Time to start reconsidering Nuclear Power

[Mushroom]

I'm talking nuclear generated power, not weapons. Deaths by nuclear accident in US history: Zero. Don't forget we have nuclear submarines that have been running on this stuff for decades. No Deaths. 3-Mile Island? No Deaths. We already reprocess a portion of Russia's spent nuclear fuel.

So what do we do? Continue with coal and natural gas while the rest of the world... oh nevermind. How many lives have been lost in the coal mining industry? I believe it's nearly 400 deaths since 2001.

Imagine all of the money we are throwing at alternative energy sources with huge footprints (e.g. wind turbines and solar), not to mention the environmental effects of those huge footprints. Birds deaths by wind turbines are an ornothologists nightmare. NIMBY's in my town recently voted against constructing wind turbines on a hill east of our town. Wasn't it Teddy Kennedy's state that recently turned down the installation of wind turbines off coast in the atlantic?

I envision more effort and resources expended on nuclear energy can promote innovation and solve some of the issues associated with nuclear energy, because that's what we do best!

[FORD]

So you're volunteering your back yard to store the nuclear waste, then?

The shit's not safe, and who the hell wants to trade oil wars for uranium wars?

[WACF]

We have looked at it here is Saskatchewan for the last two years.

What it came down to is that all the good points were out weighed by the cost.

Too expensive...and...we have uranium here and also looked at refining and storage...so we just mine it and send it off to Ontario.

[Mushroom]

So you're volunteering your back yard to store the nuclear waste, then?

The shit's not safe, and who the hell wants to trade oil wars for uranium wars?

from your response, I can only guess that you are ok with the continuing use of coal and natural gas, and you are ok with dedicating enormous swaths of land for wind turbines?

[WACF]

Wind turbines are all right but not the answer for sustained energy.

Little factoid...when the wind does not blow hard enough gas generators are used to turn them...

[FORD]

Let's put it this way....... A "wind spill" in Nantucket sound (or anywhere else they build windfarms) isn't likely to cause major damage. A Nuclear waste spill equal in proportion to this BP clusterfuck in the Gulf would kill half the goddamn planet, and give the rest cancer.

There should be three rules for future energy development:

1) Nobody "owns" the source.

2) No wars are ever fought over the supply.

3) Generating this energy doesn't cause more harm than good.

Solar & wind pass all three tests. Nuclear fails all three.

[FORD]

Wind turbines are all right but not the answer for sustained energy.

Little factoid...when the wind does not blow hard enough gas generators are used to turn them...

Sure.... under the current system.

But if you had a grid where all the alternative sources contributed to it.... say for example, on the days when it wasn't windy, odds are the sun would probably be out. So on those days, your solar panels would be generating more energy. And there's geothermal energy, which would involve some drilling into the earth, but wouldn't be anywhere near as destructive as oil or coal in that respect.

[Seshmeister]

Wind turbines are all right but not the answer for sustained energy.

Little factoid...when the wind does not blow hard enough gas generators are used to turn them...

Also when the wind blows too hard you can't run them either.

[Jagermeister]

I'm talking nuclear generated power, not weapons. Deaths by nuclear accident in US history: Zero. Don't forget we have nuclear submarines that have been running on this stuff for decades. No Deaths. 3-Mile Island? No Deaths. We already reprocess a portion of Russia's spent nuclear fuel.

So what do we do? Continue with coal and natural gas while the rest of the world... oh nevermind. How many lives have been lost in the coal mining industry? I believe it's nearly 400 deaths since 2001.

Imagine all of the money we are throwing at alternative energy sources with huge footprints (e.g. wind turbines and solar), not to mention the environmental effects of those huge footprints. Birds deaths by wind turbines are an ornothologists nightmare. NIMBY's in my town recently voted against constructing wind turbines on a hill east of our town. Wasn't it Teddy Kennedy's state that recently turned down the installation of wind turbines off coast in the atlantic?

I envision more effort and resources expended on nuclear energy can promote innovation and solve some of the issues associated with nuclear energy, because that's what we do best!

I’m for nuclear power. With today’s technology it would be virtually fail safe. I feel better about it that I do about thousands of barrels of oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico.

[Jagermeister]

Kinda long but worth watching.

[binnie]

I certainly wouldn't rule if out, but we really need to think about safe and economical ways of disposing of the waste - crack that and I think it is a very feasible source of energy.

The problem with wind and solar energy is the sheer number of panels/turbines needed to fulfill our needs - as it stands now, I feel that we need to be thinking in terms of complimenting rather than replacing: using multiple sources of energy to lessen dependence upon oil and gas. If the percentage of energy supplied by wind/water/solar could increase incrementaly over the next 15 years we would be in a much better position. Putting all of our eggs in one basket won't work.....

[Unchainme]

So you're volunteering your back yard to store the nuclear waste, then?

The shit's not safe, and who the hell wants to trade oil wars for uranium wars?

FORD, when stored properly it wouldn't go anywhere near there, it would be stored deeeep down in some mountain in Nevada

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usg7-xbQOcM

[FORD]

FORD, when stored properly it wouldn't go anywhere near there, it would be stored deeeep down in some mountain in Nevada

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Usg7-xbQOcM

No it wouldn't. Because spineless Harry Reid bitched and whined about the Yucca Mountain thing and got the Obama administration to pull the plug on it. (If only that worthless Mormon shit had fought as hard for actual health care reform.)

Ironically, this was right after the administration made a big push in favor of nuclear power. So now there will be new nuke plants with nowhere to dump the waste.

[Unchainme]

No it wouldn't. Because spineless Harry Reid bitched and whined about the Yucca Mountain thing and got the Obama administration to pull the plug on it. (If only that worthless Mormon shit had fought as hard for actual health care reform.)

Ironically, this was right after the administration made a big push in favor of nuclear power. So now there will be new nuke plants with nowhere to dump the waste.

which is why Harry Reid is a spineless cunt, like you said previously. If you're going to go and do nuclear power, that is probably the way you should do it.

not to go off topic, but Reid is probably my least favorite senator alongside Pelosi, he's been pretty much a shill for special interests for quite a long time, there's even a character based off of him in "Casino".

[Seshmeister]

A fact that almost noone seems to know is that coal fired power stations release about 100 times more radiation than nuclear power stations.

There is radioactive material in the dust that spouts out of them which people inhale causing lung and thyroid cancers. The usual estimate is that this shortens the lives of(i.e kills) over 20 000 Americans a year.

Since no new nuclear power stations have been built since Long Island(when the safety systems worked and noone was hurt), what you have now is a bunch of very old nuclear power stations rather than the much safer ones that are around now.

France is 80% nuclear and has never had a single accident. Only coal, gas, hydro and nuclear can be used for base load electricity production. Everything else is kind of window dressing since it can never do more than about 20% because it can't be guaranteed.