How come here in the United States we dont build anymore Nuclear plants? They make alot more power than all of the other types of power plants out there. They dont let co2 and other harmful gases into the air when working correctly. I know we had problems with the 3 mile island nuclear plant long time ago, but since then, the technology has adavance alot.
nuclear power plants
- Thread starter sonoma1993
- Start date
where i live, we have 3 coal burning power plants in our county. then across the river over in canada, they have a few coal burinng plants and whole bunch of oil plants all along the river. My county is supposly one of the counties either in the nation or in the state of michigan that has the hightest cancer rate.
My only concern would be what do we do with the waste that would be generated by a increase in nuclear plants. I imagine they are much more efficient nowadays, but I imagine fission will always have radioactive waste that will need to be disposed of somewhere right?
I already have one of the most powerful ones in the country about 45 minutes away in Seabrook.
I already have one of the most powerful ones in the country about 45 minutes away in Seabrook.
Classic case of "not in my backyard". While the plants are efficient and produce cheaper power, whenever one is proposed no one wants it near them b/c of the off chance of another chernobyl type disaster.
yeah radioactive waste is somethen we will have to deal with. Like out in cali when they been having there brownouts the past few years. Two nuclear plants would solve that problem for awhile.
Ignorant citizens and journalists who are somehow convinced that nuclear power is more dirty to the environment, and it doesn't help that oil companies help fuel their cause.
that very true vegetation. From what id heard, most of france is run on nuclear power. Now if we can get fusion power going, we would be set for 100's of years.
OrganizedChaos
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2002
- 4,524
- 0
- 0
there were no problems with the 3 mile island plant or its technology. plant operators overrode the computers which were keeping the situation from escalating. even the safeties at the cherylnoble plant it russia were sufficient. that is until a friend of a polition who had a history of nucleaqr incompetence was put in charge. then in an attempt to show off overrode operating protocals and safety systems.
it all comes down to the people that have to run these facilities. until they can be trusted to not be morons new plants can't be built
I worked at Hope Creek/Salem for 5 years. They are cleaner and generate far less harm but they do have their issues. For one the waste remains active for decades. And cooling them can be harmful to water life around them because of the increased temperature of the water. A true Nuclear disaster could be fatal for miles on end around the plant if it ever happened. But I know the domes at Salem can withstand a plane crashing into them. And it takes years to build them and I mean years.
OrganizedChaos
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2002
- 4,524
- 0
- 0
97% of the nuclear waste we produce can be reclyced and used again. however back in the 70s there wa a great deal of hippie FUD and nuclear proliferation FUD that resulted in Ford and Carter to ban reprocessing in the US. in 81 reagan had the political clout to have the ban lifted but by then it was to little to late. today this stigma continues in the US while other nuclear countries reproccess there fuel.
technology isn't the problem, people are.
No kidding. If the waste is handled correctly its the cleaneast viable power source.
Maybe we'll see fusion before too long. Not many people could argue (intelligently) against building enough fusion plants to meet the planets thirst for power.
fusion power is still at least 20-30 years away i think. But our country should start building more nuclear plants. generate alot of power, very clean operating.
Right, and it remains active for more than "decades" IIRC. I admit I have looked into the specifics for awhile, but the question remains. If they increased the number of nuclear power plants in the country significantly, it follows they will also increase the amount of waste that needs to be dealt with.
It's fine to say they bury it very deep, but my guess is that area is off limits for many years, and when the existing sites fill up, would you want a new site near you?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against nuclear power...
Ok, it can be recycled? I'd like to learn more, but I assume in the end, at some point, there will still be waste that needs to be dealt with, and finding new sites could still be a problem no?
that true they cost alot to build, but after awhile they start paying for thereselves. The Uranium good for a few years before they have to replace them?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter