I'm under the impression that we will be bathed in decommissioning costs, while those that profited handsomely will doing Mai Tais and hi fives in Tahiti. It's our grandchildren that will be bathed in radiation.
How about we reduce nuclear waste by 99% by recycling it?
Dave, is there a personal reason you hate nuclear energy? Your reaction to this topic and the information provided does not seem rational.
Actually, there is one problem that ought to scare the bejesus out of us all. If there is an earthquake on the New Madrid fault line the size of the one that occurred in 1811-12, several nuclear power stations could end up with a Fukushima type event at the same time. If that happened, then a fairly large part of the central US could be rendered uninhabitible.
In a manner of speaking. The Nuclear Industry is not bankable. IJt is completely subsidized by the taxpayers. The liability potential of disasters is and has been recognized as too great to make it a good investment. Ergo, all Nuclear Energy is gov't subsidized. The same monies should have gone into genuine renewable energy projects that would simultaneously mitigate Global Warming. The monies were derailed by Big Money lobbying, politicking, and MIC scheming to maintain the Centralized Distribution Network of electricity . This keeps the fat cats fat. Renewable Energy is fought at every turn because it hurts the fat cats of Centralized Distribution. Distributed Energies is old money networks maintaining the status quo at the expense of the citizens. Nukes are the worst manifestation of this greed at any cost. If that is personal, so be it, but I would view it as a financial analysis of why a problem persists. A really BIG problem, getting bigger.
Renewable energy is, at this point a joke. We've wasted far too much throwing good money after bad. Nuclear energy is the cleanest for of energy that we got. And as far as the liability concerns, you know that France relies that most on Nuclear Energy. Never heard of an accident there. The worst we ever had here was three mile island that was more of a scare than an actual disaster. It's people in the "Green Movement" who can't learn to be pragmatist that are the environmentalist, and the countries, worst threat at this point to rebuilding a robust economy. If the green initiative was going to take off, it would of with T. Boone Pickens throwing a billion at it, or the untold millions or billions Obama has thrown at it.
Renewable energy is, at this point a joke. We've wasted far too much throwing good money after bad. Nuclear energy is the cleanest for of energy that we got. And as far as the liability concerns, you know that France relies that most on Nuclear Energy. Never heard of an accident there. The worst we ever had here was three mile island that was more of a scare than an actual disaster. It's people in the "Green Movement" who can't learn to be pragmatist that are the environmentalist, and the countries, worst threat at this point to rebuilding a robust economy. If the green initiative was going to take off, it would of with T. Boone Pickens throwing a billion at it, or the untold millions or billions Obama has thrown at it.
In a manner of speaking. The Nuclear Industry is not bankable. IJt is completely subsidized by the taxpayers. The liability potential of disasters is and has been recognized as too great to make it a good investment. Ergo, all Nuclear Energy is gov't subsidized. The same monies should have gone into genuine renewable energy projects that would simultaneously mitigate Global Warming. The monies were derailed by Big Money lobbying, politicking, and MIC scheming to maintain the Centralized Distribution Network of electricity . This keeps the fat cats fat. Renewable Energy is fought at every turn because it hurts the fat cats of Centralized Distribution. Distributed Energies is old money networks maintaining the status quo at the expense of the citizens. Nukes are the worst manifestation of this greed at any cost. If that is personal, so be it, but I would view it as a financial analysis of why a problem persists. A really BIG problem, getting bigger.
Ah yes , of wise one. That is why Germany is 60% renewable. That would be Industrial Germany, the most prolific manufacturer in the EU. If it works in Germany the only thing that could prevent it working in the USA is conspiring to prevent it. Wake Sleeping Buddha. Smell the peas as they're in blossom.
Ah yes , of wise one. That is why Germany is 60% renewable. That would be Industrial Germany, the most prolific manufacturer in the EU. If it works in Germany the only thing that could prevent it working in the USA is conspiring to prevent it. Wake Sleeping Buddha. Smell the peas as they're in blossom.
Nonsense. Pickens was trying to corner the market and set up central distribution that all paid back to him. Obama just foolishly spent as PR. There has been a marked increase of off the grid living whether complete or partial. NONE of it relying upon nuclear. People outside the urban environment have gotten the clue that they can roll their own, heck my brother sells enough power back during the summer to pay for any grid usage during the long winter.
The model we should be seeking is appropriate local generation with the grid for backup. The problem becomes the urban centers where Obama's mind lives.
Hydro kicks nuclear's ass in every regard.
Hydro only works where there are water sources. You aren't going to see very many Dams on the open plains.
True, and that's why we use energy generation appropriate to the local environment. That'd be wind on the open plains. Something the government killed with the REA because they wanted us all to use centralized power. We are rich with hydro potential, large, small and micro, not to mention the ocean and our coastlines. Largely untapped. Take another look at micro hydro.
How about we don't generate any Nuclear waste.
Actually, there is one problem that ought to scare the bejesus out of us all. If there is an earthquake on the New Madrid fault line the size of the one that occurred in 1811-12, several nuclear power stations could end up with a Fukushima type event at the same time. If that happened, then a fairly large part of the central US could be rendered uninhabitible.
Fun fact: there is more uranium in the waste from a coal plant than there is in a nuclear plant. Which do you think is stored better?
As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.
Source
Not quite, you need to reread that scienticic american article.
In a manner of speaking. The Nuclear Industry is not bankable. IJt is completely subsidized by the taxpayers. The liability potential of disasters is and has been recognized as too great to make it a good investment. Ergo, all Nuclear Energy is gov't subsidized. The same monies should have gone into genuine renewable energy projects that would simultaneously mitigate Global Warming. The monies were derailed by Big Money lobbying, politicking, and MIC scheming to maintain the Centralized Distribution Network of electricity . This keeps the fat cats fat. Renewable Energy is fought at every turn because it hurts the fat cats of Centralized Distribution. Distributed Energies is old money networks maintaining the status quo at the expense of the citizens. Nukes are the worst manifestation of this greed at any cost. If that is personal, so be it, but I would view it as a financial analysis of why a problem persists. A really BIG problem, getting bigger.
To my uninformed ears, parts of your argument sound very tinfoil-hat. Do you have any grounds to base your statements or expertise upon which you base your conclusions? I know the military is not the best of examples, but we stick sailors in a metal tube hundreds of feet underwater with a nuclear generator. If they are willing to do that, why not use them on land where safety systems can be much more detailed and contain more redundancies? If the "waste" is almost entirely recyclable and the remaining can be stored with little-to-no impact on the environment, why not use the energy source to create jobs and cheaper energy - which can help sustain efforts to develop more alternative sources of energy?
Note: I say I am uninformed. For the most part that is true, but I have several friends who were nuclear engineers on submarines and in land-based power plants. Everyone I've ever met who worked around nuclear energy has told me they wouldn't be able to cause a worst-case scenario in the new facilities if they tried to.
The problem scenario is the accumulation of deadly waste, tons and tons and tons. I think there are 400 tons at Fukushima alone. The agents responsible for the permanent handling of this waste are CORPORATIONS. Corporations are a legal entity designed to minimize liability for the Corporations owners. They are in this business because they are making a large profit. When the profits stop, so do Corporations. They file bankruptcy. At that point the waste belongs to you, me, Grandma and the dog. Not to worry because the waste is only going to be really dangerous for half a million years or so. But, alas, no more profit, screw you, the waste is yours. Already, Japan is financing lots of cleanup at Fukushima. Nuclear Power is a welfare Industry. It is not bankable and it is not insurable. Potential liability confirmed by actuarial tables keep the insurance companies away and also keeps bankers away. Ergo, these Nukes are always built with "public" or taxpayer monies, but the taxpayers don't get the profit. The taxpayers will get the waste when the Corporate bankruptcy is filed. Standard Operating Procedure in the USA. Privatize (give to corporations) the profits and Socialize (baptize the taxpayer) the liabilities. You are watching this scenario everyday with the "too big to fail" banks. You cannot ruin the planet's water and air and not take responsibility for those actions. That is what all Nukes are about.
How many nuclear power companies have declared bankruptcy anyway?
Glad you asked.
Also there have been at least 3 MAJOR incidents in the past 100 years... How many more chances are there??
Only one resulting in fatalities.
How many people has air pollution from coal plants killed in that same period?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?