Nuclear Energy (Republic: costs, safety, deposits)

[slowlanes]

do some research, Tri-Cities area a ticking bomb of poorly contained 'spent' nuclear waste. As is San Onofre and a dozen others. And a bit of a misnomer to consider it 'spent' considering it has a half-life of 24,000 years.

Aside from nuke plant design safety issues, which are too numerous to describe, disposal of nuke waste has long been the main negative of nuke power. Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which taxpayers spent billions on, was supposed to be the national solution, until it was discovered to have been built on a geographic fault and was decertified. Every licensed nuke plant in the US is a ticking time bomb of nuke waste storage problems.

Security report a few years ago called out the concern of large drones, or small planes, being flown into nuke plant cooling domes, which could release a devastating cloud of radiation.

Meanwhile, we've got the largest nuke source possible warming our planet 24/7. If you think solar isn't feasible, you haven't done your research. Not a matter of technology or doability, just a matter of will. And of fighting the nuke and fossil fuel companies that pour millions into anti-solar propaganda to keep their business profits viable, at the cost of our future. And every time someone claims solar just doesn't scale, they win.

[cdelena]

Look to France for a successful nuclear program. It is very possible.

[rantiquity]

Originally Posted by Seacove

After the earthquake in Japan I have zero interest in nuclear power plants.

The Japanese earthquake had little to no effect on the Nuclear power plant in Japan..the tsunami did all the damage.
I can only recall one nuclear power plant in the US built on the shore of the ocean, I am pretty sure it is/was in California...I am not even sure if it still is in operation. The fact is that plant was in operation during many Californian earthquakes and survived them all. So you worry is unfounded.

[rantiquity]

Originally Posted by Angry-Koala

Do the names Fukushima or Chernobyl mean anything to you?

Actually they do but Fukushima failure was not due to an accident, it occurred because of a national disaster. And Chernobyl was built by the Russians which puts doubt to their reliable. But if you read the post you posted to you will note I said in the US.

No, seriously, lots of Americans, many of them Republicans, are against nuclear power. It's got nothing to do with Trump and it's not new. It's been true for years, ever since Three Mile Island. Where have you been all this time? As for myself, I had no idea Trump ever said anything in favor of nuclear power.

No one died because of the Three Miles Nuclear power plant accident.

If you had heard the President in his first SOTU address you would know what he said.


I would think the greenie of the liberal/progressive/democratic party would be in favor of saving the environment from fossil fuels.

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by rantiquity

Actually they do but Fukushima failure was not due to an accident, it occurred because of a national disaster. And Chernobyl was built by the Russians which puts doubt to their reliable. But if you read the post you posted to you will note I said in the US.

No one died because of the Three Miles Nuclear power plant accident.

If you had heard the President in his first SOTU address you would know what he said.

I would think the greenie of the liberal/progressive/democratic party would be in favor of saving the environment from fossil fuels.

Yes it was a natural disaster. One that could happen to us. After Fukushima, I have ZERO interest in nuclear.

Merkel's turning point

The nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, in March 2011 signified a major shift in Germany's attitude towards nuclear power.

https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-nucle...ned/a-39171204

[rantiquity]

Originally Posted by Seacove

Yes it was a natural disaster. One that could happen to us. After Fukushima, I have ZERO interest in nuclear.

An earthquake and a tsunami happening at the same time has an astronomical odds of happening. And no it can't happened to us because we have no Nuclear power plants on our Washington coast.

[rantiquity]

Originally Posted by Seacove

Merkel's turning point

The nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan, in March 2011 signified a major shift in Germany's attitude towards nuclear power.

What does Germany decision have to do with the US building environmentally safe nuclear power plants as they have in both Georgia and Tennessee in recent years? Do you think the Germans are afraid of an earthquake or a tsunami?

Your post is a straw man argument.

[Diana Holbrook]

Originally Posted by rantiquity

An earthquake and a tsunami happening at the same time has an astronomical odds of happening.

Are you serious? What do you think causes tsunamis?

[Diana Holbrook]

Originally Posted by slowlanes

do some research, Tri-Cities area a ticking bomb of poorly contained 'spent' nuclear waste. As is San Onofre and a dozen others. And a bit of a misnomer to consider it 'spent' considering it has a half-life of 24,000 years.

This is the biggest reason why not, in my mind. We have no good solution for the waste.

[Angry-Koala]

Originally Posted by rantiquity

An earthquake and a tsunami happening at the same time has an astronomical odds of happening.

The earthquake is what caused that tsunami, but you're right that the two together won't happen here. No place is completely disaster-proof though, so it makes sense to go with the safest designs, right? Besides, it's estimated that it's going to take some 30 or 40 years to finish shutting down and cleaning up the Fukushima plant, so that cheap electricity was pretty expensive in the long run.

There are better designs out there, some of which would even use spent fuel. I'd rather we just cut down our energy use as a country, but most people aren't interested, so we'll most likely be building more nuclear power plants in the future here. And as long as we're extremely careful about the safety side of things, nuclear is a better power source than coal or petroleum.