Nuclear Power for Dummies

[jwoodie]

As anyone with a 3 digit IQ should know, nuclear power is the ultimate Green Energy source of the future. For the rest, I wonder if you realize that France, your favorite vacation destination, relies on nuclear power for over 70% of its electrical energy? This leads to the gross hypocrisy and corruption involved in international climate accords. France, of course, will agree to any restrictions on the use of fossil fuels because they won't affect its economy and will give it a competitive advantage.

But what about other countries? Germany and most other European countries have essentially given up on their pie-in-the-sky plans for massive wind and solar energy production, and are switching back to natural gas and other fossil fuels for their primary energy production. Natural gas has become particularly attractive because it can easily be transported from other countries and thus protect local environmental sensibilities.

In the U.S., we are making billionaires out of solar power and electric car producers by giving them preferential tax treatment and subsidies to help them sell their economically inferior products. And what about nuclear power? As Winston Churchill famously said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they have tried everything else." Are we there yet?

 

[Darkwind]

As anyone with a 3 digit IQ should know, nuclear power is the ultimate Green Energy source of the future. For the rest, I wonder if you realize that France, your favorite vacation destination, relies on nuclear power for over 70% of its electrical energy? This leads to the gross hypocrisy and corruption involved in international climate accords. France, of course, will agree to any restrictions on the use of fossil fuels because they won't affect its economy and will give it a competitive advantage.

But what about other countries? Germany and most other European countries have essentially given up on their pie-in-the-sky plans for massive wind and solar energy production, and are switching back to natural gas and other fossil fuels for their primary energy production. Natural gas has become particularly attractive because it can easily be transported from other countries and thus protect local environmental sensibilities.

In the U.S., we are making billionaires out of solar power and electric car producers by giving them preferential tax treatment and subsidies to help them sell their economically inferior products. And what about nuclear power? As Winston Churchill famously said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they have tried everything else." Are we there yet?

Unfortunately, we are not there yet. There is still too much misinformation and fear out there regarding nuclear power.

 

[Donald H]

As anyone with a 3 digit IQ should know, nuclear power is the ultimate Green Energy source of the future. For the rest, I wonder if you realize that France, your favorite vacation destination, relies on nuclear power for over 70% of its electrical energy? This leads to the gross hypocrisy and corruption involved in international climate accords. France, of course, will agree to any restrictions on the use of fossil fuels because they won't affect its economy and will give it a competitive advantage.

But what about other countries? Germany and most other European countries have essentially given up on their pie-in-the-sky plans for massive wind and solar energy production, and are switching back to natural gas and other fossil fuels for their primary energy production. Natural gas has become particularly attractive because it can easily be transported from other countries and thus protect local environmental sensibilities.

In the U.S., we are making billionaires out of solar power and electric car producers by giving them preferential tax treatment and subsidies to help them sell their economically inferior products. And what about nuclear power? As Winston Churchill famously said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they have tried everything else." Are we there yet?

Yes, green in some respects, but is it the green that will be chosen for the long run? Some countries have already found the way around the need for nuclear and are quite resigned to resisting the temptation.

And in fact, we should be able to imagine that the war in Ukraine is now being fought for the main purpose of the world's remaining dependence on petroleum based energy and not accepting nuclear. The US one of the best examples, so far at least.

A discussion on the pros and cons of nuclear would be useful, if this thread was actually created for that purpose?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Yes, green in some respects, but is it the green that will be chosen for the long run? Some countries have already found the way around the need for nuclear and are quite resigned to resisting the temptation.

And in fact, we should be able to imagine that the war in Ukraine is now being fought for the main purpose of the world's remaining dependence on petroleum based energy and not accepting nuclear. The US one of the best examples, so far at least.

A discussion on the pros and cons of nuclear would be useful, if this thread was actually created for that purpose?

Dr. Hansen the "father of global warming" is a fervent supporter of nuclear power.

I live right next to largest nuclear power station in the Northwest a very safe place.

There is a lot of PRO and few cons because it is a well understood industry and the waste is actually a minor problem now, the main problem are the governmental assholes and Ecoloonynuts messing it all up with lies and continuous lawsuits fighting construction and more.

 

[Donald H]

Dr. Hansen the "father of global warming" is a fervent supporter of nuclear power.

I live right next to largest nuclear power station in the Northwest a very safe place.

There is a lot of PRO and few cons because it is a well understood industry and the waste is actually a minor problem now, the main problem are the governmental assholes and Ecoloonynuts messing it all up with lies and continuous lawsuits fighting construction and more.

We're trying to carry on more elevated conversations mommy.
There's a con side to nuclear too and calling them nuts is silly, over the top, and not interesting.

 

[Sunsettommy]

We're trying to carry on more elevated conversations mommy.
There's a con side to nuclear too and calling them nuts is silly, over the top, and not interesting.

I have been over this for FIFTY YEARS since I live right next to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation saw Dr. Lappi smash overrated hypocrite Ralph Nader in a debate there read in the local papers and saw on TV the many discussions over the Reservation over the decades.

You have no idea how much damage Ecolloonies have done to the industry since they have a long habit demanding design upgrades during construction for safety that are unnecessary driving up the cost and sometimes shuts the construction down due to cost overruns caused largely by the ecoloonies assholes who does this on purpose.

Quoting my words,

"There is a lot of PRO and few cons because it is a well understood industry and the waste is actually a minor problem now.."

you said CON in the singular which means you see less trouble with them than I do....

 

[Donald H]

you said CON in the singular which means you see less trouble with them than I do....

Oh for dog sake shut up.

 

[ding]

Oh for dog sake shut up.

I'm with him. Solar and wind are stupid by comparison.

 

[ding]

In terms of base-loading it's no contest. Nuclear can base load like a mofo because of constant generation. Wind and solar, not so much. They suck at base-loading because their generation is variable. To make a fair comparison one would have to include some kind of storage - battery back up or otherwise - for wind and solar. Which means that a portion of wind and solar generating capacity would have to be used to charge the storage.

 

[Crick]

As anyone with a 3 digit IQ should know, nuclear power is the ultimate Green Energy source of the future. For the rest, I wonder if you realize that France, your favorite vacation destination, relies on nuclear power for over 70% of its electrical energy? This leads to the gross hypocrisy and corruption involved in international climate accords. France, of course, will agree to any restrictions on the use of fossil fuels because they won't affect its economy and will give it a competitive advantage.

But what about other countries? Germany and most other European countries have essentially given up on their pie-in-the-sky plans for massive wind and solar energy production, and are switching back to natural gas and other fossil fuels for their primary energy production. Natural gas has become particularly attractive because it can easily be transported from other countries and thus protect local environmental sensibilities.

In the U.S., we are making billionaires out of solar power and electric car producers by giving them preferential tax treatment and subsidies to help them sell their economically inferior products. And what about nuclear power? As Winston Churchill famously said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they have tried everything else." Are we there yet?

I agree that fission power will be a valuable resource in our effort to eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

I was aware that a large portion of power generation in France made use of nuclear power. That was not a secret in any sense of the word and therefore your charge of hypocrisy is meaningless twaddle. Besides, France certainly hasn't been a primary driver of the climate debate.

Neither Germany nor the rest of the EU have given up on wind and solar; they are NOT returning to fossil fuels. If you have a valid reference that says otherwise, please post the link.

The only US EV producer that has been made into a billionaire would be Elon Musk and his billions came from the pockets of customers, not tax incentives or subsidies. His customers reaped some tax beneifts initially but that has ended with his cars maturation. Other manufacturers will likely benefit in the future as they come online and begin competing with him but, just like Tesla, there customers will not benefit forever and the industry will have to survive on its own merits. It shows every sign of doing precisely that. The vast majority of solar cell production is taking place in China and are not benefiting directly from any US subsidization. Customers are but that's not quite the picture you seem to be trying to paint here.

 

[jwoodie]

I agree that fission power will be a valuable resource in our effort to eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

I was aware that a large portion of power generation in France made use of nuclear power. That was not a secret in any sense of the word and therefore your charge of hypocrisy is meaningless twaddle. Besides, France certainly hasn't been a primary driver of the climate debate.

Nice attempt at two-digit logic. Even if France's nuclear power was a secret (which I did not say or imply), its wholehearted support of draconian reductions of fossil fuel energy in other countries is hypocritical in that it would largely be exempt from the consequences it would have others suffer.

As for the rest of Europe steering away from wind and solar power, what makes you think that natural gas in not a fossil fuel? Because the EU doesn't want to call it that?

 

[elektra]

Nuclear power, all the wind and solar in the world will never equal nuclear.

It is the fools and idiots the support commercial solar and wind power.

If all but for a battery?

Tomorrow it will be find.

How many solar panels would we have to drop on Nagasaki to destroy it.

The only reason we don't have 100% solar and wind is we can not print the money to pay for it that fast.

 

[Leo123]

As anyone with a 3 digit IQ should know, nuclear power is the ultimate Green Energy source of the future. For the rest, I wonder if you realize that France, your favorite vacation destination, relies on nuclear power for over 70% of its electrical energy? This leads to the gross hypocrisy and corruption involved in international climate accords. France, of course, will agree to any restrictions on the use of fossil fuels because they won't affect its economy and will give it a competitive advantage.

But what about other countries? Germany and most other European countries have essentially given up on their pie-in-the-sky plans for massive wind and solar energy production, and are switching back to natural gas and other fossil fuels for their primary energy production. Natural gas has become particularly attractive because it can easily be transported from other countries and thus protect local environmental sensibilities.

In the U.S., we are making billionaires out of solar power and electric car producers by giving them preferential tax treatment and subsidies to help them sell their economically inferior products. And what about nuclear power? As Winston Churchill famously said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they have tried everything else." Are we there yet?

We might get there if we rid ourselves of the stupid greenies. Don’t vote for anyone of either party pushing ‘renewable’ or ‘green’ energy. It’s a sham.

 

[Leo123]

We're trying to carry on more elevated conversations mommy.
There's a con side to nuclear too and calling them nuts is silly, over the top, and not interesting.

There’s a con side to most energy production. There is no such thing as renewable energy. All energy production requires consumables in one way or another. Fossil fuels and nuclear require the least amount of consumables per unit of energy.

 

[jwoodie]

We're trying to carry on more elevated conversations mommy.

Oh for dog sake shut up.

Elevated conversation?

 

[Crick]

As anyone with a 3 digit IQ should know, nuclear power is the ultimate Green Energy source of the future. For the rest, I wonder if you realize that France, your favorite vacation destination, relies on nuclear power for over 70% of its electrical energy? This leads to the gross hypocrisy and corruption involved in international climate accords. France, of course, will agree to any restrictions on the use of fossil fuels because they won't affect its economy and will give it a competitive advantage.

But what about other countries? Germany and most other European countries have essentially given up on their pie-in-the-sky plans for massive wind and solar energy production, and are switching back to natural gas and other fossil fuels for their primary energy production. Natural gas has become particularly attractive because it can easily be transported from other countries and thus protect local environmental sensibilities.

In the U.S., we are making billionaires out of solar power and electric car producers by giving them preferential tax treatment and subsidies to help them sell their economically inferior products. And what about nuclear power? As Winston Churchill famously said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they have tried everything else." Are we there yet?

Your comment about Germany and their clean energy ambitions is incorrect.

Germany aims to get 100% of energy from renewable sources by 2035

Germany aims to fulfil all its electricity needs with supplies from renewable sources by 2035, compared to its previous target to abandon fossil fuels "well before 2040," according to a government draft paper obtained by Reuters on Monday.

www.reuters.com

 

[ding]

Some countries have already found the way around the need for nuclear and are quite resigned to resisting the temptation.

If they are relying on wind and solar they are doing it wrong.

 

[Crick]

There’s a con side to most energy production. There is no such thing as renewable energy. All energy production requires consumables in one way or another. Fossil fuels and nuclear require the least amount of consumables per unit of energy.

What are you considering consumables for solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and tidal? Or, more to the point, why do you not consider those sources to be renewable?

 

[Leo123]

What are you considering consumables for solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and tidal? Or, more to the point, why do you not consider those sources to be renewable?

Fossil fuel energy used to produce the solar panels, minerals used, acids, metal, labor, fuel to ship components overseas. Fuel needed to deliver solar panels, etc. Those wind mill blades have to be manufactured. There are special trucks needed to deliver those long blades to sites that need diesel fuel. The swaths of land needed for wind mill farms. All the grease, replacement parts etc. needed to maintain them, not to mention all the labor. I agree about hydro it is quite efficient however, environmentalists tell us they degrade fish populations. Hydro also requires engineers and maintenance people as well. There are no significant tidal generators however, I assume those would also require lots of maintenance. Maintenance is also a consumable.

 

[Crick]

Fossil fuel energy used to produce the solar panels, minerals used, acids, metal, labor, fuel to ship components overseas. Fuel needed to deliver solar panels, etc. Those wind mill blades have to be manufactured. There are special trucks needed to deliver those long blades to sites that need diesel fuel. The swaths of land needed for wind mill farms. All the grease, replacement parts etc. needed to maintain them, not to mention all the labor. I agree about hydro it is quite efficient however, environmentalists tell us they degrade fish populations. Hydro also requires engineers and maintenance people as well. There are no significant tidal generators however, I assume those would also require lots of maintenance. Maintenance is also a consumable.

Does it hurt your back to stretch that far? It takes materials and energy to build fossil-fuel equipment as well. Then it requires FUEL. If you don't think that makes an enormous difference in the two technologies, you're either deluded or disingenuous.