How many of you are onboard with increased nuclear energy? It is capable of solving

Author: BaronVonZemo (22610 Posts - Joined: Nov 19, 2010)

Posted at 7:43 pm on Feb 10, 2019

A large component of pollution, and if you buy into the idea that man can meaningfully affect climate change, then this is the answer staring you in the face.

Some of you should read up on improvements in nuclear reactor tech that mitigate much of previous risks and cost. Yet we have built only one or two reactors in the past 40 years while our old plants age out and work on more inefficiently and at higher (though still very low) risk.

Given what the Climate Changers believe, I can’t believe any o hem would hesitate to jump on board with this. Of course, wacky cults are unpredictable. It will likely need to align with the rest of their dogma unrelated to the issue.


This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Replies to: How many of you are onboard with increased nuclear energy? It is capable of solving


Thread Level: 2

wait a minute

Author: Hank the Tank (6879 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:36 am on Feb 11, 2019

the libs were against this because it was to dangerous.
now they're for r it. could they have been wrong yet again.
looks like it


Thread Level: 2

100% yes

Author: Chris94 (20857 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:53 am on Feb 11, 2019

The dangers are overhyped.

It wouldn’t replace everything - you can’t have nuclear reactors on cars - but we ought to have breeder reactors everywhere.


Thread Level: 3

Agreed.

Author: jakers (7739 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 9:45 am on Feb 11, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 3

Excellent. Nuc Energy can replace gas cars by providing bountiful, low cost electricity btw.

Author: BaronVonZemo (22610 Posts - Joined: Nov 19, 2010)

Posted at 6:00 am on Feb 11, 2019

(no message)

This message has been edited 2 time(s).

Thread Level: 4

Then, the coal powered electric cars will become nuke powered electric cars. That's a plus.

Author: NedoftheHill (21536 Posts - Joined: Jun 29, 2011)

Posted at 8:18 pm on Feb 11, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 2

Cousin has Ph.D from Cal Tech in physics, "Nuclear energy is grossly underused."

Author: Rooster (2601 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:20 pm on Feb 10, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 2

I would like to answer, but I am behind in reading Lachlan Markay tweets.

Author: LehighND (4638 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 10:49 pm on Feb 10, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 2

my brother is a ga. tech e.e. who has worked as the lead project manager in nuke energy for decades.

Author: und67 (5055 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 9:24 pm on Feb 10, 2019

he has an extensive background in everything that goes into nuclear energy and will tell you unequivocally that it is the cleanest, lowest cost, safest energy in the history of the planet. oh, yeah.... he's also a very honest, hard-working and intelligent man.

i believe him.


Thread Level: 2

I’m all in on this. Minnie reactors are economical and safer than any other plant.

Author: Curly1918 (2214 Posts - Joined: Aug 30, 2017)

Posted at 8:33 pm on Feb 10, 2019

We were all set to move in this direction before the Japanese tsunami meltdown freaked us out. That involved an ancient technology and a freak event.

This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Thread Level: 3

The Mickie Reactor didn't work out too well, though.

Author: NedoftheHill (21536 Posts - Joined: Jun 29, 2011)

Posted at 8:54 pm on Feb 10, 2019

(no message)

http://oic.uqam.ca/sites/oic.uqam.ca/files/images/figure_6.jpg

Thread Level: 2

As long as we also pay people who are unwilling to work. That will help slow climate change.

Author: NedoftheHill (21536 Posts - Joined: Jun 29, 2011)

Posted at 8:08 pm on Feb 10, 2019

(no message)

This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Thread Level: 2

The biggest problem with nuclear is the waste.

Author: iairishcheeks (9349 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 7:52 pm on Feb 10, 2019

But all things considered, it may be the best choice in many areas.

Thread Level: 3

Shoot it into space. Not joking.

Author: Chris94 (20857 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 12:54 am on Feb 11, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 4

We had a comprehensive solution for this as far back as 1987.

Author: jakers (7739 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 9:47 am on Feb 11, 2019



Thread Level: 4

And when the universe starts contracting again?

Author: TakethetrainKnute (15828 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 8:10 am on Feb 11, 2019

You're so short-sighted...

Thread Level: 5

Lead umbrella?

Author: LehighND (4638 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 9:55 pm on Feb 11, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 4

And when the rocket blows up on launch?

Author: iairishcheeks (9349 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:39 am on Feb 11, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 5

Surely we can make survivable containment

Author: Chris94 (20857 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 7:49 am on Feb 11, 2019

We put it in containers that look like big hockey pucks now. Surely those hockey pucks can be made to survive an explosion.

Thread Level: 6

Explosion proof things tend to be heavy.

Author: iairishcheeks (9349 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 8:55 am on Feb 11, 2019

Things that are heavy are expensive to put into space.

And then where do you go with it? It's not like things in space ever come back to earth. And your containment isn't likely to survive the return trip.


Thread Level: 7

Remember George Carlin asking why the whole plane wasn't made of the same material as the black box.

Author: TakethetrainKnute (15828 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:07 am on Feb 11, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 8

Heh, yeah that was a good one.

Author: iairishcheeks (9349 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:25 am on Feb 11, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 5

Launch it from San Francisco.

Author: BaronVonZemo (22610 Posts - Joined: Nov 19, 2010)

Posted at 6:11 am on Feb 11, 2019

See, everything has a solution. :)

Thread Level: 6

You trying to create a nuclear shitstorm?

Author: TakethetrainKnute (15828 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 8:47 am on Feb 11, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 7

They are SO devious!!! So THAT'S why they fill their sidewalks with human feces!

Author: BaronVonZemo (22610 Posts - Joined: Nov 19, 2010)

Posted at 2:52 pm on Feb 11, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 3

you can build a quality, low-cost, very long, very high and hot wall with the waste.

Author: und67 (5055 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 9:17 pm on Feb 10, 2019

unbelievable how many birds you could get with that stone....

Thread Level: 4

This is a great idea.

Author: iairishcheeks (9349 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 9:35 pm on Feb 10, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 3

Waste is not a problem. We had a plan.

Author: Cole (7363 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 8:19 pm on Feb 10, 2019

We were ready to go with Yucca Mountain. Harry Reed took billions of dollars for his state to build the repository for nuclear waste. After taking all of those billions he deep-sixed it on the last day. It was all a charade. Now we store the waste where it's created and it's much more unsafe than what it would be in Yucca Mountain.

Thread Level: 3

At least the waste ends up in a barrel, & not ejected into the environment. Seems like an advantage.

Author: NedoftheHill (21536 Posts - Joined: Jun 29, 2011)

Posted at 8:15 pm on Feb 10, 2019

(no message)