@jrynef "Our" state? What exactly does that mean? Glad to see freedom-hating, anti-constitutional rights people spreading hate and fear on YouTube. Good on ya.
Nowhere have I argued for coal fired power. What is your point? The sun contains more power than all the uranium on the planet billions of times over.
Energy concentration is not the issue. Uranium mining MAY be (don't know for sure) a smaller negative impact per mw generated than coal - but it still has a far greater one than any renewable.
Like all propaganda-pushers you conveniently ignore everything I say that you don't have an answer for and spin away on some irrelevant tangent.
"People getting sick and dying from nuclear accidents happens far more than people know..."
*Or* can prove. I have no interest in people "claiming" everything under the sun because of *ANECDOTAL* evidence. They're going to have to get inline behind the "Aluminum causes Alzheimer's", "Plastic causes Cancer, "Vaccines cause Autism" crowd in the line of MADE UP MEDICAL FACTS.
Wow, you've really drunk the koolaid. Next your going to start claiming that radiation is healthy for you - like they were trying to do in the 50's - they called it "Vitamin R." Go peddle your nuclear-shill propaganda elsewhere.
"January 3, 1961 The SL-1 Nuclear Reactor near Idaho Falls, Idaho. Explosion and meltdown...Who knows how many others have suffered health effects and perhaps premature death due to this accident. -- Whose the liar now? "
Not me, that was a -military-, bleeding edge reactor, NOT a well-understood *CIVILIAN* reactor. You're claim is analogous to saying airplanes are dangerous because of all the *TEST* pilots who have died.
If those really are your credentials then you probably either work, or did work, in the Nuclear industry. This, of course, biases your opinion.
We aren't debating Nuclear physics or engineering here. We are talking about the environmental and health impacts of nuclear power. As I work for a non-profit organization that specializes in researching these specific issues that probably makes me more qualified than you are.
I don't believe in nuclear power because I work in the nuclear industry. I work in the nuclear industry because I believe in nuclear power. I could have picked a lot more lucrative fields to go into than Nuclear. What's your point?
And you're so right. since you work for an anti nuclear organization that automatically makes you more qualified than I am. Yeah that logic makes sense. :\
I work for a non-profit organization that advocates for clean forms of power. That is fundamentally different from getting paid in a for-profit industry like nuclear power.
And you are starting to build straw-men everywhere. I never said what you accuse. I said that because the issues we are talking about are the environment and health effects I'm probably more qualified. Again, have you ever dealt with or studied those who have suffered because of the nuclear industry?
Have you visited the people affected by uranium mining? Have you been to the places where people have been affected by tritium leaks and other problems from nuclear reactors? Or do you spend most of your time making money by working for the nuclear industry?
To objectively address this issue you'd have to remove yourself from your profession.
Upton Sinclair wrote decades ago:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Also realize we haven't even touched on the subject of Uranium mining, which has been making people sick and killing them for decades. Both on Native American reservations and even right here in Southern Texas.
You're confusing "want" with "need." The companies who build/invest in these facilities (not always utilities either) are trying to get them built because they see an opportunity to make a profit. No other reason.
What is mean by saying "we don't need them" is that we don't need to meet our energy demands THIS way. There are fully viable, cheaper, and better alternatives - but companies like these don't stand to make as big a profit from it.
Curse like that again and I will block you from this channel. These companies only profit through externalizing their costs. But people like you never want to address things like externalities, do you?
A thousand acre wind farm is cheaper and less expensive (and far less risky) than a nuclear plant.
Oh, I'm sorry, people who stick their heads in the sand and put *belief* over FACT tend to make me angry.
You *BELIEVE* Nuclear Power plants are dangerous, therefore it *skews* every single statement you make. You *BELIEVE* wind and solar are these *magic* silver bullets than can solve every problem (and make toast, too).
IF they were everything you say, they would be build in the numbers you say...WOULDN'T THEY?
Your accusations are hollow. I don't "believe" anything about nuclear reactors, I know. People have been killed at nukes, and people have been made sick and have died from nuclear radiation leakage (typically into groundwater). Stop acting like you actually know what you are talking about. You're obviously just an internet troll.
As for wind and solar, they are being built. But as long as we continue to subsidize coal/nukes and allow them to externalize costs they will build them too.
Not one person in the United States (or western world in general) has ever been killed by a Civilian Nuclear Reactor. Any claim to the contrary is an out and out lie.
"people have been made sick and have died from nuclear radiation leakage"
Another out and out lie.
"Stop acting like you actually know what you are talking about."
I notice you said "Civilian" - that's probably to avoid the following facts:
January 3, 1961 The SL-1 Nuclear Reactor near Idaho Falls, Idaho. Explosion and meltdown - killed one worker by being pinned to the ceiling of the nuclear reactor with a control rod. Two others were killed outright. Names of the dead: John A. Byrnes, Richard L. McKinley, and Richard C. Legg.
Who knows how many others have suffered health effects and perhaps premature death due to this accident.
As for the bogus statement of "billions of my tax dollars funding them" (you pay billions of dollars in taxes?): far more of your tax money goes to incentivize and subsidize coal and nuclear power.
Again, stop talking about things you know nothing about.
People getting sick and dying from nuclear accidents happens far more than people know. One example is Exelon's Braidwood reactor. The entire town nearby can't drink their own water due to tritium leaks, and the company is paying to ship in bottled water for their consumption. The people there have been threatened if they speak out against the plant (I've interviewed them personally), and the cancer rate there has increased. There are other examples throughout the country.
If you did, you would *know* that no one has ever died from US commercial nuclear power, you would *know* that there have been no measurable increase in cancer rates in and around nuclear plants, and you would *know* that no member of the public has ever been harmed by nuclear waste in the US.
Stop acting like *you* actually know what you are talking about. You're obviously ignorant of even the most basic physics.
See my previous posts. People like you and hotFusionReaction are either shills for the nuclear industry or in complete denial.
U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention shows 9 of the 13 most populated areas around nuclear plants having increased cancer rates since '82 in children 0-9. Braidwood shows greater than a 25% increase. Average is +14.7% increase.
Like all internet trolls and ignorant types you finish with some ridiculous and irrelevant statement attacking my basic understanding of physics? Not only does my understanding of physics probably surpass yours, but it also has nothing to do with this topic.
Your baseless accusations don't mean anything. Why on earth are you trying to shift this discussion somehow to "understanding of physics" when we haven't been talking about it in any relation? If I haven't shown any evidence of proficiency in basic physics its because we aren't talking about physics. You haven't shown a proficiency either. Neither have either of us shown a proficiency in battle tactics of the Pacific War - which we equally weren't addressing. Take this nonsense elsewhere.
Since you cannot successfully against nuclear on technical grounds you dodge the issue with some vague comments about "decentralization" and other philosophical arguments designed to obfuscate the issue and tie everything up in the courts.
Sorry, but "understanding of physics" is *fundamental* to any sound decisions regarding energy policy.
You have yet to put forth any argument on technical grounds or any others, so stop making baseless and ignorant accusations. If my comments are too vague for you to understand simply ask me to explain them to you. I can use small words if needed. I see nothing philosophical in my statements and nowhere have we been talking about "tying everything up in the courts."
Physics is fundamental, but you haven't made any argument somehow based on "physics." As I said that's not the crux of the issue.
As for following some supposed "Nader Doctrine" I have no idea what you mean. I can only assume you are trying to set up some sort of straw-man argument or some such. That's juvenile and asinine.
FYI Coal plants put out cubic miles of all kinds of pollution into the atmosphere, INCLUDING radioactivity from naturally occurring radionuclides in the coal. This pollution is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths per year.
By contrast, No one has EVER died in fifty years of US nuclear power. All the waste ever produced would fit comfortably inside of Rice Stadium and not be visible from the street.
No one has ever been harmed by nuclear waste. And you are worried more about that being put into a hole somewhere than the crap that coal plants put out every day that kills hundreds to thousands of people a year???
By defeating nuclear you are condemning hundreds if not thousands MORE people to early death from respiratory effects than could ever possibly die from anything caused by nuclear power
But even more deadly than coal plants are the consequences of insufficient energy: Lack of sanitation, clean water, hospitals etc. Personal energy use is a small part of the equation, and conservation will never be able to reduce our growing demand by about 10%.
Wind and solar will NEVER be able to provide more than 20% of demand. By doing away with 70% of the remaining energy available in coal gas and nuclear you reduce standard of living to third world.
By reducing our energy supply by 70% (which you would do by killing nuclear and fossil energy; and forcing us to rely on conservation and renewables) you reduce our standard of living to that of the third world. By doing so you condemn thousands to MILLIONS of people due to lack of sanitation, clean water, medicine, etc.
If anyone is acting immorally, PublicCitizenTexas, it is YOU!!! :(
We also oppose the construction of all new coal plants. The rest of your posts are noting but sensationalist rants and have no basis in reality. We can meet the demand for new energy generation without any new coal or nuclear plants. This will not lead us into being a "third world nation" or any other such nonsense. This is the next technological breakthrough in energy - just like the bronze age came after the stone age.
All of the so called "renewables" derive from solar. Solar drives wind, hydro cycle, ocean currents, grows plants etc.
Are you familiar with the concept of energy density, capacity factor and base load power? Do you understand the implications of 350 watts per square meter multiplied by 25% efficiency, multiplied by a 15% capacity factor?
How do you store energy for when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow?
You haven't asked anything I haven't answered. Of course you try and attack renewables. And I'm more than familiar with all those subjects. Need for base load power is a myth - particularly when addressing distributed power generation (which renewables is perfectly suited for). Solar is perfect for most peak energy demands (it's hot outside because the sun is hot and bright). Energy storage (which is innate in certain types of solar) can easily account for any intermittency.
That is not base load power, and if you truly knew what you were talking about you'd know that. "Base load" power is the idea of making large, industrialized power facilities that are designed to produce energy in a constant flow. These are not, and never have been, necessary.
Power can be provided to such facilities as you mention steadily through non-base load sources.
How is that pertinent? Large facilities such as hospitals can easily get non-interuptable, distributed generation from renewables or CHP facilities on site . Far more efficient and clean than trying to run such facilities off the grid.
It's despicable how you try and turn a very simple comparison of energy sources into some ridiculously over-emotional straw-man argument about how we need nukes/coal to keep people alive. You should be ashamed, but people like you never are, are you?
And your correct - almost all energy on this planet comes from the sun - even fossil fuels. Or are you one of those people who thing God just put it there?
Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, energy efficiency, energy storage, wave & tidal power, etc. can easily meet our energy needs. Both the increasing need today and eventually all of our needs in the future.
You seem to be under the impression that Nuclear Power plants "use water", they don't.
The water simply flows in cold, and comes out warm. And before you say it, the water that comes from the cooling towers back into nature is 13 times LESS radioactive than a can of beer (meaning the plant doesn't add any radiation to it).
Is this to suggest that there isn't forced evaporation? That's either completely naive or you know absolutely nothing bout how power plants work. Yes, they have reservoirs, but there are still massive amounts of water needed to run them (both consumption and withdrawal) - far more than a coal plant, though they use massive amounts as well. Both end up contaminating ground water.
Nuclear Plants both withdraw AND consume massive amounts of water. Consumption is defined and quantified by the amount of water force evaporated (from the cooling towers). Withdraw is the amount of water necessary to run the plant. This water cannot be used for any other purpose, so it would be insane to say this water is not "used" by the plant.
Stop trying to spin this issue and confuse people. You are lying.
the is the dumbest thing i have ever seen. stupid liberals. get out of our state
jrynef 1 year ago
@jrynef "Our" state? What exactly does that mean? Glad to see freedom-hating, anti-constitutional rights people spreading hate and fear on YouTube. Good on ya.
PublicCitizenTexas 1 year ago
wow, how childish can these people be. Go Nukes!!
Lunargolfball 2 years ago
GO NUKES!!
tuttt99 2 years ago
"...and we used to control the LIGHTNING!"
-Astronaut Rick Delanty
Lucifer's Hammer, by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle.
tuttt99 2 years ago
I suppose I'll answer a fictional quote with a non-fiction one:
"If we use fuel to get our power, we are living on our capital and exhausting it rapidly.
This method is barbarous and wantonly wasteful, and will have to be stopped in the interest of coming generations."
- Nikola Tesla, 1915
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
"Physics is fundamental, but you haven't made any argument somehow based on "physics.""
I've got one,...one tiny *pellet* of Uranium contains more energy than six *TRAIN CARS* of coal. That speaks volumes to me.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
Nowhere have I argued for coal fired power. What is your point? The sun contains more power than all the uranium on the planet billions of times over.
Energy concentration is not the issue. Uranium mining MAY be (don't know for sure) a smaller negative impact per mw generated than coal - but it still has a far greater one than any renewable.
Like all propaganda-pushers you conveniently ignore everything I say that you don't have an answer for and spin away on some irrelevant tangent.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
"People getting sick and dying from nuclear accidents happens far more than people know..."
*Or* can prove. I have no interest in people "claiming" everything under the sun because of *ANECDOTAL* evidence. They're going to have to get inline behind the "Aluminum causes Alzheimer's", "Plastic causes Cancer, "Vaccines cause Autism" crowd in the line of MADE UP MEDICAL FACTS.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
Wow, you've really drunk the koolaid. Next your going to start claiming that radiation is healthy for you - like they were trying to do in the 50's - they called it "Vitamin R." Go peddle your nuclear-shill propaganda elsewhere.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
"January 3, 1961 The SL-1 Nuclear Reactor near Idaho Falls, Idaho. Explosion and meltdown...Who knows how many others have suffered health effects and perhaps premature death due to this accident. -- Whose the liar now? "
Not me, that was a -military-, bleeding edge reactor, NOT a well-understood *CIVILIAN* reactor. You're claim is analogous to saying airplanes are dangerous because of all the *TEST* pilots who have died.
It's dishonest.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago 2
No, saying that nuclear plants have never killed or harmed anyone - THAT'S dishonest.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
I accidentally deleted your most recent post, here it is:
tuttt99:
What are your credentials?
Mine are:
BSc in Engineering Physics - Rensselaer Polytech., 1997
MSc in Nuclear Engineering - MIT, 1999
PhD in Nuclear Engineering/Health Physics Texas A&M 2007
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
If those really are your credentials then you probably either work, or did work, in the Nuclear industry. This, of course, biases your opinion.
We aren't debating Nuclear physics or engineering here. We are talking about the environmental and health impacts of nuclear power. As I work for a non-profit organization that specializes in researching these specific issues that probably makes me more qualified than you are.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
You got it backwards.
I don't believe in nuclear power because I work in the nuclear industry. I work in the nuclear industry because I believe in nuclear power. I could have picked a lot more lucrative fields to go into than Nuclear. What's your point?
And you're so right. since you work for an anti nuclear organization that automatically makes you more qualified than I am. Yeah that logic makes sense. :\
tuttt99 2 years ago
I work for a non-profit organization that advocates for clean forms of power. That is fundamentally different from getting paid in a for-profit industry like nuclear power.
And you are starting to build straw-men everywhere. I never said what you accuse. I said that because the issues we are talking about are the environment and health effects I'm probably more qualified. Again, have you ever dealt with or studied those who have suffered because of the nuclear industry?
I thought not.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
Have you visited the people affected by uranium mining? Have you been to the places where people have been affected by tritium leaks and other problems from nuclear reactors? Or do you spend most of your time making money by working for the nuclear industry?
To objectively address this issue you'd have to remove yourself from your profession.
Upton Sinclair wrote decades ago:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
Also realize we haven't even touched on the subject of Uranium mining, which has been making people sick and killing them for decades. Both on Native American reservations and even right here in Southern Texas.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
I love the way they declare "we don't need them".
THEN WHY IN THE HELL ARE THEY BEING BUILT?!
There is NO conspiracy that I've ever heard of who's goal is too spend the billions of dollars that will be spent building these reactors.
They ARE needed, or in no way, shape or form would the utility companies be spending the billions to build them.
hotFusionReaction 3 years ago 3
You're confusing "want" with "need." The companies who build/invest in these facilities (not always utilities either) are trying to get them built because they see an opportunity to make a profit. No other reason.
What is mean by saying "we don't need them" is that we don't need to meet our energy demands THIS way. There are fully viable, cheaper, and better alternatives - but companies like these don't stand to make as big a profit from it.
PublicCitizenTexas 3 years ago
"Profit" as you are calling it IS WHAT DRIVES NEED, dumbass.
The fact that Nuclear Power Plants generate a larger profit than Coal fired plants simply means THEY ARE MORE EFFICIENT and require LESS funding.
The less funding something requires, the more of that thing you can afford to build.
Why in the Hell should a company build a THOUSAND acres of wind turbines when they can by ONE Nuclear Power Plant and call it a day?!
hotFusionReaction 3 years ago 3
Wow, you really don't know anything about this. And you resorted to calling names. Consider this discussion over.
The only thing I'll say is try actually researching the costs of nuclear plants.
PublicCitizenTexas 3 years ago
Curse like that again and I will block you from this channel. These companies only profit through externalizing their costs. But people like you never want to address things like externalities, do you?
A thousand acre wind farm is cheaper and less expensive (and far less risky) than a nuclear plant.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
Oh, I'm sorry, people who stick their heads in the sand and put *belief* over FACT tend to make me angry.
You *BELIEVE* Nuclear Power plants are dangerous, therefore it *skews* every single statement you make. You *BELIEVE* wind and solar are these *magic* silver bullets than can solve every problem (and make toast, too).
IF they were everything you say, they would be build in the numbers you say...WOULDN'T THEY?
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago 2
Your accusations are hollow. I don't "believe" anything about nuclear reactors, I know. People have been killed at nukes, and people have been made sick and have died from nuclear radiation leakage (typically into groundwater). Stop acting like you actually know what you are talking about. You're obviously just an internet troll.
As for wind and solar, they are being built. But as long as we continue to subsidize coal/nukes and allow them to externalize costs they will build them too.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
"People have been killed at nukes"
Not one person in the United States (or western world in general) has ever been killed by a Civilian Nuclear Reactor. Any claim to the contrary is an out and out lie.
"people have been made sick and have died from nuclear radiation leakage"
Another out and out lie.
"Stop acting like you actually know what you are talking about."
I will if you will.
"As for wind and solar, they are being built"
With BILLIONS of my TAX DOLLARS funding them.
hotFusionReaction 2 years ago
I notice you said "Civilian" - that's probably to avoid the following facts:
January 3, 1961 The SL-1 Nuclear Reactor near Idaho Falls, Idaho. Explosion and meltdown - killed one worker by being pinned to the ceiling of the nuclear reactor with a control rod. Two others were killed outright. Names of the dead: John A. Byrnes, Richard L. McKinley, and Richard C. Legg.
Who knows how many others have suffered health effects and perhaps premature death due to this accident.
Whose the liar now?
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
As for the bogus statement of "billions of my tax dollars funding them" (you pay billions of dollars in taxes?): far more of your tax money goes to incentivize and subsidize coal and nuclear power.
Again, stop talking about things you know nothing about.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
People getting sick and dying from nuclear accidents happens far more than people know. One example is Exelon's Braidwood reactor. The entire town nearby can't drink their own water due to tritium leaks, and the company is paying to ship in bottled water for their consumption. The people there have been threatened if they speak out against the plant (I've interviewed them personally), and the cancer rate there has increased. There are other examples throughout the country.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
You don't "know" a thing about nuclear power.
If you did, you would *know* that no one has ever died from US commercial nuclear power, you would *know* that there have been no measurable increase in cancer rates in and around nuclear plants, and you would *know* that no member of the public has ever been harmed by nuclear waste in the US.
Stop acting like *you* actually know what you are talking about. You're obviously ignorant of even the most basic physics.
tuttt99 2 years ago
See my previous posts. People like you and hotFusionReaction are either shills for the nuclear industry or in complete denial.
U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention shows 9 of the 13 most populated areas around nuclear plants having increased cancer rates since '82 in children 0-9. Braidwood shows greater than a 25% increase. Average is +14.7% increase.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
Like all internet trolls and ignorant types you finish with some ridiculous and irrelevant statement attacking my basic understanding of physics? Not only does my understanding of physics probably surpass yours, but it also has nothing to do with this topic.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
Well so far you haven't shown evidence of any proficiency in even basic physics.
tuttt99 2 years ago
Your baseless accusations don't mean anything. Why on earth are you trying to shift this discussion somehow to "understanding of physics" when we haven't been talking about it in any relation? If I haven't shown any evidence of proficiency in basic physics its because we aren't talking about physics. You haven't shown a proficiency either. Neither have either of us shown a proficiency in battle tactics of the Pacific War - which we equally weren't addressing. Take this nonsense elsewhere.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
Ah so you're following the Nader. Doctrine.
Since you cannot successfully against nuclear on technical grounds you dodge the issue with some vague comments about "decentralization" and other philosophical arguments designed to obfuscate the issue and tie everything up in the courts.
Sorry, but "understanding of physics" is *fundamental* to any sound decisions regarding energy policy.
if anyone is shifting the issue here it is you.
tuttt99 2 years ago
You have yet to put forth any argument on technical grounds or any others, so stop making baseless and ignorant accusations. If my comments are too vague for you to understand simply ask me to explain them to you. I can use small words if needed. I see nothing philosophical in my statements and nowhere have we been talking about "tying everything up in the courts."
Physics is fundamental, but you haven't made any argument somehow based on "physics." As I said that's not the crux of the issue.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
As for following some supposed "Nader Doctrine" I have no idea what you mean. I can only assume you are trying to set up some sort of straw-man argument or some such. That's juvenile and asinine.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
"NO MORE NUKES" Keep up the good work...Randy from Texas
randydandy61 3 years ago
You people need to get a life! Worry about your self!!
swat22a 3 years ago 4
Funny, that's exactly what we're doing.
PublicCitizenTexas 3 years ago
How close are you to a coal plant?
FYI Coal plants put out cubic miles of all kinds of pollution into the atmosphere, INCLUDING radioactivity from naturally occurring radionuclides in the coal. This pollution is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths per year.
By contrast, No one has EVER died in fifty years of US nuclear power. All the waste ever produced would fit comfortably inside of Rice Stadium and not be visible from the street.
tuttt99 2 years ago
No one has ever been harmed by nuclear waste. And you are worried more about that being put into a hole somewhere than the crap that coal plants put out every day that kills hundreds to thousands of people a year???
By defeating nuclear you are condemning hundreds if not thousands MORE people to early death from respiratory effects than could ever possibly die from anything caused by nuclear power
tuttt99 2 years ago
But even more deadly than coal plants are the consequences of insufficient energy: Lack of sanitation, clean water, hospitals etc. Personal energy use is a small part of the equation, and conservation will never be able to reduce our growing demand by about 10%.
Wind and solar will NEVER be able to provide more than 20% of demand. By doing away with 70% of the remaining energy available in coal gas and nuclear you reduce standard of living to third world.
tuttt99 2 years ago
By reducing our energy supply by 70% (which you would do by killing nuclear and fossil energy; and forcing us to rely on conservation and renewables) you reduce our standard of living to that of the third world. By doing so you condemn thousands to MILLIONS of people due to lack of sanitation, clean water, medicine, etc.
If anyone is acting immorally, PublicCitizenTexas, it is YOU!!! :(
tuttt99 2 years ago
We also oppose the construction of all new coal plants. The rest of your posts are noting but sensationalist rants and have no basis in reality. We can meet the demand for new energy generation without any new coal or nuclear plants. This will not lead us into being a "third world nation" or any other such nonsense. This is the next technological breakthrough in energy - just like the bronze age came after the stone age.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
And just *how* do you propose to meet our present and future energy demands without nuclear or fossil fuel?
I'm waiting. This ought to be good...
tuttt99 2 years ago
Already answered.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
With what? "renewables"? Wind and solar?
All of the so called "renewables" derive from solar. Solar drives wind, hydro cycle, ocean currents, grows plants etc.
Are you familiar with the concept of energy density, capacity factor and base load power? Do you understand the implications of 350 watts per square meter multiplied by 25% efficiency, multiplied by a 15% capacity factor?
How do you store energy for when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow?
You have answered nothing.
tuttt99 2 years ago
You haven't asked anything I haven't answered. Of course you try and attack renewables. And I'm more than familiar with all those subjects. Need for base load power is a myth - particularly when addressing distributed power generation (which renewables is perfectly suited for). Solar is perfect for most peak energy demands (it's hot outside because the sun is hot and bright). Energy storage (which is innate in certain types of solar) can easily account for any intermittency.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
Yeah. Base load power is a myth all right.
All those hospitals, factories, water treatment facilities and sanitation don't need power all the time.
tuttt99 2 years ago
That is not base load power, and if you truly knew what you were talking about you'd know that. "Base load" power is the idea of making large, industrialized power facilities that are designed to produce energy in a constant flow. These are not, and never have been, necessary.
Power can be provided to such facilities as you mention steadily through non-base load sources.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
Tell that to a critical patient on a ventilator in a hospital ICU
tuttt99 2 years ago
How is that pertinent? Large facilities such as hospitals can easily get non-interuptable, distributed generation from renewables or CHP facilities on site . Far more efficient and clean than trying to run such facilities off the grid.
It's despicable how you try and turn a very simple comparison of energy sources into some ridiculously over-emotional straw-man argument about how we need nukes/coal to keep people alive. You should be ashamed, but people like you never are, are you?
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
In other words, you're talking about supply side instead of demand side. If you're are who you say you are you should know the difference.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
And your correct - almost all energy on this planet comes from the sun - even fossil fuels. Or are you one of those people who thing God just put it there?
Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, energy efficiency, energy storage, wave & tidal power, etc. can easily meet our energy needs. Both the increasing need today and eventually all of our needs in the future.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
think, not thing... typo
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
Don't Mess With Texas Water by building thirsty Nukes......
There is no alternative to WATER.
pittink1965 3 years ago
Cold water flows in, warm water flows out.
You seem to be under the impression that Nuclear Power plants "use water", they don't.
The water simply flows in cold, and comes out warm. And before you say it, the water that comes from the cooling towers back into nature is 13 times LESS radioactive than a can of beer (meaning the plant doesn't add any radiation to it).
hotFusionReaction 3 years ago 2
Actually we have large reservoirs at both nuclear plants in Texas, so cooling towers are not needed.
tuttt99 2 years ago
Is this to suggest that there isn't forced evaporation? That's either completely naive or you know absolutely nothing bout how power plants work. Yes, they have reservoirs, but there are still massive amounts of water needed to run them (both consumption and withdrawal) - far more than a coal plant, though they use massive amounts as well. Both end up contaminating ground water.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
Nuclear Plants both withdraw AND consume massive amounts of water. Consumption is defined and quantified by the amount of water force evaporated (from the cooling towers). Withdraw is the amount of water necessary to run the plant. This water cannot be used for any other purpose, so it would be insane to say this water is not "used" by the plant.
Stop trying to spin this issue and confuse people. You are lying.
PublicCitizenTexas 2 years ago
No nukes in Texas! We don't need them and we can't afford the risks.
soniatx 3 years ago