Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Showing Original Post only (View all)Reason for and a critical question about 2012's 6.9% decline in nuclear production [View all]
From the 2013 BP Review of World Energy
In 2012...
World nuclear power generation declined by 6.9%, the largest decline on record for a second consecutive year. Japanese nuclear output fell by 89%. Nuclears share of global primary energy was the lowest since 1984.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/bp2013nuclear
- The decline in production at the rate observed is a direct consequence of the meltdowns at Fukushima. Whether it is reasonable or not, whether it is good judgement or not, the use of nuclear technology for energy isn't well accepted by the public and that isn't likely to change.
- Given the aging nuclear fleet and the observed incidence of previous accidents capable of inciting public backlash what happens when the next one comes along?
For more on the observed failure rates, see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112759049 especially
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112759049#post23
- Nuclear plants are commonly found near large population centers.
So here is the question for nuclear supporters:
- If, after spending 25 years investing heavily in nuclear generation with funds that would have otherwise gone to building a system of distributed renewable generation, the next Fukushima or Chernobyl level event hits one of those population centers hard...
...what would you expect are the consequences to our effort to move away from carbon?
- Assume for a moment a worse case scenario where a Tokyo, Chicago or Shanghai is required to be abandoned for decades but there is limited direct health impact.
......what would you expect are the consequences to our effort to move away from carbon?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
47 replies, 3427 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
47 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Reason for and a critical question about 2012's 6.9% decline in nuclear production [View all]
kristopher
Dec 2013
OP
Anyone familiar with near misses like Davis Besse knows that we've just been lucky.
kristopher
Dec 2013
#32
Right.That football sized hole in Davis Besse's reactor head is something the Japanese did.
kristopher
Dec 2013
#37
'Shoot the messenger' is THE go to strategy the nuclear industry uses against any and all critics.
kristopher
Dec 2013
#47
The consequences are clear enough. 2013 is going to be the worst year for accumulation of...
NNadir
Dec 2013
#29
Why on earth would a smart guy like you have expected "this time" to be different?
GliderGuider
Dec 2013
#45