Climate change thread of despair


#125

Same for natural gas, far cleaner than coal, no dice with the environuts.


#126

Seriously? You can’t imagine why an environmentalist might be against nuclear power?


#127

No, I can’t, not modern design ones at any rate. They are far and away greener than the other viable alternatives.


#128

See this


#129

Define “greener” if you could.


#130

Umm, pollutes less.


#131

Is nuclear waste not a pollutant?


#132

Yes. And? If something pollutes a lot and something else pollutes less is it not greener?


#133

This depends a lot on how one weighs the relative “pollution” of different substances.

Is a ton of nuclear waste the same as a ton of coal ash? I don’t think so.


#134

Is that the only pollution involved? I thought carbon was a pollutant? Better up your ton of pollutant count.


#135

It’s the cleanest energy source in the world. And as long as regulations are followed it’s safe and efficient.


#136

Spent nuclear fuel is highly radioactive and dangerous, yes.

That is why it must cooled and stored properly. That is why it is heavily regulated.

But during power generation operations there is nothing else that competes with nuclear in terms of environmental friendliness. Only solar and wind are competitive with it but they also lack the peak demand generation capabilities that nuclear power provides.


#137

And modern designs are far safer than they used to be as well. Fukishima was practically built in the stone age, 1971.


#138

It was merely an example to illustrate my point which you seem to be dodging.


#139

Have any “modern” design reactors been built?


#140

The world supply of useful uranium is not as great as people assume.

Mass expansion of nuclear power has serious issues with fuel supply.


#141

No it doesn’t


#142

You really need to get your head out of three mile island technology levels.


#143

Let me know when that is shown to work on an industrial scale. I wouldn’t hold my breath.


#144

Any “modern” reactors ever been built?