I just accessed this article from Feedly. Much easier to scan a list of one line headlines than wading through all the websites I track. Also, makes it easier to monitor niche sites with few updates or that I visit rarely. I find news via social media intrusive, blinkered, and stifling.
You missed my point. While the actual nuclear plant taken by itself may look good from a numbers perspective, such an analysis ignores the large front- and back-end required to operate a nuclear plant throughout its lifetime such as mining, processing, transportation, and storage of its fuel as well as disposal of any associated radioactive and toxic materials both used and produced by the industry as a whole. There is also the unique problem of what to do with the radioactive nuclear plant itself when it reaches the end of its operational lifetime.
All the above must be taken into account when talking about nuclear energy to get an accurate account of its costs both financially and environmentally. I wouldn't take nuclear energy off the table but, for me, it would be about my last choice for an "alternative" energy source.
While reactor technology has indeed improved of late it is only one part of the nuclear fuel cycle. Considering the nuclear industry in its entirety, a nuclear reactor has got to be the most convoluted way to boil water yet invented - nuclear power isn't nearly as cost effective or as environmentally friendly as its proponents claim.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem solved!
I just accessed this article from Feedly. Much easier to scan a list of one line headlines than wading through all the websites I track. Also, makes it easier to monitor niche sites with few updates or that I visit rarely. I find news via social media intrusive, blinkered, and stifling.
Brilliant satire. Bravo.
initdeep:
You missed my point. While the actual nuclear plant taken by itself may look good from a numbers perspective, such an analysis ignores the large front- and back-end required to operate a nuclear plant throughout its lifetime such as mining, processing, transportation, and storage of its fuel as well as disposal of any associated radioactive and toxic materials both used and produced by the industry as a whole. There is also the unique problem of what to do with the radioactive nuclear plant itself when it reaches the end of its operational lifetime.
All the above must be taken into account when talking about nuclear energy to get an accurate account of its costs both financially and environmentally. I wouldn't take nuclear energy off the table but, for me, it would be about my last choice for an "alternative" energy source.
While reactor technology has indeed improved of late it is only one part of the nuclear fuel cycle. Considering the nuclear industry in its entirety, a nuclear reactor has got to be the most convoluted way to boil water yet invented - nuclear power isn't nearly as cost effective or as environmentally friendly as its proponents claim.