Carbon dating goes back how far
is the most water intensive method of the principal thermoelectric generation options in terms of the amount of water withdrawn from sources.In 2008, nuclear power plants withdrew eight times as much freshwater as natural gas plants per unit of energy produced, and up to 11 percent more than the average coal plant.The , especially when compared to renewable energy, efficiency, and conservation.Among conservation, efficiency, solar and wind power technologies, there are no global warming analogs to the heat, carbon, and radioactive waste impacts of nuclear power.Accepting its first shipment of waste in 1999, WIPP was touted as the ultimate high-tech, spare-no-expense model that proved radioactive waste disposal “can be done.” But a series of disastrous events in February, 2014, led WIPP to stop accepting wastes—the sole function for which it was designed.Most significant was the (it was mistakenly packed with organic rather than clay-based kitty litter).Atomic apologists argue that the disposal of high-level reactor wastes should be a relatively simple problem, lacking only the political will to proceed.The industry touts New Mexico’s , or WIPP, which has long been the poster child for military attempts to deal with high-level trash from the nuclear weapons program.
But at least part of the cavernous underground labyrinth may never be reopened.
But the nuclear industry that falsely There is nothing such as renewable power generation as all those renewables and useless batteries have a limited lifespan and all require infinite resources.
In this department Advanced Nuclear Power Plants offers clean renewable energy, the lowest emission 0.3g(CO2e)/k Wh, the highest ERo EI 2000, the lowest material (resources) requirement and takes care of the nuclear waste.
Nuclear has done far more to avoid greenhouse gas emissions and produce clean energy without the air pollution, bad health and deaths associated with fossil fuels than all the "renewables" in the world. Think for yourself, don't just parrot the misguided traditional views of reactionary environmentalists. Nuclear has costs and disadvantages but it is much better for the environment than fossil fuels and we probably need some baseline electricity to go along with solar and wind, at least until we have better batteries or other storage mechanisms. Wind and solar are great, but make up just a tiny fraction of our energy portfolio.
We need to stop climate change and we need lots and lots of new nuclear energy in order to do it. What's the point of attacking nuclear, especially with disinformation? Renewables can provide each hour electricity for better price than today. The are few countries, states and counties that are yet provided by 100% renewable electricity locally produced energy (Kostarica, Uruquay, Lower Austria, Burgenland, Luechow-Dannenberg, El Hierro, Samsoe...) for example. If you want to know how nuclear plants effect our environment/global warming... I've worked at nuclear plants for the last ten years, but I've been an environmentalist my entire life.
It’s possible some of this “MOX” fuel containing , is now projected to require another ten years to build with another ten possible after that to phase into production. Even the current pro-nuclear Congress won’t fully fund the project and the Department of Energy DOE continues to recommend abandoning it.