Japan on gas, coal power building spree to fill nuclear void

[PamW]

9. Sure, sure...

kristopher,

Sure!

One replaces an essentially zero GHG emission technology like nuclear; and substitute a mix of essentially zero GHG emission renewables, PLUS high GHG emission fossil fuel generation; and that will work better than the original essentially zero GHG emission nuclear techology.

I.e 0 > 0 + 1

Zero GHG nuclear is worse than Zero GHG renewables + high GHG fossil.

Some environmentalists believe that GHG emissions are OK as long as they prevent one from building / operating zero GHG nuclear.

You know, you get more radioactive pollution from the coal plants than you do from nuclear plants. Courtesy of scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory:

http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Former ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco made this point in their article "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine. They concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations. This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article.
...
Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.

I really do wonder what the bias against nuclear is all about.

PamW