General Discussion

mr715

(3,534 posts)

37. Trade offs for any decision.

Sun Mar 29, 2026, 01:15 AM

15 hrs ago

If you are scared of flying, take a car. But driving is more likely to kill you than flying.

Nuclear power has resulted in big scary events that were extremely high profile.

Coal has killed more, is killing more, and is not a viable solution to our energy needs in the future. Nuclear power has proven itself to be extraordinarily safe, extremely clean, and if buttressed with good batteries and good land stewardship, the only reasonable source of power at the current moment.

Plutonium is a toxic heavy metal. Even if it weren't an alpha emitter, any spills would warrant superfund cleanup. Just like lead, mercury, or arsenic. Or, for that matter coal tar or oil spills. See the Gowanus Canal or the Newtown Creek in New York for how contamination by fossil fuel waste can turn an ecosystem to a hell scape.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We may not need any stinking oil after all.. [View all] multigraincracker Yesterday OP

Someone please explain how this doesn't break the first law of thermodynamics. harumph Yesterday #1

it is harnessing a 'second' source of energy, in addition to the solar stopdiggin Yesterday #2

Not if it's harnessing solar power, which is infinite as long as we have a source FakeNoose Yesterday #7

'solar power' doesn't do anything like 'revising' thermodynamics ... stopdiggin 20 hrs ago #30

I have no science background Eddie Haskell 60 Yesterday #9

No, that is thermodynamics. mr715 Yesterday #18

cool Eddie Haskell 60 Yesterday #21

I'm not buying any of this. To start with, there is no such thing as 100% efficency in any realm. flashman13 Yesterday #12

The 130% number being bandied about in the article refers to quantum efficiency Shermann Yesterday #16

I am always raising my eyebrows James48 Yesterday #3

Why? mr715 Yesterday #19

It isn't 130% efficient if it is 2 energy harvesting events. mr715 Yesterday #4

I discussed this badly misinterpreted wishful thinking case in another thread on the topic. NNadir Yesterday #5

No angrychair Yesterday #6

Mercury in the exhaust smoke. BidenRocks Yesterday #8

That is appalling and dangerous nonsense. When confronted... NNadir Yesterday #10

I was just using it as an example angrychair 23 hrs ago #28

Again, the question is, did radioactivity from nuclear power plants kill as many people in 70 years as died in the... NNadir 18 hrs ago #32

So by your logic angrychair 17 hrs ago #33

poster said absolutely nothing of the sort stopdiggin 3 hrs ago #39

After coal is burned fly ash has to be disposed of. What goes into the air stays in the air. twodogsbarking Yesterday #11

Coal ash has radioactivity and heavy metals IbogaProject Yesterday #14

More people have died in coal processing, burning than nuclear. mr715 Yesterday #15

Nonsense Disaffected Yesterday #24

Coal's main byproduct is CO2 NickB79 22 hrs ago #29

you could not be more completely misinformed - or wrong about a particular subject. stopdiggin 20 hrs ago #31

Hanford angrychair 17 hrs ago #34

Trade offs for any decision. mr715 15 hrs ago #37

No. They do not. (say differently) stopdiggin 4 hrs ago #38

Isn't this a peer review journal? multigraincracker Yesterday #13

Its a popsci distillation. mr715 Yesterday #17

No. I accessed the paper on which this pop misinformation is based. NNadir Yesterday #23

It's not a perpetual motion machine swong19104 Yesterday #20

Link to the actual scientific paper mentioned in the press report JHB Yesterday #22

The paper if not talking about energy conversion efficiency. Disaffected Yesterday #25

Wait!?! H2O Man Yesterday #27

Recommended. H2O Man Yesterday #26

Violates the first Law of Thermodynamics Smells like BS Melon 16 hrs ago #35

Whatever bankrupts the wretched Saudi oligarchs, the better! Initech 16 hrs ago #36