The NIMBY phenomenon has throttled the issue, and that's primarily because we didn't incorporate that aspect of nuclear management at the start of the development of the technology (the usual excuse, too expensive). Now it's a political football dominated by wackos on both sides. The longer we wait, the harder to fix the problem gets , technically, financially, and politically. TB and I have discussed this issue here at length, it seems to be one thing we are pretty much in agreement on. We probably only differ on one minor aspect. He thinks the obstacle to solving the problem is the unreasoning resistance of the environmentalists, I think it is the public backlash against the greed and stupidity of the industry. The truth, as always, is probably somewhere in between.
Personally, I'm praying for fusion. But I'm not sure that is technically feasible.
Current Events » in reply to Nuclear plants
That's the 64 billion dollar question.
The whole thread (88 posts)
- Think as you drink!
- Here's one answer that snuck under my personal Radar
- re: Think as you drink!
- re: Are you sure that nuclear power
- No.
- re: My assumption is very simple.
- Can you prove your assertions?
- Argh.
- re: Argh. Argh.
- Tom, Tom, Tom
- Now that the RL tactical nuke has been released, my work here is done... ;) (n/t)
- re: You must be an expert
- The problem with explaining things
- re: The point?
- And to address your claim that 'The sky is evaporating'
- Sheesh, not only is basic math and physics beyond you...
- The numbers, one more d**n time
- re: The numbers, one more d**n time- HTML fixed
- re: The point?
- The problem with explaining things
- re: My assumption is very simple.
- No.
- And not a drop to drink.
- good point
- re: Are you sure that nuclear power
- "Whiskey's for drinkin'. Water's for fightin'."-- Mark Twain (n/t)
- Water will be the new oil. (n/t)
- Oops!
