Monday, 2 November 2015

Rule #66: Nuclear energy


    1. Lower carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
    2. Relatively low operating costs.
    3. Known, developed technology “ready” for market.
    4. Large power-generating capacity.
    5. Existing and future nuclear waste can be reduced through waste recycling and reprocessing, similar to Japan and the EU (at added cost).


        1. High construction costs.
        2. High subsidies needed which could be spent on other solutions (such as renewable energy systems).
        3. High-known risks in an accident.
        4. Unknown risks.
        5. Long construction time.
        6. Target for terrorism (as are all centralized power generation
        7. Waivers are required to limit liability of companies in the event of an accident. (This means that either no one will be responsible for physical, environmental, or health damages in the case of an accident or leakage over time from waste storage, or that the government will ultimately have to cover the cost of any damages.)
        8. Nuclear is a centralized power source requiring large infrastructure, investment, and coordination where decentralized sources (including solar and wind) can be more efficient, less costly, and more resilient.
        9. Uranium sources are just as finite as other fuel sources, such as coal, natural gas, etc., and are expensive to mine, refine, and transport, and produce considerable environmental waste (including greenhouse gasses) during all of these processes.
        10. The majority of known uranium around the world lies under land controlled by tribes or indigenous peoples who don’t support it being mined from the earth.
        11. The legacy of environmental contamination and health costs for miners and mines has been catastrophic.
        12. Waste lasts 200 – 500 thousand years.
        13. There are no operating long-term waste storage sites in the U.S.
        14. There are no operating “next generation” reactors.
        15. Shipping nuclear waste internationally, particularly in less secure countries, is seen as a significant increase in risk to nuclear terrorism.
        Hmmm... 15 to 5. It seems the cons largely outweigh the pros. Considering this and the risk of major catastrophes like Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi, Nuclear had it's chance and failed.

          In the new world, money and resources spent on nuclear energy will be redirected to funding green energy.



          1. 15 to 5...C'mon man ! The timing was all wrong, is all. The Eagle Freaks had their day in court, let's just work out the bugs and fire those bitches back up !! After all, what kid doesn't want to be Homer Simpson when he's all growed up ?? Do the right thing is all I'm sayin'...Peace

          2. My brother suggested I might like this website. He was totally right. This post truly made my day. You can not imagine simply how much time I had spent for this information! Thanks!


          Agree? Disagree? Lay it on me!