Skip to main content

View Diary: Hansen: Nuclear power has prevented 1.8 million deaths (95 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, nuclear power reminds me of the truism (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raoul78, alain2112, ebohlman

    about forms of government, wherein democracy is painted as the worst possible format except for all the other options . ..

    •  That was a good one. (9+ / 0-)

      Putting it more broadly, fossil fuel generation and usage (travel/transporation) is quite large, world wide, perhaps millions dead (also excluding wars for fossil).

      Known deaths for nuclear is a lot lower, significantly lower to make it statistically irrrelevant and thus making it ideal for displacing on a MW per MW basis, fossil fuel for generation.

      I've never known James Hansen to BS anyone. He's a good scientist and knows cherry picked data when he sees it. He sees nuclear as ONE of the most effective means to fight climate change if deployed massively. He understands the need to displace baseload power and this is a theme of his talks on nuclear on YouTube.

      Hansen is just one of a slew of climate change activists coming over to nuclear. One of the reasons for this is because he's seen no data that can show renewables (excluding geothermal and hydro) to displace baseload fossil fuel.

      Take this paper seriously.

      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Thu Apr 04, 2013 at 12:30:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's only partially true (0+ / 0-)
        I've never known James Hansen to BS anyone
        insofar as he is on record as saying the the Alberta Tarsands constitutes a "Game Over" scenario.

        When in fact, burning ALL OF THE RECOVERABLE TARSANDS will only increase global warming by about 0.06 degrees celsius - or about 1% of the total amount projected from human fossil fuel related emissions.

        IMHO that is total bullshit.  Definitely, if you can go from 100% to 99%, that is a good thing.

        But still,  in the overall scheme of things, it is utterly irrelevant.

      •  why nuclear is bad (0+ / 0-)

        1) the level of capital investment per megawatt is off the scale to do safely.  We can do it badly, now and even then, the
        industry requires massive public sector investment to keep going. (Price-Anderson and Loans)

        2) There is no end game for waste management. 70 years in,  Hanford is a wreck, industrial sites are contaminated, power plants are hip deep in spent fuel and low level waste.

        3) The cost of a critical failure is socially unacceptable.  
        If we built 1000 times as many nuclear plants, we would be seeing, plant meltdowns and explosions about every week.
        We would go from an explosion/meltdown every 20 years to one weekly.

        4) The concentration of uranium ores is falling off, the easy to get stuff has been gotten, that means blending Mixed oxide Plutonium/Uranium which appears to have messy
        failure modes.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site