Len05: If the reduction of the CO2 output is so important to save the current climate and our ecosystem.
why don't we simply build a lot of nuclear powerplants or thorium or whatever. It works. and it reduces a lot in one go.
why waste all these resources in small power producers and their installation?
Your idea would be good (imo) if nuclear power generation and power stations were safe. To force power plants to go that waywould be like too anti capitalistic, to socialistic and would destroy kuhzilluon jobs in the regulated community and in the health industry too.
Len05: If the reduction of the CO2 output is so important to save the current climate and our ecosystem.
why don't we simply build a lot of nuclear powerplants or thorium or whatever. It works. and it reduces a lot in one go.
why waste all these resources in small power producers and their installation?
It does provide the energy we need.
It's actually very clean when running. Less toxic waste than solar panels but certainly more deadly that we know of. Exceptionally more cost effective and efficient than wind power.
It's scare tactics people have bought into. Yes, it can be very deadly if not managed properly and a nuclear power plant blows up. Most should be built and kept up with in more isolated areas and would still provide what we need.
Quite frankly, I think the CO2 damages they push are a crock. Now we're going to control the weather? When has man ever taken "control" of any thing that he didn't screw up or was just plain wrong about?
We're cooling... no we're warming,....the polar ice caps have expanded...etc. The name was switched to "climate change" for a reason. I think it has more to do with money, politics, and regulations than any thing to with "saving the planet".
round here it's cheaper than dirt to build a natural gas or rebuild a coal plant.
we have a nuke plant 'comanche peak' but their energy prices fluctuate sometimes to a higher price point.
we have an abundance of coal and natural gas. so we run with it.
By the way we have our own TX State inspected and TX licensed weather modification program that does Not use ANY Harmful chemicals like the Fed/.Gov program.
We only use "Harmless silver iodide flares" and the taxpayer investment produces over a 200X return in AG/Farming/Ranching receipts as well as filling the lakes & keeping water prices low.
crayons: round here it's cheaper than dirt to build a natural gas or rebuild a coal plant.
we have a nuke plant 'comanche peak' but their energy prices fluctuate sometimes to a higher price point.
we have an abundance of coal and natural gas. so we run with it.
By the way we have our own TX State inspected and TX licensed weather modification program that does Not use ANY Harmful chemicals like the Fed/.Gov program.
We only use "Harmless silver iodide flares" and the taxpayer investment produces over a 200X return in AG/Farming/Ranching receipts as well as filling the lakes & keeping water prices low.
Now I understand why there are so many and frequent hail storms in the Dallas Fort Worth to areas.
galrads: Now I understand why there are so many and frequent hail storms in the Dallas Fort Worth to areas.
No, the weather here is so volatile we only need to do it from the end of May through Aug. which is the critical time of year around here for AG production.
i could talk about the insurance co's and their love of raising rates...
we have the tech today to squash local hail storms. you'll hear more about it in the near future.
Cloud seeding isn't weather control. It's a modification that only works under certain criteria required in the clouds.
Natural gas is good. I still think coal is good to use too. Nuclear isn't bad either. It just requires a heck of a lot more caution.
I would like to see less interference from politics, regulations, and more. Can common sense be used with the knowledge and experience already gained when making guidelines and laws? It certainly doesn't seem possible much these days.
Len05: If the reduction of the CO2 output is so important to save the current climate and our ecosystem.
why don't we simply build a lot of nuclear powerplants or thorium or whatever. It works. and it reduces a lot in one go.
why waste all these resources in small power producers and their installation?
Is Belgium willing to store all the spent fuel rods from these nuclear power plants? There's still a big chunk of Japan that is uninhabitable as well as parts of Belarus, Ukraine, and Western Russia due directly to human arrogance, stupidity, and bad planning. There's a "Superfund" site in Hanford Washington which will be radioactive for a thousand years. I could list others but you get the idea. Wind turbines create nothing but electricity. They kill a few birds but I think that could be fixed by some form of ultrasonic noise deterrence. Humans wouldn't even hear it but birds would.
Glad you said clean when running. Just not the mining or decommissioning, or when there's a meltdown or tidal wave or human error. And spent fuel, nuclear proliferation. from that, yeah its great.
Wind turbines aren't worth what's put into them economically. 2-3 gigawatts or so won't make up for the cost of building, upkeep, and the eye sore they are to the landscape.
Solar panels actually create millions of tons of toxic sludge from beginning to end. Also not good to tear up the landscape for the space they require. Renovations have been made in recycling but the byproducts are proven deadly and also make land useless in the event of an accident.
It would be great if hydroelectric and geothermal were accessible for all but it's not even close. A broken damn or maybe a volcano suddenly forming and going off aren't good for human health and life in the immediate areas either but at least they're a lot more natural.
Nuclear is known. Renovations have been made on it as well. Studies and power plant building still continue. Being able to recycle was and still should be a major goal. Fission or fusion? We would still come out ahead energy wise to continue working on it like some of the care and renovations put into the falsehood of some of this not-so-green energy they keep trying to dump down our throats.
Either way and no matter what type, they all have their hazards and draw backs. I'd prefer something that will do what's needed and have to build less, since the two best aren't feasible for all.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
why don't we simply build a lot of nuclear powerplants or thorium or whatever.
It works. and it reduces a lot in one go.
why waste all these resources in small power producers and their installation?