- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why don't global warming alarmists advocate for more nuclear energy?
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:25 am to LSUTigersVCURams
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:25 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
Nuclear power is a zero carbon emissions solution to the problem of global warming that could realistically power the modern world's energy consumption needs.
But you NEVER hear them advocate for it. Why?
Answer: because they aren't really serious about solving the problem.
A lot of people do advocate for more of it. But the price of wind and solar continues to go down so it also makes sense to push for those at this point.
2
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:25 am to Deactived
quote:
Because they have no idea about the topic anyway
It's just parroting other idiots
Please elucidate us on the "truth".
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:26 am to LSUTigersVCURams
In the 60's and 70's, nuclear power was hated by the left.
Today its oil
In 30 years, they'll probably stop hating Oil and hate solar.
Today its oil
In 30 years, they'll probably stop hating Oil and hate solar.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:27 am to LSUTigersVCURams
How close are we to Nuclear Fusion technology?
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:28 am to LSUTigersVCURams
Because look at all that pollution!
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:31 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
Why don't global warming alarmists advocate for more nuclear energy?
Give a hoot -- don't transmute.
This post was edited on 6/6/19 at 10:31 am
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:44 am to LSUTigersVCURams
There are good reasons that many are on the fence with nuclear power.
The obvious one is the risk of a catastrophe e.g. Chernobyl which, as many have mentioned, is a VERY low risk in the US. However, nuclear power is highly regulated in the US. What about in “developing” nations where coal still has a grip on the market, though?
Second, there are huge concerns around securing fissile material. The development of small, modular nuclear reactors is really focused on bringing nuclear power to developing nations. The main concern there is ensuring that terrorists can’t get their hands on that radioactive material and build a dirty bomb. Even in the US there are extreme security measures taken when depleted fuel is transported.
Which leads into the biggest issue: what do you do with the waste? It’s hard to say nuclear power is environmentally friendly when we are burying radioactive waste. What would the consequences be if it were the primary global energy source?
The obvious one is the risk of a catastrophe e.g. Chernobyl which, as many have mentioned, is a VERY low risk in the US. However, nuclear power is highly regulated in the US. What about in “developing” nations where coal still has a grip on the market, though?
Second, there are huge concerns around securing fissile material. The development of small, modular nuclear reactors is really focused on bringing nuclear power to developing nations. The main concern there is ensuring that terrorists can’t get their hands on that radioactive material and build a dirty bomb. Even in the US there are extreme security measures taken when depleted fuel is transported.
Which leads into the biggest issue: what do you do with the waste? It’s hard to say nuclear power is environmentally friendly when we are burying radioactive waste. What would the consequences be if it were the primary global energy source?
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:48 am to MLCLyons
Why?
Everyone's mind is already made up
Everyone's mind is already made up
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:48 am to ZappBrannigan
quote:
Basically we should be piling money into how to recycle the waste but I'm not a nuclear scientist.
I think molten salt reactors (Specifically LFTRs)will alleviate most of nuclear' s problems. Unfortunately, the government pulled the plug on research at ORNL in the 60's(?). the most common reactor type today uses fuel rods, and can only expend ~4% of the energy in the fuel rods before they have to be replaced, due to cracking in the rods. Since MSR's use molten fuel, they can get much more energy out of the fissile material, and the waste they produce has a MUCH shorter half life. There was a good TED talk a while back about it.
This post was edited on 6/6/19 at 10:51 am
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:49 am to dawgfan24348
quote:
nuclear meltdowns can royally frick certain areas for decades
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:51 am to LSUTigersVCURams
You are right, that is the answer, but they are still freaked out by "China Syndrome" from their childhood. Calamity Jane strikes again.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 10:53 am to civiltiger07
Three mile island wrecked the us nuclear industry.
That, the unions and crooked public utilities
That, the unions and crooked public utilities
Posted on 6/6/19 at 11:01 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
In the 60's and 70's, nuclear power was hated by the left.
Today its oil
In 30 years, they'll probably stop hating Oil and hate solar.
Solar power depletes the sun, is that what you want?
Posted on 6/6/19 at 11:08 am to F73ME
That's the pebble reactors right?
It's been a bit since I read up on them. I'll have to track that TED talk down.
It's been a bit since I read up on them. I'll have to track that TED talk down.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 11:15 am to LSUTigersVCURams
Also, what's the deal with asking a question and then answering it in your own post? It seems like you were looking for a pat on the back and not a discussion.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 11:22 am to theGarnetWay
quote:Spot on and 2 still down voted this. Amazing the lack of knowledge and bias.
You’re right, people are still scared of this but most don’t seem to realize that nothing happened. No one was killed, got sick, and there was no impact on the environment.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 11:28 am to LSUTigersVCURams
How are they going to fleece the tax payers and work towards pure centrally planned socialism if the allow the single fix of nuclear power?
I think the wording of the Green New Deal proves the environment issue is just a catalyst. Gotta pay for those unwilling to work, remember.
I think the wording of the Green New Deal proves the environment issue is just a catalyst. Gotta pay for those unwilling to work, remember.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 11:31 am to GeauxTigersLee
This is Tigerdroppings. People will downvote just on the name. It's a shame PR is fricked on nuclear.
Posted on 6/6/19 at 11:32 am to TH03
So Chernobyl still doesn't have no go zones?
Posted on 6/6/19 at 11:32 am to MLCLyons
quote:
But the price of wind and solar continues to go down
Yeah but all that noise from windmills cause cancer no thank you
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News