Environmentalists Attempt to Block Carbon Free Power Facility in Tennessee

[Sword_Of_Truth]

More proof that the environmental movement isn't pro-environment, but anti-human: (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jul/16/groups-oppose-2nd-reactor-at-watts-bar/)

Several environmental groups are banding together in petitioning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to stop TVA from operating a second reactor at Watts Bar nuclear plant.

The Sierra Club, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, the Tennessee Environmental Council, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and We the People Inc. on Wednesday asked the NRC for permission to intervene against TVA's bid for an operating license at the Rhea County site.

[Cleon]

More proof that the environmental movement isn't pro-environment, but anti-human: (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jul/16/groups-oppose-2nd-reactor-at-watts-bar/)

No, it's not "proof" of any such thing.

It's proof that many in the environmental movement are misinformed, or more likely uninformed, about the actual risk of nuclear power (very little).

[NWO Sentryman]

well,i'm going off to buy a new irony meter.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No, it's not "proof" of any such thing.

Try building a wind turbine near Ted Kennedys house and then tell me that.

It's proof that many in the environmental movement are misinformed, or more likely uninformed, about the actual risk of nuclear power (very little).

I'm glad you understand that the average tree-hugger knows jack-squat about nuclear energy.

[Cleon]

Try building a wind turbine near Ted Kennedys house and then tell me that.

I'm at a loss as to how that applies to what I said, but ok. Whatever.


I'm glad you understand that the average tree-hugger knows jack-squat about nuclear energy.

"tree-hugger?" Wow. It's like a throwback to the 70s. (Much like those protesting nuke plants...)

[SezMe]

The title of the thread is misleading. The constructon and operation of the second reactor would be FAR from carbon free. One can make arguments for and against the proposal but I would hope that, at least here at JREF, they would be fact-based.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The title of the thread is misleading. The constructon and operation of the second reactor would be FAR from carbon free. One can make arguments for and against the proposal but I would hope that, at least here at JREF, they would be fact-based.

There are a number of elements created in the splitting of an atom of U-233*, U-235 or P-239. Carbon ain't one of 'em.

In fact, if a nuclear power facility were constructed sufficiently close to a uranium mine to power the mines operation, the entire process would become totally carbon free.



*Created in a Thorium-232 fueled reactor.

[tyr_13]

The title of the thread is misleading. The constructon and operation of the second reactor would be FAR from carbon free. One can make arguments for and against the proposal but I would hope that, at least here at JREF, they would be fact-based.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but how so? My understanding of the technology is that this type of plant would be essentially carbon emission free, depending on the emergency backups that they use.

Except for the humans. Can't really help the breathing thing.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but how so? My understanding of the technology is that this type of plant would be essentially carbon emission free, depending on the emergency backups that they use.

Except for the humans. Can't really help the breathing thing.

He's probably referring to various different numbers tricks that anti-human activity activists like to use to misrepresent nuclear power.

One of which is the fact that mining a ton of uranium is more "carbon intensive" than mining a ton of coal. Which is technically true.

BUT....

There is more than a thousand times the energy of a ton of coal wrapped up inside that ton of uranium. Comparing the weight of one versus the other is woefully misleading. If you compare the carbon release of mining a gigawatt hours worth of coal versus the same amoung or uranium, then uranium minings carbon footprint is a few percent of that of coal mining.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Environmentalists' single issue is the environment, not carbon emissions.

A lot of them seem to think that nuclear waste will enter the environment; and for some odd reason, they care about that.

Mysteries abound.

[tyr_13]

Environmentalists' single issue is the environment, not carbon emissions.

A lot of them seem to think that nuclear waste will enter the environment; and for some odd reason, they care about that.

Mysteries abound.

Why do they think that is a huge issue with newer plants?

Nuclear waste has become some sort of booggieman.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Environmentalists' single issue is the environment, not carbon emissions.

A lot of them seem to think that nuclear waste will enter the environment; and for some odd reason, they care about that.

Mysteries abound.

90% of nuclear "waste" isn't waste. It's actually unburned fuel. The only reason it isn't being recycled right now is because it's cheaper to dig fresh stuff out of the ground.

For the longest time, the Athabasca Tar Sands here in Alberta weren't economically viable. And they stayed that way until oil broke 35 dollars per barrel. Today, with oil prices hovering around 60 to 70 dollars, northern Albertas greasy mud has become the "black gold" of the 21st century. Similarly, a slight boost in uranium prices would result in an elimination of 90% of so called nuclear waste.

As Cleon pointed out above, environmentalists don't know this. Theirs is a position based on ignorance.

[JihadJane]

90% of nuclear "waste" isn't waste. It's actually unburned fuel. The only reason it isn't being recycled right now is because it's cheaper to dig fresh stuff out of the ground.

For the longest time, the Athabasca Tar Sands here in Alberta weren't economically viable. And they stayed that way until oil broke 35 dollars per barrel. Today, with oil prices hovering around 60 to 70 dollars, northern Albertas greasy mud has become the "black gold" of the 21st century. Similarly, a slight boost in uranium prices would result in an elimination of 90% of so called nuclear waste.

As Cleon pointed out above, environmentalists don't know this. Theirs is a position based on ignorance.

Sword_Of_Truth, if you cared about the environmental impact of using tar sands would that make you anti-human?

[JihadJane]

90% of nuclear "waste" isn't waste. It's actually unburned fuel. The only reason it isn't being recycled right now is because it's cheaper to dig fresh stuff out of the ground.

For the longest time, the Athabasca Tar Sands here in Alberta weren't economically viable. And they stayed that way until oil broke 35 dollars per barrel. Today, with oil prices hovering around 60 to 70 dollars, northern Albertas greasy mud has become the "black gold" of the 21st century. Similarly, a slight boost in uranium prices would result in an elimination of 90% of so called nuclear waste.

As Cleon pointed out above, environmentalists don't know this. Theirs is a position based on ignorance.

Do you think caring about the environmental impact of using tar sands is anti-human?

[tyr_13]

Do you think caring about the environmental impact of using tar sands is anti-human?

I do believe that the tar sands were an example of the economic motivations that could bring about using the nuclear 'waste' as fuel, not as an example of something that environmentalist shouldn't oppose. The topic is the reactor and the reaction to it.

[SezMe]

In fact, if a nuclear power facility were constructed sufficiently close to a uranium mine to power the mines operation, the entire process would become totally carbon free.
Maybe true. But if fish had arms and legs, maybe they could learn to ride a bike. No nuke is now built next to its power source and, AFAIK, none is planned so lets discuss our real world.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but how so? My understanding of the technology is that this type of plant would be essentially carbon emission free, depending on the emergency backups that they use.
Operationally, there are no carbon emissions, that's true. But consider what else is involved. Construction is carbon intensive. Mining, transportation, and processing of raw materials into final fuel rods is carbon intensive (especially the mining). Finally, disposal - by whatever means - involves the emissions of carbons.

So I stand by my original point. The title is misleading.

Look, the environmenal, economic and societal costs and benefits of the use of nuclear power are contentious issues. We need to debate these issues, especially now as the USA is trying to formulate a different energy policy. But the debate should be undergirded by facts and the title assertion that a nuclear generation facility is "carbon free" is not factual.

[tyr_13]

Operationally, there are no carbon emissions, that's true. But consider what else is involved. Construction is carbon intensive. Mining, transportation, and processing of raw materials into final fuel rods is carbon intensive (especially the mining). Finally, disposal - by whatever means - involves the emissions of carbons.

So I stand by my original point. The title is misleading.

Look, the environmenal, economic and societal costs and benefits of the use of nuclear power are contentious issues. We need to debate these issues, especially now as the USA is trying to formulate a different energy policy. But the debate should be undergirded by facts and the title assertion that a nuclear generation facility is "carbon free" is not factual.

That's true, but, and I'm sorry to have to put it this way, what power generation doesn't have these same problems, or staggeringly higher ones? I agree that the title isn't entirely accurate, but it isn't far from the truth. Operationally, it's carbon free. As a whole, no human activity is 'carbon free'.

I was a big, big wind proponent. Then I looked into it. While I'm still a wind proponent, I can't deny that it isn't there yet, and likely won't be for years. In that time, from what I've seen after looking, nuclear is the best 'stop-gap' option. I've yet to see any environmental or economic red lights to nuclear that stood up to a good going over. They might be out there, but it doesn't seem as contentious as many people assume it is. The biggest red light I've seen is the public perception that 'nuclear = bad'.

No, we can't just build more nuclear plants and stop there. We need to us solar, wind, hydro, and whatever else people dream up where we can, as we can. Environmentalist need a little pragmatism.

Nuclear isn't perfect, but do you have a better solution that's ready?

[SezMe]

That's true, but, and I'm sorry to have to put it this way, what power generation doesn't have these same problems, or staggeringly higher ones? I agree that the title isn't entirely accurate, but it isn't far from the truth. Operationally, it's carbon free. As a whole, no human activity is 'carbon free'.
Please note that in my first post in this thread, all I was pointing out was that the thread title is misleading, a fact that you agree with. I was NOT comparing nuclear power with other options, opining on the best way forward, etc. I was just advocating for truth in debating.

[JihadJane]

I do believe that the tar sands were an example of the economic motivations that could bring about using the nuclear 'waste' as fuel, not as an example of something that environmentalist shouldn't oppose. The topic is the reactor and the reaction to it.

The topic is "More proof that the environmental movement isn't pro-environment, but anti-human". Perhaps you missed that bit.

[tyr_13]

The topic is "More proof that the environmental movement isn't pro-environment, but anti-human". Perhaps you missed that bit.

That is the topic of the thread. The example for that was how they oppose the use of technology even when it is better for the environment. The tar sands were not used as such, but used to explain how basic economic principals can lead to less waste in the case of nuclear fuel.

Your leading question thus creates a straw man that no one has argued. Besides, I don't know how the tar sands are being used exactly so it might be environmentally friendly, it might not. At any rate, not important to this case in Tennessee.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Operationally, there are no carbon emissions, that's true.

Cool, then my original then my original thread title stands.

But consider what else is involved. Construction is carbon intensive. Mining, transportation, and processing of raw materials into final fuel rods is carbon intensive (especially the mining). Finally, disposal - by whatever means - involves the emissions of carbons.

The thread title referred to the power generation facility. It made no mention of mining, processing or construction. It is you who are reading all of this into it.

And I already addressed this (at least the mining part) before you posted it. Opponents of nuclear energy consistently refuse to take into account the relative energy densities of nuclear and fossil fuels. A single nuclear fuel pellet, the size of your thumb, contains the same energy as 700 barrels of oil. And that is with a once through fuel cycle. If we add in recycling and reprocessing that increases between 10 and 15 times.

The carbon footprint of playing with that fuel pellet compared to an equivalent amount of coal or oil is just a few percentage points. And disposing of the waste is even less carbon intensive than that. Fossil fuels waste products go directly into the atmosphere, most of it in the form of carbon. Nuclear "waste" goes into the ground to wait until you start recycling it.

So I stand by my original point. The title is misleading.

You already conceded the point that the title is accurate.

[Tricky]

Dang, those environmentalists, they just won't stand still and let us typecast them will they. Seems some of them insist on having ideas that the others don't have, while still claiming to be "environmentalists". That is just blatantly unfair and prevents honest people from putting them all in the same handbasket. It's a conspiracy, I tell ya.

[SezMe]

Cool, then my original then my original thread title stands.



The thread title referred to the power generation facility. It made no mention of mining, processing or construction. It is you who are reading all of this into it.
No, it does not.

You apparently want to evaluate the carbon footprint of the proposed plant as if it operated entirely on its own. It does not.


You already conceded the point that the title is accurate.
No I did not.

Look, we obviously disagree on this matter. No big deal. But you could at least have the decency to not put thoughts in my head or words in my mouth.

[tyr_13]

Dang, those environmentalists, they just won't stand still and let us typecast them will they. Seems some of them insist on having ideas that the others don't have, while still claiming to be "environmentalists". That is just blatantly unfair and prevents honest people from putting them all in the same handbasket. It's a conspiracy, I tell ya.

I know! Why don't they all form some kind of organization that can tell them exactly what they believe?

Don't the Sierra club, Greenpeace, Earth First, etc agree on everything?

What's that? Oh, they don't? Drat.

Guess we'll have to go back to criticizing specific groups and individuals for their specific positions.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Look, we obviously disagree on this matter. No big deal. But you could at least have the decency to not put thoughts in my head or words in my mouth.

Could you have the courtesy to do the same?

The thread title which I wrote says "Carbon Free Power Facility". It doesn't say "mine", "refinery" or "fuel transport".

But the fact remains that if you really want to drag all of that in, then nuclear still beats all other power sources hands down.

This is the carbon footprint of transporting a uranium oxide fuel pellet:
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/Moped-150.jpg

This is the carbon footprint of transporting an equivalent amount of oil:
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c345/Kilstryke/6trucks.jpg

Get the picture?

[JihadJane]

Funny, I'd have thought that someone with your passions would understand what "free" meant.

[Corsair 115]

Try building a wind turbine near Ted Kennedys house and then tell me that.


That's more a case of NIMBYism than anything else. And you can find NIMBYism in regards to lots of things.

[leftysergeant]

Nuclear power is the most expensive way of producing electricity, and there are waste products that are not convertible to re-processed fuel, so you are talking about the production of toxic waste that keeps on giving.

Until we are sure that there are NEVER going to be leaks and accidents, it is just a risk most of us would rather not take.

Mining massive amounts of ANYTHING releases heavy metals and other gunk into the environment. None of it can be as nasty as traces of uranium and radium and whetever heavy metals come along with the uranium ore.

[tyr_13]

Nuclear power is the most expensive way of producing electricity, and there are waste products that are not convertible to re-processed fuel, so you are talking about the production of toxic waste that keeps on giving.

Until we are sure that there are NEVER going to be leaks and accidents, it is just a risk most of us would rather not take.

Mining massive amounts of ANYTHING releases heavy metals and other gunk into the environment. None of it can be as nasty as traces of uranium and radium and whetever heavy metals come along with the uranium ore.

There is never going to be a 100% safe power plant of any kind. It's rather silly to ask for absolutely no chance of leaks and accidents from nuclear power plants when that same standard isn't even remotely followed by oil, gas, or coal.

Most of the nuclear waste that will be created, has already been created. Not making new plants isn't going to dent the nuclear waste problem, which is a hell of a lot smaller problem than the coal waste problem.

Yes, mining involves heavy metals. I'm getting the impression that you believe uranium mining to be more dangerous than coal mining based on uranium and radium being 'nasty'. Seeing as the number of deaths caused by coal fired plants spewing smoke into the air that causes diseases in the US is already 100,000 a year, I am very, very skeptical that uranium mining would make it worse.

I'm also skeptical that nuclear power is the most expensive way of producing electricity. Guys on stationary bike jokes aside, has anyone told France and Japan?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Funny, I'd have thought that someone with your passions would understand what "free" meant.

That's hilarious coming from someone who doesn't know what a "free fall collapse" is.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Nuclear power is the most expensive way of producing electricity, and there are waste products that are not convertible to re-processed fuel, so you are talking about the production of toxic waste that keeps on giving.

Did you know that the average coal plant releases thousands of times the radiation into the atmosphere (http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html) than even the most poorly managed nuclear reactor*? Most of the radioactive materials blasted into the sky by coal plants are usable reactor fuel too!

If we were to swap every existing coal plant for a nuclear faciilty of equal capacity, we would not only cute by a huge margin our carbon output, but we would nearly zero out our radiation releases as well.



*Be forewarned, I intend to heartily mock anyone who attempts to portray the RBMK reactors as a reasonable or logical standard by which to judge western facilities.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Nuclear power is the most expensive way of producing electricity...

Sorry, Lefty. The most expensive form of energy on the market today is wind power (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/07/12/0712greenchoice.html).

People in Austin Texas are refusing to buy wind power in droves because it's too damned expensive and the utilities are coming to the conclusion that the only way to cover the cost is to roll it into everyones power bills and make them pay for it whether they want it or not.

Meanwhile, the Three Mile Island power plant has been providing cheap, clean energy to the people of Pennsylvania for nearly thirty years with little interruption.

[Safe-Keeper]

It's proof that many in the environmental movement are misinformed, or more likely uninformed, about the actual risk of nuclear power (very little). I heartily recommend Skeptoid (http://www.skeptoid.com)'s podcast on 'The Terror of Nuclear Power' for those opposed to the art of splitting atoms to generate electricity.

Environmentalists' single issue is the environment, not carbon emissions.

A lot of them seem to think that nuclear waste will enter the environment; and for some odd reason, they care about that.

Mysteries abound. I know. Here we are in a world so full of smog and other pollutants from gasoline, diesel and coal that 30-40 000 people die from their ill effects annually in the USA alone, and my fellow environmentalists are afraid of reactors because they produce increasingly tiny amounts of poison that are safely tucked away deep in some mountain where it might at most kill a few cockroaches.

It's a mystery indeed.

Until we are sure that there are NEVER going to be leaks and accidents, it is just a risk most of us would rather not take.Funny you'd say that, a small shopping centre and transportation junction in my home municipality was evacuated today due to an emergency involving a gas leak from a car. The situation caused a complete traffic jam until the fire brigade could check for dangerous levels of gas in the air.

Why is it that people who are so terrified of some barrels deep in the hall of the mountain king don't spend every second at the gas station trembling in fear?

http://myowndomain.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/gas-station-explosion.jpg

For a nuclear reactor to melt down sufficiently to expose its surroundings to harmful levels of radiation (keep in mind that this was not the case at Three Mile Island), you'd need an extraordinary series of events resulting in the breakdown of many, many, many layers of security and physical barriers. My understanding is that the reactor is built so that it's physically impossible for it to keep going if things start to go out of hand, so that the personnel couldn't cause a meltdown if they tried.

On the other hand, all that is required for a gas station to burst in flames is a single little kid playing with a lighter.

That's more a case of NIMBYism than anything else. And you can find NIMBYism in regards to lots of things. Yup. I've never understood the "you wouldn't want wind turbines in your neighbourhood, thus they're bad" argument. You could say the same thing for every kind of power, be it reactors, hydroelectric power, solar panels, a coal plant, what have you.

[quarky]

In some ways, we aren't quite mature enough for more and better nukes. There's that little problem of recycling spent fuel: it creates weapons grade fissables.

[tyr_13]

In some ways, we aren't quite mature enough for more and better nukes. There's that little problem of recycling spent fuel: it creates weapons grade fissables.

Umm, so? What, some more weapon's grade stuff over the thousands of warheads we have, already more than enough to destroy the planet, matters because?

Besides that, most generation 3 plus and 4 reactor designs have decreased capacity to produce weapon's grade material.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

In some ways, we aren't quite mature enough for more and better nukes. There's that little problem of recycling spent fuel: it creates weapons grade fissables.

Those fissile materials are also fuel.

[Safe-Keeper]

In some ways, we aren't quite mature enough for more and better nukes. There's that little problem of recycling spent fuel: it creates weapons grade fissables.Sorry, but that's like saying gasoline is dangerous because it can be used to make napalm.

That, and newer reactors, from what I know, can't be used to make weapon grade materials.

ETA: at least I seem to recall that according to the podcast by Brian Dunning, they can't. Maybe tyr is better informed than me, though.

[timhau]

Until we are sure that there are NEVER going to be leaks and accidents, it is just a risk most of us would rather not take.

Yes, it's much better to burn coal and know that we're getting all that heavy pollution for sure.

[quarky]

methinks I've been somewhat misunderstood.

Nukes would be more efficient if they could produce weapons grade fissile materials.
To prevent this from happening is a bit like not being allowed to re-use milk bottles, because on the next use, somewhat might be able to do something evil with them.

we would get much more from our uranium; much less waste disposal trouble, if enriching it to weapons grade was ok. It's not, because of the fear of rogue weapons manufacturing. That's the point I was after. Anyone understand?

[corplinx]

Do you know how many rail cars of coal go into Memphis each week to supply MLGW with dirty power? There is some promising work with dropping turbines into the Mississippi river, but this won't replace all that coal smoke.

Dear commies and hippies, don't get in the fricken way of nuclear in Tennessee. We've already been doing it for decades in Oak Ridge. The scientists there know more than you about nuclear power and personal hygiene.

Tennessee's grid needs nuclear power. This just isn't a good wind/solar state.

[portlandatheist]

Nuclear power is the most expensive way of producing electricity, and there are waste products that are not convertible to re-processed fuel, so you are talking about the production of toxic waste that keeps on giving.

Until we are sure that there are NEVER going to be leaks and accidents, it is just a risk most of us would rather not take.

Mining massive amounts of ANYTHING releases heavy metals and other gunk into the environment. None of it can be as nasty as traces of uranium and radium and whetever heavy metals come along with the uranium ore.

A few months back Skeptic magazine wrote about nuclear power, I highly recommend it. Nuclear power has a much better safety record than just about anything, including wind power and especially coal. Nuclear power also creates LESS nuclear waste than coal power and instead of the waste just being spewed into the air, we can at least collect the material and store it.
Mining coal and mining aluminum (to make wind towers) are much more intensive on a per KWh basis than nuclear power.
Nothing is carbon free and everything has an impact on the environment, including wind and solar. All things considered, nuclear power is the most environmentally friendly power there is.

[portlandatheist]

More proof that the environmental movement isn't pro-environment, but anti-human: (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/jul/16/groups-oppose-2nd-reactor-at-watts-bar/)

I think the term "environmentalist" has been hijacked when the reality is manh of them are just luddites. Most self described environmentalists oppose nuclear power and GM crops which makes no sense at all in terms of what is best for the environment and being low impact.

[tyr_13]

Do you know how many rail cars of coal go into Memphis each week to supply MLGW with dirty power? There is some promising work with dropping turbines into the Mississippi river, but this won't replace all that coal smoke.

Dear commies and hippies, don't get in the fricken way of nuclear in Tennessee. We've already been doing it for decades in Oak Ridge. The scientists there know more than you about nuclear power and personal hygiene.

Tennessee's grid needs nuclear power. This just isn't a good wind/solar state.

I think the highlighted part needs repeating. This place is already the site of a nuclear reactor.

[Safe-Keeper]

I think the term "environmentalist" has been hijacked Nah, it's just been drenched in bandwagon fashion statements, to the point where I'm almost embarrassed to call myself an 'environmentalist'. We need a term for a person who cares about the environment, wants to reduce global CO2 emissions, respects the fact that AGW is a threat, and yet supports nuclear power while opposing organic food, homeopathy for animals, and all this uncritical craze about "organic" and "synthetic" foods and drugs.

New environmentalism? Skeptic environmentalist? Environmentalist-but-not-like-those-idiots-who... :trails off:

[portlandatheist]

Nah, it's just been drenched in bandwagon fashion statements, to the point where I'm almost embarrassed to call myself an 'environmentalist'. We need a term for a person who cares about the environment, wants to reduce global CO2 emissions, respects the fact that AGW is a threat, and yet supports nuclear power while opposing organic food, homeopathy for animals, and all this uncritical craze about "organic" and "synthetic" foods and drugs.

New environmentalism? Skeptic environmentalist? Environmentalist-but-not-like-those-idiots-who... :trails off:

"Skeptical environmentalist" has unwanted bagged from Bjørn Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist". I've read his book on Global Warming and now I strongly disagree with his stance. I think you're right, we need a new term, I just don't know what that term should be....

[tyr_13]

I suggest 'gnorwdab' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Pow!_Enter_the_Fist) as I often do.

It is difficult to be an environmentalist who doesn't hold the popular environmentalist views completely (on the basis that a lot of those views are mistaken).

[quarky]

Here's a subtle thing that worries me about shifting to a nuke powered future:

It would enable us to remain stupid.
There would be scant incentive to design more elegant technology.
Fission isn't elegant. Coal is worse, yes, but we know it sucks. There are real incentives to hone in on minimizing its use, including much more efficient appliances, which includes homes, cars, infrastructure and all.

If we go all nuke, it would be a major commitment. We would want to stick with it at least long enough to pay for the construction; a whole generation, at least.

It would stiffle the emergence of something far more elegant; something that couldn't make bombs; didn't leave problematic waste products; didn't homogenize and centralize cultures.

Meanwhile, back in reality, it seems like the only way through our present situation.

[JihadJane]

A shift to a nuclear future appears to assume that human society will remain stable enough to keep it safe. What is the basis for this assumption?

The problem with our energy consumption patterns is that a temporary glut of fossil energy has allowed us to massively overshoot the carrying capacity of our planet. Oops!

[DC]

Nuclear Power is the best we have so far, but it is far far away from perfect.
and when i see so called sceptics here talk about Nuclear Energy one could think, they assume it to be the perfect soultion.

many countrys still face problems with storing the waste. Much savety and storage related problems are payd by the taxpayer while profit of nuclear plants go to private pockets.

[timhau]

Nuclear Power is the best we have so far, but it is far far away from perfect.
and when i see so called sceptics here talk about Nuclear Energy one could think, they assume it to be the perfect soultion.

Who, exactly, has said that it is the perfect solution?

[DC]

Who, exactly, has said that it is the perfect solution?

who has said someone said it?

[JihadJane]

who has said someone said it?

Nobody.

[Safe-Keeper]

It would enable us to remain stupid.If by this you mean that nuclear power will satisfy our demands so that we don't need anything else, then to me that sounds like a good thing:p.

There would be scant incentive to design more elegant technology.Call me a science freak, but I can hardly imagine anything more elegant than splitting the tiniest building blocks of the universe in great machines to create vast amounts of clean electricity.

[Cleon]

Nuclear Power is the best we have so far, but it is far far away from perfect.
and when i see so called sceptics here talk about Nuclear Energy one could think, they assume it to be the perfect soultion.

many countrys still face problems with storing the waste.

20 years ago, the aspect of nuclear waste was a valid reason to oppose nuclear power; we had no good way of dealing with it beyond locking it away for the foreseeable future.

Today, nuclear waste is a non-issue; it can be recycled as nuclear fuel, and the newer plant designs generate almost no waste at all.

So really, at this point the only valid reason to oppose nuclear power is the high cost of building reactors and plants. Much of that expense, though, is in the lengthy regulatory process, various hoops that need to be jumped through, the inevitable court costs from anti-nuclear groups trying to stop construction, political issues, and so forth.

As soon as we can get rid of some of that overhead (without, I stress, interfering with safety regulations), the cost of plant construction will drop enormously.

Much savety and storage related problems are payd by the taxpayer while profit of nuclear plants go to private pockets.

Ain't that always the case.

[quarky]

If by this you mean that nuclear power will satisfy our demands so that we don't need anything else, then to me that sounds like a good thing:p.

Call me a science freak, but I can hardly imagine anything more elegant than splitting the tiniest building blocks of the universe in great machines to create vast amounts of clean electricity.

I can imagine something more elegant, but it would likely have to wait until the population decreased, and it would require a complete re-design of almost everything.

Because I think human life would be better with 3 billion people, and that it should be a goal to be reached gradually, its hard to separate this from energy strategies. A major investment in nukes might accomodate 7 billion people, which, I guess, should be good news. Not to me. Chilling out on reproduction for awhile would have a huge effect on our approach to energy production.

There's also this unsavory possibility: Suppose some sort of super virus took out the human race. Or chaos occured and civilization was temporarily out of order. What would become of the power plants?

[portlandatheist]

There's also this unsavory possibility: Suppose some sort of super virus took out the human race. Or chaos occured and civilization was temporarily out of order. What would become of the power plants?
That is why fail safe designs are so important, newer reactors should not melt down or otherwise have major consequences even in the event that all humans instantly disappear, or if there are natural disasters, power failures, mechanical failures, etc.

[portlandatheist]

As soon as we can get rid of some of that overhead (without, I stress, interfering with safety regulations), the cost of plant construction will drop enormously.

This is a serious problem and one that isn't likely to go away soon. Its a catch 22 situation where the fear and ignorance itself is manifesting in the higher costs of nuclear power making criticism of nuclear power legitimate. Hopefully, we have some political leadership promoting and educating about nuclear power which could diminish some of the political fights against it as well as starting a national dialogue on the topic and getting the public on the same page. Another thing we can do to reduce the bureaucracy is painstakingly approve one design and then "mass" produce that one design rather than going through another lengthy process for each and every plant that is built

[Travis]

What we need is a standardized design for the reactors. That's what the Navy did when they needed a whole bunch for their submarine fleet. The Navy's also got a pretty good safety record with those mass produced reactors.


I honestly think that twenty years from now, when the effects of AGW are very obviously manifesting themselves, we will look back at the period from the 1970's-2000's and wonder what everyone was thinking in not building nuclear power plants and instead just pumping ungodly amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Maybe we should start a "Jane Fonda glacial retreat" counter.

[Safe-Keeper]

I honestly think that twenty years from now, when the effects of AGW are very obviously manifesting themselves, we will look back at the period from the 1970's-2000's and wonder what everyone was thinking in not building nuclear power plants and instead just pumping ungodly amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Maybe we should start a "Jane Fonda glacial retreat" counter.As I've said already, I love it when my fellow environmentalists keep telling people to "be more daring and dare to consider new sources of energy", when really they mean, of course, "be more daring and dare to consider new sources of energy, as long as it's the sources of energy we're pushing. Hell if I am to open my eyes and consider solutions I deem to be unfeasable".

[tyr_13]

It's also nice when 'environmentalists' keep saying that, no matter what tech we come up with, there are too many people. These really are just 'anti-human' people. The carrying capacity of the Earth isn't static.

No, nuclear power doesn't solve all our problems, it isn't perfect (that would be fusion), and has drawbacks.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

There's also this unsavory possibility: Suppose some sort of super virus took out the human race. Or chaos occured and civilization was temporarily out of order. What would become of the power plants?

They'd shut down on their own in about 48 hours.

fO3Vag0Ugu4
@3:40

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Here's a subtle thing that worries me about shifting to a nuke powered future:

It would enable us to remain stupid.

Maintaining our current lifestyle while all but eliminating our "footprint" is stupid to you?

There would be scant incentive to design more elegant technology.
Fission isn't elegant.

Blowing on the embers of an ancient star to create heat and light isn't "elegant"?


It would stiffle the emergence of something far more elegant; something that couldn't make bombs; didn't leave problematic waste products; didn't homogenize and centralize cultures.

Quite the opposite, actually. In the last hundred years we have seen massive leaps in technology available to the common citizenry of our society. Radios, record players, cassete tapes, compact discs, television, VCRs, DVDs, cell phones, home computers and on and on and on... at every turn we have used more power than we did before and it's all happened because the juice was there.

Conservation is wrong. Conservation isn't growth. It's the opposite of growth. We need more power. We don't know what new technologies lie just around the corner. But chances are, they will result in expanding our power usage.

It would be a tragedy if we were to deny ourselves the fruits of our intelligence when we could choose to maker the necessary resources available to exploit them.

Meanwhile, back in reality, it seems like the only way through our present situation.

And don't you forget it. :D

[Sword_Of_Truth]

A shift to a nuclear future appears to assume that human society will remain stable enough to keep it safe. What is the basis for this assumption?

Energy creates its own stability. Wealth in this world is directly tied to energy production. The countries that have the most, make the most. If you improve peoples lives, you make them less likely to fly planes into buildings.

We have gone through the stages of energy development. Our ancestors cut down trees or burned animal turd. More recently we've drilled fossil fuels out of the ground and burned that. Nuclear energy is the next step up.

there is millions of times more energy in the splitting of a uranium or thorium atom than there is in the burning of a gasoline molecule. Energy is prosperity. Nuclear power would give us the ability to create more of it for more people than ever before. A nuclear world is a stable world.

The problem with our energy consumption patterns is that a temporary glut of fossil energy has allowed us to massively overshoot the carrying capacity of our planet. Oops!

So a power source a million times greater than fossil fuels will expand the carrying capacity of our planet a million-fold. Problem solved!

On the flip side, if you really want to control our birth rates, nothing has been proven to work quite like modern western civilization. The richest countries have the lowest birth rates while the poorest countries, the ones without cable TV and x-boxes and there's nothing to do when the sun goes down but breed, have the highest.

Supplying these countries with the energy needed for our kind of lifestyle in the age of dwindling fossil fuels means going nuclear.

[tyr_13]

It isn't as simple as, 'more energy, more carry capacity'. It would make hydrogen cars more likely, and enable other tech, but of course no one is saying that nuclear energy is the solution to all. It isn't even the only solution to the energy problem. New tech is great! Solar, wind, hydro, wave, etc, are all good things to develop more.

And yes, the Earth does likely have a maximum capacity, but we aren't near it.

[tomwaits]

Never thought I'd say this...



Why can't we be more like the French?

[tyr_13]

Never thought I'd say this...



Why can't we be more like the French?

Because I like women. :D

JOKING! Jeaz

I think the US can do better though honestly. I'm thinking city towers. Space elevators. Waste mining and recycling! Water to wine! DOGS LIVING WITH CATS! MEN LIKING CHICK FLICKS! REPUBLICANS ADMITTING MISTAKES! BWAHAHHAAAAAA

Or more like Japan. Giant mecha.

[quarky]

I'm not anti-fission power. Hopefully my musings won't paint me into a luddite corner.

The global population has more than doubled since I was a kid. To me, its not desirable to see another doubling. Others disagree. Maybe I don't love people enough.
Some are optomistic about fusion, which has been 'just around the corner' for 40 years.
Some have faith in our inevitable expansion to other planets, which dissapates misgivings about ever more people on Earth.

[Neally]

Sorry, Lefty. The most expensive form of energy on the market today is wind power (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/07/12/0712greenchoice.html).

People in Austin Texas are refusing to buy wind power in droves because it's too damned expensive and the utilities are coming to the conclusion that the only way to cover the cost is to roll it into everyones power bills and make them pay for it whether they want it or not.

Meanwhile, the Three Mile Island power plant has been providing cheap, clean energy to the people of Pennsylvania for nearly thirty years with little interruption.I think your taking the wrong approach on this one. My guess is that the only source he might be in favor of is solar.

[Beerina]

No, it's not "proof" of any such thing.

It's proof that many in the environmental movement are misinformed, or more likely uninformed, about the actual risk of nuclear power (very little).

Yes. The net effect is anti-human, though they believe themselves lovers of humanity.

Oh wait. That's how memes operate. The mental model vs. the actual reality, the model supporting the spread of the meme via inducing actions in reality.

[timhau]

who has said someone said it?

How about you?

Nuclear Power is the best we have so far, but it is far far away from perfect.
and when i see so called sceptics here talk about Nuclear Energy one could think, they assume it to be the perfect soultion.


What made you come to that conclusion?

[Travis]

Personally, I think it would be foolish to put all our eggs in one basket when it comes to power generation. All available methods have their downsides so it is a matter of weighing the risk/cost/benefit ratio of each.

[Cleon]

Personally, I think it would be foolish to put all our eggs in one basket when it comes to power generation. All available methods have their downsides so it is a matter of weighing the risk/cost/benefit ratio of each.

Perhaps, but if one particular method is substantially more efficient and cleaner than the other contenders, I think it makes sense to use it proportionally more instead of less.

[tyr_13]

Also, I believe a large motivation to move to nuclear is that it would mean a move away from coal.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I think your taking the wrong approach on this one. My guess is that the only source he might be in favor of is solar.

Where I live, it's winter 8 months of the year and the temperature regularly plunges to 40 below. In december and january the sun will rise around 9 am and set around 5 pm.

Solar power is a frakking joke up here. It simply isn't around when we would need it the most. It's the only thing worse than wind power.

[macdoc]

That's correct, solar and wind are important they never ever will be baseload - especially for areas like yours. ( and mine - Canada - where in Ontario 40% of our power is nuclear ).

This might surprise a few people here.....from Australia.....and very very current...like Tennessee some poorly informed anti-nuclear idjits are trying to prevent a mine expansion.

There is world-wide concern over the prospect of Global Warming primarily caused by the emission of Carbon Dioxide gas (CO2) from the burning of fossil fuels. Although the processes of running a Nuclear Power plant generates no CO2, some CO2 emissions arise from the construction of the plant, the mining of the Uranium, the enrichment of the Uranium, its conversion into Nuclear Fuel, its final disposal and the final plant decommissioning. The amount of CO2 generated by these secondary processes primarily depends on the method used to enrich the Uranium (the gaseous diffusion enrichment process uses about 50 times more electricity than the gaseous centrifuge method) and the source of electricity used for the enrichment process. It has been the subject of some controversy. 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.http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/05/carbon-footprint-of-the-olympic-dam-uranium-mine-expansion/

Once more just to emphasize....the power sitting in the holding ponds of current LWR has the potential with current known technology - IFRs
http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/

To provide ALL of the power for the planet for 400 years without mining an ounce of new uranium....

In North America the TOTAL physical volume of those rods is space of a football field 10 feet deep.....and that's the total accumulation for 60 years of nuclear power.....

There is no requirement as with fusion for breakthrough technology.
The IFRs also extend the fuel use of existing LWR.

From the article above
So, to conclude, I agree with Mark Parnell that “Our state risks being left with a huge carbon black hole“. But not, as he imagines, if the Olympic Dam development goes ahead. No, that massive black hole (at least when expressed in terms of global climate change mitigation) will result from us NOT expanding the mine. Such is the huge energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) of uranium, even when used in today’s ‘inefficient’ once-through thermal reactors.
In a future dominated by fast spectrum reactors with a closed fuel cycle, which use vastly more of uranium’s energy content, the above EROEI and emissions equivalence figures just get ridiculous.This is why Hansen and others are being so vocal about IFR programs for the US
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/11/28/hansen-to-obama-pt-iii-fast-nuclear-reactors-are-integral/

Hell get on with it!!!!!!.

I am sooooooo fed up with the kneejerk, ill informed stupidity about nuclear power and risks....meanwhile coal kills thousands every year directly and 100's thousands indirectly....:mgbanghead:mgbanghead

Some anti-nuclear power tree huggers are worse than the "carbon is good for you and the planet" goofballs. :eusa_doh: