Why doesn't anyone connected with nuclear power ever mention that we will be creating highly dangerous waste that we will have to put somewhere for tens of thousands of years? Figure out a way to process the waste so you wouldn't mind having it dumped in your back yard and then come back and talk to us. This idea is right up there with the Republican initiative to sell unpasteurized milk to Minnesota children at farmers markets! PS: I have worked at the Prairie Island Nuke plant in Minnesota.
The majority of the radiation that is given off from a nuclear reactor is from the cement in the structures surrounding the power producing components of the power plant. you receive less radiation from a nuclear power plan in one year than from an x-ray of your leg. safest form of energy out there. period.
The guy talking 'bout Chernobyl knows shit about what actually heppaning in the Zone. It's like nature's reserve. With more radiation, but radiation is not as deadly as it it's shoen. You probably could survive like 5X the background raiation, with no affects. PS: I live in a 30 km radius from a nuclear power station? BTW.
we already nuked half the planet with a- and h-bombs "tests" so what should we care about nuclear power!!! the radioactive garbage is 99% recycleable so it's the most efficient way of producing useable energy that we have!!!
I say Nuclear Power all the way. Just send the nuclear waste into outer space. It's already radioactive up there. Better yet, we can send the stuff to the moon. Then we'll be able to see the moon during the day because it will be day glow orange. Oh and in the event of a meltdown, if you live near the plant, that's your fault. At least the property value will go down and the houses will be affordable. We should make sure only queers live near the plant. That way it will just be "oops, oh well".
lets do an experiment....go back to horses and buggies in new york city...let's see how the whiny ny liberals deal with the "fallout" from that..one summer with the air filled with that stink they'd be calling the epa (equine pee administration) demanding cleaner energy.
one of the things almost -everybody- never mentions is the danger of uranium mining. this process is dangerous from the top to the bottom.. totally not worth it.. totally dependent on taxes due to the inefficiency... it is --- not cheap --- it could not exist without tax dollars.. so we do pay a hidden cost in the form of debt, which has interest.
Isn't France something like 80% Nuclear? Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyone here know how long they've been Nuclear and if there's been any negative effect??
One catastrophe like in Chernobyl and US be regret to use nuclear energy.Wind and solar energy this only way ,even more expensive,but it save so much trouble in the future finely it be cheaper then use nuclear.
Chernobyl? Three Miles Island? Yea those are the only two anyone can think of regard nuclear energy. Now think about how many people die from digging coal mines, oil rigs and the damage to environment that those "traditional energy" caused. Chernobyl was human error, which the new tech have so many layers of protection it's not going happen, which three miles island proved it that even human error can be stopped by safety systems in placed. Public gets so scared because of pics of atomic bomb
@spambuster1982 Man you have NO IDEA of what you are talking about "the only thwo can anyone can think of" even one would be a good reason not to even THINK to do that. Have you ever lived in Europe? have you ever lived close to Russia where Chernonyl happened? it's easy to be brave when someone else's ass risks to be burned.
The ones who state nuclear energy is dangerous to public and possible for terrorist access dont know what the heck they talking about.
1. What risk? nuclear is clean energy, except for the waste, which can be store in the desert, like Yucca mountain, where there not a person living there within hundreds miles radius.
2. Terrorist threat? There's difference between commercial nuclear and weapons grade nuclear, no way anyone can make bomb from nuclear fuel, not possible
It should be a 2-way street. On the one hand switching to green energy (which probably can't fulfill the current demand) and on the other hand more efficient products that consume less energy. We still use way too many energy hogs from an era that didn't really bother with energy efficiency.
Nuclear Energy is just a crude and quick solution to our problems from shortsighted individuals.
This is a tough question. It has benefits but the drawbacks rely on proper management by people who are in business to make money. This means that regulation is needed to help make this safer, which causes a lot of unrest in the population that prefers a smaller government. It is a hard choice, but may be necessary in some areas when no other practical options appear better. The hope I cling to is that technology will provide a safer cleaner answer, perhaps nuclear fusion instead of fission.
I agree with mjulianstudios. The general public has no idea about the topic. We studied this in my environmental biology class and it's way more safe and cleaner than most people imagine. The main problem is shutting down a plant. All the political concerns are pointless. And there's only been one major nuclear tragedy in history. Plus, there's already a lot of nuclear plants in the US anyways! Lol.
@cisco1225 You studied biology and concluded nuclear power is safe? Did you look at the effects of radiation on biological cells and cell mutation leading to things like cancer? Nuclear Power plants release tritium - radioactive hydrogen - among other radioactive toxins into the environment continuously. One of the few scientific studies of the effects of living near nuclear plants showed a significant increase in incidents of leukemia in children living near the German plants studied.
@bikenik Nuclear power plant release tritium, yes, but how dangerous is tritium, Do you know? Tritium is H3, which is radioactive, but it poses no danger when in atmosphere and has low half-life. Tell me do you know where the power you spending come from? Are you saying the carbon dioxide from coal power plant that contribute to global warming is safer?
@cisco1225 Where are the American studies to the effects of long term exposure to nuclear plants? There are none, probably because the Federal governments including my own government in Canada subsidized the development of nuclear science for their own purposes, the first being the Cold War, and thus have never put the money up to do the serious scientific studies needed to determine if nuclear power is safe for the civilians living near these plants. I would like to hear your reply to this.
@bikenik Government don't subsidize nuclear power plant for their own purpose, they represent people, meaning for people's purpose, which means for you. You know why? Because nuclear plant is safer. How do you know there are no study on effects of nuclear plants? Common have you heard of this thing call Google?
You didn't say anything specific you just asked a bunch of people what they think. The fact of the matter is that the general public has no idea what the risks are and can't speak on the subject intelligently.
I've searched a lot of the internet about wind and nuclear power and I doubt anyone can really support renewables without nuclear having seen the numbers.
Beyond the safety concerns... Consider what is done with the waste, as was pointed out by one of your interviewees. Spent uranium is often used as a projectile in military offensive weaponry (A-10 warthog). Essentially dumping our nuclear byproducts in other people country's.
Wired magazine had a really interesting article on the radioactive material called thorium a few months back. If you don't have access to the magazine, try putting thorium in the search function on the Wired website. There will be a link to a bare bones report/summary on the element and it's promise as a much safer source of nuclear energy.
i also wish to make a point that it is not power generation in the united states that limits the amount of power to the consumer. We have ample power, its the infrastructure, if we need anything that is a new infrastructure.
i wish to say that chernobyl was a different story, a nuclear reactor was destroyed and the area was devastated, but they did not have properly trained technicians and engineers on staff at the time and they preformed a test with all safe guards off. i have been told and i'm not sure if it is true but i had they reactivated the computer controlled safe guards even that could have been avoided. to me it is a safe form of energy, its just where to put the remains that is the question.
@G58 Ha Ha Ha...I was stunned by that comment too! Just goes to show how closely tied nuclear power is to the military industrial complex and weapons of mass destruction. We don't need power plants that produce weapons grade Plutonium - the most devastatingly dangerous material on earth. Good Post...
As proven by recent events, governments and their elite sponsors have no regard for their citizenry; nothing you or I believe or say will make any difference. One of the elite's big priorities in the next 100 years is a serious population reduction - by war, disease, or catastrophe.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! We NEED more nuclear power plants! Nuclear power is the safest form of power in our country. It has the best safety record of any power generating method. Build more solar, wind, geothermal and wave power sources. But we NEED nuclear.
If we don't research nuclear fission we may never discover sustained nuclear fusion. Fusion will be unlimited power out of hydrogen... we got plenty of hydrogen here. Good luck to the giant laser array that is supposed to be trying to make sustained fusion soon.
Good question, hapy to see you asking it. For me, I'm not in favor of it. As one person said, at best it's an interemt product. That has far too hard a price later down the road. When looking at half lifes of Uranium alone I think to myself, just leave it in the ground.
Also, I'd much rather see individuals being empowered than a larger corporation. Whichis why home Solar and wind technology is much more appealing. Also why I'm for electric vehicles over hydrogen.
Sorry. But why are you "for electric vehicles over hydrogen"?
Electric vehicles, while smashing for relatively local trips, is completely out of the question for hauling loads, and long journeys.
Hydrogen however is an ideal fuel. It can be refilled en route, the waste product is H2O, and were hardly going to run out of it, most of the universe is comprised of hydrogen.
The panacea would be Hydrogen for transport, and fusion for power generation. But until we get to that stage we need to invest heavily in renewable bio fuels, solar, wind and any other clean source.
One complaint with Hydrogen is it's binding us to the same financial situation we're in with gasoline, we have to buy it from a pump. Now electric, that's something we can easily generate on our own.
Even if Hydrogen was used, it's still a technology being used within an electric vehicle. Thus, the next leap should be electric/gas hybrids and smarts homes tied into an intelligent power grid. From there, if fuel cell technology is ready, it can be incorporated into the infrastructure.
"One complaint with Hydrogen is it's binding us to the same financial situation".
So is electricity. To travel a relative distance, one would still need to replenish. Whatever the fuel.
A Hydrogen powered vehicle is already a hybrid. Or at least the good, future gen Hydro cars, with fuel cells generating electricity, and not merely IC engines (inherently inefficient) running on Hydrogen.
Completely concur with the intelli grid idea though.
Yeah, serious risks involved.....and the last people to judge that are "bunch a people on the street"...... If we need their opinion on whether to proceed, we better NOT!!! hahahahahahaha.... fact! Reactors are for SUBS and CARRIERS!!!
We know from recent news stories that there are risks associated with energy produced by coal, oil and natural gas. Biofuels are just as inflamable as gasoline. Everyone knows that forest fires are a hazard for some communities. The risk increases with global warming. The question is how do we best manage the risks that come with energy production or any industrial activity?
People do not know what Nuclear is all about! People are too scared about the "cons" because the don't know the full facts about what it is to use nuclear power. Stop being pussies America!!! You know Nuclear is one of the cheapest, most efficent, and long standing ways to make energy.
In my opinion, it's not worth the risk. we need to rise the current investments and put more funds to other safer alternative energy sources, like solar, wind, hydro, tidal & waves, bio-fuel and geothermal. Great video as always, Lori.
i believe that there are dangers with all types of energy...hell, a person could die with just 5-6 amps through the heart and that happens every day. In the end it is how we use it and keep it safe for us and the environment.
Nuclear plants in the states that are being used are old tech. If we decide to put more in the states we should be looking at the plants being used in Japan, France, etc Solar plants in southwest, wind farms on the plains and infrastructure to use and store this energy in areas where demand is high! Hydrogen, biodiesel(Italy heats homes), and ethanol from sugar cane if used together with (cutting edge) mass transit systems...
Yes I quite agree, we need to diversify, and get rid of our reliance of fossil fuels.
But there really is only One plant that can answer the bio questions.
Sadly it's been made illegal in most industrialised countries. Maligned and demonised. so much so that the mere mention is seen as a crazy hippy notion.
It's the same plant that did all the jobs previously, before big business's got rid, to make way for vast petrochemical, and associated profits.
@martiangrundy I see someone else knows the history behind "devil weed." It would help but as ethanol gas I believe sugar cane is better choice. As paper, rope, and many other uses it does a good job...take it easy...
Nuclear Fusion is clean energy, Nuclear fission has dangerous waste! What are the pro's & Cons with Anti-matter Reactors? why are they not being built? ohh yea! some people make huge amounts of wealth off our high energy bills, the same people that give you the choice of energy Ironically.
there have been suggestions that Nuclear waste can be shuttled into the sun, which is basically a Fusion reactor itself. The downside would be what if the rocket exploded in the atmosphere - that is a risk too.
Serious dangerous risks? LOL! Not any more than any other issue on the planet where humans are involved. You should discuss things like how to put on make up, losing weight, dressing tastefully for the job, school or making YouTube vids - them is some real serious issues!
My answer to the title question "What risk?" Yeah there was one melt down in history, that was in Russia (everything in Russia is shitly made) All you'd have to do is have a safe system used on every single new nuclear power plant built (like in France) and removing the waste is as easy as shooting a rocket into the sun (you might think that's expensive, but the only other cost is building the damn thing, everything else is virtually free, only paying for the employees to keep an eye on it)
They are NEVER going to come up with some way to dispose of nuclear waste. In other words, they haven't even found a way to get nuclear power to work yet, and they probably never will.
Let them continue research in facilities far, far away from major cities, but until they can come up with some way to dispose of the waste, nuclear energy is a dead technology.
They tried it. It didn't work.
It's as DIRTY as you can possibly get. We need CLEAN energy.
look at how stupid the general public is. these people have no idea what they are talking about. nuclear is a terrible idea. If you live on this planet you should know about different forms of energy production and it's impact on the planet. go read, take a class, whatever. just don't be an idiot who believes what the government and media tells you about the situation.
@dhl1986 i agree you can produce very clean energy these ways but it is not efficient yet. solar power last time i did research gave a yield of 20% - 40% of the suns energy that hit it. although a nuclear power plant is not much higher it is slightly higher. a wind far will produce a very low output in retrospect to a nuclear power plant.
Chernobyl isn't a good example, as it had a flawed 1950s design which isn't found in the developed world.
There have been only two accidents in nuclear reactors in the developed world since these reactors were invented in the 30s. Neither were nearly as serious as Chernobyl.
That guy who brought up Chernobyl is a total douchenozzle. Appeal to fear. This whole debate (at least in America) is framed around scary meltdown/terrorist whatifs and not on any science.
@andid The question of nuclear power should be framed around economics not "science". When economics is the first consideration, the choice becomes obvious that nuclear power can't compete with other sources of energy and energy conservation.
Why are you putting "science" in quotes when economics is based on the scientific method, as is all rational thought today? Fuck off and die, bikenik.
The efficiency of the science translates into economics, and there is no popular economic or scientific argument against nuclear energy. It's 100% "The waste will give us 3 eyes!" + "Chernobyl!". Any "renewable" source will ultimately end up more expensive (today) because it is a less efficient energy source than splitting atoms. It's science.
@andid Okay, I see your point but is your last statement a scientific one or merely a belief? Science is a method of hypothesis, experiment and observation. People have hypothesized that renewables are adequate to the task, cheaper and provide other benefits nuclear can't match. Experiments (projects) have been done & observations made to the point since 2006 renewable green energy projects around the world now generate more kilowatts than nuclear power with much more investment to come.
People think nuclear is cheap. It isn't. What's driving nuclear is ignorance and greed, the same combination that threatens every aspect of life on this planet.
@TheGiantRobot you have an interesting argument, but can you elaborate and back it up more? what are they ignorant of? why is it not cheep? admittedly there are some kinks in the system that need to be worked out. i am interested in hearing more
Well, for instance, wind has been about the same cost and is now cheaper. With advances that are on the way, it won't even be close. And cost comparisons don't take into account ecological damage from mining that society has to pay for. Then there is the potential cost catastrophes through accidents, nature, or terrorists. Obama recently said our biggest security threat is a dirty (nuclear) bomb. We have entire (expensive) departments devoted to this.
@Donyvi Yes, and when the temperatures reach the high 30's degree Celsius in the summertime , many French nuclear reactors have to be shut down because they release too much heated water into the river systems from which they draw water. The hot water destroy's fish habitat and kills the fish living in the rivers. France must then import electricity from the U. K. just at a time when electricity is needed most. Not such a great system...
Nuclear energy is a temporarily option, the waste is nasty (no CO2). We should use that until there's something else. Like tide energy, that also means a lot of maintenance. Because of the tides those wires having a hard time and need to be replaced every 10 years. Countries like Denmark can build profitable and compatible wind-turbines on sea, because they don't have those costs. They don't have tides that bring damage to the connection wires.
@Brulluhman Its a myth that Nuclear Power does not produce CO2. One of the many lies & mistruths of the nuclear industry. When you consider the full nuclear fuel cycle, a nuclear power plant will produce almost as much CO2 as a natural gas fired electrical plant.
The nuclear fuel cycle are all the steps necessary to take raw uranium ore and convert it into a nuclear fuel rod including exploration for the ore, mining, milling, processing & manufacturing.
@Brulluhman Why scrub CO2 when we just need to be more energy efficient and use green energies that will be cheaper in time and endless. We have the technology and know how the only thing missing is the will to do it. Too many people feel the need to cling to the past, that being fossil fuels and nuclear power.
Nanosolar is the way to go. After the oil fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico, nuclear would be just another oops!. As long as capitalism is involved with oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy there will be more accidents and more people killed. Capitalism is only concerned about the bottom line and not about safety. Safety cost money and as we have seen in coal, safety regulations aren't worth the paper it's written on.
@KurzLuppii Lol, I suppose Massey energy coal mines and the BP oil disaster were about environmentally safe and clean energy. I think you've been brainwashed.
No... I have just took an stance that included Free market principals.
Which have always increased the standards of living and advancement in human society.
To denounce Capitalism as a horribly flawed and evil system is to what few have done while practicing unsafe practices. BP oil followed all regulations... the accident still happened.
The Coal mines was caused by bad policy.
It takes 5 years before they can actually be fined.
@KurzLuppii Lol, BP may have followed the regulations but the people they bought the equipment from didn't. The emergency shut off valve didn't work! Sounds to me like someone trying to save a few million.
Actually, you're wrong. It's well established that BP and Halliburton violated regulations and proper procedures, as they have a long history of doing.
It's one thing to oppose Pongman on philosophical grounds. It's another to flat out make things up.
I believe in capitalism and freemarkets, but for you to say they have always increased the standards of living and advancement in human society is just absurd.
@KurzLuppii Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said there were 117 failures of blowout preventers during a two-year period in the late 1990s on the outer continental shelf of the United States. A similar report released by the agency in 1997 found that between 1992 and 1996 there were 138 failures of blowout preventers on underwater wells being drilled off Brazil, Norway, Italy and Albania."I think [BP] will try to paint this as an infrequent occurrence," she said. "They are not."
@KurzLuppii I'm sorry. She proved my point that capitalism and safety doesn't work. Capitalism and greed go hand in hand. When you cut corners the ends justify the means.
@pongman You have a very narrow view on the world. I guess Greed explains everything for you. Though profits do serve as an incentive its not flat out greed.
The BOP failed, They have no idea why yet.
In this case they had a dead mans switch that didn't go off.
They tried to manually start it, it didn't. You have no idea if corners were cut.
Pressures could've overwhelmed the specs of the device, (Hence why I asked if they went for a sub par BOP)
I have a idea ...think of where there are many very intelligent educated people that could figure out the energy problem and already work together in a government program that has proven its effectiveness completely? ..... NASA ....I mean just simply tell them to figure this out or they lose their jobs which is in question anyway and after they figure it out they can go back to playing with their toys! LETS THINK ABOUT THAT!
@matrix1951 All the questions about our future energy needs have already been answered. Green energy such as wind. solar, geothermal, biofuel, co-generation, tidal power and hydro in conjunction with energy conservation and energy efficiency can more than meet our needs. The only thing missing is the political will to put an end to things like fossil fuels and that stupid nuclear power.
@orionpk to produce enough energy for large corporations to use requires a lot of space. one windmill won't power an entire corporation. have you ever seen the windmill farms in northern california?
Nuclear power is the best choice we have now. If we did what the french do, we would refine the waste that yields two things: more nuclear fuel + waste that is only dangerous for rough 100-200 years.
Unfortunately when we started making nuclear reactors we chose Uranium, because we also wanted nuclear weapons. A much better, more abundant, and safer choice would have been Thorium for nuclear reactor use. Alas, you can't just change a Uranium reactor to Thorium.
@cyberbadgerNuclear power is not the "best choice". The very best and cheapest choice is improving energy efficiency - there are plenty of ways to use energy way more efficiently than we do now.
The next choice is green energy (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, et cetera) they are the future because they are more economical than nuclear power, safer and cleaner too. Nuclear Power is the failed choice of the last century, lets find the will to move beyond nuclear power.
Nuclear power is not the failed choice. Nuclear power is the best choice right now to changing power loads and something that has almost no carbon footprint. wind/solar/geothermal are not able to cope with changing loads in the power grid.
Your comments are not based much on science, but someone who has a mind against nuclear energy.
According to your logic we should keep burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) to have power plants that can keep up with changing loads.
@cyberbadger I have a "mind against nuclear" because its proven itself to be a failure. Any source of power that has required 50 years of government subsidy & today still depends on public subsidies for its future, is a failure. Nuclear power has not found a solution to the radioactive spent fuel problem - another failure. Baseload & load variation are all very predictable and can be handled by green energy when combined with the cheapest & easiest piece of the puzzle - energy conservation.
Baseload & load variation are somewhat predictable, but not able to be handled by solar/wind and most "green technology" right now. We have very poor and not green ways to store this green generated energy.
Conservation sounds great, but you have to be pragmatic. The Human species is now addicted to energy. Conservation doesn't work when the consumer is addicted. Nuclear energy is the cleanest best solution for now to save our planet.
@cyberbadger Nuclear Power will not "save our planet" nor will it even grow the supply of electricity. There are many more reactors that will retire over the next 20 years than will be built. The avg age of the worlds fleet of nuclear reactors is something like 25 to 30 years old, most will be retired in the foreseeable future & the cost to merely replace them let alone expand generation capacity is beyond our ability to pay. Green energy has already exceeded generation capacity of nuclear.
Nuclear energy should never be an option. Dumps are filling up and causing water polution all on their own without adding waste from a power plant. Either wind or solar seems like the reasonable source.
the international conglomerate energy tyrant uses its liabilities as weapons of influence to hold the world for ransom
pay every month or be in the dark.If you don't pay "they wont afford safety maintenance"
decycle1 7 months ago
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now Fukishima....how much worse does it get?
jeanphilliperameau 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why doesn't anyone connected with nuclear power ever mention that we will be creating highly dangerous waste that we will have to put somewhere for tens of thousands of years? Figure out a way to process the waste so you wouldn't mind having it dumped in your back yard and then come back and talk to us. This idea is right up there with the Republican initiative to sell unpasteurized milk to Minnesota children at farmers markets! PS: I have worked at the Prairie Island Nuke plant in Minnesota.
1293drive 1 year ago
that's nuclear fission kiddies. what we need is fusion
SuperboyConnerKent 1 year ago
The majority of the radiation that is given off from a nuclear reactor is from the cement in the structures surrounding the power producing components of the power plant. you receive less radiation from a nuclear power plan in one year than from an x-ray of your leg. safest form of energy out there. period.
jcroccoCT 1 year ago
Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors. Google that shit. It will change everything you currently believe about nuclear power.
clairishe 1 year ago
The guy talking 'bout Chernobyl knows shit about what actually heppaning in the Zone. It's like nature's reserve. With more radiation, but radiation is not as deadly as it it's shoen. You probably could survive like 5X the background raiation, with no affects. PS: I live in a 30 km radius from a nuclear power station? BTW.
Helltamirre 1 year ago
nuclear energy generate nuclear waste, soo...
Psquit 1 year ago
BP nuclear plan
#FTW
hdzsound 1 year ago
we already nuked half the planet with a- and h-bombs "tests" so what should we care about nuclear power!!! the radioactive garbage is 99% recycleable so it's the most efficient way of producing useable energy that we have!!!
Da0YiN 1 year ago
so yeah it is worth the risk!!! cause the effects of expencive energy easily could through us back in the dark ages!!!
Da0YiN 1 year ago
nice chic, dumb topic
YouTube Video ID = VWzy9mUxVPI
Watch that b4 judging too fast..
chawlamohali 1 year ago
Comment removed
chawlamohali 1 year ago
Lori(Is this your name?) I love you soo much and you won't even acknowledge me
supercalifragable 1 year ago
I say Nuclear Power all the way. Just send the nuclear waste into outer space. It's already radioactive up there. Better yet, we can send the stuff to the moon. Then we'll be able to see the moon during the day because it will be day glow orange. Oh and in the event of a meltdown, if you live near the plant, that's your fault. At least the property value will go down and the houses will be affordable. We should make sure only queers live near the plant. That way it will just be "oops, oh well".
jameskoenig3388 1 year ago
hey! that's me... and i didn't come off sounding like an idiot. phew :)
digitalhen 1 year ago
lets do an experiment....go back to horses and buggies in new york city...let's see how the whiny ny liberals deal with the "fallout" from that..one summer with the air filled with that stink they'd be calling the epa (equine pee administration) demanding cleaner energy.
gbbmmfic 1 year ago
one of the things almost -everybody- never mentions is the danger of uranium mining. this process is dangerous from the top to the bottom.. totally not worth it.. totally dependent on taxes due to the inefficiency... it is --- not cheap --- it could not exist without tax dollars.. so we do pay a hidden cost in the form of debt, which has interest.
TheLastGasStation 1 year ago
We could try it, but I doubt we should try. Nuclear energy is very dangerous.
Metroid02099 1 year ago
Isn't France something like 80% Nuclear? Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyone here know how long they've been Nuclear and if there's been any negative effect??
clayp72 1 year ago 2
One catastrophe like in Chernobyl and US be regret to use nuclear energy.Wind and solar energy this only way ,even more expensive,but it save so much trouble in the future finely it be cheaper then use nuclear.
alexei3333 1 year ago
Chernobyl? Three Miles Island? Yea those are the only two anyone can think of regard nuclear energy. Now think about how many people die from digging coal mines, oil rigs and the damage to environment that those "traditional energy" caused. Chernobyl was human error, which the new tech have so many layers of protection it's not going happen, which three miles island proved it that even human error can be stopped by safety systems in placed. Public gets so scared because of pics of atomic bomb
spambuster1982 1 year ago 7
@spambuster1982 totally agree
qwer55555555 1 year ago
@spambuster1982 Man you have NO IDEA of what you are talking about "the only thwo can anyone can think of" even one would be a good reason not to even THINK to do that. Have you ever lived in Europe? have you ever lived close to Russia where Chernonyl happened? it's easy to be brave when someone else's ass risks to be burned.
xvegansxex 1 year ago
The ones who state nuclear energy is dangerous to public and possible for terrorist access dont know what the heck they talking about.
1. What risk? nuclear is clean energy, except for the waste, which can be store in the desert, like Yucca mountain, where there not a person living there within hundreds miles radius.
2. Terrorist threat? There's difference between commercial nuclear and weapons grade nuclear, no way anyone can make bomb from nuclear fuel, not possible
spambuster1982 1 year ago 4
@spambuster1982 Yes, or the vast landscapes of northern Alaska, or even Antarctica!
eric5335 1 year ago
It should be a 2-way street. On the one hand switching to green energy (which probably can't fulfill the current demand) and on the other hand more efficient products that consume less energy. We still use way too many energy hogs from an era that didn't really bother with energy efficiency.
Nuclear Energy is just a crude and quick solution to our problems from shortsighted individuals.
rattaplan 1 year ago
No way
hoosierhiver 1 year ago
This is a tough question. It has benefits but the drawbacks rely on proper management by people who are in business to make money. This means that regulation is needed to help make this safer, which causes a lot of unrest in the population that prefers a smaller government. It is a hard choice, but may be necessary in some areas when no other practical options appear better. The hope I cling to is that technology will provide a safer cleaner answer, perhaps nuclear fusion instead of fission.
vodkaneat 1 year ago
THE BOTTOM LINE IS STAY AWAY FROM NUCLEAR ENERGY.THE BY PRODUCT,THE WASTE,SIDE EFFECTS ARE TOO.. DANGEROUS.anil Reddy.
Reddylion 1 year ago
I agree with mjulianstudios. The general public has no idea about the topic. We studied this in my environmental biology class and it's way more safe and cleaner than most people imagine. The main problem is shutting down a plant. All the political concerns are pointless. And there's only been one major nuclear tragedy in history. Plus, there's already a lot of nuclear plants in the US anyways! Lol.
cisco1225 1 year ago
@cisco1225 You studied biology and concluded nuclear power is safe? Did you look at the effects of radiation on biological cells and cell mutation leading to things like cancer? Nuclear Power plants release tritium - radioactive hydrogen - among other radioactive toxins into the environment continuously. One of the few scientific studies of the effects of living near nuclear plants showed a significant increase in incidents of leukemia in children living near the German plants studied.
bikenik 1 year ago
@bikenik Nuclear power plant release tritium, yes, but how dangerous is tritium, Do you know? Tritium is H3, which is radioactive, but it poses no danger when in atmosphere and has low half-life. Tell me do you know where the power you spending come from? Are you saying the carbon dioxide from coal power plant that contribute to global warming is safer?
spambuster1982 1 year ago
@cisco1225 Where are the American studies to the effects of long term exposure to nuclear plants? There are none, probably because the Federal governments including my own government in Canada subsidized the development of nuclear science for their own purposes, the first being the Cold War, and thus have never put the money up to do the serious scientific studies needed to determine if nuclear power is safe for the civilians living near these plants. I would like to hear your reply to this.
bikenik 1 year ago
@bikenik Government don't subsidize nuclear power plant for their own purpose, they represent people, meaning for people's purpose, which means for you. You know why? Because nuclear plant is safer. How do you know there are no study on effects of nuclear plants? Common have you heard of this thing call Google?
spambuster1982 1 year ago
You didn't say anything specific you just asked a bunch of people what they think. The fact of the matter is that the general public has no idea what the risks are and can't speak on the subject intelligently.
mjulianstudios 1 year ago
I've searched a lot of the internet about wind and nuclear power and I doubt anyone can really support renewables without nuclear having seen the numbers.
Wind cannot do it alone.
badthoughs 1 year ago
risks? what risks? stop promoting ignorance. petroleum is riskier.
theBeorn 1 year ago
dump the waste in space
wdp11683 1 year ago
@wdp11683 what if the rocket blowes up?
XysflightchampX 1 year ago
I am against nuclear power if it will make the Resident's hair fall out. It's already stunted her growth #justsayin .
CommentorX 1 year ago
Beyond the safety concerns... Consider what is done with the waste, as was pointed out by one of your interviewees. Spent uranium is often used as a projectile in military offensive weaponry (A-10 warthog). Essentially dumping our nuclear byproducts in other people country's.
Pleblian 1 year ago
Hey, the US Navy has many many ships that have been nuclear powered for a long long time.
KhamusSolo 1 year ago
Wired magazine had a really interesting article on the radioactive material called thorium a few months back. If you don't have access to the magazine, try putting thorium in the search function on the Wired website. There will be a link to a bare bones report/summary on the element and it's promise as a much safer source of nuclear energy.
KyleAkuma 1 year ago
i also wish to make a point that it is not power generation in the united states that limits the amount of power to the consumer. We have ample power, its the infrastructure, if we need anything that is a new infrastructure.
tonyrueb 1 year ago
i wish to say that chernobyl was a different story, a nuclear reactor was destroyed and the area was devastated, but they did not have properly trained technicians and engineers on staff at the time and they preformed a test with all safe guards off. i have been told and i'm not sure if it is true but i had they reactivated the computer controlled safe guards even that could have been avoided. to me it is a safe form of energy, its just where to put the remains that is the question.
tonyrueb 1 year ago
"Clean energy" and "arsenal" in the same sentence!
WARNING!
YOUR BRAIN HAS BEEN CONTAMINATED
PLEASE STEP AWAY FROM YOUR BRAIN
AND STOP USING YOUR MOUTH
G58 1 year ago
@G58 Ha Ha Ha...I was stunned by that comment too! Just goes to show how closely tied nuclear power is to the military industrial complex and weapons of mass destruction. We don't need power plants that produce weapons grade Plutonium - the most devastatingly dangerous material on earth. Good Post...
bikenik 1 year ago
As proven by recent events, governments and their elite sponsors have no regard for their citizenry; nothing you or I believe or say will make any difference. One of the elite's big priorities in the next 100 years is a serious population reduction - by war, disease, or catastrophe.
But nuclear energy - sure, what could go wrong?
audadvnc 1 year ago
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! We NEED more nuclear power plants! Nuclear power is the safest form of power in our country. It has the best safety record of any power generating method. Build more solar, wind, geothermal and wave power sources. But we NEED nuclear.
tetsubo57 1 year ago
Why dont we just invest in solar and wind powered energies? Because they would be free eventually perhaps???
SOCRATES012 1 year ago
You opened up with "do you support it?" The answer is simple, if you pay taxes, which we all do to some extent, we support it. :D
SOCRATES012 1 year ago
If we don't research nuclear fission we may never discover sustained nuclear fusion. Fusion will be unlimited power out of hydrogen... we got plenty of hydrogen here. Good luck to the giant laser array that is supposed to be trying to make sustained fusion soon.
jackhuskey 1 year ago
Good question, hapy to see you asking it. For me, I'm not in favor of it. As one person said, at best it's an interemt product. That has far too hard a price later down the road. When looking at half lifes of Uranium alone I think to myself, just leave it in the ground.
Also, I'd much rather see individuals being empowered than a larger corporation. Whichis why home Solar and wind technology is much more appealing. Also why I'm for electric vehicles over hydrogen.
KyleQuest 1 year ago
@KyleQuest
Sorry. But why are you "for electric vehicles over hydrogen"?
Electric vehicles, while smashing for relatively local trips, is completely out of the question for hauling loads, and long journeys.
Hydrogen however is an ideal fuel. It can be refilled en route, the waste product is H2O, and were hardly going to run out of it, most of the universe is comprised of hydrogen.
Cont.---
martiangrundy 1 year ago
@KyleQuest
---Cont.
The panacea would be Hydrogen for transport, and fusion for power generation. But until we get to that stage we need to invest heavily in renewable bio fuels, solar, wind and any other clean source.
martiangrundy 1 year ago
One complaint with Hydrogen is it's binding us to the same financial situation we're in with gasoline, we have to buy it from a pump. Now electric, that's something we can easily generate on our own.
Even if Hydrogen was used, it's still a technology being used within an electric vehicle. Thus, the next leap should be electric/gas hybrids and smarts homes tied into an intelligent power grid. From there, if fuel cell technology is ready, it can be incorporated into the infrastructure.
KyleQuest 1 year ago
@KyleQuest
"One complaint with Hydrogen is it's binding us to the same financial situation".
So is electricity. To travel a relative distance, one would still need to replenish. Whatever the fuel.
A Hydrogen powered vehicle is already a hybrid. Or at least the good, future gen Hydro cars, with fuel cells generating electricity, and not merely IC engines (inherently inefficient) running on Hydrogen.
Completely concur with the intelli grid idea though.
martiangrundy 1 year ago
Yeah, serious risks involved.....and the last people to judge that are "bunch a people on the street"...... If we need their opinion on whether to proceed, we better NOT!!! hahahahahahaha.... fact! Reactors are for SUBS and CARRIERS!!!
UnderseaCaveman 1 year ago
We know from recent news stories that there are risks associated with energy produced by coal, oil and natural gas. Biofuels are just as inflamable as gasoline. Everyone knows that forest fires are a hazard for some communities. The risk increases with global warming. The question is how do we best manage the risks that come with energy production or any industrial activity?
httprover 1 year ago
People do not know what Nuclear is all about! People are too scared about the "cons" because the don't know the full facts about what it is to use nuclear power. Stop being pussies America!!! You know Nuclear is one of the cheapest, most efficent, and long standing ways to make energy.
natedogs212 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In my opinion, it's not worth the risk. we need to rise the current investments and put more funds to other safer alternative energy sources, like solar, wind, hydro, tidal & waves, bio-fuel and geothermal. Great video as always, Lori.
LalitaLilly 1 year ago
No.
Keirnoth 1 year ago
i believe that there are dangers with all types of energy...hell, a person could die with just 5-6 amps through the heart and that happens every day. In the end it is how we use it and keep it safe for us and the environment.
briggs9187 1 year ago
You found more intelligent people than normal during these interviews.
RAMKING61 1 year ago
You're a smart girl that brings up important topics and questions. Thanks!
Smaster116 1 year ago
Nuclear plants in the states that are being used are old tech. If we decide to put more in the states we should be looking at the plants being used in Japan, France, etc Solar plants in southwest, wind farms on the plains and infrastructure to use and store this energy in areas where demand is high! Hydrogen, biodiesel(Italy heats homes), and ethanol from sugar cane if used together with (cutting edge) mass transit systems...
MrKurious09 1 year ago
@MrKurious09
Yes I quite agree, we need to diversify, and get rid of our reliance of fossil fuels.
But there really is only One plant that can answer the bio questions.
Sadly it's been made illegal in most industrialised countries. Maligned and demonised. so much so that the mere mention is seen as a crazy hippy notion.
It's the same plant that did all the jobs previously, before big business's got rid, to make way for vast petrochemical, and associated profits.
The plant is HEMP.
martiangrundy 1 year ago
@martiangrundy I see someone else knows the history behind "devil weed." It would help but as ethanol gas I believe sugar cane is better choice. As paper, rope, and many other uses it does a good job...take it easy...
MrKurious09 1 year ago
nucular fusion is the real answer
psp785 1 year ago
Nuclear Fusion is clean energy, Nuclear fission has dangerous waste! What are the pro's & Cons with Anti-matter Reactors? why are they not being built? ohh yea! some people make huge amounts of wealth off our high energy bills, the same people that give you the choice of energy Ironically.
TheTempestSpark 1 year ago
there have been suggestions that Nuclear waste can be shuttled into the sun, which is basically a Fusion reactor itself. The downside would be what if the rocket exploded in the atmosphere - that is a risk too.
jchahine 1 year ago
Serious dangerous risks? LOL! Not any more than any other issue on the planet where humans are involved. You should discuss things like how to put on make up, losing weight, dressing tastefully for the job, school or making YouTube vids - them is some real serious issues!
troll9555 1 year ago
My answer to the title question "What risk?" Yeah there was one melt down in history, that was in Russia (everything in Russia is shitly made) All you'd have to do is have a safe system used on every single new nuclear power plant built (like in France) and removing the waste is as easy as shooting a rocket into the sun (you might think that's expensive, but the only other cost is building the damn thing, everything else is virtually free, only paying for the employees to keep an eye on it)
HAJS5 1 year ago
Nuclear energy is a disaster.
They are NEVER going to come up with some way to dispose of nuclear waste. In other words, they haven't even found a way to get nuclear power to work yet, and they probably never will.
Let them continue research in facilities far, far away from major cities, but until they can come up with some way to dispose of the waste, nuclear energy is a dead technology.
They tried it. It didn't work.
It's as DIRTY as you can possibly get. We need CLEAN energy.
ReliableInsider 1 year ago
it can fall to the wrong hands its not clean energy
tmacc 1 year ago
look at how stupid the general public is. these people have no idea what they are talking about. nuclear is a terrible idea. If you live on this planet you should know about different forms of energy production and it's impact on the planet. go read, take a class, whatever. just don't be an idiot who believes what the government and media tells you about the situation.
tokampstra 1 year ago
@tokampstra
Propaganda much ?
CollegeLoheart 1 year ago
2 solutions: solar and MAGNETS!!!!!
IzzyXgallY 1 year ago
Solar and wind energy - two reasons why nuclear energy is not necessary.
dhl1986 1 year ago 4
@dhl1986 i agree you can produce very clean energy these ways but it is not efficient yet. solar power last time i did research gave a yield of 20% - 40% of the suns energy that hit it. although a nuclear power plant is not much higher it is slightly higher. a wind far will produce a very low output in retrospect to a nuclear power plant.
tonyrueb 1 year ago
@dhl1986 youtube.com/watch?v=VWzy9mUxVPI
chawlamohali 1 year ago
I have heard a few good things about geothermal.
ArdieVerde 1 year ago 2
France is doing it why not the US?
GuiltySpark347 1 year ago
An important conversation!! Thanks!
juliact 1 year ago
@juliact Thanks Julia!
theresident 1 year ago
@theresident youtube.com/watch?v=VWzy9mUxVPI
chawlamohali 1 year ago
Chernobyl isn't a good example, as it had a flawed 1950s design which isn't found in the developed world.
There have been only two accidents in nuclear reactors in the developed world since these reactors were invented in the 30s. Neither were nearly as serious as Chernobyl.
Zeldovich 1 year ago
Will we risk our great grand children?
michaelispan 1 year ago 2
That guy who brought up Chernobyl is a total douchenozzle. Appeal to fear. This whole debate (at least in America) is framed around scary meltdown/terrorist whatifs and not on any science.
andid 1 year ago
@andid The question of nuclear power should be framed around economics not "science". When economics is the first consideration, the choice becomes obvious that nuclear power can't compete with other sources of energy and energy conservation.
bikenik 1 year ago
Why are you putting "science" in quotes when economics is based on the scientific method, as is all rational thought today? Fuck off and die, bikenik.
The efficiency of the science translates into economics, and there is no popular economic or scientific argument against nuclear energy. It's 100% "The waste will give us 3 eyes!" + "Chernobyl!". Any "renewable" source will ultimately end up more expensive (today) because it is a less efficient energy source than splitting atoms. It's science.
andid 1 year ago
@andid Okay, I see your point but is your last statement a scientific one or merely a belief? Science is a method of hypothesis, experiment and observation. People have hypothesized that renewables are adequate to the task, cheaper and provide other benefits nuclear can't match. Experiments (projects) have been done & observations made to the point since 2006 renewable green energy projects around the world now generate more kilowatts than nuclear power with much more investment to come.
bikenik 1 year ago
@bikenik Experiments are not projects. Science fail.
CommentorX 1 year ago
@andid Science is a popularity contest?
CommentorX 1 year ago
People think nuclear is cheap. It isn't. What's driving nuclear is ignorance and greed, the same combination that threatens every aspect of life on this planet.
TheGiantRobot 1 year ago 5
@TheGiantRobot you have an interesting argument, but can you elaborate and back it up more? what are they ignorant of? why is it not cheep? admittedly there are some kinks in the system that need to be worked out. i am interested in hearing more
tonyrueb 1 year ago
@tonyrueb
Well, for instance, wind has been about the same cost and is now cheaper. With advances that are on the way, it won't even be close. And cost comparisons don't take into account ecological damage from mining that society has to pay for. Then there is the potential cost catastrophes through accidents, nature, or terrorists. Obama recently said our biggest security threat is a dirty (nuclear) bomb. We have entire (expensive) departments devoted to this.
TheGiantRobot 1 year ago
France is 85% powered by nuclear energy
Donyvi 1 year ago
@Donyvi Yes, and when the temperatures reach the high 30's degree Celsius in the summertime , many French nuclear reactors have to be shut down because they release too much heated water into the river systems from which they draw water. The hot water destroy's fish habitat and kills the fish living in the rivers. France must then import electricity from the U. K. just at a time when electricity is needed most. Not such a great system...
bikenik 1 year ago
@bikenik I did not know any of this, but I do know that what we are doing now is unsustainable.
Donyvi 1 year ago
Nuclear energy is a temporarily option, the waste is nasty (no CO2). We should use that until there's something else. Like tide energy, that also means a lot of maintenance. Because of the tides those wires having a hard time and need to be replaced every 10 years. Countries like Denmark can build profitable and compatible wind-turbines on sea, because they don't have those costs. They don't have tides that bring damage to the connection wires.
Brulluhman 1 year ago
@Brulluhman Its a myth that Nuclear Power does not produce CO2. One of the many lies & mistruths of the nuclear industry. When you consider the full nuclear fuel cycle, a nuclear power plant will produce almost as much CO2 as a natural gas fired electrical plant.
The nuclear fuel cycle are all the steps necessary to take raw uranium ore and convert it into a nuclear fuel rod including exploration for the ore, mining, milling, processing & manufacturing.
All these steps produce CO2.
bikenik 1 year ago
@bikenik Those can be filtered.
Brulluhman 1 year ago
@Brulluhman Why scrub CO2 when we just need to be more energy efficient and use green energies that will be cheaper in time and endless. We have the technology and know how the only thing missing is the will to do it. Too many people feel the need to cling to the past, that being fossil fuels and nuclear power.
bikenik 1 year ago
Nanosolar is the way to go. After the oil fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico, nuclear would be just another oops!. As long as capitalism is involved with oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy there will be more accidents and more people killed. Capitalism is only concerned about the bottom line and not about safety. Safety cost money and as we have seen in coal, safety regulations aren't worth the paper it's written on.
pongman 1 year ago
@pongman
Worse uninformed post ever.
KurzLuppii 1 year ago
@KurzLuppii Lol, I suppose Massey energy coal mines and the BP oil disaster were about environmentally safe and clean energy. I think you've been brainwashed.
pongman 1 year ago
@pongman
No... I have just took an stance that included Free market principals.
Which have always increased the standards of living and advancement in human society.
To denounce Capitalism as a horribly flawed and evil system is to what few have done while practicing unsafe practices. BP oil followed all regulations... the accident still happened.
The Coal mines was caused by bad policy.
It takes 5 years before they can actually be fined.
No my good sir I am quite informed.
KurzLuppii 1 year ago
@KurzLuppii Lol, BP may have followed the regulations but the people they bought the equipment from didn't. The emergency shut off valve didn't work! Sounds to me like someone trying to save a few million.
pongman 1 year ago
@pongman
Actually the pressure overwhelmed the safety device...
They were built right, but pressure was way too great.
Please do some research before you make mindless conjecture.
KurzLuppii 1 year ago
@KurzLuppii
Actually, you're wrong. It's well established that BP and Halliburton violated regulations and proper procedures, as they have a long history of doing.
It's one thing to oppose Pongman on philosophical grounds. It's another to flat out make things up.
I believe in capitalism and freemarkets, but for you to say they have always increased the standards of living and advancement in human society is just absurd.
TheGiantRobot 1 year ago
@TheGiantRobot
They always have...
KurzLuppii 1 year ago
@KurzLuppii Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said there were 117 failures of blowout preventers during a two-year period in the late 1990s on the outer continental shelf of the United States. A similar report released by the agency in 1997 found that between 1992 and 1996 there were 138 failures of blowout preventers on underwater wells being drilled off Brazil, Norway, Italy and Albania."I think [BP] will try to paint this as an infrequent occurrence," she said. "They are not."
pongman 1 year ago
@pongman
Yes so you proved my point...
Does she go to say a certain class of Blow out Preventers would've prevent this?
KurzLuppii 1 year ago
@KurzLuppii I'm sorry. She proved my point that capitalism and safety doesn't work. Capitalism and greed go hand in hand. When you cut corners the ends justify the means.
pongman 1 year ago
@pongman You have a very narrow view on the world. I guess Greed explains everything for you. Though profits do serve as an incentive its not flat out greed.
The BOP failed, They have no idea why yet.
In this case they had a dead mans switch that didn't go off.
They tried to manually start it, it didn't. You have no idea if corners were cut.
Pressures could've overwhelmed the specs of the device, (Hence why I asked if they went for a sub par BOP)
In other words Accidents happen.
KurzLuppii 1 year ago
@KurzLuppii Lol, Please do some research before you make mindless conjecture please eat your words.
pongman 1 year ago
You got to love me a little for that idea REZ!
matrix1951 1 year ago
I have a idea ...think of where there are many very intelligent educated people that could figure out the energy problem and already work together in a government program that has proven its effectiveness completely? ..... NASA ....I mean just simply tell them to figure this out or they lose their jobs which is in question anyway and after they figure it out they can go back to playing with their toys! LETS THINK ABOUT THAT!
matrix1951 1 year ago
@matrix1951 All the questions about our future energy needs have already been answered. Green energy such as wind. solar, geothermal, biofuel, co-generation, tidal power and hydro in conjunction with energy conservation and energy efficiency can more than meet our needs. The only thing missing is the political will to put an end to things like fossil fuels and that stupid nuclear power.
bikenik 1 year ago
why all corporations just dpont use windmills generators instead?
orionpk 1 year ago
@orionpk to produce enough energy for large corporations to use requires a lot of space. one windmill won't power an entire corporation. have you ever seen the windmill farms in northern california?
newenglandchick95 1 year ago
@orionpk
Ok... the cost of windmills is not economically sound.
The amount of time they are actually turning and producing energy its best used for low power situations with some method of storing the power.
KurzLuppii 1 year ago
@KurzLuppii what about hydropower
orionpk 1 year ago
@orionpk
hydro... is probably worse since you need to dam a river.
Plus it'll take vastly more space.
KurzLuppii 1 year ago
Nuclear power is the best choice we have now. If we did what the french do, we would refine the waste that yields two things: more nuclear fuel + waste that is only dangerous for rough 100-200 years.
Unfortunately when we started making nuclear reactors we chose Uranium, because we also wanted nuclear weapons. A much better, more abundant, and safer choice would have been Thorium for nuclear reactor use. Alas, you can't just change a Uranium reactor to Thorium.
cyberbadger 1 year ago
@cyberbadgerNuclear power is not the "best choice". The very best and cheapest choice is improving energy efficiency - there are plenty of ways to use energy way more efficiently than we do now.
The next choice is green energy (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, et cetera) they are the future because they are more economical than nuclear power, safer and cleaner too. Nuclear Power is the failed choice of the last century, lets find the will to move beyond nuclear power.
bikenik 1 year ago
Nuclear power is not the failed choice. Nuclear power is the best choice right now to changing power loads and something that has almost no carbon footprint. wind/solar/geothermal are not able to cope with changing loads in the power grid.
Your comments are not based much on science, but someone who has a mind against nuclear energy.
According to your logic we should keep burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) to have power plants that can keep up with changing loads.
cyberbadger 1 year ago
@cyberbadger I have a "mind against nuclear" because its proven itself to be a failure. Any source of power that has required 50 years of government subsidy & today still depends on public subsidies for its future, is a failure. Nuclear power has not found a solution to the radioactive spent fuel problem - another failure. Baseload & load variation are all very predictable and can be handled by green energy when combined with the cheapest & easiest piece of the puzzle - energy conservation.
bikenik 1 year ago
Baseload & load variation are somewhat predictable, but not able to be handled by solar/wind and most "green technology" right now. We have very poor and not green ways to store this green generated energy.
Conservation sounds great, but you have to be pragmatic. The Human species is now addicted to energy. Conservation doesn't work when the consumer is addicted. Nuclear energy is the cleanest best solution for now to save our planet.
cyberbadger 1 year ago
@cyberbadger Nuclear Power will not "save our planet" nor will it even grow the supply of electricity. There are many more reactors that will retire over the next 20 years than will be built. The avg age of the worlds fleet of nuclear reactors is something like 25 to 30 years old, most will be retired in the foreseeable future & the cost to merely replace them let alone expand generation capacity is beyond our ability to pay. Green energy has already exceeded generation capacity of nuclear.
bikenik 1 year ago
not worth the risk at all. great vid.
xoxcuddlecorexox 1 year ago
@xoxcuddlecorexox
Its worth the risk... since there is virtually no risk at all.
The way most modern reactors are designed they actually shut down and stop reacting on their own.
Breeder reactors make sure the waste product only comes out after a long time of constantly having their Neutrons stripped and re added.
KurzLuppii 1 year ago
I love how you get out and ask peoples opinions and ask the questions! you're fabulous!
RevolutionaryJam 1 year ago
Nuclear energy should never be an option. Dumps are filling up and causing water polution all on their own without adding waste from a power plant. Either wind or solar seems like the reasonable source.
darkcowboi21 1 year ago
@darkcowboi21
Thats why breeder reactors and thorium reactors look like such a positive advancement.
KurzLuppii 1 year ago
bang zoom!
readywerx 1 year ago