No idea what you think you're talking about, but in point of physical fact the US reactors of that design are all vulnerable, right now, to what happened at Daichi, and much worse (Daichi was very lucky), if the safety features are overwhelmed as they were at Daichi; and these safety features are no more adequate and no less likely to be overwhelmed in many cases in the US than they were at Fukushima prior to the unexpectedly strong quake. This is true despite the expensive inspections and some retrofits required after Fukushima, to patch up some problems mysteriously not noticed until then (things like generators not reliably situated or maintained, some of the preparation problems Daichi and Daini had). Diablo Canyon has been linked here, and its vulnerabilities detailed, but similar situations exist at all other reactors of that and similar design. Why do nuke proponents keep posting stupid shit like that as if it were data, and expect to be taken seriously? Dude, the only solar estimate there is from one type of PV panel without installation considerations. The nuke power cost does not include the taxpayer subsidy or the decommissioning costs or the spent fuel handling or the accident risk premium. The coal cost does not include climate change costs. And so forth. Why do you even post stuff like that? Do you expect it to persuade anyone except you and your fellow nuke nuts? And it gets worse. Look at this crap - this is the argument for nuclear power, it's based on exactly this level of "analysis": Here is a genuine, moderate (just cancers, just close in areas, no thyroid, direct kills only) estimate using the LNT model for Chernobyl alone: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/56842.html It is about three times what you claim "accounts for the high estimates" of that model for the entire industry. The high estimate for Chernobyl is somewhere around one million worldwide (thousands in North Africa, for example, not even considered by the "official" studies). The high estimate too solidly based for anyone to ignore from Chernobyl is about 25,000, from the Union of Concerned Scientists. That is known to be low, because it excludes deaths in farflung geographical areas not carefully studied, excludes most non-cancer deaths, and excludes deaths from thyroid cancer - since it is usually "curable" in a First World system, they simply leave it out. We know that people treated as children for thyroid cancer, even if cured, tend to die sooner than others (heart disease, other cancers, the effects of poor control of thyroid problems, etc), but the UCS does not include that, so the 24+k is a generally "conservative" (low) estimate. That puts the conservative average at about a thousand per year since Chernobyl from Chernobyl alone, depending on how you want to handle the early death in adulthood statistical issue. The radically high average, the counterpart to the nuke industry PR handouts, is 40 times that. Presenting 300 per year from the entire industry as an absurdly high estimate is goofy. But that's not the silliest thing in that list of meaningless numbers. The silliest thing is presenting a death toll from "renewables" that has nothing to do with any of the modern industrial renewable energy technologies - nothing that would actually compare with the other power sources listed. Actually, "silly" may be too kind - that may be deliberately intended to deceive the gullible. But that level of gullibility - the level at which someone would post a list like that with a straight face - is not easy to describe without mockery. And that is the best the nuke proponents can do. Seriously - that's it, that's their level of argument, that's what they present as "scientific" in opposition to "fearmongering".
[/QUOTE] Catalytic hydrogen burners. No boom, no significant spread of radiation. It is data. It is just presented in a manner simple enough for most people to understand. Not simple enough? This is real world data from a real world energy system. Its not my fault the unreliables show up so badly.
[/QUOTE] Don't see it unless you intend me to accept a blog as scientific evidence. The bloggers make a statement that results in a "30,000" death scenario but fail to take into account the fact that low doses are not to be included in the cumulative dose analysis. Here is the short description of the results from the Chernobyl Forum. This is basically the most encompassing assessment of health results. http://www2.ans.org/pubs/magazines/nn/docs/2005-10-3.pdf There is no respectable estimate anywhere near 1,000,000. Only the rather mad Yablokov put out a report with that nonsence in it. The Chernobyl Forum ignores the UCS estimate as unrealistic. I think I will stick with the folks (Chernobyl Forum) who have actually studied the issues in detail. There is no indication of any "far-flung" effect. The fact that someone missapplies the LNT model as used today is not a reason to believe their results. I have read renewables proponents that include the use of such biofuels when touting how prevalent the sector is, providing a fairly large percentage of the world's energy. Well, if they include the benefit, they should include the harm. But even if you don't want to include it, the deaths from hydro alone also dwarf the deaths from nuclear. And the deaths/unit energy of the "modern industrial..." renewables also exceed the nuclear deaths by a good margin. Face it, nuclear is safer, even with the accidents. And truthfully, we really shouldn't count Chernobyl anyway since it was a uniquely boneheaded result.
If they work. Never reality-tested, don't protect against quake damage, don't handle the spent fuel pond problem, etc etc etc. Diablo Canyon is not protected by them. The Chernobyl Forum is an industry creation, formed with the goal of promoting nuclear power. That's what the IAEA charter requires. You have no qualms about accepting much less reputable lowball estimates - like the IAEA or WHO rug-sweeping (no estimate for early deaths from thyroid cancer treatment and aftereffects, just to note a blatant example). So a reasonable person, examining the facts, would on those grounds ignore the Chernobyl Forum. It is garbage, presented as bullshit, and simple enough for any informed person to recognize as such. None of the cost estimates make any sense - they seem to be based on the rates charged to consumers from commercial setups of some kind, or something equally irrelevant. You read down to the cost estimate for solar, and it's based on last generation's satellite - ready PV panels. I thought it was a joke for a second, until I realized it was all just Ontario's particular situation with the generalized costs omitted = last generation's PV panels happen to be what they have in Ontario at the moment. It's embarrassing to see this entered as information about "solar power" or "nuclear power", though. Maybe the central problem is that nuke proponents have no self-respect as intellectuals. Now you're just being silly - of course there is - there is the tracking and survey and sampling data on the plumes from Chernobyl. They traveled far, and apparently stayed concentrated at times - like the fallout from the open air A-bomb tests. Plumes from Chernobyl drifted to five continents. No, they don't. Their cost per unit energy is also lower.
The thing you fail to understand is that with any highly technical endeavor, the only way to fulfill the mandate to promote the endeavor is to do it extremely well. And that is what they strive to do, understand the effects extremely well. And since the rely on scientific results and the anti-nukes rely on self referential codswollup, I guess I will stick with the Chernobyl Forum over the other groups like Greenfarce.
Yes, they do, by every scientific study ever done. And the only way the unreliables can cost less is when they are able to cost-shift onto other generating sectors.
The fact that nuke proponents are living in a fantasy world that far removed from political, economic, historical, and physical reality is one of the major worries in this matter. I'm reading that weird assertion on a computer running Windows with PowerPoint, probably the best promoted and probably the worst performing of all the major operating systems, not to make the mockery too obvious. Offhand, I would guess that, carefully counted, the various problems created by Windows with PowerPoint have killed more people than all the solar electrical generation technologies put together, by orders of magnitude. Yeah, you posted a couple of those above - a website that counted Chernobyl deaths in the low dozens and TMI casualties at zero, a survey from somewhere that lumped dung cooking fires in subSaharan Africa in with thermal solar electrical generators in Australia as "renewables", and so forth. Despite the apparent confusion, "stupid" and "scientific" are not synonyms.
Interesting contention. So an operating system and graphics program conspire in cyberspace to kill real people? Can you say "woo woo"? Just because you are unable to understand what the sites are saying doesn't make THEM stupid. But I agree with you, "stupid" and "scientific" are not the same, but the anti-nukes seem to find enough vocal tools who can be fooled into thinking it does to produce a never ending stream of piffle like yours.
