Is Nuclear Power On The Verge Of A Big Comeback?

[there4eyeM]

No one knows how many have been how damaged by how much radiation. There can be no comparison. What is known is that shutting off other type of machines ends their danger immediately. It is far from the end with nukes.
The threat that keeps on threatening.

 

[there4eyeM]

One could say we should thank God the 9-11 guys crashed into towers and building other than nukes. That could have done real damage.
Next time?
They might wise up.

 

[candycorn]

Your reasoning would be much more sound there4eyeM if you reasoned better. Your opposition seems to be that the energy supply--nuclear energy--is dangerous and we shouldn't try to harness the power of the atom because of the danger present.

I believe that is a valid point.

Danger exists in burning wood. If you don't tend to the fire, the fire can spread.
Danger exists in mining coal. Ask anyone who has black lung disease.
Danger exists in drilling for oil. Ask those who work on the docks.

This is the price you pay as a society if you want your society to expand.

Your position is that nuclear energy, unlike coal and oil, is much more dangerous. It may be. However, do you not feel that there were persons just like yourself who were happy with steam power for ships, with the corner pot belly stove for heat, and reliance upon landlines because the microwaves are a possible danger?

Given the choice to go back to chopping wood or watching ESPN or Lifetime TV, I think most people would prefer watching ESPN. I believe most prefer the advances of electric travel on rail as opposed to the smelly and less reliable coal burning locomotives. You really do not see many giving up on rail after the tragic accident last month.

Again, the US Navy has proven it has the ability to professionally manage the nuclear reactors. I think we should build 2-300 of them and let the navy manage every one of them. However, for whatever reason, in this nation, we do not seem to do the logical thing so having the exact same rulebook for private industry is likely the best I can hope for.

It isn't that you don't make a good case. It's just not all that compelling. Mankind has lived through disaster in every age of it's existence. They did so in spite of the timid; not because of them.

 

[there4eyeM]

What is timid about investing our fortune and our future in real alternatives that only require some work to resolve and have only positive consequences?
What is a mystery is the profound militancy, and I admit this does not apply to 'corn, in support of nukes.

 

[candycorn]

What is timid about investing our fortune and our future in real alternatives that only require some work to resolve and have only positive consequences?
What is a mystery is the profound militancy, and I admit this does not apply to 'corn, in support of nukes.

Have you studied the scale of solar power receptors necessary to make more than just a token contribution to the overall energy use? The scale of wind?

Just like your presumption (I assume it is true as well) that we don't know all of the science of nuclear power, I would submit to you that we do not know all of the science that involves solar or wind. Can you guarantee me that once we put solar panels into the landfill that there are no ill effects? Or that by interrupting the wind's natural flow across the land that we are not causing some disruption elsewhere? Can you tell me,with pure certainty, that there is no downside to any of the other supposedly clean technologies--let alone the sight pollution they cause?

 

[there4eyeM]

Take a look at this:
Solar-Photo-Voltaic PV electricity generation in North Africa

 

[candycorn]

Take a look at this:
Solar-Photo-Voltaic PV electricity generation in North Africa

What is the bottom line in what you're displaying?

 

[rdean]

As illustrated already on this thread, the public's ignorance and irrational fear of nuclear power is stronger than the capability of its supporters to proceed.

Any rational analysis of the facts will reveal that nuclear power is by far the safest source of energy on the planet. For those not paying attention, NOT A SINGLE INJURY, DISEASE OR DEATH resulted from the release of radiation at Fukushima or any other Japanese nuke plant after the recent earthquakes. One person working on the cleanup had an unrelated heart attack. That's it.

The same is true of TMI. Nothing. Nobody. Just a massive panic over a non-incident, and a MOVIE!

Unfortunately, U.S. and other regulators have made the planning, construction, and commissioning of a commercial nuclear (pronounced "Nuke-U-Ler"), power plant prohibitively expensive; it can only take place in a "regulated" state, were he utility can pass along all of the costs to the ratepayers.

The irony is that tree huggers violently oppose this clean and safe source of power, even though it produces essentially NO greenhouse gases.

And for those of the ignorami who continue to believe that storage of spent fuel is an insurmountable problem I have one word: WIPP. Look it up. Problem solved.

I agree with you on all but one point...

it produces essentially NO greenhouse gases.

Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas. You know bed wetters will suddenly decide that adding more steam to the atmosphere is worse than CO2 in order to thwart nuclear power.

That's stupid. No one believes that. Why say it?

 

[Jarlaxle]

One could say we should thank God the 9-11 guys crashed into towers and building other than nukes. That could have done real damage.
Next time?
They might wise up.

Actually, no, it wouldn't. An airliner hitting a nuclear plant will cause only cosmetic damage...they are built to withstand it. (Though I'm sure it would shut down.)

 

[IsaacNewton]

Because Global Warming is real and accelerating and we are approaching a no return tipping point, I think our only viable current option is to convert immediately to solar, wind, hydro, and yes nuclear as quickly as possible and shut down all oil and coal power plants. We should build 200-300 nuclear power plants right now. They should be built underground away from water sources and in such a way that even if there were a complete meltdown nothing would escape.

In addition we should immediately embark on a Manhattan Project type of endeavor to perfect fusion power and get it in place as quickly as possible.

Regardless of the deniers, Global Warming is without a doubt the gravest threat to the human race. CO2 levels are nearing 405ppm and ice around the globe is melting. Methane clathrates are also beginning to melt (this is decayed organic material high in carbon that has been frozen in tundra and under the ocean bed for millions of years). CH4 (methane) is converted to CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere. As the temperature rises this frozen methane melts and enters the atsmosphere and is converted to more CO2, making Global Warming worse, increasing temp, which melts more methane. It is a feedback loop and once it reaches a certain point you have Runaway Global Warming. This is the point of no return, after this starts nothing on Earth can stop it and it is predicted all the ice in the world will melt and sea levels will rise 250-300 feet. The Earth's climate will be changed for thousands if not tens of thousands of years.

In addition we are already in the midst of a mass extinction. It is not likely the human race would survive a prolonged mass extinction event because of permanent (for our purposes) change to the atmosphere.

The clock is ticking very loud. We have to act now.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The problem with Republicans is that while everyone else is going forward, they go backwards. They think nuclear technology of today is the same as 50 years ago because they haven't heard about it on the news. Perhaps if they could get their kids into liberals schools where people actually learn about "things" and do "research", they would know. But they believe education is for snobs and people only go to school to do drugs and party. That only proves they know nothing about higher education.

Google

yea i know what you mean dean...on the other side of the street the Democrats think Oil Drilling Technology is the same today as 50 years ago because thats what they have been told.....maybe these people should educate themselves too....

 

[there4eyeM]

One could say we should thank God the 9-11 guys crashed into towers and building other than nukes. That could have done real damage.
Next time?
They might wise up.

Actually, no, it wouldn't. An airliner hitting a nuclear plant will cause only cosmetic damage...they are built to withstand it. (Though I'm sure it would shut down.)

So were the Twin Towers.

 

[Harry Dresden]

As illustrated already on this thread, the public's ignorance and irrational fear of nuclear power is stronger than the capability of its supporters to proceed.

Any rational analysis of the facts will reveal that nuclear power is by far the safest source of energy on the planet. For those not paying attention, NOT A SINGLE INJURY, DISEASE OR DEATH resulted from the release of radiation at Fukushima or any other Japanese nuke plant after the recent earthquakes. One person working on the cleanup had an unrelated heart attack. That's it.

The same is true of TMI. Nothing. Nobody. Just a massive panic over a non-incident, and a MOVIE!

Unfortunately, U.S. and other regulators have made the planning, construction, and commissioning of a commercial nuclear (pronounced "Nuke-U-Ler"), power plant prohibitively expensive; it can only take place in a "regulated" state, were he utility can pass along all of the costs to the ratepayers.

The irony is that tree huggers violently oppose this clean and safe source of power, even though it produces essentially NO greenhouse gases.

And for those of the ignorami who continue to believe that storage of spent fuel is an insurmountable problem I have one word: WIPP. Look it up. Problem solved.

I agree with you on all but one point...

it produces essentially NO greenhouse gases.

Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas. You know bed wetters will suddenly decide that adding more steam to the atmosphere is worse than CO2 in order to thwart nuclear power.

That's stupid. No one believes that. Why say it?

not many around here believe lots of the shit you say...so why do you keep saying it?.....for instance,lets see one of your wonderful links proving republicans HATE Education and want to END it....i have been waiting at least 5 years for you to show just one fucking republican saying this....even a religious righty....but yet,nothing....but you keep on saying it....Orange County Ca. is loaded with "republican" kids in school and colleges here....

 

[Pete7469]

not many around here believe lots of the shit you say...so why do you keep saying it?.....for instance,lets see one of your wonderful links proving republicans HATE Education and want to END it....i have been waiting at least 5 years for you to show just one fucking republican saying this....even a religious righty....but yet,nothing....but you keep on saying it....Orange County Ca. is loaded with "republican" kids in school and colleges here....

 

[Pete7469]

That's stupid. No one believes that. Why say it?

Wrong bed wetter, YOU don't believe it.

You also don't believe people protect themselves with guns, that conservatives are more charitable with their own money than fascists, that your moonbat messiah is an incompetent stuttering dumbfuck and that global warming is bullshit.

You do believe in all sorts of nonsense in spite of the billions of bytes of information available that refutes it. You refuse to challenge your programming. You're dedicated to ignorance and you are well know to be a major league idiot.

 

[Jarlaxle]

One could say we should thank God the 9-11 guys crashed into towers and building other than nukes. That could have done real damage.
Next time?
They might wise up.

Actually, no, it wouldn't. An airliner hitting a nuclear plant will cause only cosmetic damage...they are built to withstand it. (Though I'm sure it would shut down.)

So were the Twin Towers.

No, that's a lie.

 

[Pete7469]

One could say we should thank God the 9-11 guys crashed into towers and building other than nukes. That could have done real damage.
Next time?
They might wise up.

Actually, no, it wouldn't. An airliner hitting a nuclear plant will cause only cosmetic damage...they are built to withstand it. (Though I'm sure it would shut down.)

You're correct.

Aircraftcrashbreach - Nuclear Energy Institute

 

[Pete7469]

So were the Twin Towers.

You're an idiot.

FAQ 9 Were the Twin Towers Designed to Survive the Impact of the Airplanes

Besides, the towers did survive the impact, it was the fire and high winds that weakened the structures further and caused the collapse at the point of impact.

 

[there4eyeM]

Thanks for confirming the fallacy of relying on fragile, wrong technology and assumptions.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Translation: "I concede."