Why is the left afraid of nuclear energy?

[Into the Night]

There is absolutely no reason not to go nuclear as our main source of energy

Yes there is. Natural gas, oil, and coal are cheaper. Oil and natural gas are renewable fuels as well.

 

[Hawkeye10]

?

Sounds like it is time for you to get up to speed.

 

[Into the Night]

There have been, "leaks" and radioactives released from accidents. Those have been cleaned up. It isn't as if you can't clean up what amounts to radioactive dust. Virtually all of those accidents released alpha and beta emitters which are really only hazardous if you breathe or eat them.

Here's one of the typical hyperventilating scares about radioactive material that occurred a few years ago

Huge Open Buckets of Uranium Ore Found at Grand Canyon? Totally Fine, Experts Say.
https://www.livescience.com/64824-grand-canyon-uranium-probably-fine.html

Huge? It was three of these with raw uranium ore in them:

The buckets had lids so the alpha emitting uranium was for all intents harmless unless you opened the bucket and ate the ore, or stood by them for a few centuries absorbing the little bit of gamma radiation given off by decay.

Uranium ore is really pretty safe stuff to be around.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Actually, I do. Let's look at the numbers:

Solar Star I and II, currently the largest solar arrays in the US

Nameplate capacity (it's full rated capacity): 579 MW
Capacity factor 32.8% This is a measure of its average daily output over 24 hours.
Annual average output 1663 GW
Cost in 2023 dollars to build $3.125 billion

Vogtle Nuclear, the latest nuclear plant to come online.

Name plate: 3450 MW
Capacity factor: 95%
Average annual output: 19,786 GW
Cost to build 2023 dollars $30.34 billion

You need 12 Solar Star plants to match the annual output of Vogtle (19786 / 1663). That would require spending $37.5 billion to build or $7.5 billion more than building a single nuclear plant.

But because solar is intermittent and nuclear isn't, we'll need a means to store energy for when the sun isn't shining. Let's assume just 20 hours of storage to give a cushion in case of poor weather and for differences in the length of daylight over the year. This would require we install about 68,000 MW of battery storage (3400 x 20). Commercial battery storage, installed, runs about $225 a kilowatt right now. That works out to 68,000,000 kw x 225 for another $15.3 billion tacked on for the batteries, or $52.8 billion for our solar array to replace the nuke plant.

We also have to consider that the array will eat up about 50,000 acres of land to built it on (about 80 square miles of land) compared to about 3500 acres for the nuke plant.

Thus, solar is far more expensive, less environmentally friendly (land use, urban heat island effect, ozone production, ground water use, etc.) and would be expected to last only about 50% as long in service as the nuke plant. Then you have to consider solar will still require back up by natural gas or another form of reliable, on demand, electrical generation because it will still be unpredictable.

That makes solar an economic disaster compared to nuclear.

Best post ever

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, really

[FONT="]“Nuclear waste can have drastically bad effects on life, [COLOR=#040C28]causing cancerous growths, for instance, or causing genetic problems for many generations of animal and plants[/COLOR].”

[URL]https://earth.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us[/URL][/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#4D5156][FONT=Roboto][COLOR=#3C4043][IMG]https://www.justplainpolitics.com/image/png;base64,iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAACAAAAAgBAMAAACBVGfHAAAAG1BMVEWFaAfhrw38xQ7 xg//xg/ xg//xQ//xQ//xQ sebqUAAAACHRSTlMACxklajyN3g605zoAAAEpSURBVHgBbNExc4IwGMbx50XpHACdEUXXCIadGrmOoGD3qtS5VdtPUPnYRRLr1fO35X9JLrkXCsN/9n2YAuT7kQet48GQS2sYQhOg9Bk3lFD/aPsMV2bGqnLlD3Rh6IbBpgiqapu1wUPfmaVfp10kZKZC7Iy/6/qcbmzJ2iPxcF83DuvETNCw4nF9cS4FEwywafJat3Y5Ohng0NNehY8FEAIm93U4jjgIMJKhDodlggvZ0 EzX7TBTV70jmjE0DC2ExXSqMsBBsuV6h1x6GSAwXrLqL3kGOd2EygkURbNX37KMacmwFkxGhTvVSH6XhswS2V1yudF4DJwXATpdi7KN38G8qCQyNdTPgcxKA53N Y0x01PMsPxcGWJ0gNs/CHrfuCP1vQ7KA0A4btS71UfQHQAAAAASUVORK5CYII=[/IMG]
[url]https://www.conserve-energy-future.com[/url] › ...
[/COLOR]
[h=3][URL="https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/dangers-and-effects-of-nuclear-waste-disposal.php#:~:text=Nuclear%20waste%20can%20have%20drastically,generations%20of%20animal%20and%20plants."]Dangers and Effects of Nuclear Waste Disposal - Conserve Energy Future[/URL][/h]





[FONT="]“Nuclear waste is accumulating at sites across the country. Nuclear security expert Rodney C. Ewing discusses how the United States' failure to implement a permanent solution for nuclear waste storage and disposal is costing Americans billions of dollars per year.“


[/FONT]

You can stop hyperventilating now.
This article is by BY Nicole Feldman, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, not Stanford University; in other words a socialogist and a Democrat.

False authority fallacy.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Yes there is. Natural gas, oil, and coal are cheaper. Oil and natural gas are renewable fuels as well.

Far more difficult to process into energy then nuclear

You need to acquire it, ship it, process it, then deliver it as opposed to nuclear so in the end those resources will end up costing far more

 

[Into the Night]

From your source.

Conclusion: Prolonged exposure to radiation increased the risk of leukemia other than CLL among NPP workers. There was little evidence for a radiation association for all solid cancers, lung cancer or ischemic heart disease. Increased precision will be forthcoming as the different cohorts within the MPS are combined, such as industrial radiographers and medical radiation workers who were assembled and evaluated in like manner.

It also shows only a very small increase in that risk 0.15 or about 1.5% over the general population. That is likely statistically insignificant, and with more study likely to be found to be so.

These idiots just have no idea about radioactive materials. This quoted 'study' is just confirmation bias and contains math errors. I have run across this report before.

 

[Into the Night]

Zero.

Leftists cannot prove even one death of any human or animal to climate change.



Nuclear energy is the best power source we have at this time - which is why the fascist left opposes it.

The slight change to temperature that the fascists scream about is a consistent trend that has gone on since the end of the little ice age. The slight warming that has occured over the last 250 years has in fact increased the yield of food production, benefitting both humans and wildlife with more plentiful food sources.

GlowBull Warming is a fraud - always has been. This is why the cultists and their fascist allies have rebranded to "climate change." The climate has been in a state of change for 4.7 billion years, so that one is pretty safe to use.

While nuclear energy is certainly a lot better than solar or wind, there are other sources that are being overlooked. The best 'solution' is no solution at all. Fascism of energy markets doesn't work. The government has NO place dictating what energy will be used to generate electricity.

There is no 'best' method. All methods have their inherent advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Into the Night]

Projection! Smoochie whoochie

LIF. Grow up.

 

[Into the Night]

It's more economical because the fuel source has an extremely long useful life.

Nuclear fuel typically lasts 3-5 years in a reactor before being removed and stored. At this stage, it is still quite radioactive, so it is stored in what amounts to be a large swimming pool (no, you are not allowed to swim in it! That's for security reasons, not because you will receive an overdose of radiation by swimming in the storage pond...you won't!).

Fossil fuel based plants consume fuel at a rapid rate to produce energy.

Fossils are not used as fuel. Fossils do not burn.

Coal is not a fossil. It is carbon. It is cheap and plentiful. About 30% of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal. It is still used for older steamships and some steam locomotives.

Oil is not a fossil. It is a liquid. It is cheap and plentiful and a renewable fuel. About 1% of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from oil products, simply because it is better used as a mobile fuel such as in cars, aircraft, ships, etc.

Most of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from natural gas (about 34%). It is cheap and plentiful and a renewable fuel. It is also easy to burn very cleanly, producing nothing more than CO2 and water.

About 6% of our electricity comes from hydroelectric. This is because suitable sites for these plants are very limited.

Nuclear power makes up about 20% of U.S. electricity production. The fuel it uses is small, but waste material must be stored in special facilities designed for the purpose. If not used or reprocessed, it will remain too dangerous to dispose of for 24,000 years.

In 1977, President Carter signed into law (put forth by a Democrat) to forbid reusing or reprocessing this fuel.

At less than 2% of energy production, solar and raptor choppers are simply irrelevant - not a meaningful source of energy.

Wind currently generates about 6% of the electricity in the U.S., consuming vast tracts of land to do so, and costing far more than generating the same electricity by using nuclear power.

Solar power generates only 1% of the electricity in the U.S., consuming large tracts of land to do so, and costing even more than wind to build and maintain.

Source: US Energy Information Office

Nuclear and Hydroelectric are the most economical and cleanest sources for electricity.

No. The most economical is the cheapest source for that area of generation. Typically this is natural gas or coal.

Hydroelectric is relatively dangerous and often has adverse impact on the environment due to large damns altering ecosystems.

No, it is not. Properly constructed, dams offer many benefits, including:
* River flow management. Before the dam system was constructed on the Colorado River for example, each winter flow brought a change in the course of the river (sometimes dramatically!) and resulting destruction and chaos. The primary reason for that dam system is to control the river. Generating electricity is simply an added benefit.

* Irrigation. Dams provide irrigation to farmers and ranchers, and water supply to cities and towns. Without those dams, you can say goodbye to all those ranches and farms, and to the water supply of several cities and towns.

* Recreation. Dams produce lakes, useful for boating, fishing, swimming, etc. Lakeshore property goes up in value too.

* Ballasting. Rivers can go from flood stage to completely dry from winter to summer. Dams ballast river flow so it continues at a moderate and controlled rate throughout the year. This improves wildlife and quality of life all along the river so regulated.

Improperly constructed dams are dangerous. So are improperly constructed power plants.

Nuclear power has a greater impact then natural gas. The waste fuel and other components requires special handling for tens of thousands of years.

Nuclear is by far the least impactful source of energy.

This is a blatant lie.

 

[Into the Night]

No, I’ve made others, but you’re right, I mostly ignore your trolling.

I’ve posted articles on the matter, you failed to read them.

He is not trolling. He asked you a question. Stop evading and answer it.

 

[Into the Night]

You’ve just moved to the “no longer merits any responses” list. Congrats. That’s reserved for the stupidest of the ignorant.

So your "no longer merits any responses list" requires that you respond.

What a dope.

 

[Into the Night]

Actually, I do. Let's look at the numbers:

Solar Star I and II, currently the largest solar arrays in the US

Nameplate capacity (it's full rated capacity): 579 MW
Capacity factor 32.8% This is a measure of its average daily output over 24 hours.
Annual average output 1663 GW
Cost in 2023 dollars to build $3.125 billion

Vogtle Nuclear, the latest nuclear plant to come online.

Name plate: 3450 MW
Capacity factor: 95%
Average annual output: 19,786 GW
Cost to build 2023 dollars $30.34 billion

You need 12 Solar Star plants to match the annual output of Vogtle (19786 / 1663). That would require spending $37.5 billion to build or $7.5 billion more than building a single nuclear plant.

13, actually. You must compensate for line losses over such a large area. You have to collect all that power you know.

But because solar is intermittent and nuclear isn't, we'll need a means to store energy for when the sun isn't shining. Let's assume just 20 hours of storage to give a cushion in case of poor weather and for differences in the length of daylight over the year. This would require we install about 68,000 MW of battery storage (3400 x 20). Commercial battery storage, installed, runs about $225 a kilowatt right now. That works out to 68,000,000 kw x 225 for another $15.3 billion tacked on for the batteries, or $52.8 billion for our solar array to replace the nuke plant.

We also have to consider that the array will eat up about 50,000 acres of land to built it on (about 80 square miles of land) compared to about 3500 acres for the nuke plant.

About 640 acres for the nuke plant. That's all they really require to build and operate. That includes the reactor, turbine house, generator, transformer rack and it's cooling systems, the waste materials pond, the cooling towers, and the emergency shutdown pond. It also includes administration offices and even the parking lot.

Thus, solar is far more expensive, less environmentally friendly (land use, urban heat island effect, ozone production, ground water use, etc.) and would be expected to last only about 50% as long in service as the nuke plant. Then you have to consider solar will still require back up by natural gas or another form of reliable, on demand, electrical generation because it will still be unpredictable.

Dead on correct. Grid operators must not only match generating sources to load (meaning they need sources that can quickly scale up or down according to load), they also want to buy the cheapest power available. Wind and solar ain't it.

That makes solar an economic disaster compared to nuclear.

Again, dead on correct. Given these three, nuclear is clearly the winner in generating power.

 

[Into the Night]

Sounds like it is time for you to get up to speed.

?

 

[Hawkeye10]

?

Your poor behavior does not motivate me to help you with your education.

 

[Into the Night]

Your poor behavior does not motivate me to help you with your education.

?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

There is no logical reason to oppose nuclear energy

 

[Hawkeye10]

That the Ukrainians seem to be considering causing a nuclear disaster at the largest plant in Europe is something to keep in mind.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Explain how windmills and solar panels "clog up" the environment?

And of course, you have all the answers on how safe and reliable disposal/storage of all that radioactive waste produced?

Here's a more concise answer to your question:

https://www.greenpeace.org/internati...eaceful-world/

Greenpeace is a discredited terrorist group.

When you murder Tuna fisherman the way these terrorists do - you have no say in anything.

Come back with a legitimate source - not Al Qaeda, Greenpeace, or Hamas

So you didn't read the contained information. Instead you make all types of wild accusations of which you have NO VALID DOCUMENTED PROOF to support them.

Sorry, but your bluff & bluster fools only the guy you see in the mirror and absurd MAGA trolls like ITN. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
In a study that covered 27 years, 1,078.6 nuke plant workers contracted leukemia and other fatal cancers EACH YEAR. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3466...rticle-details

Look it up. The more you know.

From your source.

Conclusion: Prolonged exposure to radiation increased the risk of leukemia other than CLL among NPP workers. There was little evidence for a radiation association for all solid cancers, lung cancer or ischemic heart disease. Increased precision will be forthcoming as the different cohorts within the MPS are combined, such as industrial radiographers and medical radiation workers who were assembled and evaluated in like manner.

It also shows only a very small increase in that risk 0.15 or about 1.5% over the general population. That is likely statistically insignificant, and with more study likely to be found to be so.

WTF is the matter with you? Can't you read? My link points to PROOF of increased LEUKEMIA AMONG NUKE POWER PLANT WORKERS. It further states that AT THE time they did not have conclusive evidence regarding SOLID, LUNG OR HEART CANCERS.

GTFU and quit these nuke wonk tactics. The focus was on PLANT WORKERS, NOT THE GENERAL PUBLIC. You were wrong on a point....deal with it.