Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (Mojave: dangerous, safer, manufactured)

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

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?

I don't


I don't think they're crazy. I think they just want their home values to go up and they want to depopulate the state

[Tulemutt]

“ Carbon is an essential element for all life forms on Earth. Whether these life forms take in carbon to help manufacture food or release carbon as part of respiration, the intake and output of carbon is a component of all plant and animal life”

What’s bad about carbon emissions is when volume exceeds natural environmental balance. Carbon itself is component of life and healthy process.

Nuclear radiation is not similarly a life element. Playing with it is playing with fire.

Finding ways to produce energy with the least disruptive addition of carbon emissions is the name of the game now. Are the risks of nuclear production less than other forms of energy production such as solar, wind, waves, hydrogen, et al? Argue away. But no one is crazy for questioning risks.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

I don't


I don't think they're crazy. I think they just want their home values to go up

Not following you here. You think the environmentalists are concerned about their home values? Where? Around Diablo? Which doesn’t account for the arguments against nuclear around the nation and world.

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

“ Carbon is an essential element for all life forms on Earth. Whether these life forms take in carbon to help manufacture food or release carbon as part of respiration, the intake and output of carbon is a component of all plant and animal life”

What’s bad about carbon emissions is when volume exceeds natural environmental balance. Carbon itself is component of life and healthy process.

Nuclear radiation is not similarly a life element. Playing with it is playing with fire.

Finding ways to produce energy with the least disruptive addition of carbon emissions is the name of the game now. Are the risks of nuclear production less than other forms of energy production such as solar, wind, waves, hydrogen, et al? Argue away. But no one is crazy for questioning risks.

Yes the risks for nuclear are lower. Wind and solar take a lot of land and kill animals.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

Do the "friends" of the earth realize nuclear power plants have no carbon emissions?

There's nuke waste, though.

[Ruth4Truth]

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.

haha "nobody's died" from nuclear energy. Good Lord!

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

Yes the risks for nuclear are lower. Wind and solar take a lot of land and kill animals.

Now you’re just being silly.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

Yes the risks for nuclear are lower. Wind and solar take a lot of land and kill animals.

What animals have solar arrays killed? Have you seen some of the land they "take up"? Take a spin through the Mojave Desert and other SW desert locales. Solar energy development is making the desert productive.

[Thekdog]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

What animals have solar arrays killed? Have you seen some of the land they "take up"? Take a spin through the Mojave Desert and other SW desert locales. Solar energy development is making the desert productive.

Scientists estimate between 37,800 and 138,600 birds die in the U.S. from all forms of solar energy production annually.

Sure it's productive. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying nuclear is better

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Thekdog

Scientists estimate between 37,800 and 138,600 birds die in the U.S. from all forms of solar energy production annually.

Sure it's productive. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying nuclear is better

Nuclear is scary. The sooner scientists are able to develop a workable nuclear fusion technology, the better. Not all nuke is bad, but nuke as we know it is problematic. Especially when built in seismically active areas. Or war-prone areas, not to mention any such areas specifically....