Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
NJ5 said:
|
Random Person B said:
Nuclear plants are relatively small, but the nuclear waste and pollution it creates are extremely hard to get rid of and puts out dangerous radiation. at least Co2 from oil and coal factories can be absorbed by the ocean/plants (...)
|
Fun fact: a coal power station dumps 100 times more nuclear radiation to the environment than the equivalent nuclear power plant does.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
|
Wonder if that includes the "Clean Coal" plants that want to be about 50% of our nations energy.
Funny, considering the energy polcies being proposed in the US>
|
"Clean coal" is a bullshit term. It's not clean at all. It reduces some of the pollutive elements, but not all and perhaps not the worst ones. There's also the question of pollution storage, of course.
As far as I've read, radionuclides aren't reduced by the so called "clean coal" technologies. Coal is (and will remain) the dirtiest form of energy, no matter how many "clean slogans" the energy firms come up with.
|
Oh I know... it's why I don't like the Obama energy plan, it's half make the global food crisis worse, half "clean coal" while we wait around 10-20 years for actual mass market green energy.
Nuclear makes more sense as a bridge energy.
|
Well, after the "bridge" we still keep continuing to use nuclear energy, in forms of fusion and solar power. Those are the two energy sources i see viable in the long term.
