How dangerous is nuclear power?

[asperity]

An interesting article from an Australian paper:

 

 

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/want-to-kill-fewer-people-go-nuclear-20130710-2pqbq.html

[Lt Kije]

Good article.

 

Just to add 75% of electricity in France is generated by Nuclear

[Dizzy]

Interesting Asp.

 

I guess the downside of nuclear is that if anything did ever happen to go seriously wrong then it would be a lot harder to contain and manage and would affect more people than say a disaster in a coal mine or gas plant which would be more localised.  Probably more long term effects too I'd imagine from a nuclear failure.   

 

Just saying like... that's all

[asperity]

Well Dizzy, that is exactly the point of the article! The disaster at Fukushima was caused by an unprecedented (in recorded history) tsunami event which killed thousands, and yet the subsequent failure of the atomic plants is responsible for no deaths at all! In this country we can expect, probably, zero tsunamis EVER!! and even if we did it would be the tsunami that caused the death toll, not any failure of atomic plants. The statistics, which you may note include the effects of Chernobyl, show that atomic power generation is far safer than even solar panels.

[Evil Sid]

Those solar panels can be lethal, especially if they slip off the roof and land on you. Not much chance of that with a nuclear reactor, unless they start fitting them in aircraft

[Davy51]

No need to worry about nuclear, the Yanks  have miraculously revealed that their oil reserves are much bigger than a t first thought .

[observer]

Saw that one Dave; can't see them worrying too much about climate change now !

[asperity]

Apart from their president it seems that most Americans have seen through the AGW lies now.

[observer]

... and it's more financially attractive anyway !

[Evil Sid]

well it seems that the power companies have announced that bills will rise a lot more than the government predicted. Their excuse being that the renewal of our "creaking" energy infrastructure and investment in "renewable" energy will push up the cost more than the predicted £100 to somewhere around £240 per year.

 

Hands up all who are surprised by that little nugget of info.

quick count.................................. none.

[Cleopatra]

Well the energy companies have been talking about investment in renewable energy for like yonks as a reason for high energy tariffs but has anyone seen evidence of renewable energy actually happening?

[asperity]

There are thousands of windmills around our coasts, but they are producing a derisory amount of electricity for what they cost. Additionally there are diesel generator plants springing up to provide additional capacity when the wind isn't blowing, these diesel plants attracting a rate 12 times that of conventionally produced power. And it is us, the taxpayers and consumers, who are paying for this government mandated madness.

[observer]

.... and the price will keep rising.

[fugtifino]

Indeed:

 

A recent report by the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee warned that the legacy of nuclear waste from previous generations of reactors had been allowed to build up, with the cost of decommissioning Sellafield's nuclear waste site now running at £67.5 billion.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/43-back-uk-nuclear-plant-subsidies-8634273.html

 

 Burke, who is visiting professor at Imperial and University colleges in London, calculated that at just below £100 a unit, if the market price stabilised at £50 – which is below the lowest government forecast market price of £59 in 2030 – EDF would receive £50bn in support from the government over four decades for Hinkley.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/18/nuclear-power-ministers-reactor

 

It's expensive this nuclear energy.

[Lt Kije]

Apart from their president it seems that most Americans have seen through the AGW lies now.

 

Wrong

 

That is what you would have people believe, but it is complete crap, I don't suppose you would like to back it up

[asperity]

I don't suppose that YOU would like to back up your assertion?

[Lt Kije]

As you cast yours first, I will let you go first,!!!

[asperity]

Without cherry picking, top of the Google search:

 

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/48745/less-than-half-in-u-s-and-britain-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/

 

A speech by the POTUS just a couple of days ago revealed that he, along with many other politicians in the US and the UK are still wedded to the AGW idea, probably because of the cash cow that it has become.

[Lt Kije]

http://www.usclimatenetwork.org/hot-topics/climate-polling

 

 

Public opinion in the United States about the need to act on climate change has been consistently strong for years. A large majority of Americans have told pollsters from across the political spectrum that they understand the urgency for climate action, the benefits of acting on the environment and the economy, and the need to pass strong federal legislation to limit carbon emissions. The US Climate Action Network archives those polls and regularly updates this list. Check back frequently.

 

It all depends on who you ask, if you ask libertarians, you will get the answer you want, ask everyone else you won't get the answer you want. It is a fact that most governments around the World now do believe, have you ever thought you might just be wrong!!!!

[asperity]

Looking at all the evidence I am convinced that I am not wrong. Happy? Probably not, because that won't accord with your cherry picked "polls".

[Lt Kije]

Odd that you come to a different conclusion from MOST scientists, and World governments, it must be the libertarian publications you restrict yourself to reading.

[asperity]

Where is your evidence that I disagree with MOST scientists? There is no such thing as a scientific concensus you know. We don't, as yet, have a world government. But perhaps you mean various governments around the world? Governments make policy using the evidence that they wish to choose to get the outcome that suits them best. For example the governments of coral islands choose advice that points to rapidly increasing sea levels while ignoring real world evidence to the contrary, because they see an opportunity to get funding from richer countries to mitigate the effects of such supposed sea level rise. You really need to do a bit more research yourself.

 

I don't know why you say libertarian as if it were a dirty word though.

[Lt Kije]

It fell it on year Asp, what is the trend on sea levels ? would you like to take a guess, I suspect you already know the answer. Here I will help you

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/nasa-notes-sea-level-is-falling-in-press-release-but-calls-it-a-pothole-on-road-to-higher-seas/

[asperity]

It fell it on year Asp,

Do you ever look to see what you have typed?

 

Sea levels have been rising, on average, 3mm per year since the end of the last glaciation (several thousands of years ago). Recently the trend has decreased slightly although scientists (or high priests of the AGW religion to give them their correct title) are unsure as to the reason for this. It could be that they are only looking at a miniscule period in the life of this planet because this suits their main purpose of keeping the research funding rolling in so that they can feed their families. Anyway Lt Kije, you keep believing we're all going to fry, meantime I'm stocking up on duvets.

[Lt Kije]

Looks to me like you have your head in the sand.