stuup1dmofo
Member
- Dec 2, 2011
- 84
- 0
- 0
Plants today are much more advance and safer than Fukushima. Fukushima was a early Gen 2 plan, and the new Gen 3+ plants have put into place numerous safety features that makes things like Fukushima virtually impossible. It would be wise to replace these older Gen 2 and Gen 1 plants with new Gen 3+ plants.
NIMBY syndrome.
and that one is woefully uninformed.
More like I like having a backyard. Or at least you can grow non geneticlly damaged vegetables and humans on in the next few thousand years.
Some slides of mutated insects from around some of these old nuke plants in the USA.
http://www.wissenskunst.ch/en/usa.htm
Fukushima is a second Chernobyl, exclusion zone and all. Doesn't belong in the same category as Three Mile Island.
Disasters rightfully scare people when they contaminate square miles of habitable land.
We really have to scrape the bottom of the ole liberal barrel to find any opposition to nuclear power even here in these forums and that one is woefully uninformed.
The nuke industry knew the GE Mark 1 reactors would not survive a breach.
But hey, nuke power is safe. So they tell you. Unless your family is like...in a plume.
More like I like having a backyard. Or at least you can grow non geneticlly damaged vegetables and humans on in the next few thousand years.
Some slides of mutated insects from around some of these old nuke plants in the USA.
http://www.wissenskunst.ch/en/usa.htm
Sadly. IMHO, for the entire world, nuclear reactors are the only rational options for the entire world as world electrical demands increase exponentially.
Sure we can talk about green green technologies like hydro electrical power, wind, solar, and similar, nothing wrong with those technologies, but to pretend those technologist are anything more than a drop in the bucket is supreme denial of reality.
Because at the end of the day, unless practical hydrogen fusion technology becomes possible, the world can only supply the bulk of future electrical demands with one of two main technologies.
And only two current options exist.
(a) Continue to burn fossil fuels, be it coal, natural gas, or oil. Even if we ignore those effect on global warming, us humans are still stuck with finding, in 200 years or so if not sooner, the human race will run through our supply of fossil fuels. And then what?
(b) Or we will be left with making nuclear fission power safe and practical. As I note our biggest safety issues with nuclear power has been in trusting private industry for profit to deliver safety. And if we trust private for profit industry we are doomed before we start as the profit motive will always trump safety.
We humans have learned a lot in that mistake, but now that newer nuclear reactor designs offer far more reactor safety, we still rely on private industry snake oil salesmen
to tout safety issues?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
You mean like Nagasaki and Hiroshima, full of damaged vegetables and humans for the next thousand years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagasaki
Its truly amazing how some of the same people who bash the religion of conservatives as illogical, irrational and fearful are the same when it comes to nuclear energy not realizing that you are nothing but useful idiots for the true opponents which is the fossil fuel industry,
who think nothing of taking away, destroying, threatening, etc. the backyard of those in the middle east so nuclear fearful apathetic Americans can enjoy their cheap energy.
Did the industry solve the elephant in the room being nuclear waste? Until that problem is solved, how is responsible to develop these power plants? You are making a commitment for 10,000+ years which is pretty ridiculous considering humanity has been an extremely volatile, short lived species. The time scale in play here is beyond anything we have dealt with before. What happens if the economy collapses or some other event that causes society to change or breakdown? What would then happen to the waste sitting in those pools when there is no one there to watch it?
I just think that it is irresponsible to build power plants that create radioactive waste for which we have no answer for. There is also the extensive planning and building times for the plants themselves. It takes a very long time to deploy nuclear power as opposed to other sources like natural gas, wind or solar which can be distributed extremely quickly. If there is a safe way to somehow use the waste rods as fuel then I would support that(I know France does to some degree but it would need to used much more widely).
There a very interesting documentary on the gravity of the decision to deal with waste for a site in Finland called "Into Eternity" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LicOO8i1N3s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, the biggest disasters were:
Chernobyl - Which correct me if I am wrong happened in the USSR a communist country
Kagoshima - Which was caused by an Earthquake 10x greater than the plant was designed to survive.
How did the free market fail exactly?
Did the industry solve the elephant in the room being nuclear waste? Until that problem is solved, how is responsible to develop these power plants? You are making a commitment for 10,000+ years which is pretty ridiculous considering humanity has been an extremely volatile, short lived species. The time scale in play here is beyond anything we have dealt with before. What happens if the economy collapses or some other event that causes society to change or breakdown? What would then happen to the waste sitting in those pools when there is no one there to watch it?
I just think that it is irresponsible to build power plants that create radioactive waste for which we have no answer for. There is also the extensive planning and building times for the plants themselves. It takes a very long time to deploy nuclear power as opposed to other sources like natural gas, wind or solar which can be distributed extremely quickly. If there is a safe way to somehow use the waste rods as fuel then I would support that(I know France does to some degree but it would need to used much more widely).
There a very interesting documentary on the gravity of the decision to deal with waste for a site in Finland called "Into Eternity" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LicOO8i1N3s
Did the industry solve the elephant in the room being nuclear waste? Until that problem is solved, how is responsible to develop these power plants? You are making a commitment for 10,000+ years which is pretty ridiculous considering humanity has been an extremely volatile, short lived species. The time scale in play here is beyond anything we have dealt with before. What happens if the economy collapses or some other event that causes society to change or breakdown? What would then happen to the waste sitting in those pools when there is no one there to watch it?
I just think that it is irresponsible to build power plants that create radioactive waste for which we have no answer for. There is also the extensive planning and building times for the plants themselves. It takes a very long time to deploy nuclear power as opposed to other sources like natural gas, wind or solar which can be distributed extremely quickly. If there is a safe way to somehow use the waste rods as fuel then I would support that(I know France does to some degree but it would need to used much more widely).
There a very interesting documentary on the gravity of the decision to deal with waste for a site in Finland called "Into Eternity" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoyKe-HxmFk
Did the industry solve the elephant in the room being nuclear waste?