Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Two distinct points here. I completely agree on the first - cut out much of the waste, and we would not only not need to build more power plants, we could shut down some of the dirtiest.
But when you say that nukes are filthy... well, that brings us back to the old Mark Twain saying about the things we know for sure that just ain't so. What's sadly ironic here is the sight of people who rightly chide the AGW denialists for ignoring science, turning right around and ignoring science when it conflicts with their quasi-religious "nukes are sinful" beliefs.
Because if you build a new, clean nuclear plant, you could conceiveably shut down an old, dirty coal plant. And if you combined that with increased energy efficiency, you could shut down TWO of them.
|
Nuclear fuels and spent fuels are not filthy?
Is improving end-user efficiency and shutting down dirty plants even part of the dialogue? Where is the public education/action campaign to eliminate phantom- and general- power waste? All I see is supply side crying for more more more capacity; if I missed it perhaps the word isn't getting out. Ohhhh... the efficiency campaign is in my monthly COOP newsletter! The one that says, "You should do this and that to be efficient" then they send me a bill that charges the smallest users the highest amount per hwH, thus making us subsidize the large users, thus REMOVING the economic incentive to conserve.
I dunno, something tells me the utilities and the PUKES- I mean, PUCs- are not serious about conservation and for sure the end users aren't.