UNEP/Frankfurt School Investment figures in so called "renewable energy" 2006-2016.

[Eko]

14. ok.

Last edited Thu May 18, 2017, 09:50 PM - Edit history (1)

except for the fact that the storage of used nuclear fuel is only remarkable since its storage, despite the incessant caterwauling of anti-nukes, hasn't killed anyone.
And the disposal of solar cells has?

Where is humanity putting 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide, along with heavy metals, carcinogenic organic compounds and other horrible stuff that constitutes dangerous fossil fuel waste?? Do you have a "safe and reliable" "harmless" way to store it forever?

Do you know where it's being "stored" right now, today? I'll tell you where: It's being "stored" in every living organism on the planet, in the cells, tissues, organs of every living organism on earth or in the matrices on which every organism on earth depends, specifically air, water and soil.

I repeatedly refer to the 7 million people killed each year from air pollution which is dangerous fossil fuel waste as well as dangerous biomass combustion waste, and typically, in classic anti-nuke selective attention, I get a selective attention response.

When, exactly, despite all the "waste mentality" caterwauling about it, has so called "Nuclear waste" killed seventy million people in a ten year period, for example the last ten years, when, again, the world squandered more than two trillion dollars on so called renewable energy while the death toll from air pollution and climate change continued to rise, not fall?

Of course, when I raise this point, I hear nothing but insipid - to the point of criminal - whining. "We're not talking about air pollution! We're not talking about air pollution!"

Why for the love of God are you not talking about air pollution!?!
Because I am not arguing with you that air pollution is not bad, of course it is. Once again the argument is you think nuclear is safer than solar.

Again, why are you not concerned with 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year? You are aware, aren't you than 70,000 people reportedly died in 2003 from exposure to high temperatures in Europe? It was reported in the scientific literature eath toll exceeded 70,000 in Europe during the summer of 2003 (Comptes Rendus Biologies Volume 331, Issue 2, February 2008, Pages 171–178)

You think that dealing with climate change is easy, but dealing with used nuclear fuel is difficult? Really? Are you willing to get serious, or are you just pulling my leg?
Just because I don't use air pollution in every single post to further my argument that solar is not more dangerous than nuclear, and what that has to do with the dangers of solar or nuclear is beyond me, doesn't mean that I don't care about air pollution and climate change, quit putting words into my mouth please.

Who, exactly, do you think you're talking to? Some airhead on a "wind and solar are great!" website run by people who have never taken or passed an engineering or science course in their pathetic lives?

Science and engineering? Really?
I think I am talking to somebody that does indeed seem to know a lot about nuclear energy but even more so engages in logical fallacies such as moving the goalposts, proof by verbosity, red herring, false analogy, hasty generalization, misleading vividness, Ad hominem,,,, I could keep going.
As for the science and engineering yes,
"The U.S. has 71,862 tons of the waste, according to state-by-state numbers obtained by The Associated Press. But the nation has no place to permanently store the material, which stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years.

Plans to store nuclear waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain have been abandoned, but even if a facility had been built there, America already has more waste than it could have handled." "The U.S. nuclear industry says the waste is being stored safely at power-plant sites, though it has long pushed for a long-term storage facility. Meanwhile, the industry's collective pile of waste is growing by about 2,200 tons a year; experts say some of the pools in the United States contain four times the amount of spent fuel that they were designed to handle." http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42219616/ns/business-us_business/t/us-storage-sites-overfilled-spent-nuclear-fuel/#.WRiNmsa1uUk

Notice the 2,200 tons a year. Multiply that by 1800% = 39,600 tons each year. Taking care of that much waste every year to a nation already struggling to take care of what it has does indeed seem to be a Science and engineering problem.

Now, as I've continued my research, I may have changed some of my ideas from back in 2010 and before, since I've grown in my respect for the problems that the constituents of used nuclear fuel, might be utilized to accomplish for future generations, but the basic concept remains unchanged: My "solution" to the problem of so called "nuclear waste" is to utilize all of the valuable constituents therein.

Used nuclear fuel for the most part consists of largely insoluble solids, with some minor exceptions. Carbon dioxide is a gas. Which is easier to contain, 75,000 tons of solids or hundreds of billions of tons of gases?

Now you ask me to tell you what I think we should do with what you and not I, call nuclear waste?
Perhaps you have heard of the NWTRB? Its a part of the government that deals with nuclear waste, Ill give you a hint what the W stands for in their name.

Did you do any work at all before asking this question or is just the recitation of lazy pablum that you think allows you to make a judgement about humanity's fate?
Oh no, I did some work. I certainly did enough not to have to engage in childish ad hominem attacks to get my point across. I do know that nuclear waste can be used further to power us, such as IFR's, diamond batteries and use for medical products. But, as interesting as this is once again the argument is whether nuclear is safer than solar.

Don't talk to me about "Science and Engineering" with a glib superficial and clearly mindless reference to so called "nuclear waste" unless you're willing to learn something about science and engineering. Clearly the nature of your question indicates that you haven't done a damned thing to understand nuclear technology and, like most anti-nukes, are merely criticizing something you know nothing about.
I am not anti nuke, quit putting words into my mouth. Once again I am anti you saying that solar is more dangerous than nuclear. Your continued use of a straw man argument is quite disconcerting and I am asking you to stop it please. I personally believe we need and will continue to need nuclear energy in the future.

By the way, I used to be a nuclear critic before 1986, because I knew nothing at all about nuclear science. The only difference between you and me is that unlike you, I questioned my assumptions.

If you are willing to do that, question your assumptions you will have a right to speak. If one refuses to do that and simply chants insipid phrases over and over and over and over mindlessly, one should be ignored if one offers up garbage rhetoric which, again, kills people through moral and intellectual indifference.

I am not a nuclear critic, you used straw man again, I question my assumptions and have liked this argument because it made me research things that I have not for a while. Have a right to speak? Who do think you are that you think you can decide whether or not I have a right to speak? You who insults, uses logical fallacies left and right and are generally a very unpleasant person to talk to? Chants insipid phrases over and over mindlessly? You mean like bring up air pollution in an argument over nuclear and solar and which is more dangerous? Or that I am anti nuke? It seems that to you, one cannot mention the safety and viability of nuclear vs solar without wanting to kill the world and be personally responsible for the deaths occurring and that will occur from air pollution. I think its possible that you need to challenge your assumptions, especially the one where you think solar is more dangerous that nuclear.

Have a nice Sunday,.
Anyone reading this knows that you don't mean that at all.