Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs

  1. #21
    Educator partier9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    A town in a country, on a planet
    Last Seen
    05-23-13 @ 11:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    972

    Re: Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Actually can use the same rods for about 6 years (3 cycles of about 2 years) IIRC.

    I think the major holdup right now on Nuclear is the storage of the nuclear waste and the way it is transported and of course where the plant is located.
    Actually the transportation on train is very safe and the chance of a major problem is slim. Yucca Mt right now is the main problem for storage, persoanlly i think it will do a fine job of containing the waste. Though I have heard conflicting numbers as to how much of the nuclear waste Yucca can hold.
    If I had a billion dollars?

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs

    People die in coal mining disasters every year, or from chronic conditions caused by black lung. Oil rig damage causes leaks into the oceans, polluting people's livelihood.

    I know a nuclear meltdown would cause much bigger problems, but this is unlikely. People often cite Russia's ONE disaster without really understanding what happened. A lot has changed since then.

    Personally, I would like to see more of an investment in fusion research. So far we are 50 years away from a commercial reactor... I would like to see this time cut in half. Fusion is much safer than current nuclear fission systems, and the energy surpluses would solve human material inequities within a generation.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs

    Quote Originally Posted by partier9 View Post
    Actually the transportation on train is very safe and the chance of a major problem is slim.
    Problem is terrorist attacks I think is the main concern there since they said that it won't be train only but a combination of train and highway travel. Even if it was train only that is still a problem given a train takes almost a 1-2 miles to stop and is quite predictable. The highway travel is also notable given the many things that could happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by partier9 View Post
    Yucca Mt right now is the main problem for storage, persoanlly i think it will do a fine job of containing the waste. Though I have heard conflicting numbers as to how much of the nuclear waste Yucca can hold.
    From what I have heard from others is the main concern is how much it can hold and how safe it will be once it is sealed given the seismic activity in the area.

    Given the problems at stake I still think Nuclear is the way to go for power along with other renewable energy sources such as dams, solar, wind, etc.
    Last edited by TheNextEra; 04-25-09 at 11:17 PM.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    People die in coal mining disasters every year, or from chronic conditions caused by black lung. Oil rig damage causes leaks into the oceans, polluting people's livelihood.
    I think the problem comes not with the number of deaths but with the number of deaths due to incident. With a coal miners death the coal miner knows the dangers of the job and accepts it. Civilians that could die to a nuclear power plant accident do not sign such a statement.

    I had an uncle die to a coal mining death so I agree with what you said.

    However, I think the fear is the fact of the number of deaths due to a nuclear power plant accident is known more simply because 100% of the residents do not sign such a statement of liability due to accident as coal miners do.

    IMO it is much like the plane crash scenario. More people die due to highway accidents than to airline accidents, but since the percentage rate of fatality rate of airline accidents is much greater than the percentage of fatality rate of highway accidents, people play that the fatalities of airlines are much worse.

  5. #25
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Initial investment is high due to many things.
    Virtually none of it environmental.

    Over all long term construction (three years to build a GIII plant) assuming all goes well.
    Which it never does as history shows.

    The ROI for Nuclear power is longer then an oil or coal plant, but the long term operation is financially secure.
    Perhaps, but the private sector has long disagreed with your bullish attitude on nuclear.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #26
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,751

    Re: Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs

    In less than 50 years, this debate will be pointless, as fusion power enters center stage. The first step in development is the creation of a tokomak, which is the magnetic field that is able to hold the hydrogen. We are almost there on that.

    Until fusion becomes a reality, we can live with controlled fission power. Sure, there will be dangerous byproducts, but that is just temporary. Today's nuclear power will blend perfectly with solar and wind power.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  7. #27
    Guru

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:03 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,469

    Re: Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Virtually none of it environmental.



    Which it never does as history shows.



    Perhaps, but the private sector has long disagreed with your bullish attitude on nuclear.
    Why would anyone in their right mind invest in nuclear when the rules could change every time the Congress or the President does?

    .

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •