It's not going to create 1000 year 'dead' zone like Chernobyl. If a coal, or hydro plant goes unreliable. Chernobyl was very reliable until it wasn't. Well, when the pirates of a Caribbean ride breaks down at Disney, the pirates don't eat the guests. Reactors are proven to be highly, highly reliable. ~100 reactors supply 20% of the country's electricity. Optikeye: Gunboat: Mmmmm, no, that's not how it works. Liability is capped by the Price-Anderson Act, and insurance is handled by a special nuclear insurance company-one that's never had to pay on a major claim. Who are the good capitalists who want to fund them and wait 20 years for a return on their money?Ĭurrently they are: utilities, municipal cooperatives, and certain VC groups. The casks holding the waste can literally be dropped from airplanes and still be intact. There is no credible scenario that results in nuclear waste leaking during transport. The same people who live on the routes that transport gasoline, chlorine, ammonia, all the various toxic chemicals that travel daily on our highways and rail lines. Who even wants to live on the routes that the waste would take from site to storage? Both are very remote, and *nobody* lives near the Nevada site. There are only two in the running in the U.S., one in Nevada, one in New Mexico. Who are the good citizens who want to live next to nuclear waste sites? Locales with nuclear plants love them bc of the good jobs and taxes that are funding local schools, roads, etc. Nuclear workers salaries are usually 30% above the mean in areas with nuclear power plants. Lots of folks, from those with associates degrees on up. Any seismically stable place with good rail and/or barge access and a connection to the electric grid. Where are the good sites for the nuclear plants that people envision?Īll over.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |