Nuclear Energy and My Greenpeace Conundrum
"...So what's not to like? Well, there's this, from Phil's letter:
Greenpeace is working to end the expansion of nuclear power. The U.S. already has more nuclear power plants than any other country. The United States currently has 104 operating nuclear reactors, and each one is a threat to public health, safety and the environment.
Nationwide, 1 in 3 Americans live within 50 miles of a nuclear plant. Do you? If a meltdown was to occur, the accident could kill and injure tens of thousands of people and leave large regions uninhabitable.
This passage, by the way, follows a section headed Greenpeace Speaks Out to Curb Global Warming. Does that make sense to you?
It doesn't make sense to me. If we want to keep the lights on, and at an affordable price, without increasing the risks of climate change, nuclear power--at the very least, the plants we have today, and quite probably, more--has to be part of the solution. If Greenpeace manages to persuade the US or other governments to "eliminate nuclear power"--that's what the headline says--the risk of catastrophic climate change will grow much worse. Climate activists/environmentalists who support nuclear power include Stewart Brand (in his excellent book Whole Earth Discipline), ex-DOE chief Steven Chu, contrarians Michael Shellenberger and Ted Norhaus (see Going Green? Then Go Nuclear), the former British prime minister Tony Blair, economist Jeffrey Sachs nd ex-NASA scientist James Hansen."
http://theenergycollective.com/marcgunther/232571/my-greenpeace-conundrum?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29
= new reply since forum marked as read
Matters not to me 
According to Hansen's recent paper, given his assumptions about the replacement mix nuclear power has avoided the production of 64 GtCO2 since 1970. Thaat translates to 1 Gt avoided per 1130 TWh generated. This means that nuclear power is currently avoiding the emission of about 2.4 GtCO2 per annum (again, assuming the replacement generating mix would be largely fossil). That translates to 7% of the world's annual CO2 emissions.
In contrast, nuclear power produces about 12% of the world's electricity (the difference is due, of course, to transportation fuel use).
The real problem as I see it is that we can't seem to get our energy demand to stop growing. If we could reverse the demand curve for energy, all these issues would become tractable. Since we can't, 7% seems small enough to me that we should be making decisions based on other criteria. Criteria like fear and panic over losing energy sources, galloping climate change or the risks posed by potential accidents. Which is exactly what we are doing.
When are we going to do anything serious about the 93% of CO2 that's not nuclear?
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. 
The deep, dark secret about this show was that "Rosie" and all the other hardware was scrapped, replaced and remodelled on average every 15 months. Behind the scenes, the TV was tuned to "NASCAR 3000" and HGTV most of the time, Iran was mysteriously... depopulated, and Elroy was curator of a 20th Century appliance museum where he kept all the air conditioners running 24/7 to bolster the collection's authenticity. Judy was criticized by her brother for being wasteful, with her jet-setting weekly dates at Jupiter burger joints. Luckily, being nuclear powered meant they didn't need a biosphere anymore and the sight of tress would surely ruin the "ambiance" anyway...
...in costumes to trivialize the issues of the environment.
These are clueless bourgeois brats who drive around to protest meetings on their Mom and Dad's trust fund money to engage in their life long puerile exercise of "Look at me! Look at me!" stupidity.
It may be cute for 3rd graders, but adults?
http://www.iol.co.za/polopoly_fs/copy-of-mdf88044-2-1.1324891!/image/603832272.jpg_gen/derivatives/box_300/603832272.jpg
These are not adults.
At Mauna Loa in the month of May, we recorded the third month of 2013 that set a record for increases in dangerous fossil fuel waste over the same month of previous year out of five months, 2.99 ppm. (February 2013 and March 2013 also set records.)
If history exists, something I very much doubt, it will hold every damn fool childish anti-nuke illiterate for their 50 year campaign of fear and ignorance. You can count on it.
> Newscasters fielded "dirty bomb" as a possiblity just minutes after the Boston Marathon bombs went off.
> They speculated about nuclear material with the possibility of more bombs for days after.
> There is no philosophical or practical way to separate the proliferation of nuclear power from the
> chilling effect of terrorism in the public mind.
QED.
The biggest threat from nuclear power is not from terrorism but from incompetence coupled with the
sickening attitude of "Profit Uber Alles" that permeates the industry (and their enablers in governments
around the world) but that doesn't sell newspapers as it draws too much attention to the same behaviour
across practically every other industry across recent decades:
- fossil fuel explosions, blowouts & spills beyond count;
- permanent groundwater contamination for the sake of short term extraction;
- infected meat products where the "solution" was to ban testing;
- car manufacturers preferring to pay off victims rather than fix problems;
- cheapest steam pipes used rather than specified quality;
- ...
The behaviour of the nuclear industry it isn't an exception to the rule - it is the rule - but it provides a
convenient bogey-man for the mindless sheep, keeping their attention away from the everyday killers
that make even more profit every hour from the exploitation of a public who is obscenely ignorant.
> There is no philosophical or practical way to separate the proliferation of nuclear power from the
> chilling effect of terrorism in the public mind.
You are making the same point (albeit from a slightly different direction) and have apparently given up
on the idea of recognising that "the public mind" has a pretty low IQ ... perhaps you're right on that.