Enviromentalists and Anti-Nuclearism

[Martin]

Using the Chernobyl disaster as a model the number of early deaths due to the disaster has been estimated at anywhere between 40 000 and 500 000

Sounds suspiciously like bullsh!t to me. I'm sure UNSCEAR would be fascinated to hear about it.

 

[Chaos]

I concur with Martin. The figures I have heard about over time anywhere anywhere in the mid- or upper four-digit range - make that 5,000 to give it a nice, round number.

Long-term effects, like cancer, genetical effects, and so on, are very serious, however. I have no figures on that, but I think it will not be long before this number has reached that of the more immediate deaths. And that does not even count all those that have to live with severe physical or mental handicaps.

IIRC, and I am absolutely not sure about it, the region around Chernobyl was not densely populated, at least compared with other regions in Europe. In Germany, almost all nuclear reactors are in the vicinity of major cities; depending on where the winds blows, many other major cities will have to bear serious fall-out. In the scenarios I have heard about (which date back to the late 1980´s), up to a quarter of the population (back then, that would have been about 16 million) would be affected severly enough that they would have to be evacuated at least for some time.


Alternative methods of energy production (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, to name the most important) exist, and if they were used to the economically feasible extent (and if they were subsidized and promoted to the extent that nuclear power is in most countries), then they could account for a large share of our energy consumption. It should be large enough to at least stop building new nuclear reactors and start turning off older ones while we look for other energy sources. If we learned to more effectively conserve energy, we might be able to get along with alternative energy production alone.

 

[patnray]

Conservation, improved efficiency, and renewable sources all have important roles to play, but nuclear remains the largest untapped source of power. Many of the antinuclear fears are unfounded, but the reliance, especially in the US, on intrinsically unsafe reactor designs has hindered progress and damaged the nuclear industry's reputation. Standard reactor designs have proven unreliable but have been scaled up to be more economical. They have required massive retrofitting of safety equipment. Operators have to work to keep them under control and opearating safely.

As one post above suggested, there are better, intrinsically safe, designs that require the operator to work to keep the reactor running. When something goes wrong the reaction naturally shuts down. France and Canada, last I heard, lead the world in this type design. It requires smaller reactors, and American companies would have to design reactors from scratch rather than recycle previous designs, so it would be more expensive...

But the nuclear industry will not get past the fears they helped instill untill they embrace, and market, the intrinsically safe concept.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Chaos:

Alternative methods of energy production (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, to name the most important) exist, and if they were used to the economically feasible extent (and if they were subsidized and promoted to the extent that nuclear power is in most countries), then they could account for a large share of our energy consumption.

Not really, although it depends what you mean by "large" and it depends on where you are in the world. In 1996 alternative energy provided just 6% of the energy requirements of the EU. Various programs are in place which hope to make this 12% by the year 2010. This, however, is not a large amount.

It should be large enough to at least stop building new nuclear reactors and start turning off older ones while we look for other energy sources.

I suspect subsidies of that size would make the EU very uncompetative.

If we learned to more effectively conserve energy, we might be able to get along with alternative energy production alone.

Certainly we should learn to decrease any waste of energy. And we are doing so with low energy bulbs, more efficient cars, transmission, insolation of homes, etc. But even if we could make everything as efficient as possible, energy requirements wouldn't necessarily stop rising. With every new invention of a convenience (electric can openers, electric toothbrushes, etc, etc) power requirements rise.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Re: Re: Enviromentalists and Anti-Nuclearism

Good question.

I'm an environmentalist in the sense that I'm a member of WWF. And yet, I have never understood this reluctance of environmentalist to accept nuclear power. Nuclear power produces no CO2, and the "storage problems" aren't really problems. I'm totally pro-fission, although I would of course prefer the possibility of being pro-fusion.

There are environmentalists, and there are what amount to anti-ecletricity woo-woos. The latter seem to grab all the attention in the USA.

Nuclear power is mixed up in these folks' minds with nuclear weapons. It's a superstition akin to the belief that "chemicals" are bad.

But if not nuclear, then what? Don't burn anything, of course. Hydroelectric messes up rivers. Windmills kill birds and make noise.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Enviromentalists and Anti-Nuclearism

Windmills kill birds and make noise.

Actually, the more recent larger windmill designs don't kill many birds at all. The real problem, though, is that they will never be able to produce more than a small fraction of the power we need, so no matter how enamoured you are of wind power, it's simply not enough.

 

[jj]

When supporters of nuclear power can prove that power plants are immune to human error, then we can accept nuclear power as a viable energy resource. Of course they cann't, so we need to search for safer methods of energy production.

edit: typos

When cars are safe from human error, you'll accept cars.

When bicycles are safe from human error, you'll accept them.

When horses are safe ...

Your argument is simple and simple minded, when something is absolutely safe, you'll allow it.

By that standard, why haven't you tried to ban life?

Ban the sun! It's a runaway nucular reactor, too.

Good grief, Nuclear Power is a lot safer than you admit. The accident at TMI should have, if the hysterical shouters were right, have led to a total meltdown of such magnitude that the entire east coast from Boston to Atlanta would be uninhabitable for 10,00 years.

What happened? Less radiation was released from TMI than from a 500 MW coal plant running for a few hours.

Why aren't you banning the coal plants? They are the plants that are releasing the gigantic amounts of radiation into the atmosphere?

Be consistant.

 

[jj]

One can design a nuclear reactor that will run itself.
For example the reactor heats up an starts expanding,
the gaps between elements expand a fewer nuclear
reactions occure, it cools down a bit - so you never
reach a meltdown. And there are other ways to make
them safe short of dropping a nuclear bomb on one.

Very true, one can also do moderation schemes for reactors that simply go off when it boils dry.

But all that research is stopped in the hysterical shout of NO NUKES.

It's pure, simple luddism.

 

[jj]

Modern Environmentalism...

Truly the last bastion of socialism...

Nonsense, socialism demands power for the people.

Extreme environmentalists demand no power for anyone.

The word you need to look up is "Luddite".

You're not going Jedi Knight on us, are you, with everything you don't like turning into "socialism", now?

Some concern for the environment is in one's personal selfish self-interest, and we all know that, at least all of us except you.

Well, and... nevermind.

 

[jj]

In truth however, this is not the primary issue. The real issue are the potential consequences of a major nuclear disaster. [/url]

Right, just like the potential consequences of runaway greenhouwse effect due to CO2 emissions.

Can you say "venus"? There, I knew you could.

I think that the two are roughly equal in probability, in the long run. What do you think?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Nonsense, socialism demands power for the people.

Extreme environmentalists demand no power for anyone.

Nevertheless, there are plenty of people calling themselves socialist who appear to buy the anti-technology line. Whether as a tactic, or because they like the sound of the word "socialism", or whatever.

For example the (USA) Green Party.

 

[originalgagster]

When cars are safe from human error, you'll accept cars.

When bicycles are safe from human error, you'll accept them.

When horses are safe ...

Your argument is simple and simple minded, when something is absolutely safe, you'll allow it.

By that standard, why haven't you tried to ban life?

I think i made it pretty clear that the reason for attaching particularly stringent safety demands to nuclear power plants is because of the potential results of a disaster.

Can you say "venus"? There, I knew you could.

I think that the two are roughly equal in probability, in the long run. What do you think?

I think the long term effects of global warming are hard to predict.

I also think the long term effects of nuclear power plants are hard to predict. Unlike you, I don't pretend to have knowledge where there is no concrete, uncontestable evidence.

I was simply stating that the potential consequences of a nuclear catastrophe call for exercising a cautionary principle and exploring alternatives to nuclear power.

 

[Chaos]

Chaos: Not really, although it depends what you mean by "large" and it depends on where you are in the world. In 1996 alternative energy provided just 6% of the energy requirements of the EU. Various programs are in place which hope to make this 12% by the year 2010. This, however, is not a large amount.

Solar power is not very effective at our latitudes, and we have no geothermal energy sources I know of; I think regenerative energy is mostly wind energy in the plains of northern Germany and some tidal energy.
However, Iceland meets all its energy requirements for heating from geothermal sources, as they have the sources they need for it. Countries closer to the equator could produce allmost all their power by solar energy - the Saharan countries could even export vast amounts of power if they developed solar energy far enough. Most coasts with a relatively broad continental shelf (shallow water) would be suited to produce tidal energy.
The potential is there. We are not using it, for a number of reasons, most of which are political (translate: lobby work of nuclear/oil industry, conservatives´ hatred for environmentalists)

I suspect subsidies of that size would make the EU very uncompetative.

The EU is already uncompetitive. A few more subsidies won´t make any difference, especially if they stopped subsidizing an enormeous overproduction of foodstuffs that is then to be destroyed to protect prices.

Certainly we should learn to decrease any waste of energy. And we are doing so with low energy bulbs, more efficient cars, transmission, insolation of homes, etc. But even if we could make everything as efficient as possible, energy requirements wouldn't necessarily stop rising. With every new invention of a convenience (electric can openers, electric toothbrushes, etc, etc) power requirements rise.

First, I was mostly not speaking of our consumption in Europe. I was referring to the USA (5% of world population consuming 25% of energy production), and to the inefficient consumption in third-world countries; we might consider helping them modernize to reduce their energy consumption.
Second, if we decreased energy consumption as far as we reasonably can, without decreasing our standard of living as well, we will at least have some breathing space of, I don´t know, a few decades perhaps, before the current numbers are reached again. This is time we can use to look for a more permanent solution.

 

[Martin]

Unlike you, I don't pretend to have knowledge where there is no concrete, uncontestable evidence

This is uncontestable evidence!

I contest that.

Oh. B*gger.

 

[jj]

I think the long term effects of global warming are hard to predict.

I also think the long term effects of nuclear power plants are hard to predict. Unlike you, I don't pretend to have knowledge where there is no concrete, uncontestable evidence.

I was simply stating that the potential consequences of a nuclear catastrophe call for exercising a cautionary principle and exploring alternatives to nuclear power.

What you've said here is that the same thought applies to fossil fuels.

What would you suggest, then?

 

[Solitaire]

Yes reactor design has improved alot, but no matter how well
designed a reactor is it can never be 100% immune from human
fallibility, and unfortunately human fallibility is not the only factor
which needs to be taken into consideration.

Yes, but not in the way your thinking.
The human fallibility alters the design,
rather than the design ignoring the fallibility.
The people who want to do the unsafe thing are the managers.

The possibility of a terrorist group slamming planes into a nuclear
power plant is also a possibility that has to be seriously reckoned
with, at least according to the NRC.

A wall and a lot of sand ought to adsorb the energy.
I think your thinking of an obove the ground containment building.

Nuclear power plants are also vulnerable to natural disasters.
I doubt if any politician is in a position to guarantee that for the
lifespan of any power plant, that it will be impervious to earthquakes,
tidal waves, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Again this is a
possibility that has to be reckoned with when considering an extension
of nuclear energy programs.

I think we could take an eight point zero with some good shock adsorbers.
Tidal waves, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. Not too worried.

Politicians! Eeeek! Nothing can withstand that.
That's the whole reason why safe designs cannot exist.
As soon as an industry is on the handout line, they go to pot.

 

[Solitaire]

But all that research is stopped in the hysterical shout of NO NUKES.
It's pure, simple luddism.

It's more like, someone puts your hand on a hot stove element.
Then they do it again, and then they do it again, and pretty soon
you don't trust them with your hand ever again. Not only in the
area of nuclear but also them darn chemicals.

When Louisiana Energy Services snuck into Unicoi, we run them off.

Right, just like the potential consequences of runaway greenhouse
effect due to CO2 emissions. Can you say, "Venus?" There, I knew
you could.

Why is Venus so cold? Why isn't Mars broiling?
It bugs they daylights out of me that I still don't
have a model of a simple vertical column atmosphere
so I can ask questions like, what if it were all nitrogen,
what if it were all argon, and so on.