I believe the "pros" of Nuclear Energy outweighs the "cons"

[rdean]

Of course I have much more "faith" in science than the occult.

I believe the problems of nuclear waste can be overcome. Right wingers underestimate the waste problem. In spite of that, I believe it can be solved.

All of the nuclear disasters turned out to be human error, even Japan. Built in the wrong place which is why the Japanese placed a 30 ft wall in front of it. The giant waves turned out to be 30 ft tall, but the earth quake caused the wall to drop 10 feet for hundreds of miles.

There is more nuclear waste than what right wingers on this board let on. Sure, France has a small facility in France, but they send the bulk of their waste to Siberia. Even Germany sends 1,500 tons a year. Doesn't sound like much, but in 10 years that 15,000 tons of nuclear material that will stay dangerous for a million years, if not longer. And OH, YEA, those Siberians are SOOO "safe".

--------------------------------

But what were initially lauded as the first reactors of a nuclear renaissance when proposed are more likely to be the exceptions that prove the rule of no new nuclear construction in the U.S. Only this twin set of reactors in Georgia, another pair in South Carolina and the completion of an old reactor in Tennessee are likely to be built in the U.S. for at least the next decade. "We won't build large numbers of new nuclear plants in the U.S. in the near term," says Marvin Fertel, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group for the nuclear industry.

The problem is twofold: electricity demand in the U.S. is not growing and natural gas, which can be burned to generate electricity, is cheap. As a result, utilities are building more natural gas–burning turbines rather than more expensive nuclear power plants.

Nuclear Reactor Approved in U.S. for First Time Since 1978: Scientific American

-------------------------------------------------

Nuclear utilities in the U.S. will need to hire nearly 25,000 people to replace the 39 percent of its workforce that will be eligible for retirement by 2016, says Carol L. Berrigan, senior director for industry infrastructure for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based trade group. Meanwhile, U.S. universities awarded a total of 715 graduate and undergraduate degrees in nuclear engineering in 2009, the most recent year for which data is available.

A Labor Shortage for U.S. Nuclear Plants - Businessweek

-----------------------------------------------

http://www.new.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps29.pdf

---------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, nuclear engineering and nuclear power plants are come under the authority of the government. Something Republicans want to shrink so small they can drown it in a bathtub. It's also part of "infrastructure". Something Republicans will never support. Can only be built by engineers and scientists, people Republicans feel are elitist, over educated and "Education is for snobs". Which means the only people who will be able to build these facilities are "immigrants", people they will never accept.

Once I pointed out that government inspectors at nuclear power plants need to be either an engineer or scientist. A right winger on this very board ask, "Why? As long as they have a check list?" If that were the criteria, then perhaps a kitchen inspector is "good enough"?

 

[Leweman]

Wow was this out of your last harry potter book you read? Seriously you libs need to come back to reality. Anytime would be great.

 

[Mr. H.]

 

[Widdekind]

a Nuclear Power-plant is a "giant appliance"; designing Reactors that can be "un-plugged" in emergencies "ought" to be possible, e.g. "put a load-of-bricks on the control-rods, if power is cut, they jam home" ("gravity will always 'let you down', so employ 'guaranteeds' in the fail-safe").

in the short-term, if NG is truly cheaper, then NG is economically superior (at present); can "flared gas" be captured instead? physically, Nuclear is millions of times more energy-efficient-per-mass, presumably superior for (futuristic) space applications

 

[Conny]

Pro

 

[editec]

It strikes me as a truly terrible idea to build nuclear power plants on earthquake prone land.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Deany, it's your Batman Villain-like hatred for Republicans that makes you write your insanely funny posts.

Leftists EnviroMarxists (the guys on your side) are against nuclear energy

 

[Dragon]

Waste disposal is only one of the problems with nuclear power. More serious IMO in terms of environmental protection, public health, and public safety is the potential for meltdown. That meltdowns so far have been the result of human error is not reassuring; human error is a given and, sufficient time allowed, the worst consequences of human error will occur (which is also why we should do away with nuclear weapons, although that's a different topic).

There are also economic problems with nuclear power. It's a very expensive form of energy production compared (at this point) to fossil fuels and also compared to renewable energy. Long lead times go into construction of a nuclear plant and high initial capital costs, make it a strongly centralized form of power subject to central control, unlike solar or wind which tends towards decentralization.

There are only two good things that can be said about nuclear power, really: it's abundant and it's non-greenhouse. Unless we have no other choice, which isn't the case, we really shouldn't go there.

 

[The Infidel]

Waste disposal is only one of the problems with nuclear power. More serious IMO in terms of environmental protection, public health, and public safety is the potential for meltdown. That meltdowns so far have been the result of human error is not reassuring; human error is a given and, sufficient time allowed, the worst consequences of human error will occur (which is also why we should do away with nuclear weapons, although that's a different topic).

There are also economic problems with nuclear power. It's a very expensive form of energy production compared (at this point) to fossil fuels and also compared to renewable energy. Long lead times go into construction of a nuclear plant and high initial capital costs, make it a strongly centralized form of power subject to central control, unlike solar or wind which tends towards decentralization.

There are only two good things that can be said about nuclear power, really: it's abundant and it's non-greenhouse. Unless we have no other choice, which isn't the case, we really shouldn't go there.

Your part of the problem... Nuclear energy is a far better choice for energy production.

Im not even going to try to debate it... you guys are a waste of energy

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the US Armed Forces let the EnviroMarsists have their way, we'd be with a Navy.

Thanks to the EM 'sNuclear reactors now cost 10 times what they used to.

 

[NLT]

Of course I have much more "faith" in science than the occult.

I believe the problems of nuclear waste can be overcome. Right wingers underestimate the waste problem. In spite of that, I believe it can be solved.

All of the nuclear disasters turned out to be human error, even Japan. Built in the wrong place which is why the Japanese placed a 30 ft wall in front of it. The giant waves turned out to be 30 ft tall, but the earth quake caused the wall to drop 10 feet for hundreds of miles.

There is more nuclear waste than what right wingers on this board let on. Sure, France has a small facility in France, but they send the bulk of their waste to Siberia. Even Germany sends 1,500 tons a year. Doesn't sound like much, but in 10 years that 15,000 tons of nuclear material that will stay dangerous for a million years, if not longer. And OH, YEA, those Siberians are SOOO "safe".

--------------------------------

But what were initially lauded as the first reactors of a nuclear renaissance when proposed are more likely to be the exceptions that prove the rule of no new nuclear construction in the U.S. Only this twin set of reactors in Georgia, another pair in South Carolina and the completion of an old reactor in Tennessee are likely to be built in the U.S. for at least the next decade. "We won't build large numbers of new nuclear plants in the U.S. in the near term," says Marvin Fertel, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group for the nuclear industry.

The problem is twofold: electricity demand in the U.S. is not growing and natural gas, which can be burned to generate electricity, is cheap. As a result, utilities are building more natural gas–burning turbines rather than more expensive nuclear power plants.

Nuclear Reactor Approved in U.S. for First Time Since 1978: Scientific American

-------------------------------------------------

Nuclear utilities in the U.S. will need to hire nearly 25,000 people to replace the 39 percent of its workforce that will be eligible for retirement by 2016, says Carol L. Berrigan, senior director for industry infrastructure for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based trade group. Meanwhile, U.S. universities awarded a total of 715 graduate and undergraduate degrees in nuclear engineering in 2009, the most recent year for which data is available.

A Labor Shortage for U.S. Nuclear Plants - Businessweek

-----------------------------------------------

http://www.new.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps29.pdf

---------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, nuclear engineering and nuclear power plants are come under the authority of the government. Something Republicans want to shrink so small they can drown it in a bathtub. It's also part of "infrastructure". Something Republicans will never support. Can only be built by engineers and scientists, people Republicans feel are elitist, over educated and "Education is for snobs". Which means the only people who will be able to build these facilities are "immigrants", people they will never accept.

Once I pointed out that government inspectors at nuclear power plants need to be either an engineer or scientist. A right winger on this very board ask, "Why? As long as they have a check list?" If that were the criteria, then perhaps a kitchen inspector is "good enough"?

You do realize your membership in the loony left club was just revoked?

 

[Dragon]

Waste disposal is only one of the problems with nuclear power. More serious IMO in terms of environmental protection, public health, and public safety is the potential for meltdown. That meltdowns so far have been the result of human error is not reassuring; human error is a given and, sufficient time allowed, the worst consequences of human error will occur (which is also why we should do away with nuclear weapons, although that's a different topic).

There are also economic problems with nuclear power. It's a very expensive form of energy production compared (at this point) to fossil fuels and also compared to renewable energy. Long lead times go into construction of a nuclear plant and high initial capital costs, make it a strongly centralized form of power subject to central control, unlike solar or wind which tends towards decentralization.

There are only two good things that can be said about nuclear power, really: it's abundant and it's non-greenhouse. Unless we have no other choice, which isn't the case, we really shouldn't go there.

Your part of the problem... Nuclear energy is a far better choice for energy production.

Im not even going to try to debate it... you guys are a waste of energy

Very well. In that case, you lose by default. Thank you for making your feelings known.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course I have much more "faith" in science than the occult.

I believe the problems of nuclear waste can be overcome. Right wingers underestimate the waste problem. In spite of that, I believe it can be solved.

All of the nuclear disasters turned out to be human error, even Japan. Built in the wrong place which is why the Japanese placed a 30 ft wall in front of it. The giant waves turned out to be 30 ft tall, but the earth quake caused the wall to drop 10 feet for hundreds of miles.

There is more nuclear waste than what right wingers on this board let on. Sure, France has a small facility in France, but they send the bulk of their waste to Siberia. Even Germany sends 1,500 tons a year. Doesn't sound like much, but in 10 years that 15,000 tons of nuclear material that will stay dangerous for a million years, if not longer. And OH, YEA, those Siberians are SOOO "safe".

--------------------------------

But what were initially lauded as the first reactors of a nuclear renaissance when proposed are more likely to be the exceptions that prove the rule of no new nuclear construction in the U.S. Only this twin set of reactors in Georgia, another pair in South Carolina and the completion of an old reactor in Tennessee are likely to be built in the U.S. for at least the next decade. "We won't build large numbers of new nuclear plants in the U.S. in the near term," says Marvin Fertel, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group for the nuclear industry.

The problem is twofold: electricity demand in the U.S. is not growing and natural gas, which can be burned to generate electricity, is cheap. As a result, utilities are building more natural gas–burning turbines rather than more expensive nuclear power plants.

Nuclear Reactor Approved in U.S. for First Time Since 1978: Scientific American

-------------------------------------------------

Nuclear utilities in the U.S. will need to hire nearly 25,000 people to replace the 39 percent of its workforce that will be eligible for retirement by 2016, says Carol L. Berrigan, senior director for industry infrastructure for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based trade group. Meanwhile, U.S. universities awarded a total of 715 graduate and undergraduate degrees in nuclear engineering in 2009, the most recent year for which data is available.

A Labor Shortage for U.S. Nuclear Plants - Businessweek

-----------------------------------------------

http://www.new.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps29.pdf

---------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, nuclear engineering and nuclear power plants are come under the authority of the government. Something Republicans want to shrink so small they can drown it in a bathtub. It's also part of "infrastructure". Something Republicans will never support. Can only be built by engineers and scientists, people Republicans feel are elitist, over educated and "Education is for snobs". Which means the only people who will be able to build these facilities are "immigrants", people they will never accept.

Once I pointed out that government inspectors at nuclear power plants need to be either an engineer or scientist. A right winger on this very board ask, "Why? As long as they have a check list?" If that were the criteria, then perhaps a kitchen inspector is "good enough"?

what do we do with the waste? to hell with arguing about leaving future generations debt, what about nuke waste?

and in almost every single nuke incident the governments and companies involved have consistently lied to the public

 

[nitroz]

Nuclear energy is a good choice, but it's something that can't be neglected and that has to be treated very carefully.

We need to make it even more safer.

 

[rdean]

Of course I have much more "faith" in science than the occult.

I believe the problems of nuclear waste can be overcome. Right wingers underestimate the waste problem. In spite of that, I believe it can be solved.

All of the nuclear disasters turned out to be human error, even Japan. Built in the wrong place which is why the Japanese placed a 30 ft wall in front of it. The giant waves turned out to be 30 ft tall, but the earth quake caused the wall to drop 10 feet for hundreds of miles.

There is more nuclear waste than what right wingers on this board let on. Sure, France has a small facility in France, but they send the bulk of their waste to Siberia. Even Germany sends 1,500 tons a year. Doesn't sound like much, but in 10 years that 15,000 tons of nuclear material that will stay dangerous for a million years, if not longer. And OH, YEA, those Siberians are SOOO "safe".

--------------------------------

But what were initially lauded as the first reactors of a nuclear renaissance when proposed are more likely to be the exceptions that prove the rule of no new nuclear construction in the U.S. Only this twin set of reactors in Georgia, another pair in South Carolina and the completion of an old reactor in Tennessee are likely to be built in the U.S. for at least the next decade. "We won't build large numbers of new nuclear plants in the U.S. in the near term," says Marvin Fertel, president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group for the nuclear industry.

The problem is twofold: electricity demand in the U.S. is not growing and natural gas, which can be burned to generate electricity, is cheap. As a result, utilities are building more natural gas–burning turbines rather than more expensive nuclear power plants.

Nuclear Reactor Approved in U.S. for First Time Since 1978: Scientific American

-------------------------------------------------

Nuclear utilities in the U.S. will need to hire nearly 25,000 people to replace the 39 percent of its workforce that will be eligible for retirement by 2016, says Carol L. Berrigan, senior director for industry infrastructure for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based trade group. Meanwhile, U.S. universities awarded a total of 715 graduate and undergraduate degrees in nuclear engineering in 2009, the most recent year for which data is available.

A Labor Shortage for U.S. Nuclear Plants - Businessweek

-----------------------------------------------

http://www.new.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps29.pdf

---------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, nuclear engineering and nuclear power plants are come under the authority of the government. Something Republicans want to shrink so small they can drown it in a bathtub. It's also part of "infrastructure". Something Republicans will never support. Can only be built by engineers and scientists, people Republicans feel are elitist, over educated and "Education is for snobs". Which means the only people who will be able to build these facilities are "immigrants", people they will never accept.

Once I pointed out that government inspectors at nuclear power plants need to be either an engineer or scientist. A right winger on this very board ask, "Why? As long as they have a check list?" If that were the criteria, then perhaps a kitchen inspector is "good enough"?

what do we do with the waste? to hell with arguing about leaving future generations debt, what about nuke waste?

and in almost every single nuke incident the governments and companies involved have consistently lied to the public

Yes, there is nuclear waste, but considering the amount of energy produced and the fact the waste can be recycled, the amount left is surprisingly small. But it does exist. And considering it's dangerous for a million years or more, producing any waste will eventually lead go dangerous amounts.

However, unless nuclear plants are built, then it's only theoretical. We need to have some nuclear power plants to study the "real thing". It's the only way.

Strange, the right wing, so anti science, should push nuclear energy. One has to wonder if they know what it is? The scientists, physicists and engineers it will take to build these nuclear power plants will never come from "Liberty University" or "Bob Jones" University. They will be progressive liberals. As long as the right wing holds the backward views they do about science, they will have to rely on liberals for progress.

 

[The_Lone_Troll]

The waste is easy to get rid of, melt it into it in glass rods and chuck down the nearest active volcano, or bung it in a rocket and blast it into the sun. I really dont see what the problem is. Small rockets, say 6 inches diameter, 3 meters long, enough fuel to blast int orbit then blast away and coast to the sun. Doesn't matter how long they take to get there. Small enough so if one crashes and comes back down its trivial.

The only other thing it needs is political balls and the will to tell the objectors to piss off.