A serious question

[Cold Smoke]

Nuclear plants are way safer that you think.

Ever read the incident and inspection posting board in a nuke plant?

 

[TANSTAAFL]

Who’s going to volunteer their backyard for the next nuke plant? You all seem distrust the corporate-government syndicate so much, I’m surprised you have faith that they could safely run a reactor.

Actually modern reactor designs (3MI was from the 50's) are actually very, very safe. Check out Pebble Bed Reactors or Molten Salt Reactors. The geometry prevents meltdowns. As for traditional NPP's, the US Navy has never had a meltdown of any of their sea based systems that run at extremely high power levels (they have operated 100's of reactors at sea). Comparing US Commercial NPPs to russian NPPs is not apt, since up until Chernobyl, the russians never had a containment buildings like US reactors. I would welcome a NPP over solar farms and windmills. We need fission power to begin the next step which would be fusion reactors. The only waste produced in a fusion reactor would be the reactor vessel itself that would have years of neutron bombardment.

 

[TANSTAAFL]

Ever read the incident and inspection posting board in a nuke plant?

Yes, how many fatalities at US Commercial nuclear plants? Only 3., that was in 1961. Event Notification Reports guess what, a majority of incidents are lost soil density gauges or lost sources...

 

[tiasman]

We have not even touched on the battery issues. Both sourcing the materials and disposing of the waste.

 

[Jack Shootza 50]

seems ALL the alternatives - solar and wind - cost many times the cost of fossil or nuclear and FAIL to meet the overall requirements of the grid
if the greenies would look at the carbon and environmental cost of building/making/maintaining their green crap they would/could not accept it
all the global warming/climate change propaganda is BS fed to minions who choose not to do a little research to prove otherwise

We are sucking up our natural resources at an alarming rate and it's not sustanable, what we need is a revolution in energy producing technology, but we seem to have a government that is tunnel visioned to use technologies that DO NOT WORK, (like wind mills, solar panels and electric cars) because they are getting huge pay-off's from old school tech that doesn't want this to happen until they suck the last cent of their profits out till it's replaced, in the meantime they waste trillions of our tax dollars on wasted tech so they can keep getting their "kick-back" from these current energy companies and they are glad to push a propaganda of losing "fixes" as long as they are getting fat checks to do so. As long as the greed keep's going there will not be any change and the people of the world will be considered as collateral damage and expendable for a profit.

 

[HiredHand]

I wasn’t questioning current safety around nuclear reactors which is probably due more to anti-nuclear protests and government regulation than anything else. I asked who wants one in their backyard.

A follow up question might be who wants the waste stored in their backyard? We still haven’t figured out what to do with the current backlog of nuclear waste let alone future waste.

Bottom line is the is no free lunch or energy. There will be pros and cons to any choice of power production we choose. All of them require great expenditures to produce and will have an environmental foot print. Pick your poison.

 

[Jason Freeland]

I wasn’t questioning current safety around nuclear reactors which is probably due more to anti-nuclear protests and government regulation than anything else. I asked who wants one in their backyard.

A follow up question might be who wants the waste stored in their backyard? We still haven’t figured out what to do with the current backlog of nuclear waste let alone future waste.

Bottom line is the is no free lunch or energy. There will be pros and cons to any choice of power production we choose. All of them require great expenditures to produce and will have an environmental foot print. Pick your poison.

My vote is work on geosynchronous solar, as I've already mentioned earlier. It has the least footprint of any of them and if we put a solar panel factory on the moon, we can get a lot of the environmental issues with production, off earth entirely. Plenty of raw materials up there to do it with. We even have water ice at the poles for fuel, to move them into earth orbit. Short term I think 3rd and 4th generation fission reactors need to be ramped up.

 

[TerryMiller]

I wasn’t questioning current safety around nuclear reactors which is probably due more to anti-nuclear protests and government regulation than anything else. I asked who wants one in their backyard.

A follow up question might be who wants the waste stored in their backyard? We still haven’t figured out what to do with the current backlog of nuclear waste let alone future waste.

Bottom line is the is no free lunch or energy. There will be pros and cons to any choice of power production we choose. All of them require great expenditures to produce and will have an environmental foot print. Pick your poison.

There are some YouTube videos out there that talk about newer technologies for safe disposal.

YouTube Videos Regarding Nuclear Fuel Disposal

 

[AKguy1985]

Follow the money, you'll find your answer..

It's like Lenin said: you look for the person who benefits.

 

[turkeyrun]

"
Bottom line is the is no free lunch or energy. There will be pros and cons to any choice of power production we choose. All of them require great expenditures to produce and will have an environmental foot print. Pick your poison."


Be a greenie, show your stupidity and pick the worst, more expensive, most inefficient, less viable choices available!