Aren’t Generation 3 reactors with passive cooling much safer than previous generations?
Not to mention in the article: No numbers are reviewed, no deaths per million KWh of energy produced. No balance of pros and cons and the mixture of energy sources needed to address a modern economy. No addressing storage or peak production demands.
I wonder who wrote the article:
> Gregory Jaczko served on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission... he is the founder of Wind Future LLC
So an ex-nuclear regulator who voted against nuclear is now a salesperson and profiteer for the wind industry.
And the article was published on a news site that implies they are 'saving our democracy from darkness'.
I feel this is such a blatant PR sub and obvious conflict of interest with no attempt at even feigning journalistic objectivity. If anything I'd say this article is less information about the perils of nuclear and instead is an example of the issues with revolving doors between regulators and the people they regulate and/or the competitors of the people they regulate plus a lack of journalistic ethics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Jaczko
Seriously though, while he does seem pretty contentious as a regulator he does have a PhD in particle physics and the record of his actions aligns with his stated position(s) in this article.
I agree the article is more human interest than reasoned argument but it is nonetheless good journalism (in my opinion...) because the story is good.
I also agree it is a missed opportunity because I expect with his credentials and experiences it would be really interesting to see him defend a more quantitative argument.
If you have a point, go ahead and make it. Hiding behind sarcasm is a bit weak intellectually and I believe is frowned upon on this site. There's a trend in society where people say sarcastic stuff to each other in an effort to put the other tribe down and 'show them' how silly they are. I believe this is deeply counter productive and extraordinarily silly. I invite you to resist such tribalistic urges.
Also, I never said 'big wind'. That was you injecting a strawman element so you can counter it with your sarcasm. Like the sarcasm, modifying what I said in order to attack it is also a very weak form of argumentation.
> he does have a PhD in particle physics
We have a different epistemic perspective. Very different. I guess you can say I don't like sophism.
> but it is nonetheless good journalism
I'll invite you to read the definition of journalism and try to objectively consider if this article fits it:
> Journalism is unbiased production and distribution of reports on current or past events based on facts and supported with proofs or evidences.
Same with turbines, plus the added effects on wildlife.
Meanwhile, the climate clock is ticking.
The select few that have controlled the world's energy supply for a century -- and have lied for so long and are so heavily invested in dying tech -- are getting desperate. The average nuclear plant generates 1GW. The world has added over 650GW of renewables so far ... over 60GW of wind in 2019 alone.
Their fearful threats are empty. Japan has been and will be in debt for many decades just to clean up one very-poorly-sited reactor. I wonder how many solar and wind plants they could have built with that money. And who can and has accounted for the cost to the world's environment? Coverup, coverup, coverup. Tragic.
This is the essence of the question; I don't see it's impossible, and if it's possible, then why nuclear? I agree that as society we grow our needs in power, but solar and wind sources are relatively easy to distribute, and it's rare when a lot of installations doesn't get light and wind, and distribution grid alone - without fossil fuel plants or nuclear power plants - can help. So the need in nuclear fission power is questionable.