Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
out of burning coal and nuclear power, nuclear power is the lesser of the two evils. I assume you promote green power but its just not effective enough to power a nation the size of the U.S. So what do you want to do, regress society to the middle ages? all in the name of a clean earth?
Springing a leak? I think they use containment stong enough not to do this.
There are alternatives to storing waste underground. It is possible to shoot it to outer space. Instead of worrying about dumping our problems to earth we really shoot use space as giant trash can. We should shoot all of our waste in the direction of the sun. Hell, the entire Earth could fall into the sun without effecting it.
I don't blame you really, you're only the victim of anti-nuclear propaganda.
I know its off-topic, but instead of regressing the progress of humanity into less powerful green power and vastly reducing power consumption, we should turn to space. Obviously it would take a while to get started (and at great cost) but the solar system is filled with deposits of fuel useful to humanity
That's one reason I don't like the green movement. It's turning inward and cutting back instead of expanding outward. Too much money and scientists are spent for green purposes when all our environmental problems would be solved if we actually went into space.
I agree the ideal way to get rid of the nuclear waste is to throw it into the sun, I just have a problem with burying the waste in the ground. And the material that is most often used to contain radiation is lead. Last time I checked that's not real good either.
I just don't think the space option is necessary or practical. How could getting resources from outer space be more cost effective than what we have now or what we could do by switching to green power. Should we put windmills on Neptune where the wind blows 2000mph all the time and then run a extension cord?
What is wrong with reducing power consumption? And you are right if we do we will instantly transported back to the middle ages. Because there is no middle ground there at all. Why do people need SUV's that get 10mpg? People don't. Yet you see tons of them on the road. My point is that Americans use too much unnecessarily.
i'd rather pay texans and alaskans double than make our enemies rich.
(not to mention war cost, the real actual cost of mideastern oil = OPEC cost per barrel + cost of wars)
i'd rather pay texans and alaskans double than make our enemies rich.
(not to mention war cost, the real actual cost of mideastern oil = OPEC cost per barrel + cost of wars)
We only get 20% of our oil from the Middle East. But I agree I don't want to give them a dime either.
Ok I will reiterate then. Why do people need Hummers that get 14mpg? I also see those all over town, never being driven offroad which is what they were intended for. Another thing those govt stats are based on ideal conditions, you know like in a vacuum.
I think it was a bad idea to privatise the energy market, because some people will do anything to cut corners and make a bigger profit. Now imagine this $$$$ grabbing mentality when it involves nuclear power plants.
I agree the ideal way to get rid of the nuclear waste is to throw it into the sun...
You may want to consider some cost factors...
The US, with a relatively small nuclear power industry, is currently sitting on better than 50,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. In its entire history (i.e., since 1981), the Space Shuttle program has carried about 700 metric tons worth of payload into orbit. Shooting material into the sun is much more expensive than merely putting it into orbit.
In its history, the Space Shuttle program has experienced two catastrophic accidents, wherein the vehicle and everything on it were destroyed in flight, resulting in material raining back onto the earth's surface in debris fields that were hundreds of miles long. What would the effects of having had say two metric tons of nuclear waste on board one of those particular vehicles have been?
The US, with a relatively small nuclear power industry, is currently sitting on better than 50,000 metric tons of nuclear waste. In its entire history (i.e., since 1981), the Space Shuttle program has carried about 700 metric tons worth of payload into orbit. Shooting material into the sun is much more expensive than merely putting it into orbit.
In its history, the Space Shuttle program has experienced two catastrophic accidents, wherein the vehicle and everything on it were destroyed in flight, resulting in material raining back onto the earth's surface in debris fields that were hundreds of miles long. What would the effects of having had say two metric tons of nuclear waste on board one of those particular vehicles have been?
Sending radioactive waste into space isn't a serious consideration for exactly the reasons stated about. Putting the waste out in NV is moving forward and will eventually happen. It really won't impact anybody's life. NV has their nose out of joint, but all it really takes is more money to the state and they will discover that their environmental concerns have been satisfied.
Yucca Flats is how many miles from Las Vegas? How many government buildings where people were studying the seismic stability of the site have been damaged or destroyed by earthquakes? Yucca Flats is a bad place to put nuclear waste. There were better choices on the final list. But those better choices had more powerful representation in Congress than did the Nevada desert...
Yucca Flats is how many miles from Las Vegas? How many government buildings where people were studying the seismic stability of the site have been damaged or destroyed by earthquakes? Yucca Flats is a bad place to put nuclear waste. There were better choices on the final list. But those better choices had more powerful representation in Congress than did the Nevada desert...
The seismology of that area of the country has been studied better than any other place on the face of the earth. The area is not particularly unstable and all of the potential seismic events that could happen have been analyzed. The hold up right now is -- drum roll, showing protection from the 10,000 to 1,000,000 years after the site has been abandoned. No unanswered safety questions exist for the first 10,000 years of the site's existence. To me as an engineer, with a substantial nuclear background, that sounds safe enough to proceed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now imagine this $$$$ grabbing mentality when it involves nuclear power plants.
