For What It's Worth (A Rebuttal)

A response to Nukefree.org's video, For What It's Worth about nuclear energy.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• NukeFree.org
• Nuclear
• No
• Nukes
• Energy
• Electricity
• Environment
• Technology

[NorskeDivision]

"Well, even ONE nuclear plant would take years to zone and build -- that gives my side, the right side, the clean side time doesn't it?"

Nope, because it would take just as long if not longer to develop 10000MW of solar (average output, NOT peak) as it would five nuclear plants. Anyway, if solar were practical and cheap, but took twice as long as nuclear to deploy, I'd be for it (it isn't!) We need solutions we can start on now. Hoping for a future innovation is a bad idea, it might NEVER come.

[NorskeDivision]

Let me be clear again. I've nothing against solar (unlike you and others, who are strictly against nuclear, even when paid for and developed privately). If all a big solar installation needs is loan guarantees, that is, low interest loans under-written by the government, fine. I'm even in favor of R&D subsidies for solar. But crazy feed in tariffs FOUR or FIVE cents above spot rate for an intermittent non-base load power source? That's a waste of money and little more then feel-good pork-barrel.

[Darkwizzrobe]

Or for a modern day nuclear plant to go Chernobyl impossible and never going to happen.

[Peachypadgett]

Solar is the way to go its FREE all we have to do it catch it, we dont gota dig it up or 'safely transport' it... all you need is a Serious effort to improve the infrastructure the let it sit and collect light. should be a a no brainer. its completely sustainable (long as we have a star nearish by). try some Research, for example Stan Ovinshinsky hes made some awsome improvements in the venues of solar from the devices to capture it to the batteries that store the energy.

[milofonbil]

Solar thermal does not use silicon.

[milofonbil]

France ran out of uranium in 2002.

tinyurl . c o m /6a56oe

[milofonbil]

I did bother to check.

You have no idea what it takes to scale a process do you?

There is no shortage of Uranium. There is a shortage of uranium of sufficient concentration to make fuel for reactors out of.

[milofonbil]

Well apparently you don't know what you are talking about

Eleven countries, Germany, the Czech Republic, France, DR Congo, Gabon, Bulgaria, Tajikistan, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Portugal and Argentina, have already exhausted their uranium resources.

In 1990, uranium mining in Germany was discontinued as a consequence of the unification. The company could not compete on the world market. The production cost of its uranium was three times the world price.

tinyurl . c o m /6a56oe

[guyranting]

norske, i am probably completely with you on nuke power and energy in general (i actually have a pro nuclear video up). They are experimenting with CO2 capture, including on coal plants and natural gas, in essence it spreads the emission pipes and multiplies them over huge distances and runs it through algae water, the algae eats the co2, and gives off oxygen,then they can harvest the algae for more fuel. but it uses HUNDREDS of acres per megawatt to capture 100% of the CO2. Its still very new

[BeondaPale]

Again, You completely discount wave power (which is not intermittent) without cause -- even as there have been major strides that make it a currently viable large scale alternative according to more than a few high end studies.

You also completely discount recent advances in ultra-capacitor technology that is making the intermittent nature of solar a thing of the past.

You continue to favor a power source that is inherently flawed merely for the sake of expedience and profit.