World Opinion - On U.S. nuclear power:

Rick C.
Willmar, MN     03/08/2010 8:51 AM

Sen. Amy Klobuchar mentioned the need for nuclear power in her comments on Saturday.

Report a Violation

steve p.
03/07/2010 12:56 PM

I seem to be smart enough. First of all, I don't have "liberal buddies". I'm generally left of center on most things, but that doesn't make me some kind of bra-burning hippy. Strong leadership gets things done. Obama surprised his "liberal buddies" by proposing more nuclear. I'm not touting Obama here, just saying it takes courage to go against some of your own. There's plenty of common ground on this issue, people just need to admit this, and stop claiming single issues as theirs, exclusively. I don't have all the answers, as I recall, I entered the conversation on a technical note, not a political one. If someone wants to suddenly change the conversation to "us versus the world", then I will drop out. Bye-Bye.

Report a Violation

steve p.
03/06/2010 8:28 AM

You know, why the "liberal mantra thinking" comment? I thought we had a great conversation going. So, you think, from my comments elsewhere, that I'm some kind of zombie? Nice. You know, when you suddenly became a renowned expert on reactor vessel containment, I let it go. I thought you were just proud of your knowledge. Now, you've got me pegged, boxed, and wrapped with a bow. And the manifesto about domestic/international? I guess that's why most scientists don't run for office. They know a lot about one thing, and scarcely little about anything else.

Report a Violation

steve p.
03/05/2010 9:56 PM

Thanks, Brett. I hate to even think about it. Hey, I was listening to Science Friday today, on MPR (try to never miss it). They were talking about a promising new method, using oil and gas drilling technology. They drill these very, very deep shafts, drop the material down there, and seal it with concrete, for about a kilometer, then fill it back. There are many areas of the country were the geology is perfect, were the rock is dense, where the materials would be far from the biosphere, far, far, below any water tables/aquifers, etc. Fascinating stuff. That would fit with my regional processing idea (heard Yukka is tabled, again). These shafts would be incredibly deeper than Yukka.

Report a Violation

steve p.
03/05/2010 12:14 PM

Thanks, Brett A, for an intellectual start. I think we need regional recycling sites. You are correct, much of that fuel can be used again. Get the end waste down to the minimum, then, store it at those sites until a single repository site/procedures can be agreed upon. We have to get these used materials more centralized, NOT at each individual plant. Are there security issues? There are security issues NOW ! Also, I wouldn't like to see any new plants adjacent to major tributaries. If you "think" like a terrorist, for even one minute, what would happen if one of Minnesota's reactors was heavily damaged? Wouldn't the wastewater flow down the Mississippi? How, or who, would be able to stop that flow? How many security people and civilians would die? How long would river cities be uninhabitable? I mean, if my pea brain can imaging this, why not an evil pea-brain? So, I agree we should add more nuclear, with the latest technologies. But, with all of our ducks in a row.

Report a Violation