CDZ Climate Change vs. Nuclear Power

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Yep. The two are definitely tied together. If you want to guarantee REAL climate change, there is no better way than a runaway nuclear reactor! It's GUARANTEED to change your climate!

Until we outgrow the need for fossil fuels, the only real solution to greenhouse gas is for humanity to get control of itself and start bringing down population. It isn't the fossil fuels that are so bad as it is the NUMBER of people all burning them!

the only real solution to greenhouse gas is for humanity to get control of itself and start bringing down population. It isn't the fossil fuels that are so bad as it is the NUMBER of people all burning them!

I do hope you realize just how very similar your argument is to a particular "environmentalist" from the '30's and '40s. That "environmentalist" was.....

Yup, Adolf Hitler. He was all for "reducing population" too. He was also a strong proponent of eugenics. Isn't it interesting how the less we REMEMBER about history, the more we REPEAT it. Even using the very same arguments in many cases, just slightly disguised.

Can't help it if two people come to similar conclusions for two very different reasons. But whereas Adolf wanted to exterminate people other than Germans because he thought them inferior, I merely recognize the scientifically indisputable fact that virtually every negative environmental and societal problem mankind faces today is a function of his massively increasing numbers on the planet. Name me one problem we face today that wouldn't be helped if not solved by cutting world population down to half? And I don't mean by extermination but simply by regulating birth rates to bring things back around eventually to a manageable number over the next 50 years.

Because, if mankind cannot find a way of doing it, believe me, sooner or later, nature is going to do it for us in the form of famine, war or disease. Which do YOU prefer?

I don't think you had bad intentions at all for bringing up population control..

Of course not, I don't know why anyone would think that. I didn't say I had a good solution in how to IMPLEMENT that, but the inescapable fact is that in most places of the world, cities are being strained to the limit, their infrastructure, utilities, electrical grid, sewerage, water supply, waste disposal are all being strained to the limit.

We are running out of places to bury our waste, food production is being pushed to the limit. Hospitals and educational facilities are being overrun. Minerals and resources are being depleted. Oceans are being scooped dry of fish. Our forests destroyed, countless species run to extinction. Whole ecosystems of coral reefs and other things wiped out.

Our problem is that we are barely keeping up, we have no headroom left. All it will take now is a severe drought, a major power outage from a CME or some disease blight and a LOT of people are going to be in trouble.

The collective smog and pollution beginning to take a toll on the planet. Cities thick with smog and haze. Light pollution from artificial illumination has wiped out our night skies. We nearly destroyed our ozone with CFCs then went almost as bad with the HFCs which replaced them which turned out to be a terrible greenhouse gas. And we don't know if there is some other yet unseen toxin we've released as yet undetected. As it is, pieces of plastic now turn up in EVERY air sample, every fish sample we test. We ourselves are certainly full of plastics. And I feel certain there is a DIRECT LINK between over-population and urban life, noise and pressure and the crimes we are seeing today. Whatever the long-term technological solution to all of this, all I know is that the immediate short term solution to a cleaner, healthier, better planet is to bring our population back down to maybe half it is today. That alone would cut our impact on the environment by 75%.

We are running out of places to bury our waste

Where did you get that bad stat?

food production is being pushed to the limit.

Not even close.

 

[mamooth]

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.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

renewable capacity and actual output are 2 entirely different things

and the cost of nuclear power will come down if we get away from the old light water reactors and implement smaller ones that can be manufactured off site and shipped to the sight because there will be no need for large facilities

 

[mamooth]

renewable capacity and actual output are 2 entirely different things

At actual output, renewable is way, way cheaper.

and the cost of nuclear power will come down if we get away from the old light water reactors and implement smaller ones that can be manufactured off site and shipped to the sight because there will be no need for large facilities

Tiny reactors all over would be an insane security risk, so that won't happen.

And they fall in the category of cheaper reactors that have been just around the corner for the past 50 years.

 

[Blues Man]

renewable capacity and actual output are 2 entirely different things

At actual output, renewable is way, way cheaper.

and the cost of nuclear power will come down if we get away from the old light water reactors and implement smaller ones that can be manufactured off site and shipped to the sight because there will be no need for large facilities

Tiny reactors all over would be an insane security risk, so that won't happen.

And they fall in the category of cheaper reactors that have been just around the corner for the past 50 years.

No it's not because with wind to get 2 MW of output you have to install 8 MW of capacity

And the small reactors can be buried underground and capped with concrete so they will actually be more secure than our current light water reactors

 

[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.

Old school nuclear is expensive. Mostly because of regulation and time consuming compliance. The 3rd and 4th gen designs don't even RESEMBLE the ones that are installed now..

Need to field test for the winners, sort them out quick, and pre-approve the designs for installations..

 

[flacaltenn]

renewable capacity and actual output are 2 entirely different things

At actual output, renewable is way, way cheaper.

and the cost of nuclear power will come down if we get away from the old light water reactors and implement smaller ones that can be manufactured off site and shipped to the sight because there will be no need for large facilities

Tiny reactors all over would be an insane security risk, so that won't happen.

And they fall in the category of cheaper reactors that have been just around the corner for the past 50 years.

No it's not because with wind to get 2 MW of output you have to install 8 MW of capacity

And the small reactors can be buried underground and capped with concrete so they will actually be more secure than our current light water reactors

I've been watching and waiting for some of these companies with compact reactor designs to go public. I'm gonna be a big fan and investor... If you can bury a reactor for 15 years and take it out to recycle the fuel while powering 20,000 homes --- there's no BIG centralized site to decommission or do maintenance on..

 

[Blues Man]

renewable capacity and actual output are 2 entirely different things

At actual output, renewable is way, way cheaper.

and the cost of nuclear power will come down if we get away from the old light water reactors and implement smaller ones that can be manufactured off site and shipped to the sight because there will be no need for large facilities

Tiny reactors all over would be an insane security risk, so that won't happen.

And they fall in the category of cheaper reactors that have been just around the corner for the past 50 years.

No it's not because with wind to get 2 MW of output you have to install 8 MW of capacity

And the small reactors can be buried underground and capped with concrete so they will actually be more secure than our current light water reactors

I've been watching and waiting for some of these companies with compact reactor designs to go public. I'm gonna be a big fan and investor... If you can bury a reactor for 15 years and take it out to recycle the fuel while powering 20,000 homes --- there's no BIG centralized site to decommission or do maintenance on..

using smaller modular reactors to power overlapping areas makes sense as it adds redundancy and we won't have to completely revamp our existing power grid

 

[Pilot1]

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.

Then why has France gone Nuclear? I will have to check what their average cost per KWH is with all the nuke they've built. They want to avoid dependency on Russian oil and natural gas which I think is wise.

We have so much fossil fuel in the U.S. it can be considered like a "renewable". USE IT.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Then why has France gone Nuclear? I will have to check what their average cost per KWH is with all the nuke they've built. They want to avoid dependency on Russian oil and natural gas which I think is wise.

We have so much fossil fuel in the U.S. it can be considered like a "renewable". USE IT.

The cost of electricity in France is about half of what it is in Germany and we all know Germany went all in on wind only and decommissioned its nuclear reactors only to find out that wind wasn't generating enough power so they had to build new coal fired plants to take up the slack

If Germany Can't Quit Coal, Can Anyone Else?

 

[Pilot1]

Wind, and Solar are not practical due to cost, and reliability. Natural Gas is the best, cleanest alternative, and that's where the U.S. continues to go as we have so much of it. Wind and solar farms are a huge, feel good waste. We need low cost, RELIABLE power and wind and solar can not provide that. Fossil fuel does, and that's why it still runs the world, and will in the future.

People are too afraid of Nuke here in the U.S. I guess the people of France grew a pair which you'd think would happen here, except the cuck Left, and Media (same thing) won't allow it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"Climate Change vs. Nuclear Power"

Why waste time on such loaded industry talking points, "cleanly" or otherwise? "Feelings" alone vastly comprise the basis of comment here, including far too much of what that industry planted Norwegian TED talk lady presented whose closing remark apparently inspired this topic. Anyone else notice her "free energy" claim? At least she didn't overtly bash the opposing science. Godlike, barked assertions of fact are just that. Egotistical rants of no consequence. Certainly not "debate". Nor is sharing endless fallacious blather no matter how thinly veiled one's personal agenda. For anyone serious about such topics, the alternative (aside from posing a fair, intelligent question to begin with) is simply to argue logically from linked, quoted, widely established, scientific evidence. No room nor call for appeals to belief in anything. No wasting time entertaining false dichotomy rooted in desperate industry BS. Try debating genuine scientific questions. Hint: Climate science most overwhelmingly does not, thereby setting a ready standard. But that's really not why most post here at all, is it? Which is truly a shame.

eta: just facts -
"No nuclear power plant has ever been established in Norway"
"The United States is the largest producer of nuclear power, while France has the largest share of electricity generated by nuclear power."
"The French want to reduce their dependence on nuclear to 50%. The Spanish government plans to shut down its nuclear reactors when they have enough electricity from solar and wind power."
"The Paris Agreement came into force in November 2016. It is the first global agreement that commits all countries to setting more ambitious goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Norway was among the first countries to ratify the agreement. The Paris Agreement gives reason to hope that the countries of the world can work together to prevent dangerous climate change."

 

[flacaltenn]

Why waste time on such loaded industry talking points, "cleanly" or otherwise? "Feelings" alone vastly comprise the basis of comment here, including far too much of what that industry planted Norwegian TED talk lady presented whose closing remark apparently inspired this topic. Anyone else notice her "free energy" claim? At least she didn't overtly bash the opposing science. Godlike, barked assertions of fact are just that. Egotistical rants of no consequence. Certainly not "debate". Nor is sharing endless fallacious blather no matter how thinly veiled one's personal agenda. For anyone serious about such topics, the alternative (aside from posing a fair, intelligent question to begin with) is simply to argue logically from linked, quoted, widely established, scientific evidence. No room nor call for appeals to belief in anything. No wasting time entertaining false dichotomy rooted in desperate industry BS. Try debating genuine scientific questions. Hint: Climate science most overwhelmingly does not, thereby setting a ready standard. But that's really not why most post here at all, is it? Which is truly a shame.

Nice rhetoric. Great example of wasted platitudes.. Didn't address a SINGLE point I or others MADE in this thread.. Also 100% antiseptically clean of facts.. I'll check the links, but I stand with the godfather of GWarming when I say that -- you probably believe in the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny if you're MORE afraid of nuclear power than GWarming or the enviro issues of fossil fuels... C'mon back and REPLY and ADDRESS any of the points previously made in the thread with YOUR OWN facts and science.. Much appreciated to force and me others to defend our solutions and science.

And that lady (the nuclear physicist) made a claim of "free energy" BECAUSE she was educating you to the LIFECYCLE of various nuclear fuels.. Many of the ones in use just reduce to more problematic waste products, but the THORIUM BASED reactors actually CREATE fissionable material as they decay that can power a plant.. If you're too soft on understanding such concepts --- you really should NOT be ridiculing them.. Or ridiculing folks with a tighter grasp of the science and technology...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Nice rhetoric. Great example of wasted platitudes..

..and blah, blah, blah...
Oh, my. So personally hostile and dismissive.. yet demanding? I seriously doubt you fool anyone but yourself.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Also 100% antiseptically clean of facts.. I'll check the links, but

..nothing.. And why not? Afraid you'll find actual facts quoted directly from appropriate, reliable sources? Perhaps realize you've missed the point of each in your reactionary fervor? When you respond please don't forget to SHOUT AT ME IN ALL CAPS some more. Never mind everyone else who's posted here, nothing is more convincing than getting all up in someone else's grill 'cause they didn't have "boo" to say about your posts in particular. Senior Mod, eh? Wow.

 

[MAGAman]

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

MMGW activists are Virtue Signallers.

Not earnest do gooders.

 

[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.

 

[MAGAman]

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.

You're missing the point. Supporting mandatory windmills makes you look cool.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Solar energy is almost triple the cost of nuclear, and it produces more waste per joule of energy created than nuclear.

Let's see your homework on that. Be sure to provide your definition of "waste" because as everyone already knows:
1) Solar doesn't produce radioactive waste. Apples & Oranges.
2) By "waste per joule of energy created" how are you accounting for the massive insurance required on the front end? The huge decommissioning cost on the back end? How can one even begin to account for the unknowable, ever rising, radioactive waste storage cost? I know! Just keep telling everybody that actually takes up no room and it's no more dangerous than a banana anyway!

Meanwhile:

EWG’s analysis of government data and expert studies shows:

• Solar capacity has almost tripled in recent years, from 19,000 megawatts in 2015 to 48,000 megawatts in 2018.
• Wind production has also almost tripled since 2009, from 35,000 megawatts in 2009 to more than 90,000 megawatts in 2018.
• Growth in wind and solar has lowered the cost of solar and wind by 88 percent and 69 percent, respectively, since 2009.
• There are now three times as many renewable energy jobs as coal, nuclear and natural gas jobs.
• The true cost of green energy sources is now less than the cost of coal, natural gas and nuclear.

 

[sakinago]

Solar energy is almost triple the cost of nuclear, and it produces more waste per joule of energy created than nuclear.

Let's see your homework on that. Be sure to provide your definition of "waste" because as everyone already knows:
1) Solar doesn't produce radioactive waste. Apples & Oranges.
2) By "waste per joule of energy created" how are you accounting for the massive insurance required on the front end? The huge decommissioning cost on the back end? How can one even begin to account for the unknowable, ever rising, radioactive waste storage cost? I know! Just keep telling everybody that actually takes up no room and it's no more dangerous than a banana anyway!

Meanwhile:

EWG’s analysis of government data and expert studies shows:

• Solar capacity has almost tripled in recent years, from 19,000 megawatts in 2015 to 48,000 megawatts in 2018.
• Wind production has also almost tripled since 2009, from 35,000 megawatts in 2009 to more than 90,000 megawatts in 2018.
• Growth in wind and solar has lowered the cost of solar and wind by 88 percent and 69 percent, respectively, since 2009.
• There are now three times as many renewable energy jobs as coal, nuclear and natural gas jobs.
• The true cost of green energy sources is now less than the cost of coal, natural gas and nuclear.

Did my homework years ago on this.

Solar produces a good bit of greenhouse gases in its fabrication along with the waste when they are no longer useful every 8-10 so years. With solar energy you’re also going to have to create a substantial chemical battery storage system, that also needs to be replaced every 8-10 years. Batteries use very harmful chemicals. This is compared to a very a minuscule amount of radioactive waste that we know how to store and have enough space to store without building any new infrastructure for the next century. Solar panels alone create 300 times more waste for the same amount of energy produced by nuclear. It’s not even close bub, nuclear is by far superior. We’re also talking about the 60 year old nuclear industry that we for whatever reason have been skiddish of changing. The new nuclear tech is going to be revolutional.

Are we headed for a solar waste crisis?