Nuclear power.

Svengoolie 3 · March 05, 2018, 11:19:05 PM

Despite fukishima, Chernobyl and 3MI I support nuclear power.

The fact is the US Navy uses a lot of nuclear power safely and efficiently. Sailors routinely spend 3. Months at sea inside nuclear powered submarines without mishap or illness. Likewise American aircraft carriers are powered by arrays of nuclear reactors and their crews show no signs of suffering for being near them.

I believe we can make safe, efficient, cost effective nuclear power systems but they are sabotaged by greedy, short sighted, selfish people who cut corners to sage money on both constructing and operating them.

Son what opinions do other people have about nuclear power?

ER · March 05, 2018, 11:34:16 PM

We should have had fusion long ago. That should be our planetwide goal.

indianasmith · March 05, 2018, 11:42:54 PM

I am all for it, as long as the plants are held to the highest standards of safety.

ER · March 05, 2018, 11:50:29 PM

Remember Mark Harvey, Indy (now deceased

) who worked at that nuke plant outside Dallas? I asked him if it was true that the executives at the plant lived upwind of the facility and he admitted, uh, well, yes. Ha.

Nuclear energy is efficient but, boy, hazardous.

lester1/2jr · March 06, 2018, 12:03:37 AM

I'm totally against it. what is worth the potential of having millions of people irradiated and an area being toxic for thousands of years? slightly cheaper fuel? oil is 60 dollars a barrel

Svengoolie 3 · March 06, 2018, 01:00:51 AM

Quote from: lester1/2jr on March 06, 2018, 12:03:37 AM
I'm totally against it. what is worth the potential of having millions of people irradiated and an area being toxic for thousands of years? slightly cheaper fuel? oil is 60 dollars a barrel

What is worth the potential of having millions of people irradiated abd an area. Being toxic for thousands of years? " OK those are fair questions and I'll answer them as fairly as I can.

1. Fossil fuel will run out someday abd we will need new and more power. Might as well start developing them now before we run out.

2. 97% of the world's scientists agree fossil fuel use is creating climatic disruption. We are seeing effects of climate disruption due to greenhouse gasses. CO2 levels ate rising and are at levels not seen in aeons. Every year is hotter than the previous one. We need to stop dumping negatons of co2 into earth's atmosphere every year. Nuclear power does not release. Co2.

3. Every year the west and America send hundreds of billions of dollars to the middle east to countries like Saudi arabia, which publishes and distributes korans telling Muslims around the world that Christians and Jews are their enemies. Wouldn't it be better to build new power systems and keep out money here instead of sending it to countries that are openly hostile to freedom and liberty?

The US navy has a damn good record of building and operating nuclear power systems. Maybe we should say to the Holy and sacred "free market" basically, "look you had your chance and you gave us a lousy, rotten, poorly built and poorly ran nuclear power industry. You're out, the navy is in and we are going to have nuclear plants designed, built and operated under the total supervision and control of US Navy trained and certified personnel because they're proven they can and will run a safe, effective nuclear power system and you have proven you don't. "

lester1/2jr · March 06, 2018, 12:24:14 PM

bah

kakihara · March 06, 2018, 06:03:02 PM

Hmmm, this thread could easily turn ugly. Remember, is ok to disagree. Some thoughts:
Fossil fuel will run out someday, but no time soon. We havent begun to tap our fossil fuel resources. The thing that restricts fossil fuel is corporate interests, which itself is a complicated issue. Money, war, economic power. etc.

Coal is vast and cheap. and yes, it can be clean. Newer generation coal plants can operate with virtually no pollution.

CO2 is not bad, plants need CO2. CO2 has been higher in the past, even before we began using fossil fuels.

We do need new power sources, but the powers that dont want us to have them. That would be bad business, especially for an oil company that controls a large part of the global economy. so, its not going to happen. Every year we hear about some "breakthrough" that promises cheap endless power. ha! Its not for us.

Yeah, every year we send alot of frickin money to countries that hate us. That money should be used here, but that would be considered hateful nowadays.

Nuclear power is great, you get the biggest bang for your buck. It seems as though most of our plants are in bad shape or in bad locations. Disasters waiting to happen. Thats the problem with nuclear power, it can leave places uninhabitable for thousands of years. It also produces waste that cant be disposed of, there are only so many places to bury it.

Svengoolie 3 · March 06, 2018, 06:24:50 PM

Actually nuclear waste can be disposed of. The vitrification process can render radioactive waste safely and easily disposable.

As to the issue of oil lords stopping beneficial progress, there is a solution. Eliminate them.

lester1/2jr · March 06, 2018, 07:16:31 PM

The military industrial complex isn't going to end if oil runs out, which is won't. As Long as the Israelis and Saudis are feeding senators $ we will have wars and so forth. It's not about oil. oil companies aren't the ones who want our military to rearrange everything in the region. they just want to make money.

RCMerchant · March 11, 2018, 09:01:17 PM

I'm all for Nuclear power. I really am.
Compared to what our lust for oil is doing to the enviorment, those anti-nuke hippies can jgo jump in the ocean!

http://youtu.be/sjSuMixiBX4

ER · March 11, 2018, 09:36:46 PM

Person on the street interview:

Question One: Are you in favor of clean, efficient nuclear energy?
Answer: Heck, yes, of course I am.

Question Two: So you wouldn't mind if a power plant was built in your community?
Answer: ...Uh, no build it someplace else.

Leah · March 11, 2018, 09:50:18 PM

I'm for it, it's just that the problems start in where to get rid of the waste, and maintenance. Fukishima was the result of actually not being maintained right, sure the earthquake and tsunami didn't help, but the plant could have survived had it not been cost cutting. 3MI is probably the best save of the nuclear disasters.

RCMerchant · March 11, 2018, 10:32:56 PM

Quote from: ER on March 11, 2018, 09:36:46 PM
Question One: Are you in favor of clean, efficient nuclear energy?
Answer: Heck, yes, of course I am.

Question Two: So you wouldn't mind if a power plant was built in your community?
Answer: ...Uh, no build it someplace else.

Actually- If one was built in Lawton- I would be happy with it. It would bring jobs. And here-there are NONE.
This town is dead.

That "person in the street" that you "quote" is more likely in a city that's doing ok money wise-or just some thing you made up?

ER · March 11, 2018, 10:35:14 PM

Although I was told years ago by a friend of mine who worked at a nuclear plant near Dallas that the facilities are designed to withstand a 747 crashing into them, they built a nuclear plant east of my city that was to have become operational in 1980 but protests post-Three-Mile Island were so vocal it was converted into coal. Well in 2012 a tornado hit the plant dead-on, bullseye. That made everyone think....hmm, what if?