What's the problem with nuclear power?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

you wonder why everybody thinks Americans are stupid

Well why should the government get involved in electricity generation?

because they could do it cheaper than for-profit enterprises

[DanS]

The problem with nuclear power, in the United States at least, is that it is subsidized even realtive to other forms of electricity generation.

This is a definite consideration. I will have to think about that.

The problem from my perspective re fossil fuel taxes is that the revenues will go to the general fund rather than to solving the underlying cost for which they are recovering. If taxation solved the problem, then I would have expected Europe to be more ahead of the game with regard to energy technology advances, for instance.

[Imran Siddiqui]

water vapor a greenhouse gas?

Yes, duh!

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

water vapor a greenhouse gas?

Yes, duh!

but, as I think someone pointed out, the amount of water vapor created by nuclear power would be minimal compared to the amount of water vapor created by Earth's weather systems (evaporation, the water cycle, etc...).

[Imran Siddiqui]

But what would happen if everything got turned over to nuclear power?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But what would happen if everything got turned over to nuclear power?

It would probably rain a little bit more?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava
It would probably rain a little bit more?

Well, you can say the same about all other global warming....though that "little bit" turns out to be a *****.

[Sava]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, you can say the same about all other global warming....though that "little bit" turns out to be a *****.

But does nuclear power produce less greenhouse gas (total) than coal or oil?

[GePap]

Depends on the strenght and quantity of the greenhouse gases- my guess, the overall imput is less than hydrocarbon powered energy plants.

Of course, switching to nuclear doeas nothing about greenhouse from transporation, which is the main problem.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You mean, politically, or economically?

Well the politics of the economics . Americans probably wouldn't go for massively state-run electricity generation. They'd see their taxes rise and ask why can't the private market do it.

Which ignores the fact that state run electricty in the U.S. is vastly cheaper than private electricty.

[Sava]

Originally posted by GePap
Depends on the strenght and quantity of the greenhouse gases- my guess, the overall imput is less than hydrocarbon powered energy plants.

Of course, switching to nuclear doeas nothing about greenhouse from transporation, which is the main problem.

Nuclear power could be used to produce hydrogen for hydrogen fuel cell cars. One of the drawbacks to hydrogen fuel cells is that current manufacturing processes are powered by mostly dirty power.

[Dauphin]

Water is a greenhouse gas, but its also in equilibrium. Pumping out steam does not increase the amount of water in the atmosphere globally.

The same is not true for pumping out CO2, which is not in equilibrium and its quantities do increase in the atmosphere globally as more is released from non-renewable sources.

[Az]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Which ignores the fact that state run electricty in the U.S. is vastly cheaper than private electricty.

It's impossible, commie. You know the private market does everything best.

[Az]

Water is a greenhouse gas, but its also in equilibrium. Pumping out steam does not increase the amount of water in the atmosphere globally.

That's not entirely correct. By putting out hot vapor, you shift that equillibrium.

[Dauphin]

You don't move the equilibrium, you only change the short term variables.

To put it another way, its not a cumulative or persistant effect.