These plants are very old-I worked at one that went into commercial operation in 1970 that is still in operation. Hard to see how we can safely keep them running much longer. Received a 20 year license extension to 2029. If we go nuclear, it will have to be with new plants.
-
-
-
Actually, they're not. Perry for one is very new. The others are constantly refurbished. Maintained well, nuclear plants can last 60, 80, 100+ years:https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/09/20/20climatewire-experts-weigh-extending-the-lives-of-nuclear-71936.html …
-
Possibly, I'm all for keeping them going, but refurbing them is costly and as industrial equipment keeps having shorter and shorter life cycles, it gets very expensive. Some of the oldest plants don't even have clear or complete circuit separation. Plant-by-plant basis I guess.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Seems the fear mongering is your tweet. I wish both sides would stop this type of tabloid headline and work together - for the benefit of the human race.
-
How is it fear-mongering when — literally — every time a nuclear plant is closed emissions rise?
-
You just answered your own question
-
LOL. Cheers and focus on the sound of one hand clapping
-
Sarcasm is great but doesn’t answer the short term and long term dangers of both forms of energy. Solar/wind/tidal only provide an aesthetic side effect
-
acting like you know everything is great, but doesn't answer the intermittent nature of solar and wind and the fact that electricity can't be stored at scale. The reason emissions always go up post nuclear is that solar can't replace nuclear(or fossil fuel.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The green movement does not like CO2, and they do not like nuclear power. But they LOVE contradictions!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
To my understanding, we're a long, long way from solar or other green energy getting anywhere near the combined ability of nuclear and fossil fuels in terms of replacing energy needs. So w/out nuclear energy it would require conscious decisions to use drastically less energy.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Where did you get those number on the infeasibility of solar? Elon Musk’s estimates differ wildly for the ones in Enlightenment Now.
-
This doesn’t tell me anything about the potential of solar power. I think pinker’s number were off about the requisite land area.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Increasingly there will be a divide between the needs of the Progressive establishment and those who are science based environmentalists. Not evil, inevitable. Their goals are not concurrent, and often in opposition.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Steve, You should join the initiative to bring the United Nations climate change HUB to Ontario Regards, D. Senater
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hey man, it's the principle, OK?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
