Yes. Quite.
Isn’t this article your cite in the first place? Let us know when you find a cite of sufficient “purity”.
It’s still amusing to see somebody ask a leading question, and they just don’t get it. They can’t understand why there fallacy doesn’t get them anywhere.
At this point, I’m not sure sure who FXM is arguing against. It doesn’t seem to be me.
No, you were actually correct it turns out. They also are 100% sure all the fuel inside the reactor melted through and is sitting somewhere in the water in the flooded building.
And while it seems counterintuitive, the explosion that destroyed the torus is believed to be responsible for the worst of the radioactive contamination of both the plant and the surrounding area.
So we should expect a few thousand deaths over the next 12 months, right?
I do not believe you can support these assertions, especially the part about Yucca Mountain.
I had to google for the .pdf of the study, since it appears to no longer be on the thinkprogress.com site. The author makes no mention of Yucca, except in footnote #53, on page 25, where the word appears all 6 times that it appears in the study.
[
](http://www.nirs.org/neconomics/nuclearcosts2009.pdf)
Your assertion appears to be baseless and false.
You’re talking about Craig A. Severance, the author cited by the author of FX’s cite in post #1454. The author of FX’s cite, Joseph Romm, recognizes that “700 [nuclear] GW plus 10 Yucca mountains for storage” has a place in an anti-global-warming strategy.
I pointed out correctly that Romm’s views didn’t match FX’s. I didn’t analyze Severance’s views in part because (as you point out) the link in Romm’s article was broken.
The word “yucca” is not contained in either of the 2 parts of the article FXM linked to. I don’t know where you’re getting your info, but what you claim to be quoting doesn’t exist in the linked article.
It doesn’t - the Yucca reference is in a linked article, also by Romm. To wit:
In FXM’s link:
That last “here” is a hyperlink to another article by Romm, in which he includes nuclear power (with Yucca-type storage) as one “wedge” in a multi-stage plan. Thus I am correct that Romm (the “author” I mentioned in my first response) doesn’t share FXM’s views. I’ve made no statement about Severance. If FXM wanted use Severance as a cite, he should have linked to Severance directly, rather than linking to Romm (who has his own opinions) who was linking to Severance.
Joe Romm has some good points.
(Bolding mine.)
Personally I disagree with being so proscriptive about how much should be in each wedge and would hope that the carbon pricing would lead the market to figure out the most cost-effective methods, but the basic prediction seems rational, and the basic thesis - that we must do it all - including nuclear - with the overarching goal to replace as much coal as quickly as possible - is a good one.
Glad to see FX embrace Romm as one of the people who are smart and study and actually know stuff.
Oh! Since FX thinks so highly of the people at American Progress, who are smart and study and know stuff, here’s another post from there.
Note: these are just the deaths associated with mining the stuff. Not the deaths from burning it and the climate harms it causes.
But FX doesn’t think these lives are worth very much and avoids answering the very simple question of why.
I’ll try again. FX, how many additional lives lost are you willing to accept as a consequence of preventing any replacement or additional nuclear? A number please.
Okay, thanks for clearing that up.
You all are still on about this nuclear stuff? Why?
Utilities won’t build your magic flying cars, sorry. Utilities won’t build your “new” (1950’s era) molten salt fast-breeder whatever-they-ares. Utilities won’t build them. Financiers won’t finance them. Insurers won’t insure then.
Nobody wants them except dreamers. Climate change is the new reality and dreaming about magic non-existent nuke plants that don’t exist and aren’t going to exist because your beloved big business will not build them isn’t doing a damn thing about climate change except producing even more hot air we don’t need.
If you want a molten-salt fast-breeder magic nuke plant go ahead and get together with your like-minded friends and build some. You’ll be trillionaires when they work just like you believe they will and save the planet! You’ll be heroes! Future generations will sing songs about you! Do it!
The rest of us are going to tackle reality. Big business is with us, so we kinda have a head start on y’all. Well, that’s not true. Nuke’s been just about completely subsidized since the 50’s. Sheesh. But your nuclear renaissance is kinda slow and expensive and kinda not happening.
Other power sources and efficiency programs and technologies get financed. Big business is down with that y’all, yo. Follow duh money, yo. Keep up, yo.
Eat right, exercise once in awhile, don’t drink, don’t drive, don’t drink and drive, don’t smoke, give up the McFatty burgers.
Do what you can, and quit wasting everyone’s time on what you can’t. The longer you delay the development of clean safe renewables, the more eventual global warming deaths there are going to be on your head.
Build your fancy new safe little nuke plants on your own dime, if they’re such a sure thing. Don’t waste my money on them. Go ahead. Build them!
Even if you do start building them they’re aren’t going to get built for something like 10 years. That’s just one plant, for crying out loud. We need 8000 of them so y’all really need to get a move on.
Your nukes aren’t going to do anything but suck money for 10 years. Then 20 years. Then 50 years. Then 100 years. But hey, keep building them if it makes you feel better.
The rest of us will focus on what we can do. And since we’re so nice, we’ll even let you stay on the planet once we’ve saved it. You’re lucky I won’t be President of the World though, 'cause I’d take down all your names and make you live in Chernobyl and Fukushima. They’d be nuclear reservations you only get to leave for short visits. You can make extra money by charging admission to let people come look at those freakishly deformed and mutated monstrosities you call your children.
Nice sort of rant, but I thought this was a great debate topic? Still enjoyed it.
The fallacy that because somebody opposes nuclear power plants, on the basis of cost and safety issues, the fallacy that this much mean they love dirty destructive coal, is fucking absurd.
Please stop it. It isn’t helping you in the debate, and it isn’t doing a damn thing to change ignorance.
I don’t know if you’re talking to me or not, but I’ve never said people should love coal or do anything with coal except force it to be cleaner and priced accordingly. Instead of selling China and India nuke technology they’re going to screw up, how about you sell them cleaner coal technology? Or, figure out a way to re-re-re-re-re-process coal into nuclear fuel and burn that in your nuke plants? Makes about as much sense.
I wasn’t speaking to anyone directly. It was a “if the shoe fits” sort of thing.
There are probably multiple fortunes to be made selling cheap clean power to the world. Especially the kind that works simply and locally.
A coal power plant is about as old school as you can get. It’s a steam boiler, connected to a turbine (or something more advanced)
the steam turns something. power comes out.
you could be burning wood for all the difference it makes to the boiling water. It seems that since we already have a very hot power source that shows up once a day, that we could use that to heat up water instead.
The sun sure heats up the inside of my car, and that is with all my efforts to make it stop. The deserts of the world probably could supply all the power we need. If only there were a way to capture sunlight and use it to heat water.
Part of the problem is certain people want nuke at any and all costs, and if it adds 1.00/kwh to their electric bill, that's the price o' progress. Tell them solar might add .02/kwh to their bills and they start whining.
Beats the hell out of me.
Like I said, no answer.
And no surprise.
lev, between all your "yo"s and "duh"s I can’t tell if you are actually trying to make any point at all, let alone one that has any actual facts to back it up.
Are you under the mistaken belief that anyone in this thread is for delaying the development of clean safe renewables? No one is.
Do you possess a belief that clean safe renewables can be developed at such a pace as to displace all coal by themselves in any near or moderate term future at any achievable cost? Surely you can’t be that deluded.
Are you so confused that you think that any replacement or new nuclear means that much less renewable and not that much less coal while renewables increase their market share more dramatically?
Business is still going ahead with the small modular reactors and the reactors that recycle nuclear fuel and burn surplus plutonium and highly enriched uranium.
Indeed, there is no way that nuclear can do it all by itself any more than it is possible for renewables to. We need to do both in order to lower coal use by as much as possible as soon as possible. Renewables are preferred, and I think they can do much, but to the degree they are not up to the job alone, and they are not, nuclear needs to have its share at least maintained, if not grown slightly.