Skip to main content

View Diary: Was Fukushima inevitable? (35 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Joieau prefers coal to nuclear since she aims (0+ / 0-)

    it all at nuclear. How many coal plants shutdown with all the new solar and wind in the US? Zero. How many gas plants prevented from being built? Zero.

    So the "So" is that you're worried about a non-event occurring rather than jumping out of the way of climate change train running down the tracks at yourself.

    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 Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:11:51 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  If-Then logic fail. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You know very well that nuclear can never even begin to mitigate global climate change. That is because the world would need more than 4,000 nukes by 2050 to make even the slightest dent, and there's simply not enough money on this planet to build that many (or even to replace the ~300 antiques limping toward decommissioning today).

      Your industry's drive to claim all or most of the generous government subsidies dedicated to energy will - all by itself - prevent the phase-out coal and other fossil fuels. Even as your industry fails to provide a single new 'tron to anybody's grid. But you knew that too.

      Way to keep those big black smokers going, David! Plus extra credit for attempting - badly - to blame it on me.

      •  Joiaeu, "i know ever well" is a weazel comment (0+ / 0-)

        of the first rank.

        ONLY nuclear can mitigate climate change.

        First, you don't need "4,000" nukes. You need enough to start phasing out coal and gas plants. You might need more. We don't really know. You need enough low-carbon generation to start lowering GHG content of the atmosphere. It remains, actually, what that minimum number is...and we don't know how long it will take. There are many variables involved from ocean absorption to co2 break down over a century that can occur. If the top 10 economies in the world...which includes India and China, made serious attempt over 40 years to replace all fossil fuel generation, that would go to greatly mitigating climate change.

        I'm a pessimist. I think we are beyond the tipping point and at best all we can do is to slowly stop adding to the problem.

        To do this I think we need to target certain forms of generation. First: COAL. Second: GAS. It would take nukes. Plants to get rid of all the coal in the US. If we had started building AP1000s in 2000 it would of cost LESS than the stupid war in Iraq. This could of been done but it wasn't. Thus pessimism. Building 4000 plants is doable and wouldn't even take up a double-digit part of any countries GNP. Hell that less 108 plants a year. EASILY this could be done world wide.

        Subsidies. Back at you. Nuclear is less subsidized than either wind or solar (especially the latter). Eveywhere in the world. I'm against subsidies for profits. I'mr for nationalizing the entire grid and generation business and make it a federally owned project exactly the way most hydro was built nd still operated to this day.

        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 Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:18:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site