It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No. I am not in favor of AGW.
You are a big backer of AGW.
I did. People, as a group, are the cause. Fossil fuels are the cheapest short term source of energy. People do what is easiest, what is less painful in the short term.
Seriously just answer the damn question.
originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Euphem
Are you implying meltdowns are not as bad as people make them out to be? They are not good, and neither is burying waste, or re-purposing it into ammo for war IMO. I sure am happy to not be in the fallout range of any nuclear plants, that is for sure.
Are you sure?
there has only been 2 that were a problem.
Closer to 75%. But I just visited Paris. Saw a lot of wind generators to the south. They're moving away from fission.
france gets 80% of it's power from nuke plants.
Not really. You don't really upgrade fission plants, you build new ones.
if the US had built nuke plants, the infrastructure would be there for upgrades and newer types of reactors.
Interesting. How much land have fossil fuel power plants rendered unihabitiable? How dangerous are the residues of fossil fuel plants?
fossil fuel based accidents have killed more than nuke meltdowns.
(From an article dated June 20, 2014)
The European Union’s attempt to cap greenhouse-gas emissions over the next 16 years is threatened again as rising pollution from the bloc’s biggest economies shows even developed nations want to burn cheap coal.
Germany, Europe’s largest economy, boosted consumption of the fuel by 13 percent in the past four years . . . .
Germany’s emissions rose even as its production of intermittent wind and solar power climbed fivefold in the past decade. Utilities boosted production from profitable coal-fired plants after Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to close all 17 of the country’s nuclear plants by 2022 in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011.
German fossil-fuel emissions climbed 5.5 percent to 843 million tons in the four years through 2013, the BP data show. (Emphasis added)
Even though it took them 50+ years, most environmentalists/democrats/liberals are starting to actually understand the science, and that nuclear is the ANSWER not the PROBLEM.
Conventional nuclear power reactors do use a mineral fuel and demonstrably deplete the available resources of that fuel. In such a reactor, the input fuel is uranium-235 (U-235), which is part of a much larger mass of uranium – mostly U-238. This U-235 is progressively 'burned' to yield heat. But about one-third of the energy yield comes from something which is not initially loaded in: plutonium-239 (Pu-239), which behaves almost identically to U-235. Some of the U-238 turns into Pu-239 through the capture of neutron particles, which are released when the U-235 is 'burned'. So the U-235 used actually renews itself to some extent by producing Pu-239 from the otherwise waste material U-238. This process can be optimised in fast neutron reactors, which are likely to be extensively deployed in the next generation of nuclear power reactors. A fast neutron reactor can be configured to 'breed' more Pu-239 than it consumes (by way of U-235 + Pu-239), so that the system can run indefinitely. While it can produce more fuel than it uses, there does need to be a steady input of reprocessing activity to separate the fissile plutonium from the uranium and other materials discharged from the reactors. This is fairly capital-intensive but well-proven and straightforward. The used fuel from the whole process is recycled and the usable part of it increases incrementally.
As well as utilizing about 60 times the amount of energy from uranium, fast neutron reactors will unlock the potential of using even more abundant thorium as a fuel (see information page on Thorium). Using a fast neutron reactor, thorium produces U-233, which is fissile. This process is not yet commercialised, but it works and if there were ever a pressing need for it, development would be accelerated. India is the only country concentrating on this now, since in a world context uranium is so abundant and relatively cheap. In addition, some 1.5 million tonnes of depleted uranium now seen by some people as little more than a waste, becomes a fuel resource. The consequence of this is that the available resource of fuel for fast neutron reactors is so plentiful that under no practical terms would the fuel source be significantly depleted.
Regardless of the various definitions of 'renewable', nuclear power therefore meets every reasonable criterion for sustainability, which is the prime concern.
originally posted by: Euphem
a reply to: oblvion
LOL!! Well for one it is spelled Chernobyl.
I thought I could have a serious intelligent conversation here, but I was wrong.
Mods feel free to close this. Thanks.