The Pacific Ocean is being trashed....

[Giovanni LiCalsi]

How can anyone in their right mind say that nuclear power plants are clean technology when the nuclear waste is the dirtiest by-product in the world? These people must be working in that industry or they are mentally incompetent.
Chernobyl will kill 40,000 humans. Fukushima will kill 400,000.
History News Network | Comparing Chernobyl and Fukushima

[P-hack]

OMFG, I will welcome the asteroid when it gets here. Humans aren't leading as high a quality life as they possibly can!! Somebody do something!!

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

that is causing the concern... a tipping point sort of thing.

What "tipping point" ? Be less unspecific, jump in - the swimming pool of drool, p|ss and bile here is very warm - water wings are available

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I nominate your back yards for new nuke plants AND nuke waste storage sites.

I used to work in Sellafield where all of the UK waste is stored (and some foreign waste too - they had the idea they could "reprocess" it) and 3 of the UKs nuclear stations. I don't glow in the dark and I saw first hand the safety measures they implement and assuming they do that and pay I'd be happy.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

It is going to take at least 40 years to clean up the mess that is Fukushima. A lot of farm land is ruined, and a lot of people are displaced.

Did you read the outcome of the Chernobyl event ? Animals, flora and even humans are living in the cleared area. Nature is actually doing very well mainy due to humans not being there to "control it". You can book a tour there now, go take a look. I plan too at some point.

Originally Posted by Giovanni LiCalsi

I love seafood but now I'm considering my thyroid condition could be in trouble if I continue eating fish.

"Cancer is mainly a disease of age... even if you live a healthy lifestyle and if nothing else gets you then eventually cancer will." - that was in a video I posted before. It is a proven statistic by a charity in the UK which aims to find a cure. Enjoy the snapper - lucky you, I'm allergic to most fish.

Originally Posted by Giovanni LiCalsi

It is not cost effective to build a nuclear power plant, period!

Could you provide the cost/benefit analysis for a windfarm please, using actual generation statistics, maintenance costs and realistic estimates of replacements ? Otherwise this is woo. Actually it really is bollocks.

Originally Posted by redneck

So, nothing to worry about now is there...???

Yep - there is, loads of problems. There are risks all over the place whether you decide to spend the day in bed or get up. Crossing the road is scarily dangerous. Flying is dire. Swimming is really bad. As for radiation, more people have had too much from medical treatments - so eat those apples and avoid the doc.

Originally Posted by Giovanni LiCalsi

How can anyone in their right mind say that nuclear power plants are clean technology when the nuclear waste is the dirtiest by-product in the world?

That is because various muppets confuse CO2 with "carbon" - the former is invisible the latter is dark and sooty (in people's imaginations). The "clean" refers to low CO2 which based on the amount of energy produced for the amount of CO2 emitted is, well, very clean - cleaner than a wind farm. And more reliable.

Originally Posted by Giovanni LiCalsi

These people must be working in that industry or they are mentally incompetent. Chernobyl will kill 40,000 humans. Fukushima will kill 400,000.

Seeing as you started it I have to ask, are you the full shilling, fully staffed in the loft, not a can short of a six pack or perhaps lights on but nobody home ?

Oxford university checked this and they said no. Are you a science denier ?

[Giovanni LiCalsi]

Nuclear power is both uneconomical and unnecessary. It can't compete against energy conservation, including cogeneration, windpower and ever more efficient, quicker, safer, renewable forms of providing electricity. Amory Lovins argues this point convincingly (see RMI.org). Physicist Lovins asserts that nuclear power "will reduce and retard climate protection." His reasoning: shifting the tens of billions invested in nuclear power to efficiency and renewables reduce far more carbon per dollar (http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whyne...eriskyfcts.pdf). The country should move deliberately to shutdown nuclear plants, starting with the aging and seismically threatened reactors. Peter Bradford, a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) commissioner has also made a compelling case against nuclear power on economic and safety grounds (http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/whyne...eriskyfcts.pdf).

Are you employed by the nuclear power industry?

[Giovanni LiCalsi]

I will believe Peter Bradford's facts over your denial of the facts.

[RedDevil]

Mmm. Suppose we build nuclear power plants away from fault lines and tsunami strike zones and deal with the waste in a responsible manner.
No CO2 emission, no emission of any kind.
It would be the cleanest energy of all.
How can that reduce and retard climate protection?

I did support Greenpeace one time, but told them I was disappointed about their views and stopped my contributions.
Exchanging nuclear power for coal burning plants is the single most destructive thing you could do to this planet.

[Giovanni LiCalsi]

I now understand why history repeats itself!

140,000+ tons of (reported) spent fuel laying around in the US alone, and continually making aprox 2,000 tons every year. The last major storage proposal, Yucca mountain, was squashed in 2009. Currently over 75% of the spent fuel is stored in cooling ponds waiting to be dealt with. The government is estimating that once a suitable location is located that it would take 15-40 years of work to develop it. Once an off-site facility is available, it will take several more decades to ship spent fuel to that facility. This situation will be challenging because by about 2040 most currently operating reactors will have ceased operations, and options for managing spent fuel, if needed to meet transportation, storage, or disposal requirements, may be limited.

[Giovanni LiCalsi]

I'm very sick and tired of hearing over and over again about how we cant keep building dirty coal fired plants in America when they are now shutting down because natural gas prices have plummeted and now the gas fired plants can generate more electricity than coal plants.
Has anyone read the facts that I have posted here or all of you just working for the Devils that want to trade the destruction of the planet for a few more dollars?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Giovanni LiCalsi

...Are you employed by the nuclear power industry?

Yes, I regularly clean out Mr Koch's stables using the hair extracted from climate change refugees forced to sell their hair to live. I love nothing more than pouring crude oil onto a seagul or a turtle. I can't find enough land to put my waste it is so large and I love the smell of the burning atmosphere in the morning. Just in case someone misses it /sarc.

Get over yourself.

RMI.org is a campaigning group

Built on Rocky Mountain Institute’s 30 years of research and work in the field, Reinventing Fire maps pathways for running a 158%-bigger U.S. economy in 2050 but needing no oil, no coal, and no nuclear energy.

as is NIRS.org.

We initiate large-scale organizing and public education campaigns on specific issues, such as preventing construction of new reactors, radioactive waste transportation, deregulation of radioactive materials, and more. Our international programs and affiliation with WISE (World Information Service on Energy) means that our network spans more than a dozen offices and programs across the globe

So not exactly independent then.

Enjoy the fish - the oils will do you more good than any harm from radiation.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Two distinct points here. I completely agree on the first - cut out much of the waste, and we would not only not need to build more power plants, we could shut down some of the dirtiest.

But when you say that nukes are filthy... well, that brings us back to the old Mark Twain saying about the things we know for sure that just ain't so. What's sadly ironic here is the sight of people who rightly chide the AGW denialists for ignoring science, turning right around and ignoring science when it conflicts with their quasi-religious "nukes are sinful" beliefs.

Because if you build a new, clean nuclear plant, you could conceiveably shut down an old, dirty coal plant. And if you combined that with increased energy efficiency, you could shut down TWO of them.

Nuclear fuels and spent fuels are not filthy?

Is improving end-user efficiency and shutting down dirty plants even part of the dialogue? Where is the public education/action campaign to eliminate phantom- and general- power waste? All I see is supply side crying for more more more capacity; if I missed it perhaps the word isn't getting out. Ohhhh... the efficiency campaign is in my monthly COOP newsletter! The one that says, "You should do this and that to be efficient" then they send me a bill that charges the smallest users the highest amount per hwH, thus making us subsidize the large users, thus REMOVING the economic incentive to conserve. I dunno, something tells me the utilities and the PUKES- I mean, PUCs- are not serious about conservation and for sure the end users aren't.