Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

madokie

(51,076 posts)
18. Only one phase of nuclear energy is relatively clean, producing the electricity.
Tue Aug 11, 2015, 05:28 AM
Aug 2015

the rest not so much from building the machines that carve up the earth, the machines that haul the ore, the rubber tires that the machines use to travel over the earth carrying said ore to the processing plants, the building of those processing plants, the energy used to process that ore into fuel. The machines used in mining the raw ingredient to make the cement and iron used in building the nuke plants and on and on are all highly producing co2 endeavors. Claiming nuclear energy is clean is a lie, pretty much like all the other claims about nuclear energy are. Not to mention the years of construction workers doing all this work going to and from and all the equipment, vehicles and related items and the co2 produced there.
Nuclear energy is neither safe, sane nor cheap to produce and only a fool can see it as that it is

Recommendations

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

Future Of Nuclear Industry Takes Yet Another Hit bananas Jul 2015 #1
As I've said a number of times, I was told the same thing 40 years ago by experts in the field. bananas Jul 2015 #2
The only people who delude themselves that nukes can ever be safe are those in the industry Cleita Jul 2015 #3
A couple corrections/clarifications FBaggins Jul 2015 #4
Are these the ones that use nuclear waste to operate? lonestarnot Jul 2015 #5
Yes, and others. nt bananas Jul 2015 #6
I hate to ask anti-nukes questions involving logic, but... NNadir Jul 2015 #7
It's always "worth" improving safety FBaggins Jul 2015 #8
That would depend on what you make "safer..." NNadir Jul 2015 #9
Most of those 7 million deaths you throw out there madokie Aug 2015 #17
The ability to make this type of reactor meet minimum safety standards isn't yet achieved. kristopher Jul 2015 #10
Your timeline is off FBaggins Jul 2015 #11
No, my timeline isn't off - it isn't mine. kristopher Jul 2015 #12
Yes it is (both off... and yours) FBaggins Aug 2015 #13
You are quite the character kristopher Aug 2015 #14
Sigh. Can't be bothered to actually read the report that you claim you're using as a source? FBaggins Aug 2015 #15
Exactly as I expected - you are misdefining "prototype" kristopher Aug 2015 #16
Exactly as I expected - you're trying to spin away from the context FBaggins Aug 2015 #19
ROFLMAO kristopher Aug 2015 #21
Your post #10 is the one in question - not #14 FBaggins Aug 2015 #22
Get a life (and a clue) Bags. kristopher Aug 2015 #23
Only one phase of nuclear energy is relatively clean, producing the electricity. madokie Aug 2015 #18
Sorry... that's nonsense. FBaggins Aug 2015 #20
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Next-generation nuclear r...»Reply #18