emtbd1979 - 1/20/2016 21:10
Norstman - 1/20/2016 20:00
emtbd1979 - 1/20/2016 20:44
Nuclear isn't a viable long term power source. The avg reactor age in the U.S. Is 34 years old with the cut off life of 40 years and then they have to apply for a time extension. They are getting old and there hasn't been a new nuclear reactor lic issued since 1996. None will be anytime soon especially after the disaster in Japan at fuku shimu.
I think nuclear would be the power of the future if the environmental wackos would get out of the way. Jap plant was in a bad location. With the technology we have today if situated in the right location i believe the risk could be very low.
no I'm not in that camp. It's too powerful of energy for any man to be in control of. Knowing guys who work in the nuke plants we have in operation now during shut downs it's scary to know the hazards there are. The fail safes we have today are no more better that the triple fail safes already in place. All failed in Japan. Bad location or not it happened and there are plenty on fault lines here. One 50 miles from where I'm sitting built by the lowest bidder. He worked at 3 mile island during a shutdown of the surviving reactor. The other is still contaminated and off limits. So I wouldn't call concerned people wackos. I don't have much faith in the engineers to be in control of something that can destroy an area that can't be inhabited if something goes wrong. To meet demand more will have to be built and increase the number you increase the risk and waste.
The enviro whack is killed the economical power by going to war on coal. So does a guy want the risk of a nuclear disaster or a coal plant? I'll take coal.
The End of Saudi Arabia?
