It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Nuclear Option

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 02:31 PM
Energy, the USA staple need.

Without it nothing happens.

Oil, with prices influenced, natural gas, with same,
and news of diminishing supplies and spiraling prices upward.

Yet thru all this two things seem obvious.

1 - There is no lack of petroleum supply in our near future,..


2 - The Nuclear 'energy' Option hasnt been expanded in 30 years.

Is it no coincidence that both dynamics are active concurrently?

With one power company actively pursuing a new nuclear power plant for the first time in decades, it only makes sense that oil prices and news can be used to 'facilitate' the public 'acceptance' of such an endeavor.

posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:17 PM
The UK is doing the same thing. Thinking about building more Nuclear plants for the first time in 30 years.

Dont see a problem with it personally. Better than Coal/Oil/Gas

posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:27 PM
well if enviromentalists could understand the benefits instead of "possible" enviromental damage and didnt protest nuclear plans we might get somewhere in building nuclear plants.

posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:56 PM
Yes exactly,... we now have choices,...

Either rip up Alaska for oil?..

Or start building the (forbidden) nuclear option again.

posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 10:06 PM
Death By Regulation

Oil companies don't tend to be fond of nuclear power, and they spent a lot of money to make sure Congress knew that and acted accordingly.

Toss in plenty of propaganda, paid activists to demonize the technology and constant regulatory crusades, and nuclear power was soundly murdered.

With the death of nuclear power, oil is king.

Name yer poison.

posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 10:07 PM
But if you go nuclear, what do you do with the odd things that happen in the world?

Earthquakes, tsunami, hurricanes, volcanos, and of course, the disgruntled.......

Carlos the Jackal attacks nuclear reactor in France

In 1982, a terrorist cell led by Carlos (the Jackal), attempted to destroy a nuclear reactor in central France.

France nuclear power station attacked

Shortly before midnight on January 18, a group including Magdelana Kopp fired an RPG-7 rocket launcher across the River Rhone at the outer shell of the reactor firing five rockets.

Not to mention a lack of foresight about what do do with the waste product.

posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 10:37 PM
But with hard problems come easy solutions and acceptance.

The mountain is still there, fault lines or not, and waiting.

posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 10:59 AM
Safety has improved a lot in the past decades. We're talking about a multi-faceted safety approach here too:

1. Safer design of plants - new plants being designed and old plants being retrofitted with safety in mind
2. Training and employment with safety in mind
3. External plant police and security details

Also, these plants are DESIGNED to withstand all kinds of insane things. We're talking about natural disasters, accidents, terrorism, these people recognised these dangers when designing the plants!

I'd be willing to bet that you're more likely to be killed by a falling grand piano then die from radiation poisioning as a result of a plant accident.

Again, there are systems after system after system, in parallel, for safety. There isn't one button that can fail or one mistake that can be made. Even at Chernobyl, which was a poor and unstable reactor design, a number of mistakes and simply stupid actions had to be taken in a row to get the final effect.

Nowadays, it's going to be pretty damn difficult to cause an accident.

Safety? I'd be more concerned about the combustion by-products filling the air from petrochemical power plants. How many people will ultimately get cancer from that?

We don't know what to do about the waste!
Sure we do! You mix high-level waste with glass and lead to form a solid material, and you bury it inside a deep geologically stable formation away from a water table! That stuff isn't going anywhere!

We're talking about something like this: it's like a loaded gun locked inside a gun safe, locked inside another gun safe, locked inside a bank vault, with concrete poured over and underneath the bank to a depth of twenty feet. That's probably a pretty fair approximation of how nuclear waste can be buried. (Except it's a few hundred feet underground, too.)

I'm hoping that within my generation people will shake off the stigma and ingornace with is plagueing what is probably the safest, most efficient, and greenest source of power available.

[edit on 11-12-2005 by Toxic Fox]

[edit on 11-12-2005 by Toxic Fox]

posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 02:16 PM
Australia is also starting to think about nuclear power more and more. There was talk that Sydney's new desalination plant, being powered by a reactor.
From going from a staunchly anti-nuclear power state, we our now considering it. The times they are a changing.

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:48 PM
The power plant is far too dangerous and it produces too much waste.

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:42 PM
You cannot have more nuclear plants until there is a national plan for the disposal of nuclear waste. Right now, all the science and investigation has shown the Yucca Mountain, while imperfect, is simply the best of the available options. Some peopel say its good enough, others that Yucca is no good.

So if the US doesn't have a place to dispose of its nuke waste, how can it possibly build more plants?

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 06:30 PM
Well currently all nuclear plants in the US 'temporarily' store their own waste by-product, regardless if it ultimately in violation of any federal regulations, there are no other choices.

And yes, licensing for a new plant is currently in fast-track by the NRC, and a site is being seriously considered. It will be built.

Makes for an interesting contemplation doesn't it?
Why the USA is currently the only country that outlaws 'recycling' of nuclear reactor by-product, and instead by law calls it 'waste'?

posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 11:13 AM
Why doesnt the world just harvest energy by other clean and undangerous resources.

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:27 PM

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
Why doesnt the world just harvest energy by other clean and undangerous resources.

What do you suppose we do then,

we can't simmply rly on coal or oil forever,and unless Dan Brown is right about anti-matter,then we have to go nuclear.


posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 03:16 AM

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
Why doesnt the world just harvest energy by other clean and undangerous resources.

How do you propose we do this in a cost-effective and easy manner? not to mention that the planet would have to be covered in windmills and solar panels to gather enough energy. The technology for renewables is far away from being able to provide the amount of power required for civilisation without making the whole place look like a giant wind farm.

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 03:39 AM
I'm all for the expansion of nuclear power.

also think that yucca mt is safe place to store nuclear waste. at the moment i believe the main problem stoping the facility from opening is a law suit from the state of Nevada because the site was built for safe storage for 10,000yrs but prior agreed regulations stated a 30,000yr safe storage time

If you live nearby or are very interested Yucca does have tours for a 1st hand look.
The next tour is sept 16

posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 06:30 AM
I think we should go Nuclear. It's relatively cheap, produces tons of power, and it dosn't polute the atmosphere.

Seriously though, there isn't THAT much waste produced by them.

posted on Nov, 7 2006 @ 04:35 AM
While nuclear power does hold promise, the technology does also present some valid concerns:

Terrorism: People have a deep set fear of radiation. This FEAR makes Any place that houses nuclear materials an inviting terrorist target. Do you realize how many people would panic if a nuclear plant was attacked, reguardless of what damage is actually done to the facility?

Weapons: Many people equate nuclear plants with making nuclear warheads

Safety: There have always been issues with the safety of nuclear plants. Pass accidents such as leaks, fires, meltdowns, fuel spills, ect. have lead many to question if the technology is safe to use.

Reguardless of you personally feel about nuclear power, you have to address these issues in the mind of the general public before you can move forward with the technology.


new topics

top topics


log in