Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (Mojave: food, estimate, land)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

Well the point is really that nobody has died. A lot more people die from carbon emissions

Hahahaha …
Actually, people have died… dozens and dozens more … why don’t you look things up before you make claims? It’s easy enough to find.

Certainly a lot of people die from carbon emissions. But this exchange is about your statement supporting nuclear power. I merely pointed out that anti-nuclear environmentalists ARE aware nuclear has no carbon emissions … but that they are also aware of the great other latent dangers of nuclear power … including that there are no long term storage solutions … just kick the can burials that can (and do) leak.

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are examples of the loooooooooong term devastation to huuuuuuuuge areas and resources that can occur.

Me personally? I hate ALL forms of power generation. Yeah: ALL. No, I’m not kidding.

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Hahahaha …
Actually, people have died… dozens and dozens more … why don’t you look things up before you make claims? It’s easy enough to find.

Certainly a lot of people die from carbon emissions. But this exchange is about your statement supporting nuclear power. I merely pointed out that anti-nuclear environmentalists ARE aware nuclear has no carbon emissions … but that they are also aware of the great other latent dangers of nuclear power … including that there are no long term storage solutions … just kick the can burials that can (and do) leak.

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are examples of the loooooooooong term devastation to huuuuuuuuge areas and resources that can occur.

Me personally? I hate ALL forms of power generation. Yeah: ALL. No, I’m not kidding.

Dozens? Sounds pretty safe then

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

Dozens? Sounds pretty safe then

You appear to not have the slightest awareness of the history and potential of nuclear accidents. Nor about the challenges of nuclear waste storage. You’ve made factually wrong statements as if they are factually right, demonstrating your lack of informational depth on this particular issue. Thus your summarizing conclusion that “it sounds pretty safe then” carries no weight. However well informed you may be on any other topics, you are simply grossly uninformed here.

[Tulemutt]

Here’s one example of how “pretty safe then” nuclear power is when it goes wrong:

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/chernobyl/faqs

It’s not the only example. Look up the recent Fukushima disaster and others.

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Here’s one example of how “pretty safe then” nuclear power is when it goes wrong:

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/chernobyl/faqs

It’s not the only example. Look up the recent Fukushima disaster and others.

These are pretty much the worst in history and the deaths weren't very high

[Finper]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Hahahaha …
Actually, people have died… dozens and dozens more … why don’t you look things up before you make claims? It’s easy enough to find.

Certainly a lot of people die from carbon emissions. But this exchange is about your statement supporting nuclear power. I merely pointed out that anti-nuclear environmentalists ARE aware nuclear has no carbon emissions … but that they are also aware of the great other latent dangers of nuclear power … including that there are no long term storage solutions … just kick the can burials that can (and do) leak.

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are examples of the loooooooooong term devastation to huuuuuuuuge areas and resources that can occur.

Me personally? I hate ALL forms of power generation. Yeah: ALL. No, I’m not kidding.

I have no doubt your not kidding. Did you write that using a lantern for light?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

These are pretty much the worst in history and the deaths weren't very high

Your earlier post asked if environmentalists weren’t aware that nuclear power is free from carbon emissions. I have pointed out that environmentalists’ concerns relate to the extremely disastrous potential of nuclear. While you may feel the long term devastation of thousands of square miles of area, wiping out livability of towns of tens of thousands of people, toxifying of rivers and streams and indeed the entire earth’s atmosphere are acceptable risks … many environmentalists disagree. That is the answer to your question: yes they understand. You apparently can’t quite wrap your head around what environmentalists’ concerns are. Okay. Asked. And answered. Get it?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Finper

I have no doubt your not kidding. Did you write that using a lantern for light?

Hahaha. Actually, I’m using nothing but daylight at the moment.

But, to the larger point, one doesn’t have to like many things that one is forced by circumstances to use. Civilization is what it is. I am not a hermit.

That said, do I think the way we consume power is a good thing? Nope.

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Your earlier post asked if environmentalists weren’t aware that nuclear power is free from carbon emissions. I have pointed out that environmentalists’ concerns relate to the extremely disastrous potential of nuclear. While you may feel the long term devastation of thousands of square miles of area, wiping out livability of towns of tens of thousands of people, toxifying of rivers and streams and indeed the entire earth’s atmosphere are acceptable risks … many environmentalists disagree. That is the answer to your question: yes they understand. You apparently can’t quite wrap your head around what environmentalists’ concerns are. Okay. Asked. And answered. Get it?

Except it's not extremely disastrous. The amount of space needed to for a nuclear plant is tiny compared to utility scale wind and solar

In fact retiring nuclear is more disastrous.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

Except it's not extremely disastrous. The amount of space needed to for a nuclear plant is tiny compared to utility scale wind and solar

In fact retiring nuclear is more disastrous.

Well now you are arguing your point of view, which is shared by many proponents of nuclear. Feel free, of course. You think the risks are worth the product.

But where this exchange between us started, you asked a question … which I answered.
Then you made a few erroneous and unsupportable statements … to which I responded with supported corrections.

Environmentalists disagree with your POV. They’re not crazy. Their fears are shared by the IAEA and very much also by the nuclear industry and engineers … the *potential* for disasters is extraordinary… which is why the industry is so deeply regulated and carefully designed. The experts believe they can control the beast, in spite of examples of failures and in spite of there being *no long-term solution to storage* other than to keep adding to the buried stockpile and cleaning up leaks.

You feel it’s as simple an issue as ‘the risks are worth the product.’ … the consequences of the failures are acceptable in your mind. They’re not in the minds of environmentalists. That doesn’t make environmentalists ignorant, or stupid.



As to “retiring nuclear is more disastrous” … um, how so?