I don’t think nuclear power is great, I just haven’t seen anything with actual numbers that suggest that we could get off fossil fuels without it
Frankly, it doesn’t matter how you feel about nuclear. It’s too expensive and it’s not sustainable for a host of reasons. And, no one is saying to shut down all nuclear power plants right away. That’s obviously not feasible. It’s a gradual phase out until more sustainable energy can take its place.
Unfortunately, nothing I’ve seen, and nothing you’ve presented, suggest that there’s a renewable source which is both capable of providing base load power and scaling to provide our power needs.
No one is saying that renewable energy is able to provide power for the entire planet next Tuesday. I’m not sure why you keep thinking anyone is saying that.
I think talking about nuclear terrorism as a risk of nuclear power is just scaremongering
Scaremongering? Um… that’s ridiculous.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/01/us-nuclear-security-idUSBRE9600J820130701
Not to mention nuclear proliferation by nations…
Please, get real. To downplay the threat of nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, etc. is foolhardy. I certainly think people like Republicans have played up dirty bombs for political objectives in the past, but it’s not an overplayed risk in general. It’s a very real risk and creating more risk isn’t a sustainable idea.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/28/us-nuclear-security-iaea-idUSBRE95R0BV20130628
16,000 kilograms of US-Supplied Nuclear Weapons Material MISSING
the real danger, and it is a great danger, is in the lack of social systems robust enough to make sure that entrenched interests actually follow safety rules.
I agree that adds to the danger, yes.
This one: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-cost.htmlsays, in terms of cost " A 2011 UCS analysis of new nuclear projects in Florida and Georgia shows that the power provided by the new plants would be more expensive per kilowatt than several alternatives, including energy efficiency measures, renewable energy sources such as biomass and wind, and new natural gas plants."Biomass doesn’t scale, wind isn’t constant enough for base load, and natural gas is part of the problem. Saying that hydrocarbon fuel is cheaper than nuclear is not really an argument against nuclear.
You cherry-picked the hell out of that article. C’mon you’re better than that, aren’t you? How about you go back and read the article again and follow the links, etc. You’re also practicing a lot of false equivalencies to boot. Natural gas is certainly wrought with problems and needs to be phased out as well, but when it’s captured properly it’s a lesser evil than other fossil fuels (edit: added “other” after leaving it out by mistake). That’s not promoting natural gas, that’s just reality.
You keep acting as if there’s only one alternative energy source in every area. You combine them. You also act as if time is standing still and technology for energy storage isn’t progressing (as it is).
This one: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14461-ten-urgent-reasons-to-reject-nuclear-power-nowHas a lot of objections. I agree that it is dangerous, and most of the other objections it presents (lack of fuel, waste) apply much more to our current methods of nuclear power production than they do to fast breeders.
Fast breeders still produce nuclear waste and can be used for weapons.
There was a list of 10 and you only cherry-picked two of them. You left out:
- Nuclear Power Stations are Prohibitively Expensive.
- The Same Technology is Used for Power and Weapons.
- They Epitomize the Centralization of Power.
etc…
This one: http://www.psr.org/resources/nuclear-power-factsheet.htmlsays: "Taxpayer dollars would be better spent on increasing energy conservation, efficiency and developing renewable energy resources. In fact, numerous studies have shown that improving energy efficiency is the most cost-effective and sustainable way to concurrently reduce energy demand and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Wind power already is less expensive than nuclear power. And while photovoltaic power is currently more expensive than nuclear energy, the price of electricity produced by the sun, as with wind and other forms of renewable energy, is falling quickly. Conversely, the cost of nuclear power is rising." Improving energy efficiency is great, but, at best, it's going to compensate for our increasing energy demands as more countries industrialize. Wind and PV, as I've said, are not good for base load.
Wind and PV, as I’ve said, are not good for base load.
Once again, you dismiss rapid gains in energy storage. And this below is just the tip of the iceberg if you research it properly.
Improving energy efficiency is great, but
Even in the part you quoted they don’t just only mention improving energy efficiency. They also say we should be developing renewable energy resources.
And, like usual, you cherry-picked very little from the article and ignored parts that proved my points. For example:
Proliferation, Loose Nukes and Terrorism
Energy Independence
Nuclear is Expensive
etc.
This one, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-culture/nuclear-its-just-too-expensive-for-us-and-the-rest-of-the-world-20100225-p4y3.html in its only direct comparison of costs with other methods, says : "Peter van Doren and Jerry Taylor (senior fellows, Cato Institute): for nuclear energy to be competitive with existing gas-fired generation, a carbon tax "would have to be $80 a ton" but using the nuclear industry's historical cost over-runs "would require a $150 per ton carbon tax to induce market actors to build nuclear power plants". They obviously aren't happy about the idea of that carbon tax, but that might be what we need. The author goes on to suggest that Australia has access to enough renewables, which they might.
In other words, all of those sources say nuclear is too expensive in comparison to fossil fuels.
Bullshit. Read the last paragraph of the article:
" … The real question for Australia, given the irrefutable costs and our exceptional access to solar, wind and geothermal resources, is whether we should throw $30 billion or more at an old industry that creates new problems. The real cost is the lost opportunity in renewable energy industries, true industries of the future."
I don’t think nuclear power is great, I just haven’t seen anything with actual numbers that suggest that we could get off fossil fuels without it
While others sit on their hands, we’re doing it in Boulder, CO now.
Gas isn’t great, but it’s also a more sustainable alternative than coal/nukes when the process of acquiring gas is properly regulated. Electricity from natural gas produces less CO2 per kilowatt-hour than electricity from coal if it’s done right.
Boulder, CO is doing it right and doing it very well despite the oppressive forces of industry that tried to subvert its citizens with propaganda filled with lies and half-truths. Boulder will require gas suppliers to certify their leakage rates, etc. and will switch to bio-gas when it’s possible.
In the meantime, Boulder is going to show the rest of the USA how it’s done and much more aggressively switch over to renewable energy as much is feasible (despite the forces that work against them).
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/campaign-for-local-power
More nuclear isn’t the way to go and it’s too cost prohibitive even if it was.
