Nuclear power is set to disappoint, again

[kristopher]

Nuclear power is set to disappoint, again
By John Kemp Tue Jan 21, 2014

(Reuters) - Nuclear power is the energy dream that refuses to die, despite serious accidents at Windscale (1957), Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011).

Many of the arguments that were employed in favour of nuclear in the 1950s and 1960s as a solution to oil supplies running out are now being resurrected in favour of nuclear as a solution to climate change.

But the promise of safe, clean and reasonably priced nuclear power seems as far away now as it was 60 years ago. We are still waiting for the safe, cheap and reliable reactor designs that were promised in 1956.

PEAKING OIL...
...Hubbert...

<snip>

CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate scientists are now revisiting many of the same arguments in favour of nuclear as a way to avert global warming....Hansen...

<snip>

HOSTILE REACTION...
...NRDC...

<snip>

TROUBLED TECHNOLOGY...
...economics...

...Hansen, like Hubbert...

http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/01/21/nuclear-power-climate-change-idINL5N0KV1V620140121

[NNadir]

1. It still produces 50 times as much energy as the insipid solar scheme on which the dumb portion...

...of humanity bet the planetary atmosphere.

On the entire planet, solar energy doesn't produce one of the 538 exajoules that humanity was consuming as of 2011.

More coal, oil and gas are being burned than ever before.

But antinukes aren't "disappointed." They're triumphant. Their fear and ignorance has won the day with the result that 15 of the 20 worst years of accumulation of dangerous fossil fuel waste in the atmosphere have taken place since 2003.

The triumphant anti-nukes, who have done so much to destroy this planet will not be forgiven by history - as recorded by future generations, should they survive this latest triumph of fear and ignorance - because history will hold them in contempt.

Congratulations, anti-nukes. You must be very, very, very, very, very, very proud.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

[kristopher]

2. More rightwing antirenewable claptrap from Nnadir.

I know that DUEE nuclear supporters love to stand on the logical construct that "even though by far the largest bloc of support for nuclear power is conservative, just because I support nuclear power doesn't mean I'm a conservative".

However pointing to that is little more than a distraction from the real point in the data about the type of support that actually gets nuclear plants built. The fact is that the 'by far largest bloc' of conservative support for nuclear power also supports fossil fuels and also denies climate change.

This 'by far largest bloc' of support for nuclear power
- that is conservative,
- that supports fossil fuels,
- that denies climate change,
spends an inordinate amount of time attacking the effort to deploy renewable energy** with all kinds of specious facts and defective reasoning.

In my opinion, that has a real bearing on the negative claims made by the 'liberal' supporters of nuclear power who spend all of their time here trying to undermine renewable power.


** Roger Ailes Fox News Chief - Pronuclear & Antirenewable http://www.democraticunderground.com/112762504

[NNadir]

3. Actually, the data on this point is from the EIA.

I don't know what mucking around on right wing websites has to do with the fact that nuclear energy produces 50 times as much primary energy as the expensive failed solar industry, but I do note that the people who write endlessly about solar powered BMW electric cars are spectacularly unconcerned with the 3.5 billion people who don't have a much money as the 85 richest people, including the assholes who burn coal, gas, and oil to advertise, for instance, the puerile Tesla electric car, the subsidized toy for millionaires and billionaires.

The EIA data tables are public access; any moron can open them, although many morons don't.

Have a nice weekend, and give those right wingers you're always studying with undivided attention, the regards of the 3.5 billion people who couldn't care less.

[kristopher]

4. it isn't the data that's at issue, it is your aggressive misuse of the data.

It is your behavior in misrepresenting data that earns you a place alongside Roger Ailes.

In the same manner I don't respond to specific bullshit from right wing climate change deniers I also don't respond to your nonsense any longer about a supposed "failed solar industry" or claims that a shift away from carbon in the transportation sector is something for "rich yuppies".

It is nothing more than right wing spin that deserves to be labeled as such with the note that if someone wants to hear what You have to say on energy, all they need do is turn on a right wing news or tune into CSPAN coverage of Republicans talking about energy in the legislature.



Republican Senators Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee at a 2009 hearing on nuclear power. Photo: Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images.

[kristopher]

6. The relevant question is this

Why does most of the support for nuclear power comes from people who 1) support the continued use of coal, 2) deny climate change and 3) oppose renewable energy?

Very few people see the use of nuclear as a way to replace coal - including most of the supporters of nuclear power. Even though they give lip service to it when trying to justify the crazy high costs of nuclear power, the fact that they don't care about climate change is evident by their overt promotion of the use of fossil fuels.

So why do those same people work so hard to thwart the deployment of renewable energy sources?