@sonhouse saidWas that really a bad decision? What are the consequences of that decision currently? It seems like we don't really know.
Bad decisions are made all the time. One I know about, being from California: Building a nuke plant on the San Andreas fault. I mean RIGHT ON TOP. Not wise. In fact downright STUPID. But its only about 40 years too late for that argument.
Sometimes it takes a catastrophe to make folks wake up and smell the coffee.
Bad decision? Putting lead in gasoline. It was a well-established poison for a loooong time and we kept using it in cars. They knew it was horrible for human health in 1924 and banned it in 1986. What a wacko decision.
@wildgrass saidLeaded gasoline, definitely bad decision. Putting a nuke plant on the fault is just waiting for the next big one. Lucky so far but if a level 8 or so hits, it will be like Fukushima all over again but much closer to a large population.
Was that really a bad decision? What are the consequences of that decision currently? It seems like we don't really know.
Bad decision? Putting lead in gasoline. It was a well-established poison for a loooong time and we kept using it in cars. They knew it was horrible for human health in 1924 and banned it in 1986. What a wacko decision.
@sonhouse saidWhat'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.
Leaded gasoline, definitely bad decision. Putting a nuke plant on the fault is just waiting for the next big one. Lucky so far but if a level 8 or so hits, it will be like Fukushima all over again but much closer to a large population.
According to USGS seismologist, Jeanne L. Hardebeck, the Shoreline Fault has potential to trigger an earthquake of 6.4 - 6.8 magnitude,[27] while the company asserts the facility is designed to withstand a 7.5 magnitude quake,[28] and NRC's estimate of the risk each year of an earthquake intense enough to cause core damage to the reactor at Diablo Canyon was 1 in 23,810 according to an NRC study published in August 2010.[29][30]
Shut it down and replace it with natural gas? Is that the solution?
@metal-brain saidand it is STILL generally cheaper than fossil fuel power and will remain so for the foreseeable future;
The cost of nuclear keeps rising.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
The sources for the above tables come from MANY independent sources and are in very good general agreement with all other science websites. In contrast, no science website says all the exact opposite. Why is that? Is it a world wide mass conspiracy by all scientists to give false costs?
So you make no point.
Oh, AND notice how the cost of renewables keeps falling and is already generally cheaper than fossil fuel power.
@humy saidThose costs omit meltdowns and protecting them from terrorists. Any nation that invades other countries should not build NPPs. Common sense. Japan doesn't even invade other countries and they still feel the need to prepare for it. The USA, France and UK are magnets for terrorism because they invade and occupy other countries as if we are all part of an empire.
and it is STILL generally cheaper than fossil fuel power and will remain so for the foreseeable future;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
The sources for the above tables come from MANY independent sources and are in very good general agreement with all other science websites. In contrast, no science website says all the exact opposite.
So you ...[text shortened]... ce how the cost of renewables keeps falling and is already generally cheaper than fossil fuel power.
@metal-brain saidHow do you know this? How do you know they didn't include ALL costs? -seems like a reasonable default assumption to me as that is what I would do.
Those costs omit meltdowns and protecting them from terrorists.
And, if what you are implying that those extra costs make it more expensive than fossil fuels, what would be the source of information that it is that high? Give us a weblink that gives actual figures on that... failure to do so means you have no such source of information that it is that high thus cannot know it is that high.
If that's not what you imply then you make no point.
@metal-brain saidAgain you're falling into a trap of not comparing this to anything. Nuclear is bad because of radiation, even though other sources also emit radiation that measurably increases in people surrounding those plants. Now nuclear is bad because of rising costs, but costs are increasing because of necessary regulatory oversight, and it's still cheaper than coal.
The cost of nuclear keeps rising.
https://japantoday.com/category/national/japan-to-halt-nuclear-plants-if-anti-terror-steps-not-taken-in-time?
Get your story straight. Coal is worse than all other options we have discussed, for many reasons.
@wildgrass saidIt omits meltdowns. That is a fact.
Again you're falling into a trap of not comparing this to anything. Nuclear is bad because of radiation, even though other sources also emit radiation that measurably increases in people surrounding those plants. Now nuclear is bad because of rising costs, but costs are increasing because of necessary regulatory oversight, and it's still cheaper than coal.
Get your story straight. Coal is worse than all other options we have discussed, for many reasons.
If you cannot accept that fact I see no point in wasting my time here anymore. In your fantasy world meltdowns don't exist. If you are that determined to deny reality go ahead. I don't care anymore.
@metal-brain saidI'm not denying anything. You keep saying "it omits meltdowns" but I don't understand your point. You have failed to provide any sort of comparison or reference point that might put it into context with other disasters. It reminds me of the politicians who say "9/11" when anyone asks them a question about national security.
It omits meltdowns. That is a fact.
If you cannot accept that fact I see no point in wasting my time here anymore. In your fantasy world meltdowns don't exist. If you are that determined to deny reality go ahead. I don't care anymore.
Have you looked at the list of disasters associated with the coal industry? It's pretty grim and a lot longer than the list of meltdowns.
It seems like your point is that disasters associated with nuclear power are bad but we should ignore accidents/emissions associated with coal?
@wildgrass saidAll disasters should be taken into account. Why is your side denying meltdowns? Can't your side be honest about anything?
I'm not denying anything. You keep saying "it omits meltdowns" but I don't understand your point. You have failed to provide any sort of comparison or reference point that might put it into context with other disasters. It reminds me of the politicians who say "9/11" when anyone asks them a question about national security.
Have you looked at the list of disasters associ ...[text shortened]... associated with nuclear power are bad but we should ignore accidents/emissions associated with coal?
25 Apr 19
@metal-brain saidNo one is denying meltdowns. You lose credibility when you make stuff up.
All disasters should be taken into account. Why is your side denying meltdowns? Can't your side be honest about anything?
@wildgrass saidMeltdowns 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!
No one is denying meltdowns. You lose credibility when you make stuff up.
@metal-brain saidSound logical but do you have link?
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!
@sonhouse saidDo you have a link proving meltdowns were not omitted from wildgrass' articles? His articles compare coal to NPPs during "Normal Operation".
Sound logical but do you have link?
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 forming an opinion about it. Don't stop until you read the part about "normal operation".
The irony is alarmists label other people as "deniers". Nobody is in deeper denial than alarmists who pass gossip for science. They don't even read the articles they endorse!