Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Thomas:
What would you consider sufficient empirical evidence to change your view on nuclear?
as opposed to unempirical evidence, you mean?
Evidence? moi?

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Nov 4th, 2012 at 05:34:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
touche!

self-evident ever?

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Nov 4th, 2012 at 07:12:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
by Katrin on Sun Nov 4th, 2012 at 08:15:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I specified. Germany succeeding in decarbonizing. More generally, I will stop shilling for more nukes once the coal plants are all scheduled for demolition and and the loadfactor for the NG burners either very low, or their fuel synthetic rather than natural.

It is an urgency thing, more than anything. The potential kill count from global warming is in the billions, and people have been preaching the gospel that renewables will do the job and thus we do not need to resort to fission for over 40 years. 40 years of failure.

... Question. If 2054 comes around and Germany still burns coal, will that make you reconsider your standpoint?

by Thomas on Sun Nov 4th, 2012 at 03:17:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The coal plants are a result of corrupt structures and they will go before 2054. Renewable is the real enemy of nuclear, not coal.

Either you didn't finish your reading list or you didn't take my point of the danger of nuclear plus its cost. Sixty years and they still need subsidies!

by Katrin on Sun Nov 4th, 2012 at 04:46:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The status quo is both vastly more costly, and vastly more deadly. Every nation that elected to burn coal instead of Uranium in 1970, elected to kill many thousands of people. If the nasty climate change projections turn out to be the correct ones, make that millions to billions.
 Nuclear is not harmless. Nothing is harmless. But you do not die extra permanently because you happened to die from radiation. Cancers from coal plant pollution are not somehow fluffy and cute. Birth defects from mercury poisoning are not less heartbreaking to parents than those induced by xenon isotope leakage.
by Thomas on Sun Nov 4th, 2012 at 05:24:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Damn. Hit the button by mistake.

You are downplaying the danger from nuclear. Well, unsurprisingly. Additionally you make the mistake of claiming coal was the competitor of nukes. Rubbish. Nuclear is the direct antagonist of renewables. You can't switch to wind and solar and have nukes at the same time. You've got to decide now if you want nuclear or renewables. Killing coal is the next step.

by Katrin on Sun Nov 4th, 2012 at 05:45:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series