Reply #55: Your long posts that just rehash info that has been debunked time and again do you no good [View All]

So a 50 year old nuclear design in a reactor that was built in 1971 isn't the correct path forward to the future? DUH! (Duuuuuuuuuuuh !!!!!)

Do you hear any person on DU saying that we should build more of those 50 year old designs? No.

Do you hear any group or person connected to the nuclear power plant industry saying we should build more 50 year old designs? No.

Let's not lower ourselves to using a terrible human tragedy such as is happening in Japan to score a few "points" on a discussion board. The truth is that everyone knows those reactors are far more dangerous than what we would build today.

The difference between you and I is that I want to go all out building the most cost effective --and safest-- non-proliferating reactors we have been able to devise to date. That we need to replace all of the old reactors first and foremost while also building new generating capacity. That we need to make use of IFRs or fast breeders or other recycling technologies to get rid of the long-lived waste that is just sitting around now and burn it up to make electrical power for the world.

Your post does nothing to solve the problems that exist and does much to further entrench the status quo where coal power is the only game in town because "nukyoolar iz BAD" and we should never think about it. The only problem with that approach is that coal is killing us all --slowly. We will eventually pay the price for using so much coal and oil. Or should I say that our grandchildren will.

Denying that wind and solar need energy storage is a clear admission that you know the costs of that would easily top the cost of nuclear power plants. There is no other way around it: we need to build far more solar and wind than the "peak" power requirements and build energy storage so that solar and wind can cover all of the energy requirements for the times when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't directly overhead.

Your post states that we must build natural gas power plants to fill in the gaps in solar and wind farm output. You are forgetting that those plants are The Most Expensive Forms Of Electricity Generation We Have. They sit idle for much of the time and then they have to be started fast and cold --neither of which is efficient-- so they burn far more fuel per usable kilowatt hour than they should. In order for the wind and solar to truly be "base load" generators the facts are clear: they need energy storage either at the same location or a centrally located position where many solar and wind farms can feed into it. Either way it doesn't matter. Solar and wind will continue to be bit players until they have massive energy storage built-in. Period.