And how did you calculate such a number?
As stated before Chernobyl was not a viable reactor, it lacked a containment dome and fool proofing.
correlation does not mean causation.
Nuclear proliferation and nuclear power at different issues!
Nuclear Power
- Thread starter Dr.Love
- Start date
And how did you calculate such a number?
As stated before Chernobyl was not a viable reactor, it lacked a containment dome and fool proofing.
correlation does not mean causation.
Nuclear proliferation and nuclear power at different issues!
iceaura
You are including in your overestimates of deaths due to nuclear materials, things for which you have no data.
For example : waste dispersed in the ocean due to dumping at sea has caused zero human fatalities, and no measurable environmental damage.
Your suggestion that deaths in the conflicts of Iraq, and Israel should be laid at the door of nuclear power is utterly ridiculous. Those conflicts are and always have been about different issues.
Problems with Iran are not about nuclear power either. They are about nuclear weapons. Iran claims its uranium enrichment program is just for nuclear power, but that statement is not believed by outsiders, who believe Iran is building nuclear weapons. From your posts, it appears you have still not come to terms with the fact that electrical generation, and atom bomb detonations are actually two different things, and should not be confused.
At the end of the day, out of the Big Four means of generating electricity, nuclear power is second best in terms of avoiding the causing of human deaths, and is best equal in terms of greenhouse gases.
You are including in your overestimates of deaths due to nuclear materials, things for which you have no data.
For example : waste dispersed in the ocean due to dumping at sea has caused zero human fatalities, and no measurable environmental damage.
Your suggestion that deaths in the conflicts of Iraq, and Israel should be laid at the door of nuclear power is utterly ridiculous. Those conflicts are and always have been about different issues.
Problems with Iran are not about nuclear power either. They are about nuclear weapons. Iran claims its uranium enrichment program is just for nuclear power, but that statement is not believed by outsiders, who believe Iran is building nuclear weapons. From your posts, it appears you have still not come to terms with the fact that electrical generation, and atom bomb detonations are actually two different things, and should not be confused.
At the end of the day, out of the Big Four means of generating electricity, nuclear power is second best in terms of avoiding the causing of human deaths, and is best equal in terms of greenhouse gases.
I read it in the newspaper. On the front page. Much larger estimates of the deaths due to sanctions and invasion, in Iraq, are well established - that was an extreme underestimate, chosen because it was exactly 100 times the bs number being thrown around be people here who are dodging the central issue.electric said:
Ignorance does not establish lack of causation, willful ignorance does not establish lack of effect.electric said:
Tell that to the Somali fishermen.skeptical said:
You simply refuse to recognize that no one has investigated the matter. No one can investigate the matter, because no one even knows where much of the waste has been dumped, how it is packaged, what has happened to it, or what will happen to it in the future, - much less what its effects have been or will be. It is an area of great ignorance - there is no safety in ignorance.
Nuclear power proliferation carries an unavoidable risk of nuclear weapons proliferation - a risk which we have seen become a reality several times, an immediate threat several more times, and an immediate instigator or justification of sanctions, war, and large scale death far too many times to tolerate in the future.electric said:
Mere assertion that there is no geopolitical connection between nuclear power proliferation and weapons or the threat of weapons is equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and humming happy tunes to yourself. The connection is more than obvious - it is one of the most hotly fought and consequential issues in international politics in this century.skeptical said:
The entire tense, dangerous, explosive situation with Iran, for example, was created by Iran doing what several ordinary users of peaceful nuclear reactor capability do routinely - the problem being that such doings bring them very close to weapons capability. The same technology and capability is involved in either purpose. Proliferation of nuclear power technology is proliferation of nuclear weapons capability.
We are talking about replacing the Big Four, not comparing them among each other.skeptical said:
Last edited:
iceaura
If you are talking about replacing the Big Four, then you are living in fairyland. It aint gonna happen - at least not this century. Certainly other forms of electricity generation will improve and become more important.
Wind power has been the darling of the eco-nutter groups. I have been watching its growth over the past 20 odd years. First 0.5% of world generation, then doubling to 1%, and now about 1.5%. At that rate it will become as important as the least of the Big Four in about 100 years!
I am aware that you are fond of thermal solar power. It is a good means of generating electricity, but it has been under development for at least 30 years now, and is still less than 0.5% of global generation. There is no clear indication that it will grow any faster than wind.
My own opinion, FWIW, is that other power sources will overtake wind. eg. Hot rock geothermal, once the bugs are out of it, will be far better than wind or solar power, because it is steady power output without the horrible fluctuations of wind and solar.
However, these are developments that wil take many decades. Realistically, the Big Four will carry the bulk of the generation burdon for a long time yet.
What is appallingly clear is that coal burning power is still growing in absolute terms faster than all other sources put together. China is commissioning at least one new plant each week! This needs to be stopped, and the only power source with the potential to replace coal in China, at least within the next 40 odd years, is nuclear.
If you are talking about replacing the Big Four, then you are living in fairyland. It aint gonna happen - at least not this century. Certainly other forms of electricity generation will improve and become more important.
Wind power has been the darling of the eco-nutter groups. I have been watching its growth over the past 20 odd years. First 0.5% of world generation, then doubling to 1%, and now about 1.5%. At that rate it will become as important as the least of the Big Four in about 100 years!
I am aware that you are fond of thermal solar power. It is a good means of generating electricity, but it has been under development for at least 30 years now, and is still less than 0.5% of global generation. There is no clear indication that it will grow any faster than wind.
My own opinion, FWIW, is that other power sources will overtake wind. eg. Hot rock geothermal, once the bugs are out of it, will be far better than wind or solar power, because it is steady power output without the horrible fluctuations of wind and solar.
However, these are developments that wil take many decades. Realistically, the Big Four will carry the bulk of the generation burdon for a long time yet.
What is appallingly clear is that coal burning power is still growing in absolute terms faster than all other sources put together. China is commissioning at least one new plant each week! This needs to be stopped, and the only power source with the potential to replace coal in China, at least within the next 40 odd years, is nuclear.
I believe solarelectric will be growing vary rapidly, especially with the advent of printable solar panels I foresee solar take a fair percentage of the market within a few decades. Of course the grid storage problem will need be dealt with for solar to take large an larger percentages of the market, electric cars and electric car charge stations might help in that. Wind certainly has grown well and has much more to grow, as well as ocean power, my only problem with wind is how it kills birds.
When you say wind has grown well and will grow more, you mean 0.5% to less than 1.5% is good growth? And it will grow more means what? Up to 3%?
Lots of 'green' nonsense is spoken about power generation. In the real world, it is still the Big Four, and likely to remain that way for a long time.
Nuclear power has its problems. Security is a definite problem, and will require unceasing vigilance. However, it is way better than coal burning, which is the only alternative within the Big Four with essentially unlimited growth potential, and we all know the downside of burning coal.
Bearing in mind the (so far) limited potential of wind, solar etc., nuclear is still the only practical option for unlimited growth without all the problems of greenhouse gases.
Lots of 'green' nonsense is spoken about power generation. In the real world, it is still the Big Four, and likely to remain that way for a long time.
Nuclear power has its problems. Security is a definite problem, and will require unceasing vigilance. However, it is way better than coal burning, which is the only alternative within the Big Four with essentially unlimited growth potential, and we all know the downside of burning coal.
Bearing in mind the (so far) limited potential of wind, solar etc., nuclear is still the only practical option for unlimited growth without all the problems of greenhouse gases.
yep
although some nations have managed 20-30% of there electric power system already, aaaah, yeah oil, natural gas and coal will continue to provide power no matter how costly it gets and how much cheaper alternatives get.
Coal reserved assuming experiential growth won't last to to the end of the century. And existing reserves have been getting high and higher ins sulfur content because the lower sulfur content reserves have been consumed already.
Of course, either that the fusion pipe dream comes through somehow, but sure all the greenpeaceniks will go ape over that as well.
Actually, coal reserves will last hundreds of years, if low grade sources are used. The estimate of only 100 years is based on existing high grade coal. But there is no technical limit to how much you can use the lowest grades.
That is the problem. Without a definitive push away from coal, we will burn it all, and destroy the natural environment of planet Earth. It will take a long time, but could well happen if we are stupid.
That is the problem. Without a definitive push away from coal, we will burn it all, and destroy the natural environment of planet Earth. It will take a long time, but could well happen if we are stupid.