Does Sandy Mean We Should Have Fewer Nukes, or More?

[wtmusic]

"I’ve been trying to come up with something to say about Sandy that hasn’t already been asserted and questioned and reasserted and so on. So I thought I’d talk about how nuclear plants weathered the storm.

As I mentioned in a previous post, environmentalists in my hometown and throughout New York want to permanently close the Indian Point nuclear plant, which they see as a potential “Fukushima on the Hudson,” as the green group Riverkeeper put it. Similar fears have led Germany and other nations to plan to phase out nuclear energy. Sandy posed a major test to the safety of Indian Point—which is less than 10 miles from my home–and other nuclear plants in the heavily populated Northeast. So how did the nukes fare?"

<>

"So here are the lessons that I draw from Sandy. Global warming is increasing the probability and destructiveness of extreme weather events like Sandy. (I don’t see the point of dithering over this claim any more.) The last thing we should do in the face of this threat is abandon nuclear energy. If anything, we need more nuclear power, not less, to curb global warming. But we must also do more to ensure that reactors can safely weather future Frankenstorms."

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/11/02/does-sandy-mean-we-should-have-fewer-nukes-or-more/

[reusrename]

1. stop the insanity

Wind and solar!

Nuclear has absolutely nothing beneficial to offer. Just higher costs and greater risk.

[RobertEarl]

3. Now, now

As to why people are evacuated; that is just being prudent, at best; and is a result of needless panic at worst.

There is no need to worry. Radiation is good for you. That is what some of the scientists say; get it while you can. People around Chernobyl and Fukushima can all go home now and Santa Claus will make sure it is safe.

Of course these words come from a place of utter disregard for the real science and are uttered just to ensure that the lying sacks of shit that foisted nuclear power plants on a trusting populace can be allowed to keep raking in the dough. Even tho the capitalistic system has given a huge thumbs down on future nuke plants by totally withholding any financing. Other than that, yes, it's all my fault!

Bwahahaha

[phantom power]

2. Most people are still more comfortable burning fossil fuels than splitting atoms.

That is directly at odds with the fact that fossil fuels kill far more people even now, much less before climate change really starts to get deadly.

But that's the fact. I doubt we'll see any more nukes. But we will see more fossil fuel plants.