Skip to main content

View Diary: A Very Cool Little POLITICAL Book In An Engineering Library. (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In its entire history, over 50 years, nuclear... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hmi, PeterHug, Dauphin, Roadbed Guy, bryfry

    ...energy has been responsible for fewer deaths than an average week - possibly even an average day of dangerous fossil fuel waste (aka "air pollution") kills.

    Air pollution, according to the World Health Organization kills about 2 million people die each year from air pollution, 5000 per day.

    The World Health Organization on Air Pollution.

    Thanks for your comment.   I agree of course.   Nuclear energy need not be perfect to be better than everything else.   It only needs to be better than everything else, which it is.

    •  Nuclear energy can be made "safe" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt, No one gets out alive

      but the cost to do so is astronomical.  Traditional LWRs have been shown numerous times to be a huge financial risk to the utilities building them, to the ratepayers forced to absorb the writedowns when the construction effort fails and to the Federal Government when the loan guarantees go bad.  

      We should take the money from the Nuclear Loan Guarantee program and use it to fund a Thorium research reactor to see how that reactor design performs as a commercial unit.  

      I'm glad to see you on the Rec List and a big part of why is because you didn't blindly bash renewable energy like you usually do.  Since Germany generates 20% of its electricity with renewable energy and they are showing no signs of stopping any time soon, this shows that these technologies can supply a large amount of energy given the right policy.  The combined renewable resources of the U.S. could power our energy needs many times over, the only problem is distribution and storage.  Electric cars doing double duty as storage devices and demand management will go a long way in alleviating these issues.  However, there will be a few parts of the country, especially the U.S. Southeast, that can't get to 100% renewable.  In these areas, a few Thorium reactors could bridge the gap eventually and get the country to 100% clean energy.

      •  Personally ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kurt

        I love how "20%" constitutes a "large amount" in the mind of this commenter.

        Last year, nuclear provided 23% of Germany's electricity consumption, yet I wouldn't call that a "large amount." (For comparison, so-called "renewables" accounted for less than 17%.) (source)

        No, the "large amount" of Germany's electricity production is provided by fossil fuels, and that is only going to become worse after the phase-out.

        Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
        -- Albert Einstein

        by bryfry on Sun Oct 23, 2011 at 03:20:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bull. Any investment of improving the safety... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bryfry

        ...profile of nuclear energy is a waste of money by definition, becuase nothing, absolutely nothing, is as safe as nuclear energy as it already exists.

        For a marginal improvement in the extraordinarily high safety profile of nuclear energy, the money is better spent on health care, or even earthquake safety for buildings.

        Despite the horseshit selective attention of the scientifically illiterate anti-nuke squad, far more people died in the Sendai earthquake from non-nuclear causes - primarily collapsed buildings - than died from any nuclear related cause.    I still don't hear lots of calls to ban buildings, or for that matter dams.   The immediate death toll from collapsed dams - so called "renewable energy" - was infinitely larger than the immediate death toll from the reactors at Fukushima.

        Does the "selective attention" squad care about this?

        No?

        They're full of shit.   Nuclear energy need not be perfect to be infinitely superior to everything else.   It only needs to be infinitely superior to everything else, which it is.

        The idea that nuclear energy needs to be "safer" is an invention of people who think that every radionuclide is as dangerous as the ordinary releases of dangerous fossil fuel wastes.

        If nuclear energy killed as many people who will die in the next 8 hours from dangerous fossil fuel waste, there would be an outrageous uprorar.   It would still be pure nonsense.

        Have a nice evening.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site