New Nuclear Power Truimphic Record Surpasses all Renewables

As soon as the term 'marxisim' comes up in a discussion about energy, there is nothing to see here. THAT in fact is what the OP wants to wail about.
A discussion? As soon as lied and said my opinion was Evil, the discussion was over.

It is nice to see thst all you can do in this thread is flame and troll.
 
As soon as the term 'marxisim' comes up in a discussion about energy, there is nothing to see here. THAT in fact is what the OP wants to wail about.

Wail on.
No, as soon as you lied and started attributing things to me that you made up it was apparent you came into this thread as a Troll, hence you get treated like one. Flame on moron.
 
"Marxism" was the root cause of the Chernobyl catastrophe. A Communist party political appointee in charge of the plant foolishly and arrogantly ordered the operator to initiate a catastrophic process, despite strong protests from the technicians who actually knew how the plant operated. Also, the plant was designed with minimal safety safeguards, in a regime where human safety was low on the priority list. Marxism at work.

Compare Fukushima. A natural disaster and a "Perfect Storm" of improbable events conspired to create a catastrophe in which not a single person died due to exposure to nuclear radiation. One guy died of a heart attack.

Compare TMI: Still regarded as a "disaster" despite not a single person even getting sick, let alone being killed.
 
Because it is cheap

God, no. Where did you get that idea? Nuclear is by far the most expensive energy. That's the problem with it. Having run reactors myself, I'm a big fan of them, but I recognize the economic problems.

If nuclear was cheap, it would be a great option. But it's not cheap. The question becomes where you can get the best bang for your buck, tempered by how much baseline power capacity is necessary. It is cheaper to build a lot of renewables than it is to build a lot of nuclear.
 

Forum List

Back
Top