Greta won't be pleased.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: markovian

We would have more new and safer nuclear plants if people hadn't been kicking the can down the road for decades.

Instead we have coal and unreliable"green".

Our energy program has been sabotaged over the years. The US has been pushed to become reliant on outside energy sources. The "Environmental groups" were co-opted and steered in certain directions starting in the 60' and 70's. There's a reason that submarines were the dominant ships of the Soviet Navy. There's also a reason that the Sierra Club and Greenpeace received funds from the KGB.

a reply to: Bluntone22

It's so creepy how the right thinks and talks about this little girl so I'm not going to talk about her.

But I will talk about how I agree with those countries. Nuclear power plants have always seemed like the answer to the air pollution problem. People are just so scared of the waste. But in my view nuclear waste can be contained. While air pollution is everyone's problem all of the time.

Eta... The second linked article spelled "recognized" wrong....
Gotta love modern editing....lol
Maybe lost in the translation?

I believe the global iq of earth has dropped because we aren't breathing fresh oxygen like we should be.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

When I was growing up the concern was "Global Cooling". Now it is "Global Warming". Personally I think it is a scam.

I believe that it is a scam, because only certain countries are being targeted by it. We've only had accurate thermometers for about 75 years. The Earth is billions of years old. We don't have enough data to establish a baseline for normal.

That being said, I'm in favor of nuclear power. I lived for six months about 300 feet away from four nuclear reactors. Waste can be managed by breeder reactors.

China is way ahead of the game on this.

www.forbes.com...

a reply to: Bluntone22

I've always thought why not find a place with no water tables dig super deep and dump it there.

And I mean super deep.

Deepest hole ever dug was 4 miles down. And that was in 1970. Can anyone tell me why that's not deep enough?
A 4 mile deep hole out in the middle of death valley.

a reply to: network dude

I say if we switch to nuclear while perfecting the solar tech then we need some new rules.

Rule one. No nuke plants in disaster prone areas.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Once again china can see the writing on the wall.

www.nature.com...

Bill Gates solution “If we reduce the worlds population by 80% we wouldn’t have to worry about it.”

Dr. Flossy says “COVID-19 vaccines will save us all”

Brotherman says “ # the French” they have more nuclear reactors then Texas arranged in a space roughly the size of Maine all along the same river, what could go wrong?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Bluntone22

I've always thought why not find a place with no water tables dig super deep and dump it there.

And I mean super deep.

Deepest hole ever dug was 4 miles down. And that was in 1970. Can anyone tell me why that's not deep enough?
A 4 mile deep hole out in the middle of death valley.

I'm guessing it was just the diameter of the drill head though, going that deep is doable via drill, not thinking you can excavate anything like that. I don't think anyway.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

Eta... The second linked article spelled "recognized" wrong....
Gotta love modern editing....lol
Maybe lost in the translation?

Just to say that recognise, with an S, is the British English alternative spelling.

Nuclear energy helps keep the price of oil lower and does not produce C02. I suppose Russia produces Uranium for nuclear reactors as well. Is it all about Russia?