The false promise of nuclear power in an age of climate change
By Robert Jay Lifton, Naomi Oreskes, Aug 20, 2019, the Bulletin

Commentators from Greenpeace to the World Bank agree that climate change is an emergency, threatening civilization and life on our planet. Any solution must involve the control of greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out fossil fuels and switching to alternative technologies that do not impair the human habitat while providing the energy we require to function as a species.

This sobering reality has led some prominent observers to re-embrace nuclear energy. Advocates declare it clean, efficient, economical, and safe. In actuality it is none of these. It is expensive and poses grave dangers to our physical and psychological well-being. According to the US Energy Information Agency, the average nuclear power generating cost is about $100 per megawatt-hour. Compare this with $50 per megawatt-hour for solar and $30 to $40 per megawatt-hour for onshore wind. The financial group Lazard recently said that renewable energy costs are now €œat or below the marginal cost of conventional generation€�€”that is, fossil fuels€”and much lower than nuclear.

In theory these high costs and long construction times could be brought down. But we have had more than a half-century to test that theory and it appears have been solidly refuted. Unlike nearly all other technologies, the cost of nuclear power has risen over time. Even its supporters recognize that it has never been cost-competitive in a free-market environment, and its critics point out that the nuclear industry has followed a €œnegative learning curve.€� Both the Nuclear Energy Agency and International Energy Agency have concluded that although nuclear power is a €œproven low-carbon source of base-load electricity,€� the industry will have to address serious concerns about cost, safety, and waste disposal if it is to play a significant role in addressing the climate-energy nexus.

But there are deeper problems that should not be brushed aside. They have to do with the fear and the reality of radiation effects. At issue is what can be called €œinvisible contamination,€� the sense that some kind of poison has lodged in ones body that may strike one down at any time€”even in those who had seemed unaffected by a nuclear disaster. Nor is this fear irrational, since delayed radiation effects can do just that. Moreover, catastrophic nuclear accidents, however infrequent, can bring about these physical and psychological consequences on a vast scale.. No technological system is ever perfect, but the vulnerability of nuclear power is particularly great. Improvements in design cannot eliminate the possibility of lethal meltdowns. These may result from extreme weather; from geophysical events such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis (such as the one that caused the Fukushima event); from technical failure; and from unavoidable human error. Climate change itself works against nuclear power; severe droughts have led to the shutting down of reactors as the surrounding waters become too warm to provide the vital cooling function.

Advocates of nuclear energy invariably downplay the catastrophic events at Fukushima and Chernobyl. They point out that relatively few immediate deaths were recorded in these two disasters, which is true. But they fail to take adequate account of medical projections. The chaos of both disasters and their extreme mishandling by authorities have led to great disparity in estimates. But informed evaluations in connection with Chernobyl project future cancer deaths at anywhere from several tens of thousands to a half-million.

David P wrote

The false promise of nuclear power in an age of climate change
By Robert Jay Lifton, Naomi Oreskes, Aug 20, 2019, the Bulletin

Commentators from Greenpeace to the World Bank agree that climate
change is an emergency, threatening civilization and life on our planet.

Mindlessly silly.

Any solution must involve the control of greenhouse gas emissions
by phasing out fossil fuels and switching to alternative technologies
that do not impair the human habitat while providing the energy
we require to function as a species.

Even sillier. The other obvious approach is to deal
with climate change if it does actually happen.

This sobering reality has led some prominent
observers to re-embrace nuclear energy.

Because that is the obvious and only viable way to have any
real effect on the amount of CO2 we add to the atmosphere.

Advocates declare it clean, efficient, economical, and safe.

And that is because that is precisely what it is.

In actuality it is none of these.

BULL****. It is in fact all of those.

It is expensive

So are all the alternatives.

and poses grave dangers to our physical and psychological well-being.

BULL****.

According to the US Energy Information Agency, the average
nuclear power generating cost is about $100 per megawatt-
hour. Compare this with $50 per megawatt-hour for solar
and $30 to $40 per megawatt-hour for onshore wind.

Those are utterly bogus numbers when you consider
the real cost of providing power when the wind isnt
blowing enough and at night with solar.

The financial group Lazard recently said that renewable
energy costs are now €œat or below the marginal cost of
conventional generation€�€”that is, fossil fuels€”

Thats a lie when you consider the real cost
of providing power when the wind isnt
blowing enough and at night with solar.

and much lower than nuclear.

Another bare faced lie.

In theory these high costs and long construction times could be brought
down.

And in practice China shows that they are doing just that.

But we have had more than a half-century to test that
theory and it appears have been solidly refuted.

Another bare faced lie with China.

Unlike nearly all other technologies, the
cost of nuclear power has risen over time.

It has with coal too, because of the much higher costs
of clean power generation with coal and no longer using
cheap lignite coal for power generation because its so dirty.

Even its supporters recognize that it has never been
cost-competitive in a free-market environment,

Another bare faced lie.

and its critics point out that the nuclear industry
has followed a €œnegative learning curve.€�

Another bare faced lie.

Both the Nuclear Energy Agency and International Energy Agency
have concluded that although nuclear power is a €œproven low-carbon
source of base-load electricity,€� the industry will have to address
serious concerns about cost, safety, and waste disposal if it is to
play a significant role in addressing the climate-energy nexus.

It already does with France generating 90% of its electricity that way.

But there are deeper problems that should not be brushed aside.
They have to do with the fear and the reality of radiation effects.

There is no reality of radiation effects. Nukes put FAR less radioactivity
into the atmosphere than coal fired power generation does, even if you
include the tiny handful of nuke failures like Chernobyl and Fukushima.

At issue is what can be called €œinvisible contamination,€�

Pity that coal fired power generation produces vastly more of that than
nukes do.

the sense that some kind of poison has lodged in
ones body that may strike one down at any time

Pity that coal fired power generation produces vastly more of that than
nukes do.

€”even in those who had seemed unaffected by a nuclear disaster.

Who are in fact unaffected by a nuke disaster.

Nor is this fear irrational,

Corse it is when coal fired power generation produces vastly more of that
than nukes do.

since delayed radiation effects can do just that.

In fact they dont.

Moreover, catastrophic nuclear accidents, however infrequent, can bring
about these physical and psychological consequences on a vast scale.

Another bare faced lie. Neither Chernobyl nor Fukushima did anything of the
sort.

No technological system is ever perfect, but the
vulnerability of nuclear power is particularly great.

BULL****.

Improvements in design cannot eliminate
the possibility of lethal meltdowns.

Thats another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
Some nuke designs dont even melt down.

And meltdowns dont have to be lethal either.

These may result from extreme weather;

BULL****.

from geophysical events such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and
tsunamis (such as the one that caused the Fukushima event);

Trivially avoidable by not building nukes where those occur.

from technical failure;

Not possible to have a meltdown with some nuke designs.

and from unavoidable human error.

Ditto.

Climate change itself works against nuclear power;

Even sillier than you usually manage.

severe droughts have led to the shutting down
of reactors as the surrounding waters become
too warm to provide the vital cooling function.

Trivially avoidable by having the nukes cooled by sea water.

Advocates of nuclear energy invariably downplay
the catastrophic events at Fukushima and Chernobyl.

You clowns wildly exaggerate those events.

They point out that relatively few immediate deaths
were recorded in these two disasters, which is true.

And the total number of deaths too. FAR less than are seen with coal mining.

But they fail to take adequate account of medical projections.

Another bare faced lie.

The chaos of both disasters and their extreme mishandling
by authorities have led to great disparity in estimates.

But still vastly fewer than coal mining and the movement of gas produces.

But informed evaluations in connection with Chernobyl project future
cancer deaths at anywhere from several tens of thousands to a
half-million.

Those arent informed evaluations, they are in fact hysterical lies.

AND coal powered generation puts FAR more radioactivity into the atmosphere.

Studies of Chernobyl and Fukushima also reveal crippling
psychological fear of invisible contamination.

Nothing crippling about it.

This fear consumed Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

And it turned out to be a completely irrational fear.

and people in Fukushima painfully associated their own
experiences with those of people in the atomic-bombed cities.

More fool them.

The situation in Fukushima is still far
from physically or psychologically stable.

Because the evacuation was completely pointless.

This fear also plagues Chernobyl, where there have
been large forced movements of populations,

In fact **** all populations ever moved.

and where whole areas poisoned
by radiation remain uninhabitable.

That last is another bare faced lie.

All the rest of bare faced lies flushed where it belongs.

Yes we have also all got to stop farting and stop our animals farting as
well.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
David P wrote

The false promise of nuclear power in an age of climate change
By Robert Jay Lifton, Naomi Oreskes, Aug 20, 2019, the Bulletin

Commentators from Greenpeace to the World Bank agree that climate
change is an emergency, threatening civilization and life on our planet.

Mindlessly silly.

Any solution must involve the control of greenhouse gas emissions
by phasing out fossil fuels and switching to alternative technologies
that do not impair the human habitat while providing the energy
we require to function as a species.

Even sillier. The other obvious approach is to deal
with climate change if it does actually happen.

This sobering reality has led some prominent
observers to re-embrace nuclear energy.

Because that is the obvious and only viable way to have any
real effect on the amount of CO2 we add to the atmosphere.

Advocates declare it clean, efficient, economical, and safe.

And that is because that is precisely what it is.

In actuality it is none of these.

BULL****. It is in fact all of those.

It is expensive

So are all the alternatives.

and poses grave dangers to our physical and psychological well-being.

BULL****.

According to the US Energy Information Agency, the average
nuclear power generating cost is about $100 per megawatt-
hour. Compare this with $50 per megawatt-hour for solar
and $30 to $40 per megawatt-hour for onshore wind.

Those are utterly bogus numbers when you consider
the real cost of providing power when the wind isnt
blowing enough and at night with solar.

The financial group Lazard recently said that renewable
energy costs are now "at or below the marginal cost of
conventional generation"-that is, fossil fuels-

That's a lie when you consider the real cost
of providing power when the wind isnt
blowing enough and at night with solar.

and much lower than nuclear.

Another bare faced lie.

In theory these high costs and long construction times could be brought
down.

And in practice China shows that they are doing just that.

But we have had more than a half-century to test that
theory and it appears have been solidly refuted.

Another bare faced lie with China.

Unlike nearly all other technologies, the
cost of nuclear power has risen over time.

It has with coal too, because of the much higher costs
of clean power generation with coal and no longer using
cheap lignite coal for power generation because its so dirty.

Even its supporters recognize that it has never been
cost-competitive in a free-market environment,

Another bare faced lie.

and its critics point out that the nuclear industry
has followed a "negative learning curve."

Another bare faced lie.

Both the Nuclear Energy Agency and International Energy Agency
have concluded that although nuclear power is a "proven low-carbon
source of base-load electricity," the industry will have to address
serious concerns about cost, safety, and waste disposal if it is to
play a significant role in addressing the climate-energy nexus.

It already does with France generating 90% of its electricity that way.

But there are deeper problems that should not be brushed aside.
They have to do with the fear and the reality of radiation effects.

There is no reality of radiation effects. Nukes put FAR less radioactivity
into the atmosphere than coal fired power generation does, even if you
include the tiny handful of nuke failures like Chernobyl and Fukushima.

At issue is what can be called "invisible contamination,"

Pity that coal fired power generation produces vastly more of that than
nukes do.

the sense that some kind of poison has lodged in
one's body that may strike one down at any time

Pity that coal fired power generation produces vastly more of that than
nukes do.

-even in those who had seemed unaffected by a nuclear disaster.

Who are in fact unaffected by a nuke disaster.

Nor is this fear irrational,

Corse it is when coal fired power generation produces vastly more of that
than nukes do.

since delayed radiation effects can do just that.

In fact they don't.

Moreover, catastrophic nuclear accidents, however infrequent, can bring
about these physical and psychological consequences on a vast scale.

Another bare faced lie. Neither Chernobyl nor Fukushima did anything of
the sort.

No technological system is ever perfect, but the
vulnerability of nuclear power is particularly great.

BULL****.

Improvements in design cannot eliminate
the possibility of lethal meltdowns.

That's another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
Some nuke designs don't even melt down.

And meltdowns don't have to be lethal either.

These may result from extreme weather;

BULL****.

from geophysical events such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and
tsunamis (such as the one that caused the Fukushima event);

Trivially avoidable by not building nukes where those occur.

from technical failure;

Not possible to have a meltdown with some nuke designs.

and from unavoidable human error.

Ditto.

Climate change itself works against nuclear power;

Even sillier than you usually manage.

severe droughts have led to the shutting down
of reactors as the surrounding waters become
too warm to provide the vital cooling function.

Trivially avoidable by having the nukes cooled by sea water.

Advocates of nuclear energy invariably downplay
the catastrophic events at Fukushima and Chernobyl.

You clowns wildly exaggerate those events.

They point out that relatively few immediate deaths
were recorded in these two disasters, which is true.

And the total number of deaths too. FAR less than are seen with coal
mining.

But they fail to take adequate account of medical projections.

Another bare faced lie.

The chaos of both disasters and their extreme mishandling
by authorities have led to great disparity in estimates.

But still vastly fewer than coal mining and the movement of gas produces.

But informed evaluations in connection with Chernobyl project future
cancer deaths at anywhere from several tens of thousands to a
half-million.

Those arent informed evaluations, they are in fact hysterical lies.

AND coal powered generation puts FAR more radioactivity into the
atmosphere.

Studies of Chernobyl and Fukushima also reveal crippling
psychological fear of invisible contamination.

Nothing crippling about it.

This fear consumed Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

And it turned out to be a completely irrational fear.

and people in Fukushima painfully associated their own
experiences with those of people in the atomic-bombed cities.

More fool them.

The situation in Fukushima is still far
from physically or psychologically stable.

Because the evacuation was completely pointless.

This fear also plagues Chernobyl, where there have
been large forced movements of populations,

In fact **** all populations ever moved.

and where whole areas poisoned
by radiation remain uninhabitable.

That last is another bare faced lie.

All the rest of bare faced lies flushed where it belongs.

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:15:59 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Mindlessly silly.

What a PERFECT description of your senile trolling, senile asshole!

--
Bod addressing senile Rot:
"Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless
and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of
trouble."
Message-ID:

On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 08:41:45 UTC+1, Peeler wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 11:15:59 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Mindlessly silly.

What a PERFECT description of your senile trolling, senile asshole!

no, occasionally he's quite right. Your posts OTOH add nothing.

On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 02:16:10 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
David P wrote

According to the US Energy Information Agency, the average
nuclear power generating cost is about $100 per megawatt-
hour. Compare this with $50 per megawatt-hour for solar
and $30 to $40 per megawatt-hour for onshore wind.

Those are utterly bogus numbers when you consider
the real cost of providing power when the wind isnt
blowing enough and at night with solar.

Only a clueless person compares 24/7 output to intermittent output like solar & wind. The numbers are misleading anyway, for every gigawatt of PV you also need another gigawatt of reliable generation, making the cost of using PV inevitably higher. Ie the numbers you quote are at best entirely misleading.


The financial group Lazard recently said that renewable
energy costs are now €œat or below the marginal cost of
conventional generation€�€”that is, fossil fuels€”

Thats a lie when you consider the real cost
of providing power when the wind isnt
blowing enough and at night with solar.

Firstly it did say marginal. And it depends entirely on how you massage the figures.

and much lower than nuclear.

Another bare faced lie.

In theory these high costs and long construction times could be brought
down.

And in practice China shows that they are doing just that.

true of any tech


But we have had more than a half-century to test that
theory and it appears have been solidly refuted.

Another bare faced lie with China.

Government requirements have massively increased.


Unlike nearly all other technologies, the
cost of nuclear power has risen over time.

It has with coal too, because of the much higher costs
of clean power generation with coal and no longer using
cheap lignite coal for power generation because its so dirty.

Even its supporters recognize that it has never been
cost-competitive in a free-market environment,

Another bare faced lie.

it isn't true

and its critics point out that the nuclear industry
has followed a €œnegative learning curve.€�

Another bare faced lie.

meaningless propaganda


Moreover, catastrophic nuclear accidents, however infrequent, can bring
about these physical and psychological consequences on a vast scale.

Another bare faced lie. Neither Chernobyl nor Fukushima did anything of the
sort.

No technological system is ever perfect, but the
vulnerability of nuclear power is particularly great.

BULL****.

All types of generation plant are bombable & sabotageable. Nukes have the considerable advantages of high security & a blastproof building. So yeah, total bull.


Climate change itself works against nuclear power;

Even sillier than you usually manage.

severe droughts have led to the shutting down
of reactors as the surrounding waters become
too warm to provide the vital cooling function.

Trivially avoidable by having the nukes cooled by sea water.

Ie engineers designed the heat exchange system to only cope with so much, and these conditions were exceeded. That's engineering for you, it happens. Future designs will learn from that & be more able.

Saying it's the result of climate change borders on laughable.


NT

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:28:50 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Mindlessly silly.

What a PERFECT description of your senile trolling, senile asshole!

no, occasionally he's quite right. Your posts OTOH add nothing.

It IS a PERFECT description of his senile trolling, senile idiot!

On 28/08/2019 07:34, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:43:02 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 02:16:10 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
David P wrote
severe droughts have led to the shutting down
of reactors as the surrounding waters become
too warm to provide the vital cooling function.

Trivially avoidable by having the nukes cooled by sea water.

Ie engineers designed the heat exchange system to only cope with so much, and these conditions were exceeded. That's engineering for you, it happens. Future designs will learn from that & be more able.

Saying it's the result of climate change borders on laughable.

It was my impression that they were run on reduced power (not shut
down) because environmental regulations ruled that the river water
temperature should not be allowed to rise beyond a certain value, to
protect the fish and other creatures that lived in it, rather than
insufficient capacity of the cooling system to cope. If the river flow
was low, due to drought, then the same amount of waste heat being
dissipated by the cooling system would raise the river temperature
over that limit value.

Exactly so.

France has a lot of 'interior' where no sea is available.

The nukes are throttled back in summer, which is fine. surplus of
capacity in summer





--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin