There is a clear consensus among climate scientists about removing fossil fuels by whatever means is necessary. The nuclear industry have just been spectacularly good at propaganda with people who are not as aware of the alternatives in energy supply.
Currently wind and solar with storage are more economical and have less likelihood of producing devastating impacts than nuclear power or coal.
As to megawatts I suggest you look at the Burbo Bank facility in Liverpool Bay and similar offshore schemes
I think you have mistaken me for a climate change denier, which I am very much not. I am not a coal jumper either. I want it dumped right now. I just don’t think nuclear in the USA is a safe option given the morons in the current government, and the buffoons who might be appointed in the future.
Honestly, if you’re trying to win me over to nuclear power, the way you’re going about it just is not going to work. You sound a little intense. My degrees are real. Are yours?
You sound exactly like and antivaxxer. The IPCC explicitly advocates for the use and embrace of nuclear power. Read the report.You are wrong, scientifically. And the actual IPCC, in addition to anyone who understands orders of magnitude such as myself, knows that your continued rejection of nuclear power is coal humping.Now are you saying you are wiser and smarter than all those experts? Just like antivax say about those blind ideological doctors?Do you see how fact-free and ridiculous your position is you only have to do the basic reading.The real value of a science education is an open mind and the ability to learn. You should try these things.
Because it matters to the planet. I am also *on* people who do not vaccinate their children for the same anti-science "reasoning" you show here. Because you want to be a decent person, so learn the science and stop humping coal.
I concur with the obvious that climate scientist advocate for nuclear power, wind, solar, as well as hydro and sometimes geothermal.
Opposing nuclear power because of OHHH BIG ENERGY is exactly the same as opposing vaccines because of OHH BIG PHARMA. whoooo whoooo biiiiiiggggggg
The implication that somehow they have managed to snow all the scientists is ridiculous.
I will support Warren but I do not respect pandering to dangerous nonsense. I would still support her is she went full antivax. I would rather have a candidate who accepted science on climate rather than doing exactly as cosplay socialists demand.
Check my link to the World Health Organization regarding the cancer levels expected in the vicinity of Fukushima and get back to me. As I recall, up to 70 increase for some cancers. Coal isn't safe. A log fire isn't safe. And nuclear isn't safe. Wind and solar are safe.
I don't oppose nuclear power because of "Big Energy"
I oppose it because it is hugely wasteful of resources including concrete and steel. It can have catastrophic failures with worldwide consequences. That apart it produces massive amounts of hazardous waste eg the tailings from a uranium mine. Then there are the low, medium and high level wastes for which, even after 70 years, there is no satisfactory method of disposal.
Lastly I oppose it because it is utterly uneconomic, every nuclear power plant receives subsidies from the government supporting it in the form of cash grants, special dispensations for pollution and the handing off of nuclear waste disposal.
It is said that molten salt/fluidised bed reactors (Thorium reactors) are supposedly "safer;" but in the 40 years since I first heard of them none have gone past the experimental stage because they all have massive problems.
And don't get me started on the, forever 20 years away, fusion reactors. I'm sure that within 150 years there will be fusion plants but I suspect they will be in space supplying power to colonies, exploration and mining
Coal is four to six *orders of magnitude* more deadly.
Your "but tell me about how Johnny had autism" argument style requires ignoring the absolute scientific consensus in support of nuclear power, oh determined coal humper.
Yeah, right, you have A Masters Degree .... IN SCIENCE!
Read the IPCC. Look at all the statistics. Accept the scientific consensus.
If you actually read the report -- there is a summary! -- you would realize that opposing nuclear power is coal humping. Like voting for Jill was supporting Trump.Like opposing vaccination is supporting disease.Read. The. Science. The consensus is for nuclear power.
Nice attempt at a poisoning the well fallacy you have indulged there.
I was not comparing nuclear with coal so why bring it up? It is usually done because the argument for nuclear is so weak vs modern renewables + battery.
The fact remains that a catastrophic failure of any nuclear power station is a massive disaster. The fact remains that disposal of waste at all levels has not been solved. The fact remains that nuclear power receives massive subsidies.
As Einstein said, "nuclear reactors are a very expensive way to boil water.”
I worked in the other end of the nuclear industry (i.e., I sat nuclear alert during the Cold War at RAF Upper Heyford in F-111A fighter bombers, with two or three nukes on board). I spent more time at Sandia Labs than you can fucking imagine as well. The story you are missing is that much of the world has been poisoned by the trail left by mining, milling, enriching, manufacturing not only nuclear weapons but "peaceful" nuclear fuel (don't forget, they store the spent rods on site because there is no accepted way of getting rid of the shit that's left over.Please look into places like Hanford or Rocky Flats to see if you would want to live there. After "clean up," Rocky Flats -- where they made nuke parts -- still has residual contamination. Plutonium 239, with a 24,000 year half life, will persist in that environment hundreds of thousands of years.After 20 years in the USAF and 15 more as a DoD civilian, I am happily retired and live in Germany. I do in fact have an MA in education. It came in handy writing curriculum for post graduate teaching (i.e., everybody in flight school in the USAF had at least a bachelors degree already). I was an F-111 flight instructor in three USAF major commands on two continents.As far a being a woo woo, I am not. As far as being vaccinated for various things, I've had the shots for yellow fever, plague, herpes, pneumococcus and even anthrax before deploying to the second Gulf War. I've got a reminder on my calendar to get a flu shot on 17 October.As far as accepting the scientific consensus, you might want to expand your horizons. Germany is getting rid of all of their nuclear power stations in favor of renewable energy, primarily solar and wind. As far as your argument goes, there are only two alternatives, both bad. I recommend you get out and about a bit more. Renewable is the future. One that you dumbfucks can't seem to figure out.As far as you being a dumb cunt, you display all the hallmarks of one.
Four letters: IPCC. It is the real scientists who wrote a report explaining that you should stop humping coal. Read it, with your pretend BS and MS.
Why are you still on this? What The Fuck is wrong with you?
Fuck off.
There is a clear consensus among climate scientists about removing fossil fuels by whatever means is necessary. The nuclear industry have just been spectacularly good at propaganda with people who are not as aware of the alternatives in energy supply.
Currently wind and solar with storage are more economical and have less likelihood of producing devastating impacts than nuclear power or coal.
As to megawatts I suggest you look at the Burbo Bank facility in Liverpool Bay and similar offshore schemes
I think you have mistaken me for a climate change denier, which I am very much not. I am not a coal jumper either. I want it dumped right now. I just don’t think nuclear in the USA is a safe option given the morons in the current government, and the buffoons who might be appointed in the future.
Honestly, if you’re trying to win me over to nuclear power, the way you’re going about it just is not going to work. You sound a little intense. My degrees are real. Are yours?
You sound exactly like and antivaxxer. The IPCC explicitly advocates for the use and embrace of nuclear power. Read the report.You are wrong, scientifically. And the actual IPCC, in addition to anyone who understands orders of magnitude such as myself, knows that your continued rejection of nuclear power is coal humping.Now are you saying you are wiser and smarter than all those experts? Just like antivax say about those blind ideological doctors?Do you see how fact-free and ridiculous your position is you only have to do the basic reading.The real value of a science education is an open mind and the ability to learn. You should try these things.
Because it matters to the planet. I am also *on* people who do not vaccinate their children for the same anti-science "reasoning" you show here. Because you want to be a decent person, so learn the science and stop humping coal.
I concur with the obvious that climate scientist advocate for nuclear power, wind, solar, as well as hydro and sometimes geothermal.
Opposing nuclear power because of OHHH BIG ENERGY is exactly the same as opposing vaccines because of OHH BIG PHARMA. whoooo whoooo biiiiiiggggggg
The implication that somehow they have managed to snow all the scientists is ridiculous.
I will support Warren but I do not respect pandering to dangerous nonsense. I would still support her is she went full antivax. I would rather have a candidate who accepted science on climate rather than doing exactly as cosplay socialists demand.
So if there is an accident with coal, most of us walk away.
Jesus please google "coal ash spill", which are immediate deadly and common. And that is plus global climate change.
Read the IPCC. Listen to the science. Stop being a ninny.
Check my link to the World Health Organization regarding the cancer levels expected in the vicinity of Fukushima and get back to me. As I recall, up to 70 increase for some cancers. Coal isn't safe. A log fire isn't safe. And nuclear isn't safe. Wind and solar are safe.
I don't oppose nuclear power because of "Big Energy"
I oppose it because it is hugely wasteful of resources including concrete and steel. It can have catastrophic failures with worldwide consequences. That apart it produces massive amounts of hazardous waste eg the tailings from a uranium mine. Then there are the low, medium and high level wastes for which, even after 70 years, there is no satisfactory method of disposal.
Lastly I oppose it because it is utterly uneconomic, every nuclear power plant receives subsidies from the government supporting it in the form of cash grants, special dispensations for pollution and the handing off of nuclear waste disposal.
It is said that molten salt/fluidised bed reactors (Thorium reactors) are supposedly "safer;" but in the 40 years since I first heard of them none have gone past the experimental stage because they all have massive problems.
And don't get me started on the, forever 20 years away, fusion reactors. I'm sure that within 150 years there will be fusion plants but I suspect they will be in space supplying power to colonies, exploration and mining
This is really is like a anti-vax mommy creed. Yes you know those "scientists" all like nuclear but you have Big Wisdom against Big Energy.
Read the IPCC. Look at the stats. Per kilowatt hour coal is literally orders of magnitude more deadly -some argument about 4 to 6 -- due to pollution.
We have excess carbon from coal burned centuries ago, of course. Annd you here-is-another-point-what-about-that approach.
Coal is four to six *orders of magnitude* more deadly.
Your "but tell me about how Johnny had autism" argument style requires ignoring the absolute scientific consensus in support of nuclear power, oh determined coal humper.
Yeah, right, you have A Masters Degree .... IN SCIENCE!
Read the IPCC. Look at all the statistics. Accept the scientific consensus.
(Are you antivax also?)
If you actually read the report -- there is a summary! -- you would realize that opposing nuclear power is coal humping. Like voting for Jill was supporting Trump.Like opposing vaccination is supporting disease.Read. The. Science. The consensus is for nuclear power.
Nice attempt at a poisoning the well fallacy you have indulged there.
I was not comparing nuclear with coal so why bring it up? It is usually done because the argument for nuclear is so weak vs modern renewables + battery.
The fact remains that a catastrophic failure of any nuclear power station is a massive disaster. The fact remains that disposal of waste at all levels has not been solved. The fact remains that nuclear power receives massive subsidies.
As Einstein said, "nuclear reactors are a very expensive way to boil water.”
I worked in the other end of the nuclear industry (i.e., I sat nuclear alert during the Cold War at RAF Upper Heyford in F-111A fighter bombers, with two or three nukes on board). I spent more time at Sandia Labs than you can fucking imagine as well. The story you are missing is that much of the world has been poisoned by the trail left by mining, milling, enriching, manufacturing not only nuclear weapons but "peaceful" nuclear fuel (don't forget, they store the spent rods on site because there is no accepted way of getting rid of the shit that's left over.Please look into places like Hanford or Rocky Flats to see if you would want to live there. After "clean up," Rocky Flats -- where they made nuke parts -- still has residual contamination. Plutonium 239, with a 24,000 year half life, will persist in that environment hundreds of thousands of years.After 20 years in the USAF and 15 more as a DoD civilian, I am happily retired and live in Germany. I do in fact have an MA in education. It came in handy writing curriculum for post graduate teaching (i.e., everybody in flight school in the USAF had at least a bachelors degree already). I was an F-111 flight instructor in three USAF major commands on two continents.As far a being a woo woo, I am not. As far as being vaccinated for various things, I've had the shots for yellow fever, plague, herpes, pneumococcus and even anthrax before deploying to the second Gulf War. I've got a reminder on my calendar to get a flu shot on 17 October.As far as accepting the scientific consensus, you might want to expand your horizons. Germany is getting rid of all of their nuclear power stations in favor of renewable energy, primarily solar and wind. As far as your argument goes, there are only two alternatives, both bad. I recommend you get out and about a bit more. Renewable is the future. One that you dumbfucks can't seem to figure out.As far as you being a dumb cunt, you display all the hallmarks of one.