I'm going nuclear!

[SlowwHand]

I'm not saying anything about the French.
Catastrophic potential is there, as well as waste. The waste more than anything is a legit concern.

[notyoueither]

That's what Nevada is for.

[Skanky Burns]

And the Northern Territory. Australia already stores nuclear waste, we may as well gain some of the benefits too.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Still not a big fan of nuclear.

Same here, with the exception of naval/space related stuff.

[Drake Tungsten]

The chances of massive climate changes happening when considered with the global-wide disasters which will occur if they do, dwarfs the dangers of the use of nuclear power.

So, I'm going nuclear.

Replacing one hysteria with another, are we?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Replacing one hysteria with another, are we?

[kittenOFchaos]

Re: I'm going nuclear!

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I'm changing my position on the use of nuclear power.

I've been anti-nuclear power my entire adult life. My concerns have been our inablity to safely dispose of nuclear wastes, the slight chance of a leak coupled with the horrendous damages if one occurs, and the dangers inherent in transporting nuclear wastes.

But I'm re-thinking this position. If any of the above occurred, thousands could die--but the chances of any of them happening are very slight.

However, to eschew the use of nuclear power means burning carbon-based fuels, adding to climate change. (Yes, wind power and solar power exists, but they aren't advanced enought to replace carbon-based fuels.)

The chances of massive climate changes happening when considered with the global-wide disasters which will occur if they do, dwarfs the dangers of the use of nuclear power.

So, I'm going nuclear.

For Britain, I'd prefer clean coal technology being used and improved to generate our electricity and provide employment because of my concerns of the potential damage a nuclear accident/incident could lead and the long-term issues as regarding waste.

We've got to move away from this notion that it is a sane idea to use energy resources dependent upon Russia. Putin has shown that the Russians cannot be relied upon not to play hardball with our vital energy interests, so we'd be insane to tie ourselves to their energy resources.

Putin is such an arse.

[kittenOFchaos]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Still not a big fan of nuclear.

Or electricity

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I support nuclear if and only if the operators are required to have insurance.

Your taxes are going to rise if that's what you want, because private insurers won't do it alone. Nobody in the industry wants to touch nuclear. It's possible that could change if these new reactor designs are proven over a long time, I guess. The problem is that catastrophic failure would be unimaginably expensive.

So there would have to be government backing (reinsurance?) of some kind.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Assuming that current power consumption trends continue, and that no new thorium deposits are found, India still has enough nuclear fuel to keep us going for the next one thousand years. The problem is a lack of plants, and the expense of building them.

[Arrian]

And the disposal of the waste, and safety concerns.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
Your taxes are going to rise if that's what you want, because private insurers won't do it alone. Nobody in the industry wants to touch nuclear. It's possible that could change if these new reactor designs are proven over a long time, I guess. The problem is that catastrophic failure would be unimaginably expensive.

That was my point.

And any government insurance program would be a subsidy.

[lord of the mark]

i lean toward Kucis position.

Im not rigidly anti-nuke, and never have been, but I think its a mistake to assume thats the magic bullet to solve global warming, oil geopolitics, etc.

[Dis]

yeah everyone wants to put the waste in Nevada. I still don't think it's a good idea to put in in a seismically active region.

There are only 2 states in the union with no seismic activity. But concerns there are rainfall. The theory in Nevada is there isn't enough rainfall to percolate through the rock to erode the containers and then get into the water table below.

[Kuciwalker]

Nuclear waste should be the least of our worries. Just put store it somewhere that'll last 100 years. By that time, we'll be able to put it somewhere that'll last 1000 years. And so on and so forth.