Skip to main content

View Diary: Researchers: Sea levels rising 60% faster than previously expected (142 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Is nuclear power still worse than coal? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WarrenS, Mindful Nature, mojo workin

    Are we still going to shut down every nuclear reactor on the planet while we keep burning coal for another 100 years?

    Are we still going to keep pretending that 1950's nuclear tech is the absolute state of the art?  Are we going to keep telling engineers who want to work on improving nuclear reactors not to bother, because it's impossible?

    And are we seriously going to keep pretending that the damage from Fukushima (mostly caused by the refusal to properly store spent fuel, and the refusal to upgrade reactors) is worse than global climate change?  Fukushima didn't make Sandy worse and cause $50 Billion in damage.

    Yawn.  Just another climate change diary written by people who refuse to deal with reality.  Either support nuclear power until ALL coal plants are shut down, or stop whining.

    Bring on the sea level rise.  Nothing else is going to wake people up.

    •  I Could Be For Nuclear In The Short Term (10+ / 0-)

      as a bridge to something else. The reason I don't hold nuclear as the be all so many folks do is there are just too many case studies where folks in say Holland or Germany have just skipped nuclear and went right to wind and solar. I forgot the show, but there are both large and small cities throughout Germany that are almost 100% powered by solar and wind. Holland is ahead of schedule, by leaps and bounds, of their goal of 20% of all power being "green" by 2020.

      When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

      by webranding on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 03:57:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  not to mention Denmark (7+ / 0-)

        which aims to be 100% renewable, with 30% by 2025 (they're at 18% now, like California, roughly, I believe).

        Interestingly, my understanding is that a central part is buildling a distributied natural gas infrastructure that can be transitioned to renewables.  

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:12:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Denmark Is A Good Example On Many Levels (7+ / 0-)

          they have some of the cheapest and fastest Internet access in the world. 4-5 times (at least) faster than what we have for about half of what we pay. How they did it was kind of really simple.

          They gave the telecom companies, who alreqady had wiring into thge house, huge tax breaks if they'd wire fiber directly into houses. The catch was to get the tax break, they had to open up to fiber to anybody, even their competition, that wanted to offer some service/product.

          Funny thing, they were like OK, we can do that.

          But alas I fear that would never work here. Google just launched their fiber project in Kansas City and Time Warner is pissed. See Google is offering, for $79/month (about $35 for TV) Internet access that is as much as 20 times faster than ANYTING Time Warner offers.

          When opportunity calls pick up the phone and give it directions to your house.

          by webranding on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:18:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  In the US, the best way would be to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eric Nelson

            send data down the center of all the strung power line metal wiring.

            The electricity that comes to our homes, does not run through the copper wiring that leads to our homes.

            The power only runs along the outside of the copper wiring.

            Leaving the whole middle of the metal wire to carry data.


            "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization" -- me

            by Angie in WA State on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 07:42:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Do you know how small Denmark is? (0+ / 0-)

          It's not a valid comparison.  Sure, Rhode Island could be completely wind powered.  But that's not going to hold for the entire nation.

          And Denmark has French nuclear plants next door helping keep the grid stable.  Don't ignore that fact.

          •  There is no particular reason (0+ / 0-)

            It would not be scalable.  Except of course for the fact that Americans routinely fail where others succeed of course

            Whether France would have nukes in 2035 or beyond is anybody's guess.  In any event, the technologies involved by then are quite likely to be different.  As I noted Denmark is actually not quite keeping pace with California.  All it will take for us is better demand management and molten salt, probably

            Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

            by Mindful Nature on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 08:54:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, it's the other way around. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JeffW
            Do you know how small Denmark is?
            It's not a valid comparison.  Sure, Rhode Island could be completely wind powered.  But that's not going to hold for the entire nation.

            And Denmark has French nuclear plants next door helping keep the grid stable.  

            The larger the area that's producing and consuming renewable electricity, the easier it is to balance out the power.  Denmark is so small that it is usually all in the same weather pattern.  Either it's windy and they have too much electricity or it's not windy and they don't have enough.  They have made an agreement with a nearby country (Norway, IIRC) that has a lot of hydroelectric dams.  On windy days Denmark sends excess power to the other nation, and it throttles down the hydropower.  On non-windy days, the other nation runs the hydroelectric plants harder, and sends extra power to Denmark.  

            In the US, different regions could make similar arrangements, without the need for international agreements.  If every sunny roof had photovoltaic (PV) panels, the amount of electricity running through electrical trunks would be reduced overall, because so much would be produced literally on top of where it was being used.  This would free up capacity to transmit power from where it was very sunny to where it was partly cloudy or lightly overcast.  Similarly, windy areas would send power to areas with less wind.  Since these areas change from day to day, it would be necessary to change the direction of power transmission from time to time, but it could be made to balance out in the end.  The larger the area is over which the electric supply needs to be balanced, the easier the balance is.  

            Renewable energy brings national global security.     

            by Calamity Jean on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 03:57:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        webranding, divineorder, lotlizard

        i have to credit james lovelock's unequivocal advocacy for nuclear (expressly as short / immediate term) as having nudged me from "oh, hell no" to something a bit more circumspect on the topic.

        nuke still skeeves the hell outta me though. radioactive half lives measured in millennia still mean, to me (and perhaps more viscerally than logically), that that is one seriously dick move to kick that big ass can down multiple generations.

        "everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey." -john lennon

        by homo neurotic on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:15:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well, supposedly they're on the cusp of having (3+ / 0-)

        "4th gen" reactors online. These would use up 90% (95%?) of the fuel, and can be used to burn up a lot of the waste from our older reactors as well as reduce our weapons stockpile.

        I'm not in favor of any more uranium mining until they get these online, the industry gets its act together, and the mining and the processing of the uranium isn't an environmental nightmare.

        They could at least use these reactors to "clean up".

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 07:57:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Everyone has their pet panacea (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, bigjacbigjacbigjac

      Nuclear, solar, cow flatulence.  None of it means anything if we can't even convince people that global warming is real, is occurring right now and is a very serious problem.  I don't see how we can ever work towards a solution when no one is willing to admit that there is a problem.

      Get people to understand what is happening out there and all options for a fix will be open.  Otherwise it's business as usual.

      •  There's other reasons to want renewable energy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW

        besides global warming.  Air and water pollution, for two.  

        None of it means anything if we can't even convince people that global warming is real, is occurring right now and is a very serious problem.  I don't see how we can ever work towards a solution when no one is willing to admit that there is a problem.
        More than two-thirds (68%) of US citizens want something done to combat global warming, including more than half of Republicans.  Lots of people are "willing to admit that there is a problem".  It's just that the people who are not willing to admit to it have a lot of money and can buy really big amplifiers.  And they can bribe give campaign contributions to a lot of politicians.  

        Renewable energy brings national global security.     

        by Calamity Jean on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 04:07:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yay! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      divineorder, MrBigDaddy, corvo

      Whatever would we do without nuclear shilling!

    •  You say it that way as if those are our only two (9+ / 0-)

      options. I reject that.

      I also reject that nuclear is sufficient to be a solution. Nuclear plants take too long to build and there isn't enough uranium. It requires new technology.

      If you're building new technology anyway, why not put more emphasis on other tech that is actually better developed and with fewer question marks and lower liability?

      Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

      by elfling on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:10:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because of one simple fact (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Norm in Chicago

        No other technology has the energy density advantage that nuclear has over our current best, i.e. combustion of hydrocarbons.  It is one of those inconvenient facts.  It is an immutable truth that nuclear systems can deliver the most power and energy with the least amount of fuel, least amount of infrastructure investment and environmental disruption per reliable on-demand MWh delivered.  It is a fact that will not, and can not be changed no matter how much one might wish otherwise.  This is a consequence of energy density that is millions-to-one over fossil fuels, along with extremely high power densities of modern reactor systems - with theoretical limits up to the practical limits of known material science.

        Wishing we can make huge strides in cost and practicality for diffuse energy sources (i.e. solar and wind) is is like one wishing to be able to create a perpetual motion machine.  It would be an incredible thing to have, most desirable, except that it is IMPOSSIBLE.  It is impossible because it would violate the 3rd law of thermodynamics.  Nature sets the limiting bounds on what is possible and what is not.

        Energy density of fuels and power density of energy-conversion machines is in the same league.  If your energy source is weak and diffuse, there is no way it will be able to do what energy-dense material can do, no matter how hard you try, no matter how much you want it to work.  IT SIMPLY CANT because physical laws makes it so.  Upgrading energy from weak energy flows is intrinsically, thermodynamically at a great disadvantage.  Collecting energy from weak sources will always take larger collectors.  This can never change because it is based on immutable limits based on physics, just as we can't change the laws of thermodynamics to suit our desires.

        This is why I reject efforts to sell alternative energy systems based on weak, diffuse sources that are highly intermittent.  Sure they can work, but the amount of investment - which takes fossil energy - is so much larger.  Given our current circumstances, I think taking the most energy-rich, resource-minimum path is the smartest way out of humanities dilemma of how to be successful, which means consuming vast amounts of energy, without destabilizing the earth's climate system.  

        Nuclear is not just a little bit better.  It is literally MILLIONS of times better on this count.  I can hold in my hand all the fuel (and consequent waste) necessary to produce ALL THE ENERGY I'll EVER USE IN MY LIFETIME.  Consider that against countless tons of coal, oil and gas - and assosiated CO2 and destruction due to mining, transportation, refining to supply all my needs over 80 years.  Then multiply that by billions of people across the globe.  THAT is why the millions-to-one advantage of nuclear processes over combustion is so essential if we are to escape this "energy trap" we have landed ourselves in.

        The intrinsic nature of Power is such that those who seek it most are least qualified to wield it.

        by mojo workin on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 07:16:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's possible you're right and I'm open to (3+ / 0-)

          persuasion. However, the same assholes who are running Big oil/coal are also the ones running nuclear.

          They want to be unfettered from regulation, but they are not trustworthy.
          They must accept rigorous oversight, regulation,etc.
          I'm very big on small scale solar, because it empowers the homeowner, farmer, school district, renter, etc in relation to the utility corporations. I think it will always make sense.
          However, I know we need power for industry, manufacturing, major infrastructure, etc. So I'm willing to look at 4th gen. nuclear. We have to figure out the waste problem before we move one tiny step forward. Where are we going to put it? How much will there be? Etc.

          Ultimately, we need to control the population ( with family planning) regardless of whether we figure the energy component out. We also have a water problem and a food problem, nuclear might help some with the power for water purification, but ultimately it can't solve every problem.

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 08:10:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you, David54. (2+ / 0-)

            Yes,
            ultimately,
            we need to control the population,
            with contraception.

            I keep writing diaries about this.

            The overall solution,
            ultimately,
            for every problem that can be fixed,
            is less humans causing problems,
            and less humans as victims.

            If there were only 100 million humans
            on the whole planet,
            none would need to live in low areas.

            There would be plenty of land
            for growing crops,
            and raising livestock.

            Click on my username,
            and read my latest diary,
            and earlier diaries,
            about this.

        •  My dear mojo workin, please read this: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean
            Yawn, indeed. I am not a diehard anti-nuker... (9+ / 0-)
          ...But until the supporters of nuclear power as the silver bullet for all our energy problems stop the ridiculous you-conservation-and-renewables-people-are-just-whining-idiots and start acknowledging that we'll need many thousands of the thorium nuclear reactors that are supposedly going to save us and that, so far, not a single commercial-scale thorium reactor has been built since the idea was first broached more than 50 years ago, I won't take your complaints about other people not being reality based as all that persuasive.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 06:58:04 PM CST

          [ Parent | Reply to this ]  Recommend  Hide

           

          That comment is downthread,
          in reply to
          Norm in Chicago,
          upthread.

          Meteor Blades
          has worked hard,
          for more than thirty years,
          as a journalist,
          and he is a journalist here,
          doing his research,
          quoting sources.

          I don't have any college degree,
          certainly not in nuclear physics,
          so I'm forced to choose from various sources.

          Meteor Blades,
          on most topics,
          seems like a reliable source.

          I could do a search,
          and read up on thorium reactors,
          but until I do,
          I say that I've heard they are better
          than any we now have,
          but none have been built?

          Bottom line,
          from all I understand on this topic,
          it seems to me that:

          1.  You are absolutely right.

          2.  And you are absolutely wrong.

          If it were just chunks of fuel,
          from everything I've heard,
          you are right,
          one small chunk of radioactive fuel
          produces millions of times more energy
          than a similar sized chunk of coal,
          or natural gas,
          or whatever is second to radioactive fuel.

          On that point,
          I'm convinced,
          you are absolutely right.

          But let's look at one statement you wrote:  

          I can hold in my hand all the fuel (and consequent waste) necessary to produce ALL THE ENERGY I'll EVER USE IN MY LIFETIME.  
           

          Visualize that handful of radioactive fuel.

          Now visualize
          seven billion
          handfuls.

          Not a few hundred,
          or thousands,
          or millions,
          or hundreds of millions,
          but seven billion.

          Then,
          group them together in bundles of some sort,
          and put nuclear power plants around them,
          or,
          for the spent radioactive bundles,
          some shielded bunker of some kind,
          and tell me how many of those plants,
          and how many bunkers,
          and exactly who's backyard
          they will be positioned in.

          Now,
          aside from all those very large buildings,
          there's another obstacle,
          and if it's the biggest one,
          I share your frustration,
          but,
          just as wishing will not change
          the nature of a source of energy,
          likewise,
          wishing will not change
          fear.

          Maybe the biggest obstacle to nuclear energy
          is fear.

          I know,
          you're working,
          by writing here,
          to reduce that fear.

          Just as I'm working,
          by writing here,
          to convince everyone,
          someone,
          that we must all consider
          getting our tubes tied,
          surgical sterilization,
          to reduce the numbers
          of overconsuming monsters,
          (Americans and other wealthy folks),
          and
          to reduce the numbers
          of victims.

          Fewer humans in harms way
          means fewer dead
          when harm comes.

          That's the overall solution.

          And most folks bicker over which way
          to keep heading towards brutal famines,
          with cannibalism.

          That's where we're headed,
          if we just keep bickering over energy.

          I predict:

          You will fail
          to eliminate the fear of nuclear energy,
          and I will fail
          to create the fear of famines,
          until it's too late.

          Famines will kill more
          than sea level rise.

          But sea level rise,
          and droughts,
          and floods,
          all those things
          will make the famines come sooner,
          and make them worse.

          And it's too late to build enough nuclear reactors
          to fix the problem.

          It's too late.

        •  Solar has an energy density advantage (3+ / 0-)

          that eats nuclear's lunch.

          For that matter, solar power is nuclear power... just 93 million miles away.

          We're just not as good at converting it and storing it as we want to be.

          Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

          by elfling on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 09:40:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Plenty of uranium (0+ / 0-)

        If there were a shortage we could recycle "waste" for more fissionables, but the last time I saw an expert do the numbers, uranium from seawater would be economically viable.

    •  What the fuck? (9+ / 0-)

      Nuclear is your solution?  Jesus.  Could have been building thermal solar and PV for decades already.

      Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

      by yet another liberal on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:39:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not just any nuclear (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Calamity Jean

        Nuclear that doesn't even exist yet.

      •  Ok and what do you do at night (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Norm in Chicago

        and when the wind doesn't blow?  The 24x7 energy consumed by modern society is incredible.  I live in Ontario and we have 1,000 huge wind turbines across the province.  I've seen many days when those THOUSAND turbines produce 100MW - a fraction of 1% of demand.  If we were to run Ontario on wind, we would need TENS OF THOUSANDS plus some yet-unknown means to store energy, and a redundant grid to handle that 4-5x's over-capacity production when the wind blows hard.  You CANT run a grid that way.  The material cost, the land requirements, the cost of yet-to-be determine utility scale storage... it is craziness.

        The reason we haven't been building these things like crazy over past decades is because they just aren't practical, unless you want to pay multiple times the cost AND have an unstable grid.

        The intrinsic nature of Power is such that those who seek it most are least qualified to wield it.

        by mojo workin on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 07:30:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's all about the C02 levels. You must choose (0+ / 0-)

        Unless you're a denier, then you must admit that C02 levels must come down.  Are you serious about that or not?

        Germany and Japan are both shutting down their reactors and will rely on coal, yes COAL for much of their power.  And if reactors here are shut down, the US WILL burn coal for another 100 years.

        You have to choose.  Do you hate nuclear more, or C02 more?  If you want to stop climate change and aren't just pretending, then you MUST shut down the coal plants first.  And that means accepting nuclear power, which this site pretty much refuses to do.

        If the rejection of nuclear power continues, the C02 emissions continue.  It's that simple.

        And no, thermal solar and PV don't work in Chicago in winter when it's dark and cold for 14 hours a day.   Last night there was no sun, and no wind.  I stayed warm by burning natural gas and emitting C02.  Do you get it yet?

        Stop C02 or don't.  Your choice.

        •  You have to solve the toxic waste problem (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean

          For reals.  Didn't Fukishima just have a bunch of toxic spent rods just sitting around waiting to pollute the area?

          What's the solution?

          Tell me how this is reliably solved.

          I think there's some other serious concerns too, such as building plants in flood zones.  Also, I hear nuclear power plants have to shut down in high heat else risk melting down.

          Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

          by yet another liberal on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:24:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The toxic waste problem is solved (0+ / 0-)

            We know how to recycle spent fuel, and we know how to glassify and bury the residuals where they won't cause any problems.

            The issue is a political one now.  NIMBYs won't let the waste be reprocessed.  And they won't let it be stored anywhere.  That's why the spent fuel was still at Fukishima, because the politicians wouldn't let it be moved.

            Yes, nuclear plants shouldn't be built in flood zones, just like everything else.  The note about the nuclear plant having to shut down during the heatwave was that the cooling pond water was too warm.  But so what?  I'll take C02 free energy for 355 days a year, versus dirty coal energy for 365.  Are you serious or not?

            The solution is to shut up the politicians and NIMBY groups and let the engineers work.  Or we keep burning coal.

            Do whatever you like.  I'm done worrying about climate change until people like you decide to take this seriously.

            •  It is definitely a political issue (0+ / 0-)

              You just don't have the politics of it sized up correctly.

              Why does it matter if it can be glassified when the industry isn't going to spend money glassifying it?

              You want me to trust these guys.  They didn't glassify the waste at Fukishima.  I don't see how you have an argument at all.  They did not do it.

              Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

              by yet another liberal on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 05:09:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  They weren't allowed to do it. (0+ / 0-)

                And if the industry won't do it, then we do it for them.  If that's what it takes to reduce C02 and eliminate coal, then it must be done.

                Either we're serious and we do everything possible to reduce C02, or we're not.

                Your argument is that because nuclear power hasn't been well managed in the past, that we can't use it in the future.  Just don't complain when you don't get the results you want.  And don't complain to me when the next superstorm is washing away the next American city.

    •  Yawn, indeed. I am not a diehard anti-nuker... (12+ / 0-)

      ...But until the supporters of nuclear power as the silver bullet for all our energy problems stop the ridiculous you-conservation-and-renewables-people-are-just-whining-idiots and start acknowledging that we'll need many thousands of the thorium nuclear reactors that are supposedly going to save us and that, so far, not a single commercial-scale thorium reactor has been built since the idea was first broached more than 50 years ago, I won't take your complaints about other people not being reality based as all that persuasive.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:58:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  False dichotomy (0+ / 0-)

        We're going to need conservation, and renewables, and fission, until and unless society collapses. We must aggressively minimize its use, but for the rest of my lifetime we will tragically need some coal as well.

      •  You can't honestly argue that (2+ / 0-)

        You are effectively saying that until you show me thousands of magical reactors - STFU.  You can't say "so where are these new reactors - oops, not there, ergo you're not reality based!"  This ignores any factual context as to WHY we don't have these reactors moving.  It has nothing to do with scientific validity or technical superiority.  It has everything to do with POLITICS.

        Federal regulation currently makes it IMPOSSIBLE to create a new reactor.  The NRC has a 5-year queue for approvals of standard-design reactors.  No one can even offer a guess as to how long it would take to certify a novel, non-standard reactor?  The fees cost beyond $100 million just to do the paperwork - and that doesn't take into account the size of the reactor.  Good luck trying to mass produce a small reactor - approval fees alone would make it economically impossible.  Now why would ANYONE invest to develop new nuclear under these circumstances?  

        The pro-nukes such as myself are trying to address the politics so these barriers to progress can be dropped.  First is to educate on the intrinsic benefits of new nuclear if we are to remove carbon from our economy in a serious way.  Second is to point out just how absurd our assessment of relative risks is.  We accept thousands killed by fossil fuels every year and slow destruction of our biosphere via CO2 and other poisons released by combusting billions of tons of carbon, yet find the miniscule risk of low level radioactivity so unacceptable that anything nuclear should be in its own special category despite the fact civilian nuclear power is statistically the safest form of energy generation bar none!  It is INSANITY.

        James Hansen, Barry Brook, Patrick Moore, James Lovelock, George Monbiot, Mark Lynas, Stewart Brand and many other well respected life-long environmentalists are saying the same thing: new nuclear needs serious consideration if humanity is to have energy security without carbon.

        The government has in past decades practically forbidden nuclear innovation and enterprise by driving costs and time-to-market too far.  So don't tell me that the lack of new reactors is proof that proponents aren't reality-based.  We are scientists and engineers using a great deal of science and engineering FACT.  We need to change political realities if our science is to bring the benefits we go on about so much.

        I was most heartened to learn that this dam is beginning to crack.  The Obama administration has recently approved funding for the first commercial small-modular-reactor by Babcock and Wilcox.  The B&W mPower reactor is an integrated LWR design.  The design was so chosen as to fit best with current NRC regulatory reality.  Its a start.  

        Turn public policy in the right direction, and you will see these promised reactors, and they will start to decarbonize the economy in a way that is truly scalable.

        The intrinsic nature of Power is such that those who seek it most are least qualified to wield it.

        by mojo workin on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 08:18:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Two points, besides noting that you read (0+ / 0-)

          the comment by Meteor Blades.

          1.  Are you truly telling me
          that the NRC
          is full of idiots?

          Totally clueless?

          They could have no scientific basis
          for any of their regulations?

          Are you certain of that?

          2.  You are simply wrong
          about the safety issue.

          You are simply wrong
          to make any statement,
          any comparison,
          between the safety
          of nuclear power generation,
          and the safety
          of, for example,
          a natural gas fired power plant.

          I don't have a great deal of knowledge,
          but I've seen a large boiler
          at a commercial laundry I worked at,
          and I've heard of boilers blowing up.

          If nuclear power plants
          have extremely thick barriers
          to prevent radiation from getting out,
          and to prevent damage from any explosion,
          including a boiler explosion,
          and everything is monitored very closely,
          because of the well founded fear
          of radioactive fuel,
          all that fear,
          causing all those thicker barriers,
          and all that extra careful monitoring,
          watching it like a hawk,
          all that will make nuclear
          seem safer,
          looking at numbers,
          numbers of boiler explosions,
          or any other accident,
          causing any kind of harm to humans.

          Since there are no such barriers,
          no such extra regulations
          on natural gas,
          of course there will be more accidents
          from plants that have less fear,
          and less caution.

          It's like comparing
          air travel
          to car travel.

          Car travel is safer,
          way safer.

          But folks use their phones,
          drive carelessly,
          drive drunk or stoned,
          and you get numbers that make it look bad.

          The incredibly dangerous aircraft
          are closely supervised,
          so the numbers look good,
          especially if you use false numbers,
          such as passenger miles.

          They load up fifty or more passengers,
          and fly them more than 1,000 miles,
          and one take-off and landing cycle
          gets them lots of passenger miles.

          That's lying to the public.

          I gotta quit rambling.

          Good night.

        •  It's not just the U.S. that doesn't have the... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean

          ..."inherently safe" thorium reactors that are so widely touted in pro-nuke circles. No country has a commercial-scale one in operation.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:38:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I want renewables to ramp as fast as possible (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Calamity Jean

        I also want coal to ramp down as fast as possible.  And that means not demonizing nuclear and keeping the reactors going until ALL the coal plants are gone.

        Yes, we need thousands of reactors to keep billions of people alive.

        It's nuclear, coal, or choose which 4 billion people have to die.  Have fun with that.

    •  BWRs need to be retired (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, Norm in Chicago

      We were lucky the Alabama tornadoes missed the back up power generators. The Fukushima BWRs responded horribly to loss of back up power.

      PWRs performed well in the Japanese earthquake. Shutting them down, except for ones that are near faults capable of large quakes is a mistake.

      look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

      by FishOutofWater on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 05:21:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site