Nuclear power is clean and safe. Why aren't we using more of it?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable.

The US could gain actual energy independence by nationalizing a nuclear power project.

Nuclear power is clean and safe. Why aren't we using more of it?

Nuclear energy is far safer than its reputation implies. It's also clean and reliable -- yet power plants are being phased out around the world.

www.cnet.com

 

[Damaged Eagle]

A first. Something we agree on.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

View attachment 510475

A first. Something we agree on.

*****SMILE*****

Then you must care about human lives in their relatively short time alive on Earth. I admire that, in a religious person.

 

[MarathonMike]

Fort Fun Indiana I totally agree. I have a couple posts about the new small portable nuclear reactor technology that is very promising.

 

[the other mike]

Theoretically it's clean energy, but in reality there are issues like where to store the waste and how to prevent the next Fukushima or Chernobyl.,

Not trying to be a party pooper....just sayin.

The history behind Germany's nuclear phase-out

www.cleanenergywire.org

 

[the other mike]

Finland has the first permanent nuclear waste starage facility ever....al the others are temporary.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Fukushima, Chernobyl, 3 mile Island

3 reasons right there,

 

[Quasar44]

Fort Fun Indiana
Ask the leftist gutter rats

 

[the other mike]

 

[alang1216]

Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable.

The US could gain actual energy independence by nationalizing a nuclear power project.

NIMBY. We've been collecting waste for years and have yet to find a permanent home for it. Plenty of good options but no one wants it near them or have it transported past them. As the anti-vaccine folk have shown, the US is really bad at assessing risks.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable.

The US could gain actual energy independence by nationalizing a nuclear power project.

Nuclear power is clean and safe. Why aren't we using more of it?

Nuclear energy is far safer than its reputation implies. It's also clean and reliable -- yet power plants are being phased out around the world.

www.cnet.com

3 mile island


Abundance of terrorists that search out nuclear plants to blow up to massively kill

That little Japanese nuclear meltdown a few years back...

That Russian Chenoyvl nuclear meltdown a few years earlier with the resulting changes in all animals in the area.

 

[the other mike]

Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable.

The US could gain actual energy independence by nationalizing a nuclear power project.

NIMBY. We've been collecting waste for years and have yet to find a permanent home for it. Plenty of good options but no one wants it near them or have it transported past them. As the anti-vaccine folk have shown, the US is really bad at assessing risks.

Luckily we never did anything too stupid with it like dump it in the ocean.....oh wait....

 

[Blues Man]

Theoretically it's clean energy, but in reality there are issues like where to store the waste and how to prevent the next Fukushima or Chernobyl.,

Not trying to be a party pooper....just sayin.

The history behind Germany's nuclear phase-out

www.cleanenergywire.org

Chernobyl was a one off caused by a faulty reactor design that has never been used anywhere else.

Fukishima just highlights the weaknesses of the obsolete light water reactors.

there are reactors that do not need to run at high pressure and do not need to be located near large bodies of water.

In fact smaller MSr reactors can actually be buried underground and only need refueling every 20 years or so. These reactors can use the waste we have in storage already as fuel

 

[Blues Man]

Fukushima, Chernobyl, 3 mile Island

3 reasons right there,

No one died because ot 3 Mile Island

And if you took that attitude over such a small number of failures you would never get in a plane again or drive a car or have a propane tank in your home etc etc etc.

We have already designed reactors that cannot melt down, that don't need to run at pressures of hundreds of times atmosphere and that can use the waste from our obsolete LWRs as fuel. We have enough of that nuclear waste in storage to power the country for at least a century

France has had up to 80% of their electricity provided by nuclear power and no significant accidents

 

[Blues Man]

Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable.

The US could gain actual energy independence by nationalizing a nuclear power project.

NIMBY. We've been collecting waste for years and have yet to find a permanent home for it. Plenty of good options but no one wants it near them or have it transported past them. As the anti-vaccine folk have shown, the US is really bad at assessing risks.

We can use the waste we have in storage as fuel for MSR reactors. We have enough to power the country for at least a century without adding to the nuclear waste we have

 

[krichton]

Fukushima, Chernobyl, 3 mile Island

3 reasons right there,

No one died because ot 3 Mile Island

And if you took that attitude over such a small number of failures you would never get in a plane again or drive a car or have a propane tank in your home etc etc etc.

We have already designed reactors that cannot melt down, that don't need to run at pressures of hundreds of times atmosphere and that can use the waste from our obsolete LWRs as fuel. We have enough of that nuclear waste in storage to power the country for at least a century

France has had up to 80% of their electricity provided by nuclear power and no significant accidents

A fatal plane or car accident is not a threat to the planet. Fukushima literally could have eradiated the ocean. All it takes is one bad meltdown to potentially poison most of the world, that's all. Japan is right now seriously planning on releasing radioactive water from fukushima into the ocean after everything that has happened.

 

[zaangalewa]

Nuclear power is clean and safe. Why aren't we using more of it?​

Because it is not clean and it is not safe, but dirty and dangerous. See: Harrisburg (Three Mile Island) , Chernobyl, Fukushima (and many other problems)

Cheaper, cleaner, more reliable. ...

​

Than whatelse? German reactors are by the twice as safe as all others (and twice as expensive) - but not safe enough. We eliminate them also because of newer risks in wars and terrorism.

 

[zaangalewa]

Fukushima, Chernobyl, 3 mile Island

3 reasons right there,

No one died because ot 3 Mile Island

And if you took that attitude over such a small number of failures you would never get in a plane again or drive a car or have a propane tank in your home etc etc etc.

We have already designed reactors that cannot melt down, that don't need to run at pressures of hundreds of times atmosphere and that can use the waste from our obsolete LWRs as fuel. We have enough of that nuclear waste in storage to power the country for at least a century

France has had up to 80% of their electricity provided by nuclear power and no significant accidents

... which someone else knows than know only some French in the industry and government of France. France is not like Germany where US-Americans spy everywhere.

 

[Crepitus]

Fukushima, Chernobyl, 3 mile Island

3 reasons right there,

Tons of new and safer designs these days. A helium pebble bed reactor is meltdown proof, for instance.

 

[zaangalewa]

Fukushima, Chernobyl, 3 mile Island

3 reasons right there,

Tons of new and safer designs these days. A helium pebble bed reactor is meltdown proof, for instance.

Hmm. The USA is the only nation who owns helium. Because of sanctions you stopped the delivery of helium to Zeppelin and LZ 129 "Hindenburg", which had been constructed for the use of helium, exploded in Lake Hurst in 1937.