Environment & Energy

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)

62. High-carbon nuclear?

Thu May 16, 2013, 02:27 PM

May 2013

Nuclear is not "high-carbon" per kWh produced, by any stretch of the imagination.

It produces virtually zero carbon.

And solar's footprint, even when it's not producing at all, is hundreds of times that of nuclear. Capacity from the new two-reactor plant at Hinkley Point in the UK, if generated by wind or solar, would take up an area the size of Greater London - about 600 sq miles.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

72 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Cost of German Solar is Four Times Finnish Nuclear [View all] FBaggins May 2013 OP

"The Breakthrough Institute"? kristopher May 2013 #1

Hardly the heritage foundation. FBaggins May 2013 #4

Where is your peaking power going to come from? Fairy dust? kristopher May 2013 #7

Peaking power must match peaking demand. FBaggins May 2013 #10

well, even you have to admit that with increasing gains in storage technology all of these numbers Tunkamerica May 2013 #32

Admit? FBaggins May 2013 #33

Me too. Tunkamerica May 2013 #34

What you said. It's another front for Big Energy. DCKit May 2013 #72

What about the cost and risk of storing nuclear waste for generations? JEB May 2013 #2

Negligible. FBaggins May 2013 #5

100,000 years of responsibility is not negligible. JEB May 2013 #9

Sure it is. FBaggins May 2013 #11

your casual dismissal of the problems with storing spent nuclear material would tell me everything niyad May 2013 #14

I haven't dismissed them FBaggins May 2013 #15

Really - which isotopes last 100,000 years FreakinDJ May 2013 #20

Ask the famous Luddite and astronaut JEB May 2013 #22

the higher the intensity of radioactivity the shorter the half-life. FreakinDJ May 2013 #24

Until it Leaks newsboy May 2013 #3

Methodology straight out the climate change deniers handbook Kelvin Mace May 2013 #6

That's the BI for you. kristopher May 2013 #8

Got any details? FBaggins May 2013 #12

Cherry picking data Kelvin Mace May 2013 #39

Hardly. FBaggins May 2013 #41

Seeing as solar is increasing Germany's carbon footprint dramatically wtmusic May 2013 #42

How is that? Kelvin Mace May 2013 #45

Because solar doesn't work most of the time. wtmusic May 2013 #46

That is still 13MW not produced Kelvin Mace May 2013 #59

High-carbon nuclear? wtmusic May 2013 #62

So, the contruction of the plant Kelvin Mace May 2013 #63

Solar is 2.5x higher than nuclear in lifetime GHG emissions. wtmusic May 2013 #64

You can mine 250-300 tons of steel without emissions? FBaggins May 2013 #68

breakthrough institute gets it wrong on climate economics--again niyad May 2013 #13

Not related to this analysis. FBaggins May 2013 #16

hmmm, not related. but the fact that they are wrong in one significant area tells me they niyad May 2013 #17

Your habit of misrepresenting my views is getting out of hand kristopher May 2013 #18

If I'm misrepresenting your views... you hide them pretty well. FBaggins May 2013 #25

What’s wrong with pricing carbon emissions? FreakinDJ May 2013 #21

I don't get that from Breakthrough's paper. wtmusic May 2013 #48

They are rightwing and antitax kristopher May 2013 #49

the people who lived near Chernobyl disagree about no economic cost when nuclear goes bad nt msongs May 2013 #19

The people of Fukushima JEB May 2013 #23

And who said that? FBaggins May 2013 #26

The ticking bomb that is the Hanford Kelvin Mace May 2013 #38

That isn't related to nuclear power. FBaggins May 2013 #40

Have they figured in the price of dismantlibg the reactor? Democracyinkind May 2013 #27

Of course. FBaggins May 2013 #28

There are only about 2 or 3 fully dismantled (commercial) reactors that I know of Democracyinkind May 2013 #36

It isn't just figured into their math... it's required FBaggins May 2013 #37

they left out the cost of liabily veganlush May 2013 #29

A frequently-repeated falsehood FBaggins May 2013 #31

wrong veganlush May 2013 #53

Nonsense. FBaggins May 2013 #54

give it up veganlush May 2013 #55

There was such a meltdown already. FBaggins May 2013 #57

the fact that you veganlush May 2013 #58

Only in the case... FBaggins May 2013 #60

Solar subsidies are 30 times as high as those for nuclear. wtmusic May 2013 #67

Why does a 60 year old industry need subsidies? kristopher May 2013 #69

Union of Concerned Scientists FogerRox May 2013 #70

"Legacy" subsidies? WTF is this idiot talking about? wtmusic May 2013 #71

Every operating nuke plant in the world is insured. wtmusic May 2013 #44

Under-insured is more accurate. kristopher May 2013 #50

It's just money. DetlefK May 2013 #30

Which is why we ought to ban fossil fuels and agricultural fuels. hunter May 2013 #61

Breakthrough Chairman's Bio - long version, is a joke. GeorgeGist May 2013 #35

Wow - did these idiots ever consider the cost feed-in tarrifs vs. actual generating costs? jpak May 2013 #43

Of course - all tarrrrifs included. nt wtmusic May 2013 #47

And what was the purpose of these tarrifs? jpak May 2013 #52

What WAS the purpose? FBaggins May 2013 #56

This is why the BI "study" is BS. kristopher May 2013 #51

758 veiws and 2 recs. Next. FogerRox May 2013 #65

Thanks for kick, and... wtmusic May 2013 #66