Nuclear disasters and AGW fears

[ben m]

I fear AGW a lot because it's going to do wholesale, blunt-force damage to every ecosystem on Earth.

I fear nuclear a little. Even if nuclear accidents are an inescapable side effect of having a large nuclear industry:

a) Nuclear accidents are localized. There is a big difference between "evacuate a 50-mile-radius around Pripyat for 30 years" and "evacuate Bangladesh permanently".

b) Radiation risks are not as bad as you think they are. You have to do a careful statistical study to determine whether Chernobyl (a horrible worst-case accident with a jaw-droppingly inept evacuation non-plan) caused any cases of cancers other than thyroid (which non-inept response would have prevented, 100%). The answer is "statistically it probably happened, according to extrapolations, but it's not visible". The answer is emphatically not "Good god, they're everywhere, damn this radioactive scourge"---even By contrast, you will not need statistician's tweezers to see Arizona giving up on agriculture and kuzdu taking root in Southern Ontario.

Seriously, the fear of things like "possible 0.1% increase in the risk of certain cancers" isn't enough to make people barbeque meat slightly differently. It's insane to imagine that we would throw up our hands on AGW because the anti-AGW technology may occasionally impose a cost on that scale.

c) New nuclear reactor technologies are expected to be very very safe. ("very very safe" does not mean "perfect", and advocates are lying if they say "a molten salt reactor will never ever ever cause a radiological accident". The safer a technology is, the more tempting it becomes to hire undertrained operators, to skimp on repairs, etc.. Safety culture is very hard to maintain for decades on end.) In the nuclear future, I will worry more about accidents/contamination/leaks from fuel-processing plants than from reactors themselves.

d) If you tell the nuclear industry to reprocess fuel, and to build an accelerator-driven system that burns actinides, and you give them the licenses/approvals to actually build these facilities (and take away their license to dispose of waste), nuclear waste doesn't need to be a problem any more. We know how to transmute it, we just don't have a facility---the specialized reactors that would need decades of approval before construction---in which to do so. If we're really committed to nuclear power, which means we're willing to grant permits to new reactor types, then the waste problem is a red herring. (A future of lukewarm nuclear power---where we want to approve a few reactors, only of the most-conservative designs---probably means continuing to bury waste.)

e) Five years ago I was urgently pro-nuclear. AGW was looming and exactly flat nothing was happening about it. The solar photovoltaic industry has, in the meantime, done absolutely amazing things, and is accelerating on a curve I never would have believed. Maybe solar can ramp up faster than nuclear can. If so, great. Whatever gets the job done, folks. Just do it. A carbon tax would help.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

One advantage of solar over nuclear is scalability. I can put PV or thermal solar panels on my roof. I can, if I want, build either system myself with readily available components.

That said, I'm curious what the actual carbon footprint of PV solar panels is. Sitting on the roof soaking up sunshine is the endstate of a long chain of energy costs. I wonder the same thing for LED lighting, by the way. Especially since both are mostly coming out of China at the moment.

 

[geni]

That is not considered hot waste, it's low level material just like comes from hospitals.

Cobalt-60 and Caesium-137 are not low level materials. Sure some of the tracers are low level but hospitals do use some pretty horrible stuff.

Nearly all technologies, particularly chemical plants, coal plants etc have waste disposal issues.......it's just that some ...like coal.... get free passes and leave it sitting in piles after slicing off the tops of mountains leaching heavy metals and radioactive particals.

Not these days. Check out the environmental regs that govern drax sometime. COMAH sites in general are pretty heavily regulated.

 

[Belz...]

Who are these people?

They're usually standing in fields, scaring crows. And you know what they're made of.

 

[macdoc]

One advantage of solar over nuclear is scalability. I can put PV or thermal solar panels on my roof. I can, if I want, build either system myself with readily available components.

That said, I'm curious what the actual carbon footprint of PV solar panels is. Sitting on the roof soaking up sunshine is the endstate of a long chain of energy costs. I wonder the same thing for LED lighting, by the way. Especially since both are mostly coming out of China at the moment.

In many places you ae not allowed to use the solar power you generate directly and in those places you rely on the grid as your backup.

But yes dispersion is useful until you get a 4 day ice storm or some such etc and then you're toast.

The carbon footprint of panels or LED lights, both very long lived is so small as to be meaningless.....a nuclear plant is like that as well.

 

[macdoc]

Not these days. Check out the environmental regs that govern drax sometime. COMAH sites in general are pretty heavily regulated.

regulated and abiding by regulations are two entirely different beasts and no coal plant is regulated the way a nuclear plant is.
If they were - coal would be long gone.

Yes hospitals use some nasty stuff which is exactly my point. All tech carries some risk.
The risk from nuclear against 60 years of supplying more that 10% of the world's electricity with an enviable safety record is vanishingly small.
Add in the CO2 emissions not made as a result the global benefits are enormous.

Deaths from coal US alone

Fossil fuel combustion harms air quality and human health. A 2010 study by the Clean Air Task Force estimated that air pollution from coal-fired power plants accounts for more than 13,000 premature deaths, 20,000 heart attacks, and 1.6 million lost workdays in the U.S. each year. The total monetary cost of these health impacts is over $100 billion annually.

http://www.rmi.org/RFGraph-health_effects_from_US_power_plant_emissions

Yet Big Coal makes billions and gets millions in subsidies from marks known as tax payers.

and don't get me started on dioxins

http://www.dioxinfacts.org/sources_trends/sources.html

If we are going to bring up long lived nasties.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

In many places you ae not allowed to use the solar power you generate directly and in those places you rely on the grid as your backup.

But yes dispersion is useful until you get a 4 day ice storm or some such etc and then you're toast.

The carbon footprint of panels or LED lights, both very long lived is so small as to be meaningless.....a nuclear plant is like that as well.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure something as complicated as life cycle assessment of a globally produced and distributed product at the end of a long industrial supply chain can be reduced to "so small as to be meaningless." Thanks.

 

[macdoc]

Matched against the power output over 40 years and in the savings from not using fossil fuel.
So small as to be meaningless.

The total emissions of CO2 from electricity generated at the Torness power station, calculated on a life-cycle basis, are estimated to be just over 5 grams/kWh. This compares to emissions of CO2 from a typical UK coal plant of around 900 grams/kWh, based on the operational stage alone. Typical gas power station CO2 emissions are around 400 grams/kWh.

A University of Wisconsin study (PDF) in 2002 found that nuclear energy’s life-cycle emissions are 17 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent per gigawatt-hour. Only wind and geothermal sources ranked lower, at 14 and 15 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent per gigawatt-hour, respectively.

An International Energy Agency analysis (PDF) in 2000 found that nuclear power’s life-cycle emissions range from 2 to 59 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per kilowatt-hour. Only hydropower’s range ranked lower, at 2 to 48 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per kilowatt-hour. Nuclear energy’s life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are lower than wind (7 to 124 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent) and solar photovoltaic (13 to 731 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent), according to the agency’s analysis. The life-cycle emissions from natural gas-fired plants ranged from 389 to 511 grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per kilowatt-hour.

http://www.nei.org/Issues-Policy/Protecting-the-Environment/Life-Cycle-Emissions-Analyses

 

[geni]

regulated and abiding by regulations are two entirely different beasts and no coal plant is regulated the way a nuclear plant is.
If they were - coal would be long gone.

Modern coal power plants have pretty good emissions monitoring. If you have evidence that Drax is not staying within its legal limits feel free to submit it.

The risk from nuclear against 60 years of supplying more that 10% of the world's electricity with an enviable safety record is vanishingly small.

The cost per megawatt on the other hand its unreasonably high.

and don't get me started on dioxins

http://www.dioxinfacts.org/sources_trends/sources.html

If we are going to bring up long lived nasties.

Dioxin production is falling. What are you claiming their half-life in the environment is?

 

[macdoc]

Drax is pretty impressive...doesn't undermine the heart of the issue tho it would certainly be low on the must closed list.....unlike many of the rebuilt wrecks from teh Tenessee Valley days still pumping out C02 and other noxious pollutants.

The long term price of electricity via nukes seems all over the place. Certainly the current fleet is an important mitigator for C02 emissions and China building 26 seems to indicate a worthwhile endeavor.

 

[Mikemcc]

You for example. When it is discovered that radioactive material from the ruined reactors shows up even in the Atlantic seafood, your reaction is just like what we expect from somebody who doesn't fear AGW at all. Flippant even.

Please explain what level of irradiation would be experienced from swimming in the pacific and where it fits into this chart:

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

How much more is it compared to living in the Highlands of Scotland (for example), where there are catalogued issues with exposure to Radon gas?

 

[Mikemcc]

Modern coal power plants have pretty good emissions monitoring. If you have evidence that Drax is not staying within its legal limits feel free to submit it.

The cost per megawatt on the other hand its unreasonably high.

Dioxin production is falling. What are you claiming their half-life in the environment is?

Any large scale coal burning is horrendous. I agree that the exhaust emissions have been greatly improved (apart from the CO2 emissions...) but the particulate solid waste is horrific. I used to live near to Didcot power station in the UK. I rember the fuss about the appropriation of some local lakes to dump fly ash into. That stuff is just nasty, both chemically and radiologically.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

 

[macdoc]

I find it amusing our resident nuclear fear monger just doesn't go tilting at fly ash dumps which are sitting in the open and a source of numerous nasties including radiation but is worried about Fukishima in the the Fundy lobsters.

I'd say my dental xray today was several magnitudes up from that.

I wonder if he realizes that most scientific dating is the reading of radiation

Carbon has two stable, nonradioactive isotopes: carbon-12 (12
C), and carbon-13 (13
C), and a radioactive isotope, carbon-14 (14C), also known as radiocarbon. The half-life of 14
C (the time it takes for half of a given amount of 14
C to decay) is about 5,730 years, so its concentration in the atmosphere might be expected to reduce over thousands of years. However 14
C is constantly being produced in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere by cosmic rays, which generate neutrons that in turn create 14
C when they strike nitrogen-14 (14
N) atoms.[5]

shall we pass the tin foil hat...for a lead lined under wear kit.
http://www.drct.com/brachytherapy/brachytherapy.htm

A mere $155 for a sure thing.

 

[r-j]

The obvious disdain and mockery over anyone who is concerned about radioactive material leaking into the oceans, or spreading around the world from leaking reactors, reactors that suffered complete meltdown, complete melt throughs, and exploding containment buildings, that disdain and mockery is obvious. And the mockers who sneer and laugh over peoples fears? Now you know how rational people feel over your constant mewlings and hand wringing and despair over your imaginary global warming disaster.

See? I know just what you feel when you see somebody worried about radiation. That's how we feel about your fears. The difference is of course, there is actually radiation leaking from reactors.

 

[crescent]

Until you need to dispose of the waste. Nuclear waste is the dirtiest thing we've ever created.

Keep in mind that much of the waste, especially the high level waste, only exists due to the continued used of outdated designs or procedures. As others have alluded to, there are ways to reprocess waste for re-use as fuel in both existing reactor types and to an even greater extent, newer designs.

However, development of newer reactor types is glacially slow, in part due to unrealistic fears of radiation non-containment.

We can have continued nuclear with far less waste if we can get past the bogeyman and move forward with the technology.

I am not unrealistic about nuclear, there will be leaks. However, the alternative is hydrocarbons. Thousands of people die every year extracting hydrocarbons, millions die prematurely due to the air pollution generated.

Plans to conserve energy don't work on the scale they need to, and would be inherently racist in their implementation -- currently developed nations keep chugging along with our energy guzzling lifestyles, while third world nations would be prevented from significantly increasing use of hydrocarbons or nuclear beyond current rates, which are far below per capita rates in the developed world. Efforts to get the developed world to significantly reduce energy consumption never work on any significant scale, and never will.

Alternative energy sources have their own footprints; they may not be hazardous to human health, but implementing them on a scale large enough to significantly replace both carbon and nuclear would be an ecological disaster.

Alternative sources of hydrocarbons are available and can reduce emissions (natural gas via fracking); they already have. But they come with their own set of drawbacks - not enough to make them unusable, but enough to see that they cannot replace coal entirely or reduce emissions enough to prevent the continued increase in atmospheric carbon.

So, it comes down to carbon energy (which means AGW), or nuclear. I feel that nuclear is the less damaging of the two - although I concede that improvements in solar power may make for a much more viable power source than what the current technology can deliver.

I don't love either, they both have drawbacks. But one has fewer drawbacks than the other.

 

[trebor]

I would be interested in an answer to this question :

Please explain what level of irradiation would be experienced from swimming in the pacific and where it fits into this chart:

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

How much more is it compared to living in the Highlands of Scotland (for example), where there are catalogued issues with exposure to Radon gas?

You must have missed it.

While there are concerns about radiation, they should be balanced by reality.

 

[Trakar]

Not sure how this fits into your qualifications:

I accept AGW, and the consequences of inaction toward eliminating the behavior that causes AGW.

I have a deep and well-contemplated understanding of nuclear power, and both the benefits and risks associated with its use as a source of electrical generation.

To combine the two, I feel that advanced design nuclear power plants can and should play an important role in both addressing the causes of AGW and in providing a reliable and generally low-risk component of future energy needs.

 

[CapelDodger]

And as Tony says, modern reactors are safer than that.

By definition, modern reactors have no track-record to base such a conclusion on.

Safe enough that I don't fear them at all. But that's a statistical nonfear, not an absolute.

Statistics does require at least one incident to work with. There have been incidents with pre-modern reactors, of course, but so far so good with modern ones. Lessons have clearly been learnt.

 

[CapelDodger]

To combine the two, I feel that advanced design nuclear power plants can and should play an important role in both addressing the causes of AGW and in providing a reliable and generally low-risk component of future energy needs.

You might have said just that twenty years ago, and yet there's been no advance in that direction since. Serious people keep looking at it and walking away, and this is nothing to do with Fukushima or environmental concerns. The numbers don't work.

 

[CapelDodger]

While there are concerns about radiation, they should be balanced by reality.

Reality doesn't recognise balance, it just does what it damn' well wants. Given enough time it may reveal whether or not concerns were misplaced.

One thing that can be said for certain about the reality of nuclear power generation is that it hasn't followed the path that was dreamt of in the 1950's.