I'm gonna get my backside kicked for this...

[mindwalker_i]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html

According to this article, nuclear power kills fewer people than fossil fuels when all the health effects of pollution are considered. The difference is that pollution does it slowly, so you can't really see it happening and attribute it specifically to fossil fuels (and Republicans will point that out enthusiastically), whereas when a nuke plant goes up, it's more obvious.

Note that I'm not saying nuclear power is safe, just that overall, fossil fuels are worse. So what's the best thing to do? Use nuclear temporarily while developing solar and other renewable forms of energy. Above all, increase efficiency in cars and electrical appliances so less fossil fuels or nuclear power are needed. That will require finding every Republican who says it's socialism, or that our freedoms are being taken away and kicking squarely in the ass. Hard.

[Luminous Animal]

1. Yes. Pro nukes has been posting that info for weeks. Fact is, we do have other choices

than the choice between nuclear and fossil fuels.

[kristopher]

19. Here you go: Rehab for Nuclear Junkies

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150

Please share the cure.

[Luminous Animal]

28. Nice. FYI, I've greatly appreciated your contributions on DU. Please keep it up.

[AsahinaKimi]

2. Hands you a pillow

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kY5WNu7XcU8/SK8Rx14A16I/AAAAAAAAAxo/Kf6fC1TPgh8/s400/japanese+blossoms.jpg
for your backside...

[mindwalker_i]

3. Thanks

Anticipating I'll need it.

[AsahinaKimi]

5. You are welcome!

:D

[NV Whino]

4. It doesn't take into account nuclear waste

which is around for 10s of thousands of years, polluting the earth beyond redemption.

Dump nuke power. Phase out coal and petroleum.

[Bake]

59. I thought they were just going to launch that shit into space ...

So it can pollute some other planet.

:smoke:

Bake

[demwing]

75. Nah, they mix it with asbestos and cement

and make cinder blocks, which are then sold to Third World countries and used to build hospitals, schools, and neighborhood civic centers.

It's all too beautiful...

[MannyGoldstein]

6. "Math" and "Science" are unpopular these days

On the other hand, I'm sure that we could make alternative, safe forms of energy economically viable in short order, if we get our act together. Until then, we have sucks, and sucks more.

[Wilms]

7. Tell that to future generation who'll be stuck with spent fuel in disintegrating casks.

:puke:

Oh, and... :spank:

:D

[highplainsdem]

8. +1

[mindwalker_i]

11. Thing is, there is energy in the "spent" fuel

Maybe at some point we can find a method to use it. And other types of reactors are possible - pebble bed will hopefully become possible or other types. In the end, it looks like there will be no one solution but a combination of several that will replace fossil fuels.

[Wilms]

14. The OP noted that the nuke industry pushes alternative nukes.

I admit, we may have no choice but to investigate that since there is so much spent fuel to be neutralized. Harvesting the inherent energy may be a byproduct of those efforts.

Agreed their won't be a single solution. But there's no need to assume the mix would or should include fossil and nukes. That's, as another poster submitted, "sucks, and sucks more".

[Abq_Sarah]

36. Oh, if we could only

Get rid of oil, coal, natural gas and gasoline by waving a magic wand and exclaiming... make it so!

There is much money to be made for anyone who can come up with a dependable, consistent, affordable alternative to fossil fuels. Research is being done but technologically speaking, we're not there yet and we may not be there for a while.

[Luminous Animal]

9. Portugal went from 17% to 45% renewable sources to generate electricity in 5 years.

How long does it take a nuclear power plant to go on line? (Hint, years longer.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/science/earth/10portugal.html

How long would it take to increase efficiency? (Hint, Ford, et.al., already produce incredible fuel efficient cars in Europe.)

The technology is already there. We simply do not have the propaganda to use it.

[Newest Reality]

10. I advise you to look into the overall and long-term impact

of Chernobyl before you decide on that argument.

We all want less pollution and danger, long-term and short-term, to ourselves and our environment. I just don't think that trying to make something potentially so dangerous and long-lived look more safe is useful or appropriate. It just serves another industry's interests and delays pressing and important questions about the importance of alternatives.

[mindwalker_i]

15. And the long-term impact of fossil fuels is... ?

Actually, depending on fossil fuels seems like a grave (as in big-ass, world-ending) mistake. I live in the Bay Area and understand how much food is trucked in to keep us all alive. Crucially, as gas prices go up, and especially if we've hit peak oil and gas prices will go up a lot, we're, to put a fine point on it, fucked! The infrastructure doesn't exist to get food into cities and stores without oil. On top of oil possibly having a worse effect on us than nuclear.

[Wilms]

17. Admittedly, diesel trucks are a bad thing.

But nuclear powered cargo vans aren't gonna save us.

[mindwalker_i]

18. Yep, that's true

I would like to see electrical train of some sort, powered by solar, bring food in. That's obviously not an easy thing to implement.

[Wilms]

21. It will be a lot easier when the money we earn isn't paid to the wealthy. n/t

[mindwalker_i]

24. The non-upper classes are a resource to be mined

BY the wealthy. The government, particularly Republicans, seem to see it as their job to make that mining easier.

[Newest Reality]

23. Overall, everything we do is now based on fossil fuels.

It is not so optional and should be reserved for the most essential requirements in the future. From my inspection, though some quibble about it still, we have already reached Peak Oil. Not only that, we are on the precipice of Peak Everything from potable water to rare earth minerals, etc., etc.

Oddly, that coincides with our economic downturn where less people have access to purchasing power with the long-term prospects looking worse.

To top it off, considering how oil is so ingrained in every part of modern life, (food, pharmaceuticals, paints, chemicals, plastics, etc.) it is also related to our dollar. In fact, you could call it a Petro-Dollar.

I didn't say that I accept the damage and pollution of combustible petroleum products. Just keep in mind that replacing oil is not going to be easy or efficient as a fuel because nothing comes close to the amount of energy it provides, so far. Alternatives are the best way for us to go, but I imagine you know all the conundrums involved.

Big oil wants to keep its ascendancy along with other vested interests that find alternatives a thread. It takes a lot of these alternatives to even provide a decent percentage of the massive power requirements we have created with our accepted, sold-to-us lifestyles. Plus there are also pollution and resource supply issues involved in the production of alternatives. Then, there are the people who fight to keep these new technologies off their land and out of their backyards.

The overall outcome is that we all face a drastically different way of life in the years to come. Well, not the wealthy who have taken our power and wealth. While efficiency is essential, a downward mobility in ridiculous and saddening proportions is in store for most of us.

Had this been taken care of early and in the right way we could have been let down easy and maybe found a comfortable level of low-energy, sustainable and localized life without to much pain and chaos in the process.

[kristopher]

27. I'm sorry, but do you actually understand energy issues?

There is no justification for nuclear power. As for oil, all automakers have already launched their move towards battery electric vehicles and far from being a reason for nuclear power, a technology called vehicle to grid (V2G) will enable the electric vehicle fleet to serve as one large source of storage that will enable and assist greater penetration of variable sources of generation.

I've assembled a primer at the link in my sig. I hope you take the time to read it because so far it is pretty apparent that you've accepted as true some incorrect information that the nuclear industry pays a lot of money to put into the public mind.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x626150

[mindwalker_i]

30. I understand energy

I triple-majored in electrical engineering, computer engineering, and physics. Whether I understand the energy "issues" is up for debate. You point out that all automakers are moving to battery storage for energy and that's great. The energy that goes into those batteries has to come from somewhere, and I would personally like to see that coming from solar. Alternately, mass transit could replace a good deal of traffic - I take the train to work most of the time, and that works pretty well.

I skimmed your article and find it informative enough that I'll read it more carefully later, when I'm soberer :D

[kristopher]

40. Follow up with Kempton (offshore wind paper) for V2G.

I'm a policy analyst specializing in the transition to a noncarbon economy.

Pleased to meet you.

[Luminous Animal]

29. As if bio-diesel does not exist.

[jeff47]

46. Bio-diesel has problems.

Bio-diesel gels at about 32 degrees. Which means it's not usable for most of the nation during winter. There are blends of bio-diesel and petro-diesel that don't, but that still requires 30-50% petro-diesel.

Theoretically one could come up with some sort of heating system to keep bio-diesel liquid in winter, but you'd also have to come up with some way to power that. The engine won't work since the fuel has gelled.

There's also the problem of food prices rising a lot as cropland is used to grow fuel instead of food.

I will admit though that we don't currently have anything else that's workable for large trucks that's also renewable.

[MadHound]

68. Actually petro diesel gels as well, albeit at lower temperatures than biodiesel,

But there are additives that take care of that problem, just as they would with biodiesel. Yes, there are mechanical solutions to that problem as well, such as block heaters and such, but they can be run off of solar, stored in batteries.

With biodiesel derived from algae, you don't have to devote a single acre to fuel production. And it would become a boon crop for farmers large and small.

[jeff47]

77. Petro diesel gels at a much, much lower temperature

meaning it works "right out of the pump" for almost everywhere. Additives are only needed in particularly extreme locations, such as Alaska. And the additives for petro diesel won't work for bio diesel. The fuels are different chemicals.

As for block heaters run by batteries, I severely doubt the trucking industry is going to want to reduce their load by several thousand pounds in order to haul sufficient battery power. And trucks are nowhere near large enough to have a working solar array on them. You're proposing something the trucker would have to set up while stopped. And that would not work at night.

As for algae, it still takes land to grow it. You've got to put the tanks somewhere. And if it's a boon crop for farmers, then they'd be switching to it instead of food crops, which would raise food prices.

[Toucano]

12. I don't see where they've taken into account the scale: Nuclear, 6%, fossil fuels, 85%?

Of course you can say fossil fuels "kill more people". We us them 14 times as much as nuclear.

I hate to think of how many people would be sick and how much of the planet would be uninhabitable if the world relied on nuclear power for 85% of it's energy output.

If I missed it, please advise.

[wickerwoman]

35. +1

How many 30km radius areas have been rendered uninhabitable for *thousands* of years by oil or coal?

If we use more nukes we will have more meltdowns. It's inevitable. Even if they are designed to withstand 500 year quakes- in year 501 you're screwed. And when we're talking about decimating entire areas for millenia that's just not good enough.

[Toucano]

38. All that risk just to BOIL some WATER?

Really?

It's a lot like using a laser to heat a cup of tea.

[hunter]

70. Or a cavity magnetron tube...

wikipedia

[kristopher]

44. This might help put it into perspective using1/3 of global electric as benchmark

From a presentation by John Holdren.

The nuclear option: size of the challenges

• If world electricity demand grows 2% /year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...
–nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;
– this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000 MWe each.

• If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...
---–enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);
---–diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.

• If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...
---–the associated flow of separated, directly weapon - usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;
---–diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.

• Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...
---–34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.

Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren

Repeating that conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, *but* doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

What does he say about renewables?

The renewable option: Is it real?

SUNLIGHT: 100,000 TW reaches Earth’s surface (100,000 TWy/year = 3.15 million EJ/yr), 30% on land.
Thus 1% of the land area receives 300 TWy/yr, so converting this to usable forms at 10% efficiency would yield 30 TWy/yr, about twice civilization’s rate of energy use in 2004.

WIND: Solar energy flowing into the wind is ~2,000 TW.
Wind power estimated to be harvestable from windy sites covering 2% of Earth’s land surface is about twice world electricity generation in 2004.

BIOMASS: Solar energy is stored by photosynthesis on land at a rate of about 60 TW.
Energy crops at twice the average terrestrial photosynthetic yield would give 12 TW from 10% of land area (equal to what’s now used for agriculture).
Converted to liquid biofuels at 50% efficiency, this would be 6 TWy/yr, more than world oil use in 2004.

Renewable energy potential is immense. Questions are what it will cost & how much society wants to pay for environmental & security advantages.

Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren

John P. Holdren is advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology,
Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology...

Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,
director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and
Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren

[Toucano]

52. +1...People need to read this... n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

13. Yes. Fossil fuels are worse.

Small consolation right now for many, but undeniably true.

[Wilms]

16. Undeniably?

Read the thread responses.

[mindwalker_i]

20. Yes, undeniably true

If we burn all the oil in the planet or possibly even with what we've burned now, the change to the ecology is quite likely going to be great enough so the planet will not be able to support us. You can argue that's not such a bad bad thing from the planet's point of view but I still consider it bad.

[slay]

32. Try telling that to a Chernobyl victim

just sayin.

For the record - I hate both equally.

[Mojeoux]

39. Why Don't The Japanese Experts Bury These Reactors in Mud and Cement, Like They Did in Chernobyl?

They are still radiant inside, But buried in mud and cement.
Not earthquake proof, but maybe will help?
Dunno.:( :-( :eyes: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :nuke:

[BrookBrew]

64. They need to control and then cool the plant. Because the core is not exploded

all over they dont have a Chernobyl problem. Comparing this to Chernobyl is like comparing a car accident to the holocaust. Does not grok.

[Mojeoux]

66. Big "gulp!" So is

Japan the car accident.......? (I hope I hope I hope)

Does boiling water doesn't get out radiation?

[BrookBrew]

71. This is radiation... just be sure you get your scale correct.

[Iggo]

22. Yeah, you are.

And you should.

[uppityperson]

25. 50 people being killed individually in car accidents are less media worthy than 1 accident killing50

Main problems I have with nuclear power is what to do with the spent fuel/etc and if it does go bad, it goes very very bad.

[ehrnst]

55. Yep, you have to figure in the risks of the nuclear waste. (nt)

[jtuck004]

26. "My dad used to say that people are afraid of a deadly thing which they can not see,

can not feel and can not smell. Maybe that is because those words are a good description of death itself."

from: http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter2.html">kiddofspeed blog

People shouldn't be afraid of this. Nuclear is not safe, and it has shortened the lives of far fewer people than fossil fuel. As wind, water, solar comes on line we should use it. Before then we will need reactors and we just need to decide what kind and where. Can it be contained in a NORAD-like facility (artificial - build the sarcophagus before you build the reactor)? Build them so we can operate without a nuclear release (short of a true nuclear explosion). Just this side of ridiculous, but stop the worst part of nuclear so far, the widespread destruction. Put it somewhere in Texas, but not along the coast, and not near Galveston.

Maybe we could have an employee-owned community coop nuclear facility. Anyone need jobs? Because there are people who NEED American Idle on the tv.

We need a solution for the waste. And avoid putting a bunch of spent fuel we can't control between us and the reactor core.

[kristopher]

45. How does building reactors make sense when renewables are ready to go now?

Did you know that for the past two years natgas has been #1 in new capacity and wind has been #2?

Electricity from nuclear is slower to deploy and costs more. See link in sig.

[jeff47]

47. Are you claiming natural gas is renewable? (nt)

[jtuck004]

49. Renewables are so far from being ready it's nearly a joke

Unless by ready you mean costly and labor intensive, and needing a building program that would take the next 100+ years. I'm all for it, all for improving it, and all for building it out, but as long as wind, water, and solar advocates are tilting at windmills instead of building them they are never going to get there.

For example, http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf">this paper, given to me by a WWS advocate is quite good. It says we can get ALL global energy from wind, water, and solar. We just have to embark on a building and design program we will still be working on when our children's children's children will be in school. To provide baseload power it needs to be able to generate it without storage - by definition it never will.

They call for 3,800,000 windmills, 40,000 300MW solar PV powerplants, and 1.7 billion 3kW rooftop PV systems. Some of the stuff doesn't exist on a large enough scale to be practical yet - i.e. electricity from waves, may even still need design work to be practical in the real world. For example: IIRC, currently 8000 5w wind turbines, and 1120 under construction, here, Just a few million short, eh?. Despite all the hype they still can't keep the lights on, or maybe grandma's oxygen machine, without electricity generated by nuclear or fossil fuel plants. Maybe when the people who PRODUCE the PV panels can keep their own electricity on in an emergency when they are not physically damaged this will become believeable - here.

Nuclear plants only take about 3 years to build. Another 7 is added by court challenges and (obviously inefficient and inadequate) regulatory process, taking away money that could be used for education or a living wage for families. And those calculations are often done by solar zealots who care nothing about fairness, and compare it to a solar installation that couldn't provide day-in and day-out power for a Las Vegas casino, much less 12 million people. And just because the early automobile killed a lot more people doesn't mean we don't improve our engineering, because the need for lots and lots of transportion to live life today still exists.

Which is really ironic, because the reason auto crashes kill more people in a year than nuclear accidents have in their entire history is because of the drivers, not the car. Yet we put billions of dollars into re-engineering the car to make up for that, instead of figuring out how to change the people. Chernobyl, TMI, and now Fukushima have all been caused or exacerbated by humans. The way forward is to figure out how to keep people from killing others with it, not throwing wooden shoes into the gears and moving us back 200 years. (Unless one is a republican in the new congress - 'cause that's where they want us to go).

And natural gas has begun to pollute more water and land in its extraction than we have seen in a while, at a time when drinking water is coming into short supply. I don't see the good in substituting one CO2 spewing fuel for another.

Nuclear is the only viable answer today, and the better question is how do we improve the safety, not how do we appease the sabot brigade while they refuse to acknowledge any viewpoint that doesn't wipe out life for millions of people because of WWS's inadequcies.

[kristopher]

56. Sorry you are wrong. Three years isn't even close.

Following most analysts, the authors of the 2009 MIT study also quote total nuclear-plant costs as "overnight costs" and say that "this total cost, which is exclusive of financing cost, is $4,706/kW"; noting that the earlier (2003) MIT analyses also compared overnight costs, "as described in the MIT (2003) Future of Nuclear Power study," the 2009 MIT authors attempt to justify their interest-cost-trimming procedures by saying that using overnight costs "represents the standard basis for quoting comparable costs across different plants" (Du and Parsons 2009). Likewise, when the 2009 MIT authors assume a reactor- construction-time period, they again follow the 2003 MIT authors and say nuclear-plant "construction is planned to occur over a 5-year period" (Du and Parsons 2009).
However, most experienced nuclear operators, like Florida Power and Light, say US new-nuclear-plant-construction time is 12 years (Herbst and Hopley 2007), not the 5 years assumed by the MIT authors. Likewise, the US National Academy of Sciences estimates at least 11 years (Smith 2007). The average UK-nuclear- plant-construction time is 11 years (House of Commons Energy Select Committee 1990); in France, 14 years (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2007); in Japan, 17 years (Stoett 2003); in Eastern Europe, 15 years (Bunyard 2006; International Energy Agency (IEA) 2001). Nuclear proponents admit that building the latest US reactors took 23 years (Herbst and Hopley 2007).

123
K. Shrader-Frechette
Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest

So your horseshit spin is shown clearly at just that - horseshit spin.

Florida Power and Light is in the process of building and they say US new-nuclear-plant-construction time is 12 years. The 2005 energy bill gave the nuclear industry COMPLETE IMMUNITY FROM ANY CIVIL OR LEGISLATIVE actions that might delay construction.

National Academy of Sciences estimates at least 11 years (Smith 2007).

The average UK-nuclear- plant-construction time is 11 years (House of Commons Energy Select Committee 1990);

France, FRANCE, is 14 years (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2007);

Japan, 17 years (Stoett 2003);

Eastern Europe, 15 years (Bunyard 2006; International Energy Agency (IEA) 2001).

3 years???

You must be one of the shills from MIT. :rofl:

[jtuck004]

74. China signed a contract with Shaw to

build four Westinghouse AP1000 reactors, the kind FPL is wanting, and they broke ground in 2008. They expect to turn the switch on in 2013.
That's only 5 years for the newest and heaviest reactor, supposedly safer (though it is not in a tomb, where I think it should start).

"Placement of the 1,020-ton CA20 module ranks as one of the heaviest and largest on record for the nuclear energy industry."

There is no one kind of reactor, and they go through customizing and engineering changes, so there is firm timeline on how long they take.

The Fukushima reactors took 3 years for the 500 MW, up to 6 years to reach startup for the 700+ and 1300MW, (see wiki) after which they continued toward commercial operation.

But ok, they take 5 years. Even if they took 12, it would beat the buildout of enough WWS to matter by 150 years at the rate we are going.

I agree, we need WWS. People should feel free to build it out. When there is enough that they have to take notice they may have gained a
great advantage by flying under the radar.

On the other hand, I wonder how many villages the solar folks will leave poisoned with Thorium or other radioactive wastes (that also have no answer for long-term storage of thousands of tons of low-yield radioactive waste here) in the rare earth metals used in solar, wind, etc, here?

Or maybe everyone will turn off American Idle and make WWS more likely. But I doubt it.

And not MIT, But thank you.

[slay]

31. Both are bad choices - kind of like our current government

oh i bet this post gets deleted but just in case people decide they don't like censorship and will let it stand, I'll continue.

Solar, wind, water - that is where we need to get our energy. We need to stay the hell away from nuclear - that is just too powerful - we've proven repeatedly that we can not control it. Oil and coal are horrible polluters and I can see how - in general - over time - it could "technically" be worse than nuclear. try telling that to a Chernobyl victim though.

But what can we do when Dems AND republicans BOTH embrace the old ways? :shrug:

[mindwalker_i]

33. Yeah, you said it

As much as I would like to say Democrats have it right, there are too many who seem to be bought out by industry. I'll still vote for them because the alternates are worse.

As for nuclear, I don't buy the argument that it's "just too powerful for us to handle." The current form of reactors is definitely sub-optimal but there are better designs possible. Fusion would be good. But, fossil fuels suck! They really suck, and they're killing us. It's slow, so we don't see the effects as well as when a nuke power plant blows up, unless it's the gulf.

[donheld]

34. How many does Wind Energy kill?

[Zoeisright]

43. +100000000000000000

[Curmudgeoness]

61. How many what? People or birds and bats?

I am not opposed to wind energy, but there are drawbacks to it too.

[donheld]

73. Everything has drawbacks should we do nothing?

[Curmudgeoness]

76. Doing nothing is not an option. But we do have to remember

that there are consequences to any of the decisions we make. Like I said, I like the idea of using wind energy. But I do wish that we could keep wildlife deaths down too. Where there is a will, there is a way. We just need the will. This is all I am saying.

[BrookBrew]

65. More than nuclear in the US. Falls and industrial squishings

kill people in coal mines and on wind farms.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk%2Faccidents.pdf&rct=j&q=wind%20farm%20injuries&ei=2NKLTdX2M8yltwfX7NitCw&usg=AFQjCNGNp0s5l04H_eYbnBxoY3NtCnjLtg&sig2=FfzhL38VXel_ugKFdiuPPA&cad=rja

[defendandprotect]

37. No burning of fossil fuels -- and no nukes -- move to alternative GREEN energy -- solar/wind ...

Germany Set To Abandon Nuclear Power For Good -- !!!

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/03/23-7

[BrookBrew]

63. You would need nuclear to reduce the population to where that would work, that or Smallpox

short of killing 60% of the population that is a pipe dream.

[aquart]

41. Thank you for your concern.

I'm sure you have thoroughly researched the sources and sponsors of your talking points article.

[Zoeisright]

42. Key words to this sentiment:

SO FAR.

And, AS FAR AS WE KNOW. Deaths caused by radiation are very hard to prove. No one really knows what causes a cancer a particular person gets.

And radiation kills slowly, you can't see it happening and can't attribute it to leaks, which plant operators usually lie about anyway.

The choice isn't between nukes and fossil fuels. It's between poison (nukes and fossil fuels) and clean reneable energy.

Sheesh.

[MadHound]

48. And nuclear doesn't do it slowly as well?

Go tell that to the people who have suffered in the cancer clusters around TMI. Go tell that to the children of those who suffered exposure at Chernobyl. They would kick your ass, but their birth defects prevent them from walking, or even cognizant thought.

What utter horseshit pro nuke people stoop to.

[Iggo]

51. Yeah, but more people die in car crashes, so...

....those people don't count.

It's like they don't even exist.

Yay!

[MadHound]

67. False analogy there,

People dying from cancer and birth defects from nuclear plant accidents are dying as the result of energy production. People who die in car crashes are dying as the result of energy consumption. No matter what energy was used to propel cars, crashes would still occur.

False analogy, faulty logic.

[Iggo]

72. I know.

;)

[Yo_Mama]

50. I don't think it is quite that absolute

However I do think you are taking the right approach.

Everything carries positives as well as negatives; the worst nuclear plants, IMO, carry more negatives than positives.

However, I'll say one thing. The Japanese currently have no alternative to nuclear power. In mainland Japan (Honshu) they have a land area about that of Minnesota's with almost 100 million people compared to Minnesota's 5.3 million. To keep those people warm and their high-density population fed, employed and sheltered, they need a lot of power. They don't have any feasible alternatives.

More people have died from exposure in Japan in the last week (most in unheated shelters and hospitals) than have been killed or injured in the nuclear accident so far.

If you look at the staggering death toll imposed by coal, it's clear that nuclear power is not the worst possible alternative for many. Of course, even with coal, more filtration at plants and much higher safety standards at mines have made the societal death toll from coal in the US, for example, minute compared to China's.

But still, even dams break.

And lack of access to clean water, medicines and warm shelter used to kill masses of human beings every winter.

We do not live in a perfect world. We can continue striving for a better world, but abandoning the fantasy and taking a good hard look at the quantitative realities underlying our options is a prerequisite.

[Yo_Mama]

53. Support for your comment

(Although I would personally like to see many nuclear plants shut down)

This is the EIA projection for total global energy mix:
http://eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/electricity.html

If you scroll down, you'll see a chart that shows coal use expected to rise rapidly through 2035:

[ehrnst]

54. Cars kill more people than planes - but that doesn't mean that planes need lots more

safeguards and regulations.

You are far less likely to survive a plane crash due to one loose wire, than a car accident where the brakes failed.

[spanone]

57. humans cheat. corporations cheat. you can't cheat nuclear power. many people die.

[walldude]

58. Use nuclear temporarily while developing solar

and other renewable forms of energy..

Jimmy Carter got that started 30 some odd years ago. If Reagan hadn't killed the program I believe the numbers were we'd be at 40% solar power by now had we kept it up.

[vicarofrevelwood]

60. Then at least Let's Use a safer Kind,

Of Reactor. One that produces no Bomb grade material, can be used as a breeder reactor to get rid of Plutonium, and when it shuts down no coolant is needed. Check it out.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348/

[BrookBrew]

62. There is fact, fear, and agenda pushing all in one.

it is hard to sort out all the bullshit. So far 10,000 people are dead from a tsunami. 0 are dead from radiation.

The data is out there from many places. Radiation was not invented in japan last month.

The us detonated dozens of nuclear weapons in Nevada, ranging from .1 to 1MT. 1MT is a thermonuclear pop. The NEJM wrote about these tests and the DOE records are available to anyone who actually gives a shit to look.


This was taken 400 miles west of LA. LA did not die the following week. The outcome was serious, but not to the high drama being predicted for by japan. It is perverse and sick to see the event used to promote any agenda.

[Spider Jerusalem]

69. Nuclear power kills fewer people than fossil fuels...

when you account for fatalities related to coal mining and oil and natural gas drilling. Let alone adjusted for pollution effects.