The sun is shining, the wind is blowing, the waves keep coming, the tides keep flowing, gravity still works, dam turbines still turn, geo's still hot, and you're still a breathless shill pushing a non-extant promise line.
Yeah dumbass the sun does not always shine(it is called night), the wind does not always blow. Tidal power is unreliable and is no go in places like California. Geo is location based. New Hydro is a no go in most places. Storage is not viable. So that leaves nuclear energy you stupid fuck.
nuclear power has never once been safely applied
France. Dumbass
In fact the only countries that have deep decarbonized did it with hydro and/or nuclear. Since hydro is environmentally destructive that leaves nuclear.
NuScale current estimate is $4200/kilowatt. Mass production hopefully will reduce that cost further. Gas is dirty. I do not understand why you do not understand that. Climate change is real. Air Pollution is real. Also gas is expensive for the consumer. Peaking natural gas often goes for $1000 MWh. Compare that to Diablo Canyon which sales electricity at $27 MWh (1/3 the average cost).
There are around 50 nuclear startups designing 4th generation reactors. Some were always going to fail. In fact most will probably fail. Some will succeed though.
NuScale is the closest to market. Their design has already passed NRC phase 1 review, and it has been certified as meltdown proof. They will be constructing their first 12 reactors in Idaho for Utah municipalities. Hopefully in a decade they will be mass producing them like airplanes.
A lot of moderators are people who enjoy exercising power against others. That is why they become moderators. That tiny bit of power gives their meaningless lives purpose and joy. Recently I got banned from an energy sub because I replied to someone calling me an idiot. I replied with a citation and called him an idiot back. I was immediately banned for life.
First how many people have ever been harmed from waste? The answer is 0. Can you spell 0?. Z E R O. Xkcd has a bit on spent fuel pools . After it has cooled off in the spent fuel pools it is not that dangerous. It also cannot leak because it is a heavy metal rod. It is not dangerous for 1000's of years (or whatever bs number you want to give) because Cesium(the longest living dangerous isotope in waste) only has a half-life of 30 years.
Those dangers are real, and consistently downplayed by the nuclear industry
Do you even know what the dangers are? Not from Uranium, but from naturally occuring Radon gas which is released. Radon gas is a problem that occurs in all types of mining from coal to rare earths used in wind. It is a problem that has already been solved all over the world. Which makes nuclear mining safer than you able to admit.
The environmental impact of dams is huge
Which is why we should pursue nuclear energy.
And you can't call nuclear power safe until the waste has been cleaned up.
That is a stupid statement. Nuclear energy is the only energy source which contains all of its waste products. There is nothing to clean up since it is already contained. So I will continue to call nuclear safe. It already is statistically safer than every alternative.
And a false dichotomy is just another kind of lie.
How is comparing nuclear energy to natural gas (specifically in California) a false dichotomy? It is an accurate comparison. Every nuclear power plant that has ever been shut down has been replaced with fossil fuels. Diablo canyon is going to replaced primarily by fossil fuels just like San Onofre was.
Why did you not answer my question about the economics of scale?
Small reactors do not have the same problems large reactors have. Small reactors can be factory built, like a Boeing 78, and shipped anywhere in the world. Small reactors are inherently safer meaning we do not have to build the expensive concrete safety structures. Decommissioning costs are already included in the cost of the plant(that includes waste). Waste has always been a red herring, and the dangers of uranium mining are overblown. And why would you not include economy of scale? It is the entire reason 4th generation reactors will be factory built.
Nuclear power plants, like dams, are large public works projects that produce cheap, clean, and reliable electricity 24/7.
Yes natural gas produces more profit because you can sale it at $1000 MWh during peak load vs nuclear which has the same cost 24/7. In California Diablo Canyon charges only $27 per MWh. Nuclear is cheaper and cleaner for the consumer. Natural gas is dirtier and more expensive for the consumer.
That is not true. Scientists have understood the physics for some time now. See Experimental Breeder Reactor II In 1986 they tried to cause a meltdown and failed. The reactor was designed to have a negative thermal coefficient making it impossible to cause a meltdown. Impossible even if you intentionally tried to cause a meltdown.
NuScale's SMR reactor has already been certified by the NRC as being meltdown proof. Their SMR has also passed phase 1 of the NRC review, and their first 12 reactors are going to be built in Idaho.
Maybe you should research some of the physics before you talk out of your ass.
Small modular reactors are the future of nuclear energy. These reactors are meltdown proof and factory built. And yes some of them will be on ships. One of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gasses are large shipping frigates. Reactors on ships can also power many coastal cities without fear from natural disaster.
Solar and wind have enjoyed the benefits of economics of scale. Mass producing solar panels and wind turbines in factories reduced costs. Next generation of nuclear energy can also benefit from economics of scale.
See NuScale They are building a Small Modular Reactor and have passed phase 1 of the NRC review. Their first 12 reactors are going to be built in Idaho for Utah municipalities. They will be factory built which will reduce costs and will allow them to be built quickly.
Nuclear is the most highly regulated energy source. Of course they keep track of all accidents and injuries. Why would you think they wouldn't?
Regular, vanilla industrial accidents don't count as they distort the real issue, which is the safety of the technology in question
We are dancing around the real question--is nuclear energy safe? Of course it is. US nuclear has a safety record better than all other sources, and that is with 20th century reactors. New 4th generation reactors have been demonstrated to be meltdown proof. It is not possible to cause a meltdown in a 4th generation plant. They are being built right now all over the world. NuScale are building their first 12 reactors in Idaho.
When solar panels create an Archimedes ray [mit.edu] and set someone on fire, or wind turbines create a mini-tornado that crushes someone, then we can start comparing the safety of renewable energy technology to nuclear power.
Solar and wind kill a lot of birds. Also solar and wind are intermittent meaning they have to be backed-up with a base-load source. I think they should be backed up by our safest and cleanest energy source--nuclear. I do not know why that is a controversial position.
Well luckily that is happening now with a nuclear startup called NuScale. They have not really bribed anyone, but they are building 12 reactors in Idaho. Even then it is going to be an uphill battle because there is no way they can outspend the fossil fuel companies.
The Who assessment is also not accurate. The estimated deaths never occurred. That calculation was done using the linear no threshold model which is boloney. Yes it is a better estimate than Greenpeace or the union of conserned scientists. Luckily radiation is a poor carcinogen.
Your Wikipedia links confirm that only 31 died in the accident with 15 indirect deaths.
I would also like to point out that a Chernobyl type disaster is not possible with any us reactor. 4th generation reactors are significantly safer and are being builtâ"see NuScale. I think comparing a ussr fuck up with 21st century nuclear is dishonest. I also do not think it disqualifies nuclear as an option for solving climate change and reducing energy poverty
We do count those stats. Luckily those numbers are way lower for nuclear. There have been more accidental electrocutions from solar and wind than nuclear.
I am in favor of exploring all new designs. I do think NuScale is going to win the race. They all ready passed phase 1 of the NRC review. Their reactor is meltdown proof and factory proof.
There were several thousand people who lived no more than a decade after their exposure at Chernobyl
This reeks of conspiracy theory bs. Are you claiming, without evidence, that all of the deaths in Chernobyl were covered up by the USSR? That is a massive conspiracy. There have been cases of thyroid cancer, but that has a very low fatality rate and it is treatable.
Slashdot Mirror
The sun is shining, the wind is blowing, the waves keep coming, the tides keep flowing, gravity still works, dam turbines still turn, geo's still hot, and you're still a breathless shill pushing a non-extant promise line.
Yeah dumbass the sun does not always shine(it is called night), the wind does not always blow. Tidal power is unreliable and is no go in places like California. Geo is location based. New Hydro is a no go in most places. Storage is not viable. So that leaves nuclear energy you stupid fuck.
nuclear power has never once been safely applied
France. Dumbass
In fact the only countries that have deep decarbonized did it with hydro and/or nuclear. Since hydro is environmentally destructive that leaves nuclear.
NuScale current estimate is $4200/kilowatt. Mass production hopefully will reduce that cost further. Gas is dirty. I do not understand why you do not understand that. Climate change is real. Air Pollution is real. Also gas is expensive for the consumer. Peaking natural gas often goes for $1000 MWh. Compare that to Diablo Canyon which sales electricity at $27 MWh (1/3 the average cost).
I would argue that anyone selling 100% renewable is a snake oil salesman.
These reactors are basically submarine reactors that are will be mass produced in a factory. It is a viable plan.
And fuck you for calling me a paid shill you coward.
There are around 50 nuclear startups designing 4th generation reactors. Some were always going to fail. In fact most will probably fail. Some will succeed though.
NuScale is the closest to market. Their design has already passed NRC phase 1 review, and it has been certified as meltdown proof. They will be constructing their first 12 reactors in Idaho for Utah municipalities. Hopefully in a decade they will be mass producing them like airplanes.
Good reason to go back to bitTorrent. Buying should mean you own it.
A lot of moderators are people who enjoy exercising power against others. That is why they become moderators. That tiny bit of power gives their meaningless lives purpose and joy. Recently I got banned from an energy sub because I replied to someone calling me an idiot. I replied with a citation and called him an idiot back. I was immediately banned for life.
Those dangers are real, and consistently downplayed by the nuclear industry
Do you even know what the dangers are? Not from Uranium, but from naturally occuring Radon gas which is released. Radon gas is a problem that occurs in all types of mining from coal to rare earths used in wind. It is a problem that has already been solved all over the world. Which makes nuclear mining safer than you able to admit.
The environmental impact of dams is huge
Which is why we should pursue nuclear energy.
And you can't call nuclear power safe until the waste has been cleaned up.
That is a stupid statement. Nuclear energy is the only energy source which contains all of its waste products. There is nothing to clean up since it is already contained. So I will continue to call nuclear safe. It already is statistically safer than every alternative.
And a false dichotomy is just another kind of lie.
How is comparing nuclear energy to natural gas (specifically in California) a false dichotomy? It is an accurate comparison. Every nuclear power plant that has ever been shut down has been replaced with fossil fuels. Diablo canyon is going to replaced primarily by fossil fuels just like San Onofre was.
Why did you not answer my question about the economics of scale?
Small reactors do not have the same problems large reactors have. Small reactors can be factory built, like a Boeing 78, and shipped anywhere in the world. Small reactors are inherently safer meaning we do not have to build the expensive concrete safety structures. Decommissioning costs are already included in the cost of the plant(that includes waste). Waste has always been a red herring, and the dangers of uranium mining are overblown. And why would you not include economy of scale? It is the entire reason 4th generation reactors will be factory built.
Nuclear power plants, like dams, are large public works projects that produce cheap, clean, and reliable electricity 24/7. Yes natural gas produces more profit because you can sale it at $1000 MWh during peak load vs nuclear which has the same cost 24/7. In California Diablo Canyon charges only $27 per MWh. Nuclear is cheaper and cleaner for the consumer. Natural gas is dirtier and more expensive for the consumer.
That is not true. Scientists have understood the physics for some time now. See Experimental Breeder Reactor II In 1986 they tried to cause a meltdown and failed. The reactor was designed to have a negative thermal coefficient making it impossible to cause a meltdown. Impossible even if you intentionally tried to cause a meltdown.
NuScale's SMR reactor has already been certified by the NRC as being meltdown proof. Their SMR has also passed phase 1 of the NRC review, and their first 12 reactors are going to be built in Idaho.
Maybe you should research some of the physics before you talk out of your ass.
Small modular reactors are the future of nuclear energy. These reactors are meltdown proof and factory built. And yes some of them will be on ships. One of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gasses are large shipping frigates. Reactors on ships can also power many coastal cities without fear from natural disaster.
Kids who grow up near nuclear power plants are healthier/smarter because there is less air pollution.
Solar and wind have enjoyed the benefits of economics of scale. Mass producing solar panels and wind turbines in factories reduced costs. Next generation of nuclear energy can also benefit from economics of scale. See NuScale They are building a Small Modular Reactor and have passed phase 1 of the NRC review. Their first 12 reactors are going to be built in Idaho for Utah municipalities. They will be factory built which will reduce costs and will allow them to be built quickly.
Shut up Elon.
Yeah dumbass Anheuser-Busch is a real company. They made a business decision to support hydrogen trucks over electric trucks. So go fuck yourself.
Sorry. Here is the working link.
What are talking about? Anheuser-Busch purchases 800 hydrogen trucks. 20x the order they made with Tesla.
Actually he is quoting Ralph Wiggum. The original quote was "me fail English. That's unpossible."
Doubt it.
Nuclear is the most highly regulated energy source. Of course they keep track of all accidents and injuries. Why would you think they wouldn't?
Regular, vanilla industrial accidents don't count as they distort the real issue, which is the safety of the technology in question
We are dancing around the real question--is nuclear energy safe? Of course it is. US nuclear has a safety record better than all other sources, and that is with 20th century reactors. New 4th generation reactors have been demonstrated to be meltdown proof. It is not possible to cause a meltdown in a 4th generation plant. They are being built right now all over the world. NuScale are building their first 12 reactors in Idaho.
When solar panels create an Archimedes ray [mit.edu] and set someone on fire, or wind turbines create a mini-tornado that crushes someone, then we can start comparing the safety of renewable energy technology to nuclear power.
Solar and wind kill a lot of birds. Also solar and wind are intermittent meaning they have to be backed-up with a base-load source. I think they should be backed up by our safest and cleanest energy source--nuclear. I do not know why that is a controversial position.
Well luckily that is happening now with a nuclear startup called NuScale. They have not really bribed anyone, but they are building 12 reactors in Idaho. Even then it is going to be an uphill battle because there is no way they can outspend the fossil fuel companies.
Fuck you.
The Who assessment is also not accurate. The estimated deaths never occurred. That calculation was done using the linear no threshold model which is boloney. Yes it is a better estimate than Greenpeace or the union of conserned scientists. Luckily radiation is a poor carcinogen.
Your Wikipedia links confirm that only 31 died in the accident with 15 indirect deaths.
I would also like to point out that a Chernobyl type disaster is not possible with any us reactor. 4th generation reactors are significantly safer and are being builtâ"see NuScale. I think comparing a ussr fuck up with 21st century nuclear is dishonest. I also do not think it disqualifies nuclear as an option for solving climate change and reducing energy poverty
We do count those stats. Luckily those numbers are way lower for nuclear. There have been more accidental electrocutions from solar and wind than nuclear.
That is a stupid comment. How in the hell are scientists going to out bribe the fossil fuel lobby?
I am in favor of exploring all new designs. I do think NuScale is going to win the race. They all ready passed phase 1 of the NRC review. Their reactor is meltdown proof and factory proof.
There were several thousand people who lived no more than a decade after their exposure at Chernobyl
This reeks of conspiracy theory bs. Are you claiming, without evidence, that all of the deaths in Chernobyl were covered up by the USSR? That is a massive conspiracy. There have been cases of thyroid cancer, but that has a very low fatality rate and it is treatable.