[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Name My Band - oldviolin - Jun 6, 2020 - 8:35am
 
Surfing! - Coaxial - Jun 6, 2020 - 8:14am
 
Baseball, anyone? - Coaxial - Jun 6, 2020 - 8:10am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Coaxial - Jun 6, 2020 - 8:09am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - sirdroseph - Jun 6, 2020 - 6:57am
 
Graphic designers, ho! - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 6, 2020 - 6:54am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - sirdroseph - Jun 6, 2020 - 4:35am
 
how do you feel right now? - haresfur - Jun 6, 2020 - 4:03am
 
Recommended documentaries - sirdroseph - Jun 6, 2020 - 2:32am
 
Australia has Disappeared - haresfur - Jun 6, 2020 - 12:40am
 
The Obituary Page - Steely_D - Jun 6, 2020 - 12:35am
 
Oh, GOD, they're LIBERAL!!!!! - Steely_D - Jun 5, 2020 - 9:13pm
 
Outstanding Covers - miamizsun - Jun 5, 2020 - 7:59pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Jun 5, 2020 - 7:09pm
 
RPeeps I miss. - oldviolin - Jun 5, 2020 - 6:01pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - Jun 5, 2020 - 5:56pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - R_P - Jun 5, 2020 - 5:55pm
 
Things You Thought Today - kcar - Jun 5, 2020 - 5:46pm
 
Trump - BlueHeronDruid - Jun 5, 2020 - 3:37pm
 
3 Words for Political Zealots - Red_Dragon - Jun 5, 2020 - 3:11pm
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - miamizsun - Jun 5, 2020 - 2:10pm
 
Party planning advice - miamizsun - Jun 5, 2020 - 2:01pm
 
::odd but intriguing:: - miamizsun - Jun 5, 2020 - 1:39pm
 
Looting & vandalism isn't protest - R_P - Jun 5, 2020 - 12:35pm
 
Fox Spews - buddy - Jun 5, 2020 - 12:30pm
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Jun 5, 2020 - 12:07pm
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Jun 5, 2020 - 11:11am
 
Race in America - R_P - Jun 5, 2020 - 10:33am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jun 5, 2020 - 8:12am
 
• • • Things Magicians Exclaim • • •  - black321 - Jun 5, 2020 - 8:11am
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Jun 5, 2020 - 7:56am
 
RP streams in Opus - Romain98 - Jun 5, 2020 - 7:04am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jun 5, 2020 - 6:29am
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - maryte - Jun 5, 2020 - 5:53am
 
The Buffoonery - oldviolin - Jun 4, 2020 - 7:22pm
 
Guns - KarmaKarma - Jun 4, 2020 - 5:03pm
 
Got any of your own made up words? - kcar - Jun 4, 2020 - 4:38pm
 
Sonos - toomanyollys - Jun 4, 2020 - 2:21pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - R_P - Jun 4, 2020 - 12:16pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Jun 4, 2020 - 11:47am
 
Poetry Slam! - buddy - Jun 4, 2020 - 10:54am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - sirdroseph - Jun 4, 2020 - 10:11am
 
Philosophy (Meaty Metaphysical Munchables!) - miamizsun - Jun 4, 2020 - 7:35am
 
Political Humor Images - miamizsun - Jun 4, 2020 - 7:32am
 
Play the Blues - sirdroseph - Jun 4, 2020 - 7:24am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - saellig668552 - Jun 4, 2020 - 6:41am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 3, 2020 - 7:39pm
 
Embedding Tweets - R_P - Jun 3, 2020 - 4:39pm
 
Amazon Echo/Alexa stream not working - Gourd - Jun 3, 2020 - 1:55pm
 
Trump Lies - hayduke2 - Jun 3, 2020 - 12:45pm
 
Fun - Proclivities - Jun 3, 2020 - 11:26am
 
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone - oldviolin - Jun 3, 2020 - 6:45am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Jun 3, 2020 - 6:37am
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Jun 2, 2020 - 7:31pm
 
Poetry Forum - oldviolin - Jun 2, 2020 - 7:24pm
 
In My Room - oldviolin - Jun 2, 2020 - 7:16pm
 
Favorite Quotes - oldviolin - Jun 2, 2020 - 5:03pm
 
The R_P & KarmaKarma bickering topic - R_P - Jun 2, 2020 - 4:40pm
 
Canada - haresfur - Jun 2, 2020 - 3:01pm
 
Joe Biden - R_P - Jun 2, 2020 - 2:55pm
 
Fake News*  ?  ! - kcar - Jun 2, 2020 - 1:20pm
 
RP Main Mix on TuneIn unavailable? - withdean1 - Jun 2, 2020 - 12:03pm
 
Post your favorite 'You Tube' Videos Here - black321 - Jun 2, 2020 - 11:28am
 
Epic Facebook Statuses - Coaxial - Jun 2, 2020 - 8:06am
 
Tales from the RAFT - Coaxial - Jun 2, 2020 - 6:50am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Jun 2, 2020 - 12:04am
 
Food - AliGator - Jun 1, 2020 - 8:48pm
 
Stupid Questions (and Answers) - haresfur - Jun 1, 2020 - 8:07pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - Antigone - Jun 1, 2020 - 6:10pm
 
Bernie Sanders - R_P - Jun 1, 2020 - 3:36pm
 
What Did You See Today? - Steely_D - Jun 1, 2020 - 11:00am
 
I can't download a cache block for offline listening - q4Fry - Jun 1, 2020 - 6:50am
 
FLAC Streaming - Ohewitt - Jun 1, 2020 - 5:01am
 
Two questions. That's it. I promise. - oldviolin - May 31, 2020 - 10:27am
 
Questions. - buddy - May 31, 2020 - 9:34am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Nuclear power - saviour or scourge? Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 21, 22, 23  Next
Post to this Topic
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 18, 2019 - 1:55pm

 kcar wrote:
 
That was a great video—thanks very much for posting and for adding all the timestamped highlights. It's a shame that Bill's talk wasn't annotated and footnoted because he threw out so many points and numbers that you want further explanation as to the consequences of those facts. Worth watching twice.
 
Two pointless thoughts: Bill Gates is undeniably brilliant and well informed but he has this jumpy, awkward persona in this video. I think he's like that much of the time. And pink is not his color.
 

the credit goes to gordon mcdowell (his youtube channel is a very good resource for such things)
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Mar 16, 2019 - 9:11pm

 miamizsun wrote:


9:00 Gates restates Vaclav Smil observations on Tokyo energy requirements. "Tell me what battery solution is going to sit there and provide that power?" That's nothing that doesn't solve the reliability problem.

9:37
"Clean Energy" and the narrow perspective of recent clean energy conference. What about manufacturing of steel? What about flying planes in the sky?

11:23
The idea "we have all the tools" and utility people are blocking climate progress because they're evil people are more of a block on climate progress than climate denialism.

11:50 You need nuclear fission or fusion running 24/7. If renewable then need a monster miracle in grid storage. A battery you only need once-per-year but is cheap (for rest of year).

13:00
Transport problems other than cars. 24% of emissions are agricultural and meat. Very difficult. Is why Gates funds "Beyond Meat" type products.

15:00
Magnitude of problem if people think biz-as-usual and carbon can be captured and stored (on top of biz-as-usual).

16:11
Improving photosynthetic efficiency. Factor of 2 to be had.

18:40
Nuclear. Cost competitiveness.

20:10
Nuclear safest form of energy per output. Today's designs pathetic, needs to be redone for digital age. So no pressure anywhere. 4th Gen Nuclear, TerraPower is ONLY well-funded project. "Nuclear in China is cheaper than coal."

21:45
We shut down FFTF, and China is building needed test facilities (nuclear).

23:00
What possible reward do utilities have for taking risk on new energy technologies?

23:38
Anything you do in energy today won't scale up until your patents expire.

24:00
Fusion economics is hard. Fission has neutrons that degrade material is toughest part of Travelling Wave Reactor (TWR). Fusions neutrons far more energetic.

28:10
No big play fission companies, but in fusion quite a few. Some look sketchy but thank God they're trying.

 
 
 
That was a great video—thanks very much for posting and for adding all the timestamped highlights. It's a shame that Bill's talk wasn't annotated and footnoted because he threw out so many points and numbers that you want further explanation as to the consequences of those facts. Worth watching twice.
 
Two pointless thoughts: Bill Gates is undeniably brilliant and well informed but he has this jumpy, awkward persona in this video. I think he's like that much of the time. And pink is not his color.

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 16, 2019 - 12:09pm



9:00 Gates restates Vaclav Smil observations on Tokyo energy requirements. "Tell me what battery solution is going to sit there and provide that power?" That's nothing that doesn't solve the reliability problem.

9:37
"Clean Energy" and the narrow perspective of recent clean energy conference. What about manufacturing of steel? What about flying planes in the sky?

11:23
The idea "we have all the tools" and utility people are blocking climate progress because they're evil people are more of a block on climate progress than climate denialism.

11:50 You need nuclear fission or fusion running 24/7. If renewable then need a monster miracle in grid storage. A battery you only need once-per-year but is cheap (for rest of year).

13:00
Transport problems other than cars. 24% of emissions are agricultural and meat. Very difficult. Is why Gates funds "Beyond Meat" type products.

15:00
Magnitude of problem if people think biz-as-usual and carbon can be captured and stored (on top of biz-as-usual).

16:11
Improving photosynthetic efficiency. Factor of 2 to be had.

18:40
Nuclear. Cost competitiveness.

20:10
Nuclear safest form of energy per output. Today's designs pathetic, needs to be redone for digital age. So no pressure anywhere. 4th Gen Nuclear, TerraPower is ONLY well-funded project. "Nuclear in China is cheaper than coal."

21:45
We shut down FFTF, and China is building needed test facilities (nuclear).

23:00
What possible reward do utilities have for taking risk on new energy technologies?

23:38
Anything you do in energy today won't scale up until your patents expire.

24:00
Fusion economics is hard. Fission has neutrons that degrade material is toughest part of Travelling Wave Reactor (TWR). Fusions neutrons far more energetic.

28:10
No big play fission companies, but in fusion quite a few. Some look sketchy but thank God they're trying.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 17, 2019 - 6:53am



a pretty good doc on energy
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 17, 2019 - 5:43am

 islander wrote:


 Red_Dragon wrote:

The environment doesn't care about our poor planning.
 

I see your point, but unless you can get people to stop reproducing at the current rate, and cut their consumption by ~30%, there isn't another source on deck that can meet the need. We need solar, we need wind, we need geothermal and tidal, but we need nuclear too. And the irony of the environmentalists dissing a major component of the solution to an environmental problem is pretty ripe. Nuclear can and has been done well and safely (see France). And if you leave it out of the solution, you don't have a solution. 

 

ironically, the more energy we produce the higher/better quality of life we have, the fewer children we have

hans rosling has churned out scads of research on this




Safe and clean energy

Generating power using a Molten Salt Reactor closely meets the safety, waste, cost and CO2 standards that we expect of today’s energy technology. As long ago as the 1960s, the Molten Salt Reactor was shown to be possible in principle. Although research at the time was suspended because other demands were being placed on reactor technology, it has now been resumed internationally.

Research into molten salt at Petten

Research reactors such as the High Flux Reactor (HFR) at Petten are indispensable to the development of new reactor technology such as the Molten Salt Reactor. With the experiments that can be carried out in the HFR, molten salt technology can be shown to work just as the theory has predicted.

The research at Petten currently consists of molten salt irradiation, materials research, helium bubbling research, gamma irradiation and waste management.

A subsequent step in the research could be the development of a tube in which molten salt can be pumped around under representative conditions. The realisation of such a facility can be a decisive step forward for the international research into Molten Salt Reactors.


islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 9:44am



 Red_Dragon wrote:

The environment doesn't care about our poor planning.
 

I see your point, but unless you can get people to stop reproducing at the current rate, and cut their consumption by ~30%, there isn't another source on deck that can meet the need. We need solar, we need wind, we need geothermal and tidal, but we need nuclear too. And the irony of the environmentalists dissing a major component of the solution to an environmental problem is pretty ripe. Nuclear can and has been done well and safely (see France). And if you leave it out of the solution, you don't have a solution. 
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 8:59am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:


 Red_Dragon wrote:

The environment doesn't care about our poor planning.
 

 
{#Lol}
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 8:40am



 Red_Dragon wrote:

The environment doesn't care about our poor planning.
 


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 8:30am

 islander wrote:


Another fine reactor we should be using, but the original contractor messed up on the location. They claimed something about a secondary concern over gravity and wanting some safety space in case of uncontrolled reaction outbursts. It resulted in right of way problems for running power lines, and substantial interference from both local phenomenon and a seasonal rotational error in our own planets original setup.  In the end it wound up as a nice thermal and lighting source, but had problems meeting the unplanned linear demand spikes from a runaway customer base.
 
The environment doesn't care about our poor planning.
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 8:23am



 Red_Dragon wrote:


 

Another fine reactor we should be using, but the original contractor messed up on the location. They claimed something about a secondary concern over gravity and wanting some safety space in case of uncontrolled reaction outbursts. It resulted in right of way problems for running power lines, and substantial interference from both local phenomenon and a seasonal rotational error in our own planets original setup.  In the end it wound up as a nice thermal and lighting source, but had problems meeting the unplanned linear demand spikes from a runaway customer base.
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 7:50am

 islander wrote:

 A wise person around here one said the best green power is the kind that glows. 

 

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 7:33am



 miamizsun wrote:
reality intervenes...

Union of Concerned Scientists For Nukes!

Activist group finally recognizes that it can't achieve its energy and climate goals without nuclear power.

The activists at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have had a partial change of heart about nuclear power. Back in 2007, the UCS' Global Warming and Nuclear Power report declared, "prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria."

In its new report, The Nuclear Power Dilemma, the UCS now recognizes that nuclear power plays an important role in addressing the problem of man-made global warming by helping to keep U.S. carbon dioxide emissions considerably lower than they would otherwise be.


 

 A wise person around here one said the best green power is the kind that glows. 
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 15, 2018 - 7:10am

reality intervenes...

Union of Concerned Scientists For Nukes!

Activist group finally recognizes that it can't achieve its energy and climate goals without nuclear power.

The activists at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have had a partial change of heart about nuclear power. Back in 2007, the UCS' Global Warming and Nuclear Power report declared, "prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria."

In its new report, The Nuclear Power Dilemma, the UCS now recognizes that nuclear power plays an important role in addressing the problem of man-made global warming by helping to keep U.S. carbon dioxide emissions considerably lower than they would otherwise be.


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Aug 28, 2018 - 2:51pm

 miamizsun wrote:
i've posted about thorcon before (not sure which thread)

hargraves is making a case that nuclear is safer and cheaper than coal (while keeping co2 in check)

possibly targeting asian energy needs as a market



 

i know, the guy in the video below {#Arrowd} looks like lurch...

China and Russia looking at 27 floating nuclear reactors but ThorCon and Indonesia could scale to 100 per year.

ThorCon is developing molten salt floating nuclear reactors. They use the same steam and electrical side as a standard 500 MWe supercritical coal plant. But gone are the massive coal handling systems, the 100 m high boiler, the flue gas treatment system, and the ash handling and storage system. A generous estimate of the overnight cost of the ThorCon steam side, everything but the nuclear island, is $700/kW. This is a well-established number.

The total overnight cost of a 500 MWe coal plant is between 2000 and 1400 dollars per kW. Both figures assume no attempt at carbon capture. ThorCon would be 2 to three times cheaper than coal.

The ThorCon nuclear island requires one-sixth as much steel and one-fourth as much concrete as the portion of the coal plant upstream from the turbine. A 1 GWe ThorCon nuclear island requires less than 400 tons of superalloys and other exotic materials. ThorCon operating at near ambient pressure has a 2:1 advantage in steel and a 5:1 advantage in concrete over its nuclear competitors on the nuclear side. Much more importantly, very little of ThorCon’s concrete is reinforced. Reinforced concrete is impossible to automate, drives the critical path, is not amenable to block construction, and entombs the critical portion of the plant in a mausoleum making repair and replacement extremely difficult. ThorCon can be produced entirely in bargable blocks at shipyard assembly line productivity.

Based on resource and labor requirements and allowing for stringent inspection and testing, the ThorCon nuclear island should cost less than $500 per kW on an overnight basis.

Thorcon wants to provide Indonesia initially with 7 cents per kwh power that can be moved to any of the hundreds of islands in Indonesia. The costs should then go down with later units.




miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 13, 2018 - 7:25am

How We Screwed Up Nuclear Power

Half a century ago, nuclear power was on track to out-compete fossil fuels around the globe, which would have reduced the price of electricity, the amount of harmful air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change. Then came a dramatic slowing of new construction and research into safer and more efficient nuclear reactors.

According to Australian National University researcher Peter Lang, the '60s and '70s saw a transition "from rapidly falling costs and accelerating deployment to rapidly rising costs and stalled deployment." Had the initial trajectory continued, he writes in the journal Energies, nuclear-generated electricity would now be around 10 percent of its current cost.

In a counterfactual scenario featuring increasing uptake of nuclear power from 1976, Lang calculates that by 2015 it would have replaced all coal-burning and three-quarters of gas-fired electric power generation. Thus, over the past 30 years we could have substituted 186,000 terawatt-hours of electricity production, avoiding up to 174 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions and 9.5 million air pollution deaths. Cumulative global carbon dioxide emissions would be about 18 percent lower, and annual global carbon dioxide emissions would be one-third less.


miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 16, 2018 - 7:14am

 haresfur wrote:

It was a mistake for Carter to cancel the reprocessing program and mixed fuel reactors. I think it is a laugh when people complain about using plutonium in reactors when power reactors are getting about 1/3 of their energy from the plutonium produced by the time they need refueling. But the waste problem isn't the plutonium, although that is what scares people. The real issue is the long-lived fission products like technetium-99 and I-129. You still have to deal with those and reprocessing mobilizes them. There is a pretty good iodine plume from the British reprocessing plant.

I don't have an opinion on Thorium reactors. In the early days, the Hanford site played around with thorium in the K reactors by using it in the outside core tubes. You get a different suite of fission products but nothing that will go boom. I forget the details and my chart of the nuclides is at work.

 
this may offer some info/insight on the subject

sorenson has a loner more detailed google talk about the waste issue

one of the freaky things about this video is around the 13.39 mark george lucas of star wars fame strolls up behind the interview and nobody really notices or cares
{#Lol}



haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 16, 2018 - 6:24am

 miamizsun wrote:


i agree with teac and pro-nuclear scientists and engineers that the politics around nuclear energy have been misrepresented and/or misinterpreted 

broadly speaking old tech was geared toward making stuff that goes boom (see oak ridge) and people should be cautious about weaponizing anything

when designed primarily for energy production the waste and the risk are greatly reduced (in fact we can burn the old waste for energy)

obviously coal and fossil fuels are sun-setting tech and solar and wind are intermittent and usually require storage and back up sources of energy

i encourage folks to investigate and thanks for the support
 {#Cheers}
 
It was a mistake for Carter to cancel the reprocessing program and mixed fuel reactors. I think it is a laugh when people complain about using plutonium in reactors when power reactors are getting about 1/3 of their energy from the plutonium produced by the time they need refueling. But the waste problem isn't the plutonium, although that is what scares people. The real issue is the long-lived fission products like technetium-99 and I-129. You still have to deal with those and reprocessing mobilizes them. There is a pretty good iodine plume from the British reprocessing plant.

I don't have an opinion on Thorium reactors. In the early days, the Hanford site played around with thorium in the K reactors by using it in the outside core tubes. You get a different suite of fission products but nothing that will go boom. I forget the details and my chart of the nuclides is at work.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 16, 2018 - 5:15am

 haresfur wrote:
I know a bit about nuke stuff and tend to agree with you, at least in the mid-term timescale, but not because I'm wild about the risks or dealing with the waste.

Mainly I'm anti-coal and I reckon that if people want the energy they should be willing to assume the risks of nuclear rather than the known damage from coal mining and coal emissions.
 

i agree with teac and pro-nuclear scientists and engineers that the politics around nuclear energy have been misrepresented and/or misinterpreted 

broadly speaking old tech was geared toward making stuff that goes boom (see oak ridge) and people should be cautious about weaponizing anything

when designed primarily for energy production the waste and the risk are greatly reduced (in fact we can burn the old waste for energy)

obviously coal and fossil fuels are sun-setting tech and solar and wind are intermittent and usually require storage and back up sources of energy

i encourage folks to investigate and thanks for the support


 {#Cheers}

miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 16, 2018 - 3:55am

 katzendogs wrote:
I had a  job here once.  


Just an FYI. {#Lol}
I rented a trailer in Joshua. The trailer (ina park) was backed up to a small ranch(ito) and was quiet and like in the middle of nowhere. This is where I found my first Walmart. Bought everthing I could get with my first paycheck. i bought the hottest friffin type of sleeping bag ever, not knowing all those ratings they have. (i'm in texas).

But i had a cow. I called her 96. Because of the tag in her ear. She and I would sometimes 'holla' at each other ! {#Lol} 
I would throw scraps at her at times. some beef even. Some eggshells. she was a crazy old friend from those few months.

 

some of us have had "kerouac moments" in our lives

mine wasn't as sexy as yours

{#Wink}
haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Mar 15, 2018 - 5:34pm

 miamizsun wrote:

i like the energy and i still think nuclear is the way to go

in the mean time i say build a lot of smaller reactors with the tech we have

scatter them where we need to

you know, to hold us over until this cake is baked
 
I know a bit about nuke stuff and tend to agree with you, at least in the mid-term timescale, but not because I'm wild about the risks or dealing with the waste.

Mainly I'm anti-coal and I reckon that if people want the energy they should be willing to assume the risks of nuclear rather than the known damage from coal mining and coal emissions.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 21, 22, 23  Next