Should the US convert more to nuclear power

**kiwitt** · 05-18-2005, 03:42

I am a supporter of Nuclear Power, so long as it is done safely and away from main population centres.

**Papewaio** · 05-18-2005, 03:52

So since NZ has a tiny population the world could use it?

**Uesugi Kenshin** · 05-18-2005, 03:57

The problem with nuclear energy is with long power lines lotsa power is lost.

I support it if it is done safely and away from dense population cities and is supported by wind, hydro, solar and other clean powers. Oh yeah and if we learn from 3 Mile ISland and Chernobyl.

**kiwitt** · 05-18-2005, 04:01

I don't think NZ will ever accept it. It still beats burning oil and coal.

**Don Corleone** · 05-18-2005, 04:20

When you do the calculations, any calcuations, there's no comparison.

Nuclear power yields more electricty per dollar of fuel injected.

It's a more efficient transfer of energy.

There's much, much, much less waste.

Treated properly, it's safer than any other means of generating that kind of power.

The whole myth about nuclear power being 'terrible' is the one way the French still lead the world. My hat's off to them for being brave enough to not believe the hype and let the science speak for itself. What's more, the French seem to contain the risks better than anybody else. Maybe there's something we should be learning from them.

**Beirut** · 05-18-2005, 05:10

The US should build advanced (read:safe) nuclear plants and begin massive desalinization programs of sea water.

**AntiochusIII** · 05-18-2005, 05:10

Surprisingly, I don't want to.

I am in LV, NV, and the federal government (not Bush in particular, though he seems so eager to...) seems so enthusiastic of storing the toxic wastes in Yucca mountains not far from LV. Worse still, the plan must see that the wastes must go through LV directly! WTF!? Can't they go somewhere where, if accident happens, won't harm millions!?

Edit: Why, if they manage to establish a safer kind of nuclear waste "elimination" I would've agreed.

**Beirut** · 05-18-2005, 05:13

I read that know how to build plants that have no waste and are perfectly safe. It involves using liquid helium to cool the rods as opposed to water.

It's twice as expensive to build and only allows half the energy output. So no one builds them.

**AntiochusIII** · 05-18-2005, 05:15

Originally Posted by Beirut

I read that know how to build plants that have no waste and are perfectly safe. It involves using liquid helium to cool the rods as opposed to water.

It's twice as expensive to build and only allows half the energy output. So no one builds them.

They should, but...

Ah well. Business world.

Thanks for pointing out, though.

**discovery1** · 05-18-2005, 06:42

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Surprisingly, I don't want to.

I am in LV, NV, and the federal government (not Bush in particular, though he seems so eager to...) seems so enthusiastic of storing the toxic wastes in Yucca mountains not far from LV. Worse still, the plan must see that the wastes must go through LV directly! WTF!? Can't they go somewhere where, if accident happens, won't harm millions!?

Edit: Why, if they manage to establish a safer kind of nuclear waste "elimination" I would've agreed.

You worry to much. I'm pretty sure that the really dangerous stuff decays in a few decades(and alot has been sitting around for that long). I don't care enough to demonstrate that the containers are safe. And yes, more nukes is for the best, unless you want to cover the land with solar panels and cover the sea with wind turbines.