3 ms·
Solar and wind is nowhere near price-competitive with nuclear plants. Nuclear is the only real alternative to coal-fired plants (which are much worse than nucle
by Devilboy 17y ago
Solar and wind is nowhere near price-competitive with nuclear plants. Nuclear is the only real alternative to coal-fired plants (which are much worse than nuclear in pretty much every way, including the amount of radioactive waste generated)
Solar and wind cannot provide base-load power. Nuclear and coal plants can. Which should we build then if wind / solar is not practical?
- gaius 17y agoincluding the amount of radioactive waste generated That's the fact that absolutely blows the mind of the anti-nuclear types. And those that doesn't, it reveals that it was never about radioactivity at all; their objection to it is purely political (dig a little deeper and find that they object to all capitalist/industrial economy).
- brc 17y agoDon't forget about the number of people who die each and every year in coal mining - fatalities which stack up year after year, as opposed to one major failure causing fatalities in the entire history of the nuclear industry.
- eli 17y agoErr, no, my objections are not purely political, and yes I do think radioactive waste is a pretty significant issue. Further, I would love for you to explain how it's anti-capitalist to suggest that we shouldn't use government subsidies to build new nuclear plants? (Because that's pretty much all I said in the parent comment, and nuclear plants certainly don't get built without massive subsidies.) I think that if the government is going to help fund new power plants to reduce our carbon output, then we can do better than nuclear. You disagree? Or would you rather argue with your straw man hippie stereotype?
- Devilboy 17y agoThat's the point - we CAN'T do better than nuclear. Not in 2009. All the alternatives are either too expensive or not reliable enough.