"Making America Stupid"

I'm just saying that there was an accident which illustrates that nuclear power can be unsafe at times. Yes, I know that the newer reactors are a lot SAFER, but they're never 100.00% SAFE.

But then again, what is 100.0000% safe these days?

Nothing. Many many more people have died mining coal than have ever died as a direct result of nuclear power.
 
Well, the problem of nucelar power is the waste. There still is no solution for that. So using nuclear energy at the moment is like flying an aircraft without an airport to land on being built yet.

In Germany we currently have the problem that one of the assumed "safe" storage facilities for nuclear waste in an abandoned salt mine has gotten leaky and is threatening to contaminate the soil and the groundwater.

And so far nobody knows how to solve that problem.

The French and Japanese have... it's called recycling.
It's categorized as waste here because of terrorism.
 
Nothing. Many many more people have died mining coal than have ever died as a direct result of nuclear power.

That is actually quite cynical.

You could justify any kind of mass murder, genocide or terror victims with that as well.

The problem with nuclear power is that it is not a "clean" energy. It produces toxic waste. And while the risk for malfunctions and accidents may be minimal, there still is the risk.

Not to mention that a nuclear power plant is also dependant on natural resources, which will run out sooner or later, too. And to me the future belongs to those forms of producing energy that do not plunder the resources of your planet and do not pollute its environment.

We have the intelligence and the knowledge to make that happen - but we don't, because using natural resources (which can never be replaced!) is the more convenient and (currently) cheaper way.

The French and Japanese have... it's called recycling.
It's categorized as waste here because of terrorism.

The recycling reduces the waste but it doesn't get rid of it. And it's much more expensive than using new fuel rods. So if you want to spend a fortune, spend it for something more sensible.
 
Last edited:
The problem with nuclear power is that it is not a "clean" energy. It produces toxic waste.

It starts with toxic waste.

Allow me to elucidate the nuclear fuel cycle:
1) Dig up radioactive rocks from the ground.
2) Purify radioactive rocks.
3) Generate electricity.
4) Bury leftover radioactive rocks in sealed, indestructible casks deeply underground in a monitored area.
 
That is actually quite cynical.

You could justify any kind of mass murder, genocide or terror victims with that as well.

The problem with nuclear power is that it is not a "clean" energy. It produces toxic waste. And while the risk for malfunctions and accidents may be minimal, there still is the risk.

Not to mention that a nuclear power plant is also dependant on natural resources, which will run out sooner or later, too. And to me the future belongs to those forms of producing energy that do not plunder the resources of your planet and do not pollute its environment.

We have the intelligence and the knowledge to make that happen - but we don't, because using natural resources (which can never be replaced!) is the more convenient and (currently) cheaper way.

I'm not trying to be cynical, but there is no truly clean, viable energy source. I know we have wind and solar, but those technologies currently are unable to produce enough power. Nuclear is not clean, but it is the best of what we have.
 
Well, the problem of nucelar power is the waste. There still is no solution for that. So using nuclear energy at the moment is like flying an aircraft without an airport to land on being built yet.

In Germany we currently have the problem that one of the assumed "safe" storage facilities for nuclear waste in an abandoned salt mine has gotten leaky and is threatening to contaminate the soil and the groundwater.

And so far nobody knows how to solve that problem.

I thought we all decided to just send all the nuclear waste to Australia...

but there has been talk about an international nuclear waste repository. Of course, even if a place was found doesn't mean it would be safe.
 
One thing is for sure: The problem we have at the moment, is not a technical one. Technical problems can be solved.

Also money is not the issue. There is enough money. It's just a question of how it is spent.

And currently it is only spent to keep the status quo.
 
IIRC, the waste created by nuclear reactors can be recycled to the point of being almost negligibly small, and that if the dumbasses in power here in the U.S. would allow for the waste we have to be recycled like what others are doing, that alone could provide power for the entire country for some time(if we had enough reactors, of course). I think fission reactors are our best bet by miles right now, and that fusion reactors should be receiving all the R&D money it needs.
 
IIRC, the waste created by nuclear reactors can be recycled to the point of being almost negligibly small, and that if the dumbasses in power here in the U.S. would allow for the waste we have to be recycled like what others are doing, that alone could provide power for the entire country for some time(if we had enough reactors, of course). I think fission reactors are our best bet by miles right now, and that fusion reactors should be receiving all the R&D money it needs.

Yep. You can thank Carter for the excess nuclear "waste" in the US.

Nuclear reactors contain their fuel so it isn't a huge issue (unlike coal plants which spew craptons of uranium and other nasties right into the atmosphere).

Solar power isn't super green either, panels require a lot of toxic chemicals to function. Wind is not so bad, but you need wind and a lot of free land (North Dakota would be ideal). If you have the geology for it geothermal is probably the best, as it uses little land and produces a lot of power.

The great thing about nuclear power is you can have it anywhere regardless of geography. It is clean (the waste is contained) and safe (well any modern reactor not made or managed by fuckwit Russians).
 
IIRC, the waste created by nuclear reactors can be recycled to the point of being almost negligibly small, and that if the dumbasses in power here in the U.S. would allow for the waste we have to be recycled like what others are doing, that alone could provide power for the entire country for some time(if we had enough reactors, of course). I think fission reactors are our best bet by miles right now, and that fusion reactors should be receiving all the R&D money it needs.

Currently there are active nuclear reprocessing plants only at 8 locations in the whole world: In Great Britain, France, Japan, USA, Russia (2), North Corea and India.

Why for example don't we build our own one in Germany? Well, they tried but failed in the effort. Partly because of the ridiculous costs and partly because the population ran amok against it.

Then there is the waste. Ok, it is less (2-3 % of the original mass) and easier to store. But "easier to store" in this case means it is only dangerous for about 300-800 years (!). Great news, huh?

When you consider that they don't have a clue yet how to store nuclear waste safely at all and that current attempts of "final storage" only lasted about 30 years, that advantage becomes rather irrelevant.

Also, what some may forget, the plants themselves produce new toxic waste, which is led into rivers or the sea. Ask the fishermen in Sellafield or La Hague for details. Greenpeace says it's dangerous but the factory owners say they keep within safe levels. But what is safe? Nobody knows yet. If you were cynical, you could say that the experiment on humans is not over yet, so it's difficult to tell where the danger begins.

Not really convincing, those pros, and the whole technology can only be economical, if there are hundreds of new nuclear power plants being built worldwide. Very likely in countries like China but nearly impossible in the Western world. Besides, lots and lots of new nuclear plants will mean the natural resources of uranium will run out in a few decades, maybe even before the whole technology starts to become profitable. Hmmm... tricky.

Then there is the problem that it can (and probably would) be used for making weapons of mass destruction.

And then there is the transport problem. The highly radioactive stuff has to be brought to the reprocessing plants and back. Usually by train and that means through highly populated areas. Talking about new targets for terrorists...

The whole nuclear industry has no future anyway. Best estimations on the current status quo say that the worldwide uranium reserves will last for the next 150 years or so (that is without any new plants).

So I really do not see the point of investing any more money into a technology that needs to be replaced in a few decades anyway and leaves a deadly heritage: Highly contaminated ruins.

Because storing the nuclear waste is an easybeasy and very cheap task, compared to what to do with the ruins of shut down nuclear power plants.

Future generations will already curse us for leaving behind the current plants...
 
Last edited:
Partly because of the ridiculous costs and partly because the population ran amok against it.

Who gives a damn what "the population" think. They're demonstrably idiots. I mean, on average they have an IQ that's barely triple-digits.


Greenpeace says it's dangerous but the factory owners say they keep within safe levels.

The same Greenpeace that's in favor of banning a chemical element (Chlorine) and opposes nuclear fusion research, which is probably the single safest power source ever conceived.


The whole nuclear industry has no future anyway. Best estimations on the current status quo say that the worldwide uranium reserves will last for the next 150 years or so (that is without any new plants).

Rubbish rubbish rubbish. The total Uranium ore reserves will last for more than 1000 years. Add reprocessing and thorium breeding and we're looking at several millenia.
 
Top