Direct Response to : "Nuclear Power, a danger to our children."

[22ness0hayden]

I agree with you. Good video. The Lib video is propaganda

[ballersack]

The effect of low doses of radiation is widely disputed among scientists, which is why you hear so many ranging deaths figures for Chernobyl.

Regardless, it was a terrible disaster that could never happen in the U.S. where our reactors have negative void coefficients and containment buildings (most reactors have these things).

If you want to really improve the safety of reactors, we ought to build newer and safer models.

[Gt5OOkr]

that libertarianist is really stubborn, and assumes/makes up allot of things

[rebelgunnut]

WRONG they is a hydrogen producing design. so u can use nuclear for elecric and hydrogen cars. thyroid cancer can be treated and provindted in a exposer they have pill for that

[MakroTeh]

Chernobyl caused no increase in cancer deaths at all. No birth deformations too. There was only a tiny increase in thyroid gland cancer that was related to better and more often used detection methods and a change in classification so that everything that looked like thyroid gland cancer was threated as such. But because it's almost 100% curable only 56 deaths could be linked to Chernobyl till now. These are facts based on statistics.

[SulliverVittles]

@MakroTeh If they are based on statistics, then give the site with statistics. Numerous sources would show you are terribly wrong.

[MakroTeh]

@SulliverVittles

It have been 9 months so I don't remember all the links and I don't have the time right now to search for them so just go look on wikipedia etc. I'm not sure what you're referring too, but probably the death count. So for your information the only confirmed death toll is 56 and the higher numbers are "predictions" and everyone can make them.

[oiuoiu988]

calling a libertarian "elitist" is like calling the pope muslim....

[Fan0Tron]

Does not address carbon emissions from heating homes? I assume youre referring to people who heat their homes with Natural Gas. I have electric heating in my home and it works just fine.

[spittle8]

To be fair, Chernobyl was a worst-case scenario for a meltdown. Chernobyl was a poorly secured reactor of an ancient design without proper shielding and fail-safes and it blew its top. Modern reactors are not like to suffer meltdowns, the only significant risk is threat of terrorist attack. I'm not an expert on reactor design but I remember reading positive things about "breeder" reactors in use in France, a nation that gets something like ~80% of its domestic power supply from nuclear energy.

[badthoughs]

For the price, you can check on eia doe gov site. Cost included all maintenance and fuels costs which is the cheapest form of electricity, on it's build (of course). Waste disposal and mining does not cost alot and does not emit either greenhouse gas. You can check on the website wise-uranium org for greenhouse gas data.

[Ezratal]

i can't find cost comparisons on the site you mentioned, but that number certainly does not include the cost of building the nuclear facility. When the IEA estimated the kw/h cost ONLY considering construction costs they came up with about 5.5 cents per kw/h. The idea that nuclear energy is 'clean' is erroneous as well, the Nuclear Information and Resource Center estimates that the fossil fuel intensive mining tasks produce 73 and 230 grams of CO2 per kwh of electricity that will be generated.

[Ezratal]

produce between 73 and 230 grams*

[badthoughs]

(triplew)(dot)eia(dot)doe(dot)­gov(slash)cneaf(slash)electric­ity(slash)epa(slash)epat8p2(do­t)html

for price of nuclear power once it's build. (I had an error on first post (on it's build) (onCE it's build)

Of course, cost of construction is really high, so thats depends on the country, S. Korea and Japan, who need to import to meet their energy demand and does not have alot of coal use nuclear, but Australia does not because it does have lot of coal. (coal and nuclear is baseload electricity)

[badthoughs]

I disagree with your sources. Mine says around 6 grams per kwh (triplew)(dot)wise-uranium(dot­)org(slash)nfce(dot)html This site is the reference of the Nuclear Information Center and by the way, when your on the chart thing, change the (kWhe per SWU) from 2300 to 50. Because the 2300 technique is an old one and going to waste soon (centrifuge = 50 (6 grams per kwh) and gaseous diffusion = 2300 (30 grams per kwh), check on wikipedia for this one)

[badthoughs]

Coal plant produce around 1000 g of CO2 per kwh and around 0.80 x 365 x 24 x 1000 MW = 7 billion gram or 7000 metric tons of CO2 for a 1000 MW plant. (triplew)(dot)eia(dot)doe(dot)­gov(slash)cneaf(slash)electric­ity(slash)epa(slash)epat5p1(do­t)html (triplew)(dot)eia(dot)doe(dot)­gov(slash)cneaf(slash)electric­ity(slash)epm(slash)table1_1(d­ot)html

Roughtly, 2.5 billon tons of CO2 are produced by power plants, 2 billion come from coal.

[badthoughs]

Sorry for the bad urls, youtube shitty commenting system prevents me from posting comment with urls, or something like that.

[MakroTeh]

If the uranium mining would be this fossil intensive than it price would be much higher than todays 45$/lb. I also looked at the topic of carbon emissions per kwh and all of them estimated the carbon emission as much lower than 100g/CO2. Sorry I don't store the links, but I see you do some very selective search and select only the data that supports your thesis. The fact is that the free market economy loves the nuclear plant and they know what's cheap and what's not.

[MakroTeh]

Also type in Wikipedia "carbon footprint". Wow what a suprise they data say that nuclear power is cleaner than wind and solar! You know greenpiss sites aren't good source of information and aren't going to convince anyone. Srsly in like 10s I found more reliable source than you.

[badthoughs]

You can also check on doe site a study asked by Sen. Lamar Alexander on subsidies given to energies sources. Coal is subsidised 0.5$ per Megawatthour, 1.5$ for nuclear, 23$ for wind and solar.

That site is really interesting, you can actually notice that 4 MW in wind capacity worth actually 1 MW in nuclear power. Thus: 2200 MW nuclear power plant = 8800 MW wind farms.

[Darkwizzrobe]

Only 57 people died at Chernobyl and the estimate of cancer and other illness is around 2000-4000 people over decades this figure is still far less than the deaths cause by coal and other fossil fuels in a year.

[Ezratal]

I don't know how many people are killed by fossil fuels in a year, and the numbers you have for the Chernobyl disaster are the official UN evaluation numbers, but they say it's difficult to prove the link. 25,000 of the clean up crew have already died, though, and the incidence of cancer and birth defects in effected areas has risen tremendously. But I stress that the only alternatives are not fossil fuels and nuclear power.

[EJDoll]

This dude is straight up gangsta!

[SulliverVittles]

Yes. Yes he is.

[EJDoll]

You are as well.