Skip to main content

View Diary: Anti-Nuclear Power = Pro-Genocide. (352 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  could the approx 100 plants that we already have (0+ / 0-)

    running in the US provide enough energy for the "base load" your talking about?  

    I'm wondering if it's really necessary to build more.

    (And I do realize that this does not address the world's needs, but I happen to think that decentralized technologies are better for developing countries anyway, so that's another discussion).

    "My greatest strength, I guess it would be my humility. Greatest weakness, it's possible that I'm a little too awesome." -Barack Obama 10/16/08

    by Hopeful Skeptic on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 12:56:34 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  No, the 100 are not enough. (0+ / 0-)

      We need, for base load, about 500 GWs. So, that's an additional 400 plants, well, maybe 325 given the larger capacity factors of nuclear.

      The point is that only nuclear can effectively shutdown the 500 GWs of coal capacity in the US. And this is the goal. It has, really, nothing to do with 'decentralizaition' 'renewables' etc, its all about carbon and carbon-free generation (or close to it).

      If we substituted every MW of coal with nuclear we can actually close every coal plant in the US, and them move on to natural gas. Wind and solar can "help" but the money would be better spent on nuclear, new generation nuclear and efficiency in industry and commercial enterprises.

      I have a few diaries on coal-phaseout-by-nuclear on a MW-per-MW basis for a few states here on the DK.

      We should do this now, get approvals down to one year or less and start building them.

      David

      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 01:30:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ah, there is the heart of the debate (0+ / 0-)

        Wind and solar can "help" but the money would be better spent on nuclear, new generation nuclear and efficiency in industry and commercial enterprises.

        Ultimately there are limited resources we have to devote to power generation.  The question is how are those resources "better" spent?

        I don't think it's clear that investing in solely nuclear is the best use of those resources.  

        As many have pointed out in the comments, there are real disadvantages (waste, groundwater contamination, etc) of nuclear power when compared to some of the other technologies. So, we'd be silly to turn a blind eye to developing those technologies.  

        If we develop 10 different technologies that can provide a few GW each, then we only need to build half or a quarter of the number of nuclear plants, and will thereby reduce the associated risks and waste accordingly.

        "My greatest strength, I guess it would be my humility. Greatest weakness, it's possible that I'm a little too awesome." -Barack Obama 10/16/08

        by Hopeful Skeptic on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 01:45:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site