People act like we built a few reactors in the 50s and 60s, they werea miserable failure and we had to just give up on them.Nobody seemed to tell the Navy that (ours or the soviets/russians).Virtually every capital ship built in the last 30 years has nuke powerand the world is awash in retired veterans, looking for work, who have20 years or more experience in running them. This is a very mature science with an excellent safety record. Fuck you Jane Fonda and the rest of the intellectually deficientpeople who protest them. If you insist, then STFU about global warming.

There is of course a huge difference between the Navy and civilianuses. Like the increased national security from having coupledozen boomer subs able to stay at sea for six months at a time.And that the Navy doesn't much care what the cost is, while forcivilian use, nuclear has to be competitive. I think there is a rollfor nuclear and you'd think the global warming folks who say the worldis going to end if we don't do something soon, would be in favor ofallowing part of that something to be nuclear power. There are about 50 nukes under construction right now around the world,more in the planning stages. Last couple that got started here, wentbust after Westinghouse went bust.I agree with the last part. If we're headed for such an epic disaster,then clearly nuclear is orders of magnitude better than that.

Why don't we have more nuclear power?

Oct 12, 2019 84 Replies

Rate this thread:

rbowman 6 years ago

Around here you would have to deal with a lot of canyons that are bridged by the wires. Considering the terrain putting those lines in must have been interesting. The gas pipeline must have been a challenge too. That is buried for most of the route although it isn't quite the beeline of the transmission cables.

Vote

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required