Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Largest US public power company launches new nuclear program [View all]Gore1FL
(22,951 posts)27. Let's check back in a few 100,000 years. As I have stated may times on this sub thread, and thread
It's the long-term nature of it that is the problem. Suggesting their is no current issue amount to the mere dismissal of the existence of time and the associated long-term costs. Looking only at the short-term expenditures or relying on some future scientific utopia to come along and fix it all are not reasonable ways to be dismissive of the associated cost and dangers.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
63 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Largest US public power company launches new nuclear program [View all]
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
Feb 2022
OP
We COULD rely on wind and solar if the money was invested, but no, the powers that be want to
TeamProg
Feb 2022
#6
Money is only 1 issue. We simply don't have enough MATERIAL to make as much as needed.
oldsoftie
Feb 2022
#30
The areas the TVA serves is not conducive to reliable wind power generation.
Calista241
Feb 2022
#41
I bet they said the same thing burning coal and oil and wood while clearing woodlands.
Gore1FL
Feb 2022
#25
Let's check back in a few 100,000 years. As I have stated may times on this sub thread, and thread
Gore1FL
Feb 2022
#27
Modern Nuclear is by far the safest and most environmentally friendly choice.
cinematicdiversions
Feb 2022
#14
Okay, I'll play. How many people have died from Solar, Geothermic or Wind power?
TeamProg
Feb 2022
#51
The same number. And comparing Chernobyl to anything in the US is ridiculous.
oldsoftie
Feb 2022
#56
NOOO. This is insane. There is no way to dispose of the waste. Jessus H people are you serious?
Evolve Dammit
Feb 2022
#8
Totally disagree. Until there is a way to dispose of the waste, rad waste poses much greater risk
Evolve Dammit
Feb 2022
#11
Reality is there is no safe way to handle and store long-term. I'm not going to argue this further.
Evolve Dammit
Feb 2022
#62
of course he does. Read Rachel Maddow's Blowout for a comprehensive look into energy history.
Evolve Dammit
Feb 2022
#49
I read it. Don't remember her focus on nuclear, just fossil conglomerates and global networks.
ancianita
Feb 2022
#50
I was referring to the sales pitches by all the execs including the nuclear detonation in CO.
Evolve Dammit
Feb 2022
#61
Imagine if we have a major Carrington event and we can't get power to keep spent fuel pools cool.
roamer65
Feb 2022
#12
Would have it to get into space on rockets that occasionally don't want to make it up into space
Sapient Donkey
Feb 2022
#63