How much can renewable energy save us?

[danielpalos]

Socialism has to bailout capitalism all the time.

And,

technologies are improving all the time.

 

[boedicca]

Ask the Germans (hint, they were better off with nuclear):


The trouble is that Germany isn’t an ideal place for solar and wind power. So to cover any shortfalls in energy production, the nation would have to be able to rely on energy imports from neighboring countries.

But that was a minor issue for the German government obsessed with the green energy revolution. German energy giants like RWE and E.ON were required to close eight nuclear power plants immediately in March 2011.

“Obviously, the loss of profits was immense,” adds Burdenski. “The companies sued the German government for redress. Just a few weeks ago, the Federal Constitutional Court judged in favor of E.on, RWE and Vattenfall in a first ruling. Further lawsuits are still outstanding. The companies will now receive compensation for investments made between the lifetime extension in fall 2010 and the abandonment of nuclear energy in 2011.”

Now investors, workers, and taxpayers are counting their losses from the green energy disaster. E.on’s and RWE’s stocks have lost 80 percent of their value from the old time highs, as the two companies have had to adjust their business model to the green policies. Workers have been losing their jobs, and taxpayers are in for billions of euros to cover the write off of nuclear plants—E.on and RWE have won lawsuits against government.

As of German consumers, they pay one of the highest electricity rates in the developed world....

Forbes Welcome

 

[danielpalos]

Ask the Germans (hint, they were better off with nuclear):


The trouble is that Germany isn’t an ideal place for solar and wind power. So to cover any shortfalls in energy production, the nation would have to be able to rely on energy imports from neighboring countries.

But that was a minor issue for the German government obsessed with the green energy revolution. German energy giants like RWE and E.ON were required to close eight nuclear power plants immediately in March 2011.

“Obviously, the loss of profits was immense,” adds Burdenski. “The companies sued the German government for redress. Just a few weeks ago, the Federal Constitutional Court judged in favor of E.on, RWE and Vattenfall in a first ruling. Further lawsuits are still outstanding. The companies will now receive compensation for investments made between the lifetime extension in fall 2010 and the abandonment of nuclear energy in 2011.”

Now investors, workers, and taxpayers are counting their losses from the green energy disaster. E.on’s and RWE’s stocks have lost 80 percent of their value from the old time highs, as the two companies have had to adjust their business model to the green policies. Workers have been losing their jobs, and taxpayers are in for billions of euros to cover the write off of nuclear plants—E.on and RWE have won lawsuits against government.

As of German consumers, they pay one of the highest electricity rates in the developed world....

Forbes Welcome

They just need to upgrade, to sextuple their energy output.

 

[Old Rocks]

Nuclear power in the United States - Wikipedia

Over-commitment and cancellations[edit]
See also: List of canceled nuclear plants in the United States

Net summer electrical generation capacity of US nuclear power plants, 1949-2011

Average capacity factor of US nuclear power plants, 1957-2011
By the mid-1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as quickly as once believed. Cost overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost overruns averaged 207 percent. Opposition and problems were galvanized by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.[30]

Over-commitment to nuclear power brought about the financial collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply System, a public agency which undertook to build five large nuclear power plants in the 1970s. By 1983, cost overruns and delays, along with a slowing of electricity demand growth, led to cancellation of two WPPSS plants and a construction halt on two others. Moreover, WPPSS defaulted on $2.25 billion of municipal bonds, which is one of the largest municipal bond defaults in U.S. history. The court case that followed took nearly a decade to resolve.[31][32][33]

Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were cancelled,[34] and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt. Al Gore has commented on the historical record and reliability of nuclear power in the United States:

Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable.[35]

Amory Lovins has also commented on the historical record of nuclear power in the United States:

Of all 132 U.S. nuclear plants built (52% of the 253 originally ordered), 21% were permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems, while another 27% have completely failed for a year or more at least once. The surviving U.S. nuclear plants produce ~90% of their full-time full-load potential, but even they are not fully dependable. Even reliably operating nuclear plants must shut down, on average, for 39 days every 17 months for refueling and maintenance, and unexpected failures do occur too.[36]

A cover story in the February 11, 1985, issue of Forbes magazine commented on the overall management of the nuclear power program in the United States:

The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale … only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible.[37]
FUBARs in the nuke industry killed the nuke industry. Let the dead stay dead.

 

[elektra]

Only an old moron would quote wikipedia.

The USA has demonstrated the reliability and feasibility of Nuclear power. Today, we create more power, with less Nuclear power plants than in the past.

Some Nuclear Power plants in the USA operate 500 days in a row without shutting down. Nuclear Power plants designed to last 20 years are operating 30, 40 years, and more.

Yes, it can be expensive to fight frivolous lawsuits allowed by activist Judges. And yes, the endless regulations the government saddles Nuclear power plants with can be very expensive.

But, that said, the United States Produces more electricity today, from Nuclear power plants than it did yesterday.

Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association

There are over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31 countries, with over 390,000 MWe of total capacity. About 60 more reactors are under construction.

• They provide over 11% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power, without carbon dioxide emissions.
• 55 countries operate a total of about 245 research reactors, and a further 180 nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines.

The increase over the six years to 2006 (210 TWh) was equal to the output from 30 large new nuclear power plants. Yet between 2000 and 2006 there was no net increase in reactor numbers (and only 15 GWe in capacity). The rest of the improvement was due to better performance from existing units.

US nuclear power plant performance has shown a steady improvement over the past 20 years, and the average load factor in 2012 was 81%, up from 66% in 1990 and 56% in 1980. US average capacity factors have been over 90% in most years since 2000 - 92.7% in 2015. This places the USA as the performance leader with nearly half of the top 50 reactors, the 50th achieving 94% in 2015-16 (albeit without China and South Korea in those figures). The USA accounts for nearly one-third of the world's nuclear electricity

United States
In the USA, there are four reactors under construction, all new AP1000 designs. One of the reasons for the hiatus in new build in the USA to date has been the extremely successful evolution in maintenance strategies. Over the last 15 years, changes have increased utilization of US nuclear power plants, with the increased output corresponding to 19 new 1000 MW plants being built.

You know what the secret is, Liberal Democrats hate a strong United States, they want us as weak as a third world country, with no power, no real power, certainly not the strongest power in the World. NUCLEAR POWER.

Think about it, Democrats authorized the transfer of Nuclear Technology to China, the Westinghouse AP1000, China is now the World's leader in new Nuclear Power Plant construction. On top of that, China can manufacture AP1000 pressure vessels, the USA can not do that.

Democrats are happy to see the USA lose. To see the USA weak and pitiful, they believe we deserve to be in last place.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan

Of course, those whose political beliefs outweigh reason, the words above mean nothing. Solar and wind are winning on all fronts.

Not by a long shot.

 

[Old Rocks]

Solar and Wind: How Low Can They Go?

For the second year in a row, wind and solar accounted for roughly two-thirds of new U.S. generating capacity, while natural gas and nuclear made up most of the rest.

That’s because right now, in much of the United States, wind and solar are the cheapest form of power available, according to a new report from investment bank Lazard.

Analysts found that new solar and wind installations are cheaper than a new coal-fired power installation just about everywhere — even without subsidies. The cost of renewables continues to fall rapidly.

Solar and wind are getting really, really cheap.
Since just last year, the cost of utility-scale solar has dropped 10 percent, and the cost of residential solar dropped a whopping 26 percent — and that is coming after years of price declines. The cost of offshore wind declined by 22 percent since last year, though it still remains more expensive than onshore wind.

The Lazard report is just the latest chapter in the success story of renewable energy. Since 2009, the cost of solar has been cut nearly in half. The cost of wind has fallen by two-thirds. The precipitous drop in price is reminiscent of shrinking costs for personal computers. Wind and, particularly solar, have yet to level off. New technologies and cheaper materials will continue to drive down costs in the years ahead.

CREDCIT: Lazard

LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

Wind and solar are our cheapest electricity sources – now what do we do?

Wind and Solar Costs Are Plummeting: Now What Do We Do?

by 3p Contributor on Monday, Jan 2nd, 2017 CLIMATE & ENVIRONMENT

By Mike O’Boyle

For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?

Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy: In investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies, renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. This flips the question of clean-versus-cost on its head. And in 2017, we’ll be asking: How much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?

The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without federal subsidies like tax credits.

What does levelized cost of energy mean?
Lazard uses LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component – capital expenditure to build, operations and maintenance, and fuel costs to run – spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.

Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.

How wind and solar are winning the day
According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.

Large-scale solar’s cost declines are even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.

Wind and solar, winners for sure.

 

[elektra]

Yet, for all the hype about Renewable Energy, you can not use Renewable Energy to produce Wind Turbines or Solar Panels. It is too weak, you need Coal to produce Wind Turbines and Solar Panels.

At best, Wind Turbines and Solar Panels are dependent on increased use of Coal.

 

[Old Rocks]

More stinky 'facts' pulled from an idiots ass.

 

[elektra]

Seems very expensive to me, so many different figures, which do we believe? $33 trillion, $12.1 trillion? The government low-balls these things, I bet it costs $100 trillion.

New report: $12.1 trillion must be invested in new renewable power generation over next 25 years to limit climate change — Ceres

New report: $12.1 trillion must be invested in new renewable power generation over next 25 years to limit climate change

 

[danielpalos]

Only an old moron would quote wikipedia.

The USA has demonstrated the reliability and feasibility of Nuclear power. Today, we create more power, with less Nuclear power plants than in the past.

Some Nuclear Power plants in the USA operate 500 days in a row without shutting down. Nuclear Power plants designed to last 20 years are operating 30, 40 years, and more.

Yes, it can be expensive to fight frivolous lawsuits allowed by activist Judges. And yes, the endless regulations the government saddles Nuclear power plants with can be very expensive.

But, that said, the United States Produces more electricity today, from Nuclear power plants than it did yesterday.

Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association

There are over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31 countries, with over 390,000 MWe of total capacity. About 60 more reactors are under construction.

• They provide over 11% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power, without carbon dioxide emissions.
• 55 countries operate a total of about 245 research reactors, and a further 180 nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines.

The increase over the six years to 2006 (210 TWh) was equal to the output from 30 large new nuclear power plants. Yet between 2000 and 2006 there was no net increase in reactor numbers (and only 15 GWe in capacity). The rest of the improvement was due to better performance from existing units.

US nuclear power plant performance has shown a steady improvement over the past 20 years, and the average load factor in 2012 was 81%, up from 66% in 1990 and 56% in 1980. US average capacity factors have been over 90% in most years since 2000 - 92.7% in 2015. This places the USA as the performance leader with nearly half of the top 50 reactors, the 50th achieving 94% in 2015-16 (albeit without China and South Korea in those figures). The USA accounts for nearly one-third of the world's nuclear electricity

United States
In the USA, there are four reactors under construction, all new AP1000 designs. One of the reasons for the hiatus in new build in the USA to date has been the extremely successful evolution in maintenance strategies. Over the last 15 years, changes have increased utilization of US nuclear power plants, with the increased output corresponding to 19 new 1000 MW plants being built.

You know what the secret is, Liberal Democrats hate a strong United States, they want us as weak as a third world country, with no power, no real power, certainly not the strongest power in the World. NUCLEAR POWER.

Think about it, Democrats authorized the transfer of Nuclear Technology to China, the Westinghouse AP1000, China is now the World's leader in new Nuclear Power Plant construction. On top of that, China can manufacture AP1000 pressure vessels, the USA can not do that.

Democrats are happy to see the USA lose. To see the USA weak and pitiful, they believe we deserve to be in last place.

some on the left are advancing, fusion (an energy with a future).

 

[danielpalos]

Yet, for all the hype about Renewable Energy, you can not use Renewable Energy to produce Wind Turbines or Solar Panels. It is too weak, you need Coal to produce Wind Turbines and Solar Panels.

At best, Wind Turbines and Solar Panels are dependent on increased use of Coal.

science and technology is improving all the time.

many grids just need to be upgraded with the latest technologies; to sextuple energy output in a bird friendly manner.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only an old moron would quote wikipedia.

The USA has demonstrated the reliability and feasibility of Nuclear power. Today, we create more power, with less Nuclear power plants than in the past.

Some Nuclear Power plants in the USA operate 500 days in a row without shutting down. Nuclear Power plants designed to last 20 years are operating 30, 40 years, and more.

Yes, it can be expensive to fight frivolous lawsuits allowed by activist Judges. And yes, the endless regulations the government saddles Nuclear power plants with can be very expensive.

But, that said, the United States Produces more electricity today, from Nuclear power plants than it did yesterday.

Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association

There are over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31 countries, with over 390,000 MWe of total capacity. About 60 more reactors are under construction.

• They provide over 11% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power, without carbon dioxide emissions.
• 55 countries operate a total of about 245 research reactors, and a further 180 nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines.

The increase over the six years to 2006 (210 TWh) was equal to the output from 30 large new nuclear power plants. Yet between 2000 and 2006 there was no net increase in reactor numbers (and only 15 GWe in capacity). The rest of the improvement was due to better performance from existing units.

US nuclear power plant performance has shown a steady improvement over the past 20 years, and the average load factor in 2012 was 81%, up from 66% in 1990 and 56% in 1980. US average capacity factors have been over 90% in most years since 2000 - 92.7% in 2015. This places the USA as the performance leader with nearly half of the top 50 reactors, the 50th achieving 94% in 2015-16 (albeit without China and South Korea in those figures). The USA accounts for nearly one-third of the world's nuclear electricity

United States
In the USA, there are four reactors under construction, all new AP1000 designs. One of the reasons for the hiatus in new build in the USA to date has been the extremely successful evolution in maintenance strategies. Over the last 15 years, changes have increased utilization of US nuclear power plants, with the increased output corresponding to 19 new 1000 MW plants being built.

You know what the secret is, Liberal Democrats hate a strong United States, they want us as weak as a third world country, with no power, no real power, certainly not the strongest power in the World. NUCLEAR POWER.

Think about it, Democrats authorized the transfer of Nuclear Technology to China, the Westinghouse AP1000, China is now the World's leader in new Nuclear Power Plant construction. On top of that, China can manufacture AP1000 pressure vessels, the USA can not do that.

Democrats are happy to see the USA lose. To see the USA weak and pitiful, they believe we deserve to be in last place.

some on the left are advancing, fusion (an energy with a future).

And none on the right? LOL!

 

[danielpalos]

Only an old moron would quote wikipedia.

The USA has demonstrated the reliability and feasibility of Nuclear power. Today, we create more power, with less Nuclear power plants than in the past.

Some Nuclear Power plants in the USA operate 500 days in a row without shutting down. Nuclear Power plants designed to last 20 years are operating 30, 40 years, and more.

Yes, it can be expensive to fight frivolous lawsuits allowed by activist Judges. And yes, the endless regulations the government saddles Nuclear power plants with can be very expensive.

But, that said, the United States Produces more electricity today, from Nuclear power plants than it did yesterday.

Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association

There are over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31 countries, with over 390,000 MWe of total capacity. About 60 more reactors are under construction.

• They provide over 11% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power, without carbon dioxide emissions.
• 55 countries operate a total of about 245 research reactors, and a further 180 nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines.

The increase over the six years to 2006 (210 TWh) was equal to the output from 30 large new nuclear power plants. Yet between 2000 and 2006 there was no net increase in reactor numbers (and only 15 GWe in capacity). The rest of the improvement was due to better performance from existing units.

US nuclear power plant performance has shown a steady improvement over the past 20 years, and the average load factor in 2012 was 81%, up from 66% in 1990 and 56% in 1980. US average capacity factors have been over 90% in most years since 2000 - 92.7% in 2015. This places the USA as the performance leader with nearly half of the top 50 reactors, the 50th achieving 94% in 2015-16 (albeit without China and South Korea in those figures). The USA accounts for nearly one-third of the world's nuclear electricity

United States
In the USA, there are four reactors under construction, all new AP1000 designs. One of the reasons for the hiatus in new build in the USA to date has been the extremely successful evolution in maintenance strategies. Over the last 15 years, changes have increased utilization of US nuclear power plants, with the increased output corresponding to 19 new 1000 MW plants being built.

You know what the secret is, Liberal Democrats hate a strong United States, they want us as weak as a third world country, with no power, no real power, certainly not the strongest power in the World. NUCLEAR POWER.

Think about it, Democrats authorized the transfer of Nuclear Technology to China, the Westinghouse AP1000, China is now the World's leader in new Nuclear Power Plant construction. On top of that, China can manufacture AP1000 pressure vessels, the USA can not do that.

Democrats are happy to see the USA lose. To see the USA weak and pitiful, they believe we deserve to be in last place.

some on the left are advancing, fusion (an energy with a future).

And none on the right? LOL!

i thought they were cronies for fission.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only an old moron would quote wikipedia.

The USA has demonstrated the reliability and feasibility of Nuclear power. Today, we create more power, with less Nuclear power plants than in the past.

Some Nuclear Power plants in the USA operate 500 days in a row without shutting down. Nuclear Power plants designed to last 20 years are operating 30, 40 years, and more.

Yes, it can be expensive to fight frivolous lawsuits allowed by activist Judges. And yes, the endless regulations the government saddles Nuclear power plants with can be very expensive.

But, that said, the United States Produces more electricity today, from Nuclear power plants than it did yesterday.

Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association

There are over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31 countries, with over 390,000 MWe of total capacity. About 60 more reactors are under construction.

• They provide over 11% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power, without carbon dioxide emissions.
• 55 countries operate a total of about 245 research reactors, and a further 180 nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines.

The increase over the six years to 2006 (210 TWh) was equal to the output from 30 large new nuclear power plants. Yet between 2000 and 2006 there was no net increase in reactor numbers (and only 15 GWe in capacity). The rest of the improvement was due to better performance from existing units.

US nuclear power plant performance has shown a steady improvement over the past 20 years, and the average load factor in 2012 was 81%, up from 66% in 1990 and 56% in 1980. US average capacity factors have been over 90% in most years since 2000 - 92.7% in 2015. This places the USA as the performance leader with nearly half of the top 50 reactors, the 50th achieving 94% in 2015-16 (albeit without China and South Korea in those figures). The USA accounts for nearly one-third of the world's nuclear electricity

United States
In the USA, there are four reactors under construction, all new AP1000 designs. One of the reasons for the hiatus in new build in the USA to date has been the extremely successful evolution in maintenance strategies. Over the last 15 years, changes have increased utilization of US nuclear power plants, with the increased output corresponding to 19 new 1000 MW plants being built.

You know what the secret is, Liberal Democrats hate a strong United States, they want us as weak as a third world country, with no power, no real power, certainly not the strongest power in the World. NUCLEAR POWER.

Think about it, Democrats authorized the transfer of Nuclear Technology to China, the Westinghouse AP1000, China is now the World's leader in new Nuclear Power Plant construction. On top of that, China can manufacture AP1000 pressure vessels, the USA can not do that.

Democrats are happy to see the USA lose. To see the USA weak and pitiful, they believe we deserve to be in last place.

some on the left are advancing, fusion (an energy with a future).

And none on the right? LOL!

i thought they were cronies for fission.

Fission is awesome and it works right now.
If the left were truly afraid of CO2 and didn't want to damage the economy, they'd support it instead of wind and solar.

 

[danielpalos]

Only an old moron would quote wikipedia.

The USA has demonstrated the reliability and feasibility of Nuclear power. Today, we create more power, with less Nuclear power plants than in the past.

Some Nuclear Power plants in the USA operate 500 days in a row without shutting down. Nuclear Power plants designed to last 20 years are operating 30, 40 years, and more.

Yes, it can be expensive to fight frivolous lawsuits allowed by activist Judges. And yes, the endless regulations the government saddles Nuclear power plants with can be very expensive.

But, that said, the United States Produces more electricity today, from Nuclear power plants than it did yesterday.

Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association

There are over 440 commercial nuclear power reactors operable in 31 countries, with over 390,000 MWe of total capacity. About 60 more reactors are under construction.

• They provide over 11% of the world's electricity as continuous, reliable base-load power, without carbon dioxide emissions.
• 55 countries operate a total of about 245 research reactors, and a further 180 nuclear reactors power some 140 ships and submarines.

The increase over the six years to 2006 (210 TWh) was equal to the output from 30 large new nuclear power plants. Yet between 2000 and 2006 there was no net increase in reactor numbers (and only 15 GWe in capacity). The rest of the improvement was due to better performance from existing units.

US nuclear power plant performance has shown a steady improvement over the past 20 years, and the average load factor in 2012 was 81%, up from 66% in 1990 and 56% in 1980. US average capacity factors have been over 90% in most years since 2000 - 92.7% in 2015. This places the USA as the performance leader with nearly half of the top 50 reactors, the 50th achieving 94% in 2015-16 (albeit without China and South Korea in those figures). The USA accounts for nearly one-third of the world's nuclear electricity

United States
In the USA, there are four reactors under construction, all new AP1000 designs. One of the reasons for the hiatus in new build in the USA to date has been the extremely successful evolution in maintenance strategies. Over the last 15 years, changes have increased utilization of US nuclear power plants, with the increased output corresponding to 19 new 1000 MW plants being built.

You know what the secret is, Liberal Democrats hate a strong United States, they want us as weak as a third world country, with no power, no real power, certainly not the strongest power in the World. NUCLEAR POWER.

Think about it, Democrats authorized the transfer of Nuclear Technology to China, the Westinghouse AP1000, China is now the World's leader in new Nuclear Power Plant construction. On top of that, China can manufacture AP1000 pressure vessels, the USA can not do that.

Democrats are happy to see the USA lose. To see the USA weak and pitiful, they believe we deserve to be in last place.

some on the left are advancing, fusion (an energy with a future).

And none on the right? LOL!

i thought they were cronies for fission.

Fission is awesome and it works right now.
If the left were truly afraid of CO2 and didn't want to damage the economy, they'd support it instead of wind and solar.

after a Manhattan Project. Why not something similar for fusion (an energy with a future)?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only an old moron would quote wikipedia.

The USA has demonstrated the reliability and feasibility of Nuclear power. Today, we create more power, with less Nuclear power plants than in the past.

Some Nuclear Power plants in the USA operate 500 days in a row without shutting down. Nuclear Power plants designed to last 20 years are operating 30, 40 years, and more.

Yes, it can be expensive to fight frivolous lawsuits allowed by activist Judges. And yes, the endless regulations the government saddles Nuclear power plants with can be very expensive.

But, that said, the United States Produces more electricity today, from Nuclear power plants than it did yesterday.

Nuclear Power Today | Nuclear Energy - World Nuclear Association
You know what the secret is, Liberal Democrats hate a strong United States, they want us as weak as a third world country, with no power, no real power, certainly not the strongest power in the World. NUCLEAR POWER.

Think about it, Democrats authorized the transfer of Nuclear Technology to China, the Westinghouse AP1000, China is now the World's leader in new Nuclear Power Plant construction. On top of that, China can manufacture AP1000 pressure vessels, the USA can not do that.

Democrats are happy to see the USA lose. To see the USA weak and pitiful, they believe we deserve to be in last place.

some on the left are advancing, fusion (an energy with a future).

And none on the right? LOL!

i thought they were cronies for fission.

Fission is awesome and it works right now.
If the left were truly afraid of CO2 and didn't want to damage the economy, they'd support it instead of wind and solar.

after a Manhattan Project. Why not something similar for fusion (an energy with a future)?

You do realize we've been spending billions on fusion research for some time now?

 

[danielpalos]

some on the left are advancing, fusion (an energy with a future).

And none on the right? LOL!

i thought they were cronies for fission.

Fission is awesome and it works right now.
If the left were truly afraid of CO2 and didn't want to damage the economy, they'd support it instead of wind and solar.

after a Manhattan Project. Why not something similar for fusion (an energy with a future)?

You do realize we've been spending billions on fusion research for some time now?

Nothing compared to fission and that Manhattan Project.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And none on the right? LOL!

i thought they were cronies for fission.

Fission is awesome and it works right now.
If the left were truly afraid of CO2 and didn't want to damage the economy, they'd support it instead of wind and solar.

after a Manhattan Project. Why not something similar for fusion (an energy with a future)?

You do realize we've been spending billions on fusion research for some time now?

Nothing compared to fission and that Manhattan Project.

So what? Fission is actually a useful source of reliable energy.