There is not enough uranium to replace coal and gas and have the plants we build reach there design life. There is only 80 years left without expanding nuclear power. Your point about solar is mistaken. The Sun will still give off light as a white dwarf.
“I have answered three questions, and that is enough,”
Said his father; “don’t give yourself airs!
Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff?
Be off, or I’ll kick you downstairs!”
You are confusing me not backing statements up with my knowledge thar many readers here do arithmetic in their heads so it would be insulting to tell them how. But for you, 40 years ago there was about 120 years of uranium left. Increase its use by a factor of five to eliminate fossil fuel burning and it runs out in 24 years, so it would be gone by now. Nuclear power can't help with global warming.
You a suffering from a reading comprehension problem. Look back. We are discussing a counterfactual where nuclear energy ecpanded dramatically in the 1970s. Think for a minute and you'll see how silly you are being.
One of the great things about uranium is that you can use it to make powerful weapons that fit on today's missile technology. Oh, wait, everyone knows that.... Do power plants really have to fit on missles? Nope. Oh well, guess that isn't important then.
Most dams are for flood control, they keep property from being destroyed. Hydro-electric is an add-on for these. Fish ladders have helped in reviving salmon runs, but reservoirs also boost habitat for others species, so it is a mix.
One does not really substitute for the other. But if nuclear is perceived as expensive and energy is seen as getting cheaper, then increased opposition to nuclear might be based on that. It's been in the new that plants are too expensive to run or consumers are being charged for plants that never open. Why support a scam?
You may never have heard of the Price-Anderson Act of federal loan guarantees or state level subsidies that charge rate payers without ever delivering any electricity at all. And you also seem ignorant of the federal research money for nuclear energy. But just because you are not aware of all this support, it does not mean it isn't happening.
Nuclear gets a lot of subsidies. Loan guarantees are needed to build plants. Rate payers have to pay for the construction in advance as well, a strange double dipping. The liability insurance is carried by the government, and during the recession, an accident at Indian Point would have caused a default for the federal government. Nuclear is also getting a free ride on waste disposal. And, our largest energy research effort is devoted to nuclear power. Seems like kind of a mature technology to be so decrepit that it can't walk without the government holding it up.
Slashdot Mirror
There is not enough uranium to replace coal and gas and have the plants we build reach there design life. There is only 80 years left without expanding nuclear power. Your point about solar is mistaken. The Sun will still give off light as a white dwarf.
And, they'd criminalize yoga so the donors would healthy, very efficient, very efficient. You sir, should be in a Trump cabinet.
http://www.usnews.com/news/pol...
Reprocessing was illegal.
Move along. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
How popular were searches on organ harvesting of Falun Gong members?
Turns out he's innumerate. http://100.org/
https://science.slashdot.org/c...
I refuse to believe hydro power is viable until they build a dam out of water.
“I have answered three questions, and that is enough,”
Said his father; “don’t give yourself airs!
Do you think I can listen all day to such stuff?
Be off, or I’ll kick you downstairs!”
You are confusing me not backing statements up with my knowledge thar many readers here do arithmetic in their heads so it would be insulting to tell them how. But for you, 40 years ago there was about 120 years of uranium left. Increase its use by a factor of five to eliminate fossil fuel burning and it runs out in 24 years, so it would be gone by now. Nuclear power can't help with global warming.
You are so far behind in this subject area.
Seems a little silly to subsidies a dying industry.
You a suffering from a reading comprehension problem. Look back. We are discussing a counterfactual where nuclear energy ecpanded dramatically in the 1970s. Think for a minute and you'll see how silly you are being.
It's just math.
One of the great things about uranium is that you can use it to make powerful weapons that fit on today's missile technology. Oh, wait, everyone knows that.... Do power plants really have to fit on missles? Nope. Oh well, guess that isn't important then.
Things look grim for US nuclear power: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energ...
So, the uranium would be gone, QED. You just demonstrated your error.
Most dams are for flood control, they keep property from being destroyed. Hydro-electric is an add-on for these. Fish ladders have helped in reviving salmon runs, but reservoirs also boost habitat for others species, so it is a mix.
Pish, reprocessing is illegal. Would not have happened.
It is a national embarrassment that Oak Ridge National Laboratory would publicize such piffle. You've been had.
A big difference is that the passages chose the risk.
One does not really substitute for the other. But if nuclear is perceived as expensive and energy is seen as getting cheaper, then increased opposition to nuclear might be based on that. It's been in the new that plants are too expensive to run or consumers are being charged for plants that never open. Why support a scam?
You may never have heard of the Price-Anderson Act of federal loan guarantees or state level subsidies that charge rate payers without ever delivering any electricity at all. And you also seem ignorant of the federal research money for nuclear energy. But just because you are not aware of all this support, it does not mean it isn't happening.
Nuclear gets a lot of subsidies. Loan guarantees are needed to build plants. Rate payers have to pay for the construction in advance as well, a strange double dipping. The liability insurance is carried by the government, and during the recession, an accident at Indian Point would have caused a default for the federal government. Nuclear is also getting a free ride on waste disposal. And, our largest energy research effort is devoted to nuclear power. Seems like kind of a mature technology to be so decrepit that it can't walk without the government holding it up.