Skip to main content

View Diary: Hanford's Radwaste Tanks Leaking & Explosive, Waste Treament Plant Unsafe: Whistleblowers Vindicated (159 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Important point (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alain2112, Ozy, raincrow, Dauphin, Nulwee

    Which is the least-worst method of generating power?

    We aren't ready for all solar and wind, and those aren't without their concerns.  Small, modern, distributed nukes may very well cause fewer deaths than continuing to use fossil fuels.

    •  Sure, if you ignore the fact that it's the most (10+ / 0-)

      expensive power to build and operate.  We are much readier for wind and solar than nukes.

      •  We may be ready (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nulwee, Praxical

        but our grid is not, which is why nuclear power supplies more energy than wind and solar.

        Nuclear is not more expensive than fossil fuels once you factor in the externalities of pollution and global warming. Solar is more expensive if you don't.

        Wind is pretty cheap.

        But, once again, here we are on Daily Kos trying to evaluate our energy source based on capitalist thinking, what is cheapest? Boggles the mind.

        •  Nuclear power has benefited from 70 years (11+ / 0-)

          of immense government spending.  

          Since resources are not infinite, in makes sense to evaluate choices based on cost even if we lived in a theoretical communist utopia.  We just wouldn't use currency as the means to measure cost.

          Nuclear is dirty, dangerous, and far from green. It's more expensive than both wind and solar, unless you buy the bullshit only the nuclear industry pedals and pretend that huge decommissioning and insurance costs don't really exist.

          Renewable energy beats it hands down.  It is a dead technolgy being propped up by fan boys and contractors used to suckling at the government teat.

          income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

          by JesseCW on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 01:32:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Decommisioning costs are considered (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            when people do cost assessments. If you think that they aren't, then you are mistaken.

            Compared to the costs of climate change, the resources spent on nuclear are negligible.

            It's comparable to wind on a per kwh basis. Solar is more expensive.

            I installed solar on my house with ~50% tax incentives for state+federal, and still it wouldn't pay for itself if I didn't also get government subsidized renewable energy credits. Yeah, I'm sucking off the government teat to reduce my fossil fuel consumption. Yet apparently it's only bad when nuclear does it?

            •  It doesn't "pay for itself" because other (6+ / 0-)

              sources of electricity have 70 to 120 years of backed in subsidy.

              income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

              by JesseCW on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, it doesn't pay for itself (0+ / 0-)

                because electricity is cheap.

                But I'm not sure what your argument is. That nobody should have subsidies, and electricity should be 5 times the price, or that only energy sources you like should be subsidized.

                I'm merely pointing out that all energy is subsidized at some level, some more explicitly than others. Fossil fuels are subsidized heavily, not only in production, but also 'protection' from our wars, health impacts, and of course the costs from climate change.

                Against these costs, trying to call out the subsidies for any other energy source, whether nuclear or solar, is nitpicking.

                And let us not forget that with solar, for example, we are not even including the environmental costs associated with outsourcing production to China with their lax regulations. How much should we charge for that?

              •  Did you mention the millions needed for nuke (5+ / 0-)

                insurance? It's so expensive it has to be paid or subsidized by governments. Insurance is costly because the results of accidents can be dire, a meltdown for example.

                Higher incidents of leukemia in children living near nukes in Germany. Would any of its proponents build their homes in the shadow of a plant?  They emit radiation every day and the effects are cumulative.

            •  Only out to 50 years (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              the next hundred centuries, the costs are on the suckers that fell for the plutonium cartels's disinformation.

        •  Oh please (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brooke In Seattle, Sandino, Patango

          It's not particularly capitalist to note that wind only costs $1500/kw investment, and nuclear is up around $5000-6000.  Which means you can build four times as much wind as nuclear.

          •  The OZY poster (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            is saying people are " NIT PICKING " by pointing out the subsidization of nuke , oil and coal the last 50 years?

            They have used these subsidies to help destroy any investment in green energy for the last 40 years , but it is nit picking to bring it up? What other criminal behaviour do you want to dismiss and nit picking Ozy?  

      •  Are you familiar with capacity? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG, Morgan Sandlin

        Even if solar and wind sustain explosive growth, it will take probably beyond your lifetime before they could be a majority of U.S. energy.

        And that's assuming rosy, consistent economic growth for decades (which we all should know by now isn't going to happen) and heavy government subsidies. China is currently flooding the solar market, but that's expected to end soon. And when it does, solar's about to get a whole lot more expensive again.

        Governments care only as much as their citizens force them to care. Nothing changes unless we change -- George Monbiot.

        by Nulwee on Fri Apr 05, 2013 at 02:29:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site