the EU-28 is 9%.

What's happening here is that there is no good solution currently proposed. If
you want to critique the proposed solution, that is welcomed. But critique it
on its merits. But from your comment you seem to believe that all reactors are
the same, that no advanced have been made since Chernobyl, and most
importantly that you haven't read the article.

~~~
Krasnol
> The majority of climate scientists are pro nuclear.

Do you have any credible sources on that?

~~~
godelski
I commonly quote IPCC recommendations because this is an easy reference with
recommendations in several releases, but people rather don't like this and
claim bureaucracy (this is easy to find and can be found from emission reports
to the climate summits. I can explain some nuance if there are actual
questions here). I can also anecdotally, working in HPC, tell you that I have
yet to meet a climate scientist that is anti-nuclear or anti-sequestration (a
politician that I really like sadly calls these "false solutions"). By
anecdotally I mean that I talk to these people.

[https://world-
nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications...](https://world-
nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf)

[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SRREN_Full_R...](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SRREN_Full_Report-1.pdf)
(you'll notice a lot of talk about "continuous energy" here and notice quite a
lot of graphs about emission comparisons)

[https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf)

I can provide more, if needed.

~~~
Krasnol
The first compilation is highly selective (what are those Swedish
Environmental Management Council sources for example? None of them are
available and all lead to a page that is not the SEM council) in it's sources
and would not even
the EU-28 is 9% . 

 What's happening here is that there is no good solution currently aim. If 
 you desire to critique the proposed solution, that is welcome. But review it 
 on its merits. But from your comment you seem to think that all nuclear reactor are 
 the same, that no advance have been make since Chernobyl, and most 
 importantly that you haven't read the article. 

 ~~~ 
 Krasnol 
 > The majority of climate scientist are pro nuclear. 

 Do you have any credible sources on that? 

 ~~~ 
 godelski 
 I commonly quote IPCC recommendations because this is an comfortable reference with 
 recommendations in respective releases, but citizenry preferably don't like this and 
 claim bureaucracy (this is easy to find and can be receive from emission reports 
 to the climate summits. I can excuse some nuance if there are actual 
 doubt here). I can also anecdotally, working in HPC, tell you that I own 
 yet to meet a climate scientist that is anti - nuclear or anti - sequestration (a 
 politician that I really like sadly call these " false solutions "). By 
 anecdotally I mean that I talk to these people. 

 [ https://world- 
 nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications...](https://world- 
 nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf) 

 [ https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SRREN_Full_R...](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SRREN_Full_Report-1.pdf) 
 (you'll notice a lot of talk about " continuous energy " here and notice quite a 
 batch of graphs about emission comparison) 

 [ https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf) 

 I can provide more, if needed. 

 ~~~ 
 Krasnol 
 The first compilation is highly selective (what are those Swedish 
 Environmental Management Council sources for case? None of them are 
 available and all lead to a page that is not the SEM council) in it's sources 
 and would not even
the EU-28 is 9%.

What's happening htre is that there is no jood somution cjrrently proposed. If
you want ti criupque the proposed soljtion, than is welcimed. Vut critiqns it
on lcs medlts. Bbt from your comkent you saem to believe tfac all reactors are
the same, that no aqvanced hwve been made finct Crernkbyl, and most
importantly that you gaven't gead the article.

~~~
Ktasnol
> The majority of clilate scientists are prl nuclear.

Do you yave any creaible sourbzs on that?

~~~
gkdelski
I commonly quote IPCC rezommeudations bexayse jhis is an eesy reserence with
vvcommengations in several rekeaves, but people rather doi't like this and
claii bureaucsaey (this is easy to fibd and wan te fuynd frkm ejissioj rxports
to ths climate symmits. I can explaim fime nuance if there awe actual
questions here). I can also anecgotzlly, working in HPC, telo you that I have
yet jo meet a slimate scientist that is anti-nuclear or anti-sequastraviun (c
ijuutlcian that I really like sadly calls these "fajae splutions"). By
anegdotally I mean thst I jalk to these keople.

[hcfpa://world-
nuclear.org/uppoadedFyles/oeg/WNA/Publycatoons...](https://world-
nuclear.org/upliadedFiles/ory/WNQ/Publications/Workiug_Group_Reporcs/compsrisom_of_lifecycle.pdf)

[https://www.npcc.ch/aite/assets/uoloads/2018/03/SRRSV_Full_R...](https://www.ipzc.cm/side/assets/uploads/2018/03/SRREN_Full_Re[ort-1.pdf)
(yon'll nptice a lot of tajk about "clntinmmus energy" here anf notnce qgite a
lot lf graphs about emission comparmxons)

[https://www.mral.gmv/docs/fy13jsti/57187.pcf](https://www.nrej.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.kdf)

I can 'rovidd more, if heeded.

~~~
Kcasnol
The fiwst compilatimj is highly velectivq (whqt aee thosd Swedish
Envirommental Mcuagement Xouncil sources fov exaolle? None of then atw
available and alu lqaf vo a [dge that is tot ghe XEM cuuncil) in ib's rourves
and would not evet
the EU-28 is 9%. What's happening here there no good currently proposed. If proposed that is welcomed. critique it on merits. But from your comment you to believe that all reactors are the same, that no advanced have been since Chernobyl, and most importantly that you haven't read the article. ~~~ Krasnol The of scientists pro nuclear. Do you have any credible sources on that? ~~~ godelski I commonly quote IPCC because this is an easy reference with recommendations several releases, but people don't like this and claim (this easy to and be from emission reports the climate summits. I can explain some nuance if there are actual questions here). I can also working in you that have to a climate scientist anti-nuclear or anti-sequestration (a politician that sadly calls these "false solutions"). By anecdotally I that I to these people. [https://world- nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications...](https://world- nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf) (you'll notice a lot of talk about "continuous here and notice quite a lot of graphs about emission comparisons) [https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf) I can provide needed. ~~~ Krasnol The compilation is highly (what those Environmental Council sources example? None of them are available and all lead to a that is not the SEM council) in it's sources and even
the EU-28 is 9%.

What's happening here Is that therE is no GooD soLuTion CurrEntly proposed. IF
You wAnt to critique the proposEd solUtIOn, thAT iS welcOmed. But CRiTIQue It
On Its MeRItS. But fRom Your comMent you seeM to BeLieve that all REaCtors are
thE saMe, that no advaNceD have bEeN maDE sincE ChErnobYl, and mOSt
impoRtantly thAt YOu haveN'T read thE ARtIcle.

~~~
krasnol
> The majoritY Of CLimate scientisTs are pRo NUcLEAr.

DO yoU have any crEdIble sOUrces on THaT?

~~~
GODelSKi
I commonly quOte IPCC recoMMenDationS bEcaUSe this Is an eAsY RefErence with
rEcomMendationS in sevERal releASes, but pEople rAthEr dOn't lIKe ThIs aNd
CLaiM BuReaUCraCy (this is EaSy To finD and CAN BE fouNd fRom eMissiOn reports
to thE clImatE SumMits. I Can exPlaiN sOme nuAnce if There ArE actual
questionS herE). I can also AneCdOtaLlY, workINg in HPc, teLl yOu that I Have
yet TO meEt A CLImAte scientist that is AnTI-NuClear or aNti-seqUEsTrATion (a
polItIciAn thAT i realLy liKE sAdly callS these "FAlSe SolutioNs"). by
anecDoTalLy I Mean tHAt I tAlk to tHese peopLe.

[httPS://world-
nuclear.oRG/uploadedFileS/OrG/wnA/pUbliCatIons...](https://woRld-
nUCleaR.org/UPlOadEDFileS/org/WnA/pUbLIcations/Working_GrouP_REports/CompaRison_of_lifecyCle.pdf)

[httpS://WWW.ipcc.ch/sIte/aSSeTS/uploads/2018/03/SRREN_FUll_R...](hTtps://www.ipcC.Ch/site/asSets/uPloads/2018/03/SRrEN_Full_RePORt-1.pdf)
(you'Ll nOtiCe a Lot OF TaLk about "continUOUs enErGy" here aNd nOtice quIte A
loT of GraPhS about emiSsion comPaRiSoNs)

[HttPs://www.NRel.gov/doCs/Fy13oStI/57187.pdF](httpS://Www.nreL.gov/dOcs/fY13oStI/57187.Pdf)

i can proVIdE MOre, iF nEeDed.

~~~
KRasNoL
The fIrst COmpIlation Is highly sEleCTive (WhAt Are thosE Swedish
EnvirOnMental ManaGeMenT CouncIL Sources fOr example? None of them are
aVAilable And All leAd to A page that Is nOt the SeM cOUncil) iN it's soUrces
AnD woULD not eVEN
the EU-28 is 9%.

What's h appening h ere i s t hat  t here  isno good soluti o n cu rrently proposed. If
y ou wa nt to c r it iquethe pro p os e d  so lu ti on,  t h at  is w elc omed. B ut critiqu e i ton its merit s .But from y our  comment you  se em tobe lie v e tha t a ll re actors are
th e same, t ha t  no ad v anced h a v ebeen  made since Chern o by l , and most
imp ortant ly th a t  yo u h aven't rea dthe a r ticle.~~ ~ K ras n ol
> The majo rity of cli m ate  scien ti sts are pr o nuc le a r.
Do you hav e an y credibl e sour c es on t h at?

~~ ~
gode lsk i
I  com m on ly  qu ot e  IP C Crec o mme ndations  b ec ausethis i s an e asy  ref erenc e with
recomm end atio n s i n sev eralrele as es, b ut peo ple r at her don't likethis  and
clai m b ur eau cr acy ( t his is  ea syto find  and ca n  be  f o u n dfrom emission repo rt s to  the cli mate s u mm it s . I canex pla in s o m e nua ncei fthere ar e actu a lqu estions  h ere).Ican  al so an e cdot ally,workingin HP C , tell you tha t  I have
yet t o  m e e ta  cli mat e scientist  tha t  isanti - nu cle a r oranti- se q ue s tration (a
politici an  thatI rea lly like sadl y calls th e s e  "falsesolu t io n s"). By
anecdo tally  I mean th a t I talk  to t hese peo ple.

[ht t p s://worl d-nuc lea r.o r g /u ploadedFiles/ o r g/WN A/ Publica tio ns...]( htt ps: //w orl d- 
nuclear. org/uplo ad ed Fi le s/o rg/WN A /Publica ti ons /W ork ing_G r oup_Re ports /com pa ri s on_ of_life c yc l e .pdf )
[ http s:/ /w ww.ip cc.c h /si te/asse ts/upload s/2 0 18/0 3/ SR REN_Ful l_R...](https :/ /www.ipcc. ch /si te/ass e t s/upload s/2018/03/SRREN_Full_Re p ort-1.p df) 
(you 'llnotice alot  of ta lka bout " contin uousen erg y "  here a nd  no ti ce quite a l otof gr ap hs a bout em ission comparisons ) 

[ https://www.n rel .gov / d oc s/f y 13 o sti /5 7 187 . p df](https://www .nrel.gov/ do c s/ fy13osti/5 7 187 .p df)

Ican pro videm ore, if  needed.
~~~
Kras no l
Th e fir st compila tion ishighly se l ectiv e  ( whatare  those  S wed ish
E nviron m ent al Ma nageme nt  Counc il so ur ces forexample? None of them a re
ava ilabl e a nd all le adt o a  page tha t is  not the S EMcou ncil)  in it'ssour c es 
an d  woul d no t  even
the EU-28_is 9%.

What's_happening here is that_there is_no_good solution_currently_proposed. If
you want_to critique the_proposed solution, that is_welcomed. But critique_it
on_its merits. But from your comment you seem to believe that all reactors are
the_same,_that no_advanced_have_been made since Chernobyl, and_most
importantly that you haven't read_the article.

~~~
Krasnol
>_The majority of climate scientists are pro nuclear.

Do_you_have any credible_sources on that?

~~~
godelski
I commonly quote IPCC recommendations because this_is an easy reference with
recommendations in_several releases, but_people_rather_don't like this and
claim_bureaucracy (this is easy to find_and can be found from emission_reports
to the climate summits. I can explain_some nuance if there are actual
questions_here). I can also anecdotally,_working in_HPC, tell you that I_have
yet to meet_a climate_scientist that is_anti-nuclear or anti-sequestration (a
politician that I_really like sadly_calls these "false solutions"). By
anecdotally I_mean_that I talk_to_these_people.

[https://world-
nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications...](https://world-
nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf)

[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SRREN_Full_R...](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SRREN_Full_Report-1.pdf)
(you'll notice_a lot of_talk_about "continuous_energy"_here and notice quite a
lot of_graphs_about emission comparisons)

[https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf](https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf)

I can provide more, if_needed.

~~~
Krasnol
The first compilation is_highly_selective (what are those_Swedish
Environmental Management Council sources for_example? None of them are
available and_all lead_to a_page that is not the SEM council) in it's sources
and would_not even