It's interesting how marketing affects peoples' perceptions and the resulting NIMBY/PIMBY attitudes.

So, local people are PIMBY (Please in my back yard) on a project that will inject millions of tonnes of extremely dangerous suffocating gas right there below their feet. A first of kind project, involving technology that has never been demonstrated or proven it will work properly.

Then they would vigorously protest a nuclear reactor at the same place - even though for all 50 years of existence nuclear plants in the developed world have practically hurt noone. Even though for the same investment such a plant will be producing more then 3 times the energy of the "clean coal" plant... Talk about rationality.

What I'd really like to start seeing is RIMBY - Renewables In My Back Yard

Two things, LevinK

1) False Dichotomy. You make it sound as if the people who oppose Nuke are therefore Pro 'CleanCoal' .. Survey the Green Nimbys and convince me that they are really Pro either one.. both are dirty, and are tearing up all sorts of land and fouling waterways to access their fuels.

2) No Injuries... Keep Repeating it. In a hundred thousand years, you won't have made it true. I've linked to Native villages in the American west that have been inundated with cancers from their Uranium Mining, testimonies to the Cancers birth defects in the Ukraine, underreported reactor accidents.. Of course, we're still effecting some 'Waste Disposal' by packaging our high explosives in DU and giving it as a gift to the future generations of Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan. But that doesn't count as a peripheral effect of Nuclear Power, does it?

Bob

1) False Dichotomy. You make it sound as if the people who oppose Nuke are therefore Pro 'CleanCoal' ..

No, I'm not and I'm not talking about that here. The same people are likely to object wind mills if they clog their view. I'm simply pointing out that people choose which dangers to fear from, based on mere preconceptions and irrelevant of rational argumentation.

I've linked to Native villages in the American west that have been inundated with cancers from their Uranium Mining, testimonies to the Cancers birth defects in the Ukraine, underreported reactor accidents..

I am well aware that in the early days of the US nuclear program the safety and environmental standards were much lower than today. This almost exclusively applies to the military nuclear program, which you conveniently lump together with the civilian program. Which is pretty much the same as lumping together the Chemical Industry and the Nazi gas chambers.

I do not stand corrected - Nuclear Power Plants in the developed world have not caused even a single death or injury among the public. If you include employees in the public, nuclear is still the safest among all major energy sources:

6. A 2001 study by the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland (quoted in “The Revenge of Gaia”) found that, beteween 1970 and 1992, nuclear power had the best safety record of all major energy sources, both in terms of total deaths and deaths per terawatt of energy produced each year. The results for the top four sources were coal: 6,400 total deaths, 342 deaths per terawatt per year; hydro power: 4,000 total deaths, 884 deaths per terawatt per year; natural gas: 1,200 total deaths, 85 deaths per terawatt per year; nuclear power: 31 total deaths, 8 deaths per terawatt per year.

http://planetsave.com/category/climate-science-research/page/2/

Unfortunately wind or solar power were not included here because of their minuscule contribution but it is delusional to think they do not present any dangers on their own. There is nothing perfectly safe.

jokuhl -

To be fair, I think you would need to compare the deaths from exposure to radiation from the mining and processing of uranium, plus exposure from nuclear powe plant accidents to the deaths resulting from the mining, transport, and burning of coal.

If you do that, I think you will see that coal has caused far more death and disease than nuclear power.

As I have said several times before on TOD, if you are really worried about dying from radiation poisoning, your worries would be far better directed toward the possibility of a nuclear exchange resulting from an energy resource war that got out of control.

Orders of magnitude more people died of radiation during that shameful day at Hiroshima than have died from the following 50 years of worldwide nuclear power plant operation.

Joule;
I don't doubt that coal's death toll is far worse. So Far. My objection is that this makes nuclear appear safe, while it's only been in operation for a sliver of the time that it's materials will remain concentrated and harmful, and add to that the fact that this very unique period of time has seen most of the countries that could sustain a Nuclear Reactor industry able to be kept stable enough to maintain the level of security required to keep the systems going, the fences guarded, the guards paid.

When a Windturbine stops turning, decades after anyone cares, and it sits up there rusting and tottering, at least you can see it, and should have the good sense not to stand underneath. Nuclear is one of the countless unperceivable and concentrated poisons that we've drawn from the earth and brought into the biosphere where it can and does disrupt living systems. I'm not that worried about getting radiation poisoning myself, aside from the cumulative effects of living in an environment where we have also inundated our bodies with Mercury, Dioxin, Phthalated Polymers, Bromates, etc etc.. but no, my greater worry is what I'm doing to my neighbors, our kids and to the biosphere over the foreseeable future if I advocate such a selfish and reckless form of Technocopian energy, heedless of the likelihood that I won't be able to assure it is safely kept for as long as it is a danger to others.

As far as that Nuclear Exchange goes, does your scenario preclude the likelihood that Nuclear Energy can also play a role with inspiring such a development? It seems that the See-saw of Iran's 'Peaceful Atom' program vs their 'Desire for Doomsday Weapons' is as close a link for a WarStarter as you could ask for. This source is Trouble. It's overpowered, lending itself to Monopolistic Business Practises, Political Gamesmanship, and AntiDemocratic Infrastructure. It's complex and requires a Big, Stable system to be operated safely.

Best,
Bob