Nothing is safer and as efficient than nuclear power (Solar and wind is safer, but woefully inefficient.). People's fears of another Chernobyl are unfounded. A nuclear disaster half the size of that one is physically impossible because of technological advances that have been made and because no one is as careless as the Soviets were then. In a nutshell, the Soviets were using a carbon when the rest of the world was using water. They also did not have a chamber to snuff out any potential fires. After letting it burn for four days, radioactive alarms sounded in another country (Poland?) letting the cat out of the bag. It was a special blend of incompetence and criminal negligence. We need to invest in this technology in a big way. France has become almost 100% free of foreign oil compared to the US because they adopted American nuclear power plant technology decades ago.
The only way any significant drilling will take place in the united states is for the people to wake up and vote next year. We need to pick up a few more seats in the senate and improve the republican majority in the house. Then take back the whitehouse and put in a true leader that understands that we can't power this country on rainbow dust and unicorn milk.
Oh me too! When I was stationed out west there was this one, and if you were driving on just the right highway it looked like a giant pair of boobies on the horizon. Eh, anyway. The zips aren't in a much of a pickle (stay away G) as they want everyone to believe. Chernobyl was the worst plant disaster to date and there were less than 100 dead from that thing. I'd put money on the official # being around 75. Of course the libs will NEVER let that out. They will inflate it to the thousands just to scare the hell out of everyone.
Random responses and thoughts POWER POINTS A/C power is not storable; at the very moment you open the fridge door a power plant far away generates that electricity and puts it on the grid The periods of highest power use are during the peak periods of early/mid morning and late afternoon/early evening. Bullets one and two mean our power production system (power plants and wires to deliver the power) have to have the capacity to produce and deliver power instantly at these peak levels during those periods - unless you like brown outs. WIND AND SOLAR Wind and solar can't be depended on or scheduled to blow and shine when everyone wants to dry their hair at 6am or cook the gumbo at 6pm. They will be a minor supplemental energy source for the near future. NUCLEAR Always built near the sea, river, or other water source because they require large quantities of water. I can't speak to the fault line question for sure but I would guess the location is dictated by the need to locate the plant near water and where the generated power can best be inserted into the electric grid. My opinion is that we should develop every energy source available including nuclear, coal/gas, renewable (wind, solar, hydro) and exotic. We should update our grid (old grid = inefficient grid - it costs power to transmit power) and our plants to retire the big polluters. This would be a good jobs program, and good investment in the future program, and a good 'Buy America' program to keep our dollars here and not over seas. BUT BUT BUT - We should not have another monumentally stupid throw billions at it solution from the galactically stupid - that's congress. Instead get the regulations out of the way and create an atmosphere of stability so that industry will know what to expect over the decades it takes to build this stuff. Don't change the rules every 2 to 4 years because that's just dumber than baby poop. IMO
In theory nuclear is always "safe", however in the last year we've seen that there's always the human effect. Iran had problems with the computer worm that knocked its plant out for many months. What would happen if there was a worm developed that took total control away from a nuclear power plant? What if that worm was able to cause a meltdown by itself, whether it was intentionally done or not? The impact of a meltdown is far worse than most any other disaster. Of course, that's probably a scenario that's made for a movie, but there will always be the chance something can go wrong. If we can minimize the need for nuclear power, that may be the way to go.
You know this bridge technology thing is not safe. You know how they build roads up in the air above rivers and lakes. Those things fall down and people die - I mean its actually happened, I saw it on TV. And earthquakes caused one to fall down in Oakland and a lot of people died. We should minimize the need for bridges until the technology is perfected.
Well, the worst Hurricanes Louisiana has seen in a century didn't effect the Waterford 3 power plant. So maybe we had our ish together a little bit better than the Japanese as a result of the 3 mile Island incident? I don't know, I think we should start drilling in the gulf again. I also think we should eliminate subsidies for oil companies if they can't provide us with affordable gasoline.
