What do you all think about nuclear power replacing other means as the principal source of elctricity for homes, etc?

I'm not going to prejudice the topic - I just want to see what kinds of opinions are out there.

1. It is a great source of energy, everyone would use it, except....

As you once noted before we often think alike.

You are correct that there is an economic roadblock to hybrid car development.
But I want to stick to the topic at hand. certianl the US could handle nuclear power plants' safety considerably better than the USSR/Russia has.

What do others think?

Matt

------------------
my wrestling/video game/bb zone

The problem with nuclear power is that the word nuclear connotes pictures of explosions. However, even people mildly educated on the subject realize this is utter bullshit; even a poorly designed reactor will never create a weapons-like explosion. People think in images and are lazy; hence they are unwilling to do some rudimentary research and check some of their unbased fears at the door.

Has anyone heard of Kyshtym?

People don't oppose nuclear power simply because they fear the plant to explode - they oppose it because they know what extreme amounts of radiation does.

Maybe you live in a world where everything is perfect and nothing ever goes wrong. Or maybe your world is full of good people who care about others, and not just their pocket book.

Do you really think the people who create and own these plants give a fuck about the general population? 'Fraid not!!

1. Nuclear power is by far the cheapest for of power to 'produce' on the planet and it is the cleanest...UNTIL the Friggin plant starts a meltdown.

2. This meltdown possiblility is why we have the NERC. Nuclear Energy Regulatory Commission, this guys have their heads so far up the asses of the nuke plant managers that if you piss just a little out of the bowl you have to write up a 20 page incident report and send it to the NERC. TRUTH!

3. Why the voluminus redtape and reporting, because if something goes boom the NERC has to cover its collectiv tucas and say "Hey I told them Iowa was going to blow up, but the wouldn't listen."

4. There is actually a Nuke on Long Island that belonged to LILCO and was bought out by the state of NY @ a price of $20,000,000,000. Yes thats in Billions, and the plant never produced one KWH of electricity because it was built in a suburban neighberhood and there are tons and tons of Federal Regs about that kind-a thing. Plus a whole lot of additioinal saftey features that had to be put into place.

AND THAT IS WHY WE DON'T have our own personal p32 modulators...damn I want one of
those!!!

FYI: At UC-Berkley there is a group building the worlds first fusion reactor, fission, fusion, whats the difference? Fusion is what the sun does to produce power it melds molecules together. Fission--they go boom. Anyway I digress. The containment vessell for this fusion reaction is going to be the worlds largest ever generated electromagnetic field! Think about this for a second, the only thing between us, and some geeks at berkley from destroying the planet is a big magnet! They have a test plan set for sometime in mid 2004! I've seen the magnetic accelerator and that puppy is the size of two football fields.

------------------

'Yeah, we could start our own game where people throw ducks at balloons and nothing's the way it seems'

Nuclear in terms of FUSION, yes

Research yes I have.

Khystym was in 1958. It would be silly - no - just plain foolish - to think that no progress has been made in 42 years. Furthermore, the facility there was a breeder reacotr designed for the development of plutonium for atomic weapons. Nuclear power planst are not breeder reactors.

Your citing the Soviet fiasco 42 years ago is irrelevant at best.

The University of Pittsburgh did a study in the 15 years following the Three Mile Island situation, and there WAS NO INCREASE in the number of cancer cases.

Thanks for your "input".

Wodin, the history of meltdowns in this country has been limited. The 3 mile Island one was very real but as referenced in the aforementioned Univ of Pittsburgh study, no increase in cancer resulted.

Your post about the voerstated dangers of meltdowns sounds to me like you would be a displaced worker if nuclear power plants were proliferated.

Nuclear is not a reliable source for 2 possible Catastrophic reasons

1.The Damage the wastes creates

2. Human Error

I don't know about you people but the number 2 reason is why I WOULD NEVER NEVER NEVER consider it to use...

Even if they told me they had a machine that would leave no wastes I still wouldn't trust it...Anything that Man makes can be Corrupted, and if some how this energy was corrupted we would all be screwed.

I dont fear that anyone would blow this up cause I don't believe that the grade of nuclear energy they use is the same as the weapons, but the wastes are very harsh on the environment...

I would be more then willing to bet that over the years nuclear testing has contributed just as much if not more to the greenhouse effect then all of the carbon fuels used since cars and trains have been moving.

I did a speecha year ago in my speech class on Nuclear warheads and needless to say my prof was freaked out with the diagrams and information I presented to the classed based on internet research

Matt, Wait till this winter, fuel prices are going to be in the 3.50 - 4.25 range! Due to the increased demand for alternative fuel forms for electric generation.

Also, at some point, probably not in our lifetimes, but eventually, nuclear power will become the only alternative. It is presently used on a wide scale in some other countries without incident.

I like it. I would not have a problem living near a reactor.

Wodin, thanks for the input of someone in the energy field. Do you have any links or anything else where I can find out about the Berkeley project or anythign else in general?

I get a kick out of the feeble position that electric cars are the American savior while completely ignoring the fact that some of the electricity to charge and run the car comes from coal-fired generators in places like Montana. There is inherent inefficiency loss sending power 2000 miles to begin with. This is simply moving the pollution / impact to a different area, not pollution/impact prevention.

From what I understand of our massively increasing electric demand, nuclear is our only logical interim source in the Pac NW. Increasing Hydro power will be very difficult with the salmon issues already threatening current hydro dams.

I forsee large acreages of fairly desolate lands being the prime location for further nuclear power plants in order to place distance b/w the facility and the public in order to placate the "fears" mentioned in previous threads.

sorry to run on and on and on