Nuclear vs. Renewable: Drawbacks?

A video comparing nuclear energy to renewable energy, and comparing the various practical drawbacks to implementing these technologies on a large scale. I hope it's clear why I say there is no silver bullet, and why we can't rely on any single technology--nuclear OR renewable--for our energy generation.

I also added a fun little segment at the end for a particular Youtube user--you know who you are.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• nuclear
• renewable
• clean
• energy
• i
• am
• not
• a
• lobbyist

[CaptainFudges]

This discussion about price is generally retarded. You need 1600 acres of solar pannels for JUST 150 megawatts, and almost 4000 acres of wind turbines for the same 150megawatts. This is utterly idiotic. Clearly YOU CANNONT afford to waste so much terrain, and, even if you did, which is impossible, the maintenance would be huge. A modern 8 reactor powerplant can generate up to 10 GIGAwatts of power, and occupies just 10 acres. This discussion is utter crap.

[kayhaus1]

Precisely. Keep in mind we have >150 MW power on tiny submarines, just to even the comparison to the 1600 acres. As for cost, it's all about technology. All this stuff is horribly expensive now. And don't even try to claim that your square MILES of solar cells will not levy a huge bill. To make all this stuff affordable, we need smart folks to make big breakthroughs. Just look at the pentium processor. Show that to someone in the 70's and she'd be in awe. Where there's a will, there's a way.

[VoterHub]

@CaptainFudges That's a good argument, but I wouldn't dismiss the entire debate so quickly. Rooftop solar uses existing land and can recover costs over time for consumers and taxpayers that invest in it. The life cycle cost of solar has to become competitive enough to foster mass investment. I'm not saying it's definitive, but it's definitely worth further debate. I'd be happy to get your input for the nuclear article I'm writing at voterhub.ca ; message me if interested.

[coolducky22]

@CaptainFudges Yeah just berry the nuclear waste under ground for future smarter generations to figure out.

[darthvader5300]

And we Russians already have a commercial prototype already operational for years simultaneously producing electricity and using the waste heat to desalinate sea water into drinkable fresh water from the Caspian Sea. Not to mention other reactors, some of w/c are modified to function as breeder BREST reactors to produce additional Pu 239 from U 238 to power additional BREST reactors, both nuclear reactor breeders and nuclear reactor non-breeders to expand the power supply indefinitely.

[darthvader5300]

The Russian BREST nuclear reactor can be scaled up in size and uses lead as a coolant combined with passive natural convection and conduction and dissipation cooling system to naturally dissipate the heat without the need for pumps. Using plutonium nitride fuel rods it has an extremely high melting point and their spacing eliminates meltdowns and IT CAN CONSUME IT'S NUCLEAR WASTES, CREATES NEW NUCLEAR FUEL, RECYCLES IT'S NUCLEAR FUEL INDEFINITELY WT A BUILT-IN REPROCESSING FACILITY WT IT.

[thecurledfreckle]

Thanks for this! Helpful in my Nuclear vs. Renewable powerpoint.

[piggy933]

@CaptainFudges have you considered that solar panel can be mount on rooftop?

[khatack]

@SteveAstronaut

Fukushima didn't really cause any environmental problems, and the accident at Chernobyl was caused by idiots who decided to try just how much heat they could generate with the reactor if they turned off the coolants. The fact is that we do need more nuclear power if we're to reduce the amount of carbon emissions to the atmosphere.

[SteveAstronaut]

"Most of the costs are incurred in production (of a power station)" Try telling that to the former residents of Chernobyl and Fukushima.

[RiotTor]

@bogusnachos yea i looked it up and it does seem alot more promising than nuclear

[bogusnachos]

@RiotTor I think so. I've been following energy issues since 1973 when I was 17 and had to wait in 3 hour gas lines. I've seen a lot of duds and interesting but impractical ideas. This one I think will work. First, the lftr reactor either eliminates or greatly reduces every problem with the light water reactors of today. A meltdown is impossible, wastes are less the 1/1000th, it is simple and safe and cheap - and we've already built one, back in the 60s.