Would You Vote For Nuke Power? (homes, buy, disposing)

[Marc Paolella]

France is powered by nukes. Nuff said. If they can do it safely, we certainly can also. It's a big world. There are plenty of places to store the byproducts.

Let's start building!

-Marc

[tinyND]

Originally Posted by tallguylehigh

As for the alternate debate on wind, solar or tidal- granted they are much cleaner and greener than nuclear. However, if you look at the power generated per square foot of a nuclear plant vs these alternates and they aren't even close.

If the jobs of the future are in wind and solar, where will those jobs be located ?

By the end of the year, China will be the world's leading manufacturer of wind turbines. The U.S. government's investment in wind is miniscule compared to China's, and that means American workers are missing out on millions of new jobs.

All that could change: In two weeks, there's a vote on President Obama's plan for a new energy economy. But key Democrats are wavering in the face of a flurry of Big Oil ads, claiming America can't afford clean energy.

If we don't pass this bill, we'll lose our chance to create millions of good, green jobs for laid-off workers. We'll lose our chance to give our kids a vibrant economy. And we'll lose our chance to pay down our national debt.

U.S. investment in wind power lags far behind, but when it comes to solar power, the story is even more infuriating: in the 1990's, the U.S. actually led the world in solar cell manufacturing. But in the Bush-Cheney years, China, Japan, and Europe all zoomed ahead of us in solar production.

We can catch up, but only if we start quickly.

Obama's plan would aggressively scale up American wind and solar production -- creating millions of new jobs and tackling climate change in one fell swoop.

But the latest ads from dirty-energy companies are scaring away key Democrats in Congress. We've got to ramp up our grassroots campaign, starting with a new national TV ad to frame clean energy as one of the best ways to create good, new jobs.

[doc1]

Yes. Plus wind, solar, coal, domestic drilling for natural gas and oil.

Anything that makes us more self reliant.

The "energy independence" mantra and doing little to accomplish it is so '70s.

Nixon gave a speech about it.

[CaptainNJ]

dont you love it when democrat politicians refer to using nuclear power as "supporting nukes" as a way of making it sound bad and scary?

[angerinthenation]

Originally Posted by Jerseyt719

We have 3 already. There's Salem 1 & 2 and Hope Creek.

We're all ok!

Oh no we're not. You do realize that the Oyster Creek Nuclear Plant is the oldest nuclear plant in the whole entire U.S. right. The facility was made to last for 40 years and they renewed it for another 20. If you ask me, that's a disaster waiting to happen. And the Salem one supposedly has a lot of Homer Simpsons working there too. Plus you have these facilities that lack security to keep all the crazy people away from there that want to blow it up. You think we should build more nuclear power plants when we're having trouble with the ones here?

And I'm pretty sure there's been a couple of accidents here and there but you know they get covered up with the quickness. I'm pretty sure they had a bunch of problems including possible meltdowns that never made it to the front page or outside the plant for that matter. So if I were all of you, I'd worry. I do not feel comfortable with this whole nuclear energy idea. Just the thought of Chernobyl makes me cringe. That could be Oyster Creek.


Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And what source of energy to use if not nuclear energy. I do not know. I'm not into all that energy source **** but I certainly don't feel comfortable with nuclear energy. There's enough nuclear plants in this country, they need to make sure that they function well and get rid of the plants that aren't or the ones that are at risk of failing. That's that.

[TylerJAX]

Originally Posted by wileynj

I say NO WAY! There are alernate options I would consider first... wind, solar, water.. Imagine having a home next to a vacant farm that they decide to turn into a nuclear power plant!!!! It's hard enough for those trying to sell with power lines nearby. I think the Government should offer long term, no interest or low interest lows to homeowners who wish to go "green"... solar or wind!

Solar or wind power aren't really all that feasable in NJ. This isn't the Southwest(solar) or the Dakotas(wind).

I'd support building new nuclear power plants but only if the facilities were standardized. Standardization cuts down on costs. One of the reasons nuclear power works so well in France is because all of the power plants are similar.

There's some research being done on fusion power in France right now where a bunch of countries(even developing nations such as India and China) chipped in on scientists and money, but the US backed out which I thought was awfully boneheaded. Even if it takes 30 years to properly harness fusion power the ROI would be well worth it.

[hikinman63]

all i know is this ,give the American a chance to cut cornors and save 5 cents at the expense of 10s of thousands and they will do it (btw im American) born and raised

not to mention lie or bend the truth ,need an example? (9/11 air quality)

just one simple mistake with a nuke plant will render an area uninhabital for decades if not centuries

wind ,solar ,cellulose ethanol(non food ethanol),all combine our own oil and natural gas reserves (we have plenty)and this country is good to go

its a matter of the will of the person leading this country and i believe Obama has that will and will become known as the green potus ,one who transformed Americas energy policy

[TylerJAX]

^The "green" agenda is sorta on the back-burner.

I see the need for a greener society and greater energy independence, but the far-left drives me up the wall when it comes to offshore drilling and ANWAR.

[JG183]

Originally Posted by angerinthenation

You think we should build more nuclear power plants when we're having trouble with the ones here?

that is the most asinine reasoning I've ever heard.

if we're having trouble with existing plants (which I highly doubt), then that's precisely the reason to build new ones -- to replace the old ones.

[CaptainNJ]

Originally Posted by TylerJAX

^The "green" agenda is sorta on the back-burner.

I see the need for a greener society and greater energy independence, but the far-left drives me up the wall when it comes to offshore drilling and ANWAR.

the green agenda is about making money. ethanol makes ethanol producers rich and provides us with an overpriced fuel.

solar and wind power generation are much more expensive than nuclear power generation. its about corruption and government waste. that is the only reason nuclear power plants arent being built. corruption.