Well, Obama won in the end. But you want to be on the side of non-nuclear power. Although I like nuclear power, but nobody else does. Why do I care about American politics? I should be more worried about what Julia Gillard is doing to our government, she'll probably can kicked out by the labor party like they did to Kevin Rudd, or Tony Abbott will kick her ass in the 2013 or 14 election.
@coverchenko That's all nice and well to say but can you or someone redirect me to a site that actually has proof of what you are speaking of, "the recycling of nuclear waste"?
Nuclear power in its current form is amoral even if its save, no one has the right to create an radiation waste problem that kan kill on a large scale over long periods even a 100.000 years from now.
Happy Birthday Ron Paul, everyone please donate $20 bucks today towards the Aug 20th money bomb. Today is the day to spread the truth about liberty, get out there.
We must still wait for nuclear fusion, requires fractional amount of material and produces a massive amount of energy which is exponentially greater than nuclear fission. Solar and biofuel are other avenues that seem to lead down a profitable road, wind power, not so much.
Nueclear power plants generally produce 36,000-76,000 watts of energy an hour, windmills produce 7,000-14,000, do the math, 3 windmills-7 replace a plant that destroys everything
Nuclear Plants would be so much cheaper if it weren't for the messed up construction and operating licenses in the early stages of Nuclear Production. If you renew the policies, you can lower the costs of plant production. Besides, a nuclear power plant, on average, makes $1 million in revenue.
It's interesting how the 'Green' movement is now considered to be a bunch of right-wing Luddites.
The Green movement are using Daily Mail style scare tactics to stop developing GM food, and therefore feeding the starving in the 3rd World, and using nuclear power to help eradicate poverty in countries such as India.
NO Edwards. The reason why it takes so long to build a nuclear power plant is because it takes put to 10 years to get it APPROVED by the government. We need to use ALL kinds of fuel and create competition.
@Sonnedude well we happily managed to destroy competition here in Germany. Four companies ( Enbw , E-on, Wattenphal und RWE ) formed an inofficial cartell and are currently milking the german tex-payer. If we had fair competition power plants would long overdue in most european countries.
Politicians don't know what debate is. They hardly ever refute their opponents on ANYTHING because they are too dim witted to deviate from the coached rederick. When is the media going to get some balls and ARGUE with politicians and when are we going to get politicians who can ARGUE for themselves.
Has anyone thought of fire or water??? I am a conservative but I believe in renuable energy and helping the environment. As a favorite musician of mine Ted Nugent said: If you want to save the rain forest plant some trees. What you take give back.
I know that this is going to sound stupid... but why don't we just aim the nuclear waste to the sun and rocket it to the outer space, it would not cause any environmental problems and we could still use its energy
@darkantidote Our current nuclear waste could be stacked on a football, three stories high. That is relatively low for other current fuel sources, but it costs $20,000 to transport a pound of cargo into space. That is way too high of a price tag. Also, what would happen if the rocket failed and spewed all that waste out. We can recycle 95% of nuclear waste--turning that football field into an endzone. That is the way to go, in my opinion.
the waste issue is absolutely dispicable. We can pump it into the air (fossil Fuels) but we cant bury it in ocean trenches....why beacuse you might be able to see. Combustion waste is invisible and people dont want to see that they are creating waste. Nuclear waste is much more tangable and nobody wants to sse it. Have you ever seen a tailings Pond??
Taking away tax beaks only hurt's the consumer. What I do find ironic is that all these fuel efficient laws have done nothing but really help the auto and oil companies. It extends the time that we will be dependent on fossil fuels and gives new motive to buying cars. If democrats really wanted to change the our dependence on oil they would work together, with their ability to get millions of dollars for campaigns, to support and develop alternate fuels.
You completely missed my point, jimmyreed. Yes, there's more nukes than wind right now. Mostly because governments have pumped trillions dollars into keeping them afloat. But, the trend world wide has changed. Wind installations are increasing exponentially while nukes are staying flat or declining. Some parts of Germany and Denmark get over half their power from wind. Samsquatch, the November 09 issue of Scientific American lays out a plan for 0 carbon and NO NUKES! Wind, solar and hydro.
i love the way you say 'some parts' some parts of the world are powered by farts doesnt make it a good idea for the whole world to adopt this strategy. and nuclear energy costs less per unit than wind right now...go check you may be surprised. the fact of the matter is that if you think wind and solar are good for generating enough energy for the world to keep going on youre living on a different planet. whats the problem with nuclear? it works well
if you spend more you get more...is that not obvious? and i think the figure youre looking for is billions not trillions. try not to exagerate to get your point across :) . sure wind is technically 'free' once youve built the turbine. but turbines require maintenance which requires fossil fuels to be burnt with technitians travelling between sites and lets not forget, shall we, the biblical environmental cost of constructing so many turbines, pv arrays and HEPs
Ahh!!! statistics my environmentalist mind is melting!!!
Seriously though wake up and smell the roses coal and nuclear are the cheapest type of power. Look at the alternatives coal must be great according to you guys because thats the runner up to nuclear and no country can feasibly run off of just renewables unless its hydro but they ruin ecosystems in rivers. Wind and solar are great in theory but they are gigantic compared to a couple reactors not to mention the upkeep.
nuclear power is the only feasible method for the planet to continue living in the state it is. the benefits far outweigh the downfalls and we cannot afford to fuck around with renewables. obviously we need at least some renewables but building hundreds of millions of wind turbines and other renewable sources just isnt practicable. this is a crisis people wake up and smell the coffee. nuclear is the only way so start embracing it
Wrong, Jimmyreed. Last year (2009) over 9 GigaWatts of wind power were installed world wide, many, many times the amount of new nuclear power. Even the French are switching to wind power. Why? Because wind is cheaper, faster, cleaner, more reliable, less dangerous and better than nuclear.
By the way, why is it all you pro-nukers have to use the F word in your comments? Do you lack the vocabulary necessary to carry on a civil conversation? If so, why should we listen to you?
so how many wind turbines would you say are needed to cope with 9 billion people in 2050? 4? 7? i estimate around 1 per 50 people which isnt unreasonable. so thats 180million wind turbines youre talking about?!?!?!? pah! madness. wind turbines make up 0.035% of the worlds energy right now which is just pathetic. 6% of the worlds energy is produced by 434 nuclear plants. 2.3 million people per plant if you average their consumption. 3906 plants for 9 billion ppl.
oh and another thing...Gigawatts? thats a drop in the ocean. 15 Tw were consumed right here on planet earth in 2008. nuclear power is something sandal wearing eco-mentalists just love to hate without even properly looking at figures. so you think wind produced more power than nuclear last year? 2658twhs were produced by nuclear plants vs 157.9twhs by wind. no competition. and stop taking cheap shots about swearing. get with the programme man
Jimmy, as an nuclear operator and a strong advocate for nuclear power, people don't want to believe in nuclear power simply because they are afraid. They are afraid of radiation exposure, disposal of Uranium, hazardous emissions, and cost. All of these points can be argued in favor of nuclear power. People would rather go with what they believe is the safe bet. People need to realize that nuclear power is highly lucrative for our nation's well being and more cost effective than alternatives.
@K1DBeast one thing is clear to me....you are not a nuclear operator. you do not dispose of uranium....you dispose of the elements created by the fission of the element uranium 235 or 238. or in the case of fast breeder reactors plutonium 239. what you are saying though hits the nail right on the head...people are misinformed and base their viewpoint on what happened at chernobyl, three mile island and the like. that was outdated technology. people need to read into it
Nuclear Power is the most expensive, dirty, and dangerous form of power ever invented.
Expensive: Plants typically have cost OVERRUNS in the tens of billions of dollars. Two "Next Generation" nukes in Europe are 5 years and 50 BILLION dollars over budget.
Dirty: Plutonium is so deadly that 5 grams can kill 20 million people. It's only created in nuke plants.
Dangerous: Davis-Besse in Ohio almost melted down. The entire state would have been uninhabitable for 20,000 years.
2. ebola and the plague are pretty bad dont you think? just because it exists doesnt make it dangerous as long as we can control it properly which we can.
3. it would be virtually impossible for a modern plant to meltdown and even if it did the concrete dome over the reactor core would encase any radiation within 10 feet of concrete.
All of your points are considering the reactor operators don't know what they are doing. I submit to you that if we were to increase the education requirements for operators of nuclear power plants, then Chernoble or Three Mile Island will never happen again. The Navy has been using nuclear power for over 50 years and not once has had a major nuclear incident. Not even close.
LISTEN UP PEOPLE! I'm a nuke engineering major in college.
If the world wants to start thinking of energy in the long run, talking 100s-1000s of years in the future, WE NEED NUCLEAR POWER. Future generations of people could look upon this time in history and thank us for thinking of them today.
When considering energy, one needs to think about LIFESPAN of remaining natural resources. At present consumption rates:
Forgive me if this posts twice - the first attempt doesn't seem to have worked (maybe bc I included a link in it).
A 2009 MIT study available at footnote 42 of Wikipedia's article "The Economics of Nuclear Power" says nuclear power costs 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour. That is very high. Much higher than the 2 cents per kilowat hour figure that proponents of nuclear often give.
@sebwingfield The 2009 MIT study put the cost of Nuclear at 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour, or 35% higher than that of coal, and 30% higher than that of Gas. With a $25 carbon tax they all even out. Even at 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour, it is still significantly lower than that of wind and solar. Furthermore. an EPRI study shows cost of Nuclear decreasing to 7.4 cents per kilowatt hour. I believe the very low cost cited by nuclear proponents is for existing plants, or Nuclear plants build in china.
@sebwingfield Also, coal has a very high external cost. The health effects it causes are not payed for when buying electricity. When factoring these in coal jumps to approximately 10 cents per kilowatt hour, which is above new Nuclear.
well reactor technology has come a long way since the 60s and we have much more advanced designs. But anyhow they would never give those designs to civilians.
It's not naive to think that. Since America refuse to recycle it, then it can become a problem. 95% of a spent fuel rod is plain uranium 238, exactly the same as the uranium 238 that comes out of the ground. The other 5% is highly radioactive yes, but can be, and has been used by places like France for medical purposes such as radiation treatment. There is a taboo around nuclear power, which is simply a cold war relic in the minds of people who had to live with nuclear fear.
it is. There are more deaths due to solar power (usually people dieing when installing them) then nuclear power
In the US there has not been a single civilian death due to nuclear power
The only deaths that have happend were soldiers who worked on the armies nuclear reactor SL1. It was 3 soldiers who went in the reactor and well did some very stupid things. This was back in 1958.
Believe it or not Nuclear power is actually the safest form of energy we have. Even safer then hydro.
Joseph Mangano just released a study in the International Journal of Health Services that shows thyroid cancer rates double in communities that install nuke plants. People have died from thyroid cancer. It's also been known for years that childhood leukemia levels increase around nuke plants. Children die from leukemia. Finally a study done for the European Parliamant shows 500,000 premature deaths so far from Chernobyl. Radiation kills.
I would like to remind all you people reffering to Chernobyl, that plant was run by the Soviet Union who's curruption was amazing, to the point where someone can walk out with weapons grade Plutonium/ Uranium. Also the staff turned off almost all the saftey features to conduct an un-needed test, finally and most importantly there was NO containment building (Mandatory on ALL plants now.) It's people like you who prevent America and Humanity from having a clear, bright future.
Nuclear Energy --> Yes there is waste, just like Fossil Fuels, but it is being contained or atleast trying to be..
The wastes of Fossil Fuels are shot into the air (several volatile organic compounds, acids, sulfur dioxide, and metals. Oh and CO2)right? not contained? Im not argueing im trying to understand, any enlightenment into this issue would be appreciated
unfortunately, 'greed ' is the enlightenment you are seeking. by your wonderful post you know the score , so you have already been enlightened as you know this already.
The systems are in place for fossil fuels, to change costs big money/peoples energy. So the executives in charge of these systems who have power to control governments will not stop until all the fossil fuels are gone. And as they profit will build on the protection systems for their families in case of war.
It is official, John Edwards is an idiot. Nuclear power plants are constantly being built in France, where nuclear accounts for 70% of energy resource.
Fuck yeah Nuclear Power. Stupid hippees dont know what the fuck they are talking about. I just had one yesterday ask me to sign a petition to stop a manufacturing of one near my city. What a retard. It could provide jobs and more power.
How about the cancers and spontaneous abortions occurring around nuclear plants? How about over 300,000 dying prematurely so far from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986? Radioactivity from cleaving uranium lasts hundreds of thousands of years, mutating DNA and causing cancer & abortions of unviable fetuses due 2 the mutations. Jobs are good, but study your effects of radioactivity on your protoplasm. Lung cancer causing dose 4 example of plutonium is one microgram. 454 grams in one lb.
so working in a coal mine, you cant get hurt there? drilling oil you cant get hurt? dont even put chernobyl there because that was a power plant built so bad it was doomed from the start, i can go all day with you and all you need to know is all american plants are 100% safe and will be once people pull there heads out of there asses and build more.
ever become trapped in a coal mine? Ever collapse from H2s gas on a rig platform? No? Neither have I. course they don't have radiation that dessicates your body instantly, messes your DNA and deforms your kids. how do you know american reactors aare "100% safe". Noone can make such absurd claims. sometimes ppl sound so dumb and ignorant its a shame. Why should more be built?
People get hurt in any industry. But nuclear plants can do the ultimate hurt. Chernobyl has killed at least 300,000 people prematurely since April 26, 1986. Now we have a new generation of young folks who don't think about the health effects of radioactivity. But we have increased incidences of cancer around German and U.K. nuclear plants (where they would do such research) and it takes but one millionth of a gram of plutonium to cause lung cancer. 20 lbs plutonium could kill all on Earth.
If more research had been done into fission the usa would have gas cooled pebble bed reactors by now, which are physically incapable of meltdown and don't spew radioactive particles into the air if they get blown up.
The problem with nuclear is how out of date the technology is.
Even so, it's still less harmful in every measurable way than fossil fuels.
Yes, because people don't get the facts about the dangers of nuclear power, and have not heard the truth about the Chernobyl accident in 1986 with over 300,000 people dying prematurely so far, not just 31 people as some nuclear proponents like to say who deny mentioning the effects long term of radioactivity and radioactive contamination.
Though accients do indeed occur, and I won't deny those implications, nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, most efficient and most environment-friendly power source around. Besides, it's limitless.
it is far from environmentally friendly. no green house gases but it is very far from friendly to the environment. not the first but a good example is the hanford site. they have dumped coolinig water into the columbia river after only 6 hours in retention basins. not nearly enough time for the decay of something with a 100 or 1000 half life. that was 50 or so years ago. now the nuclear waste from the plant is leaking into the river from its underground storage place. horrible in the long term
Nuclear power is stupid bad waste,past accidents with deaths on army application, limited supply of urainium will not be there forever, sustainable energy only ,wind,tide,solar biofuels,limited clean coal burning that does not exist yet. We have had three bad reactor accidents Russia ,3 mile island, and the Army accident in 1960 that killed the soldiers. Fusion may have potential someday but fission is a short term disease as bad as hydrocarbons.
all I'm going to say is that you are the text book example of america's irrational fear of nuclear power. Your opinions are based not on fact but so much as preconceived notions. the idea that nuclear power is as bad as hydrocarbons is laughable, you have no creditability.
@krazykid1337 you are completely right people are scared of that which they do not understand. Fear has been generated by hippies and uneducated kids who started the environment trend. Nuclear power is the way to go
Nuclear energy is the only sane and safe way to generate electricity. Nuclear waste poses no threat to anyone and NEVER hurt a single human being, and never will. All nuclear waste the USA ever produced since 1955 fits in a football field.
It is NOT clean, millions of gallons of water (fresh drinking water?) go into cooling radioactive materials, wastes, spills in rivers, dumping of radioactive wastes in oceans, these things happen.
Radioactive material decimates crop fields in other countries like Iraq from DUI weapons, and people have this silly notion that it is "clean", "cheap" Money is drawn away from wind, solar, tidal, to make way for nuclear, then more and more money must be allocated every year for decades everafter.
I'm an undergrad nuclear engineer and you have no idea what you're talking about. Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest power sources known to man, and the cheapest. The water that they use in nuclear reactors is "heavy" water bound with an isotope of hydrogen called deuterium, that is used to transport heat to other water through heat induction. Almost all of the water in nuclear power is non-radiated and safe. There's no waste dumps into public water, its isolated in the reactors, hurr durr.
There is no true drawback about nuclear power, as long as safety standards are maintained. But even that is getting easier with more advanced programs to make sure it runs correctly without a meltdown such as Chernobyl. I'm very interested in Nuclear Engineering and I'm looking at high school and college courses. Anything specific that I should take? Do you know what some of the best schools are that have nuclear engineering programs? Thanks for your time.
def consider it, the field is wide open in terms of employment, starting salary is averaging 60k with 2-3 job offers out of undergrad. I took calculus in high school, that and physics. I go to penn state an they have a very good program there, even its own nuclear reactor.
only some reactors use 'heavy' water. i think you mean conduction rather than induction. there are very low levels of waste deposited in the river/sea whichever the plant uses. keep studying! im on your side, nuclear power is the way to go, at least for now
How is it clean? You have tons of radioactive waste right now with no proper storage. What was their plan with Yucca mountain, underground storage on a fault line near a water table? As long as safety standards are maintained, and if they're not? Even then they say it's so complex there's no room for error and people make mistakes. The cost balloons once you build, and again, the weapons industry. Weapons will be made using waste materials, including smuggling.
Weapons cannot be made from the waste material, just from the fresh stuff.
They are costly to build because they are built with extra safty precautions these day's. Rycyling the waste makes it into glass beads which aren't going to leak into the water. Yucca mountain is held back because of the government, holding it back because of holding it back is a logical fallacy. There's plenty of room for error thanks to protective domes that work is the worst circumstances. Ran out of room...
woah, tonnes of waste? the total core waste of all reactors on earth could comeforatbly fill a prius each year. this waste is high level, yes, but there aint oceans of it out there.
There is a way to get rid of waste! the French, Germans, Swiss, Russians, and Swedes have been doing it for 20 years! its called recycling it. The waste that has been removed from reactors is sent to a reprocessing facility, refined, reprocessed, and put back into the reactors. its cheaper than storing it and it is 100% clean. no emissions, and the leftover metals that have been taken from the waste can be reused in the process. outrageously efficient. its a no brainer.
Its not often i come across people who understand the MASSIVE benefits of Nuclear energy. Its overall cheaper & cleaner than almost all fuels currently used.
Bio fuels are extremely complicated & often produce less energy wile Coal & gases produce more pollution & take up more room & resources.
I get annoyed with most leftist because i find it contradicting to be Pro-Environment & Anti-Nuclear.
Hopefully Obama will get his head out his ass & start making changes that work!
A podium of old farty men who don't know anything about anything except how much money corporate lobbyists are sneaking in their pockets.
What America does best is waste energy. Cut down on waste and use renewable, like water fusion and tidal power.
Nuclear energy only facilitates Depleted Uranium Weapons use on people and soils aswell as the possibilty of governments blaming terrorists for disasters.
Nuclear power is the cheapest source available! And solar and wind is too expensive and does not have much profit. Waste can be stored in subduction zones or bury them in yucca moutain that should be open. if not it is still not a problem we could bury them where man would never even think of going. it would be millions of years before it goes back to land which then would be completely safe minerals again.
yes, nuclear fusion is the best solution, but the problem is that it is not possible to do it right now. The only best alternative for current technology is to use nuclear fission.
There is only one problem, now we can´t make a succesfull fusion. If we pass over one (Lawson´s criterium) it´ll be the best sources of eletric energy. But now we can´t do it, now is the best solution a nuclear power.
LOL nuclear power is weak!! when i first heard of nuclear power i was so excited i thought that humans had actually been able to Directly channel all that energy into direct power. boy was i disappointed when i found out its basically just a big steam engine! so gay!!
dont read this(cuz it really wrks). u will get kissd on the nearest friday by the love of ur life. tomorrow will b the best day of ur life however if you dont post this comment too at least 3 vids u will die withn 2 days now uv startd readn this dont stop this is so scary send ths over too 5 vids in 143 mins when ur done press f6 and ur crush's name wll appear on the screen n big letters ths is so scary cuz it actully works this really works sorry i don't want to die
how big...@-@ =] lol..but um any ways um.... do u have proof? if so tel meh and ill move next to 1 to c if it works...*add here*(get a bigger penis by living next to one of these wonderful nuke plants changes noticable in just 1year..some risks do apply such as a green glow or cancer but these are extremly rare) X[)
Back in the day, when Barack wasn't president. Now, as tough as this might sound, we already have powerplants that make 20% of the energy we use. Most of the plants are way overdue on their decommision dates and for a good reason. They have been running smoothly for over 60 years. They have quietly lived in the shadows of history and politics. So, what's the problem with more of them? Dangerous waste? Launch it into the sun. Costly commissioning? Ever think it actually pays itself off?
Who is that 1st guy? He is a policy is going round n' round the toilet. Nuclear Reactors are superiour to any other alternative. Nuclear power can produce more energy than any alternative energy. They assosciate nuclear fuel with War, Terrorism, Violent Acts. But since Nevadans say "NIMBY" nuclear enegy has encountered resistance. Why would anybody build a city in Nevada. We consume 2 times as much electricity in summer than in winter due to air conditioning.
MY POINT IS TO TREAT ENERGY CONSUMPTION AS IF YOU NEED TO LIVE YOUR LIFE WITH 1kWh. THERE NEEDS TO BE DRASTIC AND SWIFT CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC AND THEIR NON EXISTANT EDUCATION ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER.
You realize that there is uranium in your backyard right? But it is useless to you unless you have the resources to enrich it. Even if terrorists managed to steal uranium for a nuclear power plant (which would be a near impossible feat to begin with), they would then have to enrich it to weapons grade uranium before it could become a weapon which costs billions of dollars to do. Terrorists would not have the resources to do this.
Building more nuclear plants, more windmills, and solar plants, to completely replace all fossil fuel power plants powering the grid would save billions of dollars, and drastically decrease greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce the cost of fuel for things like transportation until we can find a good alternative fuel for cars, boats, and aircraft.
I'm with AChrisL on this. Nuclear power plants are a good idea - a great idea actually. Massive-scale plants might be too big to take care of, but small reactors that are built well (no cutting corners!) can power a lot of houses for a fraction of the cost coal-burning-electricity demands. You have to forget Chernobyl - it was poorly built, unsupervised and operated for months without maintenence. It also used fuel at critical levels - each amount was enough to cause a full-blown explosion.
AChrisL, perhaps you simply struggle with the concept of, "the umbilical chord of supply"??? These terrorists come from lands that really know what war is all about: there are two types of war... 1) Attrition warfare & 2) Maneuver Warfare. The terrorists proved that Nuclear Bombs mean (next to) nothing! ...have you REALLY got the guts to keep pushing these people around?!? If you have, what about your neighbours?!? "BOO!"
thats close to imposable, the people stealing it would need allot of well trained men and they wouldn't be able to use it unless they have a way of shooting neutrons at it.
even if u have uranium, making a nuke out of it is not something ull be able to do in ur backyard because u need enriched uranium (which is very hard and expensive to make). and if your thinking that they will be able to make a dirty bomb out of it, then ur wrong cuz uranium isnt radioactive enough to make an effective dirty bomb
As for the importation of fuel supplies: well, how do you feel about paying for both sides of an unpopular war?!? Even if you don't mind it does that mean your neighbours feel the same way?!?
Yes, anyone can write a book for dummies. Paul G. Hewitt's Conceptual Physics book completely lacks the kind of math that I had to have for a college-level physics course. It's a lightweight physics book for perhaps business majors or education majors. But most engineering schools won't accept course credit for this kind of a physics course.
He was claiming that nuclear power was well explained in the book. I took a look at the book in the library here, and it had the very basics of nuclear power in about 5 pages. And he's right, the book really does not use very much math to explain physics compared to other texts.
I told you about Paul G. Hewitt having vids on YouTube. I also told you about his physics book. I checked one out. It's not a real physics book. It reads like a for dummies series book. What else do you want me to tell you.
Chernobyl happened because it was built in the soviet era, and they wanted to build it fast to show the world they were better - so they cut corners here and there...and you can clearly see the results. Nobody is going to cut any corners today, so nuclear power plants are the best solution at the moment. As for the waste, there is a special microbe that feeds on it, and in large enough numbers you can easily deal with the waste!
Not to mention the breeder technology that is developed now. If anyone brings up the issue of nuclear waste disposal, end the conversation there because they aren't read up on the subject.
France has gone approx. 85% nuclear through out their infrastructure...seems this country wants to adopt the health care systems of some European countries but not their more efficient energy systems...makes you wonder about the goddamned lobbyists in this country.
France is completely reliant on imported uranium since they ran out of uranium in 2002. And you want us to be just like them? Do you know the US imports around 90% of all the uranium it needs?
What's your point? The point I am trying to make is that France is using a technology for energy production which enables it to be an industrialized nation which boasts the cleanest air. Imagine what we here in the US can do? I suppose the environment is not so important to you though. That's fine. BTW, we here in the US import many things, among them fossil fuels, so I am not so sure what your deal with us importing uranium is (we import > 90%). This country requires a lot of energy to run.
The smarter amongst us would realise that the key word here is "boasts"! What about the fact they are encouraging the use of Uranium...?!? Capitalism is far from perfect: if it was then we would all be paying for education!
What is your specific issue with Uranium, Deathridesahorse2? We have never had a nuclear related death here in the US- ever. I have more of an issue with coal burning power plants still even considered as a source for energy, when we have a superior alternative- clean, green nuclear.
Fission is the breaking process of a super heavy element into smaller ones, resulting in massive releases of energy. Toxicity is caused due to a percentage of that heavy element that didn't undergo fission, was vaporized by the heat, and is now airborn and can reach people by inhaling it. Today we can't do fusion for a long time because the conditions required to keep it going are too uncontrolable. Chernobyl had no fission reaction - it had a big fire and a leak of radioactive materials.
If we ever had a fusion reaction occur deep under the water, on the ocean floor, it would disstabilized the entire Earth's crust and lift a tidal wave 1.5-2 miles high, going in every direction from the epi-center. So please, next time read a couple of books before spreading crap like that, and I don't appologize for the harshness!
Are you that stupid? deep under the sea, through some freak-ass chemical/nuclear process, each Hydrogen atom gets another neutron added to it, turning it into Deterium (H2O becomes D2O), meaning heavy water.
A fusion reaction is when two seperate nuclei are fused together into one heavy nuclei, and it happens in the sun's core, not on the surface. To fuse two cores you need about 125g/cm3 of pressure and a temperature of atleast 10 million degrees.
The dee psea does nuclear fusion from water: 4 times as energetic as nuclear fusion, wtih no toxic death. Nuclear fission kills, even wtihout a Chernobyl!
No. High pressure water or stema in turbuelnt flow does nuclear fusion - liek the H plasma on the sun's surface. It is niot hard. And no CO2 or toxic death!
Well, Obama won in the end. But you want to be on the side of non-nuclear power. Although I like nuclear power, but nobody else does. Why do I care about American politics? I should be more worried about what Julia Gillard is doing to our government, she'll probably can kicked out by the labor party like they did to Kevin Rudd, or Tony Abbott will kick her ass in the 2013 or 14 election.
1800FruityTangerine 3 months ago
@coverchenko That's all nice and well to say but can you or someone redirect me to a site that actually has proof of what you are speaking of, "the recycling of nuclear waste"?
Fruzlie 4 months ago
Nuclear power in its current form is amoral even if its save, no one has the right to create an radiation waste problem that kan kill on a large scale over long periods even a 100.000 years from now.
DEM0N0FTHEN0RTH 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Happy Birthday Ron Paul, everyone please donate $20 bucks today towards the Aug 20th money bomb. Today is the day to spread the truth about liberty, get out there.
WuanMedison 5 months ago
We must still wait for nuclear fusion, requires fractional amount of material and produces a massive amount of energy which is exponentially greater than nuclear fission. Solar and biofuel are other avenues that seem to lead down a profitable road, wind power, not so much.
skydome29 5 months ago
@skydome29 I see your point, it has a lot of merit, but on the other hand it does not explain the energy release of your mum and I in bed last night
camman1056 1 week ago
@camman1056 that's called "fucking the dog" my house has a door, my dogs backdoor isn't it.
skydome29 1 week ago
by nuclear power i though this meant nuclear power as in north korea and nukes
est1830 9 months ago
If nuclear regulations are so great, then how come the NRC has NEVER turned down a plant application or renewal?
whereismybailouttv 10 months ago
Nueclear power plants generally produce 36,000-76,000 watts of energy an hour, windmills produce 7,000-14,000, do the math, 3 windmills-7 replace a plant that destroys everything
thegreenangelsoul 1 year ago
Nuclear Plants would be so much cheaper if it weren't for the messed up construction and operating licenses in the early stages of Nuclear Production. If you renew the policies, you can lower the costs of plant production. Besides, a nuclear power plant, on average, makes $1 million in revenue.
klajcollege 1 year ago
It's interesting how the 'Green' movement is now considered to be a bunch of right-wing Luddites.
The Green movement are using Daily Mail style scare tactics to stop developing GM food, and therefore feeding the starving in the 3rd World, and using nuclear power to help eradicate poverty in countries such as India.
t0mme1981 1 year ago
NO Edwards. The reason why it takes so long to build a nuclear power plant is because it takes put to 10 years to get it APPROVED by the government. We need to use ALL kinds of fuel and create competition.
Sonnedude 1 year ago
@Sonnedude well we happily managed to destroy competition here in Germany. Four companies ( Enbw , E-on, Wattenphal und RWE ) formed an inofficial cartell and are currently milking the german tex-payer. If we had fair competition power plants would long overdue in most european countries.
KingEdward993 10 months ago
There is a silver bullet - LFTR.
bigpchamber 1 year ago
just ship that shit off into the sun, whats the worst that could happen?
user696969 1 year ago
Politicians don't know what debate is. They hardly ever refute their opponents on ANYTHING because they are too dim witted to deviate from the coached rederick. When is the media going to get some balls and ARGUE with politicians and when are we going to get politicians who can ARGUE for themselves.
collins1188 1 year ago
For long term stability and the safety of our planet, we believe nuclear is the answer.
americanenergyfields 1 year ago
Has anyone thought of fire or water??? I am a conservative but I believe in renuable energy and helping the environment. As a favorite musician of mine Ted Nugent said: If you want to save the rain forest plant some trees. What you take give back.
IxIFLASHxBANGIxI 1 year ago
I know that this is going to sound stupid... but why don't we just aim the nuclear waste to the sun and rocket it to the outer space, it would not cause any environmental problems and we could still use its energy
darkantidote 1 year ago
@darkantidote Our current nuclear waste could be stacked on a football, three stories high. That is relatively low for other current fuel sources, but it costs $20,000 to transport a pound of cargo into space. That is way too high of a price tag. Also, what would happen if the rocket failed and spewed all that waste out. We can recycle 95% of nuclear waste--turning that football field into an endzone. That is the way to go, in my opinion.
centerthinker 1 year ago
the waste issue is absolutely dispicable. We can pump it into the air (fossil Fuels) but we cant bury it in ocean trenches....why beacuse you might be able to see. Combustion waste is invisible and people dont want to see that they are creating waste. Nuclear waste is much more tangable and nobody wants to sse it. Have you ever seen a tailings Pond??
jtblack1414 1 year ago
There is not a concensus in man made global warming.
XANDERXXZ 1 year ago
Taking away tax beaks only hurt's the consumer. What I do find ironic is that all these fuel efficient laws have done nothing but really help the auto and oil companies. It extends the time that we will be dependent on fossil fuels and gives new motive to buying cars. If democrats really wanted to change the our dependence on oil they would work together, with their ability to get millions of dollars for campaigns, to support and develop alternate fuels.
DAF249 1 year ago
You completely missed my point, jimmyreed. Yes, there's more nukes than wind right now. Mostly because governments have pumped trillions dollars into keeping them afloat. But, the trend world wide has changed. Wind installations are increasing exponentially while nukes are staying flat or declining. Some parts of Germany and Denmark get over half their power from wind. Samsquatch, the November 09 issue of Scientific American lays out a plan for 0 carbon and NO NUKES! Wind, solar and hydro.
142stanfordbinet 1 year ago
i love the way you say 'some parts' some parts of the world are powered by farts doesnt make it a good idea for the whole world to adopt this strategy. and nuclear energy costs less per unit than wind right now...go check you may be surprised. the fact of the matter is that if you think wind and solar are good for generating enough energy for the world to keep going on youre living on a different planet. whats the problem with nuclear? it works well
jimmyreed112 1 year ago
if you spend more you get more...is that not obvious? and i think the figure youre looking for is billions not trillions. try not to exagerate to get your point across :) . sure wind is technically 'free' once youve built the turbine. but turbines require maintenance which requires fossil fuels to be burnt with technitians travelling between sites and lets not forget, shall we, the biblical environmental cost of constructing so many turbines, pv arrays and HEPs
jimmyreed112 1 year ago
if your house ran on solar panels they would have to be 3 times the size of your house to make it run. Thats not my definition of efficient.
00Denkou0Taka00 1 year ago
Ahh!!! statistics my environmentalist mind is melting!!!
Seriously though wake up and smell the roses coal and nuclear are the cheapest type of power. Look at the alternatives coal must be great according to you guys because thats the runner up to nuclear and no country can feasibly run off of just renewables unless its hydro but they ruin ecosystems in rivers. Wind and solar are great in theory but they are gigantic compared to a couple reactors not to mention the upkeep.
OriginalSamsquatch 1 year ago
nuclear power is the only feasible method for the planet to continue living in the state it is. the benefits far outweigh the downfalls and we cannot afford to fuck around with renewables. obviously we need at least some renewables but building hundreds of millions of wind turbines and other renewable sources just isnt practicable. this is a crisis people wake up and smell the coffee. nuclear is the only way so start embracing it
jimmyreed112 1 year ago
Wrong, Jimmyreed. Last year (2009) over 9 GigaWatts of wind power were installed world wide, many, many times the amount of new nuclear power. Even the French are switching to wind power. Why? Because wind is cheaper, faster, cleaner, more reliable, less dangerous and better than nuclear.
By the way, why is it all you pro-nukers have to use the F word in your comments? Do you lack the vocabulary necessary to carry on a civil conversation? If so, why should we listen to you?
142stanfordbinet 1 year ago
so how many wind turbines would you say are needed to cope with 9 billion people in 2050? 4? 7? i estimate around 1 per 50 people which isnt unreasonable. so thats 180million wind turbines youre talking about?!?!?!? pah! madness. wind turbines make up 0.035% of the worlds energy right now which is just pathetic. 6% of the worlds energy is produced by 434 nuclear plants. 2.3 million people per plant if you average their consumption. 3906 plants for 9 billion ppl.
jimmyreed112 1 year ago
oh and another thing...Gigawatts? thats a drop in the ocean. 15 Tw were consumed right here on planet earth in 2008. nuclear power is something sandal wearing eco-mentalists just love to hate without even properly looking at figures. so you think wind produced more power than nuclear last year? 2658twhs were produced by nuclear plants vs 157.9twhs by wind. no competition. and stop taking cheap shots about swearing. get with the programme man
jimmyreed112 1 year ago
Jimmy, as an nuclear operator and a strong advocate for nuclear power, people don't want to believe in nuclear power simply because they are afraid. They are afraid of radiation exposure, disposal of Uranium, hazardous emissions, and cost. All of these points can be argued in favor of nuclear power. People would rather go with what they believe is the safe bet. People need to realize that nuclear power is highly lucrative for our nation's well being and more cost effective than alternatives.
K1DBeast 1 year ago
@K1DBeast one thing is clear to me....you are not a nuclear operator. you do not dispose of uranium....you dispose of the elements created by the fission of the element uranium 235 or 238. or in the case of fast breeder reactors plutonium 239. what you are saying though hits the nail right on the head...people are misinformed and base their viewpoint on what happened at chernobyl, three mile island and the like. that was outdated technology. people need to read into it
jimmyreed112 1 year ago
SO whats the answer? Wind and Solar? It will never happen. Fucking death to liberals.
dukeljk 1 year ago
Nuclear Power is the most expensive, dirty, and dangerous form of power ever invented.
Expensive: Plants typically have cost OVERRUNS in the tens of billions of dollars. Two "Next Generation" nukes in Europe are 5 years and 50 BILLION dollars over budget.
Dirty: Plutonium is so deadly that 5 grams can kill 20 million people. It's only created in nuke plants.
Dangerous: Davis-Besse in Ohio almost melted down. The entire state would have been uninhabitable for 20,000 years.
142stanfordbinet 1 year ago
Where did you get your info?
dukeljk 1 year ago
1. if you build in bulk you get cost benefits
2. ebola and the plague are pretty bad dont you think? just because it exists doesnt make it dangerous as long as we can control it properly which we can.
3. it would be virtually impossible for a modern plant to meltdown and even if it did the concrete dome over the reactor core would encase any radiation within 10 feet of concrete.
nuclear is THE way.
jimmyreed112 1 year ago
I agree 100%.
00Denkou0Taka00 1 year ago
All of your points are considering the reactor operators don't know what they are doing. I submit to you that if we were to increase the education requirements for operators of nuclear power plants, then Chernoble or Three Mile Island will never happen again. The Navy has been using nuclear power for over 50 years and not once has had a major nuclear incident. Not even close.
K1DBeast 1 year ago
I'll be happy to answer anyone's questions on Nuclear Power, just comment or email me.
SechyoolarYOOESAY 1 year ago
LISTEN UP PEOPLE! I'm a nuke engineering major in college.
If the world wants to start thinking of energy in the long run, talking 100s-1000s of years in the future, WE NEED NUCLEAR POWER. Future generations of people could look upon this time in history and thank us for thinking of them today.
When considering energy, one needs to think about LIFESPAN of remaining natural resources. At present consumption rates:
Coal ~ 300 yr
Oil ~ 70 yr
Nat. Gas ~ 60 yr
Nuke Power ~ Thousands of years!
SechyoolarYOOESAY 1 year ago
Edwards thinks cellulose based biofuels (not even invented yet) are not carbon based. He needs to review his chemistry.
BillTheWaterDrinker 1 year ago
How was that a question? I also think that nuclear power is important in moving away from fossil fuels. I think everybody does.
enomarekim 2 years ago
Global Warming is BS
KuteFairytale 2 years ago
Global Warming is a complete scam. How many products do you see that say things like "Green" on them? It's totally just a money maker.
Kenny151 1 year ago
Yeah, whenever man fucks around with the environment NOTHING ever goes wrong....
00Denkou0Taka00 1 year ago
Man americans are truely the retards of the world
robs2500 2 years ago
He met with industry groups zero times. He met with SEIU and union numerous times and that's how he formed his stimulus package.
OBAMA - Wake up fools!!
hollysteinberg1 2 years ago
The science is settled and fraudulent you dumb progressive slaves.
hollysteinberg1 2 years ago
Comment removed
JustSoCheeki 2 years ago
Forgive me if this posts twice - the first attempt doesn't seem to have worked (maybe bc I included a link in it).
A 2009 MIT study available at footnote 42 of Wikipedia's article "The Economics of Nuclear Power" says nuclear power costs 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour. That is very high. Much higher than the 2 cents per kilowat hour figure that proponents of nuclear often give.
sebwingfield 2 years ago
@sebwingfield The 2009 MIT study put the cost of Nuclear at 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour, or 35% higher than that of coal, and 30% higher than that of Gas. With a $25 carbon tax they all even out. Even at 8.4 cents per kilowatt hour, it is still significantly lower than that of wind and solar. Furthermore. an EPRI study shows cost of Nuclear decreasing to 7.4 cents per kilowatt hour. I believe the very low cost cited by nuclear proponents is for existing plants, or Nuclear plants build in china.
TheSfaaf 1 year ago
@TheSfaaf
does 400,000 around the people die yearly die to atomic energy? no silly coal is the killer that kills 400,000
captinseperoth 1 year ago
@sebwingfield Also, coal has a very high external cost. The health effects it causes are not payed for when buying electricity. When factoring these in coal jumps to approximately 10 cents per kilowatt hour, which is above new Nuclear.
TheSfaaf 1 year ago
we dont need to design any reactors, use naval designs look at the uss enterprise that beast has been in service since 1961,
Newway2bhuman 2 years ago
well reactor technology has come a long way since the 60s and we have much more advanced designs. But anyhow they would never give those designs to civilians.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
Not efficient enough.
Abdelrahman1993 2 years ago
It's not naive to think that. Since America refuse to recycle it, then it can become a problem. 95% of a spent fuel rod is plain uranium 238, exactly the same as the uranium 238 that comes out of the ground. The other 5% is highly radioactive yes, but can be, and has been used by places like France for medical purposes such as radiation treatment. There is a taboo around nuclear power, which is simply a cold war relic in the minds of people who had to live with nuclear fear.
c0n0rH3aN3y 2 years ago
wtf, you think nuclear power is safer than wind and solar power?
0-0
DarkChaosKnight117 2 years ago
it is. There are more deaths due to solar power (usually people dieing when installing them) then nuclear power
In the US there has not been a single civilian death due to nuclear power
The only deaths that have happend were soldiers who worked on the armies nuclear reactor SL1. It was 3 soldiers who went in the reactor and well did some very stupid things. This was back in 1958.
Believe it or not Nuclear power is actually the safest form of energy we have. Even safer then hydro.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
Wrong, Ackbar.
Joseph Mangano just released a study in the International Journal of Health Services that shows thyroid cancer rates double in communities that install nuke plants. People have died from thyroid cancer. It's also been known for years that childhood leukemia levels increase around nuke plants. Children die from leukemia. Finally a study done for the European Parliamant shows 500,000 premature deaths so far from Chernobyl. Radiation kills.
142stanfordbinet 1 year ago
More radiation comes from coal plants than that which comes from nuclear plants.
00Denkou0Taka00 1 year ago
In china a dam broke and killed 190,000 people. Hydro is a joke.
00Denkou0Taka00 1 year ago
This is John Edwards comment "Theres a reason why I am such a dumb ass, its because i am a hermaphradite and have my foot up my own ass."
coverchenko 2 years ago
Geothermal not Chernobyl
2sillytube 2 years ago
I would like to remind all you people reffering to Chernobyl, that plant was run by the Soviet Union who's curruption was amazing, to the point where someone can walk out with weapons grade Plutonium/ Uranium. Also the staff turned off almost all the saftey features to conduct an un-needed test, finally and most importantly there was NO containment building (Mandatory on ALL plants now.) It's people like you who prevent America and Humanity from having a clear, bright future.
rdvd7 2 years ago
Nuclear Energy --> Yes there is waste, just like Fossil Fuels, but it is being contained or atleast trying to be..
The wastes of Fossil Fuels are shot into the air (several volatile organic compounds, acids, sulfur dioxide, and metals. Oh and CO2)right? not contained? Im not argueing im trying to understand, any enlightenment into this issue would be appreciated
xRockEmSockEmx 2 years ago 4
unfortunately, 'greed ' is the enlightenment you are seeking. by your wonderful post you know the score , so you have already been enlightened as you know this already.
The systems are in place for fossil fuels, to change costs big money/peoples energy. So the executives in charge of these systems who have power to control governments will not stop until all the fossil fuels are gone. And as they profit will build on the protection systems for their families in case of war.
indiasrainbow 2 years ago
@xRockEmSockEmx
breeder reactors,dont forget about them!
the future is so great! Right now,there are far less and starvation through out the world than any point of history!
right now,we are developing far better incinerator facility,which removes all the toxins safely!
400,00 people die yearly due to coal pollutions in china,
and 400,000 plus die due to cancers related so smoking in the usa yearly,
and it takes just only a few small airbubbles in your blood stream to kill you!
captinseperoth 1 year ago
Comment removed
xRockEmSockEmx 2 years ago
It's safer? Oh yeah, of course!
Paddis92 2 years ago
It is official, John Edwards is an idiot. Nuclear power plants are constantly being built in France, where nuclear accounts for 70% of energy resource.
Yuber779 2 years ago
That's absolutely right. Y'know, France and Canada rely on nuclear power for the majority of their power.
PadraikKasier 2 years ago
Put a nuke in your butt.
ASentinel2 2 years ago
0:27-1:12
Someone PLEASE throw a shoe at that f*ckwit Breck Girl John Edwards!!!!!
tuttt99 2 years ago
Fuck yeah Nuclear Power. Stupid hippees dont know what the fuck they are talking about. I just had one yesterday ask me to sign a petition to stop a manufacturing of one near my city. What a retard. It could provide jobs and more power.
Anonymous7451 2 years ago 3
How about the cancers and spontaneous abortions occurring around nuclear plants? How about over 300,000 dying prematurely so far from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986? Radioactivity from cleaving uranium lasts hundreds of thousands of years, mutating DNA and causing cancer & abortions of unviable fetuses due 2 the mutations. Jobs are good, but study your effects of radioactivity on your protoplasm. Lung cancer causing dose 4 example of plutonium is one microgram. 454 grams in one lb.
conradmillermd 2 years ago
so working in a coal mine, you cant get hurt there? drilling oil you cant get hurt? dont even put chernobyl there because that was a power plant built so bad it was doomed from the start, i can go all day with you and all you need to know is all american plants are 100% safe and will be once people pull there heads out of there asses and build more.
omgroy1587 2 years ago
ever become trapped in a coal mine? Ever collapse from H2s gas on a rig platform? No? Neither have I. course they don't have radiation that dessicates your body instantly, messes your DNA and deforms your kids. how do you know american reactors aare "100% safe". Noone can make such absurd claims. sometimes ppl sound so dumb and ignorant its a shame. Why should more be built?
101101101777 2 years ago
People get hurt in any industry. But nuclear plants can do the ultimate hurt. Chernobyl has killed at least 300,000 people prematurely since April 26, 1986. Now we have a new generation of young folks who don't think about the health effects of radioactivity. But we have increased incidences of cancer around German and U.K. nuclear plants (where they would do such research) and it takes but one millionth of a gram of plutonium to cause lung cancer. 20 lbs plutonium could kill all on Earth.
conradmillermd 2 years ago
hell yeah brother!!
omgroy1587 2 years ago
THE VIDEO BELOW IS THE MOST IMPORTANT VIDEO YOU WILL EVER SEE. OF COURSE, ONLY IF YOU ARE TIRED OF THE LIES.
The Union: The Business Behind Getting High - Pt1
carolinagsings77 2 years ago
If more research had been done into fission the usa would have gas cooled pebble bed reactors by now, which are physically incapable of meltdown and don't spew radioactive particles into the air if they get blown up.
The problem with nuclear is how out of date the technology is.
Even so, it's still less harmful in every measurable way than fossil fuels.
m3141592 2 years ago 2
Are these stupid debates really neccesary.?
angelcitynut 2 years ago 3
Yes, because people don't get the facts about the dangers of nuclear power, and have not heard the truth about the Chernobyl accident in 1986 with over 300,000 people dying prematurely so far, not just 31 people as some nuclear proponents like to say who deny mentioning the effects long term of radioactivity and radioactive contamination.
conradmillermd 2 years ago
Though accients do indeed occur, and I won't deny those implications, nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, most efficient and most environment-friendly power source around. Besides, it's limitless.
p3n15eater 2 years ago
it is far from environmentally friendly. no green house gases but it is very far from friendly to the environment. not the first but a good example is the hanford site. they have dumped coolinig water into the columbia river after only 6 hours in retention basins. not nearly enough time for the decay of something with a 100 or 1000 half life. that was 50 or so years ago. now the nuclear waste from the plant is leaking into the river from its underground storage place. horrible in the long term
scholaptitude 2 years ago
Nuclear power is stupid bad waste,past accidents with deaths on army application, limited supply of urainium will not be there forever, sustainable energy only ,wind,tide,solar biofuels,limited clean coal burning that does not exist yet. We have had three bad reactor accidents Russia ,3 mile island, and the Army accident in 1960 that killed the soldiers. Fusion may have potential someday but fission is a short term disease as bad as hydrocarbons.
jobedied 2 years ago
all I'm going to say is that you are the text book example of america's irrational fear of nuclear power. Your opinions are based not on fact but so much as preconceived notions. the idea that nuclear power is as bad as hydrocarbons is laughable, you have no creditability.
krazykid1337 2 years ago 7
and what happens to the nuclear waste that needs 100'000 years to disipate. just set it and forget iiitt !!
scholaptitude 2 years ago
@krazykid1337 you are completely right people are scared of that which they do not understand. Fear has been generated by hippies and uneducated kids who started the environment trend. Nuclear power is the way to go
Church1766 1 year ago
@krazykid1337 all I can say is look at Fukushima and chernobyl
claton95 4 months ago
Nuclear energy is the only sane and safe way to generate electricity. Nuclear waste poses no threat to anyone and NEVER hurt a single human being, and never will. All nuclear waste the USA ever produced since 1955 fits in a football field.
linghun 2 years ago
It is NOT clean, millions of gallons of water (fresh drinking water?) go into cooling radioactive materials, wastes, spills in rivers, dumping of radioactive wastes in oceans, these things happen.
Radioactive material decimates crop fields in other countries like Iraq from DUI weapons, and people have this silly notion that it is "clean", "cheap" Money is drawn away from wind, solar, tidal, to make way for nuclear, then more and more money must be allocated every year for decades everafter.
101101101777 2 years ago
yeah, but is is the best energy source, it is cheap and effective, and it creates many jobs
jonnyboi1000 2 years ago
I'm an undergrad nuclear engineer and you have no idea what you're talking about. Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest power sources known to man, and the cheapest. The water that they use in nuclear reactors is "heavy" water bound with an isotope of hydrogen called deuterium, that is used to transport heat to other water through heat induction. Almost all of the water in nuclear power is non-radiated and safe. There's no waste dumps into public water, its isolated in the reactors, hurr durr.
krazykid1337 2 years ago 2
There is no true drawback about nuclear power, as long as safety standards are maintained. But even that is getting easier with more advanced programs to make sure it runs correctly without a meltdown such as Chernobyl. I'm very interested in Nuclear Engineering and I'm looking at high school and college courses. Anything specific that I should take? Do you know what some of the best schools are that have nuclear engineering programs? Thanks for your time.
redskinsfaniam2 2 years ago
def consider it, the field is wide open in terms of employment, starting salary is averaging 60k with 2-3 job offers out of undergrad. I took calculus in high school, that and physics. I go to penn state an they have a very good program there, even its own nuclear reactor.
krazykid1337 2 years ago
only some reactors use 'heavy' water. i think you mean conduction rather than induction. there are very low levels of waste deposited in the river/sea whichever the plant uses. keep studying! im on your side, nuclear power is the way to go, at least for now
dopestry 2 years ago 2
How is it clean? You have tons of radioactive waste right now with no proper storage. What was their plan with Yucca mountain, underground storage on a fault line near a water table? As long as safety standards are maintained, and if they're not? Even then they say it's so complex there's no room for error and people make mistakes. The cost balloons once you build, and again, the weapons industry. Weapons will be made using waste materials, including smuggling.
101101101777 2 years ago
Weapons cannot be made from the waste material, just from the fresh stuff.
They are costly to build because they are built with extra safty precautions these day's. Rycyling the waste makes it into glass beads which aren't going to leak into the water. Yucca mountain is held back because of the government, holding it back because of holding it back is a logical fallacy. There's plenty of room for error thanks to protective domes that work is the worst circumstances. Ran out of room...
timetraveler3797 2 years ago
woah, tonnes of waste? the total core waste of all reactors on earth could comeforatbly fill a prius each year. this waste is high level, yes, but there aint oceans of it out there.
TheCaptainLulz 2 years ago
There is a way to get rid of waste! the French, Germans, Swiss, Russians, and Swedes have been doing it for 20 years! its called recycling it. The waste that has been removed from reactors is sent to a reprocessing facility, refined, reprocessed, and put back into the reactors. its cheaper than storing it and it is 100% clean. no emissions, and the leftover metals that have been taken from the waste can be reused in the process. outrageously efficient. its a no brainer.
coverchenko 2 years ago 18
Well said!
Its not often i come across people who understand the MASSIVE benefits of Nuclear energy. Its overall cheaper & cleaner than almost all fuels currently used.
Bio fuels are extremely complicated & often produce less energy wile Coal & gases produce more pollution & take up more room & resources.
I get annoyed with most leftist because i find it contradicting to be Pro-Environment & Anti-Nuclear.
Hopefully Obama will get his head out his ass & start making changes that work!
FightTheGoodFightUSA 2 years ago
As long as nuclear power exists the materials will always be there to be diverted into weapons.
101101101777 2 years ago
A podium of old farty men who don't know anything about anything except how much money corporate lobbyists are sneaking in their pockets.
What America does best is waste energy. Cut down on waste and use renewable, like water fusion and tidal power.
Nuclear energy only facilitates Depleted Uranium Weapons use on people and soils aswell as the possibilty of governments blaming terrorists for disasters.
101101101777 2 years ago
the reason its exspecive is so that we dont have a churnobal ( i probualy did not spell it correctly)
WheelLock 2 years ago
we could ask how france does it they are more than 80% nuclear
WheelLock 2 years ago
some day the peopulation on the Earth will destroy each other by these nuclear "toys". Only cockroaches will survive
Loocas77 2 years ago
we're talking about power generation here, not weapons.
howardb02 2 years ago
What about rats? They survived the last big one.
tonylee1973 2 years ago
Obama touts that he is so forward thinking. Well, nuclear power will solve a lot of energy issues (and it is clean).
Oh what, Obama doesn't really care about the environment as much as paying off those that helped get him elected.
designtoad 2 years ago
Nuclear power is the cheapest source available! And solar and wind is too expensive and does not have much profit. Waste can be stored in subduction zones or bury them in yucca moutain that should be open. if not it is still not a problem we could bury them where man would never even think of going. it would be millions of years before it goes back to land which then would be completely safe minerals again.
Williamadams96 2 years ago 2
this was sooooo biased
MBurg2007 2 years ago 2
Lol no shit? its a democratic debate..
EscuchelaLaCiudad 2 years ago
yes, nuclear fusion is the best solution, but the problem is that it is not possible to do it right now. The only best alternative for current technology is to use nuclear fission.
Creator01 2 years ago 2
And this is why he's president!!! YEEAAHHH
nuclear fission is sometimes unstable but nuclear FUSION is the BEST
samnaps1 2 years ago
There is only one problem, now we can´t make a succesfull fusion. If we pass over one (Lawson´s criterium) it´ll be the best sources of eletric energy. But now we can´t do it, now is the best solution a nuclear power.
zilafka 2 years ago
yeah its gonna take years to get a successful reaction to sustain it self but it gives you around 500 MW for every 70 you put in....
and electric energy is what every other energy (solar, wind..etc) in converted to......electric energy can be converted to heat
samnaps1 2 years ago
obama answer to nuclear power a big FFFAAT NNNNOOOOO
why760nitro 2 years ago
LOL nuclear power is weak!! when i first heard of nuclear power i was so excited i thought that humans had actually been able to Directly channel all that energy into direct power. boy was i disappointed when i found out its basically just a big steam engine! so gay!!
oldnotweak 2 years ago
A big steam engine that creates a LOT of energy!!
Try researching nuclear fusion...because that's the way we need to go....not solar
samnaps1 2 years ago
yeah it makes alot of energy but thats nothing compared to what you could get if you could use it directly rather than boil water with it
oldnotweak 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
dont read this(cuz it really wrks). u will get kissd on the nearest friday by the love of ur life. tomorrow will b the best day of ur life however if you dont post this comment too at least 3 vids u will die withn 2 days now uv startd readn this dont stop this is so scary send ths over too 5 vids in 143 mins when ur done press f6 and ur crush's name wll appear on the screen n big letters ths is so scary cuz it actully works this really works sorry i don't want to die
Garcia2334 2 years ago
just turn everything OFF,its 2010 next year our generation is way behind were it should be we have failed.......
lainey500 2 years ago
Nuclear energy is great. Living beside one of these atomic plants give me a much bigger penis.
TheLibertyAvenger 2 years ago
how big...@-@ =] lol..but um any ways um.... do u have proof? if so tel meh and ill move next to 1 to c if it works...*add here*(get a bigger penis by living next to one of these wonderful nuke plants changes noticable in just 1year..some risks do apply such as a green glow or cancer but these are extremly rare) X[)
1inkinpark155 2 years ago
This is Bullshit ( Second Sentince)
jacktheripper509 2 years ago
I forgot to mention that it glows.
TheLibertyAvenger 2 years ago
lol
cornflicks 2 years ago
omg fuck hillary. sorry that bitch ever got in office I would leave america.
zjbeast 2 years ago
Back in the day, when Barack wasn't president. Now, as tough as this might sound, we already have powerplants that make 20% of the energy we use. Most of the plants are way overdue on their decommision dates and for a good reason. They have been running smoothly for over 60 years. They have quietly lived in the shadows of history and politics. So, what's the problem with more of them? Dangerous waste? Launch it into the sun. Costly commissioning? Ever think it actually pays itself off?
Caceped 2 years ago
Who is that 1st guy? He is a policy is going round n' round the toilet. Nuclear Reactors are superiour to any other alternative. Nuclear power can produce more energy than any alternative energy. They assosciate nuclear fuel with War, Terrorism, Violent Acts. But since Nevadans say "NIMBY" nuclear enegy has encountered resistance. Why would anybody build a city in Nevada. We consume 2 times as much electricity in summer than in winter due to air conditioning.
tooldrums1000 2 years ago
MY POINT IS TO TREAT ENERGY CONSUMPTION AS IF YOU NEED TO LIVE YOUR LIFE WITH 1kWh. THERE NEEDS TO BE DRASTIC AND SWIFT CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC AND THEIR NON EXISTANT EDUCATION ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER.
tooldrums1000 2 years ago
Maybe Chernobyl was an act of terrorism?!? *** THINK! ***
Deathridesahorse2 2 years ago
You realize that there is uranium in your backyard right? But it is useless to you unless you have the resources to enrich it. Even if terrorists managed to steal uranium for a nuclear power plant (which would be a near impossible feat to begin with), they would then have to enrich it to weapons grade uranium before it could become a weapon which costs billions of dollars to do. Terrorists would not have the resources to do this.
PaintballRules18 2 years ago 3
Building more nuclear plants, more windmills, and solar plants, to completely replace all fossil fuel power plants powering the grid would save billions of dollars, and drastically decrease greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce the cost of fuel for things like transportation until we can find a good alternative fuel for cars, boats, and aircraft.
PaintballRules18 2 years ago 2
Dirty bombs?
zjbeast 2 years ago
you dont know what they are?
PhaseDragonia 2 years ago
Comment removed
dimentionalrift 2 years ago
I'm with AChrisL on this. Nuclear power plants are a good idea - a great idea actually. Massive-scale plants might be too big to take care of, but small reactors that are built well (no cutting corners!) can power a lot of houses for a fraction of the cost coal-burning-electricity demands. You have to forget Chernobyl - it was poorly built, unsupervised and operated for months without maintenence. It also used fuel at critical levels - each amount was enough to cause a full-blown explosion.
dimentionalrift 2 years ago 2
We could send it to the moon!
Boeu13 2 years ago
AChrisL, perhaps you simply struggle with the concept of, "the umbilical chord of supply"??? These terrorists come from lands that really know what war is all about: there are two types of war... 1) Attrition warfare & 2) Maneuver Warfare. The terrorists proved that Nuclear Bombs mean (next to) nothing! ...have you REALLY got the guts to keep pushing these people around?!? If you have, what about your neighbours?!? "BOO!"
Deathridesahorse2 2 years ago
Uranium can be used by terrrorists to hold the world to ransom!
Power Supplies will be attacked in war: ESPECIALLY IF vulnerable to attack!
Deathridesahorse2 2 years ago
thats why we avoid war and don't sell uranium to terrorists
snozzcumbers 2 years ago
...what if it were to get stolen?!?
Deathridesahorse2 2 years ago
thats close to imposable, the people stealing it would need allot of well trained men and they wouldn't be able to use it unless they have a way of shooting neutrons at it.
snozzcumbers 2 years ago
I carry around a "Atom Smasher" in my pocket.
tooldrums1000 2 years ago
"WHAT IF I SAID WHAT IF and WHAT IF and WHAT IF?" The keyword are WHAT IF!
tooldrums1000 2 years ago
even if u have uranium, making a nuke out of it is not something ull be able to do in ur backyard because u need enriched uranium (which is very hard and expensive to make). and if your thinking that they will be able to make a dirty bomb out of it, then ur wrong cuz uranium isnt radioactive enough to make an effective dirty bomb
beepu2 2 years ago
As for the importation of fuel supplies: well, how do you feel about paying for both sides of an unpopular war?!? Even if you don't mind it does that mean your neighbours feel the same way?!?
Deathridesahorse2 2 years ago
stop lobotomy !
some clean alternative powers exist, they just need to be developped.
nuclear firms don't care so much about healthiness and environment : energy business represent too much money for that
remijeanetienne 2 years ago
Yes, anyone can write a book for dummies. Paul G. Hewitt's Conceptual Physics book completely lacks the kind of math that I had to have for a college-level physics course. It's a lightweight physics book for perhaps business majors or education majors. But most engineering schools won't accept course credit for this kind of a physics course.
HiTekVagabond 2 years ago
Dude, what is ur problem? Seriously, I used this book, and yes there was math involved. LOL!
googysmooch 2 years ago
He was claiming that nuclear power was well explained in the book. I took a look at the book in the library here, and it had the very basics of nuclear power in about 5 pages. And he's right, the book really does not use very much math to explain physics compared to other texts.
milofonbil 2 years ago
I told you about Paul G. Hewitt having vids on YouTube. I also told you about his physics book. I checked one out. It's not a real physics book. It reads like a for dummies series book. What else do you want me to tell you.
HiTekVagabond 2 years ago
Chernobyl happened because it was built in the soviet era, and they wanted to build it fast to show the world they were better - so they cut corners here and there...and you can clearly see the results. Nobody is going to cut any corners today, so nuclear power plants are the best solution at the moment. As for the waste, there is a special microbe that feeds on it, and in large enough numbers you can easily deal with the waste!
dimentionalrift 2 years ago 3
Not to mention the breeder technology that is developed now. If anyone brings up the issue of nuclear waste disposal, end the conversation there because they aren't read up on the subject.
France has gone approx. 85% nuclear through out their infrastructure...seems this country wants to adopt the health care systems of some European countries but not their more efficient energy systems...makes you wonder about the goddamned lobbyists in this country.
AChrisL 2 years ago
France is completely reliant on imported uranium since they ran out of uranium in 2002. And you want us to be just like them? Do you know the US imports around 90% of all the uranium it needs?
milofonbil 2 years ago
What's your point? The point I am trying to make is that France is using a technology for energy production which enables it to be an industrialized nation which boasts the cleanest air. Imagine what we here in the US can do? I suppose the environment is not so important to you though. That's fine. BTW, we here in the US import many things, among them fossil fuels, so I am not so sure what your deal with us importing uranium is (we import > 90%). This country requires a lot of energy to run.
AChrisL 2 years ago
The smarter amongst us would realise that the key word here is "boasts"! What about the fact they are encouraging the use of Uranium...?!? Capitalism is far from perfect: if it was then we would all be paying for education!
Deathridesahorse2 2 years ago
What is your specific issue with Uranium, Deathridesahorse2? We have never had a nuclear related death here in the US- ever. I have more of an issue with coal burning power plants still even considered as a source for energy, when we have a superior alternative- clean, green nuclear.
AChrisL 2 years ago
Oh, and your are correct. Capitalism is far from perfect.
AChrisL 2 years ago
Fission is the breaking process of a super heavy element into smaller ones, resulting in massive releases of energy. Toxicity is caused due to a percentage of that heavy element that didn't undergo fission, was vaporized by the heat, and is now airborn and can reach people by inhaling it. Today we can't do fusion for a long time because the conditions required to keep it going are too uncontrolable. Chernobyl had no fission reaction - it had a big fire and a leak of radioactive materials.
dimentionalrift 2 years ago
Chernobyl also didn't have a containment dome which could have prevented the accident.
ghost1723 2 years ago
If we ever had a fusion reaction occur deep under the water, on the ocean floor, it would disstabilized the entire Earth's crust and lift a tidal wave 1.5-2 miles high, going in every direction from the epi-center. So please, next time read a couple of books before spreading crap like that, and I don't appologize for the harshness!
dimentionalrift 2 years ago
Are you that stupid? deep under the sea, through some freak-ass chemical/nuclear process, each Hydrogen atom gets another neutron added to it, turning it into Deterium (H2O becomes D2O), meaning heavy water.
A fusion reaction is when two seperate nuclei are fused together into one heavy nuclei, and it happens in the sun's core, not on the surface. To fuse two cores you need about 125g/cm3 of pressure and a temperature of atleast 10 million degrees.
dimentionalrift 2 years ago
The dee psea does nuclear fusion from water: 4 times as energetic as nuclear fusion, wtih no toxic death. Nuclear fission kills, even wtihout a Chernobyl!
JonThm 2 years ago
Fission causes toxic death. Nature does nuclear fusion from water! So do we via the steam cycle. Clean and safe. Fission ki;lls us all actually!
JonThm 3 years ago
first your just saying that cuz u dont know how it works.
Dharok60 3 years ago
No. High pressure water or stema in turbuelnt flow does nuclear fusion - liek the H plasma on the sun's surface. It is niot hard. And no CO2 or toxic death!
JonThm 3 years ago
No it doesn't. You can't do Nuclear Fusion on the Earth without using more energy than you get out of it.
Do you honestly think if Nuclear Fusion was so easy to do, that the entire planet wouldn't be using it right now?
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago