addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1linklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

The San Diego Alternative Energy Meetup Group Message Board Nuclear & Advanced Science › Atomic Power from the Watershed Perspective

Atomic Power from the Watershed Perspective

La Mesa, CA
Post #: 4
"Waterkeeper?s perspective is not anti-nuclear but pro-community, pro-safety, pro-prosperity, pro-democracy, pro-environment."


At the end of this article is a link to the complete Waterkeeper Magazine "to explore the full story on nuclear power."
A former member
Post #: 33
I was thinking about the discussion on fuel pellets being so safe and all you have to worry about is the possibility they might be crushed. For a few seconds. Then I started thinking about all the other contaminated products that also must be stored. Seeing this link right after last nights talk drove the point home.

I'm glad they have passively safe nuclear reactors. However we have no solutions for storing the waste. We can't store it in Yucca mountain without the ground water carrying it away. And we can't continue to store the waste next to the nuclear plants for ever. We have a rich tradition of just tossing garbage off the side of a boat in some trench and wiping our hands. Perhaps after World peace breaks out and there are no more wars we might want to return to the idea of nuclear power. Until then I think it's a ticking disaster that should be avoided completely.

What do we have for alternatives? Glenn was saying Nuclear was about $200 a unit and solar was $400 to $1000. What I took away was solar is 2 to 5 times more expensive. However if companies are now renting, or subleasing, solar panels for your house and you pay them the same per KW/H as you'd pay the electricity company then I'm missing something. And if they take care of the maintenance of the panels and lock you in at that KW/H price for 25 years I have a hard time thinking of solar as being more expensive.

So whats to keep companies like the one Keith described last night, subleasing solar as described above, from drastically cutting the need for large power plants run by coal, nuclear, and what not in the coming years?
La Mesa, CA
Post #: 5
I'm sure the $200 a unit cost for Nuclear doesn't include the complete cost... environmental clean-up, medical bills, funeral expenses... Perhaps when the CEO's of the power plants live with their families in the communities surrounding the plants & waste storage sights, then I will have more confidence in the safety of Nuclear power plants.
Powered by mvnForum

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy