This is the one side of the aisle I think Bernie is always on the wrong side of. Nuclear power of some form will be required for a full transition away from fossil sources, and it should be telling how fast other nations like China are dumping money into it. It is cleaner and causes fewer accidents per GWh than any fossil source ever has- it's just been demonized for decades by those who stand to benefit from it being restricted and painted as a "non-green" energy source.
The problem is that humans cut corners for power and profit, and the nuclear industry is no exception.
sure, and you think this isn't also happening in every single other industry right now?
That's a regulatory problem and not a fundamental mechanics problem. the logic of "well it's good but humans will cut corners" means we should never do anything at all.
Nuclear is the most expensive energy technology used, so expansion is only useful if all renewable sources are already built out to the limit
This is not the case, so investing in renewable is the smarter choice environmentally and fiscally
Of course, the route we took in Germany reducing nuclear to upscale coal is even stupider, but it is far too late to reverse that
It is not the most expensive for any intrinsic reason. It's not necessarily that complex to operate. It's expensive because bureaucracy that has been strapped to it to make switching to it harder, which was designed to keep dirty energy in demand longer. It is the safest power source we have available (including renewables). There's no reason it's so expensive except to attempt to kill it.
I'm pretty sure that bureaucracy was also about controlling nuclear materials because they're dangerous and potential weapons.
Some of it, yeah. Obviously some is required. Not the amount that it has though.
It's the most expensive if you don't already have the infrastructure & experience needed to support it. Of course in places where nuclear is barely used or not used at all, it's going to be more expensive than others. But the US doesn't have such a problem – in large part due to lifetime extensions (which allow plants to operate for another 20-40 years, up to a maximum of 80 years), which bring nuclear's cost down to comparable to renewables. Without lifetime extensions though, nuclear indeed would be more expensive than renewable energy.
Renewable energy also gets subsidized significantly more than any other form of energy – in the US, solar and wind both get roughly about 16x the $/MWh of nuclear, and 2x the total amount of budget. The EU also puts like half of its total energy subsidies into renewables (and a third into fossil fuels) and almost none in to nuclear. That should probably be taken into account too.
I'd love to see more nuclear power generation. Nuclear power is the densest form of power on earth, it's safer than even renewables and doesn't have the huge e-waste or energy storage problems that come with it. It's very, very safe even compared to windmills depending on where you draw the box. I have never met anybody who actually understands nuclear power safety or waste disposal who is against it. At best, they say "renewables are currently cheaper so let's focus there" but they're not like "Nuclear is bad".
Turbines. Windmills are for making flour.
I don't think nuclear is bad. It's really great for deep space and deep sea operations. It's just expensive in terms of both time and money.
I'm usually against Sanders on this, but I very much respect the risky part of that sentence. Because I just don't have a lot of faith in the future right now, and I don't know if I trust any nuclear options going forward. I mean after Trump wins the election and implements his project f, or whatever it was called, who's going to be the head of the nuclear regulatory agency? One of his shitty kids friends? Maybe Sanders is right and it's a bad time.
Would you be surprised that we have dozens of nuclear plants all over the United States? Modern reactors that can withstand the mistakes of the past without the disaster? Media makes the public think the risk is higher than it is when in reality, more people have died per year installing renewables than all the nuclear disasters combined (per GW/H).
Nuclear is simply too energy dense to ignore.
Where do you put the waste? For how long and at what cost?
What about the cost of decommissioning nuclear sites at the end of their life?
In the ground, very deep, forever, for not nearly as much money as you might think. It takes up very, very little space. It's not green liquid that can spill, it's pieces of glass.
We did that in Germany, and it's now contaminating groundwater, as the very deep hole is flooding with water.
You put things around the glass so that groundwater never touches the 'glass'. Again, very different now from the days we started.
Good that it passed but we know who big oil has bought at least
Oh yes, Senators Markey and Sanders, well known servants of Big Oil. /s
Where did the story mention oil companies?
Only people supporting oil companies would vote against nuclear
Got em, Sanders and Markey are in the pocket of big oil and everyone else in the Senate is standing up to those corrupt senators! /s
You CLEARLY don't know what you're talking about, and now you reveal your "logic" is simply a game of 50/50. Very cool.
This is the one side of the aisle I think Bernie is always on the wrong side of. Nuclear power of some form will be required for a full transition away from fossil sources, and it should be telling how fast other nations like China are dumping money into it. It is cleaner and causes fewer accidents per GWh than any fossil source ever has- it's just been demonized for decades by those who stand to benefit from it being restricted and painted as a "non-green" energy source.
The problem is that humans cut corners for power and profit, and the nuclear industry is no exception.
sure, and you think this isn't also happening in every single other industry right now?
That's a regulatory problem and not a fundamental mechanics problem. the logic of "well it's good but humans will cut corners" means we should never do anything at all.
Nuclear is the most expensive energy technology used, so expansion is only useful if all renewable sources are already built out to the limit
This is not the case, so investing in renewable is the smarter choice environmentally and fiscally
Of course, the route we took in Germany reducing nuclear to upscale coal is even stupider, but it is far too late to reverse that
It is not the most expensive for any intrinsic reason. It's not necessarily that complex to operate. It's expensive because bureaucracy that has been strapped to it to make switching to it harder, which was designed to keep dirty energy in demand longer. It is the safest power source we have available (including renewables). There's no reason it's so expensive except to attempt to kill it.
I'm pretty sure that bureaucracy was also about controlling nuclear materials because they're dangerous and potential weapons.
Some of it, yeah. Obviously some is required. Not the amount that it has though.
It's the most expensive if you don't already have the infrastructure & experience needed to support it. Of course in places where nuclear is barely used or not used at all, it's going to be more expensive than others. But the US doesn't have such a problem – in large part due to lifetime extensions (which allow plants to operate for another 20-40 years, up to a maximum of 80 years), which bring nuclear's cost down to comparable to renewables. Without lifetime extensions though, nuclear indeed would be more expensive than renewable energy.
Renewable energy also gets subsidized significantly more than any other form of energy – in the US, solar and wind both get roughly about 16x the $/MWh of nuclear, and 2x the total amount of budget. The EU also puts like half of its total energy subsidies into renewables (and a third into fossil fuels) and almost none in to nuclear. That should probably be taken into account too.
We really need to only allow single issues.
I'd love to see more nuclear power generation. Nuclear power is the densest form of power on earth, it's safer than even renewables and doesn't have the huge e-waste or energy storage problems that come with it. It's very, very safe even compared to windmills depending on where you draw the box. I have never met anybody who actually understands nuclear power safety or waste disposal who is against it. At best, they say "renewables are currently cheaper so let's focus there" but they're not like "Nuclear is bad".
Turbines. Windmills are for making flour.
I don't think nuclear is bad. It's really great for deep space and deep sea operations. It's just expensive in terms of both time and money.
I'm usually against Sanders on this, but I very much respect the risky part of that sentence. Because I just don't have a lot of faith in the future right now, and I don't know if I trust any nuclear options going forward. I mean after Trump wins the election and implements his project f, or whatever it was called, who's going to be the head of the nuclear regulatory agency? One of his shitty kids friends? Maybe Sanders is right and it's a bad time.
Would you be surprised that we have dozens of nuclear plants all over the United States? Modern reactors that can withstand the mistakes of the past without the disaster? Media makes the public think the risk is higher than it is when in reality, more people have died per year installing renewables than all the nuclear disasters combined (per GW/H).
Nuclear is simply too energy dense to ignore.
Where do you put the waste? For how long and at what cost?
What about the cost of decommissioning nuclear sites at the end of their life?
In the ground, very deep, forever, for not nearly as much money as you might think. It takes up very, very little space. It's not green liquid that can spill, it's pieces of glass.
We did that in Germany, and it's now contaminating groundwater, as the very deep hole is flooding with water.
You put things around the glass so that groundwater never touches the 'glass'. Again, very different now from the days we started.
Good that it passed but we know who big oil has bought at least
Oh yes, Senators Markey and Sanders, well known servants of Big Oil. /s
Where did the story mention oil companies?
Only people supporting oil companies would vote against nuclear
Got em, Sanders and Markey are in the pocket of big oil and everyone else in the Senate is standing up to those corrupt senators! /s
You CLEARLY don't know what you're talking about, and now you reveal your "logic" is simply a game of 50/50. Very cool.