ftr45

11 ms·

1.
by ftr45 7y ago
>Better solar, wind, etc., has fewer risks than better nuclear tech in the long run. no https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
2.
by ftr45 7y ago
>That has little to do with the decommissioning itself, yes they cut the main source of green energy
3.
by ftr45 7y ago
>The worst of the lies about nuclear is that it can somehow help create a carbon-neutral economy. Of course it wouldn't nope
4.
by ftr45 7y ago
> That cost is not reflected in current electric rates nope ''In fact, the carbon-intensity of French electricity has increased. After years of subsidies for solar and wind, France’s 2017 emissions of 68g/CO2 per kWh was
5.
by ftr45 7y ago
>Shellenberger has zero credibility. not an argument , bring proofs he's wrong
6.
by ftr45 7y ago
>Solar costs have fallen very rapidly. proof? beacuse using solar and wind bring a rise in the cost of energy https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05...
7.
by ftr45 7y ago
that's not the only cost of renewables,look at germany and france https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05...
8.
by ftr45 7y ago
https://www.iea.org/statistics/?country=WORLD&year=2016&cate...
9.
by ftr45 7y ago
>a sizeable area becomes inhabitable for centuries Well no, reactors in chernobyl remained operative until 2000 ,and chernobyl is not inhabitable look at all the animals that live there , the level of radiation is low.Regarding fukushim
10.
by ftr45 7y ago
>Unlike coal or nuclear, renewables are easily scaled down beacuse they stop working
11.
by ftr45 7y ago
so the only problems with solar are only caused by idiots who oppose it and regulations
12.
by ftr45 7y ago
maybe 4 years aren't so relevant,maybe you should bring proof's of what you say
13.
by ftr45 7y ago
> Your report is from 2015 so ? >Given how rapidly PV costs have continued to decline (and how major nuclear efforts collapsed with cost explosions since then), that's useless. you say so, but the one with evidence is me not you
14.
by ftr45 7y ago
>It's really not a given that we must use high levels of electricity to maintain a high quality of life this is just an intellectual dishonest excuse to ignore nuclear energy
15.
by ftr45 7y ago
maybe we can use carbon capture and nuclear to produce carbon neutral fuel
16.
by ftr45 7y ago
hope people will listen this obvious article , nuclear is cheaper, safer and need less resource's than any other type of energy https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
17.
by ftr45 7y ago
>Average wind turbine generates = 3 MW it doesn't work like that , capacity factor of wind is almost half of the capacity factor of nuclear
18.
by ftr45 7y ago
>I mean, it's half the cost of nuclear it's not https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2015/7057-proj-costs-elect...
19.
by ftr45 7y ago
nuclear is the safest and cheapest option https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2015/7057-proj-costs-elect.
20.
by ftr45 8y ago
it's actually beacuse storing nuclear waste doesn't create ''radioactive wasteland''
21.
by ftr45 8y ago
it's pretty obvious ,nuclear is the only avaible solution to climate change, renewables are not