Nuclear is a renewable energy source.
The CANDU are insanely safe.
new nukes are much safer see “AP1000”
this article is crap btw. you are being misinformed by enviro-weenies
Go ahead and tell me why it is crap.
because they are not a fukushima waiting to happen thats why.
thats just plain stupid.
i love how “rising sea levels” were cited as a potential future threat
the author is an idiot leftie greenie weenie trust me
Are you not aware of where it is located? Other than that part, what else is “crap”. Try harder.
Do you understand the faults that lie near and under it, and what that means?
tell your author of the year that it wasnt the earthquake that was the problem at fukshma but the tsunami that flooded the generators that provided power to remove “decay heat” after the reactor shut down.
the “fukshima waiting to happen” onofre has been shut down for years.
there is no danger from an earthquake even if the site fell into a fissure.
and no, terrorists cant do anything either. the storage in spent fuel pool is heavily shielded theyd have better luck robbing fort knox
author is anti nuke kook and misinforming you
don’t worry im helping
How did the tsunami form… oh yeah, an earthquake.
And where is San Onofre located, literally oceanfront. How about it being only rated for a 7.0 (and retrofitted to boot) while being on a fault that is rated at 8.0?
Sounds like you know very little about San Onofre, want to keep playing?
The funny part is you think that we are simply discussing one article… this is not a new story, the problems with San Onofre are well documented.
I don’t know about how thing are run in American but plant in Canada are insanely safe they have 3 layers of safety requirement for every known issue. (I work at one of the largest plants in the world)
The permanency of nuclear facilities and their potential consequences don’t mix well with our perceived control of nature.
It’s the unexpected that concerns me, when “safety requirements” did not account for something, and why I think their locations have to be very strategic.
I did not say no nuclear power, just pointed at my neighbor San Onofre and said it was not that simple.
You seem to be saying that because San Onofre has problems we cannot possibly do the next plants better and smarter.
The real point is that if we want to end the use of fossil fuels for energy generation we have to go to nuclear, because wind and solar are unreliable and always will be and they also cannot possibly supply our needs without plastering the countryside with solar panels and wind generators - even if they magically became reliable.
The simple fact is wind and solar will always and only be supplemental energy. We either keep using coal and natural gas or we go to nuclear and hydro-electic, where we can…and hope we don’t kill all the little fishies along the way.
M
1 Like
No, I am saying just don’t build them in stupid places.
…with the nuclear waste literally stranded on the beach ( I live in that circle too)
Well, hell, if they can’t build them in stupid places, where is all the fun???
M
And hasn’t that always been the way it’s presented, i.e. that no one form of renewable energy can solve the problem but that a combination serves to reduce our dependency on coal and fossil fuels?
I don’t recall any (serious) discussion of this being a zero sum game…
Yes… but yelling about not having TV unless the wind is blowing is much more entertaining
What, you gonna use cow farts? Lol!
Fair enough.
