Expanding Nuclear Energy (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 08:45:15 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Expanding Nuclear Energy (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Do you support expanding nuclear energy to meet CO2 emissions reductions?
#1
Democrat: Yes
 
#2
Democrat: No
 
#3
Republican: Yes
 
#4
Republican: No
 
#5
independent/third party: Yes
 
#6
independent/third party: No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 47

Author Topic: Expanding Nuclear Energy  (Read 6952 times)
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


« on: May 21, 2009, 06:50:01 PM »

Yes. 

Nuclear power is much more efficient at providing energy.  Of course we have to find a suitable place to store spent fuel, but there really isn't anything I can think of that coal power has over nuclear.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2009, 12:44:46 AM »

Yeah, they are very expensive to build...but that's not why we don't have a bunch of new ones and others that are being built.  It's because the greens used excellent fearmongering for the last 3 decades.  Ignorance can be a very dangerous thing....especially when it can't be questioned because "OMG you must hate the environments!"

OMG you must hate the environments!

In all seriousness, our goal should be to provide the most energy in the most efficient way possible.  Nuclear, hydro-electric, wind, solar, and geothermal are all good, environmentally friendly ways to provide electricity.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2009, 01:09:36 AM »

In all seriousness, our goal should be to provide the most energy in the most efficient way possible.  Nuclear, hydro-electric, wind, solar, and geothermal are all good, environmentally friendly ways to provide electricity.

Drowning a bunch of land is hardly enviro-friendly.  While it makes sense to include hydroelectric generating capacity if you are going to build a dam, building a dam just to get electric power makes zero sense.

I agree that hydroelectric plants should be built only when the dam is serving another purpose such as flood control or for water supplies, but in many situations the damage it does to the environment is minimal compared to building a coal power plant and then removing mountain tops to get the coal out.

We can't have this idealist "we won't change unless it's going to be perfect" attitude.  You take the good with the bad... but ultimately the one that is efficient and environmentally friendly.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2009, 12:15:17 PM »

depends on the form. Nuclear is very risky.
How many people die every year getting coal out of the ground and transporting it?  How many tons of sulphur and mercury and worse get dumped into our atmosphere every year when we turn that coal into electricity? 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
What happens to coal waste?

I do have to say... I'll miss the mile long coal trains that travel through town several times each day on their way from Wyoming... but we can convert those tracks to other freight and passenger use and electrify the lines using clean, cheap nuclear power!
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 14 queries.