DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**enurihent** · 03-16-2011, 10:19 PM

It's not my definition. All of these plants in this country are a few decades old, and except for a few that have been retired, have been churning out electicity for most of that time.

As far as saying the amount of waste is tiny, compare that by weight or volume to any of the other technologies that we've been using (except hydro, of course). I'm thinking in terms of exhaust gasses, since lately, more green means less carbon. I'd also consider other polluting gasses.

They were planning to put all the spent fuel from all the reactors in the US on one site (Yucca Mountain, in NV). If it can all fit in one large hole in the ground, there isn't very much of it.

I think, if properly run, nuclear can be very green.

Look at one of the advantages nuclear has over wind or solar (not that either can really replace it), It's much more compact. A single reactor can put out 1,000 megawatts (give or take). The new ones will go to 1,500 MW or more. Usually they do these in pairs. How much ground do you have to cover with wind turbines or solar panels to produce this much power. At a certain point, when you carpeting vast swaths of land with these things, they start to seem less green. People are already bitching.

Your personal definition. Decades is a minute number compared to half-life.

Tiny? What do you mean?

As I said at first, "Not yet."

Backwards.

I meant - what has sustainable (or green) energy to do with being perfect. Who says green energy is perfect?

Accidents will always happen. Do accidents make wind farms not-green? Can you say the same for nuclear power plants?

03-16-2011, 10:19 PM	#35
enurihent Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 362 Senior Member	It's not my definition. All of these plants in this country are a few decades old, and except for a few that have been retired, have been churning out electicity for most of that time. As far as saying the amount of waste is tiny, compare that by weight or volume to any of the other technologies that we've been using (except hydro, of course). I'm thinking in terms of exhaust gasses, since lately, more green means less carbon. I'd also consider other polluting gasses. They were planning to put all the spent fuel from all the reactors in the US on one site (Yucca Mountain, in NV). If it can all fit in one large hole in the ground, there isn't very much of it. I think, if properly run, nuclear can be very green. Look at one of the advantages nuclear has over wind or solar (not that either can really replace it), It's much more compact. A single reactor can put out 1,000 megawatts (give or take). The new ones will go to 1,500 MW or more. Usually they do these in pairs. How much ground do you have to cover with wind turbines or solar panels to produce this much power. At a certain point, when you carpeting vast swaths of land with these things, they start to seem less green. People are already bitching. Your personal definition. Decades is a minute number compared to half-life. Tiny? What do you mean? As I said at first, "Not yet." Backwards. I meant - what has sustainable (or green) energy to do with being perfect. Who says green energy is perfect? Accidents will always happen. Do accidents make wind farms not-green? Can you say the same for nuclear power plants?
	Quote