http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/17RS/SB11.htm

Good bill IMO. Coal isn't coming back and we need options for power generation. We can lead and go nuclear and sell our clean, low-carbon power from nukes to everyone else. Good for KY.

Agreed, coal is dying. Nuclear is the future, we need to get rid of the stigma around it.

I'm a fan of nuclear.

Coal is 'dying' only because the Obama political beast attacked it.    The human race cannot manage nuclear power.

www.simplyinfo.org

Clean coal, wind, solar, hydro.... and the making of more efficient devices is the better way.

I am against nuclear.   It is insane.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-25/us-nuclear-energy-dream-dying?page=1

http://wisequotes.org/nuclear-power-is-one-hell-of-a-way-to-boil-water

Yea, nuclear is good. As long as it's far away. Like very far. On paper it is the future, but we are not in the future yet. Still some teething.

I don't disagree that other alternatives are better, however the emphasis here needs to be on better not perfect. Nuclear is better than current options in terms of costs, environmental impact, its ability to handle base load, and isolation from foreign market influence. It's not perfect, but it is a step forward while the more perfect technology catches up.

Environmental impact huh?     I didn't use the word "perfect".    Nuclear is simply unmanageable.

Yet another small disaster unfolding.   I wonder how many of these the world can absorb until we're all globs of cancerous mucus?

http://enenews.com/alarm-radioactive-leak-at-nuclear-plant-damaged-fuel-in-reactor-workers-immediately-evacuated-from-site-reactor-in-a-very-special-condition-dangerous-neutron-flux-in-core-reported?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ENENews+%28Energy+News%29

The waste alone from nuclear makes coal a better choice for now.

The nuclear stigma is a leftover from cold war soviet propaganda to limit US nuclear usage. Nuclear is perfectly safe when done properly. France uses more Nuclear energy than anything else and they're doing fine.

The volume of waste produced by nuclear energy is a miniscule fraction of that produced by other energy sources for the same amount of energy output. It may be more hazardous but it is manageable.

The number of lives lost per unit energy is less for nuclear than other sources as well.

The fear of nuclear is irrational, similar to fear of guns by the left.

The simple, observable factual reality of nuclear waste and nuclear accidents are not irrational.

The same argument could be made against gun rights. "The simple, observable factual reality of murders and firearms accidents are not irrational."

I say it's irrational because people don't like nuclear because it's scary and they don't understand it. Just like liberals and guns.

Nuclear power is science. It has numerous benefits that in my opinion far outweigh the negatives. It has risks, but they are manageable.

That's what the "scientists" at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima said.  An "opinion" on the safety of nuclear power from someone that uses the screen name "Overkill" is not very reassuring.

So nuclear plants and the waste are 'manageable' until they are unmanageable. Its not crazy to think we could have a global catastrophe in the next 20-50 years. Solar blast, maybe an meteor or asteroid impact, war... Its ignorant to think that its an impossibility. A coal plant just gets turned off, wile the nuclear plant gets turned up. If anything ever happens, places like france will be a uninhabitable in a short time. Then theres always human error. The same people responsible for our rotting infrastructure are responsible for plant upkeep. Time takes everything for granted. Some nuclear plants are needed so we can have the Chernobyl's, fukushima's, and 3 mile. Thats how you learn. But you need enough space around them so you can get the hell away if something happens, and it would be great if we only put them on the east coast.

Three disasters from old plants using outdated technology is a remarkable track record. Meanwhile hundreds of plants have been operating for decades with no incident.

Like commercial airline travel, it's incredibly safe yet when something does happen it's catastrophic and highly publicized. That leads to irrational fear and misconceptions.

Attacking a person's screen name is a weak argument, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

By the time we get any new plants built, the present technology will be "outdated" and I doubt that the people that live near those locations would call the safety record of nuclear plants "remarkable', except in the context of the "remarkable" damage that they have done. If you would like to live in any of those places, I understand that the real estate is selling very cheap right now. So, now the mere mention of a persons screen name is "attacking". Well, lets see, You don't like coal and anyone that disagrees with you is "attacking" you. Maybe the internet is not the best place for you, snowflake.

Nice - good analogy Overkill.

Agree and as far as my opinion on the topic, agree with nuke energy too - but earthquakes can really Fukushima things up.

Wow, really?  I have apparently missed something...

It is so weird to be alive nowadays.   It appears that so many things are trying to kill me.   This issue supercedes all politics, law and govt, which is plenty bad enough.   I'm not "persecuted" for believing in Jesus; I'm attacked for being rational, scientific and "rule of law" -oriented.   Hell, Jesus doesn't even get the respect of being persecutable.

My concerns are not irrational or fear-based.   I made my points plainly.   Clearly I am no fan of a technology that, if "something goes wrong", the entire planet can suffer or be completely destroyed.

It's actually worse than that.  We don't need "something to go wrong".   The natural, scientific by-product of "nuclear energy" is a waste product that is highly toxic to every living thing on the Earth.   It's also very powerful:  once it escapes its man made "boundaries", it is totally out of control. There is no defense against it.  It goes where it wants, and we can't get near it to stop it.   How we call this "safe" is irrational.

The nuclear waste is piling up -- we are running out of places to bury it.   Funny thing, no one wants it near them, near their city, their community, their back yard.    Hmmmph.   Now what?   Oh I know!!!  We can hope there's never an earthquake!   That will work.   No!   I have a better idea:  I'll put on my democrat hat and... let's ban earthquakes!   That'll fix it!   Banning whatever we don't like always works great.   Makes things magically disappear!   It really does! !!   Laws are awesome --   they mandate justice!    At everyone's "shared" expense.   Well... about 48% of the people "share" the expense.... but we choose to ignore that and if anyone says it, we call them "racist" because it sounds really bad.

They are still trying to find the corium at Fuku.  But they can't get near enough to it to REALLY find it.  The radiation kills non-life forms (ie, robots).  What a dang inconvenient situation.   No big deal, I'm sure.   It's just the entire Pacific Ocean... we can outlive the thousand-year half-life just fine.   People are growing cancers in places they didn't know they had parts!   Move along, nothing to see here.

The elements which make up radioactive material were not natural -- they are man-made.  Perhaps that's why radioactive waste is so toxic to carbon-based life forms:  it is completely foreign to our ecosystem.

We don't need stupid people to destroy the United States; we just need Fuku to continue to be a (worse than a) train-wreck that never stops and pollutes the entire world and kills us all.   Wouldn't that be a funny ending to all our prideful striving?

It's actually a horrible, irrational analogy.   Radioactive energy will kill you just by being there.   Or poison you or give you a weird cancer, or maybe just a slow and painful death as your bodies' cells literally dissolve uncontrollably.    No gun is sinister enough to do that.

If they have any sense of humor, the aliens have to be laughing their asses off right now.   Why even stop and look anymore?

Oh... right... I'm irrational:   aliens don't have asses.

I love coal. I'm for all of the above when it comes to energy. I don't know where you got that from.

I find it ironic that a guy who puts all his posts in large bold text calls anyone a snowflake. You did try to discredit my point of view because of my screen name. Now you are making a big deal about semantics. You must "win" a lot of Internet debates. Good for you.

I will get back on topic by saying I like this bill. I support it. I want all sources of energy to have less roadblocks and let the free market decide which to invest in.

can we put the plant near you? Maybe west of your town, where you work, raise your family?

Like I said, normal assholes we all are around daily would be in charge of maintaining the plant. One stupid ass mistake made because everything is running smooth and shit gets taken for granted, or hauling waste out (to where?) some contractor fucks up. Thats all it takes. Or the New Madrid lives up to expectation. Any of those things happen and you will find out how small this state is and how competent our government is.

Hey!   I have a solution!

Put one, (a nuclear plant), in my back yard or close to it.   I have a place in the Portland neighborhood, near downtown.    We have two sites of failed projects in Louisville.   18th and Broadway  and another at 30th and Market.   Pick one.

That would greatly improve the region.   It would bring well paying jobs to the area.   It would be far better than what we have now.

At worst, all of Louisville gets buried in 50 ft of concrete to protect the rest of KY.    Hell, that should probably be done anyway.
















.

I vote both!

How is it that we're able to have nuclear powered subs operating all over the world with no incidents, but having a stationary power plant is somehow an impossible task?

You people have an irrational fear of nuclear energy. Fossil fuels will one day be gone, whether it's because they become too expensive to get to, just run out, or are legislated out of viability by asshole politicians doesn't matter. Their time is limited. Solar, wind, etc. are all pipe dreams. Nuclear is the only viable alternative.

Chernobyl is a horrible example, because communists tend fuck up everything they touch so it's no surprise they couldn't handle nuclear energy.

Three mile island is an example of what happens when something goes wrong in a functioning country, the damage was contained. Not a single person died or became sick due to this event.

Fukushima is an example of nature being a bitch. That's unavoidable, if the people who came before us were as afraid to take risks as some y'all are we'd have never built sky scrapers or put a man on the moon.

We don't accept risks like we once did.    Look at your examples.   People died doing that stuff.     (Completing major projects.)   People are actually buried in some dams.      We spend a lot more money and take much longer in an effort to avoid these human trageties.

On the otherhand, maybe, as we become more communistic we will devalue human life and focus on the collective needs?

I think a national emergency should have been declared under Carter.

The fact that we have been importing such a high percentage of our energy creates many serious problems both here at home and with the decisions we are forced to make in foreign policy.

We should have gone nuclear years ago (and I'm talking about reprocessing too). Had we done so, imagine the difference it would have made with our disposition toward the issues in the Middle East.

Not to mention the amount of wealth transfer to those goat fuckers.

There has never been a transfer of wealth like there has been from the rest of the world to the Middle East over the last 60 years.

And look what they've done with it.

We have 7 billion people on this planet.

We have millions of illegal immigrants.

I'm pretty good with using some the less valuable lives to accomplish something useful.

Coal and Oil are disappearing and are only going to get more expensive "soon".  The "easy" coal has been gone for a while.  F' the mid-east!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Drill and Frac baby - drill and Frac!!!!!!

That said, drill/frac and dig while we can but other options have to be developed and we need to get on it!

Look at simple light bulbs - the bulbs we (well, most of us) grew up with are cheap but inefficient and simply do not last.  The curly ones suck all the way around but LED is the shit.  Vastly less energy consumed for more output and they last... I have yet to replace an LED in over a year.  My old MagLights are dinosaurs...  Even with the conversion bulb, not worth it.

Energy generation has to go through this evolution too, and fast.  We get smarter everyday, 3-mile Island and Chernobyl and what ever else you can pull up are all terrible failures in the end but they are historic failures.  There was success in evolving that application.  We are already light years ahead of that and even Fukushima.  There is a better way, we (The USA) need... have to do it.