Comments on: New Nuclear for Kentucky?

By: Paul Maser

Paul Maser — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:57:02 +0000

Waste will probably stay at the nuclear plant that generated it as there is no place that will accept it. Recycling nuclear waste until their is no radioactivty is not physically possible as some radioactive by-products are not useful in the fission process. Every step in creating nuclear fuel creates gigantic amounts of nuclear waste and recycling just creates another gigantic mess to dispose of somewhere. The somewhere that doesn’t exist. Read the latest on German nuclear waste at Gorleben.

By: Alida Antonia Cornelius

Alida Antonia Cornelius — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:36:03 +0000

Yup…just what Kentucky needs…nuclear power plants…
Just wait till the eventual earthquake hits…
Nuclear power plants are not safe.
They will never be safe.
Again, Kentucky moves in the wrong direction…
It’s better to have coal until other alternative methods are developed.
I know three nuclear engineers.
They all say the problem with nuke plants is where to store the waste.
Nukes sound wonderful till there is a natural disaster like the one in Haiti.
Imagine what would have happened if Port-au-Prince had a nuclear power plant.
Thumbs down.

By: Abel Ashes

Abel Ashes — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:07:35 +0000

Nuclear waste should stay where it is produced (at the location of the power plant). All nuclear power plants should be required to process their own waste. When the technology works correctly all nuclear waste worldwide should be used to generate electricity until the waste is entirely depleted and no longer radioactive. Even then nuclear fission is not a long term energy solution and will suffer a shortage of fuel in coming decades unless nuclear fusion is successfully executed before then. Until that time it is much wiser to invest in the most advanced and efficient solar, wind, and biomass power generation systems. If we don’t China will leave the US in the dust.