Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Platapus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skybird
Even, more, nuclear powerplants do not produce heat energy that could be used for heating houses, they produce electricity.
|
Small nit to pick.
Nuclear reactors do not produce electricity. Nuclear reactors produce heat.
That heat could be used to generate steam. That steam could be used to drive an electricity generator. It could also be used to heat pretty much anything you care to if you want to move the heat to the location (not always feasible.)
Moving the heat is the problem, but that is not a nuclear problem, that is a thermal problem.
There is no way a fission nuclear reactor can directly produce electricity.
It is just a fancy way to boil water.  |
Well, yes, but you got my idea. show me a nuclear powerplant with what in German is called Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung.
and in your posting before you said you believe
"with proper design, proper construction, proper procedures, proper personnel, future accidents (and there will be accidents) can be controlled and contained.
Do I think that Fission nuclear reactors are the ultimate solution. Not at all. But today, with today's technology, I think it is folly to ignore the benefits of safe controlled nuclear power generation in our current situation."
However, I have pointed at numerous counterpoints, that are not just my imagination but are realities for sure, and you are in need to prove them wrong if you want to stick to what you said above. You need to prove black on white that the economic calculation about the longterm costs - that I am just reporting and have not opened up myself! - is wrong. But you have not, instead made a link nobody here has brought up before: the fear for horrific mutations from movies forming the impression of how dangerous nuclear stuff is (I call it the formicula-syndrome). But I cannot remember when the last time was that a reasonable, knowledge-basing critic used 5 m long ants to raise anti-emotions and make a point on why to reject nuke tech.
Are you making this link to horror movies to ridicule critical thinking about nuclear technoloy all together, then...? Better give me a comment on low-running uran-ressources, 20-25 years before a nuclear popwerpülant starts to pay off, and how to deal security concerns when 1500 plants were erected in an attempt to reduce pollution levels of CO2 by just 12% - when so very much more reduction would be needed. Let'S talk about why you still think it is worth it, and why the many points I touched upon do not interest you a bit, despite them being physical and economic realities you cannot escape.
