maybe so but what about the former regulators open letter?
have another:
As concerns grow about climate change, the global debate over nuclear power’s role in reducing greenhouse gases intensifies. The latest volley came ...
www.toledoblade.com
lol . .local.
Goes to paywall immediately.
There is no debate over the cleanliness of nuclear, by the way. The only greenhouse gas involved are in the fuel supply and construction. It's minimal for both especially when given in the context of emissions versus Twh of production.
whatever. got a perry right in my backyard, been a money pit since built and the electric company has been trying to sell that white elephant for decades.
No idea what a "perry" is.
actually they do know. zero is best.
Unrealistic on Earth:
» Types of Radiation | Radiation Dose | Radiation Protection | At What Level is Radiation Harmful? | Risks and Benefits Radioactivity is a part of our earth - it has existed all along. Naturally occurring radioactive materials are present in its crust, the floors and walls of our homes, schools...
www.iaea.org
the effects of radiation can and does take years to be symptomatic
k1project.columbia.edu
it's ridiculous to draw conclusions so soon.
Not. Really. There are radiation burns and there is
acute radiation syndrome. Outside of that, radiation is just a treatable risk factor like any other. For example, it's pretty rare to attribute lung cancer to radon exposure but radon exposure is a risk factor for getting lung cancer...but so is smoking, asbestos inhalation, and dozens of other chemicals. It's nigh impossible to attribute cancer to a specific cause unless there was a direct connection between a known exposure (like industrial accident) and the death. This is exactly the case with those that died at Chernobyl and FDNPP.
The red forest has evidence of mutated plant life in the parts that survived, but generally, that's not what you fear. In complex organisms, you fear cancer later in life or worst case, immediate threat of radiation poisoning. Most of the time your offspring won't be your big worry.
Larger scale, it probably does cause an increase in mutations, but you'd never be able to track it. That's just kinda what radiation does to DNA so it's a good guess.
*cough* "Fear." *cough*
It seems you're driven by fear.
You know what I fear? Not having heat in the winter (have an electric furnace/heat pump), not be able to afford to run my computer (if electricity becomes scarce, the price rises and the computers will go before the heat), not being able to cook meat (electric range). You know...reasonable things.
I've been radiated enough by X-rays and CT scanners to know not to fear radiation. I think about it but I do no
fear it. Fear is mostly born of ignorance, and I am not ignorant.
Let's have some fun facts:
1) The going cost of new nuclear installations is approximately $10 billion per GW (see Vogtle).
2) Average capacity factor of nuclear is
92% (name plate energy generation is happening 92% of the time in a year).
3) 1 GW at 92% capacity factory = 8.06472 TWh annually
4) USA needs
4 PWh annually
5) USA is currently producing approximately 780 TWh of nuclear power (20%).
6) USA could reasonably raise that to 50% which would mean adding roughly 1,220 TWh of nuclear to the grid or 151.276 GW (see #3).
7) Combine the data in #1 and #6, it would cost roughly $1.5 trillion dollars. Since these reactors have a 60 year life span, that's only a $25 billion dollar investment per year of operation.
Seems like a really good deal to me. These power plants create very well-paid, long-lasting jobs which translates into an infusion of billions of dollars into the local economy and eliminating from the environment of the numerous pollutants spawned from natural gas and coal.
If you want to go beyond 50%, you're going to need reactors like liquid sodium that can respond to the daily ebbs and flows. The price for these reactors is largely unknown at this point.
