• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

nuclear power plants

S

sonoma1993

Diamond Member
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
My dad works at one, the waste is the only problem. If someone could figure out something positive to do with it they would be very wealthy.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by: sonoma1993
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally posted by: Insane3D
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.
Click to expand...

They bury the waste in several places in the midwest deep deep deep under ground.
 
Originally posted by: Insane3D
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally posted by: vegetation
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.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
Originally posted by: dartworth
I wish they would build more...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: Insane3D
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.
Click to expand...

They bury the waste in several places in the midwest deep deep deep under ground.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Coal and fossil fuel lobbyists.

Also, it costs a TON of money to initially produce a nuclear plant, as opposed to a coal plant.
 
Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
Originally posted by: Insane3D
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top