Skip to main content

View Diary: The Utility of Light: Getting Real with the Existing Energy Infrastructure. (122 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  no, I don't trust them (0+ / 0-)

    Nukes have to be perfecter,,,,since they are dangerouser.

    Dead fish are an indicator, not my true concern.

    See above, I will go back and read your take on waste.

    •  This is not true. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Nuclear energy has never been as dangerous as fossil fuels.   It's not even close.

      The word "danger" is attached generally to experiment and not theory.   Experimentally the nuclear industry has been extraordinarily safe for over 50 years.   Obviously some people have been injured, but relative to the amount of energy produced, it is trivial.

      There is some question as to whether solar electricity is as safe as nuclear energy, but the real danger of the solar industry is that it generates far more complacency than electricity.   We'll see if solar is safe if it ever gets to an exajoule per year.   Now basically it's a toy since it has never produced an exajoule in a year after almost 50 years of talk as a substitute for action.  If when it becomes an actual exajoule scale energy industry, if it's long term impact is as low as nuclear, it will be a huge success and an important tool for humanity.   But that's years off.

      Nuclear energy should be considered the world standard for safety, since its environmental impact both in human and environmental damage per exajoule generated is by far the lowest by any objective standard.   Note that this is not a claim that such impact is zero.   Zero impact is impossible.

      •  the potential (0+ / 0-)

        is greater. Not counting Global Warming and meta issues.


        And how bout we TRY putting as much money into solar and see what happens?

        •  You need to come to a discussion well prepared (0+ / 0-)

          Please try to read and understand why the Chernobyl accident occurred. It will become immediately obvious why it cannot happen in a modern reactor due to the laws of physics.

          "The answer to fear cannot always lie in the dissipation of the causes of fear; sometimes it lies in courage."

          by woolie on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 10:51:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, its not (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Credible estimates of the total eventual death toll from Chernobyl range from ~100 to 10,000.  Fossil fuel plants (worldwide) cause hundreds of thousands of deaths every single year, under normal operations.  The maximum possible consequences for any Western plant would be far smaller than Chernobyl.

          There was an argument between the anti-nuclear Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and another group of scientists as to how many worst-case US plant meltdowns would have to occur every year to equal the public health impact of US coal.  The other scientists estimated that 50 meltdowns would have to occur.  The UCS disagreed.  They (even the anti-nuclear UCS, that is) estimated that "only" three worst-case meltdowns would have to occur every year to equal coal's impact.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site