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.
Nuclear plants are just too dangerous. We already had 2 man-made disasters are Chernobyl and TMI. We had one natural disaster at Fukushima. All the other plants are just waiting for the next natural or man-made disaster to hit. Look at what's happening in Ukraine right now. One of their plants was hit during battle. Luckily, there was no damage to the reactor. But the plants will be a target in any war where one side wants to win badly enough.
It is beyond obvious that we can't continue using Nuclear fuel to generate energy unless we can neutralize the waste. There are 900 tons of unrecoverable waste at Fukushima alone.
Where id that 900 tons come from in the first place? I mean, it always existed so what difference does it make where it is now?
The problem with the Fukushima plant is that they made some bad engineering decisions, like putting the emergency generators in the basement. Also building the plant on the coastline wasn't a good idea. Also, no-one foresaw that a tsunami wall would need to be twice as high as the predicted maximum tsunami. In fact, the tsunami wall would have been high enough had the ground not subsided but the point is that it was built to the minimum thought to be required. The thing with putting the emergency generators in the basement in a coastline plant with a tsunami wall is that they knew there was a danger of flooding.
The point is, it was an engineering problem, not an inherent nuclear power plant problem. No-one will ever make those design mistakes again. And at this point, there is no alternative.
The people who are telling me that Global Warming is an existential threat, refuse to even discuss the things that will actually fix the problem while demanding we focus on technologies that SCIENCE has already told us wont work.
The people who are telling me that Global Warming is an existential threat, refuse to even discuss the things that will actually fix the problem while demanding we focus on technologies that SCIENCE has already told us wont work.
Why?
Not accurate. I would say most people who care about global warming are pro nuclear. I believe that "anti-nuclear liberals" is an increasingly small group. Bernie Sanders gets criticized for his anti-nuclear stance. Germany's Green Party has done an about face on their idiotic policy to shut down nuclear plants, forcing Germany back onto the worst polluter of all, coal. There are anti-nuclear factions on the left and right. They point to the three disasters as if the entire industry (there's more nuclear in this country than you might think) is on the precipice of disaster. It's safe, clean energy. It's old, reliable technology. It has it's downsides, of course, but nuclear is much better for the environment, and better for our personal health, compared to coal and gas plants. We've only scratched the surface on the extent of damage to our health caused by air pollution.
It is beyond obvious that we can't continue using Nuclear fuel to generate energy unless we can neutralize the waste. There are 900 tons of unrecoverable waste at Fukushima alone.
Fukushima is a very old 20th century American design.
The much newer nuclear plants in Europe create a small fraction of the waste of the Fukushima's design.
And most of the contamination in the waste came from the tsunami, an event that could have been planned for but never was.
The new nuke power generators are both smaller and safer, and are easier and are safer to service and maintain.
Nuclear power is the reliable generation that is the closest to being the cleanest. At the same time, anything nuclear also has to be the most carefully maintained and serviced, as all of it does have inherent danger.
We never get anything for free. If we want lots and lots of reliable electrical energy at our disposal, day or night, we will have to pay a price for it, period.
Nuclear's price tag is the lowest, but like guns, the more reliable it is, the more dangerous it can be when things go wrong.
The people who are telling me that Global Warming is an existential threat, refuse to even discuss the things that will actually fix the problem while demanding we focus on technologies that SCIENCE has already told us wont work.
Why?
You make valid points about the usefulness of nuclear energy as a way to combat climate change. The purpose of this thread though is to discuss the existing problem of having no safe way to neutralize the dangerous waste.
And they still never used it and the waste just sits. Until a group actually uses some of this technology to reduce the waste the problem remains. I'm all for using Nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuels but no one is addressing the elephant in the room. No one will care until Nuclear waste improperly kept pollutes their backyard and we have to evacuate millions permanently. Then everyone will be saying, "Why didn't we do anything?" Convenient ignorance is bliss.
We need a moon base and the Eagles that did a speed of 8.4 to take the waste to the waste dumps on the moon june. SPACE1999 had it right all these years and we can't even get a man on the moon let alone a base.
When people discuss nuclear power they do not take into account the cost of future decommissioning and the storage of waste for thousands of years. Also, no-one wnats that storage facility in their back yard. You cannot just bury it and hope no-one in the future will dig it up and get radiation poisoning.
Why dont we insist the governments of the world release the energy technology they have been using in the UAPs or UFOs which they have? Because it is secret? Because you would rather have weapons than lives?
When we obviously have the technology and refuse to release it then we are no better than Kim Jong Un, Putin or President Xi - We want to maintain the military 'advantage' and the financial stranglehold even though it is causing pain and difficulty in both the USA and other countries too.
Imagine what advantages and opportunities unlimited power would bring to the people of the world?
I dont think we really want to get to become a more advanced civilization at all. I think we are quite happy to be warring nations at each others throat.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefkey
It is beyond obvious that we can't continue using Nuclear fuel to generate energy unless we can neutralize the waste. There are 900 tons of unrecoverable waste at Fukushima alone.
The latest generation of reactors are far safer and produce much lest waste.
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.
