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.kiteman said:
Why do nuke proponents keep posting stupid shit like that as if it were data, and expect to be taken seriously?kiteman said:
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".
