-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Power company kills nuclear plant, plans $6 billion in solar, battery investment
- Thread starter ShadowSwordmaster
- Start date
WaterAstro
Member
Good.
Nuclear isn't renewable and creates the worst kind of pollution.
Nuclear isn't renewable and creates the worst kind of pollution.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
Nah, fossil fuels still hold the crown there, easily.
Not per pound. Carbon is more harmful just because of how much of it we throw up into the atmosphere.
WaterAstro
Member
Fossil fuel is bad, but nuclear wastes lasts longer than humanity. Fossil fuel is just bad now because of the quantity. If we solely relied on nuclear, we'd be neck deep in shit.
If we solely relied on nuclear we wouldn't be having as many problems with global warming.
Nice and all that you 2 want to point that out, but Nuclear waste wouldn't and isn't going to cause global warming, so your point is largely irrelevant.
WizardofPeace
Member
Wafflecakes
Member
Which is an absolute moronic way of comparing them because the scale is so impossibly different.
Dreams-Visions
Member
when you haven't built one in decades, it's not surprising.
pr0cs
Member
Really? I don't recall entire swaths of land that are basically unlivable due to fossil fuels
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
Global warming 'bout to help fossil fuels beat that record!
pr0cs
Member
Not in your or your kids lifetime
And rather presumptuous to assume global warming is entirely hydrocarbons fault
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
Nuclear's problem is waste management and budgeting failures. Fossil fuels' problems are that it using it in the first place is damaging. I'd call the latter a "worse type of pollution."
Given time it will. But damage from nuclear power falls back entirely on human error, while fossil fuels are damaging no matter what.
But people are really dumb and as long as nuclear is being used there will be problems.
Armoured Priest
Member
You've never been to Gary, Indiana.
Imagine if there was a way to generate massive amounts of power and instead of releasing a bunch of Co2 into the air that kills millions and destroys the ecosystem you'd get a manageable byproduct that wouldn't affect anyone if stored properly.
It would literally be more healthy for the people of Bejing to move to Chernobyl, but since it would be bad optics for China to evacuate their capital it's just kinda swept under the rug.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/17/beijing-smog-pollution-red-alert-declared-in-china-capital-and-21-other-cities
It would literally be more healthy for the people of Bejing to move to Chernobyl, but since it would be bad optics for China to evacuate their capital it's just kinda swept under the rug.
BassForever
Member
Well it's not Louisiana, Paris, France, New York, or Rome
Chaos2Frozen
Member
Going by John Oliver's piece- You cannot not build a toilet in your home and then wonder why there is shit everywhere.
The main problem with nuclear waste seems to be no one has a system for it.
The main problem with nuclear waste seems to be no one has a system for it.
does anyone not remember the shitstorm that was Fukushima?
You mean the "shitstorm" that hasn't killed anyone? Of course we do, because people like you fear monger beyond necessary to ensure the Nuclear industry won't thrive.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
It doesn't help when people see the word "nuclear" and piss their pants.
Nuclear power needs to be a part of the green energy billet. When built with modern technology and when built on geologically stable areas they are supremely safe.
Nuclear power needs to be a part of the green energy billet. When built with modern technology and when built on geologically stable areas they are supremely safe.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
does anyone not remember the shitstorm that was Fukushima?
Goes back to human error, saving money was prioritized over safety. That plant was scheduled to be shut down before the incident happened. Its operations were extended despite decades of research and reports indicating that type of reactor in that location was a risk.
Basically, people gonna be people.
shinra-bansho
Member
lol.does anyone not remember the shitstorm that was Fukushima?
Fortunately this is a nonsense figure from a looney site, as otherwise large swathes of the US and parts of Canada would be dead.
Alcotholic
Banned
What are they gonna do with all the nuclear material?
does anyone not remember the shitstorm that was Fukushima?
Are you being serious?
Nuclear waste can be recycled if we developed our power plants a bit more. It's mostly politics that's stopping that from happening.
does anyone not remember the shitstorm that was Fukushima?
Yea that graph is bullshit. Biological impact is measured using Sieverts not Rads.
CrocMother
Banned
Well there was a full scale disaster 6 years ago, what do you expect?
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Southern Co is gonna try and go ahead with Vogtle 3 and 4. They hired a new project management engineering firm in Bechtel to oversea the project.
Will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Not surprised though. Big business scared of Nuclear due to investment and engineering costs not panning out.
Will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Not surprised though. Big business scared of Nuclear due to investment and engineering costs not panning out.
Coal plants would like a word with you.
Acerac
Banned
Granted, but I feel that acknowledging the fact that so much more is produced is necessary when comparing the options.
If solar, wind, or hydroelectric are viable by all means I would prefer to go that route. I just see many act like nuclear is the worst option when it comes to downsides and I just can't agree with that.
Go and talk to the South Sea islanders in the Oavifuc whose homes are literally disappearing due to rising sea levels.
Or the declining polar bear population in the Arctic, dying off due to their ice floes disappearing.
Or the coral bleaching caused by warming seas.
And that's before we get to the desertification of trans-Saharan Africa, or the increased severity of monsoons following extended droughts leading to fertile topsoil being washed away, rendering agrarian land unusable.
Circle Jerk
Member
Boy, that sure is an interesting site you got that image from.does anyone not remember the shitstorm that was Fukushima?
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Good to see more solar, but sad to see less nuclear. No other form of energy comes close to its output.
UntoldDreams
Member
But but but... GODZILLA origin story!
Vigilant Walrus
Member
Idiots. There is a thing called clean coal. Maybe if you listened to ur president you would learn a thing or 2.
Always good to see more solar.
lol. This image is fake as hell.
does anyone not remember the shitstorm that was Fukushima?
lol. This image is fake as hell.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Yes in his and his kids lifetime. Sea rise doesn't just happen to kick into effect in 2100, Miami is already practically being lost to the sea and constant flooding. Not to even mention all the other islands and low lying areas all around the world that are already feeling the effects of sea level rise.
Only climate change deniers say shit like this, and those people are the biggest idiots in the world.
Just like people who post radiation maps from Fukushima.
It's a shame. We have have fuel and reactor designs that will never melt down and specific use plants, but ignorant people and lobby groups have stopped them from being used.
https://youtu.be/poPLSgbSO6k
Mainstream nuclear tech is definitely the worst option. A combination of non-proliferation treaties (which prevented breeder reactors from being made) and the continuing commercial non-viability of new technologies was the nail in the coffin.
Small scale reactors were tested as well, but the ROI was a disaster.