Mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes

I am not against nuclear technology. But I am against having it controlled almost totally by companies whose bottom line is more about corporate profits than about public safety.

Are you suggesting you'd prefer to see the government do it? What are you proposing, exactly?

I am not proposing anything.

But I think we need to be wary of the motives of people who are. If their motive is public safety first, that is one thing. If their motive is increasing profits at any cost, that is quite something else.

ziggy wrote:I am not proposing anything.

But I think we need to be wary of the motives of people who are. If their motive is public safety first, that is one thing. If their motive is increasing profits at any cost, that is quite something else.

You say profit like it is a dirty word. If they make a good product that is beneficial, they should make a good profit. This is part of what has me convinced you are a socialist through and through. The very word profit raises all kinds of red flags for you.

You know I like you, but I honestly believe that if you want to live in a socialist country you should choose one and leave America to us capitalists.

The government would FUBAR, btw.

"Clean nuclear power" --- an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

As for "safe" and "affordable," will they be exempt from Price-Anderson?

You say profit like it is a dirty word.

Why do you ignore my insistence on public safety like those are dirty words?

BTW, when profits are placed above public safety, then profit is dirty. Do you disagree?

If they make a good product that is beneficial, they should make a good profit. This is part of what has me convinced you are a socialist through and through. The very word profit raises all kinds of red flags for you.

And like Elmer Fike, public safety raises all kinds of red flags for you. Why not insist on public safety first, and let profits do as they will?

ziggy wrote:

If they make a good product that is beneficial, they should make a good profit. This is part of what has me convinced you are a socialist through and through. The very word profit raises all kinds of red flags for you.

And like Elmer Fike, public safety raises all kinds of red flags for you. Why not insist on public safety first, and let profits do as they will?

Why are you so convinced safety isn't a concern? If they're safe enough for students to use for decades, why wouldn't it be safe enough to store underground, encased in cement?

bmd wrote:As for "safe" and "affordable," will they be exempt from Price-Anderson?

I don't know, but I doubt it. The Democrats rule the roost and it seems to me Price(D)-Anderson(D) is by and large their baby. I do think it may be modified somewhat for these small reactors without moving parts.

Stephanie wrote:How much checking out do you figure we'd need to do?

Well unless I misunderstand your post it was less than 24 hrs from the time you first "discovered" these little nukes until you were totally sold on them and ready to promote their use throughout the country.

So I would suggest maybe a little more "checking out" than that.

But maybe that's just me.

Sherm,

I have been in favor of expanding nuclear power here for about a decade. Yes, these little reactors certainly are news to me, however, I no longer fear nuclear energy the way so many people do. I know there are no moving parts and that is a huge plus. In addition, the knowledge that the design has existed and been used safely for five decades convinces me they are extremely safe. Apparently I'm not the only one. Do you suppose the government and all those universities would be allowing students to work with them if they were not?

Stephanie wrote:

ziggy wrote:And like Elmer Fike, public safety raises all kinds of red flags for you. Why not insist on public safety first, and let profits do as they will?

Why are you so convinced safety isn't a concern? If they're safe enough for students to use for decades, why wouldn't it be safe enough to store underground, encased in cement?

Steph, Zigs idea of public safety concerning nuclear reactors is: .... first, .... you don't build them for any reason or circumstance, ....... and secondly, ...... you insure that the Law that "prohibits the recycling of any used nuclear material" never gets changed, modified or canceled, ..... and thirdly, ...... you fight like hell to keep the government from OK'ing the storage of any used nuclear material inside Yucca Mountain, Co, ..... and fourthly, ....... you force all nuclear facilities to just keep on stockpiling their used nuclear material on-site, thus creating one hell of a public safety concern that you can then use to support your demands that no more nuclear facilities be constructed in the US.



.

you force all nuclear facilities to just keep on stockpiling their used nuclear material on-site,

No one is forcing them to do anything. They make this material of their own free will. But once they make it, it's everyone's problem.

ziggy wrote:

you force all nuclear facilities to just keep on stockpiling their used nuclear material on-site,

No one is forcing them to do anything. They make this material of their own free will. But once they make it, it's everyone's problem.

And for ten to the umpteenth years, at that.

ziggy wrote:

you force all nuclear facilities to just keep on stockpiling their used nuclear material on-site,

No one is forcing them to do anything. They make this material of their own free will. But once they make it, it's everyone's problem.

YUP, just like your garbage and trash, ...... huh, Zigger.



.