|
That and the coal and natural gas lobbies that just bombard voters and legislators with bullshit. The only company that isn't is Exelon energy, which has actually been pushing hard for carbon emission restriction because it's got the infrastructure to survive and thrive with it. They produce 34 gigawatts of power generation broken up into 55 percent nuclear, 24 percent natural gas, 8 percent renewable including hydro, 7 percent oil and 6 percent coal. Now this could be good because Exelon already has plenty of experience with nuclear energy, on the other hand maybe I should use the bad word in the US and say "Nationalize all power systems" to save the time and effort. EDIT: Education can help, but only after decades of muzzling. If we could ban coal companies from advertising and tax the ever living hell out of it, there might be some progress in 30 years
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
Or we could just build some goddamned loving nuclear power plants that would immediately cut into CO2 production when they come online and we could spend more time making sure that the methane doesn't thaw and quite literally kill everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
Personally, anyone who would put aside personal politics and a few dozen votes for Harry Reid to re-open and loving use Yucca Flats for what it was built for.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 10:11
|
|
|
Palicgofueniczekt posted:Locking away fuel taken from nuclear reactors that still have 95% of their useful energy remaining? Well no one wants to reprocess it because someone might sell it to the Indians or Israelis because the US nuclear security apparatus consists of twist ties and Mr Magoo, or at least that's what Carter claimed when he banned it and Reagan allowed when he reinstated it but defunded it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2013 14:04
|
|
|
Charge practically no taxes, hell states like Pennsylvania gave massive tax breaks to private companies full of out of state workers to "stimulate" the economy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
Let's see how energy is doing in the two biggest consumers. A crude oil pipeline ruptured in Arkansas spilling at least 10,000 barrels and there was a 15,000 gallon (357 barrels worth) of crude spilled in Minnesota this week as well. Over in China, it looks like 28 were killed in a gas explosion in a coal mine. Meanwhile, China's biggest solar builder just went bankrupt while holding 7.1 billion CNY ($451 million USD) in loans. Meanwhile, nukes are bad because of some reason and misinformation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You have to dig uranium (and fossil fuels) out of the ground and cart it to a reactor. Individual mines can be depleted and will not have uranium in them again. For solar and wind you leave the windmills/panels in place and let the sun do its thing. For hydro you let the weather keep replenishing your river. For geothermal you dig a hole and the Earth will keep you warm. For biofuels you keep growing crops on the same fields year after year. The distinction is one of logistics; it has nothing to do with whether some energy source is "good" or bad. You can seriously reduce the need for mining uranium by reprocessing like the French do and the Japanese, much to the annoyance of their neighbors, are about to do. The two reasons the US doesn't is because first Carter banned reprocessing because he was worried about workers being lured by the Indians and Israelis into giving them fissionable materials and later Reagan unbanned it but went all Free-market so there's no subsidies.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:The IAEA is able to track the fuel cycles of countries in such detail that it's basically impossible for a compliant country to create weapons grade material from a reactor without the IAEA being aware of it (the IAEA has repeatedly confirmed that no nuclear material has been diverted from the fuel cycle in Iran). Proliferation isn't a problem with nuclear power, it's just a political issue. To explain further, the argument that the US and Israel is constantly bringing up is the capability for nuclear weapons which neither state wants Iran to have. Also, there have been some states that evaded IAEA inspections like Apartheid South Africa and Israel.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
Is it still kosher to bring up the Nuclear is still cheaper than solar wrt Finland and Germany or did something definitive come out trashing it?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 15:55
|
|