Nuclear Power? Good or bad?

[usregimechange]

Poll question: Nuclear Power? Good or bad?

I know, oversimplified but overall what is your view on nuclear power?

[Massacure]

1. Overall good. If it is done right.

I'm not sure I trust the United States to do that though. There are too many scientifically illiterate brain dead people here.

[whistle]

2. Way, way , way too dangerous...three mile island, Chernobyl...

...these would be like fender benders compared to a major nuclear accident happening say once every six months. To reduce costs, safety would go and that is the bad thing about nuclear.

[BillZBubb]

3. Still too many major problems.

For instance, we've got no place to put all the inevitable radioactive waste material. It just keeps piling up.

[usregimechange]

4. And it stays pretty nasty for a loooooong time.

[ChemEng]

37. Question: If radioactivity is directly proportional to the half-life ...

of the material, then how can it be dangerous for a long time? By definition, the most radioactive material decays rapidly.....just asking.

[Massacure]

39. Radioactive waste isn't all one element.

It is a chemical coctail due to the fact that one radioactive substance breaks down into smaller ones that may be more stable or less stable.

Because of the cocktail mixture, it could be giving 3 units of radiation at one minute, 100 another minute, then only 1 at yet another minute.

[phantom power]

5. We aren't going to make it thru the next century without it.

[thegreatwildebeest]

6. Bumpkis...

As I said to an earlier poster, we won't make it if we don't want to change our lifestyles. If we do, however, then yes, we will make it. If you still want to be wasteful and reckless with your energy choices, then definetly. But some of us don't want to pollute the world with toxins/materials that will be active for thousands of years, could potentially be used for weapons, and generally is not comercially viable in the first place. People who say the "Social costs" would be too great if we didn't are fooling themselves into thinking that nuclear power is either a) a long term solution, b)that the social order as it is is in anyways something we want to uphold, with its wasteful use of energy and heating.

[phantom power]

8. It will require both.

Even if we fully develop nuclear power, energy will not be as cheap and plentiful as it is now.

I think I will expand on what I mean. When I advocate nuclear power, it's not because I think it will allow us to continue our current lifestyles, wasteful or otherwise.

Currently, my highest hope is to keep the basic infrastructures of civilization. Where people have reliable access to food, water, health care. Where modern transportation of all kinds is significantly reduced, but still available for the important stuff. Where we still have the rule of law, and access to modern education. Where science and technological progress can continue, if at a reduced rate.

Somewhere, there's a critical threshold where all those basics start to break down. And it's a phase-change. Cross that threshold, and it all unravels pretty much together. And if that happens it will not mean a return to Little House on the Prairie. It will be the ride of the Four Horsemen. The world of the survivors will probably closely resemble the Dark Ages, Feudalism, etc.

Nobody really knows where that threshold is, which I find far more unsettling than if we really knew.

Whether we can keep ourselves above that threshold is a big question mark. Many people think a major breakdown is completely unavoidable, and I find their arguments disturbingly convincing. But I'm of the opinion that if we work aggressively to put new energy sources in place, we can hold it all together with a bit of luck and a lot of duct tape. I don't think solar and wind are enough by themselves. They require too much additional infrastructure to compensate for their fundamentally intermittent and unpredictable nature.

[thegreatwildebeest]

10. Not necessarily....

The mistake I think you make is in this statement.

It will be the ride of the Four Horsemen. The world of the survivors will probably closely resemble the Dark Ages, Feudalism, etc.

Nothing of the sort would happen, because the resources necessary to establish such a system would be lacking, in the event of full collapse. The fuedal system, for all of its supposed backwardness, DID rely off vast mineral resources in which to produces arms, raise horses, and plant crops. A return to a hunter/gatherer existence would probably be the most beneficial, though many agree that a transition period, one where we clean up our mess, is advisable. No point in letting you know toxic plants and things like that just rot and poison the earth.

I suggest thinking out of the usual "collapse of civilization=bad" kind of logic. While you may not believe everything the primitivist critique expounds it, alot of its criticisms are pretty legit. And a life of basically foraging and sex isn't a particuarly bad one.

[phantom power]

15. I guess I have different aspirations than you

I'd like to see humanity get off this planet, and achieve a real possibility of avoiding the dead end of extinction. If we return to some kind of hunter-gatherer existence (which I doubt is as pleasant as you suppose), we will eventually be killed off by one variety of planet-wide disaster or another. Asteroid hit, super-volcano, what-have-you. If we stay on this planet, we are eventually doomed.

We could avoid all that, if we continue our progress.

Also, a return to primitivism pretty much implies the violent death of nearly all of the world's 6.5 billion people. I don't find that very appealing, and I'd prefer we worked to avoid it.

[thegreatwildebeest]

20. Progress eh?

we will eventually be killed off by one variety of planet-wide disaster or another. Asteroid hit, super-volcano, what-have-you. If we stay on this planet, we are eventually doomed.

Why is this so immoral? We kill off hundreds, thousands of species every year, and your worried that unless we keep chugging at this engine we might actually die on our own knife? I don't like the idea of humanity dying out. But extinction happens, even if we didn't screw the world up. What places us higher on the totem pole than the other species?

If we return to some kind of hunter-gatherer existence (which I doubt is as pleasant as you suppose),

Actually it IS that pleasent. Go look up information on the handful of hunter gatherers that survived into this century, and witness how many of them (like the san bushman, pygmies etc) generally lived great lives until our great, ever expanding cities and civilization crushed them.

We could avoid all that, if we continue our progress.

That's what people said 20 years ago. And the 20 years before that. If we only progress a little further. It's the equivalent of the religious afterworld, a promise of tommorrow that does little to help the people of today.

Also, a return to primitivism pretty much implies the violent death of nearly all of the world's 6.5 billion people. I don't find that very appealing, and I'd prefer we worked to avoid it.

Your progress has already killed billions in history, off the slave labor and genocide of indigenous cultures everywhere. We live on a piece of land that was robbed from small groups of indigenous people, South America is still an ongoing battle, as is Africa. Then we turna round and give them a nice looking museum on the national Mall for everything they gave up.

I don't like the idea either, and I don't exactly relish the pains that are going to happen because some people at the top decided to keep egging the beast of destruction on. And maybe most of us won't get wiped out, and there will be a smoother transition period, a devolution if you will. Who knows really? I do know that at the current rates of consumption and natural resource use we are going to be mighty bereft not too far along.

[phantom power]

24. Yes, I'm worried we will die of our own knife.

I want to try and avoid it. I think the only way to avoid it is to "keep the engine chugging." I think the only way to keep the engine chugging is nuclear power.

I'm a believer in the last 500 years of Enlightenment, and technological progress. As you point out, we've continued to fuck a lot of stuff up along the way, and since human nature hasn't yet changed, we will surely continue to fuck things up.

This is related in my mind to the topic of "requiring infallibility" (see posts below). I'm not chasing after some kind of utopia, and I'm uncomfortably aware that there's no guarantee that any of it will work out. My dream of progress and reaching the stars may fail. In fact, the longer I live, the more likely it seems that we will die in our own hate and filth, just as it was in our grasp.

I'm not interested in giving up on it, watching 6.5 billion people die of war and famine, and (assuming I had the uncommon luck to survive it) live out the rest of my life in some primitive lifestyle.

I'd be all cross, and wouldn't enjoy it.

[phantom power]

26. A tangential question

You seem to be an advocate of the of the hunter/gatherer lifestyle.

Even at the current rate of deforestation, there are places you could go and live this lifestyle for probably the remainder of your life, anyway. Do you have any plans to leave the evils of modern civilization behind and live this idyllic lifestyle?

I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, I'm genuinely curious.

[thegreatwildebeest]

28. The key,...

I'm not necessarily an advocate of hunter/gatherer living, though I think alot of its pretty valid critique. I envision a much more permaculture based world. As for the idea of going off in forest and just living it, well that helps no one really. The idea really is to straddle it as much as possible I think, obviously in favor of an eco-friendly life, while working within civilized world to help break people out of the mold. If I went and lived off in those forests and regions, I would be dead in 30 years at the current rates of consumption, or atleast be only a mild distance from civilization. Primitivism HAS to be insurrectionary/revolutionary, or else it'll go extinct (an funny choice of words I know).

A friend of mine for instance, lives in a mudhovel down by a river. He feeds himself primarily off dumpstered food (the modern foragers activity) and a garden he maintains at a communal house with a number of other people. Does he have a cell phone? Yes. Does he have a computer that he shares with others? Yes. Hell even the idea of agriculture is anathema to the primitivist critique. But then comes up the question of reality, and making ends meet (or atleast, feeding oneself). Some people would point this out as being hypocritical. To them I would say YOU try surviving with an almost non-existant income, in a non-standard living situation, and see how you fare. It's not easy, and I don't begrudge anyone of any particular persuasion who tries to live an unconventional lifestyle, and has to make compromises. It happens. At one time the "civlized" way of living was the minority and it was hard, and took FORCE to get people and lands under cotnrol in order to build cities/states/nations.

I think people, even if they don't accept my stance on the issue, want to actually care about the environment, I suggest they start living much more eco-friendly lives, as much as they can. I don't think the world can be saved by recycling, but atleast it'll lessen the damage till the day the whole kibosh can be squared away with.

[phantom power]

30. I expect that all our lives will become more like your friend's

Just as you would consider agriculture to be an important and practical compromise, so I consider the use of nuclear power to be an important and practical compromise.

Regarding care for the environment, nuclear power is quite ecologically sound, compared to the continued use of fossil coal and oil. It also compares favorably with solar and wind.

[struggle4progress]

48. Yeah. When you find a better place to go, and know to get there, tell us.

Until then, we should probably put some real effort into taking care of what we've actually got.

[Coastie for Truth]

11. At your suggestion in a previous thread

I figured I'd quit skimming Zerzan's "Against Civilization: Readings and Reflections" and "Running on Emptiness: The Pathology of Civilization" in the local University Library (the three public libraries nearby have nothing by Zerzan) and actually buy them. Again, thank you. So I reserve the right to PM you with questions and discussions.

Although, I have to tell you, I have a strong Amory Lovins and Stan Ovshinsky and Buckie Fuller and bias - and was not convinced by . I am more in tune our local Stu Cohen's , although we disagree on some specifics.

I think we will muddle through.

I grew up within 0.6 mile of my elementary school, within 0.9 mile of my Middle School and High School, within 2.7 miles of my college (by light rail, but we called them trolley cars back then), and when I got married we lived within 0.2 mile of the kids' elementary school, 0.5 mile of their Middle School and High School, and 1.7 miles of my wife's work, and two blocks of transit to my job. We put 2700/year miles on a car.

We now live in a transit village with transit half a block away, and "everything" within 1.4 miles. I am also biased against remote suburbs with pedestrian unfriendly cul-d'sacs, with detached houses on large lots, requiring a car to get to Starbucks or the grocery store or work or school. That's where the pain will hit first.

I think we will see a jump in value of "regentrifiable" old, (abandoned?) pedestrian friendly, urban neighborhoods, and a zoning that is friendly to walking to mom and shop stores.

[thegreatwildebeest]

13. ironically...

Ironically I have not gotten around to reading the latest anthology, Against Civlization. I do however, have Pathology of Civilizations, as well as a number of other primitivist zines, essays and other such paraphanalia.

The difference of course, between primitivist thinkers like Derrick Jannesen and John Zerzan, and people like Kunstler, is they espouse a collapse of civilization, not a scaling back of it, as only that would stop the damage currently being wracked on the back of nature, as well as lead to the dissolution of many of the power structures that constrain and enslave people. Even the idea of sustainable agriculture, to a very large extent, would bother primitivists as a permanent solution, as it still demands a concept of man ruling or controlling nature, as opposed to living in tune with it. This getting back to the natural rhythm of things, is kind of the point of primitivism.

Again, I'm not sure how much I buy into it (Zerzan for instance, wishes to see a roll back to pre-linguistic times, others not so much), but I generally see the point of his criticisms, in the department of making us feel alienated and disconnected.

[Coastie for Truth]

22. I am not a "primitivist" - I am a believer in using basic bio tools

such as the earth's natural background radiation (which is the source of geothermal) and natural incident radiation (solar energy), along with the flora and fauna (such as bacteria and enzymes to recycle waste and bio-mass into "monomers" and "fuels"). I also do not believe that these reactions have to take place at "industrial process conditions" - but because we are dealing with bacteria and enzymes and yeasts we can go for 70 degrees F and one atmosphere pressure.

This is not science fiction - the "Ag Schools" of the Mid West (remember, all of the Morrell Land Grant Act Public Universities started out as "Ag" and "Agricultural Engineering" schools) are doing this stuff now on a bench scale and a pilot plant scale. The thermodynamics and kinetics don't change on scale up.

This threatens the "Primitivists" and the old engineers of the "Only Difference Between Men and Boys is the Price of the Toys School." But is is a strategy for going beyond mere survival.

But, there will be a transition begin the steep part of the "Peak Oil" slope and the full implementation of bio tools (and hopefully fusion - but that may be a will of the whisp) where we will need nuclear power.

[thegreatwildebeest]

29. The question...

But the question is, more over, would capitalism still exist? Would we still be having to work in order to acquire food, as opposed to being able to just pick it off trees? I think your missing a key element of the primitivist critique, which is that its not just the fact that things are enivronmentally unsustainable, its that they're unhealthy for the human psyche. Wage slavery, division of labor, everything we basically take as part and parcel of the past couple thousand years of city based civilization. Even if, as you say, we could sustain the current set up using energy, do we really want to? Do we really want to still be working 40 hour weeks so we may, or may not, get food/shelter/clothing? I'm not merely challenging the way we power the system, I'm challening the whole damn way the thing operates.

[wuushew]

35. I am in favor of preserving industrial society

the problem of slave labor, wealth inequality and other miscellaneous problems have all been endured by every society up to the current one we live in. We have never in previous steps lamented our plight and reverted to a former state of human nature.

I believe those citizens believed in human progress. Hopefully sometime in the future we will reach the outcome Marx envisioned were such toils become unnecessary in the enjoyment human actualization. I don't long to abandon agriculture or abandon the many good advances in human philosophy or science, the knowledge of which we would lose with discarding industrial processes. More primitive societies are not free of bigotry, hatred, irrational religion or warfare. What a waste of potential to have Einstein or Mozart living in a cave. As our race advances the ways in which we express our potential has expanded as well.

How will such steady state subsidence societies advance material knowledge, or advance medical techniques? These things take large degrees of organizational design and utilization of energy above and beyond a community or household needs to live. Iron needs large amounts energy to reduce to oxide bonds of raw ore, aluminum which is quite useful to use is even worse than iron in the electrical requirements needed to break the bonds of alumina.

Additionally the energy required to make hyper pure silicon needed in the manufacture of photovoltaics and other-semi conductor products requires large and steady supply from the base load electric grid. The food and products we do create would also benefit from a well developed transportation grid most primarily based electric mass transport supplemented with bio-mass derived internal combustion fuels.

I agree with the opinion raised in a previous thread that we as a species must reach to the stars. Mars right now is within the technological reach of humanity. It has oxygen, water, carbon and soil suitable for human colonization. Such efforts require large outlays of energy and capital to achieve, a subsidence society by definition would never have spare resources to devote to great endeavors. All life on the Earth is destined for extinction. The numerous mass die offs of the past will be followed by more in the future. The fact that we are cognoscente of such realities and are able to act on them is what sets us apart from the rest of nature.

[Coastie for Truth]

40. I just took some Adult Education/Continuing Engineering Education

courses in "Biochemical Engineering" -- biological systems can do lots of things - with far less "waste" then human made systems.

There is a lot of work on using bacteria and enzymes and yeasts to break down complex organic wastes (everything from cooking oil to slaughter house waste to farm waste/sewage) into "useful" hydrocarbons, generally short chain alcohols, aldehydes, carboxylic acids, and methane.

We do not need to put everything into high pressure, high temperature autoclaves if we can get "bugs" to do the same thing at 70 degrees F and 1 atmosphere. And, with the "Peak Oil" hanging over our heads - people are finding the "bugs."

Let's not be discouraged.

:toast: :bounce:

[thegreatwildebeest]

43. I'm not...

the problem of slave labor, wealth inequality and other miscellaneous problems have all been endured by every society up to the current one we live in. We have never in previous steps lamented our plight and reverted to a former state of human nature.

This assertion is false on a number of levels. One, the presumption that the steps taken to achieve civilization were in any way voluntary (they weren't for three whole continents of mixed primitive civilizations and hunter/gatherers, and many more were simply brought into compliance elsewhere by the sword). Up to 10,000-12,000 years ago, EVERYONE was a hunter/gatherer. Then someone plopped down a couple thousand years after that to farm, and then next thing you know property, government, and all of its attendant paranoias, sufferings, and depression were wracked upon people. Stratification, division of labor, useless toiling.

And also for the fact that people and civilizations HAVE devolved. Aztec civilization, the apex of the imperial, priest ridden hegemonies this side of the Atlantic, was forced by virtue of being smashed by a superior civilization, to head to the hills and become hunter/gatherers. Indian tribes, upon the introduction of the horse, gave up their land to follow buffalo herds. Today even, as farmers in extreme geological conditions get pushed off their land, they are returning to susbistence hunting and gathering. Witness the Indians who were trying to save ANWR for.

Moreover, there has always been a general railment against civilization and progress, be it Luddites of yesterday or Primitivists of today. The fact that they got steamrolled, or violently suppressed, doesn't somehow mean they didn't existed.

I believe those citizens believed in human progress. Hopefully sometime in the future we will reach the outcome Marx envisioned were such toils become unnecessary in the enjoyment human actualization.

We will never reach that point. And you want to know why? Cause why would the assholes who own everything want to SHARE that with us, anymore than assholes who own everything now would want to share anything. When the hunter/gatherer lived there was enough abundance of everything for him to pretty much not do anything except a 3 to 4 hour regimen a day of foraging and hunting. Why are we building huge contraptions to give us what we already had?

What a waste of potential to have Einstein or Mozart living in a cave. As our race advances the ways in which we express our potential has expanded as well.

What a waste to have billions of people suffer toil and wasted lives to make sure a couple of us have "Great culture", which universally has been built off the backs of slaves and supposedly lesser people. Mozart, like many musicians, was supported by an aristocracy that kept people under tight control, and kept the poor servile. One cannot gaze upon the supposed great works of culture without wondering who it is suffered to let them be (take the pyramids, without slaves whom they would have never been built).

How will such steady state subsidence societies advance material knowledge, or advance medical techniques? These things take large degrees of organizational design and utilization of energy above and beyond a community or household needs to live. Iron needs large amounts energy to reduce to oxide bonds of raw ore, aluminum which is quite useful to use is even worse than iron in the electrical requirements needed to break the bonds of alumina.

They won't. But then again we won't be sitting around surrounded by toxic fumes, poisoined water, and more chemicals than you even know the names for. Why is cancer almost completely lacking in every society that is not developed, yet were wracked by it? Cause we invented the damn causes of it in our environment. Your advocating causing the disease so that we may get the cure.

I agree with the opinion raised in a previous thread that we as a species must reach to the stars. Mars right now is within the technological reach of humanity. It has oxygen, water, carbon and soil suitable for human colonization.

Wonderful. Nothing quite like turning this planet into the ecological equivalent of Mars in order to get to Mars. God knows we want to give up this rock, with its pitiful biodiversity and lack of different eco systems for the barren wasteland of Mars.

Such efforts require large outlays of energy and capital to achieve, a subsidence society by definition would never have spare resources to devote to great endeavors.

See the pyramid example above. "Great endeavors" usually mean making whole swaths of peoples lives suck so a handful can enjoy some great monument that will be destroyed anyways.

All life on the Earth is destined for extinction. The numerous mass die offs of the past will be followed by more in the future. The fact that we are cognoscente of such realities and are able to act on them is what sets us apart from the rest of nature.

Wow. I'm so great you pointed it out. I mean, here I thought we were just another species, no different from any other, except you know for the fact, that we seem to be managing to kill ourselves and every other thing on this rock in the process. I'm not seeing tigers causing overpopulation and over-consumption amongst their ranks so much so that they hurt US. But I do see it the other way around.

You can't generally defend the greatness and glory of civilization without tacitly supporting alot of people who have been killed, slaughtered, or oppressed to let it continue to exist. You also can't support it without realizing that many of its cures "modern medicine" are simply pills for diseases(environmental pollution) that it created. Chalking it up as just "what happened" is ridiculously absurd, since it continues on unabated TODAY.

[cprise]

7. I choose White. No, Black!

[NickB79]

9. This isn't a yes-or-no question

It is a measure of degrees. ALL energy sources we use damage the environment and pose a danger to human, animal and plant life, some more than others.

What I will say is that I support nuclear power over coal, because coal kills more people per year than have ever died from nuclear reactor accidents. I support wind turbines over nuclear reactors. However, for base-load power production wind turbines have their weaknesses, which is why I believe both technologies will have to be implimented.

[Kool Kitty]

12. If the industry can come up

with a REAL safe plan for dealing with the waste, and they come up with a REAL evacuation plan in the event that an accident happens, then maybe we can talk about it. And I mean a real evacuation plan, not a drill that does not take into account local traffic and real panic. (I live in central NJ, and the parkway and most roads are a nightmare any time of the day or night. Add to that a real threat and real panic and you have the recipe for a disaster.)

[phantom power]

16. re-process the waste, and re-use it.

[Coastie for Truth]

23. Some very interesting work from the "Ag" Schools

on bugs (bacteria, enzymes, yeasts) to reprocess all many of carbon containing wastes (I did not limit it to bio wastes) to get to small monomers and to fuels. A lot of it has been mention on DU.

Ultimately, this is where we will have to go.

[Massacure]

32. Better yet. Use breeder reactors.

[jpak]

51. Breeders have never worked as advertised and are just plain dangerous

France's (10 billion dollar) SuperPhenix produced more plutonium than it consumed.

Every single breeder every built experienced a melt-down (Fermi-1) or serious sodium fire that resulted in lengthy (and costly) shut-downs.

Liquid sodium + plutonium + fission products = major (financial and environmetal) disaster waiting to happen.

[Massacure]

53. Your wrong.

"Every single breeder every built experienced a melt-down"

Canada has no problem with their CANDU reactor. Thus not every single breeder reactor ever built has experienced a melt-down.

I believe that the SuperPhenix had difficulty using sodium. However not every breeder has melted down, and generating more fuel than it consumes is a good thing. It's much better to react it for energy than to dump it in the ground.

[jpak]

55. CANDU reactors are NOT breeders

They are heavy water-moderated natural uranium-fueled reactors.

They produce plutonium just like light water reactors.

But they were not designed to produce more plutonium than they consume - and they don't.

...and no breeder ever built has worked as advertised - period.

[Massacure]

60. CANDU is a breeder. Besides uranium, it will burn thorium and plutonium.

Plus their daughter products. They not create more fuel than they burn, but they are still breeders.

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

[jpak]

67. The Canadians and other operators of CANDU reactors

(and light water reactors as well) would be very surprised to learn this.

They are not breeders...

http://www.candu.org/candu_reactors.html

http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/candu.htm

and they have their problems...

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-75-104/science_technology/candu/

India :nuke: 1974

Canada does NOT have a breeder reactor program...

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionH.htm#g

http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm

Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors (LMFBR) are different animals altogether...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/fasbre.html

http://www.nukeworker.com/study/nuclear_energy/ne3-power_reactors.shtml

Every single prototype LMFBR ever built has suffered either a partial meltdown and/or serious sodium fire that has led to lengthy shutdowns and/or decomissioning.

http://www.nci.org/01NCI/12/FFTF.htm

These things just don't work.

[struggle4progress]

68. The CANDU reactors produce whopping amounts of tritium, which ...

... has sometimes caused real problems.

I don't know what you mean by saying there is "no problem" with a reactor, but I certainly wouldn't describe the reactors' history in those words:


Seven Ontario Hydro CANDU Reactors to Shut Down

Toronto -- Ontario Hydro announced on August 13, 1997 that it would shut down its oldest seven reactors within the next year ...

In May, it was revealed that Ontario Hydro had dumped more than 1,000 tonnes of copper, zinc and other metals in Lake Ontario. The metals were being eroded from the Pickering stations' brass steam condensers over the last 20 years. Durham Nuclear Awareness has requested an investigation under Ontario's Environmental Bill of Rights, alleging that Ontario Hydro officials knowingly reported incomplete environmental data to the Province of Ontario.

In July, Ontario Hydro revealed that it had failed to report tritium contamination of ground water on the Pickering site for the last twenty years. In 1979 it found 2,150,000 becquerels per litre (Bq/L) of tritium in ground water, and in 1994 found 700,000 Bq/L. Tritium can cause cancer if ingested. Ontario's current "objective" for tritium in drinking water is 7,000 Bq/L, but in 1994 a provincial advisory committee recommended that this level should be reduced to 100 Bq/L, and brought down to 20 Bq/L within five years ...

August 2, 1992: Pickering reactor 1 had a heavy water leak from a heat exchanger that resulted in a release of 2,300 trillion becquerels of radioactive tritium into Lake Ontario. This was the worst-ever tritium release from a CANDU reactor, and resulted in increased levels of tritium in drinking water from Whitby to Burlington ...

<more cheery tales at link:> http://www.cnp.ca/media/oh-closures-aug-97.html

[Kool Kitty]

41. Uh, okay.

[jpak]

52. Reprocessing has never been economical, and it's dirty and dangerous

The price of uranium will have to rise 20-fold to justify reprocessing and MOX fuel production...

http://www.ieer.org/comments/rokk-pr.html

www.iea.org/textbase/work/ 2003/extool-excetp6/II-sch.pdf

www.puaf.umd.edu/faculty/ papers/fetter/2004-NT-repro.pdf

Reprocessing produces ~3.5 cubic meters of high-level liquid waste per metric ton of fuel processed.

The now-defunct West Valley NY commercial reprocessing plant produced $20 million dollars of Pu during its operation. It will cost taxpayers $4-8 billion to dispose of the high-level liquid waste produced by this plant.

Reprocessing will NEVER pass the "Saddam Test"- i.e., "would you trust Saddam Hussein with (name-your-energy-technology-here)???

How did India and North Korea get there bombs???

(clue: reprocessing).

Any way you look at it, reprocessing just plain sucks.

[Massacure]

54. I agree. That is why you use breeder reactors.

[jpak]

56. Breeders don't work and the plutonium they (can't)

produce would be far more expensive than uranium - even at $200+ a pound.

Note : current price of uranium is ~$11 a pound.

[jpak]

57. Ack! "NK get "there" bombs...

there their they're...

[IChing]

14. wind/solar power is cheaper

At this point, I don't want to see any atomic plants operating anywhere with fission energy until
1. we find a very large group of absolutely infallible people to build reactors,

2. we have a still larger group of infallible people to operate them and

3. we've turned every one of the Black Septembers in the world white and persuaded God to stop acting.

When all that happens, atomic energy will be safe. Until then, forget it.

please read my post on breeder reactors from the bulletin of atomic scientist.

[phantom power]

17. Then do you also require "infallibility" of the people who run

our current energy infrastructure? Dreaming up arbitrary requirements of infallibility is completely unrealistic in any context. As adults, we all learn to live with the knowledge of risk and fallibility. I don't understand why people suddenly throw all that insight out the window when it comes to nuclear power.

[IChing]

18. You have the insight?

"I don't understand why people suddenly throw all that insight out the window when it comes to nuclear power"
.
I'm glad you have the infallible insight to know where you can safely store the wastes, and construction of a nuclear power plant.
The cost of 1 plant is between 1-2 billion dollars that doesn't include the cost of storage, cleanup, security and transportation.

[phantom power]

19. My point seems to have slid past you.

I'm not infallible. Nobody is. You are the one who is chasing after infallibility, not me.

I'm prepared to accept the risks involved in storing the waste as we currently store it. However, the real answer is to reprocess that waste and re-use it.

That risk is smaller than the risk of continued global climate change, wars over oil, heavy metal poisoning from coal plants, and the economic disaster that will ensue if we don't find a replacement for coal and oil.

We accept non-zero risk, and human fallibility, in every single aspect of our lives, every second of every day. There's no reason to make a special exception for nuclear energy.

[IChing]

21. It must be your

infallible insight I was talking about on looking a exceptions for nuclear energy.
Wind, tidal generators, bio-mass fuels, and solar can be built faster, safely and much cheaper for our environmental and energy needs.
Nuclear costs are underwritten by the taxpayers and is supported by the energy monolithic energy companies of this nation.

[Massacure]

33. What the hell are you smoking?

Solar panels are $4 a watt. Nuclear plants range from $2-4 dollars a watt. However solar panels only work at maximum power for 6 hours a day, and about half the days of the year. So that means it really $2-4 against about $30.

Rapeseed gives about 80 gallons of oil per acre. Multiply that by 640 acres per square mile and that is 51,200 gallons per acre. That is about 1200 barrels. The U.S. goes through 21 million barrels a day, or about 7.665 billion barrels a year. Divided by 1200 barrels, that is 6,387,500 square miles of rapeseed plants. That would be about a 2000 by 3000 mile plot of land.

[ChemEng]

38. Kick!

[thegreatwildebeest]

47. And where is our food supposed to come from?

Rapeseed gives about 80 gallons of oil per acre. Multiply that by 640 acres per square mile and that is 51,200 gallons per acre. That is about 1200 barrels. The U.S. goes through 21 million barrels a day, or about 7.665 billion barrels a year. Divided by 1200 barrels, that is 6,387,500 square miles of rapeseed plants. That would be about a 2000 by 3000 mile plot of land.

And where are we supposed to grow our food with so much of it going to energy? A 2000 by 3000 mile plot sounds like a mighty large chunk of land. And where are we supposed to fit the 300 million plus people? Crazy.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IChing]

64. Just from a real nuclear family

and I'm not talking sociologically my friend. Don't attack the person just the logic.

[IChing]

66. read your hype

support your opinion with data,
dr. science.

[NickB79]

31. Cheaper but less reliable

As much as I love the idea of wind and solar power (wind in particular, since I'm close to the Great Plains), I don't see them as being primary power generating sources in this country. Solar and wind are good at supplementing base-load sources like coal and nuclear, but the wind doesn't always blow, and the sun doesn't always shine. I'd like to see a mixture of nuclear, wind and solar to replace current coal plants, because I feel coal is far more dangerous than nuclear. And coal plants WILL be the alternative base-load source of our power if nuclear plants are not built, even with massive wind and solar installations. There is little getting around that problem with current technology.

BTW, look up the cost of building and maintaining a coal plant, along with the cost of disposing of it's ash waste. THEN factor in the billions of dollars in health care costs coal smoke creates annually when people breath in the dirty are. THEN factor in the billions of dollars in environmental damage strip-mining, acid rain and global warming from coal operations cause annually as well.

This is the real problem: no one factors in the associated costs of our current energy sources when they vilify nuclear power as too expensive. It is MORE expensive to keep using what we have than to switch to nuclear.

[IChing]

34. Conversion of Coal/Gas

to bio-mass plants have occurred in Denmark without going Nuclear. We are at least twenty years behind in this technology.

Denmark's powerful lessons for the future
JAMES REYNOLDS ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT BBC

It is possibly the most advanced, and certainly the most efficient, power station in the world - and the statistics sound almost too good to be true.

Built in two distinct phases over the past 13 years, Denmark’s Avedore power station utilises a staggering 94 per cent of the energy of its fuel, compared with between 40 and 50 per cent for the average electricity producing power station in the UK.

It burns coal, gas, oil, straw and wood pellets, and is equipped with a range of cutting-edge technology to reduce harmful emissions into the environment and meet Kyoto protocol targets to limit climate change. In addition, the heat produced in the process of generating power is used to heat 190,000 homes in Copenhagen through a network of pipes which run through the city.

Surprisingly, this most modern of power generating plants at Koge harbour in south Copenhagen, owes its existence to the oil crisis that gripped western nations in the 1970s.

Electricity blackouts that have hit the UK, Europe and North America in recent months have made security of supply a key issue.

But they have also served as a stark reminder of the energy crisis of three decades ago, when oil price hikes, brought about by Middle Eastern oil producers in the OPEC cartel, sent western industrial economies into a tailspin.

Rising prices stimulated piecemeal conservation efforts in the west - and, more importantly, a determined and unprecedented exploration for new oil resources. When these were inevitably discovered, the increase in supplies and declining demand saw oil prices fall from $35 a barrel in 1981 to $9 a barrel in 1986.

Things then carried on as they had done prior to the crisis, and the queues at petrol stations, shared baths, power cuts and cold, lamplit suppers became just a distant, foggy memory. The chances of such crises occurring again were too slim to be taken seriously.

In Denmark, however, the episode had left a more lasting impression and heralded the defining moment of the country’s energy policy which is still benefiting its people today.

In the aftermath of the energy crisis, members of the Folketinget (the parliament) decided every new plant built in the future must be a combined heat and power (CHP) station, and be linked in to the district heating (DH) networks that now serve the majority of Danish cities.

In addition, legal measures were implemented that allow local authorities to force building owners to connect, and remain connected, to DH.

Fossil fuels were subjected to high taxation for heating and investment subsidies were offered to the utility companies to update and complete DH networks.

Hans Kristoffersen, an energy policy and economics adviser with the Confederation of Danish Industries, said: "The oil crisis in the 1970s was what really led to the policy and realisation that we needed to use energy more efficiently and that led to an increased focus on DH.

"We now have several hundred CHP plants, many of which really took off in the 1990s, and the concept of Avedore follows that philosophy in creating electricity as well as serving the DH network of Copenhagen, along with all the other plants."

Avedore is essentially two power station units combined: Avedore 1, built in 1990 at a cost of £190 million, and Avedore 2, operational at the end of 2001at a cost of £380 million.

The Avedore 1 unit can also cope with oil combustion to increase its flexibility, but primarily burns approximately 85 tonnes of coal every hour. It produces 250 megawatts (Mw) of electricity, serving some 400,000 households and 330 Mw of district heat for 80,000 houses.

Despite burning one of the dirtiest fossil fuels, it thoroughly removes ash, sulphur, nitrogen and carbon dioxides from the flue gas, a process which produces 3.5 tonnes of gypsum and mineral products which are then used in the cement and building industries

.Peter Roche, a campaigner with Greenpeace, said: "CHP, like wind power, is a classic case of British procrastination.

"While we sit and ponder for years, the Danes get on and build systems which are now producing environmentally-friendly electricity, whereas we can’t even decide what to do with our nuclear waste."

____________________________________________________________________________________


Melbourne-based EnviroMission Limited recently invested in a 25,000-acre sheep farm in the Australian outback in order to make a power plant. But the alternative energy project isn't driven by manure. Instead it’ll use a kilometer-high thermal power station called the Solar Tower. Though the project was announced several years ago, the details are just being ironed out--construction of the 3,280-foot tower won't begin until 2006 at the earliest.

The Solar Tower, according to wired, “is one of the most ambitious alternative energy projects on the planet: a renewable energy plant that pumps out the same power as a small reactor but is totally safe.”

Hollow in the middle, the tower has a base with a solar collector, a 25,000-acre “skirt.” As air under the collector is heated by the sun, it’s funneled up the chimney by convection, as it accelerates to 35 m.p.h., it begins driving 32 wind turbines that in turn generate electricity much like wind farms do. But unlike traditional wind farms and solar generators, the Solar Tower can operate round the clock, even when there’s no wind, because it has banks of solar cells which can store heat energy.

Though the tower could generate up to 200 megawatts--enough electricity to power 200,000 homes and will keep 830,000 tons of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere annually—http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66694,00.html

[NNadir]

44. Nonsense. Solar power is NOT cheaper.

Over 30 nuclear power plants are now under construction on the planet mostly where people can add and subtract and add two numbers, (we don't qualify in this country) and over 103 are planned in 24 countries. 441 plants currently operate. I would say that an industry which is planning a 25% increase is pretty successful, especially one with such an excellent safety record when compared to other forms of energy.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8237/8237nuclearenergy.html

If solar power is cheaper, how come people aren't building comparable solar capacity? They just like to waste money?

Not so long ago, on this web site, I showed that it would take 1/3 of the US GDP to install solar capacity sufficient to replace the world's nuclear capacity, and in doing that we would need to ignore the existence of 1) night, 2) rainy days 3) clouds. We didn't even approach the financial and environmental cost of building batteries and redundant capacity to address these issues.

Solar power is the chimeric promise that I've been hearing about since my childhood. When I was a boy, you couldn't really say it was bullshit, because no attempts were made to do it. Now however, billions and billions have been spent and still the capacity is far less than 1% of world power capacity. Now we can say "bullshit!" While one form of solar power is cheap, successful and scalable, wind power, PV power is neither cheaper, safer, cleaner, more scalable, or as reliable as nuclear power. It's severe environmental impacts are not seen because it is tiny, and it is tiny because it doesn't work very well and can't be said to work very well because it is still incredibly expensive. If it did work, the world would be rushing to embrace it as the world (except the illiterate US) is rushing to embrace nuclear power.

Solar only advocates are remarkable for their Bush like pronouncements of absurdity as reality.

We deserve what we are going to get.

[Coastie for Truth]

45. Everything has a "niche" where it is "optimal"

and another application where it is useless.

I live in a high rise condo - so I do NOT have 1000 sq ft for PV cells. But, for me, PV is optimal to trickle charge my car battery while parked outside (At that time I lived in the Lake Ontario Snow belt - used PV to trickle charge the battery).

Also, after the Northern California blackouts - I use PV to recharge the scads of rechargeable batteries for digital cameras, cell phones, lap tops, 5 watt ham radios, "earthquake" flash lights, portable tv, etc. And, I keep some PV trickle chargers in the car "just in case" (I live between the San Andreas Fault and the Hayward-Calaveras Fault System - so I expect to go to bed one night in California and get shaken out of bed the next morning in Seattle). But there are niches for which PV is ideal.

I have no problems with nuclear - and I like the Rickover suggestion after his investigation of Three Mile Island (as we should all recall, the system worked and it was the human operators who locked out a valve on an earlier shift, and another set of human operators who kept manually over riding the automatic shut down system -- I was an "Itkin Volunteer" in Ivan Itkin's Pittsburgh office - he was the PhD Nuclear Engineer who chaired the Pa State Legislature investigation of Three Mile Island, the Democratic leader of the Pennsylvania General Assembly - and MY Assemblyman).

Rickover suggested --

1. Militarize the reactor operators - military discipline, "yes sir, no sir, by your leave sir, aye aye sir, etc." - subject to the Uniform Code of Military INJustice.
2. Operating a civilian reactor would be a normal "shore tour" of 2-3 years for Navy Nuclear Submariners, between submarine deployments.
3. Civilian Reactor Control rooms would be "standardized" - just like Naval Reactor Control rooms.
4. Command responsibility would be in the hands of a safety oriented agency --- not the "for profit" utility. The "for profit" utility would buy power from the "safety agency." Generation would be separated from transmission, distribution, marketing, and billing.

[IChing]

46. the cost is coming down

In Japan, the world's largest solar-power market, the government expects that 50 percent of residential power supply will come from solar power by 2030, up from a fraction of a percent today.

Spray-On Solar-Power Cells Are True Breakthrough
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
January 14, 2005
Scientists have invented a plastic solar cell that can turn the sun's power into electrical energy, even on a cloudy day.

The plastic material uses nanotechnology and contains the first solar cells able to harness the sun's invisible, infrared rays. The breakthrough has led theorists to predict that plastic solar cells could one day become five times more efficient than current solar cell technology.

Like paint, the composite can be sprayed onto other materials and used as portable electricity. A sweater coated in the material could power a cell phone or other wireless devices. A hydrogen-powered car painted with the film could potentially convert enough energy into electricity to continually recharge the car's battery.

The researchers envision that one day "solar farms" consisting of the plastic material could be rolled across deserts to generate enough clean energy to supply the entire planet's power needs.

[NNadir]

49. It's been "coming down" for thirty years but is still too expensive.

Except for rich white people with big guilt complexes, solar power (except for wind) is not affordable. If it were, people would be building solar capacity world wide and there would be no discussion of a nuclear renewal. After all, nuclear technology has years of stupid propaganda to overcome, even though it has actually harmed very, very, very, very few people when compared to other technologies. Solar daydreaming (with emphasis on the "day") is very fashionable. No one will hate you for saying "solar." Lots of people hate you for saying "nuclear." Therefore it takes courage (and of course a healthy dollop of good sense and awareness) to state the truth, that nuclear power is safer and cleaner than all forms of solar power except wind power. When reliability is included as a factor, nuclear energy cannot be touched by any form of energy, including wind.

The global climate crisis is not something that will be happening whenever it is convenient for ill informed people to realize their solar fantasies. The global climate crisis is right now. Our planet is not dying someday in the future when PV power may cheap enough and safe enough to compare with nuclear energy. Our planet is dying now.

Sensible people act. Idiots take counsel of the lies they tell themselves.

[IChing]

58. here say evidence and your opinion

base on no facts, no truths, no reports only of your opinion of truth.

"the truth, that nuclear power is safer and cleaner than all forms of solar power "

One plant cost two billion dollars, how much could that buy in safe energy?
You do not know your facts, or economics.

[Massacure]

61. Solar panels and nuclear power plants cost about the same per peak watt.

But the sun only shines 6 hours a day, and maybe half the days of a year. So in reality you need 8 times the peak capacity as nuclear power, and thus 8 times the costs. Then you have to find the means to store that energy, such as batteries which are and expensive contain a while plethora of toxic chemicals.

Did you not read what I said in post #33?

[IChing]

65. Once again my friend

You give no scientific data to support your claim. ICELAND, DENMARK and SCANDINAVIA are using this technology in the dead of no sun, that they live through in the winter.., as compared to what we can receive here, which is the same a the latitude of what? my friend?

You must have lived here all your life? No shame, but, no gain.

[NickB79]

71. Scandinavia is using solar panels in the dark?

This is something I must see, these amazing nighttime-operating solar panels that operate without the solar component.

Link?

[jpak]

50. Global 2005 shipments of PV modules will exceed 1100 MW

and global PV module production has been growing between 15 - 40% each year for the last 10 years.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=20124

www.iea.org/textbase/work/ 2003/extool-excetp6/II-sch.pdf

Price of PV modules over the same period has dropped by 5% each year (a ~20% decline in price with every doubling in production).

http://www.solarplaza.com/content/pagina/financial%BEnefits/320/

http://www.oja-services.nl/iea-pvps/nsr02/deu3.htm

The cost of new wind turbine capacity has dropped dramatically as well...

http://www.crest.org/repp_pubs/articles/chapman/chapman1.html

In contrast, the price of uranium and new nuclear capacity just keeps going up up up...

http://www.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www.antenna.nl/wise/325/3249.html

http://www.cri.ca/publications/milestones_2002/focussed.html

and global uranium demand will outstrip supply by 11% by 2013.

Not a pretty picture for anti-solar pro-nuclear advocates.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phantom power]

72. 400 exajoules per year?

Is that for the U.S., or the world?

[Salviati]

25. I have to say that I support it...

but with several quite large caviats...

One, I want the profit motive nowhere near it. I want the reactors built right, not by the lowest bidder. The people in charge should have PhD's not MBA's. Ultimately, this means either government owned plants, or regulations so strict that they might as well be government owned.

Plants can be built quite a bit safer these days, recent developments in fusion may make it possible to make subcritical fission reactors economical. That would pretty much elimimate the risk of meltdown, as the fission reaction cannot sustain a chain reaction, and could be shut down quite easily at any time.

[IChing]

27. fusion research I support

But the costs of nuclear power plants even sub-critical fission reactors is extreme as compare to other available natural recyclable resources that pay for themselves in relative short years with very little biological or environmental impact. Sub-critical fission reactor costs do not address transmutational concerns or safety concerns enough for the gigantic outlay of public monies needed to build and supply through either transportation, storange or mining of the uranium product or post uranium product.

[Kool Kitty]

42. I agree with your caveats.

I don't think I want this to be the administration that oversees the construction of new nuclear power plants. (First of all, President Dimwit can't even pronounce the word.) This bunch are believers in no regulation and damn near no oversight. This contract shouldn't go to Halliburton, you know? If you want to construct these things anywhere near humans, they better be done correctly. And I don't trust them to tie their shoes, let alone handle construction of these plants.

[Up2Late]

36. It would be great, if it wasn't for the Nuclear waste disposal issue.

Would you want it stored near your house? Neither do I.

[hecate77]

59. Unfortunately, PV prices have shot up due to very short supply

I was considering finally going ahead with an initial system, and the last time I had checked, costs were about $3 per watt (panels only). Now they are close to or exceeding $5 a watt. There is no real relief in site for the near future. The price is being driven by shortage of raw materials and high demand in Europe and Japan, where it is heavily subsidized.

We have a program here in California, but it has not kept pace with rising prices.

Of course, I cannot afford a nuclear plant of my own, so that option is also not so good.

[jpak]

69. Growing pains

Any industry that is growing as fast the global PV market will experience these kind of bottlenecks.

Not to worry, the PV industry (and that includes polysilicon manufacturers) is rapidly adding capacity to meet current and future demand (hundreds of MW of new production capacity each year - with very short lag times).

And when California passes its Million Roofs initiative (3000 MW of new PV by 2020), the PV industry will beat a path to its door.

This problem will resolve itself and the prices will come down.

[bloom]

63. I think nuclear power

makes sense when you have given up on the planet.

Or when your lifestyle is more important than the future of life.


:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: