Anonymous wrote:OK, I'll give a 100% pass on all safety and disposal problems for nuclear. Done.

New nuclear is not happening because of a little thing called economics. It simply is not cost completive with other zero carbon alternatives.

Please name one actual zero carbon alternative?

OK, I'll give a 100% pass on all safety and disposal problems for nuclear. Done.

New nuclear is not happening because of a little thing called economics. It simply is not cost completive with other zero carbon alternatives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Unfortunately, it's the truth. The public has a lot of misconceptions about nuclear thanks to movies like The China Syndrome and Chernobyl.

What about TMI - that was not fictional.

TMI did not meltdown nor did anyone die as a result.

In fairness, there was some melting of the uranium fuel. Some radioactive steam was released. Studies on the impact are inconclusive. So it was so deadly they can't tell if it was deadly?

Repeating for those in the back:

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-facts-know-about-three-mile-island

Experts determined that the approximately 2 million people in the nearby area during the accident were exposed to small amounts of radiation. The estimated average radiation dose was about 1 millirem above the area’s natural background of about 100-125 millirem per year. To put this into further context, exposure from a chest X-ray is about 6 millirem. The accident’s exposure had no detectable health effects on the plant workers or surrounding public.

Fascinating facts for those anti nuclear power.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Unfortunately, it's the truth. The public has a lot of misconceptions about nuclear thanks to movies like The China Syndrome and Chernobyl.

What about TMI - that was not fictional.

TMI did not meltdown nor did anyone die as a result.

In fairness, there was some melting of the uranium fuel. Some radioactive steam was released. Studies on the impact are inconclusive. So it was so deadly they can't tell if it was deadly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems power is getting more expensive. Wind farms do so much damage to the bird populations, solar does to plus it takes up so much land. The waste from solar is going to be a huge problem when the panels reach their end of life.

I hope we will get out of collective heads about how clean nuclear truly is.

This Ted talk really addresses the topic and I agree whole heartedly.

Claiming it is clean energy is disingenuous. The waste produced is not clean and so far, we have not been able to ensure adequate storage for fifty years let alone the 300 the last poster claimed.

I have more hope in fusion.

Tell me how we are not now safely storing the waste from nuclear plants? Please provide examples.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Unfortunately, it's the truth. The public has a lot of misconceptions about nuclear thanks to movies like The China Syndrome and Chernobyl.

What about TMI - that was not fictional.

TMI did not meltdown nor did anyone die as a result.

Anonymous wrote:It seems power is getting more expensive. Wind farms do so much damage to the bird populations, solar does to plus it takes up so much land. The waste from solar is going to be a huge problem when the panels reach their end of life.

I hope we will get out of collective heads about how clean nuclear truly is.

This Ted talk really addresses the topic and I agree whole heartedly.

Claiming it is clean energy is disingenuous. The waste produced is not clean and so far, we have not been able to ensure adequate storage for fifty years let alone the 300 the last poster claimed.

I have more hope in fusion.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Unfortunately, it's the truth. The public has a lot of misconceptions about nuclear thanks to movies like The China Syndrome and Chernobyl.

What about TMI - that was not fictional.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public has a lot of misconceptions about nuclear thanks to movies like The China Syndrome and Chernobyl.

Like the fact that the fictional meltdown at the nuclear plant featured would have not gone through the earth to CHINA? I guess the Madagascar Syndrome didn’t do well with test audiences!

Or the fact that most of the type of fuel used in nuclear power plants are not radioactive for TEN THOUSAND YEARS. More like 300.

Yeah, people vastly overestimate the power in a reactor. In Chernobyl it was claimed that the reactor would destroy Kiev. Reactors aren't bombs. Explosions are always non-nuclear from steam or side products like hydrogen. Holding nuclear fuel together to make a bomb is quite difficult. Once the core started to melt it was going to loose its favorable configuration and stop any nuclear chain reaction.

https://www.livescience.com/65766-chernobyl-series-science-wrong.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corium_(nuclear_reactor)

Anonymous wrote:The public has a lot of misconceptions about nuclear thanks to movies like The China Syndrome and Chernobyl.

Like the fact that the fictional meltdown at the nuclear plant featured would have not gone through the earth to CHINA? I guess the Madagascar Syndrome didn’t do well with test audiences!

Or the fact that most of the type of fuel used in nuclear power plants are not radioactive for TEN THOUSAND YEARS. More like 300.

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?

Unfortunately, it's the truth. The public has a lot of misconceptions about nuclear thanks to movies like The China Syndrome and Chernobyl.

Bill Gates says we can use depleted uranium in plants that have whatever that technology is that uses all the waste that is just sitting there. It would mean building new plants with that tech, not sure about retro fitting the existing ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And yet California is set to take its last remaining nuclear plant offline within three years.

Well, generally speaking, California policy is a dumpster fire.

There is NO nuclear anything. Never was never will be.
Solar panels emit cancer causing fumes.
Wind turbines are for show and to kill birds.
In the coming years we will have Tesla wireless energy. FREE.
Clean food and water. FREE.
Med beds that can cure anything and regrow lost limbs and organs. FREE.
Age regression tech and tooth regrowth. Right from your phone. FREE.
We will eat plants that taste like meat and have the same protein. We will be lean and strong.
Trains that travel 2,500 miles per hour.
Jetson like cars.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And yet California is set to take its last remaining nuclear plant offline within three years.