Tech | March 02, 2010 | 12 comments

Small Town Nukes

Image
covelogibbs
They'd be carbon free, relatively cheap, and according to the industry, inherently safe. An underground mini-nuke could power a village.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, really? A whole village?

A new twist on NOT IN MY BACK YARD, this is IN EVERY BACK YARD. FAIL!

The "Nuscale" mini nuke generates 45 Megawatts and the "Toshiba" generates 10 Megawatts. One thing they also generate is NUCLEAR WASTE, which we have to deal with forever.

Thanks for this informative and well balanced article National Geographic, NOT!

No mention of the nearly 10,000 Megawatts of WIND POWER that we installed in the United States in 2009 alone.

Write and call Obama, and your local and state representatives tell them how you feel about nuclear power.

Nuclear power: unnecessary, unsafe and unwanted.





http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/08/mini-nukes
  1. groups:
    Tech,   Green,   Earth Care,   Nuclear News
  2. tags:
    Climate Change Terrorism Cancer Sustainability 11 more
  3.     
    |

12 comments // Small Town Nukes

  • diode
    • 0
      diode  
    • fission nuclear power plants are no bueno.

      just wait another few years until we get fusion power plants up, those are going to be awesome

    • 2 years ago
  • antoine_99
  • Varex_Sythe
  • captainplanet71
    • 0
      captainplanet71  
    • JanforGore is right on. Here are some facts for the skeptics:

      "In the period to 2007, sixty-three major nuclear accidents have occurred at nuclear power plants. Twenty-nine of these have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and 71 percent of all nuclear accidents (45 out of 63) occurred in the United States, challenging the notion that severe nuclear accidents cannot happen within the United States or that they have not happened since Chernobyl."

      Sources:
      Benjamin K. Sovacool. The Costs of Failing Infrastructure Energybiz, September/October 2008, pp. 32-33.

      Benjamin K. Sovacool. The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907–2007, Energy Policy 36 (2008), pp. 1802-1820.

      Btw, no one is saying converting to solar or wind or other renewable energy sources will be easy, but spending billions on nuclear plants that take decades to build is ridiculous, especially when you take into account the safety issues and the fact that nuclear plants produce nuclear waste.

    • 2 years ago
  • The_Mack
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • Solar isn't plausible is simply an ignorant line with no vision.
      NUCLEAR KILLS. When are people going to understand this? As usual, I suppose we will need to see a catastrophe of immense proporations with loss of life... but then, that might not even phase the idiots who think nuclear is plausible. Yes, it is so plausible Wall Street won't even touch it. The advances in solar that we don't see or hear about make it more than plausible.

    • 2 years ago
  • LordLicious
    • 0
      LordLicious  
    • People who defend nuclear power have no idea of thewaste it leaves behind, for a long time.

      I would be pro that IF nuclear waste was sent to outerspace.

      As I know that in order to "save money" (while warmongering around the globe) governments wont do that, I stick with wind and hidro energy, thank you.

      Clean and efficient.

    • 2 years ago
  • Mikeysfake1
  • NotFooled
    • -2
      NotFooled  
    • Then where do you suppose we get our electricity . No fossil fuels, no nuclear, then what do you suggest ? Solar really isn't plausible.

    • 2 years ago
  • captainplanet71
  • captainplanet71
  • Varex_Sythe
more from Tech:

top videos