dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes from coal, and even if we stop doing that
because of the CO2 produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not 'various green sources'

Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...

Nope.

Yep...

Nope...

solves C sequestration,

There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

can regenerate more fuel than burned,

There's a hell of a lot more involved in being a green source than that.

etc., etc., etc., ...

There is no etc., etc., etc., ... with nukes and being green.

In spades with the main downside with nukes, the immense cost
of dealing with the hulk once its no longer used, if you're actually stupid enough to not just encase it in
concrete and leave it there.

Even just the concrete involved with any nuke is very ungreen.

Not really if you make any rational comparison of the _quantities_ per MWe...

Thats not what being a green source is about.

And why not, pray tell?

Green is primarily about renewable resources and power nukes aint.

We dont even use breeder reactors for nuke power generation.

Being less intrusive on the environment of the _OVERALL_ process from manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and
disposal is the epitome of "green".

Nope. Infanticide would be very green using that test and you
wont find too many spruiking infanticide as being very green.

Granted that's not what the shortsighted politically active
"greenies" consider but for the most part they have very myopic viewpoints and wish a lot instead of making
considered evaluations of the whole process and end results including, of course, reliability and economic
considerations.

And they hate nukes, so they aint green at all.

Consider, for example, the problem of wind generation previously
mentioned. Since, as mentioned, even in one of the most advantageous siting areas for wind, it requires from 2.5X
to 4X the needed capacity to have 50:50 probability the wind farm will provide that much (on a
monthly basis, the multipliers get even larger as time averaging goes shorter), there has to be that backup
generation somewhere, somehow to make it up when needed. That, unfortunately, means investment in some other
generation capacity that most often now is gas turbine which
drives up demand for diminishing natural gas and does add to the CO.

Just because wind generation isnt as green as it might be doesnt make nukes green.

There are similar issues w/ solar albeit not quite as variable but
the night time shutdown is absolute--at least it is predictable. The point is, while these sources are of value and
have low direct input
fuel costs, they definitely have other costs in their deployment that cannot be ignored in a global analysis of what
is or isn't "green".

Thats not what green is about, thats about how viable a particular technology is.

If the "greens" have any serious ideas of affecting CO2, we'll find out shortly as the present 20+ license
applications pending at the NRC wend their way thru...

Nope, they are completely irrelevant to the success or otherwise of those applications.

I suspect we'll find they're still only obstructionists at heart...

Or that they just mindlessly hate nukes.