In a nut shell:

The survival of the human race depends on fate of KeystoneXL and fracking


"One of the frustrations of being a climate activist is that far too many people simply do not understand the stakes. Climate issues are often forced through an "environmentalist" lens, wherein issues that should rightly be discussed as a matter of planetary survival are instead talked about as a matter of public health. So the Keystone pipeline becomes about potential spills and wildlife impacts. Fracking becomes about earthquakes and groundwater pollution.That's a frustrating tragedy. Let's be very clear: if the human race continues to burn fossil fuels for the next 30 years at the rate we've been burning them up to now, our species (as well as most other species on the planet) may not survive. Most people either cannot emotionally grasp that statement, or refuse to believe it's true. But it's true.

If all of the oil in the Canadian tar sands is extracted and burnt, it's game over for the planet. That's what the fight over Keystone XL is really about. If all of the oil in the California shale is extracted and burnt, it's game over for the planet. That's what the fight over fracking is really about. Industrial spills, toxic leeching, groundwater pollution--none of it will matter. If tens of millions of Americans die early of cancer because of the toxins involved, that would still be a molehill compared to the mountain that is climate change."


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...-and-fracking#

I don't think anyone on this forum signed my petition to the White House about this.

The Daily Kos article that Deb C posted triggered me to review some old notes I made in the past that demonstrated just how daunting it's going to be to drastically reduce GHGs to safe levels, and as a result it really makes you depressed. Here were some of the highlights:
--End all power generation from fossil fuels (about 39%). While it would include a serious ramp up in production of solar and wind, it really can't be done as quickly as possible without one other source: nuclear. Yes, it has its own problems, but they look piddling compared to runaway AGW.
--Retrofit all residential & commercial buildings to use electricity as its power source (about 10%). This means not only things like adding solar panels on the roofs, but also removing things like furnaces fueled by heating oil or natural gas. Again, not easy or inexpensive, but at least feasible in a way that's not real lifestyle-changing.
--Electrify non-marine freight transportation (about 8%). Now things get tricky. About the only way this gets done is to concentrate it on electrified rail lines. But this is not easy financially nor logistically. It also means the end of air freight, which would slow down deliveries considerably in that realm.
--Electrify personal transportation (cars, light trucks, and buses, about 17%). One can only hope that the electric car's future isn't that far away, but the feasibility of getting it widespread in the short timespan that's likely necessary looks very poor.
--End the raising of at least red meat and dairy (about 6%, not sure if this included poultry as well). I added this last one in here as an intentional eyebrow raise. Of the five points listed above, this one is hypothetically the easiest to do. But how many people do you see willingly giving this up? Yeah...

Adding up all those percentages got to an 80% reduction in GHGs, a percentage that I believed was cited as being necessary within a decade or two. The other 20% I think was for things more critical to humans that weren't easily substituted, like non-animal based agriculture. The bottom line is that there is so much that needs to be done, or so much that needs to be sacrificed, and it looks quite unlikely of happening.

I'm not sure I can even imagine a Civic archetype that could pull it all off...

Originally Posted by TnT

Accidentally? Or on purpose?

Accidentally on purpose, because it will happen from human error, by someone brought up in a cynical work environment, who no longer cares.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

Adding up all those percentages got to an 80% reduction in GHGs, a percentage that I believed was cited as being necessary within a decade or two. The other 20% I think was for things more critical to humans that weren't easily substituted, like non-animal based agriculture. The bottom line is that there is so much that needs to be done, or so much that needs to be sacrificed, and it looks quite unlikely of happening.

I'm not sure I can even imagine a Civic archetype that could pull it all off...

You make some good points. In addition to what you suggest, the environmentalists are scrambling to educate about the dire need for alternatives and the nail in the coffin that the pipe line would be to our planet. Currently there are too many who either deny climate change due to fossil fuel, and those who poo poo the science that indicates just how serious global warming has become. Even some here on the forum have insinuated that the well known environmentalist Bill McKibben, is an exaggerator.

I received an e-mail from a conservative politician this morning asking me if I want lower heating bills. If so, she suggests supporting the coal companies who keep our lights on. I couldn't believe what I was reading.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

The Daily Kos article that Deb C posted triggered me to review some old notes I made in the past that demonstrated just how daunting it's going to be to drastically reduce GHGs to safe levels, and as a result it really makes you depressed. Here were some of the highlights:
--End all power generation from fossil fuels (about 39%). While it would include a serious ramp up in production of solar and wind, it really can't be done as quickly as possible without one other source: nuclear. Yes, it has its own problems, but they look piddling compared to runaway AGW.
--Retrofit all residential & commercial buildings to use electricity as its power source (about 10%). This means not only things like adding solar panels on the roofs, but also removing things like furnaces fueled by heating oil or natural gas. Again, not easy or inexpensive, but at least feasible in a way that's not real lifestyle-changing.
--Electrify non-marine freight transportation (about 8%). Now things get tricky. About the only way this gets done is to concentrate it on electrified rail lines. But this is not easy financially nor logistically. It also means the end of air freight, which would slow down deliveries considerably in that realm.
--Electrify personal transportation (cars, light trucks, and buses, about 17%). One can only hope that the electric car's future isn't that far away, but the feasibility of getting it widespread in the short timespan that's likely necessary looks very poor.
--End the raising of at least red meat and dairy (about 6%, not sure if this included poultry as well). I added this last one in here as an intentional eyebrow raise. Of the five points listed above, this one is hypothetically the easiest to do. But how many people do you see willingly giving this up? Yeah...

Adding up all those percentages got to an 80% reduction in GHGs, a percentage that I believed was cited as being necessary within a decade or two. The other 20% I think was for things more critical to humans that weren't easily substituted, like non-animal based agriculture. The bottom line is that there is so much that needs to be done, or so much that needs to be sacrificed, and it looks quite unlikely of happening.

I'm not sure I can even imagine a Civic archetype that could pull it all off...

This realization hit me about two years ago and it rocked my world. I'd been getting interested in environmentalism and in the end I simply became disillusioned with the entire movement.

Production numbers for renewable energy are inflated because they include hydroelectricity, which is valid renewable energy but telling people we have 10% renewable electricity gives the illusion that we've done this during the current renewable boom. All new renewable capacity is only about 5%, less than 1% of that is the highly coveted solar. It won't get better either, since renewable energy is going to have a diseconomies of scale since good sites will be tapped out first, especially with wind which is leading the pack.

Moving on to Germany, once you begin to hit the 20% range, you need mass grid storage, which doesn't exist yet. This is good for the US because we're not at 20% yet and we have a years before we hit that so we have time. But if Germany doesn't cut back on growing renewables they're going to be having a lot of grid issues. I think the Germans started too soon, but somebody had to do it. We'll have better luck with renewables in the US if we continue on with them since we're taking it slow.

But we can't take it slow, that's the problem. We need to do this now but can't with the current approach.

Even looking ahead I'm just not seeing the beef. This isn't what it was promised. I'm starting to get a feeling this a 3T solution to a 4T problem. It's full of 3T style tragedy of the commons scenarios the deeper into it you go. If everybody had solar panels on their home right now the grid would blow up during peak sunlight. If everybody had a electric car the grid would blow up at night. But individually you can put the panels up or plug in the EV and not see the issue but more importantly, have those feels of doing the right thing and contributing to society without having to deal with society. Individually, a giant wind farm can look awesome even if in the full picture it alone doesn't make much power as its appearance leads on.

This is why I'm such a hard-ass when it comes to nuclear power, especially advance fission and fusion. People say that it's never going to come, but I don't see renewables coming quicker. Systematic question of renewable energy issues, such as the storage issue, leads to the inventible "they're working in it" or "we'll figure it out." Isn't this what the nuclear scientist are saying, too? At this point, why completely ignore the technology that has just as much current potential, and vastly greater future potential, than renewables? What is up with the huge aversion to even discussing the topic? The very concept isn't even seriously humored. We need everything we can to stop global warming, anything that doesn't emit CO2 can't left out.

Aiming high, if you commercialize a fusion reactor, it's over. Hundreds of energy and environmental issues go away by simply becoming undermined. Switching to alternative energy goes from being a fight to economics. The markets of capitalism favor it, so it grows with minimal effort. To get rid of the same problems with renewables will require so much more ear pulling and arguing that we will probably be dead by the time everybody is convinced.

I'd even take standard fission for some decades if the better technologies can't be fast tracked, though I think some of them can. The fact that we can take all our fission waste and stash it into a repository is kind of cool really. I can't believe this drives us nuts but the reaction to thousands of giant pools of coal ash sludge and millions of tons of CO2 elicit what seems to be a lesser negative response. People will willingly fight to the death, it seems, in order to stop nuclear power from possibly causing them death. It's insane.

Originally Posted by nakile

But we can't take it slow, that's the problem. We need to do this now but can't with the current approach.

Even looking ahead I'm just not seeing the beef. This isn't what it was promised. I'm starting to get a feeling this a 3T solution to a 4T problem. It's full of 3T style tragedy of the commons scenarios the deeper into it you go.

The seeds of this discontent likely sprouted going back all the way to the last 4T, with so many huge projects completed with little regard, or even knowledge, of environmental impacts. This is a saeculum in the making. The most recent 3T attitudes in general haven't helped, of course, and I even think 2T environmentalism, while very good for its time, have led people astray to today's problems. Inner-driven movements like protecting endangered species (especially adorable ones), preserving habitats (especially pretty ones), and other habits to make you feel good (say, the rise of organic food or reduce/reuse/recycle), while they have had their merits, are really a drop in the bucket compared to the challenges ahead.

And everything you said about nuclear power is right on the money. We really have no choice but to go with standard fission now if we're going to be serious about tackling this problem. And I, too, bang my head against a nearby surface when people freak out about nuclear waste. I should always have pictures of mountaintop mining or sludgy water sources ready to go when this subject comes up.

Where do you get this "explode the grid" stuff? Let's see sources.

To consider nuclear power as an option after Fukushima is the height of ridiculous nonsense. We want to make our whole planet uninhabitable? And leave deadly stuff lying around for millions of years? In whose back yard?

Thorium might be an alternative; I don't see people pushing for that; just the very dangerous stuff.

Solar and wind can supply all our needs now, and more. The only thing missing is the political will to resist the propaganda and money of the fossil fuel company CEOs. Let's "inconvenience" these CEOs so we can keep our planet safe and healthy for living things now.

We need to make the switch. We DON'T need young people to "simply become disillusioned with the entire movement." We need your support.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

The seeds of this discontent likely sprouted going back all the way to the last 4T, with so many huge projects completed with little regard, or even knowledge, of environmental impacts. This is a saeculum in the making. The most recent 3T attitudes in general haven't helped, of course, and I even think 2T environmentalism, while very good for its time, have led people astray to today's problems. Inner-driven movements like protecting endangered species (especially adorable ones), preserving habitats (especially pretty ones), and other habits to make you feel good (say, the rise of organic food or reduce/reuse/recycle), while they have had their merits, are really a drop in the bucket compared to the challenges ahead.

Calling them "inner-driven" is really cynical. We have no right to kill off other species; period!

And everything you said about nuclear power is right on the money. We really have no choice but to go with standard fission now if we're going to be serious about tackling this problem. And I, too, bang my head against a nearby surface when people freak out about nuclear waste. I should always have pictures of mountaintop mining or sludgy water sources ready to go when this subject comes up.

We have no choice but to switch to solar and wind now. Just because it hasn't been done yet, is no excuse for not doing it. A Republican led or obstructed government is not going to do the right things. Duh!

Nuclear waste and coal sludge are alike abominations.

Solar and wind are booming businesses, especially in Europe and China. To talk of any limits is total nonsense. We Americans will live in shame forever if we keep up with this kind of talk. The answers are plain and simple. The confusion and resistance is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Deb C

You make some good points. In addition to what you suggest, the environmentalists are scrambling to educate about the dire need for alternatives and the nail in the coffin that the pipe line would be to our planet. Currently there are too many who either deny climate change due to fossil fuel, and those who poo poo the science that indicates just how serious global warming has become. Even some here on the forum have insinuated that the well known environmentalist Bill McKibben, is an exaggerator.

If I point out an exaggeration, then learn from it. Don't just keep spouting slogans. Those of us concerned with real issues, like you and I, have to deal in real facts.

I didn't say Bill was exaggerating, but the spokesman you quoted said we had to totally switch immediately. It takes time, is all I was pointing out. We need to switch a lot faster, and not go the nuclear fission route either. Solar and wind can supply all our needs, and we have other renewable sources as well. Other countries are doing it; the only reason we aren't is because of the fossil fuel companies and their representatives in congress.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

The Daily Kos article that Deb C posted triggered me to review some old notes I made in the past that demonstrated just how daunting it's going to be to drastically reduce GHGs to safe levels, and as a result it really makes you depressed.

What old notes? From who?

Here were some of the highlights:
--End all power generation from fossil fuels (about 39%). While it would include a serious ramp up in production of solar and wind, it really can't be done as quickly as possible without one other source: nuclear. Yes, it has its own problems, but they look piddling compared to runaway AGW.
--Retrofit all residential & commercial buildings to use electricity as its power source (about 10%). This means not only things like adding solar panels on the roofs, but also removing things like furnaces fueled by heating oil or natural gas. Again, not easy or inexpensive, but at least feasible in a way that's not real lifestyle-changing.
--Electrify non-marine freight transportation (about 8%). Now things get tricky. About the only way this gets done is to concentrate it on electrified rail lines. But this is not easy financially nor logistically. It also means the end of air freight, which would slow down deliveries considerably in that realm.
--Electrify personal transportation (cars, light trucks, and buses, about 17%). One can only hope that the electric car's future isn't that far away, but the feasibility of getting it widespread in the short timespan that's likely necessary looks very poor.
--End the raising of at least red meat and dairy (about 6%, not sure if this included poultry as well). I added this last one in here as an intentional eyebrow raise. Of the five points listed above, this one is hypothetically the easiest to do. But how many people do you see willingly giving this up? Yeah...

Adding up all those percentages got to an 80% reduction in GHGs, a percentage that I believed was cited as being necessary within a decade or two. The other 20% I think was for things more critical to humans that weren't easily substituted, like non-animal based agriculture. The bottom line is that there is so much that needs to be done, or so much that needs to be sacrificed, and it looks quite unlikely of happening.

I'm not sure I can even imagine a Civic archetype that could pull it all off...

According to that "exaggerator" Bill McKibben and his group, the goal is not to eliminate all greenhouse gases in a few years, but to get back down to 350 ppm, which is what it was just a relatively-few years ago.

Fossil fuel generation can be replaced. The political will is lagging now, thanks to Republican deception, but once the "tea party" is over, things will move. Right now natural gas is replacing coal, but we need to replace these with solar and wind. These businesses are booming already; if they get more government support and regulation, they would boom faster. If solar and wind replace coal, that alone would reduce the carbon in our atmosphere below 350 ppm I think. Coal and oil is the major problem.

EDIT: Most sources I read online say this might not be enough; other measures like deforestation reversal and carbon capture may be needed too. But an article by Hansen I quoted below omitted savings from switching to electric cars! So the truth remains somewhat elusive about what needs to be done.

Natural gas does not need to be eliminated right away, just within decades. It reduces GHG emissions by half. It is a bridge fuel, and buildings don't need to be retrofitted with electricity right away. We will need to replace the extra useage we are piling on now though. Electric rail lines are a good idea in the long run. EDIT: as I have mentioned before though, getting natural gas through fracking may release enough methane to wipe out its advantage over coal.

Mileage standards for cars have already been boosted so much that the car companies will need to switch to hybrids and electric cars by the 2020s. That's happening.

Yes, we need to eat less meat, and somewhat less dairy. We need to end factory farming. Most other countries are not as stupid as we are about diet, unless they are starting to copy us. People are becoming more concerned about a healthy diet, which is a real incentive besides concern for climate change. But if it's a real need, then government needs to act; not rely on peoples' willingness alone.

I don't know where your 6% figure comes from; was unable to verify.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Calling them "inner-driven" is really cynical. We have no right to kill off other species; period!

I'm using "inner-driven" there as in S&H terms.

And of course we should not be killing off other species. The damn shame is that emitting GHGs has been a horrific workaround of the Endangered Species Act.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

We have no choice but to switch to solar and wind now. Just because it hasn't been done yet, is no excuse for not doing it. A Republican led or obstructed government is not going to do the right things. Duh!

Nuclear waste and coal sludge are alike abominations.

Solar and wind are booming businesses, especially in Europe and China. To talk of any limits is total nonsense. We Americans will live in shame forever if we keep up with this kind of talk. The answers are plain and simple. The confusion and resistance is ridiculous.

We should build as much solar and wind as we can, and we should do it now. But is it enough, and can it handle all kinds of power needed (baseload, peakload), to completely put fossil fuels to rest, and do it ASAP? I just can't see it, especially in the short term--and this absolutely matters given the stakes of AGW.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What old notes? From who?

My own old notes. Sorry that I didn't make that clearer.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

According to that "exaggerator" Bill McKibben and his group, the goal is not to eliminate all greenhouse gases in a few years, but to get back down to 350 ppm, which is what it was just a relatively-few years ago.

Just to make sure I'm not confused here, are you talking about the total atmospheric content of CO2? The way I understand it, we're at or near 400 ppm now, and IIRC, it and other GHGs remain in the atmosphere in a range from decades to centuries. Getting back down to 350 ppm is going to be difficult without some very sharp and immediate reductions.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Natural gas does not need to be eliminated right away, just within decades. It reduces GHG emissions by half. It is a bridge fuel, and buildings don't need to be retrofitted with electricity right away. We will need to replace the extra useage we are piling on now though. Electric rail lines are a good idea in the long run.

Correct, and it's really difficult to see what else is going to take care of peak load power any time soon. The troublesome part of this aspect is that this likely means more fracking, of which we're still learning what type of adverse environmental impacts it will have.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Accidentally on purpose, because it will happen from human error, by someone brought up in a cynical work environment, who no longer cares.

I guess that when I read your comment, it occured to me that domestic terrorism might well be the reason for the occasional pipeline fracture/spill/environmental disaster.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

I'm using "inner-driven" there as in S&H terms.

Why would such an idea apply to environmental concerns?

(I don't think it does, at all).

And of course we should not be killing off other species. The damn shame is that emitting GHGs has been a horrific workaround of the Endangered Species Act.

We should build as much solar and wind as we can, and we should do it now. But is it enough, and can it handle all kinds of power needed (baseload, peakload), to completely put fossil fuels to rest, and do it ASAP? I just can't see it, especially in the short term--and this absolutely matters given the stakes of AGW.

Right; it is enough. It just needs to be built. It can't be done-- if we don't do it! With storage batteries, and a smart grid, variations in energy generation can be handled. Yes, it needs to be done in the short term; the problem being the voters have wasted so much time putting obstructionists and deniers in public office, or we would have already totally switched by now. It will take at least a decade, and I expect we won't really get rolling until the 2020s. That will be too late to avoid more disasters and deaths of humans and species. But at least it can be done, once we get rolling, and done fairly quickly. Look how fast the computer industry and telecommunications changes. Why can't energy and transportation change that fast?

My own old notes. Sorry that I didn't make that clearer.

Still not clear; notes on what, from whose lecture or source? On what authority; based on what research? How up to date?

Just to make sure I'm not confused here, are you talking about the total atmospheric content of CO2? The way I understand it, we're at or near 400 ppm now, and IIRC, it and other GHGs remain in the atmosphere in a range from decades to centuries. Getting back down to 350 ppm is going to be difficult without some very sharp and immediate reductions.

I don't remember exactly; I imagine the 350.org people have their ideas. I don't have time now to research this; later...
I think I'm going to need to set up my own webpage with all the data and sources sometime soon.

Correct, and it's really difficult to see what else is going to take care of peak load power any time soon. The troublesome part of this aspect is that this likely means more fracking, of which we're still learning what type of adverse environmental impacts it will have.

Which is why we need to get on with the job of switching our energy sources to clean, green and renewable now, and use less energy too. Yes, it can't be done now, because of whom we elected on Nov.2, 2010. But the business is booming anyway, and once the "tea party" is over, we can move more quickly.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Wait, what? Make it illegal to eat red meat?

Restrict the producers, not the consumers.
I know, that's a pipe dream now... but there could be incentives and restrictions somewhere short of a ban. If we restrict how animals are treated on farms, that would being some level of "humane" back to the industry, and somewhat limit the amount produced at the same time.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If I point out an exaggeration, then learn from it. Don't just keep spouting slogans. Those of us concerned with real issues, like you and I, have to deal in real facts.

I didn't say Bill was exaggerating, but the spokesman you quoted said we had to totally switch immediately. It takes time, is all I was pointing out. We need to switch a lot faster, and not go the nuclear fission route either. Solar and wind can supply all our needs, and we have other renewable sources as well. Other countries are doing it; the only reason we aren't is because of the fossil fuel companies and their representatives in congress.

No one is suggesting that we change this immediately. What environmentalists are saying is that we best get serious now about alternatives if this planet is to survive. After all, as you indicated, much of the technology is already available. We are aware of the walls that we face in regards to getting the majority of people on board the train of reality. But they also realize that it's the education, which has to happen before the mindset of fossil fuel addiction can move forward with any great speed.

As for slogans, they are a superb tool for influencing the masses. Just ask any politician who has ever been elected. Remember the hope and change slogan that Obama used?

The Republicans aren't the only politicians supporting the fossil fuel industry. As I've said all along, actions speak louder than smooth talking words.

Groups to Obama: Your Fossil Fuel-Driven Policies Equal 'Catastrophic Climate Future'
'America’s energy policies must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, not simply reduce our dependence on foreign oil.'

- Jon Queally, staff writer

Citing the glaring gaps between his sometimes encouraging rhetoric and the realities of his fossil fuel-laden policies, eighteen environmental, environmental justice, and public health advocacy organizations have written a pointed letter (pdf) to President Obama slamming his "all of the above" energy strategy as a "compromised" approach that "future generations can't afford."

The coalition behind the letter—which includes the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, NRDC, the Energy Action Coalition and others—is upset that Obama voices concern about climate change in lofty speeches and with compelling promises even as he oversees the most dramatic push in oil and gas extraction in a generation, continuing an aggressive fossil fuel expansion despite what the climate science is saying about the urgent need to dramatically cut carbon emissions.

“You can’t have it both ways,” said Sierra Club's executive director Michael Brune in an interview with the Washington Post, which received advanced notice of the letter that was sent to the White House on Thursday.



http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/01/17-0

Eric, I think we agree more than we disagree so I'm not going to continue to break down the posts. I may expound later on the different ways environmentalism manifests itself between 2Ts and 4Ts, but it probably belongs in a thread that talks about more than just global warming.

And my original post was a result of myself culling info from various sources several years ago that today I am not certain of its origins. Take it for what it's worth--certainly not as much as a professional study. I think/hope I'm in the ballpark, though.

My heating bill moved me to reduce energy consumption.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

My heating bill moved me to reduce energy consumption.

Maybe gasoline going to ten bucks a gallon might have an impact. Issues that affect the pocketbook/wallet usually get the people riled up.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Maybe gasoline going to ten bucks a gallon might have an impact. Issues that affect the pocketbook/wallet usually get the people riled up.

An alternate energy source that turns a bigger profit at a moderate investment would be key. I agree that dollars are apt to be central to the tipping point, but think it will be corporate greed rather than individual conscience that is apt to be pivotal.

I hope we don't have to wait until the alternate energy Robber Barons can contribute more campaign funds than the fossil fuel Robber Barons.

Originally Posted by B Butler

An alternate energy source that turns a bigger profit at a moderate investment would be key. I agree that dollars are apt to be central to the tipping point, but think it will be corporate greed rather than individual conscience that is apt to be pivotal.

I hope we don't have to wait until the alternate energy Robber Barons can contribute more campaign funds than the fossil fuel Robber Barons.

I think we will have to wait.

Originally Posted by nakile

... People will willingly fight to the death, it seems, in order to stop nuclear power from possibly causing them death. It's insane.

I'll skip the rant, since I tend to rant in pretty much the same key, so I'll just amplify a bit on this one thing. Deaths from nuclear energy are incredibly rare, even allowing for the worst-case situations like Chernobyl and Fukishima. Yes, people die in massive accidents, but, other than the two I listed, there just aren't any. Three Mile Island, our big accident, has zero deaths associated with it ... after 35 years.

The issue people have with nuclear power is the word itself. Once the word enters a discussion, the mood changes.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'll skip the rant, since I tend to rant in pretty much the same key, so I'll just amplify a bit on this one thing. Deaths from nuclear energy are incredibly rare, even allowing for the worst-case situations like Chernobyl and Fukishima. Yes, people die in massive accidents, but, other than the two I listed, there just aren't any. Three Mile Island, our big accident, has zero deaths associated with it ... after 35 years.

The issue people have with nuclear power is the word itself. Once the word enters a discussion, the mood changes.

Someone once said to me along these lines, "The problem with nuclear power plants is when they work wrong. The problem with coal power plants is when they work right." I think that fits well with what you said.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'll skip the rant, since I tend to rant in pretty much the same key, so I'll just amplify a bit on this one thing. Deaths from nuclear energy are incredibly rare, even allowing for the worst-case situations like Chernobyl and Fukishima. Yes, people die in massive accidents, but, other than the two I listed, there just aren't any. Three Mile Island, our big accident, has zero deaths associated with it ... after 35 years.

The issue people have with nuclear power is the word itself. Once the word enters a discussion, the mood changes.

It's the potential for even worse disasters than we have had so far, and the potential for harm that extends for many millennia.