Ex-nuclear engineer says it can never be safe

[n2doc]

BY CHRISTOPHER MIMS
15 JUN 2011 12:54 PM
Back when Italy was trying out nuclear power for the first time, Cesare Silvi was one of the guys who had to figure out how to make it safe. Sometimes crazy things would happen -- once, an oil pipe burst, fouling the cooling water intake of a nuclear power plant miles away, shutting it down. Soon Silvi discovered there were many other pipes even closer to that plant; his attempt to study them was stymied by the moneyed interests who own them.

The longer he looked, the more small, improbable, but potentially disastrous scenarios piled up -- war, terrorism, plane crashes, missiles, extreme weather -- leading him to eventually conclude that if you armored a nuclear power plant against all potential disasters, you could never produce power for a reasonable amount of money.

more

http://www.grist.org/list/2011-06-15-ex-nuclear-engineer-says-it-can-never-be-safe

[izquierdista]

1. Well, duh

As another one who worked in the industry, there's only one way to make it "safe". You don't make your plans on "if" it leaks, but "when". The only containment that has ever made any sense to me is to build the reactors in abandoned mines deep underground, where, when the thing falls apart and leaks, it leaks at geological speed (i.e., inches over centuries). If you can find suitable locations like that, and if you can drop a long enough extension cord down to it to get the power out, then maybe it's worth thinking about.

[Nederland]

2. Very true

Nuclear reactors can never be guaranteed to be 100% safe. Neither can airplanes. Or cars. Or houses. Or a wide variety of other things that we use everyday.

Nuclear power doesn't have to be perfect. It merely needs to be better than the alternatives, which it is.

[kristopher]

4. It is better than the alternatives...

...at making money for the nuclear industry. Nothing else.

Data Trimming, Nuclear Emissions, and Climate Change
Kristin Sharon Shrader-Frechette
Sci Eng Ethics (2009) 15:19–23

Abstract Ethics requires good science. Many scientists, government leaders, and industry representatives support tripling of global-nuclear-energy capacity on the grounds that nuclear fission is ‘‘carbon free’’ and ‘‘releases no greenhouse gases.’’ However, such claims are scientifically questionable (and thus likely to lead to ethically questionable energy choices) for at least 3 reasons. (i) They rely on trimming the data on nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGE), perhaps in part because flawed Kyoto Protocol conventions require no full nuclear-fuel-cycle assessment of carbon content. (ii) They underestimate nuclear-fuel-cycle releases by erroneously assuming that mostly high-grade uranium ore, with much lower emissions, is used. (iii) They inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies. Once scientists take account of (i)–(iii), it is possible to show that although the nuclear fuel cycle releases (per kWh) much fewer GHG than coal and oil, nevertheless it releases far more GHG than wind and solar-photovoltaic. Although there may be other, ethical, reasons to support nuclear tripling, reducing or avoiding GHG does not appear to be one of them.

I like opening up many of these abstracts for ease of reading:

Ethics requires good science.

Many scientists, government leaders, and industry representatives support tripling of global-nuclear-energy capacity on the grounds that nuclear fission is ‘‘carbon free’’ and ‘‘releases no greenhouse gases.’’

However, such claims are scientifically questionable (and thus likely to lead to ethically questionable energy choices) for at least 3 reasons.

(i) They rely on trimming the data on nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGE), perhaps in part because flawed Kyoto Protocol conventions require no full nuclear-fuel-cycle assessment of carbon content.

(ii) They underestimate nuclear-fuel-cycle releases by erroneously assuming that mostly high-grade uranium ore, with much lower emissions, is used.

(iii) They inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies.

Once scientists take account of (i)–(iii), it is possible to show that although the nuclear fuel cycle releases (per kWh) much fewer GHG than coal and oil, nevertheless it releases far more GHG than wind and solar-photovoltaic.

Although there may be other, ethical, reasons to support nuclear tripling, reducing or avoiding GHG does not appear to be one of them.

[Nederland]

7. Let's compare

In my advocacy of nuclear power I have the example of France--a real live country that produces 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. In your advocacy of renewables you have...a bunch of academic papers.


Get back to me when you got something real, then we'll talk.

[madokie]

5. Yea but all those things you mentioned doesn't have the potential for catastrophe like nuclear

power plants do. Go talk to the people of Japan and see what they say about right now. The last I read there's a pretty good chance the Japanese will abandon nuclear energy.

[Nederland]

6. Sure about that?

Compare how many people have been killed by nuclear accidents with how many have been killed by car accidents.

Go ahead. Run the numbers and get back to me.

[madokie]

9. Silly rabbit

car accidents many times kill instantly, Nuclear accidents on the other hand takes time so your comparing the two is BUNK. Only a fool will buy what you're selling there and trust me I'm no fool.

My pulmonary doctor tells me that if I was young enough to expect to live another 20 or 30 years he could not be watching my lung problem as he does now due to the fact that exposure to radiation does and will cause cancer.

So in summation what you're saying rings hollow, got that HOLLOW

[Nederland]

11. Why does that matter?

It doesn't matter if a car accident kills you instantly and a nuclear accident kills you slowly over 20 or 30 years. Dead is dead. Run the numbers and then let's compare them. What are you afraid of?

[madokie]

14. I'm not afraid of anything

especially a keyboardist that is typing bullshit to me. Who's numbers you want me to run the nuclear industries, hell they still say no one died because of tmi and only a few hundred from chernobyl when in fact that is bullshit as what your trying to pass off as fact. You want to believe in fairy tails then have at it, I don't care too.

[Nederland]

30. Use any numbers you like

If you want to use the numbers for Chernobyl that Greenpeace or other anti-nuke organizations came up with, go ahead. Just post the numbers and then we'll discuss them. Isn't that fair?

[SpoonFed]

19. Interesting how...

your description uses the word "you" to invoke an emotional response instead of a reasoned response.

Try talking about the potential losses of life and limb to "people", "society" and the "world" when discussing nuclear. Frankly cars suck too, but those of us with the smallest concern for others (read: future generations of selfish-bastards) and the environment seem to think nuclear is a bad idea.

If you look at the top stats for "you" dying amongst Amerikaners, I think the leaders are heart disease, then cancer (is nuclear power and it's accidents a factor there? duh) and after that somewhere, perhaps automobile accidents if you're in the right demographic.

I'm split between being tired of and being amused of the "nuclear power -> we're all gonna die -> FTW!" argumentation.

[txlibdem]

33. Anti-nukers are frequently tired of reading facts and truth - it doesn't match their agenda

You have twisted his argument from "cars kill far more people than nuclear power" to "nuclear power -> we're all gonna die -> FTW!"

Twist facts at the service of your agenda as you like but ignore facts at your own peril.

[diane in sf]

45. you are comparing apples to oranges, why don't you look at deaths from nuclear power

including its related activities like mining and processing versus to using energy efficiency, solar, or wind power. Your car to nuke death comparison is not a valid analogy.

[Nederland]

49. I'm comparing two dangerous technologies

Nuclear reactors are dangerous, but automobiles are even more dangerous. The question then becomes why anti-nukes who go on and on about how nuclear power is too dangerous to have in their communities will happily hop into their cars and go the the grocery store. Why the skewed acceptance of risk? The only explanation is that they are ignorant or bad at statistics. If you believe that nuclear power is so dangerous it need to be banned entirely, you'd have to advocate a ban on a large range of other things like driving, flying--hell you'd have to advocate a ban on hiking in national parks because far more people are killed by lighting while doing that than have ever been killed by nuclear reactors.

[kristopher]

50. Actually there is another explanation besides your personal superiority...

It's contained in a study paid for by the nuclear industry. Simply put, you trust the nuclear industry and those who do not support nuclear power distrust the nuclear industry. They perceive, rightly, that arguments such as you offer are more likely to be empty, self-serving sophistry than meaningful guidance rooted in genuine concern. It might be the part about being ignorant and uneducated that gives your real focus away...

Journal:
Risk Analysis, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2009 DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception
Stephen C. Whitfield,1 Eugene A. Rosa,2 Amy Dan,3 and Thomas Dietz3 ∗

Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two
decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy. Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power.

Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



The difference between those who embrace nuclear power and those who reject it

This is drawn from published, peer reviewed research on the beliefs of the public and how those beliefs flow from values held.

1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.

[Nederland]

51. I see you still haven't actually read that paper

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=260147

Besides, we know the real difference between those who embrace nuclear power and those that do not is level of education:



http://www.gallup.com/poll/146660/Disaster-Japan-Raises-Nuclear-Concerns.aspx

Let me guess about you Kristopher--never graduated high school?

[kristopher]

52. So I was right, you only "believe" in statistics when you think you can use them against someone

Now, what was the expression you felt fit those who don't accept your obviously contrived use of "statistical analysis"?

"Ignorant"; wasn't that your word?
ETA, here it is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x299787#300412

Posted by Nederland

Nuclear reactors are dangerous, but automobiles are even more dangerous. The question then becomes why anti-nukes who go on and on about how nuclear power is too dangerous to have in their communities will happily hop into their cars and go the the grocery store. Why the skewed acceptance of risk? The only explanation is that they are ignorant or bad at statistics. If you believe that nuclear power is so dangerous it need to be banned entirely, you'd have to advocate a ban on a large range of other things like driving, flying--hell you'd have to advocate a ban on hiking in national parks because far more people are killed by lighting while doing that than have ever been killed by nuclear reactors.

And yet here you reject the authors' careful statistical analysis by referring to a single poll paid for by the nuclear industry.

Here is the relevant discussion of the results of the rather comprehensive statistical analysis from the paper:

Table II presents all of the unstandardized and standardized coefficients for the estimated VBN model. As hypothesized, greater trust in nuclear organizations lowers perceived risk of nuclear power, and together trust and risk strongly predict levels of support for nuclear power (see Table II). Contrary to expectations, greater trust in environmental institutions and lower perceived global environmental risk are not predictive of positive nuclear attitudes. Values, as predicted, influence nuclear attitudes in op- posite ways: individuals who are more traditional in their beliefs have greater support, while those who are more altruistic have greater opposition to nuclear power. Neither openness to change, nor self-interest, nor the NEP-measured concern for the biosphere are directly associated with nuclear attitudes. In terms of social location, nonwhites showed higher levels of support for nuclear power than whites. As repeat- edly shown in previous research, the principal demo- graphic finding is a nonfinding:(16,56) nuclear attitudes neither vary by gender, by age, by education, by in- come, nor by political orientation, and there was no gender-ethnicity interaction.

Let's look at it sentence by sentence:

Table II presents all of the unstandardized and standardized coefficients for the estimated VBN model.

As hypothesized, greater trust in nuclear organizations lowers perceived risk of nuclear power, and together trust and risk strongly predict levels of support for nuclear power (see Table II).
As I stated, supporters of nuclear power trust the nuclear industry. That's what they expected.

Contrary to expectations, greater trust in environmental institutions and lower perceived global environmental risk are not predictive of positive nuclear attitudes.
They thought that environmental attitudes would correlate to in positive feelings about nuclear but it didn't.

Values, as predicted, influence nuclear attitudes in opposite ways: individuals who are more traditional in their beliefs have greater support, while those who are more altruistic have greater opposition to nuclear power.
Self explanatory.

Neither openness to change, nor self-interest, nor the NEP-measured concern for the biosphere are directly associated with nuclear attitudes.
It isn't closed mindedness, selfishness or concern for the environment...

In terms of social location, nonwhites showed higher levels of support for nuclear power than whites.
Self explanatory.

As repeatedly shown in previous research, the principal demographic finding is a nonfinding:(16,56) nuclear attitudes neither vary by gender, by age, by education, by income, nor by political orientation, and there was no gender-ethnicity interaction.

Gender - nope

Age - nope

Education - nope

Income - nope

Political orientation - nope



We're done.

[Nederland]

53. Yes, we are done

Thanks for proving my point.

[txlibdem]

18. Ask the people of Haiti, then ask the people of Chile

Houses kill... when there are no government regulations mandating earthquake safety. The people of Haiti recently found that out.

The people of Chile, however, had much less of a problem being killed by houses -- because their government had stringent building codes... and enforced them.

Both of these nations suffered earthquakes, with two drastically different outcomes.

Houses kill.

Survivors of Haiti's quake described abject panic – much of it well-founded as buildings imploded around them. Many Haitians grabbed cement pillars only to watch them crumble in their hands. Haitians were not schooled in how to react – by sheltering under tables and door frames, and away from glass windows.

Chileans, on the other hand, have homes and offices built to ride out quakes, their steel skeletons designed to sway with seismic waves rather than resist them.

"When you look at the architecture in Chile you see buildings that have damage, but not the complete pancaking that you've got in Haiti," said Cameron Sinclair, executive director of Architecture for Humanity, a 10-year-old nonprofit that has helped people in 36 countries rebuild after disasters.

...snip...

In Haiti, by contrast, there is no building code.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/27/chile-haiti-earthquake-co_n_479705.html

[madokie]

36. And what the hell does that have to do with the subject at hand

talk about grasping at straws. I guess you're getting your post numbers up there by posting irrelevant shit like this. Other than that what the hell Tex?

Ok maybe it does have some relevance. I went back and read what the person I had responded to wrote and he did mention houses. my bad
have a good day then :-) you got me

[txlibdem]

40. No worries

The point was that anything, if poorly managed and poorly regulated, can be dangerous.

I have to admit that I'm starting to have doubts about the current fleet of nuclear power plants, partly due to all the posts about Fukushima and the idiotic management of those reactors. For example, why in hell were the backup diesel generators mounted at ground level? Had they been mounted on the roof, things might have turned out differently; but that's just one factor in a very complex situation.

It makes me believe all the more that we need to replace all the existing nuclear power plants with the latest designs. Just as long as they are mass produced like SMRs, LFTR, etc., preferably LFTR since that uses Thorium, not Uranium.

[intaglio]

8. That 3rd sentence is a lie

Please define "better". Be sure include the ability to poison hundreds of square miles of land and tens of thousands of cubic miles of ocean for decades and centuries in your definition.

Also include the fact that photovoltaics are now cheaper per installed Watt than nuclear. Even sea-based wind is competitive with nuclear if it is given the same incentives and tax breaks. I'm sure you will start whimpering about how unfair I'm being and how I ignore the terrible pollution produced by some producers of raw materials but I would also ask you to include such chemical pollution accounting in the costs of nuclear

[Nederland]

12. The third sentence?

The third sentence in my post is: "Or cars."

Now granted, that is not grammatically correct in that it is an incomplete sentence, but it leaves me wondering what part of my post you think is a lie. On second thought, it leaves me wondering why I should bother responding to people that can't count. I always knew that anti-nukes were bad at physics, I didn't realize the deficiency also included basic numeracy.

[intaglio]

38. I assumed you wanted to put in a colon

and that you wanted some leeway.

You still have not said how, exactly, nuclear power is "better" than the alternatives. Do you have an answer other than "I was told so by the nuclear lobbyists whose propaganda I am parroting"?

I suspect that your answer will include the usual drivel about how photovolatics cannot generate electricity at night and that you cannot be certain that the wind will blow or that there will be waves or the tides might go away; I know, I used to spout the same platitudes before March 12th. But the "overnight" problem goes away when you see how little energy is actually used overnight and good energy storage (pumped storage, flow batteries and gyroscopic) would easily carry the load.

[diane in sf]

44. Nuclear power is provably more expensive and toxic than efficiency, wind, solar

and its other alternatives when all costs and subsidies are acknowledged.

[eppur_se_muova]

3. Energy is never "safe", it is only more safe or less safe.

You can get killed or crippled by an oatburner, but they're safer than fossil fuels.

Generally, the higher the energy density, the greater the potential danger.

Nuclear, with an extremely high energy density, lies on the "less safe" end of the spectrum. No room for dunderheaded mistakes, especially profit-driven negligence.

But if we don't do something to rein in our energy consumption, we're not going to be able to do without nukes, certainly not in the short term.

[txlibdem]

34. True, nothing is ever "safe"

Case in point: when she was far too young my daughter figured out that if you bend the middle tine just right, a fork will fit nicely inside an electrical socket. That she didn't get electrocuted is nothing short of a miracle. That my wife was brave enough to get a pot holder and pull it out of the wall (it was red hot, smoking and sparking) is also impressive. A never ending conundrum is why in the hell didn't the breaker kick off???

PS, does your reference to "oatburner" mean a horse, or something like this:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5572298/energy_from_oat_hulls.html
..."General Mills uses a lot of grains in its food products, and the company is constructing a biomass burner at its mill in Fridley, Minnesota that will burn leftover oat hulls to generate about 90 percent of the steam needed to heat the plant and make oat flour. According to the company, the biomass burner, expected to be online in early 2011, will use about 12 percent of the oat hulls left over from the milling process and will save about $500,000 a year in natural gas costs."

Biofuels: use 'em if you got 'em!

[eppur_se_muova]

35. I meant a horse, but here's something interesting ...

in chemical labs and manufacturing, there is a lot of demand for a solvent known as tetrahydrofuran, or THF. Stockrooms tend to buy bulk reagents from whatever company is selling them for the lowest price at the time, with the result that I once purchased a gallon bottle of THF mfg'd by ... The Quaker Oat Company. Apparently, oat hulls, like corn cobs, are made largely of polyamyloses, and acidic dehydration gives furfural, from which THF is ultimately derived. Similar solvents, THP and 2-methylTHF, are also derived from furfural, and MeTHF has been used as a component in alternative fuels. (On the downside, this requires the use of a lot of hydrogen -- which in the current market is mostly made from natural gas, or even coal.)

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZB8G8D7yZooC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=oat+hulls+thf&source=bl&ots=zHot46mDZ5&sig=JJEITiYMEGOKSzOP6Hd7nQn_wVU&hl=en&ei=32P7TZu3GZOr0AGX6ujSAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=oat%20hulls%20thf&f=false

[txlibdem]

10. The never ending bickering between the pro-nuke and the anti-nuke, result: fossil fuels dominate!

Let's break it down into understandable little bits for you (whoever is doing all the bickering).

Some energy sources emit ZERO green house gases. Other energy sources emit TONS of green house gases. Most scientists agree that green house gases are BAD and that we should STOP making them.

The zero GHG energy sources are:
Nuclear power
Solar PV
Solar Thermal
Geothermal
Wind power
Tidal power
Wave power

The energy sources we need to put an end to NOW --the ones that emit TONS of GHGs each and every year:
Coal
Oil
Natural Gas

The bridge to get us to the end of liquid fuels:
Bio fuels from cellulose or algae

The bridge to the future of transportation:
Electric vehicles (from the Segway and GM's EN-V pod car concept all the way up to 18-wheelers)
High Speed Rail
Personal Rapid Transit

I happen to believe that we need to end the use of dirty, dangerous, polluting, deadly fossil fuels FIRST, and only then begin to end nuclear power (unless by that time they've made Fusion a reality).

[Nederland]

13. Well said (nt)

[kristopher]

15. Ex-nuclear engineer says it can never be safe

Ex-nuclear engineer says it can never be safe
BY CHRISTOPHER MIMS
15 JUN 2011 12:54 PM
Back when Italy was trying out nuclear power for the first time, Cesare Silvi was one of the guys who had to figure out how to make it safe. Sometimes crazy things would happen -- once, an oil pipe burst, fouling the cooling water intake of a nuclear power plant miles away, shutting it down. Soon Silvi discovered there were many other pipes even closer to that plant; his attempt to study them was stymied by the moneyed interests who own them.

The longer he looked, the more small, improbable, but potentially disastrous scenarios piled up -- war, terrorism, plane crashes, missiles, extreme weather -- leading him to eventually conclude that if you armored a nuclear power plant...

Data Trimming, Nuclear Emissions, and Climate Change
Kristin Sharon Shrader-Frechette
Sci Eng Ethics (2009) 15:19–23

Abstract Ethics requires good science. Many scientists, government leaders, and industry representatives support tripling of global-nuclear-energy capacity on the grounds that nuclear fission is ‘‘carbon free’’ and ‘‘releases no greenhouse gases.’’ However, such claims are scientifically questionable (and thus likely to lead to ethically questionable energy choices) for at least 3 reasons. (i) They rely on trimming the data on nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGE), perhaps in part because flawed Kyoto Protocol conventions require no full nuclear-fuel-cycle assessment of carbon content. (ii) They underestimate nuclear-fuel-cycle releases by erroneously assuming that mostly high-grade uranium ore, with much lower emissions, is used. (iii) They inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies. Once scientists take account of (i)–(iii), it is possible to show that although the nuclear fuel cycle releases (per kWh) much fewer GHG than coal and oil, nevertheless it releases far more GHG than wind and solar-photovoltaic. Although there may be other, ethical, reasons to support nuclear tripling, reducing or avoiding GHG does not appear to be one of them.

I like opening up many of these abstracts for ease of reading:

Ethics requires good science.

Many scientists, government leaders, and industry representatives support tripling of global-nuclear-energy capacity on the grounds that nuclear fission is ‘‘carbon free’’ and ‘‘releases no greenhouse gases.’’

However, such claims are scientifically questionable (and thus likely to lead to ethically questionable energy choices) for at least 3 reasons.

(i) They rely on trimming the data on nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGE), perhaps in part because flawed Kyoto Protocol conventions require no full nuclear-fuel-cycle assessment of carbon content.

(ii) They underestimate nuclear-fuel-cycle releases by erroneously assuming that mostly high-grade uranium ore, with much lower emissions, is used.

(iii) They inconsistently compare nuclear-related GHGE only to those from fossil fuels, rather than to those from the best GHG-avoiding energy technologies.

Once scientists take account of (i)–(iii), it is possible to show that although the nuclear fuel cycle releases (per kWh) much fewer GHG than coal and oil, nevertheless it releases far more GHG than wind and solar-photovoltaic.

Although there may be other, ethical, reasons to support nuclear tripling, reducing or avoiding GHG does not appear to be one of them.



The "all of the above" approach is not about solving the global warming, it is about the nuclear industry trying to cut itself in for a big slice of money while preserving the present structure of energy production and distribution.

[txlibdem]

16. Smacked in the face with the olive branch... ouch!

Are you sure it's only the nuclear industry that is trying to preserve the present structure of energy production and distribution?

[kristopher]

17. A "give me everything I want and we can be friends" olive branch, you mean?

You are ignoring the problems of nuclear with no justification. If, as you claim, your focus was on GHG reductions, then your conclusions would not be what they are.

Coal and nuclear are two sides of the same coin.

The coal and nuclear industries are interchangeable lynch-pins in a system composed of a wide variety of industrial and economic interests. Let's call that the "Entrenched Energy Industries". Everything from raw resources for manufacturing and fuels to labor groups to project planning & development to closely-tied government regulators to shipping to mining to financial holdings to distribution to transmission & grid operations to utilities to vested state, local, county & municipal governments; all of these and their associated interdependent businesses have a direct economic interest in preserving the current method of producing and delivering power to the end user.

While it is true that many of these at the organizational level will also have a role in a renewable distributed grid, it is evident from the nature of the structural shift that their role will be diminished greatly even if they are survivors of the change-over. For example, transmission and distribution will be important, but the smart grid is going to create an entirely new management paradigm that will have to be adapted to and their function will shift more and more from one where they "keep the lights on" to one where they "top off your tank" when your more local neighborhood and home systems need supplementing. As for those "local systems", they will be dominated by a range of companies with new names but all having the characteristics of any other mass production good such as consumer electronics, cars, appliances, etc.

Change is an instinctually unsafe condition when you are in a secure immediate position. When the system that keeps you "safe" is preserved it is good and when it is threatened you tend to want to protect it. Renewables threaten that entire system, nuclear only a small slice of it.

Coal and nuclear are two sides of the same coin.

[txlibdem]

21. It was clearly a "no more green house gases" olive branch -- and you don't want that

[kristopher]

24. I gave sources that show nuclear isn't a solution to GHG emissions

Yet you insist we should waste money on it. That sounds a lot like the guy heading the company making a bundle off of handling nuclear waste for the nuclear plants:

From the presentation "Understanding Public Opinion: A Key to the Nuclear Renaissance" by Dr. Raul A. Deju in Sept. 2009 at conference on growing the nuclear industry.

He is the Chief Operating Officer, EnergySolutions, Inc. which according to Wiki is "one of the world’s largest processors of low level waste (LLW), and is the largest nuclear waste company in the United States..."

This part of his presentation comes at the tail end of a dismal assessment of public support for nuclear power.

Notice how science is rejected in favor of a strong, unified messaging campaign targeting the public.

...how do we use the results of public opinion to develop a sensible energy policy

• Leadership and unity of message need to be the top priority.

• Acceptable messages need to cover the diversity of group thinking.

• Developing confidence on having a solution to nuclear waste issues and non-proliferation requires leadership messages and social support more than scientific support.

And what are those "acceptable messages" Mr. Deju is referring to? He goes on to tell us explicitly in the next slide:

Energy Messages

• Nuclear and renewable energy need to be tied into a combined offering.

• Concerns regarding energy security and energy independence can only be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable standards, and nuclear energy.

That bears repeating. The leaders in the nuclear industry very clearly state that better science and solutions to the known problems associated with nuclear power are not the key to developing their industry; but rather, what is needed is a strong unified messaging campaign where nuclear and renewable energy are "tied into a combined offering" with the message that public concerns "regarding energy security and energy independence can only be solved through the combination of energy efficiency, renewable standards, and nuclear energy".

There it is, the clearly defined "messaging strategy" that the nuclear industry promotes.

Find any environmental group that agrees.

[txlibdem]

25. You gave sources that were based on opinion only

If the "unified messaging" from the medical and pharma industries was "Meth is bad for you, don't mess with it" would you concoct some plot to keep everyone from feeling "really" good?

What about "unified messaging" from parents, teachers and doctors to avoid unprotected, promiscuous sex. Conspiracy there? Three sides of the same coin?

Sometimes you make having a discussion very difficult.

Truth: Nuclear power, Solar (PV and Thermal), Wind (onshore and offshore), Geothermal Power, Tidal power and Wave power generate ZERO green house gases while they're making energy.

Second Truth: Natural Gas produces 40% of the CO2 of coal only 1/3rd the NOX, SOX, etc., but far more Methane than previously thought during extraction.
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2011/01/25/natural-gas-vs-coal-a-new-wrinkle/
..."gas may be as little as 25 percent cleaner than coal, or perhaps even less."

A little better than coal is not, in my opinion, a worthy goal for the world to shoot for in an expensive remake of our energy mix.

[kristopher]

27. You use "opinion only" in the same way that climate deniers do.

[CJvR]

37. So?

We do lots of things that aren't "safe", and have killed far more people than nuclear power or weapons ever have.

We drive cars despite that they "can never be safe", neither for the driver or those around him on the road.
We fly despite that airtravel "can never be safe" which a crash now and then reminds us of.
We eat tons of crap that we know will "never be safe", if you want a long healthy life that is.
Despite RMS Titanic people still travel by sea and no ship ever launched will ever "be safe".


Will nuclear power generation ever be safe? Well it depends on what you consider safe and it is a bit dishonest to ask scientists and engineers that question because they will know there are no such thing as absolute certainty outside of mathematics and answer accordingly.

The key question is which energy generation method is preferable until we get working fusion or renewables up and running.
Coal - which we know is changing the climate, although by how much is still uncertain. (Still an experiment best not preformed.)
Nuclear - Doesn't generate GHG but have other drawbacks as was demonstrated at Chernobyl etc...
Hydro - Only available in limited quantity and fixed locations, green - but will destroy the local enviroment.

[kristopher]

39. The public didn't get the idea that Chernobyl scale nuclear accidents...

The public didn't get the idea that Chernobyl scale nuclear accidents would never happen simply by accident, it was fed a constant line of BS by the nuclear industry.

Your statement, "The key question is which energy generation method is preferable until we get working fusion or renewables up and running" is another example of the same prepackaged propaganda from the nuclear industry. Renewables are already better than nuclear in every respect.

If you wish I'll be happy to post valid information showing that nuclear industry claims in any area you wish related to its ability to address climate change do not withstand close scrutiny.

[SpoonFed]

20. Ha

The bridge to the future of transportation:

You left out super-Japanese-robots that build everything as fast as we can think of it.
I'm starting to wonder how many times you've been beaten down with your "we need nukes" talk,
only to have the thread end with you ignoring facts or claiming not to understand.

[txlibdem]

22. I don't understand why you bring up Japanese robots - that's from an OP last month

There is no question that "we need nukes" but I'm going to ignore your post because I don't know why you would say such a thing.

:dunce:

[SpoonFed]

23. There is only one question...

why you blinding keep stating "we need nukes" despite all reasonable discussion to the contrary? The evidence points to the fact that if the true costs of nuclear are taken into account (massive subsidies, having no insurance worth speaking of, inadequate amounts of rare earth metals, exhausting fuel supply, waste storage, etc) are so massive, that it's just a very stupid idea to deploy this technology in the future.

It's almost as spaced out as suggesting that superior Japanese technology in the form of super-robot manufacturing will be able to build our way out of any problems, hence, that's why I mentioned it.

Blind faith in technology is bad. You should read some Paul Virilio and figure out what he's talking about by "The Accident".

[txlibdem]

26. Reasonable people do not want to kill the planet with Green House Gases

Nuclear power creates Zero GHGs during energy production and is, therefore, superior to every form of fossil fuel, and I can't fathom why a thinking, rational human being would want pollution spewing, radiation spewing, 1 million person-killing (annually), deadly, disgusting fossil fuels instead of clean and safe energy from nuclear power.

As to the robots, these two may not be Japanese but they sure are capable (and damn cool):
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/industrial-robots/f16-demolition-robot
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-02/video-new-demolition-robot-rips-through-walls-snips-rebar-and-turns-concrete-dust

Is there such a leap of faith in thinking that robot demolition could eventually become robotic construction? Not in my opinion.

But, you aren't alone: Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma agrees with you that robotics research is a waste of time and money.
/edit, forgot the link: http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/robotics-software/us-senator-calls-robot-projects-wasteful

[SpoonFed]

28. Your pathetic strawman BS...

No where in my message did I say anything about fossil fuels. Please address all the deadly pollution and financial concrete-shoes that building nuclear plants entails. You can't and don't. Instead you redirect as per your usual MO.

Stop equating anyone who mentions any of the problems with nuke power with fossil fuel supporters or I'll finally put you on ignore. Clearly you have been up to this ridiculous nonsense long before I arrived here on DU.

Nuke power is terribly expensive and dangerous; sucks. Robots: delusional.

[txlibdem]

29. Using your words against you is not "strawman BS"

You wrote,"why you blinding keep stating "we need nukes" despite all reasonable discussion to the contrary? The evidence points to the fact that if the true costs of nuclear are taken into account (massive subsidies, having no insurance worth speaking of, inadequate amounts of rare earth metals, exhausting fuel supply, waste storage, etc) are so massive, that it's just a very stupid idea to deploy this technology in the future." ...post #23.

You mentioned nuclear power in a derogatory manner in post #20.

BTW, "inadequate amounts of rare earth metals" is a pro-fossil fuels, right winger talking point most commonly used against wind power and electric vehicles.

If the shoe fits, wear it!

:dunce:

[kristopher]

31. Rare earth metals vs rare, exotic metals

IEEE: Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs

...In an analysis to be published in a future issue of the Proceedings of the IEEE, Derek Abbott, Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Adelaide in Australia, has concluded that nuclear power cannot be globally scaled to supply the world’s energy needs ...

...In his analysis, Abbott explores the consequences of building, operating, and decommissioning 15,000 reactors on the Earth, looking at factors such as the amount of land required, radioactive waste, accident rate, risk of proliferation into weapons, uranium abundance and extraction, and the exotic metals used to build the reactors themselves.

“A nuclear power station is resource-hungry and, apart from the fuel, uses many rare metals in its construction,” ...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/55418743/Nuclear-Power-and-World-Energy-by-Derek-Abbott-Professor

Originally posted at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x293992#293992

You engaged in the discussion about exotic metals with GG on that thread. Did you forget?


Now you write, "BTW, "inadequate amounts of rare earth metals" is a pro-fossil fuels, right winger talking point most commonly used against wind power and electric vehicles. If the shoe fits, wear it!"

I'll take that one at face value and provide a blasts from the past:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=262714&mesg_id=262714

[txlibdem]

32. Exotic does not necessarily mean rare - got a dictionary handy?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exotic

Here's a link in case you don't. I stand "uncorrected."

Your link to scribd contains the opinion of one person, "Derek Abbott, Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Adelaide in Australia." While I respect his right to have an opinion, it is only his opinion and carries no more weight than that of a PHD in English discussing politics or nutrition.

PS, if you look at the responses to the OPs (unknown how many) in which you've used that same link I came in on the side of the people concerned about the scarcity of adequate Uranium supplies and have penned my "opinion" that we should begin a switch over to Thorium such as the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) -- it contains Fluoride, which is good for your teeth. Can't be all bad, eh? But that's just my "opinion."

:-)

[SpoonFed]

41. Let's pretend you have made a rational point...

so then...

massive subsidies,
having no insurance worth speaking of,
inadequate amounts of rare earth metals,
exhausting fuel supply,
waste storage,
deadly fallout killing people,
more expensive per kWh,

rebuttal?

[txlibdem]

42. Everything you wrote holds true against coal, oil and natural gas

If those industries were held accountable (as in had to pay) the actual cost of their products use.

If coal plants had to separate and sequester the 5.8 tons of Uranium they produce annually, plus 11 tons of Thorium as well -- and keep them in containment for (however many years) the same as the nuclear industry does for its Uranium and Thorium, that would bring costs more in line. But, instead, coal spews Uranium, Thorium, Cobalt, Lead, Mercury, Arsenic and over a dozen additional toxic heavy metals right out the smokestack. Whatever happens to fall to the bottom is piled in an open pit where the wind can carry it wherever it wants to go.

If oil products had to pay for the millions of hospitalizations due to asthma attacks that they cause EACH YEAR, that would add to the costs.

If the natural gas industry had to pay for the flaming tap water that it causes as well as methane (a far more potent green house gas than CO2) -- which the EPA now estimates is 9000 times higher than they had thought -- during "production" of natural gas...

In short, the current double standard we have today is killing people, causing billions in medical expenses, causing fish to become poisoned and inedible, polluting rivers and streams, and leaving deadly toxic waste sitting around in open pits. But the fossil industries are floating in cash because they are making YOU and Me pay for their pollution and deadly toxins.

So, please, continue telling us how terrible nuclear power is. We really want to hear about that -- but please DO NOT mention that coal alone will kill 1 million people this year (and the next, and the next, and the next, and the next)...

[SpoonFed]

43. You're ignored.

This thread OP is about how a nuke engineer says nuke isn't safe. I'm tired of reading your crap interjected into discussions about nuke power safety and the like. Yes, coal, oil, and NG are shit too, just less bat-shit insane from my perspective.

You're too stupid and repetitive to be given the time of day, adios.

[txlibdem]

46. You asked for a rebuttal, I gave you one. You just couldn't handle the truth.

Let me quote your earlier post:
"Let's pretend you have made a rational point...


so then...

massive subsidies,
having no insurance worth speaking of,
inadequate amounts of rare earth metals,
exhausting fuel supply,
waste storage,
deadly fallout killing people,
more expensive per kWh,

rebuttal?"

I gave a rebuttal which included subsidies. You don't like to hear that Coal/Oil/Natural Gas receive far more subsidies even under Obama than nuclear?

Waste storage and deadly fallout killing people. You don't like to hear the truth that each and every coal power plant is allowed to spew out Uranium and Thorium without limit right out the smokestack. You don't like to hear the truth that the rest of the deadly toxic metals and radioactive material from each and every coal plant gets dumped into an open pit -- no containment, no control, no limits, no federal inspections.

More expensive per kWh. Simple math. Let's say we both own hotdog stands. My stand has federal regulators climbing up and down my hind end every day and I have to put the unused dogs and buns into a concrete and steel containment vessel (a new one each day) and make sure I measure and record the temperature and perfection of these canisters. While your hotdog stand makes MORE hotdog waste but you get to just dump it in the street (for someone else to pay for cleaning it up). Would you say that I am unfairly or wrongly complaining about the different standards for our two hotdog stands???

If coal had to separate and store 100% of the Uranium, Thorium, Radon, and Radium that each coal plant produces as part of their day to day operation it would be THE MOST EXPENSIVE fuel source, not the cheapest. Double standards on radioactive material? That makes sense to anyone???

If coal had to pay just for the CO2 damage it causes alone (not including any other poisons), it would cost more than nuclear.

If all the fossil fuels had to pay for the medical costs THEY CAUSE but that you and I are now paying out of pocket for, they would not be cheapest.

If the cost of the military resources used to keep the oil shipping lanes clear and the pipelines flowing were actually paid by those who benefit (Big Oil) then we'd darn sure end the fantasy BS that oil is "cheap."

So if telling the truth causes some overly sensitive people to "ignore" me, so be it. Truth is truth. There is no substitute.

[kristopher]

47. No you didn't, you gave spoonfed a strawman.

The choice isn't between coal and nuclear, we already know we need to eliminate coal.

The choice is between renewables and nuclear, and that is the discussion you take every opportunity to undermine with your strawman.

[txlibdem]

48. You just game me a strawman

I looked at the article and it's not about renewables. It's about safety: cutting corners and other reasons that caused one person to become disenchanted with nuclear power.

And since safety, expense, storage of radioactive material, etc., was in strawman's post, I was responding directly to these topics. My response went outside your laser-like anti-nuke focus that you were aiming for but that's just too bad. Debates and conversations don't always stay on the narrow path you wish they would. So sorry if your argumentation skills aren't up to the task.