Your Money

Do you want to preemptively bailout the nuclear industry?

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Nuclear
• Industry
• Bailout
• Money

[butdiene]

nonsense, misleading ads

because solar/wind couldn't be the base load, which is 24/7 and adjustable for demand

hydro/geothermal/coal/nuclear, if we don't do nuclear, we burn more coal, that's the reality.

coal plants release more radiation and also other forms of pollutants

[xcd48gtf3]

Wind and solar are not as affordable as nuclear due to their intermittent operation and low power density.

It would take over $140 billion in solar to equal one $10 billion two reactor nuclear power station over its 60 year lifespan. Wind and solar receive multiple times more subsidies than nuclear and if it weren't for ignorant anti-nuclear opposition lawsuits, the cost of nuclear would be even lower.

This anti-nuclear campaign goes against sound logic and will expand the use of coal.

[mynameisdarthtater]

do you know what fluoride is? it hardens your teeth. its in your drinking water if you live in the US, and adding it is considered one of the top 5 public health advances in the last century.

[hmodywakid]

Bullshit u dont know anything about science u ignorant people nuclear energy is very save today and doesnt cosat monet later and doesnt pollute the air so fuck every 1 who is against u know nothing of physics

[Artivistmb]

Nuclear power relies on fossil fuels. It is at the top of the industrial food chain and gets a gold star for nasty waste products. Cleverly some of these 'products' are 'recycled' back into the market such radioactive scrap metal - the nuclear industry also produces fluoride which is forced down peoples throats in Cumbria. At Sellafield there is a dedicated fossil fuel plant to back up the nuclear plant in an emergency.

[andresfusion]

But there is, it has been done by many countries for a few years now. First they recycle the waste which reduces the amount. (cup of coffee would be equivalent to the waste for a family of 4 through their lifetime). When recycle the waste takes 200-300 years to decay instead of thousands. Then using vitrification they store it safely underground. However, the thing that gets me mad is why the pin point nuclear when Coal or Oil get unbelievable subsidies with no questions ask.

[popworld7]

Even if everything you said was true, you still have the same problem. The waste. Plutonium is highly poisonous for 250,000 years. There is nowhere to store it and there is no safe way to store it either.

[andresfusion]

Waste should be recycle like every other develop country does. I fell fine about waste travailing through the US, there is no danger and besides they incase the waste in concrete blocks able to withstand any kind of accident imaginable. The default rate is base on outdated report from the "congress budget office" I'm betting they could not find anything recent since is not true, otherwise no company would want to build nuclear reactors.

[andresfusion]

Nuclear is not getting more expensive, but it is expensive to build however the operational cost are extremely low. Wind is intermittent and no good for big parts of our country ( south-east) Wind takes too much land and spoils landscapes.Nuclear is SAFE look at the numbers NO deaths or seriously injured in any western country. Chernobyl reactor was seriously flawed it didnt even have a containment field. Today reactors are far more efficient and safe.

[NickDanger1980]

What evidence to you have to support these "facts" Andres? The default rate isn't a lie, it's an official government estimate. Also, nuclear is getting more expensive, but wind is more affordable. And efficiency is the most affordable of all. And whoever told you nuclear is safe sold you a bill of goods. Remember Chernobyl? Do you think the 100,000 radioactive waste trains that will have to travel through the U.S. to get the waste to a storage site will be safe? Puh-lease.