The case for nuclear power in reducing CO2

Cuddles

Cuddles


Generally these reason.tv reports lay down the libertarianism a little too thick to be palatable, but this one echoes much of what I've read on the disproportionate fear of nuclear power.

Some youtube comments that hit home:

I've grown green in face telling people this, alas the fearmongers did their job. I'd argue that, for example, Greenpeace with its anti-nuclear agenda did more long term harm to the environment, than, say, British Petroleum.

When my dad was studying Nuclear Engineering, they thought that, by now, electricity would be too cheap to meter. They may have been right, if not for Greenpeace and the anti-nuke efforts.
 
The energy policy of the United States is decades behind where it should be, and most of that is the result of the anti nuke fanatics still using fear mongering tactics from the 60's and 70's. You'll also note that many of these anti nuke "studies" have been funded by the fossil fuel industry. There's plenty of information out there about the newest generation of nuclear power for those who really want to look for it. Any infrastructure program that doesn't address this is failing to be honest about long term energy issues. I'm not optimistic as we have a government full of criminals being bought by the fossil fuel gang and the rest are cowards.
 
Here4money said:

Generally these reason.tv reports lay down the libertarianism a little too thick to be palatable, but this one echoes much of what I've read on the disproportionate fear of nuclear power.

Some youtube comments that hit home:

I've grown green in face telling people this, alas the fearmongers did their job. I'd argue that, for example, Greenpeace with its anti-nuclear agenda did more long term harm to the environment, than, say, British Petroleum.

When my dad was studying Nuclear Engineering, they thought that, by now, electricity would be too cheap to meter. They may have been right, if not for Greenpeace and the anti-nuke efforts.
More...
Do you agree with him?
 
The problem is that nuclear is actually very expensive to do. It's a technological nightmare. That's the main reason utilities across the US are not building them. I'm afraid that will be the problem with fusion also.
 
futurecurrents said:
The problem is that nuclear is actually very expensive to do. It's a technological nightmare. That's the main reason utilities across the US are not building them. I'm afraid that will be the problem with fusion also.
More...

It's really not that expensive, it's among the cheapest by kw. I think only gas beats it. The lack of demand has bumped its price as well... Few experts demanding premiums.
 
futurecurrents said:
The problem is that nuclear is actually very expensive to do. It's a technological nightmare. That's the main reason utilities across the US are not building them. I'm afraid that will be the problem with fusion also.
More...
If the impending doom is as dire as the climate alarmists would have us believe then cost should be irrelevant. What's expensive is ignoring a fix based on scare tactics from the past. Solar and wind just aren't going to provide the scale of energy needed and tax penalties is just another political money grab. Nuclear is an actaul solution.
 
CaptainObvious said:
If the impending doom is as dire as the climate alarmists would have us believe then cost should be irrelevant. What's expensive is ignoring a fix based on scare tactics from the past. Solar and wind just aren't going to provide the scale of energy needed and tax penalties is just another political money grab. Nuclear is an actaul solution.
More...


The best solution is one that the market determines after the true price of CO2 emitting sources is included in their price via a revenue neutral carbon tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top