Should the US convert more to nuclear power

**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.

**bmolsson** · 05-18-2005, 06:50

We, Europeans, have no problem with this, as long as US promise not to make nuclear WMD's with the technology......

**English assassin** · 05-18-2005, 08:31

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

LOL, an Ozzie speaks...

Anyway, as this is the only way to persuade you people to cut your carbon emmissions (and to be honest the only way the UK will too since I don't suppose we are about to sign up for the back to the middle ages green lifestyle either) then I vote yes. If you want to tell yourselves its about reducing dependency on foreign oil that's fine by me, whatever works.

And yes the French do deserve credit for this one. A11 may have a bee in his bonet about global warming, but I have one about the green lobby's misrepresentation of the dangers of nuclear power. Chernobyl was the most amazingly badly designed reactor, and anyway (I might not go to print on this one) the world didn't end, did it? With modern design and safety protocols nuclear power can be as safe if not safer than any other form.

**Al Khalifah** · 05-18-2005, 09:48

Is it safe from terrorism?

Not if you're watching the latest series of 24 it seems.

**Meneldil** · 05-18-2005, 10:30

But if you're watching the latest serie of 24, then your brain is probably quite damaged :-p

And yeah, we french rule the world cause we're using nuclear plant. Yeah, well, kinda...
And we're likely going to host the new over-great-awesome nuclear stuff, as it seems that Japan isn't ready to do so.

Of course, there's a risk, but as long as nuclear plants are correctly maintained by a careful institution (the State), I think it will be alright.

**Steppe Merc** · 05-18-2005, 13:25

Most deffiently. We need to start moving away from oil as soon as we can, to lessen the inevitable chaos when oil starts to become really scarce.
Nuclear power, solar, and wind is the way to go.

We, Europeans, have no problem with this, as long as US promise not to make nuclear WMD's with the technology......

Agreed. But I doubt the promise, would really do much...

**CBR** · 05-18-2005, 14:23

Reactor designs like the gas-cooled (using helium) pebble-bed reactors are very safe and should be cheap to operate too.

Terrorist attacks cant do that much against them as you will never have a "China syndrome" nor will it have any radioactive leaks from cooling leaks. The pebbles are incased in silicium carbide so can take a lot of punishment.

http://gt-mhr.ga.com/

Info about other advanced reactor designs :http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm

CBR