Poll - Nuclear plant in your town

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I don't want any of that filth anywhere near me.

The other annoying component of all these cries for new power generation is that household electricity use has skyrocketed in the last few decades. Nobody is seriously promoting conservation; the whole emphasis is to let the consumption keep skyrocketing and simply build new generating and grid capacities for it all. That's where the money is for them but geez.

Okay, so let's go back to primary heating with coal or wood and lighting our homes with candles. While we're at it, let's also go back to travel primarily by horses - and experience candle soot, grime from primitive heating, the inherent high risk of household fire from both, and horse manure everywhere in the streets.

"Filth"? I don't think anyone here has ever experienced the genuine "filth" of living in the past.

Maybe you what you meant to say is that you don't want any potential danger anywhere near you. That's called NIMBY, ("Not In My Back Yard") which is actually the topic of this thread.

It seems you are calling for austerity, or actually deprivation, but calling it "conservation". This is akin to calling for imposing a starvation diet and having the hubris to suggest it is a cure for famine...

[Joenavy85]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

Lets see, two reactors for electric power generation (Surry). Then you have the Navy storage depot, then the Newport news Shipyard which built most of the nuclear ships in the Navy. Then the Norfolk Navy yard at Little Creek, where a large number of those ships are parked when they are in port.

Do I mind if a reactor is close to me. I would dare say there are more vessels containing fissionable material within 50 miles of me than most if not all of the members of this forum.

Jump over some of the fences around here and you could be shot, legally.

regards
Mech

you're probably right, but had i been on here 2 years ago i would have you beat (barely), since i was stationed there in Norfolk onboard one of the Ships there

[jamesqf]

There's a couple of assumptions in the question that makes it hard to give a simple, honest answer. Would I want one in my town? Hey, I don't live in a town. Would I want one built near me? Honestly I'd have to say no, because I don't want ANYTHING built near me. But if it has to be, I'd rather have nuclear than coal, or even one of those ecosystem-destroying multiple-acre solar plants. (Solar belongs in my back yard or on my roof (or on stores, schools, & covered parking lots), not in the desert.

I do wish people would keep their minds on one important point regarding this disaster: those 22,000 people (or whatever the final toll is) died from the earthquake & tsunami. NO ONE has died from what happened to the nuclear plant.

[Piwoslaw]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

NO ONE has died from what happened to the nuclear plant.

Yet.
The show's not over in Fukushima.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Okay, so let's go back to primary heating with coal or wood and lighting our homes with candles. While we're at it, let's also go back to travel primarily by horses - and experience candle soot, grime from primitive heating, the inherent high risk of household fire from both, and horse manure everywhere in the streets.

"Filth"? I don't think anyone here has ever experienced the genuine "filth" of living in the past.

Maybe you what you meant to say is that you don't want any potential danger anywhere near you. That's called NIMBY, ("Not In My Back Yard") which is actually the topic of this thread.

It seems you are calling for austerity, or actually deprivation, but calling it "conservation". This is akin to calling for imposing a starvation diet and having the hubris to suggest it is a cure for famine...

I totally expected something like this from you.

I don't even need to say anything. Letting your statement hang there should be enough.

[trooper Tdiesel]

got one under 5 miles away, shut down in the early 90s. miss that ol girl.

local economy went down hill ever since.

like to see it come back bigger and better.


0.01C

[SVOboy]

I'd much rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant, but at the same time, I don't really support building new reactors and instead favour heavy investment in alternative solutions (solar, wind, etc), so I voted "don't care."

However, I think the poll question is pretty clearly flawed, as it's not really asking anything. It's really just saying, would a nuclear plant v. no change be a good thing, which I think is a pretty silly question since that's not ever going to be the case. It's going to be a nuclear plant v some other source, some type of industry or manufacturing, etc.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Piwoslaw

Yet.
The show's not over in Fukushima.

At the same time, how many workers are confirmed as dead in accidents in coal mines, oil extraction, open cast mining, oil refining etc. ?

Worth comparing.

Official Chinese statistics showed that 2,631 people died in 2009, and 3,215 in 2008.

[Nevyn]

A lot of coal plants actually output more radioactive material than nuclear power stations do, because burning coal can create/release particulate matter as an emission; nuclear isn't allowed to let ANYTHING out (except maybe steam that has NO RADATION to it whatsoever).

[Joenavy85]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

I'd much rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant, but at the same time, I don't really support building new reactors and instead favour heavy investment in alternative solutions (solar, wind, etc), so I voted "don't care."

However, I think the poll question is pretty clearly flawed, as it's not really asking anything. It's really just saying, would a nuclear plant v. no change be a good thing, which I think is a pretty silly question since that's not ever going to be the case. It's going to be a nuclear plant v some other source, some type of industry or manufacturing, etc.

Fair enough with the reasoning. i don't see them ditching nuclear reactors due to the fact that there is little research to be done as far as developement, we know it works, we know it's safe (using modern designs, not the 40+ year old Fukushima Plant), we know what it's power generating capabilities are, i see it staying around for a long time, the big companies found a viable replacement for coal, and therefore they are less inclined to work towards something cleaner. i would like to see more solar and wind power generation, but i'm not expecting to see more of it any time soon