Skip to main content

View Diary: Status Report of the Ontario Coal Phase Out. (194 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Coal, mercury, autism (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Turkana

    Yes, I know the connection. Does not excuse or justify use of nuke power.

    •  What is your plan for baseload power supply? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LIsoundview

      Coal is provably deadly, killing 24,000 Americans per year.  But it supplies 52% of our electricity and is likely to supply more.  There are plans for 150 new coal fired plants.  But coal is a reliable, steady source of electricity that can meet demand. (At least until it runs out in 100 years, as the National Academy of Sciences has just determined.)

      Hydroelectric power, also baseload electricity, is provably deadly.  Around the world dam failures have killed tens of thousands of people, and over a thousand in the US in the past century.  We get about 5% of our electricity from hydro and that can't be increased.  Due to drought it will probably be shrinking.

      Nuclear power, also a baseload provider, has caused zero deaths in the U.S. and, worldwide, far fewer deaths than are caused every week in the US alone by coal combustion.  Nuclear power has the smallest death rate per terawatt-year of any large-scale electricity source.  And nuclear power is becoming cheaper than coal, and its life cycle greenhouse gas emissions are about the same as, or lower than, wind power.

      Wind and solar and conservation are all fine but they cannot provide baseload energy and even by midcentury if all goes well these renewables will not be providing more than about 20% of US electricity.  

      So what is your plan, if you don't want nuclear power?  I am really curious.  Thanks.

      The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

      by Plan9 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 06:20:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why do you place this on me? (0+ / 0-)

        Plan9, you must have a plan - it's in your name! :)
        It not logical to assume that because I disapprove of the nuclear energy industry that I have a plan to solve our energy problems.
        However, I think we had better start listening to Al Gore and understanding Tesla now.

        •  I place it on you because you contrib to global (0+ / 0-)

          warming by using electricity.

          I place the same burden on myself.  That is why, as an environmentalist, I looked into every possible way of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.  And that is how I came to learn about nuclear power and how it is clean, safe, economical, and the biggest single displacer of greenhouse gas emissions (something Gore knows very well but stays quiet about).  I am in favor of conservation, geothermal, wind, and solar power too.  But they are limited and cannot do the enormous job that faces us. They can provide only a small fraction of the electricity we need and are going to need if we care about our fellow humans.

          So if you have a better idea than a spectrum of solutions that includes conservation, renewables, and nuclear energy, I sure as hell want to know what it is.

          And if you don't have any ideas, I politely encourage you to educate yourself about the risks and benefits of various forms of energy generation.  And do so by going to science-based sources--university websites, National Academy of Sciences, etc.  Do not go to Greenpeace because you are going to get phony science and false claims.

          The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

          by Plan9 on Fri Jun 22, 2007 at 10:59:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site