Skip to main content

View Diary: Sen. Wyden Sounds The Alarm on Fukushima (291 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The worst case scenerio is another Chernobyl (0+ / 0-)

    And while that was truely horrid, it was responsible for far fewer deaths than the regular use of coal as a power source.  

    I realize it's a matter of choosing our poison but we're pretty much stuck depending on gas, coal, or nukes at least in part for as much as another century.  I'm increasingly being won over to gas though.
     

    •  No. The worst case scenario is a hell of (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      antimony, native, Joieau, Russgirl

      a lot worse than Chernobyl.

      In fact, we're already at Chernobyl.  Anything more is, well, going to be worse than Chernobyl.

      Coal is not the only alternative to Nuclear, and it's not really very honest to pretend that it is.

      Kos should start a PvP server for this game.

      by JesseCW on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:30:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gas? (0+ / 0-)
      I'm increasingly being won over to gas though.
      Yes, because as we all know, methane gas never kills anybody or has any adverse environmental impacts.

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

      by bryfry on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:44:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  they all kill people (0+ / 0-)

        Using electricity pretty much necessitates that people will die.  The x factor is how long they will keep killing people after we stop using them.  

        If reprocessing or even something like Yucca Mountain were politically feasible options, nuclear would be the clear winner.  On site storage is clearly unsustainable though.

        •  Is gas "sustainable"? (0+ / 0-)
          On site storage is clearly unsustainable though.
          Dry cask storage is something that will easily last 100 years. That is, you have a century to decide what to do with the material.

          Strangely, "100 years" is the same number used by the natural gas industry (i.e., the oil companies) to convince the public that the US has plenty of natural gas. Wow, an entire 100-year supply!

          If you look at the numbers, however, the figure is closer to 90 years (OK, so they rounded up), and that is under the assumption that the US does not increase its reliance on natural gas or begin to export major quantities of the stuff to other countries who are willing to pay far more for this fuel than Americans are.

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

          by bryfry on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 06:48:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site