I'm all for it

__________________

Nuclear is good clean energy, except the waste, if we could just find a way to make the waste benign.

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

We are getting them cleaner all the time.
Its been years (decades?) sence we have built any new ones.
The chinese I hear have some clean new designs.
A damn sight better then coal burning plants, IMO.

Gotta agree! We need more Nuclear power and we need to make nuclear storage NOW!! Plenty of places in the Movahe for it..

Plus Fussion is only maybe 20 years out maybe less if we get our shit together.

Nuclear energy is the key to space exploration, not to mention countless other things.

Though I don't think we will utilize it unless it becomes extremely profitable for select individuals. Unless somebody can make a killing off exploiting every single aspect of it, it wont get off the ground. It's sad that that's the way our system works...

__________________
"So I picked up some party balloons and a small tube of vaseline, then slippity slip it was in my ass."
-BongJuice

Cheap, Abundant, Cleaner (as Clean is a misnomer)

Though compared to any other power source Nuclear is probably the Cleanest. Solar will require littering our landscape with solar panels, and wind with wind mills, and both of those require special locations to build them.

Tidal power requires bays, harbors and inlets with strong tidal action, and once again litters areas with junk.

No, ultimately it is better to find a mountain in an unpopulated area for the radioactive waste and bury it, and use nuclear energy.

Environmentalists strike me as odd in their hatred of nuclear energy when Solar and Wind make the landscape look so much more disgusting imo.

__________________
Libertas inaestimabilis res est - Liberty is a thing beyond all price. | Sic Semper Tyrannis

I guess I'd consider myself an environmentalist in the sense that I think it's important to protect the environment. But I also think we should be utilizing every single option available, solar, wind, wave, geo-thermal, nuclear, anything that produces energy. But you have to find a balance, an equalibrium for nature. If we somehow worked out all the kinks in each of these technologies but put the environment in danger while doing it, that would just create new problems in the future.

I don't care what the landscape looks like, what it looks like isn't really that important. I forgot where I heard this but if they placed a ton of solar panels in the mojave desert and out near Vegas, I think the size was pretty big, somewhere near 100 sq miles, it could produce a substantial amount of electricity. In that scenario I think the right move would be to use the solar panels as it's not critically damaging to the environment.

The shit we need to get past is oil and coal, both of those are becoming obsolete and both are huge contributors to greenhouse gases, disregarding the rest of the bullshit that's been discussed on this forum about oil and how many greedy bastards control it's profits. There's no such thing as clean coal technology.

__________________
"So I picked up some party balloons and a small tube of vaseline, then slippity slip it was in my ass."
-BongJuice

Not to mention the foreign policy aspect of buying all are energy

__________________

I'm amazed at the pro nuke sentiment I'm seeing here, pleasantly amazed. There already is some very good 'new' nuclear technology that is begging to be deployed. There is a technology called 'molten salt' which is a huge jump over the existing light water reactors.

The wild thing, is this 'new' technology was developed and a pilot reactor operated in the 1960's. Burns the nuclear fuel way down to the equivalent of nuclear ash. And much safer to boot. I'll bore anyone with details if you're baked enough for such a thing.