Climate continues to change.

[phrodeau]

Simple.

You seem to be looking for reasons NOT to use nuclear power, and ignoring the reasons that we should.

Invariably LOL

So if we go all in with nuclear power, then the supply of depleted uranium will be far more than we need for that, which means the percentage of used fuel that goes toward that purpose will be far LOWER.

So it is in your hoplophobic best interests to encourage the increased use of nuclear power.

One thinks DU is a reason we shouldn’t have nuclear power, and the other thinks it’s a reason we should.

I’ll let you two fight it out.

 

[Klinkster]

Why don't you explain why you are against nuclear power.....

I'll leave you, fro-doh, to, more than likely, not answer yet another question......

One thinks DU is a reason we shouldn’t have nuclear power, and the other thinks it’s a reason we should.

I’ll let you two fight it out.

 

[gunthernehmen]

One thinks DU is a reason we shouldn’t have nuclear power, and the other thinks it’s a reason we should.

I’ll let you two fight it out.

You're the one that is afraid reactors will be used to build more uranium bullets.

I'm all for nuclear power. Not sure Klink really cares either way but he didn't seem against it. Reading comprehension fail...

 

[icanhelp1]

The enrichment of nuclear fuel produces depleted uranium, which gets used for military ammunition.

WHY DO YOU PLAY STUPID? ......YOU'RE IRRELEVANT......

 

[Klinkster]

Just a guess.....

He IS stupid.

WHY DO YOU PLAY STUPID? ......YOU'RE IRRELEVANT......

 

[phrodeau]

Why don't you explain why you are against nuclear power.....

I'll leave you, fro-doh, to, more than likely, not answer yet another question......

Haven’t I already explained that? Go back and find where I said I was against it, if you can.

You're the one that is afraid reactors will be used to build more uranium bullets.

I'm all for nuclear power. Not sure Klink really cares either way but he didn't seem against it. Reading comprehension fail...

Pretty much.

WHY DO YOU PLAY STUPID? ......YOU'RE IRRELEVANT......

Maybe because it makes you post with all caps.

 

[Klinkster]

Haven’t I already explained that? Go back and find where I said I was against it, if you can.

No, you haven't.

Saying you are against it, is not the same as saying why.

 

[Hal9000_]

https://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001269

Both sides of the nuclear coin.

 

[gunthernehmen]

https://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001269

Both sides of the nuclear coin.

The Luddite speaks lol

Ok, you nuclear haters. Once you come up with a method of generating enough electricity to satisfy the entire world, let us know. We won't hold our breath though...

 

[phrodeau]

The Luddite speaks lol

Ok, you nuclear haters. Once you come up with a method of generating enough electricity to satisfy the entire world, let us know. We won't hold our breath though...

I'd be fine with nuclear plants upwind of non-inhabited areas, like say, golf courses.

 

[Hal9000_]

I'd be fine with nuclear plants upwind of non-inhabited areas, like say, golf courses.

Tritium is good for you! Nuclear hater!

 

[Klinkster]

Still not going to answer are you fro-doh?

I'd be fine with nuclear plants upwind of non-inhabited areas, like say, golf courses.

 

[Hal9000_]

""Nuclear power, a mature industry providing 20 percent of U.S. power, has received some $100 billion in U.S. subsidies - more than three times the subsidies of wind and solar...

Wind power and solar power are pretty much free - nobody charges for the breeze and the sun. Operation is also cheap, compared with nukes, which run on expensive uranium and must be monitored minute by minute so they don't melt down...the price of new nuclear power has risen faster than any other form of power, as a detailed study of coal, gas, wind and nuclear power capital costs by Cambridge Energy Research Associates concluded.

In fact, from 2000 through October 2007, nuclear power plant construction costs - mainly materials, labor and engineering - have gone up 185 percent! That means a nuclear power plant that would have cost $4 billion to build in 2000 would have cost more than $11 billion to build last October...

So much for being a near-term, cost-effective solution."

June 2, 2008 - Joseph Romm, PhD ""


What great advancements have happened in the last decade concerning nuclear power?

OK....any advancements?

 

[gunthernehmen]

""Nuclear power, a mature industry providing 20 percent of U.S. power, has received some $100 billion in U.S. subsidies - more than three times the subsidies of wind and solar...

Wind power and solar power are pretty much free - nobody charges for the breeze and the sun. Operation is also cheap, compared with nukes, which run on expensive uranium and must be monitored minute by minute so they don't melt down...the price of new nuclear power has risen faster than any other form of power, as a detailed study of coal, gas, wind and nuclear power capital costs by Cambridge Energy Research Associates concluded.

In fact, from 2000 through October 2007, nuclear power plant construction costs - mainly materials, labor and engineering - have gone up 185 percent! That means a nuclear power plant that would have cost $4 billion to build in 2000 would have cost more than $11 billion to build last October...

So much for being a near-term, cost-effective solution."

June 2, 2008 - Joseph Romm, PhD ""


What great advancements have happened in the last decade concerning nuclear power?

OK....any advancements?

And yet electricity generated in nuclear power plants costs about a tenth of generating it from oil and comes in the cheapest of ALL sources.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/


Here's a company that will sell you one for $3b, if you're looking for a bargain.

https://www.nuscalepower.com/benefits/cost-competitive


And a six pack of 100mw LFTR's could come down to around $1B in due course.

https://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/

 

[Hal9000_]

That's interesting if you factor in construction, mining, maintenance, refueling, decommissioning, and of course; spent fuel (waste) storage costs.

The nuclear waste costs are hard to estimate...given the 24,000 year lifespan.

NUCLEAR LOVER!!!

 

[gunthernehmen]

That's interesting if you factor in construction, mining, maintenance, refueling, decommissioning, and of course; spent fuel (waste) storage costs.

The nuclear waste costs are hard to estimate...given the 24,000 year lifespan.

NUCLEAR LOVER!!!

Unless you're into mass murder (on a scale of billions) I don't see any real alternative.

I think our reliance on energy and high tech is idiotic and will ultimately destroy us, but I see no reason to hasten that destruction by giving up our comforts.

Enjoy the ride while you can. Chances are we'll be dead before the piper demands payment.

 

[Hal9000_]

Unless you're into mass murder (on a scale of billions) I don't see any real alternative.

I think our reliance on energy and high tech is idiotic and will ultimately destroy us, but I see no reason to hasten that destruction by giving up our comforts.

Enjoy the ride while you can. Chances are we'll be dead before the piper demands payment.

Reliance on one egg in the basket is a certain fate.

Scrambled, probably.

Anyway...

The real problem is storage. There are ample supplies of power.

But...how to store them without much loss... to be used on demand?

Kinetic...chemical...nuclear?

We need a good battery...of course that also makes a good weapon.

 

[adrina]

Unless you're into mass murder (on a scale of billions) I don't see any real alternative.

I think our reliance on energy and high tech is idiotic and will ultimately destroy us, but I see no reason to hasten that destruction by giving up our comforts.

Enjoy the ride while you can. Chances are we'll be dead before the piper demands payment.

Question... if society fails because of environmental collapse, don't you think mass murder on a scale of billions is going to happen?

It seems you are saying, well if we do what we need to do all these people will die. But we're all going to die anyway, and hopefully it will be before this major disaster that we're bringing on. Which will end up killing billions of people.

I'm not seeing the upside in your approach.

 

[Hal9000_]

Question... if society fails because of environmental collapse

Proof???

 

[adrina]

Proof???

Citation in his own post.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Reliance on one egg in the basket is a certain fate.

Scrambled, probably.

Anyway...

The real problem is storage. There are ample supplies of power.

But...how to store them without much loss... to be used on demand?

Kinetic...chemical...nuclear?

We need a good battery...of course that also makes a good weapon.

Fossil fuels and nuclear are several eggs. They each have issues. They both have the capacity to supply the needs of our civilization. Solar, wind, hydro all ALSO have issues and do NOT have the capacity to supply the needs of our civilization.

Phro's and von BS's solar plan is a suicide pact.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Question... if society fails because of environmental collapse, don't you think mass murder on a scale of billions is going to happen?

It seems you are saying, well if we do what we need to do all these people will die. But we're all going to die anyway, and hopefully it will be before this major disaster that we're bringing on. Which will end up killing billions of people.

I'm not seeing the upside in your approach.

It's my belief that regardless of the CAUSE of climate change, it's inevitable. When it changes "enough", crops fail and people die. Then portions of the economy fail and everything topples like dominoes. Then more die.

Or perhaps AOC revives her soylent green new deal and bans the use of fossil fuels. We invest in solar, causing environmental devastation (ok, much of that in Asia, but still). Of course, the millions of people employed in the mining, processing, transport, supplies, repair/maintenance of fossil fuel infrastructure are out of work and on the dole. Lost tax revenues. Depression in the economy. More than likely impact on agriculture. People die.

On the plus side with her plan, the air travel industry would be grounded (of course the 100's of thousands (millions?) employed in THAT industry and related are now unemployed, on the dole, impacting tax revenues... (without easy air travel, spread of disease is MUCH harder, so therefore it would be good)

Basically, our civilization is a house of cards. Change almost any single factor in a "big" way and everything falls apart. When things fall apart, people die.

That can't be stopped (IMO) but it CAN be delayed. I'm just looking to kick the can down the road, just like our pols are doing with Social Security. Health Care. Our prison system. Everything else.

 

[Hal9000_]

It's my belief that regardless of the CAUSE of climate change, it's inevitable.

Proof??

 

[gunthernehmen]

Proof??

LOL

Phro has provided ample proof earlier in this thread, of change.

He's way off base on the causes, but climate changes. It just does.

Of course, he has no idea HOW it will change, but it WILL change.

 

[Hal9000_]

What IS
'climate'?

Will it keep my steaks fresh?