What are we arguing about? You like to poison the Earth with unnatural fission products. I'd like to avoid both coal and your kind of poison. I don't feel silly.
Since what you linked to has been criticized as unrealistic, you'll have to get your folks to respond. If they haven't then presumably they are revising their view. This is not just opinions. It is possible to learn things as time goes on.
In a lot of the US you can't eat the fish in the streams because of mercury but in parts to the UK you can't raise sheep because of the fallout from Chernobyl. If we stop using coal we'll be able to eat the fish but the fallout will last longer. That gives nuclear a greater impact.
Actually, nuclear isn't better than coal owing to its own waste problems and safety issues (a melt down every 40 years or so). But, on the supply issue, consider that to replace coal with uranium you'd have to use it 5.3 times faster than we do now. That cuts the supply to 13 years rather than 70.
Entergy has announced it will sell 3% of its power VT Yankee at close to its old rate of 4 cents/kwh though it has not agreed to a price for the other 97%. http://www.reformer.com/latestnews/ci_14455061
There is probably less than 70 years of uranium available at the present rate of use. Increasing use would cut the time to the point where a plant built today would run out of fuel before it gets a chance to develop leaks. http://www.physorg.com/news177839133.html
Slashdot Mirror
RTFA
What are we arguing about? You like to poison the Earth with unnatural fission products. I'd like to avoid both coal and your kind of poison. I don't feel silly.
Not really. You might want to read the report.
Actually, as can be seen here, running less than 40 years seems to lead to problems.
Since what you linked to has been criticized as unrealistic, you'll have to get your folks to respond. If they haven't then presumably they are revising their view. This is not just opinions. It is possible to learn things as time goes on.
In a lot of the US you can't eat the fish in the streams because of mercury but in parts to the UK you can't raise sheep because of the fallout from Chernobyl. If we stop using coal we'll be able to eat the fish but the fallout will last longer. That gives nuclear a greater impact.
Boy, you have no clue at all do you?
However, the fat residence time is much much longer.
Or like Chernobyl. Perhaps 60,000 excess deaths. http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/118/118559.torch_executive_summary@en.pdf
I know the difference. Do you?
A more recent and more careful estimate such as I linked to may be more informative. You can also find out there why your last statement is moot.
Wow, modded a troll. Guess some people have trouble with math.
Maryland's Calvert Cliffs reactors seem to be becoming unreliable: http://wjz.com/wireapnewsmd/NRC.inspectors.sent.2.1514222.html And, South Carolina's Oconee just sprung a leak as well http://www.independentmail.com/news/2010/feb/09/oconee-nuclear-station-reports-tritium-exceeds-ind/ It is probably a mistake to run these plants past their 40 year design lifetime.
For me it seems like an eternity.
Oh, wait for it..... Decays to fat.
Actually, nuclear isn't better than coal owing to its own waste problems and safety issues (a melt down every 40 years or so). But, on the supply issue, consider that to replace coal with uranium you'd have to use it 5.3 times faster than we do now. That cuts the supply to 13 years rather than 70.
So, apparently they are not up-to-date in their estimate.
Yes, and you don't have to wait long for that. Hum....
You don't think they might post guards in pairs?
Entergy has announced it will sell 3% of its power VT Yankee at close to its old rate of 4 cents/kwh though it has not agreed to a price for the other 97%. http://www.reformer.com/latestnews/ci_14455061
I meant that as in crashed a party or broke into a conversation but I can see how you read that differently.
There is probably less than 70 years of uranium available at the present rate of use. Increasing use would cut the time to the point where a plant built today would run out of fuel before it gets a chance to develop leaks. http://www.physorg.com/news177839133.html
No, a total tritium travesty.
Looks like I assumed too much of you intelligence. The way the company behaves, it is very unlikely that they are running their plants safely. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/02sirenswe.html
When combined with carbon in sugars and starches, it stays in the body when consumed.