why dont we build 100 new atomic powerplants?

and run electric grid from them


then run electric traisn on grid


allow private union free lectric train transport

 

That is exactly what we need to do. No CO2 no acid rain.

 

Who pays for them? Most private companies can't afford to build nuclear power plants with the regulations in place mandating safety features.

 

In a word, Fear. Very few people know the designs, risks, and safeguards of modern nuclear power. Most people only know the spectacular headlines of safety lapses or design failures. It is very easy to scare the public with the word "if" no matter how unlikely the occurrence.

When I was an engineering student, one of my professors spearheaded an effort to kill a nuclear power plant planned for the area. When I talked to him about it, I pointed out that many of the arguments he was using made no sense and he was one of the people who taught us better and since he own a significant amount of land near the proposed plant and would surely make a fortune if it were built. He agreed and asked if I remembered where he had worked before turning to teaching. I replied sure, Head of Research at Standard Oil. He said. " Then you should know that I moved down here, ( Oklahoma ), to get away from industry and pollution. If that plant is built, the cheap electricity will draw industry from all over the country and this whole area will see a boom in growth. That's the last thing I want."

It is always easier to scare people than to inform the of the truth.

 

the number one fear is that a corporation would put profits above safety...

 

Profits above safety? That doesn't happen, does it? ROFL!!!

You're absolutely correct, of course.

 

Nuclear is a dying industry. No one is taking up nuclear science in college anymore, so no one knows anything about how to run the energy plants. And, for those who still know how, they are taking huge risks with public safety by cutting corners and pinching pennies to make a profit.

I think this is next-to-the-last generation that will have power from nuclear sources. Most likely the existing nuclear plants will run until retirement then slowly be taken offline and replaced with biomass, solar or wind farms. No new Nuclear plants will be built.

 

Fukushima proved nuclear power cannot be left in the hands of men...they'lll find some way to frack it up.

 

Oh yes. Because we all know that they are going to take short-cuts in order to maximize profits, and put at risk an investment of over $10 billion dollars, just to save a few thousand.

 

Oh yes, so right. Nobody is studying this anymore, nobody uses nuclear power, and nobody knows how to run nuclear power plants.

http://engineering.mit.edu/education/graduate/nse.php

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankings.../top-science-schools/nuclear-science-rankings

http://www.navy.com/careers/nuclear-energy.html

The US Navy operates more nuclear plants than any other organization in the world, and has a pretty good record for safety with them. Even one of our Presidents has a degree in Nuclear Physics and Nuclear Plant operations.

 

Wind turbines can easily handle America's energy needs with a phased, 15 year plan. Of course nationalizing energy would be step #1. But since no one gets filthy rich from doing it, it does not get done.

 

Fixed.

Fixed.

 

They build them on fault lines, in flood zones, in tsunami zones in hurricane zones, etc.

As I said, man is too stoopid to handle nuclear power, which if mishandled can be a catastrophe for a hundred years or more...as they're learning in Japan.

It's been two years now and they still haven't figured out how to stop emitting ungodly amounts of radiation into their atmosphere..which get's into the wind and travels hundreds of miles, and gets in the rain which then ends up everywhere particularly the ground which ends up in their food or on their sidewalks which then gets tracked into their homes, nor have they figured out how to stop radiating the ground water which has dumped millions of gallons of radiated water into the ocean and continues to do so to this day.

And that's just the beginning.

 

Environmentalists are too busy pretending the world won't get energy from a dirtier source. It takes longer to build a nuclear power plant today then it did in the 50s. That is crazy, but that is government for you.

 

As Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrate, we still haven't gotten all of the bugs out of the technology or the people who operate it, so disaster is just one arrogant or slovenly SOB away.

Meanwhile, the world demand for uranium is killing the Tuareg and the Wodabe.

 

As the gulf oil spill, coal mining collapses, etc.,. have shown, it is safer then the alternative. Go fishing in lakes within miles of a coal plant? You can next door to a nuclear power plant. Perfectly safe, any water leaving the plant is tested to be cleaner the rain water.

We have nuclear material in Alaska but environmentalist fight the mining of that too if course.

 

Heck, I know a lot of fishermen that actually prefer to fish near the outlet of a nuclear plant.

Generally the water exiting the plant is warmer then the natural water, and the fish flock to and thrive there.

 

That is exactly the case here. Large pods of lagoon dolphins visit the place daily and their numbers keep going up. No side effects detected by FWC.

 

In the US maybe, but China is building plants like mad. If someone decides to build one in the US, you can bet there would be 10 years of lawsuits to stop it before ground is ever broken because of an unholy alliance between environmentalists, big oil, and big coal. That said, we should build as many as we can. There is no reason not to. The plants we have are woefully dated.

 

This is not a counter argument to this nuclear power, because I think it is the most efficient energy we can use.

But how do you purpose we keep natural disasters away from these plants? A natural disaster can occur any where at anytime. So how do you purpose we protect these power plants from Tornados/Earthquakes/Hurricanes/Wildfires? I think the United States in any case finds the risk of building a nuclear power plant and having any number of things that can happen/go wrong is to great of a risk.

I don't agree, but I see the concern.

 

There are zero emissions as long as everyone does his job correctly, But just let the regulators get a little too lenient, you can expect a bloody catastrophe from which the world might not recover. We still do not know how badly Fukushima is going to impact the marine environment away from Japan.

 

Have they perfected the mining techniques so that zero runoff from the mines will enter the water table and streams, and the pits will not disrupt water tables?

If no, then they need to leave the stuff there right now until they can guarantee that the salmon won't glow.

 

Actually, I can't remember seeing any kind of "conspiracy" with oil and coal companies to prevent the building of nuclear power plants. And a lot of the larger coal production plants are built near coal seams, and dig their own cole without any involvement from "big coal" at all. I would love to hear about some examples of lawsuits by oil and coal companies suing planned nuclear power plants.

 

The Fukishima plant was a very old design. In fact, there had already been talk about putting it out of commission and replacing it with a safer design even before the tsunami, but apparently no one had ever gotten around to doing that.

The safety designers of the Fukishima plant never anticipated a flood, although they should have. The flood of water caused by the tsunami short-circuited the emergency generators.

 

How bout we get more physicists working on nuclear fusion? That is the solution to our problems - and it's perfectly possible, we just need the tech.

Until then, Fission plants all the way.

Environmentalists are another reason I'm no longer left-wing.