Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
One flaw I saw in the study was that they considered ALL of the crap involved in solar panel making and destroying as waste on the SP side and ONLY the spent fuel as waste on the NP side. There is a fair amount of energy cost and waste in making all the stuff that goes into a NP plant in addition to the radioactive bits. Plus the energy and waste in taking one apart when we are done with it.
Another thing the study seems to have ignored is the cost and waste for power storage needed for solar to be a 24/7 system. Most battery tech is fairly dirty and nasty to make, use and recycle.
Solar and wind is the next "Great new thing" for the environmental movement. There was a time in the 70s and 80s when a fair number of environmental groups were pushing for us to build coal plants as a safe, sane and environmentally friendly alternative to nuclear power. That worked out well.
nop, LFTR isbreeder nuclear is the only real option going forward
The battery argument is a dying one too.One flaw I saw in the study was that they considered ALL of the crap involved in solar panel making and destroying as waste on the SP side and ONLY the spent fuel as waste on the NP side. There is a fair amount of energy cost and waste in making all the stuff that goes into a NP plant in addition to the radioactive bits. Plus the energy and waste in taking one apart when we are done with it.
Another thing the study seems to have ignored is the cost and waste for power storage needed for solar to be a 24/7 system. Most battery tech is fairly dirty and nasty to make, use and recycle.
Solar and wind is the next "Great new thing" for the environmental movement. There was a time in the 70s and 80s when a fair number of environmental groups were pushing for us to build coal plants as a safe, sane and environmentally friendly alternative to nuclear power. That worked out well.
And the other dirty secret is... if the green wheenies would let us reprocess our spent fuel, 90% of the high level waste everyone is so scared about would be... get this.... RECYCLED. Fucking cant make this shit up.
Well you know, 'greenies' is not just a dog snack, they are also a reliable punching bag.. its all fantasies and active imagination, but who cares.Another dirty secret is: That's not the real reason nuclear fuel reprocessing was banned.
The initial ban was due to proliferation concerns and the policy remains to this day on that basis. While it's true that environmental groups oppose nuclear power, they weren't the ones who came up with the rule.
Do your research before going for another cheap slam (like this entire "article").
I can't find a single independent report that says which energy source is the cleanest. Every single article that I can find is either produced or sponsored by an energy company and states that their source is the cleanest. My assumption that the cleanest sources (including all environmental impacts through the entire life cycle of the building, production and disposal) would be under wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, and/or tidal.The roots of this article is merely trying to get people to look forward to what long-term effects will likely be. Kind of like how energy production would be shaped today if humanity had applied even half that kind of foresight to the effects of CO2 and other GHG emissions starting a century ago.
Is it also advocating for nuclear power? Sure it is. But, megawatt for megawatt, there is no other source that is safer, clear, and more efficient than nuclear.
That's because to generate even modest amounts of electricity, a solar farm already renders large amounts of land unlivable. To generate as much electricity as one large Japanese nuclear plant with solar would take as much or more space as the Fukushima exclusion zone.I don't remember the last time I heard about solar panel meltdowns and rendering large amounts of square miles unlivable.
Which is misleading since it primarily looks at a per Watt basis, and doesn't account for the huge differences in capacity factor between reliable generation like nuclear and the unreliable generation of wind and solar, which requires either storage or dispatchable generation capable of saving the grid when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/
Perhaps because nuclear power is the second most expensive power in the US.
It's a stated reason, but it's a very weak one as the spent fuel after normal operation at an American nuclear plant is heavily poisoned by Pu-240, making it next to useless for weapons and every nuclear power gets their Pu-239 using dedicated infrastracture.Another dirty secret is: That's not the real reason nuclear fuel reprocessing was banned.
The initial ban was due to proliferation concerns and the policy remains to this day on that basis. While it's true that environmental groups oppose nuclear power, they weren't the ones who came up with the rule.
That's because to generate even modest amounts of electricity, a solar farm already renders large amounts of land unlivable. To generate as much electricity as one large Japanese nuclear plant with solar would take as much or more space as the Fukushima exclusion zone.
Which is misleading since it primarily looks at a per Watt basis, and doesn't account for the huge differences in capacity factor between reliable generation like nuclear and the unreliable generation of wind and solar, which requires either storage or dispatchable generation capable of saving the grid when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.
Plus wind and solar being much more expensive than nuclear once you account for the low capacity factor. Which is why there's such a correlation between unreliable electricity and electricity costs, with the likes of Denmark, Germany and parts of Australia who've invested heavily in unreliable electricity having the most expensive electricity in the world. And despite that, they've been ineffective in reducing CO2 emissions.Nuclear still loses big time. You are out where biomass is close to nuclear as the single thing left more expensive than nuclear. And that's just temporary.
Which only increases it costs even more as you have to build more turbines and more transmission lines. And even then, you risk running into a period like this where there's virtually no wind and sun for more than a week:Oh, and trust me, the wind always blows. Its just a matter of height and location.
nop, LFTR is
Why do people keep comparing what happens in third world countries to what happens in the U.S.? Of course some third world country isn't going to give two shits about how they handle their toxic/nuclear/whatever waste.
One flaw I saw in the study was that they considered ALL of the crap involved in solar panel making and destroying as waste on the SP side and ONLY the spent fuel as waste on the NP side. There is a fair amount of energy cost and waste in making all the stuff that goes into a NP plant in addition to the radioactive bits. Plus the energy and waste in taking one apart when we are done with it.
Another thing the study seems to have ignored is the cost and waste for power storage needed for solar to be a 24/7 system. Most battery tech is fairly dirty and nasty to make, use and recycle.
Solar and wind is the next "Great new thing" for the environmental movement. There was a time in the 70s and 80s when a fair number of environmental groups were pushing for us to build coal plants as a safe, sane and environmentally friendly alternative to nuclear power. That worked out well.
Logical flaw that exposes this as right wing oil/gas/coal industry propaganda ..... Who would ever throw out Solar panels, they have a 25-50 year lifespan, as recyclable, and make free electricity until dead.
And the other dirty secret is... if the green wheenies would let us reprocess our spent fuel, 90% of the high level waste everyone is so scared about would be... get this.... RECYCLED. Fucking cant make this shit up.
Some day, some day.. hopefully compact too some day.
I make my own sausage...people who like sausage never want to see how it's made.
this is the exact same thing.
Good!, shit I tried. It wasn't great.I make my own sausage...
That would be a fusion reactor. Theoretically it should produce free, self sustaining, energy. The ones that are operating now are just research reactors and still require more energy then they produce. If these can be made to work, it basically makes all other large forms of electricity generation obsolete overnight. With these, your electric bill would drop down to almost nothing.How come I seem to be the only one that doesnt know what that is?
Looks like a CVD chamber or maybe a plasma sputter chamber. Could also be some type of e-beam chamber. So what is it?
Thanx.
And the other dirty secret is... if the green wheenies would let us reprocess our spent fuel, 90% of the high level waste everyone is so scared about would be... get this.... RECYCLED. Fucking cant make this shit up.
That would be a fusion reactor. Theoretically it should produce free, self sustaining, energy. The ones that are operating now are just research reactors and still require more energy then they produce. If these can be made to work, it basically makes all other large forms of electricity generation obsolete overnight. With these, your electric bill would drop down to almost nothing.
So how is geothermal solar exactly?Funny thing about all forms of energy, they all start with solar.
So how is geothermal solar exactly?
That would be a fusion reactor. Theoretically it should produce free, self sustaining, energy. The ones that are operating now are just research reactors and still require more energy then they produce. If these can be made to work, it basically makes all other large forms of electricity generation obsolete overnight. With these, your electric bill would drop down to almost nothing.
That's because to generate even modest amounts of electricity, a solar farm already renders large amounts of land unlivable. To generate as much electricity as one large Japanese nuclear plant with solar would take as much or more space as the Fukushima exclusion zone.