4 ms·
please stop calling them nukes, it makes you sound like Greenpeace crazy person that actually think that a nuclear power plant has anything to do with nuclear w
by Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
please stop calling them nukes, it makes you sound like Greenpeace crazy person that actually think that a nuclear power plant has anything to do with nuclear weapons that nuke is normally referring to.
could you please provide some evidence that the capacity factor and supply safety is remotely comparable between APR1400 and offshore wind?
What do you think service costs are for offshore/onshore wind and hinkley point? having maintenance and an industry is actually a good thing for the economy.
where do you get your numbers? you sure make many claims without a shred of evidence. and are you seriously suggesting that we continue using natural gas?
- Schroedingersat 4y agoNuke is a word that applies to a reactor, a bomb, and someone who works on a reactor equally. Stop with the pearl clutching. https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAva... Cheap reactors are unreliable reactors. > What do you think service costs are for offshore/onshore wind and hinkley point? having maintenance and an industry is actually a good thing for the economy. Stop with the broken window fallacy. If subsidizing jobs is important, open a battery or PV plant with the tax money instead. > and are you seriously suggesting that we continue using natural gas? Using gas 2-20% of the time with a mean of around 8% produces fewer emissions than opening new uranium mines and only needs to happen whilst the storage industry matures. Your plan entails burning more gas whilst the reactors, mines, and enrichment are built out over decades, then it also entails burning more gas at the end for outages unless you overprovision and build seasonal storage and long distance transmission.
- zaphar 4y agoColloquially speaking, which your conversation here is, nuke has always meant bombs not reactors. He's not pearl clutching, he's reacting to what sounds like unnecessarily negative terminology.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoIt unambiguously means nuclear reactor in context and is widely used. The only people who even pretend it doesn't are the ones simultaneously making disingenuous arguments about why renewables are terrible and we immediately need to drop them and wait 50 years for nuclear to save the day. The mock outrage is tiresome and transparent.
- deathcakes 4y agoWikipedia disagrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuke As do I, I personally have never heard someone refer to a nuclear fission power plant as a nuke, but I guess I don't hang around with the same people as you...
- Schroedingersat 4y agohttps://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/nuke https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/nuke https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nuke https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nuke https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuke https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuke Your mock ignorance is tiresome and transparent
- kennend3 4y agoAs i have posted here many times, i live very close to a nuclear power plant. Everyone in the area simply calls it "the nuke plant". It is a directional landmark : "yeah, so once you get to the nuke plant turn left...." "Once you see the nuke plant you know you are getting close".. Its full name is a mouth full : Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. Citing wikipedia sometimes backfires.
- moloch-hai 4y agoWe call them nukes because they are nukes. No one is even slightly confused by the usage.