Bill Nye: When we have 10,000 nuclear plants there are going to be accidents akin to this oil well

[Kolesar]

Bill Nye receives 2010 Humanist of the Year Award

presented at the 69th Annual Conference of the American Humanist Association in San Jose, California.

You can read his acceptance speech right here: http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/10_nov_dec/Nye.html

…on pursuing alternative energy:

With three or four thousand offshore oil rigs around the world and about 800,000 oil wells, many of my science colleagues say what we need to address climate change is nuclear power. And really, it seems like a reasonable idea. You dig up this nuclear material, you get some energy out of it, and then you put it back in the ground. But when we get to have 10,000 or 20,000 or 40,000 nuclear power plants, there are going to be accidents akin to this oil well explosion and the consequences are just huge. We really need to think about that.

And I remind everybody, we have five times the energy in wind in North Dakota than we use in the United States. There’s still the problem of getting the energy from there to New York City or wherever. It’s not an easy thing, but it sure seems like an opportunity to pursue renewable energy much more aggressively.

A nod to Blue-Jay, who found this text http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9430417

Even if there is not intentional deceipt involved (like Davis Besse), plant operators are going to make mistakes.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. We will run out of uranium rather quickly.

10,000 nuclear power plants running on uranium based fuels is not a realistic solution to our energy problems, even if one ignores the environmental issues.

[madokie]

2. I seriously doubt we get very more

we're wasting both time and money on this nuclear bullshit solution. Taken into account from the mining of the ore to the refining of said ore into usable fuel to the building of the plants to the decommissioning of said plants and the upkeep on the disposal of the very dangerous waste, nuclear at best is barely breaking even CO2 wise so why would building more nuke plants be a smart thing to do concerning GW?

Nuclear energy as a solution to our power needs is and always has been a lie. That you can take to the bank...

[Confusious]

16. Nuclear does more then break even

To estimate the total CO2 emissions from Nuclear Power we take the work of the Swedish Energy Utility, Vattenfall, which produces electricity via Nuclear, Hydro, Coal, Gas, Solar Cell, Peat and Wind energy sources and has produced credited Environment Product Declarations for all these processes.

Vattenfall finds that averaged over the entire lifecycle of their Nuclear Plant including Uranium mining, milling, enrichment, plant construction, operating, decommissioning and waste disposal, the total amount CO2 emitted per KW-Hr of electricity produced is 3.3 grams per KW-Hr of produced power. Vattenfall measures its CO2 output from Natural Gas to be 400 grams per KW-Hr and from coal to be 700 grams per KW-Hr. Thus nuclear power generated by Vattenfall, which may constitute World's best practice, emits less than one hundredth the CO2 of Fossil-Fuel based generation. In fact Vattenfall finds its Nuclear Plants to emit less CO2 than any of its other energy production mechanisms including Hydro, Wind, Solar and Biomass although all of these processes emit much less than fossil fuel generation of electricity.


Some people around here post bullshit studies from lawyers and others lap it up because they agree with it, but what can you expect from anti-nukes.

You seem to forget all the materials in that wind farm need to be mined and roads and infrastructure built to each and every place they are going to put wind. And then they only last 20 years.

Same with solar. Rare earths and steel are needed in the manufacture of solar panels, and they only last 20 years.

Nuclear needs a lot of material, but depending on the quality of the ore, you get energy payback in 10-30 years. They last 60+ years.

[FBaggins]

3. 10,000 plants?

Even if he's just talking reactors... and ignoring his higher 20k-40k number...

...wouldn't that be more power generation than the total energy usage worldwide? Even assuming you could convert entirely to electricity, why would you go entirely nuclear?

[Terry in Austin]

4. 12,000 - 15,000 plants

That's the number of plants it would take to supply world demand for energy, currently about 450 exajoules per year. Figure 30-35 petajoules from a 1200 MW plant.

[joshcryer]

9. Technically that's not true, since cars and appliances would be electric.

There'd be more efficiency by using all electric technology.

Little known fact but the biggest consumer* polluter in the United States? Natural gas. It's used for heating.

*consumer is qualified here because commercial energy usage is distinct, industrial stuff, etc. Consumer is to households, etc.

[Terry in Austin]

15. Meh. It comes out in the wash

6, 8, 10, 12 thousand -- it's all pretty cavalier, considering that the current fleet is 430-odd. Not to mention they cost about $10B apiece. Any way you cut it, it's la-la territory.

[joshcryer]

21. Jacobson's estimate for renewable energy costing $100 trillion fits nicely with that estimate.

I of course would never advocate such nonsense as building 10k nuclear reactors, but it helps illustrate that no matter how we go, getting off of CO2 is going to require industrial production never before seen in our history. This is approximately 50 WWII's or 600 Apollo's. Good luck.

[Terry in Austin]

24. Yeah -- wouldn't want to have to find the bankers for it

I suspect that all that industrial production stuff will be a glorious part of history before too long. One way or another, we'll be getting off the CO2 -- or more likely, vice versa.

[joshcryer]

25. A fee and dividend approach along with strong low-CO2 mandates might be able to pull it off.

But as it stands now we invest 0.2% global GDP on rewnewable energy investment. We have to spend approximately 50 times that to actually get anywhere.

[Strelnikov_]

35. Ka-Ching n/t

[TheWraith]

32. Not even close. Try a quarter to a third of that.

Currently 438 nuclear plants supply about 14% of the world's electricity. That would mean 3,128 plants would supply all electrical demand. Even if you figured another 1,000 plants to cover electric vehicles and appliances, you don't get close to any of those figures.

And the idea that because something COULD happen means it WILL happen is what scientists call a logical fallacy. I understand Nye's perspective, since he's an engineer and not a scientist, so he's trained to think about things failing. But the assumption is false.

[NNadir]

5. I'm quite sure that China, France and the rest of the world will clear their work with Bill

Nye before proceeding.

It's not like, for instance, http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1994/olah-autobio.html">George Olah has the credibility of Bill Nye.

Why do I feel as if our mathematically challenged anti-nukes get their educations watching Saturday morning cartoons on television and googling their way to other equally dumb anti-nukes?

[Kolesar]

6. Any thread with Davis-Besse will attract grump-nuts and his insult-laden, off topic response

lugubrious malaise

[madokie]

7. Spot on

how is it that that bullshit is allowed to continue to be posted here on this board is what I'd like to know

[Kolesar]

8. Definitely have to resist feeding them

Scrawny, pathetic types that they are.

[joshcryer]

10. Bullshit like Argentina, signatory to the NPT, wants to build nuclear bombs?

Please.

[madokie]

11. Please

Oh never mind. You'd read something wrong into whatever I'd say anyway as you do with most everything anyone who has anything to say contrary to your pet and I've better things to do with my time than to continue to read the same old tired bullshit I've been reading for 50 or so years now. Go find someone else who may want to argue with you and bug them, K, I'm not interested,

[joshcryer]

12. You were generalizing about nuclear power "supporters" and I was pointing out some "anti-nukers"

...are just as asinine. There were in fact people in that thread who did indeed argue that Argentina was going to make a nuclear bomb despite the utter political folly of such a move. I made no statement about your personal position.

The reality is that the vast majority of nuclear power "supporters" on this forum are not voracious diehards. They consider nuclear power a possible low-CO2 option that ranks with Coal-CCS if not better. Most nuclear power "supporters" are in fact environmentalists who want to move us away from polluting energy sources, and consider all the options.

Us nuclear power "supporters" get boxed in with a caricature piled with dishonest mischaracterizations. Nuclear power "supporters" on this forum are not homogeneous (for example, I only think LFTR or a variant thereof is only worthy of consideration for future nuclear power plants, yet you call nuclear my 'pet' and try to misrepresent where I stand).

[Confusious]

17. I agree

When are they going to stop allowing the anti-nukes to post bullshit?

You can get better lies from rush viagraballs.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[joshcryer]

19. What amazes me are the veiled insults to many E&E posters, calling them "right wingers" essentially.

These insults are allowed to continue, which is why the behavior of those doing the insulting doesn't change. Only on E&E can you call out a whole group as agents or shills and get away with it.

[Dead_Parrot]

13. And he's been on TV!!! ZOMG!!!!

Ever wondered why the rest of the planet think Americans are stupid?

[Dead_Parrot]

14. Seriously...

...is nobody embarrassed about getting energy policy from a kids TV presenter?

[joshcryer]

20. I'm more embarrassed that someone whose credentials are nothing more than a B.Sc...

...is considered an enlightened individual on a plethora of subjects.

Nye in particular is one of those guys I credit for destroying real science in TV form, you compare a Nye presentation to a Sagan presentation and it just breaks your heart with how little is actually taught and how much hand holding repetition is done*. Not that I have anything against Nye, he does help push STEM, it's just a watered down version.

Beakman was better.


*an example might be Mythbusters, a fun show, which spends about 15 of its 40 minutes talking about what happened on the previous commercial break and reminding you of the experiments. Michio Kaku's stuff is basically the bottom of the barrel with this sort of commercialized B.S.

[txlibdem]

23. Spot on

You called it absolutely right on Nye, Beakman, MythBusters, and Michio Kaku.

BTW, did you see his new show on DSC? What a load of tripe. Quasi scientific ideas wrapped in candy and bubble gum for the dumbed-down crowd and illiterates. It's basically the "look at me, I'm soooo smart" hour. When the real truth is that we know next to nothing about the real universe. We are only sticking our toe in the water. It will take a hundred more years of study (500 if they continue on the same pace they're going now). But science is all about providing a stable career for those with advanced degrees, so... it could take far longer.

Answer me this: If American scientists are such hot sh*t then how could Soviet scientists have put a radar system in the MIG fighters that was far more sensitive than the best America could come up with, could detect us long before we saw them in the sky. Capitalism. Pshaw.

The Soviets paid for the best education for their brightest minds. American universities are filled with whoever can afford to go there, regardless of whether they "deserve" to be at a top school. Case in point: Dubya graduated from both Harvard and Yale.

[joshcryer]

26. Yeah, I've seen it, it's an utter mess. That's why I called it "bottom of the barrel."

I really is the worst "science" show on TV.

It really kills me. You compare modern shows to shows like "Mechanical Universe" or "The Power of Myth" or of course "Cosmos." Nothing modern compares to these shows. PBS has done some good historical stuff, though, such as the more recent "The National Parks: America's Best Idea," but I cannot think of anything scientific in the last 10-20 years that really blew me away.

[gmudem]

36. I recommend "The Universe" on History Channel

And obviously nothing can beat Cosmos, but the Universe is a great show and they really do explain the science of things. Michio Kaku's shows can be a little silly, but the guy is really smart and you can find plenty of videos on youtube of him being more scientific and talking about the future of science. I read "Parallel Worlds" by him and I can tell you the guy is pretty serious about science.

[Nihil]

22. Obviously not ...

> Seriously...
> ...is nobody embarrassed about getting energy policy from a kids TV presenter?

(Well, not as long as it agrees with their own bias. Imagine the scorn you'd
have got if posting about a Blue Peter presenter who liked nuclear power ...)

Mind you, if you consider the standard of president that they've had over the
last few decades, it's hardly surprising that a kids TV presenter is viewed as
"quality" ... a failed actor, a power-hungry CIA director (who was scarily the
most competent by far), a redneck with no control on either his trousers or his
finances and a complete failure who was so mind-numbingly ignorant that it's
still hard to believe he got a second term. Now we have a lawyer who has promised
the earth and (strangely enough) failed to deliver it because, beneath the facade,
he's still a member of the corrupt plutarchy who the serfs love to elect.

Plus ca "change", etc., :shrug:

[Kolesar]

27. I call attention to the fact that you are avoiding the issue

You would rather insult Bill Nye.

But what about his point? Finding hundreds of thousands of competent plant operators? Millions? You are mum. You probably don't care.

[Nederland]

30. Finding hundreds of thousands of competent plant operators...

...will probably be just as hard as finding hundreds of thousands of competent pilots and air traffic controllers. I'm not saying it will be easy, I'm just saying I don't see why you think on a planet with 7 billion people you think it will be impossible.

[Kolesar]

31. Yes, they can always dump it in the Hudson River if there is a problem

To extend your pilot analogy: as long as we have a guy like Captain Sully we will be OK :thumbsup:

[Dead_Parrot]

33. You do realise that these people are trained, don't you?

You make it sound like they have to carefully filtered from the population, like we're searching for the next Dalai Lama. We already have hundreds of thousands of people working in the energy sector: If you are already competently working on turbines at a CCG plant, It's not a huge leap to competently working on turbines at a AP1000 - There are these sorts of re-training courses running now in the UK in preparation for the upcoming nuclear build.

So while there is a skills an issue that needs to be addressed, it's not quite the problem you are making it out to be.

And no, I'm not insulting Bill Nye: His programs are quite entertaining if you're in the right age group.

[Kolesar]

34. It is not inconceivable that management will force employees to operate the plant unsafely

It happened at BP Deepwater Horizon. It happened at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant.

I know people who worked at the Perry nuclear plant in Ohio and they said that they would skip mandatory retraining.

Look at what happened at Chernobyl. Their operators decided to perform a rogue experiment in nuclear physics that caused a meltdown.

[bananas]

37. Yes,and there's also the risk of multiple component failure

which is amplified by the number of reactors.

[NNadir]

29. We're not ALL stupid. Some of can grasp what 14,218 reactor years means.

The anti-nukes, like all innumerate types with loud mouthes and no brains, make the rest of us look bad.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/">As of Today: 14218 Reactor-Years of Worldwide Experience in Producing Civil Nuclear Power

I actually like Bill Nye, inasmuch as he tried to make science seem like fun for small children. It is unsurprising that dumb anti-nukes take him seriously. Very few of them seem to have advanced much beyond 5th grade, at least if one looks at their math skills as presented here.

[wtmusic]

28. "We really need to think about that."

:rofl:

A few people have thought about it, Bill, people with far more scientific background than you'll ever have. And most have kind of come to the conclusion that the end of life as we know it on a hotter, less stable planet, which threatens billions of people's very existence, deserves more thought right now.