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.
No same old problem that nuclear has had all over the western world. You can't build one for anything close to the projected cost. See the experience with Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant. Meanwhile the cost of wind and solar are committed to in advance and that price is dropping rapidly.
The USA is currently cranking out how many? 2, 3 every year.
Only when civilians try to build one does cost over-runs become a problem.
The USA is currently cranking out how many? 2, 3 every year.
Only when civilians try to build one does cost over-runs become a problem.
Aircraft carriers don't contribute to the electrical grid. The Navy builds small cookie cutter reactors. The difference between a Navy reactor and a civilian reactor is like comparing the building a single family home to building the new World Trade Center.
Aircraft carriers don't contribute to the electrical grid. The Navy builds small cookie cutter reactors. The difference between a Navy reactor and a civilian reactor is like comparing the building a single family home to building the new World Trade Center.
If 'we' want to make them quickly with few cost over-runs, we can.
The navy has absolutely zero experience at managing projects the size and complexity of a commercial nuclear reactor. Asserting that the military has the ability to control costs on large complex projects is laughable. The military is among the world's worst at cost control.
BTW there are always huge cost overruns on first of a kind nuclear ships.
Still waiting........................................... ..............
I'll ask the same questions I did at the beginning of this thread which up to this point no-one can answer or explain:
France has 78% of their power generated from nuclear plants yet we don't see any abnormalities in their cancer statistics, why is that?
Their first reactor went online in 1964, almost 50 years of non-stop operations and nobody has gotten sick, explanation?
There are over 2.8 million people living within a 50 mile radius of 3 mile island nuclear plant, no sicknesses no increase in cancer rates since 1974... Explain?
Indian Point nuclear reactor on the Hudson river up from NYC, no sicknesses or cancer reported because of it since 1962, explanation?
As the OP stated and asked:
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.
Only reason it's a dead horse is because people like you can't answer any of my questions due to the fact that THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE TO THE CANCER STATISTICS FOR ANYONE LIVING CLOSE TO NUCLEAR REACTORS IN 60 YEARS......
Outside of psychosomatic issues for those who have a fear and deep misunderstanding of nuclear technology of course....
You people seem to think that refusing to answer questions and then calling the questions dead horses shows anything other than ignorance and lack of understanding on the subject?
Only reason it's a dead horse is because people like you can't answer any of my questions due to the fact that THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE TO THE CANCER STATISTICS FOR ANYONE LIVING CLOSE TO NUCLEAR REACTORS IN 60 YEARS......
Outside of psychosomatic issues for those who have a fear of technology of course....
You people seem to think that refusing to answer questions and then calling the questions dead horses shows anything other than ignorance on the subject?
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.