• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Nuke vs coal and the people nearby

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...where-coal-replaced-nuclear-power-in-the-80s/

Oops, actual detrimental health effects were found as power switched from nuke to coal.
Does this include nuclear plants accidents that were averted due to Three Mile Island?

Also, who is saying we need more coal burning plants?

1) What accidents were averted due to Three Mile Island? Note that if they were averted because they didn't exist you would see the same effect as around Three Mile Island--harm to babies.

2) Who is saying it? Society demands the electricity. A government that refuses to provide it will not be a government for long. Nuke, coal, oil, gas. Choose one or more. Zero is not an option.
 
Does this include nuclear plants accidents that were averted due to Three Mile Island?

Also, who is saying we need more coal burning plants?

1) What accidents were averted due to Three Mile Island?
Maybe none, maybe a dozen. Who knows.
2) Who is saying it? Society demands the electricity. A government that refuses to provide it will not be a government for long. Nuke, coal, oil, gas. Choose one or more. Zero is not an option.
This is a community service announcement about the need for an energy source for electricity paid for by Loren Pechtel.
 
1) What accidents were averted due to Three Mile Island?
Maybe none, maybe a dozen. Who knows.
2) Who is saying it? Society demands the electricity. A government that refuses to provide it will not be a government for long. Nuke, coal, oil, gas. Choose one or more. Zero is not an option.
This is a community service announcement about the need for an energy source for electricity paid for by Loren Pechtel.

You're evading here.

Reality is we are going to generate power somehow. Remove nuke and you burn more coal.
 
As batteries improve there appears to be momentum building in favour of solar power. Presumably giving the consumer a degree of independence from the grid, a more secure power supply during cyclones and other weather events, while reducing cost of supply.
 
As batteries improve there appears to be momentum building in favour of solar power. Presumably giving the consumer a degree of independence from the grid, a more secure power supply during cyclones and other weather events, while reducing cost of supply.

I think the future is a combination of solar power on rooftops, wind farms, pumped hydro and maybe solar farms.

For more information on pumped hydro see these links below
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-22/pumped-hydro-power-in-spencer-gulf-energy-australia/8292596
http://reneweconomy.com.au/pumped-hydro-storage-solution-for-a-renewable-energy-future-91567/
 
I think I'm floating a turd here.

COPUC Rule 3627 filing 2016 https://www.tristategt.org/content/copuc-rule-3627-filing-2016

Its a listing of regulations, rules, and corrective proposals, in effect in 2016 for the tri-state power grid. That's the grid that went down a few times during the Obama administration and was ranked by some as the worst in the US.

There are a shitload of documents.

Enjoy.

As for economical power and shitty decision look at ColumbiaGrid. We got a great low cost grid with portions that cause the Columbia to be up to four degrees higher in temperature than surrounding portions purely because of problems with power waste removal. ...and the people are paying muchly for that.

ColumbiaGrid%20Map.jpg
 
As batteries improve there appears to be momentum building in favour of solar power. Presumably giving the consumer a degree of independence from the grid, a more secure power supply during cyclones and other weather events, while reducing cost of supply.

I think the future is a combination of solar power on rooftops, wind farms, pumped hydro and maybe solar farms.

For more information on pumped hydro see these links below
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-22/pumped-hydro-power-in-spencer-gulf-energy-australia/8292596
http://reneweconomy.com.au/pumped-hydro-storage-solution-for-a-renewable-energy-future-91567/

Which is all great, but the key word is "future" and not "present". In the present reality, all those combined don't come close to being able to supplant fossil fuels like nuclear can. So, in the present to oppose nuclear energy is to call for greater use of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, banking on a gamble that "clean" (which is not entirely clean) energy will someday give us way more than it currently can.

The OP is pointing out that the dogmatic opposition to nuclear does not have the moral or environmental high ground it thinks it does.
The reality is that while we try to develop sufficient "clean" alternative, the net harm of Nuclear, even including occasional accidents would far less than the harm of fossil fuels. The complication is that the harm of fossil fuels is spread more evenly across the whole population (I emphasize "more" because clearly their is localized increase harm). With Nuclear, the harm is less certain because it depends mostly on accidents, and when they occur the harm is potentially very extreme but largely local. That makes nuclear much more difficult politically because who are the poor schmucks who get selected to take all the risk?

The choice to develop more nuclear or use more coal while we develop better alternatives is a choice between causing guaranteed notable harm to everyone and some people more than others, versus causing less net harm but putting a small % of people at risk for potential lethal harm and making a local region a dead zone for generations.
It is the trolley problem on steroids.
 
As batteries improve there appears to be momentum building in favour of solar power. Presumably giving the consumer a degree of independence from the grid, a more secure power supply during cyclones and other weather events, while reducing cost of supply.

If they improve enough. That's some time in the future, though, not now.

These days turning off a nuke plant means turning on a fossil fuel plant.
 
As batteries improve there appears to be momentum building in favour of solar power. Presumably giving the consumer a degree of independence from the grid, a more secure power supply during cyclones and other weather events, while reducing cost of supply.

If they improve enough. That's some time in the future, though, not now.

These days turning off a nuke plant means turning on a fossil fuel plant.

Sure, solar and wind is not sufficient for heavy industry or for cities, but for modest household use a combination of solar and wind generation is probably achievable. Especially for rural households.
 
If they improve enough. That's some time in the future, though, not now.

These days turning off a nuke plant means turning on a fossil fuel plant.

Sure, solar and wind is not sufficient for heavy industry or for cities, but for modest household use a combination of solar and wind generation is probably achievable. Especially for rural households.

1) That doesn't change the fundamental problem that getting rid of nuke means more fossil fuel plants.

2) It's not even right--the storage costs are many times the cost of the power itself.
 
Nuclear, when it's working right, isn't an air or chemical water polluter, though it does release a lot of heat pollution into the waterways. But when it messes up, the effects can be devastating and long lasting. There is also the problem of the (very) long term storage of radioactive waste, and the pollution caused by uranium mining.

Coal, for economic reasons, is no longer generating jobs. Tunnel mining is no longer economically viable, since uncovering the coal seams with heavy equipment, "mountaintop removal," is cheaper and requires only a few heavy equipment operators. Nor is it going to be competitive with solar, wind, waves, and geothermal, for much longer. Wind, solar and fracked natural gas are already on a par with coal in many regions in terms of cost.
There's only the entrenched extractive interests and infrastructure, and the politicians they've bought, that stand in the way of a general shift to less polluting methodologies.
 
Back
Top Bottom