Let's nuke climate change!

@wildgrass said
What's the likelihood of failure/meltdown? It seems like a real long shot. I don't know much about it, but just read the Wikipedia article on it. The situation does not seem dire or particularly problematic, especially compared to what power sources will substitute if it's shut down. The US is only 1.6% solar.

According to USGS seismologist, Jeanne L. Hardebeck, the ...[text shortened]... in August 2010.[29][30]

Shut it down and replace it with natural gas? Is that the solution?

So there you go. In a mere 23,000 years, BLAM......

@metal-brain said
Meltdowns release more radiation into the environment than all coal burned in the entire world. That is a fact. Anybody who claims otherwise is full of crap!

Is that bad?

@metal-brain said
Do you have a link proving meltdowns were not omitted from wildgrass' articles? His articles compare coal to NPPs during "Normal Operation".

In what universe is a meltdown considered under "normal operation"? Use some common sense for a change!

Lying by saying they don't omit meltdowns didn't help wildgrass and it isn't helping you. Try reading the article before fo ...[text shortened]... r denial than alarmists who pass gossip for science. They don't even read the articles they endorse!

It is interesting that you bring up the "alarmists" because you're acting like one here. "Radiation is bad because.... it's radiation! Ever hear of radiation sickness? I don't have facts but other people omit things that I want to focus on so I'm right!"

You are constantly saying that CO2 is natural (despite the fact that the levels are increasing because we're burning massive quantities of coal... not natural) and climate change is natural but radiation is natural too. During meltdowns, radiation is released at high concentrations and, locally, can cause sickness and death. Should we talk about all the coal mining accidents, black lung etc? Thousands have died. This seems relevant, since you seem to only want to talk about meltdowns.

@wildgrass said
It is interesting that you bring up the "alarmists" because you're acting like one here. "Radiation is bad because.... it's radiation! Ever hear of radiation sickness? I don't have facts but other people omit things that I want to focus on so I'm right!"

You are constantly saying that CO2 is natural (despite the fact that the levels are increasing because we're burning m ...[text shortened]... etc? Thousands have died. This seems relevant, since you seem to only want to talk about meltdowns.

You compare coal to NPPs during "Normal Operation"?

In what universe is a meltdown considered under "normal operation"? You are wrong and you know it. You are pathetic!

I am sure fusion power will become a practical option one day, its just a matter of when, not if. The main problem I see with it is that it will probably come far too late to help with the current problem and in the mean time renewables, possibly complemented with just a bit of old fission power, is the answer.
But, that said, I have been looking at any news of fusion power development hoping that some kind of surprise breakthrough will occur that will make it come of age much sooner than I expected. That certainly hasn't happened yet but, anyway, here is some of the latest news on fusion power;

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-china-quest-limitless-energy.html

@wildgrass said
I want a bumper sticker that says "let's nuke climate change!"

I endorse nuclear power as a solution towards dramatically lowering carbon emissions in industrialized nations.

How much opposition is there for this? What are the rational arguments against replacing old coal-fired plants with new, state-of-the-art nuclear facilities?

Fukushima

@metal-brain said
Meltdowns release more radiation into the environment than all coal burned in the entire world. That is a fact. Anybody who claims otherwise is full of crap!

Really? 1,500 TBq of radiation were released due to the Three Mile Island meltdown, which isn't that much. There is no evidence of a statistically significant increase in cancers in the vicinity of the reactor.

There was a partial meltdown at Chapelcross in 1967. There was no release of radiation into the environment. It took them two years to get the reactor online again. It was finally decommissioned in 2004.

Meltdown is not ideal but, with caveats about reactor design, not the problem you think it is.

@deepthought said
Really? 1,500 TBq of radiation were released due to the Three Mile Island meltdown, which isn't that much. There is no evidence of a statistically significant increase in cancers in the vicinity of the reactor.

There was a partial meltdown at Chapelcross in 1967. There was no release of radiation into the environment. It took them two years to get the reactor onlin ...[text shortened]... 4.

Meltdown is not ideal but, with caveats about reactor design, not the problem you think it is.

+ he ignores the figures I showed him showing the many HUNDREDS who have died in coal mining accidents and the many MILLIONS that have died from air pollution from burning fossil fuels; both figures, but esp the latter, completely DWARF deaths from all nuclear disasters put together and yet he wants us to keep burning fossil fuels i.e. not switch to alternatives; illogical.

@deepthought said
Really? 1,500 TBq of radiation were released due to the Three Mile Island meltdown, which isn't that much. There is no evidence of a statistically significant increase in cancers in the vicinity of the reactor.

There was a partial meltdown at Chapelcross in 1967. There was no release of radiation into the environment. It took them two years to get the reactor onlin ...[text shortened]... 4.

Meltdown is not ideal but, with caveats about reactor design, not the problem you think it is.

Fukushima

@humy said
+ he ignores the figures I showed him showing the many HUNDREDS who have died in coal mining accidents and the many MILLIONS that have died from air pollution from burning fossil fuels; both figures, but esp the latter, completely DWARF deaths from all nuclear disasters put together and yet he wants us to keep burning fossil fuels i.e. not switch to alternatives; illogical.

How many coal mining accidents last year compared to before strip mining became the safer and more efficient method of coal extraction?
Coal mining used to be more dangerous than it is now. You are making a straw man argument. BTW, this is how the term straw man is supposed to be used. I hope you and sonhouse take notice.

Notice I am not trying to claim all NPPs are as poorly designed as Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. That is because my position is far too solid to waste time with straw man arguments. I am simply not that desperate like you are.

BTW, how many workers died during the construction of the Hoover Dam? Does that mean hydro-electric is still a dangerous source of electricity? Of course not. Better safety regulations are in place now compared to then.

Nuclear power plants used to increase the cancer rate in NPP workers. Regulations made radiation levels that were once tolerable no longer tolerable so that changed. Notice I didn't use that as a straw man argument when I could have. Now is now and then was then.

@metal-brain said
How many coal mining accidents last year compared to before strip mining became the safer and more efficient method of coal extraction?

And this mitigates and completely compensates for the MILLIONS that die each year from air pollution from burning fossil fuels, compared to the average death rate from nuclear, including nuclear disasters, that measures in just a few hundred if not mere tens of people per year, how?
Your argument to favor fossil fuels over nuclear is that nuclear is 'unsafe' but your argument falls apart when taking into account fossil fuels being wildly by far more unsafe in terms of average death rate caused by it, and that is including accidents although number of deaths from fossil fuel air pollution completely dwarfs that from accidents both from nuclear and fossil fuels put together. If we should have no nuclear because its 'unsafe' then, by exactly the same logic, we CERTAINLY should also have no fossil fuel power because its 'unsafe'! You cannot validly and fairly apply one kind of logic to disfavor nuclear while simultaneously apply a completely DIFFERENT and opposite kind of logic to favor fossil fuels.

@humy said
And this mitigates and completely compensates for the MILLIONS that die each year from air pollution from burning fossil fuels, compared to the average death rate from nuclear, including nuclear disasters, that measures in just a few hundred if not mere tens of people per year, how?
Your argument to favor fossil fuels over nuclear is that nuclear is 'unsafe' but your argument f ...[text shortened]... while simultaneously apply a completely DIFFERENT and opposite kind of logic to favor fossil fuels.

Millions of people die of cancer every year. Many of them nuclear related. I could puff up estimates of those too, but that would be resorting to straw man arguments like you are. I see no need to resort to that. Everybody knows I could easily do that so it is not necessary to make a big deal about it.

Fukushima. That is all I need to say.

@metal-brain said
Millions of people die of cancer every year. Many of them nuclear related.

The vast majority are not. Vastly more are caused by either smoking or fossil fuel pollution. The number of deaths from cancer from smoke, whether from smoking or pollution, always DWARFS that from nuclear.

Fukushima. That is all I need to say.

'need' to say for what? To show us how you moronically avoid the point? VASTLY more (MILLIONS) people have died from fossil fuel pollution than from Fukushima or indeed all the nuclear disasters put together. You convince nobody here.

@humy said
The vast majority are not. Vastly more are caused by either smoking or fossil fuel pollution. The number of deaths from cancer from smoke, whether from smoking or pollution, always DWARFS that from nuclear.

Fukushima. That is all I need to say.

'need' to say for what? To show us how you moronically avoid the point? VASTLY more (MILLIONS) people have died from ...[text shortened]... tion than from Fukushima or indeed all the nuclear disasters put together. You convince nobody here.

False assertions are nothing more than that. You have no proof, just biased articles that admit they only count NPPs that are under "normal operation".
Clearly meltdowns were omitted just as I have said all along. More lies only make you look like a dishonest jerk. I don't even think you read the article. If you had you would have known you were wrong a long time ago. Notice Wildgrass is not making his false claim anymore. How long will it take for you to realize you are making a fool of yourself again?

@metal-brain said
You compare coal to NPPs during "Normal Operation"?

In what universe is a meltdown considered under "normal operation"? You are wrong and you know it. You are pathetic!

You're an alarmist, admit it. Abstract statements about cancer deaths caused by nuclear power is not a rational argument.