Nuclear is better than coal, natural gas. 'Green' energies not so green.

The future of nuclear energy....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/30/germany-nuclear-power-plant-shut-down_n_868786.html

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/fukushima-ra...ly-asks-world-help-two-years-too-late-1416058

 

Again, 0 deaths...Where is the global disaster except at the point of the typhoon/tsunami impact? BTW that NOAA map shown in your link is NOT a radiation dispersion map it is a tsunami debris dispersion map.

Look, get some education about radioactivity. Study the meaning of becquerels, sieverts, rads, rems, etc. Knowledge will keep you from swallowing propaganda.

 

Oh I see, the disaster was caused by the tsunami and not by the earthquake. That makes all the difference.

 

Why do you believe that solar panels "need more land" or "generate less energy?

I just spent 3 months in Belgium (but it is the same in Italy, Germany and France, based on my observations).
So many people have placed solar panels on their roof, that they produce TOO MUCH electricity for their own use. . .and the electric companies do not want to buy the surplus from them anymore. . .so they share it with their neighbors through the good old fashion extension cords!

Even homes built prior to 1900 are now proud to display those solar panels on their roof. . .and that is in a country that sees more "rainy, cloud covered" days than sunny days! And MANY traffic signs are now powered by solar cells. . .including warnings about cars speeding in a low speed zone! And Belgium is RENOWNED for using a lot of electricity on their fully lit highways. . .

You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG where solar panels are concerned!

 

What kind of idiotic logic is that? Solar, wind and geothermal are all older than nuclear so going by your standard they are even less relevant. I suppose we should do away with wheels as well since those date prehistory. You are against nuclear expansion and your complete lack of knowledge on energy production and the history of energy production is clearly evident.

 

The earthquake caused a tsunami which wiped out the diesel generators.
<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC >>>

 

Solar needs more land to generate the same amount of power as a nuclear facility that is a fact. http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/n...cc_hails_hinkley_at_expense_of_solar_and_wind



Also google various existing plants like the one built in Chattanooga TN by Audi or BMW (one of the German companies). It uses a ridiculous amount of land and only provides 12% of the power for the plant at peak times. Solar is great for small independent energy production, it is absolutely horrible at large scale levels. Highly inefficient and completely unreliable.

Keep in mind that both solar and wind are highly unreliable as a power source. What do you do when you have several cloudy, calm days in a row? Even if they do figure out how to store the power long term (they can't store it now) and also transmit it long distances it will NEVER be a main source of power. You need a steady reliable source of power that works 24/7 365 days a year instead of just when its windy or its sunny outside. At best renewables can help offset the power usage of some homes but it will never provide enough power for commercial and certainly not nearly enough for industrial applications. Commercial power is half the power used in the US and I presume it is similar in other industrialized countries as well.

 

One mistake or unforeseen disaster and the area "Effected" by a nuclear plant will FAR exceed that used by any other form of energy production.

Nukes are simply unsafe, and the costs far exceed any benefit.....ask Japan or Russia.

 

Costs of Fukushima are estimated at about $100 billion as a pessimistic scenario. But Fukushima plant produced energy worth hundreds of billions. Economically, even a nuclear plant in meltdown makes sense.

 

Tell that to Russia:

"In a poetic twist, the 1,660 square miles of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone has become one of Europe&#8217;s largest wildlife preserves. Local residents report lynx, wild boar, wolves, elk, deer, brown bears, bison, badgers, foxes, eagle-owls, and even Przewalski&#8217;s horse, a species supposedly extinct in the wild for some time. Given that the area is now heavily wooded and free of human predators, such a flourishing of wildlife should continue. Scientists, however, are studying the area's plants and animals for long-term effects of radiation."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-uninhabitable-25-years-later/article4266317/

 

Nuclear power is antiquated, dirty, and dangerous. They have yet to come up with a good solution for storing nuclear waste.

 

Is solar antiquated? Is wind antiquated? Because both wind and PV have been around a lot longer than nuclear fission.

Spoken like someone who has never actually been inside a nuclear plant. Nor a coal plant, for that matter.

Just plain wrong. Nuclear power is the safest form of electricity generation ever invented. If safety is your goal, nuclear is your best option.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawatt-hour-for.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/?r44b=no

In the first place, that's just plain wrong: there are lots of good ways. It's the politics that's the problem, not the science. In the second place, it's only waste if you don't use it. And the fact is that nuclear "waste" is a huge untapped source of fossil free energy. Which is why US law requires that any storage system be able to recover the "waste" for at least 50 years after storage.

 

From my reading, every carbon loss benefit from growing solar and wind will be negated by the loss of their npps until 2022 and that is optimistically based on the notion that solar will get its intermittency-storage problem solved. That means additional energy needs during that time will have to come from fossil fuel. As I understand it 10 new coal plants are in process or planned in Germany.

That puts me more in the despair camp than the nuclear camp. Nuclear has that characteristic that one accident generates huge continuing costs and a deluge of bad publicity. My guess is if China has one Fukushima level break down that will end the future development of nuclear power plants in China. But that's just a guess.

 

http://grist.org/news/nuclear-waste-leaking-at-hanford-site-in-washington-again/

 

[video=youtube;nYg79E6thLU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYg79E6thLU[/video]

 

Another nucleophobe loon...From the outset he claims that the Daiichi reactor was old and we don't build them like that. There is, in fact, an almost identical reactor "Fukushima Daini" about 7 miles South of Fukushima Daiichi. It survived the same event.

http://decarbonisesa.com/2012/02/14/10-questions-for-richard-broinowski/

Look....Do some research, learn the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S4VCSdmGPs

Dr. Bill Wattenburg, very familiar with radiation, worked at Lawerence Livermore in CA. Doctorate in electrical engineering.

 

How about these facts.....

[video=youtube;KFs8vMjTL7U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFs8vMjTL7U[/video]

 

Or how about these facts...

[video=youtube;Kzaa529WjuE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzaa529WjuE[/video]

 

We've just about run out of major rivers in the U.S. to dam. Also, hydroelectric is not environmentally friendly. It changes rivers into lakes, which are different ecosystems. IMHO, lakes are much inferior to rivers.

 

In the USA, you are right-we have maxed out on rivers that can be used to make hydroelectric dams. Hydroelectric dams are not environmentally friendly. All the energy sources including geothermal have their advantages and disadvantages. That is why as known, we have environmental impact studies before a hydroelectric dam, nuclear powerplant, etc. is built and the engineers, physicists build according to this. Nations such as China and India are building hydroelectric dams + nuclear powerplants. Patrick A. Moore of Greenspirit believes that both nuclear powerplants and hydroelectric dams are what must be done to get cleaner energy. The USA does not have the geography to build any more hydroelectric dams-Canada, India and China do. Hydroelectric is better than coal.

The main thing here is that we must save fossil fuels such as limiting natural gas to fuel cars and reduce coal usage. That's why we must use nuclear/atomic power, geothermal and hydroelectric dams (when possible) combined. If a place can get 100% of it's energy from hydroelectric dams as some places in Canada do, then the need for nuclear is not there. If a place can get 100% of it's energy from geothermal as Iceland does, then again, the need for nuclear/atomic energy is not there. But we must use atomic/nuclear energy when geothermal and hydroelectric are not available. Again those of us who support nuclear energy also support hydro-electric dams, geothermal, etc. and again, all the energies-nuclear/atomic, geothermal and hydroelectric must be used prudently. We need to build newer nuclear powerplants which are more advanced, better structures, etc.

 

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Grid_connection_for_Kudankulam_unit-2210134.html

 

Why? Natural gas is pretty good stuff all around, cheap, abundant, burns pretty clean. Might be tough to explain to some folks they have to eat radioactive fish found near tokyo versus just fire their grid off LNG coming in from around the globe.

 

Coal emits way more radiation and waste (fly ash) while nuclear/atomic waste's contained. We should've opened Yucca Mountain. As known, natural gas will run out in the next 50 to 60 years if we use it @ current rate and natural gas will continue to lead in USA. We need to save the fossil fuels. We need to expand nuclear/atomic energy and the USA needs to be more advanced than India, so we need to build the most advanced techologies including nuclear. Nuclear/atomic energy topic is not going away and USA needs to use the updated and advanced nuclear powerplants.

 

Ultimately I would like to see energy sourcing localized so nuclear would finally be phased out. But I do presently think it has a roll to play in substituting for the much worse fossil fuel energy sources. I happen to think Germany over reacted to the Fukushima disaster in calling for a quick phase out of their nuclear plants. Solar and wind just aren't ready to act as major replacements in the short term so guess what? Germany is now increasing coal fired energy and the last two years have shown an increase in ghg pollution.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...hift-backfires-as-german-pollution-jumps.html