You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #5: Oh bull. The fact is that the dumb anti-nuke set is extremely unfamiliar with economics, [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-15-09 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Oh bull. The fact is that the dumb anti-nuke set is extremely unfamiliar with economics,
the airhead Joe Romm down to the smallest fundie disciple.

The fact is that there are 440 reactors operating on the face of the planet, overlooked by Joe Romm and the other members of his cult. Not one of them cost 26 billion dollars. They all operate right now.

So Joe's theory is that what has already occurred is impossible?

Good luck with that one.

Now let's turn to the fact of intellectual hypocrisy on top of scientific and economic ignorance.

Solar energy - often proposed by people who know zero about energy, couldn't care less about electronic waste and who don't know shit from shinola about reliability, chemistry or risk as an alternative to nuclear - has its costs published by its own industry.

The fact is that the stupid solar fantasy proposed is far more expensive, not there is one dumb fundie anti-nuke who can do comparisons or any kind of math.

This is obvious if one accesses the solar industry's website: www.solarbuzz.com

According to the solar industry (accessed today) solar cells cost 4.56 per "peak watt."

The capacity utilization for the dumb fundie solar industry - by direct measurement of existing systems, on line live is actually just a miserable 10.6% (The number of dumb fundie anti-nukes who live in the dark 89.4% of the time is ZERO.)

So, to cut to the point, even without the cost of batteries - including the enormous environmental cost - and with no intention to dispose of the electronic waste generated by solar cells about which the anti-nukes couldn't care less - the internal cost of solar for a 1000 MWe plant is 4.54 billion dollars/.106 = $42,000,000,000 dollars.

Again, that's without the batteries, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of metric tons of batteries and their associated waste.

I realize of course that you would need to be able to do math to understand it, but frankly the anti-nuke cults would do anything for the environment except open a Math book.

Basically the anti-nuke cults, from Romm on down, are notorious for their poor grasp of math, economics, physics, chemistry and history.

They are, however, very good at quoting their Bibles.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost $10,800 per kilowatt! killed Ontario nuclear bid bananas  Jul-15-09 07:31 PM   #0 
  - Yes. When all the real costs of nuclear, including storage of waste,decommissioning,&true liability  lindisfarne   Jul-15-09 07:44 PM   #1 
  - We must never forget the pro-nukers have been lying to us for years now  madokie   Jul-15-09 07:49 PM   #3 
  - Yes, and now, even costs are being claimed to be trade secrets in attempts to obscure the truth.  lindisfarne   Jul-15-09 07:52 PM   #4 
  - Oh bull. The fact is that the dumb anti-nuke set is extremely unfamiliar with economics,  NNadir   Jul-15-09 08:05 PM   #5 
  - Did you read the link in OP? Also, in your calculations, did you include the actual  lindisfarne   Jul-15-09 08:08 PM   #6 
  - Big guy don't read links  madokie   Jul-15-09 10:16 PM   #10 
  - But they can unrec this issue  Liberation Angel   Jul-16-09 12:17 AM   #13 
  - nnadir never fails to entertain. nt  Javaman   Jul-17-09 12:07 PM   #35 
  - you don't need to store for tens of thousands of years.  Sirveri   Jul-16-09 12:28 AM   #14 
     - No, you have to store it for a million years - EPA requirement, based on NAS report  bananas   Jul-16-09 11:54 AM   #18 
     - EPA requirement is a smokescreen for the real reason.  Sirveri   Jul-17-09 01:29 AM   #30 
        - No, it wasn't a "smokescreen".  bananas   Jul-17-09 03:07 AM   #31 
           - Time will tell. But with the current state of US politics I see coal in the future.  Sirveri   Jul-17-09 04:54 AM   #32 
              - Oil is less than 2% of current electric generation.  kristopher   Aug-05-09 10:14 PM   #37 
     - You want mayonaise on that shit samwich  madokie   Jul-16-09 12:28 PM   #20 
        - tell that to the US Navy and France.  Sirveri   Jul-17-09 01:15 AM   #29 
           - It's easy to be anything one thinks they want to be here on the Internet  madokie   Jul-17-09 05:44 AM   #33 
              - Wow really, I had NO idea.  Sirveri   Jul-17-09 11:36 AM   #34 
  - Oh bull. The fact is that the dumb pro-nuke set is extremely unfamiliar with economics,  bananas   Jul-16-09 03:24 PM   #22 
  - What were the real costs of earlier non-nuclear power generation methods?  TheMadMonk   Jul-17-09 01:10 AM   #28 
  - 2-4-6-8 -- NUCLEAR POWER -- AIN'T IT GREAT?!?!  xchrom   Jul-15-09 07:45 PM   #2 
  - Nuclear energy is free- we have a giant nuclear reactor in the sky.  Ian David   Jul-15-09 08:57 PM   #7 
  - And it's responsible for wind powersolar power, and hydroelectric power. Not geothermal though-  lindisfarne   Jul-15-09 09:10 PM   #8 
     - For geothermal we can thank the other stars that supplied the material that made the Earth.  GliderGuider   Jul-15-09 10:05 PM   #9 
     - Geothermal energy is produced by nuclear fission  Dogmudgeon   Jul-16-09 10:40 AM   #16 
        - I doubt that nuclear reaction is responsible for geothermal energy..  TheCoxwain   Jul-16-09 11:49 AM   #17 
           - I think you've got your Uranium isotopes backwards...  SidDithers   Jul-16-09 11:59 AM   #19 
           - yup .. my bad .. clearly its been a while ..but I think that does not water my argument down  TheCoxwain   Jul-16-09 12:52 PM   #21 
           - 20% planetary accretion, 80% radioactive decay  bananas   Jul-16-09 04:26 PM   #24 
  - K&R and into the greatest page -- let's see if the unrec does it in  Liberation Angel   Jul-16-09 12:01 AM   #11 
  - UNWRECKER strikes again OFF Greatest page! Damn BUT see this:  Liberation Angel   Jul-16-09 12:16 AM   #12 
  - Only a shill would unrec this thread - they want to hide the true costs.  bananas   Jul-16-09 03:38 PM   #23 
  - They've got it down to three recs - they are really afraid of this information!  bananas   Jul-16-09 07:25 PM   #25 
     - It fits with the way it's been with the nuke crowd from the get go  madokie   Jul-16-09 07:34 PM   #26 
     - 3 recs is their goal  Liberation Angel   Jul-16-09 10:14 PM   #27 
  - No surprise.  girl gone mad   Jul-16-09 01:19 AM   #15 
     - Who knows the price? - nobody yet  DiamondJoe   Aug-05-09 03:47 PM   #36 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC