changed since 1884!

  • Terry
    Terry
    Cost overrun was 1,000% We cannot build them that way.

    Sadly, the constant protests, picketing and unruly sit-ins force a halt that runs up costs. Time is money and the tactics by the anti-nukes works like a charm.

    T.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit