Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Climate Denialism paid by Exxon
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fantine" data-source="post: 58683853" data-attributes="member: 114159"><p>I think that most people are becoming more comfortable with nuclear power.</p><p></p><p>They are uncomfortable with the fact that many plants in the US were recertified and licensed after their 40 year expiration period without making improvements that brought their technology up to current safety standards--plants being built today are much safer, and nuclear power isn't something we want to treat cavalierly.</p><p></p><p>The idea of a plant that uses nuclear waste is just awesome.</p><p></p><p>Since the tsunami in Japan, we also now know that it is dangerous to build plants near the ocean (even though they must be near a water supply.) After the floods in Nebraska, there is some concern about plants built near rivers (when plants near Omaha were potentially endangered.)</p><p></p><p>Floods are more predictable...plants can be temporarily shut down if floods loom. Levees can be opened upstream, hopefully in areas with minimal population. </p><p></p><p>Tsunamis are unpredictable.</p><p></p><p>The cost of nuclear energy compares favorably with the "cleanest coal" (the ony kind we should use.) The only two we should use that are cheaper are hydroelectric and natural gas-fired.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source" target="_blank">Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fantine, post: 58683853, member: 114159"] I think that most people are becoming more comfortable with nuclear power. They are uncomfortable with the fact that many plants in the US were recertified and licensed after their 40 year expiration period without making improvements that brought their technology up to current safety standards--plants being built today are much safer, and nuclear power isn't something we want to treat cavalierly. The idea of a plant that uses nuclear waste is just awesome. Since the tsunami in Japan, we also now know that it is dangerous to build plants near the ocean (even though they must be near a water supply.) After the floods in Nebraska, there is some concern about plants built near rivers (when plants near Omaha were potentially endangered.) Floods are more predictable...plants can be temporarily shut down if floods loom. Levees can be opened upstream, hopefully in areas with minimal population. Tsunamis are unpredictable. The cost of nuclear energy compares favorably with the "cleanest coal" (the ony kind we should use.) The only two we should use that are cheaper are hydroelectric and natural gas-fired. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source]Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Climate Denialism paid by Exxon
Top
Bottom