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.
They still haven't figured out how to clean up after the Fukushima disaster. Using the ocean as a dumping ground for radioactive waste isn't a great solution, if you ask me.
Take a listen to the episode entitled "The Next Four Years: An optimistic climate agenda." If you want to jump to where the discussion begins on nuclear energy, start at 16 minutes in.
I think a lot of older folks are freaked out about it, a nuclear weapon isn't a nuclear power plant, but some of the accidents at older facilities scared folks who associate them.
But modern nuclear plants are FAR safer, and as another poster pointed out we have fusion power systems that are starting to look viable. I think its a great way to go personally. The fear of it is unreasonable. Im not saying its as safe as solar power....but im saying the risk vs reward calculation says its the way to go.
Nuclear is safer than solar power. Mortality rate worldwide in 2012, by energy source (in deaths per thousand terawatt hour):
3 Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, fear of what happens when human error is involved overrides the benefits.
No.
They are what you get when you live in a fat, powerful country that was all full of hubris 40 years ago, when those reactors were all brand new. They designed them way too big, over-built them so much it made parts replacement really difficult to do, and then failed to maintain them up to spec. In time, obsolescence also became a very big problem.
Human error was not the problem with 3 Mile Island off Fukushima. Age was, along with some others, and Fukushima's location was a very bad problem.
Chernobyl was Russia being Russia.
The only thing that makes screwy-sense to me is the Russians own 1/3 of the territory on the planet, so they must figure they can screw half of it up forever and still have plenty of room left to live in.
The thing about them all is almost everything in them, from the design, the physics, the engineering, the construction and the control systems, is all obsolete. They were obsolete a decade after they were completed.
We're always bombarded by environmentalists and climate activists about how carbon is literally killing the planet and we must all give up our gas powered vehicles, stop drilling for oil and gas and go 100% carbon free by some arbitrary year 20XX. Assuming it is indeed human carbon emissions causing climate (whether or not this is a bad thing is up for debate, beyond the scope of this thread), and knowing the massive limitations of "green" energy (massive subsidies needed for profitability, unreliability of sun/wind, lack of existing battery technology) and well as all the WASTE that green energy creates (batteries, panels and windmills all use plastics, a fossil fuel, and must be replaced every few years then discarded), why no serious mention of nuclear?
The nuclear of today is not the scary nuclear of the mid-20th century. New advances in fusion physics meant specifically for safe energy creation (NOT nuking other countries) are being made and so many more advances would be made if governments invested even a fraction of what they put into the money pit of "renewables." We have the technologies necessary to use thorium fusion, which produces far less waste than uranium, and if we're REALLY concerned about radioactive waste we could just start launching it into space.
If nuclear fusion could take off, we'd have endless CARBON FREE, clean energy in such abundance it would be laughably cheaper than any fossil fuel or "green" energy source could provide. Why, then, if environmentalists TRULY cared about Saving the planet while keeping innovation and a rising standard of living, do they not mention a peep about nuclear?
The answer to your question is a brief one, in two words: NUCLEAR WASTE
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 16 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,220 posts, read 17,075,134 times
Reputation: 15536
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
No.
They are what you get when you live in a fat, powerful country that was all full of hubris 40 years ago, when those reactors were all brand new. They designed them way too big, over-built them so much it made parts replacement really difficult to do, and then failed to maintain them up to spec. In time, obsolescence also became a very big problem.
Human error was not the problem with 3 Mile Island off Fukushima. Age was, along with some others, and Fukushima's location was a very bad problem.
Chernobyl was Russia being Russia.
The only thing that makes screwy-sense to me is the Russians own 1/3 of the territory on the planet, so they must figure they can screw half of it up forever and still have plenty of room left to live in.
The thing about them all is almost everything in them, from the design, the physics, the engineering, the construction and the control systems, is all obsolete. They were obsolete a decade after they were completed.
You really should look up some proper information before you post so your response can be considered relative.
I don’t know, I trusted the men of 50 years ago who designed, built and operated those plants. I don’t trust the diversity squads of today to do anything other than maybe windmills.
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.
