But then, McCain’s energy policy is all about ‘not very helpful’.

> Maybe nuclear is more costly than wind and some of the other
> non-exhaustable energy sources, but can it still make a contribution?

No. It hurts the effort.

Money (and time, and work) invested into new nuclear plants means that much less effort can be put into other alternatives. A nuclear installation is so much more expensive, and takes so much longer, than any wind or solar installation, that any money invested into new nuclear plants is effectively contributing to global warming, because it means that existing coal and natural gas plants stay online longer than they would if that money went into building out solar+wind.

See here:

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php

or here:

http://www.rmi.org/ images/ PDFs/ Energy/ E08-01_AmbioNucIllusion.pdf

By the way, I think that $0.15/kwh figure is probably low. That may be what’s officially charge to customers, but, for example, utilities can start charging customers for that nuclear power years before a plant even comes online. Plus, the government subsidies for nuclear are absolutely enormous, far outweighing what’s given for wind or solar.

Joe then it is inexcusable that you never mention radiation dangers from natural and other human sources, or or offer comparisons between them and radiation exposure from reactors. Joe you simply ignore evidence that low level radiation exposers from nuclear plants do not cause significant increases in radiation related illnesses like leukemia, or increases health problems in the neighborhood of American reactors. Your argument is simply an appeal to irrational fears, and by your own admission you should possess enough knowledge to understand the irrationality of those fears.

Nuclear power is seductive, but not good.

Joe, I will not repeat the words that passed through my mind when I read that comment. You have absolutely no idea what you are saying. My father was a nuclear chemist who did up close and personal research with some very nasty radioactive materials in the 1950’s. He use to order Plutonium from Los Alamos by the Kilo, for his research. Although my father was careful, he did receive much higher doses of radiation than any of the Fench workers. My father also went on to become an expert on nuclear and radiation safety safety. Despite his radiation exposures, he is still very much alive and active at the age of 96.

Joe if you are so concerned about people being exposed to radiation how come you never mention radiation from coal? According to a story in Scientific American, cola “fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste.” http://www.sciam.com/ article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
Why do you never mention radiation from burning coal?

Another common energy related source of radiation is Radon in natural gas. My farther who studied the transport of radon by natural gas, concluded that radon is transported into consumer homes by natural gas, but at concentrations so low, that it posed no danger to residents. http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/ 2008/ 01/ cj-barton-sr-at-ornl-radon-in-home.html Never-the-less, with your even the slightest does is dangerous approach, your failure to notice the danger of natural gas born radon in the home as a source or radiation danger seems strangely remiss.

Joe, Your low doses over time assertion has been repeatedly falsified by empirical studies. You should know that all of the morbidity and Epidemiological studies show that nuclear workers live significantly longer than members of the general population. People are exposed to high levels or radiation by living at high altitudes, living over granite or shale, or by flying, yet research has not identified any radiation related health problems with any of these groups.

[JR: I don't waste time mentioning radiation from burning coal because I'm trying to get us off of coal. My "low doses" assertion has not been repeatedly falsified by empirical studies. I am aware that nuclear workers have fewer health problems than the general population -- that is the so-called healthy worker effect, which I'm sure you are aware of because you seem familiar with the literature. Everyone else can google it. My uncle was a nuclear physicist at MIT and then my family started a Radon gas testing company, which they later sold. I am quite familiar with the literature -- and yes, everybody should get their home tested for radon.]

4 1/2 billion ton of uranium in the sea, can be recovered for $100 a pound. That will provide the world with enough uranium last the world for a very longtime.

Next you quote a story from Reuters that contained an apparently inaccurately statement that “In less than 15 days, the CRIIRAD has been informed of four malfunctions in four nuclear plants, leading to the accidental contamination of 126 workers,” CRIIRAD head Corinne Castanier told Reuters in an interview.…”

But an examination of press accounts raised questions about how many worker were really exposed, and what the exact radiation exposure was. For example,Xinhua reports:

“Fifteen French workers were slightly exposed to nuclear radiation at Saint-Alban nuclear station in Iser province, but their health was unaffected, local media reported Monday.

A manager with France’s national power company said regular medical checks found traces of radiation materials in the workers’ bodies after they carried out routine repair and maintenance tasks at the nuclear station on July 18.

The manager said they were immediately sent to a hospital for further checks, which showed their organs, luckily, were not affected.

According to an AP report the “contamination was from “traces of radioactive elements”. This clearly indicates that the exposure was not dangerous.

Initial reports stated that “100 people were slightly contaminated near the French nuclear plant” at Tricastin.
“100 staff were contaminated with a low dose of radiation last week and a uranium spillage occured.” In none of these incidents did any of thew workers receive more than a harmless dose of radiation.

Joe, you are making a mountain out of a molehill when you refer to these minor industrial incidents as justification for your attacks on nuclear power.

Considering the virtually insignificant nature of the French reports, your argument rises to the level of anti-nuclear hysteria.

By the way I plan to vote for Obama.

[JR: I just love people who are so willing to dismiss irradiation of other people. If your family were "contaminated with a low dose of radiation last week" somehow I don't think you would be mollified to learn that China's pro-nuclear news service asserted "their health was unaffected." And I seriously Doubt you would be delighted to send them back to the same place to work day after day for years.

Low doses of radiation typically take a long time to have an impact -- and, of course, cumulative exposures have cumulative and even nonlinear impacts. I reported what was in the news. If that makes me hysterical, I guess that means the facts are hysterical world.]

May be McCain is planing to invade Russia to ensure that democracy continues to flourish there.

I’ve tried to understand the different ways people things thru about government and their personal beliefs and opinions. Conservatives might not like big government, except in all the places that they do. Something about conservatives/libertarians would like 10 000 people to get a million dollars each where liberals would like a million people to get 10 000 a piece. Not much help to understand anything, but that’s what it looks like.