Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:19 am @ur momisugly arthur4563 re nuclear power.
Nuclear is not safe. It is not reliable. It is not affordable. It is not a boon to mankind.
>>>>>
Roger, my poor desperate friend, we need responsible government. Responsible government would have a plan to implement 50 new nuclear plants in the US, in the next 30 years.
I just came across a terrible consequence of Global Warming
“The film opens with a baby dinoshark swimming away from a broken chunk of Arctic glacier that calved due to global warming.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinoshark
documented by climate scientist Roger Corman.
2011
Trailer contains a lot of shark and a lot of jumping. (find it yourself. Won’t give link, a little too much Gore, pardon the pun)
clipe
August 3, 2013 3:17 pm
Speaking of JoNova someone asked about Harry Readme which reminded me of this snippet. CRU NEEDS A DATA MANAGER.
Not only do both databases have unnecessary duplicates, introduced for external mapping purposes by the look of it, but the ‘main’ stations (2 and 4) have different station name & country. In fact one of the country names is illegal! Dealing with things like this cannot be automated as they’re the results of non-automatic decisions.
What a bloody mess.
Now looking at the dates.. something bad has happened, hasn’t it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993! Looking at the data – the COBAR station 1962-2004 seems to be an exact copy of the COBAR AIRPORT AWS station 1962-2004. And wouldn’t you know it, the data for this station has missing data between 12/92 and 12/99 inclusive. So I reckon it’s the old FORREST AERO station (WMO 9464600, .au ID 11004), with the new Australian bulletin updates tacked on (hence starting in 2000) So.. do I split off the 2000-present data to a new station with the new number, or accept that whoever joined them (Dave?) looked into it and decided it would be OK? The BOM website says they’re 800m apart.
Hope that’s right..
All 115 refs now matched in the TMin database. Confidence in the fidelity of the Australian station in the database drastically reduced. Likelihood of invalid merging of Australian stations high. Let’s go..
getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.
I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.
I honestly have no idea what to do here. and there are countless others of equal bafflingness.
I suspected a couple of stations were being counted twice, so using ‘comm’ I looked for identical headers. Unfortunately there weren’t any!! So I have invented two stations, hmm.
I have to admit, I still don’t understand secondary parameter generation. I’ve read the papers, and the miniscule amount of ‘Read Me’ documentation, and it just doesn’t make sense.
As I was examining the vap database, I noticed there was a ‘wet’ database. Could I not use that to assist with rd0 generation? well.. it’s not documented, but then, none of the process is so I might as well bluff my way into it!
Units seem to vary: <DO YOU SEE? THERE’S THAT OH-SO FAMILIAR BLOCK OF MISSING CODES IN THE LATE 80S, THEN THE DATA PICKS UP AGAIN. BUT LOOK AT THE CORRELATIONS ON THE RIGHT, ALL GOOD AFTER THE BREAK, DECIDEDLY DODGY BEFORE IT. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT STATIONS, AREN’T THEY? AAAARRRGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!
Quite honestly I don’t have time – but it just shows the state our data holdings have drifted into. Who added those two series together? When? Why? Untraceable, except anecdotally.
But I am beginning to wish I could just blindly merge based on WMO code.. the trouble is that then I’m continuing the approach that created these broken databases.
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have 🙂
geran, you write “Make room for us “illegal aliens””.
Sorry. Our health care system only applies to Canadian citizens and landed immigrants. All others pay full costs in hospitals; I believe $2000 per day, plus medical costs.
rogerknights
August 3, 2013 3:38 pm
Bill H says:
August 3, 2013 at 8:16 am
A Republican Case for Climate Action
By WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, LEE M. THOMAS, WILLIAM K. REILLY and CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
Published: August 1, 2013
There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. Sea level is rising. Arctic Sea ice is melting years faster than projected.
OK
The costs of inaction are undeniable.
Non sequitur.
(Since the CO2 spectrum is nearly saturated and there is no net positive feedback, we have nothing to worry about.)
rogerknights
August 3, 2013 3:43 pm
PS: Even if we “act,” it won’t make any difference if the ROW (Developing Countries) don’t–and they won’t. The only effect will be to increase emissions by off-shoring manufacturing to them.
Kajajuk
August 3, 2013 3:47 pm
A little levity…
Kajajuk
August 3, 2013 4:04 pm
Levity; not so much…
DirkH
August 3, 2013 4:15 pm
Kajajuk says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:04 pm
“Levity; not so much…”
And? Whatcha suggest? Taxing liberal foundations?
This is a blanket response to the nuclear advocates.
First, if nuclear power plants are so desirable, why does nuclear power provide only about 20 percent of the US’ electricity? Why doesn’t nuclear provide 80 or even 95 percent? Why can’t nuclear compete economically with coal and natural gas?
The answer is that nuclear plant construction costs are much too high to ever compete.
Second, why do medium-sized islands with populations of approximately one million people have no nuclear power plants? Why do those islanders pay 25 cents or more for power? If nuclear is the answer and can actually produce power at 3 cents per kWh or less as some proponents claim, why aren’t there any nuclear plants on the islands?
See. http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/nuclear-plants-on-islands-nutty-idea.html
Even an older, paid-for nuclear plant cannot compete. At least one such US plant is being shut down as being no longer economic to operate. I’ll try to provide a link to that bit of news.
Third, why cannot nuclear plants be built on time and on budget? After constructing the 400 or so plants world-wide, one would expect the learning curve would be climbed already. The US’ South Texas Nuclear Plant, near Corpus Christi on the Gulf coast, recently cancelled an expansion project that would have added two more reactors. The Japanese reactor vendor could not provide a final cost nor an expected finish date. Projected costs kept climbing and climbing.
I could go on, but there really is little point. Nuclear power is dead and will remain dead. And our grandchildren will be grateful.
DirkH
August 3, 2013 4:26 pm
DirkH says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:15 pm
“And? Whatcha suggest? Taxing liberal foundations?”
That’s more than half a trillion.
Since the financial crisis in 2008, foundation assets have risen by 20% – adjusted for inflation. http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/pdf/02_found_growth/2011/06_11.pdf
Looks like an unhealthy concentration of power.
jorgekafkazar
August 3, 2013 4:28 pm
David Ball says: “Spending the money to go to mars is very short-sighted.”
Depends on who we send, David.
DirkH
August 3, 2013 4:32 pm
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:26 pm
“First, if nuclear power plants are so desirable, why does nuclear power provide only about 20 percent of the US’ electricity? Why doesn’t nuclear provide 80 or even 95 percent? Why can’t nuclear compete economically with coal and natural gas?
The answer is that nuclear plant construction costs are much too high to ever compete.
[..]
I could go on, but there really is little point. Nuclear power is dead and will remain dead. And our grandchildren will be grateful.”
I will just blanket-mock you by saying
First, if windmills are so desirable, why do windmills provide only about zero(*) percent of the US’ electricity? Why don’t windmills provide 80 or even 95 percent? Why can’t windmills compete economically with coal and natural gas?
The answer is that windmill construction costs are much too high to ever compete.
[..]
I could go on, but there really is little point. Windmills are dead and will remain dead. And our grandchildren will be grateful when they actually see an eagle.
(*) It’s probably slightly more than zero but zero is probably a good approximation.
You see, that was easy to turn around. Think of something better. How about number of deaths per TWh produced. Oh, that won’t fly. Hmmm.
jorgekafkazar
August 3, 2013 4:37 pm
Roger Sowell says: “First, if nuclear power plants are so desirable, why does nuclear power provide only about 20 percent of the US’ electricity? Why doesn’t nuclear provide 80 or even 95 percent? Why can’t nuclear compete economically with coal and natural gas? The answer is that nuclear plant construction costs are much too high to ever compete.”
The cost of nuclear power plant construction is based on licensing and permitting regulations promoted by anti-nuke activists and designed to raise costs and drag out the construction schedule to non-competitive levels.
Here is a list of islands with populations of approximately 1 million, yet none have a nuclear power plant.
Island ……………….population, millions
Okinawa…………………1.25
Mauritius…………………1.245
Bohol…………………….1.23
Hong Kong……………….1.18
Mindoro…………………..1.16
Xiamen Island…………….1.08
Sao Luis Island……………1.08
Trinidad……………………1.03 (this island has abundant natural gas, so of course is not a candidate)
South Island (NZ)………1.008
Oahu……………………….0.876
Tenerife……………………0.865
Cyprus……………………..0.855
Grand Canary………………0.815
Majorca……………………0.814
Reunion (France)………….0.793
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:19 am
“Our children and grandchildren will rightfully ask: You had solar, wind, ocean currents, and hot ocean surface water in the tropics, so why did your generation build all those toxic and deadly nuclear power plants? What did we ever do to you, that you hate us so much that you poisoned the planet with plutonium wastes?”
DirkH says:
August 3, 2013 at 12:15 pm
“b) about Ralph Nader’s invention of the toxicity of Plutonium http://atomicinsights.com/1995/05/how-deadly-plutonium.html”
Roger it is no shame to be wrong. But having a blog to discourage use of nuclear based on egregiously wrong information, is gross irresponsibility. Shame on your for taking activist pap on trust and not doing the simple research to corroborate such a serious assertion. Now we are going to see if you are an honest person whose motive is to protect the world’s citizenry or an alarmist propagandist with no scruples by what you do to redress this wrong by updating your blog. This is a toughy for a lifelong anti-nuclear guy. It’s painful to have to admit you have wronged your faithful followers, but they will respect you for it.
Meanwhile here is a tabulation of deaths from nuclear electrical plants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
Canada -0, France (big nuclear)- 0, Germany-0, Japan- 4, Ukraine ~50, UK -0, US -3
Note there is a new edit adding 78 for UK, but a) the plant at Windscale was a nuclear bomb plant built in the early 1950s and b) Wikipedia it self states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire
“A 2010 study of workers directly involved in the cleanup found no significant long term health effects from their involvement.”
So 87.7 percent of all deaths from nuclear electrical plants since their beginnings in 1950 occurred at Chernobyl, an old Soviet plant built with no safety features.
Since I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt in your sincerity I want you to do your own research on the deaths from coal, oil and gas, and, yes, wind turbines (11 in China) and solar (4 installers in California alone). The latter two will be the hardest to find since the MSM would resist publishing anything bad on these two planet savers except, ironically, the Chinese press.
DR
August 3, 2013 4:43 pm
@DirkH
The Cass Green Gym’s facility offers weight machines, boxing bags, a treadmill, and stationary bikes featuring Green Revolution technology that generates electricity. Cass Community Social Services (CCSS), located on Detroit’s Cass Avenue, projects that full classes with ten people, is enough power to light three homes for an entire year. It will redirect it back to the building’s electrical grid, reducing operating costs.
Ten people could power 3 homes? Imagine the possibilities for putting people back to work in Detroit!
Roger Sowell says August 3, 2013 at 4:26 pm
…
Third, why cannot nuclear plants be built on time and on budget? After constructing the 400 or so plants world-wide, one would expect the learning curve would be climbed already.
One word: France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
Excerpt:
France’s nuclear power industry has been called “a success story” that has put the nation “ahead of the world” in terms of providing cheap, CO2-free energy. In terms of industrialized nations, mainland France has the lowest carbon dioxide production per unit of GDP in the world.
As of 2012, France’s electricity price to household customers is the 7th cheapest amongst the 27 member European Union, and also the 7th cheapest to industrial consumers, with a rate of €0.14/kWh to households and €0.07/kWh to industrial consumers.
Roger Sowell says August 3, 2013 at 4:38 pm
Here is a list of islands with populations of approximately 1 million, yet none have a nuclear power plant.
…
You missed one:
Manhattan.
But, what is your point?
.
DR
August 3, 2013 4:53 pm
Does anyone have a comprehensive list of ‘Big Oil’ etc. funding greenie groups?
@ur momisugly DirkH, nice try, very clever of you to pick on fringe technologies wind and solar. Yet, even that fails. Wind provides far more than zero in California, in fact wind produced 4.5 percent in 2012. Solar provided just under 1 percent in 2012.
How about trying your cute little trick with natural gas, and with coal-fired power? Why can’t nuclear compete with the big boys?
I would almost pay money to see this.
Roger Sowell;
Nuclear can and does compete in France and other jurisdictions. But I thought this wasn’t about competitiveness? I thought this was about safe affordable power that didn’t produce ghg’s? That was the original point, and you’ve completely side stepped it. Is it affordable? Yes. Is it safe? Yes. Does it produce ghg’s? No. So why is the green movement so dead against it? Offer up some actual science if you want to have a discussion about the relative merits of one versus the other.
Roger Sowell;
Why can’t nuclear compete with the big boys?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which has what to do with it being safe or not? Being dangerous to future generations or not? Those were your assertions and when asked to back them up you changed the subject.
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:19 am
@ur momisugly arthur4563 re nuclear power.
Nuclear is not safe. It is not reliable. It is not affordable. It is not a boon to mankind.
>>>>>
Roger, my poor desperate friend, we need responsible government. Responsible government would have a plan to implement 50 new nuclear plants in the US, in the next 30 years.
For those who missed it live here is the recording of ghe fascinating JoNova broadcast.
“Its’s not really a market in carbon. We’re not trading lead pencils”
Courtesy of Radio 2GB Australia.
http://webstore.2gb.com/audio/overnight-with-michael-mclaren/201308/04-ets–more-black-market-than-gree.mp3
I just came across a terrible consequence of Global Warming
“The film opens with a baby dinoshark swimming away from a broken chunk of Arctic glacier that calved due to global warming.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinoshark
documented by climate scientist Roger Corman.
2011
Trailer contains a lot of shark and a lot of jumping. (find it yourself. Won’t give link, a little too much Gore, pardon the pun)
Speaking of JoNova someone asked about Harry Readme which reminded me of this snippet.
CRU NEEDS A DATA MANAGER.
Not only do both databases have unnecessary duplicates, introduced for external mapping purposes by the look of it, but the ‘main’ stations (2 and 4) have different station name & country. In fact one of the country names is illegal! Dealing with things like this cannot be automated as they’re the results of non-automatic decisions.
What a bloody mess.
Now looking at the dates.. something bad has happened, hasn’t it. COBAR AIRPORT AWS cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993! Looking at the data – the COBAR station 1962-2004 seems to be an exact copy of the COBAR AIRPORT AWS station 1962-2004. And wouldn’t you know it, the data for this station has missing data between 12/92 and 12/99 inclusive. So I reckon it’s the old FORREST AERO station (WMO 9464600, .au ID 11004), with the new Australian bulletin updates tacked on (hence starting in 2000) So.. do I split off the 2000-present data to a new station with the new number, or accept that whoever joined them (Dave?) looked into it and decided it would be OK? The BOM website says they’re 800m apart.
Hope that’s right..
All 115 refs now matched in the TMin database. Confidence in the fidelity of the Australian station in the database drastically reduced. Likelihood of invalid merging of Australian stations high. Let’s go..
getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.
I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.
I honestly have no idea what to do here. and there are countless others of equal bafflingness.
I suspected a couple of stations were being counted twice, so using ‘comm’ I looked for identical headers. Unfortunately there weren’t any!! So I have invented two stations, hmm.
I have to admit, I still don’t understand secondary parameter generation. I’ve read the papers, and the miniscule amount of ‘Read Me’ documentation, and it just doesn’t make sense.
As I was examining the vap database, I noticed there was a ‘wet’ database. Could I not use that to assist with rd0 generation? well.. it’s not documented, but then, none of the process is so I might as well bluff my way into it!
Units seem to vary: <DO YOU SEE? THERE’S THAT OH-SO FAMILIAR BLOCK OF MISSING CODES IN THE LATE 80S, THEN THE DATA PICKS UP AGAIN. BUT LOOK AT THE CORRELATIONS ON THE RIGHT, ALL GOOD AFTER THE BREAK, DECIDEDLY DODGY BEFORE IT. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT STATIONS, AREN’T THEY? AAAARRRGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!
Quite honestly I don’t have time – but it just shows the state our data holdings have drifted into. Who added those two series together? When? Why? Untraceable, except anecdotally.
But I am beginning to wish I could just blindly merge based on WMO code.. the trouble is that then I’m continuing the approach that created these broken databases.
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have 🙂
Link, sorry.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/climategates-harry_read_me-txt-we-all-really-should/?singlepage=true
geran, you write “Make room for us “illegal aliens””.
Sorry. Our health care system only applies to Canadian citizens and landed immigrants. All others pay full costs in hospitals; I believe $2000 per day, plus medical costs.
PS: Even if we “act,” it won’t make any difference if the ROW (Developing Countries) don’t–and they won’t. The only effect will be to increase emissions by off-shoring manufacturing to them.
A little levity…
Levity; not so much…
Kajajuk says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:04 pm
“Levity; not so much…”
And? Whatcha suggest? Taxing liberal foundations?
This is a blanket response to the nuclear advocates.
First, if nuclear power plants are so desirable, why does nuclear power provide only about 20 percent of the US’ electricity? Why doesn’t nuclear provide 80 or even 95 percent? Why can’t nuclear compete economically with coal and natural gas?
The answer is that nuclear plant construction costs are much too high to ever compete.
Second, why do medium-sized islands with populations of approximately one million people have no nuclear power plants? Why do those islanders pay 25 cents or more for power? If nuclear is the answer and can actually produce power at 3 cents per kWh or less as some proponents claim, why aren’t there any nuclear plants on the islands?
See. http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/nuclear-plants-on-islands-nutty-idea.html
Even an older, paid-for nuclear plant cannot compete. At least one such US plant is being shut down as being no longer economic to operate. I’ll try to provide a link to that bit of news.
Third, why cannot nuclear plants be built on time and on budget? After constructing the 400 or so plants world-wide, one would expect the learning curve would be climbed already. The US’ South Texas Nuclear Plant, near Corpus Christi on the Gulf coast, recently cancelled an expansion project that would have added two more reactors. The Japanese reactor vendor could not provide a final cost nor an expected finish date. Projected costs kept climbing and climbing.
I could go on, but there really is little point. Nuclear power is dead and will remain dead. And our grandchildren will be grateful.
DirkH says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:15 pm
“And? Whatcha suggest? Taxing liberal foundations?”
That’s more than half a trillion.
Since the financial crisis in 2008, foundation assets have risen by 20% – adjusted for inflation.
http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/pdf/02_found_growth/2011/06_11.pdf
Looks like an unhealthy concentration of power.
David Ball says: “Spending the money to go to mars is very short-sighted.”
Depends on who we send, David.
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 4:26 pm
“First, if nuclear power plants are so desirable, why does nuclear power provide only about 20 percent of the US’ electricity? Why doesn’t nuclear provide 80 or even 95 percent? Why can’t nuclear compete economically with coal and natural gas?
The answer is that nuclear plant construction costs are much too high to ever compete.
[..]
I could go on, but there really is little point. Nuclear power is dead and will remain dead. And our grandchildren will be grateful.”
I will just blanket-mock you by saying
First, if windmills are so desirable, why do windmills provide only about zero(*) percent of the US’ electricity? Why don’t windmills provide 80 or even 95 percent? Why can’t windmills compete economically with coal and natural gas?
The answer is that windmill construction costs are much too high to ever compete.
[..]
I could go on, but there really is little point. Windmills are dead and will remain dead. And our grandchildren will be grateful when they actually see an eagle.
(*) It’s probably slightly more than zero but zero is probably a good approximation.
You see, that was easy to turn around. Think of something better. How about number of deaths per TWh produced. Oh, that won’t fly. Hmmm.
Roger Sowell says: “First, if nuclear power plants are so desirable, why does nuclear power provide only about 20 percent of the US’ electricity? Why doesn’t nuclear provide 80 or even 95 percent? Why can’t nuclear compete economically with coal and natural gas? The answer is that nuclear plant construction costs are much too high to ever compete.”
The cost of nuclear power plant construction is based on licensing and permitting regulations promoted by anti-nuke activists and designed to raise costs and drag out the construction schedule to non-competitive levels.
Here is a list of islands with populations of approximately 1 million, yet none have a nuclear power plant.
Island ……………….population, millions
Okinawa…………………1.25
Mauritius…………………1.245
Bohol…………………….1.23
Hong Kong……………….1.18
Mindoro…………………..1.16
Xiamen Island…………….1.08
Sao Luis Island……………1.08
Trinidad……………………1.03 (this island has abundant natural gas, so of course is not a candidate)
South Island (NZ)………1.008
Oahu……………………….0.876
Tenerife……………………0.865
Cyprus……………………..0.855
Grand Canary………………0.815
Majorca……………………0.814
Reunion (France)………….0.793
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:19 am
“Our children and grandchildren will rightfully ask: You had solar, wind, ocean currents, and hot ocean surface water in the tropics, so why did your generation build all those toxic and deadly nuclear power plants? What did we ever do to you, that you hate us so much that you poisoned the planet with plutonium wastes?”
DirkH says:
August 3, 2013 at 12:15 pm
“b) about Ralph Nader’s invention of the toxicity of Plutonium
http://atomicinsights.com/1995/05/how-deadly-plutonium.html”
Roger it is no shame to be wrong. But having a blog to discourage use of nuclear based on egregiously wrong information, is gross irresponsibility. Shame on your for taking activist pap on trust and not doing the simple research to corroborate such a serious assertion. Now we are going to see if you are an honest person whose motive is to protect the world’s citizenry or an alarmist propagandist with no scruples by what you do to redress this wrong by updating your blog. This is a toughy for a lifelong anti-nuclear guy. It’s painful to have to admit you have wronged your faithful followers, but they will respect you for it.
Meanwhile here is a tabulation of deaths from nuclear electrical plants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
Canada -0, France (big nuclear)- 0, Germany-0, Japan- 4, Ukraine ~50, UK -0, US -3
Note there is a new edit adding 78 for UK, but a) the plant at Windscale was a nuclear bomb plant built in the early 1950s and b) Wikipedia it self states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire
“A 2010 study of workers directly involved in the cleanup found no significant long term health effects from their involvement.”
So 87.7 percent of all deaths from nuclear electrical plants since their beginnings in 1950 occurred at Chernobyl, an old Soviet plant built with no safety features.
Since I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt in your sincerity I want you to do your own research on the deaths from coal, oil and gas, and, yes, wind turbines (11 in China) and solar (4 installers in California alone). The latter two will be the hardest to find since the MSM would resist publishing anything bad on these two planet savers except, ironically, the Chinese press.
@DirkH
Ten people could power 3 homes? Imagine the possibilities for putting people
backto work in Detroit!One word: France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
Excerpt:
France’s nuclear power industry has been called “a success story” that has put the nation “ahead of the world” in terms of providing cheap, CO2-free energy. In terms of industrialized nations, mainland France has the lowest carbon dioxide production per unit of GDP in the world.
As of 2012, France’s electricity price to household customers is the 7th cheapest amongst the 27 member European Union, and also the 7th cheapest to industrial consumers, with a rate of €0.14/kWh to households and €0.07/kWh to industrial consumers.
You missed one:
Manhattan.
But, what is your point?
.
Does anyone have a comprehensive list of ‘Big Oil’ etc. funding greenie groups?
@ur momisugly DirkH, nice try, very clever of you to pick on fringe technologies wind and solar. Yet, even that fails. Wind provides far more than zero in California, in fact wind produced 4.5 percent in 2012. Solar provided just under 1 percent in 2012.
How about trying your cute little trick with natural gas, and with coal-fired power? Why can’t nuclear compete with the big boys?
I would almost pay money to see this.
Roger Sowell;
Nuclear can and does compete in France and other jurisdictions. But I thought this wasn’t about competitiveness? I thought this was about safe affordable power that didn’t produce ghg’s? That was the original point, and you’ve completely side stepped it. Is it affordable? Yes. Is it safe? Yes. Does it produce ghg’s? No. So why is the green movement so dead against it? Offer up some actual science if you want to have a discussion about the relative merits of one versus the other.
Roger Sowell;
Why can’t nuclear compete with the big boys?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which has what to do with it being safe or not? Being dangerous to future generations or not? Those were your assertions and when asked to back them up you changed the subject.