• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

Are You Interested In More Nuclear Power?


  • Total voters
    101
You are only taking in EVs as a replacement for gasoline. You are leaving out hydrogen and bio-fuels. EVs are dependent upon battery technologies which have yet to reach a practical usage level.

EVs are a future technology, not truly an existing one. I do not know the current state of nuclear batteries, if it is developed enough, then we might be able to produce practical use EVs now.

I see great promise in algeal bio-fuel. It could be very handy in providing fuel for long haul trucks and commercial airlines. They need to get the cost down, but I expect that will happen as they expand operations. For commuter vehicles, EVs are indeed practical. The Nissan Leaf, for instance, has a 100 mile range. Easily enough to get to work and back with a stop for groceries and a nip at the pub. Fuel it up at home while you sleep, and you're fully charged for the next day. And this costs 70% less for 100 miles over a conventional ICE car. That's plenty practical.

Hydrogen has lots of problems. The fuel cells are currently ridiculously expensive, making EV batteries look positively thrifty. The best way to get hydrogen is from natural gas, but then that begs the point, why not just burn the natural gas and avoid an extra step? Storing hydrogen is also very difficult and expensive. The molecules are so small they can seep through most containers. Stopping that requires very expensive containers and then you still need to crack it out of NG or water. This is an energy expensive process. You need electricity for this. Why not just use the electricity directly?
 
The question, while raising the important issue of nuclear power, is a non-starter because it is not possible to become energy independent. We currently consume about 20% of the world's daily produced oil, more than any other nation. While it is true that we've experienced a recent bump in domestic production, our oil production has steadily declined after peaking in 1970. Many people aren't aware of the fact that the US was the "Saudi Arabia" of the world in terms of oil production for a century, until we peaked in the '70s. Since then, our oil production has declined, obviously not because demand has declined, but because supply has declined. The oil that was there is gone, so we're scrapping to find it elsewhere domestically, finding that despite our rapid extraction technologies, we've been unable to match the production levels afforded by the sheer volume of crude once available.

The U.S. consumes more energy in the form of oil than any other source. So even if we were to convert all electricity production to nuclear, we'd still have our #1 consumption source to deal with. Because of the recent production bump, we now produce 55% of our consumed oil domestically. That's a positive gain, but only a bump in a 40+ year trend of decline. If, however unlikely, we were able to boost our production almost two-fold, and thus become oil-independent, it would only afford us a few years before we saw a sharp decline in domestic oil production because the ability to extract oil faster might mean higher production in the short term, but it spells lower reserves in the long run, as they are spent faster.

The idea that oil is everlasting is romantic, but, as every petroleum engineer knows, a farce. Just as U.S. supplies peaked in the '70s and dozens of countries have experienced recent declines, world production will peak at some point, by some measures as early as 2015. That will mean declining supply, rising prices, and havok on economies across the world.

Source: Home - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy - Energy Information Administration
 
The question, while raising the important issue of nuclear power, is a non-starter because it is not possible to become energy independent. We currently consume about 20% of the world's daily produced oil, more than any other nation. While it is true that we've experienced a recent bump in domestic production, our oil production has steadily declined after peaking in 1970. Many people aren't aware of the fact that the US was the "Saudi Arabia" of the world in terms of oil production for a century, until we peaked in the '70s. Since then, our oil production has declined, obviously not because demand has declined, but because supply has declined. The oil that was there is gone, so we're scrapping to find it elsewhere domestically, finding that despite our rapid extraction technologies, we've been unable to match the production levels afforded by the sheer volume of crude once available.

The U.S. consumes more energy in the form of oil than any other source. So even if we were to convert all electricity production to nuclear, we'd still have our #1 consumption source to deal with. Because of the recent production bump, we now produce 55% of our consumed oil domestically. That's a positive gain, but only a bump in a 40+ year trend of decline. If, however unlikely, we were able to boost our production almost two-fold, and thus become oil-independent, it would only afford us a few years before we saw a sharp decline in domestic oil production because the ability to extract oil faster might mean higher production in the short term, but it spells lower reserves in the long run, as they are spent faster.

The idea that oil is everlasting is romantic, but, as every petroleum engineer knows, a farce. Just as U.S. supplies peaked in the '70s and dozens of countries have experienced recent declines, world production will peak at some point, by some measures as early as 2015. That will mean declining supply, rising prices, and havok on economies across the world.

Source: Home - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy - Energy Information Administration

I think energy independence is possible. The means to do so requires cutting out our great thirst of oil for transportation. This can be accomplished by the production of electric vehicles (EVs). 71% of our oil use is in transportation. Most of that is consumed in personal cars. Replace these with EVs, and later as the tech develops, long haul trucks (or perhaps NG versions), and you've got the problem licked. Domestic supply would be enough to support us.
 
I think energy independence is possible. The means to do so requires cutting out our great thirst of oil for transportation. This can be accomplished by the production of electric vehicles (EVs). 71% of our oil use is in transportation. Most of that is consumed in personal cars. Replace these with EVs, and later as the tech develops, long haul trucks (or perhaps NG versions), and you've got the problem licked. Domestic supply would be enough to support us.

Perhaps one day for now we are not even close to having EV's replace IC engines. A more feasible/immediately possible solution is biodesiel. For some reason Americans seem to be reluctant to use diesel engines. Of course it would also have an impact on food prices(everything has advantages/disadvantages), but unlike gasahol it is a viable alternative.
 
Perhaps one day for now we are not even close to having EV's replace IC engines. A more feasible/immediately possible solution is biodesiel. For some reason Americans seem to be reluctant to use diesel engines. Of course it would also have an impact on food prices(everything has advantages/disadvantages), but unlike gasahol it is a viable alternative.

Even if EVs outclassed ICEs in every regard now (they don't, yet), it would still take a long time. If we consider that we average two cars for every person (don't know if this is true), that would mean 600 million cars would need to be replaced. And not everybody is in a position to change their car that easily. And this change should happen voluntarily. But EVs require different operation, and some people aren't so willing to change their habits. With all this in mind, changing over to EVs or even hybrids will take a long time. Decades, probably. But then again, the journey of 1000 miles begins with one step.

And I do like bio-diesel too, provided that it's something like algae-fuel. I don't care for ethanol. That was a poor idea that's too energy intensive for the amount of return. On the other hand, algae fuel has been successfully tested in airliners. And there's a Navy carrier battlegroup operating now that uses algae fuel after successful testing. The price is still high, but is expected to come down in price, even below current oil costs, to produce. Diesel cars running on American-made algae fuel would totally work for me, and effectively show OPEC the door.
 
Even if EVs outclassed ICEs in every regard now (they don't, yet), it would still take a long time. If we consider that we average two cars for every person (don't know if this is true), that would mean 600 million cars would need to be replaced. And not everybody is in a position to change their car that easily. And this change should happen voluntarily. But EVs require different operation, and some people aren't so willing to change their habits. With all this in mind, changing over to EVs or even hybrids will take a long time. Decades, probably. But then again, the journey of 1000 miles begins with one step.

And I do like bio-diesel too, provided that it's something like algae-fuel. I don't care for ethanol. That was a poor idea that's too energy intensive for the amount of return. On the other hand, algae fuel has been successfully tested in airliners. And there's a Navy carrier battlegroup operating now that uses algae fuel after successful testing. The price is still high, but is expected to come down in price, even below current oil costs, to produce. Diesel cars running on American-made algae fuel would totally work for me, and effectively show OPEC the door.

Ethanol is not a diesel fuel it is more like a low grade gasoline Biodiesel is diesel, inherently more efficient from the start, Ev's are very very very far away from becomign practible and hybrids are a complete waste untill the battery tech gets there, and when it does they still are as pure Ev's will be so much better.
Biggest problem with hybrids is they have a very limited lifespan compared with IC cars. Once the battery is gone no one is gonna pay the 5-8k$ to fix a car that is between 5-10 years old.
 
Ethanol is not a diesel fuel it is more like a low grade gasoline Biodiesel is diesel, inherently more efficient from the start, Ev's are very very very far away from becomign practible and hybrids are a complete waste untill the battery tech gets there, and when it does they still are as pure Ev's will be so much better.
Biggest problem with hybrids is they have a very limited lifespan compared with IC cars. Once the battery is gone no one is gonna pay the 5-8k$ to fix a car that is between 5-10 years old.

Au Contraire! EVs are perfectly practical when used appropriately. For short range driving (commuting, groceries, in-city errands), EVs are not only practical, they're better. ICEs are better for long range driving. So it's not uncommon for a family to have two or more cars. One can be an EV which is used for the most common driving needs like getting to work. Vacations or camping trips would be where the ICE (SUV?) would be the car of choice. An EV should be considered like a screwdriver. Just because it's a lousy hammer, doesn't mean it has no practical use.
 
Au Contraire! EVs are perfectly practical when used appropriately. For short range driving (commuting, groceries, in-city errands), EVs are not only practical, they're better. ICEs are better for long range driving. So it's not uncommon for a family to have two or more cars. One can be an EV which is used for the most common driving needs like getting to work. Vacations or camping trips would be where the ICE (SUV?) would be the car of choice. An EV should be considered like a screwdriver. Just because it's a lousy hammer, doesn't mean it has no practical use.

the problem with current EVs is the upfront cost. most working class folks simply can't afford them
 
Au Contraire! EVs are perfectly practical when used appropriately. For short range driving (commuting, groceries, in-city errands), EVs are not only practical, they're better. ICEs are better for long range driving. So it's not uncommon for a family to have two or more cars. One can be an EV which is used for the most common driving needs like getting to work. Vacations or camping trips would be where the ICE (SUV?) would be the car of choice. An EV should be considered like a screwdriver. Just because it's a lousy hammer, doesn't mean it has no practical use.

I am thinking along the lines of transports Ie trucks, EV's arent there yet. But even when talking of 2 car families the cost of EV's combined with their lack of versatility make them kinda pointless ATM. If you live in a major city and never venture outside it an EV can be practicle but then public transport will do the same for much less cost (IC engines cost wise are also better still, perhaps in future will be different but not yet)
I am one of the 2 car families you talk of. 1 car gets tons of mileage the other almost none. We looked at hybrids/EVs for the low milage vehicule but it made no sense it would cost way too much and we would lose the ability to ever use it for longer hauls if need be. You need to do A LOT of mileage to have an EV come anywhere near breaking even to an IC engine but then they dont have the range/easy refill (a charge even on quick charge is glacial compared to filling a tank with gas) Plus resale value/cost of having to replace the batteries made it pointless. The low mileage vehicule will probably last 15 years barring accidents (based on our previous vehicular use) No way we could keep an EV that long the batteries just wont last and the cost of replacement is way to high.

Like I said maybe one day they will become practicle but for now they are special use vehicules, that can only fill a very small % of the need.
 
I am thinking along the lines of transports Ie trucks, EV's arent there yet. But even when talking of 2 car families the cost of EV's combined with their lack of versatility make them kinda pointless ATM. If you live in a major city and never venture outside it an EV can be practicle but then public transport will do the same for much less cost (IC engines cost wise are also better still, perhaps in future will be different but not yet)
I am one of the 2 car families you talk of. 1 car gets tons of mileage the other almost none. We looked at hybrids/EVs for the low milage vehicule but it made no sense it would cost way too much and we would lose the ability to ever use it for longer hauls if need be. You need to do A LOT of mileage to have an EV come anywhere near breaking even to an IC engine but then they dont have the range/easy refill (a charge even on quick charge is glacial compared to filling a tank with gas) Plus resale value/cost of having to replace the batteries made it pointless. The low mileage vehicule will probably last 15 years barring accidents (based on our previous vehicular use) No way we could keep an EV that long the batteries just wont last and the cost of replacement is way to high.

Like I said maybe one day they will become practicle but for now they are special use vehicules, that can only fill a very small % of the need.

Certainly, the price is a bit steep for Americans who are seriously budget-conscious. I don't own an EV and couldn't possibly afford one right now. Then again, I've never owned a new car in my life. But I can see a market for them. EVs aren't only a budget car, but a new technological and economic paradigm. People who can afford an EV and do so are contributing to national energy security. Not all of us are in a position to contribute in this manner, and no one should feel bad if we can't. Those who are early adopters, whatever their reasons are, are making it possible for the costs (initial and battery replacement) to come down. That means that those of us who cannot afford now will be able to, later. The technology of the Audi A6 ICE means it's initial price is far too high for me, and maintenance costs would flat out kill me. That doesn't mean it's an impractical car or a bad car. It's a great car for those that can afford it for reasons of their own. The technology of the A6 will one day trickle down to be common enough and affordable enough for me to own it. And that's only because enough people, well off enough, bought the technology and made it worth mass manufacturing.
 
Certainly, the price is a bit steep for Americans who are seriously budget-conscious. I don't own an EV and couldn't possibly afford one right now. Then again, I've never owned a new car in my life. But I can see a market for them. EVs aren't only a budget car, but a new technological and economic paradigm. People who can afford an EV and do so are contributing to national energy security. Not all of us are in a position to contribute in this manner, and no one should feel bad if we can't. Those who are early adopters, whatever their reasons are, are making it possible for the costs (initial and battery replacement) to come down. That means that those of us who cannot afford now will be able to, later. The technology of the Audi A6 ICE means it's initial price is far too high for me, and maintenance costs would flat out kill me. That doesn't mean it's an impractical car or a bad car. It's a great car for those that can afford it for reasons of their own. The technology of the A6 will one day trickle down to be common enough and affordable enough for me to own it. And that's only because enough people, well off enough, bought the technology and made it worth mass manufacturing.

Yeah I got no problems with that, Only your assesment of the A6, it is technology that exists and works now. The Ev vehicules unless there is some major breakthrough can only be for a small segment of the market. They are ATM impraticle for the majority of people (even if costs come down to parity with ICE cars, they remain impracticle for most usues)
We are still stuck with limited range that can only be overcome by larger cars to house more batteries, or some new development in battery tech (so far it has been going more and more to exotic materials increasing not decreasing prices, even if we could solve this it would have to be made out of readily available materials or easily synthesizable ones (so far neither case seems to be close to true) or the prices will never come down.
We are then faced with the long recharge rate that will also affect practicality, again there may be breakthroughs in this, either very fast recharge rates or some sort of quick battery changing system where you swap out the batteries for precharged ones, or maybe something copletely different. who knows.
Point is EV's are not and will not be practicle for the majority any time soon. biodeisel can be placed in production right away and is just as practicle as a gasoline vehicule, minus the reliance on foreign oil.

I am not anti-EV I just realize we are not even close to being able to go down that route with any significant portion of your motorized vehicules.
 
I agree that it is physically possible, but if you take into account
Political and economic forces, I don't see it happening.
 
Yeah I got no problems with that, Only your assesment of the A6, it is technology that exists and works now. The Ev vehicules unless there is some major breakthrough can only be for a small segment of the market. They are ATM impraticle for the majority of people (even if costs come down to parity with ICE cars, they remain impracticle for most usues)
We are still stuck with limited range that can only be overcome by larger cars to house more batteries, or some new development in battery tech (so far it has been going more and more to exotic materials increasing not decreasing prices, even if we could solve this it would have to be made out of readily available materials or easily synthesizable ones (so far neither case seems to be close to true) or the prices will never come down.
We are then faced with the long recharge rate that will also affect practicality, again there may be breakthroughs in this, either very fast recharge rates or some sort of quick battery changing system where you swap out the batteries for precharged ones, or maybe something copletely different. who knows.
Point is EV's are not and will not be practicle for the majority any time soon. biodeisel can be placed in production right away and is just as practicle as a gasoline vehicule, minus the reliance on foreign oil.

I am not anti-EV I just realize we are not even close to being able to go down that route with any significant portion of your motorized vehicules.

The recharge rate and the range are not factor if you are using EVs for short range trips from home. You can easily recharge at night while you sleep, so used this way, the recharge rate is not a factor. If you aren't driving more than 80 miles to work and back, then range is not a factor. The bulk of the US population lives in metro areas and here the EV is perfectly practical. Those that must drive a lot, need not buy EVs because they wouldn't work for them. I used to live in Odessa, TX where most of my neighbors worked in the oil fields, driving hundreds of miles each day. An EV, as they are now, would be no good for them so I would never press them to get one. But corporate office workers who maybe drive 10 miles in a day? Yeah, they should consider one. What "practical" means for one person is not the same for another. If a car gets me from point A to point B safely and reliably, then I would call that car "practical." Given the right conditions, EVs are "practical."

And I'm not sure what you mean by "any time soon." I think that EVs will not dominate the new car market for 10 - 30 years. For some that's a long time, for others that's a short time, depending on perspective. I think I will be old and gray by the time EVs have the lion's share of the market. That doesn't matter, just so long as we move in that direction. I think oil will become a major problem in about 30 years. I have no hard data to prove that, I just think so from what I read and see. So long as the market in general is pushing EVs with the quick turnover that only R&D shops of major car makers can do, then we'll be in the catbird's seat when and if the excrement hits the rotary impeller. And that means pushing EVs now so that useful and practical development is in place to move fast, later. You and I may not be able to practically own an EV now, I just hope that those who can, do.
 
The recharge rate and the range are not factor if you are using EVs for short range trips from home. You can easily recharge at night while you sleep, so used this way, the recharge rate is not a factor. If you aren't driving more than 80 miles to work and back, then range is not a factor. The bulk of the US population lives in metro areas and here the EV is perfectly practical. Those that must drive a lot, need not buy EVs because they wouldn't work for them. I used to live in Odessa, TX where most of my neighbors worked in the oil fields, driving hundreds of miles each day. An EV, as they are now, would be no good for them so I would never press them to get one. But corporate office workers who maybe drive 10 miles in a day? Yeah, they should consider one. What "practical" means for one person is not the same for another. If a car gets me from point A to point B safely and reliably, then I would call that car "practical." Given the right conditions, EVs are "practical."

And I'm not sure what you mean by "any time soon." I think that EVs will not dominate the new car market for 10 - 30 years. For some that's a long time, for others that's a short time, depending on perspective. I think I will be old and gray by the time EVs have the lion's share of the market. That doesn't matter, just so long as we move in that direction. I think oil will become a major problem in about 30 years. I have no hard data to prove that, I just think so from what I read and see. So long as the market in general is pushing EVs with the quick turnover that only R&D shops of major car makers can do, then we'll be in the catbird's seat when and if the excrement hits the rotary impeller. And that means pushing EVs now so that useful and practical development is in place to move fast, later. You and I may not be able to practically own an EV now, I just hope that those who can, do.

Yes if all you ever do is go short distance to work, But then you can buy a ICE car that can do that at far cheaper cost AND have the flexibility to use it to go on trips etc. I know of no one who would spend more on a vehicule that is less flexible, I am sure there are people who will do that but they are in the minority. The advantage of cheaper recharge vs MPG is lessened if you drive less, so economically there is no incentive. Like I said we looked for my wifes car and it just made no sense to buy a vehicule that is basically forced to stay in the city and will become an expensive paperweight when the batteries need to be changed.
I do not consider a very expensive vehicule to get very little use to be practicle. Useable maybe but it doesnt fit my idea of practicle.

I really dont see EV's gaining any significant share of the marketplace untill there is some quantum leap in battery technology, so far it has all been incremental
What we need is:
Increased energy density (ie better range out of smaller batteries)
Quick recharge rates (or some kind of battery switching or some other means of quickly getting moving again)
Extended cycle life so that the batteries can last as long or even outlast the life of the vehicule
Cheaper batteries, unfortunately all attempts at improving the first three conditions have used more and more exotic materials which regardless of volume will only increase the price not decrease it.

I do not see EV's gaining any real market share untill these are solved. Cannot place a timeline on scientific discovery so no clue when/If EV's will really become practicle.
 
Yes if all you ever do is go short distance to work, But then you can buy a ICE car that can do that at far cheaper cost AND have the flexibility to use it to go on trips etc. I know of no one who would spend more on a vehicule that is less flexible, I am sure there are people who will do that but they are in the minority. The advantage of cheaper recharge vs MPG is lessened if you drive less, so economically there is no incentive. Like I said we looked for my wifes car and it just made no sense to buy a vehicule that is basically forced to stay in the city and will become an expensive paperweight when the batteries need to be changed.
I do not consider a very expensive vehicule to get very little use to be practicle. Useable maybe but it doesnt fit my idea of practicle.

I really dont see EV's gaining any significant share of the marketplace untill there is some quantum leap in battery technology, so far it has all been incremental
What we need is:
Increased energy density (ie better range out of smaller batteries)
Quick recharge rates (or some kind of battery switching or some other means of quickly getting moving again)
Extended cycle life so that the batteries can last as long or even outlast the life of the vehicule
Cheaper batteries, unfortunately all attempts at improving the first three conditions have used more and more exotic materials which regardless of volume will only increase the price not decrease it.

I do not see EV's gaining any real market share untill these are solved. Cannot place a timeline on scientific discovery so no clue when/If EV's will really become practicle.

What would actually make EV's practicable would be not only better batteries but if every gas station/parking spot had a recharger.

But what would really boost EV's popularity would be if the batteries were exchangeable. When you take your tanks form your Oxygen & Acetylene torch even though you own your tanks you exchange them for different tanks because its easier/faster plus safer. SO if cars were designed where you could take the batteries out and exchange them easily at a gas station then people wouldnt think twice about using EV's. Such a system would also reduce the problem of battery replacement after the duty cycles are used up. The bummer though is that no one would invest in such a business without the vehicles to make it worth while. Catch 22....
 
What would actually make EV's practicable would be not only better batteries but if every gas station/parking spot had a recharger.

But what would really boost EV's popularity would be if the batteries were exchangeable. When you take your tanks form your Oxygen & Acetylene torch even though you own your tanks you exchange them for different tanks because its easier/faster plus safer. SO if cars were designed where you could take the batteries out and exchange them easily at a gas station then people wouldnt think twice about using EV's. Such a system would also reduce the problem of battery replacement after the duty cycles are used up. The bummer though is that no one would invest in such a business without the vehicles to make it worth while. Catch 22....

I already mentioned that as a possibility, though it would be very expensive untill battery cycle life and/or battery costs drop rapidly. as to spot charging it still takes too long compared to filling a car with gas and range is still way below that of ICE vehicules so that would have to get better as well.
I would love to see the day when these problems are solved, I'm just very skeptical it will happen in my lifetime.
 
What would actually make EV's practicable would be not only better batteries but if every gas station/parking spot had a recharger.

But what would really boost EV's popularity would be if the batteries were exchangeable. When you take your tanks form your Oxygen & Acetylene torch even though you own your tanks you exchange them for different tanks because its easier/faster plus safer. SO if cars were designed where you could take the batteries out and exchange them easily at a gas station then people wouldnt think twice about using EV's. Such a system would also reduce the problem of battery replacement after the duty cycles are used up. The bummer though is that no one would invest in such a business without the vehicles to make it worth while. Catch 22....

A company called "Better Place" is already doing this in Israel and Denmark.
BSS | Better Place
 
A company called "Better Place" is already doing this in Israel and Denmark.
BSS | Better Place

Good to see it exists.
Now is it feasible in a huge country like America?
If it is then mayeb i will see EV's actually do somethign in my lifetime :)
 
the problem with current EVs is the upfront cost. most working class folks simply can't afford them

Not to mention size and utility. Give me an EV Tahoe with at least 400mile range and ability to tow at least 7000 pounds, then you might get me looking. Looking only, since I couldn't afford the damned thing. Even a new, gas powered, Tahoe is way out of my price range.

Even if they had practical ranges and costs, I wouldn't buy one of those matchbox sized little things that you couldn't carry jack in, or tow with it either. With my size, forget those little things, ain't gonna happen for me. Hell, I bought an HHR this year, and after six months, I would gladly get rid of it, nothing wrong with the vehicle itself, for what it is, it is just uncomfortable for me and lacks the utility I desire/need.
 
i hate every power which harms humanity

Then how do you propose that the US protect us? Do you really think the rest of the world is going to sit by a camp fire and sing Kumbya? I love every power that keeps me and my family safe.
 
The problem with electric vehicles, as I think many people fail to realize, is that the largest source of electricity generation in this country is coal, which is in fact dirtier than oil. I misspoke when I said it's impossible to become energy independent. If we invest in renewable energy, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc, I do think it's possible. But merely switching to electric vehicles would in fact make air less clean unless we can change the sources of our energy to these cleaner, continually available sources. Thanks for the correction.
 
They are building another nuke plant within 20 miles of where I sit, along with the existing three-within-100-miles I already have.


I'm fine with that. Bring it on.

I am fine with nuke power...but not living within 20 miles of a plant (especially if it was a house I owned).

A rental is not so big a deal...I can just abandon it if the excrement hits the fan.
 
The problem with electric vehicles, as I think many people fail to realize, is that the largest source of electricity generation in this country is coal, which is in fact dirtier than oil. I misspoke when I said it's impossible to become energy independent. If we invest in renewable energy, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc, I do think it's possible. But merely switching to electric vehicles would in fact make air less clean unless we can change the sources of our energy to these cleaner, continually available sources. Thanks for the correction.


it took some energy to necro this thread from the dead!!
 
I am fine with nuke power...but not living within 20 miles of a plant (especially if it was a house I owned).

A rental is not so big a deal...I can just abandon it if the excrement hits the fan.

You get more radiation exposure from eating one banana than you do from living by a nuclear reactor for a year.

EDIT: And regarding accidents, the average dose for someone living within 10 miles of Three Mile Island when the accident happened is about the same dose as you get from living in a brick/concrete house for a year.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom