What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
118 Comments
- Neticule, on 06/14/2008, -3/+52Its about time! People need to get over their fear of the word "Nuclear" -- It is a GREAT source of energy, and actually quite safe as long as homer is not running the plant ;)
- MacroDaemon, on 06/15/2008, -0/+24This is great news. The anti-nuclear groups' fearmongering has stalled development in this very promising sector for far too long.
- indymike, on 06/15/2008, -0/+11This is great to see. Now for the hard part: building the reactors while under assault from every anti-nuclear group under the sun. Why do people fear something that lowers energy costs, reduces massively greenhouse gas emissions, cuts polution and would enable the "hydrogen economy"?
- Fratz, on 06/15/2008, -0/+9"Opponents also are concerned that while the updated reactors called for in the plans are used in Europe, they are untried in the U.S."
Those opponents are idiots. We're supposed to be afraid that a tried-and-true design that works in Europe will somehow failed to work in the US? It's physics, goddammit. - SoxFanNH, on 06/15/2008, -0/+8Great to see! Its too bad nuclear got slowed down in the first place...
- korvan504521, on 06/15/2008, -0/+7No more risk than there is of terrorist sabotaging a coal plant. Nuclear power reactors are designed to be impossible to melt down. Chernobyl was a badly designed weapons producing reactor, not a plain power plant. The only thing a terrorist could get from a nuke plant would be some radioactive materials at his own risk and shutting off the power supply from it. you could do as much or more damage by knocking out the pollution controls on a major coal plant and leaving it on for a week, or by destroying a hydro dam.
- senfo, on 06/15/2008, -4/+10"I vote the build them in the bottom sea(mile or 2 off the coast), that way there is no chance of a radiation leak, and there is lots of fresh cool water to control the reactors"
Yeah, because radiation leaks don't occur at the bottom of the ocean. - trevis989, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4Yes because Americans are the only users of nuclear power in the world, right? Err..well we're at least the biggest user of it.....right? ....hmm...or not. Look at France. They're running on ~70% nuclear. Its no coincidence they have the cleanest air amongst advanced nations. Your argument of conservation and renewables is old and moot. A retarded chimp could see that A solution to energy problems is conservation, but that will only get so far. Conservation reduces what we use and the manner we use it...but the fact is we're still using energy on the sources that we've been using for years. The whole problem is we need to change our sources so that we're A) not releasing so much crap to the environment and B) because simply our original sources will run out in time. That's where nuclear and renewables come in to play.
We need renewables because they're clean, but if you think we can supply the majority of our increasing energy requirements with just renewables you're simply living in a dream world. Renewables like solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal are meant to be pretty little add-ons to a much larger energy infrastructure. They do NOT have the capacity to put out what we need alone or with our current dwindling producers. So we need to either A) keep building the plants that we've been using that have put us in this situation in the first place or B) find something that isn't part of the major problem. I think the answer there is simple...
Yes, nuclear power has its issues, cost, waste, the oh so talked about but rather inane idea of terrorist threats, but all good things have a price. The fact of the matter is for a higher initial start cost, you're getting nearly emission free energy that uses a fraction of the fuel coal type plants use and are more reliable. With the new plant designs currently on tap (AP1000, ESBWR), safety is basically a sealed deal. The plants are designed to be passively safe, meaning no matter what happens, the fail position of anything in the plant is always the safe route. This in turn reduces the cost significantly of building the plants as the designs reduce the number of safety systems needed, reducing costs of things such as wiring, piping, and other complicated systems. Is it still expensive? You bet, but its an investment our country needs to put forth until the next big environmentally friendly power source is revealed (fusion presumably, but if that's the case, we've got awhile) - feacesface, on 06/15/2008, -2/+6Well, it's not as good as the New Clean Coal, but nuclear is a great energy alternative. What are the downsides, really?
- InsaneOni, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4Maybe the US should allow breeder reactors so that we can actually get some energy from our waste. It's completely ridiculous that we're wasting so much fuel. When the waste comes out it'll have a far lower half life.
- Recuso, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4Any amount of radioactive waste we produce is infinitesimally small compared to the mass of the sun. The sun is so massive that almost anything we'd be able to throw at it would be a drop in the bucket -- it is 330,000 times the mass of the ENTIRE earth.
- Gudeldar, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4The USA isn't against all countries building nuclear reactors, just the crazy theocracies that want to destroy the US and will use their reactors to enrich uranium.
- IrwinFletcher, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4"Why do people fear something that lowers energy costs, reduces massively greenhouse gas emissions, cuts polution and would enable the "hydrogen economy"?"
- Because it's not as 'pretty' as solar or wind. - astroslut, on 06/15/2008, -0/+4It's almost funny to see people who support Nuclear power are still afraid of the waste. Are you scared of coal? It's currently more dangerous then Nuclear. Sources:
http://www.crest.org/repp_pubs/articles/envImp/05r ...
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.ht ...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-mo ...
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=78 ... - dcshiderly, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3Tossing it into the sun isn't really viable. That stuff is heavy, and the energy required to de-orbit the mass into Sol makes the Saturn V moon rocket look weak.
- Exilon, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3There's a risk to everything.
- WilliamDavis, on 06/15/2008, -1/+4WRONG. Homer's way too skinny.
- Intercon, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3
Exactly. Because we all know carbon dioxide to be an extremely dangerous substance. Just like plutonium. - ChileanGoD, on 06/15/2008, -3/+6An argument I like to use to promote nuclear energy is asking what if there is a way to collect all the carbon dioxide we dump in the atmosphere and encapsulate it into a small container. The only problem would be that the container would be highly dangerous and would have to be handle with care for a long time. Wouldn't it be a great option? Well, guess what, nuclear energy gives that result.
- xexx, on 06/15/2008, -1/+4If they could get the nuclear waste problem solved this would be awesome... I for one don't care too much for a big pot of radioactive waste in a mountain (there is more to think about than just natural disasters, enemy attacks, etc)
Nuclear is a good option, though I think we should also work on distributing solar and wind power across the country as well, a distributed power grid that could still somewhat function in the times of crisis or war would be invaluable. - Lavarock, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3Your comment was inherently flawed. At least we know you're human.
- GumInMyHair, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3We could simply reprocess the nuclear waste back into fuel and have like 90% less waste, like France, Russia, and China do.
- trevis989, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3There is a terrorist threat to everything, from someone trying to hurt a nuclear plant to someone trying to pee in your fish tank. If you'd visit a nuclear plant and see the level of security they have implemented (its pretty ridiculous) you'd know that the only way to really hurt a plant is A) a large force of highly trained infantry attacking the plant at once (at least 200+ people, they practice for these events), B) A disgruntled employee goes off inside the plant (this is possible, but unless they're in the control room their chances of doing any real damage are minimal, plus we're all given numerous psych evaluations and drug tests yearly) or C) crashing an airplane or missile into a plant. The plane/missile plan is the biggest threat, but with the new safeguards for the airline industry and the simple fact that nobody is going to be able to send a missile this far into the US to accurately strike a nuke plant (and if they could we'd have bigger issues), this would practically never happen.
The terrorist argument is pretty much moot when it comes to our nuclear plants. We have the security and safeguards to prevent any damage or releases. - wm2010russ, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3not to mention that if the rocket malfunctions on the way into space and explodes, it will send nuclear waste raining down on earth... not so good
- PopsGG, on 08/28/2009, -4/+7Honestly, we keep talking about alternative energy sources and we are ignoring 1 very good one. It would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil greatly. Also check Wikipedia, there are some promising new generations of reactors that use FAR less fuel and as a result have far less waste. That was part of the reason for the 30 year gap in building new ones, they were working on new and better generations of technology.
I vote the build them in the bottom sea(mile or 2 off the coast), that way there is no chance of a radiation leak, and there is lots of fresh cool water to control the reactors - trevorh, on 06/15/2008, -0/+3Waste reprocessing gets rid of a lot of the waste material and the stuff that remains has a much shorter half life than unprocessed nuclear waste. France has been doing it for years and the U.S used to do it until our reprocessing plant got shut down after everyone panicked because of three mile island and Chernobyl.
- Barackalypse, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Why do you alternative energy types have so much trouble understanding that solar power is basically useless at least 12 hours of the day, so unless you want thousands of dollars in batteries (or some other expensive storage mechanism) to store the excess when it is available, it doesn't do you any good when the sun isn't shining..
As far as large nuclear plants, centralization is how you get economies of scale. On big reactor is cheaper to construct and run than a dozen smaller ones. As our populations become more and more urban the downsides to centralized power generation become fewer and fewer. - allankh, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Nuclear energy is great. We just need to keep the reactor 150,000,000 KM away.
Centralized power networks make about as much sense as centralized networks for the intarweb. I think we've more than proven that decentralization is the way to go out here on the webs; so, why is it different for our power needs? Why are all of you geeks singing the praises of what is essentially equivalent to a Ma-Bell monopoly on the telephone networks? Do you have stock in these companies who are going to own these nuclear power plants? WTF? - Exilon, on 06/15/2008, -1/+3Nuclear incidents? Modern reactors are designed so that it's really really hard to have an "incident."
- KingGorilla, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2god damn people do some research.
- PopsGG, on 08/28/2009, -0/+2Maybe if you understood that water actually blocks most radiation you wouldn't be so sarcastic.
"Water is probably the most effective radiation shield of all."
http://www.adl.gatech.edu/research/tff/radiation_s ... - trevorh, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Yes we do have an effective technology for containing and utilizing the waste it is nuclear waste reprocessing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
- inactive, on 06/15/2008, -3/+5USA goes on imposing restrictions on other nations who try to build nuclear reactors for harnessing power and for other purposes,no wonder america is losing its respect in the world community for this kind of hypocrisy.
- edstate, on 06/15/2008, -2/+4And to address the only real remaining issue with modern nuke... the waste... I'd like to invite in the perenial Digg favorite, the Space Elevator.
- mastersquirrel3, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2The pros and cons by bill Nye.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGhjlLLyWPQ - trevis989, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2I live 10 miles from one. I'm doing quite alright. Nobody here glows in the dark. No fish with 3 eyes. Lots of people with less than average numbers of teeth, but I assure you thats nothing to do with the plant...
- korvan504521, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2Iran doesn't need nuclear power, they've got all the oil they'd ever want for oil based power (just like a lot of our plants are) and given their history I think its quite obvious why most countries don't want them to have any sort of nuclear power. And the US is continuing to downgrade our nuclear arsenal and working to do the same with everyone else in the world.
- Naieve, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2The only problem being that for every tanker truck full of CO2, you have maybe 1 microgram of nuclear waste.
But hey, keep coming up with those arbitrary correlations. - HotSaucePanCake, on 06/15/2008, -2/+4Before people freak out about the waste produced think about this for a second. If you don't want it stored here lob the waste at the sun... im not kidding. And for those of you that are worried about nuclear waste in the atmosphere consider this. Many nuclear weapons have already been set off in space, just do a quick Google search for it. The more important thing is that we can design warheads today that unless armed will not go off, even if dropped from high altitude. The weapons will stay intact w/o leakage. I would assume this same technology could be applied to waste transportation vehicles
Think about it... - Intercon, on 06/15/2008, -0/+2The "FACT', my friend, is that you slept through science class. Your post gets an "F" for accuracy.
- Intercon, on 06/15/2008, -3/+6Nuclear power plants at the bottom of the ocean. Wow. Simply retarded.
- init100, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2"The water used to cool it is actually recycled and must also be treated, you would not wish to send this into the ocean."
All Swedish reactors are cooled with seawater in the secondary or third loop (depending on reactor model). Thus, none of them are equipped with cooling towers. - Naieve, on 06/16/2008, -0/+2First, we did not stop building nuclear plants because we were waiting for new tech. We got scared, and lots of people screamed no nukes, no nukes, no nukes. Please read up on your history of the nuclear power industry. (FYI one of the leading anti-nuke groups, Greenpeace, finally realized they were complete idiots who were actually causing more harm then they were preventing and changed their stance saying nukes were actually a good idea)
Second, the fact that yes water does help shield radiation in no way would help a nuke plant. The water used to cool it is actually recycled and must also be treated, you would not wish to send this into the ocean. All having it under water would do is irradiate large portions of the ocean in the case of meltdown. Much better to have it aboveground where we can keep tabs on it, and if there is a mechanical or electronic problem simply scram the reactor and preclude a disaster.
Nukes on the ocean floor might have made sense for the Russians in the early years as they were too stupid to understand they weren't blocking all the radiation and were killing their technicians. - Mothrog, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1So, do tell, why is it that the French use nuclear power to produce 98.8% of their power?
- Mothrog, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Centralized power does make sense because the kind of capital investment needed to actually make a reliable, efficient power generation system is beyond the means of most people.
- Naieve, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Yes, and all Japanese have buck teeth and wear glasses. All Germans are Nazi's. All Russians are Commies. All Brits are imperialist bastards. ETC...
Go play with your tiny little dick ya wanker. - HotSaucePanCake, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1i already said they have technology to prevent any such thing from happening...
- Naieve, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1The problem being that most of those nations we have problems with aren't building power generating plants.
They are using designs whose sole purpose is the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.
Go look at Pakistan if you wish to understand the future of the Middle East. - Naieve, on 06/16/2008, -0/+1Yeah, keep tossing that CO2 into the air by the millions of tons.
Psssshhh, containable waste. Who needs that. Let's put it all in the air. WOOOHOOO UNCONTROLLED POLLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is