Biden Moves to Save Nuclear Power

[there4eyeM]

Seattle averages 71 sunny days a year….

Seattle is one of the places on earth, your are correct.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And of course no one was ever in any danger? Funny thing about everything we build eventually something breaks down. Some light reading for you of casualties Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents - Wikipedia

Hey dickhead! I was a nuclear power training candidate when I enlisted and I was a nuclear weapons officer when I got commissioned. I am more familiar with this topic than any other swinging dick on this message board. Go back to sucking your Mom's tit!

 

[eagle1462010]

Not true though the point is well received 3 navy men died ina nuclear power plant in the 50's of I remember right.

Classified lol

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Classified lol

It was in 1961.

 

[Maxdeath]

Because nuclear is the safest most environmentally friendly source of reliable energy on the planet.

You mean other then the radioactive waste?

 

[Maxdeath]

Hey dickhead! I was a nuclear power training candidate when I enlisted and I was a nuclear weapons officer when I got commissioned. I am more familiar with this topic than any other swinging dick on this message board. Go back to sucking your Mom's tit!

Lol. So sorry I up set you with actual facts

 

[kyzr]

Three Mile Island only suffered a partial meltdown. How many people died as a result of Three Mile Island? Zero.
Fukushima had a sea wall. The failure was in the backup generators which cause a loss of coolant flow. They were flooded out by the tsunami. How many people died as a result of the Fukushima meltdown. Zero.
That's a pretty good safety record if you ask me.
Chernobyl is whole different ball of wax!

TMI is an empty husk instead of a functioning powerplant. That TMI meltdown was a financial disaster for GPU.
Fukushima's seawall wasn't designed properly, and neither was the siting of those pumps and generators. Another financial disaster.
It's not just personnel safety, its also financial risk management. Where do you put spent fuel? Harry Reid said NIMBY to putting it in Yucca Mountain. The existing nuke plants are big and old and need to be replaced. Now we're adding car-charging to the already overloaded power grid. The future looks bleak, especially with low-IQ democrats driving the agenda.

Final canister of nuclear waste transferred to storage facility at San Onofre

The transfer of dozens of canisters of nuclear waste to a dry storage facility at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station wrapped up Friday.

www.latimes.com

 

[Maxdeath]

Kyzr
Funny how everyone wants to bury their heads in the sand. I have pointed them to links on the many deaths attributed to nuclear reactors. I have pointed out how deadly the waste is.
Yes we have a big problem with adding how many EVs.
But everyone is convinced that their idea is right no matter what

 

[there4eyeM]

Nuke plants are such clear weak points that debate is ridiculous. Enemies and terrorists are handed juicy targets. The plant's operation is totally dependent upon a select and very small group of experts. Power is concentrated in the hands of anonymous entrepreneurs. There has never been a permanent solution to the waste. For the nation, they represent security problems that exceed their worth. Conservation alone would more than make up for elimination of their electrical generation.
The problem in the world is not a lack of essentials, it is the desire for too much.

 

[Blues Man]

Three Mile Island did NOT shutdown safely as it should have, it melted down.
Fukushima should have anticipated a tidal wave and designed for it.
Whoever reviewed the Fukushima design and gave it a license should be fired.

A partial melt down

• In 1979 at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in USA a cooling malfunction caused part of the core to melt in the #2 reactor. The TMI-2 reactor was destroyed.
• Some radioactive gas was released a couple of days after the accident, but not enough to cause any dose above background levels to local residents.
• There were no injuries or adverse health effects from the Three Mile Island accident.

 

[there4eyeM]

An unknown amount of radioactivity was released with unknown consequences.

 

[Blues Man]

Nuke plants are such clear weak points that debate is ridiculous. Enemies and terrorists are handed juicy targets. The plant's operation is totally dependent upon a select and very small group of experts. Power is concentrated in the hands of anonymous entrepreneurs. There has never been a permanent solution to the waste. For the nation, they represent security problems that exceed their worth. Conservation alone would more than make up for elimination of their electrical generation.
The problem in the world is not a lack of essentials, it is the desire for too much.

Next generation reactors are smaller that obsolete light water reactors and can be buried undergound.

They do not produce weaponizable material and can go run up to 20 years before they need to be refueled.

If you want a good example just look at France. They still get more than 70% of their power from nuclear and haven't had any of these terrorist attacks or accidents you are so afraid of.

Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association

France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this. France has been...

world-nuclear.org

 

[FA_Q2]

Kyzr
Funny how everyone wants to bury their heads in the sand. I have pointed them to links on the many deaths attributed to nuclear reactors. I have pointed out how deadly the waste is.
Yes we have a big problem with adding how many EVs.
But everyone is convinced that their idea is right no matter what

No one is ignoring anything. You are just totally ignorant on the subject. Coal is more radioactive than nuclear power.

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste

By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

www.scientificamerican.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor's Note at bottom]

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While nuclear reactors give off almost no radiation at all due to heavy regulatory requirements and the radioactive waste is controlled versus coal plants putting the radioactive waste right into the air. Further, newer plants require NO radioactive waste generation because they are fueled by previously spent rods from reactors already in operation. Recycling. Finally, you have presented nothing but a 400 of deaths from reactors 70 years ago and a lot of dead from Chernobyl which has been explained over and over and over in this thread is not applicable.

There reality is that nuclear power is FAR less dangerous than any other main power source in use today. FAR safer. All the others have far more accidents and deaths just from the operation of the plants to say nothing of the FACT that coal itself releases far more waste.

So, work on getting some of those facts you keep harping on. So far you have made a solid case for why we need to increase nuclear power not decrease it.

 

[kyzr]

Nuke plants are such clear weak points that debate is ridiculous. Enemies and terrorists are handed juicy targets. The plant's operation is totally dependent upon a select and very small group of experts. Power is concentrated in the hands of anonymous entrepreneurs. There has never been a permanent solution to the waste. For the nation, they represent security problems that exceed their worth. Conservation alone would more than make up for elimination of their electrical generation.
The problem in the world is not a lack of essentials, it is the desire for too much.

That's a lie. Conservation is a myth. People use what they use, and the power demand curve is not shrinking. Old nuke plants are retiring, what should replace them? You need big powerful powerplants or you get brownouts and blackouts. Remember when CA's solution was to make electricity a "commodity" instead of building powerplants?
Electricity usage is going UP not down.

 

[Maxdeath]

No one is ignoring anything. You are just totally ignorant on the subject. Coal is more radioactive than nuclear power.

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste

By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

www.scientificamerican.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. * [See Editor's Note at bottom]

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While nuclear reactors give off almost no radiation at all due to heavy regulatory requirements and the radioactive waste is controlled versus coal plants putting the radioactive waste right into the air. Further, newer plants require NO radioactive waste generation because they are fueled by previously spent rods from reactors already in operation. Recycling. Finally, you have presented nothing but a 400 of deaths from reactors 70 years ago and a lot of dead from Chernobyl which has been explained over and over and over in this thread is not applicable.

There reality is that nuclear power is FAR less dangerous than any other main power source in use today. FAR safer. All the others have far more accidents and deaths just from the operation of the plants to say nothing of the FACT that coal itself releases far more waste.

So, work on getting some of those facts you keep harping on. So far you have made a solid case for why we need to increase nuclear power not decrease it.

Lol you sure are a comedian. Every thing in our environment gives off radiation. We live in it. The problem is as I have stated it is from a failure of the containment and from nuclear waste. While the reactor is operating and operating properly it does not emit radiation. The problem comes from The WASTE, the fuel rods have to be replaced. That waste is deadly to everything for thousands of years. When something changes that creates an unsafe condition in the reactor that is extremely dangerous to all living things.
Learn something yourself. You sound as if you just graduated fifth grade

 

[FA_Q2]

Lol you sure are a comedian. Every thing in our environment gives off radiation. We live in it. The problem is as I have stated it is from a failure of the containment and from nuclear waste. While the reactor is operating and operating properly it does not emit radiation. The problem comes from The WASTE, the fuel rods have to be replaced. That waste is deadly to everything for thousands of years. When something changes that creates an unsafe condition in the reactor that is extremely dangerous to all living things.
Learn something yourself. You sound as if you just graduated fifth grade

You liked to a death rate from nuclear accidents.

Deaths that have no relation to modern reactors. It has been pointed out that many modern reactors can be run off existing nuclear waste. You ignore that. I liked to the fact that coal plants release 100 times the radioactive waste into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant. You ignore that.

Then say I sound as if I just graduated fifth grade. All you have is bitching and insulting. Your own links show you are full of shit. Nuclear power is safe and reliable. It is far greener than any of the current backbones we have. Anyone that actually wants to address carbon will back nuclear or they are idiots. Wind and solar simply cannot, at this time, replace main power sources as they cannot be relied upon to pull the large amounts of power necessary on demand as nuclear, coal and gas can. Anyone that gives a shit about health and QoL for people in general can easily se how nuclear is better for people than coal which is FAR more impactful to its surrounding areas and the health of people.

 

[Maxdeath]

You liked to a death rate from nuclear accidents.

Deaths that have no relation to modern reactors. It has been pointed out that many modern reactors can be run off existing nuclear waste. You ignore that. I liked to the fact that coal plants release 100 times the radioactive waste into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant. You ignore that.

Then say I sound as if I just graduated fifth grade. All you have is bitching and insulting. Your own links show you are full of shit. Nuclear power is safe and reliable. It is far greener than any of the current backbones we have. Anyone that actually wants to address carbon will back nuclear or they are idiots. Wind and solar simply cannot, at this time, replace main power sources as they cannot be relied upon to pull the large amounts of power necessary on demand as nuclear, coal and gas can. Anyone that gives a shit about health and QoL for people in general can easily se how nuclear is better for people than coal which is FAR more impactful to its surrounding areas and the health of people.

Exactly how many nuclear reactors does the US have that can run off nuclear waste? Let me clue you in. None. How many are being built at the moment in the the US? None. How long do the env studies and other permitting take before a plant can even begin to be built? Many years. As much as ten to fifteen in some cases and in some cases it may never be built.
To say that there is no nuclear waste from any type of nuclear power plant is an absolute absurdity. To claim that it is not hazardous to humans is just as absurd.
As I have stated wind and solar are nice cottage industries.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Broken clock shows correct time, film @ 11.
This will filter a lot of internal Leftist hatred Joe’s way. First positive thing I’ve seen Joe do in his 50+ years in government, I must be missing something in the details.

Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants​

Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants

The Biden administration is launching a $6 billion effort to rescue nuclear power plants at risk of closing, citing the need to continue nuclear energy as a carbon-free source of power that helps to combat climate change.

apnews.com

Where is Jane Fonda???????????????

 

[there4eyeM]

Moderation and common sense would suffice to solve energy need. Confusing use with need is immoderate nonsense.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Broken clock shows correct time, film @ 11.
This will filter a lot of internal Leftist hatred Joe’s way. First positive thing I’ve seen Joe do in his 50+ years in government, I must be missing something in the details.

Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants​

Biden launches $6B effort to save distressed nuclear plants

The Biden administration is launching a $6 billion effort to rescue nuclear power plants at risk of closing, citing the need to continue nuclear energy as a carbon-free source of power that helps to combat climate change.

apnews.com

With the billions they make from energy generation I have to wonder why they need a federal bail out.