From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:54 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Global warming silliness
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> No you don't know that at all. You don't have some crystal ball and are
just quoting from studies that have been criticized as very much low balling
the ultimate number of cancer deaths attributable to Chernobyl. Other
studies have come up with much higher numbers - ranging into the millions.
For example the TORCH report commissioned by the German Green Party that
included areas not covered by the WHO report
The WHO is much more trustworthy than the German Green Party, the WHO has no
ax to grind but if people don't think a environmental catastrophe is
imminent nobody is going to vote for the German Green Party.
That is your opinion. I don't share it. You seem to be demonizing anyone who
does not agree with your point of view, imputing unsavory motives of
personal greed for political power as the prime (indeed the only) driver of
what motivates environmentalists to become environmentalists. And, you know
this, how?
> that produced the 4000 figure you quote. It concluded that the death toll
from cancer is more likely to be around 30,000 to 60,000 extra incurred
deaths.
>> Even if that figure were true (and it is certainly exaggerated) it would
be no reason to turn away from nuclear. No power source, or anything else
for that matter, is 100% safe, but just in the USA alone coal power plants
kill about 13,000 people EVERY YEAR. For every person killed by nuclear
power 4000 are killed by coal. And that's not even taking into consideration
the deaths caused by global warming, assuming that global warming is a bad
thing (and it might not be). Nuclear power has zero effect on global
warming.
A power source that causes hundreds of thousands of atomic refugees every
time a plant melts down and that destroys the ability to use huge swaths of
land that will remain as nuclear contaminated no go zones for centuries -
and quite possible millennia - until the levels of radionuclides in these
areas decays, is not acceptable. The downside risk of nuclear power - as has
been made clear by Chernobyl and now Fukushima - is far too high. Fukushima
has created 160,000 atomic refugees in Japan; these people will never be
able to return home - though the Japanese government still seems to think it
can remediate the exclusion zone. The Chernobyl exclusion zone is 2,600 km^2
- that and has been lost to the people of the Ukraine since the time of the
accident and will be lost to them for a very long time.
I do agree that LFTR would potentially be a lot safer than the current
nuclear power systems. Why defend this current type of PWRs, such as the
flawed Mark II that failed in Fukushima? These giant white elephants would
have never been built without massive subsidies and within a decade or two
will start hitting global shortages of U-235.
Any sustainable nuclear power system HAS to be a breeder type. Of all the
breeder reactor designs LFTR seems to have the best safety & resource
profile.
Unlike you, I don't believe there will be a need for it on a massive scale.
By the soonest time commercial rated LFTR reactors can be ready the costs
per watt and the scale of production for solar PV will have reached levels
that would make it impossible to raise the amounts of capital required in
order to build them. Solar PV is not going to suddenly stop getting cheaper,
or scaling up in terms of how much new capacity it adds to the installed
solar PV base each year. In the 20 to 30 years' time frame required in order
to ramp up LFTR reactor technology to commercially rated systems, from the
point that we are at today, solar PV will have become the electricity
generation cost leader easily beating coal and anything else. I make this
projection based on long established trend lines that have held for three
decades.
Chris
http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
