I just thought I'd bump this up to remind everyone about it.Kim OHara wrote: ↑Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:44 pmThat gives me a chance to share this scientific paper with a critical reader or two. I don't want to say what I think about it because I don't want to affect your reading of it. Here it is.http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htmAbstract: This paper presents evidence of the disruption of a transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power, and finds the benefits forgone as a consequence are substantial. Learning rates are presented for nuclear power in seven countries, comprising 58% of all power reactors ever built globally. Learning rates and deployment rates changed in the late-1960s and 1970s from rapidly falling costs and accelerating deployment to rapidly rising costs and stalled deployment. Historical nuclear global capacity, electricity generation and overnight construction costs are compared with the counterfactual that pre-disruption learning and deployment rates had continued to 2015. Had the early rates continued, nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost. The additional nuclear power could have substituted for 69,000–186,000 TWh of coal and gas generation, thereby avoiding up to 9.5 million deaths and 174 Gt CO2 emissions. In 2015 alone, nuclear power could have replaced up to 100% of coal-generated and 76% of gas-generated electricity, thereby avoiding up to 540,000 deaths and 11 Gt CO2. Rapid progress was achieved in the past and could be again, with appropriate policies. Research is needed to identify impediments to progress, and policy is needed to remove them.
My immediate response was to....to....to.....crush it like the cockroach of an article that it really is but then I didn't want to defame cockroaches......also.....I didn't want to have all the fun and thought I would wait and give someone else first crack at it.
I'll just comment on the first sentence for now:
As people became informed about the possible dangers of nuclear power plants as they were designed and constructed at that time they began requiring safer designs and installations. You can call this a "disruption" when it might also be characterized as being "society becoming aware of the possible dangers of nuclear power and demanding better safeguards".This paper presents evidence of the disruption of a transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power, and finds the benefits forgone as a consequence are substantial.
The sentence then goes on to mention the "benefits forgone" because of society becoming aware of the possible dangers of nuclear power....although they don't frame it that way. This abstract doesn't talk about the "disruption" being caused by the need for safety and if they did talk about it then they might have mentioned about how one of the "benefits" which were foregone because of this "disruption" might include hundreds of fukushimas....thousands of corroding tanks (perhaps millions) sitting all around the world containing some of the nastiest substances known to man just waiting to bleed out into the ground, rivers, lakes, oceans all around the world (there is still not a cost allowable method for containing the waste in a manner acceptable to the safety conscious)......high level nearly bomb grade fissionable material attracting terrorists around the world...
More could be said about the rest of the article....I have only commented on the first sentence.