'Only nuclear power can now halt global warming' [J. Lovelock, green guru]

[truthisfreedom]

this article is an important read, and not too long.

-----------------------

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=524313

'Only nuclear power can now halt global warming'

Leading environmentalist urges radical rethink on climate change

By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor


24 May 2004


Global warming is now advancing so swiftly that only a massive expansion of nuclear power as the world's main energy source can prevent it overwhelming civilisation, the scientist and celebrated Green guru, James Lovelock, says. His call will cause huge disquiet for the environmental movement. It has long considered the 84-year-old radical thinker among its greatest heroes, and sees climate change as the most important issue facing the world, but it has always regarded opposition to nuclear power as an article of faith. Last night the leaders of both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth rejected his call.
<snip>

He now believes recent climatic events have shown the warming of the atmosphere is proceeding even more rapidly than the scientists of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thought it would, in their last report in 2001.

On that basis, he says, there is simply not enough time for renewable energy, such as wind, wave and solar power - the favoured solution of the Green movement - to take the place of the coal, gas and oil-fired power stations whose waste gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), is causing the atmosphere to warm.


<snip>

[yowzayowzayowza]

1. Agreed with this for some time...

Not getting all available energy out of the newquelar stuff and all doesn't make sense even at double the disposal cost.

[Massacure]

2. We have used 100 reactors for 30 years, without major problems.

This is with using 2nd generation reactors. Earlier today I read that 2nd generations will only have one meltdown in 20,000 reactor years, compared to the 3rd generation which is one meltdown in 800,000 reactor years. They produce much less waste, and it decays faster. Everybody is so damn scared from Three Mile Island that they don't give a rats ass that they are going to dye anyways.

[Eloriel]

18. It's not just the risk of meltdown or release "incident" --

it's what the hell to do with the waste. There is simply no safe place on Earth to store it.

[leesa]

22. Why you send it to Afghanistan and Iraq. No Prob!

In San Diego, I have four very young patients with leukemia from chernobyl (they were toddlers when it blew). Bad stuff.
Also, it requires energy...like coal to power the reactors, doesn't it?

[Tiberius]

48. Coal to power a nuclear reactor?

Uhmmmm, Montgomery C. Burns, is that you?

[treepig]

68. you should publish your findings in scientific journals

it's a crime to withhold nobel prize-winning caliber results that no one else in the scientific community has, namely:

1) Chernobyl is responsible for leukemia

2) Nuclear power plants are coal-powered

amazing stuff, eagerly awaiting the details . . .

[Massacure]

23. The Canadians, French and Germans

Have already found problems to that. The Canadian CANDU reactor can break down nuclear waste into more stable isotopes that don't last nearly as long as U.S. reactors. Then there are the French who mix the waste with certain elements and it supposedly makes it safe to store or something.

I'm not a nuclear expert, perhaps someone else can explain it better.

[LesTalkMoreDo]

34. No safe space?

I don't recall any accidents with waste storage. New technology is created every day to help learn how to deal with the waste and eventually convert it back into its original elements.

[truth2power]

76. You might want to look into what happened with the Fernald

feed materials plant near Cincinnati, Ohio.

Fernald reprocessed uranium for use in the nuclear weapons program. They were lying to the public for years. Uranium was poisoning the groundwater. Big class action suit over this and employee illnesses. Cleanup going on for years.

[Eurobabe]

36. yeah, let's poison everybody's thyroids

that'll do us in within a few decades

n/t

[belab13]

96. The ROI for this highly subsidized industry is deceiving

Even if you completely ignore the waste disposal issue, the return on investment (that is energy invested vs energy produced ) is really not all that competitive. Just ask the energy companies that are currently decommissioning reactors. I think current wind power technology beats nuclear in this department.

[John_H]

3. Absolutely. It's a crime that we have any coal or gas plants at all

The miniscule risk of an incident is well worth the horrific damage done daily by dirty power generation.

[Alerter_]

4. as long as the nuclear plants are not "privatized" I have no problem

All the nuclear plants must be owned and operated in the public trust, with no outside investors skimming profits from the top. We cannot entrust something as dangerous as nuclear power in the hands of CEOs who are only concerned about the bottom line.

[iamjoy]

5. Nuclear Waste

do you want it in your backyard? I think we need to do more to improve security

[mom cat]

11. The nuclear waste problem is easy: make more bombs from it.

[BeFree]

17. Backyard nukes

If they can build a nuke then I should be able to have one myself. Just imagine a nation full of mini-nuke plants spread far and wide!

Wait, a solar array and a small windmill in my backyard would be safer, eh? Aw, to hell with safety, gimme a nuke! </sarcasm>

[KansDem]

54. Yeah! "Backyard nukes"

They'd replace those backyard barbecues of the 1950s. You know, the ones made of brick.

Wait! How 'bout a combination backyard nuke and barbecue? You could do up some July 4th hamburgers and light your house at the same time! The possibilities are staggering!!!

[Raster]

81. OMG!!! It's the ultimate barbeque/microwave combo!!!...

...when you say "I'll just nuke it," YOU'LL REALLY MEAN IT!

[struggle4progress]

108. Getta gamma grill!

Miracle slab of plutonium. Makes steaks hot as hell in a jiffy!

[benburch]

6. I agree, except...

I have worked in the nuclear program of a large private domestic nuclear power utility. After what I observed there, I believe the nuclear reactors should never be run by a for-profit corporation. EVER.

[pop goes the weasel]

25. my uncle would agree with you

He worked as a master pipe fitter on several plants. When he worked on the one in Bay City, he saw so many short-cuts that he quit and became a whistleblower. Then he saw the federal government proceed to ignore the mess that Brown & Root had made. After that, he retired completely, he was so disgusted.

[NuttyFluffers]

66. agree 100% Massive energy providers should be state owned

i believe in state control of massive energy production, just as i believe in state control of our transit infrastructure, our water infrastructure, etc. some things are too important to leave in greed's hands.

the cases of public energy groups in USA and how they have managed so much better their resources than private sector should be required reading for high schoolers in gov't class. the difference between management is light years and state control of public energy just works better when the interests of the people are put before greed.

[RC]

7. I agree we need more nuclear power to replace

gas & coal fired generators, but I have a question;
Bring up nuclear power plants and immediately the next noise you hear is how long lived the radioactive waste they generate is and because of that all nuclear power plants must be shut down as of yesterday.

You very seldom hear what other countries such as Japan & France do.
You also NEVER hear about the spent fuel from our nuclear fleet. Why is that?

[Crachet2004]

52. I think it is because Big Oil clandestinely spends Big $$$ to supress

or make more noncompetitive other, potential, and existing forms of energy. They fund antinuke groups and activists like Nader.

Look, why do you think WV has it's very own Rockefeller? He is an almost perfect liberal, but then his only purpose as Governor, then US Senator has been to ride herd on coal...make sure it never can compete with oil...his other votes are all window dressing. The oil companies own millions of acres of coal reserves...holding it off the market, making coal overall more expensive.

Nothing can compete with Coal in the US, given a level playing field. In electricity generation, coal is the past, present (53%), and future. AEP, the largest coal generator, has a full court press on, cleaning up all their coal burning units. They are spending billions, trying to get into belated compliance with the Clean Air Act of '77.

There are over 90 new coal burning units being considered. This is unreal to me, as we have'nt built ANY, as far as I know (there may have been a few), in over 20 yrs.

No, while everyone is talking about what we SHOULD do, the big, new, modern coal burners will be coming on line. They have already started...in Monongahela couny WV, above Morgantown? You know, where the National Coal Lab is located? At WVU? They have been moving dirt, day and night, for at least 6 mos...A coalburner, and a big one definitely...but maybe a prototype...not sure about that. Hope so. Those bastards REALLY are dirty. But once the scrubbers are on, you might be surprised at the difference. I was.

They say this unit will take 30 mos. to build, and peak employment at 1200-1300 men. The nukes I worked on in the past took 10 years per unit, and one two-unit nuke peaked at over 10,000 men. Now which way do you think we are gonna go? One big coal burner puts out almost as much juice as two 840 megawatt nuke units.

Had we kept up with nuclear commercial technology, maybe we would be going that way...but where are the prototypes? I'm all for it, if we can actually go ahead and build 2nd generation nukes...but the old permitting process ALONE took two or three YEARS.

Coal won't wait. It is gonna be coal people, gonna be coal.

[treepig]

69. great, more coal = more deaths, currently at 30,000/year

see http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/cleanair.htm

[Crachet2004]

93. Yeah, it's a bummer...but with scrubbers and SCR's tacked on

at about a billion dollars per plant, they clean up fairly well...getting the power companies to do it, has been the problem! Never has there been such foot dragging.

Anyway, I like nukes better too, but by the time you permit one, we can have already have built a coal burner twice as powerful...and I'm talking about just permitting the nuke, not building it.

Watch what happens...there will be a big national debate over nukes, demonstrations, protests, etc...and when it is all said and done, we will wake up one day surrounded by big, brandnew coal-burning units.

Coal does'nt care what we think, and coal won't wait.

America's fallback energy plan has always been coal...because we have so much of it-and now the plan is being put into effect.

I don't know why we don't build more hydros...there are still dams on the Ohio River that are not equipped yet...I don't understand why.

[MrPrax]

8. 84-year-old radical thinker?

It really is too bad that during his long long life and the environmental movement he helped develop, that they couldn't find time to force 'wind, wave and solar power' on political elites...and I don't think the political or economic system has changed much since then ...

Nor do I think nukes will save us...

[nofurylike]

9. so, all they had to do was destroy the environment

to co-opt us?

shows they were pretty smart after all, yes? not stupid like we constantly convince ourselves. cunning.

you ever heard:
fascism: resemble the ideal to co-pt the people, then really shove it to 'em.

simple old tool of mass control, and look how quickly we bite.

[yowzayowzayowza]

14. We will suck the marrow...

out of our newquelar resources eventually. The question is whose terms we choose to do it on; corporate or "We the people." Two very different things, I hope.

[nofurylike]

19. i understand it has become pretty close to inevitable,

but to succumb to that makes it certain.

like all that seems insurmountable now - and a year ago, many were sure shrub *rule was - we must stand firmly against.

it is not inevitable. total environmental collapse may be, but if not, there are much faster options than nuke.

[MGKrebs]

10. Solve the spent fuel problem, and I'll be on board.

[styersc]

15. I'm from South Carolina.

Few people know that the term South Carolina is latin for "the world's nuclear toilet". Everyone benfits from Nuclear power but we alone take in waste for profit (our GOP gov't's bright idea). Anyone ready to step up to the plate and store your own waste???

Didn't think so.

I agree that Nuclear would be a great alternative to fossil fuels and "dirty energy", but until the problems of nuclear waste effects the population as a whole, as opposed to those of us who have been sold out in SC- we will never devise a solution to the problems. For too many- piling nuclear waste in my state is the solution to the problem.

[0007]

31. I hear ya!

[ConcernedCanuk]

12. That's crap - there's wind power, solar energy, untapped water power

.
.
.

and then there's the "C" word

CONSERVATION

We can't handle the nuclear waste we have now, and we have NO idea of it's long term damage - -

And don't give me the nonsense that it's not affordable to develop other measures

Heck, if the US would just redirect some of their pugnacious efforts toward energy developments - that'd free up a few hundred billion a year just for that.

Imagine the terrarists would love that idea though - nuclear plants(targets) popping up all over the place, and of course all that extra uranium and plutonium moving around - -

yeah - neww-clee-ar - great idea

Look what it's done for the world so far . . .

(sigh)

[nofurylike]

16. thank you thank you thank you, ConcernedCanuk

yes yes yes!'

"Heck, if the US would just redirect some of their pugnacious efforts toward energy developments - that'd free up a few hundred billion a year just for that."
YES YES YEEEEEESSSSS!!!!
but trillions.

you saved me.
my heart was sinking here.


peace

[Lindacooks]

20. YES!!!!!!!!!!!

Plus, look at the 'real cost' of nuclear energy. It is NOT cheap. If we had sunk this much money into renewable resources (solar, wind) we'd now be free of oil, coal, and nuclear plants. And you can thank the Repukes, starting with Reagan, for that.

http://www.things.org/~jym/greenpeace/true-costs-of-commercial-nuclear-power.html

"During the period from 1950 to 1990, commercial nuclear generation cost an average of 9.0 cents/kWh (1990 dollars), far more than other readily available fuels ... without even counting artificially low insurance costs or such liabilities as radiation health effects and accidents or the almost certain escalation in future waste storage and decommissioning costs.

$97 billion was subsidized by taxpayers.
Between 1968 and 1990, $160 billion more was spent on nuclear electric generation than would have been spent generating the same electricity with fossil fuels.
-- 1992 Greenpeace study"

[nofurylike]

21. EXACTLY!!! thank you for facts! n/t

[RC]

56. Greenpeace?

A large part of the cost of nuclear power is because of the heavy regulation involved every step of the way. It is way over engineered, which is reason for it's excellent safety record.

[Lindacooks]

60. So?

The fact that those things need to be 'over engineered' is because they are inherently unsafe. Those costs aren't mentioned when nuclear power proponents talk about 'cheap, safe nuclear power'. The true cost is unbelievably high. And we still have all that nuclear waste that nobody can figure out what to do with. And those plants are accidents waiting to happen, not to mention very prime terrorist targets.

And I will trust something put forward by Greenpeace over anything the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says.

[Teaser]

24. How much power can these sources provide

And on what time scale? Do you have numbers?

[ConcernedCanuk]

28. I appreciate the question, but until we DO it, no clear numbers can be had

.
.
.

First, we must "think outside the box"

Before I go on,here's a few other sources

Wood, wood waste

Municipal solid waste, and gases, methane mostly.

Geothermal, from producing hydro, to using for heatpumps.

And look at what Toronto is up to - Using COLD WATER from Lake Ontario to cool some of the downtown buildings.

"Thought Toronto was already cool? Well, we’re about to get cooler with an innovative project by Enwave District Energy Limited. Enwave, in partnership with the City of Toronto, has developed an alternative cooling system, which uses the cool energy in cold water to air condition high-rise buildings in downtown Toronto. Enwave’s innovative system is great for the environment. It reduces energy consumption by up to seventy five per cent, and so reduces carbon dioxide emissions.

/snip/

How does the alternative cooling system work?


* First, cool water (about 4 degrees Celcius) is drawn through three new intake pipes from deep in the lake (83 metres deep).

* Then, the water is pumped to the Island filtration plant, which is owned and operated by the City of Toronto, for filtration and treatment.

* After treatment, ‘very cold’ drinking water travels to the City’s John Street pumping station, where it passes through a closed ‘Energy Transfer Loop’ absorbing some of the heat from Enwave’s separate chilled water loop. After this transfer of energy, the untouched treated water is returned to the City’s water transmission system.

http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/water/deep_lake/

\Having lived on a farm or two, I figured if I ever owned one i would use my water to "heat" with in the winter.

After all, it gets down to -25F, and the water comes out of the ground around 40degreees F, so it would take less enrgy (gas/hydro/etc) to heat up the water from 40 to 70 than the air from -25 to +70, right?

And so on -

There are LOTS of renewable, no-toxic, safe alternatives

We just have to start to use them

We will HAVE to eventually -

so we should be developing them NOW, while we have some flexibility.

Or just say feck it and leave the problems for our children and their children . . . . :shrug:

(sigh)

[kimchi]

84. Thank you, Concerned Canuk

A voice of reason!

[seventhson]

30. Hemp is supposed to be terrific energy source

but I know little about it.

we can eliminate the internal combustion engine as Gore urged in his book.

drivers are the worst offenders. factories are a little more problematic.

[SHRED]

32. Hemp can heal a lot of environmental woes

Click on my sig link too!

http://fornits.com/nontesters/hemp4fuel/hemp4fuel.pdf

http://fornits.com/nontesters/hemp4fuel/flyers.html

http://naihc.org/index.html

[seventhson]

39. thanks for the links

this is a great alternative!

[truth2power]

72. Thank you, shred, for those links.

Bookmarked them for later reading.

[ProfessorGAC]

92. It Still Has To Be Burned

It's not a solution to global warming. It's an economic hedge against oil shortage, but not a solution to CO2 release.
The Professor

[NickB79]

97. Well, hemp would be carbon-neutral

The amount of CO2 released when the hemp is burned would be balanced by the amount of CO2 absorbed as the plant is grown. Using hemp wouldn't reverse the rising CO2 trend we've released so far, but it would help stabilize it. My only concern would be if we can grow enough of it to satisfy our demands without having to plant half the nation with it rather than foodcrops.

[SHRED]

109. 6% solution

I have studied hemp extensively.

The experts estimate that just 6% of our farmlands, growing hemp, could provide enough energy for our domestic, industrial, and military needs.

[LesTalkMoreDo]

35. Untapped water power

Sadly there are many on the extreme side of water power that not only refuse to allow more dams but want to destroy the dams we now have.

[Shakespeare]

41. Not dams--generators that capture wave energy.

The SF Chronicle just ran a great story on it a week or two ago. Incredible potential for energy generation, and (cautiously claiming) environmentally friendly.

[LesTalkMoreDo]

44. Cool! Wind and water power combined

I'd like to see a device created that uses the tides to run a generator. The terajoules from the gravity of the moon is a reliable source of energy that should be tapped too.

[Xithras]

95. Wave energy is NOT environmentally friendly!

Building enough wave energy plants to provide enough power to run our country would require converting HUGE sections of our coastlines into power plants. You're talking about altering the water flow along the coastlines which would destroy beaches, coastal marshes, and other habitats for wildlife. Floating wave generators also have a nasty tendency to pool sand behind their structures, requiring nonstop dredging operations to keep them operational.

They may not pollute the air or make any noise, but they certainly aren't friendly to the environment. They could also never be built in a state like California where there are specific laws on the books that essentially prohibit this kind of destruction along the public coastline (and in California, all of the coast is considered public).

[bleedingheart]

37. Kudos!

I was reading this thread thinking to myself that we haven't tapped the wind and solar options well enough just yet....why jump to nuclear when there is the waste to consider...which no one wants ..

[mmm]

42. You are 100% correct. Nuclear is not the answer.

Of course at this time politicians do not care
about developing wind, water, solar solutions.
These could work if we want them to.
I think it will be way too late by the time
we figure that out.

[hughee99]

49. I'm not saying nuclear is the answer,

but as for wind and untapped water, no one seems to want those either. There were plans for a wind farm in my state, but unfortunately, the wealthy people who live in the ideal area for it feel that the turbines would be "unsightly". This is happening to several other wind proposals as well. No one seems in favor of damming up a river either because it can destroy the ecology of the area both above and below the dam. Solar power doesn't seem like it's quite efficient enough yet to solve these problems on it's own, so someone, somewhere is going to be pissed off that they have energy generation in their neighborhood.

[nofurylike]

13. o, btw, there isn't time for nukes to make that difference either.

take a lot longer than other supposed options.

but there IS just barely enough time to further engorge the pockets of nuclearists.

[mulethree]

26. How long to plan/build a nuke plant? 15 years or so?

maybe they've sped it up.

[0rganism]

27. Trading one big problem for another

Global warming is a HUGE problem. Nuclear energy solves it at the risk of some other very real problems. As far as I know, no one has devised a genuine long-term solution to disposal of spent fuel rods, for instance. And every one of those nuclear power plants is a terrorist target. And we'd have to up the mining of Uranium considerably to replace the energy provided by burning coal and gas at current levels, let alone those 30 years from now.

If we could do nuclear energy right, it'd be a great idea. Unfortunately, doing it right is very difficult.

[seventhson]

29. This guy is a stupid asshole. I live in a nuclear community

and people are dropping from cancer like flies,

breast cancer is extremely high

the radiation weaste is in the groundwater and in the wells

people are sick from damaged immune systems and birth defects

all correlated to the beginning of the nuke operations.

ANYONE who thinks nukes are safe, worthwhile, affordable, or sane belongs in a mental ward: it is Halliburton/Cheney propaganda (YES Halliburton is a HUGE nuke proponent and producer) dupe.

do your homework? Nuke operations since 1944-5 have killed more people from cancer, genetic mutations and disease than the holocaust and some scientists say that we need Nuremburg-type trials for the perpetrators of this evil


check out www.radiation.org if you think this shit is safe or reasonable.

You have been lied to and fooled if you believe nukes are safe or affordable. Or just insane.

[truth2power]

73. thank you, seventhson, for your post. Nuke is not the answer.

I was part of a group that opposed a proposed nuclear plant in our community many years ago. Would have been sited near an elementary school. That was only ONE of the major problems.

Thank the goddess, we won. Also, I've been reading thru this thread and thinking that this push for nuclear plays right into Cheney's hands. Thanks for your reference to Halliburton.

BTW, what our group found out would curl your hair. I still have BOXES of stuff stored away.

[rastignac5]

91. Have any links to the studies...

that prove this is happening in your community?

[seventhson]

98. www.radiation.org

peer reviewed studies

[depakid]

33. Uranium has a peak too-

Not sure exactly what it is, though I've heard the figure 25 years bantered around.

In addition to all the other problems mentioned, remember that it takes energy from somewhere to locate, mine and process uranium ore into fuel- not to mention constructing the power plants themselves, which on top of everything else- is extremely expensive.

[0rganism]

47. ~25 years at current usage levels, probably

Now if we were to actually attempt to replace all coal and gasoline generators with Uranium-based nuclear power, it's not clear to me that there'd be enough Uranium in the entire planet to meet the world's energy demands for so much as three years.

[treepig]

85. you say 25 years, stanford university says billions

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

How long will nuclear energy last?

These facts come from a 1983 article by Bernard Cohen.

Nuclear energy, assuming breeder reactors, will last for several billion years, i.e. as long as the sun is in a state to support life on earth.

Here are the basic facts.


In 1983, uranium cost $40 per pound. The known uranium reserves at that price would suffice for light water reactors for a few tens of years. Since then more rich uranium deposits have been discovered including a very big one in Canada. At $40 per pound, uranium contributes about 0.2 cents per kwh to the cost of electricity. (Electricity retails between 5 cents and 10 cents per kwh in the U.S.)

Breeder reactors use uranium more than 100 times as efficiently as the current light water reactors. Hence much more expensive uranium can be used. At $1,000 per pound, uranium would contribute only 0.03 cents per kwh, i.e. less than one percent of the cost of electricity. At that price, the fuel cost would correspond to gasoline priced at half a cent per gallon.

How much uranium is available at $1,000 per pound?
There is plenty in the Conway granites of New England and in shales in Tennessee, but Cohen decided to concentrate on uranium extracted from seawater - presumably in order to keep the calculations simple and certain. Cohen (see the references in his article) considers it certain that uranium can be extracted from seawater at less than $1000 per pound and considers $200-400 per pound the best estimate.

In terms of fuel cost per million BTU, he gives (uranium at $400 per pound 1.1 cents , coal $1.25, OPEC oil $5.70, natural gas $3-4.)


How much uranium is there in seawater?
Seawater contains 3.3x10^(-9) (3.3 parts per billion) of uranium, so the 1.4x10^18 tonne of seawater contains 4.6x10^9 tonne of uranium. All the world's electricity usage, 650GWe could therefore be supplied by the uranium in seawater for 7 million years.


However, rivers bring more uranium into the sea all the time, in fact 3.2x10^4 tonne per year.

Cohen calculates that we could take 16,000 tonne per year of uranium from seawater, which would supply 25 times the world's present electricity usage and twice the world's present total energy consumption. He argues that given the geological cycles of erosion, subduction and uplift, the supply would last for 5 billion years with a withdrawal rate of 6,500 tonne per year. The crust contains 6.5x10^13 tonne of uranium.

He comments that lasting 5 billion years, i.e. longer than the sun will support life on earth, should cause uranium to be considered a renewable resource.




dem thar facts be scary things. better to go back into one's shell and avoid exposure to even one molecule of radiation - don't want to be dying now, do we?

[RC]

57. Ever hear of a breeder reactor?

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

Under appropriate operating conditions, the neutrons given off by fission reactions can "breed" more fuel from otherwise non-fissionable isotopes. The most common breeding reaction is that of plutonium-239 from non-fissionable uranium-238. The term "fast breeder" refers to the types of configurations which can actually produce more fissionable fuel than they use, such as the LMFBR. This scenario is possible because the non-fissionable uranium-238 is 140 times more abundant than the fissionable U-235 and can be efficiently converted into Pu-239 by the neutrons from a fission chain reaction.

France has made the largest implementation of breeder reactors with its large Super-Phenix reactor and an intermediate scale reactor (BN-600) on the Caspian Sea for electric power and desalinization.

[truth2power]

75. Half-life of plutonium is 24,000 yrs. IIRC. Uranium?...

<sigh> I used to know this off the top of my head. Senior moments I guess.

One thing to remember - nuclear is an extremely expensive way to BOIL WATER. That's what's going on there. Boiling water to produce steam to turn the turbines.

Bad, bad idea, all of this.

edit> changed plutonium half-life from 240,000 to 24,000 yrs.
240,000 is ten half-lives, the amt. of time for a radioactive substance to become inert?

[Vladimir]

38. An interesting and provocative article, certainly

I gotta say I think a combination of nuclear fusion and other renewable energy such as wind/tidal power is the only long term solution. But the author does have a point, IMO, that in the short term nuclear power is a better solution than oil/coal/gas. The dangers of nuclear energy are certainly overblown, and modern reactors produce far less waste then old ones used to. Ultimately, whatever energy source we pick, we will have to reduce consumption to avert disaster though.

[seventhson]

40. Overblown???

Tell that to the victims of chernobyl, of Hanford, downwinders like me whose family is sick from exposure to radionucleides leaked into the groundwater and Long Island Sound.

Cancer and damaged immune systems and mutated viruses and bacteria are pandemic due to this EVIL.

Overblown?

A European scientific panel extimates the nuclear industry is responsible globally for some 60 million deaths since thew advent of the nuclear age.

Overblown? Poppycock! Bush-shit! Cheney-Halliburton lies!

[Vladimir]

64. Well I'm sorry for the fact

that you are suffering. It is undeniable that Chernobyl was a tragedy, and in fact I have no doubt that there has been mimanagement and profiteering at places such as Hanford. As a physicist (not nuclear I might add), all I can say is that most of my colleagues often bemoan how the dangers of nuclear energy are distorted and blown out of all proportion by the media. The really sad thing about it is that attacking nuclear energy means that the most compact and clean renwable energy source we can get, fusion, has been systematically starved of funding.

[MadHound]

43. Sorry, but this guy is full of shit

Nuclear is NOT the way to go. Instead of resorting to a process that gives us toxic waste that lasts forever, let us go with something cheap, easy to implement and non-polluting; biodiesel.

Biodiesel is an off the shelf technology that has been around forever, in fact the first diesel engines were built to run on biodiesel derived from hemp oil. Sunflower seed oil is even more effiecient that hemp(more oil extracted per pound) and both can be grown in virtually any region in the US. Going to biodiesel would not only break our country out of the fossil fuel addiction that we currently have, it would also revitalize the agriculture industry, especially family farmers.

Biodiesel is also very earth friendly. By using used cooking oil as a base, biodiesel can reduce landfill waste. Clean burning, with more caloric energy per ounce than fossil fuel, biodiesel reduces emmisions up to seventy five percent. And the largest waste product from biodiel production is glycerin, which in turn can be used to make soap. Add in the fact that biodiesel itself is biodegradable, and what you have is one big solution to our energy problems.

Nuclear power isn't the way to go. First off, there is the overwhelming, unanswerable question of what to do with the waste. Not just the spent fuel rods, or the irradiated pieces of equipment, but also the little things, like the paper swipes used by the ton to check for surface radiation in the plants. Or the tools that become irradiated after years of use. Burying it in the mountains isn't a bright idea, yet it seems to be the only viable one out there. This should tell us something, like this energy solution isn't a good idea.

And then there are the plants themselves. The vast majority of nuclear plants in this country are tottering on their last legs. Years of continous operations under high stress with toxic chemicals have weakened and broken down the very materials that make up the containment vessels of a reactor. Leakages are occuring, parts are breaking, and in general these old reactors are or have passed the point where they need to be shut down, decommissioned and cleaned up.

New reactors, even though they will be safer and more efficient, will still only have a life span of thirty to fifty years. Thus we will be leaving even more radioactive problems for our children and grandchildren. And a nuclear power plant isn't like a regular power plant, you just can't shut the doors and walk away. Unless you decontaminate and clean every single nut, bolt and piece of paper in a plant(a cost prohibitive process), then you can't walk away from the plant. There will have to be a skeleton crew for a long while to monitor the core, and even afterwards, if for nothing else to make sure that the plant isn't broken into and some hot material isn't stolen.

Nuclear plants are a horrible idea to relieve the energy crunch we are starting to experience. The only people they benefit are those who stand to make money from them. But the public in general pays a high non-monetary price for their use. The old saying "don't shit in your own nest" applies here, even more so with nuclear power. For if we go that root, not only are we shitting in our own nest, but the entire world's as well.

[PATRICK]

45. Hey, what are this guy's nuke credentials?

That's a wild statement and if he isn't getting a check from the nuclear industry in the mail he is missing a golden funding opportunity. Nuclear is not easier, not fast, and not suited to unstable political climates such as we have now.

What he is saying though echos Bush's first commission report of global warming. It's so late even desperate measures are pathetic. Building reactors in unstable geophysical areas has to be a concern. the technology of the new generation is still very debatable with all the assurance of Diebold voting machines. Long term waste is just converting one problem into another long range disaster of irreducible nuclear waste.

I'd just like to know what nuclear engineering credentials this fellow has to defend shooting another hole into the bottom of the boat to let the leaking water out.

These BIG solutions only benefit BIG contractors with BIG money. Huge wind farms have created a Frankenstein out of the wind energy program so that centralized BIG corporations can keep a stranglehold on the BIG grid. Meanwhile try putting up a cheap windmill on your property that can take care of yourself and some neighbors. So what if it isn't a mindboggling ten story vegematic, you will have more to contend with than an EPA study. Or solar. Small neighborhood solutions would render the BIG grid in danger of collapsing its monopoly? Their profit margins they saw fit to deliver to Enron instead of keeping their BIG grid in shape?

[MadHound]

46. Small solutions, HEAR HEAR

I recently purchased a house out in the country with about twenty acres attached. Part of the plan is to scrape enough money together to purchase a windmill that I can locate in my back pasture. Electric for myself and some neighbors, with a low impact on the enviroment.

With biodiesel, we the consuming public can use market forces to force the widespread use of biodiesel. If there was even a low percentage, 5-10% of the gas guzzling public that switched over and started making their own biodiesel, some big money company would see the demand and we would have biodiesel pumps sprouting up all over. Critical mass, and from there it would be a short step to setting up power plants that burned biodiesel instead of dino diesel.

I have no idea what this guy's credentials are regarding nuclear power. But they can't be many, since he so blatanly disregards the dangers of long term and short term waste, including the decommissioned plants themselves.

[Crachet2004]

94. I agree. What comes with the grid, of course, is control.

I am one who believes that the research HAS been done. Take windmills...they have come a long way, technically speaking, but are still too damn expensive for an average person. Why? Economies of scale. If more were built, they would be cheaper...and on and on in a descending price/efficiency spiral. You see, they are only inefficient relative to their PRICE. Price is flexible.

Same with other alternatives...but then you would be off the grid, and could'nt be made to behave by turning your power off. You would be out of control.

They don't want that.

[Tiberius]

50. every thread here misses the point

Our great great great grandkids will easily be able to jettison all of our nuclear waste into the sun. Problem.... solved!!

:)

[MadHound]

51. You know, I thought of that solution too.

The trouble is you have to insure, 100% guarantee that that rocket won't blow up in the atmosphere. For even if there is one explosion, we're all fucked.

[cambie]

53. He didn't say that nuclear was a good way

to go, just that it is the only possible way.

<quote>
For the second straight year, Kansas and parts of Missouri and Nebraska have suffered through an extremely dry summer that has brought back memories of the 1930's Dust Bowl. A shortage of rainfall and a series of 100-degree days have destroyed crops on millions of acres and dried up streams, creeks and rivers, state officials said.
</quote>
You need water to grow biodiesel.

http://healthandenergy.com/drought_in_kansas.htm

[MadHound]

67. You obviously haven't seen wild hemp grow friend

Back in the day, Missouri used to be a top hemp producer. This is evident in the amount of wild hemp that is still around and growing long after it was made into an illegal crop. Hemp grows anywhere, and with very little water. We've gone through some serious droughts here in Mo, and the only thing still left growing is the wild hemp. A very hardy plant, it withstands drought well. And while it produces slightly less oil per pound than sunflowers, it's hardiness and ability to grow in climates and conditions that sunflowers can't grow make it an ideal biodiesel crop.

[cambie]

107. We do produce a lot

of hemp in these parts MadHound, and yes it would help farmers to adapt to new conditions. What I was getting at is that most global warming models show decreasing rain in the mid-continent growing areas. It will be difficult enough to grow food if that is correct, and too late to worry about bio-diesel by the time we understand what should have been done. Hemp could help us not to worry about such things.

[Massacure]

55. The Russian Soyuz

Has 600 and some launches without one blowing up. The Soyuz may be old and obsolete by American Standards, but it is reliable as hell.

[n0_data]

70. Space Elevators (n/t)

[funnymanpants]

62. law of gravity says no way

I don't think this would work, though I'm not sure. Think of how much energy it would take to transport nuclear waste, some of the heaviest stuff in the world. I think the cost of rocketing nuclear fuel into the sun would make it unfeasable.

[Mr.Green93]

58. There are too many people

[Bdog]

59. If nuclear power could be used to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere

then maybe they could pay for their high costs.

http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/CRYOCAR/CryoCar.htm

Researchers at the University of Washington are developing a new zero-emission automobile propulsion concept that uses liquid nitrogen as the fuel. The principle of operation is like that of a steam engine, except there is no combustion involved. Instead, liquid nitrogen at –320° F (–196° C) is pressurized and then vaporized in a heat exchanger by the ambient temperature of the surrounding air. This heat exchanger is like the radiator of a car but instead of using air to cool water, it uses air to heat and boil liquid nitrogen. The resulting high-pressure nitrogen gas is fed to an engine that operates like a reciprocating steam engine, converting pressure to mechanical power. The only exhaust is nitrogen, which is the major constituent of our atmosphere.

The LN2000 is an operating proof-of-concept test vehicle, a converted 1984 Grumman-Olson Kubvan mail delivery van. The engine, a radial five-cylinder 15-hp air motor, drives the front wheels through a five-speed manual Volkswagen transmission. The liquid nitrogen is stored in a thermos-like stainless steel tank, or dewar, that holds 24 gallons and is so well insulated that the nitrogen will stay liquid for weeks. At present the tank is pressurized with gaseous nitrogen to develop system pressure but a cryogenic liquid pump will be used for this purpose in the future. A preheater, called an economizer, uses leftover heat in the engine's exhaust to preheat the liquid nitrogen before it enters the heat exchanger. Two fans at the rear of the van draw air through the heat exchanger to enhance the transfer of ambient heat to the liquid nitrogen. The design of this heat exchanger is such as to prevent frost formation on its outer surfaces.

As with all alternative energy storage media, the energy density (W-hr/kg) of liquid nitrogen is relatively low when compared to gasoline but better than that of readily available battery systems. Studies indicate that liquid nitrogen automobiles will have significant performance and environmental advantages over electric vehicles. A liquid nitrogen car with a 60-gallon tank will have a potential range of up to 200 miles, or more than twice that of a typical electric car. Furthermore, a liquid nitrogen car will be much lighter and refilling its tank will take only 10-15 minutes, rather than the several hours required by most electric car concepts. Motorists will fuel up at filling stations very similar to today's gasoline stations. When liquid nitrogen is manufactured in large quantities, the operating cost per mile of a liquid nitrogen car will not only be less than that of an electric car but will actually be competitive with that of a gasoline car.

The process to manufacture liquid nitrogen in large quantities can be environmentally very friendly, even if fossil fuels are used to generate the electric power required. The exhaust gases produced by burning fossil fuels in a power plant contain not only carbon dioxide and gaseous pollutants, but also all the nitrogen from the air used in the combustion. By feeding these exhaust gases to the nitrogen liquefaction plant, the carbon dioxide and other undesirable products of combustion can be condensed and separated in the process of chilling the nitrogen, and thus no pollutants need be released to the atmosphere by the power plant. The sequestered carbon dioxide and pollutants could be injected into depleted gas and oil wells, deep mine shafts, deep ocean subduction zones, and other repositories from which they will not diffuse back into the atmosphere, or they could be chemically processed into useful or inert substances. Consequently, the implementation of a large fleet of liquid nitrogen vehicles could have much greater environmental benefits than just reducing urban air pollution as desired by current zero-emission vehicle mandates.

* Funding for this project has been provided by the U.S. Department of Energy.

[Frangible]

61. I agree, but nuclear power should never be privatized

nt

[The_Casual_Observer]

63. People forget or don't know that atomic power

is not cheap or easy to obtain, if you doubt it,take a look at an aerial view of Oak Ridge Laboratory sometime. The refining process is very costly and requires enormous amounts of energy. It was only practical when the fuel was obtained as a bi-product of the nuclear weapons programs. Otherwise, forget it.

[NuttyFluffers]

65. Just Repeal the damnable anti-Reclamation law!!!

Argh! nuclear power is not this abominable evil people make it out to be. in fact if it wasn't for a stupid law passed during the carter years we wouldn't be having this discussion about 'the overwhelming amount of nuclear waste.' gaah!!

we have the knowledge to reclaim the majority of the waste made by reactors. instead we allow 2 tons of waste created a day per reactor because of A STUPID LAW. and the reasoning? fear that waste would be stolen in transit and converted into nuclear bombs by terrorists... and what the hell are we doing with Yucca Mountain then!!! ARGHHH! stupidity! stupidity! nothing but sheer stupidity!

why is it so unbelievably hard to build a reclamation plant right next to a nuclear reactor? why was the thought process for that so hard?!? lessen the transit distance = increase the safety. duh!

but no, we are 'saved' by a STUPID LAW. it needs to be repealed NOW and nuclear power needs to come back online en masse NOW. so profoundly stupid... there are no excuses left...

[ozone_man]

71. I wonder how many other Greens agree.

I don't think this is the answer myself for a number of reasons. The waste disposal problem, coupling to nuclear weapons industry, risks of radioactive material falling into the wrong hands, etc.

I doubt very much that the full cost of nuclear is accounted for including storage for how many thousands of years? It is a heavily subsidized industry. If solar, wind, renewables were subsidized to that level and true costs established, I doubt we would be seeing nuclear as a solution.

In the short term, efficiency is still the best investment, Look at the auto industry milage. Disgusting. We've made reverse progress in the last 20 years.

Long term, phase in renewables.

[yowzayowzayowza]

89. As much as I'd like to believe that...

the inevitable crunch in fossil fuels will result in a clamor for reduced requirements and renewables, the reality is much more likely to occur along the lines of a primal scream for whatever "the powers that be" can get online. The "Just Say No" mantra of the left on this issue sounds as naiive as that of the right-wing Drug Warriors.

[ozone_man]

104. It may be naive to expect

that the TPTB will pursue any course towards renewable energy sources out side of the control of the MIC. This I certainly agree on. But that doesn't mean that we won't fight it all the way just like the Iraq war. Unfortunately, there are people like Kerry who vote for the Iraq war, making it that much harder to stop it.

Do you really think that 6 billion people will be getting their electricity from nuclear power? Hell, I place even odds that Israel will bomb the Iranian nuclear power plant under construction within a year.

I'd feel much safer knowing that these 6 billion people were working toward globally safe renewable energy solutions.

Don't just say no, offer alternatives, renewable energy. :-)

[Terran]

74. I would think wind & solar would be much cheaper and easier to build

Just an educated guess, but nuke plants cost billions to build, and solar and wind techs are rather cheap and can be built and distributed quickly. If the government gave a rats ass about this issue, they could create a massive push toward solar and wind power that could solve this problem.

[Massacure]

99. No, that's not correct.

A new nuclear plant costs about $1500-$2000 per kilowatt of power, while solar costs about $3000. I think these will be much better 10 years from now. Plus there is the problem that electricity companies will complain about how everybody makes their own power, and that they are loosing business.

Wind can be done cheaply, but it takes a lot of land. I don't think this is necessarily the best route.

There is one sure way we can become energy dependent though.

CONSERVATION.

Increase train use, and reduce semi-trailer use. Increase minimum gas mileage of all SUV's to 18 by 2006, and 24 by 2010. Increase all cars gas mileage to 30 by 2006, and 35 by 2010. Make sure it applies to all of them and not just the average of the dealer line up.

Increase development of lead lights, get them on the market for widespread use by 2006. Start taxing incandescent bulbs by $0.50 or $1.00(I would love this measure).

That is conservation my friends. Say it with me.

C-O-N-S-E-R-V-A-T-I-O-N

[Viking12]

77. The Future of Nuclear Energy

This MIT report covers the necessary bases (oh yeah, some undisputed green crednetials on the panel as well).

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

[seventhson]

79. This study is corporate bullshit. MIT is the heart of the right wing

spook culture (just watch "A Beautiful Mind".

Gimme a break. This study is just fascist propaganda

[treepig]

88. but they don't run that tight of a ship, apparently

or do you consider Noam Chomsky and Theodore A. Postol fascist propagandists?

btw, have you ever considered evidence, based on the evidence itself?

[seventhson]

80. This study is corporate bullshit. MIT is the heart of the right wing

spook culture (just watch "A Beautiful Mind".

Gimme a break. This study is just fascist propaganda

[seventhson]

78. Email froma Nuclear whistleblower in response to report on "green" nukes

Austin Meredith of Brown University writes:


"I worked as a systems analyst for the General Electric Nuclear Energy Division in San Jose, California for a number of years in the 1970s. During the period of time I worked in the industry, we came dangerously close to being forced to call for the complete evacuation of a three-state area in the USA, because of a chemical and electrical fire at a nuclear power complex. I personally witnessed abundant cheating, and deceptive practices. I personally witnessed the use of threats and intimidation, to keep whistleblowers in line. I personally witnessed the use of character assassination ploys against employees who had been unable to keep their personal testimony in line with business needs. Names and dates available on request.

"What I have to tell you is that nuclear power is *not* safe, and cannot be *made* safe. This is a capitalist economy. What matters is the bottom line. Profit. My testimony to you is that where profit is threatened, there can only be abundant cheating, and deceptive practices, and falsification of safety records, and unknown dangers.

For brevity I will offer only one example of the sort of cheating I was aware of while I was working for GE: when a drill hits rebar and snaps off while fastening down a piece of heavy equipment used in a nuclear power plant to its concrete pad, then what you do is saw off a bolt end, tackweld a nut to the bolt end, and tackweld that assembly over the suspicious hole. "Everybody knows that these plants are way way overdesigned -- so there is no real need that *each and every* holddown bolt be in place."

Nuclear power is entirely incompatible with a free society. The only sort of society which could conceivably base itself long-term upon nuclear power is a society in which individuals are thoroughly surveilled and policed, with nuclear SWAT teams on constant standby. These teams already, in fact, exist, to protect such things as rail shipments of atomic weapons and truck shipments of radioactive waste.

[m-jean03]

82. Thought I'd toss out a word here I haven't seen used yet

That is, 'Chilling" -- The thought of society going nuclear is positively chilling.

You think oil refineries and chemical plants make for scary neighbors in the age of terrorism (which thanks to * will be here for generations to come)? Think of nuclear targets, er, power plants that is, dotting the countryside. . .

And the waste, folks, the waste. For heaven's sakes. . . :scared: :cry:

[Gregorian]

83. Coal power plants emit nuclear waste.

Few people realize that coal contains traces of Uranium. Since my courses in thermodynamics, I've forgotten the relative magnitudes that were used in the comparison. But if I remember, it was stated that one large coal facility can emit as much radiation in a year as one day of Chernobyl when it melted down. The idea is that over time a coal plant creates its own nuclear waste. Nothing is free folks.

And again, I have to stress that it's the number of users, not the method. Six billion- and only a fraction of them are using. But they're coming on line soon. So even if little old usa does get it's act together, watch out because here comes the herd. India, China, etc. It's ugly.

[treepig]

86. "traces" of uranium you say?

i suppose "traces" is a rather ambiguous term, no doubt used ironically by you, but i suggest "shitload" is a more appropriate term:

Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040, cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937 are predicted to be:


U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons):
Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)

Thorium: 357,491 tons

Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):

Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)

editorial note: compare this amount with the 2,000 tons of depleted uranium released from weapons use - and then explain to me why there are weekly threads on DU (about DU) screaming about the criminal aspects of "irradiating" iraq thusly, but when 400 times as much depleted uranium (U-238, plus the "undepleted" U-235 form) is released by burning coal - that goes by silently and unremarked?

Thorium: 2,039,709 tons

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

[ozone_man]

87. All the more reason for renewable energy.

We don't want to think about 6 billion coal or nuclear power users. We need to have renewable energy for the world and start investing heavily in solar R&D now. Maybe we will get lucky and harness Hydrogen fusion some day, but in the mean time solar, wind, small hydro, are here now or very shortly.

[glitch]

90. You would appreciate Amory Lovins' site rmi.org

Perhaps you're already familiar with him and his site. And his book with Paul Hawken "Natural Capitalism". Good stuff about massive improvements in efficiency using existing technologies. Technologies which save more money than their cost over the life of the investment. And the enormous benefits of having decentralized energy plants versus huge plants with large grids (and consequent grid-loss).

[ozone_man]

105. Thanks

I am somewhat familiar with him from my more environmentally active years ("soft energy paths"). His name comes to mind when this topic comes up. I will check out his site.

[seventhson]

100. Nader on Nukes and the energy future

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0525-01.htm

[Fovea]

101. Cynically wrong

1. large scale conversion of energy to renewables at a local level.
2. large scale conversion to earth contact housing.

We could do it in 10 years.

[Massacure]

103. Earth Contact Housing?

Is that where part or all of your house is under the ground. I want to live in a house that is partly underground when I move out of my parents house. I'll have half of the foundation be like a regular basement, the other half be raised about two feet so I can have some windows. Then I'll have a small top level. Put three bedrooms in the lower level, with a recreation room in the raised part of it. Put the kitchen and living room upstairs.

Can you give me some links about these kinds of houses?

[Fovea]

106. my favorite sort.

Earthship Housing

http://www.dennisweaver.com/habitat.html
http://www.earthship.org/
http://www.lowcarbon.co.uk/
http://www.gradyallengooch.com/
http://www.earthshipbiotecture.com/

Earth Contact

http://www.eere.energy.gov/erec/factsheets/earth.html

[Piperay]

102. It takes years to get those reactors

up and running, if that is our only hope than we are doomed. We need to work with what we have now in the way of wind, water, sun and conservation instead of a bunch of 'pie in the sky' crap. :argh: