Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep. If you ain't talking about Nuclear energy you are not serious about clean energy.
While we are at it build some nuclear powered desalination plants and a pipeline system. Droughts solved.
All could have be done for what we spend on Ukraine and the 20 trillion down the drain in Afghanistan. Tsk tsk.
We are not into solutions. We are about making problems and then milking it to death via contracts.
OK fine, maybe Indian point plant was a bit close, but there is no reason why we cant have more plants upstate.
Either that or build dam after dam, thats as clean energy as it gets. PLENTY of space in this country.
I really don't think a nuke plant could get approved in Queens.
If they want to build nuke plants, they could do it up on Lake Ontario, where there are already a few. But this brings up another point. If they built plants up there, they'd need to build more long haul transmission capacity from up north. If they did that, they don't need to build more plants, they can just bring down cheap Canadian hydropower from Quebec. But there are a lot of forces opposed to building those transmission lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave 92 LSC
Nuclear power plants are clean and efficient. Tech has come a long way. So far that is the best power source.
We are not into solutions. We are about making problems and then milking it to death via contracts.
OK fine, maybe Indian point plant was a bit close, but there is no reason why we cant have more plants upstate.
Either that or build dam after dam, thats as clean energy as it gets. PLENTY of space in this country.
There are lots of issues at play in these decisions, ranging from the simple to the absurd. I highly recommend the book "Apocalypse Never' by Michael Shellenberger for a great discussion of what's been going on behind the scenes in the environmental movement for the last few decades.
In short, the fossil fuel industry spent many decades, starting in the 1950s, trying to conflate nuclear power with nuclear weapons, in order to slow the growth of nuclear as a power source (obviously, because it was cutting into their action) via advertising, funding movies and TV spots, books, paying off politicians and environmental groups, etc. This campaign was generally successful, aided in part by the bumbling Soviets who melted down one of their own reactors at just the right time.
The environmental groups were particularly receptive to this at the time, because many of them subscribed to the teachings of Thomas Malthus, who cautioned that the world could not support the growing population (which has since been proven wrong). They knew that virtually unlimited, clean power supplied by nuclear would encourage population growth, and they wanted to stop it at all costs. Many still believe this, or some other perverse anti-human insanity that results in things like Germany paying off corrupt third-world governments not to use coal for fuel, while proceeding to expand their own use of coal (and condemning third-world people to burning trees for fuel, one of the most polluting way to generate power).
Fast forward to when renewables started becoming more and more popular - now you have another entire industry using the same playbook as the fossil fuel industry, pushing their expensive boondoggles that have no hope of replacing what we have now, none the less expanding for the future.
That's what's happened behind the scenes. That there are still useful idiots like KK (who never fails to be on the wrong side of any debate) goes to show how effective propaganda really is.
They could build a battle line of them off the beach in the Rockaways, frome Arverne all the way to Breezy Point. The solar heating of the land creates a constant on shore breeze that would drive the turbines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Retired
Hahaha..............Offshore wind power.
and where will all those silly propellers be anchored?
Chernonly an Fukushime prove that if you design and/or place nuclear reactors badly, they can have problems, especially if their operated badly. And the TMI event had little to no effect outside the plant, since it was designed with adequate containment.
We now have half a century of experience building and operating these types of plants. What bugs there were have been worked out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King
Here's your assigned MANTRA for this month:
THREE MILE ISLAND, CHERNOBYL, FUKUSHIMA...
repeat 10 times before nodding off to sleep.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
