Skip to main content

View Diary: Amidst all the nonsense, a sudden and unexpected victory (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Nuclear is a non-starter: (7+ / 0-)

    private capital won't fund it.

    It's also not well-suited to a clean energy future, as it a) would suck up all the money needed for actual clean energy, and b) does not respond well to spikes and dips in demand.

    We need a de-centralized energy system.  Reinventing Fire is a good book to explain how we get there (and why nuclear will not be part of it).

    © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

    by cai on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 06:48:32 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Any port in a storm, perhaps (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bontemps2012, kyril, Roadbed Guy

      Nuclear is about the only non carbon baseload generation I know of.  Not sure what answer we have to that until molten salt concentrated solar is operational (maybe that's happening very soon, though.)

      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 Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 09:33:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  there are 2 interesting nuclear techs on horizon (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril

      That would be good plug replacements for our coal electrical production but we also need to massively invest in re-building our grid into a smart delivery system and also to have significant decentralized production via renewables.

      We are going to need many times the electrical production capacity that we currently have if we want to move our transportation from fossil fuels to renewables.

      The 2 technologies are:

      Traveling Wave Which promises to deliver clean power from our depleted uranium stockpiles

      and

      Magnetized Targeted Fusion Reactors

      Each of these projects is backed by a multi-billionaire who would have the means to bring the technology to market if it proves viable.  

      Of course, we the public should be vigilant and make these companies prove that they are safe.

      --United Citizens defeated Citizens United...This time. --

      by chipoliwog on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 09:40:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nuclear power has proved itself safe. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril, Roadbed Guy

        Look at the experience of the last 70 years.

        Apart from one bizarre design out of Russia, at Chernobyl, no nuclear plant has killed people. Ever. Anywhere.

        Fukushima should be read for what it was: the safety system kicked in automatically at the third second of earthquake warning. The reactors "scammed" instantly.

        Cooling systems were torn apart. Radioactive water was released, as designed, into the Pacific Ocean. No one is going to die from Fukushima radiation.

        In fact, radiation from the old nuclear bomb tests in Russia that fell on Japan through the 1950s and 1960s has received intense attention since the tsunami. That attention is all to the good. People will be much less likely to suffer accidental exposure.

        This radiation had been concentrated over decades as rainfall concentrated in run-off areas at the bases of hills and mountains all over northern Japan. Any number of small creeks had turned into radiation hazards. Before Fukushima, no one knew much about it, apart from experts. Nothing had been marked.

        "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

        by bontemps2012 on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 03:23:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your description of Fukushima... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          catfood, John Crapper, Odysseus

          seems from another universe.

          Dumping radioactive waste into the ocean is a plan?  

          There are whole teams of people that acted heroically that received what will prove to be lethal exposures to radioactive conditions in the plant.  You should know this.  

          There are significant areas around the province that are highly contaminated.  Contaminates spread across the pacific on both air and sea currents.  They were testing for such contaminates in Seattle!  

          Just because people haven't keeled over and died at first exposure doesn't mean they aren't going to be affected.

          In order for this design to be safe, the plant must be able to be shut down with zero risk of things going out of control as they did. We shouldn't have to deal with hydrogen explosions scattering more radiation to the winds.  

          Look, I have great hope in the ideas I described as potential plug in replacements for fossil fuel generated electricity, but the level of safety required must be enforced.  

          --United Citizens defeated Citizens United...This time. --

          by chipoliwog on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 10:13:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Look to the cumulative radiation release. (0+ / 0-)

            It's next to nothing in the populated areas. Even at the plant itself, apart from the hot spots their background radiation is back to four times normal.

            "Normal" is next to nothing. You'd get to the 4X level going from sea level to Denver.

            Nobody has died. Most likely nobody is going to die. We have airline pilots and attendants who fly every working day, take much more radiation than this, and have 2% higher cancer risk over a lifetime (which is not statistically significant.)

            The normal plants kill nobody. Period. Ever. It doesn't happen. And the plants are very easy to operate for trained engineers.

            "We have done nothing to be ashamed of. We have nothing to apologize for." NRA 12/14/2012

            by bontemps2012 on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 07:54:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I'm surprised (0+ / 0-)

          That there isn't a spinning vase in your followers list.

          "I'm a Republican from the 80s". - The most "liberal" president in my lifetime.

          by Nada Lemming on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 11:35:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site