Sigma_Orionis wrote:Or as we say down here, "need is dog faced".
Climate change warriors: It's time to go nuclear
Sigma_Orionis wrote:Can I have your Autograph?
SciFiFisher wrote:I find it amusing that anyone from the environmentalist camp is espousing nuclear energy.
Is UCS pro- or anti-nuclear power?
The answer is "neither." We have been a watchdog for 40 years, working for safer nuclear plants, better regulatory oversight, and smarter policy.
Swift wrote:A pet peeve of mine: I hate terms like "the environmentalist camp" or "the environmental movement", particularly when it comes to specific policy issues. Like you can lump together Earth First! and The Nature Conservancy as holding identical political positions on just about any topic.
But, given that, there has been a broad opposition by many environmental groups against nuclear power; stupidily so, IMO. This is one of the reasons I am no longer active with Sierra Club, their illogical position on more than a few issues. The Union of Concerned Scientists is one of the exceptions to this broad opposition; they certainly have had their criticisms of nuclear power, but they have been on specific issues, and not just a broad "anti".Is UCS pro- or anti-nuclear power?
The answer is "neither." We have been a watchdog for 40 years, working for safer nuclear plants, better regulatory oversight, and smarter policy.
The Supreme Canuck wrote:The really irritating thing is that widespread opposition to nuclear power has stymied the construction of newer nuclear plants. Which means that we don't get updated designs; instead, we end up using incredibly outdated and obsolete plants that were built decades ago. The result of pressure to stop "dangerous" nuclear power has been to make nuclear power more dangerous by making the retirement of old, less-safe reactors impossible.
The Supreme Canuck wrote:The really irritating thing is that widespread opposition to nuclear power has stymied the construction of newer nuclear plants. Which means that we don't get updated designs; instead, we end up using incredibly outdated and obsolete plants that were built decades ago. The result of pressure to stop "dangerous" nuclear power has been to make nuclear power more dangerous by making the retirement of old, less-safe reactors impossible.
Ugh.
geonuc wrote:The Supreme Canuck wrote:The really irritating thing is that widespread opposition to nuclear power has stymied the construction of newer nuclear plants. Which means that we don't get updated designs; instead, we end up using incredibly outdated and obsolete plants that were built decades ago. The result of pressure to stop "dangerous" nuclear power has been to make nuclear power more dangerous by making the retirement of old, less-safe reactors impossible.
Ugh.
It may seem that way, but the fact is the older nukes are being retired when it becomes too expensive to repair or upgrade them. Several have shut down permanently this year and that trend will continue.
The Supreme Canuck wrote:Really? All I know is that we have this creaky piece of shit ticking away a few hundred miles upriver from where I'm sitting. Designed in the 40s, achieved criticality in 1957. Still running. Keeps leaking.
geonuc wrote:From where you are, I'd personally be more worried about Davis-Besse, but not because it's particularly ancient, but because of the utility that operates it. They need to have their keys taken away from them and some of them needed to go to jail, in my opinion.
Sigma_Orionis wrote:Wow, Ohio has a town called Ottawa, I wonder if there's a town called Caracas in Indiana.....
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests