Is Nuclear Power On The Verge Of A Big Comeback?

[martybegan]

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.

France seems to be doing just fine with it, for decades now.

 

[there4eyeM]

Solar. The sun is the only nuclear power needed, and the only safe fusion reactor.

 

[there4eyeM]

Nukes are a national security hazard.
Nukes are an environmental hazard.
Nukes are old-way-thinking.
Stay in the past, stay pro-nukes.

 

[martybegan]

Solar. The sun is the only nuclear power needed, and the only safe fusion reactor.

Except when it's dark out, or cloudy, or you are above a certain latitude....

 

[martybegan]

Nukes are a national security hazard.
Nukes are an environmental hazard.
Nukes are old-way-thinking.
Stay in the past, stay pro-nukes.

You have nothing to add to the debate.

 

[there4eyeM]

How is it that certain people have blind faith in nukes, but not the slightest idea that the small advances necessary to fully harvest the sun are only a brief time away?

 

[there4eyeM]

There is no debate. Nukes have proved themselves enough of a menace. There is no great reason for them.
We need better solutions.

 

[martybegan]

How is it that certain people have blind faith in nukes, but not the slightest idea that the small advances necessary to fully harvest the sun are only a brief time away?

All rhetoric, no details.

 

[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.

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.

As we've seen with the few disasters the Navy has had, the few near disasters we've had, and Fukashima itself...the ramifications are no where near as off the charts as you predicted.

Big centralization of "power and profits"? Oh brother.

It's the only viable alternative to greenhouse gas burning of fossil fuels that is proven to work. I think the days of having Con Edison or PG&E firing up a nuke plant should go bye-bye. The US Navy has proven it has the command and control not to mention lack of a profit motive) to run the units correctly.

 

[candycorn]

How is it that certain people have blind faith in nukes, but not the slightest idea that the small advances necessary to fully harvest the sun are only a brief time away?

They have been "only a brief time away" for about 2 generations now. Large scale solar is still a pipe dream.

 

[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, an unnecessary hazard that only benefits big centralization of power and profits.

As we've seen with the few disasters the Navy has had, the few near disasters we've had, and Fukashima itself...the ramifications are no where near as off the charts as you predicted.

Big centralization of "power and profits"? Oh brother.

It's the only viable alternative to greenhouse gas burning of fossil fuels that is proven to work. I think the days of having Con Edison or PG&E firing up a nuke plant should go bye-bye. The US Navy has proven it has the command and control not to mention lack of a profit motive) to run the units correctly.

The current system works fine. The only time there was an issue was TMI, and again, that was made worse when people did the wrong thing for over 16 hours.

As long as regulators are involved (an Nuclear regulation is an example of good regulation, not over regulation) leave it to the utilities.

 

[there4eyeM]

How is it that certain people have blind faith in nukes, but not the slightest idea that the small advances necessary to fully harvest the sun are only a brief time away?

They have been "only a brief time away" for about 2 generations now. Large scale solar is still a pipe dream.

Better a dream than a nightmare.

 

[candycorn]

How is it that certain people have blind faith in nukes, but not the slightest idea that the small advances necessary to fully harvest the sun are only a brief time away?

They have been "only a brief time away" for about 2 generations now. Large scale solar is still a pipe dream.

Better a dream than a nightmare.

As we continue to pollute the air, water, and mountains of coal disappear in the mean time.
Rest easy knowing that delaying the advancements does not delay the truth.

 

[there4eyeM]

The best (those elitists who profit from the rest of us) are the enemy of the good.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

The failing infrastructure has the fingerprints of people who aren't so good in math, but excellent at Liberal Arts and Proust

 

[there4eyeM]

It wasn't philosophy experts that sabotaged America with illegal and immoral wars and unethical financial practices.

 

[Rozman]

All we need is for something to go wrong and it's a disaster....
And if nothing goes wrong what do we do with the spent fuel rods?
Bury them somewhere and hope we picked a good place....
They will be fine after a few hundred thousand years...

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Ask the Japanese around Fukushima. Oh that's right, there are no Japanese around Fukushima.

How many people died because of the Fukushima meltdown?

Answer: zero.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Nuke energy has its place in our energy portfolio.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

Unlike the unicorn-flatulence and pixie-dust "green" crap, it actually WORKS.