- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 12,316
- Reaction score
- 3,220
- Location
- Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
We humans cracked the atom sometime in the early 1940's; built the first nuclear power plant anywhere on the planet in 1954 in the USSR. The US currently has 104 nuclear power plants.
Nuclear Energy Institute - U.S. Nuclear Power Plants
I can't believe I'm asking this, but I am. I'd rather have another one in my county than to have fraking for natural gas going on, or coal mining, or that benighted Keystone Pipeline.
What say you? Could we achieve energy independence via building more nuclear power plants, and if so, would you be willing to do so?
I'm against it. I don't believe we've fully exploited our hydro resources, nor are we close to where transmission isn't a major stumbling block for us. Even leaving improvements in the techs out of the picture for now, with current tech, we could generate a whole lot more from hydro.
They are building another nuke plant within 20 miles of where I sit, along with the existing three-within-100-miles I already have.
of course; i'm not against nuclear power at all. i'd like to see us explore thorium technology, also.
it's my guess that nuclear will be a stopgap solution, though. as important as domestic energy innovation is becoming in the 21st century, i'd be surprised if nuclear is the best we can do long term.
I lived about 15 miles away from one in the UK for a while & the only scare they ever had was when they got a report of a suspected Al-Qaeda bomber heading towards the plant, along a rail line, carrying a bomb.
Of course there was a massive security turn out, we had every shade of alphabet agency running around with guns before they eventually found the suspect who turned out to be a drunk Greek waiter, taking a short cut home, & the bomb was a parcel of meat he was taking home as a peace offering to his wife for his drunken state and his late arrival home.
My neighbor at the time was a saftey executive at the plant & he said a bomb wouldnt have done anything anyway as it doesnt work that way.
Anyway, the fact that the saftey executive chose to live within 15 miles of the plant always told me he was fairly confident about the plants saftey & he's the expert so I was happy to go with his opinion.
I see a lot of promising solar power technologies under development... it is my hope that within the next 10-20 years these will being the currently-prohibitive startup costs down and change the alt-energy equation dramatically.
Until then.... build those nuke plants.
Well, there is danger, and it's not just terrorism. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the nuclear power plants that released radiation in Japan after the tsunami.
Thing is, in the 1970's, I never have been willing to believe we'd be successful at managing those risks -- and now I think we may well be. Certainly better than we're managing the risks associated with fossil fuels.
Every major waterway in the US already has a hydro plant, clownboy.
I'm not sure (and doubtless, that's my fault) what you're suggesting?
I see a lot of promising solar power technologies under development... it is my hope that within the next 10-20 years these will being the currently-prohibitive startup costs down and change the alt-energy equation dramatically.
Until then.... build those nuke plants.
Apples and Oranges.....
Nukes make electricity, and we have lots of other ways of making electricity, some are 24/7, other are only when the wind blows and the sun shines...
Regardless, our big problem is transportation fuels and no amount of nuclear, or other, sourced electricity will replace gasoline and diesel fuels for power density and long range....
If only WE could make oil in the quantities needed and at a reasonable expense, but WE can't. Mother nature has the patent, and the monopoly, on oil....
Every nuclear screwup has been caused, in part if not in full, by stupid humans.....there should be ZERO tolerance for the kind of stupidity that was displayed at all 3 of the screw-ups that we like to bring up in this kind of debate....Yeah, I remember Three mile island & Chernobyl & certainly after Three mile island there were some very genuine & serious safety concerns at all such plants but we've moved on a long way since then.
At the time I was quite negative about such power stations, & was for a while afterwards, I had quite a few heated debates with friends who were a lot more pro on the subject but I do believe that with what we know now, & with the serious safety advances we've made that if these plants are correctly constructed, & in the right places, they really are much more of a viable option now.
O, true, but if electricity were significantly cheaper, electric cars would be far more appealing to the average consumer.
I find it hard to believe we're stuck with the internal combustion engine in perpetuity.
After Fukishima? Not really.
But if they must to keep power costs reasonable, I don't want to live anywhere near the things.
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?