This fellow Mariotte makes statements like we can acheive a carbon free future and implies we can do it with solar and wind. That is total nonsense. Both technologies require fossil fuel backup capacity as they are intermittant and the demand for electricity is inelastic in the short term. He makes absurd statements like covering Maryland parking lots with solar panels would offset the power generated by the proposed nuke. This fellow doesn't understand the numbers.
what the hell. why are these people so ignorant. do some research, nuclear power is one of the most clean sources of energy in the world. i will admit that wind and solar energy is cleaner but no where near as reliable as a nuclear power plant. About 20% of America's electricity comes from nuke plants. If you were to replace our nuclear power plants with wind turbines and solar panels you would need thousands of thousands of more acres of space for them. That would mean destroying habitats.
Nuclear is the way to go. Wind and solar are both unreliable in todays world. There is a GROWING demand for electricity. Think about how many wind turbines you'd have to build not only now, but 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years down the road. Where are you going to build these wind turbines and solar panels? How much will that cost in comparison to nuclear over time?
Nuclear is here, it's efficient, and the cost isn't horrible.
Oil prices need to go up more. It's the only way things will get done.
Oh, and not only do oil prices need to go up to get these kind of things done, they WILL go up. I don't see why we don't just do these things NOW instead of wait until the very last minute before we realize that we're in a real crisis.
This guy clearly has ZERO idea what he is talking about. I am a MD native and supporter of Calvert Cliffs. I also work in the nuclear industry, so I invite anyone to ask me questions, and I will give you an informed, educated response. If I do not know the answer I will point you in the proper direction. It really bothers me that people actually believed this man is educated. As for COSTS, what does he plan to do with the tons of Cd and As from those solar panels when the need replacement?
$50 billion for 10 nuke reactors or 15000 kw vs $48 billion (worldwide) for 72000 kw of wind power. Why are we supporting such an expensive, wasteful and toxic industry???
Where the hell do you get your numbers?! Nuclear reactor power outputs are measured in thousands of MEGAWATTS. Now, the LARGEST EVER wind turbines built, give max 6 MW each. That means, that instead of a standard nuclear power plant, you'd have to build 267 of the largest turbines in the world. That's a waste of money and space, plus, they're unreliable.
I think jmtoriel was talking about megawatts, not kilowatts....ie, US can spend $50 billion on nukes and get about 15000 MW of power (10 reactors at 1500 MW each, very generous on both accounts), or we can spend the same amount on wind and get 2 or 3 times that much power--jeez, at current prices, we can get more from solar than nukes at the same cost.....
This fellow Mariotte makes statements like we can acheive a carbon free future and implies we can do it with solar and wind. That is total nonsense. Both technologies require fossil fuel backup capacity as they are intermittant and the demand for electricity is inelastic in the short term. He makes absurd statements like covering Maryland parking lots with solar panels would offset the power generated by the proposed nuke. This fellow doesn't understand the numbers.
CroatAndNettles 1 year ago
Yup...thats right. My work doesn't think about and consider security at all....
mmm....concentrated ignorance.
diabeticcyborg 2 years ago
what the hell. why are these people so ignorant. do some research, nuclear power is one of the most clean sources of energy in the world. i will admit that wind and solar energy is cleaner but no where near as reliable as a nuclear power plant. About 20% of America's electricity comes from nuke plants. If you were to replace our nuclear power plants with wind turbines and solar panels you would need thousands of thousands of more acres of space for them. That would mean destroying habitats.
kahl777 2 years ago
Nuclear is the way to go. Wind and solar are both unreliable in todays world. There is a GROWING demand for electricity. Think about how many wind turbines you'd have to build not only now, but 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years down the road. Where are you going to build these wind turbines and solar panels? How much will that cost in comparison to nuclear over time?
Nuclear is here, it's efficient, and the cost isn't horrible.
Oil prices need to go up more. It's the only way things will get done.
xxblodlustxx 3 years ago
Oh, and not only do oil prices need to go up to get these kind of things done, they WILL go up. I don't see why we don't just do these things NOW instead of wait until the very last minute before we realize that we're in a real crisis.
xxblodlustxx 3 years ago
This guy clearly has ZERO idea what he is talking about. I am a MD native and supporter of Calvert Cliffs. I also work in the nuclear industry, so I invite anyone to ask me questions, and I will give you an informed, educated response. If I do not know the answer I will point you in the proper direction. It really bothers me that people actually believed this man is educated. As for COSTS, what does he plan to do with the tons of Cd and As from those solar panels when the need replacement?
kayhaus1 3 years ago
$50 billion for 10 nuke reactors or 15000 kw vs $48 billion (worldwide) for 72000 kw of wind power. Why are we supporting such an expensive, wasteful and toxic industry???
jmtoriel 4 years ago
Where the hell do you get your numbers?! Nuclear reactor power outputs are measured in thousands of MEGAWATTS. Now, the LARGEST EVER wind turbines built, give max 6 MW each. That means, that instead of a standard nuclear power plant, you'd have to build 267 of the largest turbines in the world. That's a waste of money and space, plus, they're unreliable.
batukhan 4 years ago
I think jmtoriel was talking about megawatts, not kilowatts....ie, US can spend $50 billion on nukes and get about 15000 MW of power (10 reactors at 1500 MW each, very generous on both accounts), or we can spend the same amount on wind and get 2 or 3 times that much power--jeez, at current prices, we can get more from solar than nukes at the same cost.....
nirsnet 4 years ago