Skip to main content

View Diary: NY-20: Gibson weirdly keeps pushing for a nuke (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Best way to wean us off hydrocarbons is (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RonV, devtob, sidnora, Boreal Ecologist

    to use less energy, something we appear to be unwilling to do.

    The 'multipronged' aspect of nuclear power will require building of many hundreds of reactors to get us off coal, for instance.

    Rather than dump a whole lot of effort into fission plants, I think we'd be better off concentrating on fusion, and implementing serious interventions into usage by increasing efficiencies of how we use what we've got now.

    Building any sizable fleet of fission plants to make a dent in our energy profile will take many decades.

    We can start improving efficiency today.

    •  This is hypocritical (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      devtob, Blubba

      Seems to me you are burning hydrocarbons right now so you can comment on this diary.  Which generation do you want to cease using electricity?

    •  True, building nuclear plants (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dude1701, palantir, Blubba

      will take a long time. But we have to plan now for our needs in the future. Fusion is in the lab, fission is in operation. We can't sit around and wait for fusion. And despite what it says in this diary, while nuclear requires very large upfront capital outlays, the longterm cost of energy after amortization of the build is around 2 cents/kWh.

      I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

      by doc2 on Mon Jan 31, 2011 at 04:56:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No one knows the long term cost of nuclear power. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RonV, devtob

        After some few decades of operation, the cores of most of these traditionally based fission plants remain highly radioactive for tens of thousands of years, so some practical questions come to mind.

        Who watches over these sites?
        Are there armed guards?
        Who pays their salaries?

        Got a way to dispose of the waste yet?
        Please, before you tell me about the miracle of reprocessing spent fuel, check out the word 'Sellafield' in Google to see how that's working out.

        2 cents a KilowattHour?

        Then why is my NH electric bill so damn high?
        Clamshell Alliance is that powerful?

        •  We are reusing fuel, as are (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          devtob

          countries from Europe and Asia. And after 50 years over 97% of the radiation has dissipated from the used rods. It is not "thousands of years". Bottom line is that nuclear is not perfect. Nothing is, at least nothing available today. So nuclear deserves a seat at the table. Nuclear waste is manageable; global warming is not.

          I'm in the I-fucking-love-this-guy wing of the Democratic Party!

          by doc2 on Mon Jan 31, 2011 at 05:52:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not thousands of years .. really? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RonV, devtob

            All of the science and studies of sequestering of spent fuel and remnants of highly radioactive elements from reactor cores was just for show, I guess.

            Like magic, it will magically go away and be forgotten.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site