CDZ Climate Change vs. Nuclear Power

[sakinago]

Is there a pro-nuker here who isn't preaching unicorns and rainbows, while cursing the heretics who don't believe in the unicorns and rainbows?

They all talk about the cheap miracle reactors that are just around the corner, just you wait and see. The cheap miracle reactors have been just around the corner for the past 50 years, and we never seem to get to that corner, but this time it's different, really it is.

Practical people don't put their faith in such unicorns and rainbows. Practical people look at the technology that works at a cheap price, which is now the renewable technologies.

The only unicorn and rainbow preaching comes from the cult of the mighty solar panel. Yes solar has some small scaled applications where it makes sense, but with large scale applictions it’s as retarded as simple Jack. If we didn’t have a good way of storing the little bit of waste that comes from nuclear energy, yea nuclear is a bad idea. We do have a good way. Nuclear is more efficient than solar. Produces much less waste. Much less matianence. Is absurdly cheaper. Zero emissions. Much cleaner than solar. And oh yea, we don’t have to take up a shit ton of land. It’s literally a comparison of blockbuster to Netflix. Why the hell are you people still betting on blockbuster. The science has been out long ago on this. Just look at the mountain of evidence starring you in the face. Columbus already sailed to America, and the world isn’t flat, and he did not sail off the edge of the earth. How is this even a debate?

 

[sakinago]

How can one be sincerely concerned about man-made Climate Change but opposed to the most obvious remedy, nuclear power? Please explain.

Because nuclear power is incredibly expensive.

Cost matters in the real world. For the price of that nuclear plant, we could build far, far more renewable capacity. Thus, the cost-effective choice is to not build more nuclear power plants.

Don't bring up the cheaper nuclear power plants that are supposedly just around the corner, because they've been just around the corner for the past 50 years.

And I say that as a person who used to run nuclear reactors. I'm as pro-nuke as they get. I just recognize that on a cost basis, nuclear power is totally impractical. Existing plants should be maintained for baseline load, but the idea of new plants is a joke.

Solar energy is almost triple the cost of nuclear, and it produces more waste per joule of energy created than nuclear. Solar is not clean energy as it is advertised as. Yes there’s a good bit of cost that goes into building a nuclear plant, after it’s built it is quite cheap. Nuclear is by far more reliable, produces much less waste than solar, and zero emissions. Solar on the other hand requires a lot of upkeep. Both panels and battery storage systems have to be replaced every 10 or so years, so you’re basically making a new power plant every 10 years for solar. Nuclear plants are good to go for at least 80 years and are only getting better.

Not mention the 20 or 25 lifetime of a good solar panel.. When you 40 acres of them, that's a lot of unrecycleable waste..

I generally go with -- solar is NOT an "alternative" to grid generation.. It's a PEAKER technology to relieve the daytime PEAK usage.. PERIOD.. NEWS FLASH -- there's 15 hours of the day in a GOOD LOCATION, where the panels are not efficient or dead.. Also no worky when there's clouds or rain or inches of snow/ice on them...

Sorry seattle, hope y’all can handle rolling blackouts

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't see your homework on what I quoted you claiming and just repeating your opinion is not even an argument let alone convincing. It could be argued that everything produces greenhouse gases in its fabrication. That says nothing. You need to provide the comparable numbers, methodologies, sources for the claims at least, something. EP is a known, though recently established, nuke industry front group with a track record of publishing lies. Hanson has clearly drunk the nuke Kool-Aid along with a few others. That's a shame but just proves almost anyone can be bought. If you really care about our future, stop drinking that shit.

perhaps it’s not surprising that Shellenberger, Hansen, Caldeira et al. signed a letter to Illinois legislators April 4 that repeatedly refers to nuclear power as “clean energy” and said that the two plants Exelon may close have saved lives that otherwise might have been harmed by coal plant emissions. The letter asserts that renewables like wind have an unfair market advantage over nuclear in terms of subsidies, and advocates that nukes be included in the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard. (For the record, nuclear power is not a renewable energy source because it does not regenerate, according to the US Energy Information Administration—and nuclear power is heavily subsidized, not least through the Price Anderson Act, which caps liability for nuclear accidents at a tiny fraction of their potential cost.)

Most strong enviro advocates have an open mind on nuclear power. And if you READ the list of advocates that SIGNED that statement with Hansen -- you'd know they are NOT "kool aid drinkers".. They are PRAGMATISTS and not mesmerized by the GROSS misinterpretations of what wind/solar can accomplish..

There are roles for wind/solar.. But OFF grid and in applications that don't NEED 24/7/365 power reliability.. Applications like desalinization plants for clean water and creating hydrogen or biofuels that can be captured and stored whenever the energy IS available..

Only morons and kool-aid drinkers buy and require solar in places where the sun power is not optimum.. They end up looking useless and stupid like this facility in Germany..

 

[flacaltenn]

How can one be sincerely concerned about man-made Climate Change but opposed to the most obvious remedy, nuclear power? Please explain.

Because nuclear power is incredibly expensive.

Cost matters in the real world. For the price of that nuclear plant, we could build far, far more renewable capacity. Thus, the cost-effective choice is to not build more nuclear power plants.

Don't bring up the cheaper nuclear power plants that are supposedly just around the corner, because they've been just around the corner for the past 50 years.

And I say that as a person who used to run nuclear reactors. I'm as pro-nuke as they get. I just recognize that on a cost basis, nuclear power is totally impractical. Existing plants should be maintained for baseline load, but the idea of new plants is a joke.

Solar energy is almost triple the cost of nuclear, and it produces more waste per joule of energy created than nuclear. Solar is not clean energy as it is advertised as. Yes there’s a good bit of cost that goes into building a nuclear plant, after it’s built it is quite cheap. Nuclear is by far more reliable, produces much less waste than solar, and zero emissions. Solar on the other hand requires a lot of upkeep. Both panels and battery storage systems have to be replaced every 10 or so years, so you’re basically making a new power plant every 10 years for solar. Nuclear plants are good to go for at least 80 years and are only getting better.

Not mention the 20 or 25 lifetime of a good solar panel.. When you 40 acres of them, that's a lot of unrecycleable waste..

I generally go with -- solar is NOT an "alternative" to grid generation.. It's a PEAKER technology to relieve the daytime PEAK usage.. PERIOD.. NEWS FLASH -- there's 15 hours of the day in a GOOD LOCATION, where the panels are not efficient or dead.. Also no worky when there's clouds or rain or inches of snow/ice on them...

Sorry seattle, hope y’all can handle rolling blackouts

Seattle -- the city with 100 days of sunlight? Ha !!! THey are a participation trophy for showing how green they are. Besides -- they survive on all that NW mega hydro power.. What do they care?

 

[sakinago]

How can one be sincerely concerned about man-made Climate Change but opposed to the most obvious remedy, nuclear power? Please explain.

Because nuclear power is incredibly expensive.

Cost matters in the real world. For the price of that nuclear plant, we could build far, far more renewable capacity. Thus, the cost-effective choice is to not build more nuclear power plants.

Don't bring up the cheaper nuclear power plants that are supposedly just around the corner, because they've been just around the corner for the past 50 years.

And I say that as a person who used to run nuclear reactors. I'm as pro-nuke as they get. I just recognize that on a cost basis, nuclear power is totally impractical. Existing plants should be maintained for baseline load, but the idea of new plants is a joke.

Solar energy is almost triple the cost of nuclear, and it produces more waste per joule of energy created than nuclear. Solar is not clean energy as it is advertised as. Yes there’s a good bit of cost that goes into building a nuclear plant, after it’s built it is quite cheap. Nuclear is by far more reliable, produces much less waste than solar, and zero emissions. Solar on the other hand requires a lot of upkeep. Both panels and battery storage systems have to be replaced every 10 or so years, so you’re basically making a new power plant every 10 years for solar. Nuclear plants are good to go for at least 80 years and are only getting better.

Not mention the 20 or 25 lifetime of a good solar panel.. When you 40 acres of them, that's a lot of unrecycleable waste..

I generally go with -- solar is NOT an "alternative" to grid generation.. It's a PEAKER technology to relieve the daytime PEAK usage.. PERIOD.. NEWS FLASH -- there's 15 hours of the day in a GOOD LOCATION, where the panels are not efficient or dead.. Also no worky when there's clouds or rain or inches of snow/ice on them...

Sorry seattle, hope y’all can handle rolling blackouts

Seattle -- the city with 100 days of sunlight? Ha !!! THey are a participation trophy for showing how green they are. Besides -- they survive on all that NW mega hydro power.. What do they care?

But it’s a super awesome 100 days of sunlight so...

 

[Grumblenuts]

BERLIN (AP) — Germany added almost 3 gigawatts of new solar power generation in 2018, about 68 percent more than the previous year amid a drop in prices for new systems.

But the country’s solar industry association, BSW, said Thursday that Germany needs 7.5 GW of new photovoltaic systems annually to meet long-term energy demand.

Germany plans to switch off its nuclear plants by 2022 and the government is considering a proposal to stop burning coal for electricity by 2038 at the latest in a bid to curb greenhouse emissions.

Europe’s biggest economy depends heavily on reliable electricity supplies. Solar contributed about 8 percent of Germany’s electricity last year.

At 46 GW, Germany has the fourth largest installed solar capacity behind China (174 GW), the United States (63 GW) and Japan (60 GW).

 

[Blues Man]

You've met someone opposed to Thorium reactor research?

Countless energy technologies are being explored and promoted now. Who's against them? I'd bet it's been the old nuke industry itself holding back Thorium reactor progress far more than anyone else.

No nuclear research in the US because Congress banned it after watching a bad Jane Fonda movie

 

[Blues Man]

Is there a pro-nuker here who isn't preaching unicorns and rainbows, while cursing the heretics who don't believe in the unicorns and rainbows?

They all talk about the cheap miracle reactors that are just around the corner, just you wait and see. The cheap miracle reactors have been just around the corner for the past 50 years, and we never seem to get to that corner, but this time it's different, really it is.

Practical people don't put their faith in such unicorns and rainbows. Practical people look at the technology that works at a cheap price, which is now the renewable technologies.

Since Congress shut down our nuclear reactor research program because they thought a bad Jane Fonda movie was a documentary, we have fallen way behind the curve on nuclear power research and we are also missing out on the multi-billion dollar medical isotope market because congress also banned that research.

The thing is that a molten salt reactor was up and running at Oak ridge labs before Congress pulled the plug on that research.

If you want to get the US 100% off fossil fuels and you think wind and batteries can meet today's need never mind the much greater need if we get off fossil fuels completely, it's you who believe in fairy tales

 

[Grumblenuts]

You've met someone opposed to Thorium reactor research?

Countless energy technologies are being explored and promoted now. Who's against them? I'd bet it's been the old nuke industry itself holding back Thorium reactor progress far more than anyone else.

No nuclear research in the US because Congress banned it after watching a bad Jane Fonda movie

Link? Yep, Mamooth, you nailed it. All unicorns and rainbows all the time.

10 Reasons Not to Invest in Nuclear Energy

 

[Blues Man]

You've met someone opposed to Thorium reactor research?

Countless energy technologies are being explored and promoted now. Who's against them? I'd bet it's been the old nuke industry itself holding back Thorium reactor progress far more than anyone else.

No nuclear research in the US because Congress banned it after watching a bad Jane Fonda movie

Link? Yep, Mamooth, you nailed it. All unicorns and rainbows all the time.

10 Reasons Not to Invest in Nuclear Energy

Center for American Progress

Nope not biased at all.

And since wind only produces 25% or less of its rated capacity it actually costs 4 times more than people think

And as I said the molten salt reactor has been built and tested at Oak Ridge. It would take little effort to redesign such a reactor.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You've met someone opposed to Thorium reactor research?

Countless energy technologies are being explored and promoted now. Who's against them? I'd bet it's been the old nuke industry itself holding back Thorium reactor progress far more than anyone else.

No nuclear research in the US because Congress banned it after watching a bad Jane Fonda movie

Link? Yep, Mamooth, you nailed it. All unicorns and rainbows all the time.

10 Reasons Not to Invest in Nuclear Energy

Center For American Progress.....hilarious!

 

[Grumblenuts]

And as I said the molten salt

Oh good, you're a molten salt fan!

Crescent Dunes, the flagship project of Santa Monica–based firm SolarReserve, has achieved what engineers and proponents of renewable energy have struggled with for decades: providing cheap, commercial-scale, non–fossil fuel electricity even when winds are calm or the sun is not shining.

Progress - Hilarious!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And as I said the molten salt

Oh good, you're a molten salt fan!

Crescent Dunes, the flagship project of Santa Monica–based firm SolarReserve, has achieved what engineers and proponents of renewable energy have struggled with for decades: providing cheap, commercial-scale, non–fossil fuel electricity even when winds are calm or the sun is not shining.

Progress - Hilarious!

Molten salt cooling that solar project?
Or is it the fuel?

 

[Grumblenuts]

since wind only produces 25% or less of its rated capacity it actually costs 4 times more than people think

Link?

 

[Blues Man]

And as I said the molten salt

Oh good, you're a molten salt fan!

Crescent Dunes, the flagship project of Santa Monica–based firm SolarReserve, has achieved what engineers and proponents of renewable energy have struggled with for decades: providing cheap, commercial-scale, non–fossil fuel electricity even when winds are calm or the sun is not shining.

Progress - Hilarious!

Yeah and you only get power 50% of the time not to mention that you destroy the landscape for it

Anyone who thinks intermittent power supplies can meet our current needs never mind the even greater future needs for electricity as we move to a fossil fuel free power supply is delusional.

Really when everyone is driving electric cars and heating their homes with electric heat not to mention all the electric needs of the population that wind and solar can provide all of it 24/7/365 ?

The answer is no

 

[Grumblenuts]

And as I said the molten salt

Oh good, you're a molten salt fan!

Crescent Dunes, the flagship project of Santa Monica–based firm SolarReserve, has achieved what engineers and proponents of renewable energy have struggled with for decades: providing cheap, commercial-scale, non–fossil fuel electricity even when winds are calm or the sun is not shining.

Progress - Hilarious!

Molten salt cooling that solar project?
Or is it the fuel?

The Sun is the fuel. The salt is the battery.

 

[Blues Man]

since wind only produces 25% or less of its rated capacity it actually costs 4 times more than people think

Link?

FuturePundit: Energy Wind Archives

the average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yeah and you only get power 50% of the time

You can't even be bothered to read.

 

[Blues Man]

Yeah and you only get power 50% of the time

You can't even be bothered to read.

Yeah and you only get power 50% of the time

You can't even be bothered to read.

I read every word in that post

 

[Grumblenuts]

Okay then, you somehow didn't understand what "non–fossil fuel electricity even when winds are calm or the sun is not shining" meant. Also, an unabashed "Pundit" for a source. Hilarious!