Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 903

Should U.S. Research Institutions and Industry Collaborate on Nuclear Energy Innovations?

Argument in favor

Nuclear energy is a viable component of a clean energy future. The federal government should do all it can to help U.S. researchers and industry bring advanced reactors and other new nuclear technology to market to produce clean energy that’ll help mitigate climate change.

jimK's Opinion
···
05/24/2019
I favor studying the new concepts for smaller, much safer, more localized nuclear power- mainly as another tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in case we cannot for some reason, meet requisite greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. I oppose building the mega scale plants with huge concentrations of core material and complex interacting control equipment and systems that depend heavily on operator interpretation and difficult costly maintenance. Mega-scale plants also generate massive amounts of difficult to manage radiated waste. I think He3 fusion reactors have the greatest potential with the least risk if we can gather enough He3 to build one- and should be studied. Test reactors need to be evaluated and then heavily, heavily be monitored and regulated according to coalition guidelines and regulators. Are their security, siting, and waste management Issues. Yes, but none of those factors contribute to greenhouse gases and can ultimately be resolved.
Like (60)
Follow
Share
burrkitty's Opinion
···
09/05/2019
Of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest. That’s reality. The culturally imbedded irrational fear of nuclear power is radically out of proportion to the actual risk. 100,000 people a year die from pollution from coal fired power plants. As for the radiation from the Fukushima power plant? One. Markandya, A., & Wilkinson, P. (2007). Electricity generation and health. The Lancet, 370(9591), 979-990 Lelieveld, J., Evans, J. S., Fnais, M., Giannadaki, D., & Pozzer, A. (2015). The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale. Nature, 525(7569), 367-371. Weber, W., & Zanzonico, P. (2017). The controversial linear no-threshold model. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 58(1), 7-8 Kharecha, P. A., & Hansen, J. E. (2013). Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. Environmental science & technology, 47(9), 4889-4895. Office for Nuclear Regulation (2015). Basic principles of radioactive waste management. Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste (2016). Nuclear Waste State-of-the-Art Report 2016 Risks, uncertainties and future challenges. International Atomic Energy Agency. Storage and Disposal of Spent Fuel and High Level Radioactive Waste. McMichael, A. J., Woodruff, R. E., & Hales, S. (2006). Climate change and human health: present and future risks. The Lancet, 367(9513), 859-869. Kharecha, P. and Hansen, J. (2013) Coal and gas are far more harmful than nuclear power. Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. World Health Organization. Ambient Air Pollution: A global assessment of exposure and burden of disease. World Health Organization. 1–131 (2016).
Like (40)
Follow
Share
Kevin's Opinion
···
09/05/2019
Nuclear is the future. We must find better ways to transport and store waste, but it is the most efficient source for mass power use. It is also clean and minimally harms the environment. It does scare some people but perfecting this technology(especially fusion) will serve mankind better than any other source of energy. We are a technological world and must learn to master and not fear our resources.
Like (12)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

The U.S. doesn’t have any official disposal sites for commercial nuclear waste, and trying to find a solution is so politically contentious, it’s unlikely to happen anytime soon. Until this issue is resolved, it’s not feasible to research and invest in nuclear energy.

NoHedges's Opinion
···
09/05/2019
No, because there are no specifications in this Republican sponsored bill as to who/with whom America would be collaborating with. Republicans have proven to be inept and untrustworthy when it comes to the safeguarding of our National Security. Until Republicans step up and show this nation they can be trusted to PROACTIVELY safeguard this nation’s national security, I see no reason to grant them further opportunities to undermine it. For all we know, this is simply Republicans way of assisting Putin in working out the kinks in his latest nuclear missile. Or... Erdogan says it's unacceptable that Turkey can't have nuclear weapons Besides Glowurm is right, Alaska is being raped by both parties repeatedly. I still haven’t forgiven the Dems for pushing Bill Walker out of office. And now there is Republican who will more than likely seek to establish an international pipeline... reverse the damn King Cove land exchange.
Like (35)
Follow
Share
Glowurm's Opinion
···
05/02/2019
Absolutely NOT! As an Alaskan, I trust NOTHING WTH LIES-A’S name on it! She sold her soul to the devil years ago. Ditto for Young and wet-behind-the-ears, Sullivan. All they care about is THEIR bottom line, not the destruction their decisions make. They rape our land by giving it to mining and oil interests, while the people get a pittance in return. Our State is having hard times because they keep giving them outrageously low tax rates. It is killing our State, yet they will not budge. May they rot...
Like (21)
Follow
Share
doingmypart's Opinion
···
05/02/2019
Use your brains for once. Why do we keep shooting yourselves in the foot. Wind, sun, tides, geothermal, natural gas and hydro done right are cheap once built and have zero nuclear waste. Where’s the downside? We should continue to research nonmilitary nuclear options for energy in space so we can escape, once we destroy our planet.
Like (19)
Follow
Share
    I favor studying the new concepts for smaller, much safer, more localized nuclear power- mainly as another tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in case we cannot for some reason, meet requisite greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. I oppose building the mega scale plants with huge concentrations of core material and complex interacting control equipment and systems that depend heavily on operator interpretation and difficult costly maintenance. Mega-scale plants also generate massive amounts of difficult to manage radiated waste. I think He3 fusion reactors have the greatest potential with the least risk if we can gather enough He3 to build one- and should be studied. Test reactors need to be evaluated and then heavily, heavily be monitored and regulated according to coalition guidelines and regulators. Are their security, siting, and waste management Issues. Yes, but none of those factors contribute to greenhouse gases and can ultimately be resolved.
    Like (60)
    Follow
    Share
    No, because there are no specifications in this Republican sponsored bill as to who/with whom America would be collaborating with. Republicans have proven to be inept and untrustworthy when it comes to the safeguarding of our National Security. Until Republicans step up and show this nation they can be trusted to PROACTIVELY safeguard this nation’s national security, I see no reason to grant them further opportunities to undermine it. For all we know, this is simply Republicans way of assisting Putin in working out the kinks in his latest nuclear missile. Or... Erdogan says it's unacceptable that Turkey can't have nuclear weapons Besides Glowurm is right, Alaska is being raped by both parties repeatedly. I still haven’t forgiven the Dems for pushing Bill Walker out of office. And now there is Republican who will more than likely seek to establish an international pipeline... reverse the damn King Cove land exchange.
    Like (35)
    Follow
    Share
    Of all major energy sources, nuclear is the safest. That’s reality. The culturally imbedded irrational fear of nuclear power is radically out of proportion to the actual risk. 100,000 people a year die from pollution from coal fired power plants. As for the radiation from the Fukushima power plant? One. Markandya, A., & Wilkinson, P. (2007). Electricity generation and health. The Lancet, 370(9591), 979-990 Lelieveld, J., Evans, J. S., Fnais, M., Giannadaki, D., & Pozzer, A. (2015). The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale. Nature, 525(7569), 367-371. Weber, W., & Zanzonico, P. (2017). The controversial linear no-threshold model. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 58(1), 7-8 Kharecha, P. A., & Hansen, J. E. (2013). Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. Environmental science & technology, 47(9), 4889-4895. Office for Nuclear Regulation (2015). Basic principles of radioactive waste management. Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste (2016). Nuclear Waste State-of-the-Art Report 2016 Risks, uncertainties and future challenges. International Atomic Energy Agency. Storage and Disposal of Spent Fuel and High Level Radioactive Waste. McMichael, A. J., Woodruff, R. E., & Hales, S. (2006). Climate change and human health: present and future risks. The Lancet, 367(9513), 859-869. Kharecha, P. and Hansen, J. (2013) Coal and gas are far more harmful than nuclear power. Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. World Health Organization. Ambient Air Pollution: A global assessment of exposure and burden of disease. World Health Organization. 1–131 (2016).
    Like (40)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolutely NOT! As an Alaskan, I trust NOTHING WTH LIES-A’S name on it! She sold her soul to the devil years ago. Ditto for Young and wet-behind-the-ears, Sullivan. All they care about is THEIR bottom line, not the destruction their decisions make. They rape our land by giving it to mining and oil interests, while the people get a pittance in return. Our State is having hard times because they keep giving them outrageously low tax rates. It is killing our State, yet they will not budge. May they rot...
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    Use your brains for once. Why do we keep shooting yourselves in the foot. Wind, sun, tides, geothermal, natural gas and hydro done right are cheap once built and have zero nuclear waste. Where’s the downside? We should continue to research nonmilitary nuclear options for energy in space so we can escape, once we destroy our planet.
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    I am concerned about security issues with this bill.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Nuclear is the future. We must find better ways to transport and store waste, but it is the most efficient source for mass power use. It is also clean and minimally harms the environment. It does scare some people but perfecting this technology(especially fusion) will serve mankind better than any other source of energy. We are a technological world and must learn to master and not fear our resources.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Although this seems like a good idea, I can see a pharma-insurance coordination that would place energy at the whim of politicians, kickbacks, price gouging, and energy becoming a civilian dependency on whatever the conglomeration would birth.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    I have mixed feelings about this. I would feel better if nuclear waste was better managed.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    What do you do with the waste? How do you handle an accident?
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    1. Nuclear energy is clean? Where do we put the spent fuel? What do we do with the reactor at the end of the forty years? Could this be a target for terrorists? Are the earth quake proof (Japan)? Are they human proof (Russia)? Changing from 10 years to 40 years include maintenance? Solar, tidal, hydroelectric, and wind are cleaner sources.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Industry would only corrupt what research might discover and conclude.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Nuclear energy is a viable component of a clean energy future. The federal government should do all it can to help U.S. researchers and industry bring advanced reactors and other new nuclear technology to market to produce clean energy that’ll help mitigate climate change. SneakyPete..... 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻. 9.5.19.....
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    I support the Senators bill on nuclear energy and power research and innovation. We must continue to modernize our nuclear power plants and remove roadblocks to building them while protecting our citizens from breakdowns like 3 mile island. #MAGA
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    we need to stop advancing the lie that nuclear is a clean energy. It is not.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    I too would not invest in nuclear energy until we have a way to store the spent fuel rods.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Thorium reactors are smaller, safer, and can readily be adapted as localized power stations.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    The designs of nuclear reactors for power generation have come a long way, are safe, and don’t have the issues with spent fuel that older designs have. With the push toward electric cars, we’re going to need a huge increase in electrical power generation. Safe nuclear reactors are the best way to achieve this.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes. I support this proposal.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Interesting how the new green deal representatives never bring up nuclear power??? It’s been around for decades. Pretty safe, clean and abundant. But their agenda has no room for this particular energy source. France has had nuclear energy for decades. Why not America???
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE