Nuclear in sentence

6244 examples of Nuclear in a sentence

In terms of weapons, the best disarmament tool so far is nuclear energy.

They're referred to as nuclear batteries.

Babcock & Wilcox that make nuclear reactors, here's an integral fast reactor.

So my premise here is that nuclear energy puts out more carbon dioxide, puts out more air pollutants, enhances mortality more and takes longer to put up than real renewable energy systems, namely wind, solar, geothermal power, hydro-tidal wave power.

And it also enhances nuclear weapons proliferation.

The low estimate is the nuclear energy industry estimate of nuclear.

If we look at the delays, it takes between 10 and 19 years to put up a nuclear power plant from planning to operation.

And in China, right now, they're putting up five gigawatts of nuclear.

While you're waiting around for your nuclear, you have to run the regular electric power grid, which is mostly coal in the United States and around the world.

And the chart here shows the difference between the emissions from the regular grid, resulting if you use nuclear, or anything else, versus wind, CSP or photovoltaics.

So the difference is the opportunity cost of using nuclear versus wind, or something else.

So if you add these two together, alone, you can see a separation that nuclear puts out at least nine to 17 times more CO2 equivalent emissions than wind energy.

If you go to nuclear, you do get a big reduction, but it's not as much as with wind and concentrated solar.

Now if you consider the fact that nuclear weapons proliferation is associated with nuclear energy proliferation, because we know for example, India and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons secretly by enriching uranium in nuclear energy facilities.

And Venezuela would be doing it if they started with their nuclear energy facilities.

If you do a large scale expansion of nuclear energy across the world, and as a result there was just one nuclear bomb created that was used to destroy a city such as Mumbai or some other big city, megacity, the additional death rates due to this averaged over 30 years and then scaled to the population of the U.S. would be this.

Now if we go to the area, lots is worse than nuclear or wind.

This is based on ranges from data, but if you look at nuclear, it would be the size of Rhode Island to power the U.S. vehicle fleet.

And now, if you go back to looking at geothermal, it's even smaller than both, and solar is slightly larger than the nuclear spacing, but it's still pretty small.

This is the choice: You can either have wind or nuclear.

And we can guarantee a clean, blue sky or an uncertain future with nuclear power.

So if you're for this, if you're for nuclear power, put up two hands.

The reality is that there's, what, 21 nations that have nuclear power?

Of those, seven have nuclear weapons.

In every case, they got the weapons before they got the nuclear power.

There are two nations, North Korea and Israel, that have nuclear weapons and don't have nuclear power at all.

The places that we would most like to have really clean energy occur are China, India, Europe, North America, all of which have sorted out their situation in relation to nuclear weapons.

Pushing ahead with nuclear power will mean we really know where all of the fissile material is, and we can move toward zero weapons left, once we know all that.

MJ: Well we know India and Pakistan had nuclear energy first, and then they developed nuclear weapons secretly in the factories.

So the other thing is, we don't need nuclear energy.

Related words