Fuck 54 degrees in Aus....

[JimC]

But the reason deserts are hot has nothing to do with "green house" gasses, desert heat is caused by direct sun light and little air moisture to absorb the heat.

And, with more CO2, less of that desert heat is lost at night, and it can build a little higher...

[mistermack]

That is true, Jim But there is nothing more changeable than politics.

It looked good at the start, but then Chernobyl, and as soon as it started to gain momentum again - Fukushima Really can't guess where that iceberg is gonna tip in the future.

I agree that reprocessing would be preferable in many ways, but it's expensive and dirty, so not without its own problems. In Finland we are planning to bury the first canisters with spent fuel 400m down in the bedrock in 2020, so these plans are very advanced already. BTW, it requires a lot more space than a football field, because it has to be spread out to avoid heating the rock too much (avoid exceeding boiling temperatures for water).

I wonder why they can't keep using that heat, in that case? I'm sure there IS a good reason, but in a country that has cold winters, you would think it would be used.

[macdoc]

it requires a lot more space than a football field, because it has to be spread out to avoid heating the rock too much (avoid exceeding boiling temperatures for water).

yes of course it would also go critical - but the actual waste is small physically which was my point. People think there is this massive problem - there isn't and at some point a 3rd or 4th generation is useful to get rid of decommissioned nuclear weapons which is a real problem.
Those are where risk really lies as they are most often plutonium and would be prone to walk off in some terrorists hands.

Living near a modern nuke is one of the safest places to be.

Certainly a little co-generation would never hurt but really compared to the massive output of the nuclear generator it's hardly a concern.
Ya need a volcano or two like iceland.

[Jason]

My nuclear reactors always go critical in SimCity. I just can't afford to replace them and they have to operate far beyond their life expectancy then MELTDOWN!

[Blind groper]

It looked good at the start, but then Chernobyl, and as soon as it started to gain momentum again - Fukushima

According to reputable sources (IAEA or EU), the total death toll from Chernobyl is in the region of 4,000 to 30,000 human deaths, even including all future deaths from cancer. Fukushima killed 3 people, all from industrial accidents or the kind that happen on average building sites. Chernobyl's ecological toll is positive. The area set aside is now a thriving wild life region with new populations of wolves, bears, deer etc growing like crazy.

By comparison, look at the worst hydro-electric disaster - Banqiao. It killed 200,000 people and made 11 million people homeless. Nor is that the only nasty hydro disaster.

To measure the hazard, we need to look at number of people killed per unit of electricity generated. This is normally as fatalities per terawatt year of power. On that basis, nuclear is one of the safest, even including Chernobyl.

[Jason]

Yeah, but those new populations of wolves, bears, and deer all have super powers. Also the damned sarcophagus is starting to leak. I hear it grants wishes though.

[MiM]

It looked good at the start, but then Chernobyl, and as soon as it started to gain momentum again - Fukushima

According to reputable sources (IAEA or EU), the total death toll from Chernobyl is in the region of 4,000 to 30,000 human deaths, even including all future deaths from cancer. Fukushima killed 3 people, all from industrial accidents or the kind that happen on average building sites. Chernobyl's ecological toll is positive. The area set aside is now a thriving wild life region with new populations of wolves, bears, deer etc growing like crazy.

By comparison, look at the worst hydro-electric disaster - Banqiao. It killed 200,000 people and made 11 million people homeless. Nor is that the only nasty hydro disaster.

To measure the hazard, we need to look at number of people killed per unit of electricity generated. This is normally as fatalities per terawatt year of power. On that basis, nuclear is one of the safest, even including Chernobyl.

I was talking politics, not facts

The politics are that Chernobyl completely killed nuclear construction in the west for more that 20 years, and after Fukushima some countries like Germany panicked, and promised to shut down all their nuclear power in a time frame, that cannot be called anything but catastrophic.

[Blind groper]

On that basis, MiM, I agree with you.
I think the resistance to nuclear power is a disaster. it is one of the very few abundant sources of energy that does not contribute to global warming. It is also one of the best methods of providing solid base lead generation. Wind and solar and the like are too damn variable.

[macdoc]

According to reputable sources (IAEA or EU), the total death toll from Chernobyl is in the region of 4,000 to 30,000 human deaths

you might want to check that - it's pretty high. 64 were killed directly attributable to Chernobyl and statistically there were about 4,000 potential deaths but not directly attributable....this in comparison to coal which kills quite a few directly from mining over a 1,000 per annum and indirectly 13,000 -20,000 per annum.

[F]ine particle pollution from existing coal plants is expected to cause nearly 13,200 deaths in 2010.Additional impacts include an estimated 9,700 hospitalizations and more than 20,000 heart attacks per year. The total monetized value of theseadverse health impacts adds up to more than $100 billion per year. Thisburden is not distributed evenly across the population. Adverse impacts areespecially severe for the elderly, children, and those with respiratory disease.In addition, the poor, minority groups, and people who live in areasdownwind of multiple power plants are likely to be disproportionatelyexposed to the health risks and costs of fine particle pollution.

as opposed to the WHO report

20 Years Later a UN Report Provides Definitive Answers and Ways to Repair Lives

Joint News Release WHO/IAEA/UNDP

5 September 2005 | Geneva - A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

and only 50 directly attributable - and that over 20 years.

You have to know where the real risk is and it's not nukes.

[pErvinalia]

Don't we already have a climate change thread with the nuclear argument in it?

[Blind groper]

you might want to check that - it's pretty high.

True, but it is accurate. The 4,000 number comes from an International Atomic Energy Agency computer model, while the 30,000 number comes from a European Union professional committee who used slightly different assumptions to the IAEA.

However, that still leaves nuclear power as one of the safest. Most people do not realise, for example, that wind power construction and maintenance leads to numerous deaths from accidents, which add up to many times the deaths per terawatt year of nuclear. The worst, believe it or not, is domestic solar cells. This is because
1. Very little power is generated, meaning that a few deaths calculate into many per terawatt year.
2. Idiots install their own solar cells and fall off ladders, creating the few deaths needed for horrendous figures.

[Blind groper]

Don't we already have a climate change thread with the nuclear argument in it?

You can never have too many arguments (tongue in cheek.).

[JimC]

Don't we already have a climate change thread with the nuclear argument in it?

Probably, but in Ratz, the multiple threads and dizzying derails are all part of the adventure!

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, I just get sick of Mac flogging his horse in every slightly related thread. Not that I disagree with a lot of what he is saying, just that it's annoying and takes over the real issue at hand.

[Seth]

Like a yoyo - first the US now Aus on the barbi

It’s Official: 2012 Was Hottest Year Ever in U.S.
By JUSTIN GILLIS
Published: January 8, 2013 360 Comments

The numbers are in: 2012, the year of a surreal March heat wave, a severe drought in the corn belt and a massive storm that caused broad devastation in the mid-Atlantic states, turns out to have been the hottest year ever recorded in the contiguous United States.

I love the outright lies and qualifiers that make AGW such a ridiculous load of crap...