- 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 6/7/19 at 2:57 am to LSUTigersVCURams
Posted on 6/7/19 at 2:57 am to LSUTigersVCURams
I mean you totally just made this up. All you have to do is search climate change and nuclear power. There you will find a plethora of articlea discussing both topics
0
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:04 am to LSUTigersVCURams
No one is advocating for nuclear power? What planet do you live on?
I used to be in favor of it, but that Chernobyl show is giving me second thoughts. I saw that it would take 12000 nuclear power plants to provide the world's energy. We currently have 400. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but it freaks me out knowing that 100% of those would have to be run 100% correctly 100% of the time. That and the risk of unforeseen natural disasters.
On the other hand France is an example of what is possible, and the fact that we have nuclear reactors on submarines makes me feel that we should be able to operate power plants without incident.
My understanding is nuclear projects are being abandoned (in SC and GA for example) because they currently don't make economic sense in competition with wind, solar, and natural gas.
I used to be in favor of it, but that Chernobyl show is giving me second thoughts. I saw that it would take 12000 nuclear power plants to provide the world's energy. We currently have 400. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but it freaks me out knowing that 100% of those would have to be run 100% correctly 100% of the time. That and the risk of unforeseen natural disasters.
On the other hand France is an example of what is possible, and the fact that we have nuclear reactors on submarines makes me feel that we should be able to operate power plants without incident.
My understanding is nuclear projects are being abandoned (in SC and GA for example) because they currently don't make economic sense in competition with wind, solar, and natural gas.
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:14 am to RabidTiger
quote:
My understanding is nuclear projects are being abandoned (in SC and GA for example) because they currently don't make economic sense in competition with wind, solar, and natural gas.
You're understanding is in the vein of very wrong to 100% wrong.
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:15 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
But you NEVER hear them advocate for it. Why?
Honest question, where will you dispose of and store the spent material?
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:17 am to theGarnetWay
quote:
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.
3 mile island is the best example of safety features working
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:20 am to Oilfieldbiology
Right now they are kept onsite, awaiting a national storage site or approval to recycle and reuse like the French do.
All the nuclear waste produced so far will fit on a football field, stacked 10 feet high. It’s not that huge of a problem and a single site could easily contain it if recycling is not instigated.
All the nuclear waste produced so far will fit on a football field, stacked 10 feet high. It’s not that huge of a problem and a single site could easily contain it if recycling is not instigated.
This post was edited on 6/7/19 at 7:21 am
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:23 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
3 mile island is the best example of safety features working
Yup. 100% human error. All safety systems prevented disaster. 0 loss of life. Unit 1 still up and running.
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:27 am to Bullfrog
quote:
It’s not that huge of a problem and a single site could easily contain it if recycling is not instigated.
The only problem will be moving the dry casks to said location. They weigh something like 150 tons each.
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:28 am to Displaced
quote:
You're understanding is in the vein of very wrong to 100% wrong.
He is correct in that the nuclear plants were scrapped because they were costing too much to build, well over the initial estimates. Currently, the REAL cost to put a nuclear plant online in the US does indeed make it difficult for them to compete with gas, solar and wind cost wise.
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:28 am to Displaced
quote:
You're understanding is in the vein of very wrong to 100% wrong.
Would you care to elaborate?
U.S. Nuclear Comeback Stalls as Two Reactors Are Abandoned
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:29 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:Because it's not about saving the planet, it's about taxation and control.
problem of global warming
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:29 am to Displaced
quote:thats steam you bonehead, it’s nothing but water vapor.
Because look at all that pollution!
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:29 am to Adam4848
quote:
Dude did you watch Chernoby
Dude, do you realize how many nuclear reactors we already have?
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:35 am to Dellybelly82
Thanks Oppenheimer...
Posted on 6/7/19 at 7:47 am to RabidTiger
Sure.
The plants were scrapped for many reasons, but cost effectiveness of wind/solar (especially at ga) is not the issue. The cost to build these nukes is huge up front and the time/cost to get through licensing is huge. Also, Westinghouse filing bankruptcy really fricked those plants.
Another issue is that these companies do not project the future need for additional base load to continue with these nukes. It makes more sense to build a gas or cc plant that can cycle and start up in a moment's notice to meet peak demand. Energy efficiency in residential areas is affecting the need for 3000 MW (or so) of additional base load.
It doesn't really make sense for these companies to create large solar farms or wind regions, but they do anyway to appease the masses. In the region, solar/wind together make up a very small percentage of generation.
The plants were scrapped for many reasons, but cost effectiveness of wind/solar (especially at ga) is not the issue. The cost to build these nukes is huge up front and the time/cost to get through licensing is huge. Also, Westinghouse filing bankruptcy really fricked those plants.
Another issue is that these companies do not project the future need for additional base load to continue with these nukes. It makes more sense to build a gas or cc plant that can cycle and start up in a moment's notice to meet peak demand. Energy efficiency in residential areas is affecting the need for 3000 MW (or so) of additional base load.
It doesn't really make sense for these companies to create large solar farms or wind regions, but they do anyway to appease the masses. In the region, solar/wind together make up a very small percentage of generation.
Posted on 6/7/19 at 1:55 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
Um, if you've paid attention, you would notice that there are many special interests (private and governmental) paying to PROVE Global Warming ManBearPig as well...
I'm not debating that, however every single scientist who has published anti-climate change stuff has found to be paid money by anti-climate change groups. Every other country in the fricking world agrees its an issue except the GoP side of the US.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 4:27 pm to Brazos
Posted on 6/17/19 at 4:36 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
Fear of the fallout of Nuclear issues. Seems to be the main concern. They ignore of course, that solar and wind do not work on a grand scale.
Posted on 6/17/19 at 4:38 pm to Bullfrog
quote:
Right now they are kept onsite, awaiting a national storage site or approval to recycle and reuse like the French do. All the nuclear waste produced so far will fit on a football field, stacked 10 feet high. It’s not that huge of a problem and a single site could easily contain it if recycling is not instigated.
Except we don’t know the long term effects of nuclear waste... that shite isn’t going away until we die out as a species or get to Star Trek level tech.
Where do you store the amount of waste needed to power the world? You have earthquakes to worry about, hurricanes, accidents, etc.
Get a little into fresh ground water and you’ve fricked everyone over.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News