Skip to main content

View Diary: Breaking: Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why are you going off of two standards? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    codairem

    If we want the safest why not just go for the safest?

    It has the added benefit of not being nearly impossible politically.

    If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

    by AoT on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 01:46:48 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So we burn coal (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Nucleo, alain2112

      until solar catches up? Great plan.

      Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

      by psilocynic on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:15:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, please pay attention (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        codairem

        Solar is more expensive but safer, so we pay more and install solar. It's not like we can just magically switch to nuclear, it takes at least three years to bring a plant online, assuming the best political climate for it. Your accusations are absurd and your "plan" to ignore the safety issues with nuclear is absurd. How much solar could we get up for the 26+ billion it takes to build a nuclear plant? And how much will future supply of solar increase if we spend the money on that instead of nuclear? Spending on nuclear instead of renewables is throwing good money after bad. We need to build up renewables as quickly as possible and nuclear gets in the way of that, no matter what sort of nonsense catastrophism you might want to push. We can do this in a reasonable way without nuclear.

        If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

        by AoT on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:26:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's not a realisting solution. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Johnny Nucleo

          I really wish it were, but it's not.

          Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

          by psilocynic on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:37:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course it is (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jgnyc, codairem, Roger Fox, Joieau

            You think that building 1.5 trillion dollars in new nuclear plants is reasonable and not spending the same money on solar and other renewables. That's not reasonable. You just really want there to be a big switch to nuclear. I understand it seems like the only way, but it isn't.

            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

            by AoT on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 02:43:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, nuclear can't put a dent (0+ / 0-)

              in worldwide GHG output shy of at least a thousand new 1,000+ Megawatt reactor plants. And that's new capacity, not replacement for the ~400 antiques worldwide on their last legs. Minus 52 of Japan's, since they'll probably not be generating 'trons again in the foreseeable future.

              $1.5 trillion dollars is only 50 plants at $20 billion apiece [current tag] and getting more expensive every day that goes by. That's just the first round of cost overruns on new units that won't come on line for at least another decade and a half. That won't replace the antiques that will go down for good in that amount of time, a predictable half our current fleet. They're dropping like flies and will continue to drop - Crystal River, Calhoun, Yankee, San Onofre 2 and 3, two at North Anna and two more at Diablo, several on the Mid-Atlantic coast and Florida that simple sea level rise will put an end to. Three rickety clunkers at Browns Ferry and all the rest of the Mark I and IIs - 23 of 'em in this country of a design proven far too dangerous to justify, just like the same models in Europe now shuttered or scheduled for quick exits. MitsubishiHI is facing divisional bankruptcy as both GE and Siemens got out of the nuclear business and are going heavy with renewables. There's no future in it, the actual industry is aware of that even if the news is slow to trickle down to the minions.

              It's all about the floating cash at this point. Who can monopolize the most of what governments must of course be investing if there is to be any future at all. Nukes are not a good investment.

              $1.5 trillion dollars would go a long way toward ending King Coal's reign with kinetic sources and solar, site generation and a much more distributed supply. Which can be deployed right now and start contributing to the grid tomorrow. Probably still have gas contributing for the next couple of decades, but we could definitely cure the worst of it.

              If you add in the capital costs, annual direct and indirect subsidies (including loan guarantees, passes on water regulations and taxpayer liability for those trillion dollar meltdowns that happen often enough to matter), decommissioning and long term waste management (if they ever get around to it), nuclear is no bargain. Might as well count the true costs.

        •  SOlar is tied @ 11 cents per KWH (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, Paul1a

          See my citation up thread. Solar price points are trending down, fission is trending up.

          ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 03:15:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're not factoring in energy production (0+ / 0-)

            costs. Overall, nuclear is much cheaper and takes less energy to create.

            Lo que separa la civilizacion de la anarquia son solo siete comidas.

            by psilocynic on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 08:53:02 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site