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.
This would be what is called a strawman. There are other reasons to not want a big push on nuclear than some concern about public exposure to ionizing radiation. The most significant concern I have is that one can't be built without consumers writing a blank check for the capital cost.
Gotcha, you don't have an answer to those questions so try and snow people by posting technobabble...
With all the FUD you post I would think answering those questions with accredited scientific statistics would be a no-brainer and piece of cake....
I can understand your fears with nuclear energy, it is a dangerous technology but based on the accredited scientific statistics from the last 45 years or so your fears are irrational and have no basis in fact....
Gotcha, you don't have an answer to those questions so try and snow people by posting technobabble...
With all the FUD you post I would think answering those questions with accredited scientific statistics would be a no-brainer and piece of cake....
Who claims civilian exposure from commercial reactors is a problem? The problem with nuclear in the United States continues to be the uncontainable capital cost. For the plants being built now, the ratepayers have signed a blank check to cover the capital costs regardless of over runs.
Older nukes are IMO a potential radiation risk from loss of cooling accidents especially 1st generation BWR built like Fukushima, but that's a different topic.
Who claims civilian exposure from commercial reactors is a problem? The problem with nuclear in the United States continues to be the uncontainable capital cost. For the plants being built now, the ratepayers have signed a blank check to cover the capital costs regardless of over runs.
Who claims civilian exposure from commercial reactors is a problem?
The OP, that's who.....
Quote:
There is no doubt in my mind that these plants cause illness / cancer /death (something other countries know), yet I'm baffled as to why no one in this country seems to be concerned.
If you want to whine about the high cost of nuclear reactors why not start a new thread on it because it sure as heck doesn't belong here.....
I am concerned about nuclear power. I think we should have a lot more of it with an emphasis on building modern reactors that burn up "used" fuel and create more fuel by irradiation on non fissile material. I see the next 50 years, while we have abundant natural gas, as the time to switch our electric utilities to the Endless Fuel Age.
I am concerned about nuclear power. I think we should have a lot more of it with an emphasis on building modern reactors that burn up "used" fuel and create more fuel by irradiation on non fissile material. I see the next 50 years, while we have abundant natural gas, as the time to switch our electric utilities to the Endless Fuel Age.
Are you willing to pay 25 cents per kWh to achieve that?
2 Gigawatts, hundreds of coastal acres excluded from development, modern pressurized water reactor. I'd post the bikini pictures of San Onofre but she's been down for a while.
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.
Concerned about nuclear power
