How safe are they on the west coast?

 

Do we really want to build more now?

 

I know republicans do, but I am not a big fan of this. dangerous

We better start building some....energy is an absolute today and forevermore...

 

There is danger in everything if you want it to be there. Cetainly there is an imminent danger in the military, but I wouldn't want us to not have the best weapons we possibly could. A danger in driving to work every day, but worth it in my opinion. Danger can't impede progress....

How safe are they on the west coast?

 

Do we really want to build more now?

 

I know republicans do, but I am not a big fan of this. dangerous

 

...it's the cleanest form of energy that we have. I think we just need to put more emphasis on the wheres and hows about the plants being built, and the possibility of going back and making sure the existing facilities that we do have are properly retro-fitted with whatever is necessary to prevent what is currently going on in Japan.

Unfortunately, what's going on in Japan will set back any moves toward nuclear power even further. Even with the tsunami the current situation was preventable (this particular reactor is relying on 1970s cooling technology), and it's a situation that has been overblown at that. I fully support pushing for nuclear power, even in light of the current reactor problem in Japan.

I agree it is clean, but what about the spent fuel that it makes. I believe you cant just get rid of it easy and is stored underground in barrells if I am correct.

Maybe put them in areas not earthquake prone.

This may sound wacky, but has it ever been considered to drop the spent fuel into active volcanoes?

 

I'll confess that I'm no physicist, but it seems to me that the fires of a volcano would consume the spent fuel.

This may sound wacky, but has it ever been considered to drop the spent fuel into active volcanoes?

 

I'll confess that I'm no physicist, but it seems to me that the fires of a volcano would consume the spent fuel.

 

Here is a good answer to your question. Its about midway down the page but does offer up why some would hesitate in using a method such as that: http://www.slate.com/id/2181280/

This may sound wacky, but has it ever been considered to drop the spent fuel into active volcanoes?

 

I'll confess that I'm no physicist, but it seems to me that the fires of a volcano would consume the spent fuel.

 

It may burn it up, but I assume it would still release all of the radiation into the atmosephere.

This one opened a couple of years before I got married. We used to go to Calvert Cliffs to find shark's teeth fossils (not in the cliffs, but in the water). Never thought a thing about the place being dangerous, and IMHO nuclear is the way to go provided you don't build 'em on the Pacific Rim.

 

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant

Build em and Build em now !!!!!! Just not in a seismically active zone .

My understanding was that it was not so much the quake, but the tsunami that has caused most of the problems at the Fukushima facility. With that in mind, I would hope the government would re-examine east and gulf coast plants for protection and protocols involving storm surge during a hurricane. Though not as powerful as a tsunami, a category 5 hurricane could easily produce a 30 ft. storm surge, if it hit at high tide. St. Lucie (on the east coast, near Ft. Pierce), Turkey Point (southwest of Miami), and Crystal River (75 miles north of Tampa Bay) are the 3 plants in Florida. All 3 are right on the coast.

There is soooooo much misinformation being spread by the media on this topic. (What's new, right?) I put together a lesson for my Chemistry II seniors (we've already studied nuclear science this year, but this gave it a new face, so we re-examined it today) and it provided for some of the most thought provoking and intelligent conversations that I've ever had with high school students before.

 

If you are interested in knowing more about the science behind how this type of reactor works and what is likely happening, feel free to utilize the following link: http://www.trimble.k12.ky.us/tchsweb/teachers/apacheco/chemistryii.htm You will need to scroll about half way down, under Ch. 24 Nuclear Chemistry, click on "Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Catastrophe?"

 

I am actually really glad to see so many of you still on board with utilizing nuclear energy. I honestly thought that this event would turn more people away from this resource. It is not the final answer to solving all of our energy problems, but it is certainly a major step in the right direction. Unfortunately, some of our politicians are being reactionary and are backing away from it.

 

Let me add that this single event has turned me off of the last cable news network that I watched. CNN is no more for me. Does anyone watch BBC News?

Here is a good answer to your question. Its about midway down the page but does offer up why some would hesitate in using a method such as that: http://www.slate.com/id/2181280/

 

Good link. It's pretty much what I would have said. It won't make the waste even the slightest less radioactive. :thumb:

I just hope we do what is best and the right way. Dont do it for greed or to fill up some donors pockets who runs a company.

Where does the Uranium come from that we use in these plants? Are we not simply trading reliance on one unstable geographic region to another. I don't think we mine a great deal of uranium in the U.S. Also, is it renewable? Ultimately, is this better than fossil fuels (outside of carbon output)?