Billions for Climate Change

[Williamsmith]

If technology has advanced so much why wasn't Fukushima prevented? Oh technology has advanced but human beings are the same as they ever were (and will cut corners, operate things known to be unsafe in the name of slightly greater profits, corrupt the regulators designed to ensure safety etc.). Yes. It will be human error of course, not technology with all it's theoretical perfection. Doesn't mean I want to be in the surrounding area.

I understand your skepticism and opinion but I must point out the infinitely more probable outcome is that the world experiences a near apocalyptic or history making war for resources. The use of nuclear and biological weapons and the murder or death of half the population of the world. Yes, problem solved for whoever survives.

Also I'd like to point out that fossil fuel power plant operations will be responsible for more deaths through air pollution than a whole outbreak of Fukushima incidents. How many were killed at Fukushima?

[Rogar]

In in the past, talk of nuclear power among environmentalists was unheard of.........now since the impending climate change apocalypse has been proven to be fact......time for them to evaluate their angst when it comes to viable solutions.

You know, as a side note it is interesting to think how the term "environmentalist" has morphed over the last couple of decades to where, climate change=environmentalist. It used to be much more and about saving some wilderness, preserving species diversity and habitat, dealing with population growth, and cutting back on other dangerous by-products of society.

[Alan]

Regarding uranium supply estimates......the IAEA cites 120 years at current known costs to mine current known resources.

Australia seems to have the largest uranium resource....far greater than the Russian Federation.

But who controls the uranium in the various countries? Russia controls roughly 1/5th of the US uranium supply. Our State Dept., signed off on the sale after the Clinton Foundation received somewhere around $50M in donations from Russian investors. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html

[Williamsmith]

But who controls the uranium in the various countries? Russia controls roughly 1/5th of the US uranium supply. Our State Dept., signed off on the sale after the Clinton Foundation received somewhere around $50M in donations from Russian investors. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html

Alan, you are going to crack open a whole other topic with this observation. Our relationship with Russia has gone downhill ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Largely, IMO due to our relationships with Saudia Arabia, Israel,and the European Union / NATO. At every point we position ourselves against Russia, poke sticks at them through financial war. Saudia Arabia is pumping oil out of the ground at a frantic pace to punish Russia's economy. whens the last time you got gas at 1.99 gal.

Will Russia be ruined before Saudia Arabia runs out in of oil? I don't know. We've followed a Middle East regime change strategy that is a complete failure. As soon as the Saudis lose complete faith in the United States that we can protect them, game is over. There will be plenty of our boots on the ground if ISIS gets that far. We need to repair our relations with Russia. Assad can have his little kingdom. Big deal. We will be better off with Russia as a partner than Russia as an enemy. Trading partners for Uranium......you bet.

[bae]

Fukushima was designed in the 1960s, and went online in 1971, so it is perhaps not a good example of modern nuclear plant design...

[Rogar]

Fukushima was designed in the 1960s, and went online in 1971, so it is perhaps not a good example of modern nuclear plant design...

Or site location.

I have a friend who is a consulting safety engineer and has worked on nuclear plant expansions or modifications. I have had more than one lecture about the very expensive risk assessments and the safety differences between those older plants and modern design. Unfortunately, much of the detail has been lost in my memories, but he makes a very convincing argument for modern design safety.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Fukushima was designed in the 1960s, and went online in 1971, so it is perhaps not a good example of modern nuclear plant design...

it's an example enough of what you'll get with fallible often corrupt human beings in charge, and they always are, of something like nuclear power. If it wasn't safe why wasn't it shuttered entirely and a brand new plant built or something if the new plants are the only safe ones ... yea the corruption, the cost cutting etc. And this could not in any way degrade modern nuclear plant design? I doubt any nuclear plant advocates are even pushing for shutting down old plants, but being that they are built on old faulty technology and the new technology is supposedly much better, they maybe should be.

[Gregg]

I have a friend who is a consulting safety engineer and has worked on nuclear plant expansions or modifications. I have had more than one lecture about the very expensive risk assessments and the safety differences between those older plants and modern design. Unfortunately, much of the detail has been lost in my memories, but he makes a very convincing argument for modern design safety.

From wiki:

The last newly built reactor to enter service was Watts Bar 1 in Tennessee, in 1996. In 2007, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) voted to complete construction of Watts Bar 2. As of February 2015, the TVA estimates that commercial operation of Watts Bar 2 could begin between September 2015 and June 2016.

Except for the Watts Bar 2 its been 20 years since our last reactor came online and the vast majority of the US nuclear plants were built between the late 1960s and the early/mid 1980s. Thirty to as much as 50 years ago.

When I worked at IKEA, we had to watch a movie about Sweden at worker orientation and THEY said that 70% of Sweden's electric power was hydroelectric.. .

While hydro is clean its not without environmental consequences. Ask a salmon. It also pays to remember that Sweden is a country of less than 10 million people so a little under 7 million using hydro-power. Again according to wiki, the US gets 6.53% of its electricity from hydro. Assuming a population of around 320 million that's over 20 million getting power from hydro here.

[kib]

Charles Eisenstein posted an essay today ... I am certain we will not "save our planet" (or at least the ecological basis of civilization) by merely being more clever in our deployment of Earth's "resources". We will not escape this crisis so long as we see the planet and everything on it as instruments of our utility. The present climate change narrative veers too close to instrumental utilitarian logic -- that we should value the earth because of what will happen to us if we don't. Where did we develop the habit of making choices based on maximizing or minimizing a number? We got it from the money world. We are seeking to apply our numbers games to a new target, CO2 rather than dollars. I don't think that is a deep enough revolution. We need a revolution in means, not only a revolution in ends.

Plus one on this. Everything I hear just sounds like the same anthropocentric, meme-affirming babble that got us into this mess. I also have to wonder ... if we analyze the primary offenders in climate-changing behavior ... why on earth are we pledging money to the people who aren't really creating much of a problem? That's like saying I weigh 450 pounds, so I'm giving you $100 to go on Jenny Craig because, how awful, you're 10 pounds overweight. Huh?

[LDAHL]

Our relationship with Russia has gone downhill ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Our relationship with Russia has been one of mutual hostility for a much longer time than that.