The Cost Of Nuclear Energy

[ruly]

There are many fools out there who support nuclear energy. One of the reasons is because they say it is cost effective. But it takes energy to mine the ore. Then it takes energy to refine the ore into usable uranium. Then it takes energy to build the nuclear plants. Which are so complicated that it is at the fringes of human technical ability to run. And many of the components have to be built so precisely and well that it in itself is a huge burden. One that the nuclear industry has been known to cut corners on.

Then there is the limited lifespans of those costly nuclear plants. Then there is the cost of disposing of nuclear materials. I don't like what the French (and probably others) used to do. (And maybe still do) Which is to sink barrels of the stuff out into the ocean. The least they could have mixed the nuclear materials with cement before putting it into barrels. Then encase the barrels themselves in an appropriately thick layer of cement.

There is also the safety issue with nuclear plants. Bad nuclear accidents may be rare. But when they do happen, humans don't have the ability to print enough money to pay for the cost of cleaning that mess up. Just ask the Russians and Japanese. Then take the amount of time it takes for nuclear waste to become safe. That is a cost we have no right to burden future generations or different future species with. And look at the core of Chernobyl. They say that it is going to remain dangerous for around the next 4 billion years! So anybody who thinks nuclear energy is the way to go needs to get their heads screwed on straight.

 

[Pogo]

And it's a Yuge gummint subsidy sponge too.

Just the idea of operating something that produces a byproduct that's going to be toxic for longer than humans have existed is unspeakably mindless. Just goes to show how Corporatia runs the world.

 

[Manonthestreet]

There are many fools out there who support nuclear energy. One of the reasons is because they say it is cost effective. But it takes energy to mine the ore. Then it takes energy to refine the ore into usable uranium. Then it takes energy to build the nuclear plants. Which are so complicated that it is at the fringes of human technical ability to run. And many of the components have to be built so precisely and well that it in itself is a huge burden. One that the nuclear industry has been known to cut corners on.

Then there is the limited lifespans of those costly nuclear plants. Then there is the cost of disposing of nuclear materials. I don't like what the French (and probably others) used to do. (And maybe still do) Which is to sink barrels of the stuff out into the ocean. The least they could have mixed the nuclear materials with cement before putting it into barrels. Then encase the barrels themselves in an appropriately thick layer of cement.

There is also the safety issue with nuclear plants. Bad nuclear accidents may be rare. But when they do happen, humans don't have the ability to print enough money to pay for the cost of cleaning that mess up. Just ask the Russians and Japanese. Then take the amount of time it takes for nuclear waste to become safe. That is a cost we have no right to burden future generations or different future species with. And look at the core of Chernobyl. They say that it is going to remain dangerous for around the next 4 billion years! So anybody who thinks nuclear energy is the way to go needs to get their heads screwed on straight.

You do realize solar panels and wind farms have shorter life spans

 

[defcon4]

So, why don't we generate electricity with water? I understand that Hydrogen burns on a very high heat for internal combustion engine type generator but I m quite sure the technology exists. Ah.. I almost forgot, it is not in the best interest of the money oligarchy. They keep the patent locked up somewhere in a vault.

 

[RGR]

There are many fools out there who support nuclear energy.

And plenty of real people and countries that aren't fools that actually use it! Nukes are probably a reasonable sized component of our energy future, regardless of your opinion on the quality of those who support it.

 

[RGR]

So, why don't we generate electricity with water?

We do. Its called hydro-electric. They do lots of it in the PacNW, and of course who can forget Hoover dam!

I understand that Hydrogen burns on a very high heat for internal combustion engine type generator but I m quite sure the technology exists. Ah.. I almost forgot, it is not in the best interest of the money oligarchy. They keep the patent locked up somewhere in a vault.

No one has a patent on running water downhill through a turbine, no.

 

[martybegan]

There are many fools out there who support nuclear energy. One of the reasons is because they say it is cost effective. But it takes energy to mine the ore. Then it takes energy to refine the ore into usable uranium. Then it takes energy to build the nuclear plants. Which are so complicated that it is at the fringes of human technical ability to run. And many of the components have to be built so precisely and well that it in itself is a huge burden. One that the nuclear industry has been known to cut corners on.

Then there is the limited lifespans of those costly nuclear plants. Then there is the cost of disposing of nuclear materials. I don't like what the French (and probably others) used to do. (And maybe still do) Which is to sink barrels of the stuff out into the ocean. The least they could have mixed the nuclear materials with cement before putting it into barrels. Then encase the barrels themselves in an appropriately thick layer of cement.

There is also the safety issue with nuclear plants. Bad nuclear accidents may be rare. But when they do happen, humans don't have the ability to print enough money to pay for the cost of cleaning that mess up. Just ask the Russians and Japanese. Then take the amount of time it takes for nuclear waste to become safe. That is a cost we have no right to burden future generations or different future species with. And look at the core of Chernobyl. They say that it is going to remain dangerous for around the next 4 billion years! So anybody who thinks nuclear energy is the way to go needs to get their heads screwed on straight.

Simple hint, if you want to be taken seriously, don't start off insulting the people you want to argue with. Or do that, and be relegated to troll-idiot status.

Enjoy your (probably very short) stay.

 

[defcon4]

So, why don't we generate electricity with water?

We do. Its called hydro-electric. They do lots of it in the PacNW, and of course who can forget Hoover dam!

I understand that Hydrogen burns on a very high heat for internal combustion engine type generator but I m quite sure the technology exists. Ah.. I almost forgot, it is not in the best interest of the money oligarchy. They keep the patent locked up somewhere in a vault.

No one has a patent on running water downhill through a turbine, no.

Your limited ability to see the reference to water being split via electrolysis to 2H2 and O2 just illustrated what a moron you are. The "internal combustion" should have been your clue. Your contribution is greatly appreciated, imbecile. Now, you can sit down and STFU.

 

[ruly]

There are many fools out there who support nuclear energy. One of the reasons is because they say it is cost effective. But it takes energy to mine the ore. Then it takes energy to refine the ore into usable uranium. Then it takes energy to build the nuclear plants. Which are so complicated that it is at the fringes of human technical ability to run. And many of the components have to be built so precisely and well that it in itself is a huge burden. One that the nuclear industry has been known to cut corners on.

Then there is the limited lifespans of those costly nuclear plants. Then there is the cost of disposing of nuclear materials. I don't like what the French (and probably others) used to do. (And maybe still do) Which is to sink barrels of the stuff out into the ocean. The least they could have mixed the nuclear materials with cement before putting it into barrels. Then encase the barrels themselves in an appropriately thick layer of cement.

There is also the safety issue with nuclear plants. Bad nuclear accidents may be rare. But when they do happen, humans don't have the ability to print enough money to pay for the cost of cleaning that mess up. Just ask the Russians and Japanese. Then take the amount of time it takes for nuclear waste to become safe. That is a cost we have no right to burden future generations or different future species with. And look at the core of Chernobyl. They say that it is going to remain dangerous for around the next 4 billion years! So anybody who thinks nuclear energy is the way to go needs to get their heads screwed on straight.

You do realize solar panels and wind farms have shorter life spans

That is absolutely meaningless when compared to the problems with nuclear energy.

 

[ruly]

So, why don't we generate electricity with water? I understand that Hydrogen burns on a very high heat for internal combustion engine type generator but I m quite sure the technology exists. Ah.. I almost forgot, it is not in the best interest of the money oligarchy. They keep the patent locked up somewhere in a vault.

Have you ever read the book, "Our Holy Hell: The Causes, The Solutions." You can read it free on line. Near the end of the last chapter, there are a few pages that go into that very topic.

 

[ruly]

There are many fools out there who support nuclear energy.

And plenty of real people and countries that aren't fools that actually use it! Nukes are probably a reasonable sized component of our energy future, regardless of your opinion on the quality of those who support it.

it is a well known fact that for most people, whatever happens doesn't really matter. As long as it happens to someone else. So I'm not surprised to run across such a person around here.

 

[ruly]

There are many fools out there who support nuclear energy. One of the reasons is because they say it is cost effective. But it takes energy to mine the ore. Then it takes energy to refine the ore into usable uranium. Then it takes energy to build the nuclear plants. Which are so complicated that it is at the fringes of human technical ability to run. And many of the components have to be built so precisely and well that it in itself is a huge burden. One that the nuclear industry has been known to cut corners on.

Then there is the limited lifespans of those costly nuclear plants. Then there is the cost of disposing of nuclear materials. I don't like what the French (and probably others) used to do. (And maybe still do) Which is to sink barrels of the stuff out into the ocean. The least they could have mixed the nuclear materials with cement before putting it into barrels. Then encase the barrels themselves in an appropriately thick layer of cement.

There is also the safety issue with nuclear plants. Bad nuclear accidents may be rare. But when they do happen, humans don't have the ability to print enough money to pay for the cost of cleaning that mess up. Just ask the Russians and Japanese. Then take the amount of time it takes for nuclear waste to become safe. That is a cost we have no right to burden future generations or different future species with. And look at the core of Chernobyl. They say that it is going to remain dangerous for around the next 4 billion years! So anybody who thinks nuclear energy is the way to go needs to get their heads screwed on straight.

Simple hint, if you want to be taken seriously, don't start off insulting the people you want to argue with. Or do that, and be relegated to troll-idiot status.

Enjoy your (probably very short) stay.

Sorry. But I happen to believe in freedom of speech. And if you aren't free to also say insulting things (when called for) you basically aren't free to say anything. In that regard, people at political forums are basically slaves. Told to do what the forums say. But even though they exercise the power of a slave master, I won't behave like a slave.

 

[Manonthestreet]

There are many fools out there who support nuclear energy. One of the reasons is because they say it is cost effective. But it takes energy to mine the ore. Then it takes energy to refine the ore into usable uranium. Then it takes energy to build the nuclear plants. Which are so complicated that it is at the fringes of human technical ability to run. And many of the components have to be built so precisely and well that it in itself is a huge burden. One that the nuclear industry has been known to cut corners on.

Then there is the limited lifespans of those costly nuclear plants. Then there is the cost of disposing of nuclear materials. I don't like what the French (and probably others) used to do. (And maybe still do) Which is to sink barrels of the stuff out into the ocean. The least they could have mixed the nuclear materials with cement before putting it into barrels. Then encase the barrels themselves in an appropriately thick layer of cement.

There is also the safety issue with nuclear plants. Bad nuclear accidents may be rare. But when they do happen, humans don't have the ability to print enough money to pay for the cost of cleaning that mess up. Just ask the Russians and Japanese. Then take the amount of time it takes for nuclear waste to become safe. That is a cost we have no right to burden future generations or different future species with. And look at the core of Chernobyl. They say that it is going to remain dangerous for around the next 4 billion years! So anybody who thinks nuclear energy is the way to go needs to get their heads screwed on straight.

You do realize solar panels and wind farms have shorter life spans

That is absolutely meaningless when compared to the problems with nuclear energy.

On the contrary,,,, its cost.....massive cost.......new nukes are ton safer and generate lot less waste which can be recycled.

 

[ruly]

There are many fools out there who support nuclear energy. One of the reasons is because they say it is cost effective. But it takes energy to mine the ore. Then it takes energy to refine the ore into usable uranium. Then it takes energy to build the nuclear plants. Which are so complicated that it is at the fringes of human technical ability to run. And many of the components have to be built so precisely and well that it in itself is a huge burden. One that the nuclear industry has been known to cut corners on.

Then there is the limited lifespans of those costly nuclear plants. Then there is the cost of disposing of nuclear materials. I don't like what the French (and probably others) used to do. (And maybe still do) Which is to sink barrels of the stuff out into the ocean. The least they could have mixed the nuclear materials with cement before putting it into barrels. Then encase the barrels themselves in an appropriately thick layer of cement.

There is also the safety issue with nuclear plants. Bad nuclear accidents may be rare. But when they do happen, humans don't have the ability to print enough money to pay for the cost of cleaning that mess up. Just ask the Russians and Japanese. Then take the amount of time it takes for nuclear waste to become safe. That is a cost we have no right to burden future generations or different future species with. And look at the core of Chernobyl. They say that it is going to remain dangerous for around the next 4 billion years! So anybody who thinks nuclear energy is the way to go needs to get their heads screwed on straight.

You do realize solar panels and wind farms have shorter life spans

That is absolutely meaningless when compared to the problems with nuclear energy.

On the contrary,,,, its cost.....massive cost.......new nukes are ton safer and generate lot less waste which can be recycled.

Nukes safer? You are truly delusional. Look at Japan and Russia. And the legacy of Chernobyl isn't through yet. There is a large area around it that is covered in forest. It is so radioactive that the microbes needed to break down the plant matter are dead. So the plant matter just keeps building up. And when that stuff catches on fire, whit is bound to someday, it is going to release another highly toxic wave of radiation around Russia and Europe.

Also, "new nuclear" is probably as much pie in the sky as hydrogen. And recycling nuclear waste right now is a joke. No doubt it will remain that way for any "new" nuclear plant designs.

 

[Manonthestreet]

There are many fools out there who support nuclear energy. One of the reasons is because they say it is cost effective. But it takes energy to mine the ore. Then it takes energy to refine the ore into usable uranium. Then it takes energy to build the nuclear plants. Which are so complicated that it is at the fringes of human technical ability to run. And many of the components have to be built so precisely and well that it in itself is a huge burden. One that the nuclear industry has been known to cut corners on.

Then there is the limited lifespans of those costly nuclear plants. Then there is the cost of disposing of nuclear materials. I don't like what the French (and probably others) used to do. (And maybe still do) Which is to sink barrels of the stuff out into the ocean. The least they could have mixed the nuclear materials with cement before putting it into barrels. Then encase the barrels themselves in an appropriately thick layer of cement.

There is also the safety issue with nuclear plants. Bad nuclear accidents may be rare. But when they do happen, humans don't have the ability to print enough money to pay for the cost of cleaning that mess up. Just ask the Russians and Japanese. Then take the amount of time it takes for nuclear waste to become safe. That is a cost we have no right to burden future generations or different future species with. And look at the core of Chernobyl. They say that it is going to remain dangerous for around the next 4 billion years! So anybody who thinks nuclear energy is the way to go needs to get their heads screwed on straight.

You do realize solar panels and wind farms have shorter life spans

That is absolutely meaningless when compared to the problems with nuclear energy.

On the contrary,,,, its cost.....massive cost.......new nukes are ton safer and generate lot less waste which can be recycled.

Nukes safer? You are truly delusional. Look at Japan and Russia. And the legacy of Chernobyl isn't through yet. There is a large area around it that is covered in forest. It is so radioactive that the microbes needed to break down the plant matter are dead. So the plant matter just keeps building up. And when that stuff catches on fire, whit is bound to someday, it is going to release another highly toxic wave of radiation around Russia and Europe.

Also, "new nuclear" is probably as much pie in the sky as hydrogen. And recycling nuclear waste right now is a joke. No doubt it will remain that way for any "new" nuclear plant designs.

You are equating antiques to todays tech......

 

[ruly]

There are many fools out there who support nuclear energy. One of the reasons is because they say it is cost effective. But it takes energy to mine the ore. Then it takes energy to refine the ore into usable uranium. Then it takes energy to build the nuclear plants. Which are so complicated that it is at the fringes of human technical ability to run. And many of the components have to be built so precisely and well that it in itself is a huge burden. One that the nuclear industry has been known to cut corners on.

Then there is the limited lifespans of those costly nuclear plants. Then there is the cost of disposing of nuclear materials. I don't like what the French (and probably others) used to do. (And maybe still do) Which is to sink barrels of the stuff out into the ocean. The least they could have mixed the nuclear materials with cement before putting it into barrels. Then encase the barrels themselves in an appropriately thick layer of cement.

There is also the safety issue with nuclear plants. Bad nuclear accidents may be rare. But when they do happen, humans don't have the ability to print enough money to pay for the cost of cleaning that mess up. Just ask the Russians and Japanese. Then take the amount of time it takes for nuclear waste to become safe. That is a cost we have no right to burden future generations or different future species with. And look at the core of Chernobyl. They say that it is going to remain dangerous for around the next 4 billion years! So anybody who thinks nuclear energy is the way to go needs to get their heads screwed on straight.

You do realize solar panels and wind farms have shorter life spans

That is absolutely meaningless when compared to the problems with nuclear energy.

On the contrary,,,, its cost.....massive cost.......new nukes are ton safer and generate lot less waste which can be recycled.

Nukes safer? You are truly delusional. Look at Japan and Russia. And the legacy of Chernobyl isn't through yet. There is a large area around it that is covered in forest. It is so radioactive that the microbes needed to break down the plant matter are dead. So the plant matter just keeps building up. And when that stuff catches on fire, whit is bound to someday, it is going to release another highly toxic wave of radiation around Russia and Europe.

Also, "new nuclear" is probably as much pie in the sky as hydrogen. And recycling nuclear waste right now is a joke. No doubt it will remain that way for any "new" nuclear plant designs.

You are equating antiques to todays tech......

When technology comes along that can make radioactive things unradioactive, let me know.

 

[Manonthestreet]

You do realize solar panels and wind farms have shorter life spans

That is absolutely meaningless when compared to the problems with nuclear energy.

On the contrary,,,, its cost.....massive cost.......new nukes are ton safer and generate lot less waste which can be recycled.

Nukes safer? You are truly delusional. Look at Japan and Russia. And the legacy of Chernobyl isn't through yet. There is a large area around it that is covered in forest. It is so radioactive that the microbes needed to break down the plant matter are dead. So the plant matter just keeps building up. And when that stuff catches on fire, whit is bound to someday, it is going to release another highly toxic wave of radiation around Russia and Europe.

Also, "new nuclear" is probably as much pie in the sky as hydrogen. And recycling nuclear waste right now is a joke. No doubt it will remain that way for any "new" nuclear plant designs.

You are equating antiques to todays tech......

When technology comes along that can make radioactive things unradioactive, let me know.

You must want the planet to die under ocean rising because of CO2....deniers like you should go to prison

 

[RGR]

So, why don't we generate electricity with water?

We do. Its called hydro-electric. They do lots of it in the PacNW, and of course who can forget Hoover dam!

Your limited ability to see the reference to water being split via electrolysis to 2H2 and O2 just illustrated what a moron you are.

Read what you wrote. If you meant electrolysis, you should have said so. I recommend that you write better. If the words you use are so vague as to allow multiple interpretations ( and in my case, an even better one) that isn't my fault. It is yours. I just assumed you weren't a moron, and meant the most likely interpretation of how to generate power from water. Forgive my presumption.

The "internal combustion" should have been your clue.

Wouldn't have needed to play game show host if the moron who write it actually wrote what they meant.

Your contribution is greatly appreciated, imbecile. Now, you can sit down and STFU.

Are you kidding? A half wit who can't write what they mean doesn't get to lecture, let alone order. Now how about you brush up on some of those remedial writing skills so making you look like that half wit isn't so easy next.

 

[RGR]

There are many fools out there who support nuclear energy.

And plenty of real people and countries that aren't fools that actually use it! Nukes are probably a reasonable sized component of our energy future, regardless of your opinion on the quality of those who support it.

it is a well known fact that for most people, whatever happens doesn't really matter. As long as it happens to someone else. So I'm not surprised to run across such a person around here.

"whatever happens doesn't really matter".

What does that mean?

 

[ruly]

That is absolutely meaningless when compared to the problems with nuclear energy.

On the contrary,,,, its cost.....massive cost.......new nukes are ton safer and generate lot less waste which can be recycled.

Nukes safer? You are truly delusional. Look at Japan and Russia. And the legacy of Chernobyl isn't through yet. There is a large area around it that is covered in forest. It is so radioactive that the microbes needed to break down the plant matter are dead. So the plant matter just keeps building up. And when that stuff catches on fire, whit is bound to someday, it is going to release another highly toxic wave of radiation around Russia and Europe.

Also, "new nuclear" is probably as much pie in the sky as hydrogen. And recycling nuclear waste right now is a joke. No doubt it will remain that way for any "new" nuclear plant designs.

You are equating antiques to todays tech......

When technology comes along that can make radioactive things unradioactive, let me know.

You must want the planet to die under ocean rising because of CO2....deniers like you should go to prison

If I was one of those moronic deniers, I wouldn't even be worrying about it. Look at my other thread around here called, "perpetual motion has been around for a long time. Suckers!" Wit what I speak of there, radiation doesn't even come into the equation.