All nuclear plants should be shut down, IMHO.

[darkangel218]

They are not safe. The danger they present exceeds any benefit they may offer.

Shut them all down. Switch to other methods of producing energy.

Really, do we have to wait for another Chernobyl or Fukushima to do something about it?

[daleanime]

1. Hell yes.....

ASAP.

[darkangel218]

4. I edited my post because all plants should be shut down, not just in the US.

Nuclear power is not the answer to our energy demands. Just an extreamly dangerous, unforgiving shortcut.

[daleanime]

11. exactly, 'helpful' today.....

damaging forever.

[Cleita]

2. I second that. I live downwind from one and when you have siren

drills and pills delivered to you free, "just in case" you know that this an accident waiting to happen. Also we are sitting on three earthquake faults and what happened in Fukushima is highly possible here.

[darkangel218]

6. I used to visit Port St Lucie quiet often a few years back.

I've went through couple of drills. Even recorded it on a video. Let me see if I can find it and post it. The syren sounds are beyond scary

[quinnox]

3. Easier said than done

[Rex]

5. But could it be done?

That would be a massive project.

[darkangel218]

10. Massive but duable.

Which can't be said about trying to decontaminate a nuclear disaster site.

[quinnox]

12. I think it could be done

but there would have to be a huge push for alternative energy sources to replace it. Which would be great, and should be happening anyway.

But do I think there is a chance of this happening in reality? No. The nuclear plants will still be around for a good long while. Unless we have some kind of huge catastrophe or something.

[Politicalboi]

41. "Unless we have some kind of huge catastrophe or something"

IMO Fukushima is a huge catastrophe that EVERY country should help clean up. This should be the example we all need.

[Cleita]

21. The entities stopping it are the energy companies that

profit from it. If you can discredit them and their lies about safety, then you can open the way.

[RobertEarl]

9. Easily done.

Just takes abut 10 years before they are safe after being shutdown. So what are we waiting for? We are waiting for everyone to get over this nonsense that we can't shutdown the damned things. We should. Can you say that?

[quinnox]

14. We probably should

but we won't, unless there is some huge nuclear disaster in this country, God forbid.

[jeff47]

20. Nah, it's pretty easy. Just crank up all the old coal plants that have been shut down

But hey, that wouldn't have any effects. It's not like the atmosphere can't take a bunch more CO2, and it's not like coal actually has radioactive material in it that would be spread by the smoke.

Or we could do exactly what the Japanese did when they shut down their nuclear plants: Crank up the natural gas plants. All that fracking and CO2 will be a great idea!

[Cleita]

23. Here comes the coal plant strawman again.

So what part of the nuke industry do you work for? The truth is that not one coal plant needs to be opened. We now have ways to alternate energy sources that are viable and efficient.

[jeff47]

29. Because solar panels and windmills just magically appear.

The sad truth is the countries that have "turned away from nukes" turned right to fossil fuels. Because that was the only thing that could provide a replacement for their nuclear plants in a short timeframe.

What I would love is a distributed grid with solar on everyone's roof supplemented by wind turbines. We have nowhere near the capacity to do that yet. We'll get there, but it's going to be a while.

So we're left with "what do we do in the meantime".

Nuclear plants have caused disasters. Local disasters. It's really, really awful for those who lived next to Fukushima or Chernobyl. Meanwhile, fossil fuel gas plants are causing a global disaster.

So in the short run, we should keep the nukes going to avoid the CO2 until solar and wind can replace them.

[Cleita]

33. Bull shit. The reason they don't want green energy is because Wall

Street can't make money from it. That's why other dirty energy is used as an alternate source, profit, profit and more profit.

[jeff47]

37. Solar panels and wind turbines have to be built somewhere.

It's not like there's solar panel mines that are currently offline. The quantity of panels and turbines required to replace every nuclear plant is truly enormous.

We'll get there.

But nuclear plants in the short run are less of a problem than fossil fuel plants in the short run.

[Cleita]

39. Sure and they will provide jobs and the profits will

go to the manufacturers and installers of the panels. The power companies no likey that.

[jeff47]

45. Someone has to distribute the power.

An apartment building can't generate enough power from it's own roof for it's own consumption.

Something has to supply power during night or cloudy days.

Some rooftop systems will be broken, yet the people inside will still want power.

Lots of commercial and industrial customers need way more electricity than they can generate on-site.

and so on.

Even if there are solar panels on everyone's roof, we are going to need "The power company" to distribute that electricty.

[Peregrine]

80. But the OP said to shut them down right now

So you are saying that we can shut them down Monday, and replace them with solar and all on Monday as well.

I would like to see new building codes that require each new construction or major renovation have solar. Unlike wind, we have the infrastructure (minus the photovoltaic panels) to support a distributed solar grid. But it can't be done in one day.

Also once power companies see the growth of solar, they will become the largest manufacturer and installers of solar. There business will consist of the infrastructure. If you need to use it, you need to pay for it.

[Drew Richards]

65. Wind and solar are not the only virtually clean energy sources we have. I'm sure you

Know that but are being argumentative to get your kicks..as usual.

But for others on here lets not forget about the massively untapped geothermal that we could be doing too..oh and of course there are Hybrid Bio generation plants to process plant and human waste to generate energy and natural fertilizers..or hybrid solar,wave desalination plants to produce energy and clean water...or hybrid solar hydrodynamic waste water treatment plants that produce gasp..
Hydrogen, fertilizers and wait for it....clean water...oh my yes but nuc power cannot be replaced..

oh yeah and how is it Germany is able to be in the process of shutting all their plants down and convert to solar and wind and we just...shudder...cant accomplish this with much more resources and estimated photo-voltaic capability...

Such horshit. Getting old..

[jeff47]

76. Hybrid Bio has not been scaled up to grid-size

(AFAIK)

While there's lots of places in the US that can use geothermal, there's lots of places that can't. It can help, but the reason wind & solar get all the exciting coverage is they'll probably have to be the majority of what we use.

And so on with the rest of your suggestions - they'll work in some places, not in others, and haven't been blown up to "grid scale" yet.

oh my yes but nuc power cannot be replaced.

Reading. Try it!

I support nukes only when my alternative is fossil fuels. And that's what is currently rolling out to replace nukes in places like Japan.

oh yeah and how is it Germany is able to be in the process of shutting all their plants down and convert to solar and wind and we just...shudder...cant accomplish this with much more resources and estimated photo-voltaic capability.

Because they aren't.

They rolled out a lot of wind and solar. They also rolled out fossil fuel plants. But firing up yet another natural gas turbine isn't particularly interesting news, so there's been much more coverage of the wind and solar roll-outs.

Such horshit. Getting old.

Until you manage to find the renewable energy fairy who can make these plants just *poof* into existence, they're going to have to be developed first. While a natural gas or coal plant is pretty damn close to *poof* right now.

That will change. But it hasn't changed yet. Let's keep splitting atoms until it does, so that we don't make climate change worse.

[Demo_Chris]

38. Nonsense, Wall Street can profit from anything. nt

[Cleita]

44. They can, but the power companies will be left behind and

they have bought all their politicians and have powerful lobbies to make sure that their turds are tossed in the legislative soup just like they did with health care reform. Did any one say public option.

[rhett o rick]

57. We need to start fazing out the old nuclear plants. First because they are dangerous.

And it will put more pressure on alternate fuels. Even if we have to go back to coal temporarily it would be better in the long run. Just think of the energy expense for Japan. How much energy will it take to clean up that mess?

If you are against coal, then you should worry more about how much we are shipping to China for them to burn. It's the same atmosphere if we burn it or they burn it.

Germany is doing great without nuclear. Their solar is producing the equivalent power of dozens of nuclear plants.

[jeff47]

77. Not until we can faze them out for non-fossil fuel plants.

First because they are dangerous.

So are coal and natural gas plants. However, their danger comes in two flavors:
1) It creeps up slowly by adding greenhouse gasses to our atmosphere
2) the danger is far from the plant where they are fracking the natural gas for the plant.

Even if we have to go back to coal temporarily it would be better in the long run

Because damaging the entire planet is much better than the whopping 2 danger zones in the entire history of nuclear power.

(Also ignoring all the other shit that comes out of a conventional power plant's smokestack)

If you are against coal, then you should worry more about how much we are shipping to China for them to burn. It's the same atmosphere if we burn it or they burn it.

Yep, I'd rather they set up nukes.

Germany is doing great without nuclear. Their solar is producing the equivalent power of dozens of nuclear plants.

Except they didn't just switch from nuke to solar. They switched from nuke to solar....and fossil fuels.

I'm not saying we shouldn't work towards that goal. But we reach that goal by first making the nuclear plants obsolete, then shutting them down. If we shut them down before then, it is far more likely that the nuke will be replaced with a fossil fuel plant.

[rhett o rick]

81. First of all it takes a tremendous amount of energy to build a nuclear power plant.

Way more that conventional fuel plants. That energy contributes to climate change.

Second, no insurance company will insure a nuclear plant. Why? Because they recognize the risk is too high.

We have nuclear plants in this country that are decades beyond their engineered lifespan. They are time-bombs.

And do you know why the nuclear plant owners are paying millions on lobbying? They know that if their plants are shut down, they will not be able to afford to clean up the resulting nuclear mess. My guess is that power companies will end up taking their profits and going bankrupt and leaving the clean up for the taxpayers.

Were you aware that thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel is being stored in unsafe conditions all across this nation? Why? Because the nuclear industry hasnt figured out what to do with their spent fuel.

"In a latest breakthrough in solar technology, Germany has set an example that cannot be challenged. In late May this year, Germany solar power plants generated a record breaking 22 gigawatts of electricity per hour. This amount of electricity is equal to the power generated by 20 nuclear power plants working at maximum capacity."

http://www.aaj.tv/2012/07/solar-energy-replaces-nuclear-energy-in-germany/

[jeff47]

82. The difference in our opinions is you are focused on the spectacular local damage.

If there's a big problem at a nuclear plant, it causes a hell of a lot of damage around the plant. That's why they can't get insurance. The damage is spectacular. But it's also confined to a few square miles.

If fossil fuel plants faced the liability for their damage, they too would not be able to get insurance. But "pump crap into the atmosphere" is a legally acceptable way to dispose of their waste.

The reason I have a different opinion is I believe threat of climate change is far, far more dangerous because it is harming the entire planet. You can't "pull a Chernobyl" and move people away from the affected area.

That doesn't make nuclear plants safe, nor does it mean they can't cause problems. It means one of them blowing up causes smaller problems. There isn't a "good" solution at the moment, there are "less bad" solutions.

First of all it takes a tremendous amount of energy to build a nuclear power plant. Way more that conventional fuel plants. That energy contributes to climate change.

And as long as you turn neither plant on, that would make nukes worse. But when you start burning tons of coal or natural gas, you quickly blow past the difference.

My guess is that power companies will end up taking their profits and going bankrupt and leaving the clean up for the taxpayers.

Were you aware that thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel is being stored in unsafe conditions all across this nation? Why? Because the nuclear industry hasnt figured out what to do with their spent fuel.

Actually, this shows a misunderstanding on your part.

The US Government promised to create a long-term storage facility for nuclear waste, and to accept the waste from the nuclear plants. The problem is it is politically difficult to create such a facility. We get clusterfucks like Yucca Mountain because that's where it became legally feasible to create the facility.

So it's not up to the power companies to deal with that waste. We agreed to take that on before the plants were built. So you can't really blame the power companies for not having a plan for their spent fuel.

As for your quote, yes Germany has solar plants. I'm not disputing that. But they also have cranked up the fossil fuel plants to deal with the lost output from the nuclear plants.

Again, what we need to do is first crank up our solar/wind/renewable capacity, and then retire our nuclear plants. Retiring our nuclear plants before then will just result in burning more natural gas and coal.

[RobertEarl]

83. Wow, you've done it again

Gone way out past reason and sanity. Quote:

"So it's not up to the power companies to deal with that waste. We agreed to take that on before the plants were built. So you can't really blame the power companies for not having a plan for their spent fuel."

Using that as an argument, we can't blame coal either. We can't blame anybody. We told them to Fuku everything and now we should just teabag them on their way to bank? "Money Trumps Peace"?

[jeff47]

84. You've still managed to not explain how you'd deal with night.

Nor how roofs manage to stay up without walls to support them.

Using that as an argument, we can't blame coal either. We can't blame anybody.

This is about as equally clever as all the other arguments you've brought to this thread.

Before the plants were built, the US government promised to take the waste.

Why is expecting the US government to keep its promises such a difficult concept?

[RobertEarl]

85. Ever hear of batteries?

How about pumped storage? Ever think they might just come up with something new?

The roofs of the plants at Fukushima got blown off and burned away. The tsunami didn't knock down the buildings. The explosions are what messed up the buildings. The Tsunami flooded the generators, and that was about all it did besides tearing up other stuff on the ground. The roofs were all there after the Tsunami and until the explosions. They actually have pictures you must have not ever seen?

The waste: If the government told them they would take care of the waste, "So don't you worry about that" they did so because it was either that or not build any more nukes. As it is, there is no safe place to put the waste that the government can agree on.

[jeff47]

86. Sweet! It's been 4 days, and you finally came up with a terrible solution!

Ever hear of batteries?

Which would be installed in which building? Perhaps the one that contained the back-up generators that was destroyed by the earthquake and tsunami?

How about pumped storage?

Requires a quantity of water to fill a small lake. Also requires a generator which, again, is mounted in a building just as easy to destroy as the back-up generators that were on site.

Ever think they might just come up with something new?

So it's terrible that the engineers at Fukushima didn't manage to find magic pixie fairies to solve their pumping problem.

And they're morons for not doing so.

Uh-huh.

The roofs of the plants at Fukushima got blown off and burned away. The tsunami didn't knock down the buildings. The explosions are what messed up the buildings.

You really should pick one story and go with it.

Btw, some were destroyed by the storm. Some were destroyed by the tsunami. And some were destroyed by the explosions.

Tsunamis are not gentle flows of water. Constructing a building to withstand them is not a trivial undertaking.

They actually have pictures you must have not ever seen?

Until this post, you were adamant that there was no need to look at pictures.

The waste: If the government told them they would take care of the waste, "So don't you worry about that" they did so because it was either that or not build any more nukes.

"if"? It's not like the most recent version of this promise was codified into law as the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act" in 1982. Clearly there's some doubt as to whether or not that happened.

And boy, that really spurred more nuclear pants. After all, the last nuclear plant built in the US broke ground in 1977. So clearly the 1982 law spawned a massive construction boom.

[RobertEarl]

87. Ever hear of Naoto Kan?

Former Prime Minister of Japan: The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
was the most severe accident in the history of mankind.

""I had pushed the policy of utilizing nuclear power my view is now changed 180 degrees. there are no other events except for wars that would require the evacuation of tens of millions of people. it is technically impossible to eliminate accidents, especially if human factors such as terrorism are taken into account to eliminate nuclear power plant accidents. All we need to do is to eliminate nuclear power plants themselves. we are leaving the huge problem of nuclear waste for future generations to care for. There is no other way but to go down in the path toward achieving zero nuclear power, for the sake of our children and grandchildren. It is possible for mankind to get enough energy without relying on nuclear power — by using natural energy such as solar, wind, and biomass. To help curb global warming, we need to stop the use of not only nuclear power but also fossil fuels.""

[closeupready]

7. Agreed. Replace them with green energy production.

K&R

[RobertEarl]

13. Gotta keep the pumps running

I suggest we cover the places with solar panels so that the pumps will keep running no matter what. Fukushima blew up because the site lost electricity sufficient to keep the water pumps working.

How dumb is that? The nuclear engineers couldn't think enough to realize that the places would blow up when electricity went down and the pumps stopped. How can we ever trust them?

[closeupready]

16. +1.

[jeff47]

22. The engineers did think of that.

The pumps had two back-up systems. One was knocked out by the earthquake, the other was knocked out by the tsunami.

Btw, your solar panel solution would also have been knocked out by the tsunami.

[Cleita]

26. Of course the engineers never thought about how

dumb it is to build nuke plants in places prone to earthquakes to begin with.

[jeff47]

35. 'bout the only excuse they have is the plant was supposed to be shut down

decades ago. And it's a really old design that is likely to cause the problems it is causing.

Unfortunately, one side-effect of anti-nuke sentiment has been the existing plants are kept open because they can't be replaced with newer plants. Or they're replaced with fossil fuel plants - the effects of those are about to make Fukushima look pleasant.

[RobertEarl]

27. Sure jeff

Just like the Japanese are so smart they will have Fukushima under control?

Guess what, jeff, Fukushima is not under control. It is out of control. And thinking like yours is why. See, all they had to do was put all the solar stuff on the roof.

Too simple I guess, huh? The wizards that brought us Fukushima should all be hung in the public square. Not hung till dead. Take them down when needed and give them chemotherapy before they die and then put them back on the rack.

I kid. But damn, the have unleashed a terror upon the world which is deadly.

And they say; it would be too expensive to make sure that power for the pumps never goes down. TOO EXPENSIVE? Fuck 'em.

[jeff47]

32. You should probably take a look at some pictures of the site.

See, all they had to do was put all the solar stuff on the roof.

You might want to take a look at pictures of the site. You may notice the distinct lack of roofing on many of the buildings.

Also the pumps would require far more than just a couple panels to keep running. They would have needed a lot of panels on a lot of roofs.

You are also claiming the engineers are morons while proposing a solution that doesn't deal with this thing called "night".

[RobertEarl]

43. Geez

The roofs are gone because the pumps stopped working because electricity went down and the self-supply was flooded because it wasn't on the roof!

Too damn simple for nuclear wizards to understand?

Yes. The nuclear wizards are fucking morons. DUH!

Fukushima is all the proof we need of them being morons. Their shit is out of control.

[jeff47]

47. No, Fukushima shows what bad can happen when politics interferes.

Fukushima was supposed to be shut down decades ago - it's an old design that is prone to do exactly what it did. But it was not politically feasible to build a newer plant that didn't suffer the same problems. So the politicians just kept it going, because the engineers could keep it running.

The roofs are gone because the pumps stopped working because electricity went down and the self-supply was flooded because it wasn't on the roof!

No, most of the roofs were removed by the tsunami.

Yes. The nuclear wizards are fucking morons. DUH!

You still haven't dealt with night in your plan.

[RobertEarl]

50. Roofs removed by Tsunamis?

Yeah, sure thing jeff.

You may want to just delete that and move on?

[jeff47]

75. Amazingly enough, roofs don't just float in mid-air.

They're attached to these things called "walls". You might have heard of them.

Again, photos of the site clearly show a whole lot of roof damage.

And you still haven't managed to deal with night in your proposal.

[Union Scribe]

54. Tis a pointless effort.

Everyone on DU is an energy expert and is much much smarter than any stupid old engineer or scientist. They just, like, know stuff. And it's totally so easy. Everything could be powered by unicorn farts tomorrow if they were in charge.

[RobertEarl]

56. Roofs removed by Tsunamis?

Did you see that?

And what about the sun? Just a unicorn fart?

Where would you put backup generators? On the ground next to the ocean so they could get flooded?

Why would anyone not make provision for making sure the pumps kept working, no matter what happened? Because they are morons who are way too sure of themselves. There's your experts for you. They let their place blow up. And pollute the planet. Surely, you don't like it, do you?

[Union Scribe]

58. ...and there's the top expert now.

shining his wisdom on the "moron" engineers of the world

[RobertEarl]

59. Nah. I am just not a moron.

Good Lord, scribe, you attack me but look the other way when it comes to the nuke plants blowing up?

Tepco was told this would happen. Was told that Tepco was not prepared.

Now some of us are saying the US is not prepared. Even the ex-NRC head, Jazcko, has been saying we are not prepared.

[jeff47]

78. You still haven't managed to deal with "night", yet you call others morons? (nt)

[COLGATE4]

79. THIS ^^^^^^

I am always intrigued by the non-scientific, non-engineer, non-experience with power generation and transmission 'experts' who, with a wave of the hand and a smug glance declare their 'solutions' to the energy problem. Wishing it makes it so - the same kind of magical thinking that we (correctly) chastize the Rethugs for at every turn.

[Cleita]

36. That's because there is no profit to the electric companies when people are

getting their energy practically free for the sun.

[jeff47]

42. Sure there is.

Someone has to distribute that power. No solar installation works 100% of the time. There's night, there's clouds, there's mechanical failures, there's bad orientation of houses, there's apartment buildings where electric consumption is greater than roof area and so on.

Even with solar panels on everyone's roof, we'll still need "the electric company".

[Cleita]

46. It's not the same as having a whole big plant that everyone

has to be wired into and that they can charge hundreds of dollars a month for services instead of the very small amount they would make from people having panels on their roof.

[jeff47]

48. Some people would pay very small amounts

Others are in situations where they can't generate enough power on-site.

A 20-story apartment building could never generate enough power from it's own roof. The tenants would be paying hundreds to "the power company".

Also, there has been a trend to separate the utility company from the power producers - one of the ways Enron was fucking us all. There's no reason we can't exploit that.

[rhett o rick]

55. The problem with Fukushima was that when the primary power failed, they were to

switch to diesel generators for backup power, but the tsunami wiped them out. Also the tsunami wiped out the tertiary backup water tanks to be used for gravity feed for emergency cooling. Not to defend nuclear power but this was a once in 500 years disaster. And if these problems werent enough, the GE design of the plant had spent fuel rods stored above the power plant. Now that is stupid and there are similar plants in the USofA operating today.

Having said that, nuclear power is too dangerous and too expensive and need to be faded out.

[RobertEarl]

62. Indeed

Just a whole bunch of stupid all rolled up into one.

We need to shut them all down.

[Drew Richards]

68. Dont forget...the generators were in the basement floor...whole lotta stupid going on.

[Decaffeinated]

69. That and the fact that it was build in the 60s FFS

[darkangel218]

70. 2 of our nuclear plants were built in the 60's.

Are you admitting they're not safe either?

[Decaffeinated]

73. I would say that they aren't as safe...

... As they could be if Luddites hadn't held the technology back for the last 60 years.

Probably should have been rebuilt twice over since that time with newer safer cleaner technology.

[Zorra]

8. K&R nt

[darkangel218]

15. Ive lived through Chernobyl.

I was a few hundred miles from it. Im probably still healthy today due to potassium iodide that they gave us in schools. I tell you, even to this day I'm emotionally scarred.

It was aweful.

Obviously, the world didn't learn much from Chernobyl, and Fukushima happened. What's next? Another disaster? And another? When are people going to realize how dangereus nuclear energy is? Is the danger and loss worth it? I personally don't think so.

[Rex]

24. Also important to note, these are continuing dangers for centuries to come.

Chernobyl will still be a horrible radioactive mess long after we are dead and buried. I say we all move over to solar power! It is time for us to evolve with our technology.

[darkangel218]

30. I agree.

I think we haven't moved yet to solar because people don't really know what happened in Chernobyl and surronding areas in 1986. They haven't experienced the terror.

Gawd, I really wish I could replay what I went through. It was HORIBLE!! Having grown up in a family of teachers, both my parents knew what a nuclear disaster meant. They didn't let me go out in the rain, since it was most likely contaminated. We didn't eat any vegetables grown that year. I wasn't allowed to play outdoors.
All those things probably saved my life. Considering how many are dying of cancer as we speak, due to 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

[Rex]

34. You know, this post explains why you love living here so much to me now!

Thank you for that elaboration! I remember reading about Chernobyl and cringing at the reports and praying for the families that were in the area. It is IMO still the worst disaster of our times and STILL one most people know nothing about! AND still an ongoing disaster of unbelievable proportions!

I am glad you got away from that death trap!

[darkangel218]

53. Thanks Rex

[marions ghost]

25. I'm with you

We must learn the hard way it seems. There is no justification for nuclear power. There is no future for nuclear power, certainly not the technology as it exists today. But the nuke industry has a whole lot of denial about that.

[PoliticAverse]

17. "Switch to other methods of producing energy."

What if that 'other method' is coal burning plants?

[darkangel218]

18. Coal is not the answer either, imo.

There are other ways of producing energy besides coal and nuclear.

[PoliticAverse]

19. Yeah there's natural gas that is cheap due to fracking...

Japan seems to be replacing nuclear with gas and coal...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/16/us-japan-power-outlook-idUSBRE99F02A20131016

[marions ghost]

28. Wind & solar are gaining at the same time

[Cleita]

31. America has the whole southwest that is abundant in sunshine.

The prairie state have wind energy and we have oceans on three sides of our continent that can provide wave energy. Not one coal or gas plant needs to be built. The reason the energy czars don't want those methods is because other than initial costs and maintenance, the energy delivered would be almost free and they hate that.

[PoliticAverse]

74. "1st auction of solar rights on public lands in Colorado draws no bids"...

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_24379351/first-auction-solar-rights-public-lands-colorado-draws-no-one

[Kurska]

40. ......

I disagree

[Tikki]

49. What about the NUCLEAR WASTE???!!!!

Tikki
ps I agree with the OP

[Cleita]

51. Yes, what about it?

Considering that it is hot for 50,000 years, it's a major concern to anyone with a brain larger than a cat's.

[Tikki]

60. Before Fukushima, nuke lovers here would talk about how they were going to turn NUCLEAR WASTE...

into Angel's Wings…SOMEDAY..they were not sure when..but SOMEDAY, for sure.

Not so much anymore.


Tikki

[Cleita]

61. Amazing how much Kool-Aid the pro-nuke lovers have drank, n/t

[Hekate]

52. It's time. It's not going to happen, but it's time. nt

[karadax]

63. I'm a fan of

the bloom box

[RobertEarl]

64. There are ways to get it done

As it stands, the Big Money is backing Big Nuke Plants.

Lots of loans out there and the banks stretched by the big loans. Loans made to build these huge monstrosities. When they go bad these plants become monsterous calamities.

Smaller, decentralized, independent producers of electricity will be a huge boon to billions of people. Nuke plants are a huge BOOM to billions of people. Time we made progress, eh?

[Decaffeinated]

66. Think about the distance in time...

... between Chernobyl and Fukushima and then apply that logic to your statement.

[darkangel218]

67. Are you even serious when posting this??

People are still dying because of Chernobyl. And Fukushima is not even stabilized yet.

[Generic Other]

71. People who don't fund endless war

have money to make their country liveable. It is time to get rid of that stone age technology.

[Puzzledtraveller]

72. The biggest bang for your buck

literally sometimes. I would be nervous living near one.

[Edim]

88. Reality check.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/commentary-why-germany-is-waging-its-green-revolution-wrong-a-929693.html