KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
I heard a rumor through roadwhore that the EU is shutting down all the big nukes in Europe. Uh, nuclear power plants. They must then be replaced by fossil fuel burning critters cause, well, people have to have electricity nowdays. Can't live without it anymore.
So the question of the day:
Which is cleaner? A nuke whose working output is energy and warm water or a fossil fuel burner whose output is a rather nasty mix of bad things that got the US into that 25% of the worlds CO2 emissions category? A nuke whose waste in the long run is radioactive and has a half life or a fossil fuel burner whose long term waste is the same as its working waste?
This also ties into the Kyoto Accords Bush refused to sign. Putting up non-nukes in California at the rate we're going is going to take us upwards of 25% beyond a doubt. Mexico is currently building big fossil fuelers just south of the border with capitalism in mind. But, as a developing nation, they fall outside of the parameters of the Kyoto Accords that industrialized nations have to follow.
So, if we dismantle all the EU nukes and the Kyoto Accords are signed, how many fossil fuelers will be allowed to run in Europe? Enough to supply the energy needs? The nukes are already running now anyway, and since a nuke's permanent waste has a nice long radioactive half life, why dismantle them until they've run their legal and useful course? The waste will be there if you do it now or a hundred years from now.
Thoughts? Opinions? Related articles? Ideas? Expertise? No, not the ultrasexy poster Expertise, but the abstract property expertise.
So the question of the day:
Which is cleaner? A nuke whose working output is energy and warm water or a fossil fuel burner whose output is a rather nasty mix of bad things that got the US into that 25% of the worlds CO2 emissions category? A nuke whose waste in the long run is radioactive and has a half life or a fossil fuel burner whose long term waste is the same as its working waste?
This also ties into the Kyoto Accords Bush refused to sign. Putting up non-nukes in California at the rate we're going is going to take us upwards of 25% beyond a doubt. Mexico is currently building big fossil fuelers just south of the border with capitalism in mind. But, as a developing nation, they fall outside of the parameters of the Kyoto Accords that industrialized nations have to follow.
So, if we dismantle all the EU nukes and the Kyoto Accords are signed, how many fossil fuelers will be allowed to run in Europe? Enough to supply the energy needs? The nukes are already running now anyway, and since a nuke's permanent waste has a nice long radioactive half life, why dismantle them until they've run their legal and useful course? The waste will be there if you do it now or a hundred years from now.
Thoughts? Opinions? Related articles? Ideas? Expertise? No, not the ultrasexy poster Expertise, but the abstract property expertise.
