Henry, it's not hard to appreciate that the most useful, powerful sources of energy can also be the most dangerous. Like guns, their ability to empower individuals (and societies) can, if wielded irresponsibly, be catastrophic.

Chernobyl was a case in point. As you note, there was a top-down failure of responsibility - from policymakers, to the plant's designers, to its operators. The RBMK reactor design itself was an accident waiting to happen.

Here's why Chernobyl should be viewed in context:

Safety standards for U.S. nuclear plants are the most rigorous in the world. There are many reasons why there hasn't been a single casualty of U.S. nuclear power; housing reactors within 6 feet of reinforced concrete, and not a Home-Depot-style warehouse structure, is only one (it prevented casualties at Three Mile Island).

Extremely encouraging that you, Rakesh, and Matt Chester "get it" - that unless we take substantial and immediate steps to prevent them, the effects of climate change will make 10 Chernobyls look like a walk in the park. It's all about putting things in perspective.

Henry,

I just recently viewed this show as well and found it very compelling.  I think the overall issue with nuclear power is that man can still make mistakes and when money and power are involved you add another level of issues. In addition, one accident is not like a common fire - it takes 100's of years to recover.   I am personally torn on the issue of Nuclear power.  However, I think this incident as well as the one in Japan have taught us a lot.   

Dear Henry,

Which professional, scientific research are you referring to, when you say that research has said that only combinations of Nuclear Power and renewables can work? 

We have other options. Let us say that solar / wind energy cannot cater enough for the energy need of Earth ? 

Then we can - dammit - cut own our energy consumption. We are riding on a hot air balloon - this one of the perpetual growth. 

Truly - the world economy would collapse without this growth. But economy as such would not. Currencies would not. We would see a new economy rise from the old one. 

The chaos from such a collapse would be of magnitudes smaller than a total climate change collapse due to our lemming-like heading for the CO2 and overheating abyss.

Sincerely

Rational Intuitive

David Svarrer

Dear Bob Meinetz, 

Can you explain to me why we would ever run a risk of implementing systems which need huge security systems and which would cause disaster if the security systems fails? 

There is no legit argument for installing anything (radioactive) which has a potential of causing such serious disasters - when we in fact have innocent energy resources which are constantly there - such as solar, wind, thermal and others.

From where comes this infatuation of nuclear systems? They are both dangerous and potentially lethally dangerous. There is no need.

We must get away from this notion that governments are there to get what the population wants. So, if the population demands 24/7 energy supply and that would require seriously dangerous means - then the answer is plain simply: NO.

Sincerely

David Svarrer