Nuclear Power Debate - Lamar, CO

Discuss the national Nuclear Power debate in Lamar, CO.

Do you support building more nuclear power plants?

Lamar supports
Support
 
15
Oppose
 
10

Vote now in Lamar:

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Agreed

Grand Junction, CO

#1 Apr 8, 2011
Storage of used plutonium is very expensive plus cost of building the plant. It will take billions of dollars and years before you would see any power produced. Plus the saftey of the generations to follow would wonder what were you thinking.No as you have seen in Japan even the most experiencd operator can't get this radiation to stop. We are facing a catastrophe far greater than man has ever known. Radiation is good for you. EPA will raise safe levels and say go ahead and drink that milk and swim in radiated water it won't hurt you. Oh yea it's safe.
old smoke

Olney Springs, CO

#2 Apr 13, 2011
NO WAY.
Mike Caldwell

Lamar, CO

#3 Apr 13, 2011
Nuclear is without a doubt the best choice spent fuel is the problem if someone smarter than me can figure that out we'll see it all around the world.
We don't get ahead standing back but going forward solutions will come eventually and create more jobs
RUKIDDINGME

Lamar, CO

#4 Apr 22, 2011
Please research how the french are supplying 70% of their power with nuclear. They are recycling their fuel rods to the point that there is 5 grams of waste per person per anum.
Different

Grand Junction, CO

#5 Apr 26, 2011
Nuclear is so unforgiving when unseen events happen
Different

Grand Junction, CO

#6 Apr 26, 2011
RUKIDDINGME wrote:
Please research how the french are supplying 70% of their power with nuclear. They are recycling their fuel rods to the point that there is 5 grams of waste per person per anum.
Move to France if like nuclear so much, perhaps make a trip to their weapons factory.France is loaded with nuclear, right up your alley.
Dthizzle

Grand Junction, CO

#7 May 7, 2011
Its takes 12 years to get a nuck plants up and running. That money should be put to clean energy projects like wind farms and solar power.
just another guy

United States

#8 May 14, 2011
The US Navy has accumulated over 6200 reactor-years of accident-free experience over the course of 230 million kilometres, and operated 82 nuclear-powered ships (11 aircraft carriers, 71 submarines - 18 SSBN/SSGN, 53 SSN) with 103 reactors as of March 2010.
IMHO

Grand Junction, CO

#9 May 15, 2011
Yes, because with a better more economical way to produce electricity, it will lower the cost of electricity... Opening the door for fuel efficient electric cars, radient heating, new jobs, lower cost of living rates, and more!!!
surprised

Holly, CO

#10 May 27, 2011
As long as LUB and ARPA aren't building it, we should be fine. LOL!
rukiddingme

Lamar, CO

#14 Jun 3, 2011
Safest most environmentally friendly power generation.
Most power return for th $
Maserati

Lamar, CO

#15 Aug 1, 2011
Energy yes we all need, But to have all our energy in one large area in wrong in so many reason's.With smaller grid's more control can be given in all area's.
RalphV

United States

#16 Oct 3, 2011
The people most against nuclear energy are the ones that are most ignorant about it. Spent fuel COULD be refined and used instead of storing it except politicians won't allow it. The rest of the world is going nuclear because it is clean and safe while the idiots in the US spout vitriol against it, against the corporations that feed them and believe the "answer is blowing in the wind" (energy). Hope and Change!

MEGO (my eyes glaze over)
Mike Gottberg

United States

#17 Oct 10, 2011
Nuclear power when done properly is a highly enviromentally safe way to produce power at low cost.
glowindadark

United States

#18 Oct 10, 2011
Mike Gottberg wrote:
Nuclear power when done properly is a highly enviromentally safe way to produce power at low cost.
unfortunately, when its not done properly, it can mean lots of death and destruction for ... wait, what is the half-life of uranium again?! And that's how long it takes for half a sample to decay into daughter elements?!?...

"highly environmentally say"... tell that to the Japanese!
just another guy

United States

#19 Oct 13, 2011
glowindadark wrote:
<quoted text>
unfortunately, when its not done properly, it can mean lots of death and destruction for ... wait, what is the half-life of uranium again?! And that's how long it takes for half a sample to decay into daughter elements?!?...
"highly environmentally say"... tell that to the Japanese!
Read this again.

The US Navy has accumulated over 6200 reactor-years of accident-free experience over the course of 230 million kilometres, and operated 82 nuclear-powered ships (11 aircraft carriers, 71 submarines - 18 SSBN/SSGN, 53 SSN) with 103 reactors as of March 2010.
glowindadark

Austin, TX

#20 Oct 13, 2011
just another guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Read this again.
The US Navy has accumulated over 6200 reactor-years of accident-free experience over the course of 230 million kilometres, and operated 82 nuclear-powered ships (11 aircraft carriers, 71 submarines - 18 SSBN/SSGN, 53 SSN) with 103 reactors as of March 2010.
Meanwhile, despite lack of attention from the mainstream press, the nuclear catastrophe in Japan continues... and so does the cover-up.(What? plutonium detected 45 kilometers away from the plant? Those wacky Japanese!!)

[SARCASM] But of course, we should trust the U.S. military to provide us with honest, open, and thorough notifications regarding any nuclear incidents, should they occur. The health of our service men and women has ALWAYS been more important than the perpetuation of a potentially dangerous craft, its power technology, or a weapons system.

Also, our military would NEVER use our service men and women as guinea pigs...[/SARCASM]
just another guy

Cheyenne, WY

#21 Oct 13, 2011
glowindadark wrote:
<quoted text>
Meanwhile, despite lack of attention from the mainstream press, the nuclear catastrophe in Japan continues... and so does the cover-up.(What? plutonium detected 45 kilometers away from the plant? Those wacky Japanese!!)
[SARCASM] But of course, we should trust the U.S. military to provide us with honest, open, and thorough notifications regarding any nuclear incidents, should they occur. The health of our service men and women has ALWAYS been more important than the perpetuation of a potentially dangerous craft, its power technology, or a weapons system.
Also, our military would NEVER use our service men and women as guinea pigs...[/SARCASM]
Ok now I see, a military hater. No wonder you see a boogeyman everywhere. Don't worry , unless the russians design it.
glowindadark

Austin, TX

#22 Oct 13, 2011
just another guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok now I see, a military hater....
I suppose that's correct in some sense: I hate that the military takes my tax dollars and converts them into global death and destruction, including the deaths of U.S. service men and women.

By the way, how 'bout that "awesome" military response on 9/11, eh? Trillions of dollars funneled to this behemoth institution with the most sophisticated weapons systems in the world, and the response from our military is as effective as the response of the much more modestly funded AARP.

I think the smart thing to do is to cut the military budget to zero and let the AARP have a go at national defense.

But since this thread is about nukes, I'd like someone to explain the logic of putting a reactor on a military vessel. Because unless your defenses are 100% effective, it seems to me that an accurately placed conventional weapon could turn your craft all radioisotopey, which probably doesn't help the survival prospects of the locals...
just another guy

United States

#23 Oct 14, 2011
glowindadark wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose that's correct in some sense: I hate that the military takes my tax dollars and converts them into global death and destruction, including the deaths of U.S. service men and women.
By the way, how 'bout that "awesome" military response on 9/11, eh? Trillions of dollars funneled to this behemoth institution with the most sophisticated weapons systems in the world, and the response from our military is as effective as the response of the much more modestly funded AARP.
I think the smart thing to do is to cut the military budget to zero and let the AARP have a go at national defense.
But since this thread is about nukes, I'd like someone to explain the logic of putting a reactor on a military vessel. Because unless your defenses are 100% effective, it seems to me that an accurately placed conventional weapon could turn your craft all radioisotopey, which probably doesn't help the survival prospects of the locals...
Wow that's some national defense strategy. Carry Vaseline.

Evidently you have no idea how superior nuclear subs are to conventional.

If we don't build nuclear power plants we have to rely on coal. Maybe you have some interest in us using coal?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lamar Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Students participate in Colorado fair Apr 23 Elise Gingerich 1
Dairy King Jiffy burger Recipe (Jan '07) Mar '15 stephk 26
Debate: Marijuana - Lamar, CO (May '11) Feb '15 easy Money 24
Cherry stem;-) Jan '15 Jay 1
get out of jail free (Sep '14) Sep '14 old smoke 1
News Herbert D. Reyher - Lamar Ledger (Nov '09) Jun '14 Theodore Wells 3
Check-Inn motel? (Jul '11) May '14 Jay 3
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]