If the IPCC actually believed their alarmist warnings of global catastrophe from carbon emissions, they would strongly and urgently support nuclear power. The fact that they oppose nuclear proves that they do not believe their own bunk. They just want ultraregressive fuel taxes.
-
-
-
Nuclear power has its own problems and is not the way to salvation. Also we need to get away from burning fossile fuels. If aggressive taxes on such fuels will help further alternative drive systems, then let's do it. We need to stop lobbyism by the auto industry!
-
I see. so, in other words, you believe that electricity is for rich people.
-
No, there are ways to make affordable energy without leaving a radiation hazard for the next few hundred years...
-
Sure. It’s called nuclear power. But not only do you want to stop nuclear power, you want to heavily tax fuels. So, clearly, in your view, fuel is not for poor people. “Oh, what a lovely world it would be if those beggars just stopped using fuel. So let’s make it unaffordable.”
-
Incentives being either make fossiles more expensive or alternatives cheaper. And again, nuclear ain't the only way.
-
Your “incentives” only coerce those short on cash. Apparently you believe that freedom is for the rich.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You are targeting the wrong people. If you want nuclear power, you should ask the nuclear industry to get their act together and make projects that finishes on time, are financianly in control, and delivers energy cheaper than wind and solar. They have had 50 years to practice
-
They have been delivering energy cheaper than solar or wind since 50s. But thanks to anti-nuclear lobby now Germany will phase out atom and thus prolong usage of coal plants and increase dependancy on gas.... ...wel done
-
Nobody has said it is sensible to close already working reactors which are well maintained, but only the industry is not able to deliver any more at competitive prices. I have no problem with nuclear energy but want to se some action!
-
And what action? Each NPP that you quoted has its own reasons for its delays, on other hand if I would quote that Mochovce 3rd block is being constructed as per schedule would it bring something to table? Oft these delays are due to high dilligence in extreme safety measures in
-
order to prevent next Chernobyl (where protocols have been ignored) or Fukushima (massive failure of all safety procols due to quake and tsunami hits).Fusion energy is still at least 30 years away so we are stuck with current.I say replace coal / gas with renewables, but keep NPP
-
I totally agree! It would be so stupid to stop already running well maintained NPP. And I also feel, if anybody can build competetive safe NPP, please go ahead. I would love it to work. However, I doubt that it will be possible to make it chaper than solar, wind and batteries.
-
I, also, have no issue with solar and wind. I have issue with coal and gas plants. The German solution is just insane, it will result in more CO2, something that we currently really dont need. Nuclear currently is only transit way to world-wide renewable energy, but we it ATM.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nuclear energy is dangerous in the long term
@sapinker because the problem of nuclear waste is not solved and there is no complete safety, as Chernobyl and Fukushima have shown. Even@sciam admits there is problem.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-does-the-us-do-with-nuclear-waste/ … -
The problems of nuclear energy are a lot easier to solve than the problems with wind and solar (scaling/stability, price, land requirement etc).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Nuclear power is most environmentally benign source of power since the donkey. But, 'nuclear industry' has been their own worst enemy. Poor public relations. No standard design w/known construction cost and build schedule. NRC approval process Byzantine and glacial.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That's very strange framing, since the new IPCC
#SR15 report projects the share of nuclear to increase in all four "illustrative model pathways", see the table under Fig SPM.3b. Single-solution proponents don't seem to like IPCC's all-of-the-above approach.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Take away my liberal card if you will, but I agree we are going to need nuclear to address climate change
-
Its like they said, "I we dont make drastic changes, we are all going to die and kill the planet!!!!", then we are like, "OK start building nuclear" and they respond, "NO! thats too harmful to the environment."pic.twitter.com/CT1ANOlnfk
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.