[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Wondering

What's your point? I think we need to save the planet for the next generations. Do you want to eliminate the EPA so greedy big companies and industries can continue to poison us and the environment?

Their is a balance to be had and a more intelligent, thoughtful approach to our future energy needs is long overdue.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by Wondering

What's your point? I think we need to save the planet for the next generations. Do you want to eliminate the EPA so greedy big companies and industries can continue to poison us and the environment?

no hyperbole there. . .

The save the planet movement started in the 60's and 70's and none of the predictions came remotely true. Most of this is propaganda for money by fear mongering. . . I think that the earth has been warming for thousands of years, mostly since the last ice age. . .

The thermometer with the current F/C calibration is not even 200 years old. . maybe 150 years. . quite a feat to extend the last 100 years of readings to the end of the earth.

What is not known with precision is how much is human activity and how much is natural planetary wobbling. . . remember, only 700 years ago amid the millions of years of earth history, the earth was first discovered NOT to be flat. . . and if the bulk of this is planetary wobble, you are wasting time and money on something you can't change. .

There are many other ways to better the environment locally, but save the earth has to be a global effort, otherwise, again, you are wasting time and money on something you can't change. .

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

no hyperbole there. . .

The save the planet movement started in the 60's and 70's and none of the predictions came remotely true. Most of this is propaganda for money by fear mongering. . . I think that the earth has been warming for thousands of years, mostly since the last ice age. . .

The thermometer with the current F/C calibration is not even 200 years old. . maybe 150 years. . quite a feat to extend the last 100 years of readings to the end of the earth.

What is not known with precision is how much is human activity and how much is natural planetary wobbling. . . remember, only 700 years ago amid the millions of years of earth history, the earth was first discovered NOT to be flat. . . and if the bulk of this is planetary wobble, you are wasting time and money on something you can't change. .

There are many other ways to better the environment locally, but save the earth has to be a global effort, otherwise, again, you are wasting time and money on something you can't change. .

Very true but we wait for facts lets just spend a few trillion and feel good about it.

[gldfin]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

So the part about an explosion - I'm wrong. Not a nuclear explosion. Okay fine. A different type of explosion. And still radiation that can kill tens of thousands of people, animals, and lay the land near it fallow and/or uninhabitable. Nothing "ridiculous" about it. I was not "false" I was incorrect about the type of explosion that could result. I was not incorrect about the fact that there could be an explosion. OR that radiation from damage to a nuclear power plant can cause radiation to kill people, animals, and be destructive to the land around it.

As for future power plants being safer - they said that about Chernobyl, before there was a meltdown and over 4000 people died. Now we have much more stringent regulations, which means the price to build another one has risen to the point of not being affordable, without significantly raising taxes to pay for it. Meanwhile, nuclear power has mostly fallen out of favor worldwide, replaced by solar, wind, and hydroelectricity. Except in the US, where so many people would rather burn their clothing for fuel than accept the fact that renewable energy is better for everyone, and for the planet, and for the air. Or maybe they know this and just don't care.

Also, the part about close to houses is incorrect. We have a grid and with transmission lines are able to transmit power great distances.

[DDToto41]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

I do not understand why nuclear energy has not made a major comeback.

It may soon. The scientists have found a way to use nuclear fission instead of nuclear fusion. They have been working on this for a long time. It may take a while for the designs and construction to begin.

[rsmurano]

Originally Posted by toeser

Politics combined with rank stupidity. There are people who think our country can be run solely with wind and solar. It cannot.

I agree! You won’t be able to power 1/2 the country with renewable sources. I worked for utilities for over 30 years and there are so many politics/green earthers requirements for utilities to follow for generating power it’s ridiculous.
I worked for a utility that generated power from hydro which is the cleanest source you can have but it also has some of the most stringent rules they have to abide by, for example, some endangered fish prevent dams being built, Indian reservations bring up many issues, etc.. We also had natural gas, nuclear, fuel cells, and wood generating plants. All were safe but each had their protesters. Nuclear waste is a big deal. But so are EV car batteries and golf cart batteries.
Nuclear Fusion will be the best power source of power but it’s decades late.
The utility also worked on fuel cell technology which is a fantastic technology that uses clean natural gas with a by product of water, we had a little shoe box that would power 1 house. We actually converted a 10 story hotel to use fuel cells that were the size of a couple refrigerators. But now, you have people against natural gas which doesn’t make sense.
Wind farms are inefficient, solar is inefficient and requires batteries to make it a viable source and batteries have their drawbacks.
We have enough fossil fuels to last us 100’s of years with todays technology and hydro power can be increased many times over if not for the protesters.
Nuclear fusion is also very promising.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by rsmurano

Wind farms are inefficient, solar is inefficient and requires batteries to make it a viable source and batteries have their drawbacks.
We have enough fossil fuels to last us 100’s of years with todays technology and hydro power can be increased many times over if not for the protesters.
Nuclear fusion is also very promising.

All true as another utility industry employee.

If wind and solar and batteries are unstable and not massively scaleable,
why do people think that replacing the current generation sources with unstable sources will solve our needs?

grabbing onto theoretical concepts because of the words green or free doesn't make the execution financially logical or practical or better.

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

I do not understand why nuclear energy has not made a major comeback.

IMHO, I think there are still enough people who remember the horrors of 3 Mile Island, and especially the 24/7 coverage of Chernobyl, that they have an almost pathological fear of nuclear power in any form. Remember, it is a fact that when people have such fears, they persist even in the face of genuine statistics. Example, there are people who actually believe their changes of being killed are much greater in a plane than in an automobile, or in their own bathtub. Facts, statistical data, absolutely nothing would change their minds.

[tuccillo]

You mean fusion instead of fission. Don't read too much into the recent press release on some progress with fusion. This is still an area of basic research and a Q factor greater than one (for the entire fusion process including electricity generation) is still a long ways off. We are not close to having commercially available fusion power for electricity generation. Perhaps in several decades.

Originally Posted by DDToto41

It may soon. The scientists have found a way to use nuclear fission instead of nuclear fusion. They have been working on this for a long time. It may take a while for the designs and construction to begin.

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by srswans

This is all false, anti-nuclear propaganda pushed by environmentalists.

Read “Apocalypse Never” by Michael Shellenberger for better info. Zion Lights on Twitter, another former environmentalists turned pro-nulcear, is also a good resource.

Germany is in the process of shutting down its 17 nuclear plants; the IPCC is predicting 1100 more deaths per year from Germany returning to fossil fuels.

Maybe these predicted blackouts will be sufficiently painful to get our politicians and government moving to build more Fourth Gen nuclear plants.

To an extent, antinuclear people, as well as "environmentalists" (a term I believe is constantly misapplied as if a person who cares about the preservation of the "environment" is only a member of a particular political party, or has a certain personality or psychological profile) are just inflexible people, like in so many other areas, certainly entitled to their own opinions and concerns, but just completely closed to even analyzing any data to the contrary of the opinion they hold. Our politicians are only empty vessels we PAY to go to government and represent OUR collective wishes because we are too busy, or lack interest in representing our collective decisions. When the majority decide they WANT MORE nuclear power, I have no doubt every politician will jump on the band wagon that carries votes. Higher and higher prices and unpredictable reliability, may motivate many "objectors" to actually examine all the pros and cons associated with the medical, financial, environmental and other implications of various power sources. Personally I believe much more could be done with solar power, especially in our southern states. ALL sources have negatives as well as positives.

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

no hyperbole there. . .

The save the planet movement started in the 60's and 70's and none of the predictions came remotely true. Most of this is propaganda for money by fear mongering. . . I think that the earth has been warming for thousands of years, mostly since the last ice age. . .

The thermometer with the current F/C calibration is not even 200 years old. . maybe 150 years. . quite a feat to extend the last 100 years of readings to the end of the earth.

What is not known with precision is how much is human activity and how much is natural planetary wobbling. . . remember, only 700 years ago amid the millions of years of earth history, the earth was first discovered NOT to be flat. . . and if the bulk of this is planetary wobble, you are wasting time and money on something you can't change. .

There are many other ways to better the environment locally, but save the earth has to be a global effort, otherwise, again, you are wasting time and money on something you can't change. .

I firmly believe that also pertains to a more in depth exploration of solar energy, just not enough "in it" for enough people !

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by Pairadocs

I firmly believe that also pertains to a more in depth exploration of solar energy, just not enough "in it" for enough people !

just be sure that there is an understanding of impacts to the current electric grid,
meaning the instability of generation with passing clouds to cause fluctuation in input to the guaranteed stability of the user. .

solar not as stable on a large scale as theoreticists would like to acknowledge,
and distributed generation (roof top) creates similar stability issue, though usable on a small scale with battery UPS smoothing for equipment usage.

[Worldseries27]

This statement by einstein says it all about predicting scientific advances and the speed of their accomplishment, especially being aided by A.I..

FOR BETTER BETTER OR WORSE, IT'S A BRAVE NEW WORLD. A.H.

[Marine1974]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

It's trendy for sure. But remember the Fukushima disaster in 2011 - a single earthquake and resulting tsunami could destroy the plant, AND risk a nuclear explosion, and radioactivity resulting in massive deaths and disease in anyone within a few miles of the fallout. That basically puts the entire west coast out of the running for placement.

As for the east coast, whose back yard do you want to bury the waste in? Because - where there is nuclear energy, there is nuclear waste. And it has to be put somewhere.

Maybe somewhere in the Sahara desert - but that'd be pointless, since a power plant has to be in a reasonable distance to the homes and businesses it's powering.

So these are the reasons why it's not a popular option. I personally think nuclear energy could be amazing. But those particular risk make it a NIMBY option for me.

Fossil fuel is not nuclear power .

[miadford@gmail.com]

Their news may report no radiation deaths from the disaster but that is just what their news wants you to think. My son was on a Navy ship that was just off the coast from the Fukushima area and they were administering aid. Their filtration plant on the ship went down and they were exposed to the radiated water for three days. Multiple people from his ship have died and many others have had cancer. My son has to be checked every year for the rest of his life. So due to that alone, I can’t even imagine that there were no deaths in Japan. Sorry, I know this was a rant.