View Poll Results: Are You Interested In More Nuclear Power?

Voters
126. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hell no! Remember Chernobyl?

    21 16.67%
  • Don't know.

    3 2.38%
  • Maybe. What do the scientists say?

    29 23.02%
  • Absolutely! Every other idea is even worse.

    79 62.70%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 21 of 39 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 382

Thread: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

  1. #201
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:16 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,306

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    nuclear is cheaper than solar....
    You keep saying that and not linking the costs. Very consistent. Consistently wrong. Joko's link illustrated the real costs of nukes. You should read it. Local solar is far cheaper than nukes. Local solar is efficient. Local solar makes jobs. Local solar saves money. Local solar puts those savings in local economies. Local solar fights Global Warming and Global Glowing. Local solar does not pollute. Local solar cuts taxing entities and grid operators out of the loop. Last sentence explains why local solar is not supported at a National level.

  2. #202
    Sage
    Quag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,046

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    You keep saying that and not linking the costs. Very consistent. Consistently wrong. Joko's link illustrated the real costs of nukes. You should read it. Local solar is far cheaper than nukes. Local solar is efficient. Local solar makes jobs. Local solar saves money. Local solar puts those savings in local economies. Local solar fights Global Warming and Global Glowing. Local solar does not pollute. Local solar cuts taxing entities and grid operators out of the loop. Last sentence explains why local solar is not supported at a National level.
    Hnmm you seem to be a big supporter of Solar. Myself I'm more on the fence, it has good sides/bad sides. One of the bad sides is that it is not usefull everywhere nor for every application.
    Basically the USA cannot supply its energy needs through solar alone, it can help but not be a repalcement for other forms of energy.
    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
    Winston Churchill



    A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
    Winston Churchill

  3. #203
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    You keep saying that and not linking the costs. Very consistent. Consistently wrong. Joko's link illustrated the real costs of nukes. You should read it. Local solar is far cheaper than nukes. Local solar is efficient. Local solar makes jobs. Local solar saves money. Local solar puts those savings in local economies. Local solar fights Global Warming and Global Glowing. Local solar does not pollute. Local solar cuts taxing entities and grid operators out of the loop. Last sentence explains why local solar is not supported at a National level.
    Local solar will not support heavy loads 24/7, so local solar is little more than a supplemental source of electricity....
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  4. #204
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    Local solar will not support heavy loads 24/7, so local solar is little more than a supplemental source of electricity....
    Yes but not forever. Firstly, there's nothing wrong in my opinion with a supplemental electrical source. Secondly, technologies are always improved upon and nothing speeds those improvements faster than than being out on the market where competition drives innovation while along with mass production drives down costs. The best way to stay in the stone ages is to say lets just keep walking and riding animal back because wheel technology isn't ready and won't be until rubber tire mass production and compressed air technology is perfected.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  5. #205
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quag View Post
    Hnmm you seem to be a big supporter of Solar. Myself I'm more on the fence, it has good sides/bad sides. One of the bad sides is that it is not usefull everywhere nor for every application.
    Basically the USA cannot supply its energy needs through solar alone, it can help but not be a repalcement for other forms of energy.
    adding more...
    solar cell output is DC, direct current, suitable for lighting, toasting, resistance heating....to have it drive an AC load, you need inverters, a not-so-cheap device that has to be able to drive the high current loads of motors, compressors, etc. in your major appliances.
    I had to repair a high dollar high current inverter once, for my employer. It was damned expensive, using a lot of matched output transistors. A co-worker lifted the output wires while they were hot, used duct tape to insulate them, never did turn off the input power....tape fell off, wires got moved, arc and spark showed up, and blew all the output transistors.

    if the panels ever get really cheap, I still would not use them...my money is better spent on LED lighting, since lighting is the only place I would use solar, and guess what? turns out the sun don't shine at night and I would need batteries, made of highly polluting chemicals.
    So for daytime lighting, guess I will have to go back-woodsy and open the curtains....
    Apparently you have them and like them....but you won't convert me...I am a heathen.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  6. #206
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    Yes but not forever. Firstly, there's nothing wrong in my opinion with a supplemental electrical source. Secondly, technologies are always improved upon and nothing speeds those improvements faster than than being out on the market where competition drives innovation while along with mass production drives down costs. The best way to stay in the stone ages is to say lets just keep walking and riding animal back because wheel technology isn't ready and won't be until rubber tire mass production and compressed air technology is perfected.
    supplements are fine, but the media keeps calling them alternatives...which they are not.
    an alternative to a 24/7 source is another 24/7 source, not a 3rd cousin twice removed....
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  7. #207
    Sage
    Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Turkey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    38,081

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    i hate every power which harms humanity
    "Sovereignty is not given, it is taken." ATATÜRK

  8. #208
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Meanwhile in Japan....


    At least the meat has been irradiated, so no pesky parasites.

  9. #209
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    How long, in reality, does it take to complete a new nuclear power facility? It takes years, and oodles of money. So, if there's a huge safety or efficiency improvement in the meantime, towards the end of the constuction - we're stuck with the old. I'd rather wait for the thorium or molten salt reactors to be perfected before we invest in old tech.

    Yes, we know coal plants must either be replaced or radically improved by tech, but they exist now and provide power now. We should phase in replacement as the tech for those replacements is absolutely stable and workable.

    And again, there is no reason to jump right back in to the borrow from Peter to pay Paul mode. Sacrificing tomorrow for what we need today. I'll say it again, we lose close to 47% of the electricity we generate in the transmission. Change that and the electricity provided by clean energy sources (no waste) has a chance to meet our needs.

  10. #210
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Would You Tolerate Nuclear Power For Energy Independence?

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    How long, in reality, does it take to complete a new nuclear power facility? It takes years, and oodles of money. So, if there's a huge safety or efficiency improvement in the meantime, towards the end of the constuction - we're stuck with the old. I'd rather wait for the thorium or molten salt reactors to be perfected before we invest in old tech.

    Yes, we know coal plants must either be replaced or radically improved by tech, but they exist now and provide power now. We should phase in replacement as the tech for those replacements is absolutely stable and workable.

    And again, there is no reason to jump right back in to the borrow from Peter to pay Paul mode. Sacrificing tomorrow for what we need today. I'll say it again, we lose close to 47% of the electricity we generate in the transmission. Change that and the electricity provided by clean energy sources (no waste) has a chance to meet our needs.
    an easier start is to use less at home, that being as low tech as we can get....
    the less we use, the less line loss as well.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

Page 21 of 39 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •