Comments on: Nuclear Power Going Down — More Facts (& VIDEO)

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:13:00 +0000

Nicely & succinctly put.

By: Jamie Clemons

Jamie Clemons — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:21:00 +0000

We have many of the same type of reactors as Fukushima. They had a world class safety program and their reactors melted down and caused a huge mess. To think that it can’t happen to us is rediculous. You always think it can’t happen to me until it does.

By: LOL

LOL — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:09:00 +0000

Thorium is still a backward (if potentially safer than uranium) step. Wind/solar/tidal: all of these are gaining energy from energy, thorium is still utlising matter to produce energy. It’s regressive technology.

By: Edward Kerr

Edward Kerr — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:13:00 +0000

I agree with Bob. The idea that nuclear energy is anything but a monster that will bite us on the ocks is short sighted, and IMHO stupid. The externalities far outweigh any amount of power generated. If a wind turbine “fails”, so what. When a nuclear plant suffers a meltdown, NOT so what. Smell the coffee dude.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 04:33:00 +0000

I took a quick look at your linked site and I think I might understand why you are so upset with wind generation.

You’re paying attention to capacity factor as if it meant something important. It doesn’t.

What is important is price of electricity produced + externalities.

Wind is cheap. About $0.05/kWh. And there are few external costs to add on. Yes, some people don’t like the looks of wind turbines and a few birds and bats are killed by turbines.

Realistically fewer birds are killed per kWh than with coal and nuclear. Bats, a minor problem with solutions underway.

Capacity – it doesn’t matter how much capacity a generation source has. A technology with a 1% capacity factor that produces $0.05/kWh power is better than a technology with a 100% capacity that produces power at $1/kWh.

Aesthetics – we’d all love an invisible dragon that we could plug our grid into and get our power. But we haven’t found one of those. So we have to choose among the options we have.

I think wind turbines are absolutely beautiful as compared to open pit coal mines, mountains with their tops blown off, nuclear reactors, uranium mines, trains full of coal, slag heaps, ….

By: sambar

sambar — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 03:55:00 +0000

Huh? Wind power is cheaper and better. Fact. That’s logic.

By: lftrsuk

lftrsuk — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:05:00 +0000

It’s so wierd that renewables’ supporters can distort logic to ‘prove’ their case whilst taking part in a sublime example of the concept of perverse unintended consequences. All that’s needed is a little common sense when looking at a monster wind turbine and knowing, at the back of your mind, how pathetic its capacity factor is. You’re intent on running us into the bufferes 54 X faster than necessary: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/energy-revolution-policy-to-ruin-planet.html