The Green New Deal

[acbytesla]

Here's a great article from a climate change activist on why renewables (alone) aren't the answer:

Thanks to its energy density, nuclear plants require far less land than renewables. Even in sunny California, a solar farm requires 450 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear plant.

I don't really believe that this is all that important. As there are huge swaths of non-arable land all over the world, not to mention rooftops and floating arrays. Also this is not taking into account increases in efficiency.

We constantly hear, where are you going to put the nuclear waste; how come we never hear about where we are going to put the solar power waste products:
All of the waste fuel from 45 years of the Swiss nuclear program can fit, in canisters, on a basketball court-like warehouse, where like all spent nuclear fuel, it has never hurt a fly.

By contrast, solar panels require 17 times more materials in the form of cement, glass, concrete, and steel than do nuclear plants, and create over 200 times more waste.

We tend to think of solar panels as clean, but the truth is that there is no plan anywhere to deal with solar panels at the end of their 20 to 25 year lifespan.

Experts fear solar panels will be shipped, along with other forms of electronic waste, to be disassembled—or, more often, smashed with hammers—by poor communities in Africa and Asia, whose residents will be exposed to the dust from toxic heavy metals including lead, cadmium, and chromium.

I find this argument more compelling, but I don't believe panels will be shipped to poor communities in Africa and Asia for recycling. It's not really similar to other electronics. I do agree that the nuclear waste issue is constantly exaggerated. I'm a big believer that nuclear can and should be a part of the solution.

 

[Ziggurat]

coal is no longer competitive with renewables, even after receiving massive indirect subsidies by not having to pay for the long term economic damage of the climate change it causes.

You cannot calculate the costs of climate change, let alone any specific source of carbon dioxide, with anything even resembling accuracy. And most of these comparisons of cost showing renewables are great are bogus comparisons. Not every kwHr is equal.

You don't seem to spend a lot of complaining about these costs being passed on to the taxpayer which tells us you don't care about taxpayer burden in the slightest, and that you are simply reciting dogma.

You're confused. I'm not against spending taxpayer money for public good. Hell, I'm not even against spending taxpayer money for renewables. But how it's done matters. It makes sense for the government to spend money on research to improve technology. It doesn't make sense for government to become a commercial investor to promote specific companies. It's bad at that task.

 

[Trakar]

...I find this argument more compelling, but I don't believe panels will be shipped to poor communities in Africa and Asia for recycling. It's not really similar to other electronics. I do agree that the nuclear waste issue is constantly exaggerated. I'm a big believer that nuclear can and should be a part of the solution.

I would certainly agree, though being pro-nuclear power, does not mean being pro-how-nuclear-power-has-largely-been-done-up-till-now (at least for me). I don't trust commercial nuclear operations whose primary focus is profit, not safe, reliable, base-load nuclear power to sustain a national energy grid.

 

[jimbob]

All you need to do is keep it continually submerged in moving water for the next few thousand years with any failure in this pumping system over that time possibly requiring the evacuation of most of the country.

Furthermore, you’d fill ~30 such basketball courts every century if you wanted to replace all Switzerland’s energy production with Nuclear power. Down the road you could easily be looking at hundreds or thousands of cooling ponds, and any one of them failing even once in 1000 years could effectively end Switzerland’s existence as a country.

Again, current nuclear technology simply does not scale sufficiently well to be more than a relatively small part of the solution and carries with it extreme long term liabilities that are not adequately accounted for in it’s already high price/KWh.

This is the problem. Energy positive whilst generating but a hell of a long time dealing with the waste. And a single accident can add massive costs.

The Fukishima ice wall is hardly energy efficient.

A continent-wide mix of renewables including tidal and hydro, with pumped storage, and other more novel storage technologies is probably the best way forward

 

[Orphia Nay]

This is a balanced look at global diet and health, US & global agriculture, and greenhouse gases, by "The Angry Chef" from the UK.


https://angry-chef.com/blog/time-s-up

Posting it because I've seen people making wild claims about "cow farts" when discussing the GND.

Thought the thoughtful people in here would appreciate a good read worth sharing around.

 

[acbytesla]

This is the problem. Energy positive whilst generating but a hell of a long time dealing with the waste. And a single accident can add massive costs.

The Fukishima ice wall is hardly energy efficient.

A continent-wide mix of renewables including tidal and hydro, with pumped storage, and other more novel storage technologies is probably the best way forward

It's not really the problem it is made out to be. There is also the dry cask method of storage and finally, I still don't understand the problem people have with storing it deep underground like at Yucca Mountain.

 

[Delvo]

That's why thorium reactors are so important. They would not only generate energy, but also use older reactors' waste as fuel and deplete it.

 

[Trakar]

This is the problem. Energy positive whilst generating but a hell of a long time dealing with the waste. And a single accident can add massive costs.

The Fukishima ice wall is hardly energy efficient.

A continent-wide mix of renewables including tidal and hydro, with pumped storage, and other more novel storage technologies is probably the best way forward

There are, almost casual, means of safely addressing the issue of reactor waste, most generate energy from the waste while "burning" it, and creating many useful isotopes and a minuscule amount of high order waste with relatively very short half-lives (10s of years vs. 100s - 1000s of years)

 

[Trakar]

That's why thorium reactors are so important. They would not only generate energy, but also use older reactors' waste as fuel and deplete it.

Thorium, and other types of ACRs, and various advanced reactor designs.

 

[Trakar]

This is a balanced look at global diet and health, US & global agriculture, and greenhouse gases, by "The Angry Chef" from the UK.


https://angry-chef.com/blog/time-s-up

Posting it because I've seen people making wild claims about "cow farts" when discussing the GND.

Thought the thoughtful people in here would appreciate a good read worth sharing around.

Beyond energy issues (raising feed, transporting food and feed around the world, etc.,), there are also good health issues around why much of the western world should reduce (not necessarily eliminate, but reduce) their consumption of meat, and focus on sustainable local production means for most all of their food.

 

[acbytesla]

That's why thorium reactors are so important. They would not only generate energy, but also use older reactors' waste as fuel and deplete it.

It's amazing that they abandoned and dismantled the working but experimental molten salt thorium reactor in 1973. The more I have read about MSRE, the more I think WTF!? How could they just give up on this?

 

[acbytesla]

There are, almost casual, means of safely addressing the issue of reactor waste, most generate energy from the waste while "burning" it, and creating many useful isotopes and a minuscule amount of high order waste with relatively very short half-lives (10s of years vs. 100s - 1000s of years)

The interesting thing about half lives is the longer the half life, the less dangerous it is. Something with a ten year half life is very deadly whereas something with say a million year half life isn't very dangerous at all. (My numbers, might not be precise ...doing from memory)

 

[Trakar]

It's amazing that they abandoned and dismantled the working but experimental molten salt thorium reactor in 1973. The more I have read about MSRE, the more I think WTF!? How could they just give up on this?

Club members often form clubs to restrict access to their parties.

 

[Trakar]

The interesting thing about half lives is the longer the half life, the less dangerous it is. Something with a ten year half life is very deadly whereas something with say a million year half life isn't very dangerous at all. (My numbers, might not be precise ...doing from memory)

There are lot of factors at play, type of radioactivity/decay and chemistry of the particular isotopes, being a couple of important issues, but yeah, if the isotope has a short half-life, a lot of the atoms are going to decay more often and so they release more energy over a shorter period, but the real problem with a lot of nuclear waste isn't the radiation level of the waste, it is that they are radioactive isotopes of common, essential, biologically active elements (e.g. iodine) or biologically active analogue elements (e.g. Strontium). External exposure to occasional alpha particles from the environment which are generally stopped by a few layers of clothing or the uppermost layers of mostly dead tissue in our skin isn't very dangerous. High levels and extended exposure to these particles, however, lead to higher and higher levels of cellular/DNA damage in our exposed tissues. When short-half-life elements are incorporated into our tissues via biologically active radioisotopic compounds the constant, intimate, internal exposure enhances the damaging impact and thus a small amount of a relatively moderate alpha-emitter can be held in the bare hand and its effects are limited to feeling warm, but combine it into a salt and dissolve it into a fluid that is ingested and you can create something that is quite lethal.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

This is a balanced look at global diet and health, US & global agriculture, and greenhouse gases, by "The Angry Chef" from the UK.


https://angry-chef.com/blog/time-s-up

Posting it because I've seen people making wild claims about "cow farts" when discussing the GND.

Thought the thoughtful people in here would appreciate a good read worth sharing around.

Not really no. The man does not mention a thing about production methods and their resulting effects.

I am sure he has tried to be as fair as possible in his analysis, yet without a full set of information about production methods, his conclusion suffers from garbage in garbage out syndrome.

 

[Ziggurat]

the real problem with a lot of nuclear waste isn't the radiation level of the waste, it is that they are radioactive isotopes of common, essential, biologically active elements (e.g. iodine) or biologically active analogue elements (e.g. Strontium).

Iodine 131 has a halflife of about 8 days. It can be a very serious problem during nuclear accidents since that short halflife makes it very active, but for the same reason it's really not a problem for long term waste storage. Activity levels will drop by a factor of about 1000 for every 80 days, so within a year it will basically be all gone.

Strontium 90 has a halflife of almost 29 years, so it hangs around a lot longer. From a biological perspective Strontium is a problem because it deposits in bones, so it stays inside the body for a very long time. If iodine had a halflife that long it wouldn't be very dangerous because it cycles through the body too fast, but since strontium hangs around for so long in your bones (biological half life is something like 18 years), the chances of decaying while still in the body are quite high. And in the case of nuclear weapons use, it's one of the biggest problems for fallout. But it's not particularly volatile, so it's fairly easy to keep contained and thus less of a storage risk.

Cesium 137 is probably a bigger issue for waste. It's got a halflife of about 30 years, and it forms salts which are highly water soluble, so the risk of contamination spreading from storage leaks is much higher. It doesn't stay in the body nearly as long as strontium 90, though, which helps mitigate the risk since the vast majority of radioactive cesium that's ingested will actually leave the body before it decays.

 

[Trakar]

Iodine 131 has a halflife of about 8 days...

Apologies, you are correct, I should have been more judicious and careful in my example listings, and probably more attentive to detail and casually available research in my response overall. Sloppy at best.

 

[lomiller]

You cannot calculate the costs of climate change, let alone any specific source of carbon dioxide, with anything even resembling accuracy. And most of these comparisons of cost showing renewables are great are bogus comparisons. Not every kwHr is equal.

You don’t need to; all you need to do is place a value on the externality. Just raise the price of fossil fuel until emissions drop to where they need to be, and there are plenty of ways to do that.

And most of these comparisons of cost showing renewables are great are bogus comparisons. Not every kwHr is equal.

I’m sure it’s all just another giant conspiracy on the part of the scientific establishment

You're confused. I'm not against spending taxpayer money for public good. Hell, I'm not even against spending taxpayer money for renewables. But how it's done matters. It makes sense for the government to spend money on research to improve technology. It doesn't make sense for government to become a commercial investor to promote specific companies.

Meh. Government incentives take all kinds of forms and they all directly or indirectly create a liability for taxpayers if they don’t work. Nearly every nuclear plant ever constructed falls under this category. They are built either directly with taxpayer money or with government backed loans totaling in the billions or tens of billions, and every delay overrun costs taxpayers hundreds of millions. Furthermore, governments underwrite all the risk which can be FAR more expensive than the paltry loan issued to Solyndra. Japanese taxpayers are on the hook for an estimated $300 billion from Fukushima and that estimate continues to grow.

 

[acbytesla]

You don’t need to; all you need to do is place a value on the externality. Just raise the price of fossil fuel until emissions drop to where they need to be, and there are plenty of ways to do that.


I’m sure it’s all just another giant conspiracy on the part of the scientific establishment


Meh. Government incentives take all kinds of forms and they all directly or indirectly create a liability for taxpayers if they don’t work. Nearly every nuclear plant ever constructed falls under this category. They are built either directly with taxpayer money or with government backed loans totaling in the billions or tens of billions, and every delay overrun costs taxpayers hundreds of millions. Furthermore, governments underwrite all the risk which can be FAR more expensive than the paltry loan issued to Solyndra. Japanese taxpayers are on the hook for an estimated $300 billion from Fukushima and that estimate continues to grow.

He has you there Zig. Who's going to pay if the James Webb telescope is a failure which I expect it to be? Overruns on this project has it pegged at 10 billion and climbing. And my bet is it will be a failure (I hope I'm wrong though.)

 

[lomiller]

Iodine 131 has a halflife of about 8 days. It can be a very serious problem during nuclear accidents since that short halflife makes it very active, but for the same reason it's really not a problem for long term waste storage. Activity levels will drop by a factor of about 1000 for every 80 days, so within a year it will basically be all gone.

Strontium 90 has a halflife of almost 29 years, so it hangs around a lot longer. From a biological perspective Strontium is a problem because it deposits in bones, so it stays inside the body for a very long time. If iodine had a halflife that long it wouldn't be very dangerous because it cycles through the body too fast, but since strontium hangs around for so long in your bones (biological half life is something like 18 years), the chances of decaying while still in the body are quite high. And in the case of nuclear weapons use, it's one of the biggest problems for fallout. But it's not particularly volatile, so it's fairly easy to keep contained and thus less of a storage risk.

Cesium 137 is probably a bigger issue for waste. It's got a halflife of about 30 years, and it forms salts which are highly water soluble, so the risk of contamination spreading from storage leaks is much higher. It doesn't stay in the body nearly as long as strontium 90, though, which helps mitigate the risk since the vast majority of radioactive cesium that's ingested will actually leave the body before it decays.

Half life of the most dangerous isotopes can be a little misleading. Part of the problem with waste from current generation reactors is that it’s mostly fuel and still undergoing relatively rapid decay compared to what you'd see in nature. While the individual isotopes may not last long, they can continue to be produced, albeit at lower levels, for a very long time.

Fast reactors where nearly all the fuel is consumed or re-used will not only produce much less waste, but hopefully what waste they do produce will ultimately be safer because it will be producing less in the way of dangerous isotopes. I say hopefully because these are extremely immature technologies so it’s to draw firm conclusions.