Any environmentalist that actually uses electricity and is against nuclear powerplants is a fucking liar and a hypocrite.
You are either in favor of coal or you are in favor of nuclear. Thats it. End of discussion.
Well I guess there is a 3rd option. Thats to live off the grid and not use computers, TV, Lights, or the internet. Thats the ONLY way to argue against coal and nuclear at the same time and not be a hypocrite.
Oh yes! It's time to get into nuclear, and get a system down that would employ far more people long term than any solar or wind. Now, of course develop the other renewables, but make nuclear, for its extensive non-intermittency and power output, as a bigger priority on the "next stimulus" than it was in this one.
Look at the full nuke lifecycle - mining is expensive, dirty and dangerous. Nuclear droppings all along the chain create whole land areas that are so contaminated that they are taken off maps as "National Sacrifice Zones". Some of these zones are so big they are larger than nations in the UN. You think that's responsible to future generations? You should be ashamed of yourself Mr Moore!
The pro nuclear guy is wrong about that solar power can´t provide energy 24 7. There is technolgy that allows solar power to continue producing energy during night. In Germany they have solar plants that can maintain the same level of energy production without any sun for 8-9 hours.
even stored in capacitors it can never make as much as nuclear. The newest solar planet in the us being built is going to be over 700 acres and it will produce 600 megawatts.
A typical nuclear power plant made with current tech can produce 300,000 megawatts.
Solar isn't even close to nuclear power for power generation.
Ummm..... No they do not use fossil fuels. The burning of coal, or oil have nothing to do with Nuclear Fission. It is the splitting of uranium 235 into smaller isotopes. And in the process, massive amounts of energy are released. 80% of power in France and Germany is from Nuclear power. America is one of the only ones lagging behind. Nuclear is the future. Wind, Solar, Wave, Geothermal sound cool on paper. But just like socialism, what sounds good on paper isn't always good in application
Ok, tell about nuclear mining, and how the ore is nuclear processed and nuclear trucked and nuclear centrifuged and extracted using nuclear created sulfuric acid...
The mining, and processing of ores are not done by coal and diesel powered processes. The sulfuric acid used to leach the ores is created from natural gas. The ore is shipped by trucks and trains burning diesel.
Uranium doesn't get to the plants via nuclear fairies.
And without fossil fuels, the ore for wind and solar plants would never be mined, the ores would never be refined, the metals would never be fabricated into usable components, the components would never be assembled, the assembly would never be transported, and the transported assembly would never be brought online. If you want to nit-pick then you have just as many problems with wind and solar as you would with Nuclear. The Difference is that Nuclear is cheaper and a better baseload supply.
Actually there is about a 200 year supply at our current price and demand levels. Also, Nuclear Power produces the cheapest electricty in the US according to the DOE. Nuclear produces the energy at about 2.1 cents per KWh, while coal produces it at 2.5, and solar is around 25, and wind at 21 cents per KWh. The Nuclear industry doesn't rely on subsidies to operate. The subsidies goes to research, unlike wind which gets over $20 is subsidies for every $1 dollar someone else invests.
Sorry folks, but we do need nukes. Go dig up Reagans foul rotting corpse and thank him for this. We are thirty years behind where we should be thanks to that POS so we are stuck for the time being.
Any environmentalist that actually uses electricity and is against nuclear powerplants is a fucking liar and a hypocrite.
You are either in favor of coal or you are in favor of nuclear. Thats it. End of discussion.
Well I guess there is a 3rd option. Thats to live off the grid and not use computers, TV, Lights, or the internet. Thats the ONLY way to argue against coal and nuclear at the same time and not be a hypocrite.
FartyFace 1 year ago
Go Patrick !! Go Nukes
Lunargolfball 3 years ago
Oh yes! It's time to get into nuclear, and get a system down that would employ far more people long term than any solar or wind. Now, of course develop the other renewables, but make nuclear, for its extensive non-intermittency and power output, as a bigger priority on the "next stimulus" than it was in this one.
suemorphplus2009 3 years ago
Look at the full nuke lifecycle - mining is expensive, dirty and dangerous. Nuclear droppings all along the chain create whole land areas that are so contaminated that they are taken off maps as "National Sacrifice Zones". Some of these zones are so big they are larger than nations in the UN. You think that's responsible to future generations? You should be ashamed of yourself Mr Moore!
irenedesf 3 years ago
The pro nuclear guy is wrong about that solar power can´t provide energy 24 7. There is technolgy that allows solar power to continue producing energy during night. In Germany they have solar plants that can maintain the same level of energy production without any sun for 8-9 hours.
SweNyabinghi 3 years ago
But it does not produce anything on the same scale as Nuclear power.
Theprinceofponeage 3 years ago
It doesn't produce power at now, but it can be stored in capacitors or battery banks for release at night.
Weaseldog2001 3 years ago
At full capacity, they do not provide the same amount of power.
Theprinceofponeage 3 years ago
What doesn't provide the same amount of power?
Weaseldog2001 3 years ago
If you mean the offline storage.
Then why not? It's all a matter of scaling. Adding more units increases the power.
I would expect the plant to be engineered to exceed expected loads by some amount.
I see that you continue to give me a thumbs down, because I don't buy your argument that uranium is mined using nuclear fission.
Weaseldog2001 3 years ago
even stored in capacitors it can never make as much as nuclear. The newest solar planet in the us being built is going to be over 700 acres and it will produce 600 megawatts.
A typical nuclear power plant made with current tech can produce 300,000 megawatts.
Solar isn't even close to nuclear power for power generation.
Ackbar60 2 years ago
We burn fossil fuels to create the fuels for these plants. Without coal, oil and natural gas, we can't provide fuel for these plants.
They aren't clean.
Weaseldog2001 3 years ago
Ummm..... No they do not use fossil fuels. The burning of coal, or oil have nothing to do with Nuclear Fission. It is the splitting of uranium 235 into smaller isotopes. And in the process, massive amounts of energy are released. 80% of power in France and Germany is from Nuclear power. America is one of the only ones lagging behind. Nuclear is the future. Wind, Solar, Wave, Geothermal sound cool on paper. But just like socialism, what sounds good on paper isn't always good in application
Theprinceofponeage 3 years ago
Ok, tell about nuclear mining, and how the ore is nuclear processed and nuclear trucked and nuclear centrifuged and extracted using nuclear created sulfuric acid...
The mining, and processing of ores are not done by coal and diesel powered processes. The sulfuric acid used to leach the ores is created from natural gas. The ore is shipped by trucks and trains burning diesel.
Uranium doesn't get to the plants via nuclear fairies.
Weaseldog2001 3 years ago
And without fossil fuels, the ore for wind and solar plants would never be mined, the ores would never be refined, the metals would never be fabricated into usable components, the components would never be assembled, the assembly would never be transported, and the transported assembly would never be brought online. If you want to nit-pick then you have just as many problems with wind and solar as you would with Nuclear. The Difference is that Nuclear is cheaper and a better baseload supply.
UKRentor1605 2 years ago
You're catching on.
Weaseldog2001 2 years ago
Without steady government subsidies, nukes would go broke. They don't produce energy cheaply enough to be worthwhile.
As we decline the downslope of Peak Oil, these reactors will become prohibilitively expensive to maintain.
As natural gas becomes more expensive Uranium shortages will become more frequent. Already there is less than a 40 year supply of uranium left.
Weaseldog2001 3 years ago
Actually there is about a 200 year supply at our current price and demand levels. Also, Nuclear Power produces the cheapest electricty in the US according to the DOE. Nuclear produces the energy at about 2.1 cents per KWh, while coal produces it at 2.5, and solar is around 25, and wind at 21 cents per KWh. The Nuclear industry doesn't rely on subsidies to operate. The subsidies goes to research, unlike wind which gets over $20 is subsidies for every $1 dollar someone else invests.
UKRentor1605 2 years ago
Can you cite a source for that please?
Weaseldog2001 2 years ago
Sorry folks, but we do need nukes. Go dig up Reagans foul rotting corpse and thank him for this. We are thirty years behind where we should be thanks to that POS so we are stuck for the time being.
Plutonwolf 3 years ago