The Anti-Nuclear Conspiracy

Nuclear energy works via the process of fission, splitting atoms of Uranium to produce heat and generate electricity. Uranium (and Thorium) are among the most prevalent metals found in the Earth's crust. The fuel is extremely dense, and even a few hundred nuclear power plants could power the world.

There are zero emissions.
The footprint is tiny.
And its depleted fuel, low level radioactive waste, can be safely stored far underground for centuries or longer.

You see, we have had the technology and supplies for nearly 100 years to provide free energy to power everything from electric cars to homes and businesses. No surprise who have been the loudest opponents of nuclear energy: big oil/gas monopolies and the eco-green movements (controlled by the same interests as the big banks who fund them)

Gas and oil, just like the "green renewables" crowd, relies on owning the infrastructure and planned obsolescense to setup a recurring fee structure. Nuclear has no such requirements. It should be "American owned" (by virtue of the exorbitant taxes we already pay) powered by a cheap and common fuel source to give unlimited amounts of energy.

1 single pellet of Uranium fuel (less than an inch in size) is equal to 120 gallons of oil and an entire TON of coal.

www.energy.gov...

The conspiracy here is those working to keep this common, mature technology out of the hands of everyday Americans. They want to keep price gouging us, and then turn around and further tax us because it "isn't clean"

Well here's your sign! Support clean, safe nuclear energy.

Nuclear provides what oil/gas cannot, and especially what wind/solar cannot.

a reply to: JBurns

As we live in clown world, I guess everything goes...

a reply to: JBurns

Right. No problem with storage. And Chernobyl and Fukushima were totally hyped up non-events.

a reply to: Peeple

You are pretty much correct on both counts

a reply to: Bluntone22

I was sarcastic and you know that.

a reply to: JBurns

You're a 100% right here. Nuclear is the solution to all the world's energy needs in fact. Safe, clean, and ready for primetime.

We are stuck in the past when technology was not what it is now. Much of it coming from my generation, the Baby Boomers. Regulations here in the US are so onerous that no company in its right mind would even attempt a modern nuclear plant. No politician would dare tell the truth of it for fear of the anti-nuclear crowd.

I have zero doubt that nuclear power can be very safe and environmentally friendly now. The problem is getting beyond its past.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: JBurns

Right. No problem with storage. And Chernobyl and Fukushima were totally hyped up non-events.

Stuck in the past and not what is possible now?

Edited to acknowledge your sarcasm.

a reply to: Blaine91555

I think it's very generous you volunteer to have the world's nuclear waste stored on your land

a reply to: Peeple

But I thought oil/gas were such a large threat that we had less than 10 years until an apocalypse? To be clear, the constant pollution is a problem

Looks you guys..color me convinced. Screw oil, gas, and those other garbage technologies wind/solar. Wind and solar will never provide the energy required. They are great for charging your mobile phone on the go or lighting your camp site. But Its just another way to separate you from your money, while making you feel like you are doing something to help without actually doing something to solve the problem. If we are talking about providing energy on a planetary scale then nuclear is the only choice we have, and its a good choice!

~15% of solar energy is converted into electricity with the help of costly + constantly degrading solar panels. Wind energy is around 32% and fossil fuels 52%.

The efficiency of nuclear energy is 91% fuel->energy.

I thought you guys were all about "equality"

What better form of "equality" than equal access to energy resources. Again, a few hundred nuclear plants would provide more power than our entire planet can use, from a fuel source that already exists in the Earth's crust and occurs naturally everywhere.

You want public ownership? Great! Why pay additional monthly service fees when our taxes already provide more than enough money for this mature technology?

In reality, the radiation boogeyman isn't nearly as dangerous as you all make it out to be. We're exposed to gamma radiation constantly from the sun, and alphas can't even penetrate our dead layer of skin. THE TECH HAS COME A LONG WAY!

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: JBurns

You're a 100% right here. Nuclear is the solution to all the world's energy needs in fact. Safe, clean, and ready for primetime.

We are stuck in the past when technology was not what it is now. Much of it coming from my generation, the Baby Boomers. Regulations here in the US are so onerous that no company in its right mind would even attempt a modern nuclear plant. No politician would dare tell the truth of it for fear of the anti-nuclear crowd.

I have zero doubt that nuclear power can be very safe and environmentally friendly now. The problem is getting beyond its past.

Thanks Blaine and I could not agree more

It is like anything, a few bad things happen and people want to wash their hands of it instead of looking at the new technologies, and what we learned from those accidents. We have had the solution to our energy crisis and even the environmental crisis in our hands all along

I don't want to see the environment ruined any more than the next person

I love spending time outdoors, enjoying clean air and water, and I hope every single other person gets to enjoy that as well

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Bluntone22

I was sarcastic and you know that.

Yeah, I know.

And if Fukushima has taught the world anything it’s that nuclear energy is very safe.

a reply to: Peeple

The French seem to have worked out ways to deal with it, through recycling and using up the material instead of wasting most of it in long-term geological storage, and in the end, it can be safely stored with only semiliterate activists and scared politicians standing in the way.

Solar and wind can't solve the issues and the only true option, in the end, is nuclear power.

At least here in the US, people are stuck in the past and we have regulations fit for so long ago they are ridiculous.

a reply to: Bluntone22

What does Fukushima have to do with what would be safe, modern nuclear energy production?

That's what I mean about stuck in the past.

a reply to: JBurns

We're exposed to gamma radiation constantly from the sun, and alphas can't even penetrate our dead layer of skin. THE TECH HAS COME A LONG WAY!

You think technology has changed how radiation works?

Solar energy has potential. Just because it's not solved yet, doesn't mean we won't get there.
Also one thing we should have learned by now is centralised power generation is not the way to go. Easy to sabotage, one accident a huge catastrophe.
Think of Texas this year.
For the future, we'll have smart roofs and wall paint and power storage without loss.
Takes a little work, but no fallout and no wasteland is kind of worth it.

a reply to: Blaine91555

I love how so many people are worried about the waste traveling through their state to get to a disposal site but seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that the fuel is already being transported to the power plant.

a reply to: Peeple

No problem. Every ounce of used fuel since we started using nuclear power could fit under just a small part of my property.

US DOE:

All of the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry over the last 60 years could fit on a football field at a depth of less than 10 yards!

That waste can also be reprocessed and recycled, although the United States does not currently do this.

However, some advanced reactors designs being developed could operate on used fuel.

I would indeed gladly volunteer a tiny piece of my land for that. It would taken almost no space. A football field? My shooting range is that size.

Nuclear reactors operating in 36 countries have over 18,500 years of combined running time. They are incredibly safe.

a reply to: Bluntone22

The biggest risk waste poses is from crazed anti-nuclear activists trying to cause a disaster with it.

I understand that we waste something like 90% of useable waste due to archaic government regulations not fit for today's technology.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Bluntone22

What does Fukushima have to do with what would be safe, modern nuclear energy production?

That's what I mean about stuck in the past.

It shows how a worst case nuclear accident is handled by government.
Seriously if you are trying to sell someone on the safety of your new car it’s probably in your best interest to show how safe your previous model was.

Fukushima’s containment design worked like it was supposed to and kept the cores in place.

Don’t get me wrong here.
I want more nuclear power and less of the garbage green energy being sold to the public.

We still just boil water with it so really no nuclear power is no more advanced than a steam engin having electronics to automate and make that prosess safer doseny make the prosess itself any different

Also ... there's no need to mistrust nuclear technology that is extremely safe

... so anyone know a trustworthy corporation that will put safty over profit

Its not like any reactor was built unsafe ... OK maby 1 or 3 they became unsafe from trying to increase profit

There has been another invention, around for quite a while. It scrubs carbon from the air and thrives off of it. And it practically builds itself with little or no money involved.

It’s called a tree. Guess not many people have heard of it.