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.
And neighboring French electricity costs are just 59% of German electricity prices. France produces one-tenth the carbon pollution from electricity compared to Germany.
As for France, it uses more nuclear energy however nuclear energy is not cheap, and you have a waste problem to deal with at the end of a power stations life cycle.
Same ole argument. With any new technologies there is a curve to efficiency and lower costs but that doesn't mean we shouldn't endeavour to improve our technologies.
I don't get the resistance to caring for the planet...and of course there has to be a balance and that's why Biden is not in on the New Deal and Governor Abbott doesn't have to worry about it while his state is in emergency situation. AOC was not elected President....and she seems to have little influence over folks in Washington DC.
As for France, it uses more nuclear energy however nuclear energy is not cheap, and you have a waste problem to deal with at the end of a power stations life cycle.
Understood. And all I'm saying is the cost doesn't seem to be worth the results. Sure, any reductions in emissions are positive, but Germany plans on spending $500 billion...and so far is getting no where near the results of France , which has cheaper energy, to the tune of 59% and cleaner emissions.
And yes, waste is my big concern with nuclear. We just don't have a valid solution, in my opinion for it. So that is the vicious circle we (the globe) is currently in. Spend huge amounts of money for very little in results, or go nuclear with the added issue of it's waste. We need some sort of huge breakthrough in clean energy that is both, cost effective and actually clean.
Where is Keanu Reeves when we need him ? He accomplished this in the movie "Chain Reaction"
Texas governor trying to blame Democrats and the Green New Deal. Except the Green New Deal is just a piece of legislation printed and never acted upon and no Democrats hold statewide office in Texas.
Understood. And all I'm saying is the cost doesn't seem to be worth the results. Sure, any reductions in emissions are positive, but Germany plans on spending $500 billion...and so far is getting no where near the results of France , which has cheaper energy, to the tune of 59% and cleaner emissions.
And yes, waste is my big concern with nuclear. We just don't have a valid solution, in my opinion for it. So that is the vicious circle we (the globe) is currently in. Spend huge amounts of money for very little in results, or go nuclear with the added issue of it's waste. We need some sort of huge breakthrough in clean energy that is both, cost effective and actually clean.
Where is Keanu Reeves when we need him ? He accomplished this in the movie "Chain Reaction"
The UK is currently building two new Nuclear power stations at Sizewell and Hinkley.
Sizewell is costing around $28 Billion and Hinkley around $32 Billion, whilst a further $154 billion on decommissioning other nuclear power stations and then you have the problem of nuclear waste storage which costs a fortune, and which faces all kinds of legal challenges.
On top of this the UK also has a bill of $168 Billion in relation to the decommissioning of the Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing plant.
Nuclear energy accounts for less than a quarter of energy supplies in the UK, but the cost is substantial, and the costs in relation to France where nearly three quarters of electricity is generated through nuclear power will be much greater than the UK's costs, and only Finland has so far come up with a workable sight to get rid of it's waste.
The UK is currently building two new Nuclear power stations at Sizewell and Hinkley.
Sizewell is costing around $28 Billion and Hinkley around $32 Billion, whilst a further $154 billion on decommissioning other nuclear power stations and then you have the problem of nuclear waste storage which costs a fortune, and which faces all kinds of legal challenges.
On top of this the UK also has a bill of $168 Billion in relation to the decommissioning of the Sellafield Nuclear Reprocessing plant.
Nuclear energy accounts for less than a quarter of energy supplies in the UK, but the cost is substantial, and the costs in relation to France where nearly three quarters of electricity is generated through nuclear power will be much greater than the UK's costs, and only Finland has so far come up with a workable sight to get rid of it's waste.
Is it though ? Is it really wise, for first Finland, then all the other countries that utilize or will utilize nuclear power to bury this highly dangerous waste deep in our planet ? And the Finland site isn't open as of yet...it's a still a few years off.
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.