Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?

Maybe being pro-nuclear does mean taking a side to 'some' people (just look on the internet how many these 'some' are). You could have misjudged that.
(edited)

I don't understand what you want to say here. And thank you again for another advice to google more. I am surprised you didn't again paste a link with a google search. Maybe your sentences make more sense when you put them through Google translator. ;)

Another fine blog posting from George Monbiot: The double standards of green anti-nuclear opponents

The first part is just another example of how you often have to defend yourself from attacks when trying to put nuclear power into perspective. It's the last part that is the most interresting.
(edited)

What are you doing, trying to insult me the polite way, mr perfect?

No, really not. It was just an innocent joke about your Google searches used as arguments. I am sorry if I offended you personally. I honestly didn't expect I would.

Ok :)

the article you posted is really funny,
for example I learned from it that:
-at fukushima died 2 worker and only 17 get a dangerous radiation exposure
-Chernobyl killed around 35 persons
-the energy production type we compare nuke with.. is the slavery made by chinese government

I think this is simply ridiculous. Surely the question about how to do energy without nuclear is a serious one, but it cannot be lead like that, don'y you think?

Actually noone has died from radiation yet at Fukushima. The two workers killed/missing were washed away by the tsunami, as far as I know. A few other people were also injured by the earthquake and tsunami. The most serious injuries from radiation so far is the two workers who got beta-burns on their legs (comparable to severe sunburns) and were exposed to up to 180 mSv of radiation from standing about an hour in highly radioactive water in the basement when trying to make some repairs to restore power to the cooling system.

And regarding Chernobyl the official death toll is actually quite low - as I've already explained in this thread. Besides some of the workers and first responders who died from radiation sickness only a few has died from thyroid cancer in the aftermath. It's hasn't been possible to show any increase in other types of cancer in the most affected populations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Assessing_the_disaster.27s_effects_on_human_health

I'm not surprised you think otherwise though.

Regarding coal (and other fossils) it's the only real alternative to nuclear energy today.
(edited)

Actually noone has died from radiation yet at Fukushima.

Are you seriuos? can we even think there will be no other consequences? right now we know everything is going to happen there?

And regarding Chernobyl the official death toll is actually quite low
officiale detah toll?
LOL, maybe I must believe even that in that zone people lived happier than before after the incident..
There are evidence about an increase of cancer in Italy after that incident,
but obviously is the way you make the researchs that influence the results..

Regarding coal (and other fossils) it's the only real alternative to nuclear energy today.

remember, when they say there's no alternative, they need to sell that something to you..
there's always an alternative, maybe it's only a question of price.. maybe it's only a question of power.. maybe it's only a question of money!!!

Another great article. I simply cannot believe how hysterical commentators can get about any information about nuclear power put into real context. It seems as if well balanced analyses make them even more angry than simple blatant pro-nuclear lobbying. Then they start accusing independant analsyst of undercover lobbying. Anti-nuclear agitators insist on taking sides so that they can continue having a no-brainer trance about the issue.

Now it's a problem that coal mine deaths are counted in China. Here you go: Coal Mine Deaths USA. So, in the USA there was 819 deaths in coal mines accidents over the last 20 years. And these are just accident deaths. What about black lung disease these poor workers suffer from? Here you go: [URL=http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2006/01/us_coal_mining_.html]Black Lung Disease[=URL]. So, 1 in 20 workers has it and it is estimated that 1.500 of former coal miners die from it every year!?

Closing nuclear power plants at the moment only means switching to coal and killing more people by the above listed ways. And this is just one aspect - direct deaths.

It's all about money and the willing to change :) 3 billion (estimated costs) and many many many years are needed to build 1 new reactor in the Netherlands, often ofcourse heavily subsidized and, this was already before Japan, the insurance costs are enormous. That 3 billion euros are the estimated costs, the same as the Olkiluoto 3 in Finland, real costs till last year 5.3 billion euros (!!) 13 years over time and still not operational. Then there are the economical costs to the local economy and maybe even worldwide if 1 of the larger economies in the world is hit by a nuclear disaster, like Japan. And not to mentioned all the hidden costs, maybe some for thousands and thousands of years, costs that absolutely no one really knows. But as always, someone has to pay for these costs and ofcourse that are we, even if you don't want nuclear energy.
I wonder how much alternatives you can build with that same amount of money and time, and how much watts this will produce.

Anti-nuclear agitators insist on taking sides so that they can continue having a no-brainer trance about the issue.

Maybe you should read some of the scientists of Greenpeace, they know what they are talking about. With their database of studies you can't accuse them of no-brainers.

EDIT: Greenpeace International
(edited)

He said 'noone has died yet'. Maybe there will be incresing in the death rate (I'm not sure about it), but they won't be direct victims.

I told you already and I will tell you again. I am not interested in "studies" conducted by institutions which in their title and program already contain conclusion of their "study". This goes for both pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear institutions as they both have jobs based on the issue. The only difference between them is that one's job is based on pros and the other one on cons. There were many independant opinions given here that basically support neither side and look at the issue in a wider context of current world structure of energy sources being used.

Fairly simple analyses on production capacities and side effects on environment and human health of currently available options clearly show that the only reasonable thing to do today is to make efforts to replace fossil fuels with renewables first, then hydro power and then nuclear power. Any campaign having priorities set differently is simply not helping the issue but only individuals who have a job out of it.

Ok, in that case, maybe it's an idea you give me a list of independent websites that are completely neutral you accept as truth, that would make it more easy for me to know what you accept as info ....

How about this, Nuclear Does Not Make Economic Sense Say Studies, incl a PDF file of Citibank ‘New Nuclear - The Economics Say No'.

Coming back to an earlier point raised by Charles_hill on the complot theorires. I don't think it is that bad, but to a certain extent it is true that there are legal barriers hindering the dissemination of renewable energy technologies. If you would want to buy a windmill together with all the people in your district, the current situation is that you have to deliver the power to the grid and then buy it back from the grid. You're not allowed to make a micro-grid, so that you have only one connection to the main grid with all the people in your district (to deliver energy to the grid, or take energy from the grid when the wind doesn't blow). Since you have to sell the energy to the grid, the economic viability of such a system goes drastically down.

I don't think we can say that it is a conspiracy though. On the other hand it favors large scale solutions like solar plants and the sahara and off-shore wind farms. That could in the end be better strategies to get the energy we need.