Radioactive Boars (Due to Chernobyl?)

[ECOCKS]

The fears are irrational right up until the worst happens.. for example.. the gulf of mexico.

Murphy's law...

You're right. The only sane thing to do is destroy all technology and move back into caves.

As mentioned earlier. When the lights don't come on, the refrigerator doesn't cool, the water doesn't get pumped and so on, nuclear reactors will be back in force. Especially in California which will have to be evacuated if the water conduits lose power.

Should have been nicer to AZ.......

[Admin]

The fears are irrational right up until the worst happens.. for example.. the gulf of mexico.

Murphy's law...

Not so. The risks of deep water drilling are widely known and have been the subject of controversy for quite some time.

There is no industry more under a microscope for its safety record than the nuclear industry. In spite of that microscope, there simply is nothing to indicate any threat to the safety of the community through nuclear power. Quite the contrary - the track record of safe operations is remarkable. Not unblemished, but remarkable nonetheless.

And we have not even begun the debate over comparison to alternatives. THOSE arguments are not merely compelling - they are overwhelming.

- Dan

[Seeker]

Not so. The risks of deep water drilling are widely known and have been the subject of controversy for quite some time.

There is no industry more under a microscope for its safety record than the nuclear industry. In spite of that microscope, there simply is nothing to indicate any threat to the safety of the community through nuclear power. Quite the contrary - the track record of safe operations is remarkable. Not unblemished, but remarkable nonetheless.

And we have not even begun the debate over comparison to alternatives. THOSE arguments are not merely compelling - they are overwhelming.

- Dan

Deep water oil drilling has caused far more problems than the nuclear forms of producing energy (up to this point in human history).  Maybe because it is older?  I do not think our current methods of "alternative" energy are the right thing to do.  But they are a step in the right direction.

We still think the utilities (as given to us) are the best thing for now.  The future HAS to be finding our own (individual) sources of energy.  It really works best if we all do it for ourselves.   Produce our own energy.....  Solar, wind, geo-thermal, depends on where you live what is best.  Problem now is it is controlled by others, and sold by them, the customer is MANY miles/kilometers from the source.  That is the problem.  The transmission loss.  If we harvest it for ourselves, we get it at the source, with far less loss.

[Admin]

Deep water oil drilling has caused far more problems than the nuclear forms of producing energy (up to this point in human history).  Maybe because it is older?  I do not think our current methods of "alternative" energy are the right thing to do.  But they are a step in the right direction.

We still think the utilities (as given to us) are the best thing for now.  The future HAS to be finding our own (individual) sources of energy.  It really works best if we all do it for ourselves.   Produce our own energy.....  Solar, wind, geo-thermal, depends on where you live what is best.  Problem now is it is controlled by others, and sold by them, the customer is MANY miles/kilometers from the source.  That is the problem.  The transmission loss.  If we harvest it for ourselves, we get it at the source, with far less loss.

Well . . . maybe.

Tell you what. Do a little research study. Take a look at the cost of producing one of those wind turbines that some pundits claim are the power source of the future. I don't mean only the reported costs to fabricate and assemble them. I mean the cost of all the sources of energy required to take raw materials and fabricate every component necessary to produce the first killywiggle of power from a wind turbine. Then compare those costs to what that wind turbine will produce over its lifetime. Be sure to NOT consider any subsidies as those will distort the REAL results.

It will be interesting to see what you come up with.

- Dan

[Seeker]

Well . . . maybe.

Tell you what. Do a little research study. Take a look at the cost of producing one of those wind turbines that some pundits claim are the power source of the future. I don't mean only the reported costs to fabricate and assemble them. I mean the cost of all the sources of energy required to take raw materials and fabricate every component necessary to produce the first killywiggle of power from a wind turbine. Then compare those costs to what that wind turbine will produce over its lifetime. Be sure to NOT consider any subsidies as those will distort the REAL results.

It will be interesting to see what you come up with.

- Dan

Actually, that was my (obtuse I admit) point.  The way it is done now is not economically viable.  Personal production is a much better way.  I could quote from Circuit Cellar (a magazine I get) as they try (as engineers) to get it right.  But cost is always a factor.  In the last few years, many there have undertaken projects to lessen the need for commercial utilities.  With varying success.  I stand behind the the idea that it is the transmission of power that is the problem.

On an individual level, it can be done.  Am I doing it?  No...  Still looking at the best way for me to fight the system.    And I admit, it is a lot of work to do it for yourself!

[Sculpto]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-22/windmill-boom-curbs-electric-power-prices.html

http://www.offshorewind.biz/2010/04/25/offshore-wind-boom-lowers-electricity-prices/

[GQBlues]

Well - you mentioned "safety." That is normally in the arena of operations and the conduct of safe operation of facilities.

Contamination takes on an entirely different set of considerations - and it depends on what you describe as your concern.

So long as the concern is safety, that is a discussion around safe operations.

Be careful with the contamination argument as you may find that one is equally weak.

It isn't just so much the safety measures that are put into place in these reactors that concerns me, it's the disposal of its waste.

Even the water used to cool the reactors do in fact become contaminated, and where and how they actually dispose of it is beyond me. Fears/concerns are largely influenced by ignorance, I will admit but I can't help but think what if nuclear energy production became the primal source of energy. Has anyone given a clear plan in how to handle the inevitable massive amounts of waste that will exponentially be produced in this instance?

[Admin]

It isn't just so much the safety measures that are put into place in these reactors that concerns me, it's the disposal of its waste.

Even the water used to cool the reactors do in fact become contaminated, and where and how they actually dispose of it is beyond me. Fears/concerns are largely influenced by ignorance, I will admit but I can't help but think what if nuclear energy production became the primal source of energy. Has anyone given a clear plan in how to handle the inevitable massive amounts of waste that will exponentially be produced in this instance?

I was expecting this one - and - it is probably the strongest argument in opposition of nuclear power.

The REAL problem with this argument is it needs to be placed in context of the alternatives. Coal is the primary energy source for power generation in the US. What becomes of the wastes from a coal-fired power plant? How do those wastes compare - in toxicity and volume - to the wastes from nuclear power production?

Look at those facts objectively and scientifically, and once again, the answers become abundantly clear.

I worked on Yucca for a very long time and am reasonably close to the science associated with nuclear waste storage. If there is a nuclear accident in the US, the likeliest cause of it will be the fact local power companies have been betrayed by the promise of a central waste repository and are now quadrupling (or more) the amount of spent fuel kept in storage on their sites. And BTW - the nuclear utilities have contributed, by law, billions and billions of $$ for establishment of a central nuclear spent fuel storage facility that is nowhere near a concept (with Yucca shuttering), let alone operations.

Nevertheless, the nuclear option versus fossil fuel options - even in terms of waste production and storage (maybe *ESPECIALLY* in terms of waste production and storage) - is vastly superior to what we are presently doing to the environment, and to ourselves and subsequent generations, with current fuel sources.

- Dan

[BC]

It isn't just so much the safety measures that are put into place in these reactors that concerns me, it's the disposal of its waste.

Even the water used to cool the reactors do in fact become contaminated, and where and how they actually dispose of it is beyond me. Fears/concerns are largely influenced by ignorance, I will admit but I can't help but think what if nuclear energy production became the primal source of energy. Has anyone given a clear plan in how to handle the inevitable massive amounts of waste that will exponentially be produced in this instance?

Consider the ecological impact of coal power plants.  The amount of waste for nuclear plants is probably minuscule in comparison with overall less radiation exposure to the population.  Yes, storage of this material is a problem but much better than releasing it into the atmosphere and waterways.

Other fossil fuels carry similar if not same waste problems.

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

Environmental effects
Main article: Environmental effects of coal
Aerial photograph of Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill site taken the day after the event

There are a number of adverse environmental effects of coal mining and burning, specially in power stations including:

    * Generation of hundreds of millions of tons of waste products, including fly ash, bottom ash, flue gas desulfurization sludge, that contain mercury, uranium, thorium, arsenic, and other heavy metals
    * Acid rain from high sulfur coal
    * Interference with groundwater and water table levels
    * Contamination of land and waterways and destruction of homes from fly ash spills such as Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill
    * Impact of water use on flows of rivers and consequential impact on other land-uses
    * Dust nuisance
    * Subsidence above tunnels, sometimes damaging infrastructure
    * Coal-fired power plants without effective fly ash capture are one of the largest sources of human-caused background radiation exposure
    * Coal-fired power plants shorten nearly 24,000 lives a year in the United States, including 2,800 from lung cancer[39]
    * Coal-fired power plants emit mercury, selenium, and arsenic which are harmful to human health and the environment[40]
    * Release of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, which causes climate change and global warming according to the IPCC and the EPA. Coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase of CO2 in the air[41]

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

For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.

25% of WORLD energy production with coal is in the USA.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Existing_U.S._Coal_Plants

As far as efficiency goes, quite inneficient, somewhere between 30 to less than 50%.. that's before losses in the power grid that eat up half again..

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

Yeah... go nuke.. safer, cleaner, healthier.

[tim 360]

The French seem to manage Nuclear Power quite well and have for the last 40 years.  I see no reason the USA can't do as well.  Burning coal for power is so inefficent and creates more pollution than any power generating fuel I know of.  I see ads on TV with the coal industry pushing how clean coal is--but its all BS.

Hydro is excellent but we don't seem to have enough locations.  Canada produces alot of hydro power.

I like the idea of windmills and wind turbines but they will only be effective in some areas and then there is the technology and economics.

I like solar too but the technology and economics need to be improved.

At this point I see Nuclear as the clear leader in efficent power production supplemented by hydro, wind, and solar with the later two needing better performance.  My 2 watts.

[GQBlues]

Dan & BC-

I do understand that the course we're currently on (fossil fuel) cause more than great concern. We would agree this is largely the reason why there's constant debate and effort to seek alternative sources. One viable alternative is in fact nuclear. I get that.

But to address the concern I expressed by saying that we are worst off at our current pace, instead of directly addressing it, is a non-answer from my POV.

I am not sure if there had been a fairly conclusive study done that takes full accounting of the massive amounts of waste (likely in the same rate as fossil fuel now has if we became fully dependent on nuclear) and how and where will they dispose of it (Dan, Yucca Valley, if that is what you alluded to, is well within the hot range of the San Andreas' fault, is it not?). There is always a critical point of diminishing return in anything. How can it be a viable alternative if (unless I'm mistaken) we don't yet have an answer to this very simple concern (just thinking out loud)?

Is this merely a case of divorcing a devil we know just to marry one we don't? How do we know for certain we won't be in for a bigger mess if we cannot even come close to addressing this issue directly now? How does anyone know something is  better... or better said, how can one know the taste of sweet if one never tasted bitter?

[XMan]

Well . . . maybe.

Tell you what. Do a little research study. Take a look at the cost of producing one of those wind turbines that some pundits claim are the power source of the future. I don't mean only the reported costs to fabricate and assemble them. I mean the cost of all the sources of energy required to take raw materials and fabricate every component necessary to produce the first killywiggle of power from a wind turbine. Then compare those costs to what that wind turbine will produce over its lifetime. Be sure to NOT consider any subsidies as those will distort the REAL results.

It will be interesting to see what you come up with.

- Dan

I've seen it for solar, and it's very positive. 
Cannot locate it on wind, perhaps because different turbines are designed differently, including incorporation of rare earths, etc.  Don't know.
But Dan, I'll also point out that there are significant environmental impacts of uranium mining and processing.

Regarding France and nuclear power, "no coal, no gas, no oil, no choice." 
From the information I can find, they still have no solution for what to do with nuclear waste, and there have been virtual riots whenever they chose a location. Everyone wants the nuclear power plants, just put the waste somewhere else (maybe they could send it China, and they could make it into jewelry, like the cadmium and other heavy metal jewelry that keeps finding it's way onto shelves here in the USA). 

And I don't think anyone has stated the obvious. 
Uranium is finite, like coal, oil, and gas. 
Depending upon whose estimate you read, there is a 50-75 year supply, shorter if more plants are built. 
And this is the power of the future? 

There is enough sun, and physical space, to provide 10 times the power the US uses if solar were implemented. 
Both wind and solar have come a remarkable way, and neither one leaks, fumes, irradiates, melts down, etc. 

Regardless, when folks think about cost, think about the real, long-term cost, as well as whether the energy source is a viable long-term solution.  What is the cost of global climate change?  I don't think we know.  But if weather becomes so unpredictable and unstable that agriculture becomes difficult if not impossible, then I would say the cost is astronomical and makes wind and solar look friggin dirt cheap. 

The problem is that we are historically an 11th hour nation. 
Well, the 12th hour may not be enough time for this particular issue to be resolved.  Regardless of the perceived imperfections of alternatives, the time is now, not 10, 20, 30 years from now. 

[ECOCKS]

I've seen it for solar, and it's very positive. 
Cannot locate it on wind, perhaps because different turbines are designed differently, including incorporation of rare earths, etc.  Don't know.
But Dan, I'll also point out that there are significant environmental impacts of uranium mining and processing.

Regarding France and nuclear power, "no coal, no gas, no oil, no choice." 
From the information I can find, they still have no solution for what to do with nuclear waste, and there have been virtual riots whenever they chose a location. Everyone wants the nuclear power plants, just put the waste somewhere else (maybe they could send it China, and they could make it into jewelry, like the cadmium and other heavy metal jewelry that keeps finding it's way onto shelves here in the USA). 

And I don't think anyone has stated the obvious. 
Uranium is finite, like coal, oil, and gas. 
Depending upon whose estimate you read, there is a 50-75 year supply, shorter if more plants are built. 
And this is the power of the future? 

There is enough sun, and physical space, to provide 10 times the power the US uses if solar were implemented. 
Both wind and solar have come a remarkable way, and neither one leaks, fumes, irradiates, melts down, etc. 

Regardless, when folks think about cost, think about the real, long-term cost, as well as whether the energy source is a viable long-term solution.  What is the cost of global climate change?  I don't think we know.  But if weather becomes so unpredictable and unstable that agriculture becomes difficult if not impossible, then I would say the cost is astronomical and makes wind and solar look friggin dirt cheap. 

The problem is that we are historically an 11th hour nation. 
Well, the 12th hour may not be enough time for this particular issue to be resolved.  Regardless of the perceived imperfections of alternatives, the time is now, not 10, 20, 30 years from now. 

Look into the breeder (sodium cooling system) reactors. The potential is far beyond fossil fuel availability, safety is higher and waste is reduced to a fraction of a traditional reactor unit.

[Admin]

Dan & BC-

I do understand that the course we're currently on (fossil fuel) cause more than great concern. We would agree this is largely the reason why there's constant debate and effort to seek alternative sources. One viable alternative is in fact nuclear. I get that.

But to address the concern I expressed by saying that we are worst off at our current pace, instead of directly addressing it, is a non-answer from my POV.

I am not sure if there had been a fairly conclusive study done that takes full accounting of the massive amounts of waste (likely in the same rate as fossil fuel now has if we became fully dependent on nuclear) and how and where will they dispose of it (Dan, Yucca Valley, if that is what you alluded to, is well within the hot range of the San Andreas' fault, is it not?). There is always a critical point of diminishing return in anything. How can it be a viable alternative if (unless I'm mistaken) we don't yet have an answer to this very simple concern (just thinking out loud)?

Is this merely a case of divorcing a devil we know just to marry one we don't? How do we know for certain we won't be in for a bigger mess if we cannot even come close to addressing this issue directly now? How does anyone know something is  better... or better said, how can one know the taste of sweet if one never tasted bitter?

Re: "massive amounts of waste." Currently the US has 103 nuclear plants in operation producing approximately 20,000 metric tons of spent fuel annually. In the period 5/09 to 5/10 nuclear produced electricity contributed 20.3 percent of the total electricity produced in the US.

Notably, those volumes pale in comparison to their fossil fuel counterparts, but most importantly, on a per KwH basis, the fossil fuel waste/toxic production is vastly greater. There is no doubt that if the US were using nuclear power to generate the majority (or all) its power, there would be dramatically fewer toxins introduced into the environment and the contributions to greenhouse effect would be hugely reduced. Nuclear is the superior alternative - though not without its own challenges . . . as you will see below . . .

Re: Yucca Mountain. Yes, I was referring to Yucca Mountain and the cancellation of that facility by your avatar. Yucca does have a relatively minor fault underlying one of the cask areas, but not the San Andreas and not a fault posing any threat to the planned storage locations nor assessed as posing any threat to nuclear containment. The concern over seismic activity is that - given the planning horizon of 1 million years (yes, *1 MILLION YEARS) - there is some concern a seismic event might (MIGHT!) cause a shift in the underwater aquifers that MIGHT enable it to reach the storage areas and it MIGHT allow for water intrusion that MIGHT later leech into the groundwater - maybe - sometime within the next million or so years.

It *is* worth noting that Yucca was only intended to store 70,000 metric tons of materials - and there is more than that in need of storage presently - and more yet produced at the rate of 20,000 metric tons each year. Yucca was NOT the final solution to the spent fuel problem, but it WAS a needed interim solution that is now off the table. The nuclear utility companies have already begun filing lawsuits against the US government for their failure to accept spent fuel as promised beginning in 1998. The lawsuits are for return of the $22 billion paid into the fund that has not been spent on a consolidated spent fuel collection site.

Numerous alternatives are being studied including various forms of reprocessing and even medical uses for the spent fuels. Owing to the public paranoia around anything branded 'nuclear,' those studies require years (decades?) to conduct.

Re: "fairly conclusive study". You might take a look at the Yucca licensing application submitted in 2008 for what was the most comprehensive study of its sort ever conducted/concluded. For those willing to wade through the materials and referenced documents, it should satisfy even the most jaded opponent of the project - assuming no predisposed bias or other political agenda.

Ed already addressed the breeder reactor alternative - an entirely feasible option.

All offered FWIW to you.

- Dan

[GQBlues]

Dan-

I'm not an opponent of nuclear technology first of all, nor did I vote for O (heaven forbid), thus I have no political bias or intent to promote in this discussion.

When Yucca Valley (not to be mistaken to Yucca Mountain though they do run on the same volcanic ridge line - SW Great Basin) was struck with a massive earthquake back in '92, what was then known as the Landers EQ, I do remember reading a bit on the seismic studies done along this fault line. One day after the Landers quake, Skull mountain (very near Yucca Mtn.) was struck with a magnitude of <6 shaker. They found out what was then an unknown fault line surrounding Yucca mountain. I'm sure seismic daily reports have updated data in these areas for active seismic activities today. Nevada is the 3rd most seismically active state in the US.

Does this concern me, of course it does as it should everyone else. Do I believe it was enough to stop the project, I honestly do not know. What I do know is this isn't the only reason presented by the opponent of this disposal site.

One of which, IIRC, was transportation. There were I believe over 30 sites scattered all over the continental US that were awaiting Yucca's operation to commence. 70,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste being transported through and within high populated areas can be a logistical nightmare.

I also remember a report stating that the water table in this area is roughly 400 feet of rock below the lowest level of the storage site. That seem like a pretty darn good amount of bedding separating the waste to the groundwater, unless of course if you consider seismic actvities and what it does to rock.

Maybe it was silly to delay the use of Yucca mountain...but I'm just thinking that if there's this much difficulty trying to dispose of 70,000 metric tons of waste, what will we need to do if we had a steady increase of low-level/high-level radioactive waste every year?

add: I did read a little bit about hybrid and breeder/consumer reactors, though not enough to fully understand it. It does have very favorable information available. Although I still have high hopes for hydrogen and even methane however.

[Admin]

Dan-

I'm not an opponent of nuclear technology first of all, nor did I vote for O (heaven forbid), thus I have no political bias or intent to promote in this discussion.

When Yucca Valley (not to be mistaken to Yucca Mountain though they do run on the same volcanic ridge line - SW Great Basin) was struck with a massive earthquake back in '92, what was then known as the Landers EQ, I do remember reading a bit on the seismic studies done along this fault line. One day after the Landers quake, Skull mountain (very near Yucca Mtn.) was struck with a magnitude of <6 shaker. They found out what was then an unknown fault line surrounding Yucca mountain. I'm sure seismic daily reports have updated data in these areas for active seismic activities today. Nevada is the 3rd most seismically active state in the US.

Does this concern me, of course it does as it should everyone else. Do I believe it was enough to stop the project, I honestly do not know. What I do know is this isn't the only reason presented by the opponent of this disposal site.

One of which, IIRC, was transportation. There were I believe over 30 sites scattered all over the continental US that were awaiting Yucca's operation to commence. 70,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste being transported through and within high populated areas can be a logistical nightmare.

I also remember a report stating that the water table in this area is roughly 400 feet of rock below the lowest level of the storage site. That seem like a pretty darn good amount of bedding separating the waste to the groundwater, unless of course if you consider seismic actvities and what it does to rock.

Maybe it was silly to delay the use of Yucca mountain...but I'm just thinking that if there's this much difficulty trying to dispose of 70,000 metric tons of waste, what will we need to do if we had a steady increase of low-level/high-level radioactive waste every year?

add: I did read a little bit about hybrid and breeder/consumer reactors, though not enough to fully understand it. It does have very favorable information available. Although I still have high hopes for hydrogen and even methane however.

GQ,

I had a pretty strong hunch about your leanings in connection with your avatar. I did not mean to suggest that YOU had political leanings in a similar direction, I was merely leveraging the convenience of your avatar selection to try to be 'funny.'

And for the record, I am far from opposed to alternative fuel sources. A fair amount of my career was spent on projects involving a variety of alternative fuels for energy and power generation.

It always seems to come back to commercial viability. What can be done on a sufficiently large scale, with currently available technologies, to be able to make a difference?

I submit there is only one near-term 'solution' - and the only thing preventing it from moving forward is fear. Upthread kbluck posted a link to an article about 'worrying about the wrong things.' Extending that somewhat, there are huge opportunities for advancement being missed due to misplaced anxiety and fear. My sense is that the reality of the enormous destructive power of the atomic (now nuclear) age still sends chills through people and they have difficulty comprehending. Along with that difficulty comes anxiety - and that is the major part of what holds us back now.

The one thing that will overcome those anxieties is inconvenience. Soon enough there will be wide-spread power shortages and people WILL flip on their wall switches only to have ... nothing happen. After not very many occurrences of that, there will be shrill demands for change, and the solution will be the one closest to a 'fix.' Will the 'fix' be nuclear or something else? Who knows? The variables that will drive that will only partially be based on science and economics and good sense. Some part of the decision will be political - and those influences are impossible (for me, anyway) to predict with any certainty.

BTW - that fault you mentioned is the same one I referenced that underlies one of the cask production sites, but is not near the storage locations. And you are correct about the logistics of transportation - once again, largely borne of the fear people have toward the prospect of a nuclear cask being transported within a few miles of the school where their children play. If only they would take the time to examine the science behind the construction of those casks, the safety mechanisms built with redundancy on top of redundancy, the experience with other dangerous materials - and the list goes on . . . it still comes down to basic primal fear, and that is irrational.

Finally, the considerations at Yucca were studied for more than 20 years by some of the most brilliant minds this country has available. There *are* issues, many of which are directly related to the million year planning horizon, but most of which (maybe ALL of which) are pale to infinitesimal in contrast to the options of doing nothing or continuing on the present course. None of this will matter until the lights don't come on. Then, suddenly, things will change.

- Dan

[Sculpto]

this will probably sound radical and unreasoned.. however...

the fatal flaw Dan..

"What can be done on a sufficiently large scale"

For the last several decades the "system" has moved us further and further away from local production.  We first learned to rely on interchangeable parts and production lines.. then we replaced workers with more efficient machines and required the remaining workers to be ever more highly skilled and then we replaced those highly skilled workers with cheaper workers who could be taught the same mechanical skills... in thailand they have monkeys trained to climb trees and get coconuts.. in china they have human monkeys trained to run computerized machines to make EVERYTHING we consume...

Now, globalization has left us no place left to go.

Capitalism requires growth to keep on functioning.. to create ever more wealth.

But.. we have a finite amount of resources.

So.. when thinking about the economic viability these days.. of anything.. be it energy.. food.. automobiles.. clothes.. etc.. we think in terms of mass quantities and the lowest cost per unit of production.  But.. we never consider the human or environmental costs.

Globalization is a train wreck.  The current crisis is a clear indicator.  For example, GM instead of making quality cars became GMAC and spent its energy making loans and leveraging cash.  How much money changes hands but never adds value to anything?  Real estate is another great example.. purchase a property.. service the debt.. wait for the value of the property to appreciate to a certain specified level and then sell it making a cash profit.. yet.. the property never changed.. the real value of the property never changed.. only the perception of its value.. motivated by artificial market forces which can be manipulated.

Its a gigantic pyramid scheme and it is unraveling.  No amount of adjusting, from either party, from any corporate or governmental entity, in any part of the world, is going to change that.

The answer to globalization is grass roots Localization.  

This is hard medicine.  It goes against EVERYTHING we have been taught about economics and society.  Yet.. the billionaires have afforded themselves their 500 foot yachts on our backs.  The elite club still has its doors open to anyone clever enough to manipulate their way in.. but.. the pie aint getting any bigger so the only way left to achieve such magnificent wealth is the virtue of corruption, and corruption on a mass scale.  

Right or left side of the aisle.. none of us here get to play in that league and never will.  The dream of begin able to play in that league.. the so called "American dream" has been bought by the Chinese and they aren't using the same rule book and if they let us buy it back it will be at a massive profit for them.  

Nuclear energy is fascinating technology, but really.. the cost.. more than the danger, is not justified.  I am not speaking about the cost of building and maintaining the plant as much as the long term cost of damage to the environment and the consequences of a major disaster.  All it will take is one screw up on the scale of the Gulf of Mexico and imagine the results.  Do you really think it will never happen?  Odds are that it will.. we have been very very very lucky so far.

Ed said something about going backwards.. well.. its not exactly that Ed.. but... we lived for millenia without cars and air conditioners and all sorts of other devices which consume massive amounts of energy.  Do we really need them?  Are we really sure our lives are enhanced by having them?  Do you really enjoy sitting in the car all day?  I know people.. a lot of people.. that spend 3-5 hours a day.. alone.. in a car.. isn't that a pitiful life?  Is it even living?

If we adjust how we live.. each unit of energy we consume can easily be produced locally on a small scale.  To me.. the question is.. are we ready and willing to make those adjustments?  I did.. I stopped driving.. I don't use an air conditioner.. when its cold I put on a sweater.. I rent so I can't put solar panels on the house but if I could i would.  As an alternative I run a computer and the fridge and everything else is on breakers.. so I only turn it on when I need it.  My electricity is included in my rent but when I started doing it my landlord noticed that I had cut the electric bill from about $65 a month to under $10 a month.  CFLs.. I use TONS of rechargable batteries for all kinds of things etc.. I buy 95% of my food from local organic farmers at the farmers market that I walk to every Saturday... etc etc etc..

Now.. imagine if everyone did it.. if everyone made some simple and easy to do adjustments and everyone got some solar panels and small windmills and converted their appliances to rechargeable batteries and used CFL and LED and put all their plug in appliances on breakers and turned off the flow and so on etc..

In my little fantasy world.. bounded by Dolores Park and Potrero Avenue and Division Street and intersate 280 pretty much everyone is on this wagon.  In this area you will not find chain stores and you will find local stores.. you will not find national brands and you will find locally made products.. there are some exceptions.. a safeway.. and one McDonalds that has been there forever.. but for the most part.. we have localized or rather are in an evolutionary process of localization that is ongoing and flexible.  We produce fair trade coffee.. bicycles.. clothing.. furniture.. films.. music.. and a lot of etc.. we even have urban farming beginning to take off.. just two blocks from my house there is a HUGE urban farm full of exceptional produce that is maintained by individuals.. we are doing city streets now once a month where the whole area is closed off to vehicles and everyone gets out and walks and skates and rides and sets up booths and there is street art and street music and a lot more etc..

So.. I am just saying.. if the boars meat is radioactive.. maybe.. just maybe.. it is time to find a different way of getting what we need.

[Admin]

this will probably sound radical and unreasoned.. however...

the fatal flaw Dan..

"What can be done on a sufficiently large scale"

For the last several decades the "system" has moved us further and further away from local production.  We first learned to rely on interchangeable parts and production lines.. then we replaced workers with more efficient machines and required the remaining workers to be ever more highly skilled and then we replaced those highly skilled workers with cheaper workers who could be taught the same mechanical skills... in thailand they have monkeys trained to climb trees and get coconuts.. in china they have human monkeys trained to run computerized machines to make EVERYTHING we consume...

Now, globalization has left us no place left to go.

Capitalism requires growth to keep on functioning.. to create ever more wealth.

But.. we have a finite amount of resources.

So.. when thinking about the economic viability these days.. of anything.. be it energy.. food.. automobiles.. clothes.. etc.. we think in terms of mass quantities and the lowest cost per unit of production.  But.. we never consider the human or environmental costs.

Globalization is a train wreck.  The current crisis is a clear indicator.  For example, GM instead of making quality cars became GMAC and spent its energy making loans and leveraging cash.  How much money changes hands but never adds value to anything?  Real estate is another great example.. purchase a property.. service the debt.. wait for the value of the property to appreciate to a certain specified level and then sell it making a cash profit.. yet.. the property never changed.. the real value of the property never changed.. only the perception of its value.. motivated by artificial market forces which can be manipulated.

Its a gigantic pyramid scheme and it is unraveling.  No amount of adjusting, from either party, from any corporate or governmental entity, in any part of the world, is going to change that.

The answer to globalization is grass roots Localization.  

This is hard medicine.  It goes against EVERYTHING we have been taught about economics and society.  Yet.. the billionaires have afforded themselves their 500 foot yachts on our backs.  The elite club still has its doors open to anyone clever enough to manipulate their way in.. but.. the pie aint getting any bigger so the only way left to achieve such magnificent wealth is the virtue of corruption, and corruption on a mass scale.  

Right or left side of the aisle.. none of us here get to play in that league and never will.  The dream of begin able to play in that league.. the so called "American dream" has been bought by the Chinese and they aren't using the same rule book and if they let us buy it back it will be at a massive profit for them.  

Nuclear energy is fascinating technology, but really.. the cost.. more than the danger, is not justified.  I am not speaking about the cost of building and maintaining the plant as much as the long term cost of damage to the environment and the consequences of a major disaster.  All it will take is one screw up on the scale of the Gulf of Mexico and imagine the results.  Do you really think it will never happen?  Odds are that it will.. we have been very very very lucky so far.

Ed said something about going backwards.. well.. its not exactly that Ed.. but... we lived for millenia without cars and air conditioners and all sorts of other devices which consume massive amounts of energy.  Do we really need them?  Are we really sure our lives are enhanced by having them?  Do you really enjoy sitting in the car all day?  I know people.. a lot of people.. that spend 3-5 hours a day.. alone.. in a car.. isn't that a pitiful life?  Is it even living?

If we adjust how we live.. each unit of energy we consume can easily be produced locally on a small scale.  To me.. the question is.. are we ready and willing to make those adjustments?  I did.. I stopped driving.. I don't use an air conditioner.. when its cold I put on a sweater.. I rent so I can't put solar panels on the house but if I could i would.  As an alternative I run a computer and the fridge and everything else is on breakers.. so I only turn it on when I need it.  My electricity is included in my rent but when I started doing it my landlord noticed that I had cut the electric bill from about $65 a month to under $10 a month.  CFLs.. I use TONS of rechargable batteries for all kinds of things etc.. I buy 95% of my food from local organic farmers at the farmers market that I walk to every Saturday... etc etc etc..

Now.. imagine if everyone did it.. if everyone made some simple and easy to do adjustments and everyone got some solar panels and small windmills and converted their appliances to rechargeable batteries and used CFL and LED and put all their plug in appliances on breakers and turned off the flow and so on etc..

In my little fantasy world.. bounded by Dolores Park and Potrero Avenue and Division Street and intersate 280 pretty much everyone is on this wagon.  In this area you will not find chain stores and you will find local stores.. you will not find national brands and you will find locally made products.. there are some exceptions.. a safeway.. and one McDonalds that has been there forever.. but for the most part.. we have localized or rather are in an evolutionary process of localization that is ongoing and flexible.  We produce fair trade coffee.. bicycles.. clothing.. furniture.. films.. music.. and a lot of etc.. we even have urban farming beginning to take off.. just two blocks from my house there is a HUGE urban farm full of exceptional produce that is maintained by individuals.. we are doing city streets now once a month where the whole area is closed off to vehicles and everyone gets out and walks and skates and rides and sets up booths and there is street art and street music and a lot more etc..

So.. I am just saying.. if the boars meat is radioactive.. maybe.. just maybe.. it is time to find a different way of getting what we need.

>>Nuclear energy is fascinating technology, but really.. the cost.. more than the danger, is not justified.  I am not speaking about the cost of building and maintaining the plant as much as the long term cost of damage to the environment and the consequences of a major disaster.  All it will take is one screw up on the scale of the Gulf of Mexico and imagine the results.  Do you really think it will never happen?  Odds are that it will.. we have been very very very lucky so far.<<

Eric - most of the rest of your post is so far  I am not going to reply further.

On the subject of "the danger" of nuclear - once again, please cite your references. The ones provided earlier simply serve to reinforce that nuclear power is safe. What "odds" or "consequences" are you referencing? As it stands now, it appears you are making a statement based on the irrational fear and anxiety I mentioned upthread.

- Dan

[XMan]

I see your points, Dan. 
I just disagree. 
Fear and anxiety are justifiable, at least IMO.

There have already been 2 serious accidents, one of which was here in the USA that could have been far, far worse.  If there are new developments, better reactors, some way to neutralize spent uranium, a new plan that miraculously and safely stores spent uranium for 100 human lifetimes, etc., then it's a different story. 
Wind and solar can be done on large-scale now.  Today.  And in the quantity we could manufacture it in, it could drop in cost 10-fold (which it has already done in the past 2 decades and could do again). 
Why pursue a technology (nuclear) with potentially wide-spread, long-term impact and no long-term, safe storage prospects when we could pursue something safe instead, right now? 
I don't understand the pro-nuclear point of view because of those two issues -- accidents, and storage. 
It just doesn't make sense to me.

Would I say shut down the plants tomorrow?  No chance. 
Would I say rethink our distribution (grid) and invest serious money in alternatives now.  Absolutely. 
Local power generation has it's advantages, especially considering line loss across great distances (and basically energy just wasted because of it).
But we aren't pursuing alternatives as we should, in part due to lobbying from "clean coal" folks and others who stand to lose from that approach. 

This has largely focused on electricity generation.  Nuclear power, wind, solar, don't resolve transportation.  That's where you have to look at a new solution of some sort.  Solar or wind used to produce hydrogen, charge batteries, etc.  Even if you ignore climate change, you can't ignore that oil will run out, and before that become too expensive to purchase.  If we want to avoid total economic collapse (and the inability to grow food on a large-scale, mass starvation, etc.), we might want to actually take some action now. 

Whenever I hop on a jet I wonder how long we'll be able to continue to fly them. 
It would be one heck of a long trip going by sailing ship to the black sea and riding horseback to my end destination.
That would be real motivation to reconsider AW.
 

[Admin]

I see your points, Dan. 
I just disagree. 
Fear and anxiety are justifiable, at least IMO.

There have already been 2 serious accidents, one of which was here in the USA that could have been far, far worse.  If there are new developments, better reactors, some way to neutralize spent uranium, a new plan that miraculously and safely stores spent uranium for 100 human lifetimes, etc., then it's a different story. 
Wind and solar can be done on large-scale now.  Today.  And in the quantity we could manufacture it in, it could drop in cost 10-fold (which it has already done in the past 2 decades and could do again). 
Why pursue a technology (nuclear) with potentially wide-spread, long-term impact and no long-term, safe storage prospects when we could pursue something safe instead, right now? 
I don't understand the pro-nuclear point of view because of those two issues -- accidents, and storage. 
It just doesn't make sense to me.

Would I say shut down the plants tomorrow?  No chance. 
Would I say rethink our distribution (grid) and invest serious money in alternatives now.  Absolutely. 
Local power generation has it's advantages, especially considering line loss across great distances (and basically energy just wasted because of it).
But we aren't pursuing alternatives as we should, in part due to lobbying from "clean coal" folks and others who stand to lose from that approach. 

This has largely focused on electricity generation.  Nuclear power, wind, solar, don't resolve transportation.  That's where you have to look at a new solution of some sort.  Solar or wind used to produce hydrogen, charge batteries, etc.  Even if you ignore climate change, you can't ignore that oil will run out, and before that become too expensive to purchase.  If we want to avoid total economic collapse (and the inability to grow food on a large-scale, mass starvation, etc.), we might want to actually take some action now. 

Whenever I hop on a jet I wonder how long we'll be able to continue to fly them. 
It would be one heck of a long trip going by sailing ship to the black sea and riding horseback to my end destination.
That would be real motivation to reconsider AW.
 

>>I see your points, Dan. 
I just disagree.<<

That's OK. There are lots of topics reasonable people might disagree over - and I recognize this as one of them.

>>There have already been 2 serious accidents, one of which was here in the USA that could have been far, far worse.<<

Maybe it could have been worse - but it wasn't. As opposed to speculation about what might have been as the foundation for rational decision-making, it would seem (to me, anyway) the more rational option is to examine what the 30 + years of actual experience has taught us - and it teaches that we are fully capable of operating nuclear power generating facilities on a large scale with an enviable safety record.

>>If there are new developments, better reactors, some way to neutralize spent uranium, a new plan that miraculously and safely stores spent uranium for 100 human lifetimes, etc., then it's a different story.<<

For the first part - about new developments and better reactors - reflect on the fact that the 103 nuclear power facilities in operation today are using technologies that are 4 decades (or more) old. Passive safety is a given whereas none of the current operational reactors have that technology. Automation and control systems today are light-years ahead of the current crop of safe operational nukes. Safety, reliability, performance - all are dramatically advanced. There really is no comparison.

Spent fuels remains an issue. There are numerous options that can be operationalized in short order given the will. If the planning horizon were ONLY 100 human lifetimes, it would simplify the problem dramatically. That pesky little matter of a million year window creates problems for the scientists that most (including me, BTW) cannot even begin to fathom.

And, of course, there *is* that other issue - that as we ponder these problems and are seemingly paralyzed in our ability to make decisive advancements - we continue to pollute the environment at a rate 100 times greater than if we were using nuclear sources to produce that same power.

>>This has largely focused on electricity generation.  Nuclear power, wind, solar, don't resolve transportation.  That's where you have to look at a new solution of some sort.<<

Yes, Seeker also mentioned the power grid upthread as well. At least a part of the problem affecting the power grid is the same problem limiting mass transportation in the US - and that is the relatively sparse population densities in much of the country. The US is a huge country with vast expanses of open spaces and very little human population. Mass transportation systems are not supportable in those locations (representing well over 90 % of the US geography) - and the power grid, with attendant transmission losses, has been constructed to enable a relatively few power plants to service a relatively large geography. Moreover, the power grid is also decades old and was designed and built for a world that looks nothing like our modern-day world. Effective and efficient transportation of electricity is, indeed, an issue - and quite possibly a far bigger issue than nuclear versus fossil versus renewables in terms of overall impact to the US power problems. In fact, the problems with the grid are far more problematic for the addition of localized micro and mini facilities being promoted than they are the large-scale nukes.

>>If we want to avoid total economic collapse (and the inability to grow food on a large-scale, mass starvation, etc.), we might want to actually take some action now.<<

While I agree with your call to action (though suspicious of your stated consequences) - we might differ on the exact steps to take - and we may agree that numerous and varied steps are warranted and should be taken sooner rather than later. BUT - I predict that will not happen. It is not the nature of our 'system' to be that proactive. Consider the fate of the last US President who made a serious effort to achieve energy independence of the oil cartel. Do you recall which one?

- Dan

[Sculpto]

I know my "Rant" was off topic.. but.. I felt like writing so.. 

anyway.. there is nothing irrational about fear of radiation or a nuclear disaster.

The air travel industry is very careful.  There exist numerous systems and redundancies to prevent accidents.  yet, they still happen.

Murphy's law dictates that sooner or later there will be a major nuclear disaster.

Its not about statistics or logic or anything like that.. the reality is things go wrong no matter how many safeguards are in place.  Human error.. mechanical failure.. act of god.. who knows..

So.. let me ask you Dan.. since you seem to be in favor of this energy source..

How do you feel about Bushehr?

[Admin]

So.. let me ask you Dan.. since you seem to be in favor of this energy source..

How do you feel about Bushehr?

I feel like it's even more OT than the thread drift so far.

Where are the MODS when you need em to step in to help avoid a time-sink?!?   

- Dan

[XMan]

In fact, the problems with the grid are far more problematic for the addition of localized micro and mini facilities being promoted than they are the large-scale nukes.

>>If we want to avoid total economic collapse (and the inability to grow food on a large-scale, mass starvation, etc.), we might want to actually take some action now.<<

While I agree with your call to action (though suspicious of your stated consequences) - we might differ on the exact steps to take - and we may agree that numerous and varied steps are warranted and should be taken sooner rather than later. BUT - I predict that will not happen. It is not the nature of our 'system' to be that proactive. Consider the fate of the last US President who made a serious effort to achieve energy independence of the oil cartel. Do you recall which one?

- Dan

Unfortunately, you're right regarding large-scale versus micro / mini. 

Concerning my dire warning above, here is the reasoning behind it.
Growing population (globally).
Fossil fuels used for -- production of fertilizers, farm chemicals, manufacture of farming equipment, operation of farming equipment (planting, harvesting, etc.), refrigeration, canning, transportation, etc., etc. 

In the 1930's there were enormous soup lines when a far larger percentage of the US population actually lived on farms (many of which, including the one my dad grew up on, were using animal power rather than tractors).  25% of people lived on farms (in the USA) and had the skills to grow and store food.  For the ones who weren't living in the Dust Bowl, they at least could eat.

Fast forward to now, and the population has doubled, while the percentage living on farms is less than 2%, and with the exception of Amish or equivalent, it is large-scale growing with high-end machinery. 

No offense intended, but to me this is a "do the math" scenario, and just one more reason why action is required now.

I understand our different viewpoints regarding nuclear. 
But I still think you are overlooking the limited supply of uranium and the requirements for mining it (as well as the impact of doing so), even if you feel the use of nuclear power is safe overall. 

Unfortunately we didn't listen to Carter (whose fate you referenced above), and now we import about 70% of our oil, compared to the 35% we imported during the 1973 embargo.  Since our current President is toast (IMO), he should at least have attempted to do the right thing, and tackling this issue would have been more valuable than bailing out banks and Wall Street (again, IMO), although that began prior to his election (which no one will recall, I'm afraid).

[Admin]

Unfortunately, you're right regarding large-scale versus micro / mini. 

Concerning my dire warning above, here is the reasoning behind it.
Growing population (globally).
Fossil fuels used for -- production of fertilizers, farm chemicals, manufacture of farming equipment, operation of farming equipment (planting, harvesting, etc.), refrigeration, canning, transportation, etc., etc. 

In the 1930's there were enormous soup lines when a far larger percentage of the US population actually lived on farms (many of which, including the one my dad grew up on, were using animal power rather than tractors).  25% of people lived on farms (in the USA) and had the skills to grow and store food.  For the ones who weren't living in the Dust Bowl, they at least could eat.

Fast forward to now, and the population has doubled, while the percentage living on farms is less than 2%, and with the exception of Amish or equivalent, it is large-scale growing with high-end machinery. 

No offense intended, but to me this is a "do the math" scenario, and just one more reason why action is required now.

I understand our different viewpoints regarding nuclear. 
But I still think you are overlooking the limited supply of uranium and the requirements for mining it (as well as the impact of doing so), even if you feel the use of nuclear power is safe overall. 

Unfortunately we didn't listen to Carter (whose fate you referenced above), and now we import about 70% of our oil, compared to the 35% we imported during the 1973 embargo.  Since our current President is toast (IMO), he should at least have attempted to do the right thing, and tackling this issue would have been more valuable than bailing out banks and Wall Street (again, IMO), although that began prior to his election (which no one will recall, I'm afraid).

We probably have areas of more Venn overlap than was apparent initially.

Re: Carter. Yeah - I am hesitant to mention the name lest I be branded with allegiance to his political party. I am actually party agnostic and care far more about the platform of the individual than the party supporting them. In Carter's case, while inept at many of the duties of the Presidency, he was forward-looking and willing to put action behind his convictions. He still does. Something not all presidents can claim.

FWIW

- Dan

[Faux Pas]

We probably have areas of more Venn overlap than was apparent initially.

Re: Carter. Yeah - I am hesitant to mention the name lest I be branded with allegiance to his political party. I am actually party agnostic and care far more about the platform of the individual than the party supporting them. In Carter's case, while inept at many of the duties of the Presidency, he was forward-looking and willing to put action behind his convictions. He still does. Something not all presidents can claim.

FWIW

- Dan

You can thank him for the Dept of Energy. 30,000 jobs, 330 million annual budget and not one goal ever being reached.