# New Nuclear Power Truimphic Record Surpasses all Renewables



## elektra (Oct 30, 2016)

Yes, another blow to Wind Power and Solar Power. The year 2016 has just seen the largest source of New Electrical Power Output produced by one single nuclear power plant. 

Watts Bar 2, is now our first new nuclear power plant in decades. It is so powerful, it is providing more energy than all renewable sources combined!

Watts Bar 2, First New US Nuclear Plant Since 1996, Is Now Commercial!


 
*Watts Bar 2, First New US Nuclear Plant Since 1996, Is Now Commercial!*

Bill Johnson, TVA’s CEO, stated that the completion of Watts Bar 2 will assist TVA in fulfilling its mission “to make life better in the Valley by providing reliable, low-cost energy, protecting our area’s natural resources and working to attract business and growth.”


He went on to say that “Watts Bar Unit 2 is a key part of our commitment to produce cleaner energy without sacrificing the reliability and low cost that draws both industry and residents to our area.”

 
Completion of the first new operating nuclear power plant in the United States since 1996 is a big deal and a good news story.

 
“Nuclear power remains the only source of carbon-free energy that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week,” said Joe Grimes, TVA executive vice president of generation and chief nuclear officer. “TVA believes that Watts Bar Unit 2, and other nuclear units like it across the Valley and the nation, represents a vital investment in our clean energy future.”
*
*


----------



## The Great Goose (Oct 30, 2016)

It's the way forward. Let's face it. If only we could shoot the waste into space. We could get it there if we let the Chinese build their space elevator.


----------



## idb (Oct 30, 2016)

Why is this a blow to wind and solar energy?
Is the source of energy an either/or question?


----------



## elektra (Oct 30, 2016)

The Great Goose said:


> It's the way forward. Let's face it. If only we could shoot the waste into space. We could get it there if we let the Chinese build their space elevator.


There is so little waste it is ridiculous. Thus far, all the Nuclear waste created will barely fill the area of one football field. To protect one from the radiation all you need to do is cover it with water. Water being made of Hydrogen and Oxygen, Hydrogen is a natural neutron absorber. But, we could recycle the waste and use it as fuel in a reactor. Areva of France builds a reactor that recycles its waste and uses it again. And there are new designs that use more than 95% of the fuel leaving very little waste. Currently our designs of the middle of the last century use only about 3% of the energy in a fuel rod? If I am wrong it is not by much.


----------



## elektra (Oct 30, 2016)

idb said:


> Why is this a blow to wind and solar energy?
> Is energy an either/or question?


Because it is cheap, reliable, and shows Wind and Solar to be a complete waste of money. Calling wind and solar "energy", is a real stretch of the imagination.


----------



## idb (Oct 30, 2016)

elektra said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Why is this a blow to wind and solar energy?
> ...


You don't accept that there's energy coming directly from the sun and present in air movement?
Interesting point of view.
If you're right then I can only agree with you that it's a complete waste of money.


----------



## DGS49 (Oct 30, 2016)

(1)  Hooray for Nuke.  Shame on he sierra club for going against their original support and spreading bullshit about the dangers of nuclear power.

(2)  Commercial nuclear power industry was born in 1953.  NOT A SINGLE RADIATION-RELATED FATALITY IN THE HISTORY OF U.S. NUCLEAR POWER. 

(3)  U.S. nuclear power workers have a lower incidence of cancer than the general population.

(4)  Spent nuclear fuel is fully recyclable, but President CARTER decided many years ago that he did not want this technology because it could also be used to make weapons-grade material, and he didn't want it to go into the wrong hands.  (I wonder how he feels about allowing Iran to maintain thousands of centrifuges - which do exactly that: make weapons-grade material).

(5)  the future of nuclear power is SMR's (Small Modular Reactors), which can be ganged-up to generate as much power as needed.  the only obstacle to this technology going forward is stupid, unscientific fear mongers, such as the "Greens" who managed to scuttle nuclear power in Germany.

(6)  As a practical matter, natural gas has made nuclear power economically unfeasible in the U.S.  It would take substantial government support to move the industry forward in any significant way.

(7)  the Westinghouse AP2000 PWR would have naturally powered down without incident, even with no power coming from the grid, had it been in place in Japan during Fukushima.


----------



## The Great Goose (Oct 30, 2016)

elektra said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Why is this a blow to wind and solar energy?
> ...


It's good for off grid, boats caravan etc. So we need it too.


----------



## elektra (Oct 30, 2016)

The Great Goose said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


Solar or Wind as a personal product the public buys I have no problem with it. But as an industry created by government that they sell to save the World from Global Warming or as a way to save Oil, that everybody should fight against. 1st and foremost, Solar and Wind energy has cost over a $trillion dollars? Who even knows. What we do know is they are proposing to spend another $44 trillion. That is a huge waste of money and more importantly, it is a huge waste of Oil which will be used in the manufacturing process.


----------



## The Great Goose (Oct 30, 2016)

elektra said:


> The Great Goose said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


It's just a shame because it improves the technology, affectiveness and lowers the cost of solar energy.

In a perfect world, we'd all have our own solar panels on our livable sheds.


----------



## elektra (Oct 30, 2016)

DGS49 said:


> (1)  Hooray for Nuke.  Shame on he sierra club for going against their original support and spreading bullshit about the dangers of nuclear power.
> 
> (2)  Commercial nuclear power industry was born in 1953.  NOT A SINGLE RADIATION-RELATED FATALITY IN THE HISTORY OF U.S. NUCLEAR POWER.
> 
> ...


The Westinghouse AP1000 pwr is what you meant to type. We operate the same types of Nuclear plants as were designed and built in Fukushima. That would be the GE Mark I. It is a very old design that is very reliable. Had Japan simply built back-up power that could not be flooded by water there never would of been a problem. We shout ours down when the river levels get so high. But, there is really no need to, if back up power is on high ground.


----------



## elektra (Oct 30, 2016)

The Great Goose said:


> It's just a shame because it improves the technology, affectiveness and lowers the cost of solar energy.
> 
> In a perfect world, we'd all have our own solar panels on our livable sheds.


Solar and Wind are very old technologies. In a perfect World, only those who live very far from a city would have Solar or Wind. There is such a thing of Economy of Scale. Meaning it is much cheaper and better for the environment to build one power plant to supply millions of people, instead of building millions upon millions of tiny power plants to supply thousands of people with power.


----------



## elektra (Oct 30, 2016)

idb said:


> You don't accept that there's energy coming directly from the sun and present in air movement?
> Interesting point of view.
> If you're right then I can only agree with you that it's a complete waste of money.


It is not a matter of what I accept. It is a matter of how much of that power can effectively be used. The fact of that matter is we have proven that it is impossible to utilize the Wind or Sun to power our nation. If you read enough, you learn that the amount of energy from the sun has been over-estimated. We learn that the bigger you build the wind farm, the more disrupted the wind becomes, resulting in less energy. It is a strange thing, we always wants to go around things, wind takes the path of least resistance. We have also found that you can never supply heavy industry with power from Solar and Wind, hence Solar and Wind are always reliant on other forms of power, in the manufacture of Solar panels and components for Wind power. 

Solar Plants require lots of Sun, Deserts seemed like a good spot. We have found out though, that the initial construction requires millions of gallons of water. Water that is pumped with power generated from anything but Solar Power. Millions of gallons of water in a Desert, during drought years? Certainly a huge waste of a natural resource.

Covering thousands of square miles with Solar Panels, literally raises the temperature. They create heat islands. They destroy habitat for animals, plants, they kill birds. 

We must destroy the World to save the World. 

Solar and Wind, on the industrial scale we have been building them, are complete failures.


----------



## idb (Oct 30, 2016)

elektra said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > You don't accept that there's energy coming directly from the sun and present in air movement?
> ...


Not worth researching then?
I don't think nuclear power stations are perfect yet either.


----------



## elektra (Oct 30, 2016)

idb said:


> Not worth researching then?
> I don't think nuclear power stations are perfect yet either.


We have researched them, we have studied them, we have all the information we need to make an intelligent decision, to abandon them. What did all our research tell us, as far as wind goes, the technological advance is not an advance at all, it was to build more and to build them bigger. Yet, the bigger they are the harder they fall, as in they fall with a tremendous thud. Over a 1,000 tons of each, using hundreds of gallons of oil each year, and you think they need more research? The research tells us the answer, it will cost over $44 trillion dollars to build Solar Plants and Wind Turbines, and at that they will always be a failure, producing just a tiny amount of energy. 

Everything we learn about Wind and Solar simply reveals lie after lie. No amount of research will change that.


----------



## idb (Oct 30, 2016)

elektra said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Not worth researching then?
> ...


Right.
They aren't already perfect in your eyes so there's no point researching and developing any further.

Tell me...why are nuclear power stations still being researched and improved?
Going by your logic if they aren't perfect already there's no point spending the money.


----------



## elektra (Oct 30, 2016)

idb said:


> Right.
> They aren't already perfect in your eyes so there's no point researching and developing any further.
> 
> Tell me...why are nuclear power stations still being researched and improved?
> Going by your logic if they aren't perfect already there's no point spending the money.


That is a strawman arugment on your part. Wind Turbines have reached the limits of physics. There is nothing more you can do to advance a Wind Turbine. The only advancements of the last 20 years are they are made bigger, and you make more of them. 

Can Economies of Scale be made with Solar Technology? Maybe, to a certain degree. But the cost has proven to be in the trillions of dollars. A huge waste of money.

And lets not forget, that for every advancement in Solar Technology (wind has peaked, sorry) there are technological advancements in Nuclear, Coal, and Natural Gas. 

Further, Solar is so weak, so tiny in comparison, it is obvious that Solar can never equal any traditional power source. Solar starts so far in last place, it is a joke to think or suggest they will ever compete. 

Yes, you can make this about me, that is your only argument. If you stick to the technical details and the science you lose. 

Why are Nuclear Power plants researched? I guess you have not been around for the last 30 years. Research has largely dropped and been diverted from Nuclear to Solar and Wind. Sure, there is research, but not on the same scale devoted to Wind, Solar, and Global Warming. Talk about a huge waste and parasite on our standard of living. 

Our whole country is suffering while we build Solar and Wind. It is really depressing. Solar and Wind will never in anyone's lifetime supply energy to Industry, never. At best, Solar and Wind are parasites on society. Nothing more. That is not opinion, that is fact. 

You want to devote years of your life paying for Solar and Wind, that should be your prerogative, it should not be forced upon me. But, you do force me to labor for your ideals, I am a slave of tyranny, the tyranny of Renewable Power.


----------



## idb (Oct 30, 2016)

elektra said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Right.
> ...


"The Tyranny Of Renewable Power".
I'll just let that sit there.


----------



## idb (Oct 30, 2016)

elektra said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > You don't accept that there's energy coming directly from the sun and present in air movement?
> ...


The efficiency of solar panels is increasing all the time as research improves the technology and manufacturing techniques.
You're talking rubbish.

_*Solar Research Innovation Breaking Promising Efficiency Ground*


While solar incumbents such as monocrystalline manufacturer SunPower Corporation and thin film manufacturer First Solar and startups such as V3Solar push the commercial boundaries for solar PV efficiency, researchers are likewise pushing solar’s overall efficiencies into new realms.


For example, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory has achieved 44 percent efficiency. They did so by multiplying the power of the sun by almost 1000 and focusing it on multi-junction solar cells. A Princeton research team hopes to vault past 44 percent en route to potentially crossing the 50-percent efficiency threshold. Their technology uses a 30-nanometer-thick gold mesh that reduces the amount of light that is reflected and lost, thus acquiring more light in total.


The Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark has produced one of the most recent research breakthroughs in solar efficiency. Their work with nanowires—and uncovering some of the unique ways nanowires interact with incoming sunlight—promise to raise the ceiling, not just of commercial and research solar efficiency, but of solar’s theoretical maximum limit. Researchers at Stanford University have accomplished a similar potential breakthrough, though by vastly different means. They’ve developed the equivalent of a solar turbocharger, a way to harvest both light and heat and turn both into electricity, thus overcoming the heat-equals-solar-degradation problem plaguing much of conventional solar PV.

As Solar PV Efficiency Climbs, Costs Likely To Drop_


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 30, 2016)

*Po' miserable Ms. Electra, the slave. LOL There are spent rod ponds in the US that have five times the amount of spent rods that they were designed for. And that is a disaster waiting to happen.*

Safer Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel

*What are spent fuel pools?*
When fuel rods in a nuclear reactor are “spent,” or no longer usable, they are removed from the reactor core and replaced with fresh fuel rods. The spent fuel rods are still highly radioactive and  continue to generate significant heat for decades. The fuel assemblies, which consist of dozens to hundreds of fuel rods each, are moved to pools of water to cool. They are kept on racks in the pool, submerged in more than twenty feet of water, and water is continuously circulated to draw heat away from the rods and keep them at a safe temperature. 

Because no permanent repository for spent fuel exists in the United States, reactor owners have kept spent fuel at the reactor sites. As the amount of spent fuel has increased, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authorized many power plant owners to increase the amount in their storage pools to as much as five times what they were designed to hold. As a result, virtually all U.S. spent fuel pools have been “re-racked” to hold spent fuel assemblies at densities that approach those in reactor cores. In order to prevent the spent fuel from going critical, the spent fuel assemblies are placed in metal boxes whose walls contain neutron-absorbing boron. 

*Note that the neutron absorber is boron, not hydrogen. You are certainly one dumb ass, Ms. Elektra.*


----------



## idb (Oct 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Po' miserable Ms. Electra, the slave. LOL There are spent rod ponds in the US that have five times the amount of spent rods that they were designed for. And that is a disaster waiting to happen.*
> 
> Safer Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
> 
> ...


Why are people like him so binary in their thinking?
He seems to think that pointing out the shortcomings of renewable energy is somehow poking treehuggers in the eye and proves that it isn't viable in any circumstance - or something...I can't really tell what his thinking is.

Any sensible planning allows for a variety of energy sources.


----------



## elektra (Oct 31, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Po' miserable Ms. Electra, the slave. LOL There are spent rod ponds in the US that have five times the amount of spent rods that they were designed for. And that is a disaster waiting to happen.*
> 
> Safer Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
> 
> ...


Five times, bullshit, each plant was designed to contain 20 years of fuel, name one plant that was operated for 100 years? Further, plants are storing fuel rods in dry casks. Boron is added to the water, yes, but you are the dumb ass, my statement is a 100% correct, hydrogen is a neutron absorber. I guess you are unfamiliar with Heavy Water reactors, Old Crock. 

There are so many tiny little aspects to Nuclear Power you do not know Old Crock. You are a fool. 

This is just another example of you following flat on your face. Read it and weep. 

Neutron moderator - Energy Education


> *Light water*
> Light water is used in many reactors because it contains large amounts of hydrogen. Hydrogen works well as a neutron moderator because its mass is almost identical to that of a neutron. This means that one collision will significantly reduce the speed of neutron because of the laws of conservation of energy and momentum.[1] Additionally, light water is abundant and fairly inexpensive. One drawback is that hydrogen has a relatively high neutron absorption cross-section because of its ability to form deuterium. Thus light water can only be used as a moderator along with enriched fuels. Reactors that use light water are known as *light water reactors* and include the pressurized water reactor (PWR), the boiling water reactor (BWR), and the supercritical water cooled reactor (SCWR).


----------



## elektra (Oct 31, 2016)

idb said:


> Why are people like him so binary in their thinking?
> He seems to think that pointing out the shortcomings of renewable energy is somehow poking treehuggers in the eye and proves that it isn't viable in any circumstance - or something...I can't really tell what his thinking is.
> 
> Any sensible planning allows for a variety of energy sources.


No sensible plan includes using massive amounts of fuel and massive amounts of materials to cover massive amounts of the Earth with Solar Panels. It is singular thinking that does not allow you to see that you are proposing to use all the Earth's resources on something that has already failed and is so massive it costs well over $44 Trillion dollars. I think I am poking treehuggers? Give it a break, look it to the science, look into the manufacturing, look at the size, look at 30 years of failures in California, look at the lie called Ivanpah, now you are talking to Old Crock.

Look how stupid Old Crock is in his last post, he just blasted me claiming Hydrogen is not used as a moderator in Nuclear Reactors, completely wrong Old Crock is and you look to Old Crock? 

You asking a fool about me? Bravo!


----------



## elektra (Oct 31, 2016)

idb said:


> "The Tyranny Of Renewable Power".
> I'll just let that sit there.


$44 Trillion dollars on product I am forced to buy? That is not Tyranny? And you did not leave it sit there, you made 2 more posts. 

Got it, you are another that has zero idea what it takes to make the largest in size power plants that produce next to nothing in power, and you sit in amazement, not caring to see the cost, or the negative impacts.


----------



## xband (Oct 31, 2016)

elektra said:


> Yes, another blow to Wind Power and Solar Power. The year 2016 has just seen the largest source of New Electrical Power Output produced by one single nuclear power plant.
> 
> Watts Bar 2, is now our first new nuclear power plant in decades. It is so powerful, it is providing more energy than all renewable sources combined!
> 
> ...



Wind turbines kill birds and if you want wind power you hate birds.


----------



## idb (Oct 31, 2016)

xband said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, another blow to Wind Power and Solar Power. The year 2016 has just seen the largest source of New Electrical Power Output produced by one single nuclear power plant.
> ...


What have birds ever done for us?!


----------



## elektra (Oct 31, 2016)

idb said:


> Wind turbines kill birds and if you want wind power you hate birds.


What have birds ever done for us?![/QUOTE]
And there you have it, "idb" could care less about the planet, "idb" could care less if Renewable Energy destroys more of the Earth than it saves. "idb" could care less about anything having to do with Global Warming, saving Oil, saving the Earth's resources. "idb" is simply here for what? 

 "idb" and all the other mouths for Green, Clean, Renewables all know what they propose destroys the Earth, and makes those they select rich, while making the Democrats and Government more powerful. All you have to do is get them to post enough than the truth comes out.


----------



## idb (Oct 31, 2016)

elektra said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Wind turbines kill birds and if you want wind power you hate birds.
> ...





> And there you have it, "idb" could care less about the planet, "idb" could care less if Renewable Energy destroys more of the Earth than it saves. "idb" could care less about anything having to do with Global Warming, saving Oil, saving the Earth's resources. "idb" is simply here for what?
> 
> "idb" and all the other mouths for Green, Clean, Renewables all know what they propose destroys the Earth, and makes those they select rich, while making the Democrats and Government more powerful. All you have to do is get them to post enough than the truth comes out.


And there you have it...Elektra is an idiot.


----------



## elektra (Oct 31, 2016)

idb said:


> And there you have it...Elektra is an idiot.



"idb", stated that he/she does not care about birds? Yes? "idb" does not care that Solar Panels will and are, destroying thousands of square miles of land. "idb" does not care that Wind Turbines destroy 1000's of miles of land. What are we to believe of you, when you propose increasing heavy industry, increasing pollution, to build giant Wind Turbines and Solar Plants that will never supply our economy with 1% of the energy our industry needs? Build, build, build, build, it is never enough, and when someone states the obvious, that you are killing the planet with all this building, you scoff at them. 



> What have birds ever done for us?!


----------



## elektra (Oct 31, 2016)

idb said:


> The efficiency of solar panels is increasing all the time as research improves the technology and manufacturing techniques.
> You're talking rubbish.
> 
> _*Solar Research Innovation Breaking Promising Efficiency Ground*
> ...


An article on a blog making claims that are not proven 3 years after the article was printed. Now that is a spectacular failure! "idb"!


----------



## idb (Oct 31, 2016)

elektra said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > The efficiency of solar panels is increasing all the time as research improves the technology and manufacturing techniques.
> ...


Oh no...help...I'm being flamed by a 6 year old!!!


----------



## elektra (Oct 31, 2016)

idb said:


> Oh no...help...I'm being flamed by a 6 year old!!!


Facts are not flames. And only an idiot would compare someone to a six year old intending that to be an insult. 

Everything I state stands as fact unless you care to state otherwise.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Oct 31, 2016)

How bizarre that someone has the opinion that power generated by wind or the sun is somehow 'evil' or needs to be demonized. WTF is that?

You people do realize that human beings started harnessing wind power thousands of years ago to great benefit and it actually greatly accelerated human advancement. All they did was put a canvas in front of the wind and allowed it to push their boats over the water.

You have to marvel at the propaganda machine the energy industry has in place that they have actually convinced people to hate the sun and the wind.

Quite vexing.


----------



## elektra (Oct 31, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> How bizarre that someone has the opinion that power generated by wind or the sun is somehow 'evil' or needs to be demonized. WTF is that?
> 
> You people do realize that human beings started harnessing wind power thousands of years ago to great benefit and it actually greatly accelerated human advancement. All they did was put a canvas in front of the wind and allowed it to push their boats over the water.
> 
> ...


How bizarre, the someone with the user id of IsaacNewton made up and lies about what is stated about wind. 

We hate the Sun and Wind? You would think those that promote Wind and Sun for energy, could do so without being LIARS. 

Let me play your game IsaacNewton, is it not amazing how the Marxist liberals with their insatiable thirst for political power and control over the public's lives, resorts to bigotry and stereotyping people who are tired of laboring for a failed energy policy such as Solar and Wind. Is it not telling that the Marxist Liberal Democrats idea of Science is to take us back thousands of years, and to start over from there. 

The last part is not flaming or trolling, but pure fact, IsaacNewton supports an energy policy that is thousands of years behind Solar. Isaac admits this in his post. 



> human beings started harnessing wind power thousands of years ago



Yes, we have now gone back thousands of years, to a "technology", that was great before steam engines and combustion engines were invented. 

IsaacNewton began his post as a liar, seems fitting, Wind and Solar are both lies. IVANPAH attests to that fact is so many ways, touted as a shining example of the great technology, while it never ever worked!


----------



## idb (Oct 31, 2016)

elektra said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > How bizarre that someone has the opinion that power generated by wind or the sun is somehow 'evil' or needs to be demonized. WTF is that?
> ...


Ah...so it's politics that drives your blinkered position!
No surprise there.

If you're going to start picking failures in solar energy...shall we start quoting names like Chernobyl, Fukushima?


----------



## elektra (Oct 31, 2016)

Can Wind Turbines supply enough electricity to power heavy industry to manufacture the steel in a Wind Turbine, the answer is NO!

Can a Solar Farm supply enough electricity to power the heavy industry that manufactures Solar Panels, the answer is NO!

Wind and Solar fail to supply energy to Industry, today as well as tomorrow and forever, they both fail. 

I have yet to see one post in hundreds of threads and thousands of posts, that prove this statement wrong. 

California can not even pump the water it needs with Solar and Wind power. A complete failure after 30 years of constantly building them bigger, and bigger, and bigger.


----------



## elektra (Oct 31, 2016)

idb said:


> If you're going to start picking failures in solar energy...shall we start quoting names like Chernobyl, Fukushima?


That is not the USA. We operate GE Mark I's just like in Japan, how come we have not had a problem. There is not one nuclear plant in the USA that even resembles Chernobyl, your lack of knowledge is telling, you know nothing. But hey, at least you got back to nuclear power.


----------



## idb (Oct 31, 2016)

elektra said:


> Can Wind Turbines supply enough electricity to power heavy industry to manufacture the steel in a Wind Turbine, the answer is NO!
> 
> Can a Solar Farm supply enough electricity to power the heavy industry that manufactures Solar Panels, the answer is NO!
> 
> ...


So what?


----------



## idb (Oct 31, 2016)

elektra said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > If you're going to start picking failures in solar energy...shall we start quoting names like Chernobyl, Fukushima?
> ...


Fukushima?


----------



## IsaacNewton (Oct 31, 2016)

As soon as the term 'marxisim' comes up in a discussion about energy, there is nothing to see here. THAT in fact is what the OP wants to wail about. 

Wail on.


----------



## elektra (Oct 31, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> As soon as the term 'marxisim' comes up in a discussion about energy, there is nothing to see here. THAT in fact is what the OP wants to wail about.


A discussion? As soon as lied and said my opinion was Evil, the discussion was over.

It is nice to see thst all you can do in this thread is flame and troll.


----------



## elektra (Oct 31, 2016)

yes, and


idb said:


> Fukushima?


Your point? Owe, I get it, you do not know that Fukushima is GE Mark I, that is okay. I will educate you as we go.


----------



## elektra (Oct 31, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> As soon as the term 'marxisim' comes up in a discussion about energy, there is nothing to see here. THAT in fact is what the OP wants to wail about.
> 
> Wail on.


No, as soon as you lied and started attributing things to me that you made up it was apparent you came into this thread as a Troll, hence you get treated like one. Flame on moron.


----------



## DGS49 (Nov 4, 2016)

"Marxism" was the root cause of the Chernobyl catastrophe.  A Communist party political appointee in charge of the plant foolishly and arrogantly ordered the operator to initiate a catastrophic process, despite strong protests from the technicians who actually knew how the plant operated.  Also, the plant was designed with minimal safety safeguards, in a regime where human safety was low on the priority list.  Marxism at work.

Compare Fukushima.  A natural disaster and a "Perfect Storm" of improbable events conspired to create a catastrophe in which not a single person died due to exposure to nuclear radiation.  One guy died of a heart attack.

Compare TMI:  Still regarded as a "disaster" despite not a single person even getting sick, let alone being killed.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2016)

elektra said:


> Because it is cheap



God, no. Where did you get that idea? Nuclear is by far the most expensive energy. That's the problem with it. Having run reactors myself, I'm a big fan of them, but I recognize the economic problems.

If nuclear was cheap, it would be a great option. But it's not cheap. The question becomes where you can get the best bang for your buck, tempered by how much baseline power capacity is necessary. It is cheaper to build a lot of renewables than it is to build a lot of nuclear.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 2, 2016)

Not only cheaper, but way cheaper when you add in grid scale storage.


----------

