"Only one member of the five person U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Chairman Gregory Jaczko, dissented citing safety concerns following a triple meltdown last year at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan."

Thank God there is still ONE sane person in the NRC who can see the wisdom in NO NUKES!

It is election year.

"It is election year"
Consrtuction actually began in 2009

Thank God there is still ONE sane person in the NRC who can see the wisdom in NO NUKES!

#1 | Posted by Monstman
Thank God it's not up to you. Where eles you going to get 2 x 1100MW from 2 plants. It sure isn't going to happen with solar or wind. Unless you prefer coal?
These units will be made to withstand an airliner strike on the containment builing. and it can safely shut down on its own even without operators or AC power. Sounds pretty safe.
Now if only that idiot Harry reid would allow the waste storage in a safe facility already made. Instead of wanting studys on new locations,NIMBY ass.

I suspect that far fewer people have been harmed and that there's been far less environmental damage by the generation of nuclear energy then by coal. Build the plants.

#1 | POSTED BY MONSTMAN AT 2012-02-09 06:35 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Waiting for Dilithium crystals to become readily available.

to a new nuclear reactor in 33 years.

Democrats held the WH for ALL those years? Sounds like Reagan and the bush boys are eco-terrorists.

These units will be made to withstand an airliner strike on the containment builing. and it can safely shut down on its own even without operators or AC power.

sure it will. And the power will be too cheap to meter.

We've heard that song and dance before. But where do they get rid of the waste? Conservatives won't let the government force it on Nevada, since they don't want it, will they?

this permit should make clear no gov money and the owners can not pass on any costs to the public, it should have to make it on its own selling electricity at the market and pay for itself or any accidents out of the profits from the sale of electricity on the open market.

this permit should make clear no gov money and the owners can not pass on any costs to the public, it should have to make it on its own selling electricity at the market and pay for itself or any accidents out of the profits from the sale of electricity on the open market.

#8 | POSTED BY THOMEWOOD

I completely agree. Likewise, my tax dollars should not be used to fund any number of entitlements currently distributed by the federal government to individuals and corporations.

The world can have cheap nuclear power without Japan-level risks by swapping thorium for uranium.

The only reason why they don't do this is because the hot particles from releases from uranium or plutonium plants are THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO REDUCE FERTILITY ever found in mammals, uh us.

Californians are getting 5 hot particles a day, where just getting one a day will kill them deader than a hammer in 30 years or so. Since this is a slow kill, even though LD50 doesn't enter into this because they are all dead LD100, ppl just go about their merry way. You also need special counters to collect hot particles, on regular geigers it will always read low rad levels. Keep a hot particle in your body 25/7 for years and see what happens. LD100, goodbye.

But don't worry Californians, the radioactive release of all that fuel and hyper radioactive water into the oceans will eventually contaminate the world.

"by swapping thorium for uranium."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It never fails, withing seconds I can always find a post so dismally fucking stupid it will keep me laughing all day.

"Only one member of the five person U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Chairman Gregory Jaczko, dissented citing safety concerns following a triple meltdown last year at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan."

Thank God there is still ONE sane person in the NRC who can see the wisdom in NO NUKES!

#1 | Posted by Monstman at 2012-02-09 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag: DUMBFUCK THINKS AN EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT

Ha thank you vernon. I really do get the impression that a lot of people think Fukushima spontaneously exploded, and wasn't directly hit by a once-in-a-century tsunami.

People should celebrate both nuclear power, as well as new construction. It's unfair to use thirty-year-old plants and their technology to criticize new plant construction today.

Nuke is cleaner and cheaper, we need more of it.

The only reason why they don't do this is because the hot particles from releases from uranium or plutonium plants are THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO REDUCE FERTILITY ever found in mammals, uh us.

Californians are getting 5 hot particles a day, where just getting one a day will kill them deader than a hammer in 30 years or so. Since this is a slow kill, even though LD50 doesn't enter into this because they are all dead LD100, ppl just go about their merry way. You also need special counters to collect hot particles, on regular geigers it will always read low rad levels. Keep a hot particle in your body 25/7 for years and see what happens. LD100, goodbye.

But don't worry Californians, the radioactive release of all that fuel and hyper radioactive water into the oceans will eventually contaminate the world.

#10 | Posted by Jeffglobal at 2012-02-10 07:39 AM | Reply |
104 REACTORS FOR AT LEAST 33 YEARS- wouldnt all of california be dead by now if your statement was true?

Oh, so we're going to cancel the nearly completed Yucca Mountain project (effectively flushing billions down the toilet) so that we have nowhere to store the most toxic byproducts on Earth, and then we're going to build more nuclear power plants to make even more of said waste? Seriously, does Obama have one freaking clue? Meh, it's election year........God forbid he wins he will nix the nuke building plan.

I used to be a big proponent of nuclear energy. I've come to the conclusion that safe nuclear energy is too expensive to be practical.

#17 wait until we have $8 gas, no new coal plants, and discover that solar and wind power don't quite make up the difference.

If we can ignore the environmental wackos and their never ending lawsuits, a coal or natural gas plant can be built and running in 1-2 years.

"The construction of two new nuclear reactors won federal approval today, making them the first to be built in the U.S. in the decades since the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979"

Thank God there is still ONE sane person in the NRC who can see the wisdom in NO NUKES!

#1 | Posted by Monstman

You are right. That accident in Japan killed millions of people.

Conservatives won't let the government force it on Nevada, since they don't want it, will they?

#7 | Posted by northguy3

When did humpin harry reid become a conservative?

#20 | Posted by KBM

Thoes are not the dates the plants were compleeted.

#14 | Posted by taxman

Nuke is cleaner and cheaper, we need more of it
-----------------
For all the ones on this board who want us to follow the European model it's funny they are big into nuke power.

You are right. That accident in Japan killed millions of people.

The reason the USA uses uranium instead of thorium is the entire nuclear power industry is a subsidy for nuclear weapons.

Fukashima may yet destroy Tokyo's water supply. It is not safe to eat anything grown within 150 miles of Fukashima. But the weapons of mass destruction industry must prevail, regardless of how many human beings it destroys.

I all so was a big supporter of Nuke power but not so much anymore.

Nuke is cleaner and cheaper, we need more of it.

#14 | Posted by taxman

There is nothing cheap about Nuke power

It is a very expensive way to boil water.

I believe that was JFK who sad that

What makes nuk plants so expensive is trying to incorporate all of the never ending new government regulations.

When you build a house, the regulations that apply to that house are frozen at the time it goes out for bid. When building a nuk plant, they are never frozen. Everytime they publish a new reg, you have to jump through the government hoops to get it into your structure.