"Just for fun, throw in some stats on deaths per kwh of electrcity."
How many kwh of electricity is your life worth?
How many kwh or electricity are the nearly 1 million people who died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster worth? [1]
And I'd love to hear you show me a list of solar array or wind farm accidents that prove nuclear power is safer than either.
If Chernobyl or the Fukushima plants were solar arrays or wind farms, how much environmental damage and cost in human suffering would there have been were they to have been destroyed?
I'm looking forward to hearing you sing about how nuclear is the "safest form of power statistically" if the radioactive cloud from Fukushima ever winds up floating over your home town.
---
[1] "Nearly one million people around the world died from exposure to radiation released by the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl reactor, finds a new book from the New York Academy of Sciences"
Solar array and wind farms kill people too. The by-products of mining and industrial production are often dangerous and result in disease. Solar cells in particular require lots of energy to create.
Is your home off the grid? Have you really considered the compromises that have to be made to live entirely(electric, heating, cooling, transport) from wind and solar? It's not easy, it demands changes to all aspects of ones lifestyle and has a significant price.
"The by-products of mining and industrial production are often dangerous and result in disease"
How does that compare to the hazards of mining radioactive ore and the hazards from storing and transporting nuclear waste?
"Have you really considered the compromises that have to be made to live entirely(electric, heating, cooling, transport) from wind and solar?"
These compromises aren't necessarily all bad. For instance, if the impact to transport means that we'll have to live on goods made locally and not be able to commute as far to work, that could make for stronger, more pleasant, and more sustainable communities and economic systems.
"It's not easy, it demands changes to all aspects of ones lifestyle and has a significant price."
Does that price approach dying of radiation poisoning from a Chernobyl-style disaster? Or how about having your children be born with all sorts of mutations caused by radiation? Or of poisoning the environment with nuclear waste?
> For instance, if the impact to transport means that we'll have to live on goods made locally and not be able to commute as far to work, that could make for stronger, more pleasant, and more sustainable communities and economic systems.
Good luck getting the rare earths from China for all those green technologies if you have to get them from local sources. The one big US mine was shutdown. The reason?
"In 1998, chemical processing at the mine was stopped after a series of wastewater leaks. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of water carrying radioactive waste spilled into and around Ivanpah Dry Lake."
But it's okay because, currently, we get all those rare elements from China, where you don't hear about the pollution and accidents. Of course, China is saying that they don't want to share with everyone else any more, so that may change soon.
I'd like to know just how many tons of rare earths we have to import from China to run wind farms.
And why couldn't solar panels be developed without them?
Why not put a few tens or hundreds of billions (a tiny fraction compared to TARP or how much the US spends on the military) in to research in to these technologies to make them less dependent on rare earths?
But, as for the availability of rare earths outside China:
"As China slashes exports of rare earth elements, U.S. mine digs for more"
"Molycorp Inc., which owns the open mine, plans to dig out about 40,000 tons of dirt a year by 2014, up 1,200% from the current rate of about 3,000 tons.
The Colorado company is boosting production to meet an insatiable global appetite for rare earth elements..
The mine, about 16 miles from the Nevada border, has one of the world's largest deposits of rare earth elements outside Asia..
The company is spending more than $500 million to modernize and rebuild the 2,200-acre facility. The project is expected to create hundreds of permanent jobs and eventually produce rare earths at cheaper rates than mines in China."
"China's monopoly of the supply of strategic "rare earth" minerals will end when the Australian mining corporation Lynas brings a massive new refining plant in Malaysia into operation later this year...
The company has invested about $230 million in a refinery covering about 20 hectares which in September is due to start processing about 11,000 tonnes of rare earth oxide a year."
I take it you didn't read the link I posted, or you'd have noticed that the mine that released all that radioactive crap was owned by Molycorp Inc. Yes, the same one you're talking about.
Wind can't do base load power, either. Maybe someone will work that out by, I don't know, storing the energy in a flywheel or something. But they haven't done so yet. It's also dependent on our solar energy budget (as is solar, obviously). Conservation of energy is a pain, but no one knows how to violate it yet.
Why not put a few tens or hundreds of billions (a tiny fraction compared to TARP or how much the US spends on the military) in to research in to these technologies to make them less dependent on rare earths?
How do you know how much something like that would cost to develop?
Can you quote anything more credible than "The Environment News Service"?
Come on, do you expect to be taken seriously? Make a reasoned argument, I'm willing to listen. If you can quote any sort of a credible science agency that claims Chernobyl actually contributed to major death, I would consider it.
How many kwh of electricity is your life worth?
How many kwh or electricity are the nearly 1 million people who died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster worth? [1]
And I'd love to hear you show me a list of solar array or wind farm accidents that prove nuclear power is safer than either.
If Chernobyl or the Fukushima plants were solar arrays or wind farms, how much environmental damage and cost in human suffering would there have been were they to have been destroyed?
I'm looking forward to hearing you sing about how nuclear is the "safest form of power statistically" if the radioactive cloud from Fukushima ever winds up floating over your home town.
---
[1] "Nearly one million people around the world died from exposure to radiation released by the 1986 nuclear disaster at the Chernobyl reactor, finds a new book from the New York Academy of Sciences"
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html