Thanks Dan – I am a proponent of nuclear power – essentially cheap, abundant and non-polluting as long as the waste is contained. Of course, it does not fit with the typical oil & gas Republican view nor the Democratic save the Earth view, although I don’t see why Democrats don’t embrace it given the alternatives (more polluting oil and gas)…

Devyn,

I don’t see why Democrats don’t embrace it given the alternatives (more polluting oil and gas)…

I’ve heard of a lot of liberals, especialy environmentally friendly ones who are regretting the overreaction to Three Mile Island and the nuclear meltdown scare.

At this point, I think this is our best source of energy. In my old ward in Pennsylvania, we had a member who worked at the local power plant, a nuclear power plant, and he told me that all of the nuclear power plants in the United States are running at 100% capacity all the time.

I am a jerk:

http://begthequestion.info/

but I’m not sold that nuclear energy is the solution to fossill fuels. (it’s not just meltdown that worries me)

don’t ask me what I think because I don’t have the background to answer that one.

“meltdown” and “massive global warming” irony?

The likelihood of a meltdown is extremely low. Consider what I said. ALL nuclear power plants in the United States run at 100% capacity and probably have been running like this for decades. In all that time we’ve had only one incident, the Three Mile Island incident. Nuclear power is actually fairly stable if you know what you are doing. And here in America, we’re at a point where I think we have a very good understanding of how nuclear fusion and fission work.

mfranti,

what worries you about nuclear energy?

I’m a huge nuclear energy proponent. All energy has risks. With oil there are oil spills. With coal, there is black lung. With gas, there are explosions. As I understand it, all of these individually kill more people in the US each year than the total number of all nuclear-energy related deaths in the US.

Besides, if the priesthood governs the behavior of every particle in the universe, and if harnessing nuclear energy involves harnessing the energy of the universe’s foundational particles, then nuclear energy is also priesthood energy. Thus, the waste created by nuclear energy is not just nuclear waste — it’s priesthood waste. I oppose storing priesthood waste in Zion. The place for priesthood waste is Canada.

DKL, Amen.

mfranti – good points on the waste and no offense taken, this is probably the first area where we have not agreed completely. In my somewhat muddled mind it is just the tradeoff for the guaranteed pollution of fossil fuels and econonic insecurity vs the possible contamination of nuclear and more economic security, although the nuclear waste is an issue. Perhaps we take over a country in the Middle East and bury the waste there – wait we are sort of doing that…

My true preference would be to figure out a way to get wind/wave/solar to work on a widespread and inexpensive basis, but this may not happen for awhile, so in the interim, I would take nuclear over fossil. Of course, I am not an expert in any of this and my opinion, therefore, means very little.

DKL – I know a lot of priesthood waste in Utah – in fact, I am related to some of it :) (Note, if I lived in Utah I would include myself in that bucket…)

dan:

One is energy and the other is weaponized. You cannot go from one to the other.

i was under the impression that if you have the capacity to make energy, you have the capacity to make weapons
plutonium comes to mind (if you can educate me…i’m all ears)

* I am not one to think that iran wants the bomb to kill westerners– i don’t buy into the scare tactics

mfranti,

i was under the impression that if you have the capacity to make energy, you have the capacity to make weapons
plutonium comes to mind (if you can educate me…i’m all ears)

According to my friend who worked at the power plant in PA, they are two distinctive sets of technologies. Let me dig a bit on the internet. If others know, please chime in.

This article from cliffs notes states:

Webster’s New World defines fusion as “melting together.” Therefore, nuclear fusion is the process by which more than one nuclei join together to form a heavier nucleus. Nuclear fusion is the process that powers our sun and the stars. Nuclear fission is the exact opposite process, in which the nucleus of an atom splits into two or more smaller nuclei.

As of today, fission is what produces the energy in nuclear power. Unlike fossil fuel energy sources like coal and gasoline, which produce tremendous air pollution that evidence suggests is depleting the earth’s ozone layer, nuclear energy produces no air pollution. But the waste products of nuclear fission are highly radioactive and remain so for hundreds of years. At this time, a world-wide research program is underway to harness fusion energy to produce electricity, which would also create radioactive waste material but it would decay much more rapidly. The only by-product of nuclear fusion power would be Helium, a harmless gas.

Nuclear weapons use both fusion and fission, depending on the type of bomb. Fission bombs are known as atomic bombs, atom bombs, or A-bombs. In fission weapons, enriched uranium or plutonium is assembled into what’s called a supercritical mass, which starts an exponentially growing nuclear chain reaction (the explosion). Fusion bombs (also called hydrogen bombs, H-bombs, thermonuclear bombs) work by detonating a fission bomb adjacent to a fusion fuel, which starts a fusion reaction. Fusion bombs are far more destructive than fission bombs. A one megaton fission bomb would level everything in its path up to about 1.7 miles away from the detonation site. A one megaton fusion bomb is about 80 times stronger than that.

Only six countries — United States, Russia, France, United Kingdom, China and India — are known to possess fusion bombs. Iran is currently doing research on nuclear fusion, claiming to have joined the race in developing fusion-based electricity. But the United Nations is concerned that Iran is actually developing nuclear weaponry.

This article also provides a brief introduction on the comparisons of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. It seems there are some connections in the technology of the two.

How to get the left on board with nuclear energy: keep telling them that France does it.

Seth, to properly apportion credit, note that Reagan had been in office three and a half months when the First Presidency issued its May 5 opposition to basing the MX in the Great Basin. Carter had been pushing the MX from the middle of 1979 to the end of his presidency.

Seth, what are you talking about when you write that Matheson “deliberately informed the local press about the planned project”? The project wasn’t a secret; the MX was all over the national and local news well before Utah’s governor changed his mind and came out against it.

“because we all participate in a broader system of waste disposal that in fact transfers the burden of our consumption to future generations who have just as much right to our land as we do.”

i’m glad you mentioned this.

mfranti – I guess we agree – it is like the 2004 election – I voted for the lesser of two evils and wrote in Bill Clinton…

Dan- interesting thoughts, but I don’t see how pollution with fossil fuels is any different, we still leave a mess for future generations. At least with nuclear we can contain it as much as is feasible, while fossil fuels will pollute everything.

By the way, for anyone who might think my comments about David Ben-Gurion and Ernest David Bergmann are out of the blue – I am responding to something written earlier by Dan:

There are two forms of nuclear power. One is energy and the other is weaponized. You cannot go from one to the other.

I basically disagree with what Dan is saying. I’m not a nuclear physicist or scientists by any means, but the Bergmann quote about there not being two atomic energies strikes me as more sensible.

If I remember right – I’d need to re-examine this – Israel gained a bit of it’s nuclear know-how due to Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace program. I think this Atoms for Peace program had something to do with this idea that the science of nuclear power and the science of nuclear weapons could be segregated from each other. That’s an idea strikes me as a bit nutty.

Devyn, you’re right- fossil fuels are also problematic. Renewables are the imperfect alternative (conservation and efficiency are best), and it’s very irritating to see articles like the one Adam G. linked to getting published. Renewables, done stupidly, can be every bit as problematic as fossil fuels, and much more expensive. Anyone with half a brain would concede that. But nuclear power is very, very expensive, even after receiving the overwhelming majority of subsidies (some estimate 95%) the federal gov’t has doled out to the energy industry. By contrast, the gov’t money poured into solar and wind power in the past two decades have brought down the costs of those technologies to a fraction of what they were in 1980, and accelerated investment in the past few years is bringing down prices even further.
Common sense would indicate that you pour subsidies and research money into areas where it has the effect of bringing prices down, but a lot of people have a gut reaction of contempt for any policy choice that pleases those godless environmentalists…

there no lobbyist for the solar industry with deep enough pockets.

Speaking of France, the French gov’t subsidizes nuclear power enormously, and we do as well; in the U.S. the Price-Anderson act shifts most of the liability for a reactor accident to the federal gov’t (read: taxpayers). Without that gov’t assumption of risk, I doubt if any new reactors would get built.

“there no lobbyist for the solar industry with deep enough pockets”

Eh, big bad BP has a solar cell factory in my stake. There, now you know that solar cells are evil too.

Oil

BP is a fantastic company in this regard; they are spearheading a lot of work in renewables. I don’t fault them or any other companies for being in the oil industry, because oil is our current reality. I do fault Exxon, however, for transitioning PR people from the tobacco lobby to the business of global warming skepticism.
mfranti, among the many things you are right about ;) is the success of the nuclear power lobby. Think about the magnitude of the government’s decision to assume liability for possible nuclear accidents- that’s an unbelievable subsidy to that industry.
The coal industry is subsidized as well- the federal government pays out billions of dollars in benefits to miners disabled by black lung disease.

Common sense would indicate that you pour subsidies and research money into areas where it has the effect of bringing prices down…”

Keep in mind that nuclear already provides a large amount of energy, and renewables essentially none. Research that can improve nuclear production 5% is a greater benefit than research that might double or triple renewable production. A lot of nuclear energy research is nuts-and-bolts stuff such as pipes and pumps where incremental improvement in safety and efficiency is possible, as opposed to casting about for a technological miracle that will bring about a paradise on earth if only evil corporations can be restrained from thwarting it. So, yes, common sense dictates that much more federal research would be devoted to nuclear energy than to renewable sources.

BRoz,

Uranium is in the ground. You concentrate it using a very clean ultracentrufugation technique. You use it. And then you put it pack in the ground.

Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say

Uranium is in the ground. You take it out of the ground, make it into one of the most dangerous substances on earth, then store it in locations that need to be safeguarded and maintained by future generations, for the next quarter million years

John, your caricature of me is wrong and doesn’t help your argument. Federal research money can certainly help with increased output, but ultimately what makes it viable is the federal government’s subsidies to construction of new plants and its assumption of risk. In France, the government has subsidized it more aggressively with actual financing packages.
Your theoretical “research that can improve nuclear production 5%” is still a terrible waste of money; if those dollars went to subsidize energy efficiency, they would reduce demand by a much greater amount than your theoretical 5% benefit.

After 50+ comments, does anyone want to take a crack at the substance of this post- the merits (or lack thereof) in the Church’s position?

endless,

#2 argues the Church is troubled with the “free-market” allocation of nuclear waste to what the market deems is a good disposal area; it’s basically a NIMBY position, nevermind that the market has determined that Utah and Nevada have better “backyards” for this than most places. Does the Church’s point of view have merit?
#24 argues the Church is bitter about the government’s past behavior in nuclear research; do actions on the part of the government decades ago make it okay for the Church to interfere in the affairs of a private firm seeking to create a safe disposal site for nuclear waste? Again, does that position have merit? Why doesn’t the Church narrow the scope of its position to the precise question of this firm’s right to operate a waste disposal site?

I don’t think the church is taking any sort of policy position with regard to energy production.

When you are able to create nuclear energy without nuclear waste, that will be a valid point. Currently, the two are inseparable; if you frown upon nuclear waste disposal, then you frown upon an essential aspect of nuclear power generation.

I personally don’t have a good definition for “sustainable;” that’s why I don’t use that word.

One message I take from this First Presidency statement is that the Great Basin remains a place of special concern to the Church. If Congress hadn’t singled out Yucca Mountain in 1987, but instead Louisiana or Washington state, then it doesn’t seem likely that the First Presidency would have issued this statement.

Don’t forget DKL that to this point most GAs are still Utah/Idaho born and raised. To them, the world still revolves around them and their precious lands.

mfranti,

There is the Seabrook Station 40 miles north of Boston in New Hampshire and one in Pilgrim, Massachusetts.

so, I was the 9999th. that’s a way better number.

Dan E:

The Church IS making a NIMBY argument and it has absolutely zero merit because it is based on poor information and overstates the relative risks of having the waste stored in Utah. Ascribing any sort of theological rationale to the FP statement is reading a whole lot more into it than is there. That’s why you had to pull the ETB quote– to try and lay out some sort of theological rationale for your own opposition to nuclear power. As some other commenters have noted, if the storage facility had been proposed in the Missouri Ozarks Church HQ would not have uttered a peep. You’re attempting to turn an NIMBY policy position into a general policy position on energy and, frankly, it doesn’t work.

endless,

why are you trying to pick a fight with ellsworth?

if you want to talk about entitlement programs, ask dkl to post one for you and then we can have it out real good.

The FP statement isn’t quite a “not in my back yard” position. It’s “not only in my back yard.” It could be possible to favor nuclear waste disposal and not be especially worried about its health effects, but still have a problem with your area being literally singled out as a wasteland.

Endless (66):

I think Ellsworth is arguing that making and leaving a mess for other people to clean up is immoral– whether that is the environment, the Social Security situation, or anything else. How is that “lousy rationale”? The ETB statements he quotes simply provide a basis for the idea that there might be theological reasons behind the First Presidency’s statement on nuclear waste. Sounds pretty compelling to me.

Endless,

Am I evil wicked…?

Sometimes it’s easier to debate a caricature than a reasonable person, isn’t it?
Your argument seems to be that nuclear power is cheap (very false), so our use of it benefits our economy in a way that ensures a level of prosperity for future generations that compensates for their having to deal with our nuclear waste.
Nuclear energy is still only feasible after enormous subsidies and incentives, and the government’s assumption of risk under Price-Anderson. Parenthetically, why stop with nuclear power? Why not have the government assume risk for all private business endeavors?
If the government were to redirect its subsidies and put them towards energy efficiency — nevermind renewables — the benefit to the nation’s economy would be substantially greater to future generations, as decreased demand would bring down prices much more quickly across the board, and a decrease in demand lessens the risk of energy’s impact on inflation as well. Subsidizing and incentivizing nuclear does not provide the greatest economic benefit to future generations – not even close.
You are correct that I am assuming future generations will not learn to dispose of the waste. If you want to factor in theoretical, imaginary technological advancements, then renewables win that game hands down. Notice, for example, the argument that says it would take X number of wind turbines covering Y amount of land to equal the output of a nuclear plant. Seems reasonable, until you factor in the rate at which older turbines from the 1970s and 80s are being replaced — on the same amount of land — with modern turbines having several times the efficiency and capacity. If you draw that curve of technological advancement and factor in improvements in blade design and siting, wind power beats nuclear quite easily, and the same goes for solar power.

Dan,

I’m generally a supporter of nuclear power. But it is not primarily about the environment or about whether it’s cheaper.

It’s more about our strategic position in the world. I don’t like our dependence on a dwindling oil supply. It’s a constant risk to our economic (and consequently military) security and world financial stability.

I’d like our sources of energy more diversified, with a heavy emphasis on efficient use. I think nuclear has to be a part of the equation – even if it is a bit of a boogey-man for many.

I also don’t mind a bit of government subsidizing provided it doesn’t encourage bad habits.

solar cells these days are not yet very efficient in generating electricity*~: