Skip to main content

View Diary: New German Data Shows No End in Sight for Coal (230 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why are you surprised (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy, SpeedyGonzales

    Either we switch a massive amount of electricity generation to nuclear or we face possible extinction due to global warming.

    Nuclear is the ONLY relatively clean power generation technology that can realistically replace what is currently generated by fossil fuels.

    That's just a simple fact.

    If you want to save the planet you start switching to nuclear today... to buy enough time to either make fusion work or fully develop renewables

    •  this is simply not true (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BYw, Egalitare, Lawrence, 6412093

      Nukes are not better, when it comes to carbon footprint, than solar.

      Meanwhile, the cost of solar keeps going down, and the cost of nukes keeps going up.

      •  The carbon footprint (0+ / 0-)

        of nukes is trivial compared to coal & gas.  Nukes emit zero carbon during energy production. Coal and gas plants emit millions of tons per year.

        Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

        by 6412093 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:40:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  all irrelevant to what I said (0+ / 0-)

          Nukes are no better in their carbon footprint than wind or solar are. Wind and solar emit zero emissions during energy manufacture too.  So what.

          •  nuclear, wind and solar (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            translatorpro

            (among others) all produce carbon-free energy, making them all relatively desirable and worth discussing.

            Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

            by 6412093 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:25:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  none of them are carbon-free (0+ / 0-)

              though they all have roughly the same low-carbon footprint.

              The price of solar and wind is falling steadily, though, while the price of nuclear keeps rising.  Simple economics killed nukes decades ago. Nukes were never "cheap cheap cheap !!!" as advertised. Quite aside from the big long string of problems (waste storage, safety issues, liability, proliferation) that nukes couldn't solve before and still can't solve now. And of course uranium is itself a non-renewable resource, and all the quality sources have already been mined, leaving only the low-grade deposits.

              And in any case any new nukes will be tied up in court until God dies of old age, and likely will never be built.

              They're a non-solution.

              •  I vehemently opposed nukes (0+ / 0-)

                for 30 years for all the reasons you stated, until carbon emissions because an overriding issue.

                Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

                by 6412093 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 12:40:29 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I did too--I lived near Three Mile Island in 1979 (0+ / 0-)

                  And none of the reasons why nuclear failed back then, have been solved. None.

                  Nukes can't help with global warming.  Even if we committed to nukes today (and we never will--as I said they will be tied up in court until God dies of old age) it will be 30-40 years before any new nukes go online and begin generating any significant electricity. Far too late. Even the nukes already in the works, such as Progress energy's nukes in Levy County, are already three times overbudget and aren't expected to go online--if they are ever built at all--for at least 20 years.

                  It's a non-solution, whether one is anti-nuke or not.  (shrug)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site