Green new dream and nuclear power – page 3 – politics and economics – political forums gas vs electric oven review


OK. But the TED guy does address many of those concerns. He makes the excellent point that nuclear is the only energy source where the harmful emissions are wholly contained. Contrast that with coal, where millions of people are exposed current electricity examples to uncontained harmful particulates. And natural gas, while cleaner, has a huge potential body count looming in coming generations depending on how global warming plays out. So yes, there are of course risks with nuclear waste electricity cost per kwh south africa. But as far as I can tell literally no one has ever died from mishandled nuclear waste from nuclear power plants in the US despite widespread use of the technology. Compared to tens of thousands from coal particulates and many people from mishandling of waste in other heavy industries in the US. Erin Brockovitch and whatnot. So sure, we should acknowledge that nuclear waste is an issue that deserves attention. But nyc electricity cost per kwh doesn’t the very good safety record of nuclear waste management of the US nuclear power industry suggest that this waste is being handled with appropriate caution and care?

Similarly, the costs of waste containment and disposal are factored in and budgeted for and planned with nuclear, while the costs of carbon emissions are just an externality that gets pushed forward in time with a shrug. So in that sense the concentrated waste associated with nuclear power is kind of a benefit. Because it is concentrated and wd gaster acutely dangerous it needs to be dealt with using a lot of care and planning. And that seems to be working well in the US.

1. Even the status quo is better than alternatives. Every 3-10 gigawatts (estimates vary widely, depending on technology and assumptions) of solar capacity generates about 1 million tonnes of solar panel hp gas online refill booking status (this is to say nothing of production). Let’s go with 3 gigawatts and a bit over 30 year average life, both are rather generous. We’re looking at 10,000 tonnes of solar panel waste per gigawatt year. Nuclear consumes about 25-50, again, depending on what estimates you use, of RAW URANIUM (the 1% naturally occuring stuff) per gigawatt year and the waste is far hair electricity dance moms more concentrated and better contained. The comparison is obviously not exact (nuclear plant also uses more than uranium… but everything else is far easier to get rid of) but it’s important to understand nuclear produces wayyyyy less waste (though the waste is more difficult to handle and justifiably scary, though not to the same extent as is perceived) than alternative technologies being deployed today. This is to say nothing of the additional batteries required to make an all solar/wind grid work.

2. We already know how electricity dance moms to deal with the stuff long term. It’s a question of overcoming NIMBY and getting enough infrastructure and experience in place to run the facilities safely. Ideally, I rather have a long term storage (Yucca maybe?) ready to go because that will significantly lower the regulatory red tape and costs associated with deploying nuclear and ease a lot of the wd gaster cosplay fears surrounding nuclear. However, my suspicions are the path of least resistance is to just pay the higher costs in the short/medium term until Congress is left with no choice but to jam the Yucca depository down Nevada’s throat.