Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21

Thread: Republicans Can Own The Libs on Climate Change By Defending Nuclear Plants

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigdog View Post
    Are they Thorium?

    "Barack Obama gives green light to new wave of nuclear reactors

    US president announces $8.3bn in loan guarantees for construction of first nuclear reactors in almost 30 years"

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...clear-reactors
    No, they are PWR reactors. The Chinese have four AP1000s up and running and connected to the grid.

    http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/n...nts/ap1000-pwr

    http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Ar...nected-to-grid

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Bigdog (04-19-2019)

  3. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Many liberals want fossil fuels banned and nuclear energy banned.

    How do they expect to live their pampered Western lifestyles? Do they think electricity is created by unicorn farts?

  4. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Many liberals want fossil fuels banned and nuclear energy banned.

    How do they expect to live their pampered Western lifestyles? Do they think electricity is created by unicorn farts?
    The vast majority have little background in hard science like physics or chemistry, so it is little wonder that they can be hoodwinked so easily.

  5. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    107,358
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 19 Times in 18 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    The vast majority have little background in hard science like physics or chemistry, do it is little wonder that they can be hoodwinked so easily.
    I blame their intellectual laziness and the prevalence of "learning" like this:


  6. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    both are additions to existing plants.......compare that with nuclear power plants shut down in the US.....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea..._United_States

    all existing nuclear power plants are over 40 years old......
    Watts Bar, Unit 1, completed in 1996, and Unit 2, completed in 2015. Unit 1 has a winter net dependable generating capacity of 1,167 megawatts. Unit 2 has a capacity of 1,165 megawatts. Both units are the newest operating civilian reactors to come online in the United States, and Unit 2 is the first and only new reactor to enter service in the 21st century.

  7. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    135,276
    Thanks
    13,300
    Thanked 40,966 Times in 32,281 Posts
    Groans
    3,664
    Groaned 2,869 Times in 2,756 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Watts Bar, Unit 1, completed in 1996, and Unit 2, completed in 2015. Unit 1 has a winter net dependable generating capacity of 1,167 megawatts. Unit 2 has a capacity of 1,165 megawatts. Both units are the newest operating civilian reactors to come online in the United States, and Unit 2 is the first and only new reactor to enter service in the 21st century.
    oh sorry.....
    Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable.[38]

    Amory Lovins has also commented on the historical record of nuclear power in the United States:

    Of all 132 U.S. nuclear plants built (52% of the 253 originally ordered), 21% were permanently and prematurely closed due to reliability or cost problems, while another 27% have completely failed for a year or more at least once. The surviving U.S. nuclear plants produce ~90% of their full-time full-load potential, but even they are not fully dependable. Even reliably operating nuclear plants must shut down, on average, for 39 days every 17 months for refueling and maintenance, and unexpected failures do occur too.[39]
    and two are less than 40 years old.......

Similar Threads

  1. New York Times Pushes Nuclear Power as the Solution to Climate Change
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-07-2019, 12:30 PM
  2. Most Republicans now agree climate change is real
    By Micawber in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-02-2018, 06:16 PM
  3. Evil Republicans cackle as climate change kills cute bunnies.
    By Micawber in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-20-2018, 12:26 PM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-09-2017, 05:50 PM
  5. The Nuclear Option Could Be Best Bet to Combat Climate Change
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-06-2016, 01:01 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •