Question for the left regarding alternative energy and climate change

Confounding

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2016
7,073
1,551
280
Do you think it's possible to make quick and meaningful progress towards breaking our dependence on fossil fuels without embracing nuclear power and improving the technology?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
not at the rate we consume it..

I guess I made this thread because it seems that a lot on the left don't like nuclear, and I just don't see any way we make a dent in fossil fuel use without nuclear power. China is building hundreds and hundreds of nuclear power plants because they understand that at this point in time nuclear energy is necessary. I think the rest of the world should be doing the same.
 
not at the rate we consume it..

I guess I made this thread because it seems that a lot on the left don't like nuclear, and I just don't see any way we make a dent in fossil fuel use without nuclear power. China is building hundreds and hundreds of nuclear power plants because they understand that at this point in time nuclear energy is necessary. I think the rest of the world should be doing the same.
Anyone with half a brain knows that to step up to the level humans seek currently a better source of power must be found and fusion is the answer for many..So don't invest in windmills..Although alternative is good for off the grid applications...
 
and if energy can neither be created or destroyed only altered why in the hell do I get bill for consumption?
 
Do you think it's possible to make quick and meaningful progress towards breaking our dependence on fossil fuels without embracing nuclear power and improving the technology?

In my view, we need to go big into Nuke Power with and understanding that it is to bridge the time it takes to make solar, tidal, wind, and other renewables the standard rather than the exception. Given that it is designed to be a short-term fix (50-80 years or so), I think it should be mandated that the Navy run the plants from top to bottom. They have proven that they are 100% capable of running nuclear powered vessels in every conceivable climate and conditions. There is always risks but the experience, the knowledge, and the absence of nepotism, outsourcing, contracting, etc… would give me greater confidence at the safety of the plants.

Source:
Nuclear marine propulsion - Wikipedia
 
A plan on reliable energy cannot be had until such time as we get our grid overhauled and isolated from other networks, like the internet.

A plan should be developed to build, in each state, a series of small (1mW or less) power reactors that have reprocessing capabilities to reprocess fuel. Of course this plan will require a means to transport and eliminated the byproduct. Which is the real sticking point. I prefer to launch it into space and send it on a decaying orbit toward the sun which would eat up our waste very efficiently.
 
A plan on reliable energy cannot be had until such time as we get our grid overhauled and isolated from other networks, like the internet.

A plan should be developed to build, in each state, a series of small (1mW or less) power reactors that have reprocessing capabilities to reprocess fuel. Of course this plan will require a means to transport and eliminated the byproduct. Which is the real sticking point. I prefer to launch it into space and send it on a decaying orbit toward the sun which would eat up our waste very efficiently.

It'd really suck if a bunch of nuclear waste blew up in our atmosphere, but yeah, shooting it into space is one option. I've also read recently that it's possible to make reactors that recycle the waste.
 
A plan on reliable energy cannot be had until such time as we get our grid overhauled and isolated from other networks, like the internet.

A plan should be developed to build, in each state, a series of small (1mW or less) power reactors that have reprocessing capabilities to reprocess fuel. Of course this plan will require a means to transport and eliminated the byproduct. Which is the real sticking point. I prefer to launch it into space and send it on a decaying orbit toward the sun which would eat up our waste very efficiently.

It'd really suck if a bunch of nuclear waste blew up in our atmosphere, but yeah, shooting it into space is one option. I've also read recently that it's possible to make reactors that recycle the waste.
They make containers that can take being struck by a train at 60mph without breaking open. I'm pretty sure they can design a container that if needed, could withstand reentry temperatures.

I understand the concern, but it would be an elegant solution to a very toxic substance. Hell, we could get rid of a lot of toxic substances that way.
 
Do you think it's possible to make quick and meaningful progress towards breaking our dependence on fossil fuels without embracing nuclear power and improving the technology?
No.

And we are not going to embrace nuclear energy in this country. Our government offered 4 guaranteed loans to any company willing to build a new nuke plant just a few years ago.

Zero companies accepted.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top