If it is, why the fuck do we have to pay through the nose to use "free" solar or wind or hydro power?
Missed this bit. Why? because it is an emerging technology. Coal/gas is entrenched and has economies of scale (and 10s of billions in tax breaks...).
If you put a solar panel or wind turbine on your roof, how much are you paying for that electricity? Zero. It's fair to say you paid a one time investment in infrastructure cost, but the 'fuel' is free plain and simple.
Gas if $4.00/gallon. What if you could 'fill' your car up from that roof top solar panel? Now your transportation fuel bill just went to zero as well. Since most people are paying $75-100/month for gas these days, that's a significant savings. Now, battery tech isn't yet capable of grid scale deployment of electric cars but development is moving along. Using hydrogen (created by electrolysis from water, powered by solar!) is one way to store energy for later usage.
All of these things make use of a 'free' fuel. Are they ready to go full production scale right now? No they aren't. But saying you'd rather keep paying the ever increasing cost of oil and the ever increasing costs of climate change from coal's CO2 release, doesn't make sense when we have more energy hitting the earth in a single day than the entire world uses in an entire year. Seriously there is that much solar energy available for the taking, we just have to try..
It's not exactly a level playing field for alternative energies at the moment. Likewise, Coal/oil is allowed to release CO2 without penalty. think about how much it would cost if coal plants had to capture all of their emissions? How about cars too? how much would that increase the cost of coal/oil energy? Those emissions are driving climate change and that will have a cost down the road.
And if you don't think climate change is real, then we really shouldn't be using nuclear at all. We have all the coal we could need for over 200 hundred years. here, on our soil. Why bother with nuclear if you have that?
Oil is "free" in pretty much the same way. It's just lying there in pools underground for the taking.
Last time I checked the pump it still cost money. Why is that?
I also seem to remember a Gulf Oil disaster that would say it's actually fairly difficult to get that oil. And then there's those big oil tankers that have to carry it from where it is pulled out the ground to a refining station and then transported again to where it is used.
Those are significant costs as evidenced by the $100/barrel price of oil. There is no equivalent cost associated with solar or wind. The 'fuel' is free.
I'm not talking about the 'engine' or 'coal plant', I'm talking about what you put into the engine...the fuel.
Every system has infrastructure costs, as you note astutely in the windmill itself, so I'm saying those are theoretically a wash. Wind/solar doesn't have the ongoing cost of buying fuel to burn to generate the electricity.
The 'fuel' is the sunlight and the wind, both of which are, at last check, free.
Silicon, Aluminum, Arsenic, Phosphorus, ect, ect, ect... These are all materials which require large amounts of energy to mine and refine, and large amounts of toxic, carcinogenic chemicals to again mine and refine them.
'Once'. The coal/oil/nuclear require on going processes of these things.
However unlike a nonrenewable plant there are many hundreds of times more components which must be cleaned and fixed.
Sources? Just being you say there are many more maintenance parts to a renewable plant doesn't make it so:)
they do certainly have much higher maintenance and building cost which can in many instances cost more then the fuel at any other plant.
Sources again? I don't really subscribe to the idea that a non-moving panel that simply sits there has much in the way of 'maintenance'. Perhaps you could say the gearing and drives would turn the panels with the sun, but that's bone simple mechanical type stuff. It isn't going to cost you much.
Wind mills have some maintenance issues, but again so do coal/oil plants. Plus they have the
when the actual devices involved in both cases are made 99% of oil (solar panels, and that's not counting the massive amounts of coal needed to produce the silicon wafers)
And there's no infrastructure cost in coal/nuclear plants? Both I think contain quite a bit of metal and concrete.
You're comparing solar infrastructure costs and ignoring the infrastructure that exists in coal/oil/nuclear systems. They both have that cost. Solar panels are a 'one time' use of oil (I'm taking your word for it on that). Coal/Oil/nuclear plants use oil/ore as the fuel every day. So solar's are a one time cost but coal/oil continue over time; and had initial one time costs as well.
Once you include the cost to capture all the CO2 released by coal/oil, then the cost comparisons can be made equal. Likewise the costs of all the nuclear disasters. You can't cherry pick which costs you consider when comparing.
At current technological levels wind/solar is a disaster
I agree. We haven't spent nearly enough on R&D for this yet. We're going to need more.
As for the 'sheep'. Until you get the 'sheep' moving, you don't move the herd. So that's better than just standing around denying anything is wrong in the face of clear evidence that you're current path is unsustainable.
BR
But hey....it's your head up your own as...
Wouldn't some land that presently is *not* viable for agriculture become more so?
Nope. The temperature doesn't 'fix' the new location's soil into being arable land. It isn't just mix and match. And you have to now move your entire agriculture infrastructure - it doesn't just pack up and move north.
The sea level rise means there will be far less available land at all, regardless of whether it is arable or not.
We'd STILL be better off from a radiological point of view than if they were all replaced with coal plants of the same power output.
Seriously? Coal bad != nuclear good. It means nuclear is less bad until something goes wrong. Nothing more.
Do you have any idea how LITTLE it REALLY costs to store this stuff? I'm not saying its cheap
So we've established that you certainly don't know. What I'm saying is it's a 'cost' that renewable sources simply do not have at all. Just like the fuel.
Nuclear will be required from a global warming perspective for 50-100 years until green sources can be ramped up to grid scale. That won't happen overnight. It doesn't mean nuclear is a 'good' thing though. It's 'necessary', but not good or nearly as safe as you claim. Fukishima was considered 'safe' prior to this disaster. They only 'safe' until they aren't and then it's not 'fixable'.
It's the difference between failure scenarios and operational scenarios. Bad mining practices are operational issues and *can* be mitigated pretty easily. That is not 'disaster' that's just bad process.
That Union Carbide didn't clean up it's plant still isn't the same as a nuclear plant failing. Ground water contamination starts to creep in on the same area of effect as radiation, but you can truck in water if needed. You can't do that with radiation.
Sure, you need some exclusion around it, like any plant.
We disagree. Other plants you need exclusion zones of acres to keep away from the bad stuff if the plant fails. Nuclear you need 10s of miles.
Yep I am. A sludge tsunami effects exactly 1 river basin over a short distance. Coal mine fires generally don't force evacuations of 50 miles or more. Centralia, PA is a good example. "The only indications of the fire, which underlies some 400 acres (1.6 km)" 'roughly' ONE square mile of affected area.
Area of Fukushima? 50 mile radius. Pi * 50 * 50 = 1962.5/2 = ~1000 square miles. (div 2 because it's on the coast only half the circle is on land).
It's attractive as long as you ignore it's negative effects. The centuries of waste storage, the risk of depopulating hundreds of square miles for decades. Other than that it's just great!
Nuclear will be a reality and necessity for the next 50-100 years. But beyond that we need to find something that doesn't contain the risks that nuclear has or the known damages of fossil fuel use.
How is sunlight and wind not 'free' fuel? Or for that matter, hydro power?
I'm not saying there aren't costs associated with these power systems, but there are no costs for the 'fuel' that provides the energy input. Coal/gas/nuclear all have fuel that must be extracted, processed and transported to the power plant.
But is it worse than a coal plant, or a natural gas plant, or the equivalent solar or windmill farm
Partially apples vs oranges.
Nuclear has lower operational impacts than coal. Coal has lower failure impacts than Nuclear.
Operational impacts can be planned for and reasonably dealt with. Failure impacts cannot. At some point the level of planning fails because of unforeseen risks. You can mitigate as best as possible, but you can never solve the problem with certainty.
Solar/wind is lower than either on both accounts. The energy 'storage' technology isn't yet ready for wind/solar to be grid scale but it is coming.
Where was the outrage when Union Carbide killed 3000 people due to a methyl isocyanate escape (due to seriously shitty procedures and a cavalier attitude)?
I'm guessing in Bhopal, India? Note that only the shanty town immediately next to the plant experienced the dire consequences. They didn't evacuate to 50 miles because of the accident.
Nuclear is in an entirely different league of risk and damage than any other source. Coal/Oil emissions can be mitigated through expensive but doable exhaust filtering, though we generally choose not to do that. Those are 'operational' issues which pale in comparison to failure scenarios.
You can plan for operational issues quite easily. You can't plan 'easily' for catastrophic disaster. It's very nature means what you planned no longer works or can be counted on to work. It's a matter of redundancy and probability, there is no certainty. There is certainty for operational issues.
Really, nobody thinks like me... Wow your well formed arguments have opened my eyes
You're the one who lamented that there isn't anywhere left for you to go to find people who think like you do. I was just pointing out what you were saying:)
You need to wake up and argue issues.
I have argued issues AND given you sources for my beliefs. You still haven't done that....
Half the country pays no tax
This is a GOP canard and you *should* know it if you're as informed as you claim. The 'pay no tax' is really 'had a low enough income that the payroll taxes they did pay covered their tax burden. They still pay tax.
a progressive tax system pushes almost all the burden on a few.
It does not. It does scale ones payment based on their ability to pay. To someone making $40,000 a year, $8000 (20%) is a whole lot more important than $200,000 from someone earning $1,000,000. Do you not see that? The lower incomes have to pay a vastly greater portion of their income for basic needs. The rich don't have that problem. That is why 'progressive' works for a large society and frankly *any* society. You are still rewarded for your efforts, but the existence of the society gives you the ability to earn large income, so you pay a slightly higher portion of that income back in return for your success in that society.
Stop attacking me personally as a non-caring person.
I'm attacking your positions (that you haven't fleshed out beyond GOP talking points). Explain how you wouldn't cut off the elderly from health care if they are poor. Please do so. Explain how you wouldn't throw retirees out on the street because they lost their life savings in the stock market if SocSec didn't exist. You can refute my claims, but so far you haven't. Governing is 'hard', spouting off is easy as the GOP shows almost daily now.
Just because the rest of the world does something, doesn't mean you should
Indeed correct. But when they are solving the problems that you are facing, perhaps you should look at their solutions. You're ultra-freedom position mandates that you have extreme suffering. You can't have one without the other. If everyone should fend for themselves, invariably some will not be able too. What do you do with their children? Leave them on the street? Or provide for them at some minimum level? Answers please.
you haven't pointed me to any socialist plan that actually results in a balanced budget
Funny, we had one about 11 years ago... Our ENTIRE national debt would be GONE NOW if we had continued on that plan. Except we went with your idea of giving people tax breaks. Oops. Again, refute if you can but so far you just cry croc tears.
extends the life of Medicare/Social Security long enough so that I will actual receive anything from those programs.
Medicare does not have a revenue problem, it has a health care cost problem. And you know what solves those problems? Single payer government health care. When there is only one customer for a doctor's services, the prices are dictated by that customer. I will allow that some adjustment will occur as some doctors decide the business isn't worth their time. But frankly, do you want a doctor who is only in it for the money?
Since I am sure your answer will be tax the rich, please show me a study that shows our economy can survive a large tax increase on a select few business owners.
yes I am saying tax the rich. Explain to me why someone making 10 million dollars a year can't afford to pay more? My personal choice would be a flat tax for everybody with just about no deductions allowed. The problem is that you need a floor below which people don't pay taxes. (i.e. are you taking $5 from the
So it's magic huh? It effects the environment. Perhaps not in the way that combustion does, but there are still outputs that apparently are dangerous enough to warrant centuries long storage. That we don't store anywhere except at the very sites where the possibility of meltdown and explosions are.
What could *possibly* go wrong. Oh right.
Nuclear is *not* the answer. It is a necessary short term 50-100 years requirement though. It will take probably that long to entirely switch to renewable fuels. Technology needs keep improving for renewables to be grid scale, but they are improving.
Saying nuclear is better for the environment is like saying coal is great...except for what it releases. 'Coal bad' != 'Nuclear good'. Sorry it isn't and won't be the solution. Renewable sources are the only long term solution.
Most of the new reactor designs include fail-safes that don't rely on constant cooling for months to stop the reaction.
I get your point and that's somewhat what I tried to say. However it's also about the same as "Trust us, it won't fail because we've got the latest safety measures in place." Which is *exactly* what they said about the original nuclear plant. Another unforeseen disaster will trump those safety features too.
Sea level rise from global warming is expected to flood some densely populated areas.
You are correct. I still stand by my point that coal/oil this is an operational issue outcome not one of failure. Sure we didn't do anything about the problem until almost too late, but that doesn't mean the problem was because those fuel sources 'failed' like a nuclear accident.
Slashdot Mirror
If it is, why the fuck do we have to pay through the nose to use "free" solar or wind or hydro power?
Missed this bit. Why? because it is an emerging technology. Coal/gas is entrenched and has economies of scale (and 10s of billions in tax breaks...). If you put a solar panel or wind turbine on your roof, how much are you paying for that electricity? Zero. It's fair to say you paid a one time investment in infrastructure cost, but the 'fuel' is free plain and simple.
Gas if $4.00/gallon. What if you could 'fill' your car up from that roof top solar panel? Now your transportation fuel bill just went to zero as well. Since most people are paying $75-100/month for gas these days, that's a significant savings. Now, battery tech isn't yet capable of grid scale deployment of electric cars but development is moving along. Using hydrogen (created by electrolysis from water, powered by solar!) is one way to store energy for later usage.
All of these things make use of a 'free' fuel. Are they ready to go full production scale right now? No they aren't. But saying you'd rather keep paying the ever increasing cost of oil and the ever increasing costs of climate change from coal's CO2 release, doesn't make sense when we have more energy hitting the earth in a single day than the entire world uses in an entire year. Seriously there is that much solar energy available for the taking, we just have to try..
It's not exactly a level playing field for alternative energies at the moment. Likewise, Coal/oil is allowed to release CO2 without penalty. think about how much it would cost if coal plants had to capture all of their emissions? How about cars too? how much would that increase the cost of coal/oil energy? Those emissions are driving climate change and that will have a cost down the road.
And if you don't think climate change is real, then we really shouldn't be using nuclear at all. We have all the coal we could need for over 200 hundred years. here, on our soil. Why bother with nuclear if you have that?
Dam failure is a reasonable comparison, but it fails on the most significant point.
After the flood you can quite safely rebuild on the exact same spot. It won't irradiate you to death. The effects are not decades lasting.
The 50 mile exclusion zone is evidence that the effects of the disaster will be in full effect for years to come. A dam failure just doesn't do that.
Oil is "free" in pretty much the same way. It's just lying there in pools underground for the taking.
Last time I checked the pump it still cost money. Why is that?
I also seem to remember a Gulf Oil disaster that would say it's actually fairly difficult to get that oil. And then there's those big oil tankers that have to carry it from where it is pulled out the ground to a refining station and then transported again to where it is used.
Those are significant costs as evidenced by the $100/barrel price of oil. There is no equivalent cost associated with solar or wind. The 'fuel' is free.
I'm not talking about the 'engine' or 'coal plant', I'm talking about what you put into the engine...the fuel.
Every system has infrastructure costs, as you note astutely in the windmill itself, so I'm saying those are theoretically a wash. Wind/solar doesn't have the ongoing cost of buying fuel to burn to generate the electricity.
The 'fuel' is the sunlight and the wind, both of which are, at last check, free.
Silicon, Aluminum, Arsenic, Phosphorus, ect, ect, ect... These are all materials which require large amounts of energy to mine and refine, and large amounts of toxic, carcinogenic chemicals to again mine and refine them.
'Once'. The coal/oil/nuclear require on going processes of these things.
However unlike a nonrenewable plant there are many hundreds of times more components which must be cleaned and fixed.
Sources? Just being you say there are many more maintenance parts to a renewable plant doesn't make it so :)
they do certainly have much higher maintenance and building cost which can in many instances cost more then the fuel at any other plant.
Sources again? I don't really subscribe to the idea that a non-moving panel that simply sits there has much in the way of 'maintenance'. Perhaps you could say the gearing and drives would turn the panels with the sun, but that's bone simple mechanical type stuff. It isn't going to cost you much.
Wind mills have some maintenance issues, but again so do coal/oil plants. Plus they have the
Nice try though yep, it affects a whopping 1 square mile.
yep, it affects a whopping 1 square mile. Nice try though
when the actual devices involved in both cases are made 99% of oil (solar panels, and that's not counting the massive amounts of coal needed to produce the silicon wafers)
And there's no infrastructure cost in coal/nuclear plants? Both I think contain quite a bit of metal and concrete.
You're comparing solar infrastructure costs and ignoring the infrastructure that exists in coal/oil/nuclear systems. They both have that cost. Solar panels are a 'one time' use of oil (I'm taking your word for it on that). Coal/Oil/nuclear plants use oil/ore as the fuel every day. So solar's are a one time cost but coal/oil continue over time; and had initial one time costs as well.
Once you include the cost to capture all the CO2 released by coal/oil, then the cost comparisons can be made equal. Likewise the costs of all the nuclear disasters. You can't cherry pick which costs you consider when comparing.
At current technological levels wind/solar is a disaster
I agree. We haven't spent nearly enough on R&D for this yet. We're going to need more.
As for the 'sheep'. Until you get the 'sheep' moving, you don't move the herd. So that's better than just standing around denying anything is wrong in the face of clear evidence that you're current path is unsustainable.
BR But hey....it's your head up your own as...
Wouldn't some land that presently is *not* viable for agriculture become more so?
Nope. The temperature doesn't 'fix' the new location's soil into being arable land. It isn't just mix and match. And you have to now move your entire agriculture infrastructure - it doesn't just pack up and move north.
The sea level rise means there will be far less available land at all, regardless of whether it is arable or not.
We'd STILL be better off from a radiological point of view than if they were all replaced with coal plants of the same power output.
Seriously? Coal bad != nuclear good. It means nuclear is less bad until something goes wrong. Nothing more.
Do you have any idea how LITTLE it REALLY costs to store this stuff? I'm not saying its cheap
So we've established that you certainly don't know. What I'm saying is it's a 'cost' that renewable sources simply do not have at all. Just like the fuel.
Nuclear will be required from a global warming perspective for 50-100 years until green sources can be ramped up to grid scale. That won't happen overnight. It doesn't mean nuclear is a 'good' thing though. It's 'necessary', but not good or nearly as safe as you claim. Fukishima was considered 'safe' prior to this disaster. They only 'safe' until they aren't and then it's not 'fixable'.
True, it costs money to get it and do something useful with it, but then the same is true for wind.
How do you have 'transport' wind or mine it? It comes *to* the power station/windmill on it's own.
Um, you do realize that Solar requires gobs of oil & coal right? Making solar panels involve allot of environmental impact.
So does building an oil tanker. Infrastructure costs exist for everything. Coal, oil, gas, nuclear.
Solar/wind don't have ongoing fuel costs that the other sources do.
We Can != We Do.
I would fully support pricing in the full cost of containing CO2 releases by fossil fuels. That would make renewable sources much more competitive.
We have chosen not to do so, but that doesn't mean it isn't something we could do.
That Union Carbide didn't clean up it's plant still isn't the same as a nuclear plant failing. Ground water contamination starts to creep in on the same area of effect as radiation, but you can truck in water if needed. You can't do that with radiation.
Sure, you need some exclusion around it, like any plant.
We disagree. Other plants you need exclusion zones of acres to keep away from the bad stuff if the plant fails. Nuclear you need 10s of miles.
Yep I am. A sludge tsunami effects exactly 1 river basin over a short distance. Coal mine fires generally don't force evacuations of 50 miles or more. Centralia, PA is a good example. "The only indications of the fire, which underlies some 400 acres (1.6 km)" 'roughly' ONE square mile of affected area.
/2 = ~1000 square miles. (div 2 because it's on the coast only half the circle is on land).
Area of Fukushima? 50 mile radius. Pi * 50 * 50 = 1962.5
Not even close.
I didn't say the 'were' dealt with, just that they *could* be dealt with. We choose not to pay the 'actual' costs of fossil fuels because we don't.
It's attractive as long as you ignore it's negative effects. The centuries of waste storage, the risk of depopulating hundreds of square miles for decades. Other than that it's just great!
Nuclear will be a reality and necessity for the next 50-100 years. But beyond that we need to find something that doesn't contain the risks that nuclear has or the known damages of fossil fuel use.
How is sunlight and wind not 'free' fuel? Or for that matter, hydro power?
I'm not saying there aren't costs associated with these power systems, but there are no costs for the 'fuel' that provides the energy input. Coal/gas/nuclear all have fuel that must be extracted, processed and transported to the power plant.
But is it worse than a coal plant, or a natural gas plant, or the equivalent solar or windmill farm
Partially apples vs oranges.
Nuclear has lower operational impacts than coal. Coal has lower failure impacts than Nuclear.
Operational impacts can be planned for and reasonably dealt with. Failure impacts cannot. At some point the level of planning fails because of unforeseen risks. You can mitigate as best as possible, but you can never solve the problem with certainty.
Solar/wind is lower than either on both accounts. The energy 'storage' technology isn't yet ready for wind/solar to be grid scale but it is coming.
And on top of that it's fuel is free.
Where was the outrage when Union Carbide killed 3000 people due to a methyl isocyanate escape (due to seriously shitty procedures and a cavalier attitude)?
I'm guessing in Bhopal, India? Note that only the shanty town immediately next to the plant experienced the dire consequences. They didn't evacuate to 50 miles because of the accident.
Nuclear is in an entirely different league of risk and damage than any other source. Coal/Oil emissions can be mitigated through expensive but doable exhaust filtering, though we generally choose not to do that. Those are 'operational' issues which pale in comparison to failure scenarios.
You can plan for operational issues quite easily. You can't plan 'easily' for catastrophic disaster. It's very nature means what you planned no longer works or can be counted on to work. It's a matter of redundancy and probability, there is no certainty. There is certainty for operational issues.
that is why nuclear is treated differently.
yes. But life can still walk around that site without fear of dying simply because they are standing there.
This is still an 'operational' issue. Not a failure issue. It *can* be planned for and mitigated.
Really, nobody thinks like me... Wow your well formed arguments have opened my eyes
You're the one who lamented that there isn't anywhere left for you to go to find people who think like you do. I was just pointing out what you were saying :)
You need to wake up and argue issues.
I have argued issues AND given you sources for my beliefs. You still haven't done that....
Half the country pays no tax
This is a GOP canard and you *should* know it if you're as informed as you claim. The 'pay no tax' is really 'had a low enough income that the payroll taxes they did pay covered their tax burden. They still pay tax.
a progressive tax system pushes almost all the burden on a few.
It does not. It does scale ones payment based on their ability to pay. To someone making $40,000 a year, $8000 (20%) is a whole lot more important than $200,000 from someone earning $1,000,000. Do you not see that? The lower incomes have to pay a vastly greater portion of their income for basic needs. The rich don't have that problem. That is why 'progressive' works for a large society and frankly *any* society. You are still rewarded for your efforts, but the existence of the society gives you the ability to earn large income, so you pay a slightly higher portion of that income back in return for your success in that society.
Stop attacking me personally as a non-caring person.
I'm attacking your positions (that you haven't fleshed out beyond GOP talking points). Explain how you wouldn't cut off the elderly from health care if they are poor. Please do so. Explain how you wouldn't throw retirees out on the street because they lost their life savings in the stock market if SocSec didn't exist. You can refute my claims, but so far you haven't. Governing is 'hard', spouting off is easy as the GOP shows almost daily now.
Just because the rest of the world does something, doesn't mean you should
Indeed correct. But when they are solving the problems that you are facing, perhaps you should look at their solutions. You're ultra-freedom position mandates that you have extreme suffering. You can't have one without the other. If everyone should fend for themselves, invariably some will not be able too. What do you do with their children? Leave them on the street? Or provide for them at some minimum level? Answers please.
you haven't pointed me to any socialist plan that actually results in a balanced budget
Funny, we had one about 11 years ago... Our ENTIRE national debt would be GONE NOW if we had continued on that plan. Except we went with your idea of giving people tax breaks. Oops. Again, refute if you can but so far you just cry croc tears.
extends the life of Medicare/Social Security long enough so that I will actual receive anything from those programs.
Medicare does not have a revenue problem, it has a health care cost problem. And you know what solves those problems? Single payer government health care. When there is only one customer for a doctor's services, the prices are dictated by that customer. I will allow that some adjustment will occur as some doctors decide the business isn't worth their time. But frankly, do you want a doctor who is only in it for the money?
Since I am sure your answer will be tax the rich, please show me a study that shows our economy can survive a large tax increase on a select few business owners.
yes I am saying tax the rich. Explain to me why someone making 10 million dollars a year can't afford to pay more? My personal choice would be a flat tax for everybody with just about no deductions allowed. The problem is that you need a floor below which people don't pay taxes. (i.e. are you taking $5 from the
*zero* other effects on the environment
So it's magic huh? It effects the environment. Perhaps not in the way that combustion does, but there are still outputs that apparently are dangerous enough to warrant centuries long storage. That we don't store anywhere except at the very sites where the possibility of meltdown and explosions are.
What could *possibly* go wrong. Oh right.
Nuclear is *not* the answer. It is a necessary short term 50-100 years requirement though. It will take probably that long to entirely switch to renewable fuels. Technology needs keep improving for renewables to be grid scale, but they are improving.
Saying nuclear is better for the environment is like saying coal is great...except for what it releases. 'Coal bad' != 'Nuclear good'. Sorry it isn't and won't be the solution. Renewable sources are the only long term solution.
Most of the new reactor designs include fail-safes that don't rely on constant cooling for months to stop the reaction.
I get your point and that's somewhat what I tried to say. However it's also about the same as "Trust us, it won't fail because we've got the latest safety measures in place." Which is *exactly* what they said about the original nuclear plant. Another unforeseen disaster will trump those safety features too.
Nothing else has these types of issues. Nothing.
Sea level rise from global warming is expected to flood some densely populated areas.
You are correct. I still stand by my point that coal/oil this is an operational issue outcome not one of failure. Sure we didn't do anything about the problem until almost too late, but that doesn't mean the problem was because those fuel sources 'failed' like a nuclear accident.