Support nuclear power ........ France has found away

[Spider]

to reuse the waste , so it is far less toxic ........
Wyoming is #1 in coal production
as oil use is now , we have a 20 year supply
Wyoming is #2 in Natural Gas production ....
and Wyoming supplies half of uranium production comes from a single in-situ leach operation in Wyoming's Powder River Basin.........
but we dont have a single nuclear power plant in the state .......
with France finding away to reuse Nuke waste , no reason at all we shouldnt be using more nuclear power ..... find away to stream line getting plants on line .....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

to reuse the waste , so it is far less toxic ........
Wyoming is #1 in coal production
as oil use is now , we have a 20 year supply
Wyoming is #2 in Natural Gas production ....
and Wyoming supplies half of uranium production comes from a single in-situ leach operation in Wyoming's Powder River Basin.........
but we dont have a single nuclear power plant in the state .......
with France finding away to reuse Nuke waste , no reason at all we shouldnt be using more nuclear power ..... find away to stream line getting plants on line .....No, there is no way to eliminate nuclear waste. Say no to nuclear poisoning.

[Spider]

No, there is no way to eliminate nuclear waste. Say no to nuclear poisoning.

if they found away to reuse it once , they can find away to keep reusing it until it is no longer toxic or as toxic ..........

[Bronco_Beerslug]

if they found away to reuse it once , they can find away to keep reusing it until it is no longer toxic or as toxic ..........I doubt it but I haven't seen the article you're referring to.

[Spider]

http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2006/02/01/news/community/wedloc02.txt
Archives
Expert: Reuse nuclear waste

By Mary Ann Albright
Gazette-Times reporter

OSU professor would like to see the states adopt an open cycle

When Oregon State University’s Qiao Wu visited France last summer, he was impressed by the nation’s nuclear energy recycling processes.

The United States runs its nuclear reactors on a closed cycle, storing the nuclear waste in contained repositories.

The French use an open cycle, processing and recycling the spent fuel.

Wu, an associate professor in OSU’s department of nuclear engineering and radiation health physics, would like to see the United States adopt policies similar to the French.

To learn more about nuclear energy in France, Wu and others attended guest speaker Regis Babinet’s presentation Tuesday afternoon on campus.

Babinet serves as the counselor for nuclear energy in the French Embassy in Washington, D.C. He has spent most of his career with the French Atomic Energy Commission, where he began as a nuclear physicist in 1968.

In France, 58 nuclear reactors produce 78 percent of the nation’s electricity, Babinet said.

The nation began its big push toward nuclear energy in 1975, looking for an alternative to its diminishing coal supply.

“We have a joke in France, ‘No coal, no oil, no gas, no choice.’ But I don’t like that joke. I think we have a very good choice — nuclear,” Babinet said.

Nuclear plants don’t emit carbon dioxide, so they don’t contribute to the greenhouse effect and global warming. They also provide energy independence, because they don’t rely on imported fossil fuels.

Concerned about energy security and nuclear weapons, the United States doesn’t reprocess spent fuel from its 104 nuclear plants, which produce 20 percent of the nation’s electricity.

France takes a “green” approach and recycles most of its nuclear byproduct, he said.

Only 4 percent of spent nuclear fuel is unusable waste. The remaining 96 percent (mostly uranium, with a small percentage of plutonium) can be reprocessed and recycled, significantly reducing the amount and decomposition time of toxic waste stored in nuclear repositories.

Wu said he believes this environmentally friendly effort is an affordable option for the United States. His French colleagues said reprocessing spent fuel adds only 6 percent to the total cost of nuclear energy production.

With the high prices of fossil fuels, and concerns about global warming, Wu said nuclear fuel reprocessing is worth the time and expense.

Like Wu and Babinet, Jose Reyes too would like to see the United States follow France’s lead in reusing spent nuclear fuel.

Reyes, head of OSU’s department of nuclear engineering and radiation health physics, said the closed-cycle process has “some definite long-term advantages.”

In addition to reducing the ultimate amount of radioactive waste stored, separating the reusable fuels would allow scientists to remove medical isotopes to use in radiation therapy, he said.

Reyes also appreciated how France has nuclear research centers, rather than waste facilities, a testament to the country’s creative approach to sustainable energy.

Mary Ann Albright covers higher education. She can be reached at maryann.albright@lee.net or 758-9518.

Subscribe now

[ak1971]

to reuse the waste , so it is far less toxic ........
Wyoming is #1 in coal production
as oil use is now , we have a 20 year supply
Wyoming is #2 in Natural Gas production ....
and Wyoming supplies half of uranium production comes from a single in-situ leach operation in Wyoming's Powder River Basin.........
but we dont have a single nuclear power plant in the state .......
with France finding away to reuse Nuke waste , no reason at all we shouldnt be using more nuclear power ..... find away to stream line getting plants on line .....



Isnt Wyoming #1 in hot air production, especially from the trucker population

[Spider]

Isnt Wyoming #1 in hot air production, especially from the trucker population

without wyoming , you are in deep **** ....and the trucker population brings you this energy ..........respect the hand that gives you energy

[ak1971]

without wyoming , you are in deep **** ....and the trucker population brings you this energy ..........respect the hand that gives you energy

Im still waiting for my drugs ;D

[Spider]

Im still waiting for my drugs ;D

consider this wait as rehab ;D

[Bronco_Beerslug]

http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2006/02/01/news/community/wedloc02.txt
Archives
Expert: Reuse nuclear waste
By Mary Ann Albright
Gazette-Times reporter
You can't get rid of it once you create it. You can move it around but you can't eliminate it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Transporting radioactive waste (http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml)

France has more than 30 years of experience transporting radioactive waste. Spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste are shipped by rail within France; trucks carry the materials over short distances. Five ships transport the material intercoastally. Spent nuclear fuel arrives at La Hague by train in specially designed rail cars, which are admitted without restriction into normal railway traffic.


Deep geologic disposal plans

A research program to study high-level radioactive waste disposal began with legislation enacted in 1991. The French Waste Management Research Act of December 1991 authorized 15-year studies of three management options for high-level or long half-life radioactive waste. They included separation and/or transmutation, long-term storage, and geologic disposal. One site under consideration for deep geologic disposal in clay is currently being studied. The French are also searching for a granite site to research.

---------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENT: France's Nuclear Waste Heads to Russia (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31466)
By Julio Godoy

PARIS, Dec 17 (Tierramérica) - France sends thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste to Russia each year, but the details are shielded by a decree of "national security" in order to block debate on the issue, says the environmental watchdog group Greenpeace.

"This kind of traffic of nuclear waste between Western Europe and Russia has gone on for more than three decades already, and allows the big nuclear energy companies, like Electricité de France, to store their radioactive waste at extremely contaminated sites in Siberia," Greenpeace-France spokesman Grégory Gendre told Tierramérica.

On Dec. 1, some 20 activists from the environmental group tried unsuccessfully to block a 450-tonne shipment of depleted uranium from the port of Le Havre, 360 km northwest of Paris, on the Atlantic coast, to a radioactive material enrichment plant in Russia.

According to the study "La France nucléaire", published in 2002 by the World Information Service on Energy (WISE), each year the French nuclear station Eurodif, situated on the banks of the Rhone River, 700 km south of the French capital, produces 15,000 tonnes of depleted uranium.

Most of that waste is of no further use, and is simply stored at the nuclear plant. Today there are an estimated 200,000 tonnes of this nuclear material being warehoused there.

But 30 to 40 percent of Eurodif's depleted uranium -- 4,500 to 6,000 tonnes annually -- is sent to Russia, where it undergoes "enrichment" to turn it back into fuel for nuclear power plants. Just one-tenth of that uranium returns to France, and the rest remains in Russia, stored in inadequate conditions, say the environmental activists.
CONT.

[Spider]

You can't get rid of it once you create it.



not yet , but the French have a damn good plan going on , and their waste is no where near as toxic , but who knows what the future holds , but Nuclear power is alot better route then the one we are taking now

[Bronco_Beerslug]

not yet , but the French have a damn good plan going on , and their waste is no where near as toxic , but who knows what the future holds , but Nuclear power is alot better route then the one we are taking nowNo, they really don't.

Nuclear power generation is many times more expensive than any other type of power generation. And we now have the technology for zero or near zero fossil fuel power generation.
------------------------------------------------------
The nuclear waste crisis in France (http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/nuclear-waste-crisis-france.pdf)
May 30th 2006

Since the origins of the French nuclear industry some 50 years ago, the management of nuclear waste has been largely neglected. Even today, large quantities of waste remain in unconditioned and unstable form, inventories of historical dump sites are lacking or were lost and one of the largest dump sites in the world near the La Hague reprocessing plant is leaking into the underground water. Now evidence is emerging that a new nuclear dumpsite in the Champagne region of France is leaking radioactivity into the ground water
threatening contamination of tritium and at a later stage other radionuclides.

The French nuclear waste authority ANDRA has only a partial inventory of the multitude of existing waste categories, as large quantities have not yet been declared by the main waste producers EDF and Cogema, including spent nuclear fuel or waste from the uranium enrichment industry. Even French government regulators are expressing their concerns over the conditions at both dump sites.
New nuclear projects threaten to make a crisis into an even greater nuclear catastrophe. Specifically, plans for an underground high level waste disposal site are moving forward. This would be located at Bure, again in the Champagne region east of Paris. Further, EDF is seeking approval for construction of the European Pressurized Water Reactor, EPR, at Flamanville. In addition to all the associated hazards, not least the reactors vulnerability to aircraft impact, the reactor is due to produce the most high level radioactive waste of any commercial nuclear reactor in France.
The nuclear power and reprocessing industry have created large volumes of waste, of which many are storedin an unstable condition. They have also illegally dumped tens of thousands of cubic metres of waste in France, without an option to ever take them back.

[Spider]

well this reusing waste is new , I dont doubt France has a bunch of waste stored around , but the negelct has nothing to do with the nuclear power its self , the neglect on on the government of France .........
I dont know why the waste cant be put on an old Saturn 2 rocket and sent to the sun ........

[Bronco_Beerslug]

well this reusing waste is new , I dont doubt France has a bunch of waste stored around , but the negelct has nothing to do with the nuclear power its self , the neglect on on the government of France .........
I dont know why the waste cant be put on an old Saturn 2 rocket and sent to the sun ........Nah, it's not new. I've been in the industry all of my life. Nuclear waste is currently an unsolvable problem.

[Spider]

Nah, it's not new. I've been in the industry all of my life. Nuclear waste is currently an unsolvable problem.

no such thing as an unsolvable problem ...... there is a solution we just dont have the technology right now to solve it ........ I dont see the problem of sending waste into space ........

[ak1971]

Nah, it's not new. I've been in the industry all of my life. Nuclear waste is currently an unsolvable problem.

It has a solution...WYOMING

[Spider]

It has a solution...WYOMING

Ha! then you silly ass would be outdorsmen Greenies wouldnt have a place to litter up with trash and treat as your own personal playground .........

[Smiling Assassin27]

I've been a nuclear honk for a long time, given the right scenario. In talking with an enviromentalist wanting me to sign his petition last month, he gave me TONS of reasons why the environmental block doesn't want it. I don't recall all of them but a few were:

1. the nuclear industry misrepresents itself too often to be trusted.
2. reprocessing is a health risk for workers
3. uranium is finite, meaning we could have a shortage thereby forcing gaps in energy production
4. Terrorism target and severe weather from global warming would make it dangerous to operate reactors.
5. Cost
6. Logistics-there's not exactly a line of communities saying 'bring that radioactive stuff to our town!'

[Spider]

I have always supported Nuke power myself , but I dont believe uranium is as finite as they think ........ as for terrorism Just about anything is a target ...I dont know about the weather effect ....... need to check into that .....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It has a solution...WYOMINGI thought of that but I still have too many honey holes up there that I take fish from :)

[Bronco Bob]

I have always supported Nuke power myself , but I dont believe uranium is as finite as they think ........


Uranium is more plentiful than antimony, tin, cadmium, mercury, or silver.
The Earth's crust from the surface to 15 miles down is calculated to contain
2×10 to the 17th lbs of uranium while the oceans may contain
2×10 to the 13th lbs or uranium. So we theoretically have about
100 trillion tons of uranium to work with.
And we could also use thorium in nuclear reactors. India is working on
developing nuclear reactors that use thorium because there is a lot of
thorium in India. And thorium is three times as plentiful as uranium.
So even if we did blow through 100 trillion tons of uranium, we
could still fall back on the 300 trillion tons of thorium in the world.

[Spider]

Uranium is more plentiful than antimony, tin, cadmium, mercury, or silver.
The Earth's crust from the surface to 15 miles down is calculated to contain
2×10 to the 17th lbs of uranium while the oceans may contain
2×10 to the 13th lbs or uranium. So we theoretically have about
100 trillion tons of uranium to work with.
And we could also use thorium in nuclear reactors. India is working on
developing nuclear reactors that use thorium because there is a lot of
thorium in India. And thorium is three times as plentiful as uranium.
So even if we did blow through 100 trillion tons of uranium, we
could still fall back on the 300 trillion tons of thorium in the world.

Thats what I thought , but I couldnt remember all the facts ..... so I didnt go there ;D

[Denver Crush]

The canadian company powertech is going to start drilling for uranium in Nunn, CO. There are all kinds of things wrong with this. At the town meeting last week the company was unable to ensure that this process would not pollute the ground water in a lot of NoCO cities and towns. I have donated to an organization that has come out against this plan. You can check out the plans and read up on this here.

http://www.nunnglow.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

Say no to nuclear energy and uranium mining!

[Bronco Bob]

Say no to nuclear energy and uranium mining!

Why?

[Denver Crush]

Why?

Because its poisonous. Read some of the literature on what the effects are on the environment and the people around mining sites. You want someone drilling for uranium in your back yard?

[Bronco Bob]

Because its poisonous. Read some of the literature on what the effects are on the environment and the people around mining sites. You want someone drilling for uranium in your back yard?

So is coal. I wouldn't want someone drilling for coal in my back yard either.
So is oil. I wouldn't want someone drilling for oil in my back yard either.
But it takes less uranium to produce the same amount of energy, so
in that regard there is less of an impact on the environment to drill
for uranium than there is to drill for coal or oil. Plus there isn't the
problems of CO2 emissions when uranium is used to generate power,
which is far more dangerous to the planet than radiation is. Never
mind the fact that one coal plant puts far more radioactive byproducts
into the atmosphere than all the nuclear power plants in the world
combined.

[Denver Crush]

Tell that to all the people that live nearby.

[Bronco Bob]

Tell that to all the people that live nearby.

Sure, you have their phone numbers?

[Denver Crush]

Whatever dude.... I get the picture. You'll turn a blind eye as long as you aren't the one affected. So what if a few people get ****ed?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Why?I already stated why, there is no way to get rid of the poison it creates. It's with us for basically forever.

[cutthemdown]

Doesn't nuclear power still create greenhouse gasses?

[cutthemdown]

I think wind/solar is the way of the future. We need to use the earths natural power sources to cut greenhouse gasses. Just burning something other the oil doesn't cut it IMO.

[alkemical]

http://www.alamut.com/proj/98/nuclearGarden/bookTexts/Lovelock_Oklo.html

NATURAL NUCLEAR REACTORS (OKLO)

From James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia (1988)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"A bizarre consequence of the appearance of oxygen was the advent the world's first nuclear reactors. Nuclear power from its inception has rarely been described publicly except in hyperbole. The impression has been given that to design and construct a nuclear reactor is a feat unique to physical science and engineering creativity. It is chastening to find that, in the Proterozoic, an unassertive community of modest bacteria built a set of nuclear reactors that ran for millions of years.

"This extraordinary event occurred 1.8 eons (1.8 billion years) ago at a place now called Oklo in Gabon, Africa, and was discovered quite by accident. At Oklo, there is a mine that supplies uranium mainly for the French nuclear industry. During the 1970s, a shipment of uranium from Oklo was founded to be depleted in the fissionable isotope Uranium-235. Natural uranium is always of the same isotopic composition--99.27 percent Uranium-238, 0.72 percent of Uranium-235 and traces of Uranium-234. Only the Uranium-235 isotope can take part in the chain reactions necessary for power production or for explosions. Naturally, the fissionable isotope is guarded carefully and its proportion in uranium subjected to thorough and repeated scrutiny.

[alkemical]

I think wind/solar is the way of the future. We need to use the earths natural power sources to cut greenhouse gasses. Just burning something other the oil doesn't cut it IMO.

I think you need to maximize each geographic regions "best" option. What works in PHX, AZ won't work as well in boston, MA - etc.

[Bronco Bob]

Doesn't nuclear power still create greenhouse gasses?

Just the opposite. Greenhouse gases include Carbon Dioxide, Methane,
Nitrous Oxide, and Freon, none of which are produced by nuclear power plants.
Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, but nukes, coal, and oil all put
about the same amount into the air, so water vapor is basically a wash.
So by using nuclear power plant instead of coal and oil fired plants we actually
reduce the amount of greenhouse put into the air.

[Bronco Bob]

http://www.alamut.com/proj/98/nuclearGarden/bookTexts/Lovelock_Oklo.html

NATURAL NUCLEAR REACTORS (OKLO)

From James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia (1988)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"A bizarre consequence of the appearance of oxygen was the advent the world's first nuclear reactors. Nuclear power from its inception has rarely been described publicly except in hyperbole. The impression has been given that to design and construct a nuclear reactor is a feat unique to physical science and engineering creativity. It is chastening to find that, in the Proterozoic, an unassertive community of modest bacteria built a set of nuclear reactors that ran for millions of years.

"This extraordinary event occurred 1.8 eons (1.8 billion years) ago at a place now called Oklo in Gabon, Africa, and was discovered quite by accident. At Oklo, there is a mine that supplies uranium mainly for the French nuclear industry. During the 1970s, a shipment of uranium from Oklo was founded to be depleted in the fissionable isotope Uranium-235. Natural uranium is always of the same isotopic composition--99.27 percent Uranium-238, 0.72 percent of Uranium-235 and traces of Uranium-234. Only the Uranium-235 isotope can take part in the chain reactions necessary for power production or for explosions. Naturally, the fissionable isotope is guarded carefully and its proportion in uranium subjected to thorough and repeated scrutiny.

Here is another interesting quote from the article:

The distribution of stable fission products around the reactor site is also valuable evidence to suggest that the problems of nuclear waste disposal now are nowhere near so difficult and dangerous as the feverish pronouncements of the antinuclear movement would suggest.

[Bob]

no such thing as an unsolvable problem ...... there is a solution we just dont have the technology right now to solve it ........ I dont see the problem of sending waste into space ........

I think you are right on this issue Spider. If folks really believed in global warming and wanted to reduce emissions they would look very seriously at Nuclear power. If France can do it -- we can do it better ... I think folks are paranoid -- how many deaths have we had in the world because of nuclear power plant mishaps -- how many deaths have happened in coal mines?

I think that when folks bring up the Nuke option they think of Mr. Burns, and Three-Mile Island right away, but how many deaths happened there?

[Spider]

Whatever dude.... I get the picture. You'll turn a blind eye as long as you aren't the one affected. So what if a few people get ****ed?

LOL I live in Wyoming , I work in the oil patch 90% of the time , I have seen uranium mining , it is nowhere near as bad as Methane gas , natural gas or coalbed methane ........... Oil , we wont even bring in what drilling for oil does to the land and wildlife

[Spider]

I think wind/solar is the way of the future. We need to use the earths natural power sources to cut greenhouse gasses. Just burning something other the oil doesn't cut it IMO.

wind and solar are very inefficient power sources right now ........Nuke power doesnt give off any green house gases

[mhgaffney]

Why?

One accident on the scale of Chernobyl and most of France will be un inhabitable for the rest of human history.

That's a pretty sound reason. Not to mention the continuous leakage of radiation -- a problem that is unsurmountable.

Call me Mr Conservative.

[Spider]

Why?

One accident on the scale of Chernobyl and most of France will be un inhabitable for the rest of human history.

That's a pretty sound reason. Not to mention the continuous leakage of radiation -- a problem that is unsurmountable.

Call me Mr Conservative.

dont have an accident ........ pretty ****ing simple

[mhgaffney]

wind and solar are very inefficient power sources right now ........Nuke power doesnt give off any green house gases

Not true.

In fact, wind has become the most cost effective way to generate electricity in the USA.

With a Manhattan scale project to ramp up solar and hydrogen America could make the transition to abundant clean energy alternatives in 10-20 years.

If we had spent the $500 billion that Bush flushed down the toilet in Iraq and Afghanistan on this energy transition --we'd almsot be there by now.

This is common sense. Why do I see so little of it on this board?

[Spider]

Not true.

In fact, wind has become the most cost effective way to generate electricity in the USA.

With a Manhattan scale project to ramp up solar and hydrogen America could make the transition to abundant clean energy alternatives in 10-20 years.

If we had spent the $500 billion that Bush flushed down the toilet in Iraq and Afghanistan on this energy transition --we'd almsot be there by now.

This is common sense. Why do I see so little of it on this board?

LOL bull**** someone else ........ seriously

[Spider]

it takes miles and miles of wind turbines it takes to generate enough electricity to power a suburb

[Bronco Bob]

Why?

One accident on the scale of Chernobyl and most of France will be un inhabitable for the rest of human history.

That's a pretty sound reason. Not to mention the continuous leakage of radiation -- a problem that is unsurmountable.

Call me Mr Conservative.

Apples and oranges. The nuke plants in France, Japan, and the USA are
of an entirely different design of that of Chernobyl. As Mr. Research you
ought to know that. But admitting that fact doesn't play into your
agenda, so you ignore it.

[alkemical]

I think you are right on this issue Spider. If folks really believed in global warming and wanted to reduce emissions they would look very seriously at Nuclear power. If France can do it -- we can do it better ... I think folks are paranoid -- how many deaths have we had in the world because of nuclear power plant mishaps -- how many deaths have happened in coal mines?

I think that when folks bring up the Nuke option they think of Mr. Burns, and Three-Mile Island right away, but how many deaths happened there?

I live right near TMI!

The worst nuclear accident in america killed NOONE! But what they don't tell you is the odd glow that comes from river..... ;)

[alkemical]

dont have an accident ........ pretty ****ing simple

LOL spider - this is the funniest thing i've read in a bit!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

it takes miles and miles of wind turbines it takes to generate enough electricity to power a suburbWe could power the entire country just putting them in the I-80 corridor of Wyoming alone.

[defenseman]

if they found away to reuse it once , they can find away to keep reusing it until it is no longer toxic or as toxic ..........

they reuse what the can, over and over. And yes, the the half life of what they can't use is not as long, nor is it as radioactive. They could go somewhat further in the refining process, however it is somewhat costly to do so. Public utilities have no problem with this for the most part, they aren't functional on a 'profit' persay. The profits get poured back into the power plant / maintenance / upgrades. Which allows for them to entend the life of the plant for another thirty to fourty years. Then again, most of the power companies are based on profit, and some of them are located in states that are stupid enough to put a monetary cap on the cost of the utility based on politics, Illinois is a good example of that. The idiotic politicians in illinois capped power cost for 10 years, Illinois has I'm thinking 5 nuke plants. When the 10 years was up, the utility cost went double to triple the cost literally over night. They've got to have money to survive. Then they say it's too expensive, that's after they screwed the whole thing up to begin with. In any case, 5 new plants probably over the next six years or so. Another 30 after that by about the year 2030.....dman

[defenseman]

I live right near TMI!

The worst nuclear accident in america killed NOONE! But what they don't tell you is the odd glow that comes from river..... ;)

Right....freaking hilarious..dman

[defenseman]

Apples and oranges. The nuke plants in France, Japan, and the USA are
of an entirely different design of that of Chernobyl. As Mr. Research you
ought to know that. But admitting that fact doesn't play into your
agenda, so you ignore it.

Correcto mundo. Chenobyl was an entirely different design than any westinghouse, combustion engineering pressurized water reactor, which is what most nukes are in the US of A. Very simple design, reasonably simple to maintain. Take care of the plant, it will continue to operate at 100% for a long time. Twice the original lifetime at a minumum once the NRC authorizes their extensions......dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

they reuse what the can, over and over. And yes, the the half life of what they can't use is not as long, nor is it as radioactive. They could go somewhat further in the refining process, however it is somewhat costly to do so. Public utilities have no problem with this for the most part, they aren't functional on a 'profit' persay. The profits get poured back into the power plant / maintenance / upgrades. Which allows for them to entend the life of the plant for another thirty to fourty years. Then again, most of the power companies are based on profit, and some of them are located in states that are stupid enough to put a monetary cap on the cost of the utility based on politics, Illinois is a good example of that. The idiotic politicians in illinois capped power cost for 10 years, Illinois has I'm thinking 5 nuke plants. When the 10 years was up, the utility cost went double to triple the cost literally over night. They've got to have money to survive. Then they say it's too expensive, that's after they screwed the whole thing up to begin with. In any case, 5 new plants probably over the next six years or so. Another 30 after that by about the year 2030.....dmanWhere did you get that from? There won't be one single nuclear generating station built anywhere in the U.S during the "next six years or so".

[Hotrod]

Why?

One accident on the scale of Chernobyl and most of France will be un inhabitable for the rest of human history.
That's a pretty sound reason. Not to mention the continuous leakage of radiation -- a problem that is unsurmountable.

Call me Mr Conservative.

What if we just made "mini-nuke" power plants. Then an accident would be mini in nature Ha!

[defenseman]

I've been a nuclear honk for a long time, given the right scenario. In talking with an enviromentalist wanting me to sign his petition last month, he gave me TONS of reasons why the environmental block doesn't want it. I don't recall all of them but a few were:

1. the nuclear industry misrepresents itself too often to be trusted.
2. reprocessing is a health risk for workers
3. uranium is finite, meaning we could have a shortage thereby forcing gaps in energy production
4. Terrorism target and severe weather from global warming would make it dangerous to operate reactors.
5. Cost
6. Logistics-there's not exactly a line of communities saying 'bring that radioactive stuff to our town!'

I'm interested in hearing your explanation for #1. As far as the rest of it, you are flat out dead wrong. When talking about energy, and an energy plan, think long term......I'd suggest you haven't done the research on the other side of the coin, however, I'd just be wasting my breath. Number 4, 6, 3 are grossly incorrect by my estimations. The rest just wrong. Number 4 is a laugher. It's obvious to me you haven't attempted to enter a power plant of late...it's a real eye opener..dman

[defenseman]

Where did you get that from? There won't be one single nuclear generating station built anywhere in the U.S during the "next six years or so".

Believe what you desire. I've got very reliable contacts all over the industry. They'll be up soon enough...dman

*Short of a nuclear accident, which to be honest the chances are slim to none considering the requirements ALL plants operate under via the NRC, you will see new ones in reasonably short order. The rules and regulations are INCREDIBLY PAINFUL and ABSOLUTLEY ENFORCED. Quite amazing to be honest.

[Spider]

they reuse what the can, over and over. And yes, the the half life of what they can't use is not as long, nor is it as radioactive. They could go somewhat further in the refining process, however it is somewhat costly to do so. Public utilities have no problem with this for the most part, they aren't functional on a 'profit' persay. The profits get poured back into the power plant / maintenance / upgrades. Which allows for them to entend the life of the plant for another thirty to fourty years. Then again, most of the power companies are based on profit, and some of them are located in states that are stupid enough to put a monetary cap on the cost of the utility based on politics, Illinois is a good example of that. The idiotic politicians in illinois capped power cost for 10 years, Illinois has I'm thinking 5 nuke plants. When the 10 years was up, the utility cost went double to triple the cost literally over night. They've got to have money to survive. Then they say it's too expensive, that's after they screwed the whole thing up to begin with. In any case, 5 new plants probably over the next six years or so. Another 30 after that by about the year 2030.....dman

D man agrees with me on this issue ? I have to be dead wrong on nuke power ;D

[Hotrod]

D man agrees with me on this issue ? I have to be dead wrong on nuke power ;D

LOL

I once found myself agreeing with LABF. I was a mental mess. I went out into the desert for 40 days and 40 nights to clear my mind and find my inner self.

[defenseman]

D man agrees with me on this issue ? I have to be dead wrong on nuke power ;D

We all agree or disagree on certian issues. I would guess ILLEGAL ALIENS is one of them. Don't worry, you are not wrong. And the sky is not falling,....yetROFL! ....dman

[Spider]

LOL

I once found myself agreeing with LABF. I was a mental mess. I went out into the desert for 40 days and 40 nights to clear my mind and find my inner self.
LOL I must do the same . problem is I would have to take my lap top

[defenseman]

Why?

One accident on the scale of Chernobyl and most of France will be un inhabitable for the rest of human history.

That's a pretty sound reason. Not to mention the continuous leakage of radiation -- a problem that is unsurmountable.

Call me Mr Conservative.

You have absolutely NO IDEA of what you are talking about.....ZERO,,,,NADA,,,,.....you have made yourself a source of information that is totally unreliable from this point on...dman

*I urge you to provide the information necessary to back up this claim, or I'd be backing off your statement. It's dead wrong.

[Spider]

We all agree or disagree on certian issues. I would guess ILLEGAL ALIENS is one of them. Don't worry, you are not wrong. And the sky is not falling,....yetROFL! ....dman
ah hem .. it is civil disobedient undocumented Americans thank you very much ;D

[defenseman]

ah hem .. it is civil disobedient undocumented Americans thank you very much ;D

PC it to whomever and however you wish, they are freaking ILLEGAL ALIENS. Round up the culprits and boot there butts outta here...everyone of the SOB's...dman

[Hotrod]

PC it to whomever and however you wish, they are freaking ILLEGAL ALIENS. Round up the culprits and boot there butts outta here...everyone of the SOB's...dman

Now wait just a second there cowboy. We cant throw all of them out. Who the hell is gonna mow my lawn next summer.....huh did you even stop to think about that?

[Bronco Bob]

PC it to whomever and however you wish, they are freaking ILLEGAL ALIENS. Round up the culprits and boot there butts outta here...everyone of the SOB's...dman

Another thing I agree with you on. Damn, next thing you know we are going to be holding hands and singing Kumbaya. ROFL!

[Spider]

PC it to whomever and however you wish, they are freaking ILLEGAL ALIENS. Round up the culprits and boot there butts outta here...everyone of the SOB's...dman

we cant catch 1, 6-5 arab that sticks out like a turd in a punch bowl ,yet you seem to think we can round up over 11 million illegals and ship them off ....ànd who will flip the bill for this ?

[defenseman]

Now wait just a second there cowboy. We cant throw all of them out. Who the hell is gonna mow my lawn next summer.....huh did you even stop to think about that?

:rofl: Riiigghht! I could care less who loses an illegal alien cook or grounds keeper. Besides, exercise is good for the body:thanku: ....dman

[Hotrod]

:rofl: Riiigghht! I could care less who loses an illegal alien cook or grounds keeper. Besides, exercise is good for the body:thanku: ....dman

Ya I'll be fine I guess. I do have 2 kids that need something to do in the summer ;D

Actually I have a low maintence yard. Almost zero water/time needed. I blame the hippies for my hippie yard.

[defenseman]

we cant catch 1, 6-5 arab that sticks out like a turd in a punch bowl ,yet you seem to think we can round up over 11 million illegals and ship them off ....ànd who will flip the bill for this ?

You gotta start somewhere. A good start? Pass legislation that FORCES all cities to report when ILLEGAL ALIENS are arrested for crimes against the people in the city they ILLEGALLY reside. That includes the "sanctuary" cities, don't report these illegal's , lose your fed funding. The feds need to get off their butts, secure the freaking border, create more employment for the officers whose specific purpose is to go get the Illegals arrested for crimes, take them to the border, and throw them back over the fence. Protect the border from entry with the use of deadly force. Problem solved...dman

[Spider]

You gotta start somewhere. A good start? Pass legislation that FORCES all cities to report when ILLEGAL ALIENS are arrested for crimes against the people in the city they ILLEGALLY reside. That includes the "sanctuary" cities, don't report these illegal's , lose your fed funding. The feds need to get off their butts, secure the freaking border, create more employment for the officers whose specific purpose is to go get the Illegals arrested for crimes, take them to the border, and throw them back over the fence. Protect the border from entry with the use of deadly force. Problem solved...dman

LOL pass a law ? and who will do this magical feat ?
Corporate America wants them here , big business wants them here ......... let me put it like this , you go to a store find a loaf of bread for 2.85 . another store has bread for 1.50 , same brand , same freshness .. you get the picture .
problem is you are wanting to target Illegals , that isnt the solution , that would be like trying to get all of the water out of new Orleans with a 5 gallon bucket ..... Securing the boarder , good idea , but you have to take it further
YOU HAVE TO TAKE AWAY THE REASON THEY COME HERE !!!!!!!how do you do that ? you have to attack corporate America , the very hand that feeds you .....

[defenseman]

Ya I'll be fine I guess. I do have 2 kids that need something to do in the summer ;D

Actually I have a low maintence yard. Almost zero water/time needed. I blame the hippies for my hippie yard.

I've got two strapping sons and a wife. I haven't mowed the lawn in over two years.....dman

[defenseman]

LOL pass a law ? and who will do this magical feat ?
Corporate America wants them here , big business wants them here ......... let me put it like this , you go to a store find a loaf of bread for 2.85 . another store has bread for 1.50 , same brand , same freshness .. you get the picture .
problem is you are wanting to target Illegals , that isnt the solution , that would be like trying to get all of the water out of new Orleans with a 5 gallon bucket ..... Securing the boarder , good idea , but you have to take it further
YOU HAVE TO TAKE AWAY THE REASON THEY COME HERE !!!!!!!how do you do that ? you have to attack corporate America , the very hand that feeds you .....

I fully endorse your proposal. First time corporate offenders , a hefty fine and probation. Second time offender, HEFTY fine and inability to conduct business ,in any respect for at least 60 days. Third time offender, JAIL, minumum term 5 years, loss of business ownership and ability to ever start another business in the United states...dman

*I AGREE WITH YOU SPIDE!!!!!!! Quick duck under the table,,,,the sky is falling...:~ohyah!: :thumbsup:

[Bronco Bob]

Folks, I think we are starting to get a little off topic here, unless
we need to start worrying about illegals working at nuke plants.
Maybe we should start a new thread to discuss illegals.

[Hotrod]

Wait a second. Is it not US policy to fight them there so we dont have to fight them here???

Maybe we should attack Mexico and fight them over there....

[defenseman]

Folks, I think we are starting to get a little off topic here, unless
we need to start worrying about illegals working at nuke plants.
Maybe we should start a new thread to discuss illegals.

You are right. I'm waiting for Ghaffney to provide evidence of the constant leak of radioactivity to the enviroment by nuclear power plants...dman

*Most folks have NO IDEA of what a nuke plant does, how it's regulated operationally speaking , protected, let alone why it does what it does, and continually denounce it without a shred of proof. Freaking just amazing..dman

Best part is, coal fired plants emit to the enviroment on a continuous basis, most folks couldn't tell you what they emit, how they do what they do, let alone if the emissions have any radioactive properties or not.....just amazing..

[defenseman]

Wait a second. Is it not US policy to fight them there so we dont have to fight them here???

Maybe we should attack Mexico and fight them over there....

Hmmm....I'm guessing the mexican government is even more corrupt and self important than the iraqi parliment. Getting them to move on anything between siesta's and their kickbacks may be difficult..dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Believe what you desire. I've got very reliable contacts all over the industry. They'll be up soon enough...dman

*Short of a nuclear accident, which to be honest the chances are slim to none considering the requirements ALL plants operate under via the NRC, you will see new ones in reasonably short order. The rules and regulations are INCREDIBLY PAINFUL and ABSOLUTLEY ENFORCED. Quite amazing to be honest.Complete Bull****! There isn't one nuclear power generating plant anywhere in the country currently under design for construction. There is some enthusiasm from certain people and a couple utilities but currently there is not ONE plant scheduled for construction. The materials supply chain alone disallows for any construction of one in the near future.

And anyone even REMOTELY familiar with the industry knows construction from permit to finish would be at least 10 years for one.

As far you having "very reliable contacts all over the industry" I'll wager you don't know anyone from the companies that actually do nuclear plant construction. You remind me of some of the operators I've ran into over the years that think they built the damn plants.

[Bob]

LOL bull**** someone else ........ seriously

He must be getting that info from "his private sources of delusion and falsehood." I have nothing against solar and wind power -- "they feel better" than Nuke Power -- I just think that people are using “feelings” to guide them on this issue rather than facts.

Honest questions about by-products should be asked with each energy source. When solar panels are created, what are the by-products/pollutants that are made in the process? Nuke power has very little if any CO2 emissions -- but yeah what do you do with the waste? I think that if some conservative state was paid big $ to store it in the middle of nowhere they may consider it -- like WY or UT. But most states wouldn’t be able to get the public support -- even if it was a sweat $ deal. When people plug in their electric hybrids the electricity they are getting is likely from a coal-based plant -- so if you really think global warming is real -- than Nuke power could be implemented fairly quickly compared to some other measures that I have heard of. Where the crap are you going to put the wind farms to produce the energy that we need as a nation? We have a big one in Montana, but it doesn’t create that much energy, and it has to be in the middle of nowhere, then you have to transport it, and wait for the wind to blow. It is “nice” but it is a small part of the solution –

[Bob]

Complete Bull****! There isn't one nuclear power generating plant anywhere in the country currently under design for construction. There is some enthusiasm from certain people and a couple utilities but currently there is not ONE plant scheduled for construction. The materials supply chain alone disallows for any construction of one in the near future.

And anyone even REMOTELY familiar with the industry knows construction from permit to finish would be at least 10 years for one.

As far you having "very reliable contacts all over the industry" I'll wager you don't know anyone from the companies that actually do nuclear plant construction. You remind of some of the operators I've ran into over the years that think they built the damn plants.

You are right that there is a ton of barriers in getting one built -- I think the regulations are an intellectually inconsistant part of the new faith.

[Bob]

You gotta start somewhere. A good start? Pass legislation that FORCES all cities to report when ILLEGAL ALIENS are arrested for crimes against the people in the city they ILLEGALLY reside. That includes the "sanctuary" cities, don't report these illegal's , lose your fed funding. The feds need to get off their butts, secure the freaking border, create more employment for the officers whose specific purpose is to go get the Illegals arrested for crimes, take them to the border, and throw them back over the fence. Protect the border from entry with the use of deadly force. Problem solved...dman

If the government had 1/2 the will of the American people on this issue we would see major change. I agree: first, deal with the running water -- shut it off! Then start on other common sense approaches what to do with those here -- they are many things that could be done -- starting with enforcement of existing laws, and withholding Fed funding to "sanctuary cities."

[defenseman]

Complete Bull****! There isn't one nuclear power generating plant anywhere in the country currently under design for construction. There is some enthusiasm from certain people and a couple utilities but currently there is not ONE plant scheduled for construction. The materials supply chain alone disallows for any construction of one in the near future.

And anyone even REMOTELY familiar with the industry knows construction from permit to finish would be at least 10 years for one.

As far you having "very reliable contacts all over the industry" I'll wager you don't know anyone from the companies that actually do nuclear plant construction. You remind me of some of the operators I've ran into over the years that think they built the damn plants.

You have your opinion. time to wait and see who is right....dman

[defenseman]

Complete Bull****! There isn't one nuclear power generating plant anywhere in the country currently under design for construction. There is some enthusiasm from certain people and a couple utilities but currently there is not ONE plant scheduled for construction. The materials supply chain alone disallows for any construction of one in the near future.

And anyone even REMOTELY familiar with the industry knows construction from permit to finish would be at least 10 years for one.

As far you having "very reliable contacts all over the industry" I'll wager you don't know anyone from the companies that actually do nuclear plant construction. You remind me of some of the operators I've ran into over the years that think they built the damn plants.

You sure about that?.....And for a plant that was started but not finished?....I'm guessing you believe the operators don't have any knowledge with respect to the construction process? I would say to an extent you are selling short some of the folks who are employed in those operating plants. Believe what you will BB, it's all right around the corner, whether you like it or not...dman

[Bronco Bob]

It's amazing how people will argue about things over the internet when the internet is right there to settle arguments:

Six sites finalists for nuclear power plants

U.S. consortium's list could be step toward renaissance

A nuclear power plant hasn't been built in the United States in two decades, but that could change in the next few years after a consortium announced locations in six states as possible sites for a nuclear renaissance.

Nuclear power consortium NuStart Energy on Thursday named the sites from which it will later pick two for which to apply for licenses to build and operate nuclear power plants.

Four of the six already house operating nuclear power plants.

<snip>

The NuStart consortium consists of nine utilities, including Exelon, Entergy, and Duke Energy, as well as nuclear reactor manufacturers GE Energy, a unit of General Electric, and Westinghouse Electric Co., a unit of BNFL Plc. (GE is a parent in the joint venture that owns MSNBC.)

Under the Department of Energy’s Nuclear 2010 program, half of the estimated $520 million cost of the project is being shouldered by the Energy Department and half will be paid by the consortium members.

The consortium expects to apply for licenses in 2008. Construction could then begin in 2010 with completion in 2014, NuStart said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7921287/

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It's amazing how people will argue about things over the internet when the internet is right there to settle arguments:

Six sites finalists for nuclear power plants

U.S. consortium's list could be step toward renaissance

A nuclear power plant hasn't been built in the United States in two decades, but that could change in the next few years after a consortium announced locations in six states as possible sites for a nuclear renaissance.

Nuclear power consortium NuStart Energy on Thursday named the sites from which it will later pick two for which to apply for licenses to build and operate nuclear power plants.

Four of the six already house operating nuclear power plants.

<snip>

The NuStart consortium consists of nine utilities, including Exelon, Entergy, and Duke Energy, as well as nuclear reactor manufacturers GE Energy, a unit of General Electric, and Westinghouse Electric Co., a unit of BNFL Plc. (GE is a parent in the joint venture that owns MSNBC.)

Under the Department of Energy’s Nuclear 2010 program, half of the estimated $520 million cost of the project is being shouldered by the Energy Department and half will be paid by the consortium members.

The consortium expects to apply for licenses in 2008. Construction could then begin in 2010 with completion in 2014, NuStart said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7921287/Just like I said, not one plant has been designed for construction yet. As far as the four year time period for completing a plant, more BS.

And of course, this is just the start of the process to APPLY for licenses. Any attempt to build a nuclear power generating plant in this country will be met by strong opposition, guaranteed.

This comment at the EPO7 in May sums it up pretty well...

"Nearly half of what will be built (planned for the nuclear power) environment in 2030 doesn't exist". Mike Mosley, Zachery Construction Corp.

And once we get rid of the current pawn in the WH hopefully we won't have another lackey for big oil and gas and power generation giving them whatever they want, giving us a chance to move to clean, alternative and safe energies.

And of course, that article doesn't mention the material supply chain problems that will ultimately postpone or cancel construction projects. There is an acute shortage of piping, pumps, valves, etc... for new plant construction now. Many new planned coal and gas plants that have already been approved will take precedence on material for years to come. Not to mention the shortage of workers (including operators, engineers, etc...), that exists now and growing and the amount of baby boomers who be retiring over the next 10 years.

[defenseman]

Just like I said, not one plant has been designed for construction yet. As far as the four year time period for completing a plant, more BS.

And of course, this is just the start of the process to APPLY for licenses. Any attempt to build a nuclear power generating plant in this country will be met by strong opposition, guaranteed.

This comment at the EPO7 in May sums it up pretty well...

"Nearly half of what will be built (planned for the nuclear power) environment in 2030 doesn't exist". Mike Mosley, Zachery Construction Corp.

And once we get rid of the current pawn in the WH hopefully we won't have another lackey for big oil and gas and power generation giving them whatever they want, giving us a chance to move to clean, alternative and safe energies.

And of course, that article doesn't mention the material supply chain problems that will ultimately postpone or cancel construction projects. There is an acute shortage of piping, pumps, valves, etc... for new plant construction now. Many new planned coal and gas plants that have already been approved will take precedence on material for years to come. Not to mention the shortage of workers (including operators, engineers, etc...), that exists now and growing and the amount of baby boomers who be retiring over the next 10 years.

Just part of the story. And of course the article doesn't mention some additional items in progress. This consortium is for new reactors. Not old reactors never finished. On that note, anyone know of any reactors taken out of mothballs and started up recently? Just checking to make sure all scenarios are being looked at wrt starting up new reactors persay....dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Just part of the story. And of course the article doesn't mention some additional items in progress. This consortium is for new reactors. Not old reactors never finished. On that note, anyone know of any reactors taken out of mothballs and started up recently? Just checking to make sure all scenarios are being looked at wrt starting up new reactors persay....dmanLike what?

[defenseman]

Like what?

For example, the browns ferry unit down in alabama. Mothballed about twenty years ago during the construction phase I believe. They went critical in May 07. Brandy new spanking plant. This unit isn't the only one being planned for completion and startup initiated. Just a matter of time till similar ones are taken critical in reasonably short order.......dman

*Read an interesting article on how global warming affects nuke plants. Easy fix, build a bunch of nuke plants, get off the oil teet, and whala, no more global warming. Nukes do not contribute to global warming. Sounds good to me.

[mhgaffney]

Nuke plants do contribute to global warming --

To cool these dinosaurs requires massive inflow of water from rivers -- which get heated up (as well as irradiated) --

[W*GS]

Nuke plants do contribute to global warming --

To cool these dinosaurs requires massive inflow of water from rivers -- which get heated up (as well as irradiated) --

Do a calculation for a year's worth of operation of a nuclear power plant and a coal-fired power plant, same output power, and compare the heating effects of the warmed water from the former to the heating effects of the CO2 generated by the latter.

In short, do some analysis, science, and math.

[Spider]

LOL pass a law ? and who will do this magical feat ?
Corporate America wants them here , big business wants them here ......... let me put it like this , you go to a store find a loaf of bread for 2.85 . another store has bread for 1.50 , same brand , same freshness .. you get the picture .
problem is you are wanting to target Illegals , that isnt the solution , that would be like trying to get all of the water out of new Orleans with a 5 gallon bucket ..... Securing the boarder , good idea , but you have to take it further
YOU HAVE TO TAKE AWAY THE REASON THEY COME HERE !!!!!!!how do you do that ? you have to attack corporate America , the very hand that feeds you .....

I fully endorse your proposal. First time corporate offenders , a hefty fine and probation. Second time offender, HEFTY fine and inability to conduct business ,in any respect for at least 60 days. Third time offender, JAIL, minumum term 5 years, loss of business ownership and ability to ever start another business in the United states...dman

*I AGREE WITH YOU SPIDE!!!!!!! Quick duck under the table,,,,the sky is falling...:~ohyah!: :thumbsup:

LOL , that would explain the burning sensation I have been having ;D

[Bronco_Beerslug]

For example, the browns ferry unit down in alabama. Mothballed about twenty years ago during the construction phase I believe. They went critical in May 07. Brandy new spanking plant. This unit isn't the only one being planned for completion and startup initiated. Just a matter of time till similar ones are taken critical in reasonably short order.......dman

*Read an interesting article on how global warming affects nuke plants. Easy fix, build a bunch of nuke plants, get off the oil teet, and whala, no more global warming. Nukes do not contribute to global warming. Sounds good to me.What in the hell are you talking about? All 3 of those units were finished in 70s and all 3 units there are on line (except unit #2 because of the hot weather) and none have been "mothballed". All of those units were shut down in the 80s because of performance issues but all retained their operating licenses. 2 and 3 came back online in the 90s and unit 1 in the 2007.

Where do you come up with this sh*t?

[Bronco Bob]

Nuke plants do contribute to global warming --

To cool these dinosaurs requires massive inflow of water from rivers -- which get heated up (as well as irradiated) --

The water that gets converted to steam for the turbines never comes in
contact with the cooling water of the reactor. The reactor water heats
the water that goes to the turbines through a heat exchanger. Therefore
the reactor cooling water is in a closed system and so none of the radiation
can escape. Your ignorance of simple scientific and engineering facts never
ceases to amaze me.

[defenseman]

Nuke plants do contribute to global warming --

To cool these dinosaurs requires massive inflow of water from rivers -- which get heated up (as well as irradiated) --

How much percentage wise? Care to guess? Do you have any idea? Irradiated? Oh , really? Care to expound on that one. WHAT part of the plant , EXACTLY, does the river water flow through, why does it flow through that component, and what is rad levels at that point? Again, you are DEAD WRONG. Do your freaking homework before trying to sell that garbage to anyone...dman

[Bob]

Nuke plants do contribute to global warming --

To cool these dinosaurs requires massive inflow of water from rivers -- which get heated up (as well as irradiated) --

HOT WATER = Global Warming? The whole premise of global warming is built on CO2 emissions right? Hilarious!

Just want folks like you to be honest on this one -- the resistance to Nuke power seems Druid-doctrine driven -- based on a “gut feeling,” but not on the science behind it.

There are reasons to argue against Nuke power -- like where to store the waste created -- and which state would be willing to say "sure, my backyard is fine." I don’t think I have heard one credible augment suggesting that Nuke Power (if implemented across the country) wouldn’t reduce our CO2 emissions.

When we compare how we would implement nuke power here to how a dying USSR did it -- that is disingenuous, and fear-based.