General Discussion

stopdiggin

(15,462 posts)

38. No. They do not. (say differently)

Sun Mar 29, 2026, 12:33 PM

Sunday

(and you can 'get there' only by ignoring the devastation wrought be 'alternatives')
People that point toward nuclear do not ignore potential pitfall and dangers - but rather weigh them up against the very proven and ALREADY DEMONSTRATED dangers of fossil fuel generation (and extraction) Every ongoing day. And the balance there between the proven cost and devastation of the one - against the potential challenges represented in the other ... Leaves really no conundrum nor tenuous balance at all. It's pretty much a no brainer.

And with statements like, "better off burning coal for all eternity" you amply demonstrate a variety of trenchant mindset that I will happily continue to call grossly misinformed - today, tomorrow and the next day - even if you lived on TOP of a nuclear reactor.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We may not need any stinking oil after all.. [View all] multigraincracker Saturday OP

Someone please explain how this doesn't break the first law of thermodynamics. harumph Saturday #1

it is harnessing a 'second' source of energy, in addition to the solar stopdiggin Saturday #2

Not if it's harnessing solar power, which is infinite as long as we have a source FakeNoose Saturday #7

'solar power' doesn't do anything like 'revising' thermodynamics ... stopdiggin Saturday #30

I have no science background Eddie Haskell 60 Saturday #9

No, that is thermodynamics. mr715 Saturday #18

cool Eddie Haskell 60 Saturday #21

I'm not buying any of this. To start with, there is no such thing as 100% efficency in any realm. flashman13 Saturday #12

The 130% number being bandied about in the article refers to quantum efficiency Shermann Saturday #16

I am always raising my eyebrows James48 Saturday #3

Why? mr715 Saturday #19

It isn't 130% efficient if it is 2 energy harvesting events. mr715 Saturday #4

I discussed this badly misinterpreted wishful thinking case in another thread on the topic. NNadir Saturday #5

No angrychair Saturday #6

Mercury in the exhaust smoke. BidenRocks Saturday #8

That is appalling and dangerous nonsense. When confronted... NNadir Saturday #10

I was just using it as an example angrychair Saturday #28

Again, the question is, did radioactivity from nuclear power plants kill as many people in 70 years as died in the... NNadir Saturday #32

So by your logic angrychair Saturday #33

poster said absolutely nothing of the sort stopdiggin Sunday #39

After coal is burned fly ash has to be disposed of. What goes into the air stays in the air. twodogsbarking Saturday #11

Coal ash has radioactivity and heavy metals IbogaProject Saturday #14

More people have died in coal processing, burning than nuclear. mr715 Saturday #15

Nonsense Disaffected Saturday #24

Coal's main byproduct is CO2 NickB79 Saturday #29

you could not be more completely misinformed - or wrong about a particular subject. stopdiggin Saturday #31

Hanford angrychair Saturday #34

Trade offs for any decision. mr715 Sunday #37

No. They do not. (say differently) stopdiggin Sunday #38

Isn't this a peer review journal? multigraincracker Saturday #13

Its a popsci distillation. mr715 Saturday #17

No. I accessed the paper on which this pop misinformation is based. NNadir Saturday #23

It's not a perpetual motion machine swong19104 Saturday #20

Link to the actual scientific paper mentioned in the press report JHB Saturday #22

The paper if not talking about energy conversion efficiency. Disaffected Saturday #25

Wait!?! H2O Man Saturday #27

Recommended. H2O Man Saturday #26

Violates the first Law of Thermodynamics Smells like BS Melon Sunday #35

Whatever bankrupts the wretched Saudi oligarchs, the better! Initech Sunday #36