3 ms·

>No it isn't. We aren't really building new weapons, we're just maintaining the ones we have... $643 billion over the next 10 years It's the opinion of the (pr

by pydry 5y ago

>No it isn't. We aren't really building new weapons, we're just maintaining the ones we have... $643 billion over the next 10 years It's the opinion of the (pro nuclear) ex energy secretary Ernest J Moniz: https://web.archive.org/web/20180630220957/https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58ec123cb3db2bd94e057628/t/59947949f43b55af66b0684b/1502902604749/EFI+nuclear+paper+17+Aug+2017.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20180630220957/https://static1.s... >$643 billion over the next 10 years You do see how that isn't exactly cheap, right? And how it would be a problem if it ballooned over a trillion or more? >If coal were regulated like nuclear energy The fact you're comparing nuclear to the fastest disappearing form of unprofitable dirty energy kind of says it all, really.

ch4s3 5y ago
> It's the opinion of the (pro nuclear) ex energy secretary Ernest J Moniz He's talking about carbon emissions and non-proliferation goals which involves decommissioning weapons. There's 1 paragraph in the whole 38 page document about needing a reactor to produce tritium domestically to keep weapons functional until universal disarmament. You don't need anything more than a research reactor for that, and the DOD could probably just build one if they wanted to. Trying to connect civilian nuclear to weapons is FUD. > You do see how that isn't exactly cheap, right? I literally never commented on that. I was refuting your claim that it was a hidden, which it demonstrably is not. You completely made up that "Keeping a nuclear industry around is still a good way to keep a lid on nuclear arsenal costs." That is provably false, as demonstrated by the CBO publishing the costs. > The fact you're comparing nuclear to the fastest disappearing form of unprofitable dirty energy kind of says it all, really. You could say the same thing about natural gas, nickel mining, lithium mining, and on and on. Nuclear mine tailings are mitigated to the point that they are less radioactive than the background levels of the areas in which they are found. If dams had the kind of regulator scrutiny that nuclear receives, none would ever be built especially near centers of population.

by pydry 5y ago

ch4s3 5y ago

> It's the opinion of the (pro nuclear) ex energy secretary Ernest J Moniz He's talking about carbon emissions and non-proliferation goals which involves decommissioning weapons. There's 1 paragraph in the whole 38 page document about needing a reactor to produce tritium domestically to keep weapons functional until universal disarmament. You don't need anything more than a research reactor for that, and the DOD could probably just build one if they wanted to. Trying to connect civilian nuclear to weapons is FUD. > You do see how that isn't exactly cheap, right? I literally never commented on that. I was refuting your claim that it was a hidden, which it demonstrably is not. You completely made up that "Keeping a nuclear industry around is still a good way to keep a lid on nuclear arsenal costs." That is provably false, as demonstrated by the CBO publishing the costs. > The fact you're comparing nuclear to the fastest disappearing form of unprofitable dirty energy kind of says it all, really. You could say the same thing about natural gas, nickel mining, lithium mining, and on and on. Nuclear mine tailings are mitigated to the point that they are less radioactive than the background levels of the areas in which they are found. If dams had the kind of regulator scrutiny that nuclear receives, none would ever be built especially near centers of population.