Started By
Message
re: Obama's Farewell Address and what you will remember him for.
Posted on 1/13/17 at 12:26 pm to Sleeping Tiger
Posted on 1/13/17 at 12:26 pm to Sleeping Tiger
You are stupid and wrong on so many levels.
Dangerous? There are so many holes to be shot in that but I will start here. Look up negative coefficient of reactivity and get back with me.
Offset by grid reliability.
To achieve a comparable generating capability to most PWRs, a CFB or stoker fired unit would have to burn about 1.4 million tons of coal or coal/coke blend per year. The associated emissions alone exceed the danger of storing spent fuel in a dry cask or a cooling pool and we havent discussed the disposal of combustion products.
Hashtag: ihavenofrickingcluewhatiamtalkingaboutandloveskinnyjeansandappletinis
quote:
It's an unnecessary dangerous risk.
Dangerous? There are so many holes to be shot in that but I will start here. Look up negative coefficient of reactivity and get back with me.
quote:
Expensive
Offset by grid reliability.
quote:
It's dirty.
To achieve a comparable generating capability to most PWRs, a CFB or stoker fired unit would have to burn about 1.4 million tons of coal or coal/coke blend per year. The associated emissions alone exceed the danger of storing spent fuel in a dry cask or a cooling pool and we havent discussed the disposal of combustion products.
Hashtag: ihavenofrickingcluewhatiamtalkingaboutandloveskinnyjeansandappletinis
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 12:35 pm
2
Posted on 1/13/17 at 12:40 pm to navynuke
Actually laughed.
To prove that nuclear power is good because it (very arguably) compares favorably to coal shows how limited you are on the topic. I'm half certain you're not going to know why that shows your limitations.
You're 100% connected and biased to it, which makes it nearly impossible to think clearly and honestly.
There's very limited sites that aren't at risk for earthquakes and other natural disasters, not to mention the threat of terrorist or military action.
It's expensive. It's dangerous. The risk-reward isn't worth it. It's dirty when all is considered. Any positive argument is short-sighted.
But please.. continue thinking that a dangerous, expensive and highly risky source of energy that stays toxic for thousands of years is good. I mean, is this even real life?
To prove that nuclear power is good because it (very arguably) compares favorably to coal shows how limited you are on the topic. I'm half certain you're not going to know why that shows your limitations.
You're 100% connected and biased to it, which makes it nearly impossible to think clearly and honestly.
There's very limited sites that aren't at risk for earthquakes and other natural disasters, not to mention the threat of terrorist or military action.
It's expensive. It's dangerous. The risk-reward isn't worth it. It's dirty when all is considered. Any positive argument is short-sighted.
But please.. continue thinking that a dangerous, expensive and highly risky source of energy that stays toxic for thousands of years is good. I mean, is this even real life?
This post was edited on 1/13/17 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 1/13/17 at 12:50 pm to navynuke
quote:
Offset by grid reliability.
And yet private capital for nuclear has all bit dried up in the United States. Grid reliability does not offset the costs. If it did we'd see more nuclear plants. The Jews at Goldman don't give a frick about nuclear vs coal or any of that bullshite. They just want to make money. There isn't any money in nuclear right now.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News