Increased investment in renewables is a sign that we should embrace renewables? I agree we need to displace coal but nothing can compare to nuclear energy in replacing coal. You fail to see that the Fukushima accident proves that a meltdown amounted to very little real damage. The Fukushima reactors were scheduled for shutdown. If they shut on schedule the disaster would not have happened. One plant in 44 is an outstanding record. The press has lied and left the people misguided.Blind ignorance
You can't put a nuclear generator on your roof and there has yet to be a economical viable reactor, that does not rely heavily on subsidies from construction till decommisioning
Don't solar panels rely on materials that are rare and need to be mined? How about recycling those panels when they stop working after 30 years - can this be done?
Why would you compare nuclear to coal, an older technology? Compared with solar, especially concentrated solar, nuclear is certainly the inferior technology. "Too cheap to meter" is a myth.
So why does she ignore the low-cost, base-load nuclear solution? Oh yeah, it's greenpeace. The same ones largely responsible for shutting down nuclear in the 1970's and shifting us to dirty coal power. Oops. The technology in our grasp isn't "wind and solar" and "changing our light bulbs"; the solution is clean, safe, cheap nuclear power. The new laws we need are to reduce the excessive regulation that is strangling the nuclear industry, not setting targets for expensive renewable energy.
@cuhlik Okay well after the nuclear energy is used up from the plutonium..where do you think we can put it so it won't hurt someone or something else in the environment? It's hard to dispose of nuclear waste. It leaves areas of land unlivable for very long periods at a time. Besides that do you really want more money going to that type of a corporation. One that is probably lobbying right now just so it can continue to essentially steal tax dollars against the will of the majority of Americans?
@Skatesomethin read wikipedia Dry_cask_storage and stop believing everything you hear from the anti-nuke lobby. No land is damaged and the tiny amount of spent fuel is safely stored until we burn it too in future reactors. There are a tiny amount of fission products with short lifetimes. They decay away within about 300 years. I want my money going to the safe, clean, efficient solutions, not subsidizing the religion of "renewables".
@cuhlik Well as we have seen in the past, nuclear power is not a full proof solution no matter how you spin it. Meltdowns can still happen. Green energy is clean, safe, and efficient... so I don't know what your getting at.. It's not a religion, it's an important step in the right direction to a relatively carbon neutral world. What are you so afraid of?
@Skatesomethin "Green energy" is not cleaner or safer or more efficient than nuclear. Cost per kwh, nuclear wins hands down. Deaths per kwh, nuclear wins against wind, solar, and hydro so nuclear is safer than renewables. Meltdowns when they have occurred have killed nobody. They are rare and are not the disaster as they are portrayed. I'm afraid of my money being wasted on the inefficient, expensive alternatives while the safe, inexpensive, low environmental impact solution is ignored.
@Skatesomethin most nuclear reactors use uranium 235 as fuel and produce very little plutonium (about 1.5% of spent fuel is plutonium, about 97% of spent fuel is U-235/238), mox fuel is different with about 5% plutonium . The volume of spent nuclear waste is small, the spent fuel in U.S. could be placed on a football field stacked up to the bottom of the uprights. Take a look at the radiation profile of spent fuel and compare it to natural uranium, you might be surprised.
Great talk. I was hoping for more specific examples of how we are going to solve these and other issues: How do we build solar panels without oil... How do we make the steel for the wind mills.. How will we transport them to the wind sites without fossil fuel? When was the last time you saw an electrically powered truck large enough... These are the types of questions that need answering too...
Increased investment in renewables is a sign that we should embrace renewables? I agree we need to displace coal but nothing can compare to nuclear energy in replacing coal. You fail to see that the Fukushima accident proves that a meltdown amounted to very little real damage. The Fukushima reactors were scheduled for shutdown. If they shut on schedule the disaster would not have happened. One plant in 44 is an outstanding record. The press has lied and left the people misguided.Blind ignorance
RickMaltese 2 months ago
@RickMaltese
You can't put a nuclear generator on your roof and there has yet to be a economical viable reactor, that does not rely heavily on subsidies from construction till decommisioning
Zoidode 1 week ago
Don't solar panels rely on materials that are rare and need to be mined? How about recycling those panels when they stop working after 30 years - can this be done?
InvisiMan2006 11 months ago
Why would you compare nuclear to coal, an older technology? Compared with solar, especially concentrated solar, nuclear is certainly the inferior technology. "Too cheap to meter" is a myth.
SeppHasslberger 11 months ago
This sounds like a nuke-promotion campaign here ... congratulations for having turned YouTube into your personal promotional tool
SeppHasslberger 11 months ago
So why does she ignore the low-cost, base-load nuclear solution? Oh yeah, it's greenpeace. The same ones largely responsible for shutting down nuclear in the 1970's and shifting us to dirty coal power. Oops. The technology in our grasp isn't "wind and solar" and "changing our light bulbs"; the solution is clean, safe, cheap nuclear power. The new laws we need are to reduce the excessive regulation that is strangling the nuclear industry, not setting targets for expensive renewable energy.
cuhlik 1 year ago
@cuhlik Okay well after the nuclear energy is used up from the plutonium..where do you think we can put it so it won't hurt someone or something else in the environment? It's hard to dispose of nuclear waste. It leaves areas of land unlivable for very long periods at a time. Besides that do you really want more money going to that type of a corporation. One that is probably lobbying right now just so it can continue to essentially steal tax dollars against the will of the majority of Americans?
Skatesomethin 1 year ago
@Skatesomethin read wikipedia Dry_cask_storage and stop believing everything you hear from the anti-nuke lobby. No land is damaged and the tiny amount of spent fuel is safely stored until we burn it too in future reactors. There are a tiny amount of fission products with short lifetimes. They decay away within about 300 years. I want my money going to the safe, clean, efficient solutions, not subsidizing the religion of "renewables".
cuhlik 1 year ago
@cuhlik Well as we have seen in the past, nuclear power is not a full proof solution no matter how you spin it. Meltdowns can still happen. Green energy is clean, safe, and efficient... so I don't know what your getting at.. It's not a religion, it's an important step in the right direction to a relatively carbon neutral world. What are you so afraid of?
Skatesomethin 1 year ago
@Skatesomethin "Green energy" is not cleaner or safer or more efficient than nuclear. Cost per kwh, nuclear wins hands down. Deaths per kwh, nuclear wins against wind, solar, and hydro so nuclear is safer than renewables. Meltdowns when they have occurred have killed nobody. They are rare and are not the disaster as they are portrayed. I'm afraid of my money being wasted on the inefficient, expensive alternatives while the safe, inexpensive, low environmental impact solution is ignored.
cuhlik 1 year ago
@Skatesomethin most nuclear reactors use uranium 235 as fuel and produce very little plutonium (about 1.5% of spent fuel is plutonium, about 97% of spent fuel is U-235/238), mox fuel is different with about 5% plutonium . The volume of spent nuclear waste is small, the spent fuel in U.S. could be placed on a football field stacked up to the bottom of the uprights. Take a look at the radiation profile of spent fuel and compare it to natural uranium, you might be surprised.
ppwalk05 1 year ago
Great talk. I was hoping for more specific examples of how we are going to solve these and other issues: How do we build solar panels without oil... How do we make the steel for the wind mills.. How will we transport them to the wind sites without fossil fuel? When was the last time you saw an electrically powered truck large enough... These are the types of questions that need answering too...
mandalareopens 1 year ago
Inspiring presentation. Thanks for showing us the hope Tzeporah. (best wishes from Jack /GPI in Sweden)
jackityjacktube 1 year ago