# Still support nuke power plants? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2011, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647 "2011-03-14T11:56:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 61
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1201 "2011-03-30T07:27:50Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > But the kinds of upgrades you are talking about require loads of cash. Most countries aren’t running surpluses these days; the only way to achieve what you want is to tax the rich more. Raising corporate taxes isn’t the optimum answer, especially in cases where it simply raises prices and burdens the poor. No, taxing wealthy individuals more is where the money is to be found. I’m not talking about anything major. Fitting a venting stack to the toroidal pressure-suppression chambers of all the Mark 1s was done in the USA by the 90s. That would have eliminated three hydrogen explosions and left the fuel pool decks uncontaminated and accessible for visual inspection and manual top-up. The other thing I’d like to see and wouldn’t be hard to implement is bunkered, waterproof, snorkelled backup diesels in flood and tsunami zones. Since the gen 2 safety philosophy is based around never losing station power, rather than being able to get by without it, the true redundancy and toughness of the power backups needs to be reassessed. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1202 "2011-03-30T08:06:42Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Please don’t do this. > > I never denied there was mercury in fish. I know there’s mercury in the environment from coal power plants; I’ve written a technical paper or three on it, and aside from that all we had to do was listen to Marvin Gaye. Here is one: > [@](#): > > A survey has shown that about 75% of all children born here (Greenland) have more quicksilver than 5.8 microgram per litre. > > The majority of the pollution comes form coal burning in South East Asia [Quicksilver harms our intelligence (Danish)](http://viden.jp.dk/galathea/forskning/forskningsprojekter/default.asp?cid=23287) > [@](#): > > Faroese mothers have become polluted with quicksilver from pilot whales which is an important and traditional food source on the Faroe Islands. The main source of the global quicksilver pollution is coal burning [Faroese children harmed by quicksilver (Danish)](http://www.tekno.dk/subpage.php3?article=102&toppic=kategori6&language=dk) Here is some more: [http://www2.dmu.dk/pub/mb11.pdf](http://www2.dmu.dk/pub/mb11.pdf) - it doesn’t really matter if the pollution comes from China or Germany or some other place. I’m as much opposed to Germany taking out nuclear as I’m for China building more. ---
**Author:** ![Darryl\_Lict](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7cd45c/32.png) [@Darryl\_Lict](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darryl_Lict)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1203 "2011-03-30T10:42:10Z")
nvm ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1204 "2011-03-30T13:49:04Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Here is one: > [Quicksilver harms our intelligence (Danish)](http://viden.jp.dk/galathea/forskning/forskningsprojekter/default.asp?cid=23287) Please post scientific links which support your claim of “Metals that can be directly traced back to Chinese coal powered plants.” That one does not. > [@](#): > > [Faroese children harmed by quicksilver (Danish)](http://www.tekno.dk/subpage.php3?article=102&toppic=kategori6&language=dk) I’m glad that “Jonna Odgaard, journalist” who appears to have no scientific credentials has decided to highlight this, and they make vague references to “reports” published, but not only do they refuse to cite any sources, but they do not back up any assertion that it’s “Metals that can be directly traced back to Chinese coal powered plants.” Note your key word of “directly.” > [@](#): > > Here is some more: [http://www2.dmu.dk/pub/mb11.pdf](http://www2.dmu.dk/pub/mb11.pdf) I’m not being paid to translate Dutch documents which are posted on an English message board in support of a claim which cannot be backed up. > [@](#): > > …it doesn’t really matter if the pollution comes from China or Germany or some other place. I’m as much opposed to Germany taking out nuclear as I’m for China building more. It DOES matter, because the solutions to mercury in the environment are political, situational (that is, where and how the mercury is spread once it’s airborne), and technical. If we want to do something about mercury there are low-hanging fruit and places where a little money and effort and will to pollute less can yield huge benefits. That’s part of my job. And yes Chinese coal power plants emit a lot of mercury. I’m not only not denying it, I probably posted on it half a decade ago. But the problem of tracing which source is responsible for which mercury increases is one which a lot smarter folks than I have been trying to do via atmospheric monitoring and modeling for decades, and it’s not really that possible in many (most?) situations. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1205 "2011-03-30T14:36:41Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Please post scientific links which support your claim of “Metals that can be directly traced back to Chinese coal powered plants.” That one does not. naa. Probably not. My interests don’t extend to a pissing match. But I’ll remember this next time someone presents a cite. It has to be “scientific,” not “Dutch” and the author to have proper “scientific credentials.” Meanwhile, until I have been shown otherwise (by proper scientist of course), I’m going to go with what I have heard in the news. That coal plants are putting heavy metals into the environment and polluting the fish, seals and whales. The latter has been a very heavy blow to traditional Faroese culture, no less than Japanese being unable to eat sushi. Nuclear pollution hasn’t been an issue at all. The global warming aspect of coal plants however, doesn’t concern me overly. On the whole it appears to have a positive benefit on the Faroe Islands, as the warming ocean seems to be driving valuable fish stock north into Faroese territorial waters. But it must be an issue for the Greens. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Note your key word of “directly.” Nope I will not note that. As I said, it matters little for me from which nation the pollution comes. I think a lot of probably comes from China, but perhaps it really comes Bolivia, I’m still for reducing it. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > I’m not being paid to translate Dutch documents That’d be Danish. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > If we want to do something about mercury there are low-hanging fruit and places where a little money and effort and will to pollute less can yield huge benefits. I’m all for plucking those fruit. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > That’s part of my job. And yes Chinese coal power plants emit a lot of mercury. I’m not only not denying it, I probably posted on it half a decade ago. But the problem of tracing which source is responsible for which mercury increases is one which a lot smarter folks than I have been trying to do via atmospheric monitoring and modeling for decades, and it’s not really that possible in many (most?) situations. As I said, I couldn’t care less if the pollution comes from Chinese, German, Swedish or American sources. The environment is global. The only point worth debating is weather coal plants are polluting the environment with heavy metals (and greenhouse gasses), and weather we’d prefer this pollution over the pollution of nuclear plants. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1206 "2011-03-30T16:41:56Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Meanwhile, until I have been shown otherwise (by proper scientist of course), I’m going to go with what I have heard in the news. That coal plants are putting heavy metals into the environment and polluting the fish, seals and whales. **Una** may not be a “scientist” but she is a bonafide expert in fossil fuel power plants. I’ll go ten rounds with her on a number of subjects but I’d accept most of what she says on this topic as factual (she is basically her own cite on this subject). If you want to dispute her on this bring your A-game. You’ll need it. Also, seemed to me she agreed that coal burning power plants emit lots of mercury. Not sure what you are arguing. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1207 "2011-03-30T16:46:54Z")
If coal gets people to stop eating whales, I’m going to put that down in the “positive” column. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1208 "2011-03-30T17:14:59Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Not sure what you are arguing. It is quite simple. I prefer nuclear over coal because coal causes heavy metals (and other toxic substances, and of course CO2) which I find is much worse than what damages or risk there are involved with nuclear. Fine that a person thinks otherwise, but then I’d prefer that they come out and say, that they consider fossil fuels a better alternative to nuclear. Just saying nuclear is wrong, without considering the alternative is not ok. > [@levdrakon](#): > > If coal gets people to stop eating whales, I’m going to put that down in the “positive” column. What’s wrong with eating whales? Greenlanders (Inuit) and the Faeroes have been eating seals and whales for more than a thousand years. It used to be advised that children eat it for its health benefits, it is sustainable, the animals are respected and suffer much less than farm animals and it is very much the ideal of a people living on the premises of nature. If the animals are endangered, which the species that were eaten are not, then it is certainly not something caused by these people. And of course the reason the whales are no longer eaten is that they are full of metals. Not, I imagine, something that is healthy for the whales either. If you want to fire up coal plants to save the whales, then yah for a cure that kills the patient. In any case nothing to do with the subject. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1209 "2011-03-30T18:39:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Citing unnamed sources, the newspaper said the government may be looking at a new target of having installed capacity of 10 gigawatts (GW) of PV power by 2015, up from its existing target of 5 GW. > > China is the world’s largest exporter of photovoltaic products and home to some of the industry’s top players, such as Trina Solar, JA Solar, Suntech Power and LDK Solar. > > The China Electricity Council (CEC), an industry body, has asked the government to lower its nuclear capacity target for 2020 and scale back reactor construction in interior regions, the China Business News reported on Monday. [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-china-photovoltaic-idUSTRE72T0F120110330](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-china-photovoltaic-idUSTRE72T0F120110330) ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1210 "2011-03-30T20:10:52Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > naa. Probably not. My interests don’t extend to a pissing match. But I’ll remember this next time someone presents a cite. It has to be “scientific,” not “Dutch” and the author to have proper “scientific credentials.” Given that your links didn’t even back up your own claim, even if they had been written by Nobel laureates, I’m unsure what you’re after here with the sarcasm. Why am I nitpicking about this? Because it’s important! Coal releases a lot of mercury, as do many other industrial processes, and tracking their sources down to find out where is best to apply environmental standards and controls is important. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, until I have been shown otherwise (by proper scientist of course), I’m going to go with what I have heard in the news. That coal plants are putting heavy metals into the environment and polluting the fish, seals and whales. Given that I agreed from the first post that coal power plants are putting heavy metals into the environment, again, I don’t know what your beef is. Calling me not a “proper scientist” is the closest thing to a personal insult in Great Debates as makes no difference. I may be a lot of bad things but I’m goddamn good at my job. Perhaps English is not your primary language. Your links to those foreign news sites implies such, as does your dogged insistence on not realizing there is a world of difference between what you and I both agree upon, and your bald-faced claim that the metals could specifically be traced back to Chinese coal power plants. People care about tracing the sources of emissions. Scientists, engineers, lawyers, politicians, environmental advocates, labor activists, food science and nutrition experts, and everyone else who is concerned about the environment, energy, and health and safety. > [@](#): > > Nope I will not note that. :dubious: > [@](#): > > As I said, it matters little for me from which nation the pollution comes. I think a lot of probably comes from China, but perhaps it really comes Bolivia, I’m still for reducing it. Well maybe if you were an actual coal scientist and engineer in the field - as I am, right this fucking minute - it would matter to you. If however your goal was to just bitch and throw out a wild claim about tracing metal emissions directly to power plants from a specific country…mission accomplished. You’ll note I don’t even say it’s impossible to do so, just extremely difficult. > [@](#): > > As I said, I couldn’t care less if the pollution comes from Chinese, German, Swedish or American sources. The environment is global. …and the solutions are site-specific. Site-specific solutions can yield the best results for everyone - the company, the environment, and Ma and Pa Kettle sitting on their front porch. What are you not getting here? > [@](#): > > The only point worth debating is weather coal plants are polluting the environment with heavy metals (and greenhouse gasses)… Since when is that a “debate?” Honestly, your wording again makes me wonder if we’re just having a language barrier here. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1211 "2011-03-30T20:57:17Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Given that your links didn’t even back up your own claim, even if they had been written by Nobel laureates, I’m unsure what you’re after here with the sarcasm. > > Why am I nitpicking about this? Because it’s important! Coal releases a lot of mercury, as do many other industrial processes, and tracking their sources down to find out where is best to apply environmental standards and controls is important. Nitpick away. As I said, I don’t give shit either way. I merely provided the cites to show that it was not a claim that I had invented, but one that is repeated around here. And for the fifth time, weather it is true or not that the pollution can be traced to China. I care little. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Given that I agreed from the first post that coal power plants are putting heavy metals into the environment, again, I don’t know what your beef is. I might well ask you the very same question. Given that we agree that coal power plants are putting heavy metals into the environment, and that is all the problem I have with them, what on Earth are you yapping on about. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Calling me not a “proper scientist” is the closest thing to a personal insult in Great Debates as makes no difference. I may be a lot of bad things but I’m goddamn good at my job. I haven’t called you anything. I don’t know you from any person. You might as well be a baker in Utah for all I care. I have you forgotten tomorrow. I was referring to the way you so blithely disregarded Jonna Odgaard for being anything so lowly as a mere journalist with no scientific credentials. Not a proper scientist enough for you, for sure. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > People care about tracing the sources of emissions People care about a lot of things I don’t. Why don’t you take it up with them that does? > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Well maybe if you were an actual coal scientist and engineer in the field - as I am, right this fucking minute - it would matter to you. Yap yap Go knock yourself out. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Since when is that a “debate?” Honestly, your wording again makes me wonder if we’re just having a language barrier here. Indeed, you seem to be unable to understand plain English. The question of the OP is do you support nuke power. The answer I gave is yes. And the reason I gave is because the alternative, coal, pollutes in ways I think is worse. Now if you want to debate this very simple thing. Then we have something going. If however you want to debate tracing mercury to Bhutan and back again, then I suggest you do so with someone who actually give a shit. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1212 "2011-03-30T22:01:01Z")
We should do something about the coal problem. Think of the children. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1213 "2011-03-30T22:01:09Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Nitpick away. As I said, I don’t give shit either way. I merely provided the cites to show that it was not a claim that I had invented, but one that is repeated around here. You posted it; most folks will feel honour-bound to either defend or retract something when called on it. > [@](#): > > And for the fifth time, weather it is true or not that the pollution can be traced to China. I care little. First off, it’s “whether”, for Christ’s sake, you’ve done this three times now. Second, if you don’t care, maybe you shouldn’t post. > [@](#): > > I might well ask you the very same question. Given that we agree that coal power plants are putting heavy metals into the environment, and that is all the problem I have with them, what on Earth are you yapping on about. Oh, simply the fact that you stepped into the debate and created a “fact” out of thin air, and when you were called on it you’ve ducked and weaved and steadfastly refused to revise your claim to make it factual. It really makes one wonder. > [@](#): > > Indeed, you seem to be unable to understand plain English. The question of the OP is do you support nuke power. The answer I gave is yes. And the reason I gave is because the alternative, coal, pollutes in ways I think is worse. Now if you want to debate this very simple thing. Then we have something going. If however you want to debate tracing mercury to Bhutan and back again, then I suggest you do so with someone who actually give a shit. Next time don’t dump facts into the thread which have little to do with the OP and refuse to defend or retract them. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1214 "2011-03-30T22:02:11Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > We should do something about the coal problem. Think of the children. I think of them mining coal, getting the last little bits from 1-foot thick seams, and rub my hands with Machiavellian glee. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1215 "2011-03-30T22:07:14Z")
We should use radioactive coal ash as a weapon. Just dump it on the enemy nations, from 8 miles up. Hahaha! They will never suspect a thing. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1216 "2011-03-31T00:56:45Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > The question of the OP is do you support nuke power. The answer I gave is yes. And the reason I gave is because the alternative, coal, pollutes in ways I think is worse. The choice isn’t really nuke vs. coal though. It’s more, nuke vs. everything else that could do what nuke does, which is baseload electricity production. For instance, Iceland gets 100% of its electricity from geothermal and hydro. They get zero electricity from nuke. So, in the case of Iceland, do you prefer nuke or geothermal and hydro? I’ll guess you’ll pick the latter. That’s my point. When talking about nuke it’s important to remember it isn’t nuke vs. coal, but nuke vs. whatever else could produce the same amount of electricity in the particular locale you’re talking about. No one is saying, “let’s just use coal foreeeeeever! Bwah, hah, hah!” ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1217 "2011-03-31T01:25:44Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > > > Well maybe if you were an actual coal scientist and engineer in the field - as I am, right this fucking minute - it would matter to you. **Yap yap** (My bolding.) In the future, please don’t change quoted text or add editorial comments like this. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1218 "2011-03-31T02:01:41Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > I’ll guess you’ll pick the latter. That’s my point. When talking about nuke it’s important to remember it isn’t nuke vs. coal, but nuke vs. whatever else could produce the same amount of electricity in the particular locale you’re talking about. Really? Who knew? And to think every pro nuke person I know insists on building nukes right next to hydro sites or good geothermal sites just because. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1219 "2011-03-31T02:19:50Z")
> [@billfish678](#): > > Really? > > Who knew? > > And to think every pro nuke person I know insists on building nukes right next to hydro sites or good geothermal sites just because. I know, right? I remain vigilant. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647/1220 "2011-03-31T04:11:51Z")
[QUOTE=levdrakon] The choice isn’t really nuke vs. coal though. It’s more, nuke vs. everything else that could do what nuke does, which is baseload electricity production. [/QUOTE] And what technology available today can be scaled up to even meet the current energy production we are getting out of nuclear? And what technology can be scaled up to take a real bite out of coal? What is the mystery technology or technologies that can be scaled up to do this? > [@](#): > > For instance, Iceland gets 100% of its electricity from geothermal and hydro. They get zero electricity from nuke. So, in the case of Iceland, do you prefer nuke or geothermal and hydro? Well, hell…we should just be like Iceland! I mean, we have a similar population in terms of numbers and density. Similar land area. Similar access to geothermal and hydro to take care of all our needs. And they get zero electricity from nukes, even though they need such vast quantities of energy! Plus they have lots of blonds, from what I’ve heard. You sold me…let’s be like Iceland! 😛 > [@](#): > > I’ll guess you’ll pick the latter. That’s my point. When talking about nuke it’s important to remember it isn’t nuke vs. coal, but nuke vs. whatever else could produce the same amount of electricity in the particular locale you’re talking about. True. I mean, if we happen to be just like Iceland we could get all our power from geothermal and hydro, as you say. I bet a lot of countries could be just like them, since the similarities abound. > [@](#): > > No one is saying, “let’s just use coal foreeeeeever! Bwah, hah, hah!” No…they are saying ‘well, since nuclear is out I guess we’ll continue to get the majority of our energy from coal for the foreseeable future because nothing else comes close’. As long as you are good with that for the next 50 or 60 years then I guess that’s fine. Or, we could all be just like Iceland…or something. Good luck with that and hope all that Global Warming stuff is just a bunch of stuff and bother and all those scientist types are wrong. -XT [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=60) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/still-support-nuke-power-plants/574647.md?page=62)