Quote:
Originally Posted by kach22i
It takes more energy to build and decommission a nuke plant than it ever produces.
|
How the heck did you dream that up? Total BS. So wrong it makes my head spin. While you wish it were true, it hasn't a shred of truth to it. I'd like to see you try to offer any evidence to back up your claim. The best you could possibly do it to quote some lying enviro-lefty website which would say or do anything to get what they want. It just isn't true at all.
Nuke plants are the most efficent forms of energy producers we've ever come up with. If we built enough of em electricity would cost a fraction of what it costs now.
The cost to build a nuke plant is quite a bit higher than a natural gas powered generating plant (mainly because of the lefty enviro-wackos) but outproduces it significantly and costs a fraction to operate per megawatt. A reactor can outlive a conventional boiler with siginicantly less maintenace cost.
BTW, I've worked in a nuke plant also. I've been in containment, I've seen a reactor up close. I have no idea why Dan would agree with you on that point. It is completely and totally without any merit or basis in fact.
Completely, totally wrong and easy to prove.
Our closest plant is San Onofre. It makes alot of power and it many times more efficient than all the other conventional plants around. That's why So Cal Edison kept it and sold off the rest. It makes a *****load of power and money. And it's safe.
BTW it has never shipped any spent fuel off the premises. All the spent fuel it has ever produced sits in a pool of water that surrounds the decommisioned #1 reactor. The actual volume of spent uranium a reactor produces if very, very small.