How Coal Country is Voting (Images) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 06, 2024, 06:29:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  How Coal Country is Voting (Images) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: How Coal Country is Voting (Images)  (Read 2831 times)
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


« on: May 19, 2016, 10:42:46 AM »

I still have the not-so-popular opinion that nuclear is still best on the mass scale. Modern nuke tech is so much safer.  The problem is retiring and replacing these old generation 1 and 2 reactors.  Those are what caused Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima.  France is full on with modern nuclear power and have you heard of any problems there?

Not that that is at all on topic, but the real big problem in my eyes is that we have absolutely no clue what to do with the highly dangerous, highly poisonous nuclear waste - all we have so far are no more but provisional and transitional methods, with nuclear waste often shipped time and time again between some place and another. We really need to find a way to finally and properly get rid of all nuclear waste - before that's not done, I'm not really the biggest fan of producing even more of what we can't handle in the first place.
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2016, 03:26:31 AM »

I still have the not-so-popular opinion that nuclear is still best on the mass scale. Modern nuke tech is so much safer.  The problem is retiring and replacing these old generation 1 and 2 reactors.  Those are what caused Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima.  France is full on with modern nuclear power and have you heard of any problems there?

Not that that is at all on topic, but the real big problem in my eyes is that we have absolutely no clue what to do with the highly dangerous, highly poisonous nuclear waste - all we have so far are no more but provisional and transitional methods, with nuclear waste often shipped time and time again between some place and another. We really need to find a way to finally and properly get rid of all nuclear waste - before that's not done, I'm not really the biggest fan of producing even more of what we can't handle in the first place.

I'll try not to derail this further but look up "coal slurry spills" and tell me what's worse.  If they only were allowed to finish the Yucca Mountain facility!

Oh, I'm perfectly aware of how sh**tty an energy-source coal is - if it were for me, coal production and plants would have been shut down years ago. I was just pointing out that nuclear isn't the all-mighty saviour some think it is. And as answer to your question, while both is obviously extremely unpleasant, to say the least, I stay with my opinion that megatons of highly poisonous and dangerous radioactive waste that we have no idea how to neutralise and handle, and of which are producing more and more every year, has some serious long-term issues we might not even be aware of as of now.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 13 queries.