Skip to main content

View Diary: Researchers: Sea levels rising 60% faster than previously expected (142 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not to worry. At least no one will do... (3+ / 0-)

    ...anything, um, "dangerous," like um, build a "dangerous" nuclear pressurized water reactor, since I was very, very, very, very, very, very, very startled to hear here:

    What I have said all along is that the use of pressurized reactors, including new versions of these machines, is too dangerous to continue for both safety and terrorism reasons, too expensive to build and too slow to implement.
    Now if one hadn't suddenly discovered the primary scientific literature in the last twenty four hours one might find the above statement to be a little, um - how shall we say? - "disingenuous" maybe given that in their more than half a century of operation, pressurized reactors killed almost no one, while air pollution killed in the same period, something like 150 million people give or take 30 or 40 million.

    But, um, pressurized water reactors are, um, dangerous...

    More dangerous one would suppose than submerging Bangladesh and it's two hundred million people, one supposes.

    Tell me again about that huge dangerous death toll accumulated in the more than 5 decades of pressurized water reactor operations, so I can see why so many people who have never bothered to open a science book or journal fought so hard and so long against the world's largest, by far, source of scalable climate change gas free primary energy, nuclear energy.

    Oh that's right, because nuclear energy is too slow to build, even if France phased out it's coal based power in less than 15 years, even though the United States once built 100 nuclear reactors in less than 20 years, and even though around the world in the last three years, 5 countries brought 14 new nuclear reactors on line which will easily out produce the miserable 3,500 MW of average continuous power in more than six decades of caterwauling, money sucking, and wishful thinking on the part of our "solar will save us" partisans here.

    What has already happened is, um, clearly impossible, don't you say?

    What you have said...

    What you have said...

    I believe you also once told us that you hoped to live to 104 so that you could be there for that 2050 solar and wind nirvana that we've been hearing about for five or six decades.

    As for myself, I'll surely be dead by 2050 - not that I have been a big partisan for dumping the irresponsibility and wishful thinking that characterized my generation on a future, possibly grotesquely impoverished generations - I'll be dead along with all the usual hundreds of millions of people killed by then by air pollution and it's new brother, climate change.

    I did live through 1976 and 2000, the first referenced year being the year that the anti-nuke dunderhead Amory Lovinstold usall that we'd all be living in a nirvana "by 2000," the second referenced year, where we'd be getting 18 quads of solar energy to use with the 54 quads we Americans would be burning before conservation.

    That shithead Lovins, thinks that all of humanity is so stupid that he can post a reference to that idiotic claptrap on his website, where he also tells us of his wonderful efforts to "consult" for BP, and Conoco, and the Suncor tar sands people, and Royal Dutch Shell...

    But he's a hero, unlike people like, um, Glenn Seaborg, who is responsible for this country's soon to be destroyed nuclear infrastructure was a piddling moron who couldn't tell - not like a journalist - what is and is not dangerous.

    What you have said...

    What you have said...

    You have said all along that one of the most important scientists of the twentieth century was some kind of venal idiot because he took time from his enormously important scientific work to serve in his government so that more than 100 nuclear reactors could be built in this country in less than two decades - reactors that save billion ton quantities of coal from being mined, burned and having their wastes strewed and spewed into the atmosphere, reactors that operated all over the place for decades without causing a single loss of life.

    What you have said all along...

    What you have said, if you want my translation - and surely you don't - is that climate change was less dangerous than nuclear reactors.

    Congratulations.    We don't have many more nuclear reactors in this country than those that Seaborg caused to be built.

    You know, it's a little late to start opening science journals, and if you took the time to read a lot of them, constantly, regularly, like some people who have written here, you would find that it's too late to suddenly start being educated about environmental science.

    It's too fucking little, too fucking late.

    The time for action was twenty or thirty years ago, when people like the great nuclear scientist/engineer Alvin Weinberg was warning as loudly as he could what climate change would do, only to be ignored and pooh...poohed.

    Thanks for the lesson too on terrorism.    Just for the record, in the 50 year history of pressurized water nuclear reactors, how many nuclear terrorism incidents, have been observed?     How many oil related terrorism events have been observed.    What was that flaming stuff dripping down the side of the World Trade Center towers before they collapsed, oil or uranium?    Who were the terrorists?   Guys from uranium mining countries or oil mining countries?   How come you never tell us that oil is too dangerous to use because of terrorism?    Is it because your imagination is more important than reality?

    Quitcherbellyaching.

    It's done.  It's over.

    Heckuva job.   Congratulations.    Drinks for everyone, assuming we can find the glacial run off to fill the glasses.

    Have a nice day tomorrow.

    •  FTR, in the 75-year history of passenger planes... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      indycam, Calamity Jean

      ...nobody had used them in terror attacks on those NY skyscrapers either. Just because a nuclear power plant has not been attacked by terrorists doesn't mean none ever will be. Proliferation of nuclear reactors in the numbers needed means politically unstable nations will have them. Indeed, if the shah had survived in power five more years before the revolution had installed the Islamic fundamentalists in power, they would have had a dozen nuclear reactors in operation courtesy of U.S., French and German companies.

      As for speed, a French-German partnership that was supposed to have the fourth-generation EPR on line in Finland by 2007 has several times subsequently postponed firing it up. The latest recent date for doing so was to have been 2014. This summer, they said they couldn't meet that deadline and did not set a new time for when they can. Currently,  the cost overruns on that plant have more than doubled its original price of €3 billion to €6.6 billion.

      Amory Lovins is neither saint nor prophet, but it was the oil-coal-nuke industries that predicted in 1976 that the U.S. would need 135 quads of BTUs of energy would be needed by 2000 and Lovins who predicted it would only take 100 if conservation and efficiency measures were implemented. As it turned out, Lovins overestimated. In 2010, total usage U.S. usage was 98 quads. Lovins wasn't right about solar by a long shot, but a good portion of that error can be attributed at least theoretically to budget cuts in basic solar research and little money until recently put into commercialization. His was hardly the only misstep. In 1980, Exxon predicted that 2000, western Colorado would be producing 8 million barrels of oil a day from kerogen shale. It is currently producing zero although a test site by Shell has in 15 years produced 1,700 barrels.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:29:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site