Quote:
Originally Posted by Concrete
it cannot be cleaned up or remediated in any way other than burial & time
|
The whole idea is that with Nuclear, you can bury it... We don't (we vitrify, immerse [etc.] and store it), but we have the capability. Compare that to coal; all the tasty nuclear by product bits (uranium, thorium, radon - other decayed products that are just as dangerous) are not capture and released directly into the air I'm breathing while taking deep breaths on my daily bike commutes
I get choked up enough from local emissions
I'm not saying it's our end solution, but it seems many of us agree that other alternatives aren't ready as primary sources of power (like coal [~50%], nuclear [~20%] and NG [~17%] -- in order of top 3 sources). Until they are ready, immediate and mid term solutions are needed. I'd personally take a Nuclear plant over a coal plant (which is why I support the expansion of turkey point - not too far away from my hometown).
All my opinion, of course, just laying out a few details on my reasoning behind it
