No way. Nuclear isn’t remotely carbon free when you count construction mining and decommission, and it’s dirty, dangerous, and more expensive than ever. Love you and your books but you aren’t right on this. No nukes, no coal—no kidding! https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/factsheets/nonukesnocoalnonkidding.pdf …
-
-
-
Nothing is carbon free when you count construction, mining, etc. There's nothing dirty about nuclear plants either. Warm water and steam comes out of them unlike belching smokestacks. They certainly aren't worse "than ever" either. Tech improves generally yes?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nuclear is not carbon free. That's a lie
-
Then neither is solar or wind. You need to mine and produce before you can harvest. The actual operation of a nuclear plant is a carbon free endeavor. The plant emits steam and water not smoke.
-
And radiation. Nuclear privitizes the profit and socializes the pollution and the risk.
-
Nuclear power panic: The Leftist version of global warming denial.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Well, haven‘t you got sunshine in sunny California?
#solarEnergy -
We have massive amounts of energy just waiting to be harvested from
#offshorewind too.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Why, when solar is dropping so quickly in price/MW and has so many fewer risks and regulatory requirements?
-
Because regulatory risk for nuclear is a product of unfounded fears, solar baseload is ridiculously expensive, and if climate is really a crisis then all options should be on the table.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Okay Steven as long as you agree to have all the radioactive wastes buried in your back yard-still gung-ho?We (USA) met unthinkable factory output that help defeat Nazi's,put men on the moon- So I think we can make big transition to clean energy without dirty & dangerous Nuclear!
-
The laws of thermodynamics aren't going to care how strong anyone's will is. Renewable energy grows entirely to slowly to be of any use. We need lots of new nuclear power, period.
-
I don't see how "laws of thermodynamics" are against solar and wind. Without the sun, Earth would be an ice ball. There is no need to pay anyone for those terawatts, just collect it where you can. (Nuclear is probably necessary for no-sun, no-wind areas.)
-
About rate of build-out: let the race begin, and we will see what can be built faster.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Because solar (and wind) is too cheap or what? Either you live in a bubble or you are paid by the nuclear industry. Nuclear is the only technology that’s getting more and more expensive and most projects are financially out of control!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The determined scientific ignorance of people who fear nuclear power is just as infuriating as global warming deniers.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
California is a perfect place for geothermal.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It may pay in the long term because there are new nuclear technologies on the horizon which may be worth waiting for. TWR, Thorium. Of course we’ll be buying them from the Chinese. Our nuclear industry is much to conservative to develop them
-
it will pay off even without new technologies. Nuclear has been extremely clean and extremely effective for a long time.
-
Still no really convincing solution to the waste issue though. The TWR burns waste.
-
There is no "waste issue." It's a scare tactic. There is waste, we take care of it. Although, of course, I appreciate potential technologies to improve that process or recycle spent fuel.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.