goPACK17 t1_ix1ib4x wrote
MA is a great candidate for nuclear. There is no place on earth less susceptible to natural disaster than New England.
MoonlessPrairie t1_ix1n0ht wrote
It’s utterly amazing that there is fear of pipelines but nuclear plants would be welcome…
siwmasas t1_ix20w1w wrote
its more amazing that you don't get this... I have neither the time, patience, or crayons to explain this to you in a manner you'd understand
MoonlessPrairie t1_ix380rg wrote
I’m glad you’re suggesting your town for a SMR or large scale reactor. New York just shut down nine Mile point in part due to its proximity to New York City.
So, with my crayons, I think this entire argument is about carbon and not about energy.
So rather than obfuscate the issue, I am sure there are folks that would rather have nuclear power plants built vs a natural gas fired plant that has carbon emissions.
Nuclear has always been high-priced. In fact, if you look at some of the issues in Europe, they are caused by EDF having major issues with the reactor design. I think 12 of their 30 nuclear reactors are currently off-line due to critical flaws with the reactor design.
I am not in any way anti-nuclear power. But to assume that nuclear power can be produced cheaply reliably, and without safety concerns would be an assumption that is blind to the nuclear power industries history.
siwmasas t1_ix4fdjg wrote
Ah yes, because we all know municipalities make decisions based on reddit threads. Regardless, bring it the f on, I'll take a reactor downtown. Maynard is already a superfund site! All you seem to care about is somebody else's money. I don't give two shits how much it costs if its massively better for the environment in the long run.
How is everyone burning fossil fuels not an immediate danger to everyone on the planet, regardless of proximity to where the fuel was consumed?
So how safe are nuclear reactors?
>In the 60-year history of civil nuclear power generation, with over 18,500 cumulative reactor-years across 36 countries, there have been only three significant accidents at nuclear power plants
one of those three is Three Mile Island in NY, nice cherry-pick. How dangerous are they?
>Of all the accidents and incidents, only the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents resulted in radiation doses to the public greater than those resulting from the exposure to natural sources
Same sources as above.
So how do nuclear power plants compare to fossil fuel powered ones?
>On a levelized (i.e. lifetime) basis, nuclear power is an economic source of electricity generation, combining the advantages of security, reliability and very low greenhouse gas emissions. Existing plants function well with a high degree of predictability. The operating cost of these plants is lower than almost all fossil fuel competitors, with a very low risk of operating cost inflation. Plants are now expected to operate for 60 years and even longer in the future. The main economic risks to existing plants lie in the impacts of subsidized intermittent renewable and low-cost gas-fired generation. The political risk of higher, specifically-nuclear, taxation adds to these risks.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx
Cheaper than fossil fuels. The main barrier to nuclear energy is politics, not cost. CO2 emmisions for nuclear are 12g/kWh vs 41g/kWh for rooftop solar and a whopping 820g/kWh for fossil fuels.
So, your assertion that nuclear is more expensive, less safe, and unreliable is pure fabricated BS. Do some more research before you continue blabbering
We need more R&D to improve some of the designs, sure, but thats not a reason to discredit it, the same can be said for
Daily_the_Project21 t1_ix3409e wrote
What's wrong with nuclear power plants?
wittgensteins-boat t1_ix7m1vy wrote
So far, in the USA, no state has a permanent repository for high level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants, and spent uranium fuel rods are typically stored indefinitely on site awaiting the existence of same.
bleepbloopbluupp t1_ix1tmd5 wrote
you're a dimwit
Quirky_Butterfly_946 t1_ix1q0rk wrote
See this is why people are stupid. MA HAD a Nuclear Power Plant in Plymouth. But all the retarded environmentalists campaigned against it and it is now closed. Now the new environmentalist want nuclear.
Do you see how utter moronic they are? Do you see why no one wants to listen to them any more? They did the same thing with paper bags. They said it was causing deforestation, so we switched to plastic, now there are paper bags again and plastic is out.
CAN SOMEONE JUST PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY ARE IDIOTS.
The-Shattering-Light t1_ix1xblq wrote
This is a pretty disingenuous statement.
“Environmentalists” aren’t one monolithic group. I’ve always been an environmentalist and always been pro-nuclear.
Paper bags were causing deforestation - then changes were made to replace lost trees. Plastic became ubiquitous because it was a lot cheaper to make in bulk.
thepasttenseofdraw t1_ix2ascm wrote
Hey I’m about as green as they come, but yeah, that’s a pretty accurate description of what happened.
siwmasas t1_ix20p0p wrote
PEOPLE DID IT WRONG IN THE PAST!!! IT CAN NEVER HAPPEN!!!
oh ffs...
Daily_the_Project21 t1_ix33xkb wrote
Wasn't it planned to be shut down for a while? And then they sped it up because of financial reasons?
somegridplayer t1_ix3e1ur wrote
It wasn't environmentalists that shut down Pilgrim, it was Entergy citing economic reasons. They could have easily spun it down but they're not in the business of keeping assets around it seems. They pick up plants at pennies on the dollar run them for a few years, then sell them off to decommissioning companies, amusingly enough, making a profit.
The only thing now that's making life difficult by environmentalists is dumping of water. They think it's going to irradiate their dunks ice coffee and kill their dog.
pab_guy t1_ix3ns7p wrote
"They" aren't the same people for the most part but do go on yelling at the internet in all caps.
wittgensteins-boat t1_ix6b7q2 wrote
Pilgrim was closed because cheap natural gas made it unecononic to properly maintain and renew the aging plant.
Environmentalists did not have influence on Entergy, who had obtained a 20 year extension on the license to operate, and walked away from it.
DDups2 t1_ix375p3 wrote
I miss my plastic bags, always had a second use for them.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments