So, do you still think that nuclear power plants are a good idea? (page 2)

ProdigalSon

BTS, I believe the technology exists to safely separate hydrogen from water, the most abundant substance on earth, leaving only the hydrogen and pure oxygen. No I cannot prove this, I just know intuitively that it's true. I believe the ancients had this technology. It is no co-incidence that the oil companies are making 80 percent of the world's profits. Unfortunately for us, the virus that has infected this planet for the last 13 millennia has all the money. The good news is, this period of materialism is coming to an end.

My truth may not be yours or anyone elses. Only time will tell.

beksbks

Nope, never did. Certainly not anywhere near fault lines.

I'm so sick of this discussion focusing on MONETARY cost.

Justitia Themis

Yes.

I quit!

beks said: "I'm so sick of this discussion focusing on MONETARY cost. "

Even when the monetary cost is discussed I don't believe that the true cost of producing engergy this way is factored in. Such costs as what to do with the waste? What is the cost of a leak or a melt down? Not just the immediate cost but in the future when the people who were affected by the this disaster start dying from cancer. The true cost of power plants in Japan is years away.

144001

I never thought that nuclear power plants were a "good idea." For those who think they are, I'd like to see them move their residences to a location within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant.

ProdigalSon

There are still lingering effects on the ecosystem from Chernobyl.... and probably will be for a long time to come.

There was a gigantic controversy that raged for years over whether to build a nuke plant in Shoreham, here on Long Island. It never got built because sanity prevailed, and a decision was reached that Long Island could never be evacuated in a timely manner. We have a population of 2.5 million, not counting the 4.5 million in Brooklyn and Queens, which is the only way out of here on land. The inevitable gridlock would extend for 80 miles.

Now on the island of Honshu you have all these nuclear power plants on a relatively small island with a population of 103 million, roughly one-third the population of the US. This is the most active earthquake zone on the planet. It is absolutely nuts to have nukes there.

Evidently Apostate

if reactors were built away from fault lines this would not be an issue in japan. there will always be a risk weather its nuclear radiation or a deep water oil spill catastrophy. i just toured the hoover dam and the water level is getting lower every year so as long as we continue to live the way we do and consume power without restrictions i dont see any safe garantees

sorry for the spelling

OnTheWayOut

Nuclear power served it's purpose and we needed it. Oil served it's purpose and we needed it. Coal served it's purpose and we needed it.

All of those could be phased out. Man is ready to move on to full solar-powered electricity and rechargeable transportation for homes and individuals, saving the fuel for air travel, shipping, some industry until we are ready to phase out that also.

Man will drag his feet because oil barons and nuclear leaders and coal mine owners will say we are not ready to move on. Man will wait until he has to move on to actually do it.

pontoon

Absolutely. If they built one near me I'd be the first on line to apply for a job. And by the way, hydro power is responsible for more deaths (thousands) than any other kind of power generation. Blown out dams have killed thousands. Agree nuclear plants should not be built on fault lines. They are located near large bodies of water so the cooling water doesn't have to be cooled and reused. They should re engineer that and build them inland and put the BTU's from that coolant to use. Using nuclear technology is what will make it better and safer.

I quit!

sorry for the spelling

Don't worry about it. Look how I spelled energy.

It would definately help if they didn't build them along fault lines and I'd add along the coast (I live about 20 miles from the San Onofre power plant) but no matter what if something goes wrong the damage can last for centuries.

I think the government needs to be involve in encouraging the developement of better sources of energy. There are too many opposing the developement of alternative sources for it to happen on its own. There wouldn't be seatbelts in cars if the gov. hadn't forced the issue. Same thing with air bags and better emission standards. Most companies will only do things when they are profitable or when are force to do them.

About 35 years ago Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the Whitehouse. When Ronald Reagan came to office he had them removed. Who knows where we would be now if we had continued to look for alternative sources of energy instead of relying on on oil, nuclear and coal.

So, do you still think that nuclear power plants are a good idea?

Share this