Trump Signs Exec Order Paving Way For Nuke Plant Construction

T. A. Gardner said:
Irrelevant. Getting that program started is longer than just one administration. Look at the Resolution copper mine in Arizona. The US is begging for copper production and the greentards on the radical Left have held this mine up for decades.


From a combination of experience in nuclear power and education in that field. Your juvenile site is hardly worth reading. Spent nuclear fuel is a solid that emits alpha radiation. That can't even penetrate your skin. Unless you plan on eating it, it's harmless when stored. The small amount of gamma given off is not that big a deal. It's barely more radioactive long term than uranium ore after refining.


It does. I remove asbestos sheathed wiring-- the greasy grey pre-"Romex" all the time from old buildings. So long as you don't make it friable (airborne) it's no big deal. I have my guys cut it up rather than pull it out to avoid that and it goes in a double garbage bag. No big deal. Lead paint is the same way. Don't eat it and you're fine.


I'm not wrong.
Click to expand...
You are wrong.
 
Nordberg said:
Nuke is not close to as cheap as other green energies. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-En...hat-Are-Americas-Cheapest-Energy-Sources.html It is far more expensive. It takes a long, long time to build. And they have to be on desirable real estate.
Click to expand...
An article from Zero Hedge? They make tinfoil hats like Alex Jones look sane.

Aside from that, it's easily provable that green energy (aka solar and wind) drives the price of electricity up not down.

The first thing with them is their capacity factor. This usually sits between 20 and 25% for solar and 30 to 40% for wind. That means most of the time they produce no power at all.

That, in turn, means you need storage and more capacity to make the electricity to put into that storage or you need alternative sources like natural gas or oil to provide power when solar and wind don't or can't. But storage is unaffordable. Batteries cost, right now, about $225 a KWH installed commercially. For a large solar array, just running say 24 to 36 hours of battery charge with the additional panels necessary to charge them in addition to providing power when the sun is up will run close to $100 billion + That's one array supplying just a fraction of the power for a larger state.

Nuclear, on the other hand, has a capacity factor usually around 95 to 98% and can produce power for months on end steadily. That gives you your base load, something solar and wind can't provide because they are so unreliable.

All you need do is look at annual production by a nuclear plant versus a wind or solar plant and the cost of the plant itself to see that nuclear absolutely demolishes wind and solar. When you factor in storage, like batteries, solar and wind become insanely, bankruptingly, expensive. No nation on the planet can afford to make solar and wind reliable to the point where they supply even 75% of a nation's power.

Yet, you can easily have nuclear supply as much as 75% cheaply, continuously, and on a tiny footprint. The other 25% can be cheaply produced by natural gas.
 
Nordberg said:
Nuke is not close to as cheap as other green energies. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-En...hat-Are-Americas-Cheapest-Energy-Sources.html It is far more expensive. It takes a long, long time to build. And they have to be on desirable real estate.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cuz covering hundreds of square miles with solar panels and those stupid wind mills has no effect on the environment. The first wind and hail storm to come along wipes it all out. Germany's reliance on it has been a failure.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top