Definition of progressive1 a :of, relating to, or characterized by progressb :making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities Repeating cherry picked factoids about nuclear power because you are scared of it and therefore seem unable to objectively investigate it's record without resort to discredited memes is not "progressive".
A true progressive would at least look at the published and peer reviewed studies on the actual history of nuclear power.
You leftists hijacked the environmental movement to force your authoritarian, top-down system on a populace that REJECTED your failed ideology. Any ignorant SOB with a computer can spew off lies and it is posted for the world to see. So for 100 US reactors we can calculate roughly 100,000,000,000 gallons per day nationwide. This directly warms the planet as it is generated by converting inert radioactive fuel into heat that's dumped into the ecosphere. Nuclear fuel pellets embody large quantities of carbon emitted in the mining, milling and enrichment process. Radioactive waste management requires large quantities of fossil and other fuels. Reactor explosions (thus far including one at Chernobyl and four at Fukushima) emit large quantities of heat and disruptive gasses and radiation into the ecosphere. Heat, chemical and radioactive reactor emissions kill huge numbers of marine and other creatures. Huge numbers of birds die from flying into reactor cooing towers. Renewable energy is safer, cleaner, cheaper, more job-producing and faster to build than nuclear.
Unfortunately not enough people realize this and take articles like this to be fact. The total energy output of nuclear is what it is, whatever the electricity generated, after a few days, everything will be converted to hear. It can provide all the power our civilization needs.
There is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin, and I don't have time to explain why almost every point made in this article is either false, or completely misrepresented.
The greatest danger that nuclear poses to the environmental movement is that it solves the problem of AGW *without* invoking the ghost of Karl Marx. Two-thirds of all the massive heat generated by the controlled atomic bombs in nuke reactor cores is dumped as waste into the environment. Thus all nuclear reactors emit huge quantities of hot water, steam and water vapor into the air and water at an equivalent of roughly 20 degrees Fahrenheit above natural. The quantities vary from reactor to reactor; the official estimate at Diablo Canyon is 1.25 billion gallons per reactor per day.
But its rediculous articles like this that are killing the nuclear industry, and causing more harm that good to the cause of actual environmentalists.Come back with some math on material required up to 2050 to prove your views and that that can be discussed.The GRID that you dream off does not work in industrialised nations and only exist in island type environments.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.