Their anger was directed at a draft regulation from the European Commission, released earlier this year, that would designate nuclear power as a “green” source of electricity and thereby make nuclear projects eligible for favourable financial terms. France, Europe’s leading atomic state withSuch are the fault lines. “The debate over whether we need nuclear power is very polarised,” saysFor many, it is too dangerous and expensive.
In the fog of claim and counterclaim, it can be hard to know what to think. Arguments over nuclear seem to generate a lot more heat than light.
Only if you can devise a form of nuclear power that won't contaminate whole countries with lethal radiation in the event environmental disaster or mechanical or human error causes safety systems to fail. We're not there yet.
'stop climate change' - humans with 'god' complex Good luck trying to stop something that's been happening for four and a half billion years and will happen for 7 billion more.
Let's try cutting consumption first, shall we, until we've cracked disposing safely of radioactive byproducts with half lives measured in millennia?
Nuclear won't be the answer as it is THE most expensive source of electricity.
No nukes...as bombs or power plants. Look what happened at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. There are no fail-safes for these plants... and the horrible consequences are put upon countless future generations.
Do we need Nuclear Power? Yes. Should the Low Bid Contractor be awarded a project to construct one? HELL NO!
Is it possible to use the earth’s rotation as a generator to generate electricity ?
Time is the major issue now. How long to construct these large plants and which tech is quickest, cheapest to assemble as much as final productivity gains.
Solar doesnt fall short, there is not money in it coz you just install it and pum, free energy.. But humans are not ready for this talk
Water, geothermal, magnetic, Zero Point. The possibilities are endless, the real question is whether those currently supplying will welcome & allow a change, at the moment judging by the propaganda from the right, one has to conclude it is not.
Yes!
YES! hydrogen derived from water. Use Electrolysis to create hydrogen to make gas then electric from a fuel cell. Burn the hydrogen and you get carbon free water. Water in water out carbon free! Recycle! There you go Electric, gas for your home creates water again to reuse
Nuclear energy it's currently the best solution!
Can't get rid of the waste
Nuclear is not carbon free. Pretending it is, does nothing for it's credibility and essential addition to a blended energy portfolio.
There are many free energy sources that are proven to be able to be used but overlords will not allow anyone to be able to use them because they are free.
I hope there is because any new nuclear that hasn't already broken ground will be too late.
Green energy is a ponzi. Nuclear only way forward
Yes, there already are some ways, some info here:
Clawback, 😂 A hilarious debacle.
What about renewables plus batteries? Can be much better distributed than nuclear, and the costs spread out better too.
Yes. Geothermal. Check it out.
Yes hydro pumped as batteries
it's not controversial, it's just delusional leftists don't understand it and have convinced themselves windmills are going to power the world
Nope. And it's Japan's only hope.
Hydrogeneration,windpower are green energy sources whose capacity and cost is to be evaluated. Sea waves and temperature difference may also be explored.
Yes we do..at least until Fusion is feasable..!!!
Yes
Is it possible that you are hiding your opinion in a rhetorical question? FFS
Yes we dob
They don't fall short, we just need more of them and we need them faster... Nuclear is a possible solution to stand in for our shortcomings. But mostly it's a way to keep making cheap money by polluting the environment and pushing the consequences forward to our descendants
Nuclear is not the answer Mattheus tech regenerative energy solutions can bridge the gap that renewables can't to have a carbon-free future the world needs but no one listens to the little guy. Worldenvironmentday Climatechange
Sure couple biomass back-up power (converted coal-fired power stations will do fine) with regeneration from energy storage - pumped hydro, green hydrogen, batteries etc. We don't NEED nuclear except for niche portable power - submarines, aircraft carriers, ice-breakers, tugs.
when do we talk about reduction in electricity useage as part of the problem?
If the world converted to 100% nuclear, how many years would it take to use all the available uranium, thorium, etc. They are not renewable and therefore unsustainable. Nuclear is not a long term solution, just an intermediate for new energy technologies to develop
The Nucular Power industry has an empirically derived, proven, non-zero probability for causing wide-ranging, effectively permanent environmental devastation. Costs to run the fissile fuel cycle, end-to-end, stagger. Think harder!
Electricity generation from commercial nuclear power plants in the United States began in 1958. At the end of 2021, the United States had 93 operating commercial nuclear reactors at 55 nuclear power plants in 28 states.
Nuclear power is a bit stupid! Nut I dont know how to fix the grid. I think people should produce their own or Tesla technology or something.
There really should be a phase one study in the scientific community on what can be achieved if a super conductive system could be designed. And feasible expectations on the energy levels necessary to make that hypothetical system function.
Only if the waste is sustainably dealt with. I think. 💙
How about a Vacation Week at Bimini Island !!! Oh yeah I forgot a human can only visit there around 20 minutes ..... YuccaMountain
Electricity demand will be full fill from atomic energy In 21st century for whole world's country
Politic used energy crisis as profits but not as a chance for renewable energies. Never lessons learned
negawatts
Yes. New generations of nuclear plants are safer than already incredibly safe current ones, and can burn existing waste as fuel. We don’t have time to wait for new technology to get us away from fossil fuel.
There is an answer and it's pumped hydropower. Nuclear power is good too, but pumped hydro adds useful storage to the variable renewables. Build this
Not at the moment. Awaiting new discoveries...
NEVER - dirtiest power ever.....horrific. Invest in wind, solar, hydro......never NUCLEAR.
All the cosmic energy is produced by nuclear energy, including our Sun. It is the ultimate true green energy. It’s time countries should be run by scientists and engineers and not by sleazy politicians.
YES there is. Options incl: green hydrogen storage, hydropowers, dispatchable generation, sust types of bioenergy, smart grids, large/super grids, RE diversification, smart scheduling/regulation, integrated batteries (eg etc
TIME to report on the environment safety of off-earth bases use of micro-reactors ... Stop rehashing yesterday.
Lets not have to worry with anymore nuclear waste
❌
The safest energy is nuclear but there is a bunch of hydrocarbon consumer states that don’t want the transition. They create an enormous regulatory burden to exploit the cheap price. How dare you can let carbon emission freely to atmosphere? Please collect your waste like nuclear
Yes - vehicle to grid
Yes, solar and wind do not fall short.
I didn’t realize the sun was fading. How could solar power ever “fall short”? You know the sun is still there even at night, right?
Nuclear energy is controversial but scientific and engineering community can find a solution.
No. Nuclear power has been propelling the world for decades and remains the most ingenious solutions
SMR is ONLY way out
The sun does not shine everyday nor does the wind blow 24/7. Over time, depending on where you live, you have to clean solar panels. Batteries are very expensive to maintain, rebuild, replace, and dispose. We cannot switch from fossil fuels to green overnight, it will take years.
What else is there that can generate that amount of electricity. We need to be careful that new plants utilize new designs that maximize safety and minimize hazardous waste.
SMR's
hydrogen?
Maybe invest in renewables something approaching the funding which has gone into nuclear over the years?🙄
Hydrogen ? Have a look at Norther Gas Networks and their Hydrogen houses test sites
IPCC_CH They didn't later, eg see pic Alternatives incl: green hydrogen storage, hydropower, dispatchable generation, sust types of bioenergy, smart grids, super grids, RE diversification, smart scheduling, integrated batteries (see recent Jacobson study), etc
IPCC_CH They didn't later, eg see pic Alternatives incl: green hydrogen storage, hydropower, dispatchable generation, sust types of bioenergy, smart grids, super grids, RE diversification, smart scheduling, integrated batteries (eg
IPCC_CH Not just operational radioactive waste; at the end of their maybe 50y useful lives fission reactors stay radioactive and must remain guarded for millennia. Ask RoyalNavy - with a large collection of old nuclear submarines too dangerous to dismantle. Fission energy: forget it!
IPCC_CH While I'm not religiously opposed to nuclear energy, how do we plan to deal with the waste material?.. Understanding this BEFORE we dive in might help me warm to the idea--- ---Alternatively, wearing me down by cutting off my gas and electricity will probably work just as well.
IPCC_CH They are against it because they either dont understand the science or do, & because they have identified with their 'idea' of what action s/b taken. Self identifying with an idea is dangerous & can prevent orgs & people SOMETIMES from seeing the truth or the bigger picture.
IPCC_CH If BurtonRichter were still alive, he would say: Legacy
'We' don't, where 'we' is humanity. Build enough renewables and we be fine But we do, if we want to keep our economic model going. 'we' being all sorts of economic institutions, investmentfunds and all those having jobs in and adjacent to them. It's about money not environment
The best way to reach climate goals is if we return to our primitive roots
A fools move!
Yes we do
We certainly need fuel dependency upon Allies who have shared values, democracy and unlikely to hold that dependency upon us as a tactical military maneuver.
Any non paywall version?
If only to see how far people are willing to go for a particular thing.
I truly believe we have the capability now for personal home nuclear powered generators, vehicles..but irrational fear prevents development of it. The early adopters of all things new have paid the price of development but society and individuals have reaped untold benefits.
The nuke and coal industry have actively lobbied (bribed) all levels of government for decades to stop wind and solar power from being built. If we need nuclear, that is why. Their article always fail to mention that point, & coal/oil won't talk about 60 yrs of climate denial
People today believe that nuclear energy is a clean safe form of energy. This is the result of mind changing propaganda. It's a form of energy that is lethal to human being sometimes for as long as three thousand years, and this is clean energy? Tremendous deadly waste product.
Yes we do
Nuclear power is a NO BRAINER, of course we should do it. It is has a high set up cost, but has by far the lowest cost per KW because of the enormous amounts of energy that can be released in a very short time. It has a rapid pay back time approx 5 years over a 30-year life span.
Yes. And you need the Sebatier Reaction. Look it up useless activists.
Yes.
It’s far too slow to commission to make much difference to current shortages. But we should be putting far more effort into next generation fission for the medium to long term. The nuclear industry is way too conservative
If we can do it safely then it is must But I think solar , Geothermal and Wind are the best options
Yes
Answer: no. We do not. Nuclear is actually counterproductive, because it's so slow to build and so expensive compared to wind and solar.
The dangers of nuclear outway the benefits. And nobody, not even its advocates are lining up to bury the spent stuff under their homes.
Yes
Ask montgomery burns ! LOL !! 👍🤙😋🤪🤪😎😁
There must be a holy grail of science and engineering particularly in energy generation that is far superior than nuclear or renewable. My NON-NUCLEAR COLD FUSION REACTOR invention might just be the answer. I will unveil it late next month in Singapore after patenting it.
Isn't this something you figure out before?
We need petroleum
Most likely. We need to figure out what to do with the waste.
👍🤪🤪😎😁 !!
Maybe not by 2050 but by 2100 The world will be powered by SMRs & greenH2🥰 SMRs+electrolysers supply grid demand and Switch to greenH2 production to load follow No need for storage - conventional or pumped hydro SMRs+HTSE plants to manufacture greenH2 Decarbonises other sectors
GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), BWXT Canada Ltd.....and Synthos Green Energy (SGE).....[intend] to cooperate in deploying BWRX-300.....SMR[s] in Poland SGE together with its partners, desires to deploy at least 10 BWRX-300 SMRs.....by the early 2030s🥰
The silver bullet to decarbonise all energy use is here It's GE Hitachi's BWRX-300 SMR The most affordable NPP ever designed £5.4 billion for 3,200 MW HPC & SzC cost £22 billion 2 to 3 year build programme More investable than dysfunctional Wind and solar power plants (WASPPs)
Yes I'm agree with you
Nuclear is no where near as cheap as renewables and where are you going to store the waste? Bury it in a hole and forget about it as some CON-servative politicians want to do!
Stop paywalling And it's not needed Options incl: green hydrogen storage, hydropower, dispatchable generation, sust types of bioenergy, smart grids, super grids, RE diversification, smart scheduling, integrated batteries (eg
....yup.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.