Vintage Cutaways Show the Nuclear Reactors of Our Past (and Present)

Even though I'm high-tech, with an electronics degree, I see nuclear power, in this day and age, as dangerous. overly expensive (taxpayers subsidize these with billions of dollars), and totally unnecessary! We have so MANY safe, clean, renewably, and yes (though they don't really want us to know this), CHEAP alternatives. I won't go into this now, but God gave us many sources of inexpensive, and even FREE energy! We are being sold a "bill of goods" by the wealthy in control, who would greedily extract every cent they can, rather than let the world have what would amount to a renaissance of plenty on this world.

I'm sorry ThunderDragon, but are you kidding? The generation IV nuclear power plants (still in developmental stages) would be 100-300 times MORE productive than CURRENT nuclear power plants. Fissile material would be used to the point that nuclear proliferation would no longer be needed as the waste generated would be used exponentially more. In addition, there could be "re-use" plants that could use the thousands of tons of waste currently on the planet to produce more energy. Long story short, nuclear waste would go from degrading over a few millennia to only a few centuries. This is given the technology designed ten years ago. Imagine if this technology is improved; there could be .01% waste after nuclear fission as compared to the current 95% waste that fission creates with old, 1950's and 1970's designed nuclear power plants.

I want to stress that fact: The nuclear power plants that are primarily in use today were designed in the 50's and 70's. There are "new" plants that are small scale, but the majority are old, decrepid, and need to be upgraded.

Please tell me some of the renewable energies that would be cheaper over time WITHOUT environmental set-backs. Wind turbines break down, are unreliable if it isn't windy, and impact the environment negatively. It would take a solar farm the size of almost all of Nevada to provide enough energy to the United States, and would require battery or oil heat storage for night-time use... I'm not sure how re-usable/renewable lithium-ion batteries are. And if solar energy moved to the transparent solar cells designed for home window use, it would require a "sell-back" network to utility companies so that cloudy areas get enough power (in addition to battery storage for night use). Don't get started with "clean coal".

Just an FYI, the largest solar "plant" in the US has a capacity of 354 MW over 9 plants covering 6.5 square kilometers total. The average number of MW produced per day: 75 MWe. I'm glad 21% of the 6.5 square kilometers is effective... what kind of impact does that have on the environment? I would much rather have the world dig 6.5 square kilometers of mountain to get enough fissile material to be used in a 95% effect new reactor that produces a possible 600 MW per day. I think that is much better for the environment than destroy 150,000 sq km of land for solar power plants that are 21% effective.

While I agree that with thunderdragon that power companies are in cahoots with the government, I do agree with Mr.NY's statement that nuke's are the true answer to the energy problem. "In a single pound of U-235, this fuel has as much energy as about a million gallons of gasoline."

What really needs to happen is that we need to get Michelle Obama to stop flying Airforce One.

She wants us to eat broccoli and ride bikes to work. She wants us to turn our A/C to 80* to save CO2. And as she is spewing this, she is dressing up in thousand dollar dresses at fancy feasts while flying the Air Force One all around the world (Spain and Hawaii to name a few). The Air Force One burns 747 burns about 5 gallons of fuel per mile. So DC to Spain... is 3811 miles x 5 gallons = 19059 gallons of fuel.

Hypocrite much? But keep believing that she really cares about the earth while you sit in an oven of a house and she is flying in an ice boxed 747 above all that smog and heat.

Mr. Harris,
You obviously have no concern for your future generations. What makes you think nuclear degradation measured in centuries is any better than millenia?? All it takes is one disaster to expose and release the nuclear waste and the world is wasted since no one lives and functions past 100 years yet. Think about it!