Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Second there have been major accidents with nuclear power plants. These plants are large and complex facilities. Over time there will always be accidents and natural disasters.

There have been three in 50 years.

How many people died from those three?

From peer reviewed studies…65 is estimated.

TMI … 0
Chernobyl … 65
Fukushima … 0

There is more naturally occurring radiation from the earth (radon) and from our own star that is far more dangerous.

Those storage casks are far more safe and haven’t killed anyone.

Yet we have increased our energy costs because of solar and wind without the gains we have been promised.

One can look at Germany for those numbers.

Golly, can you imagine saying this with a straight face?

Easily. That is based on actual facts. Not on COULDS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Second there have been major accidents with nuclear power plants. These plants are large and complex facilities. Over time there will always be accidents and natural disasters.

There have been three in 50 years.

How many people died from those three?

From peer reviewed studies…65 is estimated.

TMI … 0
Chernobyl … 65
Fukushima … 0

There is more naturally occurring radiation from the earth (radon) and from our own star that is far more dangerous.

Those storage casks are far more safe and haven’t killed anyone.

Yet we have increased our energy costs because of solar and wind without the gains we have been promised.

One can look at Germany for those numbers.

Golly, can you imagine saying this with a straight face?

Anonymous wrote:We already depend on nuclear energy. There are four nuclear power plants in VA alone.

That's intriguing. Looks like VA gets 32% of its power from nuclear plants. Apparently, all humming along just fine.

We already depend on nuclear energy. There are four nuclear power plants in VA alone.

Anonymous wrote:What does France or other nuclear heavy countries do with their nuclear waste?

They store it in casks like the rest of the world. They also have lower energy costs because of their reliance on nuclear.

Someone mentioned how huge and complex nuclear power plants are. Has anyone looked at the acreage taken up by solar farms?

rad waste disposal is not a technical issue. rather a political one

What does France or other nuclear heavy countries do with their nuclear waste?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Second there have been major accidents with nuclear power plants. These plants are large and complex facilities. Over time there will always be accidents and natural disasters.

There have been three in 50 years.

How many people died from those three?

From peer reviewed studies…65 is estimated.

TMI … 0
Chernobyl … 65
Fukushima … 0

There is more naturally occurring radiation from the earth (radon) and from our own star that is far more dangerous.

Those storage casks are far more safe and haven’t killed anyone.

Yet we have increased our energy costs because of solar and wind without the gains we have been promised.

One can look at Germany for those numbers.

Fukushima had 1 death.

Missed that one four years later.

7 million will die from pollution this year. Nuclear even with the waste is far safer.

I’m in oil and gas and think nuclear is the best, followed by natural gas. Wind and solar are very expensive and have problems balancing the load.

Actually hydroelectric is the best, but dam it, we can’t build any more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Second there have been major accidents with nuclear power plants. These plants are large and complex facilities. Over time there will always be accidents and natural disasters.

There have been three in 50 years.

How many people died from those three?

From peer reviewed studies…65 is estimated.

TMI … 0
Chernobyl … 65
Fukushima … 0

There is more naturally occurring radiation from the earth (radon) and from our own star that is far more dangerous.

Those storage casks are far more safe and haven’t killed anyone.

Yet we have increased our energy costs because of solar and wind without the gains we have been promised.

One can look at Germany for those numbers.

Fukushima had 1 death.

Anonymous wrote:

Second there have been major accidents with nuclear power plants. These plants are large and complex facilities. Over time there will always be accidents and natural disasters.

There have been three in 50 years.

How many people died from those three?

From peer reviewed studies…65 is estimated.

TMI … 0
Chernobyl … 65
Fukushima … 0

There is more naturally occurring radiation from the earth (radon) and from our own star that is far more dangerous.

Those storage casks are far more safe and haven’t killed anyone.

Yet we have increased our energy costs because of solar and wind without the gains we have been promised.

One can look at Germany for those numbers.

Anonymous wrote:Never. The problem with nuclear is that it “only” provides clean energy. The greens want to force a restructuring of society to address other priorities and plentiful energy is an obstacle. Same reason the greens loved natural gas over coal until it turned out we had enough natural gas via fracking, which then had to be stopped.

I bet you believe the moon landings were faked, too.

Nuclear power has two major problems. First is the waste. There is no easy answer to this. All of the waste is store on site. Reprocessing is very expensive and not as efficient as people say. Burning still leave radio waste. Building a storage facility to hold waste has to have a life of 10,000 years. It is impossible to build a facility that will last that long.

Second there have been major accidents with nuclear power plants. These plants are large and complex facilities. Over time there will always be accidents and natural disasters.

People who say this is clear no problem source of power do not know what they are saying.

Pollution from coal and natural gas plants is so much worse for the environment than spent fuel rods. The amount of deaths from nuclear is so infinitesimal than from coal or nuclear gas.

We are nowhere the battery storage capacity needed for solar and wind which makes nuclear far more appealing.

With the profess being made on plants which can use spent rods is promising. The amount of waste from nuclear plants is far less than you can imagine. It can and is being safely stored.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuclear power has one huge unsolved problem - what to do with nuclear waste.

Any moron who pretends that nuclear power is "clean" is lying through their teeth.

Please educate yourself about nuclear waste before brainlessly repeating political talking points.

ALL power generation has disadvantages. Solar, wind and water energy all have issues. But none as potentially toxic and life-threatening as nuclear waste disposal.

NP. I'm a nuclear engineer. Could you please help educate me on the issue of nuclear waste and why long term storage is so life threatening? I'm afraid that all I've learned has been nothing but political talking points.

Exactly. You don't care about nuclear waste. My friend is married to a nuclear plant director. He doesn't care about waste disposal either. You're a fool if you think radioactive waste is something you can contain forever. As I said before, NO energy production is completely clean (until we can do Dyson spheres). But nuclear waste is several degrees of magnitude worse for the earth in the long-term than solar batteries, etc.