4 ms·

While it is true that coal is not the only non-nuclear power generation mechanism, it is -by far- the most common in the US. It is also true that > When you h

While it is true that coal is not the only non-nuclear power generation mechanism, it is -by far- the most common in the US. It is also true that > When you hit a nuclear plant with the fifth largest earthquake ever recorded, then immediately follow that with a twenty foot high tsunami, and then it explodes, it still kills fewer people than an average coal plant does every single year when everything goes perfectly. And yet, we don't hear people screaming to shut down coal power plants nationwide. We don't hear this, despite the fact that they are demonstrably more dangerous than nuclear power plants. This is one of the reasons people are irked by folks who try to use Fukishima to claim that nuclear power generation is super-dangerous-mmkay. I'm not going address your tsunami-deaths vs. radiation-deaths comment. A close and careful re-reading of ggreer's comment should help you to understand why.

Trombone12 11y ago
Coal is the most common in the US and honestly you should have stopped relying on it several decades ago. But of course, you got the nukes so you needn't bother with paying for your share of the climate change damages.
- simoncion 11y ago
  Trust me, if could wave a wand and make people behave rationally and largely in the long-term interests of the human race, I would. :)
- ArtDev 11y ago
  In the Northwestern US we get most of our power from hydropower and wind. Coal has a massive human cost in human health that makes it absurdly expensive overall. Personally, I would like to see and end to coal and nuclear power.
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    Why would you like to see an end to nuclear power?
mackwic 11y ago
I suggest you to learn a bit about power grid engineering. Basically, the fact that we can't store electricity means that when you power on your toaster, somewhere a power plant has to increase its power to compensate. But the nuclear power plant takes up to 2 days to startup. It's not sustainable for the daily life where consumption change every hour. That's why there is the need for more agile power plant, where fuel, gas, and coal are suitable. Gas being the most agile but the less efficient, fuel and coal being used as the middle between gas and nuclear, depending of the price of each resource. This is an engineering constraint before anything else.
- simoncion 11y ago
  I know that nuclear power is base-load power, not peaking power. Infrastructure is something of a passing interest of mine. :) Last I checked, the majority of the US's power comes from coal-fired power plants. If there was the political will and public understanding, we could likely replace pretty much all of that with nuclear plants, reserving coal-fired, or oil-fired (or pumped-storage hydro, or flywheel storage, or...) plants to meet peak power demands.
  - mackwic 11y ago
    Well, I have to say I don't know the US infrastructure enough to have a bold opinion, but I know heavy infrastructure like these often have a sound design respectively to their constraints (which can be absurd). The European power grid is very tight and well-meshed, this is why we can let our nuclear power plant and sell electricity to Switzerland, Germany or Netherlands or buy it. I guess it's not as well interconnected in the US, so that states can't easily lend power which disable the use of nuclear power plant for many states ?
    - simoncion 11y ago
      I think that the US either has a national power grid, or has one for the West and East halves of the country. Obviously, throwing power across the whole damn continent is far less efficient than just throwing it across a state. I've -very recently- heard people making the claim that Texas has its own grid, but that's news to me. Maybe the situation in Texas is that they have all the power gen capacity that they need within the state, and are also hooked into the national grid. shrug > I know heavy infrastructure like these often have a sound design respectively to their constraints (which can be absurd). Anti-nuke hysteria is toxic to sound planning and design. :(

Trombone12 11y ago

Coal is the most common in the US and honestly you should have stopped relying on it several decades ago. But of course, you got the nukes so you needn't bother with paying for your share of the climate change damages.

simoncion 11y ago
Trust me, if could wave a wand and make people behave rationally and largely in the long-term interests of the human race, I would. :)
ArtDev 11y ago
In the Northwestern US we get most of our power from hydropower and wind. Coal has a massive human cost in human health that makes it absurdly expensive overall. Personally, I would like to see and end to coal and nuclear power.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  Why would you like to see an end to nuclear power?

mackwic 11y ago

I suggest you to learn a bit about power grid engineering. Basically, the fact that we can't store electricity means that when you power on your toaster, somewhere a power plant has to increase its power to compensate. But the nuclear power plant takes up to 2 days to startup. It's not sustainable for the daily life where consumption change every hour. That's why there is the need for more agile power plant, where fuel, gas, and coal are suitable. Gas being the most agile but the less efficient, fuel and coal being used as the middle between gas and nuclear, depending of the price of each resource. This is an engineering constraint before anything else.

simoncion 11y ago
I know that nuclear power is base-load power, not peaking power. Infrastructure is something of a passing interest of mine. :) Last I checked, the majority of the US's power comes from coal-fired power plants. If there was the political will and public understanding, we could likely replace pretty much all of that with nuclear plants, reserving coal-fired, or oil-fired (or pumped-storage hydro, or flywheel storage, or...) plants to meet peak power demands.
- mackwic 11y ago
  Well, I have to say I don't know the US infrastructure enough to have a bold opinion, but I know heavy infrastructure like these often have a sound design respectively to their constraints (which can be absurd). The European power grid is very tight and well-meshed, this is why we can let our nuclear power plant and sell electricity to Switzerland, Germany or Netherlands or buy it. I guess it's not as well interconnected in the US, so that states can't easily lend power which disable the use of nuclear power plant for many states ?
  - simoncion 11y ago
    I think that the US either has a national power grid, or has one for the West and East halves of the country. Obviously, throwing power across the whole damn continent is far less efficient than just throwing it across a state. I've -very recently- heard people making the claim that Texas has its own grid, but that's news to me. Maybe the situation in Texas is that they have all the power gen capacity that they need within the state, and are also hooked into the national grid. shrug > I know heavy infrastructure like these often have a sound design respectively to their constraints (which can be absurd). Anti-nuke hysteria is toxic to sound planning and design. :(