Greenpeace: The case against nuclear power

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/the-case-against-nuclear-power-20080108

The case against nuclear power

Posted by bex on 8 January 2008.

With the government about to announce a new generation of nuclear power stations, we've published our case against nuclear power - and for the real solutions to climate change and energy security.

You can download the full briefing as a pdf but here's a quick run-down of why nuclear new build can't keep the lights on and actually threatens our ability to reduce our carbon emissions:

• Even if Britain built ten new reactors, nuclear power can only deliver a 4 per cent cut in carbon emissions some time after 2025. Even the Government admits this (Sustainable Development Commission figure). It's too little too late at too high a price.

• Most of the gas we use is for heating and hot water and for industrial purposes. Nuclear power cannot replace that energy. And it's a similar case for oil as it's virtually all used for transport - nuclear power can't take its place.

...

[NNadir]

1. ...sort of like the Baptist case against geology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Do tell...

I would like facts and figures to refute their statements (no ad hominems please.)

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html

[NNadir]

3. Excuse me?

You produce a link to another member of the vast circle jerk of self-referential anti-nuke cult sites and then you claim interest in "facts and figures."

I have already stated that I am no more interested in "disproving" your intellectually lazy links than I am in addressing the Baptist's "refutation" of evolution.

Got it?

No?

Why am I not surprised?

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. I see you're incapable of carrying on a polite, reasoned discussion

You didn't address a single point; you simply went for an ad hominem.

Let's see... what's this icon for?

[Zachstar]

5. Dont make a scene OK

Just press the button and be done with it! Don't show it off! That was extremely rude of you!

Common Ok you are better than this!

And just so you know. There is NO reasonable discussion when you got +- 20 years to do something before the population really starts suffering. Note the time it takes to get one reactor online.

Fission Reactors
Solar
Wind
Geothermal
Etc..

Are all side measures that build "Margin" while we await the next major energy source. (Fusion)

If Greenpeace wants to regain my respect and actually help the planet. They need to make a highly publicized donation to fusion research. (Hopefully the one Dr. Robert Bussard worked on)

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. I'm sorry for my bad manners

To my friends on DU, whether I agree with you or not, I apologize.

[struggle4progress]

26. Y'know, I remember 40 some years ago fusion was "just around the corner"

And then 30 some years ago, there was "great progress" and fusion was "just around the corner." And so it was 20 some years ago. And about a decade ago, too.

It is unlikely that any of us will live long enough to see a device that releases by fusion as much energy as was necessary to design, build, and power the device

[Zachstar]

27. It is EXACTLY that kind of attitude.

That will either.

#1 Keep the population from leaving the planet for our lifetimes
#2 Deny us the freedom a superlarge clean energy source gives us.
#3 Leave us in an age of darkness in the future.

The difference between 1970 and 2008 is that Fusion OR Darkness is right around the corner. There is no seemingly endless supplies of oil like it seemed to be back then. When few people were warning others.

Take your pick if you are lucky. However, If these electrostatic fusion ideas do not get anymore funding then looks like you will have to wait till ITER suddenly decides to work. That is if too does not get shutdown in the coming energy depression.

[struggle4progress]

28. I must admit I didn't realize you were a "let's leave the planet" enthusiast.

:rofl:

[OKIsItJustMe]

30. So much for ITER

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2008/004.html

...

An unexpected outcome in the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act was the appropriators' decision to provide no money for the U.S. contribution to ITER. In addition, the Explanatory Statement directed that "Funding may not be reprogrammed from other activities within Fusion Energy Sciences to restore the U.S. contribution to ITER." The Administration requested $160.0 million. As reported in FYI #2, appropriators provided "$10,724,000 for Enabling R&D for ITER."

...

[NNadir]

9. Um...you seem to think that I am under obligation to discuss this topic with you.

I am no more under obligation to discuss this topic with you than I am under an obligation to discuss a creationist link produced by Pat Robertson.

To be frank, I there is absolutely no obligation for anyone to have a "polite, reasonable" discussion with Pat Robertson.

He says that I should buy what's in the Bible because it's, well, in the Bible. On the other hand, I contend - and I think that you took a poll of all persons living on earth, I would be in the clear majority here - that the Bible has no bearing on reality whatsoever. Mostly it's horseshit.

Just so with Greenpeace/ratical.org/UCS...blah...blah...blah websites.

Producing website links in response to the greatest crisis of our time - that would be climate change - is lazy.

Got it?

No?

Why am I not surprised?

Now, let's turn to this issue of "polite."

We heard, for the record, lot's of talk from the Repukes about being "polite and reasonable" in the 2000 election and afterwards.

Frankly it would have been far better to have treated the Repukes with a little more contempt, I think.

The fact is Bub, that you are against the world's largest form of climate change gas free energy, nuclear energy, the form of energy that is routinely given the lowest external cost value for any exajoule scale form of energy in the scientific literature.

That is not either an intellectually or morally neutral position. I couldn't care less if you object to me so stating.

[Zachstar]

6. It does get tiresome!

Going after Fission is the LAST thing that needs to happen. Yet people are STILL going after it.

I want to see these Anti-Fission folks make donations to clean fusion!

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. I'm all in favor of clean fusion

by which I assume you mean Hydrogen-Boron fusion.

[Zachstar]

10. PB11 is great.

However so it Neutron creating types. Such st DT

Remember that the Neutron streams can be used to "Burn" the waste from Fission plants! This means that we can clean up these NASTY rooms of polls FULL of spent fuel.

You can drop these into traditional coal plants to generate the steam. This reduces cost and puts dents in the amount of pollution we spew out. So Instead of waiting to 2030 for the first plants to come online. You can replace 5-10 percent of coal plants by 2020 with a fast program.

Pb11 truly is a 2030 goal. I look forward to it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. I support almost any kind of fusion I'm aware of

with the notable exception of bombs.

Hydrogen-Boron fusion seems like something out of science fiction. The fuel is clean and plentiful, the reaction is clean and extremely safe, it produces electricity directly with no radioactive waste! (What's not to like?)

Whether it's the EMC2 folks, or the Lawrenceville Plasma Physics/Focus Fusion folks, I don't much care.

I think we should be funding this research to the hilt.


Even so-called "dirty fusion" would be better than fission in my estimation.



I don't propose shutting down all of the fission plants tomorrow. I don't think we can afford to do that (as much as I might like to.)

I'd rather have fission than coal.

I just don't see fission as a road to the future. As I've said before, it is (at best) a stop-gap measure in my estimation.

Fission proponents who claim that it's absolutely clean and absolutely safe are either woefully misinformed, or wish to make others so.

[Zachstar]

14. Fission is indeed not the future.

However, As a stopgap it is being poisoned by these anti-nuke folks. These people from what I have seen are not being realistic about our future and are letting the scenes they saw in atomic horror films and scenes from Soviet days scare them into thinking some solar system or wind farm will replace the planned plant.

If you kill a fission plant. The chances that a Solar, Wind or whatever "Clean" energy will take its place is almost nonexistant. Take time to think how many solar panels or wind farms it takes to replace ONE modern Fission reactor?

So being anti-nuke without shoveling huge amounts of funds and support into fusion... Frankly is just being pro-coal, and oil power. Sorry if that is offensive but you have to understand that THAT is exactly what happens thanks to the death of the fission industry.

[bananas]

15. Fission is no stop-gap - wind is already cheaper

Wind is cheaper than nuclear now, and wind technology keeps improving.
November 7, 2007:
Previous projections for a record-setting 3,000 megawatts (MW) of new wind power capacity in 2007 have now been raised: AWEA reports that the U.S. wind energy industry is currently on track to complete a total 4,000 MW in 2007, shattering its 2006 record of 2,454 MW, and generating enough new electricity to power the equivalent of over one million homes.
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/AWEA_Quarterly_Market_Report_110707.html

Efficiency is cheaper than nuclear - a utility can get the same megawatts cheaper and faster by buying new appliances for its customers: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x98409

Solar PV will be reach grid parity in 5-8 years: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x123885

[Zachstar]

20. What happens when the wind slows down or the sun isn't out?

You need huge batteries or ability to access the grid.

You have to take into account the scale of the matter. If it is a slow wind day then that is big problems if the giant wind farm is powering most of a city.

Fission reactors are more or less on all the time. They are reliable when handled correctly.

Solar is only good in big numbers when you are out in an area which is completely sunny almost all the time. And not in PV form but heating molten salt or oil to boil steam.

Yall need to get this idea out of your head that a stack of arrays or rotors can take over a constant and adjustable stream power plant.

You use them to get people OFF the grid which reduces the need to build more plants. They CANNOT replace the plants themselves.

Always add the cost of storing energy from a non-steady source to your data.

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Excellent Questions

Both of them answered here recently:

• Solar:
  http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=128489&mesg_id=128489
• Wind: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=124366&mesg_id=124366

However, in all seriousness. It will be some time before the entire power infrastructure can be overhauled. If, today, we generate a kWh of electricity using a solar panel, that's one kWh that doesn't need to be generated using a coal plant.

[Zachstar]

25. Not if fusion comes to front.

We will know sometime in 2008 if the first serious attempt at electrostatic fusion could truely work.

There is a tiny chance that the Olympic year of 2012 could see the first of these reactors installed in place of a oil fired system.

Once refined it will suddenly become "economic" to overhaul the energy economy.

2020 or so perhaps the first Pb11 plants will come online that will totally revolutionize life on earth.

The grid idea sounds interesting. Anything to replace this mess that we call a grid in the US today. You know the one that caused a nuke plant to go offline? And New York to go dark?

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. Fusion may be the future - we have a problem right now

Even if I believed that building fission plants was a good idea, we need new power sources now, and we cannot build fission plants that fast.

On the other hand, we're demonstrating our ability to erect solar & wind farms relatively quickly. So, we need to keep doing that, and (if anything) accelerating our efforts to do that.

With a smart grid, the intermittence you worry about with wind and solar will be evened out somewhat.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=128129&mesg_id=128129

However, even that will take time to implement.

• The easiest & most effective thing to do today is conserve.
• The next priority is to keep rolling out wind & solar. (They're mature enough today, even though they're being improved.)
• Finally, we need to be working to develop new alternatives (like fusion) for the future, but right now, we can't afford to wait for them.

[bananas]

22. What happens when nuclear power plants go offline?

TEPCO lost it's largest nuclear power plant to an earthquake.
TVA had to shut down a reactor last summer because of heat and drought.
Europe had to shut down or reduce power on many reactors because of drought and heat.

You don't need storage until wind is more than 20-30% of the grid.
By then, storage and reserve renewables will still be cheaper than nuclear.

I'm in favor of research into new energy technologies, including fission, fusion, even space solar. But all of those are decades away. Right now, the nuclear industry wants to sell us the EPR and the AP-1000, which only exist on paper. The first EPR is over-budget and behind schedule. It will take several years to shake out the FOAK problems. And they will still be more expensive than the alternatives.

[Zachstar]

23. Let me ask you this.

Are the SCRAM systems and emergency dump systems improved?

I will be honest with you that I do feel a bit silly for promoting reactors that will take a decade or more to go online from here. I guess my main problem is with these movements trying to shut down existing plants.

Yes these ultramodern plants ought to have been built in the 80s when things were stable. Then maybe today we would not have to import so much oil.

I have looked at molten salt/steam solar, Nanowires, etc..They sound like they have the ability to put a dent in things. However, if you look at rate of growth it will end up only a tiny dent even if it improves further. UNLESS there is a national grant for anyone or any small town that is willing to take his/her house off the grid.

They can take Hemphill off the grid, They can't take Dallas
They may take Yonkers off the grid, They can't take New York

It's not a question of efficiency or even production cost anymore... Try to think how many solar arrays or wind farms it will take to take ONE Fission plant offline. ONE Coal Plant, ONE oil plant.

We NEED these fission plants. The problem is that we need them NOW and not in 10 years.

[losthills]

12. I think that was an ad hominem....

[Zachstar]

13. Just stop dude...

If one of yall shows up the other is sure to follow. What is wrong with you?

[losthills]

16. What'ts wrong with you?

You can't seem to discern the difference between science fiction and reality, you can't follow an ordinary discussion, and you have no sense of humor....

[Zachstar]

18. No I do not act all funny!

When it is my god **** future at stake!

[patch1234]

17. When does Greanpeace begin selling electricity?

I am waiting.

The barriers to entry, for solar/wind etc, are low.
The US is not the whole world.
Just go do it.
They don't need the US's permission.

[Zachstar]

19. As am I

I look forward to paying the greenpeace corp bill to use power from their fusion reactor they got going from generous funding.

[leftupnorth]

24. Let's cut all the crap about nukes. It boils down to a few basics.

How fast can we build nuke plants?

How much usable nuclear material can we mine, refine, and recycle?

How much usable nuclear material is there on planet Earth?

Where is the nuclear material located?

Answer those questions, and then tell me how great nuclear power is.

[suziedemocrat]

31. Excellent Post.....but will you provide the answers upside down at the bottom of the page?

I don't want to spend 20 minutes looking them up.

Still, very good post!

[OKIsItJustMe]

32. Two numbers

It takes about 10 years to build a nuclear plant.
James Hansen predicts we'll hit a "tipping point" in about 8 years if we don't act now to reduce CO₂ production.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/hansen.html#1

...
It's now 2007, and there is no policy change. Are we eight years away from a tipping point?

Oh, I think we are. No more than eight years away, because at the rate of increase of CO2 emissions -- which has been about 2 percent per year -- by 2015 we will have 35 percent greater emissions than in the year 2000. That will make it very difficult, and probably impractical, to get down to the emission level that we would need in order to keep global warming under 2 degrees Fahrenheit additional warming. Then I think we will have crossed a line where there are going to be substantial climate changes which will be unavoidable.

...

So (assuming you believe Hansen) addressing global warming by building nuclear plants will not work. We've got to address CO₂ production now, not 10 years from now.

[leftupnorth]

33. Agreed.

I'm just waiting for some of these pro nuke folks to answer the questions.

I'm betting they won't, mostly because the answers don't make a good case for nukes.