> Jordan: "How many plants does France have? 20."
> [WS]:
> "As of April 1, 2008, 439 nuclear power plants were
> installed in 31 countries (including 104 in the US,
> 59 in France, 55 in Japan, 31 in the Russian Federation,
> and 20 in the Republic of Korea)."
You (and your source) conflate "plant" and "reactor" ... the Fukishima plat that's in the most trouble counts as one "plant" and yet has 6 reactors. France has 59 reactors at 20 plants.
Perhaps you should have said something like:
>>>> FYI, France operates as many if not more nuclear power
>>>> REACTORS as Japan or the US, but it has not had a single
>>>> accident - which indicates that it is possible to
>>>> operate these plants in a safe manner.
But you'd still be mostly wrong :-)
By, um, a factor of two in the US.
And about France not having "a single" accident. By, oh, a factor of infinity.
> I agree with Lovins' argument, but I am not convinced
> that nuclear is not better than coal, because I believe
> that to date more people died as a result of accidents
> involving coal extraction, and pollution resulting from
> using it in electricity generation than from pollution
> generated by nuclear plants.
So what you're saying is that you've made up a singular definition of "better" that ignores the common usage, and thus, you're right again.
Wojtek for <insert political office> ...!
> my point was not to defend nuclear power generation but
> to be rational about ...
Yes, ever-the-rationalist.
Ok, I'll be less vague: for nuclear to be "better" it would need to be "better" at solving the current issue: what is to be done in the future? I think we can agree that "What is to be done in the past?" is a, let's say, less-than-rational approach to the issue.
I believe that Lovins -- and not you -- shows conclusively, in a rational way if you like, that nuclear is not "better than coal" in any way shape or form.
But hey, there I go expressing my subject-to-legal-threats "opinion" again.
Ta,
/jordan