# \*sigh\* We're losing the battle for nuclear power **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 21, 2016, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982 "2016-06-21T20:04:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/41 "2016-06-22T18:49:54Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Maybe. But the Sierra club can & has added millions in legal fees to the cost of many power plants. > > They need to figure out which power they are backing and do that, rather than fight _all_ of them- which is just plain foolish. Oh I agree. I get tired of hearing “wind turbines kill birds” and similar nonsense. I suspect many of them want us to just wear loincloths and make love to trees before committing collective suicide so nature can continue its ultimately meaningless purposelessness. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/42 "2016-06-22T18:58:15Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Oh I agree. I get tired of hearing “wind turbines kill birds” and similar nonsense. I suspect many of them want us to just wear loincloths and make love to trees before committing collective suicide so nature can continue its ultimately meaningless purposelessness. Well, they do kill birds. Everything is a trade off, and if they’d just go "yay Solar and yay Wind( but can you work on the design so it kills less birds?) " then I’d be OK. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/43 "2016-06-22T19:01:13Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Oh I agree. I get tired of hearing “wind turbines kill birds” and similar nonsense. See [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=18993220&highlight=billboard#post18993220) and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18995523&postcount=341). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/44 "2016-06-22T19:06:52Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > See [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=18993220&highlight=billboard#post18993220) and [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18995523&postcount=341). Yep. [http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/25/3475348/bird-death-comparison-chart/](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/25/3475348/bird-death-comparison-chart/) ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/45 "2016-06-22T19:20:40Z")
So what we’re saying here is when we are led to believe the hippy protesters are screwing up progress it’s really just ultra-rich globalized corporations attacking each other to protect their own profits and market share and making it look like it’s the hippy protesters. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/46 "2016-06-22T19:38:51Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I don’t have huge problems with nuclear power, but nuclear power plants plus seismic activity does give me pause. Yes. I would rather have nukes than coal, I’d rather use uranium than natural gas, but if you cut corners, or you keep them up too long, or you’re just unlucky enough to be at ground zero of a big quake—or possibly even a powerful tornado?—you’ll regret that nuke plant, and so will everyone within 100 miles. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/47 "2016-06-22T19:50:24Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > This is how I feel in a nutshell. With nuclear, we have to worry about what to do with the toxic byproducts. With fossil fuels, we just pump them into the air and call it a day. > [@Dr.Strangelove](#): > > This seems unbelievably stupid. > > I’m a fan of nuclear power but at the same time I’m not blind to its problems. It has high capital costs, high decommissioning costs, a huge NIMBY problem, lots of regulatory hassle, and other stuff. > > But almost none of these problems are avoided by decommissioning a plant _early_. Once you’ve built it, you may as well at least get as much use as you can out of it. > > Oh well, solar it is. There is still no real solution to the base load problem and so I expect the grid to get substantially less reliable over time. At least it’s carbon-free. And we do have a shitload of high insolation, low productivity land. Both good posts. To those talking about fusion, you need to understand that cold fusion isn’t happening. But solar power exists, and it is essentially an existing fusion reactor we can tap. The rest of the solution is large energy storage batteries. Batteries to store energy from fossil fuels would have been silly and wasteful. But if we’re just grabbing free solar output, then large overnight energy storage systems start to make more sense than running a gas plant alongside. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/48 "2016-06-22T19:50:57Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Yes. I would rather have nukes than coal, I’d rather use uranium than natural gas, but if you cut corners, or you keep them up too long, or you’re just unlucky enough to be at ground zero of a big quake—or possibly even a powerful tornado?—you’ll regret that nuke plant, and so will everyone within 100 miles. … and tsunamis … ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/49 "2016-06-22T19:56:12Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, "Not worth the _hassle"_- the hassle is being done by the “hippy protesters” and Sierra club. Which club, incidentally is also _anti-solar._ Wow, I did not know that. Apparently Google lies for them to cover it up, too! Look at all the stories claiming the opposite when you do a search! [https://www.google.com/search?q=sierra+club+solar+power](https://www.google.com/search?q=sierra+club+solar+power) ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/50 "2016-06-22T19:59:05Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I know you’re a big fan of nuclear power and you make a convincing case, that plant near you is a great facility and I agree we should be building more like them. But the older, unsafe plants do need to be decommissioned or reworked. We’ve learned a lot these past decades and going forward I think nuclear is one of our best options … at least until we unlock solar energy. Was this paragraph written by a weak AI robot stringing phrases together? We have a lot of solar energy extraction now. It’s not some deep secret. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2016, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/51 "2016-06-22T20:02:28Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Oh I agree. I get tired of hearing “wind turbines kill birds” and similar nonsense. I suspect many of them want us to just wear loincloths and make love to trees before committing collective suicide so nature can continue its ultimately meaningless purposelessness. As opposed to wearing acrylic faux-fur and making love to latex dolls in between obliterating entire habitats so more humans can live to continue their meaningless purposelessness? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Backwater\_Under\_Duck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ba8739/32.png) [@Backwater\_Under\_Duck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Backwater_Under_Duck)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/52 "2016-06-23T01:00:47Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Well-intentioned but stupid environmentalists: I’m in California. This plant, like San Onofre reactor, are going dead because it’s impossible to bring them up to modern safety standards because they are too old, not because of them damn hippies. Without getting into the whole deal about the decontamination issues rendering these nuclear zits on our coast for, basically, forever, California will never have another nuclear plant. It isn’t up to me, you don’t need my permission. There simply is no place to build one. We have no major rivers or lakes. Nuke plants need a lot of cold water. Lake Tahoe Nuclear Generating Station anyone? That leaves the coast. The very seismically active beautiful California coast. Put them in Florida. They got water. What could possibly go wrong? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/53 "2016-06-23T20:25:34Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Nice strawman, **Gigo** , my claim is that a quarter the world’s population doesn’t have electric power … whatever you’re refuting, there’s still a quarter the world’s population without electricity … unless _SciAm_ isn’t reputable, and you might be right there. I was indeed replying to your point. you were wrong in assuming that to get electricity to that quarter that they will be forced to get that electricity mainly by using fossil fuels. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > What makes you think industry won’t pass the extra cost of carbon taxes on to the consumer? In less than 14 years, it will be illegal for Oregon electric utilities to purchase coal-fired electricity, maybe your problem isn’t in Washington DC but rather your own State House. Uh, that is the price to pay, but as pointed many times before in past conversations, it is when big industry is committed to apply the changes it usually makes the change cheaper to all rather than the haphazard point/accusation that individuals should change first. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I know you’re a big fan of nuclear power and you make a convincing case, that plant near you is a great facility and I agree we should be building more like them. But the older, unsafe plants do need to be decommissioned or reworked. We’ve learned a lot these past decades and going forward I think nuclear is one of our best options … at least until we unlock solar energy. Well one thing that many in discussions like this seem to fall (and there was a very notorious poster that demonstrated how he missed the changes and afford-ability that solar power is unlocking) is to not look at the changes that are happening right now. > **[Thin Film Solar Challenges Breakthrough Energy Coalition](https://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/08/thin-film-solar-speaks-truth-nuclear-power-cleantechnica-exclusive/)** > > Right back at you, Breakthrough Energy Coalition: a US thin film solar company pushes back against the notion that only nuclear energy can save the world. > [@](#): > > Nuclear Energy vs Thin-Film Solar > > Returning to Gates, on the surface, it does seem that nuclear is a sure thing. With the Gates’s TerraPower nuclear energy company, China alone is apparently set constructing new nuclear power plants, and the global pace of nuclear power plant construction is set to accelerate, primarily in China, India, and elsewhere in Asia. > > On the other hand, a number of factors could place nuclear at a competitive disadvantage moving forward. Safety issues will become an increasing concern, as the need to avoid risks related to extreme weather events could limit site selection beyond what would be accommodated today. Population growth and competition for agricultural land could also place increasing limits on the availability of nuclear sites. > > Thin-film solar has the contrasting advantage of extreme scalability and adaptation to the built environment, including solar cells that can be integrated into windows, exterior walls, and rooftops. That’s a plus for resiliency as well as land conservation. > > It’s also helpful to keep in mind that the energy storage factor, which practically did not exist just a few years ago, is emerging as a major force in the ability of solar and wind to compete with conventional energy generation, to the extent that here in the US, our armed services are beginning to introduce solar energy into combat zones as well as forward operating bases and permanent bases. > > In terms of national economic policy, low-cost solar enables distributed energy generation models that focus on creating local opportunities in rural areas. Leveraging renewable energy to enable stable, thriving rural economies is a vital policy focus here in the US as well as in developing countries, involving biofuel production and wind energy in addition to solar. > > Urban areas are also a strong focus of low-cost, distributed solar in the US, with a number of federal programs coalescing around the latest SunShot Catalyst competition. > > Before we let go, it’s worth noting that, as recently as 2013, industry analysts predicted continued strong growth for the global coal industry. The rapid growth of alternatives (including shale gas and energy storage) upended the common wisdom in short order, and it could be that the nuclear sector is in for a surprise as well. I do think that nuclear will play a part on stopping a lot of the carbon emissions in the future, **alongside** solar and wind power… but I would not be surprised that when battery technology catches up to make that nuclear part an item that is not 100% necessary. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/54 "2016-06-23T22:45:26Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I was indeed replying to your point. you were wrong in assuming that to get electricity to that quarter that they will be forced to get that electricity mainly by using fossil fuels … [snip] Let me clarify, you’re contending I said something I didn’t and arguing against whatever makeup point you want to believe I’ve made. The people aren’t just going to show up at the power plants with baskets to carry home the electricity they need for the day. They’ll need a thing called an “electrical distribution network”. Not only is that expensive to build, that aluminum has a scrap value … you’re going to have to guard the grid. If the winds doesn’t blow at night, then there is no electricity … because I know you’re not suggesting we build a nuclear power plant anywhere close to areas of Boko Haram control. Real poverty, my friend, the likes the industrialize world hasn’t seen since WWII. My mother remembers when her childhood home finally got electricity, one outlet in the living room ceiling. Grandpa had to drive 75 miles in an old Ford Model T to buy an electric iron for grandma, that’s all they could afford. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/55 "2016-06-23T22:55:14Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Let me clarify, you’re contending I said something I didn’t and arguing against whatever makeup point you want to believe I’ve made. The people aren’t just going to show up at the power plants with baskets to carry home the electricity they need for the day. They’ll need a thing called an “electrical distribution network”. Not only is that expensive to build, that aluminum has a scrap value … you’re going to have to guard the grid. If the winds doesn’t blow at night, then there is no electricity … because I know you’re not suggesting we build a nuclear power plant anywhere close to areas of Boko Haram control. > > Real poverty, my friend, the likes the industrialize world hasn’t seen since WWII. > > My mother remembers when her childhood home finally got electricity, one outlet in the living room ceiling. Grandpa had to drive 75 miles in an old Ford Model T to buy an electric iron for grandma, that’s all they could afford. I was correct indeed, you are not aware of what is going on, starting with your old fashion “electrical distribution network” that misses how technology is advancing. The leapfrog that is being seen on places that had no electricity until recently does not depend on that. (Images of the effects of electrical lights powered by solar batteries on the educations of kid in Africa) [https://www.google.com/search?q=solar+power+light+africa+kids+reading&biw=1376&bih=633&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiaq8qKnr\_NAhUNz2MKHd9kBr8QsAQIGw](https://www.google.com/search?q=solar+power+light+africa+kids+reading&biw=1376&bih=633&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiaq8qKnr_NAhUNz2MKHd9kBr8QsAQIGw) > **[Solar Lights Eradicating Kerosene Lamps in Africa | CleanTechnica](https://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/12/solar-lights-eradicating-kerosene-lamps-africa/)** > > Using a unique business model to sell solar lights in rural off-grid areas, SolarAid is eradicating the dangerous & toxic kerosene lamp from Africa by 2020 > [@](#): > > Using a unique business model to sell solar lights in rural African off-grid communities, SolarAid aims to eradicate the dangerous and toxic kerosene lamp from Africa by 2020. Working in Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia, and Uganda, the lives of over 10 million people in Africa are being improved through solar technology. > > Announcing another record-breaking year, SolarAid recently reported that its social enterprise, SunnyMoney, sold 624,468 solar lights last year, bringing its total distribution close to 1.7 million solar lights. > [@](#): > > Replacing kerosene lamps with solar lights not only mitigates global warming — it also offers comfort to anxious mothers. “I don’t have any worries with the risk of the kerosene to spill and burn the house, because solar is easy to use and the children can put it on without me around,” reported Victoria Materu, a mother in Tanzania. > > Through numbers and research offered by SolarAid, combined with research from the Global Off-Grid Lighting Association (GOGLA), the following figures highlight the benefits of replacing kerosene lamps with solar lights: > > The benefits of one solar light include: > > ● Improving the lives of around 6 people > ● Saving a family £130 (~$200) > ● Enabling an extra 1200 hours of study > ● Averting half a tonne of CO2 > > Furthermore, this research concludes the following, based on the lifetime of a solar light: > > ● 10 million people currently have access to a solar light > ● 9 million of whom live below the World Bank $1.25 p/d poverty line > ● Families will save £200 million (~$309.19M) > ● 2 billion extra study hours will be created > ● 900,000 tonnes of CO2 averted > ● 6 million people experiencing better health from reduced indoor air pollution > ● 1 million kerosene lamps packed away > > “Using SunnyMoney solar lights,” reported Stanley Ruget, a Head Teacher in Kenya, “the school has improved from a mean score of 227 to 247. Most students use their solar light to study til midnight.” Related to that, a lot of people are getting access to cell phones (or we should say, computers now) and developing countries do not need to put costly wire for hundreds of miles to communicate with each other. The future is less expensive to build and harder to take down BTW. > **[Why Cellular Towers in Developing Nations Are Making the Move to Solar Power](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cellular-towers-moving-to-solar-power/)** > > Renewable energy is beginning to replace diesel in cell-phone networks ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2016, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/56 "2016-06-23T23:30:02Z")
One and a half billion people in the world have no access to electric power … cell phones and laptops won’t work. These people burn wood for cooking, clear cutting their forests. Now if you want to cry “bullshit” on the citation, please make your case. The ten million in your cite is less than 1% the need, I’m not impressed. Are they all still cooking with wood? The carbon pollution _problem_ is strictly from the industrialized world … I have enough compassion in my heart to allow the desperately poor a little pollution to feed their children. When there’s a solar panel on every house in Europe, North America and China … then we’ll worry about Africa and the rest of Asia. Europe, North America and China will have to change their lifestyles … please don’t expect industry to lead the way. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2016, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/57 "2016-06-24T02:23:12Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > One and a half billion people in the world have no access to electric power … cell phones and laptops won’t work. These people burn wood for cooking, clear cutting their forests. Now if you want to cry “bullshit” on the citation, please make your case. The ten million in your cite is less than 1% the need, I’m not impressed. Are they all still cooking with wood? You are only repeating the problem like if would deny what I pointed out. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > The carbon pollution _problem_ is strictly from the industrialized world … I have enough compassion in my heart to allow the desperately poor a little pollution to feed their children. When there’s a solar panel on every house in Europe, North America and China … then we’ll worry about Africa and the rest of Asia. Again the repeated incantation of the problem does not magically make others ignore the solutions that are being considered or going on, even if you do not want to see it. And you are moving the goal post here, you were talking about the developing nations. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Europe, North America and China will have to change their lifestyles … please don’t expect industry to lead the way. Sorry, I will because it happened when dealing with acid rain, ozone depletion, phosphorous algae growth in rivers and lakes, and although prodded along with government action in the following and mentioned items, also the current water works in our developed cities. What individuals do is important, but it is not the main reason for wide range changes seen in the past. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2016, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/58 "2016-06-24T13:56:42Z")
How strange … how many times do I have to plagiarize this: > [@](#): > > Closely related to global warming is the looming energy crisis, which may also reach an inflection point somewhere around 2050. Some think we’ve already passed peak oil and from here on out production will decline. Absent a breakthrough in solar power, it won’t be physically possible to meet the world’s power needs through alternative technologies. In itself this isn’t an insoluble problem, since we’ve got plenty of coal and nuclear resources. However, using the former will accelerate global warming, **while the latter would require a balls-out nuclear plant construction program to be underway now, which it’s obviously not.** Opposition will dissolve once energy prices soar, **but safety standards will likely also be abandoned, and the result won’t be pretty. I’ve warned you before; you’ve paid no attention.** Remember this 30 years hence. [“What’s the likeliest doomsday scenario?”](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3053/what-s-the-likeliest-doomsday-scenario) — **The Master** – May 18th, 2012 That’s my point, nothing more nothing less … you’re free to argue to the wind about anything you’d like … CO[sub]2[/sub] is safer than Cs[sup]137[/sup] in the atmosphere. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2016, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/59 "2016-06-24T14:20:59Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > How strange … how many times do I have to plagiarize this: How strange that instead of realizing you were just a bit wrong on the issue of developing nations being forced to create wired networks or reach for coal to deliver electricity to all you instead demand a strawman out of me. I’m not opposed to nuclear power and Cecil is talking there about what developed nations should do, not what undeveloped ones should. (and common sense would tell us already that all those megatons of cables and towers that are not needed to be build are also making a dent in costs for developing nations and their emissions) > [@watchwolf49](#): > > That’s my point, nothing more nothing less … you’re free to argue to the wind about anything you’d like … CO[sub]2[/sub] is safer than Cs[sup]137[/sup] in the atmosphere. As pointed before your point is a straw man. Nothing less. You were wrong about developing nations being forced to use coal or other fossil fuel to develop. Technology transfers need to be accelerated to minimize the use of coal and other fossil fuels in the developing world and in the developed one Nuclear power should complement solar and wind that, as pointed before, there have been recent breakthroughs that Cecil did not know about. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2016, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982/60 "2016-06-24T21:56:17Z")
> [@Backwater\_Under\_Duck](#): > > I’m in California… You can’t fit a single reactor in all of California? My disagreement with anti-nukers was summed up by tim314: > [@tim314](#): > > With fossil fuels, we just pump them [toxic byproducts] into the air and call it a day. I understand that nuclear power is not 100% safe but it’s still better than all the other (current) alternatives. People who don’t understand the distinction just don’t understand the science. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sigh-were-losing-the-battle-for-nuclear-power/757982.md?page=4)