Originally Posted by Eric the Green

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

It's case of pick your poison. The thorum pellet ones don't go critical. Now if you're talking fallout, coal is what you want. Coal plants emit radium and uranium. You also get the knock on effects of arsenic and mercury. Sorry, but rags wants the power on so the waste water gets treated and his drinking water is safe amonst other things.

In this article,
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf
in parts 4.3 and 4.4, it is suggested that phase out of coal would reduce CO2 parts per million close to 400 by centuries end, but would keep it above 350 ppm for 2 centuries. That would still be catastrophic.

"Improved agricultural and forestry practices offer a more natural way to draw down CO2.
Deforestation contributed a net emission of 60±30 ppm over the past few hundred years, of
which ~20 ppm CO2 remains in the air today [2, 83, Figs. (S12), (S14)]. Reforestation could
absorb a substantial fraction of the 60±30 ppm net deforestation emission.
Carbon sequestration in soil also has significant potential. Biochar, produced in pyrolysis of
residues from crops, forestry, and animal wastes, can be used to restore soil fertility while storing
carbon for centuries to millennia [84]. Biochar helps soil retain nutrients and fertilizers, reducing
emissions of GHGs such as N2O [85]. Replacing slash-and-burn agriculture with slash-and-char
and use of agricultural and forestry wastes for biochar production could provide a CO2
drawdown of ~8 ppm or more in half a century [85]"

"More rapid drawdown could be provided by CO2 capture at power plants fueled by gas and
biofuels"

"A rising price on carbon emissions and payment for carbon sequestration is surely needed to
make drawdown of airborne CO2 a reality. A 50 ppm drawdown via agricultural and forestry
practices seems plausible."

authors:

James Hansen1,2, Makiko Sato1,2, Pushker Kharecha1,2, David Beerling3, Robert Berner4, Valerie Masson-Delmotte5, Mark Pagani4, Maureen Raymo6, Dana L. Royer7 and James C. Zachos8


1
NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025, USA
2
Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY 10027, USA
3
Dept. Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
4
Dept. Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8109, USA
5
Lab. Des Sciences du Climat et l’Environnement/Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, CEA-CNRS-Universite de
Versailles Saint-Quentin en Yvelines, CE Saclay, 91191, Gif-sur-Yvette, France 6
Dept. Earth Sciences, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA
7
Dept. Earth and Environmental Sciences, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT 06459-0139, USA
8
Earth & Planetary Sciences Dept., University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA


In this article,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...rget-for-2020/
the authors say:

"In its domestic climate legislation, the United States should agree to... Green House Gas reductions (of) 20 to 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020."

This article also contains this interesting tidbit:

"Yes, there are some limits to the speed with which the United States can reach 2020 targets. But as I have previously written: If all Americans had the same per capita electricity demand as Californians currently do, we would cut electricity consumption 40 percent. If the entire nation had California’s much cleaner electric grid, we would cut total U.S. global-warming pollution by more than a quarter without raising American electric bills. And that wouldn’t require using any new technology whatsoever."

Since Black Tuesday and the resulting "tea party" means we won't achieve this goal, reductions after sanity is returned to the US government will have to be steeper than this.

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.

And this is similar to the goals of 350.org: they're calling for divestment in the fossil fuel corporations.

Bill McKibben writes:

We know roughly how much more carbon we can emit before we go past two degrees: about 500 billion tons. And at current rates of emissions, that will take us less than 40 years. But the math gets really impossible when you consider how much carbon the world’s coal, oil and gas industries already have in their reserves. That number is about 2,800 gigatons – five times what the most conservative governments and scientists on earth say would be safe to burn.

And yet, companies will dig it up and burn it – that’s what their business plans call for, that’s what their share prices depend on, and that’s what their government lobbying budgets are spent on making sure happens. Once you know the maths, you know that Exxon, Rio Tinto and Shell and so on aren’t like normal companies – they’re really rogues. But you also know that our situation is hopeless unless we get to work: the end of this script is written, unless we rewrite it.

Doing so is hard. It requires changes in our personal lives and in our government policy, which Australia has begun to make: the carbon tax, if it survives the next election, is a serious step forward. It also requires that we rein in the plans of, say, those coal companies that want to mine places like the Galilee Valley: if the expansion plans of Australia’s miners are carried out, that coal alone will use up almost a third of the atmospheric space between us and those two degrees.

There are a dozen other places like the Australian coalfields around the world, and we have to stop them all. The fossil fuel industry should be turned into an energy industry: we have to take the hundred million dollars a day that Exxon spends on finding new oil, and have them spend it on solar panels instead. Which is why, for now, we have to divest those stocks.

The idea is not that we can bankrupt these companies; they’re the richest enterprises in history. But we can give them a black eye, and begin to undermine their political power. That’s what happened a quarter century ago when, around the western world, institutions divested their holdings in companies doing business in apartheid South Africa. Nelson Mandela credited that as a key part of his country’s liberation, and Desmond Tutu last year called on all of us to repeat the exercise with the fossil fuel companies.

More here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/30/fossil-fuel-divestment-climate-change

This is Archbishop Desmond Tutu on Divestment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=SR-xBzs09D8

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

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

IF the queen had testicles, she'd be king.

Originally Posted by TnT

IF the queen had testicles, she'd be king.

I have no idea what that means, but the fact that solar and wind can supply all our needs and more, means we don't have to opt for a dangerous and unrenewable energy technology like fission uranium nuclear power plants. We can keep the ones we have, unless they are not safe. But I oppose any more new ones. More such plants will not help with global warming, since we can replace all the fossil fuels we need to replace with solar, wind and other renewables.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

It's case of pick your poison. The thorum pellet ones don't go critical. Now if you're talking fallout, coal is what you want. Coal plants emit radium and uranium. You also get the knock on effects of arsenic and mercury. Sorry, but rags wants the power on so the waste water gets treated and his drinking water is safe amongst other things.

So therefore, you want more solar and wind power plants, solar panels, biomass, tidal, geothermal.... I don't want the poison, whether energy or musical....

This graph



from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_mitigation

gives an idea of what we're faced with, but does not provide any dates. Hansen and co. (quoted in my post above) were discussing phasing out coal by 2030 and developing carbon capture methods in order to reach 350 ppm with this century.

More from the article:

Climate change concerns[45][46][47] and the need to reduce carbon emissions are driving increasing growth in the renewable energy industries.[48][49][50] Low-carbon renewable energy replaces conventional fossil fuels in three main areas: power generation, hot water/ space heating, and transport fuels.[51] In 2011, the share of renewables in electricity generation worldwide grew for the fourth year in a row to 20.2%, with the global share of electricity from hydro power staying roughly constant at 16.3%.[52]
(hydro is part of the 20.2%)

Renewable energy use has grown much faster than anyone anticipated.[53] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that there are few fundamental technological limits to integrating a portfolio of renewable energy technologies to meet most of total global energy demand.[54] At the national level, at least 30 nations around the world already have renewable energy contributing more than 20% of energy supply.

As of 2012, renewable energy accounts for almost half of new electricity capacity installed and costs are continuing to fall.[55] Public policy and political leadership helps to "level the playing field" and drive the wider acceptance of renewable energy technologies.[56] As of 2011, 118 countries have targets for their own renewable energy futures, and have enacted wide-ranging public policies to promote renewables.[57][58] Leading renewable energy companies include BrightSource Energy, First Solar, Gamesa, GE Energy, Goldwind, Sinovel, Suntech, Trina Solar, Vestas and Yingli.[59][60]

The incentive to use 100% renewable energy has been created by global warming and other ecological as well as economic concerns.[53] Mark Z. Jacobson says producing all new energy with wind power, solar power, and hydropower by 2030 is feasible and existing energy supply arrangements could be replaced by 2050. Barriers to implementing the renewable energy plan are seen to be "primarily social and political, not technological or economic". Jacobson says that energy costs with a wind, solar, water system should be similar to today's energy costs.[61] According to a 2011 projection by the (IEA)International Energy Agency, solar power generators may produce most of the world's electricity within 50 years, dramatically reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.[62]

My comment: Renewable energy (in green) is starting to take off, but has a long way to go, thanks to Republican obstruction for 44 years:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I have no idea what that means, but the fact that solar and wind can supply all our needs and more, means we don't have to opt for a dangerous and unrenewable energy technology like fission uranium nuclear power plants. We can keep the ones we have, unless they are not safe. But I oppose any more new ones. More such plants will not help with global warming, since we can replace all the fossil fuels we need to replace with solar, wind and other renewables.

Eric, I know you believe that renewables on a large scale are just around the corner. They are, if you assume that they are suppliments to baseload power, not a replacement. Neither solar, wind, or a combination of the two can meet our needs without major storage development, which isn't happening. The most impressive batteries in devolpment are based on glucose, but scalabilty and the impact on food supplies are still open issues. In any case, they store roughly 10 times the amount of energy per kilogram as lithium-based batteries ... which is great for cars but nowhere near enough to buffer large scale energy systems. Every other concept is notional at best, or impractical on even minimal examination.

So we aren't going to power the world from the sun anytime soon - soon being in the next 50 years. Fusion is a lot more likely. Fission exists now.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Eric, I know you believe that renewables on a large scale are just around the corner. They are, if you assume that they are suppliments to baseload power, not a replacement. Neither solar, wind, or a combination of the two can meet our needs without major storage development, which isn't happening. The most impressive batteries in devolpment are based on glucose, but scalabilty and the impact on food supplies are still open issues. In any case, they store roughly 10 times the amount of energy per kilogram as lithium-based batteries ... which is great for cars but nowhere near enough to buffer large scale energy systems. Every other concept is notional at best, or impractical on even minimal examination.

So we aren't going to power the world from the sun anytime soon - soon being in the next 50 years. Fusion is a lot more likely. Fission exists now.

M & L, why waste the bandwidth? If Eric doesn't want something to be true, it isn't true. That's the end of the story.

Also, I'd put better odds on improved molten salt storage coming out than I would the large scale implementation of fusion power anytime soon. It's been 50 years away for more than 50 years now.

Storing energy as heat in insulated containers is relatively straight forward. Storing miniature suns on demand has proven rather more complicated.

Nuclear power is an incredible danger to life on this planet.

Radioactive Waste

'Nuclear Power Has Failed Humanity'

Others aren't so sure -- particularly about the "safety" part.


"Small Modular Reactor designs will still create tons and tons of radioactive waste for which there is no solution, and never will be," asserted Ace Hoffman, an anti-nuclear power plant activist and author of The Code Killers: Why DNA and ionizing radiation are a dangerous mix.


"There are several thousand dry casks scattered around the country, just waiting to be breached," Hoffman told TechNewsWorld. "There are over one hundred spent fuel pools. One percent of this problem would still be a huge problem.


"Nuclear power has failed humanity and continues to do so," Hoffman added. "There is no such thing as clean nuclear power and never will be. It is physically impossible to make this process safe and clean."

There's huge problem with the spent fuel from nuclear energy. Huge.

Given that the United States has no permanent disposal site for the nearly 80,000 tons of spent fuel from U.S. reactors, according to the GAO, that's a scary problem.Yucca Mountain

All that deadly waste was intended to go to Yucca Mountain, a volcanic range in Nevada, northwest of Las Vegas.
Until federal funding ended in 2010, the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository was to be a deep geological repository storage facility for spent nuclear reactor fuel and other high level radioactive waste.


Unfortunately -- or fortunately, depending on your perspective -- Yucca Mountain sits on an aquifer and in an earthquake zone, so it has been deemed too dangerous a place to store radioactive waste.


In examining other centralized storage or permanent disposal options, the GAO found that new facilities may take from 15 to 40 years before they are ready to begin accepting spent fuel. This situation will likely more than double the amount of spent fuel stored at nuclear power plants to more than 150,000 tons before it can be moved offsite.
'Mobile Chernobyls'

In the meantime, spent nuclear fuel remains onsite at the nuclear power plants where it is generated, collectively accumulating at commercial nuclear reactors an additional 2,200 tons per year.


Even if an alternative to Yucca Mountain were ever opened, though, it would be highly unlikely that deadly radioactive waste would ever be removed from the nuclear power plant sites.


After all, the spent fuel can't be moved by truck or train -- "Mobile Chernobyls" headed down "Fukushima Freeways" -- without risking accidents that would permanently destroy huge areas. Since it would require decades of 24/7/365 transport to move the stuff, the odds in favor of even a single devastating accident are very high.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/N...ste-78324.html

Bottom line in regards to nuclear power.

'Radiation Damages Our DNA'

Radioactive elements can contaminate the body's cells either environmentally via gamma radiation or through inhalation and ingestion. It affects the chromosomes within tissue cells, but the injury to the body is caused primarily by interfering with cell biology and breaking apart molecules.
By far, the most vulnerable tissues are bone marrow and the lymph nodes. The body has very efficient mechanisms for capturing iodine and concentrating it in the thyroid gland, for directing calcium and other bone-seeking elements to the skeleton and holding them there, and for concentrating other elements at specific points.


Consequently, the full destructive force of a radioactive material may focus on a single organ.


Iodine-131 poses a special health risk because of its cancer-causing effect on the thyroid gland. Strontium-90 is a "bone seeker" that exhibits biochemical behavior similar to calcium. Cesium-137, on the other hand, mimics potassium and is absorbed through the walls of the intestine into the bloodstream or lymphatic system.
"Radiation damages our DNA and leads to cancer and many other ailments," explained Hoffman.


"Banning the bomb isn't enough -- and we haven't even done that yet," he concluded. "We need to ban the reactors, too. None of their safety designs are of much use against any truly destructive forces that might come along, be it terrorists, rust, human error, asteroid impacts, solar storms, war or Mother Nature."

Fukushima: We Must Not Forget!
by Rianne Teule

“Forgetting Fukushima makes it more likely that such a nuclear disaster could happen elsewhere,” said Mrs Tatsuko Okawara, one of the hundreds of thousands of victims of the Fukushima accident that began on 11 March 2011."

"Though she is right, the world still seems to forget."

The nuclear industry is trying its hardest to make us forget by downplaying the impacts of the accident, ignoring the fact that the Fukushima reactors are still not under control and claiming that lessons have been learned. Nothing is further from the truth.

So business continues as usual and in many countries the same mistakes are being made that played a role in Fukushima. These are systemic failures linked to the nuclear sector, such as a lack of independent regulators, no accountability, putting profits before the protection of people, insufficient emergency planning and the continued belief in a nuclear safety paradigm that has been proven wrong.

A truly independent nuclear regulator is a rarity as most are closely connected to the sector that they should control. And at the same time, decisions are made on the basis of politics and economics, rather than people and their safety.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/03/11-7

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Eric, I know you believe that renewables on a large scale are just around the corner. They are, if you assume that they are suppliments to baseload power, not a replacement. Neither solar, wind, or a combination of the two can meet our needs without major storage development, which isn't happening. The most impressive batteries in development are based on glucose, but scalabilty and the impact on food supplies are still open issues. In any case, they store roughly 10 times the amount of energy per kilogram as lithium-based batteries ... which is great for cars but nowhere near enough to buffer large scale energy systems. Every other concept is notional at best, or impractical on even minimal examination.

So we aren't going to power the world from the sun anytime soon - soon being in the next 50 years. Fusion is a lot more likely. Fission exists now.

Come on, not again???!!! I have gone over this with you again and again.

Solar and wind power is combined into one grid system. There are functional batteries now to store solar power at solar plants, and for local rooftop systems. It's happening. Solar and wind is available now and growing fast. There are no technical limits to it, as the wikipedia site said. The only limits are the people who say that there are limits.

Fission is dangerous and unnecessary. Fusion is a pipe dream. Thorium is a possibility the nuclear industry doesn't consider because of their own profits and convenience.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Come on, not again???!!! I have gone over this with you again and again.

Solar and wind power is combined into one grid system. There are functional batteries now to store solar power at solar plants, and for local rooftop systems. It's happening. Solar and wind is available now and growing fast. There are no technical limits to it, as the wikipedia site said. The only limits are the people who say that there are limits.

Fission is dangerous and unnecessary. Fusion is a pipe dream. Thorium is a possibility the nuclear industry doesn't consider because of their own profits and convenience.

You're fixated on this, so anything I say will be a waste of keystrokes. The next generation better hope that ITER proves out, because the first generating fusion reactor coming on line in 2040 is none too soon.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You're fixated on this, so anything I say will be a waste of keystrokes. The next generation better hope that ITER proves out, because the first generating fusion reactor coming on line in 2040 is none too soon.

I don't think it's likely, dude. Renewables + storage + massive cutbacks in energy use are what's likely, long-term. In the short term, expect to see more unconventional fossil fuels, plus more recessions, aka "demand destruction".

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Fission is dangerous and unnecessary. Fusion is a pipe dream. Thorium is a possibility the nuclear industry doesn't consider because of their own profits and convenience.

Living kills you. How much radio isotopes were tossed around during above ground testing? How much DNA does UV from the sun damage? How much endrocrine disruption do plasticizers cause? How much DNA gets damaged from background radiation? How much DNA damage do naturally occuring carcinogens cause? etc. etc.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I don't think it's likely, dude. Renewables + storage + massive cutbacks in energy use are what's likely, long-term. In the short term, expect to see more unconventional fossil fuels, plus more recessions, aka "demand destruction".

It appears to me, some want a quick fix. That could end up doing more harm than good.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

I don't think it's likely, dude. Renewables + storage + massive cutbacks in energy use are what's likely, long-term. In the short term, expect to see more unconventional fossil fuels, plus more recessions, aka "demand destruction".

As a pessimist myself, I'm happy to say you're more pessimistic than I am. I think ITER has at least a 50/50 shot, but then, I've been following fusion energy for the last 25 years. It all started as, "Hey, maybe this will work.", but now the experiments have been run, the numbers crunched and they either have the problem well enough defined to get a version 1.0 reactor online, or it's time to punt. They seem to have a handle on the worst problem: froth in the plasma. They can't run more tests, because ITER is the next test. Simulations are getting so repetitive that running them is now just for box-checking purposes. The reactor is now under construction. We'll see.

That said, the biggest source of energy that's untapped is waste. If we cut most wasteful energy uses, by taxing the bejesus out of them, the pressure would be a lot less. But even then, we still need reliable, carbon free, baseload power. It has to come from somewhere.

Think about this.

The situation at Fukushima has received limited coverage in the Western media, but many scientists have grave concerns about the health and safety ramifications of the procedure—which has never been tried before—should something go wrong.

In a phone interview, Harvey Wasserman of Nukefree.org emphasized the gravity of the situation.
"God forbid they drop a rod, or another earthquake occurs," he said.

A mistake in the procedure could be catastrophic. The tightly packed rods together contain 14,000 times the radiation released by the Hiroshima bomb, according to Reuters.


Measuring Fukushima's Impact: How Geeks and Hackers Got Geiger Counters to the Masses


http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/me...paign=20140311

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

As a pessimist myself, I'm happy to say you're more pessimistic than I am. I think ITER has at least a 50/50 shot, but then, I've been following fusion energy for the last 25 years. It all started as, "Hey, maybe this will work.", but now the experiments have been run, the numbers crunched and they either have the problem well enough defined to get a version 1.0 reactor online, or it's time to punt. They seem to have a handle on the worst problem: froth in the plasma. They can't run more tests, because ITER is the next test. Simulations are getting so repetitive that running them is now just for box-checking purposes. The reactor is now under construction. We'll see.

That said, the biggest source of energy that's untapped is waste. If we cut most wasteful energy uses, by taxing the bejesus out of them, the pressure would be a lot less. But even then, we still need reliable, carbon free, baseload power. It has to come from somewhere.

Price signals do a lot, man, though regulation does have its uses. The thing to consider with something like a fusion reactor is not just whether they've finally cracked all of the technical issues involved with safely containing and maintaining a tiny sun, it's whether or not it will ever be economically feasible to do so. Even fission reactors haven't really proven themselves able to stand on their own two feet without massive government subsidies. In an economic environment of rising energy costs and aging and declining populations, I don't know if it'll ever happen. Modern industrial civilization might end up a lot like this board, gradually running down while it coasts on past momentum.

The next 20 years or so will prove a lot. You might even live long enough to see what direction the next saeculum is pointing in.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Price signals do a lot, man, though regulation does have its uses.

Agreed. For some reason we seem to favor the economic leash to the legal one, but both are effective.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed ...

The thing to consider with something like a fusion reactor is not just whether they've finally cracked all of the technical issues involved with safely containing and maintaining a tiny sun, it's whether or not it will ever be economically feasible to do so. Even fission reactors haven't really proven themselves able to stand on their own two feet without massive government subsidies. .

That's less true than you might imagine. Much of the cost of building and commissioning a fission reactor is political and legal. Of course, we were not as knowledgeable in the past as we are now either, nor did we have the monitoring and control systems we can build easily today. If we decide to stick with fission, the newer reactors will be cheaper, more reliable and safer. I don't see us getting enough clean baseload without some form of nuclear power, so pick your poison.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed ...

In an economic environment of rising energy costs and aging and declining populations, I don't know if it'll ever happen. Modern industrial civilization might end up a lot like this board, gradually running down while it coasts on past momentum..

So far, humans have not thrown in the towel willingly. I'm counting on that stubborn behavior to get us through.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed ...

The next 20 years or so will prove a lot. You might even live long enough to see what direction the next saeculum is pointing in.

In 20 years, I'll either be 87 or a jar of ashes. Needless to say, I prefer prompt performance.

Agreed. For some reason we seem to favor the economic leash to the legal one, but both are effective.

Price signals have the advantage of being both quicker and more flexible. But other countries have taken slightly different courses, and some of them rely more heavily on the legal.

That's less true than you might imagine. Much of the cost of building and commissioning a fission reactor is political and legal. Of course, we were not as knowledgeable in the past as we are now either, nor did we have the monitoring and control systems we can build easily today. If we decide to stick with fission, the newer reactors will be cheaper, more reliable and safer. I don't see us getting enough clean baseload without some form of nuclear power, so pick your poison.

I love how people like to handwave away political and economic constraints like they're just going to go away. It's also worth considering that we have about 60 years of experience with fission plants, on many different continents, and all of them seem to rely on government handouts. Not saying that they don't have their advantages, but too cheap to meter is as far away as it has ever been.

So far, humans have not thrown in the towel willingly. I'm counting on that stubborn behavior to get us through.

More "progress is inevitable". Is it?

In 20 years, I'll either be 87 or a jar of ashes. Needless to say, I prefer prompt performance.

I wouldn't hold your breath. Not if you want to make it to 87.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You're fixated on this, so anything I say will be a waste of keystrokes. The next generation better hope that ITER proves out, because the first generating fusion reactor coming on line in 2040 is none too soon.

Converting to solar and wind by 2030 will be none too soon; in fact too late for many species that we will have already killed off by then.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Living kills you. How much radio isotopes were tossed around during above ground testing? How much DNA does UV from the sun damage? How much endrocrine disruption do plasticizers cause? How much DNA gets damaged from background radiation? How much DNA damage do naturally occuring carcinogens cause? etc. etc.

Why don't you move to Fukushima and let us know how that works out for you.

Nuclear power is entirely subsidized by the state. It takes a long time to build, and needs a lot to get past the needed regulation, since it is so inherently dangerous. And there's not even enough regulation as it is. Many existing nuclear plants are no more safe than Fukushima was. It is immoral to impose deadly-dangerous risks from waste, spent fuel rods, radiation and terrorist ammunition on the people and species of Earth for thousands of years, just so we might have a few less power outages now. Solar and wind is baseload power. Do not believe the false propaganda.