nuclear power option
Listened to Mr. Pickens on Larry King last night. Why no questions on Nuclear power?? Isn"t Nuclear a better long term solution??
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by ernest cooney on -
Nuclear should be the first option ,though expensive and time consuming to build it is non polluting and superior to any other system,likely it it much to efficient for the conglomerates who make tremendous profits from other energy sources,we should build nuclear power plants wherever there are conventional power plants and infrastructure that can support them, this way they are close to the grid and power lines that are very costly to build .When complete we can put the conventional gas, coal ,and oil plants, on standby and sell the coal to the Chinese and lessen our dependence on foreign terrorist oil.We can use the gas to heat our homes and power our autos since we produce it here.
-
Permalink Reply by CCVirginia on -
The 1/2 life of what? The often quoted 1/2 life of 24,000 years is for Plutonium 239 - which has a VERY low radiation output. Think about it, anything that has a long 1/2 life HAS TO have a low output. The "hot" materials have 1/2 lives on the order of a few years. The net result is that Nuclear waste degrades to the level of common ore (like what was taken out of the ground) in a few hundred years - well within our capacity to control it. And the volume of this material is small. Recognize that the earth is already radioactive and this waste adds little to what is already there. If ALL of your energy was from Nuclear you could hold your lifetime waste in one hand - that seems to me to be very green.
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on -
CCV,
You also need to take a look at a nuclear engineering textbook, and bone up on nuclear medicine and the study of isotopes.
There is nothing green about the effluent from spent and irradiated nuclear fuel.
It remains deadly, in minute concentrations, for tens of thousands of years, about an order of magnitude longer than any human civilization has existed (the longest -- 2000 years -- was the Persian empire, which died when the Shah of Iran was overthrown, ironically.)
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on
-
Apparently the Russkies, Indians, and Chinese agree with you. Pakistan would do it if it could afford it, and Iran if we lifted the sanctions.
Nobody has closed the nuclear fuel cycle. Until they do, the terrorist option is not oil.
It's the nuke, Mr. Cooney, the nuke.
-
Permalink Reply by Charles W. McDonald on -
Nonsense. That's what happened in the early 1970's when we had a chance to jump on and take the lead in nuclear power. Guys like you , who think the sky is falling, put fear in people to believe we would blow our self up with nuclear power.
If you don't produce weapons grade material, then you don't have a bomb. Why do you think we are putting prressure on Iran,?
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on
-
Because of oil, Charles. Iran sits on 25% of the world's oil and gas reserves. We do not care about their commercial reactors. They cannot produce weapons with them.
Please get a textbook on nuclear engineering. You do not know what you are talking about.
-
Permalink Reply by Charles W. McDonald on
-
China is alrready way ahead of us on nuclear power reactors. They are building 100 as we speak.
If we don't do something today, we'll look like a 3rd world country soon.
-
Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on
-
We already are well on our way. Nukes have nothing to do with our decline.
They may have something to do with our demise.
-
Permalink Reply by Charles W. McDonald on
-
Good site. Wind will be and is a great source. As long as you have an area that has sustained winds, fine. If not, well then other sources will have to be used.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Werner on -
If we expand nuclear then it clearly becomes more of a world power source. Then the Iran problem becomes a ten fold problem with many more nations wanting nuclear. How do we know if it's power generation or weapons? Enriching is not that hard once they have power generation facilities. I would say the future is CNG as a bridge to massive solar, wind, wave, geo-thermal, cellulosic ethanol, hydrogen production. All American!!
-
Permalink Reply by Charles W. McDonald on
-
Permalink Reply by Charles W. McDonald on
-
There are only 2 countries who won't comply with inspections. Iran and North Korea. It's obvious what their plan is for nuclear power.
All the other countries in development, are using the reactors for power generation.
Featured Action
Twitter Feed
© 2010 Created by PickensPlan
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Privacy | Terms of Service
