Ok, asshole, global warming is bullshit. Penn and Teller YOU are bullshit! You are establishment motherfuckers. There are much safer nuclear power plants, LFTR plants to be exact. But, you would never promote those or even mention them on your show because the establishment to which you belong knows that they can't get bomb material for nuclear bombs from LFTR reactors to blackmail the rest of the planet with. You Suck. Even Hippies are better then YOU.
Once they come up with a permanent solution to getting rid of all those nasty spent fuel rods that are stacking up in cooling pools I might be for the expansion of nuclear energy, but untill then, no thanks.
@FreeWater9 Look at France, those so called nasty spent fuel rods go through reprocessing and in turn are made into more fuel. Where here in America they would rather spend our hard earned tax payers money on these so called scrubbers which use lime to lower carbon emissions into the air but what they don't tell you is that they are actually more dangerous and even look up the process off mining the lime. The big wigs use politics to keep us from nuclear energy, but why?
@arionthelovepoet nuclear is far more green than coal. Also it is a cheaper form of energy, my father works for our local power plant as a chemist and I hear about their efforts in creating less pollution all the time, when they are actually creating more pollution. It is just a big political fiasco going on and were victim to the news and propaganda. My father was also an environmentalist for 12 years so I know he has a very unbiased opinion. Just look at Frances' nuclear plants.
Nuclear energy is probably the best source of energy there is! A compact source that can dish out huge amounts of power and does not emit CO2. In addition, the "waste" is really only another source of energy, as it can be reprocess and burn as fuel.
@andresfusion you are grossly mistaken, Solar - Geothermal - OTEC Energy Conversion is the "Best" source of Energy (Which is Nuclear Fusion 93,000,000 Miles away Might I add)
Ignorance and Indifference KILLS, Hence Chernobyl and Japan.
If it was up to this fat fuck and indifferent-ignorent people like yourself we'd still be slaughtering whales for their blubber and Edison's DC Power would of won instead of Nikola Tesla's Alternating Current which we currently use today. You're all in Dark Ages
got nothing against nuclear power, do not want more nukes but nothing wrong with the power and supper clean the new one in Canada is awesome and we learned from Chernobyl....don't F*cking do what they did.
Ok for the record a housemate of mine was using this computer, and hence my Youtube profile. He didn't ask me (and probably didn't realize) that he was making big statements on my behalf.
I think nuclear is an ok option for now, but may take the pressure off developing better long term solutions that have a larger more immediate economical cost.
I will have an opinion when I research it properly. Look at my back spring vids, that's what I made a profile for. +++++++
Anyway, thanks to the Anti-nuclear movement we are dealing with BILLIONS of tons of CO2 and THOUSANDS of tons of URANIUM and THORIUM being released DIRECTLY into our atmosphere by coal power (Uranium and Thorium are naturally occuring, and as such is all over the place). Guess how much of this damage coal is liable for? Zero million dollars. Thanks a lot anti-nuclear hippies. Greenpeace really shows contempt for the public, they exploit people's fear about nuclear. They are fools.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The next Chernobyl type disaster could be caused by an earth quake, a terrorist attack, human error, tsunami, or something not yet imagined. The separate risks for each of these must be added together. The risk is not zero. The down side of this risk is a very large number which must be put into a mathematical formula along with the numerical risk. If you do this properly, you must come to the conclussion that we must build no more nuclear power plants.
I agree bimmjim...if there was a nuclear disaster in a Canadian reactor the owner would be on the hook for a mere $75 million in damages. Everything above and beyond that would be the responsibility of the Canadian government, i.e. the Canadian taxpayer. This is what I mean by corporate welfare. Nuclear power is a scam...
No, it couldn't. Nuclear reactors are tested for terrorist attacks, terrorists would need to fly 747 from above at high speed (such that the impact force is not deflected). Israel bombed two Iraqi nuclear plants back in the 1980s, not significant radiation release, so any fear mongering about terrorist attacks is just idiotic. Chernobyl simply cannot happen with a US or Canadian reactor design, because it has a containment dome which has multiple levels of seperation.
Several reactors are engineered to safely shut down in the case of major earth movement and are designed to withstand earthquakes. Reactors that are even built under sea level have a built in seal container which safely locks and shuts down the reactor. Your looking pretty fucking dumb so far, and Norske already discredited the terrorist BS. and with human error dude, not every fucking engineer at a reactor is like Homer simpson so just STFU.
That's because the Iraqi were NOT IN OPERATION YET. The 70-megawatt uranium-powered reactor was NEAR completion but had not been stocked with nuclear fuel so there was no danger of a leak
SOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Any CONCLUSION you can draw from the attack about terrorist attacks is just idiotic.
I think we can reject that claim flat on it's face.
I think people need to wrap their head around the fact that the build of a nuclear power plant is not like a nuclear bomb, even if something exploded inside the plant, there wouldn't be a huge mushroom cloud that would kill thousands of people. Look up the containment design in a plant, and you'll see that it's not like there is danger at every turn for another Cherynoble (which is an exaggerated accident anyway).
Also check out news stories surrounding the three gorges dam. It forever changes how more people live than Chernobyl could ever hope to. TWO POINT THREE MILLION people were forced out of their homes to make way for the artificial lake. If it collapsed all the people who depend on that lake would have drastically different lives. All the farmers downstream would have to deal with the sudden release of huge amounts of collected pollution from the silt. Sorry, you're simply wrong.
"compare a hydro-electric dam bursts to a nuclear incident is disingenuous at best"
Only because you insist on comparing which has longer lasting effects, instead of the number of deaths caused. The effects of Chernobyl, radioactivity included, have and will kill fewer people since the failure and over the next 10,000 years than a failure like Banqiao Dam, which permanently alters the landscape and causes ecological havoc.
How can you POSSIBLY KNOW what will happen over the next 10,000 years??? you can't - OF COURSE. Any conclusion you make based on future events after everyone on the planet and their distant decedents are dead is absolutely ABSURD on its face
For " Vearrow", "NorskeDivision" or anyone else to compare a hydro-electric dam bursts to a nuclear incident is disingenuous at best.
The burst of a dam is a single event - people drown, crisis over.
Poisons from nuclear incidents PERSIST and force fundamental change in the way people must now carry on with their lives and has the ability to change even the people THEMSELVES.
This is a truism. It cannot be disputed. Trying to dispute it is like trying to dispute 2+2=4
Chernobyl released 100 times more radiation than Hiroshima AND Nagasaki COMBINED. Chernobyl was also fundamentally different than the single event, nuclear bombs that went off in those two cities. Radiation from Chernobyl persists and will continue to persist.
Strontium, cesium and iodine are also extremely poisonous in themselves. The Dust form of these heavy metals are well known to be deadly.
For "galaktar" or anyone else to say the area is safe is either ignorant or blatantly dishonest.
Have you ever been camping? Probably not, because then you'd have to use an iodine pill to make stream water potable. Iodine is also used (amazingly) as an anti-radiation medication. I'm sure there is an unsafe level of iodine consumption, but theres probably an unsafe level of corn flake consumption also. I haven't researched strontium or cesium yet, so ill get back to you on those.
Ok, strontium is used in fireworks and road flares, and is also used to image bone abnormalities. Cesium/Caesium is used in IR lamps, satellite ion engines, and (incredibly) solar cells. Again, these "evil chemicals" are only hazardous ingested in huge quantities.
"Again, these "evil chemicals" are only hazardous ingested in huge quantities."
On what peer reviewed studies are you relying on to POSIT or HYPOTHESIZE that either strontium OR cesium is only dangerous in high quantities?
Oh... NONE? You mean your just a clown CLAIMING knowledge with no real proof and using as "evidence" that because a substance is used in the manufacture of a product that all humans can therefore consume it or breath it in on a daily basis???
Firstly, I haven't seen you reference anything at all. ever. Secondly, I know that you shouldn't go around eating these chemicals. You also shouldn't go around pretending that everything is like VX. Deadly even if you look at it.
The original argument was whether the area around Chernobyl was safe to inhabit now. My position was no and your position was yes.
Never have I said that any of these chemicals were dangerous if you look at them (except perhaps when they are still highly radioactive). My point was that the strontium, cesium, iodine and heavy metal dusts in and around Chernobyl exist in such high concentrations that living there is unsafe.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is a place in Ukraine with a 30km radius where NO HUMAN can be allowed to go for the next 600 to 1000 years. The Russians were SURE that nuclear power was the answer. Chernobyl proved them wrong
And not just wrong NOW, but wrong until the next MILLENNIUM. Over that time millions will suffer and die of cancer and genetic mutation due to their arrogance and folly.
Are pro-nuke people so sure of the total infallibility of this technology that they are willing to risk this AGAIN?
WRONG WRONG wrongity WRONG. Chernobyl is perfectly safe to live in (not inside the reactor mind you) but the town is perfectly safe for anything to live in. Wildlife has returned to the area and is flourishing. Humans are only absent because of government mandate.
WRONG wrongity WRONG. Unless you are one of those rare suicidal individuals that LIKE breathing in Cesium-137 or living in an area with CONSTANT low level radiation. Perhaps you are not aware that even the smallest amounts of radiation can cause genetic damage leading to cancer, leukemia or birth defects.
Scientists are now STUDYING the nature in the exclusion zone but BY NO MEANS do they consider the area safe for human habitation.
Now go play in traffic - you seem to like living dangerously
Unless you live in a world without sunlight, you will experience "low level" radiation regardless. The History channel recently had a show about a world without people, where they examined Chernobyl after 20 years of human absence. All of the people in the documentary walked around without protective gear for extended periods of time. It IS perfectly safe regardless of whether or not you believe it is.
if radioactive materials are dispersed, or less concentrated, the potential harm they can inflict diminishes respectively, this is one of the reasons that Chernobyl didn't cause the massive casualties that some predicted. Although the radioactive material was spread over a lot of land, its concentration away from the reactor decreased exponentially with the area that it covered. Yes though, rain water can help disperse the material or remove it from the air.
Do people live in Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Yes it was radioactive. No it isn't anymore. If you somehow find a way inside the concrete dome covering the failed reactor in Chernobyl you will probably be in trouble, but thats a bit like saying that hydroelectric power is unsafe if you jump off the dam, or tidal generators are dangerous if there are sharks.
In the past 50 years, more people throughout the world have been killed by the failure of HydroElectric dams than have died from nuclear power plants. The fallout from a dam break seems deadlier than the fallout of a nucluear reactor failure.
Do HydroElectric dams leave entire regions uninhabitable for 1000 years when and if they fail?
Do HydroElectric dams cause cancer or monsterous birth defects and genetic mutations and deformities that could be inherited from generation to generation?
In the last 50 years, how many people have died from HydroElectric dams failing?
Do you actually KNOW the answers to these simple questions or are you just making stuff up as you go?
There's one single example of that, and even Chernobyl, which was a disaster waiting to happen without a containment dome. People are again living not far away.
Hydroelectric dams have caused many deaths. Right now a major one might collapse in Mosul. The Three Gorges dam is unstable. In 1963 1,700 people died in Italy after a dam collapse. 86,000 people died after the Banqiao dam collapse.
While I agree with the premise the "competitive enterprise institute" is the biggest load of shit there is. A BS libertarian bunch of wankers serving up some of the biggest BS there is.
"carbon dioxide they call it pollution, we call it life"- CEI ad
There is no proof that CO2 has any adverse effects on the Earth, and plenty of proof that it is a ferilizer. Commercial greenhouses burn propane to increase the CO2 in the green house. Even the IPCC predicts more abundant crops as a result of incresed levels of CO2. Its hardly a pollutant outside of Global Warming Theory, which is still a theory.
Only on a very temporary basis and after that drought will decrease productivity. But before that floods and storms will wreak havoc. Global warming is not just a theory it's a scientific theory. Are you by any chance creationist? That greenhouses are used to grow crops in colder climates is also completely irrelevant if we're talking about the entire planet. A warmer climate =/ higher crops productivity and you as well as the farmers in the Sahara know this but you'd rather mislead us.
Greenhouses in Costa Rica and Equador pump up the CO2 in their green houses too. Its not about temperture, its about the fact that plants do better with much higher levels of CO2.
No one knows what Global Warming will cause, but fossil evidence suggests that life flourished in a warmer climate with higher levels of CO2. Predictions of more severe weather are supposed based on computer models. Notice how they says droughts OR floods? Hell they cannot miss!
Life may flourish but we're the establishment. And change is rarely good for the establishment. We built our infrastructure around the current climate, current weather patterns and current sea levels. And again I feel you're being somewhat disingenuous. The scientists are saying something that isn't that hard to understand: Dry places will get drier and wet places will get wetter. This is also the reason why it may snow more in some wet places that still endure sub freezing temperatures.
Isn't that nice? Its hot and dry in the desert, Global Warming. It wet in the rain forest, Global Warming. Its snowing around the Great Lakes, Global Warming!
Question is, how do they know? Last I checked they can't predict the weather beyond 5 days with any accuracy. Wouldn't be be suckers to believe that they know what will happen in 100 years?
Additionally, we are humans. We have been able to adapt to live in every climate on Earth, and we have survived numerous climate changes in the past. Humans did not cause past climate changes, yet the climate has changed in the past, but suddenly we are supposed to beileve that this one is different and its our fault!
Never mind that most global warming gasses are created by nature and mankinds contribution is minimal.
P.T. Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute.
Also, predicting the future is NOT science, its speculation. The same people who have made these radical statements about how climate change might effect the weather, are the same ones who said 2006 and 2007 would be the worst hurricane seasons ever, results: Not so much. Seriously, a psychic or a moron could have produced better results.
These computer models they use cannot predict yesterdays weather with known variables! They are worthless and meaningless right now.
Yeah but at the end of the day preventing is going to be more cost effective than adapting. Both in lives and money. Also we produce a large % of the net CO2 production. Normally the CO2 levels are balanced because the CO2 that gets produced naturally is captured naturally. But we're adding a little extra something because we are vaporizing huge carbon storages that have been under the surface for hundreds of millions of years. That net production accumulates over the years.
you know something funny, the CO levels have risen 40% but over the last 150 years less than four percent of CO2 is man made which means that the vast majority of this increase is natural. And also, nature is not as perfect and balanced as people believe.
No you idiot... CO2 is a closed system nature discards it and absorbs it. The net increase of CO2 should be zero. But we tip the scales thus it gradually increases over 150 years to a much larger number then whatever it is we cause on a yearly basis. What your saying is kind of like saying: "The budget deficit is 400 billion YET we have a 10 trillion debt! That means it's not our unbalanced budget that is to blame!"
Weather gets more extreme basically. And yes you can't always win with that statement because weather doesn't always become more extreme. And I know it's going to be hotter in summer than it is today even if I can't predict the weather further ahead than x days. Making large rough projections is far easier and far more accurate and basically has nothing to do with meteorological weather forecasts.
Thats the heart of the scam. Weather would not get more extreme, if the most of the warming is at the poles, since weather is caused by convection between hot and cold. The more balanced the global temperture, the milder the weather, not the more extreme.
You need to read about the science and then have an opinion that at least could be supported by evidence. What you've said above is the kind of comment that an 11 year old might come out with. Are you 11?
You are getting confused by your own obviously limited understanding of the evidence, just read a bit and get educated.
I wouldn't be surprised if you think it's all a conspiracy.
There is really very little evidence linking storm activity to global warming. First of all historically storms are worse when the earth is cold than warm hence why the Medieval warm period helped out so much. Also the number of storms is not increasing, just our ability to find and record them. this can be seen by the fact that major storms in the record have not gone up at all in the last hundred years.
By not building new nuclear power plants, we won't have to get rid of as many. Given 55 years of engineering on the project, the geniuses at the major research labs around the world have still not figured out what to do with all that lethal waste. You can't even make one run without government subsidies, you retards.
Milo, you are a liar! Me thinks that you are a professional hack for the wind/solar industry.
Why not take all the subsidies away from all forms of power generation and see which one dissapear first. My bet is Wind and solar would be gone in a week. While Nuke, coal and gas would persist forever.
Nuclear gets 1.65cents/kwth the nuclear industry is making plenty of money.Around the world their building many reactors in China,Canada,Finland,France,India,Brazil,Argentina to name a few and hopefully will start in the states as well.We know how to manage the waste theres actually two engineered methods we could recycle and ventrification like the French and others are already doing.Nothing againts solar or wind but we need nuclear to get off our dependecy of coal and petrulium
I agree but I still oppose it in my country for pragmatic reasons. We are the most Densely populated country in Europe, it would be retarded not to do some basic risk managing (plant them all in Norway, Sweden and Spain).
What difference does that make? You only need a few hundred acres for a nuke plant versus thousands of square miles for wind and solar, and you would still need the same space for coal powered power plants.
Chernobyl affected us all the way here in the Netherlands. Cheap risk management seems like an obvious thing to me. And I don't see why not. Nuclear power should be controlled from an EU level. It's not the space I'm worried about. There is still a slight risk. Also it would be easier to store radioactive waste in low populated areas.
What effects? To my knowledge cancer rates are no higher anywhere in Europe than they are in the United States or Canada.
Atomic power is supervised and monitored by the IAEA, which is part of the UN and even bigger than the EU. Besides, good luck talking the French out of their nukes.
I didn't say that cancer rates where higher here (I really wouldn't know) I do know however that Radioactive particles spread over the entire west European continent, the concentrations were probably to low to do any real damage but that's how far it got. If you Google it you may find a satellite illustration. What it all comes down to is that I'm not against nuclear but I do think it's reasonable to exclude the reactors to low populated areas.
Got a fire alarm? Know that there is radioactive waste in it?
Uranium comes from the ground and is very common, so all the concrete used to make you city, all of the gasoline burning in your car, and all the coal burning in power plants is releasing radioactive Uranium. Radiation has always been all around you, an extra part per billion is not going to hurt you.
I know you don't mean this literally but Coal, Gas and even Nuke would NOT persist forever. Solar and wind would come a few billion years closer to that goal. The fact is you end up paying for the pollution of Coal and oil that's why it so cheap to produce since the producers don't have to pay for the damage they inflict the (future) tax payers and private citizens happily bend over for the bill.
For all practical purposes, fission fuels like Uranium, Plutonium and Thorium will last forever, several thousand years at least, 5 million years at most. Fusion will be a reality long before we run out of fission fuel.
Solar and wind run out every time the sun's not shining or the wind is not blowing.
You could beat that by building a buffer (artificial lake with varying water levels and hydroelectric power or something like that). There is such a proposal over here. What it all comes down to is that more investments need to be made or the polluters should pay for the damage they indirectly inflict. Which would be a carbon tax. But that sounds SCARY:o
Because they are not entirely risk free and we still have no good way to get rid of the radioactive waste. We could dump it securely somewhere but with the stuff remaining dangerous for hundreds of years who could ensure the politically stable situation for it to remain safe in say 200 years into the future?
Cynanide is far more deadly than radioactive waste, so are several other chemical compounds, why go through the hassle of making a dirty bomb out of old waste when you could use a chemical or biological agent with greater success and less hassle. Just because?
How about the United States or Australia. We would make an ideal nuclear waste dump, seriously we would.
Penn and Teller are ENTERTAINERS who have built their reputation on half truths and shock value sold as a cable TV Show-- appropriately called BullSH-T. Very appropriate.If you are one to simply believe what they say without doing good research, you've been fooled again.
Could you point out where we could use geothermal in the rest of europe? Anyway is not a probelm in briten, we have coal for 200 years lest burn that instead of clean nucler power and let the rest of the world go to war over oil. You people cannot tell nukes from atomic power.
In France hot water (1470 GWh/yr) is used in the Paris and Aquitaine sedimentary basins (from wells up to 1800 m deep and 45-85degrees C) to heat over 200,000 homes. Similar basins are found in Belgium (28 GWh/yr), Germany (about 800 GWh/yr and 50% more by 2000), Denmark (12.5 GWh/yr), the Netherlands and England, where heating systems like those in France are being tested.
Researchers have experimented with Hot Dry Rock projects in England, France and Germany to see if water pumped into hot dry rocks can be heated economically. Heat pumps are used now to extract largely geothermal heat from (5 to 10 degrees C) groundwater in Switzerland (964 GWh/yr), Sweden (267 GWh/yr), and other northern European countries. Parts of Switzerland, Germany, France and Austria have alpine geothermal spas like those in Eastern Europe.
Nuclear power is a joke and always has been. There is a good reason we don't build them any more. And it's not safety of waste storage, it's because they don't make any money unless tax payers foot the bill. And a private company won't build one unless it gets absolute NO FAULT YOU CAN'T SUE me insurance, which is absurd. Conservation would have saved us but we couldn't do that and the last glimmer of hope faded when Reagan entered office.
too bad uranium is running low and current discoveries wont last for more than a decade with current power plant use, because nuclear is a great source of energy!
Regarding uranium levels the UKENERGYREVIEW among others reported that rich uranium ore is going to be around for the "forseeable future".Also we now have breeder reactors that produce more fisile material than they consume and next generation reactors are far more efficient using less fuel.And we could recycle the waist like the french do, keep in mind that the "waist" still has 90% of their energy.
Uranium is underexplored and it's a tiny cost of the total cost of operating a reactor(I've heard numbers in the 5-7% range). Even at 10 times it's cost it would be competitive with coal if it were to pay for some of it's externalities and in places where better alternatives like renewables are too expensive.
If the price were to go up by a factor of 10, what happens?
It becomes affordable to extract vast quantities of uranium from sea water with ion exchangers; it becomes sensible to explore for more uranium and it gets profitable to mine lower concentration of uranium ore.
So you get a large growth of ultimately recoverable reserves.
Then there's the more expensive breeder reactors. The more advanced designs of which allow you to extract the plutonium togheter with the uranium from the fuel without separating them, and it can be done at the site(no proliferation hazzard).
Breeders can burn U-238 and thorium. We literally have enough fuel for millenia.
It's reasonable to assume that we'll be able to phase out fission in favor of much better technologies like fusion in such a time frame.
Nuclear powered submarines have been cruising around for a long time with very few problems. They're underwater for months at a time right next to a nuclear reactor and have no problems.
It is extremely difficult to discuss or share any information and knowledge we (both for and against) may have when uneducated people post insults and even curse anyone who disagrees with them. These polarizing tactics by insulting anyone who disagrees with your "position" show some who have posted can't stand on their 'facts'. Chernobyl killed and continues to sicken and kill a lot more "than 20 people",it's in the thousands.
Oh, and for all you hardcore hippies out there, the figure provided below for Nuclear and related CO2 emmisions takes into account CO2 produced in mining and enrichment of uranium and of course construction of the plant. Nuclear saves a lot more than carbon alone too!!!
Nuclear plants are also a lot safer than even 20 years ago. In a time when we need to meet growing energy demands and cut greenhouse gas emmisions, the choice is obvious.
There's some discussion about whether geothermal can be teamed up with coal power to act as CO2 sink. You use the flue gas as the working medium in the primary loop. Some substantial fraction of the CO2 would diffuse into the surrounding rock each time you pump it through.
Whether the CO2 will stay burried without without geological traps is an open question(e.g. oil and natural gas is found under impermeable rock that prevents it from leaking out at the surface).
You will have to cite the study. I can't find it.
The consensus figure for wind seems to be around 15gCO2/kWh. Figures for nuclear range from 9 to 22g/CO2/kWh. This would fit in with the figures you quoted further up this page, but not jplieges' figures.
So it would appear wind is comparable with nuclear, but with quicker construction, no toxic waste products and no concerns about security of fuel supply.
Actually,nuclear is 11-22 GCO2/KW and Wind uses 11-37GCO2/KW. But you cant compare Wind an intermittent source of electricity with nuclear a baseload steady power source. Wind is expensive, intermittent, and inappropriate for broad swaths of the United States. For example, wind turbines are virtually useless in the Southeast, where there is little wind. Even environmental activists are beginning to oppose wind projects because they kill birds, despoil landscapes, and ruin scenic views
Sadly, not the environmentalists in my home province of Ontario, who keep on harping about nuclear power to the point of wanting wind (which does work here, amazingly).
C'mon fella. Just because I'm against unfettered Nuke Nonsense... (and Mr. P is for it) then supposedly I'm a Coal lobbyist(?) That sorta ends up being a bit circuitous in the end, doesn't it?
So, in your mind there is only Nuke or Coal? I find it hard to believe you haven't been keeping up on the newest tech research with Photovoltaic cells, or wind power, or... or...
I can't find what you are responding to, but realistically, coal is the only other available option for generating the power we currently need. Solar and wind power are unfortunately decades out of practical application and much as you may hate coal or nuclear power, there are billions of people in the world who live in areas that desperately need development to keep up. We need to pursue our available options for clean energy and not get hung up by something better that may come in 20 years
Penn, Penn, Penn. What a tool you are. I've seen a lot of your shows (from NYC to San Francisco). Always admired your 'screw you' attitude. But don't fuck with my kids' future. Who writes this shit for you?
Yucca Mountain is the most studied piece of real estate on the planet. ALL studies conducted have concluded that the site is well suited for waste disposal. The "USGS internal documents" are memos sent among employees who expressed skepticism. The hundreds of studies should allay any skepticism. The USGS has certified the site as geologically stable and suitable for waste disposal.
It is stored in Yuka mountain. Solar and wind and all that crap cant power the damn country. Hybrids create battery waste and spill acid in accidents(yes I have seen it myself).
You are a moron if you belive that nuclear plants can explode like nuclear warheads. And the fallout is extremaly limited compared to nuclear missle sites.
"Yuka" Mountain is Yucca Mountain, near Las Vegas, and cannot hold but a fraction of all the High Level Rad Waste from the l04 existing Reactors. And then their is the hazardous "low level" Rad Waste, that includes elements of "High Level RW.
The Chernobyl Reactor in Russia DID in FACT "EXPLODE" and sent a highly hazardous radioactive cloud of Rad elements around the earth.
And Chernobyl was a russian reactor that was flawed. The Chernobyl "argument" is invalid, the russians did not folow SOP and had no accountability on safety. The reactors built in the US are far superior and the safety control/record is FAR better. To compare one of first designed reactors to the control systems and designs today is flat out ignorant.
The chernobyl incident incurred about 20 or so casualities, which is less than the number of people killed by coal pollution every year. The surrounding area was evacuated, but some people still live in the quarantined area and only suffer minimal negative health effects. Wildlife has thrived in the area due to the lack of human habitation, and no apreaciable enviromental damage has been detected.
No, 50 or so liquidators died from chernobyl. Between 4000 and 50 000 people will ultimately die from the chernobyl accident by any serious study I've seen.
It does not pay to flat out lie, like this. Because when you're called on it you diminish the credibility of any cause you're fighting for.
I'm pro nuclear as a replacement for at the very least coal and older plants. And I hereby disassociate myself from you entirely.
The Federal Govt in the past did give free enriched uranium fuel to Utilities.
The reality of economics of nuclear energy is federal subsidies that support costs related to supplying, building, or operating nuclear plants; nuclear power R&D; and nuclear waste management. Basically, consumers end up footing almost all the bill for nuclear energy, either as utility ratepayers or as taxpayers.
Free Uranium Fuel Assemblies to Nuclear Electric Companies from the Gov't is
a great big subsidy.
The AEC and DOE (same agency) gave encouragement and help for big companies to build Nuclear Plants so they could get the Plutonium for Nuclear Warheads. This is well documented in History. The so called "Atoms for Peace" was a subterfuge for the Govt to get Private Companies to make Bomb grade Plutonium for them
DoE and DoD produced their own plutonium in fast breeder reactors at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, and other sites. The government only very recently started to have tritium produced at Watts Bar 1 (which is owned by TVA--a government agency). It's all their own money.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Nuclear Power Plants have always been subsidized.
In El Paso, Texas where I live, El Paso Electric Company owns 20% of the Triple l250 MGW Palo Verde Reactors. El Paso Electric has the highest electric rates in Texas because of their investment, it bankrupted the utility l0 years after they bought in.
Nuclear Power would never survive in the open market without subsidies. Why do they need a guaranteed loan by the Govt?
Nuclear plants would take the market over decades ago, would the market be open and free. That is, would the plain field be even. Would the fossil industry not be exempted by EPA regulations and not allowed to dump the hazardous fossil fuel waste into out atmosphere freely.
Running nuclear reactors are actually NOT subsidized. They pay a lot in taxes, though. What Greenpiss and others claim as nuke subsidies are things such as fusion research, nuclear medicine research etc.
Nuclear Power is the most expensive technology mankind has ever come up with to boil water.
No Nuclear Power Plant in the US would have ever been built without huge US gov't subsidies and Government mandated Liability protection via the Price - Anderson Act.
These massive subsidies continue, promoted by the Bush Administration, including Government loan Guarantees to construct new Nuke power plants.
Bullshit, loan guarantees are not a subsidy, but a loan guarantees. How much more clear could it be? All the clean air energy production technology were eligible, but not nuclear. Now nuclear is eligible as well.
Your comment about expensive tehcnology to boil water just shows you dont know a shit about energy production. Nuclear is the cheapest scalable and stable way of producing technology, which does not rely on carbon fuel combustion.
Damn straight - loizzzz says it all. Libs are so freaked over the nuke stuff. But they don't protest Iran getting one - even if it's used to kill us all. Libs thrive on being scared of EVERYTHING - humans are all bad and we all deserve to die because we use Nuke for energy. Yet libs have no problem using the very things they hate. Hippos.
Its okay if Iran has one b/c they hate the US and Iseral(just like the libs). You know damn well that if Isreal was going nuclear for all its power they would throw a hissy fit(but when do they not?). They just thrive on blind anger.
Damn Hippies, stop hateing everything that is progress. I hate nuclear bombs as much as they do, but nuclear power come on, its safe, dosen't give off CO2, and you know what we have a shit load of Uranium pretty much everywhere in the world. So why not, just build reactors that are built on a premiss of a failsafe, if anything goes wrong it just shuts down naturally. Then you don't have to worry about human error or a falty shut down mechanism.
The comfort of ignorance! No greenhouse gas in operation but loads in commissioning & in fuel production! Loads of Uranium? Maybe 40 years worth for current reactors. Failsafe? How? If it isn't manual it's automated & if it's automated then faults will occur. Nuclear opponents aren't "Hippies" & don't oppose progress they embrace new technologies like solar pv and ultracapacitors more than the old nuclear reactionaries.
Actually, according to a study by the OECD(organization for economic co-operation and development) including the whole cycle of mining and processing uranium nuclear energy have 11-22 GCO2/KW where GCO2 is grams of CO2.That is lower than coal,natural gas,biomass and wind.Wind uses 11-37GCO2/KW, apparantly to build and transport all those wind mills you get a bigger carbon footprint than nuclear.I recomend you google it.
Regarding uranium levels the UKENERGYREVIEW among others reported that rich uranium ore is going to be around for the "forseeable future".Also we now have breeder reactors that produce more fisile material than they consume and next generation reactors are far more efficient using less fuel.And we could recycle the waist like the french do, keep in mind that the "waist" still has 90% of their energy.
Security is actually one of the strong points, as the nuclear industry has a safety record that any industry would envy.Also why not take a look at what France is doing, they get 80% of their energy from nuclear as a result they have the cleanest air in the industralized world and the cheapest energy bill in europe they actually export energy to England,Germany and Italy.
Nuclear opponents may not be hippies but they are hypocrites and dilusional in thinking renewables alone can make a difference regarding Global Warming.Nuclear provides 20% of our energy renewables are in the low single digits so it doesnt matter if we double,triple,quadruple renewables share it wont make a difference mainly because energy demand will grow by 50% by 2020.
Also Jesse Ausubel(one of the main oraganizer of the first UN world climate conference) from Rockefeller University came to conclusion that renewable will wreck the enviroment afer a study that measures how much land it will use by how energy is produced.Also we are not going to build the same reactors as your comment seem to assume Nuclear Technology has advanced tremendously.
Renewables are by nature an opportunistic thing and not sensible everywhere.
Geothermal CHP and hydro in Iceland meets their entire electricity demand and 80% of the heating. Denmark gets 25% of it's power from wind. Sweden gets 50% of it's power from hydro(and 45% nuclear).
It makes economical sense in those particular locations and diversification is a good hedge against any potential problems with the uranium, coal or natural gas supply chain.
"renewables are in the low single digits...it wont make a difference"
So your argument is: We're currently not investing in and taking advantage of renewable energy compared to other energy sources, so we should just stop. Am I getting that right? Because it sounds like a really terrible argument if I'm correct.
Not quite.I like renewable sources but I disagree that they alone can help us stop building more coal plants, thus, contributing to Global warming.I'm especially annoyed when people cant get over their presumptions about nuclear power and see the real benefits this technology can bring us, in particular, the new modern reactors.
I did not specify CO2 I said "greenhouse gas" and both fluorine & chlorine are used extensively for uranium production. Also the 2006 UK POST study shows that future carbon lifecycle cost for hydro & wind will be less than nuclear.
Dude, there's still thorium, which can also be used for reactors in place of uranium. Maybe instead of letting a crappy so-called 'A' movie like The China Syndrome misinform you, you and everybody else in the movement might want to take a step back and THINK FOR YOURSELVES about nuclear power rather than have somebody else dictate your opinion for you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
How unfortunate that you can only undertake ad hominem attacks in defence of an unnecessary and outdated technology. I suggest that you should read some of the independent critiques of nuclear power - as I have - before publicising your views. Nuclear is not simply unneccesary it is economically unviable.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Cleanest - what about the end product and ghg output through uranium processing? Who said we should use coal instead - not me. There is considerably more renewable energy available to us than we could ever consume. As I said economically unviable and unnecessary.
Yeah-as 'independent' as the people whose minds have already been made up, and can't see past their hatred of nuclear power. Sorry dude, but I want to think for myself on this issue, and I've already heard a bellyful of screeds from the environmental movement about how nuclear power is the work of the devil to listen to you now. And oh, by the way, one of the founders of Greenpeace AND Al Gore have been on record as stating that they support nuclear power.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Clearly you do not wish to "think for yourself" or you would not have tried citing "from authority" at the end. Do You have a vested interest or have not seen the full business case examined. There will be no companies vying to build plants without massive government (ie taxpayer) support. That is unnecessary with renewable technolgies and their cyle time (from plan to operation) is much quicker and their deployment scale is more flexible. As I said Dud - unviable and unnecessary.
Ok all the people bringing up Japan how many people died from that compared to the earthquake and tsunami combined?
EMH204 1 week ago
Wow, this video resurfacing after the Japan incident really sheds a whole new light on it doesn't it?
Willcollective 3 months ago
FUKUSHIMA!
Ok, asshole, global warming is bullshit. Penn and Teller YOU are bullshit! You are establishment motherfuckers. There are much safer nuclear power plants, LFTR plants to be exact. But, you would never promote those or even mention them on your show because the establishment to which you belong knows that they can't get bomb material for nuclear bombs from LFTR reactors to blackmail the rest of the planet with. You Suck. Even Hippies are better then YOU.
JasonDamisch 9 months ago
Once they come up with a permanent solution to getting rid of all those nasty spent fuel rods that are stacking up in cooling pools I might be for the expansion of nuclear energy, but untill then, no thanks.
FreeWater9 1 year ago
@FreeWater9 Look at France, those so called nasty spent fuel rods go through reprocessing and in turn are made into more fuel. Where here in America they would rather spend our hard earned tax payers money on these so called scrubbers which use lime to lower carbon emissions into the air but what they don't tell you is that they are actually more dangerous and even look up the process off mining the lime. The big wigs use politics to keep us from nuclear energy, but why?
revoltncock 1 year ago
Lets put the first new nuke plant on Manhattan and those new oil derricks off the Hamptons. Lets see how popular they are then.
arionthelovepoet 1 year ago
@arionthelovepoet nuclear is far more green than coal. Also it is a cheaper form of energy, my father works for our local power plant as a chemist and I hear about their efforts in creating less pollution all the time, when they are actually creating more pollution. It is just a big political fiasco going on and were victim to the news and propaganda. My father was also an environmentalist for 12 years so I know he has a very unbiased opinion. Just look at Frances' nuclear plants.
revoltncock 1 year ago
Nuclear energy is probably the best source of energy there is! A compact source that can dish out huge amounts of power and does not emit CO2. In addition, the "waste" is really only another source of energy, as it can be reprocess and burn as fuel.
andresfusion 1 year ago 2
@andresfusion you are grossly mistaken, Solar - Geothermal - OTEC Energy Conversion is the "Best" source of Energy (Which is Nuclear Fusion 93,000,000 Miles away Might I add)
Ignorance and Indifference KILLS, Hence Chernobyl and Japan.
If it was up to this fat fuck and indifferent-ignorent people like yourself we'd still be slaughtering whales for their blubber and Edison's DC Power would of won instead of Nikola Tesla's Alternating Current which we currently use today. You're all in Dark Ages
sn1pe352 7 months ago
Tell this to Japan
sn1pe352 7 months ago
And you're nothing but an extremist fanatic.
Neville6000 2 years ago
got nothing against nuclear power, do not want more nukes but nothing wrong with the power and supper clean the new one in Canada is awesome and we learned from Chernobyl....don't F*cking do what they did.
whydid666 2 years ago
Big fan of penn and teller and a fan of clean, safe, and cheap nuclear power
menacingfox 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
gee, If only it were any of those things
BeondaPale 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think Penn should move next to a nuclear plant.
guidi2005 2 years ago
++++++++++
Ok for the record a housemate of mine was using this computer, and hence my Youtube profile. He didn't ask me (and probably didn't realize) that he was making big statements on my behalf.
I think nuclear is an ok option for now, but may take the pressure off developing better long term solutions that have a larger more immediate economical cost.
I will have an opinion when I research it properly. Look at my back spring vids, that's what I made a profile for. +++++++
jplieges 3 years ago
the guys who criticize are the ones who don't understand even a bit of physics. they get their information right from their ass
shaansmsm 3 years ago
Anyway, thanks to the Anti-nuclear movement we are dealing with BILLIONS of tons of CO2 and THOUSANDS of tons of URANIUM and THORIUM being released DIRECTLY into our atmosphere by coal power (Uranium and Thorium are naturally occuring, and as such is all over the place). Guess how much of this damage coal is liable for? Zero million dollars. Thanks a lot anti-nuclear hippies. Greenpeace really shows contempt for the public, they exploit people's fear about nuclear. They are fools.
NorskeDivision 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is simply nonsense.
BigBarney462 3 years ago
hippie!
HeartlessGorre 3 years ago 12
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The next Chernobyl type disaster could be caused by an earth quake, a terrorist attack, human error, tsunami, or something not yet imagined. The separate risks for each of these must be added together. The risk is not zero. The down side of this risk is a very large number which must be put into a mathematical formula along with the numerical risk. If you do this properly, you must come to the conclussion that we must build no more nuclear power plants.
bimmjim 3 years ago
I agree bimmjim...if there was a nuclear disaster in a Canadian reactor the owner would be on the hook for a mere $75 million in damages. Everything above and beyond that would be the responsibility of the Canadian government, i.e. the Canadian taxpayer. This is what I mean by corporate welfare. Nuclear power is a scam...
bikenik 3 years ago
No, it couldn't. Nuclear reactors are tested for terrorist attacks, terrorists would need to fly 747 from above at high speed (such that the impact force is not deflected). Israel bombed two Iraqi nuclear plants back in the 1980s, not significant radiation release, so any fear mongering about terrorist attacks is just idiotic. Chernobyl simply cannot happen with a US or Canadian reactor design, because it has a containment dome which has multiple levels of seperation.
NorskeDivision 3 years ago
Several reactors are engineered to safely shut down in the case of major earth movement and are designed to withstand earthquakes. Reactors that are even built under sea level have a built in seal container which safely locks and shuts down the reactor. Your looking pretty fucking dumb so far, and Norske already discredited the terrorist BS. and with human error dude, not every fucking engineer at a reactor is like Homer simpson so just STFU.
blueshrooms 3 years ago 2
so fuck you bimmjim/bikenik and any other hippy fuck eager to jump on something they dont know about.
blueshrooms 3 years ago 2
That's because the Iraqi were NOT IN OPERATION YET. The 70-megawatt uranium-powered reactor was NEAR completion but had not been stocked with nuclear fuel so there was no danger of a leak
SOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Any CONCLUSION you can draw from the attack about terrorist attacks is just idiotic.
And you are either ignorant or a liar
BeondaPale 3 years ago
I think we can reject that claim flat on it's face.
I think people need to wrap their head around the fact that the build of a nuclear power plant is not like a nuclear bomb, even if something exploded inside the plant, there wouldn't be a huge mushroom cloud that would kill thousands of people. Look up the containment design in a plant, and you'll see that it's not like there is danger at every turn for another Cherynoble (which is an exaggerated accident anyway).
Jazzguitar00 3 years ago
HaHa...Competitive Enterprise Institute? There is nothing "competitive" about nuclear energy.
Without massive government subsidies nuclear energy would have been abandoned years ago.
Wall Street will not finance nuclear energy nor will they insure it - its deemed to be too risky and too expensive, they leave it to government.
Nuclear Energy is a corporate welfare program brought to you by your federal government.
bikenik 3 years ago
What do you expect? Penn & Teller are comedians. They think everything is a joke. Yes .. you ... Shut the fuck up.
milofonbil 3 years ago
HAHAHAHAHA "oooh i am so afraid of nuclear bombs" hahahahahahahahaah PENN YOUR KING! HAhahahahhahahahah
Novosti86 3 years ago
Also check out news stories surrounding the three gorges dam. It forever changes how more people live than Chernobyl could ever hope to. TWO POINT THREE MILLION people were forced out of their homes to make way for the artificial lake. If it collapsed all the people who depend on that lake would have drastically different lives. All the farmers downstream would have to deal with the sudden release of huge amounts of collected pollution from the silt. Sorry, you're simply wrong.
NorskeDivision 3 years ago
"compare a hydro-electric dam bursts to a nuclear incident is disingenuous at best"
Only because you insist on comparing which has longer lasting effects, instead of the number of deaths caused. The effects of Chernobyl, radioactivity included, have and will kill fewer people since the failure and over the next 10,000 years than a failure like Banqiao Dam, which permanently alters the landscape and causes ecological havoc.
NorskeDivision 3 years ago
How can you POSSIBLY KNOW what will happen over the next 10,000 years??? you can't - OF COURSE. Any conclusion you make based on future events after everyone on the planet and their distant decedents are dead is absolutely ABSURD on its face
-- therefore your whole argument is total BS
BeondaPale 3 years ago
descendants
BeondaPale 3 years ago
For " Vearrow", "NorskeDivision" or anyone else to compare a hydro-electric dam bursts to a nuclear incident is disingenuous at best.
The burst of a dam is a single event - people drown, crisis over.
Poisons from nuclear incidents PERSIST and force fundamental change in the way people must now carry on with their lives and has the ability to change even the people THEMSELVES.
This is a truism. It cannot be disputed. Trying to dispute it is like trying to dispute 2+2=4
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Chernobyl released 100 times more radiation than Hiroshima AND Nagasaki COMBINED. Chernobyl was also fundamentally different than the single event, nuclear bombs that went off in those two cities. Radiation from Chernobyl persists and will continue to persist.
Strontium, cesium and iodine are also extremely poisonous in themselves. The Dust form of these heavy metals are well known to be deadly.
For "galaktar" or anyone else to say the area is safe is either ignorant or blatantly dishonest.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Have you ever been camping? Probably not, because then you'd have to use an iodine pill to make stream water potable. Iodine is also used (amazingly) as an anti-radiation medication. I'm sure there is an unsafe level of iodine consumption, but theres probably an unsafe level of corn flake consumption also. I haven't researched strontium or cesium yet, so ill get back to you on those.
galaktar 3 years ago
Tell ya what genius, empty a bottle of iodine on your cornflakes tomorrow morning and go to town.
--- See that little sign on the bottle? The one with the skull and crossbones over it? The one WARNING you that it's a DEADLY poison?
...Well just never mind all that.
Do that and I GUARANTEE that our conversation will come to abrupt end.
Again, you're either a moron or a liar. You just don't give a damn which one you are.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Ok, strontium is used in fireworks and road flares, and is also used to image bone abnormalities. Cesium/Caesium is used in IR lamps, satellite ion engines, and (incredibly) solar cells. Again, these "evil chemicals" are only hazardous ingested in huge quantities.
galaktar 3 years ago
"Again, these "evil chemicals" are only hazardous ingested in huge quantities."
On what peer reviewed studies are you relying on to POSIT or HYPOTHESIZE that either strontium OR cesium is only dangerous in high quantities?
Oh... NONE? You mean your just a clown CLAIMING knowledge with no real proof and using as "evidence" that because a substance is used in the manufacture of a product that all humans can therefore consume it or breath it in on a daily basis???
Where do you liars come from?
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Firstly, I haven't seen you reference anything at all. ever. Secondly, I know that you shouldn't go around eating these chemicals. You also shouldn't go around pretending that everything is like VX. Deadly even if you look at it.
galaktar 3 years ago
The original argument was whether the area around Chernobyl was safe to inhabit now. My position was no and your position was yes.
Never have I said that any of these chemicals were dangerous if you look at them (except perhaps when they are still highly radioactive). My point was that the strontium, cesium, iodine and heavy metal dusts in and around Chernobyl exist in such high concentrations that living there is unsafe.
I honestly don't see how you can disagree.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Yeah but then again I don't make sweeping, wholly unsupported, BS statements like
"these "evil chemicals" are only hazardous ingested in huge quantities"
When I have NO IDEA what the hell I'm talking about
Face it - you pulled this out your behind.
BeondaPale 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is a place in Ukraine with a 30km radius where NO HUMAN can be allowed to go for the next 600 to 1000 years. The Russians were SURE that nuclear power was the answer. Chernobyl proved them wrong
And not just wrong NOW, but wrong until the next MILLENNIUM. Over that time millions will suffer and die of cancer and genetic mutation due to their arrogance and folly.
Are pro-nuke people so sure of the total infallibility of this technology that they are willing to risk this AGAIN?
BeondaPale 3 years ago
WRONG WRONG wrongity WRONG. Chernobyl is perfectly safe to live in (not inside the reactor mind you) but the town is perfectly safe for anything to live in. Wildlife has returned to the area and is flourishing. Humans are only absent because of government mandate.
galaktar 3 years ago
WRONG wrongity WRONG. Unless you are one of those rare suicidal individuals that LIKE breathing in Cesium-137 or living in an area with CONSTANT low level radiation. Perhaps you are not aware that even the smallest amounts of radiation can cause genetic damage leading to cancer, leukemia or birth defects.
Scientists are now STUDYING the nature in the exclusion zone but BY NO MEANS do they consider the area safe for human habitation.
Now go play in traffic - you seem to like living dangerously
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Unless you live in a world without sunlight, you will experience "low level" radiation regardless. The History channel recently had a show about a world without people, where they examined Chernobyl after 20 years of human absence. All of the people in the documentary walked around without protective gear for extended periods of time. It IS perfectly safe regardless of whether or not you believe it is.
galaktar 3 years ago
doesnt the rain water remove or do something to it? to make it less potent?
nissanR92CP 3 years ago
if radioactive materials are dispersed, or less concentrated, the potential harm they can inflict diminishes respectively, this is one of the reasons that Chernobyl didn't cause the massive casualties that some predicted. Although the radioactive material was spread over a lot of land, its concentration away from the reactor decreased exponentially with the area that it covered. Yes though, rain water can help disperse the material or remove it from the air.
galaktar 3 years ago
"Unless you live in a world without sunlight, you will experience "low level" radiation regardless."
Low level is a RELATIVE TERM... Are you REALLY trying to tell us that the radiation in the exclusion zone is no higher than any where else?
"All of the people in the documentary walked around without protective gear for extended periods of time."
This, OF COURSE, is a far cry from LIVING THERE.
Let me get this straight, your main source of accumulated knowledge is the HISTORY CHANNEL?????
BeondaPale 3 years ago
Do people live in Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Yes it was radioactive. No it isn't anymore. If you somehow find a way inside the concrete dome covering the failed reactor in Chernobyl you will probably be in trouble, but thats a bit like saying that hydroelectric power is unsafe if you jump off the dam, or tidal generators are dangerous if there are sharks.
galaktar 3 years ago
In the past 50 years, more people throughout the world have been killed by the failure of HydroElectric dams than have died from nuclear power plants. The fallout from a dam break seems deadlier than the fallout of a nucluear reactor failure.
Vearrow 3 years ago
Do HydroElectric dams leave entire regions uninhabitable for 1000 years when and if they fail?
Do HydroElectric dams cause cancer or monsterous birth defects and genetic mutations and deformities that could be inherited from generation to generation?
In the last 50 years, how many people have died from HydroElectric dams failing?
Do you actually KNOW the answers to these simple questions or are you just making stuff up as you go?
BeondaPale 3 years ago
"Entire regions uninhabitable?"
There's one single example of that, and even Chernobyl, which was a disaster waiting to happen without a containment dome. People are again living not far away.
Hydroelectric dams have caused many deaths. Right now a major one might collapse in Mosul. The Three Gorges dam is unstable. In 1963 1,700 people died in Italy after a dam collapse. 86,000 people died after the Banqiao dam collapse.
NorskeDivision 3 years ago
haha he said newclear, its pronounced nucular
ZeehulkRee 3 years ago
fuck hippes go mike huk
lastopher7 4 years ago
fuck hippes, fuck you!!! PEACE
freeyourmind4202 3 years ago
wats rong wit me
lastopher7 3 years ago
Nuclear power is safe. Safer than Oil.
TAKENnameARGH 4 years ago 2
I'm more afraid of the mercury in CFL's
bcatatonic 4 years ago
While I agree with the premise the "competitive enterprise institute" is the biggest load of shit there is. A BS libertarian bunch of wankers serving up some of the biggest BS there is.
"carbon dioxide they call it pollution, we call it life"- CEI ad
Give me a fucking break.
jpbalkenende 4 years ago
There is no proof that CO2 has any adverse effects on the Earth, and plenty of proof that it is a ferilizer. Commercial greenhouses burn propane to increase the CO2 in the green house. Even the IPCC predicts more abundant crops as a result of incresed levels of CO2. Its hardly a pollutant outside of Global Warming Theory, which is still a theory.
hahajohnnyb 4 years ago
Only on a very temporary basis and after that drought will decrease productivity. But before that floods and storms will wreak havoc. Global warming is not just a theory it's a scientific theory. Are you by any chance creationist? That greenhouses are used to grow crops in colder climates is also completely irrelevant if we're talking about the entire planet. A warmer climate =/ higher crops productivity and you as well as the farmers in the Sahara know this but you'd rather mislead us.
jpbalkenende 4 years ago
Greenhouses in Costa Rica and Equador pump up the CO2 in their green houses too. Its not about temperture, its about the fact that plants do better with much higher levels of CO2.
No one knows what Global Warming will cause, but fossil evidence suggests that life flourished in a warmer climate with higher levels of CO2. Predictions of more severe weather are supposed based on computer models. Notice how they says droughts OR floods? Hell they cannot miss!
hahajohnnyb 4 years ago
Life may flourish but we're the establishment. And change is rarely good for the establishment. We built our infrastructure around the current climate, current weather patterns and current sea levels. And again I feel you're being somewhat disingenuous. The scientists are saying something that isn't that hard to understand: Dry places will get drier and wet places will get wetter. This is also the reason why it may snow more in some wet places that still endure sub freezing temperatures.
jpbalkenende 4 years ago
Isn't that nice? Its hot and dry in the desert, Global Warming. It wet in the rain forest, Global Warming. Its snowing around the Great Lakes, Global Warming!
Question is, how do they know? Last I checked they can't predict the weather beyond 5 days with any accuracy. Wouldn't be be suckers to believe that they know what will happen in 100 years?
hahajohnnyb 4 years ago
Additionally, we are humans. We have been able to adapt to live in every climate on Earth, and we have survived numerous climate changes in the past. Humans did not cause past climate changes, yet the climate has changed in the past, but suddenly we are supposed to beileve that this one is different and its our fault!
Never mind that most global warming gasses are created by nature and mankinds contribution is minimal.
P.T. Barnum was right, there is a sucker born every minute.
hahajohnnyb 4 years ago
Also, predicting the future is NOT science, its speculation. The same people who have made these radical statements about how climate change might effect the weather, are the same ones who said 2006 and 2007 would be the worst hurricane seasons ever, results: Not so much. Seriously, a psychic or a moron could have produced better results.
These computer models they use cannot predict yesterdays weather with known variables! They are worthless and meaningless right now.
hahajohnnyb 4 years ago
Yeah but at the end of the day preventing is going to be more cost effective than adapting. Both in lives and money. Also we produce a large % of the net CO2 production. Normally the CO2 levels are balanced because the CO2 that gets produced naturally is captured naturally. But we're adding a little extra something because we are vaporizing huge carbon storages that have been under the surface for hundreds of millions of years. That net production accumulates over the years.
jpbalkenende 4 years ago 2
Says who? The same idiots who cannot predict yesterdays weather! Plant life would do best if we could triple the CO2 levels to around 1000 PPM.
Humans are responsible for very little CO2 compared to the oceans or nature, and increased CO2 levels are a good thing. More plants=more life.
hahajohnnyb 4 years ago
you know something funny, the CO levels have risen 40% but over the last 150 years less than four percent of CO2 is man made which means that the vast majority of this increase is natural. And also, nature is not as perfect and balanced as people believe.
bigbob512 3 years ago
No you idiot... CO2 is a closed system nature discards it and absorbs it. The net increase of CO2 should be zero. But we tip the scales thus it gradually increases over 150 years to a much larger number then whatever it is we cause on a yearly basis. What your saying is kind of like saying: "The budget deficit is 400 billion YET we have a 10 trillion debt! That means it's not our unbalanced budget that is to blame!"
jpbalkenende 3 years ago 2
Weather gets more extreme basically. And yes you can't always win with that statement because weather doesn't always become more extreme. And I know it's going to be hotter in summer than it is today even if I can't predict the weather further ahead than x days. Making large rough projections is far easier and far more accurate and basically has nothing to do with meteorological weather forecasts.
jpbalkenende 4 years ago
Thats the heart of the scam. Weather would not get more extreme, if the most of the warming is at the poles, since weather is caused by convection between hot and cold. The more balanced the global temperture, the milder the weather, not the more extreme.
You are being lied to.
hahajohnnyb 4 years ago
Are you stupid?
You need to read about the science and then have an opinion that at least could be supported by evidence. What you've said above is the kind of comment that an 11 year old might come out with. Are you 11?
You are getting confused by your own obviously limited understanding of the evidence, just read a bit and get educated.
I wouldn't be surprised if you think it's all a conspiracy.
yodod 4 years ago
Wow! Personal insults, how about that?
What I said is the truth. Weather is caused by convection between hot and cold, thats a well known scientific fact.
Perhaps you are the one who needs to be educated? Who says that its not a conspiracy? After all Globally Temperatures are cooling.
hahajohnnyb 4 years ago
There is really very little evidence linking storm activity to global warming. First of all historically storms are worse when the earth is cold than warm hence why the Medieval warm period helped out so much. Also the number of storms is not increasing, just our ability to find and record them. this can be seen by the fact that major storms in the record have not gone up at all in the last hundred years.
bigbob512 3 years ago
By not building new nuclear power plants, we won't have to get rid of as many. Given 55 years of engineering on the project, the geniuses at the major research labs around the world have still not figured out what to do with all that lethal waste. You can't even make one run without government subsidies, you retards.
milofonbil 4 years ago
Milo, you are a liar! Me thinks that you are a professional hack for the wind/solar industry.
Why not take all the subsidies away from all forms of power generation and see which one dissapear first. My bet is Wind and solar would be gone in a week. While Nuke, coal and gas would persist forever.
hahajohnnyb 4 years ago
I'm not a professional hack. Call me what you want, I'm just an environmentally conscious guy.
Since wind and solar hardly get any subsidies, start taking them away from nuclear, coal and oil.
milofonbil 4 years ago
Nuclear gets 1.65cents/kwth the nuclear industry is making plenty of money.Around the world their building many reactors in China,Canada,Finland,France,India,Brazil,Argentina to name a few and hopefully will start in the states as well.We know how to manage the waste theres actually two engineered methods we could recycle and ventrification like the French and others are already doing.Nothing againts solar or wind but we need nuclear to get off our dependecy of coal and petrulium
andresfusion 4 years ago
I agree but I still oppose it in my country for pragmatic reasons. We are the most Densely populated country in Europe, it would be retarded not to do some basic risk managing (plant them all in Norway, Sweden and Spain).
jpbalkenende 4 years ago
What difference does that make? You only need a few hundred acres for a nuke plant versus thousands of square miles for wind and solar, and you would still need the same space for coal powered power plants.
hahajohnnyb 4 years ago
Chernobyl affected us all the way here in the Netherlands. Cheap risk management seems like an obvious thing to me. And I don't see why not. Nuclear power should be controlled from an EU level. It's not the space I'm worried about. There is still a slight risk. Also it would be easier to store radioactive waste in low populated areas.
jpbalkenende 4 years ago
What effects? To my knowledge cancer rates are no higher anywhere in Europe than they are in the United States or Canada.
Atomic power is supervised and monitored by the IAEA, which is part of the UN and even bigger than the EU. Besides, good luck talking the French out of their nukes.
hahajohnnyb 4 years ago
I didn't say that cancer rates where higher here (I really wouldn't know) I do know however that Radioactive particles spread over the entire west European continent, the concentrations were probably to low to do any real damage but that's how far it got. If you Google it you may find a satellite illustration. What it all comes down to is that I'm not against nuclear but I do think it's reasonable to exclude the reactors to low populated areas.
jpbalkenende 4 years ago
Got a fire alarm? Know that there is radioactive waste in it?
Uranium comes from the ground and is very common, so all the concrete used to make you city, all of the gasoline burning in your car, and all the coal burning in power plants is releasing radioactive Uranium. Radiation has always been all around you, an extra part per billion is not going to hurt you.
hahajohnnyb 4 years ago
These idiots won't listen to you, however. They just keep on saying the same thing over and over and....
Neville6000 2 years ago
I know you don't mean this literally but Coal, Gas and even Nuke would NOT persist forever. Solar and wind would come a few billion years closer to that goal. The fact is you end up paying for the pollution of Coal and oil that's why it so cheap to produce since the producers don't have to pay for the damage they inflict the (future) tax payers and private citizens happily bend over for the bill.
jpbalkenende 4 years ago
For all practical purposes, fission fuels like Uranium, Plutonium and Thorium will last forever, several thousand years at least, 5 million years at most. Fusion will be a reality long before we run out of fission fuel.
Solar and wind run out every time the sun's not shining or the wind is not blowing.
hahajohnnyb 4 years ago
You could beat that by building a buffer (artificial lake with varying water levels and hydroelectric power or something like that). There is such a proposal over here. What it all comes down to is that more investments need to be made or the polluters should pay for the damage they indirectly inflict. Which would be a carbon tax. But that sounds SCARY:o
jpbalkenende 4 years ago
How much land do you want to flood? How much do you want to spend? How much are you willing to spend for energy?
Point being is why do any of it when we have an infinite supply of a constant, cheap, Carbon free energy source like nuclear.
hahajohnnyb 4 years ago
Because they are not entirely risk free and we still have no good way to get rid of the radioactive waste. We could dump it securely somewhere but with the stuff remaining dangerous for hundreds of years who could ensure the politically stable situation for it to remain safe in say 200 years into the future?
jpbalkenende 4 years ago
Cynanide is far more deadly than radioactive waste, so are several other chemical compounds, why go through the hassle of making a dirty bomb out of old waste when you could use a chemical or biological agent with greater success and less hassle. Just because?
How about the United States or Australia. We would make an ideal nuclear waste dump, seriously we would.
hahajohnnyb 4 years ago
Penn and Teller are ENTERTAINERS who have built their reputation on half truths and shock value sold as a cable TV Show-- appropriately called BullSH-T. Very appropriate.If you are one to simply believe what they say without doing good research, you've been fooled again.
neilslade 4 years ago
Could you point out where we could use geothermal in the rest of europe? Anyway is not a probelm in briten, we have coal for 200 years lest burn that instead of clean nucler power and let the rest of the world go to war over oil. You people cannot tell nukes from atomic power.
lamnaa 4 years ago
In France hot water (1470 GWh/yr) is used in the Paris and Aquitaine sedimentary basins (from wells up to 1800 m deep and 45-85degrees C) to heat over 200,000 homes. Similar basins are found in Belgium (28 GWh/yr), Germany (about 800 GWh/yr and 50% more by 2000), Denmark (12.5 GWh/yr), the Netherlands and England, where heating systems like those in France are being tested.
milofonbil 4 years ago
Researchers have experimented with Hot Dry Rock projects in England, France and Germany to see if water pumped into hot dry rocks can be heated economically. Heat pumps are used now to extract largely geothermal heat from (5 to 10 degrees C) groundwater in Switzerland (964 GWh/yr), Sweden (267 GWh/yr), and other northern European countries. Parts of Switzerland, Germany, France and Austria have alpine geothermal spas like those in Eastern Europe.
milofonbil 4 years ago
Nuclear power is a joke and always has been. There is a good reason we don't build them any more. And it's not safety of waste storage, it's because they don't make any money unless tax payers foot the bill. And a private company won't build one unless it gets absolute NO FAULT YOU CAN'T SUE me insurance, which is absurd. Conservation would have saved us but we couldn't do that and the last glimmer of hope faded when Reagan entered office.
WideOfVision 4 years ago
LaRouche says we need to build five nuclear plants per week. video on my channel
LaRoucheisright 4 years ago
too bad uranium is running low and current discoveries wont last for more than a decade with current power plant use, because nuclear is a great source of energy!
lesgregor 4 years ago
Regarding uranium levels the UKENERGYREVIEW among others reported that rich uranium ore is going to be around for the "forseeable future".Also we now have breeder reactors that produce more fisile material than they consume and next generation reactors are far more efficient using less fuel.And we could recycle the waist like the french do, keep in mind that the "waist" still has 90% of their energy.
andresfusion 4 years ago
Ever heard of breeder reactors?
Jarls 4 years ago
That's just not true at all.
Uranium is underexplored and it's a tiny cost of the total cost of operating a reactor(I've heard numbers in the 5-7% range). Even at 10 times it's cost it would be competitive with coal if it were to pay for some of it's externalities and in places where better alternatives like renewables are too expensive.
soylentgreenb 4 years ago
If the price were to go up by a factor of 10, what happens?
It becomes affordable to extract vast quantities of uranium from sea water with ion exchangers; it becomes sensible to explore for more uranium and it gets profitable to mine lower concentration of uranium ore.
So you get a large growth of ultimately recoverable reserves.
soylentgreenb 4 years ago
Then there's the more expensive breeder reactors. The more advanced designs of which allow you to extract the plutonium togheter with the uranium from the fuel without separating them, and it can be done at the site(no proliferation hazzard).
Breeders can burn U-238 and thorium. We literally have enough fuel for millenia.
It's reasonable to assume that we'll be able to phase out fission in favor of much better technologies like fusion in such a time frame.
soylentgreenb 4 years ago
Nuclear powered submarines have been cruising around for a long time with very few problems. They're underwater for months at a time right next to a nuclear reactor and have no problems.
Greezbhal 4 years ago 2
and they are run by 20 year olds
hozehd 4 years ago
It is extremely difficult to discuss or share any information and knowledge we (both for and against) may have when uneducated people post insults and even curse anyone who disagrees with them. These polarizing tactics by insulting anyone who disagrees with your "position" show some who have posted can't stand on their 'facts'. Chernobyl killed and continues to sicken and kill a lot more "than 20 people",it's in the thousands.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
Billdo64 4 years ago
"Chernobyl killed and continues to sicken and kill a lot more "than 20 people",it's in the thousands."
Yes, by most studies I've seen the ultimate death toll will be in the 4000 to 50 000 range.
Particulates from coal power kill 20 000-30 000 people in the US alone each year. Then there's the GHGs, mercury and various other heavy metals.
It'll be a long time before we are able to relegate fission and coal to the history books, so which will it be, fission or coal?
soylentgreenb 4 years ago
Oh, and for all you hardcore hippies out there, the figure provided below for Nuclear and related CO2 emmisions takes into account CO2 produced in mining and enrichment of uranium and of course construction of the plant. Nuclear saves a lot more than carbon alone too!!!
jplieges 4 years ago
Comparative CO2 emmisions:
Coal: Several hundred grams CO2/kw energy
Geothermal: 75-80 grams CO2/kw energy
Wind: 20+ grams CO2/kw energy
Hydro: Roughly 8 grams CO2/kw energy
Nuclear: 3.5 grams CO2/kw energy
Nuclear plants are also a lot safer than even 20 years ago. In a time when we need to meet growing energy demands and cut greenhouse gas emmisions, the choice is obvious.
jplieges 4 years ago 2
There's some discussion about whether geothermal can be teamed up with coal power to act as CO2 sink. You use the flue gas as the working medium in the primary loop. Some substantial fraction of the CO2 would diffuse into the surrounding rock each time you pump it through.
Whether the CO2 will stay burried without without geological traps is an open question(e.g. oil and natural gas is found under impermeable rock that prevents it from leaking out at the surface).
soylentgreenb 4 years ago
It's odd, but I can't seem to find anything which supports jplieges figures for wind or nuclear. They seem outrageously skewed towards nuclear.
Maybe the figures have been poorly interpreted. I note the use of "kw energy" when kW is a measure of power, not energy.
Still. CO2 is not the only issue.
Mechness 3 years ago
That is odd I can find a few that resembles his number one of them is the study by the OECD(organization for economic co-operation and development).
andresfusion 3 years ago
You will have to cite the study. I can't find it.
The consensus figure for wind seems to be around 15gCO2/kWh. Figures for nuclear range from 9 to 22g/CO2/kWh. This would fit in with the figures you quoted further up this page, but not jplieges' figures.
So it would appear wind is comparable with nuclear, but with quicker construction, no toxic waste products and no concerns about security of fuel supply.
Mechness 3 years ago
Actually,nuclear is 11-22 GCO2/KW and Wind uses 11-37GCO2/KW. But you cant compare Wind an intermittent source of electricity with nuclear a baseload steady power source. Wind is expensive, intermittent, and inappropriate for broad swaths of the United States. For example, wind turbines are virtually useless in the Southeast, where there is little wind. Even environmental activists are beginning to oppose wind projects because they kill birds, despoil landscapes, and ruin scenic views
andresfusion 3 years ago
Sadly, not the environmentalists in my home province of Ontario, who keep on harping about nuclear power to the point of wanting wind (which does work here, amazingly).
Neville6000 3 years ago
Ya clean and we safely dispose of the waste and we not making bombs from the waste so what the problem?
whydid666 2 years ago
There's no problem, they just don't like the word 'nuclear'.
Neville6000 2 years ago 3
More Americans have died in Ted Kennedy's car than from nuclear accidents.
patem1 4 years ago
Penn is a very serious Ayn Randian Objectivist... Much worse than the selfish bastards in charge now...
Sad... even if just because they're funny.
GotIt123: So which 'Nukular" lobbyest you working for?
leesagrrlgrrl 4 years ago
So leesagrrlgrrl, which coal lobbyist are you working for?
soylentgreenb 4 years ago
C'mon fella. Just because I'm against unfettered Nuke Nonsense... (and Mr. P is for it) then supposedly I'm a Coal lobbyist(?) That sorta ends up being a bit circuitous in the end, doesn't it?
So, in your mind there is only Nuke or Coal? I find it hard to believe you haven't been keeping up on the newest tech research with Photovoltaic cells, or wind power, or... or...
leesagrrlgrrl 3 years ago
I can't find what you are responding to, but realistically, coal is the only other available option for generating the power we currently need. Solar and wind power are unfortunately decades out of practical application and much as you may hate coal or nuclear power, there are billions of people in the world who live in areas that desperately need development to keep up. We need to pursue our available options for clean energy and not get hung up by something better that may come in 20 years
avatar941 3 years ago
You're against 'unfettered Nuke Nonsense'? No, you just can't think for yourself, and you want to run with the in-crowd as usual.
Neville6000 2 years ago
Penn, Penn, Penn. What a tool you are. I've seen a lot of your shows (from NYC to San Francisco). Always admired your 'screw you' attitude. But don't fuck with my kids' future. Who writes this shit for you?
Homefront 4 years ago
He's not fucking with your kids future, he's fucking with ignorant left wingers.
mmysama 4 years ago
poorly documented... a waste of ....energy !
delevingne 4 years ago
The PROPOSED Yucca Mountain HLRW underground irradiated fuel assembly dump near Las Vegas
has cost billions of federal dollars and has not accepted ANY "spent" fuel assemblies from any Utility's Reactors yet.
It may never open.
USGS on internal documents say the Yucca Mountain site is not safe to store these highly radioactive fuel assemblies.
Billdo64 4 years ago
Yucca Mountain is the most studied piece of real estate on the planet. ALL studies conducted have concluded that the site is well suited for waste disposal. The "USGS internal documents" are memos sent among employees who expressed skepticism. The hundreds of studies should allay any skepticism. The USGS has certified the site as geologically stable and suitable for waste disposal.
lwnf360 4 years ago 2
Tell that to the ignorant public who is afraid of what they don't understand.
mmysama 4 years ago
Penn &Teller SUCK suck Suck suck
what do you do with the waste idiots
somebody take this guy tie him to bill o'riely and throw him in the ocean
fartylarty 4 years ago
It is stored in Yuka mountain. Solar and wind and all that crap cant power the damn country. Hybrids create battery waste and spill acid in accidents(yes I have seen it myself).
You are a moron if you belive that nuclear plants can explode like nuclear warheads. And the fallout is extremaly limited compared to nuclear missle sites.
GotIt123 4 years ago
"Yuka" Mountain is Yucca Mountain, near Las Vegas, and cannot hold but a fraction of all the High Level Rad Waste from the l04 existing Reactors. And then their is the hazardous "low level" Rad Waste, that includes elements of "High Level RW.
The Chernobyl Reactor in Russia DID in FACT "EXPLODE" and sent a highly hazardous radioactive cloud of Rad elements around the earth.
Billdo64 4 years ago
Yucca is also spelled yuka look it up dipshit.
And Chernobyl was a russian reactor that was flawed. The Chernobyl "argument" is invalid, the russians did not folow SOP and had no accountability on safety. The reactors built in the US are far superior and the safety control/record is FAR better. To compare one of first designed reactors to the control systems and designs today is flat out ignorant.
GotIt123 4 years ago 2
The chernobyl incident incurred about 20 or so casualities, which is less than the number of people killed by coal pollution every year. The surrounding area was evacuated, but some people still live in the quarantined area and only suffer minimal negative health effects. Wildlife has thrived in the area due to the lack of human habitation, and no apreaciable enviromental damage has been detected.
mmysama 4 years ago
No, 50 or so liquidators died from chernobyl. Between 4000 and 50 000 people will ultimately die from the chernobyl accident by any serious study I've seen.
It does not pay to flat out lie, like this. Because when you're called on it you diminish the credibility of any cause you're fighting for.
I'm pro nuclear as a replacement for at the very least coal and older plants. And I hereby disassociate myself from you entirely.
soylentgreenb 4 years ago 3
Oh fine... and then all the fish will die...
leesagrrlgrrl 4 years ago
The Federal Govt in the past did give free enriched uranium fuel to Utilities.
The reality of economics of nuclear energy is federal subsidies that support costs related to supplying, building, or operating nuclear plants; nuclear power R&D; and nuclear waste management. Basically, consumers end up footing almost all the bill for nuclear energy, either as utility ratepayers or as taxpayers.
Billdo64 4 years ago
Free Uranium Fuel Assemblies to Nuclear Electric Companies from the Gov't is
a great big subsidy.
The AEC and DOE (same agency) gave encouragement and help for big companies to build Nuclear Plants so they could get the Plutonium for Nuclear Warheads. This is well documented in History. The so called "Atoms for Peace" was a subterfuge for the Govt to get Private Companies to make Bomb grade Plutonium for them
Billdo64 4 years ago
DoE and DoD produced their own plutonium in fast breeder reactors at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, and other sites. The government only very recently started to have tritium produced at Watts Bar 1 (which is owned by TVA--a government agency). It's all their own money.
lwnf360 4 years ago
The government does not provide fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. If you have a specific source to prove me wrong, by all means cite it.
lwnf360 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nuclear Power Plants have always been subsidized.
In El Paso, Texas where I live, El Paso Electric Company owns 20% of the Triple l250 MGW Palo Verde Reactors. El Paso Electric has the highest electric rates in Texas because of their investment, it bankrupted the utility l0 years after they bought in.
Nuclear Power would never survive in the open market without subsidies. Why do they need a guaranteed loan by the Govt?
Billdo64 4 years ago
Nuclear plants would take the market over decades ago, would the market be open and free. That is, would the plain field be even. Would the fossil industry not be exempted by EPA regulations and not allowed to dump the hazardous fossil fuel waste into out atmosphere freely.
Running nuclear reactors are actually NOT subsidized. They pay a lot in taxes, though. What Greenpiss and others claim as nuke subsidies are things such as fusion research, nuclear medicine research etc.
loizzzz 4 years ago
When he mentions that the US hasn't built any new nuclear plant in so many years and shows a picture of a plant, it's not a US plant, it's Canadian.
theanphibian 4 years ago
Hey Andresfusion,
After all is said and done,
Nuclear Power is the most expensive technology mankind has ever come up with to boil water.
No Nuclear Power Plant in the US would have ever been built without huge US gov't subsidies and Government mandated Liability protection via the Price - Anderson Act.
These massive subsidies continue, promoted by the Bush Administration, including Government loan Guarantees to construct new Nuke power plants.
Tell the whole truth Don't lie by omission.
Billdo64 4 years ago
Bullshit, loan guarantees are not a subsidy, but a loan guarantees. How much more clear could it be? All the clean air energy production technology were eligible, but not nuclear. Now nuclear is eligible as well.
Your comment about expensive tehcnology to boil water just shows you dont know a shit about energy production. Nuclear is the cheapest scalable and stable way of producing technology, which does not rely on carbon fuel combustion.
loizzzz 4 years ago 3
loizzzz, thank you couldnt have put it better myself.
andresfusion 4 years ago
Damn straight - loizzzz says it all. Libs are so freaked over the nuke stuff. But they don't protest Iran getting one - even if it's used to kill us all. Libs thrive on being scared of EVERYTHING - humans are all bad and we all deserve to die because we use Nuke for energy. Yet libs have no problem using the very things they hate. Hippos.
mcperly 4 years ago
+1
Its okay if Iran has one b/c they hate the US and Iseral(just like the libs). You know damn well that if Isreal was going nuclear for all its power they would throw a hissy fit(but when do they not?). They just thrive on blind anger.
GotIt123 4 years ago
Damn Hippies, stop hateing everything that is progress. I hate nuclear bombs as much as they do, but nuclear power come on, its safe, dosen't give off CO2, and you know what we have a shit load of Uranium pretty much everywhere in the world. So why not, just build reactors that are built on a premiss of a failsafe, if anything goes wrong it just shuts down naturally. Then you don't have to worry about human error or a falty shut down mechanism.
juice212 4 years ago
The comfort of ignorance! No greenhouse gas in operation but loads in commissioning & in fuel production! Loads of Uranium? Maybe 40 years worth for current reactors. Failsafe? How? If it isn't manual it's automated & if it's automated then faults will occur. Nuclear opponents aren't "Hippies" & don't oppose progress they embrace new technologies like solar pv and ultracapacitors more than the old nuclear reactionaries.
pauljballard 4 years ago
Actually, according to a study by the OECD(organization for economic co-operation and development) including the whole cycle of mining and processing uranium nuclear energy have 11-22 GCO2/KW where GCO2 is grams of CO2.That is lower than coal,natural gas,biomass and wind.Wind uses 11-37GCO2/KW, apparantly to build and transport all those wind mills you get a bigger carbon footprint than nuclear.I recomend you google it.
andresfusion 4 years ago
Regarding uranium levels the UKENERGYREVIEW among others reported that rich uranium ore is going to be around for the "forseeable future".Also we now have breeder reactors that produce more fisile material than they consume and next generation reactors are far more efficient using less fuel.And we could recycle the waist like the french do, keep in mind that the "waist" still has 90% of their energy.
andresfusion 4 years ago
Security is actually one of the strong points, as the nuclear industry has a safety record that any industry would envy.Also why not take a look at what France is doing, they get 80% of their energy from nuclear as a result they have the cleanest air in the industralized world and the cheapest energy bill in europe they actually export energy to England,Germany and Italy.
andresfusion 4 years ago
Nuclear opponents may not be hippies but they are hypocrites and dilusional in thinking renewables alone can make a difference regarding Global Warming.Nuclear provides 20% of our energy renewables are in the low single digits so it doesnt matter if we double,triple,quadruple renewables share it wont make a difference mainly because energy demand will grow by 50% by 2020.
andresfusion 4 years ago
Also Jesse Ausubel(one of the main oraganizer of the first UN world climate conference) from Rockefeller University came to conclusion that renewable will wreck the enviroment afer a study that measures how much land it will use by how energy is produced.Also we are not going to build the same reactors as your comment seem to assume Nuclear Technology has advanced tremendously.
andresfusion 4 years ago
Renewables are by nature an opportunistic thing and not sensible everywhere.
Geothermal CHP and hydro in Iceland meets their entire electricity demand and 80% of the heating. Denmark gets 25% of it's power from wind. Sweden gets 50% of it's power from hydro(and 45% nuclear).
It makes economical sense in those particular locations and diversification is a good hedge against any potential problems with the uranium, coal or natural gas supply chain.
soylentgreenb 4 years ago
"renewables are in the low single digits...it wont make a difference"
So your argument is: We're currently not investing in and taking advantage of renewable energy compared to other energy sources, so we should just stop. Am I getting that right? Because it sounds like a really terrible argument if I'm correct.
kyyylekey 4 years ago
Not quite.I like renewable sources but I disagree that they alone can help us stop building more coal plants, thus, contributing to Global warming.I'm especially annoyed when people cant get over their presumptions about nuclear power and see the real benefits this technology can bring us, in particular, the new modern reactors.
andresfusion 4 years ago
I did not specify CO2 I said "greenhouse gas" and both fluorine & chlorine are used extensively for uranium production. Also the 2006 UK POST study shows that future carbon lifecycle cost for hydro & wind will be less than nuclear.
pauljballard 4 years ago
Keep on preaching the words, Brother Andre, so that they might all listen!
Neville6000 2 years ago
Dude, there's still thorium, which can also be used for reactors in place of uranium. Maybe instead of letting a crappy so-called 'A' movie like The China Syndrome misinform you, you and everybody else in the movement might want to take a step back and THINK FOR YOURSELVES about nuclear power rather than have somebody else dictate your opinion for you.
Neville6000 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How unfortunate that you can only undertake ad hominem attacks in defence of an unnecessary and outdated technology. I suggest that you should read some of the independent critiques of nuclear power - as I have - before publicising your views. Nuclear is not simply unneccesary it is economically unviable.
pauljballard 2 years ago
how so it is the cleanest non-renewable energy source, we can use coal instead the dirtiest non-renewable if you prefer.
whydid666 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Cleanest - what about the end product and ghg output through uranium processing? Who said we should use coal instead - not me. There is considerably more renewable energy available to us than we could ever consume. As I said economically unviable and unnecessary.
pauljballard 2 years ago
Yeah-as 'independent' as the people whose minds have already been made up, and can't see past their hatred of nuclear power. Sorry dude, but I want to think for myself on this issue, and I've already heard a bellyful of screeds from the environmental movement about how nuclear power is the work of the devil to listen to you now. And oh, by the way, one of the founders of Greenpeace AND Al Gore have been on record as stating that they support nuclear power.
Neville6000 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Clearly you do not wish to "think for yourself" or you would not have tried citing "from authority" at the end. Do You have a vested interest or have not seen the full business case examined. There will be no companies vying to build plants without massive government (ie taxpayer) support. That is unnecessary with renewable technolgies and their cyle time (from plan to operation) is much quicker and their deployment scale is more flexible. As I said Dud - unviable and unnecessary.
pauljballard 2 years ago