If They Bet On Nuclear, Not Renewables, Germany & California Would Have 100% Clean Po

Calling nuclear reactors "clean" is either ignorant or treacherous.
You can call nuclear waste "clean" all you like.
But lethal waste that remains dangerous for 5,000 years may be worse than "dirty".

How much Plutonium do wind-turbines and photo-voltaic panels produce?

So what's your objection to solar panels? They're a prominent feature of the ISS. I haven't noticed a lot of protests up there about them.

Hey snowflake; do you think batteries are clean? Do you think the plastics in solar panels are clean? Where in the hell do you morons on the left come up with this shit. Those batteries in your clean cars are more toxic than anything a combustion engine could spew out.
 
Tom despite the considerable advances in safety in nuclear technology you’re still glossing over the considerable and very real health and safety risks still associated with nuclear technology, nor the security risks and you didn’t even address the huge problems of solid waste disposal of both HLW and LLW.

You’re bias against renewables is funny. Yes you have some legitimate criticisms but that’s an absurd reason to not develop these technologies and the notion your trying to present that nuclear is a perfectly safe, clean and cost affective alternative is also absurd.

There are no health risks associated with batteries? Seriously?
 
No, they made the right bet on renewable energy. Germany produced so much energy that electricity prices dropped below zero, meaning customers were essentially paid to use electricity. And California is producing so much from solar their electrical grid literally can't handle it. The arguments about the efficacy of renewable energies are unfounded.

Meanwhile, it's still not safe to live anywhere near Fukishima or Chernobyl. :palm:

LINK please.
 
Had California and Germany invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables like solar and wind farms, the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from clean (low-emissions) energy sources, according to a new analysis by Environmental Progress.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...ld-already-have-100-clean-power/#26098db9e0d4

I can see a strong argument for nuclear, but there's also an argument against it. Even if it's irrational, there's huge opposition to building nuclear plants. So, as a practical matter, it's not at all clear that California or Germany could have scaled up nuclear the way they have solar, even if the leaders had been pushing hard in that direction. You can add a bunch of new solar generation practically overnight, whereas with nuclear you get caught in permitting hell for years or even decades. And then the safety requirements wind up so onerous that the actual cost per unit of energy winds up much higher than solar. That can be faulted as overkill, but it's the reality of the political landscape. So, it becomes a choice between adding a whole lot of solar generation quickly, here in the real world, and only adding a pittance of nuclear energy in the same time, as you try to clear one hurdle after another.
 
Thanks. And, no I didn't.
I've always been under the impression that Nuclear Reactors are only good for 30 or so years and then they are too radioactive for further use. And the radioactive material is dangerous for the next 10,000 years.

You may find this interesting, Jack


" ... Many of these plants, though, will likely keep operating, thanks to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s practice of granting new licenses to plants that have outlived their original operating licenses. Most of the 100 nuclear plants now generating power in the U.S. were originally licensed for 35 to 40 years of operation; now the NRC is issuing new permits, in 20-year increments, that will allow them to keep running for 60 or even 80 years. Eighty reactors (many plants comprise more than one reactor) have already had their licenses renewed, and many of the remaining ones are likely to come up for renewal in the next decade.

Operating aging nuclear plants far beyond their original design lifetimes raises the specter of system failures, leaks, and accidents. Environmental groups, for example, have opposed a license extension for the Davis-Besse station, a nuclear plant operated by utility FirstEnergy in northern Ohio, because of extensive cracking in the exterior of the plant’s containment building. FirstEnergy “should retire Davis-Besse as planned,” Pat Marida of the Ohio Sierra Club’s Nuclear-Free Committee told reporters in September, “on Earth Day, 2017, rather than continuing to play radioactive Russian roulette on the Lake Erie shore for 20 more years.”

Last year the commissioners rejected a recommendation from their own technical staff that the existing rules for relicensing should be revised to reflect increased concerns around going from 60 years to 80. The ruling cleared the way for companies to apply for a second renewal of operating licenses under the existing regulatory scheme. ... "

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/544211/how-old-is-too-old-for-a-nuclear-reactor/
 
You may find this interesting, Jack


" ... Many of these plants, though, will likely keep operating, thanks to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s practice of granting new licenses to plants that have outlived their original operating licenses. Most of the 100 nuclear plants now generating power in the U.S. were originally licensed for 35 to 40 years of operation; now the NRC is issuing new permits, in 20-year increments, that will allow them to keep running for 60 or even 80 years. Eighty reactors (many plants comprise more than one reactor) have already had their licenses renewed, and many of the remaining ones are likely to come up for renewal in the next decade.

Operating aging nuclear plants far beyond their original design lifetimes raises the specter of system failures, leaks, and accidents. Environmental groups, for example, have opposed a license extension for the Davis-Besse station, a nuclear plant operated by utility FirstEnergy in northern Ohio, because of extensive cracking in the exterior of the plant’s containment building. FirstEnergy “should retire Davis-Besse as planned,” Pat Marida of the Ohio Sierra Club’s Nuclear-Free Committee told reporters in September, “on Earth Day, 2017, rather than continuing to play radioactive Russian roulette on the Lake Erie shore for 20 more years.”

Last year the commissioners rejected a recommendation from their own technical staff that the existing rules for relicensing should be revised to reflect increased concerns around going from 60 years to 80. The ruling cleared the way for companies to apply for a second renewal of operating licenses under the existing regulatory scheme. ... "

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/544211/how-old-is-too-old-for-a-nuclear-reactor/

Thanks, Bigdog.
"... because of extensive cracking in the exterior of the plant’s containment building."
Hmmmm, ... may have to rename the 'Containment building'.

I wonder how the Plant Workers feel? I know they all wear Badges that detect radiation, but I wonder what the cumulitive effect is?
 

Good lord; you can't be this stupid. Germany's energy nedds aren't being met by clean energy. They try to get rid of it when energy demands go down because there is no way to STORE the energy being created by these so-called "green" plants. It isn't because they produce too much. Dolt.

Most of Germany's energy needs are met by importing it, coal which is the largest source and nuclear.

Same with California you idiot. The notion that wind and solar can provide the hundreds of thousands of megawatts necessary to power Germany and California are laughably stupid.
 
Good lord; you can't be this stupid. Germany's energy nedds aren't being met by clean energy. They try to get rid of it when energy demands go down because there is no way to STORE the energy being created by these so-called "green" plants. It isn't because they produce too much. Dolt.

Most of Germany's energy needs are met by importing it, coal which is the largest source and nuclear.

Same with California you idiot. The notion that wind and solar can provide the hundreds of thousands of megawatts necessary to power Germany and California are laughably stupid.

Yes and you were born in Germany and live in California, heaven forfend that you might actually know your shit.
 
Yes and you were born in Germany and live in California, heaven forfend that you might actually know your shit.

I don't know as much as you do, but any idiot can learn that solar and wind only provide infinitesimal amounts of energy to run a modern economy.

The same thing with batteries; the notion that buying cars that rely on them for power as being clean is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It takes MORE energy to create these highly toxic batteries than they can store.
 
I can see a strong argument for nuclear, but there's also an argument against it. Even if it's irrational, there's huge opposition to building nuclear plants. So, as a practical matter, it's not at all clear that California or Germany could have scaled up nuclear the way they have solar, even if the leaders had been pushing hard in that direction. You can add a bunch of new solar generation practically overnight, whereas with nuclear you get caught in permitting hell for years or even decades. And then the safety requirements wind up so onerous that the actual cost per unit of energy winds up much higher than solar. That can be faulted as overkill, but it's the reality of the political landscape. So, it becomes a choice between adding a whole lot of solar generation quickly, here in the real world, and only adding a pittance of nuclear energy in the same time, as you try to clear one hurdle after another.

SMRs are manufactured off-site in factories off site and assembled in-situ. Once the design is proven there is no need to keep perfoing the same y STS over and over. If the US is unwilling then they can just watch the rest of the world using them instead. What do you mean by solar anyway, are you talking about rooftop panels or solar power plants on the desert?
 
SMRs are manufactured off-site in factories off site and assembled in-situ. Once the design is proven there is no need to keep perfoing the same y STS over and over. If the US is unwilling then they can just watch the rest of the world using them instead. What do you mean by solar anyway, are you talking about rooftop panels or solar power plants on the desert?

I'm talking about solar in general. Small- and mid-sized solar generation is popping up all over the place even here in the Northeast. You even see it alongside the highways, where they can take an undeveloped strip of land and pop in a bunch of solar panels. That makes the threshold for adding new solar very low, relative to adding new nuclear. Even if it's theoretically possible to have very safe nuclear power developed cheaply and quickly, if not for NIMBY opposition, that's just not the real world. Here in the real world, for the amount of political capital and effort as it takes to get a given amount of nuclear online, you could get a whole lot more solar.
 
I don't know as much as you do, but any idiot can learn that solar and wind only provide infinitesimal amounts of energy to run a modern economy.

The same thing with batteries; the notion that buying cars that rely on them for power as being clean is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It takes MORE energy to create these highly toxic batteries than they can store.

Actually California does have the capability to provide pumped storage, but it's in Baja California. There are several sites along the coastline but no doubt the usual suspects like Greenpiss and the Sierra Club will do all in their power to stop them. This website Energy Matters, run by Euan Mearns, is brilliant for in depth analysis of such issues. The guy really does know his stuff.

http://euanmearns.com/how-californias-electricity-sector-can-go-100-renewable/
 
I'm talking about solar in general. Small- and mid-sized solar generation is popping up all over the place even here in the Northeast. You even see it alongside the highways, where they can take an undeveloped strip of land and pop in a bunch of solar panels. That makes the threshold for adding new solar very low, relative to adding new nuclear. Even if it's theoretically possible to have very safe nuclear power developed cheaply and quickly, if not for NIMBY opposition, that's just not the real world. Here in the real world, for the amount of political capital and effort as it takes to get a given amount of nuclear online, you could get a whole lot more solar.

Solar is the most inefficient waste of time on the planet. It will NEVER provide sufficient energy for a growing economy even if you covered every square inch of land in the NorthEast.

But it does make low IQ liberals feel warm and fuzzy about "saving" the planet. :rofl2:
 
I'm talking about solar in general. Small- and mid-sized solar generation is popping up all over the place even here in the Northeast. You even see it alongside the highways, where they can take an undeveloped strip of land and pop in a bunch of solar panels. That makes the threshold for adding new solar very low, relative to adding new nuclear. Even if it's theoretically possible to have very safe nuclear power developed cheaply and quickly, if not for NIMBY opposition, that's just not the real world. Here in the real world, for the amount of political capital and effort as it takes to get a given amount of nuclear online, you could get a whole lot more solar.

Allow me to just point out that solar is a tiny 1.3% of the total US electricity production, whereas nuclear is 20%, with gas and coal at over 30% each. I wonder how many people know that?

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
 
Last edited:
Solar is the most inefficient waste of time on the planet. It will NEVER provide sufficient energy for a growing economy even if you covered every square inch of land in the NorthEast.

First, I don't know of anyone who wants solar to be the only source of electricity. Most environmentalists are picturing some combination of solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and possibly nuclear. Anyway, to power the US off solar alone would take about 262 square kilometers of solar panels:

https://inovateus.com/2017/08/03/many-square-miles-solar-panels-take-power-u-s-smaller-think/

To put that in context, New York is a little over 122,000 square kilometers. So, you'd be covering a little more than 2/10 of 1% of New York. The Northeast as a whole is about 420,000 square kilometers, so it would be a bit over six-one-hundredths of 1% of the Northeast.
 
Back
Top