Skip to main content

View Diary: James Hansen: Climate Change is here-and worse than we thought (201 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nuclear is not a viable energy option. (10+ / 0-)

    Safe nuclear is just as much an oxymoron as Clean Coal.  

    If we really want to straighten out all this crap we need to really think about shit!

    by John Crapper on Sat Aug 04, 2012 at 02:51:29 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  And unlike true renewables... (10+ / 0-)

      ...the cost of building nuclear capacity continues to climb:

      Georgia Power is responsible for $6.1 billion of the estimated $14 billion project. Documents based on the last six months of 2011 show the project tracking $28 million under budget. But scheduling delays have made the project's capital costs and financing costs go up, Jacobs said.

      What's more, there may be additional costs from other changes at the project as well as from the $400 million billing dispute between the company and the Shaw Group and Westinghouse, he said.

      Any increase in the project cost that ends up being Georgia Power's responsibility could be recouped from customers, per approval of the PSC.

      This is not a "one off" circumstance. The Vogtle expansion was advertised as costing $8.87 billion for an eventual 2400 MW. The final bill will come in at no less than 33% higher. This is SOP for the Commercial Nuclear Industry: lowball the construction costs and be shocked that cost overuns immediately start mounting not long after the ink is dry. The structure to properly and safely contain the fission process is the cost driver here, and many people are lured into focusing only on the very narrowly framed, post-construction "generation costs" when discussing how "cheap" nuclear power is. And there is still the waste management/disposal issue that will also only escalate, not cheapen with time.

      I'm not against Nuclear as a technology. I'm against the inability of the Commercial Nuclear Industry to be completely honest with all the costs and consequences of delivering power from a reactor to our end uses.

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Sat Aug 04, 2012 at 07:06:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We can't surrender a fundamental force of physics (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pale Jenova, Plan9

      A true 21st century civilization must be able to harness nuclear forces. To limit ourselves to just chemical reactions and electromagnetism, 19th century technologies, is to me the same as being a flat earther. Scientifically backwards.

      •  We need nuclear plants with safer design (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Plan9

        than the Fukushima types that are rampant.

        Integral fast reactors or thorium salt reactors (where molten salt is used as the coolant instead of water) are worth looking at.

        (Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the technology involved to avoid talking out of my butt crack, so I'll leave it there.)

        Sometimes . . . I feel . . . like a redneck with chopsticks . . . Dreaming of squirrel while I'm sucking down squid . . .

        by Pale Jenova on Sun Aug 05, 2012 at 09:20:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Very few know the technology involved (0+ / 0-)

          And I'll tell you why.  I wanted to go into nuclear engineering.  I wanted to spend my career designing new and better reactor technologies.

          But when I was in college anti-nuke sentiments were all the rage, and no one wanted to discuss new technologies.  I decided not to persue what looked to be a dead field under constant attack from anti-science, anti-technology idiots.

          We're not going to get new and better nukes so long as it's politically easier to build new coal plants.  

          •  Our faith in technology is what got us in (0+ / 0-)

            this nuclear mess.  Man's over-inflated ego of themselves and our belief that we can control nature and bend it to our needs is a large part of our problems in dealing with climate change.  You were saved from a dead end career by the anti nuke movement.  You should thank them.  I've studied this issue too!  

            If we really want to straighten out all this crap we need to really think about shit!

            by John Crapper on Sun Aug 05, 2012 at 06:57:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Neither do the experts. That's why nuclear is not (0+ / 0-)

          a viable alternative.

          If we really want to straighten out all this crap we need to really think about shit!

          by John Crapper on Sun Aug 05, 2012 at 06:58:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  So what is your solution to nuclear waste? (0+ / 0-)

        What is your solution to the terror threat and the close relationship of nuclear power to nuclear weapons?  

        and finally

        What is your solution to human error and human greed and corruption which is always evident in any industry?  

        Science needs to respect its limits of control and leave certain things untouched.  Nuke free in all things is what is scientifically  " forward".  Doing otherwise is totally ass-backwards.  Fukushima is the ongoing living proof of this.  

        If we really want to straighten out all this crap we need to really think about shit!

        by John Crapper on Sun Aug 05, 2012 at 07:09:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site