25 Responses

1. BP nuclear plan
   #FTW

2. so yeah it is worth the risk!!! cause the effects of expencive energy easily could through us back in the dark ages!!!

3. we already nuked half the planet with a- and h-bombs “tests” so what should we care about nuclear power!!! the radioactive garbage is 99% recycleable so it’s the most efficient way of producing useable energy that we have!!!

4. @spambuster1982 Man you have NO IDEA of what you are talking about “the only thwo can anyone can think of” even one would be a good reason not to even THINK to do that. Have you ever lived in Europe? have you ever lived close to Russia where Chernonyl happened? it’s easy to be brave when someone else’s ass risks to be burned.

5. @spambuster1982 Yes, or the vast landscapes of northern Alaska, or even Antarctica!

6. @theresident youtube.com/watch?v=VWzy9mUxVPI

7. @dhl1986 youtube.com/watch?v=VWzy9mUxVPI

8. nice chic, dumb topic
   YouTube Video ID = VWzy9mUxVPI
   Watch that b4 judging too fast..

9. Lori(Is this your name?) I love you soo much and you won’t even acknowledge me

10. I say Nuclear Power all the way. Just send the nuclear waste into outer space. It’s already radioactive up there. Better yet, we can send the stuff to the moon. Then we’ll be able to see the moon during the day because it will be day glow orange. Oh and in the event of a meltdown, if you live near the plant, that’s your fault. At least the property value will go down and the houses will be affordable. We should make sure only queers live near the plant. That way it will just be “oops, oh well”.

11. hey! that’s me… and i didn’t come off sounding like an idiot. phew :)

12. lets do an experiment….go back to horses and buggies in new york city…let’s see how the whiny ny liberals deal with the “fallout” from that..one summer with the air filled with that stink they’d be calling the epa (equine pee administration) demanding cleaner energy.

13. @spambuster1982 totally agree

14. one of the things almost -everybody- never mentions is the danger of uranium mining. this process is dangerous from the top to the bottom.. totally not worth it.. totally dependent on taxes due to the inefficiency… it is — not cheap — it could not exist without tax dollars.. so we do pay a hidden cost in the form of debt, which has interest.

15. We could try it, but I doubt we should try. Nuclear energy is very dangerous.

16. Isn’t France something like 80% Nuclear? Correct me if I’m wrong. Anyone here know how long they’ve been Nuclear and if there’s been any negative effect??

17. One catastrophe like in Chernobyl and US be regret to use nuclear energy.Wind and solar energy this only way ,even more expensive,but it save so much trouble in the future finely it be cheaper then use nuclear.

18. @bikenik Government don’t subsidize nuclear power plant for their own purpose, they represent people, meaning for people’s purpose, which means for you. You know why? Because nuclear plant is safer. How do you know there are no study on effects of nuclear plants? Common have you heard of this thing call Google?

19. @bikenik Nuclear power plant release tritium, yes, but how dangerous is tritium, Do you know? Tritium is H3, which is radioactive, but it poses no danger when in atmosphere and has low half-life. Tell me do you know where the power you spending come from? Are you saying the carbon dioxide from coal power plant that contribute to global warming is safer?

20. Chernobyl? Three Miles Island? Yea those are the only two anyone can think of regard nuclear energy. Now think about how many people die from digging coal mines, oil rigs and the damage to environment that those “traditional energy” caused. Chernobyl was human error, which the new tech have so many layers of protection it’s not going happen, which three miles island proved it that even human error can be stopped by safety systems in placed. Public gets so scared because of pics of atomic bomb

21. The ones who state nuclear energy is dangerous to public and possible for terrorist access dont know what the heck they talking about.
    1. What risk? nuclear is clean energy, except for the waste, which can be store in the desert, like Yucca mountain, where there not a person living there within hundreds miles radius.
    2. Terrorist threat? There’s difference between commercial nuclear and weapons grade nuclear, no way anyone can make bomb from nuclear fuel, not possible

22. @cisco1225 Where are the American studies to the effects of long term exposure to nuclear plants? There are none, probably because the Federal governments including my own government in Canada subsidized the development of nuclear science for their own purposes, the first being the Cold War, and thus have never put the money up to do the serious scientific studies needed to determine if nuclear power is safe for the civilians living near these plants. I would like to hear your reply to this.

23. @cisco1225 You studied biology and concluded nuclear power is safe? Did you look at the effects of radiation on biological cells and cell mutation leading to things like cancer? Nuclear Power plants release tritium – radioactive hydrogen – among other radioactive toxins into the environment continuously. One of the few scientific studies of the effects of living near nuclear plants showed a significant increase in incidents of leukemia in children living near the German plants studied.

24. @KyleQuest
    “One complaint with Hydrogen is it’s binding us to the same financial situation”.
    So is electricity. To travel a relative distance, one would still need to replenish. Whatever the fuel.

    A Hydrogen powered vehicle is already a hybrid. Or at least the good, future gen Hydro cars, with fuel cells generating electricity, and not merely IC engines (inherently inefficient) running on Hydrogen.

    Completely concur with the intelli grid idea though.

25. It should be a 2-way street. On the one hand switching to green energy (which probably can’t fulfill the current demand) and on the other hand more efficient products that consume less energy. We still use way too many energy hogs from an era that didn’t really bother with energy efficiency.

    Nuclear Energy is just a crude and quick solution to our problems from shortsighted individuals.