Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
27. You really don't see what you say, do you?
Sun Oct 20, 2013, 06:31 PM
Oct 2013

You wrote,

"The frequency of accidents speaks for itself. In terms of large scale accidents with offsite consequences in commercial nuclear power plants worldwide for the past 50+ years; we've had three; Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima."


Even after we apply the long list of qualifying modifiers you've used to trim a lot of relevant data from your sample we are still left with the fact that you are at least aware of the fact that reactor failures "with offsite consequences" are occurring about every 15 years with the present number of approx 400 reactors in the global fleet.

One meltdown event roughly every 15 years for a technology that could have required evacuation of the Kanto Plain, home to 40 million people and the financial/economic heart of Japan ... if the Wind had been out of the NE.

The Wind was out of the West and you think that makes it all honky dory.

Perhaps now is a good time to tell us again that you are "a scientist".







Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

winning! phantom power Oct 2013 #1
No worries, eh? pscot Oct 2013 #2
Japan seems to have had no short term options except to jump from the frying pan into the fire. nt GliderGuider Oct 2013 #3
There was at least one much better option phantom power Oct 2013 #4
The domain of "short term options" is defined by political as well as technical feasability. nt GliderGuider Oct 2013 #5
Nuclear isn't at all compatible with renewables. kristopher Oct 2013 #8
So, the solution is...more coal-fired plants? NickB79 Oct 2013 #11
Interesting article from the Grauniad, thanks! GliderGuider Oct 2013 #12
You can build coal plants optimized to support variable generation. kristopher Oct 2013 #13
Where the economics clash, the plants shut down NickB79 Oct 2013 #14
"Where the economics clash, the plants shut down" is not a given. kristopher Oct 2013 #15
Its not so much radiation that people are terrified of madokie Oct 2013 #17
We frack here dbackjon Oct 2013 #6
Great example of why spending on nuclear is counterproductive to fighting GHG emissions kristopher Oct 2013 #7
Sure, sure... PamW Oct 2013 #9
That is pretty simplistic thinking that ignores many dimensions of the issue kristopher Oct 2013 #10
You know and I know that doesn't matter to this poster who you are replying too madokie Oct 2013 #18
I don't know about you.. PamW Oct 2013 #20
Pam you can be anyone or anything you want to be, I don't really care madokie Oct 2013 #21
I never understand... PamW Oct 2013 #23
Its the way you present madokie Oct 2013 #25
If you think I've made a scientific error - Please point it out... PamW Oct 2013 #28
Scientifically WRONG!!! again PamW Oct 2013 #19
There you go again madokie Oct 2013 #22
The animals are doing fine.. PamW Oct 2013 #24
The animals aren't doing fine, thats bullshit madokie Oct 2013 #26
The reason is that animals are thriving... PamW Oct 2013 #29
Mainly because animals have short lifespans NickB79 Oct 2013 #31
You really don't see what you say, do you? kristopher Oct 2013 #27
BAD nonscientific assumption being made. PamW Oct 2013 #30
No DrGreg, I didn't make a bad assumption. kristopher Oct 2013 #32
Lets talk about this a little bit madokie Oct 2013 #16
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Japan on gas, coal power ...»Reply #27