Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Go nuclear!

Posted 6 years ago on Jan. 23, 2012, 12:44 p.m. EST by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Occupy wants to restore America and get the economy back on its feet right? well the way to do that is with nuclear power. its clean, efficient, SAFE, and reliable. we have some of the largest deposits of uranium anywhere in the world. lets kick this oil habit and start burning the atoms that we have in this country.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 6 years ago

Although I agree with you, we do NOT have the largest deposits of uranium in the world. The top 3 countries are Australia, Canada, and Kazakhstan.


[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

LFTRs are important, if only to dispose of the current stockpile of waste.

ECAT is newer, even cleaner, and is supposedly scalable.

Neither one produces plutonium.

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 6 years ago

Nonsence. Same Republicans that tell us govermemt can not function, want us to belive that they can failsafe nuclear energy.Drop bombs yes,safley build reactors no. Next they will tell us that Fracking will not disturbe the power plants.

[-] 1 points by toukarin (488) 6 years ago

There are lots of exciting 'new' technologies for nuclear power plants that are significantly safer to operate with much less risk of accidents and much less risk of resultant contamination. LFTR's and VHTR's for example...

The quotes are there because these technologies were initially proposed decades ago, before a few high profile nuclear accidents (ironically) stymied the development of these safer alternatives due to the massive public backlash.

Nuclear energy (if done right) is efficient, cheap and relatively clean. It has the potential to dramatically boost local economies simply due to the fact that most of the work would have to be carried out by US based contractors who actually have the expertise and technology to build these things.

That's reinvestment into the community right there... they will create jobs... high tech jobs... i.e. high paying jobs... They will reduce overall energy costs... good for the economy all around I should think...

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 6 years ago

Forget it.

[-] 1 points by Lardhead2 (67) 6 years ago

The problem is the meltdown in Japan. Aftter that expansion of nuclear is going to be a tough sell.

[-] 1 points by vothmr (82) from Harrisonburg, VA 6 years ago

nuclear energy has killed far fewer people than oil coal or natural gas. there have been 3 nuclear disasters since it was invented, Chernobyl, three mile island (which frankly didn't even cause a runny nose), and fukushima. lets talk about all of the oil spills, trapped coal miners, and exploding oil rigs kill a few hundred each year. in response to the issues with nuclear waste. all of the high level nuclear waste could fit onto a football field 10 feet high and most of that can actually be recycled into new nuclear fuel (fuel rods are considered to contaminated for use when they are at 95% purity). coal mines are seriously destructive. a uranium mine is no more detrimental to the environment than any other kind of metal mining. i would honestly not have a problem living next to a nuclear power plant. there are 3 within a few dozen miles of my home town. people who fear nuclear power are just scared by the media. look into it and you will see that its one of the safest forms of power out there

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 6 years ago

Your comparison doesn't take into account that there are far fewer nuclear plants as compared to the other sources you have cited. Imagine if there were just as many nuclear plants as there were other types. Sorry I'm not getting as excited as you, in fact a the probability of more nuclear accidents and the damage they would cause the earth would be greater then all the examples you have cited put together. We need safe, renewable power sources not sources with the potential to cause a region to be unlivable and kill millions in the process.

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 6 years ago

I understand Vothmr out of scientific point of view. Atomic energy - is the most effective forms of energy. But good atom is very inconvenient source of energy for enviroment but mostly for USA. Here is why. America and other subordinate european nations are against nuckes at this moment. (no construction were planned after Japanise disaster) But the fact is 94 or 104 stations only in US. why is growing countryes cant have the nuclear power? Because is "dangerous" for USA and for subordinate european nations, because this is terrorism!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Can we store the effluent in your back yard?

We just need to borrow it for 10,000 years or so.

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 6 years ago

You can refine the used materials into new rods which can be then used again in reactors. Just look at the French they are leaders in nuclear power. Humanity will find a way to dispose of nuclear waste. Things are not set in stone.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 6 years ago

Maybe we can shoot it into the sun.

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 6 years ago

Potentially we could do that.... I don't know how that would be done or the ramifications to it. but the idea of launching it into space is a common idea.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 6 years ago

Well the cost would be moderately large but after a certain period of the technological development it would be moderately easy to do. I can't actually think of an ramifications from launching it into the sun because the radiation will just get sent back out to be dispersed into space or to be blocked by Earth's protections.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

Wouldn't matter. Earthquakes shake and break stone.

Look into ECAT and LENR, for cleaner nuclear options.

LENR can even utilize and clean present nuclear waste.

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 6 years ago

Nuclear power is clean.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 6 years ago

I say we build a Nuclear Plant" in every State. How many jobs will that create? Far more then "solar panel installation" and/or "wind power" generators.

[-] 0 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 6 years ago

No, occupy wants cheap electricity and other sources of energy, but that's where it stops. The actual ways possible to achieve that are all bad, very bad, and probably even involve Goldman Sachs.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 6 years ago

You just want the problem or coal mining removed from your area of the country (VA) and sent to mine (SouthWest). Sure we got a lot of uranium - try to get an environmentalist to say "sure" go ahead and open a mine right H E R E.. Good grief, we cannot even get a copper mine up and running because we might shut off two dry gulches where water might run once a year.

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 6 years ago

Very short memory vothmr. This is not gonna be actual at list couple years. But I understand the idea of good atom. It may be useful many times