Cite? And I mean someone who’s saying “Stop production of wind!” and not “Wind alone isn’t enough”. Because those are two different things.
What pedescribe said. I haven’t read any other threads on this issue, but I haven’t heard anybody in this thread crapping over wind power.
You mean France? Where they proudly claim over 70% of their electricity comes from nuke, but neglect to mention that 70% of their final energy comes from imported oil, coal, and gas not to mention 100% of their uranium is now imported? So much for energy independence. They also don’t talk about the cost of cleaning up 50 million tons of past uranium mining waste not to also mention the eventual cost of decommissioning their current aging fleet of plants.
If nuclear is such a great idea, why is Germany next door phasing it out? Could it be their commitment to renewable energy, currently ahead of schedule at 16%, and well on track to hit 27% by 2020? What do they know we don’t? Oh yeah, how to generate renewable energy.
Well, we won’t build them anyway. I think it’s mainly resource poor South that is pushing the hardest for them, and they’re going to bend over and take it when they’re paying ridiculously high prices for energy while their neighbors to the north and west will be more than happy to sell them the alternative energy they’re working on.
Ah, and of course all the alternatives are clean, free and work. :rolleyes:
Most likely due to anti-nuclear fanatics like yourself (even assuming those numbers are honest, which I doubt - 27%?! Suuuure). And if they phase out nuclear that just means they are going to go to coal or some other pollution source.
Oh, garbage. Alternative energy will never even meet our present needs, much less provide a surplus. It has a hard time producing more energy than it consumes.
I have no problem with renewable energy. None. Zero. I encourage it, and its development. But 16% is nowhere near 100%. And we need something for the long transition, and nuclear is preferable to coal.
Do you think people here can’t read your OP? Let me quote from it:
Your phrasing is improper and not supported by fact. You don’t have to like that, but you should at least have the honour to accept it.
Ah, I remember well the demand-side management boom of the late 90’s. It was great - “people will switch electric providers on a daily, nay, hourly basis! Everyone will schedule their laundry at 3:00am to save a few cents! Every man, woman, child, and farm animal will be able to participate in a vibrant energy exchange, with individual households trading energy allowances.” They made DSM look like the average American was going to be going home and playing electric Farmville. Heh.
Because the Green Party was part of the ruling coalition for a while. Now it isn’t, and the CDU is starting to make lots of noises about cancelling the phase-out of nuclear energy.
It’s worth noting that Britain expects to build 10 more nuclear plants (mostly as extensions of existing plants) in the next 20 years.
OP’s like this still give me some hope that us conservatives don’t have a complete monopoly on nutjobs.
Una, you are so stupid an so fucking arrogant about your own field of expertise. Did you even read your own cited table? It doesn’t show one new power plant or reactor. All it demonstrates is that existing plants put out more over the years, which as far as I know is due entirely to better steam turbines, etc.
I’ve been here about two years now, and one thing I know is to read your posts very carefully because you are so full of shit and sloppy in your scientific assertions. There is no new nuclear generating capacity in the US for electric and you whine your way around it, but fucking steam (and increased uptime) is actually generating the increased amounts at existing, not new reactors. Read your own cites you moron and then indicate which plant has a new reactor and new capacity. You can’t and won’t because as usual, you are just fucking wrong. You arrogant sloppy idiot.
Not one new nuclear watt. Not a one.
What Una is so full of shit about in this instance is that she is pushing an interpretation of data cited that the data does not support. This isn’t unusual with her, but she does it with a snobby air of scientific certainty. She plopped down the data and asserted it supported her position without carefully explaining why there is increased output from nuclear plants: the same reason there is increase output from hydroelectric and coal plants (there are others from coal such as burning the coal more efficiently) it is because other technologies are more efficient. I am very skeptical of all of Una’s interpretations because they are often, like the table cited here, used in a way that does not shed light on the data, but to imply something other than what is going on.
In fact, there is a nuke plant in New England that is losing its licensing because of safety concern, but no new nuke power generating sources.
Yup, and their power company masters are going to dismantle the Renewable Energy Act which is directly responsible for the rapid growth of renewable energy.
It’s all about large corporate profit and corporate greed to you nuke nuts. You’d rather destroy the planet than allow a penny of profit to pass from your corporate lords to independent and renewable energy producers.
And yes, I have a special blind spot about Una for exactly the reasons stated: she asserts her status as a scientist for using data to mean something it doesn’t.
I already said that I care nothing about whether or not it’s profitable. And the problem you keep ignoring is that renewable energy can’t do the job.
Bullshit. You refuse to admit it can, and anything that cuts into big corporate profit is evil.
I’d say go look up renewable energy in Germany, but I know you won’t.
You didn’t claim new power plants or reactors. You made this claim. I will post it here:
Calling me names is not going to change what you posted nor make you correct.
Uh, no. It’s about practicality. I’m hardly a “nuke nut”; I’m pretty much agnostic on power generation, although I believe oil-, coal- and (to a lesser extent) gas-fired power generation should be phased out as quickly as economically viable.
You can call me whatever makes you happy, though.
Allow to re-post what is contained in your OP:
And when you were called on it, your response is oppositional-defiant misbehavior which is really just not good.
Time for Haiku Rant
OP is dumber than fuck
Choke on smog, asshole.
You…are the first person in my life to actually think I’m pro-corporation. Next, you’ll call me Christian.
You already gave the numbers; even assuming they are true 27% by 2020 isn’t anywhere near enough. Using your own numbers, renewable energy isn’t good enough.