JUST IN - EU Parliament declares nuclear power and gas as "green" energy. Bawahahahaha | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83805728 Germany 07/06/2022 11:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 80545334 United States 07/06/2022 11:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
zzbudzz
User ID: 82266877 United States 07/06/2022 11:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | France has been using it for years. Why Germany didn't build more pebble bed reactors is beyond me. They tested it and showed not only it's effectiveness but it's higher safety v. rod plants. Quoting: Big Daddy D The US should do the same. Build 30-40 pebble bed reactors of the same design so maintenance is routine. I have never heard of people bed reactors. Interesting Banned often |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76781814 United States 07/06/2022 11:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward bis User ID: 78073681 France 07/06/2022 11:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Hello, But in France, as natural gas used for boilers as well, is sayd to relase lot of co2. Every new buildings must use pellets boilers, and another power source i don't remember. Maybe it's heat pmp. Fuel is not an option anymore. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83807613 Greece 07/06/2022 11:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | neoliberalism is a corpse France to Nationalize Debt-Laden EDF as Energy Crisis Mounts [link to www.bloomberg.com (secure)] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 80635148 Netherlands 07/06/2022 11:41 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 82121352 United States 07/06/2022 11:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You know, nuclear fuel produces zero emissions. It just produces water vapor. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74359541 Can't believe how retarded you people are. Yea ZERO nuclear waste. ZERO risk of meltdown. We havent even been able to contain Fukushima and it's been over 10years. We shouldnt be converting the entire grid to nuclear until we have a reliable way of cleaning up the waste. I remember reading years ago about an organism scientists created that literally "ate" nuclear waste. When we have an actual solution to this potentially world ending problem we can talk about 100% nuclear grid. Fukushima didn’t meltdown. It got hit by a tsunami. The power plant survived the earthquake. It was being flooded by ocean water that destroyed it. As did everything that got hit by ocean water that day. Don’t build nuclear power plants on the ocean is the take away from Fukushima. That’s it. Tsunamis can happen anywhere. So can earthquakes or terrorist attacks. There's no safe place to build any of these. Had Chernobyl not been contained and instead melted down into the black sea Europe would be an irradiated wasteland today. All it takes is one big screw up. This is potentially devastating wherever you build it. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 80635148 Netherlands 07/06/2022 11:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 80635148 Netherlands 07/06/2022 11:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Nuclear energy is literally the only way to achieve this whole green thing aside from hydroelectric. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 80545334 Nope.. [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)] :) |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 80635148 Netherlands 07/06/2022 11:49 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Nuclear energy is literally the only way to achieve this whole green thing aside from hydroelectric. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 80545334 Nope.. [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)] :) But then it is nothing new...and round and round we go. :) |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 82921932 United States 07/06/2022 11:51 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You know, nuclear fuel produces zero emissions. It just produces water vapor. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74359541 Can't believe how retarded you people are. It’s not just water vapor. Plants are often located near bodies of water (rivers/lakes/oceans) for cooling. There is significant thermal ‘pollution’ from the effluent that has a significant negative impact on the ecosystem. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 82758065 United States 07/06/2022 11:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 80635148 Netherlands 07/06/2022 11:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 80635148 Netherlands 07/06/2022 11:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77716546 United States 07/06/2022 12:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
3abzzybee
User ID: 83757959 United States 07/06/2022 12:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You know, nuclear fuel produces zero emissions. It just produces water vapor. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74359541 Can't believe how retarded you people are. It’s not just water vapor. Plants are often located near bodies of water (rivers/lakes/oceans) for cooling. There is significant thermal ‘pollution’ from the effluent that has a significant negative impact on the ecosystem. So capture the heat and use it to power recirculating water cooling tech. Working on it |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83806990 Germany 07/06/2022 12:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
TurtleKing
User ID: 81945583 07/06/2022 01:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | France has been using it for years. Why Germany didn't build more pebble bed reactors is beyond me. They tested it and showed not only it's effectiveness but it's higher safety v. rod plants. Quoting: Big Daddy D The US should do the same. Build 30-40 pebble bed reactors of the same design so maintenance is routine. So dear one, if the meteor strike or emp or disaster occurs, what happens? NO TO ALL NUCLEAR, unless you're talking cavitation and implosion, which is a simple HZ sound machine, the Star in a Jar experiment that mimicked what the pistol shrimp does as BBC broadcasted, that creates the temperature of the sun's corona, in a bubble, Now there do that. Don't use nuclear. And use your sewage to create methane, not to mention the menthane pockets in the ocean. And sterilized fertilizers, instead of dumping it in water treated or untreated. There, problem SOLVED. And a truly clean solution it was at that! WTAF did I just read? You best start believing in conspiracy theories, you're living in one! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 75921964 Croatia 07/06/2022 01:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Natural gas is scientifically not a fossil fuel as there is no organic or biological structures contained. When the Earth was formed billions of years ago, the massive gas cloud along with the other particulates slow imploded to form the planet. Quoting: tkwasny The gas pockets trapped because of the formation process is billions of years before any life existed therefor natural gas has nothing to do with "fossil" anything. omfg what a retard. even if that were so, gas still contains carbon which gives co2 when burned. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79682939 United States 07/06/2022 01:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
luisaywhitehat
User ID: 75764505 Poland 07/06/2022 02:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83719260 United States 07/06/2022 02:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You know, nuclear fuel produces zero emissions. It just produces water vapor. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74359541 Can't believe how retarded you people are. Yea ZERO nuclear waste. ZERO risk of meltdown. We havent even been able to contain Fukushima and it's been over 10years. We shouldnt be converting the entire grid to nuclear until we have a reliable way of cleaning up the waste. I remember reading years ago about an organism scientists created that literally "ate" nuclear waste. When we have an actual solution to this potentially world ending problem we can talk about 100% nuclear grid. Fukushima didn’t meltdown. It got hit by a tsunami. The power plant survived the earthquake. It was being flooded by ocean water that destroyed it. As did everything that got hit by ocean water that day. Don’t build nuclear power plants on the ocean is the take away from Fukushima. That’s it. Tsunamis can happen anywhere. So can earthquakes or terrorist attacks. There's no safe place to build any of these. Had Chernobyl not been contained and instead melted down into the black sea Europe would be an irradiated wasteland today. All it takes is one big screw up. This is potentially devastating wherever you build it. Is Chernobyl and "irradiated wasteland" today? Even at the level of containment, it's odd that if it was such a horrible disaster, it's been a wildlife refuge and the flora and fauna are thriving and have been. How about those 2 cities allegedly hit by atomic bombs? Irradiated wastelands? Were they even evacuated? Even if it was 80 years ago, according to mainstream "science" Japan should have at least 2 "irradiated wastelands" and what about testing atomic weapons in the states, like the desert in New Mexico? if we can safely test nuclear/atomic weapons in our own country's borders, I would imagine we could safely use nuclear reactors if competency was regained... I mean here in Tennessee right on the way to Chattanooga we have 2 big nuclear reactors by the Chickamauga dam, and no issues with it and certainly no significant pollution problems... Tsuanami's can't happen anywhere, they can only happen on the coasts, obviously. |
SomeRandomPerson
User ID: 79771883 United States 07/06/2022 02:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | France has been using it for years. Why Germany didn't build more pebble bed reactors is beyond me. They tested it and showed not only it's effectiveness but it's higher safety v. rod plants. Quoting: Big Daddy D The US should do the same. Build 30-40 pebble bed reactors of the same design so maintenance is routine. You mean light water reactors, using fuel rods. I believe in science NOT religion. Giving me bad karma for that, is anti-religious (you're passing judgement) I am just a man. Of no significance. Who found religion to be full of lies, and wrong doing, conflicted teachings I understand microwave communications. I do not stand for the NWO, it sucks. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83808874 Portugal 07/06/2022 02:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You know, nuclear fuel produces zero emissions. It just produces water vapor. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74359541 Can't believe how retarded you people are. Yeah, I am sure that Plutonium, with a half-life of 35,000 years, and other long-lived nasty poisons produced in nuclear reactors are "zero emissions"... |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 83808874 Portugal 07/06/2022 02:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You know, nuclear fuel produces zero emissions. It just produces water vapor. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74359541 Can't believe how retarded you people are. Yeah, I am sure that Plutonium, with a half-life of 35,000 years, and other long-lived nasty poisons produced in nuclear reactors are "zero emissions"... Not to mention that when things go wrong they go VERY, VERY, VERY wrong... Compromising many generations of people. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77732441 Poland 07/06/2022 02:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 82982507 Sweden 07/06/2022 02:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So where's the difference between Gas and Fossil Fuels? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83277861 (Beside the fact that the term "Fossil Fuel" was a fairy tail concocted by Rockefeller.) 1-Fossil fuel is what makes your car move, a fluid substance. It comes from oil. You call it "gas". 2-Gas is what you have in an iron bottle for your camping cooking stove, like propane. Some cars run on LPG as an exception. It's a mixture, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's basically all the same. lol |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 40956866 United States 07/06/2022 02:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | France has been using it for years. Why Germany didn't build more pebble bed reactors is beyond me. They tested it and showed not only it's effectiveness but it's higher safety v. rod plants. Quoting: Big Daddy D The US should do the same. Build 30-40 pebble bed reactors of the same design so maintenance is routine. So dear one, if the meteor strike or emp or disaster occurs, what happens? NO TO ALL NUCLEAR, unless you're talking cavitation and implosion, which is a simple HZ sound machine, the Star in a Jar experiment that mimicked what the pistol shrimp does as BBC broadcasted, that creates the temperature of the sun's corona, in a bubble, Now there do that. Don't use nuclear. And use your sewage to create methane, not to mention the menthane pockets in the ocean. And sterilized fertilizers, instead of dumping it in water treated or untreated. There, problem SOLVED. And a truly clean solution it was at that! If either of those happens to such a degree to cause reactors to completely fail then you have much bigger problems then the reactors failing already. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 82121352 United States 07/06/2022 02:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82121352 Yea ZERO nuclear waste. ZERO risk of meltdown. We havent even been able to contain Fukushima and it's been over 10years. We shouldnt be converting the entire grid to nuclear until we have a reliable way of cleaning up the waste. I remember reading years ago about an organism scientists created that literally "ate" nuclear waste. When we have an actual solution to this potentially world ending problem we can talk about 100% nuclear grid. Fukushima didn’t meltdown. It got hit by a tsunami. The power plant survived the earthquake. It was being flooded by ocean water that destroyed it. As did everything that got hit by ocean water that day. Don’t build nuclear power plants on the ocean is the take away from Fukushima. That’s it. Tsunamis can happen anywhere. So can earthquakes or terrorist attacks. There's no safe place to build any of these. Had Chernobyl not been contained and instead melted down into the black sea Europe would be an irradiated wasteland today. All it takes is one big screw up. This is potentially devastating wherever you build it. Is Chernobyl and "irradiated wasteland" today? Even at the level of containment, it's odd that if it was such a horrible disaster, it's been a wildlife refuge and the flora and fauna are thriving and have been. How about those 2 cities allegedly hit by atomic bombs? Irradiated wastelands? Were they even evacuated? Even if it was 80 years ago, according to mainstream "science" Japan should have at least 2 "irradiated wastelands" and what about testing atomic weapons in the states, like the desert in New Mexico? if we can safely test nuclear/atomic weapons in our own country's borders, I would imagine we could safely use nuclear reactors if competency was regained... I mean here in Tennessee right on the way to Chattanooga we have 2 big nuclear reactors by the Chickamauga dam, and no issues with it and certainly no significant pollution problems... Tsuanami's can't happen anywhere, they can only happen on the coasts, obviously. Nuclear bombs and nuclear meltdowns are apples and oranges. The bomb is essentially a quick reaction that is created in a few seconds and is over. An exposed core from a meltdown is like a nuclear bomb that never goes out. It literally has to be contained before it melts into the water table and blows. Chernobyl was contained well - to the Russians credit - and the damage was not as severe as it could of been. We shouldn't be messing around with this stuff until we have a way to properly dispose of the waste. I don't think this is too much to ask. |