Send Us Hatemail ! mailbag@conservativecave.com
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Star Member a kennedy (24,530 posts)A possible return to atomic power??? WTH??? 🤬 🤬 🤬Six years after Wisconsin lifted a ban on nuclear power plant construction, a La Crosse utility company that operated the state’s first nuclear plant is exploring a return to atomic power.Dairyland Power Cooperative has agreed with NuScale Power to explore using the company’s small-scale nuclear generating technology as a carbon-free power source for about half a million customers in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois.This agreement provides Dairyland an opportunity to explore this technology and evaluate whether it might be a viable long-term alternative to provide our members with safe, reliable and cost-effective electricity in a lower-carbon future,” said Dairyland CEO Brent Ridge.Maintaining reliability while cutting the coal-heavy utility’s greenhouse gas emissions will require “out of the box” thinking, said John Carr, vice president for strategic growth.
Star Member NNadir (28,855 posts) 1. Anyone who has a remote sense of reality would applaud this.I do.
Star Member Happy Hoosier (4,076 posts) 46. I agree.Many on our side have a knee-jerk reaction to nuclear, but IMO, we absolutely need it right know
Star Member NNadir (28,855 posts) 58. Anyone who is concerned about valuable used nuclear fuel when......seven million people die each year from dangerous fossil fuel waste, aka "air pollution" is not only badly educated, completely unfamiliar with the chemistry and physics of used nuclear fuels, but also, I would submit, given reality, morally withered.
Star Member NNadir (28,855 posts) 64. Look. In the 19 years I've been writing here I have often found myself listening from catcalling drivel from dumb antinukes. Often they prove to be the same weak thinking, uneducated dunderheads, time and time again, offering the same stupid remarks day after day, year after year, decade after decade while the whole damned planet is dying.During that time, that 19 years, the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide has risen about 50 ppm.To me, a person who has spent decades understanding nuclear issues at a deep level, these people are little different than antivaxxers. They obsess about subjects about which they have no knowledge at all, issue trivializing sound bites and spread ignorance that kills people.It is not my job to educate these kinds of bourgeois brats, nor do I feel any compunction to talk about subjects that are clearly beyond their withered intellects to understand.I'm a scientist, not a day care worker concerned with managing the kids perennially in the dunce corner.
Star Member WarGamer (4,467 posts) 2. Reading Bill Gates latest book...It can be done safely AND cleanly.It's the greenest form of energy.
Star Member Blues Heron (3,938 posts) 4. Its hardly a carbon free power source when the fuel must be mined and processedfuel rods don't just rain down from the sky like solar energy, nor do they float in on the breeze like wind powerTalking fuel here only, not the steel in the wind towers etc. Fuel from which the actual electricity is generated.The fuel to run the nuke plants is mined just like coal (albeit about 1/10 compared to coal joule for joule)Other than that immense carbon footprint, yeah carbon free. kinda.
Star Member exboyfil (16,442 posts) 12. This story says about 1/100thand about what wind power is which is number 2. Could you give me the citation for the 1/10th?ThanksMore specifically, they figure that wind turbines average just 11 grams of CO2 emission per kilowatthour of electricity generated. That compares with 44 g/kwh for solar, 450 g for natural gas, and a whopping 1,000 g for coal.But beating them all is the original large-scale zero-carbon power source, nuclear power, at 9 g/kwh.https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/?sh=42d74f4f73cd
Star Member uponit7771 (83,002 posts) 14. It's net positive over the years while FF is not, Nuke power is way beyond 3 Mile Island or Fukashim... which were 3 generations old.Spent fuel rods can be recycled down to something you can bury on a beach.We need to move past the old fears of nuke energy we're starting to look like Luddites
Zeitghost (1,066 posts) 6. The unintended consequences of anti-nuclear activismHas been horrendous.I'm happy to see at least a little movement back towards safe, green nuclear energy. It's the future.
Star Member uponit7771 (83,002 posts) 8. It's over 40 years since Mile Island, come on people lets not be luddites. Atomic power is beyond...... safer than what's been put in action
Elessar Zappa (8,148 posts) 17. Good!Unlike solar and wind, nuclear is the actual solution for our energy needs.
MontanaFarmer (556 posts) 20. Montana did something similar last session.Folks, we're not coming anywhere near net zero without nuclear being a huge component. We're just not. You can't store wind and solar without huge batteries, which also require mining, so that argument doesn't hold water. Without storage those 2 sources can't do it on their own. The smaller modular new-generation reactors should be a direct replacement for coal plants; here, the reason for the legislative change was because of the potential to put those reactors into the colstrip generation stations.
Star Member hunter (34,779 posts) 42. Aggressive renewable energy schemes in places like California, Denmark, and Germany have failed...... and have only increased our long term dependence on natural gas.In Germany this failure has been catastrophic, since German renewable energy schemes were dependent on Russian natural gas.As Germany has been forced to increase its use of coal their ability to use solar and wind energy is diminished.There's enough natural gas in the ground to destroy whatever is left of the natural world as we know it, and civilization itself.It's best we leave that natural gas in the ground.I used to be a radical anti-nuclear activist. I'm not any more.The human race has worked its way into a tight spot. With the world population approaching 8 billion people we've become dependent on high density energy sources. I figure a "renewable energy" only economy can only support about 4 billion people, and such an economy would look nothing like the economy many affluent people now enjoy.
Star Member obamanut2012 (22,154 posts) 55. Good, we should have done this years ago
Typical DUmpmonkie... but wait! There is pushback! Yup... DU is now pro-nuke.
It is literally impossible to keep up with the DUmp and what you should be for, and against, every single day..They can be pro "x", and you're anti "x" and say so. You get banned.Next week they change their minds and are now anti "x" and you're pro "x", and get banned or FFR'd.
