61–70 of 188 posts
Wait, "if author says so", since he doesn't provide any source other than "aristoteles dixit".
It reminds me tchernobyl fallout, here in France, when government said there were no impact on our territory, before being proven wrong (and lying) almost 20 years later : http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/local_news/france-hid-info-o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The energy costs you are talking about are laughably small compared to nuclear plant's power capacity. You need quote some good sources to convince me that a nuclear plant wouldn't be able to power uranium mines, transportation trains and all its supporting infrastructure by itself and still have over 99% of its capacity left for other purposes. And BTW, wikipedia claims [1] that California has plans to use up to 180…
That is not what we were talking about. We talked about the CO2-output of nuclear energy, and I added small remarks to costs. Power capacity wasn't mentioned at all. I don't see your point? edit: The parent edited his comment
The article reads as if it was commissioned by Tepco directly. Nuclear power is not risk-free. Plants need to be operated with competent designs under the watchful eyes of competent engineers. None of which was the case at Fukushima. The argument that nuclear reactors are safer than coal is correct but misleading: it doesn't mean people get to ignore the dangers. Contrary to what the article tries to evoke, the Fukus…
There's really no such thing as a 'correct' argument on these issues.
Maybe coal has fewer expected deaths per MW generated on average, but a nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse. Facts and scientific judgment can't really tell us in that case which is better: that's really only something that informed democratic deliberation can do (informed by science, economics, ethics, etc.).
Never mind that coal mining kills almost 6000 people a year, or that populations of coal-mining areas have death rates about 10 per cent higher than non-mining areas, or that coal emissions drive global warming. I'm fully in favour of nuclear power but using partial evidence and misleading comparisons to back up arguments does not help the cause. You can't compare the death toll of mining coal to the death toll of a…
It should also be noted that coal mining is done the worst conditions you can think of. I'm very glad that by 2018, Germany will stop its coal production completely and not only because it is very expensive to get the coal in Germany.
This is btw something you have with all fossil and nuclear sources. With time it will get more expensive to get to the fuel needed. And according to the German government, nuclear fuel comes only partially from mining. So mining is currently not delivering the fuel for all nuclear power plants running. The rest comes from old nuclear weapons and other sources, according to the German government.
Also it should be noted that nuclear power was never really profitable. It might be with old plants now but with newer plants I think it is unlikely to earn a dime with nuclear power unless you get some kind of subsidy. The new EPR currently being build in Finland already costs 100% more than expected. With that money you could have installed enough windmills to cover those 1600 MW the EPR might provide.
Nuclear power was used for about 50 years, it will leave us with waste for the next 100,000 to 1,000,000 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The energy costs you are talking about are laughably small compared to nuclear plant's power capacity. You need quote some good sources to convince me that a nuclear plant wouldn't be able to power uranium mines, transportation trains and all its supporting infrastructure by itself and still have over 99% of its capacity left for other purposes. And BTW, wikipedia claims [1] that California has plans to use up to 180…
That is not what we were talking about. We talked about the CO2-output of nuclear energy, and I added small remarks to costs. Power capacity wasn't mentioned at all. I don't see your point? edit: The parent edited his comment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm all for renewable energy. In fact, I own/operate a 200kWp solar plant. I put my money where my mouth is. Having said that, in the mid-term I'm also pro-nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is one of the greenest, least polluting energy sources right now. It's the only technology that emits zero CO2 and can be used as baseload. All other technologies, be it CCGT/natural gas, fuel cells using natural or bio gas, coal pow…
Are you sure you are arguing with the parent post? I think he's expressing a pro-nuclear sentiment similar to yours.
It's a unique feature, so don't feel bad if it takes a while to get used to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. I think you try to shift who has to give sources for what, evading to try to disprove my articulated doubt of your citation with another source, like by citing which numbers were used.
Isn't it interesting that you are commenting on a comment __with__ sources, while providing none yourself. After I make a tongue in cheek comment to your comment. You flail more rethoric at me, demanding sources from me (?). You also accuse me of trying to invert the burden of proof, while like I said you haven't really offered a source. Here is a source for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
The article reads as if it was commissioned by Tepco directly. Nuclear power is not risk-free. Plants need to be operated with competent designs under the watchful eyes of competent engineers. None of which was the case at Fukushima. The argument that nuclear reactors are safer than coal is correct but misleading: it doesn't mean people get to ignore the dangers. Contrary to what the article tries to evoke, the Fukus…
The argument that nuclear reactors are safer than coal is correct ... there is a middle ground supported by facts and scientific judgement There's really no such thing as a 'correct' argument on these issues. Maybe coal has fewer expected deaths per MW generated on average , but a nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse. Facts and scientific judgment can't really tell us in that case which…
No, coal has dramatically more expected deaths. But, yes, nuclear disasters are potentially much worse if things go wrong. [http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/03/the-triumph-...]
> Facts and scientific judgment can't really tell us in that case which is better: that's really only something that informed democratic deliberation can do (informed by science, economics, ethics, etc.).
Again, I'm really not sure what the point is besides being contrarian ;) I'm certain that you are not telling me facts and scientific judgement don't matter? Or that popular opinion, informed by a host of factors, is somehow preferable to doing the right thing? Keep in mind I'm not even "taking sides" pro or con nuclear here, just advocating an informed discussion.
The article reads as if it was commissioned by Tepco directly. Nuclear power is not risk-free. Plants need to be operated with competent designs under the watchful eyes of competent engineers. None of which was the case at Fukushima. The argument that nuclear reactors are safer than coal is correct but misleading: it doesn't mean people get to ignore the dangers. Contrary to what the article tries to evoke, the Fukus…
The argument that nuclear reactors are safer than coal is correct ... there is a middle ground supported by facts and scientific judgement There's really no such thing as a 'correct' argument on these issues. Maybe coal has fewer expected deaths per MW generated on average , but a nuclear plant's worst-case scenario is clearly substantially worse. Facts and scientific judgment can't really tell us in that case which…
If 14-meter tsunami hitting a 70's build nuclear power plant isn't a worst case scenario, what is?
Also coal's worst case scenario is global climate change.