...scientific literature in irrefutable terms.
The reference, which is opened sourced is here:Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)
He finds that nuclear energy prevented more than 60 billion tons of carbon dioxide being dumped, about two years worth for those who are paying attention on a deeper level than Wikipedia.
The reason you can't turn my argument is obvious. There has not been wild eyed cheering for nuclear energy except, possibly among scientists, including the many Nobel Laureates involved in its development. The assholes in the "renewables will save us" industry, which has received a lot of popular press, often show complete disregard for the 7 million people who die each year from air pollution, and often - and I've been at this a long time, ever since Chernobyl exploded - and instead focusing on attacking nuclear energy.
Any remotely cognizant person who is aware of issues in climate change can easily see this.
In the scientific literature, the most often raised objection to nuclear energy seldom has to do with technical issues, all of which have general solutions identified. Most often "public perception" or something similar is raised. Sometimes it has to do with putative "waste" although, in fact, the only thing remarkable about so called "nuclear waste" - which actually need not be "waste" at all - is that it hasn't killed anyone in more than half a century of accumulation.
The solar and wind industries have not prevented very much dangerous fossil fuel waste from accumulating. We spent two trillion dollars on solar and wind in the last ten years alone, and they don't produce even 5 of the 570 exajoules of energy that humanity uses each year. (Nuclear has routinely provided 25 - 28 exajoules each year of primary energy - despite ignorant opposition from the peanut gallery of uneducated fear mongers.)
The enthusiasm for nuclear energy still exists today primarily among scientists. Your claim that there is "wild eyed cheering" for nuclear energy going on is frankly, delusional. I note that the first new construction of a nuclear plant in the United States was the work of Stephen Chu, a Nobel Laureate in Physics who was Obama's first secretary of energy.
Steven Chu Criticizes Clean Power Plan For Neglecting Nuclear (There's a lot on the internet about Steven Chu and nuclear energy.)
It's very clear from the policies in place around the world that scientists have very limited power to change things, even if appointed to the government, as Chu was. I feel the contempt for science all the time, not only on the right, but also on the left.
The last scientist to have real influence on nuclear policy was the Nobel Laureate Glenn Seaborg; he headed the (now defunct) Atomic Energy Commission, and served in many diplomatic and administrative roles in a broad array of Government functions.
Glenn Seaborg
He was responsible for the building of about 70 or 80 of the 100 or so nuclear plants built in the United States, thus saving hundreds of thousands of lives which would have been lost to air pollution.
Have a great day.
= new reply since forum marked as read
