[crc19188]

The common cold can kill tens of thousands of people. Just look at man made covid. Worry about what is important not what you cannot control.

[cjrjck]

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.

What? Sorry but that sounds so 1960. Where have you been? We are farther in time from 1960 than 1960 was from 1900. Think about the that. France for instance, generates about 70 percent of its electrical power from nuclear plants. I guess they figured it out in the last 60 plus years. As for where to put them, anywhere on the grid should work. The Hoover Dam was in the middle of nowhere at one time.

[srswans]

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.

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.

[HJBeck]

Because oil and gas companies help spread fear. Why would they want completion in their market.

[dtennent]

While the storage of waste from nuclear power plants is a concern, the waste streams from coal fired power plants is also a concern. Besides the ash that comes from coal, there is a significant amount of mercury that is release when coal is burned. In the past 15 years, efforts have been made to remove it from the exhaust gas but you still have to do something with the mercury laced material that comes from scrubbing the exhaust gases.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by dtennent

While the storage of waste from nuclear power plants is a concern, the waste streams from coal fired power plants is also a concern. Besides the ash that comes from coal, there is a significant amount of mercury that is release when coal is burned. In the past 15 years, efforts have been made to remove it from the exhaust gas but you still have to do something with the mercury laced material that comes from scrubbing the exhaust gases.

True with coal ash,
FALSE with nuclear waste.

The nuclear waste at the Indian Point Power plant is stored in the parking lot.. . minute if any radioactivity being admitted, source: a former nuclear engineer who used to work at the plant, who is now retired on Long Island in Sag Harbor.

[roscoguy]

I watched an interesting documentary several years ago on the future of nuclear energy. It claimed that our current reactors are based on dated/obsolete technology and that many are still being used well after their designed lifespan. Another idea raised was that there is (or soon would be) technology that would result in a new generation of reactors that could use our current nuclear waste stockpiles as fuel. Seemed like a win/win situation, but I've never heard anything else about it since.

Just a point of clarification here:

Originally Posted by tuccillo

About 30-40 died from the Chernobyl accident.

While is is believed that fewer than 50 people died directly from radiation exposure, sources estimate that 6000+ cancer deaths have been attributed to Chernobyl, with thousands more likely to come.

[merrymini]

Nuclear is the way to go. The most efficient and dependable. If you want to eliminate fossil fuels, a stupid idea but widely held, you do not have many alternatives. But renewables are NOT a reliable source of energy and the facts have shown that their failures (remember the Texas winter a few years ago) can cost a great many lives. They are making decisions now that will negatively affect thousands of people in the future and not a situation that can be easily remedied.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

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

Human biases takes about 2 generations to be lost. . about 80 -100 years. . .
Currently being lost on the current generation < 40 years old

* World War II atrocities
* Vietnam atrocities
* Hand operated tools such as
the dial telephone
hand operated drills
hand crank care windows
hand crank can openers
*Ms Pacman

32 days to former finance guy

[tuccillo]

Likely? The words "may" or "could" are more applicable. Apparently, 4000 incidents of thyroid cancer have been observed with a very low death rate. I believe the deaths attributed to Chernobyl are still less than 50. Chernobyl was an example of extreme Soviet incompetence and anyone using it as a proxy for nuclear power plants in general is guilty of fear mongering.

CHERNOBYL: THE TRUE SCALE OF THE ACCIDENT | UN Press

The true toll of the Chernobyl disaster - BBC Future

Originally Posted by roscoguy

I watched an interesting documentary several years ago on the future of nuclear energy. It claimed that our current reactors are based on dated/obsolete technology and that many are still being used well after their designed lifespan. Another idea raised was that there is (or soon would be) technology that would result in a new generation of reactors that could use our current nuclear waste stockpiles as fuel. Seemed like a win/win situation, but I've never heard anything else about it since.

Just a point of clarification here: While is is believed that fewer than 50 people died directly from radiation exposure, sources estimate that 6000+ cancer deaths have been attributed to Chernobyl, with thousands more likely to come.

[Carlsondm]

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.

And who are these people who think only two means of power generation (wind and solar) will solve power needs? Please stop making wild and crazy statements without facts. There are challenges with all power generating choices. We have a lot of options to develop.

[rogerrice60]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

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

It makes to much common sense for the communist WOKE crowd

[RouseysMom]

Electricity prices in Finland flipped negative — a huge oversupply of clean, hydroelectric power meant suppliers were almost giving it away - Business Insider India

Finland brought new reactor online. Power is so abundant is is nearly free. Let’s be like Finland.

[Wondering]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

Your Coming Summer of Blackouts - WSJ

One new variable this summer is the Environmental Protection Agency’s recently finalized Good Neighbor Plan, which requires fossil-fuel power plants in 22 states to reduce NOx emissions. NERC predicts power plants will comply by limiting hours of operation but warns they may need regulatory waivers in the event of a power crunch.

NERC - ERO Enterprise | Regional Entities

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?

[rsibole]

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.

The earthquake and the ensuing tsunami resulted in the death of 19,729 people (with 2559 still missing) and devastated communities up and down the country. Reactors close to the earthquake, including those operating at Fukushima Daiichi, shut down as designed. There was zero radiation leak from the Fukushima reactor and no one died except from the earthquake and tsunami events.