Skip to main content

View Diary: Nuclear Sailors Then and Now - Exposed & Abandoned (91 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I do understand (0+ / 0-)

    a) sounds about right

    b) new plants would not be Chernobyls, nor would they be Fukishimas. They would have the safety record of modern day plants. However, let us grant you for the sake of arguement that we would have 1 Fukishima per decade for the next 100 years.

    Now compare that against a 7 degree temperature rise, plus the millions dead from air pollution alone.

    Go ahead, show me the math demonstrating coal plants are better.

    c) if that were true, then why did Germany replace their nuclear with coal instead of wind/solar? I'm all for accelerating renewable rollout, but I see no reason not to do both renewable and nuclear to get rid of coal ASAP, then spin down nuclear if you can get renewables up near 100%

    d) compared to the threat of climate change? Not even close. compared to the waste, toxicity, and death from fossil fuels? Not even close.

    e) compared to the thread of climate change? Not even close. compared to the waste, toxicity, and death from fossil fuels? Not even close.

    f) I never said nukes were better than renewables, I'm all for renewables. However, the #1 priority is getting rid of coal, the #2 priority is getting rid of all other fossil fuels, then and only then do you start spinning down nuclear for renewables.

    ? Of course we can say with some amount of certainty what excess deaths are from radiation. We have to be able to say that otherwise you can't attribute ANY to nuclear. The same statistics are used to attribute excess deaths to coal and fossil fuels. That's how this works.

    I don't understand your argument, are you saying that we can't characterize nuclear deaths, therefore they must be worse than coal?

    If you have the peer-reviewed studies linking increased mortality to living near nuclear, go ahead and provide it. I already linked in a previously diary to a British study showing otherwise.

    http://www.nhs.uk/...

    Or, is any study that finds no link automatically suspect in your mind?

    •  "I'm all for accelerating renewable rollout" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau, ozsea1

      Oh really?  Well solar and wind generation can get built a whole lot faster than 5+ years for nuclear.  If we put our minds to it as a society that 2 x Nellis AFB footprint could be solarized very quickly.  

      Versus

      In the UK and the US cost overruns on nuclear plants contributed to the bankruptcies of several utility companies. ... When the UK began privatizing utilities, its nuclear reactors "were so unprofitable they could not be sold." Eventually in 1996, the government gave them away. But the company that took them over, British Energy, had to be bailed out in 2004 to the extent of 3.4 billion pounds.[41]
      In Eastern Europe, a number of long-established projects are struggling to find finance, notably Belene in Bulgaria and the additional reactors at Cernavoda in Romania, and some potential backers have pulled out.
      Why are you pushing something that is not even economic, is dangerous, and takes long time to build, when solar and wind are now competitive?
      •  Yes, really. (0+ / 0-)

        I have a 6kW solar installation on the roof of my house. Do you?

        Though frankly, I support wind much more than solar given it's lower cost and lack of toxic manufacturing that is presently associated with solar.

        As far as the rest of your argument, I'm a bit confused.

        Are you saying that when it comes to the dangers of climate change, and deaths of millions from pollution, we should be going with whatever is cheaper?

        This argument confounds me every time I see it at DKos. It's about the only time people here turn into raving economic libertarians. Yes, nuclear is expensive, primarily due to the upfront capital investment and need for accident insurance.

        That's because coal doesn't get charged for the people it kills, nor the effects from global warming.

        And, if wind and solar can be built so quickly, WHY DIDN'T GERMANY DO IT instead of turning to coal plants?

        Here's a country that already has a pretty sizable renewable portfolio. And they chose coal over nuclear.

        Justify that to me, please.

        •  nukes have limited liability (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpotsmuggler, wilderness voice

          That's part of the massive government welfare the industry depends upon.

          If nukes had to pay ALL their actual costs, they'd be even less economical than they already are.

          But this entire argument is irrelevant anyway. The electric companies don't want nukes because they can't make money with them.  

          Game over.  (shrug)

          In the end, reality always wins.

          by Lenny Flank on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 05:35:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You said: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joieau
          Though frankly, I support wind much more than solar given it's lower cost and lack of toxic manufacturing that is presently associated with solar.
          We have solar manufacturing at Dow Chemical in Midland, MI.   Democrats who are members of the United Steelworkers of America make solar shingles in our state.

          I've reviewed Dow's entire NPDES wastewater permit for the Alliance for Great Lakes in the past.   The effect of adding those solar production units on water pollution did not have much impact on Dow's wastewater discharge environmental footprint.

          This is not to say that Dow does not have other issues, but solar manufacturing environmental and toxic impacts are not any kind of a problem here when Democrat USWA International Union members try to rejuvenate sustainable manufacturing in our state.

        •  reply (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joieau
          Are you saying that when it comes to the dangers of climate change, and deaths of millions from pollution, we should be going with whatever is cheaper?
          No, I am sayiung nukes aren't getting built because they are uneconomic. Are you saying they should be subsidized even more?
          That's because coal doesn't get charged for the people it kills, nor the effects from global warming.
          So why aren't you pushing for a carbon tax?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site