@@seymorefact4333 You've been so brainwashed. 2,000 miles, God you're dumb. You live well within 2,000 miles of a nuclear reactor anywwhere in the U.S. I live about 65 miles from a nuclear power plant, they're great.
False and false. There’s never been a single recorded death associated with solar energy generation, nuclear has hundreds, and solar sees efficiencies of 20-22%, nuclear is slightly less than 20%, combined.
@@RussellFineArt ✅ I'm for nuclear power! I'd rather they put the nuclear plant in others backyard than mine! and bury the nuclear wasted in their basement! 🤣🤣 Just like i don't want a wind turbines in my yard or w/in 100 miles of my home! I have solar on my roof and RV and LOVE IT! TOTAL INDEPENDENCE from the grid! China and Denmark has all of these Nuclear, Solar, wind, hydro, is the future!
The price tag isn't what is stopping construction. It's lawsuits from people who are opposed to you having cheap and plentiful energy.
2 месяца назад+5
No, wrong. Completely wrong and wrong like the bots and randos who don't know anything, yet have a firm opinion on the subject. Insurance, NRC approval, public outcries for having a potential Three Mile Island near their kids, they take too long to build, and the massive capital needed is an investment risk. They're not economically viable anymore. I worked for a consulting company formed from ex-GE Nuclear engineers. If you want to learn more, the PI wrote a book called _50 Years in Nuclear Power: A Retrospective_
modern reactor designs are several magnitudes cheaper and safer. All the anti-nuclear ret*ards are why we are dealing with pollution issues from fossil fuels. Solar and wind are great but they're not reliable enough to be a baseline. Even with batteries.
2 месяца назад+1
@@itszkkPatently false. "Several magnitude cheaper" would mean
2 месяца назад+1
@@itszkkPES, batteries, and flywheel storage work fine. You don't know what you're talking about and spewing FUD nonsense.
Wrong again. SMR are substantially cheaper and can't meltdown. Cut the unnecessary red-tape and get it done. Preferably before the next oil spill poisons the entire gulf coast
Small reactors dont make any sense. You have all the regulations and hoops to jump through for a third of the power. Bring AP1000s to Comance peak and South Texas. Comanche peak still has an open combined operating liscense for 2 new reactors.
Perhaps they only need 1/3rd of their power, pumping to much energy into the power grid can overload things and cause damage. Also modern nuclear power is much safer then the 1970s reactors most of the country has right now that should have been replaced 40 years ago.
@@safeandeffectivelol There is the tiny little detail that they don't actually exist yet. I do like the idea of Texas paying for the development cost. After Texans pay for the first very expensive units and get the bugs worked out, it may make sense for my state to get some.
I mean I'll have tons of chemicals, doping methods, photolitography, and cnc machining in my backyard. I'll take awhile to get them in the future to make Semiconductors, materials science, and biotech but I got you!!!
Considering the new modular reactors are smaller and safer and cleaner...I am for it. Wind turbines need a radical redesign due to the environmental hazards they pose. Solar has its problems, too.
@@safeandeffectivelolTechnically, the main component that makes the electricity in a nuclear reactor came from the 18th century. The reaction chamber itself is definitely a 21st century invention, though.
@@chucktaylor4958 Two main ones. They are distressingly effective bird and bat blenders; and the materials the blades are made of do not decompose really at all; so they add to landfill volume pretty quickly.
@@marshalllapenta7656 ✅ I want nuclear!! I'm NOT AGAINST NUCLEAR. Just in your back yard or someone else far away from my house. I don't want wind turbines near me either!! Nuclear, Solar, Wind, Hydro...all good options. I have solar on my house and RV. Total off grid.
(1) Fukushima is nothing compared to what coal does every year but we just got used to because coal power is 200 years old (2) The plant in Fukushima was late 1960s-early 1970s technology, technology has progressed so a brand new nuclear plant would be less likely to melt down
With China leading the world in solar and wind energy and potentially surpassing the US in nuclear energy it's a good of time as any to modernise and stay ahead of the pack.
@@mike_w-tw6jd renewables are great but they will not meet our energy demands nor handle seasons. You need 4x the solar and battery storage for a midwest winter so its not a realistic option.
Do it, but do it right, it needs to be regulated, just don’t over do the regulations either. We don’t want this to have a catastrophic failure like different energy related systems and infrastructures have in the past.
Nope. SMR are pipe dreams because they're easy terror targets and don't scale down well. It's most cost-efficient to have larger sites that share infrastructure than hundreds of potential Chernobyls scatted in places that flood and get battered by hurricanes like Houston prefers to do.
Umm no the only reason I’m against Texas doing it is because our state sucks at enforcing safety standards. we will have a complete meltdown and the politicians will blame solar and wind.
@@Thevillageidiot8 That is a good point, yet I'd point out that the biggest Texas energy fail (the 2021 Deep Freeze) was not due to state government mismanagement, but due to mismanagement from the ERCOT company, which didn't even operate in Texas at the time. Also, it is true that nuclear power is safer than the days of Chernobyl, but we should fortify these new energy facilities against hurricanes and tornadoes so that we don't become the next Fukushima...
If you want it to be successful keep them under 500 megawatt and most importantly. do not allow them to be one offs. That's what destroyed wpps in the seventies.
I hope they build them in a way to recycle the waste (maybe the newer, smaller versions do this?). Nuclear is great, but not if they don't build it to where it can recycle the waste, like is already done in other countries.
While US are suffering from lack of energy, jobs, etc, there is an asian country which has NO laws of environmental protection... Actually, they are incredible pollution machine. Nuclear is SAFE & CHEAP! A country with lack of energy is condemned to go back to stone age.... In 1992 I was living in florida and a former aviation engineer told me about how he was happy as the "outsourcing" america was doing taking manufacturing to asia.... he thought america will be even richest and safe.... I told him: this is a scam! America will be poor, weak and will have less brain power. We need to keep our brains to continue over the wave.... I wasnt wrong. See how the world is now...
They tried this years ago to shut the environmental groups up. Then it became how clean gas/oil was and how dirty nuclear power was. So who needs more money is the issue now. The South Texas Nuclear Generating Station started on paper in the late 50s, came about in 1971, construction began in 1975 on unit 1, and was not online until August 1988 with unit 2 coming online in June 1989. Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant between Ft Worth and Dallas had a similar story.
Comanche Peak is close to Glenrose Texas not between Fort Worth and Dallas it's 65 miles South of me and I live in Springtown Texas, I drive past it often.
@@kellypilant9176 The nuclear power plant is located 40 miles southwest of Ft. Worth and about 60 miles southwest of Dallas. What's not halfway about that?
@@andrewarmstrong7310 You said between not half way. Plus it's not halfway between them, Half way between Fort Worth and Dallas would be Grand Praire and Desoto area. It is 85 miles from Dallas and 55 miles from Fort Worth. And that's using the short cuts, not straight line distance. Drive to Glenrose and see, plus it's a nice town to take the family too.
I’m super pro nuclear but tbh texas is one of the worst places to be pushing it. Solar plus batteries is a much better move for texas. Push nuclear in the north east not texas
I love how half the idiots in the comments barely understand nuclear energy at all and are discussing it as they do. Do you people not realize how efficient nuclear energy is. We have been using it in our naval vessels for over 60 years, and not a SINGLE problem has happened since. That is 60 years of maintaining a safe operation with no issues on record to date. A track record that very few coal/non-renewable resource plants have achieved. Not only that, but it has a net zero operation with practically no pollutants. Uses about 10lbs of uranium and would only need to be refilled every 25 years. Some of you are a bunch of numb nuts.
OMG vogtle was such failure. The Georgian rate payer had to pay extra before it was done. Then the public utility and private company piled on an additional $8 billion or so after the fact. There is no such this as affordable nuclear power.
@@jimburrisIt's better if we use natural gas as an export source to generate revenue instead of using it for our electricity that's why nuclear power is a better option we get clean source of energy and we can be a natural gas exporter that rivals Russia and Qatar
Actually nuclear ☢️ waste can be reused ♻️ and put back into a nuclear reactor there’s actually no need for nuclear waste storage facilities to be built.
@@christerry1773 Read up on the Texas Mexico nuclear incident. That was just an X-ray machine with an orphaned source. By the way the Soviet developed a small portable nuclear generator easily massed produced........ they pop up time to time when a mysterious illnesses effect a village in Siberia and have to be disposed of carefully at great expense.
Tell me where you live in TX that has an issue with the grid. I have lived in Tx since the ‘88 and have never had an issue. Even the fluke freeze we had a few years ago. Power was on and off and never had an issue during that fluke storm keeping my house warm.
@@bruce88wayne As someone else stated, that was a Centerpoint issue. They didnt maintain the power lines for years so they all failed when frozen or hit by hurricane
Natural Gas needs to be the leader here. We're swimming in it. Other supplemental sources might be fine, depending on what, and where, and whether subsidies are the driving force or not.
Nuclear is safer and cheaper than natural gas. Sure keep using natural gas until the nukes are ready but we are far better off building nuclear plants than natural gas plants.
@@mike_w-tw6jdWood fire gas emissions aren't safe either. Old hunter gatherers who lived in caves where they kept fires had lungs worse than modern chain smokers.
you know what? go for it. I'd much rather deal with the nuclear waste problem than the oil spill problem, or the fracking contaminating drinking water problem.
modern nuclear reactors are safe and efficient. nuclear power does produce a small amount of extremely dangerous waste, but we are learning how to use even that to some effect. i believe wind and solar are the true future of electricity generation, but i'm all for any and all methods of generation that aren't burning fossil fuels. nuclear presents its own drawbacks and challenges, but it is better than burning coal, oil, and gas.
Nuclear energy is most successful when it's under government ownership and control, not privatized. Republicans are largely wrong on a whole host of issues, but when it comes to the topic of government ownership, there's no discussion to be had. Nationalization (and I mean state ownership, too. not just federal) is the only way to go. Without it, nuclear needs to be subsidized for private companies to pursue nuclear. Nuclear *is* good, but it needs to be facilitated by government. Bigger governments like the US government, large states like California, New York, Texas, Florida, the EU, the government of Canada, France, you name it, they can shoulder nuclear costs that private companies simply can't shoulder.
Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 still resonate in many minds. Wind and solar have cost barriers too that have been supplemented by the federal government I’m a fan of nuclear energy more than wind or solar, would still prefer an infrastructure for LNG
three mile island unit 2: failure to do proper maintenance on cooling system. nobody was hurt, and unit 1 (didn't melt down), shut down only just five years ago, and microsoft recently bought it to start back up here in a few years chernobyl: not unlike other soviet equipment, the reactor had a horribly flawed design, and went boom
@mike_w-tw6jd it takes large amounts of materials to make that possible. More likely we see a fusion before we see a national battery storage. If nothing else, the hunger of electricity by AI can't be satisfied by supplemental power sources.
2 месяца назад+2
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl meltdown in your backyard.
Finally. The actual green energy
Erm? It's more blue.
☢☢ AWESOME! JUST DON'T PUT ONE W/IN 2000 MILES OF MY HOUSE! ☣☣
@@seymorefact4333
You've been so brainwashed.
2,000 miles, God you're dumb. You live well within 2,000 miles of a nuclear reactor anywwhere in the U.S. I live about 65 miles from a nuclear power plant, they're great.
@@douglasdixon524 Bottomline... in your yard not mine!
Finally some proper green energy
This would be such a big advancement.
☢☢ AWESOME! JUST DON'T PUT ONE W/IN 2000 MILES OF MY HOUSE! ☣☣
DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT
No more nuclear
@@Raytracer96024 rocks that get hot on their own is a good deal if you ask me
Why?
@@ExceptionalLibra cheap power mainly
@@ExceptionalLibra Cheap clean energy that actually works
It’s the safest and most efficient form of energy.
Until it isn’t.
☢☢ AWESOME! JUST DON'T PUT ONE W/IN 2000 MILES OF MY HOUSE! ☣☣. ✅ Yes, IN YOUR BACKYARD! ✅
False and false. There’s never been a single recorded death associated with solar energy generation, nuclear has hundreds, and solar sees efficiencies of 20-22%, nuclear is slightly less than 20%, combined.
@@RussellFineArt ✅ I'm for nuclear power! I'd rather they put the nuclear plant in others backyard than mine! and bury the nuclear wasted in their basement! 🤣🤣 Just like i don't want a wind turbines in my yard or w/in 100 miles of my home! I have solar on my roof and RV and LOVE IT! TOTAL INDEPENDENCE from the grid!
China and Denmark has all of these Nuclear, Solar, wind, hydro, is the future!
Well, it’s second best to Hydro-Electric.
Finally some smart people
In our Texas government? Nonsense.
☢☢ AWESOME! JUST DON'T PUT ONE W/IN 2000 MILES OF MY HOUSE! ☣☣. ✅ Yes, IN YOUR BACKYARD! ✅
In Texas? You must be joking.
Wishful thinking.
@@seymorefact4333 Same
Makes more sense than wind farms
☢☢ AWESOME! JUST DON'T PUT ONE W/IN 2000 MILES OF MY HOUSE! ☣☣. ✅ Yes, IN YOUR BACKYARD! ✅
@@seymorefact4333 lol you were one of those people who think microwaves give you cancer huh? low information = afraid of everything
@seymorefact4333 Reread my sentence, I don't recall mentioning anyone's backyard.
@@anissah161 so you don't mind if a nuke plant was in your backyard?
@@__shiftymicrowaves can give you cancer. Every scientist oit has said you can potentially get cancer with microwaves
The price tag isn't what is stopping construction. It's lawsuits from people who are opposed to you having cheap and plentiful energy.
No, wrong. Completely wrong and wrong like the bots and randos who don't know anything, yet have a firm opinion on the subject. Insurance, NRC approval, public outcries for having a potential Three Mile Island near their kids, they take too long to build, and the massive capital needed is an investment risk. They're not economically viable anymore.
I worked for a consulting company formed from ex-GE Nuclear engineers. If you want to learn more, the PI wrote a book called _50 Years in Nuclear Power: A Retrospective_
modern reactor designs are several magnitudes cheaper and safer. All the anti-nuclear ret*ards are why we are dealing with pollution issues from fossil fuels. Solar and wind are great but they're not reliable enough to be a baseline. Even with batteries.
@@itszkkPatently false. "Several magnitude cheaper" would mean
@@itszkkPES, batteries, and flywheel storage work fine. You don't know what you're talking about and spewing FUD nonsense.
Wrong again. SMR are substantially cheaper and can't meltdown. Cut the unnecessary red-tape and get it done. Preferably before the next oil spill poisons the entire gulf coast
Put it out to bid.
Cheapest, lowest quality construction wins!!
Everything in Texas is big, including the meltdown!
Small reactors dont make any sense. You have all the regulations and hoops to jump through for a third of the power.
Bring AP1000s to Comance peak and South Texas. Comanche peak still has an open combined operating liscense for 2 new reactors.
Modern small reactors are safer and fewer single points of failure
Perhaps they only need 1/3rd of their power, pumping to much energy into the power grid can overload things and cause damage. Also modern nuclear power is much safer then the 1970s reactors most of the country has right now that should have been replaced 40 years ago.
@@safeandeffectivelol There is the tiny little detail that they don't actually exist yet. I do like the idea of Texas paying for the development cost. After Texans pay for the first very expensive units and get the bugs worked out, it may make sense for my state to get some.
☢☢ AWESOME! JUST DON'T PUT ONE W/IN 2000 MILES OF MY HOUSE! ☣☣. ✅ Yes, IN YOUR BACKYARD! ✅
@@seymorefact4333 Do you know any other sentence??
Yes! This is great news :). Don't fear nuclear energy. It is the future!!!
Nuclear energy is wayyyyy safer, and better for the environment than petroleum, solar, wind and whatever “green” alternatives they come up with.
@@methe7738When you have an operational nuclear reactor on the grid in your backyard, let me know because you sound like an LLM.
I mean I'll have tons of chemicals, doping methods, photolitography, and cnc machining in my backyard. I'll take awhile to get them in the future to make Semiconductors, materials science, and biotech but I got you!!!
I would be very happy to have a reactor in my city. Not in my backyard as that would just be annoying. Look it up nuclear is way safer than petroleum.
@@methe7738what containment technology lasts thousands of years, and if reprocessing is the answer why is so much waste piling up
ERCOT will find a way to F it up.
Clean reliable Power, unlike useless wind mills that only work on "good" days and generates graveyards of discarded non-degradable blades.
B.S. they work year around. We get free energy from them on Sundays in Spain 🤔. Same with solar energy....
The blades can be recycled. Stop spreading fake news
It's actually green energy!
Considering the new modular reactors are smaller and safer and cleaner...I am for it. Wind turbines need a radical redesign due to the environmental hazards they pose. Solar has its problems, too.
Wind power is from the 17th century
@@safeandeffectivelolTechnically, the main component that makes the electricity in a nuclear reactor came from the 18th century. The reaction chamber itself is definitely a 21st century invention, though.
What are the environmental hazards associated with wind turbines?
@@chucktaylor4958 Two main ones. They are distressingly effective bird and bat blenders; and the materials the blades are made of do not decompose really at all; so they add to landfill volume pretty quickly.
✅ Yes, IN YOUR BACKYARD! ✅☢☢ AWESOME! JUST DON'T PUT ONE W/IN 2000 MILES OF MY HOUSE! ☣☣.
Very good, best choice. Cheers from France
Keeping it in the south where there is more water for cooling seems the smartest idea.
If they wanted, it's entirely possible to make it a closed system, like your car's engine coolant, so that you don't need a nearby water source.
Arizona has the largest nuclear plant and it sure isn't near any water lol
@ only because it has to be that way, thats why its the only one in the world thats dependent on treated sewage water.
@@cobrayalta AZ doesn't have much choice
Id ask the question of how severe hurricanes could pose threat for distraction. Center texas aint nobody there.
Hallelujah! I fully support this. Wind and solar are causing huge environmental impacts on our countryside that the "city" folk never see.
It's Texas, they'll just throw the spent fuel rods into the garbage. Texas can't be trusted with nuclear energy.
If you're so independent, use candles like the old days 😂
Nuclear is the most green energy.
Except due to cherenkov radiation; it's blue.
Good idea, get rid of windmills.
✅ Yes, IN YOUR BACKYARD! ✅☢☢ AWESOME! JUST DON'T PUT ONE W/IN 2000 MILES OF MY HOUSE! ☣☣.
Small, regional power plants would eliminate the need for a massive overhaul of the power grid too.
Who’s offering them the big paycheck? It must be pretty big to go against big oil.
Yes. Absolutely.
*But* use it to replace inefficient wind and solar, *not* diesel fired plants.
You mean natural gas fired plants. There are no diesel and coal is mostly going away due to regulations
@@safeandeffectivelol Repeal the regulations.
Yes i am loveing this it is awsome
Yes!!! Finally!!!
✅ Yes, IN YOUR BACKYARD! ✅☢☢ AWESOME! JUST DON'T PUT ONE W/IN 2000 MILES OF MY HOUSE! ☣☣.
Put it in Southwest Texas.
THIS WOULD BE NICE......
✅ Yes, IN YOUR BACKYARD! ✅☢☢ AWESOME! JUST DON'T PUT ONE W/IN 2000 MILES OF MY HOUSE! ☣☣.
@@seymorefact4333 WHAT'S YOUR ANSWER TO THE ENERGY PROBLEM?
@@marshalllapenta7656 ✅ I want nuclear!! I'm NOT AGAINST NUCLEAR. Just in your back yard or someone else far away from my house. I don't want wind turbines near me either!! Nuclear, Solar, Wind, Hydro...all good options. I have solar on my house and RV. Total off grid.
most of Galveston's water is bad might as well use that water
Texas is getting smarter 😊
Build 10 new nuclear power plants!
At 8 Billion dollars for a 1.3 giga watt power plant Texas is nuts.
Cheaper and more reliable than wind or solar
The entire country uses 400 giga watts lol.
I Openly Encourage It as long as we DO NOT get another Fukajima!!! 🤠👍
(1) Fukushima is nothing compared to what coal does every year but we just got used to because coal power is 200 years old
(2) The plant in Fukushima was late 1960s-early 1970s technology, technology has progressed so a brand new nuclear plant would be less likely to melt down
With China leading the world in solar and wind energy and potentially surpassing the US in nuclear energy it's a good of time as any to modernise and stay ahead of the pack.
yes, renewables and battery storage
@@mike_w-tw6jd renewables are great but they will not meet our energy demands nor handle seasons. You need 4x the solar and battery storage for a midwest winter so its not a realistic option.
they rely on coal fired plants, place is polluted.
@@mike_w-tw6jd What battery can power an entire state? They can barely get a car moving for 250 miles
@@safeandeffectivelol Educate yourself about electric vehicles.
The science hasn't evolved, the technology has.
FINALLY
About time!
This should’ve been done 30 years ago
Do it, but do it right, it needs to be regulated, just don’t over do the regulations either. We don’t want this to have a catastrophic failure like different energy related systems and infrastructures have in the past.
I’m ok with low interest loans and the legislature should do a deep dive on regulations.
It would be good to have more 'baseline' energy sources.
Small-scale nuclear. France is doing this...
Nope. SMR are pipe dreams because they're easy terror targets and don't scale down well. It's most cost-efficient to have larger sites that share infrastructure than hundreds of potential Chernobyls scatted in places that flood and get battered by hurricanes like Houston prefers to do.
And Finland has done alot of ground work for permanent storage.
Umm no the only reason I’m against Texas doing it is because our state sucks at enforcing safety standards. we will have a complete meltdown and the politicians will blame solar and wind.
good point, that is true
modern reactor designs make meltdowns impossible.
How could they blame a meltdown, that wouldn't even happen, on wind or solar? 😅
@@littled6698 you underestimate the level of our politicians stupidity. If there's a will there's a way they can blame it on green energy
@@Thevillageidiot8 That is a good point, yet I'd point out that the biggest Texas energy fail (the 2021 Deep Freeze) was not due to state government mismanagement, but due to mismanagement from the ERCOT company, which didn't even operate in Texas at the time. Also, it is true that nuclear power is safer than the days of Chernobyl, but we should fortify these new energy facilities against hurricanes and tornadoes so that we don't become the next Fukushima...
They should. It's long overdue.
SMRs are likely the better solution. Smaller, lower costs, and modern.
It's about time!
Good! Bc the windmills are not working
✅ Yes, IN YOUR BACKYARD! ✅☢☢ AWESOME! JUST DON'T PUT ONE W/IN 2000 MILES OF MY HOUSE! ☣☣.
There are new, smaller designs that are much safer.
✅ Yes, IN YOUR BACKYARD! ✅☢☢ AWESOME! JUST DON'T PUT ONE W/IN 2000 MILES OF MY HOUSE! ☣☣.
If you want it to be successful keep them under 500 megawatt and most importantly. do not allow them to be one offs. That's what destroyed wpps in the seventies.
Please!
Wind and solar don’t cut it !
Work in Spain and other advanved countries... Year round.
if you want to stop this... make it a democrat idea
We need water! Get some desalination plants along the coast.
But...but...but...what about your precious oil? 😂
I hope they build them in a way to recycle the waste (maybe the newer, smaller versions do this?). Nuclear is great, but not if they don't build it to where it can recycle the waste, like is already done in other countries.
Good choice
While US are suffering from lack of energy, jobs, etc, there is an asian country which has NO laws of environmental protection... Actually, they are incredible pollution machine.
Nuclear is SAFE & CHEAP!
A country with lack of energy is condemned to go back to stone age....
In 1992 I was living in florida and a former aviation engineer told me about how he was happy as the "outsourcing" america was doing taking manufacturing to asia.... he thought america will be even richest and safe....
I told him: this is a scam!
America will be poor, weak and will have less brain power. We need to keep our brains to continue over the wave....
I wasnt wrong.
See how the world is now...
This idea radiates with me.....
:D
Build more but within a safe distance
If nothing else gets done for the next decade, *please* at least let this get pushed through!
I like this. SMRs are not there yet. Texas is a wealthy state. Let them work out the bugs on Texan electric bills.
Get rid of private and go public eléctrico 🔌
Yes, alberta already in talk about build power plant in edmonton.Texas start learn last frost on hydro systems put all in notice pure simple.😮
DONT GIVE ME HOPE
The facilities to enrich the fuel can also be used to make weapons for Texas when we secede from the Woke country. Just saying. Viva La Texas!
Coal is king.
Yes 👍
They tried this years ago to shut the environmental groups up. Then it became how clean gas/oil was and how dirty nuclear power was. So who needs more money is the issue now. The South Texas Nuclear Generating Station started on paper in the late 50s, came about in 1971, construction began in 1975 on unit 1, and was not online until August 1988 with unit 2 coming online in June 1989. Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant between Ft Worth and Dallas had a similar story.
Comanche Peak is close to Glenrose Texas not between Fort Worth and Dallas it's 65 miles South of me and I live in Springtown Texas, I drive past it often.
@@kellypilant9176 The nuclear power plant is located 40 miles southwest of Ft. Worth and about 60 miles southwest of Dallas. What's not halfway about that?
@@andrewarmstrong7310 You said between not half way. Plus it's not halfway between them, Half way between Fort Worth and Dallas would be Grand Praire and Desoto area. It is 85 miles from Dallas and 55 miles from Fort Worth. And that's using the short cuts, not straight line distance. Drive to Glenrose and see, plus it's a nice town to take the family too.
I’m super pro nuclear but tbh texas is one of the worst places to be pushing it. Solar plus batteries is a much better move for texas. Push nuclear in the north east not texas
pleaseeeeee do it
✅ Yes, IN YOUR BACKYARD! ✅☢☢ AWESOME, I LOVE IT! JUST DON'T PUT ONE W/IN 2000 MILES OF MY HOUSE! ☣☣.
@would love to have move of them near me. It’s one of the best inventions we’ve ever made
Anything but solar by backs huh?
huh?
Solar doesn't work at night or when it's cloudy.
@safeandeffectivelol that's why batteries exist.
✅ Yes, IN YOUR BACKYARD! ✅☢☢ AWESOME, I LOVE IT! JUST DON'T PUT ONE W/IN 2000 MILES OF MY HOUSE! ☣☣.
I love how half the idiots in the comments barely understand nuclear energy at all and are discussing it as they do. Do you people not realize how efficient nuclear energy is. We have been using it in our naval vessels for over 60 years, and not a SINGLE problem has happened since. That is 60 years of maintaining a safe operation with no issues on record to date.
A track record that very few coal/non-renewable resource plants have achieved.
Not only that, but it has a net zero operation with practically no pollutants. Uses about 10lbs of uranium and would only need to be refilled every 25 years. Some of you are a bunch of numb nuts.
OMG vogtle was such failure. The Georgian rate payer had to pay extra before it was done. Then the public utility and private company piled on an additional $8 billion or so after the fact. There is no such this as affordable nuclear power.
Too bad your average texan doesn't believe in science and will oppose this plan.
Yessss let’s do it
What's more, some new gen reactors can burn nuclear waste, too. Go TX, I say.
Big Oil will quash that.
Oil isn't used to generate electricity
@@safeandeffectivelolShould’ve said Big Gas. 😉
@@jimburrisIt's better if we use natural gas as an export source to generate revenue instead of using it for our electricity that's why nuclear power is a better option we get clean source of energy and we can be a natural gas exporter that rivals Russia and Qatar
Where you gonna put all the barrels of Nuclear waste...? In your back yard?
Dig a deep tunnel in Colorado or Wyoming and make an artificial cave 1 km underground
Actually nuclear ☢️ waste can be reused ♻️ and put back into a nuclear reactor there’s actually no need for nuclear waste storage facilities to be built.
Bout time! Let's send these SMR stocks to Mars 🚀
Finally Texas making progress. Which means the other side will say it's bad and we'll all die.
✅ Yes, IN YOUR BACKYARD! ✅☢☢ AWESOME! JUST DON'T PUT ONE W/IN 2000 MILES OF MY HOUSE! ☣☣.
@ there are nearly 100 active reactors in the US. So if you live here, you’re likely with range of several
@@christerry1773 Read up on the Texas Mexico nuclear incident. That was just an X-ray machine with an orphaned source. By the way the Soviet developed a small portable nuclear generator easily massed produced........ they pop up time to time when a mysterious illnesses effect a village in Siberia and have to be disposed of carefully at great expense.
Cant even maintain the power grid but wants to go nuclear 😂
Tell me where you live in TX that has an issue with the grid. I have lived in Tx since the ‘88 and have never had an issue. Even the fluke freeze we had a few years ago. Power was on and off and never had an issue during that fluke storm keeping my house warm.
@@F150customscenterpoint sucks
@@F150customsmaybe the entire Houston area?
@@bruce88wayne As someone else stated, that was a Centerpoint issue. They didnt maintain the power lines for years so they all failed when frozen or hit by hurricane
So there's a shortage of electricity, but you're against building more reliable power generating plants? 🤡🤡🤡
Natural Gas needs to be the leader here. We're swimming in it. Other supplemental sources might be fine, depending on what, and where, and whether subsidies are the driving force or not.
Nuclear for electric would leave more nat gas available for heating applications and emergency power.
Nuclear is safer and cheaper than natural gas. Sure keep using natural gas until the nukes are ready but we are far better off building nuclear plants than natural gas plants.
@@itszkkair pollution is not safe!
@@mike_w-tw6jdWood fire gas emissions aren't safe either. Old hunter gatherers who lived in caves where they kept fires had lungs worse than modern chain smokers.
Woooooo
Texas is becoming California 😂
California doesn’t want to expand nuclear tho
That is the only way to go the future has to be nuclear wish Elon Musk did nuclear
Smart 🇺🇸
Are the advocates volunteering to bury the waste in their backyards?
nuclear waste is mostly recycled nowadays, the radioactive drums are basically fiction.
waste from the manufacture of solar panels?
waste from the oil fields?
There are now ways to use the waste for additional generation.
you know what? go for it. I'd much rather deal with the nuclear waste problem than the oil spill problem, or the fracking contaminating drinking water problem.
modern nuclear reactors are safe and efficient. nuclear power does produce a small amount of extremely dangerous waste, but we are learning how to use even that to some effect. i believe wind and solar are the true future of electricity generation, but i'm all for any and all methods of generation that aren't burning fossil fuels. nuclear presents its own drawbacks and challenges, but it is better than burning coal, oil, and gas.
high level waste is stored on site, thousands of years of storage, it's too expensive
@@mike_w-tw6jdI just watched the process that France uses to recycle the fuel rods they recycle %96 back into new fuel rods
As long as we keep the oil going
Good
Like cowbell, we need more NPG! Nuclear Power ower Generation!
nuclear baby, nuclear...drill baby, drill
Nuclear energy is most successful when it's under government ownership and control, not privatized. Republicans are largely wrong on a whole host of issues, but when it comes to the topic of government ownership, there's no discussion to be had. Nationalization (and I mean state ownership, too. not just federal) is the only way to go. Without it, nuclear needs to be subsidized for private companies to pursue nuclear.
Nuclear *is* good, but it needs to be facilitated by government. Bigger governments like the US government, large states like California, New York, Texas, Florida, the EU, the government of Canada, France, you name it, they can shoulder nuclear costs that private companies simply can't shoulder.
This is great its a lot better than burning fuels
Got cancer?
Do it, its smart!
ABBOTT! SIGN THIS INTO LAW, AND MY LIFE IS YOURS!
Lol...
this is how Soviet Union developed quite fast at one time, - nuclear power. Cause it was dirt cheap.
Not good, and not terrible. The latter part is untrue though.
about fn time.
Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 still resonate in many minds.
Wind and solar have cost barriers too that have been supplemented by the federal government
I’m a fan of nuclear energy more than wind or solar, would still prefer an infrastructure for LNG
And Fukushima...No one knew how to fix it...And it may take 30 years to remove the water which is being dumped into the ocean...
three mile island unit 2: failure to do proper maintenance on cooling system. nobody was hurt, and unit 1 (didn't melt down), shut down only just five years ago, and microsoft recently bought it to start back up here in a few years
chernobyl: not unlike other soviet equipment, the reactor had a horribly flawed design, and went boom
I like solar too, but they are supplemental power sources.
renewable battery storage will grow from a couple of hours worth to several hours
@mike_w-tw6jd it takes large amounts of materials to make that possible. More likely we see a fusion before we see a national battery storage. If nothing else, the hunger of electricity by AI can't be satisfied by supplemental power sources.
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl meltdown in your backyard.
Fukushima
@@mike_w-tw6jd Yes, when we get a Tsunami in Fort Worth, Im sure it will turn out the same as Fukushima....idiot!
This isn't the 1970's anymore. New modular reactors can't have meltdowns
@@mike_w-tw6jd Fukushima was built in the 1960's and we don't have major earthquakes or tsunamis in Texas. New modular reactors can't melt down
@@safeandeffectivelol Where are these modular reactors today?