Skip to main content

View Diary: Sea level rise could be way, way worse than we thought (251 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We could (0+ / 0-)

    but it won't be easy.  Each nuke costs several billion, takes 4 years to build, and consumes millions of gallons of water hourly.

    and we need 300 of them just for the USA.

    •  The last number I saw for a plant (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      was 26 billion.  How much solar and wind would 7.5 trillion get us?

      The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:05:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Solar and Wind (0+ / 0-)

        Simply aren't proven out on the scale nuclear is.... although they certainly should be part of the solution.

        I'm not convinced that they are "so much better" in any case.. solar and wind have their own external costs as well.

        •  Mixing small and large scale solar (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean, orlbucfan

          and wind and other projects, including non-invasive hydro.  But the idea that we can build nuclear plants to get ourselves out of this mess is absurd.  The world doesn't have enough uranium for everyone to do that, although it probably has enough for a few countries.  We need a solution that all countries can emulate.

          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:26:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  One would hope (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deward Hastings, 6412093

      That a massive nuclear building program could get some sort of economies of scale.

      I just don't know what else to do that is realistic or politically viable.  Significant electricity usage reduction just doesn't seem very realistic right now.

      Is there another way to supply electricity at current usage levels other than nuclear or fossil fuels?  To me that's the choice.. and IMO nuclear, while not perfect, is MUCH better for the environment than fossil fuels.

      I'll be interested to see what China and India (which is going to be devastated by warming much sooner than the US) decide to do.

      •  In fact, the more nuclear plants (0+ / 0-)

        we've built the more they end up costing as we find out how much we have to do to make them safe.

        The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

        by AoT on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 05:34:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  A big (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        beach babe in fl, DawnN

        energy conservation program can reduce electrical usage.  As another comment stated, the stimulus program included thousands of retrofits of govt bulidings and schools, all of which reduced electrical use.

        I'm certain there's other similar opportunities .

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site