Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
The practical option, is too focus on efficiency and reduction, while implementing other alternative energy solutions. Nuclear Energy is a short sighted fix, with long term consequences.
Nuclear energy has it’s place in research and development, but until the “radioactive waste” issue is “completely addressed”, commercial use should be limited not expanded.
It’s a simple question, “Can supporters guarantee 100% there is no chance of contamination or hardship too the community, because of actions relating or connected to the nuclear power plant?”
If this answer can not be answered honestly yes, then there is no argument.
The community really needs to get behind this issue. Everyone is screaming for new industry and now all go silent. Does any one realize what this would do for the County Tax base..Not to mention the the benefits for the City as well. Come on people think about, we have been living in the shadow of chemical plants for years, obviously there is all ways a risk.
Show me the water! We need nuclear power for the long term and gas power to bridge us to when green energy technology can do the job. The dirty coal power generation at Coleto Creek is polluting our local air. It's not complicated, unless you want to say a pig is a cow, or dirty coal is actually clean, because you represent those who want to mine and use it.
Every nuclear reactor, going forward, should be a Thorium fueled reactor, a much safer fuel than uranium that does not use water to cool the reactor. The waste from the reactor, what little there is, decays in 200, rather than 10,000 years. The footprint of a thorium reactor takes up 10% of the space of a uranium reactor, and can be safely placed much closer to populated areas. The technology was developed in the 1950s, but was ignored in favor of uranium reactors which produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.