Are any renewable energy sources actually a serious alternative?

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Nuke is safe (the average pilot gets exposed to more radiation per year than an operator), the waste is only a problem because people think it is a problem. ....

I used to use similar arguments and be very pro-nuclear....and I still would be but they are not safe, for one very simple reason. People now fly jumbo jets into things....Always amazed this never comes up. Only ever saw it once - in answer to a question as to what would have happened if the 911 hi-jackers had crashed into a nuclear power station, a defence spokesman calmly replied that it would have resulted in millions of deaths and half the eastern-seaboard of the US becoming uninhabitable for generations. Never got raised again...bizarre.

On the more positive side, haven't there been some encouraging advances in bio-fuel - not being dependent on fields of crops but on 3d arrays of bacteria grown in sunlight? Sure I remember something that suggested they'd generate fuel at the equivalent cost of £100 per barrel. That why you can keep most of the infrastructure and we just 'grow our own oil'.

Oh and can I put a vote in for the Severn barrage please. Totally unbelievable that this is blocked by environmentalists.

 

[Skwinty]

Only ever saw it once - in answer to a question as to what would have happened if the 911 hi-jackers had crashed into a nuclear power station, a defence spokesman calmly replied that it would have resulted in millions of deaths and half the eastern-seaboard of the US becoming uninhabitable for generations. Never got raised again...bizarre.

According to the manufacturers of Nuclear containment buildings:

The walls of the containment will not fail in the event of a 747 crashing into them. Have you ever seen the video of the Phantom jet on rails crashing into such a wall at 500mph.

No breach in the wall and 1 vaporised Phantom jet

 

[bit_pattern]

Oh and can I put a vote in for the Severn barrage please. Totally unbelievable that this is blocked by environmentalists.

For we ignorant, who mightn't live in the UK, this refers to tidal power

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

(Thanks Google )

 

[Cuddles]

According to the manufacturers of Nuclear containment buildings:

The walls of the containment will not fail in the event of a 747 crashing into them. Have you ever seen the video of the Phantom jet on rails crashing into such a wall at 500mph.

No breach in the wall and 1 vaporised Phantom jet

This.

It may also be worth noting that the worst nuclear accident in history, at Chernobyl, spread radioactive material over a huge area and exposed millions of people to fallout across Europe. So far, a grand total of 56 people have died as a result. Two decades later, far from being uninhabitable it is an extremely successful wildlife haven, mainly because humans are kept out but animals and plants have no problem living there perfectly happily. Obviously a nuclear accident in the US would not be a good thing, but reality is a very long way away from the science fiction doomsday scenarios that people like to imagine.

 

[Skwinty]

This.

It may also be worth noting that the worst nuclear accident in history, at Chernobyl, spread radioactive material over a huge area and exposed millions of people to fallout across Europe. .

Chernobyl did not have a containment building though.
More like a tin shed

 

[Cuddles]

Chernobyl did not have a containment building though.
More like a tin shed

Oh, sure. I was just pointing out that even if you assume crashing a plane into it would actually cause a major incident, even that would still be nowhere near as bad as many people seem to think. A nuclear accident doesn't mean vaporising millions of people and turning half your country into a sheet of glass, it means moving people away from the worst affected area and having a slightly higher incidence of cancer in those who were nearby. Certainly not an ideal situation, but a far cry from the silly fearmongering that seems all too common.

 

[Skwinty]

Spot on there Cuddles. It is quite amazing that people still think that fear mongering is a great and effective motivator.

 

[Mark6]

I used to use similar arguments and be very pro-nuclear....and I still would be but they are not safe, for one very simple reason. People now fly jumbo jets into things....Always amazed this never comes up. Only ever saw it once - in answer to a question as to what would have happened if the 911 hi-jackers had crashed into a nuclear power station, a defence spokesman calmly replied that it would have resulted in millions of deaths and half the eastern-seaboard of the US becoming uninhabitable for generations. Never got raised again...bizarre.

Probably because "defence spokesman" was talking out his ass. Chernobyl was as bad a disaster as can possibly be, and only had 56 deaths.

 

[bit_pattern]

This.

It may also be worth noting that the worst nuclear accident in history, at Chernobyl, spread radioactive material over a huge area and exposed millions of people to fallout across Europe. So far, a grand total of 56 people have died as a result. Two decades later, far from being uninhabitable it is an extremely successful wildlife haven, mainly because humans are kept out but animals and plants have no problem living there perfectly happily. Obviously a nuclear accident in the US would not be a good thing, but reality is a very long way away from the science fiction doomsday scenarios that people like to imagine.

Rubbish. That's right-wing think-tank WOO. The sort of thing repeated confidently in the pages of News Ltd rags but has little basis in reality. For starters, you can't ascribe deaths with a great deal of certainty to Chernobyl itself, other death in the immediate vicinity due to acute radiation poisoning, but the mortality rate is likely to be much closer to 5000. Second, while thyroid cancer might not have a high death rate it is still no walk in the park.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index.html

 

[Skwinty]

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index.html

Did you actually read the document you linked to???

 

[Belz...]

That there are similar problems, doen't make the nuclear waste problem go away. One difference is that the normal poison will be gone in a decade or two, the nuclear waste will need a millennium.

And coal waste will be there forever!!

 

[macdoc]

Rubbish. That's right-wing think-tank WOO. The sort of thing repeated confidently in the pages of News Ltd rags but has little basis in reality. For starters, you can't ascribe deaths with a great deal of certainty to Chernobyl itself, other death in the immediate vicinity due to acute radiation poisoning, but the mortality rate is likely to be much closer to 5000. Second, while thyroid cancer might not have a high death rate it is still no walk in the park.

BP don't bring up ghosts that don't exist.
THERE WAS NO CONTAINMENT DOME.

and that kind of design of reactor would never be built these days and should never ( nor was it in the west ) be built then
Just plain fear mongering on your part.

The contribution to radiation of coal is far far higher than from nuclear not to mention other very toxic substances including releasing mercury into both the air and ground water.

it has nothing to do with right wing....most climate scientists support nuclear power as well...Hansen notably and Barry Brook very actively.
http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/

I'd say they have more credibility on this subject than the misled Joe on the street.
Even one of the founders of Greenpeace switched to nuclear advocacy.

and those living near the plants support it strongly

Nuclear Energy Institute - Nuclear Plant Neighbor Survey Shows ...
31 Jul 2009 ... “The familiarity, comfort and support of those living near nuclear plants is reflected in this survey, and they are enthusiastic about the ...

http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/ne...rong-support-for-current-and-new-power-plants

..and Sweden recently switched it's nuclear program back into gear.
I find it ironic that anti-nuke Germany buys a lot of power from France.

You are simply poorly informed on nuclear risks.
ALL technology carries risk....nuclear far less than most of our inventions.

 

[bit_pattern]

Did you actually read the document you linked to???

Yes. 36 deaths from ARP. From there the uncertainty range rises considerably, but taking into the uncertainties the WHO estimates it at about 5000. Did you read it?

But, my point is that ascribing a precise figure of 56 is pure woo put forward by interests who seek to downplay the incident.

MacDoc - You know that I advocate nuclear, I've been following Brook's BNC since its inception and he is one of the main sources that opened my eyes to 4G and changed my mind on the issue.

I don't quote the WHO to out of any ideological interest except to correct erroneous claims put out there by those who have an interest, albeit political or whatever, in downplaying the incident. I'm not sure where the 56 figure originates from, but I do know the sorts of media where such claims are promoted, and they are pure woo. That is my only point. It's one thing to advocate nuclear but it's another thing entirely to perpetuate mistruths about historical events. It should be possible to evaluate claims dispassionately, stating the truth shouldn't automatically be a 'for' or 'against' argument, it should simply be a fact to be evaluated, another piece of evidence to be considered when assessing nuclear as an option. I have taken it into account and I am still pro nuclear.

 

[Skwinty]

Yes, I did read it and here are the pertinent points italisized, bolded and underlined. Also note 28 deaths from ARS not the 36 you quote.



"According to UNSCEAR (2000), 134 liquidators received radiation doses high enough to be diagnosed with acute radiation sickness (ARS). Among them, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS. Other liquidators have since died but their deaths could not necessarily be attributed to radiation exposure.
An increased number of cancer deaths can be expected during the lifetime of persons exposed to radiation from the accident. Since it is currently impossible to determine which individual cancers were caused by radiation, the number of such deaths can only be estimated statistically using information and projections from the studies of atomic bomb survivors and other highly exposed populations. It should be noted that the atomic bomb survivors received high radiation doses in a short time period, while Chernobyl caused low doses over a long time. This and other factors, such as trying to estimate doses people received some time after the accident, as well as differences in lifestyle and nutrition, cause very large uncertainties when making projections about future cancer deaths. In addition, a significant non-radiation related reduction in the average lifespan in the three countries over the past 15 years caused by overuse of alcohol and tobacco, and reduced health care, have significantly increased the difficulties in detecting any effect of radiation on cancer mortality."

 

[bit_pattern]

Sigh. Yes, well done, I misquoted the ARP figure. Oh noes. And well done in highlighting the uncertainties. However, had you finished reading the paragraph you would have come across this:

The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4 000 additional cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime (240 000 liquidators; 116 000 evacuees and the 270 000 residents of the SCZs). Since more than 120 000 people in these three groups may eventually die of cancer, the additional cancer deaths from radiation exposure correspond to 3-4% above the normal incidence of cancers from all causes.

Projections concerning cancer deaths among the five million residents of areas with radioactive caesium deposition of 37 kBq/m2 in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine are much less certain because they are exposed to doses slightly above natural background radiation levels. Predictions, generally based on the LNT model, suggest that up to 5 000 additional cancer deaths may occur in this population from radiation exposure, or about 0.6% of the cancer deaths expected in this population due to other causes. Again, these numbers only provide an indication of the likely impact of the accident because of the important uncertainties listed above.

Ergo, my original point, that with such high uncertainty, ascribing a precise figure such as 56 is pure woo, and likely to be underquoted by a factor of 10-20, although a much safer estimate is o go by % as the WHO have done.

 

[Skwinty]

Sigh. Yes, well done, I misquoted the ARP figure. Oh noes. And well done in highlighting the uncertainties. However, had you finished reading the paragraph you would have come across this:

Quote:
The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4 000 additional cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime (240 000 liquidators; 116 000 evacuees and the 270 000 residents of the SCZs). Since more than 120 000 people in these three groups may eventually die of cancer, the additional cancer deaths from radiation exposure correspond to 3-4% above the normal incidence of cancers from all causes.

Projections concerning cancer deaths among the five million residents of areas with radioactive caesium deposition of 37 kBq/m2 in Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine are much less certain because they are exposed to doses slightly above natural background radiation levels. Predictions, generally based on the LNT model, suggest that up to 5 000 additional cancer deaths may occur in this population from radiation exposure, or about 0.6% of the cancer deaths expected in this population due to other causes. Again, these numbers only provide an indication of the likely impact of the accident because of the important uncertainties listed above.



Ergo, my original point, that with such high uncertainty, ascribing a precise figure such as 56 is pure woo, and likely to be underquoted by a factor of 10-20, although a much safer estimate is o go by % as the WHO have done.

There fixed that for you.

 

[bit_pattern]

Duuuuh! No **** Sherlock! If you actually go back a few posts I pointed out the high uncertainty range, and my OP was based ENTIRELY on the uncertainty involved, in fact every post on the issue has been to highlight the UNCERTAINTY. Now, don't you think such a HIGH degree of uncertainty makes such certain claims as 'only 56' to be just a LITTLE suspect? Or complete WOO even?

 

[Skwinty]

No, firstly Russia is known to have had a number nuclear "Incidents" before and the population, generally speaking are not strangers to radiation.

The uncertainties referred to in the paper, mean that you cannot tell if any individual died from "induced" cancers or from other causes due to lifestyle and poor attention to medical care.

There is no doubt in my mind that excessive radiation will kill you.
However, small doserates over long periods of time is not the same as high doserates in a short period of time.

The concept in reducing any ill effect of radiation is that of ALARA.
As low as reasonably achievable and this is conservative wrt safety.

I have been exposed to ionising radiation since I was born as well as spending many years in the nuclear industry (being exposed to ionising radiation on a daily basis).

I don't have cancer and if I do, could any say for sure what caused it.

28, 36 or 56 deaths due to ARS is a fact not a maybe.

ETA: You say 56 deaths is woo and rubbish because of the uncertainties, yet you have no hesitation quoting 5000 as fact.

 

[bit_pattern]

No,

No? No what? The WHO go into ALL of that and STILL come to their figure. Either the original statement is woo or it isn't. But, whatever, it's irrelevant

firstly Russia is known to have had a number nuclear "Incidents" before and the population, generally speaking are not strangers to radiation.

The uncertainties referred to in the paper, mean that you cannot tell if any individual died from "induced" cancers or from other causes due to lifestyle and poor attention to medical care.

There is no doubt in my mind that excessive radiation will kill you.
However, small doserates over long periods of time is not the same as high doserates in a short period of time.

The concept in reducing any ill effect of radiation is that of ALARA.
As low as reasonably achievable and this is conservative wrt safety.

I have been exposed to ionising radiation since I was born as well as spending many years in the nuclear industry (being exposed to ionising radiation on a daily basis).

I don't have cancer and if I do, could any say for sure what caused it.

28, 36 or 56 deaths due to ARS is a fact not a maybe.

Right. So making a statement such as:

So far, a grand total of 56 people have died as a result.

Is highly likely to be incorrect, no? If so, then we are on the same page, and you can dispute the WHO figures until the cows come home for all I care, because despite me putting more weight on their measured analysis than on the word of some random dude on the internet, the actual figures are inconsequential to the point I am trying to get across. And my point is clear, making such a definitive statement on the total mortality figures from Chernobyl is pure WOO. Agreed?

 

[Cainkane1]

I keep hearing so called soutions to our energy crises. I was watching TV and the program claimed switchgrass would produce many times more ethanol that corn does. I got a question. Why is this not being done? other "solutions" touted is this that or the other. I see much talk and no action.