Educating the general public about pro nuclear energy?

[mheslep]

...June 15, 1896 tsunami which killed 26,975 and wounded 5,390 were ignored. Anecdotally, one of the stone markers was specifically where the most recent tsunami damage topped out.

I like the point that there is “group think” just as there is “group denial.” A number of sober minded people just blanked ...

I think group think is avoided by diligent reference of primary source material and by avoiding blanket assertions and anecdotes about what people do or don't do.

 

[mheslep]

When Chernobyl happened, I was in German high school. I built my first Geiger counter and also tried to estimate the radiation dose a baby would get from radioactive iodine in contaminated milk powder.
Some people tried to convince us that with modern western reactors such an accident could never happen.
Now some 30 years after Chernobyl, two different reactors ran into desaster in one of the highest industrialized nations of the world.
So no excuse this time.
We saw the reactors spectacularly blowing up though some people here in the forum will hasten to point out that it wasn't a nuclear explosion but only hydrogen.

At that time, I was working in the field of radiation protection. What stuck me most, was how the accident was handled and the disinformation of the public. For example, Japan has a real-time network to control environmental gamma-dose rate which you normally can watch on-line on internet. Even years after the accident, treatment of the contaminated water is a big problem, most of it is handled with plastic gardening hoses and lot of it ended up in the sea. There seemed neither to exist a plan A nor a plan B for nuclear accidents.

When HAYAO mentions that the accident has caused only 2-3 deaths among workers, you should also mention that thousands of people were forced to leave their homes permanently and precious ground has been lost in one of the most densely populated areas on earth.
Furthermore, people from Fukushima are being stigmatized in Japanese society.

This is not mainly a question of technical safety, it is a question of how nuclear energy lost all credibility.

This post in an engineering forum is in blatant violation of PF rules, willfully indulging in conspiracy theory and false information, comparable to anti-vaccine propaganda.

Conspiracy theory:

However, for the relevant districts it was off-line for weeks and nobody is going to tell me that this was due to the Earth quake or tunami

.False information:

...you should also mention that thousands of people were forced to leave their homes permanently and precious ground has been lost in one of the most densely populated areas on earth

The evacuation was tragic but is not "permanent" any more than the destruction of Hiroshima was permanent. The gradual reduction of exclusion area over time has been widely reported. Per wiki, Japan in general ranks 40th in the world in population density at 336/km^2 and the Fukushima area in 2010 had population density 144/km^2, similar to that of Guatemala.

 

[DrDu]

Conspiracy theory:

I was constantly following the SPEEDI homepage at that time and the closest site for which data were available was Ibaraki, which is half way to Tokyo from Fukushima. When the wind changed after some days you could see how dose rates rised about 100 times, but for Fukushima and neighbouring provinces no data were available, even weeks after the accident.

 

[gmax137]

...I personally would have expected the outer containments to resist an explosion of hydrogen.

As far as I know, the hydrogen was outside containment when it ignited. The "outer containment" is a sheet metal building, normally maintained slightly below atmospheric pressure (to allow filtering of any normal leakage from the auxiliary systems). It is not designed for internal pressure. Maybe @Hiddencamper can chime in here with more specifics. The videos are certainly dramatic, but they do not show containment failure due to hydrogen explosion.

There was a lot of discussion about the SPEEDI system (and its problems) in the Fukushima threads.

 

[russ_watters]

When Chernobyl happened...

Some people tried to convince us that with modern western reactors such an accident could never happen.
Now some 30 years after Chernobyl, two different reactors ran into desaster in one of the highest industrialized nations of the world.
So no excuse this time.
We saw the reactors spectacularly blowing up...

This is not mainly a question of technical safety, it is a question of how nuclear energy lost all credibility.

Something that came up but hasn't been addressed very directly is the relationship between Fukushima and Chernobyl; Comments like the above imply some equivalence between the accidents, when the reality is that they were very different in terms of causes and effects:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Fukushima_and_Chernobyl_nuclear_accidents

https://www.nei.org/Master-Document...heets/Japan-Comparing-Chernobyl-And-Fukushima

Some key facts to consider when comparing them:
Already mentioned is the fact that Fukushima was precipitated by twin natural disasters; the tsunami primarily (9.0 earthquake? yawn - survived without significant issues). Chernobyl was purely human-caused. As a result, the applicability of human error as pertains to Chernobyl should be seen as wider than Fukushima. Yes, human miscalculation led to the design flaw at Fukushima, but even still there just aren't many places where such natural disasters are possible.

The Fukushima disaster involved 4 reactors and ancillary facilities wheres Chernobyl involved one. So was Fukushima four disasters or one? It is generally considered one due to the timing, causes and effects coinciding. But it shouldn't be overlooked that because it was four reactors, Fukushima involved four times as much radioactive material as Chernobyl.

Luck is often cited in pointing out that 80% of the radioactive material released at Fukushima went out to sea instead of contaminating the land. But it wasn't luck that despite involving four times as much nuclear material, Fukushima only released 1/10th as much into the environment as Chernobyl. That was superior design -- related then to the "human-caused" first point for Chernobyl.

Somewhat more indirect is this "credibility" question as pertains to the response. It certainly is not ever binary ("lost all credibility") because in addition to the superior design, the Fukushima accident benefitted from a superior response that almost certainly saved lives.

When estimating nuclear safety it is important to keep these differences in mind. Unfortunately(?) Fukushima is not universally applicable because of its unique natural disaster risk and unfortunately(?) there haven't been any univerally applicable accidents from which to get a direct measure of risk. That is; unless Three Mile Island represents the real worst-case for univerally applicable risk.

 

[nikkkom]

When Chernobyl happened, I was in German high school. I built my first Geiger counter and also tried to estimate the radiation dose a baby would get from radioactive iodine in contaminated milk powder.
Some people tried to convince us that with modern western reactors such an accident could never happen.
Now some 30 years after Chernobyl, two different reactors ran into desaster in one of the highest industrialized nations of the world.
So no excuse this time.
We saw the reactors spectacularly blowing up though some people here in the forum will hasten to point out that it wasn't a nuclear explosion but only hydrogen.

At that time, I was working in the field of radiation protection. What stuck me most, was how the accident was handled and the disinformation of the public. For example, Japan has a real-time network to control environmental gamma-dose rate which you normally can watch on-line on internet. However, for the relevant districts it was off-line for weeks and nobody is going to tell me that this was due to the Earth quake or tunami.

I totally agree with the above.

Even years after the accident, treatment of the contaminated water is a big problem, most of it is handled with plastic gardening hoses and lot of it ended up in the sea.

Well, this part is not really justified.
What pipes did you expect, 10cm thick steel? Not practical, and not necessary.
All the radiation which ended in the sea is the _least_ harmful part of the fallout. We in Chernobyl did not have a luxury of wind blowing most of it into an ocean :(

When HAYAO mentions that the accident has caused only 2-3 deaths among workers, you should also mention that thousands of people were forced to leave their homes permanently and precious ground has been lost in one of the most densely populated areas on earth.

Exactly. Economic losses are enormous, at least $200 billion.

 

[nikkkom]

When estimating nuclear safety it is important to keep these differences in mind. Unfortunately(?) Fukushima is not universally applicable because of its unique natural disaster risk

There is nothing unique in being criminally negligent in assessing risks from natural disasters. Of the top of my head, I know two more reactors, in two other countries, which came much closer to being flooded that they ever should have been. There is absolutely no reason to think that TEPCO are fscking idiots but everybody else is top notch.

 

[russ_watters]

There is nothing unique in being criminally negligent in assessing risks from natural disasters.

The natural disasters themselves were what I said was unique - I think I said that negligence is universal, but negligence alone has not shown to be enough in the West. But that brings up a related point:

Some 16000 people died in the event, presumably mostly when structures failed to protect them from the earthquake or tsunami. I presume that very few of those deaths will be/have been pinned on criminal negligence of the designers/builders. So my question is: why is one criminally negligent and the other not?

And if your answer is: "because a code/law/court says so", I want you to go deeper: why, as compassionate and technically savvy people do we accept such a vast expectations/safety gap?

 

[nikkkom]

The natural disasters themselves were what I said was unique - I think I said that negligence is universal, but negligence alone has not shown to be enough in the West.

On the contrary. Fukushima disaster was caused by negligence in assessing risks from natural disasters. It's a fact.

Or to put it another way: an "experiment" occurred - Nature tested the hypothesis "are Western nuclear power utilities unable to correctly assess risks from natural disasters?" and the experimental answer is - "yes, they are unable to do so".

 

[mfb]

Nature tested the hypothesis "are Western nuclear power utilities unable to correctly assess risks from natural disasters?" and the experimental answer is - "yes, they are unable to do so".

I see a different answer. More than 99% of all nuclear power plants were able to survive all disasters that happened in all their operational history. A single one failed in one instance due to one of the largest natural disasters of recent history - with a small damage compared to the natural disaster itself.

Exactly. Economic losses are enormous, at least $200 billion.

A bit less than 0.2 cent/kWh distributed over the last 50 years of nuclear power.

The earthquake and tsunami caused more than $200 billion damage, the World Bank estimates $235 billion.

 

[nikkkom]

I see a different answer. More than 99% of all nuclear power plants were able to survive all disasters that happened in all their operational history.

This is much worse than nuclear industry was promising in their PRAs. If PRAs were correct, statistically we should not have had even one power reactor meltdown. We had four already.

Nuclear industry never said to us that they will sometimes completely fsck up assessment of risks from natural disasters - but we should not worry, because when that fsck-up causes "local" Cs-137 dust fallout with "only" a thousand square kilometers evacuated, globally it is not as bad as it looks.

 

[ChrisVer]

In general I want to follow this thread, but right now I have to rush for a bus...
So I am just going to say that I believe that nuclear power plants are good for humanity no matter what the media say... afterall the media are not independent from governments, and since governments started funding green energy sources, they are trying to ridicule all the pros of nuclear power.
There are risks in everything... You take a risk when you enter a plane to travel from your London to NY... I haven't heard the media crying for how dangerous everyday flights can be.

 

[mfb]

If PRAs were correct, statistically we should not have had even one power reactor meltdown. We had four already.

We had one Western power plant that released a large amount of radioactive material.
What happens inside the containment is interesting, but ultimatively only what reaches the outside is relevant for the dangers of nuclear power.

 

[russ_watters]

On the contrary. Fukushima disaster was caused by negligence in assessing risks from natural disasters. It's a fact.

Ehem: what you just said was negligence + natural disaster. You're trying reeaaly hard to disagree with me, but not.

And don't think I didn't notice you declined to answer the question I asked you. It's one thing to react badly to emotions, but dodging questions takes a a conscious effort to avoid analysis you don't want to do (or already know leads in a direction you don't want to go).

Economic losses are enormous, at least $200 billion.

And were made worse by some $30 billion per year due to the irrational overreaction/decision to shut-down all the nuclear reactors in the country.

This is much worse than nuclear industry was promising in their PRAs. If PRAs were correct, statistically we should not have had even one power reactor meltdown. We had four already.

So what. If I offer you a thousand dollars and then renege and only give you 100, that's still a gift. A failed promise/prediction does not make nuclear power unsafe it just makes it a little less spectacularly safe than predicted.

Please keep your eye on the ball and make an effort to improve your posting quality.

 

[HAYAO]

In general I want to follow this thread, but right now I have to rush for a bus...
So I am just going to say that I believe that nuclear power plants are good for humanity no matter what the media say... afterall the media are not independent from governments, and since governments started funding green energy sources, they are trying to ridicule all the pros of nuclear power.
There are risks in everything... You take a risk when you enter a plane to travel from your London to NY... I haven't heard the media crying for how dangerous everyday flights can be.

This is an interesting point because at that time of the Fukushima disaster, the government was actually pro-nuclear and the media was strongly against it. In Japan, media and the government always go the opposite ways. One of the things I hate about media in Japan is that they are given too much freedom. While I agree that they should be separated from the government and that they should have the freedom of speech, media in Japan is WWWAAAYYYY too biased, so much that people still believe that nuclear disaster cause cancer in like two days, and everyone in Japan is affected by it and they are going to get cancer one way or another. Some people believed in country wide nuclear fallout.

 

[DrDu]

It is not designed for internal pressure.

Another one for the list.

 

[DrDu]

Coming back to the title of the thread "
Educating the general public about pro nuclear energy?"

Let's go back to the 1950ies. Everybody was excited about nuclear energy, its possibilities, especially politicians and the general public, nuclear energy was supported by immense public investments. People were much more interested in science than nowadays.
So you had already all you asked for at the very beginning.

 

[DrDu]

One of the things I hate about media in Japan is that they are given too much freedom.

The point is that people see life pictures of exploding reactors, scattered fuel rods and the like in real time while Japanese politicians seemed to act headless and either not to possesses sufficient information or, even worse, keep it secret.
Press and television want information, and immediately. They go for the one who cries loudest and offers most rapidly.
This was very similar in Germany after the accident in Chernobyl when Germany also received part of the fallout. There, as a reaction the federal radiation protection agency (BfS) was founded. They take great care (bad tongues may say even more than about their employees scientific qualification) that their employees are able to present their assessments of the situation in television and be able to communicate with the press within half an hour, if necessary. They have experts for risk communication.

Nevertheless nuclear energy has turned such a hot potato, if not to say scorched Earth for politicians that e.g. the German government lead by christian democratic union, once the party of the biggest proponents of nuclear energy, declared to exit nuclear energy completely.
I fear this process is world wide irreversible.
I also don't think it is fair to blame the press. Nuclear energy had an excellent start in the 1950ies where it was promoted by governments and enormous public investments where made. Public was enthusiastic and people where much more interested in science.
The list of possible causes for this failiure could be very long, but I think the main problem was the hybris and arrogance of nuclear energies proponents.

 

[HAYAO]

The point is that people see life pictures of exploding reactors, scattered fuel rods and the like in real time while Japanese politicians seemed to act headless and either not to possesses sufficient information or, even worse, keep it secret.
Press and television want information, and immediately. They go for the one who cries loudest and offers most rapidly.
This was very similar in Germany after the accident in Chernobyl when Germany also received part of the fallout. There, as a reaction the federal radiation protection agency (BfS) was founded. They take great care (bad tongues may say even more than about their employees scientific qualification) that their employees are able to present their assessments of the situation in television and be able to communicate with the press within half an hour, if necessary. They have experts for risk communication.

Nevertheless nuclear energy has turned such a hot potato, if not to say scorched Earth for politicians that e.g. the German government lead by christian democratic union, once the party of the biggest proponents of nuclear energy, declared to exit nuclear energy completely.
I fear this process is world wide irreversible.
I also don't think it is fair to blame the press. Nuclear energy had an excellent start in the 1950ies where it was promoted by governments and enormous public investments where made. Public was enthusiastic and people where much more interested in science.
The list of possible causes for this failiure could be very long, but I think the main problem was the hybris and arrogance of nuclear energies proponents.

I think it's quite fair to blame the press as much as the politicians and executives. They caused more panic than anything else with wrong information. The government was indeed hiding tons of things and making wrong judgements, which I heavily criticized of in several of the posts before this. Under this standard, the media is even worse. They are giving wrong information, biased information, and leaving out everything else that is more important (especially how it will affect our health). This has been mentioned in the first post from me on this thread. I find it extremely strange that the media is criticizing nuclear power plants itself instead of politicians and executives that clung so hard to the political side of it more than safeties.

 

[DrDu]

I think it's quite fair to blame the press as much as the politicians and executives. They caused more panic than anything else with wrong information. The government was indeed hiding tons of things and making wrong judgements, which I heavily criticized of in several of the posts before this. Under this standard, the media is even worse. They are giving wrong information, biased information, and leaving out everything else that is more important (especially how it will affect our health). This has been mentioned in the first post from me on this thread. I find it extremely strange that the media is criticizing nuclear power plants itself instead of politicians and executives that clung so hard to the political side of it more than safeties.

Another parallel between Japan and Germany. Both lost the war - in Japan also due to nuclear power - and got CNN.
Well, better CNN than politicians that claim to be Gods.

 

[Davy_Crockett]

I think group think is avoided by diligent reference of primary source material and by avoiding blanket assertions and anecdotes about what people do or don't do.

I do not need to reference the minutes of some obscure meetings, if that’s what you mean.

1) Team knew about the high water markers 2) Team did not know about the high water markers: Both indicate negligence Prima Facie.
OR/ Team considered the evidence of high water markers and miscalculated the risk of future events. Okay then, people do make mistakes.

So how did the design, planning, and approval process result in a failure to be adequately prepared?

It is not worthy of derision when terms such as "group think," "group denial," "herd mentality" and "Inability to intuitively grasp large time scales" are bandied about.

A repeat of the tsunami in 1896 was apparently not anticipated, even though...in relation to the anticipated custody chain of a spent fuel dump…the last tsunami event happened, "Yesterday."

Why is this worth defending? There is a lengthy build time, a lengthy operating time, and a lengthy decommissioning time for power plants. Flood risk analysis is critical.

Problem: If local sea level rise is 3.4mm/year and the rate doubles every 5 years, how soon will EXCO have to begin decommissioning the plant in order to assure completion of the task?

 

[HAYAO]

Another parallel between Japan and Germany. Both lost the war - in Japan also due to nuclear power - and got CNN.

Well I used to watch CNN when I lived in the States. But CNN isn't very popular in Japan. I barely watch them and they only air at specific time of the day unlike in the States where they have designated channel for themselves.

Well, better CNN than politicians that claim to be Gods.

Both (I mean the media in Japan, not CNN) are equally bad to me.

 

[UsableThought]

I've been lurking w/ interest; and have just now gone back through this lengthy thread to revisit where it's been & where it's going.

I liked very much some of the earlier discussion of, for example, the risks and costs of coal vs. nuclear; and also solar was briefly discussed. However at the moment it's focused only on nuclear in isolation. It seems to me that the earlier comments pointed to what might be more useful - namely, looking at risks, economic/logistic constraints, and benefits for all feasible electric power sources in future; and not just nuclear's risks in isolation. In particular I'd be interested in hearing if anyone has good sources for such an analysis? I am putting books that touch on risk, including technological & environmental risks, onto my reading list; but that's a long-term project for me.

(This post heavily edited to make it more relevant - UT.)

 

[nikkkom]

Some 16000 people died in the event, presumably mostly when structures failed to protect them from the earthquake or tsunami. I presume that very few of those deaths will be/have been pinned on criminal negligence of the designers/builders. So my question is: why is one criminally negligent and the other not?

How about researching it. No one in Japan raised any questions about tsunami deaths? There were no lawsuits? You are sure?

 

[nikkkom]

So what. If I offer you a thousand dollars and then renege and only give you 100, that's still a gift.

It wasn't a gift. It was a promise based on which general public agreed that this technology can be allowed. Nuclear industry failed to keep it.

It is not a gift also in a sense that nuclear power is not even competitive on cost.

A failed promise/prediction does not make nuclear power unsafe it just makes it a little less spectacularly safe than predicted.

Your definition of "spectacularly safe" is... er... "interesting".

 

[UsableThought]

Your definition of "spectacularly safe" is... er... "interesting".

To reiterate the point I made in comment #93, how safe are fossil fuel power plants given whatever their contribution is to global warming? Wouldn't that need to be part of the discussion? If options exist, the safety of any give option is relative to the others, not absolute.

 

[nikkkom]

To reiterate the point I made in comment #93, how safe are fossil fuel power plants given whatever their contribution is to global warming? Isn't safety relative rather than absolute?

Where do you see me promoting replacing nuclear with fossil fuel power plants?

 

[UsableThought]

Where do you see me promoting replacing nuclear with fossil fuel power plants?

Sorry, I think I asked my question poorly. Let me try again. The question of "fossil risk vs. nuclear risk" is merely a single example - admittedly crude - to illustrate that at the moment, the thread seems to have narrowed down to nuclear power risk in isolation. Which seems unlikely to be all that fruitful.

However, maybe the larger perspective that I would like to see has already been brought up, and those comments have run their course? I see that earlier, @mfb, @HAYAO, and @russ_watters brought up & discussed costs & risks associated with coal vs. nuclear; e.g. see russ_watters's post #15 and his comment #21 and various of HAYAO's responses; and mfb's comment #27 and Jim Hardy's #28. And I see that you in various comments, e.g. #52 and #56, brought up facts about solar & started a good side discussion about that.

I guess what I would really like to see, if anyone has it handy, is links to studies or analysis from outside sources that attempt to develop & quantify power alternatives for the future more rigorously. As I mentioned (in my edited comment above) I have a couple of primers coming to me in the mail that deal w/ risk and probability analysis; these may help me with my question, but not immediately.

 

[nikkkom]

Sorry, I think I asked my question poorly. Let me try again. The question of "fossil risk vs. nuclear risk" is merely a single example - admittedly crude - to illustrate that at the moment, the thread seems to have narrowed down to nuclear power risk in isolation. Which seems unlikely to be all that fruitful.

Correct. Risks should be compared for different energy sources, and it's unlikely that we will ever have a power source which is completely safe (no one ever dies or is harmed by it).

There are plenty of studies out there; a pity that many of them are biased one way or another.

 

[Thermo]

It's like traveling by plane. Better than traveling by car or bus but once it crashes survival rates are quite low. However, the possibility of the accidents is actually lower than that of cars. Planes are also faster and cleaner in terms of air pollution of cities.

 

[ChrisVer]

So back here, with more time at my disposal.

From an individual's point of view: In general I think that ignorance from the general public is the reason why they fear nuclear plants. I think the main cause of problem is that when you speak to an outsider about radioactivity or nuclear, the first think that crosses their mind is "cancer" or nuclear bombs exploding (this causes awe) . Cancer is of course something bad and so anything "nuclear" is associated to danger and causes fears... Fear is an emotion, and as such it can't be rationalized - even if you explain the public that it's very safe they will always feel uncomfortable with having or using it. Two incidents in 60 years created enough discomfort for those who want to actively fight against nuclear power.

From a political point of view: this results to politicians who are against nuclear projects (which affects how the governments look at funding those stuff). I don't know if the arrow shows from leadership to people (propaganda "ala Al Gore" etc) , or from people to leadership (elections, where incompetent people elect incompetent politicians). For some reason "green" stuff are better accepted by the general public, even though they are inefficient and ridiculous. But is that weird? For me no... The same people believe that medicine is "unnatural" and so cause more damage than they fix... they believe that bio-products are better for their health than normal products (people are ok with paying more to purchase bio, and they even think they taste better).
Nuclear power is not wanted by the great powers too; a nuclear plant can as well be used for the production of nuclear weapons. When you have conflicting interests between countries, this scenario is bad (afterall nuclear weapons are not used in wars nowadays but they are used for diplomacy; as a sign of power).

For the media: the media are not there to spread a truth or a lie. I don't think truths/lies exist in a social level (everyone has their own truths and lies - even when a couple breaks up you can hear several even conflicting reasons for that from the couple). So, media have a certain amount of time at their disposal to speak their views and make money. Popular ideas are popular to the media and unpopular ones- "well ehmm, they don't sell". Playing with emotions (not educating) also helps in that job... So they will prefer people who can say amazing stuff in a short amount of time, or even stimulate emotions like "amazement","disgust", "fear" or "anger", rather than people who would explain things scientifically (leading the general viewers to boredom). Documentaries are more educational for the general public (although I don't like physics ones due to pop-sci), but they target a specific group of people (who are willing to watch them).

Overall, I believe that nuclear power is currently out of the plans and won't return any time soon (if ever).

 

[russ_watters]

Coming back to the title of the thread "
Educating the general public about pro nuclear energy?"

Let's go back to the 1950ies. Everybody was excited about nuclear energy, its possibilities, especially politicians and the general public, nuclear energy was supported by immense public investments. People were much more interested in science than nowadays.
So you had already all you asked for at the very beginning.

Thanks for the history, but that doesn't really address the issue, which is the perception problem that exists today.

Much of the origin of the anti-nuclear power movement are with the anti-nuclear weapons movement that started in the late 1950s.

However, what you say is only true insofar as it applies to the general movement. The very first true commercial nuclear plant was canceled due to public pressure/local citizen conflict. I consider this to be largely NIMBYism, but it had similar undertones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_anti-nuclear_movement#After_the_Partial_Test_Ban_Treaty

If anything, the issue has been handled backwards by anti-nuclear activists, since when the technology is in its infancy is when there is the most risk. But today with a 50+ year track record and at least 30 years of active development and improvement, the industry/technology has proven exceedingly safe.

 

[russ_watters]

The point is that people see life pictures of exploding reactors, scattered fuel rods and the like in real time while Japanese politicians seemed to act headless and either not to possesses sufficient information or, even worse, keep it secret.

Not to be snarky, but are you referring to real life here? Neither of those things you mentioned actually happened!

The list of possible causes for this failiure could be very long, but I think the main problem was the hybris and arrogance of nuclear energies proponents.

Could you be more specific please (or even post some references)? As far as I can tell, there is no coherent or even loose "pro nuclear" movement. For right now, the issue is essentially dead. So where, exactly are you seeing this hubris/arrogance? You and @nikkkom are claiming unfulfilled/false/overconfident promises are being made, but I have not seen any such promises actually cited. So please tell me: where are you getting this from? I'll be blunt: it looks to me like the two of you are making these things up, as products of your own active imaginations, similar to the above things that you say you saw but didn't happen.

 

[mheslep]

rate doubles every 5 years,

Group think? If the rate doubles at all, more like every several hundred years per the models. SLR in the do nothing scenario of emissions is around 1.5 ft by 2100, per the models.

 

[gmax137]

Group think? If the rate doubles at all, more like every several hundred years per the models. SLR in the do nothing scenario of emissions is around 1.5 ft by 2100, per the models.

Yeah, using Davy_Crockett's rates (3.4 mm/year doubling every 5 years) I get your 1.5 feet in 2039 which is 60 years too soon. Keeping those rates out to 2100 would yield a rise of ~7500 feet. The "power of compounding" indeed.