> how many more nuclear disasters is it going to take?
Indeed....please provide us with the list of nuclear disasters, it should be an easy exercise judging by the tone of confidence in your post. Just for fun, throw in some stats on deaths per kwh of electrcity.
PREDICTION: you will not respond to this, because there have been no nuclear disasters. And no one disputes that in practice, nuclear is the safest form of power statistically. If you want to assert that nuclear power is incredibly powerful and dangerous, that is one thing, but trying to pass off potential disaster as reality, is a but disingenuous.
You can't simultaneously accuse your OP of being disingenuous about nuclear power (which he is, and I agree), then claim there have been no nuclear disasters, because that is probably more disingenuous than the original claim. That's just not true.
Are we working with the same definition of the word disaster? Even bloody Wikipedia, which I'd hardly call the tome of truth, calls Chernobyl a disaster[1]. Human life, property damage (ask Belarus), worldwide fallout...you don't get to rewrite what disaster means so that nuclear power keeps an untarnished image. There has been at least one. Debatably -- and I don't care to get into it -- there could now be as many as three.
There's a parallel with airliner crashes. More people die every day on highways, but an airliner going down is a very serious thing because there are hundreds of lives suddenly ended. So it was with Chernobyl: due to a catastrophic failure of engineering, humanity, and government, dozens of peoples' lives suddenly ended. You can argue that tens of thousands of lives are now in jeopardy due to the radiological effects. That is a disaster, regardless of any pro/anti-nuclear agenda.
I was speaking about disaster in an absolute sense, not a relative one. When you only have ten or so incidents to go by, then Chernobyl and three mile island are going to be called disasters, as far as nuclear disasters go. In terms of real disasters, when measured in human deaths, they are tiny footnotes in history, statistically irrelevant.
Hundreds of people die every year, just mining coal. How many people have died from nuclear power generators in their entire history? Disingenuous indeed.
There are a lot of relevant statistics in that document, such as the thousands of thyroid cancer cases directly attributed to the radiation exposure, not to mention the tens of firefighters that died saving the rest of the world. I would hate to live in your world, where there's a threshold of death to call something a disaster -- you are really minimizing the effects on hundreds of thousands (potentially millions) of people, simply because they haven't died yet or at all. How about getting uprooted from their homes and lives?
Just as I pointed out with my airliner analogy, the deaths from mining coal are over time, and many probably attributable to basic industrial accidents. Black lung has kind of been figured out, hasn't it? Five hundred coal miners didn't wake up on a Tuesday and die from coal poisoning, and as a result we're not talking about a disaster that needs investigation with coal power production.
I agree that nuclear power is statistically safe, but you are really skewing facts and doing a great disservice to less-educated readers about the (real) dangers of nuclear power, and calling it science elsewhere in this thread. This isn't a binary proposition -- something can be really safe and have the occasional Big Deal. Just like air travel.
Solar and wind are not always there when you need them, so you need some source of electricity that is. Current ways to store power (batteries, pumping water uphill) are too expensive.
Those are not comparable power sources. They cannot substitute for fossil or nuclear plants, because they are way too expensive and do not provide 24/7 power without even more expensive batteries.
Actually, thermal solar plants can produce electricity 24/7 just fine. They can store heat in water or (more efficiently) molten salt up in a tower and use it to later generate power at a reliable rate.
Spain is known to be investing heavily on concentrating solar power.
Those are great they just don't generate a lot of power though. The biggest one so far peaks at 60MW while your standard nuclear or fossil power plant generates 1000MW consistently. You'd need at least 20 of these to replace just one coal plant. That makes it what, 5 times more expensive than nuclear / fossil? Not even the USA can afford to go 100% renewable with a price like that.
"That makes it what, 5 times more expensive than nuclear / fossil?"
I'm not sure that's an accurate assessment, given that solar will probably become much cheaper as more solar plants are built.
And, as we're seeing with the Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters, the real price of nuclear could be much higher than just the price of a power plant.
What would be your price tag on the lives lost in or ruined by these nuclear disasters? (not to mention the economic cost stemming from the areas being contaminated by nuclear fallout)
"Not even the USA can afford to go 100% renewable with a price like that."
Of course they could. They could start by giving fewer handouts to the rich in terms of bailouts and tax breaks. Then they could cut the military budget so that the US no longer spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined. And they could legalize drugs, and get rid of the War on Drugs, cut spending on filling prisons with people who commit victimless crimes, etc.
All together that would make for many trillions saved (plus a handy profit on taxing legal drugs). Then the US could easily afford to go 100% solar (and probably much more), without any of the risks of nuclear.
I understand that there are many political reasons why none of these things are going to happen in the US any time soon (though some estimates put legalization of pot on 10 year horizon, when the baby boomers start withdrawing from the political scene, and as the younger generation is far less afraid of pot). But it's not like these things couldn't happen.
It's all a matter of political will.
If there's one good thing that's come out of this latest nuclear disaster is that it's starting to wake people up to the true dangers and costs of nuclear power. Hopefully they won't need many more such lessons before they get the point.
"Just for fun, throw in some stats on deaths per kwh of electrcity."
How many kwh of electricity is your life worth?
How many kwh or electricity are the nearly 1 million people who died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster worth? [1]
And I'd love to hear you show me a list of solar array or wind farm accidents that prove nuclear power is safer than either.
If Chernobyl or the Fukushima plants were solar arrays or wind farms, how much environmental damage and cost in human suffering would there have been were they to have been destroyed?
I'm looking forward to hearing you sing about how nuclear is the "safest form of power statistically" if the radioactive cloud from Fukushima ever winds up floating over your home town.
---
[1] "Nearly one million people around the world died from exposure to radiation released by the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl reactor, finds a new book from the New York Academy of Sciences"
Solar array and wind farms kill people too. The by-products of mining and industrial production are often dangerous and result in disease. Solar cells in particular require lots of energy to create.
Is your home off the grid? Have you really considered the compromises that have to be made to live entirely(electric, heating, cooling, transport) from wind and solar? It's not easy, it demands changes to all aspects of ones lifestyle and has a significant price.
"The by-products of mining and industrial production are often dangerous and result in disease"
How does that compare to the hazards of mining radioactive ore and the hazards from storing and transporting nuclear waste?
"Have you really considered the compromises that have to be made to live entirely(electric, heating, cooling, transport) from wind and solar?"
These compromises aren't necessarily all bad. For instance, if the impact to transport means that we'll have to live on goods made locally and not be able to commute as far to work, that could make for stronger, more pleasant, and more sustainable communities and economic systems.
"It's not easy, it demands changes to all aspects of ones lifestyle and has a significant price."
Does that price approach dying of radiation poisoning from a Chernobyl-style disaster? Or how about having your children be born with all sorts of mutations caused by radiation? Or of poisoning the environment with nuclear waste?
> For instance, if the impact to transport means that we'll have to live on goods made locally and not be able to commute as far to work, that could make for stronger, more pleasant, and more sustainable communities and economic systems.
Good luck getting the rare earths from China for all those green technologies if you have to get them from local sources. The one big US mine was shutdown. The reason?
"In 1998, chemical processing at the mine was stopped after a series of wastewater leaks. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of water carrying radioactive waste spilled into and around Ivanpah Dry Lake."
But it's okay because, currently, we get all those rare elements from China, where you don't hear about the pollution and accidents. Of course, China is saying that they don't want to share with everyone else any more, so that may change soon.
I'd like to know just how many tons of rare earths we have to import from China to run wind farms.
And why couldn't solar panels be developed without them?
Why not put a few tens or hundreds of billions (a tiny fraction compared to TARP or how much the US spends on the military) in to research in to these technologies to make them less dependent on rare earths?
But, as for the availability of rare earths outside China:
"As China slashes exports of rare earth elements, U.S. mine digs for more"
"Molycorp Inc., which owns the open mine, plans to dig out about 40,000 tons of dirt a year by 2014, up 1,200% from the current rate of about 3,000 tons.
The Colorado company is boosting production to meet an insatiable global appetite for rare earth elements..
The mine, about 16 miles from the Nevada border, has one of the world's largest deposits of rare earth elements outside Asia..
The company is spending more than $500 million to modernize and rebuild the 2,200-acre facility. The project is expected to create hundreds of permanent jobs and eventually produce rare earths at cheaper rates than mines in China."
"China's monopoly of the supply of strategic "rare earth" minerals will end when the Australian mining corporation Lynas brings a massive new refining plant in Malaysia into operation later this year...
The company has invested about $230 million in a refinery covering about 20 hectares which in September is due to start processing about 11,000 tonnes of rare earth oxide a year."
I take it you didn't read the link I posted, or you'd have noticed that the mine that released all that radioactive crap was owned by Molycorp Inc. Yes, the same one you're talking about.
Wind can't do base load power, either. Maybe someone will work that out by, I don't know, storing the energy in a flywheel or something. But they haven't done so yet. It's also dependent on our solar energy budget (as is solar, obviously). Conservation of energy is a pain, but no one knows how to violate it yet.
Why not put a few tens or hundreds of billions (a tiny fraction compared to TARP or how much the US spends on the military) in to research in to these technologies to make them less dependent on rare earths?
How do you know how much something like that would cost to develop?
Can you quote anything more credible than "The Environment News Service"?
Come on, do you expect to be taken seriously? Make a reasoned argument, I'm willing to listen. If you can quote any sort of a credible science agency that claims Chernobyl actually contributed to major death, I would consider it.
Indeed....please provide us with the list of nuclear disasters, it should be an easy exercise judging by the tone of confidence in your post. Just for fun, throw in some stats on deaths per kwh of electrcity.
PREDICTION: you will not respond to this, because there have been no nuclear disasters. And no one disputes that in practice, nuclear is the safest form of power statistically. If you want to assert that nuclear power is incredibly powerful and dangerous, that is one thing, but trying to pass off potential disaster as reality, is a but disingenuous.