Is Nuclear Power On The Verge Of A Big Comeback?

[DGS49]

"There are interesting and sustainable alternatives."

Bullshit, on steroids.

Please cite these "alternatives." Hints: (a) Baseload. (b) The sun doesn't shine all the time, nor does the wind blow all the time. [Do you?]

 

[Wyatt earp]

Poor engineering (i.e.; building it), caused it.
The only danger with nukes is the things we haven't thought of before it's too late.
The only danger with solar is that Exxon won't be making a thousand dollars a second any more.

it doesn't take a rocket scientist to not put unprotected diesel generators next to a ocean, when every one ******* knows Japan has typhoons , god dam that what kamakize means: divine winds, when they beat the Russians .

Today's nukes are safe as can be and getting better.

 

[Anathema]

Let's see how our nation is dealing with electric generation types.......

Coal - Effectively BANNED

Natural Gas - On its way towards being g BANNED. Currently ineffective and insufficient supply structure.

Solar - Growing but cannot provide enough capacity and utility companies are concerned about safety issues.

Wind - See Solar above

Hydro - Insufficient capacity but good in limited areas.

Nuclear - The only reasonable solution.

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

The French get about 75% of their electricity from Nuclear power. Seems to be working for them.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I am real concerned about all these birds dying from wind turbines, how come the left don't care? What about the mini climate change wind turbines create? So sad.

 

[bendog]

Is Nuclear Power On The Verge Of A Big Comeback

The group's analysis found projects in 20 states and three Canadian provinces, with many creating advanced reactors that are "safer, more efficient and need a fraction of the footprint" of current nuclear plants.

The advances include the use of innovative fuels and coolants, as well as "staggering" growth in nuclear fusion — rather than fission — technology.
---------------------------
It's gonna take a lot of nuclear engineers. Republicans work hard to cut education and safety regulations. Ted Cruz wants to increase H-1B visas from 65 000 to 325 000 annually. So a lot of Republicans will have bosses named Jose and Rajen.

It's enjoyable to watch the green pain.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Is Nuclear Power On The Verge Of A Big Comeback

The group's analysis found projects in 20 states and three Canadian provinces, with many creating advanced reactors that are "safer, more efficient and need a fraction of the footprint" of current nuclear plants.

The advances include the use of innovative fuels and coolants, as well as "staggering" growth in nuclear fusion — rather than fission — technology.
---------------------------
It's gonna take a lot of nuclear engineers. Republicans work hard to cut education and safety regulations. Ted Cruz wants to increase H-1B visas from 65 000 to 325 000 annually. So a lot of Republicans will have bosses named Jose and Rajen.

Your tree hugging green freaks will never allow it.

 

[OKTexas]

"Come-back" = set-back, but pro-nukers will be thrilled. Impossible to understand their passion for this technology.

You mean if it's done properly it's safe, cheap and renewable, other than that I can't think of a single reason we need it. France recycles their fuel rods and recover 75% for reuse. Ignorance is thinking it's a bad thing.

 

[OKTexas]

As illustrated already on this thread, the public's ignorance and irrational fear of nuclear power is stronger than the capability of its supporters to proceed.

Any rational analysis of the facts will reveal that nuclear power is by far the safest source of energy on the planet. For those not paying attention, NOT A SINGLE INJURY, DISEASE OR DEATH resulted from the release of radiation at Fukushima or any other Japanese nuke plant after the recent earthquakes. One person working on the cleanup had an unrelated heart attack. That's it.

The same is true of TMI. Nothing. Nobody. Just a massive panic over a non-incident, and a MOVIE!

Unfortunately, U.S. and other regulators have made the planning, construction, and commissioning of a commercial nuclear (pronounced "Nuke-U-Ler"), power plant prohibitively expensive; it can only take place in a "regulated" state, were he utility can pass along all of the costs to the ratepayers.

The irony is that tree huggers violently oppose this clean and safe source of power, even though it produces essentially NO greenhouse gases.

And for those of the ignorami who continue to believe that storage of spent fuel is an insurmountable problem I have one word: WIPP. Look it up. Problem solved.

I agree with you on all but one point...

it produces essentially NO greenhouse gases.

Water vapor is the most significant greenhouse gas. You know bed wetters will suddenly decide that adding more steam to the atmosphere is worse than CO2 in order to thwart nuclear power.

That's why many of the new designs are looking at closed loop cooling systems.

 

[candycorn]

Poor engineering (i.e.; building it), caused it.
The only danger with nukes is the things we haven't thought of before it's too late.
The only danger with solar is that Exxon won't be making a thousand dollars a second any more.

We've had nuke reactors on Navy ships for something like 40 years now. They operate in large waves, doing 20-30 knots, under the surface of the water in sub-freezing temperatures, out in the blistering sun of the South Pacific.

The key is to have Navy-style command and control in charge of the reactor. True there are risks with natural disasters of high magnitude. If an earthquake of a high magnitude hits the Hoover Dam, we're gone.:::::::

There are risks present in everything.

 

[rdean]

As illustrated already on this thread, the public's ignorance and irrational fear of nuclear power is stronger than the capability of its supporters to proceed.

Any rational analysis of the facts will reveal that nuclear power is by far the safest source of energy on the planet. For those not paying attention, NOT A SINGLE INJURY, DISEASE OR DEATH resulted from the release of radiation at Fukushima or any other Japanese nuke plant after the recent earthquakes. One person working on the cleanup had an unrelated heart attack. That's it.

The same is true of TMI. Nothing. Nobody. Just a massive panic over a non-incident, and a MOVIE!

Unfortunately, U.S. and other regulators have made the planning, construction, and commissioning of a commercial nuclear (pronounced "Nuke-U-Ler"), power plant prohibitively expensive; it can only take place in a "regulated" state, were he utility can pass along all of the costs to the ratepayers.

The irony is that tree huggers violently oppose this clean and safe source of power, even though it produces essentially NO greenhouse gases.

And for those of the ignorami who continue to believe that storage of spent fuel is an insurmountable problem I have one word: WIPP. Look it up. Problem solved.

It's funny that right wingers laugh at so called "tree huggers". But it's those tree huggers who make complicated science "safe". How many Republicans will actually become nuclear scientists? 6%? I suspect that number is vastly overstated. Republicans don't like education. It will be liberals designing the plants and protesting the plants. Republicans think you can McGiver a nuclear power plant together with a glow in the dark watch, a can a hair spray and a few rubber bands.

 

[rdean]

Is Nuclear Power On The Verge Of A Big Comeback

The group's analysis found projects in 20 states and three Canadian provinces, with many creating advanced reactors that are "safer, more efficient and need a fraction of the footprint" of current nuclear plants.

The advances include the use of innovative fuels and coolants, as well as "staggering" growth in nuclear fusion — rather than fission — technology.
---------------------------
It's gonna take a lot of nuclear engineers. Republicans work hard to cut education and safety regulations. Ted Cruz wants to increase H-1B visas from 65 000 to 325 000 annually. So a lot of Republicans will have bosses named Jose and Rajen.

"How old are U.S. nuclear power plants and when was the last one built?
The average age of U.S. commercial reactors is about 34 years. The oldest operating reactors are Oyster Creek in New Jersey, and Nine Mile Point 1 in New York. Both entered commercial service on December 1, 1969. The last newly built reactor to enter service was Watts Bar 1 in Tennessee, in 1996. In 2007, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) voted to complete construction of Watts Bar 2. As of February 2015, the TVA estimates that commercial operation of Watts Bar 2 could begin between September 2015 and June 2016."

How old are U.S. nuclear power plants and when was the last one built - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA

Hopefully none of the 94% Crumbling Infrastructure Democrat Engineers will be involved in these projects

You can bet that when those plants were built, there were a lot more Republican scientists. These days? Not so much:

Google

 

[rdean]

Is Nuclear Power On The Verge Of A Big Comeback

The group's analysis found projects in 20 states and three Canadian provinces, with many creating advanced reactors that are "safer, more efficient and need a fraction of the footprint" of current nuclear plants.

The advances include the use of innovative fuels and coolants, as well as "staggering" growth in nuclear fusion — rather than fission — technology.
---------------------------
It's gonna take a lot of nuclear engineers. Republicans work hard to cut education and safety regulations. Ted Cruz wants to increase H-1B visas from 65 000 to 325 000 annually. So a lot of Republicans will have bosses named Jose and Rajen.

Eat a dick scumbag. Republicans have always favored Nuclear Power while scum of the earth dimocrap filth like you have always demonstrated and fought against it.

Republicans believe in higher education. Just not for idiots like you. Waste of time

If you would stop sucking cock for a minute, you could do a Google search and look up the facts. Now, wipe your chin or get a bib. That pearl necklace is spreading:

Google

 

[rdean]

The problem with Republicans is that while everyone else is going forward, they go backwards. They think nuclear technology of today is the same as 50 years ago because they haven't heard about it on the news. Perhaps if they could get their kids into liberals schools where people actually learn about "things" and do "research", they would know. But they believe education is for snobs and people only go to school to do drugs and party. That only proves they know nothing about higher education.

Google

 

[rdean]

The French get about 75% of their electricity from Nuclear power. Seems to be working for them.

But you have to admit, they have a problem with storing used material.

Google

 

[there4eyeM]

Poor engineering (i.e.; building it), caused it.
The only danger with nukes is the things we haven't thought of before it's too late.
The only danger with solar is that Exxon won't be making a thousand dollars a second any more.

We've had nuke reactors on Navy ships for something like 40 years now. They operate in large waves, doing 20-30 knots, under the surface of the water in sub-freezing temperatures, out in the blistering sun of the South Pacific.

The key is to have Navy-style command and control in charge of the reactor. True there are risks with natural disasters of high magnitude. If an earthquake of a high magnitude hits the Hoover Dam, we're gone.:::::::

There are risks present in everything.

There is a risk in riding a bicycle, but it doesn't last millenia and it doesn't kill millions. That's the world's weakest excuse for nukes, an unnecessary hazard that only benefits big centralization of power and profits.

 

[martybegan]

As illustrated already on this thread, the public's ignorance and irrational fear of nuclear power is stronger than the capability of its supporters to proceed.

Any rational analysis of the facts will reveal that nuclear power is by far the safest source of energy on the planet. For those not paying attention, NOT A SINGLE INJURY, DISEASE OR DEATH resulted from the release of radiation at Fukushima or any other Japanese nuke plant after the recent earthquakes. One person working on the cleanup had an unrelated heart attack. That's it.

The same is true of TMI. Nothing. Nobody. Just a massive panic over a non-incident, and a MOVIE!

Unfortunately, U.S. and other regulators have made the planning, construction, and commissioning of a commercial nuclear (pronounced "Nuke-U-Ler"), power plant prohibitively expensive; it can only take place in a "regulated" state, were he utility can pass along all of the costs to the ratepayers.

The irony is that tree huggers violently oppose this clean and safe source of power, even though it produces essentially NO greenhouse gases.

And for those of the ignorami who continue to believe that storage of spent fuel is an insurmountable problem I have one word: WIPP. Look it up. Problem solved.

It's funny that right wingers laugh at so called "tree huggers". But it's those tree huggers who make complicated science "safe". How many Republicans will actually become nuclear scientists? 6%? I suspect that number is vastly overstated. Republicans don't like education. It will be liberals designing the plants and protesting the plants. Republicans think you can McGiver a nuclear power plant together with a glow in the dark watch, a can a hair spray and a few rubber bands.

Actually its Nuclear Engineers that are more involved when it comes to full scale production, and Engineers are not scientists, as we have to deal with that tricky thing called reality.

 

[there4eyeM]

This is a technology whose time never came and was forced on the gullible by the avaricious.
We don't need it and I most sincerely hope the people continue to reject it categorically.

 

[martybegan]

Poor engineering (i.e.; building it), caused it.
The only danger with nukes is the things we haven't thought of before it's too late.
The only danger with solar is that Exxon won't be making a thousand dollars a second any more.

We've had nuke reactors on Navy ships for something like 40 years now. They operate in large waves, doing 20-30 knots, under the surface of the water in sub-freezing temperatures, out in the blistering sun of the South Pacific.

The key is to have Navy-style command and control in charge of the reactor. True there are risks with natural disasters of high magnitude. If an earthquake of a high magnitude hits the Hoover Dam, we're gone.:::::::

There are risks present in everything.

There is a risk in riding a bicycle, but it doesn't last millenia and it doesn't kill millions. That's the world's weakest excuse for nukes, and unnecessary hazard that only benefits big centralization of power and profits.

Millions? Chernobyl was as big of a clusterf$%k as you can get and at worst in killed in the thousands or tens of thousands when all the math is done. you are off by two orders of magnitude.

 

[HenryBHough]

Except in The U.S., nuclear will be back, big time.

Here the tree-hugging, bunny-loving liberals would sooner give up their (electrically powered) tablets, computers and smart phones than have another nuke built.

Think that through......