Batteries Produce More CO2 Than Coal and Gasoline.

[J.P.M.]

You are correct. There is nothing funny about any type of electrical generation technology. Yet it seems nuclear scares the crap out of people even though you have a better chance of getting hit by an EV or natural gas bus then being overdosed from a nuclear plant.

I still say those that are afraid of nuclear better not be afraid of the dark because more than likely they will be in the dark when RE isn't there for you.

Politics aside, I tried to figure out a way to make sense of, and perhaps get some empathy for some - maybe a lot - of the folks who fear nuclear plant failure(s) (but who, I'd add, seem to continue to use the output of nuclear power plants unabated in what others see a rather hypocritical and profligate way), without the histrionics and hyperbole that does no one, or the debate, any good.

Best I came up with is to look at their fears as having some of the characteristics sort of like those of a Dirac delta "function" with the probability of a plant failure seen from what they are told ( but probably don't believe) as approximating the "width" of the function (that is, == zero), and their fears of the consequences of a catastrophic failure approximated by the "height" of the function (that is,== infinitely bad). Thus, the failure probability approaches zero (possible, but perhaps more than a little unrealistic) , but the consequences are unfathomable (and thus undefined - and people fear the unknown).

Better education of the great unwashed masses with respect to plant design, safeguards, and likely/possible consequences of failures that is done in ways farther from the aforementioned histrionics and hyperbole may make the Dirac function analogy wider (reality is probability of failure is small, but still > zero), and consequences of catastrophic failure are pretty bad, but perhaps not the end of life as we know it.), with the area of the remaining, now non-Dirac rectangle still == unity.

[SunEagle]

Politics aside, I tried to figure out a way to make sense of, and perhaps get some empathy for some - maybe a lot - of the folks who fear nuclear plant failure(s) (but who, I'd add, seem to continue to use the output of nuclear power plants unabated in what others see a rather hypocritical and profligate way), without the histrionics and hyperbole that does no one, or the debate, any good.

Best I came up with is to look at their fears as having some of the characteristics sort of like those of a Dirac delta "function" with the probability of a plant failure seen from what they are told ( but probably don't believe) as approximating the "width" of the function (that is, == zero), and their fears of the consequences of a catastrophic failure approximated by the "height" of the function (that is,== infinitely bad). Thus, the failure probability approaches zero (possible, but perhaps more than a little unrealistic) , but the consequences are unfathomable (and thus undefined - and people fear the unknown).

Better education of the great unwashed masses with respect to plant design, safeguards, and likely/possible consequences of failures that is done in ways farther from the aforementioned histrionics and hyperbole may make the Dirac function analogy wider (reality is probability of failure is small, but still > zero), and consequences of catastrophic failure are pretty bad, but perhaps not the end of life as we know it.), with the area of the remaining, now non-Dirac rectangle still == unity.

Well spoken. Fear is a hard thing to overcome and the unknown makes it seems even scarier.

[J.P.M.]

France had been the worlds largest Net Exporter of electricity, with about 75% produced from Nuclear & 15% from Hydro
Recently though, France had to import electricity from Great Britain
France has a goal to reduce electricity generated with Nuclear from 75%, down to 50%.
The plan is to install more Wind & Solar.
The power generation plants in France have one of lowest CO2 emissions per capita, in the world.
3,300 people die in car crashes every day, that is more than all nuclear power plant accidents combined ever.
Mining for coal and drilling for oil is not risk free.
Coal kills 4,000 people, for each 1 person killed by nuclear ( per watts produced )
So, which energy source is SAFER?

There ain't no free lunch.

If folks got truly educated and then intelligently informed themselves to the point where could think critically and make decisions that amounted to more than parroting the last thing they heard (no one seemingly reading much these days), they might perhaps come to see themselves, and their apathetic and mentally slothful ignorance as the source of a lot of their woes and also those of the planet such as those woes may exist. Added bennie from education: They my come to realize how much they're being B.S.'d by all sides.

Rant mode off for now.

[NorthRick]

Although the chance of a nuclear accident and the number of people killed is very low, the main problem is that large areas of land become uninhabitable for generations. If a bunch of miners are killed in a coal mine blast, people living in the region still get to stay home.

As for being the cheapest form of energy, ask Westinghouse and Toshiba how cheap it is.

[SunEagle]

Although the chance of a nuclear accident and the number of people killed is very low, the main problem is that large areas of land become uninhabitable for generations. If a bunch of miners are killed in a coal mine blast, people living in the region still get to stay home.

As for being the cheapest form of energy, ask Westinghouse and Toshiba how cheap it is.

The costs for power generation will continue to change based on any number of factors. What is cheap now may be expensive in 5 years and visa versa.

It wasn't that long ago that Natural gas was very expensive. Now with better ways of fracking the availability has increased and the costs have come down.

A great way to make sure you can keep the costs within reason would be to have multiple ways to generate power and not rely on one or two. Expecting that a current power source will stay cheap is akin to painting yourself into a corner. Best to have a window exit or another power source to bank on.

[NEOH]

Although the chance of a nuclear accident and the number of people killed is very low, the main problem is that large areas of land become uninhabitable for generations. If a bunch of miners are killed in a coal mine blast, people living in the region still get to stay home.

As for being the cheapest form of energy, ask Westinghouse and Toshiba how cheap it is.

So, a "bunch of dead miners" are insignificant compared to dirt?
Moving is not nearly as traumatic as losing your life.

[jflorey2]

Best I came up with is to look at their fears as having some of the characteristics sort of like those of a Dirac delta "function" with the probability of a plant failure seen from what they are told ( but probably don't believe) as approximating the "width" of the function (that is, == zero), and their fears of the consequences of a catastrophic failure approximated by the "height" of the function (that is,== infinitely bad). Thus, the failure probability approaches zero (possible, but perhaps more than a little unrealistic) , but the consequences are unfathomable (and thus undefined - and people fear the unknown).

I generally go with what's actually happened.

Nuclear has killed far fewer people than coal or natural gas, the two baseline alternatives we have now. Here in the US, commercial nuclear power has killed zero; hard to get better than that.

Is nuclear power dangerous? Absolutely. It's just less dangerous than the common alternatives.

[Sunking]

The ignorance here expressed by some is astounding. All nuke accidents you speak of are WWII designs using pressurized water cooling. Modern reactors are passively safe and pose no threat to the public. Today the number one threat to human life is Cell Phones and Pads, followed by alcohol and ganja. In the USA there are only 3 deaths from nuclear accidents in recorded history. 11 people will be killed today by a Cell Phone, 3 wil killed by alcohol, and 3 by ganja. Only 3 people killed in the USA in 70 years by nuclear. Those three deaths were not power generation related NEOH. Get educated.

[adoublee]

Politics aside, I tried to figure out a way to make sense of, and perhaps get some empathy for some - maybe a lot - of the folks who fear nuclear plant failure(s) (but who, I'd add, seem to continue to use the output of nuclear power plants unabated in what others see a rather hypocritical and profligate way), without the histrionics and hyperbole that does no one, or the debate, any good.

I turn away nuclear derived electrons that try to enter my electrical service. So no hypocrisy here.

The impacts of nuclear mistakes are not measured in lives only. Significant environmental and financial impacts as well.

And then there are the underlying gooberment subsidies that are not in the form of a tax credit or net metering.

[Sunking]

I turn away nuclear derived electrons that try to enter my electrical service. So no hypocrisy here..

That that is some funny stuff, I don't care who you are. That is just a plain stupid. Just as stupid as some signs in Las Wages Pools that state. NO PEE SECTION ONlY SIDE OF POOL.. At least most people realize that is a JOKE, but not you.

[adoublee]

Get educated.

The Ft. Calhoun nuclear station was built in 1966. Operation was mismanaged such that after flooding from the Missouri River and subsequent fire the Nuclear Regularly Commission did not allow operation for two years. Costly updates were made and operation was outsourced under contract by the utility in 2012 and a mere 4 years later the utility decided it is more economical to throw away the investments and terminate contract early with penalties. There is nowhere to send the spent fuel. Decommissioning will take 60 years at an "estimated cost" of $1.2 billion. Nobody has every gotten a nuclear cost estimate right yet, no matter how many PE's and accountants work on it. So costs will likely be much higher.

To big to fail nuclear should not be built on taxpayer's dime.

[J.P.M.]

I turn away nuclear derived electrons that try to enter my electrical service. So no hypocrisy here..

Hope you left out the comic sans serif script in error on that one.

[J.P.M.]

To big to fail nuclear should not be built on taxpayer's dime.

And in the opinion of some, neither should big oil, solar or most anything else not specifically legislated and voted on by the taxpayers. But, for better or worse, that's not the way the game seems to be run in the U.S. and probably never has been. So, for us in the U.S. of A, this conversation is mental masturbation.

[adoublee]

Hope you left out the comic sans serif script in error on that one.

You don't know how to selectively choose electrons? /sarcasm

[jflorey2]

The ignorance here expressed by some is astounding. All nuke accidents you speak of are WWII designs using pressurized water cooling. Modern reactors are passively safe and pose no threat to the public.

That's great! But we don't have any yet. Every operating nuclear reactor in the US is either a PWR or a BWR; those WWII designs you are talking about. The only "passively safe" GenIII reactors (all AP1000's) we have are under construction but are at least three years behind in construction, and have at least a year to go before they produce any power. And since the Westinghouse division that designed and sold the AP1000's is now bankrupt there is some question as to whether they will ever operate.

And BTW all the "WWII" designs we have operating are not PWR; about half are BWR. The PWR is safer in theory due to its additional isolation from the outside environment, but the one big US accident involved a PWR.

IF we get the AP1000 up and running - and it develops a track record, and we can build more of them - then that's a good solution. Unfortunately that's getting less and less likely.

Today the number one threat to human life is Cell Phones and Pads, followed by alcohol and ganja. In the USA there are only 3 deaths from nuclear accidents in recorded history. 11 people will be killed today by a Cell Phone, 3 wil killed by alcohol, and 3 by ganja. Only 3 people killed in the USA in 70 years by nuclear. Those three deaths were not power generation related NEOH. Get educated.

That's the argument I generally use. Compare those 3 people killed by nuclear accidents (none of which involved commercial nuclear power) with the 7500 people killed by coal power plant fine-particulate pollution every year.