Nuclear Musings

Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger

75px-AbombOperationSandstoneApril1948It has always seemed to me that the use of nuclear energy is a bad idea given the current technology. My opinion is perhaps formed because I was in school during the 1950’s and due to the “Cold War” and the bomb tests, there developed in most of us, a deep fear of nuclear annihilation. I can remember watching in fascinated fear, in 1952, as they exploded a Hydrogen Bomb at Eniwetok, one of the Marshall Islands. The blast was covered on TV as I guess a reassurance to the American People of the power and might of our government and to give us a feeling of safety from those “Commies” in the USSR. Being eight years old at the time this demonstration of US power was not comforting in the slightest. We had “duck and cover” exercises in Elementary School, where we would go under our desks and cover our eyes in case of a nuclear attack. Given the actual nuclear explosions I had witnessed on TV, the idea that “duck and cover” would save me cast a skeptical suspicion in my eight year old mind.

120px-Atombombentest_Greenhouse-GeorgeAs I grew I learned that beyond the immediate effect of a nuclear blast, the subsequent radiation was even more dangerous. Radiation poisoning could maim you and it could kill you in a slow, lingering death. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings did more than just kill many people. Beyond the maiming of the immediate victims who survived, we learned about the rates of cancer which were off the charts, especially in the infants of pregnant women. As the threat of nuclear destruction faded, the idea of radiation poisoning was nevertheless present as the United States began using nuclear power and a large industry sprang up around it. The industry was fostered by the then named Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which was soon in thrall of the industry it was supposed to regulate. As with cigarette smoking the stories of rising cancer rates were downplayed by the AEC and the “nuclear industry. The AEC has now become the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) because the AEC had developed the reputation as an industry shill, rather than regulator. This is hardly a surprise because it seems that all government regulation today is in the hands of industry lobbyists and an exchange program where the regulators find jobs with the industry they regulate. The “revolving door”.This Wiki article on nuclear power is rather even handed in its approach, but will supply you with all the background you might need on nuclear power plants: One item from it sets up my thoughts for today:

“In many countries, plants are often located on the coast, in order to provide a ready source of cooling water for the essential service water system. As a consequence the design needs to take the risk of flooding and tsunamis into account. The World Energy Council (WEC) argues disaster risks are changing and increasing the likelihood of disasters such as earthquakes, cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons, flooding.[29] High temperatures, low precipitation levels and severe droughts may lead to fresh water shortages.[29] Seawater is corrosive and so nuclear energy supply is likely to be negatively affected by the fresh water shortage.[29] This generic problem may become increasingly significant over time.[29] Failure to calculate the risk of flooding correctly lead to a Level 2 event on the International Nuclear Event Scale during the 1999 Blayais Nuclear Power Plant flood,[30] while flooding caused by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami lead to the Fukushima I nuclear accidents.[31]

The design of plants located in seismically active zones also requires the risk of earthquakes and tsunamis to be taken into account. Japan, India, China and the USA are among the countries to have plants in earthquake-prone regions. Damage caused to Japan’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant during the 2007 Chūetsu offshore earthquake[32][33] underlined concerns expressed by experts in Japan prior to the Fukushima accidents, who have warned of a genpatsu-shinsai (domino-effect nuclear power plant earthquake disaster).[34]

In this time of global warning worries, with the distinct signs of a rising sea level, nevertheless the economics are such that the optimal way to build nuclear plants is by large bodies of water, preferably the ocean. Which brings me to the disaster at the Fukishima Nuclear Plant in Japan:

“The Fukushima nuclear disaster illustrated the dangers of building multiple nuclear reactor units close to one another. This proximity triggered the parallel, chain-reaction accidents that led to hydrogen explosions damaging reactor buildings and water draining from open-air spent fuel pools — a situation that was potentially more dangerous than the loss of reactor cooling itself. Because of the closeness of the reactors, Plant Director Masao Yoshida “was put in the position of trying to cope simultaneously with core meltdowns at three reactors and exposed fuel pools at three units”.

Some more about Fukushima:

“The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster  Fukushima Dai-ichi was an energy accident at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, initiated primarily by the tsunami of the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on 11 March 2011.[5] The damage caused by the tsunami produced equipment failures, and without this equipment a Loss of Coolant Accident followed with nuclear meltdowns and releases of radioactive materials beginning on March 12.[6] It is the largest nuclear disaster” since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 and the second disaster (along with Chernobyl) to measure Level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale,[7] releasing an estimated 10 to 30% of the radiation of the Chernobyl accident.

A September 1, 2013 story from the BBC related that the radiation levels around the Fukushima Nuclear Plant are now 18 times higher than was initially thought.

“The Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) had originally said the radiation emitted by the leaking water was around 100 millisieverts an hour. However, the company said the equipment used to make that recording could only read measurements of up to 100 millisieverts. The new recording, using a more sensitive device, showed a level of 1,800 millisieverts an hour.The new reading will have direct implications for radiation doses received by workers who spent several days trying to stop the leak last week, the BBC’s Rupert Wingfield-Hayes reports from Tokyo.

In addition, Tepco says it has discovered a leak on another pipe emitting radiation levels of 230 millisieverts an hour. The plant has seen a series of water leaks and power failures. The 2011 tsunami knocked out cooling systems to the reactors, three of which melted down. The damage from the tsunami has necessitated the constant pumping of water to cool the reactors. This is believed to be the fourth major leak from storage tanks at Fukushima since 2011 and the worst so far in terms of volume.”

It doesn’t surprise me that these new revelations have come out re-estimating the radiation levels at Fukishima. I am in the camp one could describe as skeptical and/or hostile to the nuclear industry. However, I’ve supplied enough information in the various links above and below for people to come to a different conclusion. Indeed, I realize that nuclear power has many beneficial pluses to it use. My specific worries can be classified as its danger to the surrounding community, the long lasting after effects of nuclear radiation and the fact that industry invariably co-opts its regulators. When these factors are put together with the business imperative, which must always be to continually raise profitability, I worry.

“Nuclear power plants are some of the most sophisticated and complex energy systems ever designed.[13] Any complex system, no matter how well it is designed and engineered, cannot be deemed failure-proof.[14] Veteran anti-nuclear activist and author Stephanie Cooke has argued:

The reactors themselves were enormously complex machines with an incalculable number of things that could go wrong. When that happened at Three Mile Island in 1979, another fault line in the nuclear world was exposed. One malfunction led to another, and then to a series of others, until the core of the reactor itself began to melt, and even the world’s most highly trained nuclear engineers did not know how to respond. The accident revealed serious deficiencies in a system that was meant to protect public health and safety.[15]

The 1979 Three Mile Island accident inspired Perrow’s book Normal Accidents, where a nuclear accident occurs, resulting from an unanticipated interaction of multiple failures in a complex system. TMI was an example of a normal accident because it was “unexpected, incomprehensible, uncontrollable and unavoidable”.[16]

Perrow concluded that the failure at Three Mile Island was a consequence of the system’s immense complexity. Such modern high-risk systems, he realized, were prone to failures however well they were managed. It was inevitable that they would eventually suffer what he termed a ‘normal accident’. Therefore, he suggested, we might do better to contemplate a radical redesign, or if that was not possible, to abandon such technology entirely.[17] .

A fundamental issue contributing to a nuclear power system’s complexity is its extremely long lifetime. The timeframe from the start of construction of a commercial nuclear power station through the safe disposal of its last radioactive waste, may be 100 to 150 years.[13]

We live in an age where the “Captains of Industry” believe that efficient management is one that lays off workers, cuts wages and looks to cost savings of all kinds in order to increase profitability. Why would we expect that the nuclear industry is immune to the management fashion of the day? These plants are admittedly among the most complex power delivering entities on the planet. There have been innumerable accidents, with disastrous consequences, that have occurred through the years some of which are referenced in the links I’ve supplied. My position is that I could be open to the idea of using nuclear energy for power, providing that I could be certain that safeguards exist. I don’t believe they currently do exist, despite reassurances from the industry and the NRC. Currently, my two children, my grandchildren and my beloved mother-in-law live in close proximity to a nuclear power plant, Indian Point, in New York. A little history of this plant impacts my concerns for their safety:

“According to the New York Times, the Indian Point plant “has encountered a string of accidents and mishaps since its beginnings, and has appeared on the federal list of the nation’s worst nuclear power plants”.[10] A 2003 report commissioned by then Governor George Pataki concluded that the “current radiological response system and capabilities are not adequate to…protect the people from an unacceptable dose of radiation in the event of a release from Indian Point”.[11] On March 10, 2009 the Indian Point Power Plant was awarded the fifth consecutive top safety rating for annual operations by the Federal regulators. According to the Hudson Valley Journal News, the plant had shown substantial improvement in its “safety culture” in the previous two years.[12]

This is a history of the nuclear incidents at Indian Point, on the important Hudson River, thus far:

  • In 1973, five months after Indian Point 2 opened, the plant was shut down when engineers discovered buckling in the steel liner of the concrete dome in which the nuclear reactor is housed.[10]
  • On October 17, 1980,[13] 100,000 gallons of Hudson River water leaked into the Indian Point 2 containment building from the fan cooling unit, undetected by a safety device designed to detect hot water. The flooding, covering the first 9 feet of the reactor vessel, was discovered when technicians entered the building. Two pumps which should have removed the water were found to be inoperative. NRC proposed a $2,100,000 fine for the incident.[14]
  • There was intense scrutiny of the Indian Point plant between 1993 and 1997, when it was on the Federal list of the nation’s worst nuclear power plants.[15]
  • In February 2000, the most serious incident at the plant occurred, when a small radioactive leak from a steam generator tube forced the plant to close for 11 months.[10]
  • In 2001, a series of leaks sprung up in non-nuclear parts of the plant.[10]
  • In 2005, Entergy workers while digging discovered a small leak in a spent fuel pool. Water containing tritium and strontium-90 was leaking through a crack in the pool building “and then finding its way into the nearby Hudson River.” Workers were able to keep the fuel rods “safely covered” despite the leak.[16] On March 22, 2006 The New York Times also reported finding radioactive nickel-63 and strontium in groundwater on site.[17]
  • In 2007 a transformer at Unit 3 caught fire, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission raised its level of inspections, because the plant had experienced many unplanned shutdowns. According to The New York Times, Indian Point “has a history of transformer problems”.[4]
  • On April 23, 2007, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission fined the owner of the Indian Point nuclear plant $130,000 for failing to meet a deadline for a new emergency siren plan. The 150 sirens at the plant are meant to alert residents within 10 miles to a plant emergency. Since 2008, a Rockland County based private company has taken over responsibility for the infrastructure used to trigger and maintain the ATI siren system. The sirens, once plagued with failures, have functioned nearly flawlessly ever since.[18]
  • On January 7, 2010, NRC inspectors reported that an estimated 600,000 gallons of mildly radioactive steam was intentionally vented to the atmosphere after an automatic shutdown of Unit 2. After the vent, one of the vent valves unintentionally remained slightly open for two days. The levels of tritium in the steam were within the allowable safety limits defined in NRC standards.[19]
  • On November 7, 2010, an explosion occurred in the main transformer for Indian Point 2, spilling oil into the Hudson River.[20] The owner of the Indian Point nuclear plant later agreed to pay a $1.2 million penalty for the transformer explosion.[4]
  • In the middle of February [2013], employee error caused an accidental shutdown of Reactor Two. This incident released no radiation.

Now these incidents have occurred at a nuclear plant that has a “relatively safe” history, but from my perspective it remains a potential threat to those I love.  There are also some who say that nuclear plants contaminate the surrounding area and raise cancer risks. This has devolved in a “he said, she said” argument between environmentalists and the industry, with the NRC siding with industry. There is another Indian Point safety issue to be mulled:

“Indian Point stores used fuel rods in two spent fuel pools at the facility.[16] According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Indian Point spent fuel pools, which contain more nuclear material than the reactors, “have no containment structure”.[28] While the spent fuel pools at Indian Point are not stored under a containment dome like the reactor, they are contained within a 40-foot-deep pool and submerged under 27 feet of water. The spent fuel pools at Indian Point are made of concrete walls that are four to six feet wide with a half-inch thick stainless steel inner liner.[29][30] According to Jonathan Alter, the pools are located in bedrock, not above-ground as at many other plants including the Japanese ones.[31]

And then:

“In 2008 researchers from Columbia University‘s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory have located a previously unknown active seismic zone running from Stamford, Connecticut, to the Hudson Valley town of Peekskill, New York – the intersection of the Stamford-Peekskill line with the well known Ramapo Fault – which passes less than a mile north of the Indian Point nuclear power plant.[35] The Ramapo Fault is the longest fault in the Northeast, but scientists dispute how active this roughly 200 million-year-old fault really is. Many earthquakes in the state’s surprisingly varied seismic history are believed to have occurred on or near it. Visible at ground level, the fault line likely extends as deep as nine miles below the surface.[36]

Indian Point was built to withstand an earthquake of 6.1 on the Richter scale, according to a company spokesman.[37] Entergy executives have also noted “that Indian Point had been designed to withstand an earthquake much stronger than any on record in the region, though not one as powerful as the quake that rocked Japan”.[38]

So in the end “you pays your money and you takes your choice”, as the old canard goes. My choice is that nuclear power comes at too great a potential cost to be relied on as the power source of the future, given current technology. There are semi valid arguments that it doesn’t pollute the atmosphere and that it helps keep energy costs down. The fact is, that all things considered, these plants are quite costly to build and maintain. The plants are expected to last 100 to 150 years because of both initial cost and the need to clean up the nuclear waste produced. The question also comes about as to the cost both financial an physical of the disposal of nuclear waste.   I concede that neither do I have a scientific bent, nor am I an expert. I further concede that there are points to be made that favor nuclear energy used as a power source. Nevertheless, in my opinion the downside exceeds the benefits. Where do you stand?

Submitted By: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger

88 thoughts on “Nuclear Musings”

  1. Yea, TED Talks! remove the [ ^ ]

    Better, safer nuclear



    Nuclear is green


    Population growth (and thus energy needs) might flatline at 10 billion



  2. Looking through some files I haven;t seen you of my old post yet, but this one is very close to what I’ve been wriiting fot sometimes now.

    lol, At least this prolly has less typos then one of mine.


    Nuclear might begin to address global carbon emissions if a reactor is built somewhere in the world every two weeks. But this is an economically unrealistic, in fact impossible, proposition, with the estimated construction tab beginning at $12 billion apiece and current new reactors under construction already falling years behind schedule.

    According to a 2003 MIT study, “The Future of Nuclear Power,” such an unprecedented industrial ramping up would also mean opening a new Yucca Mountain?size nuclear waste dump somewhere in the world “every three to four years,” a task still unaccomplished even once in the 70 years of the industry’s existence. Further, such a massive scale expansion of nuclear energy would fuel proliferation risks and multiply anxieties about nuclear weapons development, exemplified by the current concern over Iran. As Al Gore stated while Vice President: “For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program.”

    Many experts also say that the “energy return on investment” from nuclear power is lower than many other forms of energy. In other words, non-nuclear energy sources produce more energy for a given input.

    David Swanson summarizes one of the key findings of the International Forum on Globalization report:

    The energy put into mining, processing, and shipping uranium, plant construction, operation, and decommissioning is roughly equal to the energy a nuclear plant can produce in its lifetime. In other words, nuclear energy does not add any net energy.

    Not counted in that calculation is the energy needed to store nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years.

    Also not counted is any mitigation of the relatively routine damage done to the environment, including human health, at each stage of the process.


  3. lotta, I know fishermen in San Diego and the east coast. You may know this, but in case you don’t, there are always fish that are overfished and then under fished. The problem is the country discovered about 30-40 years ago that seafood is REALLY good and VERY healthy. A fish gets “hot” in restaurants and it’s quickly overfished. Redfish is a good example. That was a blue collar, cheaper fish until blackened redfish hit this country like a category 4 hurricane. It was quickly overfished. So, it’s a constant battle and the list is always changing. Here’s a partial list of fish that are sustainable now. None come from the west Pacific[which I also avoid]. They’re all good and they run the gamut from flaky[Halibut] to oily[bluefish]. Clams, scallops and mussels. I love raw clams but won’t eat them raw anymore. Rockfish, black cod, arctic char, black sea bass, mullet, bluefish, pompano and sanddab. There are more but that runs a gamut in texture and price. I always knew fishermen when I lived on the east coast. When we started spending winters in San Diego I made sure I got to know some.

  4. lotta,
    I like your Marshall plan to switch to renewable sources of energy. What are the odds of Congress and the White House getting on board??

  5. raff, The peril from Islamic fascists is much more imminent than any energy crisis. Get free from their tyranny, then focus on better alternatives. This isn’t a sprint, it’s a marathon.

  6. James Knauer 1, October 19, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    “They also believe that anyone who helps open their eyes must be the ones who did it to them (kill the messenger syndrome).”

    Now we get to the unsustainable part. The sub-1% are now highly outnumbered and have relied overmuch on control of information. Those who were raised on data-gathering and not belief will soon be taking power in a world where, for the first time in my life, wealthy people are not looked upon with favor. Accumulation of wealth used to considered secure and successful. But when that wealth is concentrated, we get “too big to fail” banks that are really covers for “too rich to prosecute.” Ditto, torture.

    And that imbalance endangers us all, regardless of wealth.

    The 1% control the nukes and nightsticks as well as the propaganda “spin” about “nukular” …

    Not promising, but we must keep swimming upstream at this point.

  7. “They also believe that anyone who helps open their eyes must be the ones who did it to them (kill the messenger syndrome).”

    Now we get to the unsustainable part. The sub-1% are now highly outnumbered and have relied overmuch on control of information. Those who were raised on data-gathering and not belief will soon be taking power in a world where, for the first time in my life, wealthy people are not looked upon with favor. Accumulation of wealth used to considered secure and successful. But when that wealth is concentrated, we get “too big to fail” banks that are really covers for “too rich to prosecute.” Ditto, torture.

    And that imbalance endangers us all, regardless of wealth.

  8. James Knauer 1, October 19, 2013 at 12:39 pm

    The Japanese response appears to have been dreadful.

    The Americans your video link speaks of, like the Japanese you speak of, learned their reality from the same source.

    The Japanese learned it from those who built Fukushima and who Hiroshima’d & Nagasaki’d them.

    The Americans learned it from the military who NSA’d them.

    Almost the same amount of Americans, mentioned in your video link, also believe that the military is the most competent institution in American culture (Stockholm Syndrome on Steroids? – 2).

    They don’t realize that “their” plutonomy is a feudal construct that impoverishes everyone except the top percent who command the military (American Feudalism – 3).

    The Americans also think that those good guys brought them clean nuclear and clean coal.

    They also believe that anyone who helps open their eyes must be the ones who did it to them (kill the messenger syndrome).

  9. I absolutely looove threads that get down to the nitty-gritty … one learns so much!

  10. OS, The Kingston spill was nasty, unnecessary and just like every other crime against nature. it was covered up as much as possible as I recall and people were kept away so that an independent assessment couldn’t be done of how toxic it was. BP and the government used the same tactics the next year wasn’t it? That seems to be the format.

    From your link: “EPA might have been a little too quick to judge that mercury was not a problem”. Kind of a self serving initial finding eh?

  11. Otteray Scribe 1, October 19, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    Dredd sez, “Some of the most dangerous people on the planet are nuclear and other types of physicists.”
    [The Scribe sez:] That is quite a broad brush you are using to tar physicists.
    The scribe needs to look up the meaning of “some”, lest a pharisee evolve, and then reckon with this reality:

    Einstein, upon hearing the news of the Hiroshima bombing, was reported to have dropped his head in his hands and cried, simply, “Woe is me!” Though he never once worked on the production of such a weapon, it was his scientific discoveries and ultimately his words that created this new scenario. In a later interview with Newsweek magazine, he said, “Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing. I would have never [written that letter].”

    Yet, that one letter has changed all our lives, and possibly the lives of every person on the planet since. Today, there are some 20,000 active nuclear weapons on the planet. All of us, and our children, will live in the shadow of this threat for the rest of our lives.

    Einstein was a fairly good physicist who fits into some, just as those who continue to make the planet destroyer are also “some”.

    The “tar” you mention is also a mental mirage.

    Some physicists are the most dangerous people on the planet.

  12. Dredd sez, “Some of the most dangerous people on the planet are nuclear and other types of physicists.”

    That is quite a broad brush you are using to tar physicists. The solution to the problems are going to come from physics and chemistry. My old friend is working on a solution, when he is not puzzling over black hole paradoxes. He knows full well there is a Nobel prize waiting for the first scientist to crack the problem. IMHO, he has already done enough in other areas of physics to have earned a Nobel.

  13. Otteray Scribe 1, October 19, 2013 at 11:53 am

    … If more power is expended in the process of making fuel than you get back, that makes no sense economically or protecting the environment.
    I think economists and some others call it EROEI (energy returned on energy invested).

    Nuclear is a dog in that department.

    It is only for the use in making the weapons that threaten our existence, the rest is propaganda.

    The problems with this concept of EROEI is that it is only as good as the honesty invested in finding the truth.

    The disease, harm, death, and/or destruction of civilization upon its use has only very lately figured into the equation.

    That is why fossil fuels are now seen around the world as dogs too.

    Garbage in, garbage out.

  14. Nick, I’d kill for a big plate full of thick, fried Cod fillets, cole slaw, fries, some string beans or maybe corn on the cob, a salad and a cold beer. Kill. For. It.

    I stopped eating Atlantic cod because it was becoming over-fished. I eventually migrated to pacific cod. Then the meltdown. Curse you Fukushima, Fukushima is why I can’t have nice foods.

  15. Otteray Scribe 1, October 19, 2013 at 11:53 am

    I have mentioned a couple of times before that one of my best friends from high school is a heavy hitter in theoretical physics. His specialty is dense matter and energy.

    Some of the most dangerous people on the planet are nuclear and other types of physicists.

    While Oil-Qaeda gave us one way of destroying civilization (Oil-Qaeda – The Indictment), but with some species living on, the physicists gave us the way to destroy all vertebrate and most invertebrate species along with all of civilization (The Most Dangerous Moment in Recorded History [so far]).

    These types sometimes can’t tell the difference between the pollution caused by taking a shit on the leaves during a camping trip from pumping billions of tons of shit into the ocean.

    Or, in John Boehner’s case, cow farts and 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere of the entire Earth.

  16. I have mentioned a couple of times before that one of my best friends from high school is a heavy hitter in theoretical physics. His specialty is dense matter and energy. About four years ago, we were having a similar discussion. He dropped this bombshell on me, which shouldn’t have surprised me, but it did: “There are no known energy sources that don’t have a deleterious impact on the environment.”

    He went down the list, which included nuclear, windmills, and all the rest. You really don’t want to get him started on those “energy saving” fluorescent bulbs, because toxic materials are used in their manufacture, and are usually disposed of in landfills. He hates them and won’t buy them.

    We discussed using water as the perfect fuel, and how it could possibly be fractured to break the extremely tight molecular bond between hydrogen and oxygen. The perfect fuel and oxidizer all in one. All fuels that burn are nothing more than carriers of hydrogen. The more hydrogen in a hydrocarbon, the better it is as a fuel. My friend wants to simply eliminate the carbon part, cut straight to the chase, and use hydrogen. The trick is to break the molecular bond and isolate the two elements without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics. If more power is expended in the process of making fuel than you get back, that makes no sense economically or protecting the environment.

  17. Slartibartfast 1, October 19, 2013 at 10:11 am


    Sometimes we have to choose the least bad of several options and your refusal to consider that there might be worse effects from the choices that you would make is narrow-minded and inane.

    False least of two evils fallacy.

    Would you rather live downstream from a fracking operation or a nuclear plant? If you’re smart, you’ll pick the nuclear plant.

    False framing, false equivalence. I reject both as being part of a mature civilization.

    Which would you rather have to deal with, radioactive waste or greatly increased climate change?

    Same response as response just above.

    Personally, on that scale radioactive waste seems like a pretty trivial problem.

    You have a warped sense of trivial.

    How much potable water are you willing to trade for natural gas so you can shut down all of the nuclear power plants? That seems like an extremely poor deal to me.

    Study German’s example which I provided up-thread.

    Your unwillingness to consider the pluses and minuses of all of the available choices and determine what’s best based on a realistic cost/benefit analysis seems pretty short-sighted and unscientific to me.

    And what are the available choices?

    You have mentioned coal, natural gas, and nuclear -unless I missed others you mentioned.

    I can think of a large list of renewable, clean energy that is being suppressed.

Comments are closed.