If nuclear power is so green, why aren't environmental organizations supporting it?

[GliderGuider]

The opposition to nuclear power predates concerns about global warming, going back almost 50 years. It grew out of the peace movement’s nuclear disarmament campaign, and picked up steam in the late 1970s and mid '80s due to the accidents at TMI and Chernobyl. During those days and continuing today, the public perception of the relative risk of nuclear power was very high. This elevated risk perception had these roots:

1. A deep visceral fear of radiation originating in the bomb tests of the '50s and the associated government secrecy and cover-up;
   
2. Fear of weapons proliferation;
   
3. The black eye that nuclear corporations gave themselves though secrecy, cover-ups, lies about risks and massive cost overruns;
   
4. A feeling that nuclear power wasn't needed to help satisfy global energy requirements, that conventional sources were sufficient; and
   
5. The widespread belief that conventional energy sources posed less risk to "the planet" than nuclear power, despite pollution concerns with coal.

This set of perceptions has remained essentially unchallenged within the environmental movement for over 40 years. Over that time grass-roots environmentalists and environmental organizations have portrayed the opposition to nuclear power as a defining characteristic of the movement. Because the man on the street tended to share the root perceptions listed above, there was a natural convergence of beliefs that made recruitment into the movement easier. Opposition to nuclear power became a shibboleth of the environmental movement.

The issue of global warming and CO2 moved onto the public stage only with the publication of the IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990. Initially the risk was seen by the public as very abstract and distant, something that could be addressed over time without using nuclear power. Because the risks of GW were not seen as immediate, the perceived risks of nuclear power far outweighed those concerns, due to a normal psychological mechanism called the hyperbolic discount function.

The public still retains a strong belief in the five root perceptions, due to the complexity of the issues, the difficulty in sorting out information from vested interests, and the deliberate obfuscation of the issues by those same interests. Because of the inertia of public opinion and knowledge, any environmental organization that wants to recruit new members must treat the support of nuclear power as a third-rail issue. Opposition to nuclear power on the other hand is an easy sell, because it has been embedded in the public consciousness for so many decades.

The fact that nuclear power has technical risks and a checkered past has given the opposition movement a firm foundation in public opinion.

What has changed?

The risk assessment of GW has changed significantly over the last decade. It is now becoming recognized as a threat that is immediate, planetary in scope, with consequences that are much graver than we first thought. That threat, in some peoples' estimation, is now severe enough to throw our entire previous prioritization of environmental, ecological and social concerns into question.

Essentially the fifth core perception listed above - that conventional sources of energy represent less risk to the planet than nuclear power - has been turned on its head.

In addition there is a growing community that believes that the fourth perception (that nuclear power is not needed to address the crisis) is possibly invalid as well. This change in position has been driven by two factors:

The first is the growing awareness of a probable near-term (or even current) peak in world oil production. If this is true as it now seems to be, we many not have as much energy as we would need or want to continue the unimpeded growth of modern civilization. Despite efforts at conservation and efficiency, the demand for oil and natural gas continues to rise, and any restriction in supply could have widespread negative consequences.

The second factor driving the shift in risk perception is the slow implementation of alternative energy so far, relative to the global scale of primary energy demand.

The change in assessment of the severity of GW and the associated energy supply issues has so far been confined to analysts that aren't tied to the traditional environmental movement. Public perception has remained essentially unchanged. This means that the analysts trying to shift our risk focus onto CO2 and suggesting that nuclear power might have a role in GW mitigation have a very limited constituency. On the other hand, the traditional environmental movements have stayed on very safe ground by echoing the established wisdom that nuclear power is still a worse threat than GW, and that GW can be managed by other means.

I belong to the group of people who believe that risk perceptions 4 and 5 have been invalidated by events and that this requires a wholesale re-assessment of our energy priorities. Nuclear power needs a dispassionate assessment to determine what role it will play as we go forward into a warming future. Emotions will play a legitimate role in the public debate, but we need to include facts about the broader situation to ensure that we take the most appropriate decision.

[dkf]

1. It doesn't make sense to me to create another utility dependent energy source

when we can all as individuals be in control of our own generation through solar. Why be subject to price shocks and other situations beyond our control? Screw being subject to someone elses whims and calculations. Energy freedom is the way to go.

[GliderGuider]

2. Yes, that's one of the factors in the debate.

The problem is that global warming is a global, and humanity as a whole needs to reduce our carbon output as much and as fast as we can. While there are people or places that may be able to go with distributed alt.energy relatively easily, others won't. Some uses of power, especially those related to heavy industry and urbanization, currently require large centralized sources.

[kristopher]

6. No, they do not.

You have conflated "large" and "centralized" in a totally inappropriate way. "Distributed generation" is the opposite of "centralized generation".

A heavy user can certainly meet their own needs within a distributed grid with renewable energy souces. While there are a very few industries that specifically require fossil fuels (coal for steel) that is a rare exception that would remain an exception even with nuclear.

See also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=266280&mesg_id=266293

[GliderGuider]

9. You're talking about the future. I used the word "currently" very deliberately.

The debate has to include the costs to both industry and public infrastructure, of moving to a distributed generation model.

[kristopher]

12. You use the word currently but you ARE talking about the future we SHOULD move to.

There is zero evidence supporting your claim that boiling water with uranium and/or plutomium is preferable to renewable energy sources.

None.

[GliderGuider]

15. In this post the only future I'm saying we should move to

is one in which we emit less carbon. I don't think you have a problem with that, do you? I'm saying we need to have an open, informed, dispassionate debate about how to do that.

[kristopher]

16. We have been for years - you WANT nuclear power and you SLAM renewables...

...even when you have to fabricate things out of whole cloth to do so.

I'm happy to have a dispassionate discussion, but reality is the place we have to meet at for that to occur. Your post is supposed to address why environmental organizations do not support nuclear derived energy and as such it cannot be divorced from what they DO support - renewable energy sources and efficiency.

If you want to have the discussion you claim, stop engaging in spin.

[GliderGuider]

18. Let's re-language that a bit.

I want nuclear power to be seriously considered in the debate, and I want both the advantages and shortcomings of renewables to be considered during the debate.

I don't think this debate has actually happened yet.

[kristopher]

19. You are wrong

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=266280&mesg_id=266293

[joshcryer]

44. I say fuck Gen III / III+.

If we're going to be serious about climate change we need to move to Gen IV. And only good designs, at that.

[txlibdem]

47. Gen IV is definitely what we should be focusing on

But the utilities are either scared or snake-bit by some past expensive failures (carbon capturing coal plants) and want to stick to the known path as much as possible.

The trouble is the known path will not provide the breakthrough technologies that we need: mass production of components, rapid deployment, reduced cost, and (perhaps most important) failsafe designs.

[kristopher]

54. We don't need breakthrough technologies we need to deploy wind and solar.

[GliderGuider]

59. And a whole lot faster than you are at this point...

How many of those 6 million 5MW turbines that we're going to need do you have installed at this point? How many are you putting in each year?

Yes, it would be nice to have Gen IV nukes, or wind turbines, or anything except oil, gas and coal. Unfortunately at this point all we have (to a first approximation) is oil, gas and coal.

[kristopher]

61. Wind and solar technologies are here and now, Gen IV is 30 years away from commercialization

Apparently you are only interested in having nuclear technologies garner market share, no matter the consequences.

[GliderGuider]

69. I agree that Gen IV is a long way off

Perhaps even beyond the 30-year horizon, which makes it a non-issue in planning.

Right now we have wind and solar technology. Technology is not energy, and having technology isn't the same as having an installed generating capacity. Wind is currently supplying a meager 1.1% of the world's electricity, while solar is barely measurable - the EIA had to combine it with tidal and wave energy to come up with a paltry 0.06% of the world's electricity.

And that's just the electricity. We still need to find a way to get off oil for transportation too.

As I said, how are you coming with all those turbines? Could you use a little low-GHG help?

[kristopher]

74. So you are using nnad's logic - we haven't built it yet so we can't/shouldn't build it?

Your reasoning is getting progressively more screwy.

[GliderGuider]

76. No, I'm saying we should build it. And we should build a shitload of nukes while we're at it.

And we should do a shitload of conservation and efficiency.

It comes down to not putting all of civilizations eggs in one basket. If we look to wind and solar as our primary energy substitutions for coal-fired electricity we could be drowned by rising seas before we make a dent in the problem. Since I kind of like civilization (all indications to the contrary aside) I would like to preserve it. Better to do everything we can to that end than risk missing the last boat...

[kristopher]

78. Except you STILL HAVE NOT JUSTIFIED NUCLEAR'S INCLUSION.

[GliderGuider]

80. Nothing I can say will be accepted as a justification by you. You are against nuclear power.

My justification to anyone else with ears to hear is that nuclear power is:

• low carbon;
  
• low risk;
  
• high volume;
  
• well understood;
  
• reasonably priced; and
  
• easy to manage (aka "base load")

Wind may not be able to do the job alone. There are no other energy sources at the moment with the punch to replace large amounts of fossil fuels for electricity generation. If we fail to reduce our carbon output we doom furure generations of humans and other species to immiseration and potential extinction. As a man of conscience I do not like that possibility and want to mitigate that risk. Using two low-GHG energy sources instead of just one (currently small) one makes immense sense to me.

[kristopher]

83. In other words you accept anything the nuclear industry says at face value

Even when it is contradicted by independent evaluations.
* low carbon;
only if you also consider natural gas as "low carbon"

* low risk;
In comparison to the other fossil fuel alternatives this is a completely insane statement.

* high volume;
A completely meaningless claim as it relates to the problem. Electricity is electricity no matter whether it comes from a single large generator or a lot of small generators.

* well understood;
Not according to MIT: "Safety. Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential. We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation."

* reasonably priced;
No, it isn't. That is a false claim by the nuclear industry.

* easy to manage (aka "base load")
Another meaningless metric by which to judge the future energy system.

Here is why we shouldn't pursue new nuclear - it takes between 12-20 years to plan and build a nuclear plant and they are so expensive they can't be financed without crowding out the renewable alternatives.
It also comes with a long list of external costs such as proliferation, unmanageable wastes, and water use that are not part of the renewable option.

Spending money on nuclear is counter-productive to your stated goal of moving away from fossil fuels.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[GliderGuider]

88. You mean rather than rejecting it out of hand? :-)

* low carbon;
only if you also consider natural gas as "low carbon"
Current nuclear power has a CO2 profile that is somewhere between 1.5% and 6.5% that of natural gas, given the previously posted range. Nuclear power has a long way to go to equal any fossil fuel.

* low risk;
In comparison to the other fossil fuel alternatives this is a completely insane statement.
Fossil fuels are causing species extinctions. How much riskier can it get than that? Nuclear risks don't even come close.

* high volume;
A completely meaningless claim as it relates to the problem. Electricity is electricity no matter whether it comes from a single large generator or a lot of small generators
My point was that the closest renewable competitor, wind, is currently producing only about 8% of the electricity produced by nuclear. Nuclear power is producing 12 times as much electricity as wind. That's high volume.

* well understood;
Not according to MIT: "Safety. Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential. We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation."
Nuclear power has been studied intensively for over 50 years, by some of the best minds on the planet. The rate of accidents and fatalities is very low, the risk of future accidents is even lower. There will always be residual unknowns in any complex system. In this case, I would compare any risks carried by "the overall fuel cycle" to the risks posed by climate change - about which we understand sweet fuck-all except for the dim realization that we're forcing it, and that this may not be A Good Thing.

* reasonably priced;
No, it isn't. That is a false claim by the nuclear industry.
The all-in capital price for nuclear power is around $7/watt. The all-in price for wind is about $6.50/watt. If wind is reasonably priced, so is nuclear.

* easy to manage (aka "base load")
Another meaningless metric by which to judge the future energy system.
It's certainly a good metric by which to judge near-term energy systems. I'm talking about what I'd like to see built today, tomorrow and over the next 20 years. The issues posed by high levels of wind penetration (say over 50%) are currently still in the research stage. While the problem may be solved, it also may not - that's the nature of research. If it doesn't get solved, I'd rather not be stuck at 25% wind power and 50% coal when we could have built some nukes.

I don't for a moment believe that funding nuclear power and wind are somehow mutually exclusive. It strikes me that you're trying to create a situation in which there is no low-GHG alternative to wind. Then it's a seller's market as the seas begin to rise. Nope, I believe in competition and cooperation in this area.

[kristopher]

96. You prefer to accept unsustantiated nuclear industry propaganda over independent researchers

...the Union of Concerned Scientists contends that:

1. Prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.

2. Nuclear power is not the silver bullet for "solving" the global warming problem. Many other technologies will be needed to address global warming even if a major expansion of nuclear power were to occur.

3. A major expansion of nuclear power in the United States is not feasible in the near term. Even under an ambitious deployment scenario, new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U.S. global warming emissions for at least two decades.

4. Until long-standing problems regarding the security of nuclear plants—from accidents and acts of terrorism—are fixed, the potential of nuclear power to play a significant role in addressing global warming will be held hostage to the industry's worst performers.

5. An expansion of nuclear power under effective regulations and an appropriate level of oversight should be considered as a longer-term option if other climate-neutral means for producing electricity prove inadequate. Nuclear energy research and development (R&D) should therefore continue, with a focus on enhancing safety, security, and waste disposal.

[GliderGuider]

99. No, I prefer to come to my own conclusions, no matter who does or doesn't support them.

That's the very definition of "independent", isn't it? Assuming the right to think for oneself?

[kristopher]

101. Thinking for yourself isn't the same as making shit up.

[wtmusic]

7. Because then we're dependent on the sun going down

or clouds covering the sun. Also beyond our control, and not exactly "energy freedom".

[kestrel91316]

3. If we had an iron-clad safe method for disposal of nuclear waste,

you MIGHT be able to get me on board with it. But we don't, so you won't.

Shortsightedness always has a way of coming back and biting us in the ass.

[GliderGuider]

4. Relative risks

There are two waste streams that need our attention: the one coming from nuclear power and the one coming from fossil fuels.

The nuclear waste stream has low volume, is composed mainly of solids and is currently well sequestered. It is radioactive.
The fossil fuel waste stream is high volume, composed mainly of gases and is currently entirely unsequestered. It is changing the atmosphere and the oceans.

I agree that it would be ideal if we had technically foolproof, politically acceptable disposal mechanisms for nuclear waste. Given that we don't have any at this time, we have to decide whether the actual risk posed by nuclear waste outweighs the actual risk posed by fossil fuel CO2. And we need to figure out just how much of that CO2 risk could realistically be mitigated by nuclear power.

[zipplewrath]

5. Making the case

The problem is that no one is really "making the case". There's been alot of "hand waving" about nuclear, but the reality is that it is not some panacea and there are very serious concerns about its long term use. It won't replace "all" coal and fossil fuel. It can be a larger component of that, and maybe even a necessary one. But until one starts making the case that there is a coherent "system" of energy production that can be achieved where fossil fuel is gone, and nuclear is a "safe" part of that, the current perceptions are going to continue. And that perception is that nuclear is risky and unnecessary.

[GliderGuider]

8. Making the case starts even further back than that.

We live with these issues and ideas every day, most people don't.

Rather than starting with "making the case that there is a coherent "system" of energy production that can be achieved where fossil fuel is gone," we need to back up a step and make the case that there will be (or ought to be) a reduction in FF use. That case has not been made yet, at least not to the voting public.

[wtmusic]

11. The problem is one of perception only.

2.5 million people die every year from air pollution. Hard to tell exactly how many die from exposure to environmental radioactivity, but it is certainly a tiny, tiny fraction of that.

Excluding hydro, nuclear is the safest form of energy per tWh. And unlike hydro, resources are from a practical standpoint unlimited.

[kristopher]

13. No it isn't.

You've been proven wrong a number of time when you made that claim before. Why do you persist in using it?

[joshcryer]

45. Substantiate.

Don't say shit without substance, please.

[kristopher]

10. Your text does not address your header.

You talk about the general population's perception of nuclear but say nothing of a whole host of EVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE OBJECTIVELY PURSUING CLIMATE SOLUTIONS. Even then, your OP is little more than a recitation of the nuclear industry's talking points with no attempt to balance their self-serving narrative with analysis from outside analysts like that below.

You are also pushing the false narrative that it is either nuclear or coal - renewable energy sources and a distributed grid is a far more sustainable AND effective solution to our climate change, energy security and pollution concerns.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[GliderGuider]

14. Actually, it does.

The public still retains a strong belief in the five root perceptions, due to the complexity of the issues, the difficulty in sorting out information from vested interests, and the deliberate obfuscation of the issues by those same interests. Because of the inertia of public opinion and knowledge, any environmental organization that wants to recruit new members must treat the support of nuclear power as a third-rail issue. Opposition to nuclear power on the other hand is an easy sell, because it has been embedded in the public consciousness for so many decades.

The reason environmental organizations aren't embracing (or even discussing) nuclear power is not technical, it's political and perceptual. Nuclear power a third rail issue. Any environmental organization that wishes to be seen by the public as "credible environmental thinkers" (and grow their membership base as a result), had better not touch it. Those organizations re not stupid, so they have a strict hands off policy regarding substantive debate on nuclear power as a potential option.

They may be objectively pursuing climate solutions, but they are doing it in all domains except one.

[kristopher]

17. So environmental organizations are greedy, stupid and irrational panderers?

They are greedy because their primary motive for all they do is to attract new (presumably dues paying) members and they are stupid because they irrationally exclude the supposed "best" solution to the problem they want to address in order to pander to those potential members.

And yet you STILL ignore the obvious alternative that independent researchers like Jacobson have made crystal clear - nuclear is a third rate solution to our problems.

[GliderGuider]

20. No, they are politically astute.

They know that they lose the leverage they need to accomplish their goals if they lose public support. Nuclear power does not have public support, so it's a very rational decision on their part to exclude it from their discussions, except for presenting it as a negative.

I don't think Jacobson is the last word in this debate. I want to see the discussion widened and deepened, with the express inclusion of CO2 levels as a driver.

[kristopher]

23. "Jacobson" isn't the "last word" but the data in his study is.

You want to "see the discussion widened and deepened" because you want to continue to try and convince people that we need nuclear, when it is very, very clear we do not.


I have no idea how you could possible think that discussions of this issue have not included "CO2 as a driver" because that has been part of the discussion for more than 2 decades now (it is certainly central to Jacobson's paper). I can understand how you would want to make it the *only* metric that is considered, however, since it is only by excluding the externalities that go with nuclear power that it can be made to look attractive.

[GliderGuider]

25. I like to see all data confirmed by independent sources.

That's the scientific approach. To take one single set of numbers and treat them as gospel because they support a point you're making isn't science, it's ideology.

The question of the relative risks of CO2 vs. nuclear waste, considered on a global basis with current data regarding both, has not been part of the discussion. We have talked about how to reduce CO2 by various energy substitutions, but the elevation of the risks associated with CO2 is based on data that is only now becoming widely recognized. That issue has not become a factor in the mainstream nuclear/renewables debate, though the point has been made loudly by a few people who have been instantly marginalized.

[kristopher]

27. The data HAS BEEN confirmed by independent sources - multiple times.

All you are doing is trying to avoid using the best data available. Jacobson's paper duplicates what every person doing the same type of comparative analysis finds - nuclear power is a third rate solution to CLIMATE CHANGE - it actually impedes progress by diverting scarce funds from more effective solutions.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. ...

[joshcryer]

43. I actually think Jacobson's review fares very well for Gen IV reactors.

:shrug:

[joshcryer]

41. Actually, science is fully open to scrutiny, and since it was a review and not a study...

...and it was written in a new journal that spammed wikipedia to get noticed, one can legitimately give it more scrutiny.

That the study neglects to point out, with numbers that Jacobson himself came up with, is that his "renewable solution" costs as much as 50 WWII's or 600 Apollo's. Ne neglects to point this out because he knows that, deep down, it's utterly untenable and isn't going to be achieved.

[stray cat]

21. And why don't environmentalists offer a real alternative?

[GliderGuider]

22. They believe they have offered one, with wind power.

Others aren't so sure - it depends on what the meaning of the word "real" is. :evilgrin:
That's why we need a transparent debate.

[kristopher]

24. What group has suggested wind power is the solution to climate change?

Wind power is but one of a wide array of renewable energy sources including solar PV, solar thermal, wave/tidal/current, geothermal, and biomass.

[GliderGuider]

26. Not as a solution to climate change, as an alternative to nuclear power.

You yourself make this suggestion all the time.

[kristopher]

28. No, I do not since I'm aware that we need no substitute for nuclear power.

We need to move away from a system of energy provision built around fossil fuels. Your use of "substitute" plays into the "plug-and-play" theme you use to promote nuclear energy, but it is a complete misnomer for what is actually happening.

We are building an entirely different system where large centralized energy sources are outmoded. It is not reasonable to shut down existing nuclear plants that are safe to continue operations, but there is no need to build more.

[joshcryer]

38. We are building "entirely different systems" at 50x less than what we need to.

I know you are failing to grasp this but it's happening far too slowly. Fossil fuels remain the fuel of choice. Period.

[txlibdem]

53. Failing to grasp it?

Or understanding the realities of the situation perfectly well, and being quite content with fossil fuels being the de facto standard.

[kristopher]

55. You are the one saying we need to wait for "breakthrough technologies"

We can solve the problem RIGHT NOW with renewables and a distributed smart grid.

There is no need to wait 30 years.

[txlibdem]

72. Where did I say that? At least about renewable energy.

I've made no secret of my disdain for Generation III/III+ and any other PWR or water-cooled nuclear technologies. I support Thorium cycle reactors, which have already been perfected and do not need 30 years of further thumb-sitting. I also support mass production of the components for any and all nuclear power plants made from this day forward. That is the only way to bring costs down and bring the timetable into line with reality. The only thing required are politicians with a pair of stones and/or some backbone (now THAT is the true endangered species). Get a plan and stick with the plan and GET STARTED -- that is the key to success with any large venture.

And while I disagree that we can fully solve the problem right now, we desperately need to step up our efforts about 100x from what we're doing now. We can begin to solve it and modify our approach as we go along, learn new things, perfect our procedures and technologies. Rome was not built in a day. We did not get so dependent of fossil fuels overnight so it will take a decade or more to free ourselves from that particular addiction. The key is to start with a smart plan and GET MOVING.

Yet here we are, looking into thinking of how to begin studying the issues involved in perhaps maybe starting an effort to ramp up the percentage of renewables and build the High Voltage DC transmission lines needed and build out the rest of the smart grid. Failing to plan is planning to FAIL. Business as usual in America nowadays.

Look at China. They are kicking our butts because they have decided on an aggressive timetable and have rapidly begun to implement their plan. Done. High Speed Rail. Done. Wind turbines out the wazoo. Done. Nuclear reactors in great numbers. Done. Every new nuke plant requires closing an older coal plant. Done. It's all in the plan. The USA? Duh, umm.... maybe some private companies might come up with something... er... I dunno.

[joshcryer]

37. They're convinced by liars who say market alternatives are "enough."

They don't do the math. Hey, I've been there. I've been told by liars that wind and solar and hydro and geothermal were just fine and dandy and that we'd deal with the coming resource crunch without any issues whatsoever. Then I did the math. Every time we don't start spending the equivalent of 50 WWII's or 600 Apollo's it gets harder and harder and harder. Every day the price tag jumps. At something like $10 billion a day.

[Kennah]

29. One of the biggest lies and misconceptions perpetuated ...

... is that the "Green Movement" is one, big, monolithic encroaching threat from commie, pinko, leftists marching lockstep with the leadership of George Soros and Al Gore.

Greenies disagree about and debate all sorts of things in the context of what makes sense and what's the best choice at any point in time. Nuclear good or nuclear bad is perhaps the most contentious point of disagreement.

The fossil fuel exploitation industry (oil, coal, and natural gas) does tend to march along in lockset because their interests intersect and market shares mostly don't overlap. Oil is for transportation and coal is for generating electricity. About one fourth of natural gas does get used for generating electricity, and a sliver for transportation, but coal is still dominant for generating electricity.

Personally, I think debate is good and healthy--rather than mindless agreement like that which occurs over in Teabagger Nutjob Land.

[GliderGuider]

30. Can you name one major environmental organization that takes a pro-nuclear stance?

I haven't found one yet. Mostly the debate seems to be coming from ecologically conscious individuals who have given up on the alt.energy movement in despair.

[kristopher]

34. Mostly the debate seems to be coming from ecologically conscious individuals ...

Where is the evidence of that?

The objective evidence says that the "debate" regarding nuclear is driven by invalid claims of nuclear industry. They seek to rebrand nuclear power as a green option solely on the basis of its minimal CO2 emissions.

The public support for nuclear power is primarily oriented around individuals see nuclear as being able to continue the present system of centralized thermal generation and thereby ensuring the "energy security" they prize so highly.

The proof is in the polling where supporters of nuclear are the same subset as supporters of building more coal.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

Academic research into the values behind support for nuclear also shows that values and beliefs that are the primary predictor of nuclear support are not rooted in any sort of "ecological consciousness". Here is my summary:

1) Attitudes toward nuclear power are a result of perceived risk

2) Attitudes and risk perceptions are determined by previously held values and beliefs that serve to determine the level of trust in the nuclear industry.

3) Increased trust in the nuclear industry reduces perceived risk of nuclear power

4) Therefore, higher trust in the nuclear industry and the consequent lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power.

5) Traditional values are defined here as assigning priority to family, patriotism, and stability

6) Altruism is defined as a concern with the welfare of other humans and other species.

7) Neither trust in environmental institutions nor perceived risks from global environmental problems predict a person’s attitudes toward nuclear power.

8) Those with traditional values tend to embrace nuclear power; while those with altruistic values more often reject nuclear power.

9) Altruism is recognized as a dependable predictor of various categories of environmental concern.

10) Traditional values are associated with less concern for the environment and are unlikely to lead to pro-environmental behavioral intentions.

Here is the abstract of the paper from which this is primarily drawn.
Abstract and references are intended for public use and distribution

The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception
Stephen C. Whitfield,1 Eugene A. Rosa,2 Amy Dan,3 and Thomas Dietz3;

Abstract
Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been a revival of interest in nuclear power. Two decades ago, the expansion of nuclear power in the United States was halted by widespread public opposition as well as rising costs and less than projected increases in demand for electricity. Can the renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power overcome its history of public resistance that has persisted for decades? We propose that attitudes toward nuclear power are a function of perceived risk, and that both attitudes and risk perceptions are a function of values, beliefs, and trust in the institutions that influence nuclear policy.

Applying structural equation models to data from a U.S. national survey, we find that increased trust in the nuclear governance institutions reduces perceived risk of nuclear power and together higher trust and lower risk perceptions predict positive attitudes toward nuclear power. Trust in environmental institutions and perceived risks from global environmental problems do not predict attitudes toward nuclear power. Values do predict attitudes: individuals with traditional values have greater support for, while those with altruistic values have greater opposition to, nuclear power. Nuclear attitudes do not vary by gender, age, education, income, or political orientation, though nonwhites are more supportive than whites. These findings are consistent with, and provide an explanation for, a long series of public opinion polls showing public ambivalence toward nuclear power that persists even in the face of renewed interest for nuclear power in policy circles.

[joshcryer]

39. An NGO advancing nuclear would lose a lot of deluded supporters.

It ain't happening.

[ladjf]

31. No problem. A nuclear meltdown on the East Coast could render

half of the U.S. uninhabitable for 200,000 years. Don't know why those crazy conservationists are so worried.

[GliderGuider]

32. Low probability.

An increase in CO2 levels to 750 ppm could render much of the planet uninhabitable by humans for millions of years. High probability.

Your choice...

[ladjf]

33. I can think of several rebuttal points to your "cute and well scripted"

retort to my post. However, I'm not going to waste any more time sparing with you.

[NNadir]

35. On the other hand, submersion of huge parts of NY city, no more or less a certainty will produce not

a wimper from paranoids who know nothing about nuclear engineering, hate nuclear science because they are intellectually incompetent to understand it, and somehow elevate their ignorant fantasies above dire realities that kill people every damn day.

Have a nice evening.

[ladjf]

36. Mr. Nadir, you don't know anything about me other than I fear the

dangers of nuclear accidents along the lines of the Chernobyl meltdown or worse. I also fear the CO2 buildup up from the use of carbon based fuels.

You don't know whether I'm paranoid, ignorant of nuclear engineering, hate nuclear science, or intellectually incapable of understanding nuclear issues. Nor do I elevate ignorant fantasies above the dire realities of the times. Anyone who would presume to know so much about another just from a brief mention of one concern would most likely have a serious case of the narcissistic behavioral disorder.

I have read your pseudo-intellectual vitriol for years. I do not believe that you have accomplished anything other than to try to insult and humiliate as many people as you can who don't toe the line
in favor of nuclear power generation.

You are indeed a "johnny one note". All of your post say basically same the same thing, namely you are somehow the anointed genius of nuclear technology while everyone else is hopelessly stupid.

[joshcryer]

40. ladjf, you've been misled about Chernobyl.

The Chernobyl design would not be built again. It was a shitty design.

[txlibdem]

62. The Chernobyl design was NEVER built anywhere else but the former USSR

No commercial reactor built in the USA was built to such low standards as Chernobyl. That is a fact so "fearing another Chernobyl" here in the US is just a sign of the success that fossil fuel manipulators have had in controlling your opinions.

The heroin dealer will try to keep you from switching to 'meth as well because he'll lose a BUNCH of money watching you slowly die.

[Confusious]

42. Please give the two major reasons why Chernobyl happened then.

More specifically, what were the two major design flaws of the Chernobyl reactor?

[NNadir]

46. A positive void coefficient. A flammable moderator/core. Even WITH these design

flaws, the operators had to deliberately disable all of the safety systems and over ride them.

These flaws were exactly those that were sized up by Hans Bethe, who knew something about graphite moderation, since he had been involved in their design early in the nuclear age.

Once these flaws were understood, no other graphite moderated reactor was ever again as dangerous as a normally operating coal fired plant.

The reactor also had other design flaws, most notably a servo driven control rod system rather than a gravity fed control rod system.

But IF YOU DON'T INHERENTLY understand these reactor physics idea, you are, by definition, incompetent to judge nuclear energy.

There is NOT ONE anti-nuke who knows a damn thing about the subject they rail on and on and on and on and on about from a position of total ignorance.

I note, with due contempt, that there is NOT ONE anti-nuke/car cultist here who is calling for banning hydroelectricity because of the 200,000 people who died in the mid 1970's from the disaster at Banqiao, although most people understand that dams can, and do, fail.

[Nihil]

48. I note, with due contempt, that you were blindly attacking someone who was not talking to you ...

... and, moreover, who was trying to make the same point as you did
(but in a politer, thoughtful way that is far more conducive to reasonable
debate than your misdirected knee-jerk response).

Confusius (the poster who you were addressing) was trying to get ladjf
(the poster who you probably thought you were addressing) to understand
that flapping the word "Chernobyl" around without understanding the
whys & wherefores about the event is totally self-defeating.

Your factual content was perfectly fine:
- A positive void coefficient.
- A flammable moderator/core.
- A servo driven control rod system (rather than a gravity driven).
- Operators had to deliberately disable all of the safety systems and over ride them.
- No other graphite moderated reactor was ever again as dangerous as a normally
operating coal fired plant.

Your unnecessary, repetitive and disruptive flaming wasn't.

[joshcryer]

49. The "unnecessary, repetitive and disruptive flaming" wasn't to him.

It's unfortunate, but E&E attracts insinuating posts to slander other individuals (see a post recently comparing calling posters on this forum wackjobs, without mentioning the forum).

[Nihil]

50. Correct: In this case it was *by* him

> It's unfortunate, but E&E attracts insinuating posts to slander other individuals

I agree with you. I also agree that Nnadir has had a lot of slanderous posts
directed straight at him. Neither case supports his knee-jerk response in the
above and I was just fed up with it - his FACTS are the things that should be
used to respond (ideally to the correct person but WTH) but they are getting
overlooked (or, in some cases, deliberately discarded) as a result of the
pointless flaming.

Those facts should be used to counter every panic-monger's bleats of "Chernobyl!"
every time that the latter is used to in an attempt to deflect the discussion.

The flames? Nah.


> (see a post recently comparing calling posters on this forum wackjobs,
> without mentioning the forum).

If that's the case, alert on it.
I though that the post you refer to was just badly written waffle and so didn't
bother alerting. YMMV.

:shrug:

[GliderGuider]

51. Thanks for collecting those Chernobyl points into a succinct list

That's going to make life much easier for those of us who want to explain why simply saying "Chernobyl" shouldn't end a rational discussion of nuclear power.

We have an interesting situation here on E/E: two posters who appear to be atoms of matter and anti-matter. They have opposite spin and charge, cloaking strong underlying psychological similarities. I am happy for the facts each brings to the table.

[txlibdem]

64. Add one more to the list of deficiencies

Many of the control panel indicators were used to detect multiple failures each so operators had no way of knowing exactly where the failure was (TMI also suffered from an over-simplistic control system). And let's not forget that the Chernobyl failure occurred during a test during which they had to disengage almost all safety equipment. It was a combination of design and human error that may never occur again, even if all nuclear power plants in the world were of the same design -- which they are NOT, none are of that design outside of the former Soviet Union.

[kristopher]

86. And then...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=266280&mesg_id=266443

[txlibdem]

91. I have no time for your "link as post" posts

If you have something to say then say it. Or don't. I don't particularly care.

[Nihil]

98. Agreed - I ignore them as most point back to prior spam (MZJ or similar)

If it isn't spam but is just another "I've said it so it is decided"
post then, again, no loss.

If there was something beneficial to be said, it would have been
said in the post.

:shrug:

[kristopher]

56. The best term to use is "Chernobyl scale nuclear event"

A nuclear event on the scale of Chernobyl is certainly possible although the probability is low. The root cause of Chernobyl was human error, just as it was in the BP Gulf spill. You can be assured that if/when another Chernobyl scale nuclear event happens it too will be rooted firmly in the ability of humans to be the weak link in all complex systems.

The reactor core at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant sits within a metal pot designed to withstand pressures up to 2,500 pounds per square inch. The pot -- called the reactor vessel -- has carbon steel walls nearly six inches thick to provide the necessary strength. Because the water cooling the reactor contains boric acid that is highly corrosive to carbon steel, the entire inner surface of the reactor vessel is covered with 3/16-inch thick stainless steel.

But water routinely leaked onto the reactor vessel's outer surface. Because the outer surface lacked a protective stainless steel coating, boric acid ate its way through the carbon steel wall until it reached the backside of the inner liner. High pressure inside the reactor vessel pushed the stainless steel outward into the cavity formed by the boric acid. The stainless steel bent but did not break. Cooling water remained inside the reactor vessel not because of thick carbon steel but due to a thin layer of stainless steel. The plant's owner ignored numerous warning signs spanning many years to create the reactor with a hole in its head.

Workers repairing one of five cracked control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) nozzles at Davis-Besse discovered extensive damage to the reactor vessel head. The reactor vessel head is the dome-shaped upper portion of the carbon steel vessel housing the reactor core. It can be removed when the plant is shut down to allow spent nuclear fuel to be replaced with fresh fuel. The CRDM nozzles connect motors mounted on a platform above the reactor vessel head to control rods within the reactor vessel. Operators withdraw control rods from the reactor core to startup the plant and insert them to shut down the reactor.

The workers found a large hole in the reactor vessel head next to CRDM nozzle #3. The hole was about six inches deep, five inches long, and seven inches wide. The hole extended to within 1-1/2 inches of the adjacent CRDM nozzle #11. The stainless steel liner welded to the inner surface of the reactor vessel head for protection against boric acid was at the bottom of the hole. This liner was approximately 3/16-inch thick and had bulged outward about 1/8-inch due to the high pressure (over one ton per square inch) inside the reactor vessel.

What could have happened?

A loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) occurs if the stainless steel liner fails or CRDM nozzle #3 is ejected. The water cooling the reactor core quickly empties through the hole into the containment building. The containment building is made of reinforced concrete designed to withstand the pressure surge from the flow through the break.

To compensate for the reactor water exiting through the hole, water inside the pressurizer (PZR) and the cold leg accumulators flows into the reactor vessel. This initial makeup is supplemented by water from the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) delivered to the reactor vessel by the high, intermediate, and low pressure injection pumps. The makeup water re-fills the reactor vessel and overflows out the hole in the reactor vessel head. Approximately 30 to 45 minutes later, the RWST empties. Operators close valves between the pumps and the RWST and open valves between the low pressure injection (RHR) pumps and the containment sump. Water pouring from the broken reactor vessel head drains to the containment sump where the RHR pumps recycle it to the reactor vessel. A cooling water system supplies water to the RHR heat exchanger shown to the left of the RHR pump to remove heat generated by the reactor core.

On paper, that's how the safety systems would have functioned to protect the public. But the following examples suggest that things might not have gone by the book:

-The Three Mile Island nuclear plant experienced a loss of coolant accident in March 1979. Emergency pumps automatically started to replace the water flowing out the leak. Operators turned off the pumps because instruments falsely indicated too much water in the reactor vessel. Within two hours, the reactor core overheated and melted, triggering the evacuation of nearly 150,000 people.

-At the Callaway nuclear plant in 2001, workers encountered problems while testing one of the emergency pumps. Investigation revealed that a foam-like bladder inside the RWST was flaking apart. Water carried chunks of debris to the pump where it blocked flow. The debris would have disabled all the emergency pumps during an accident.

-At the Haddam Neck nuclear plant in 1996, the NRC discovered the piping carrying water from the RWST to the reactor vessel was too small. It was long enough but it was not wide enough to carry enough water during an accident to re-fill the reactor vessel in time to prevent meltdown. The plant operated for nearly 30 years with this undetected vulnerability.

-At several US and foreign nuclear power plants, including the Limerick nuclear plant 8 years ago, the force of water/steam entering the containment building during a loss of coolant accident has blown insulation off piping and equipment. The water carried that insulation and other debris into the containment sump. The debris clogged the piping going to the emergency pumps much like hair clogs a bathtub drain. According to a recent government report, 46 percent of US nuclear plants are very likely to experience blockage in the containment sumps in event of a hole the size found at Davis-Besse opens up. For slightly larger holes, the chances of failure increase to 82 percent.<1>

Thus, events at Davis-Besse may have gone by the book had the stainless steel failed it would have become the subject of many books on the worst loss of coolant accident in US history...

UCS -- Aging Nuclear Plants -- Davis-Besse: The Reactor with a Hole in its Head

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/acfnx8tzc.pdf








Scapegoating of Davis Besse by NRC
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/federal-agency-scapegoating-0141.html

Retrospective
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/davis-besse-retrospective.html

[GliderGuider]

58. The root cause of Chernobyl was NOT "operator error."

The root cause of the Chernobyl disaster, as it is in major accidents of all sorts, was a converging chain of events. In the case of Chernobyl that started with numerous bad aspects of the plant design and finished with operator stupidity (not "error"). It wasn't a case of "Whoops, I accidentally pushed the wrong button, didn't I?"

To foster that implication is fear-mongering of the most scurrilous sort.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GliderGuider]

66. Oh?

- A positive void coefficient.(design flaw)
- A flammable moderator/core.(design flaw)
- A servo driven control rod system (rather than a gravity driven).(design flaw)
- Many of the control panel indicators were used to detect multiple failures each so operators had no way of knowing exactly where the failure was.(design flaw)
- Operators had to deliberately disable all of the safety systems and over ride them. (operator stupidity).

If any of the first three design flaws had not been present the accident would never have gotten going. If the fourth flaw had not been present they might have had a chance to catch it, even in the presence of human stupidity. It took all 5 of these to create the disaster. All five can be (and have since been) prevented through simple regulation.

What, exactly, is bullshit?

[kristopher]

68. Did humans design the system?

Human failure.

Did humans choose to operate the system knowing the potential risks?

Human failure.

Did humans operate the system in an unsafe manner?

Human failure.

See this from post #56?


Human failure

[GliderGuider]

70. Are humans capable of learning?

Sheesh.

[kristopher]

79. Judging by your performance the answer is an unequivocal no.

[GliderGuider]

87. Actually, thanks to you I've learned a lot.

I went into this discussion a couple of years ago relatively uninformed. Remember our first go-around over my "World Energy to 2050" article three years ago? Since then your constant prodding has encouraged me to dive much deeper into the topic. The result is what you see today, and I owe much of it to going head to head with you. Expect me always to be grateful for the learning opportunity, but expect me never to back down unless I convince myself I am wrong.

If you fancy yourself a teacher, you should take great pride in this outcome. The goal of good teaching is not to impart any particular set of facts or beliefs, no matter how attached the teacher may be to them. The goal of a good teacher is to encourage all those they encounter to think for themselves. You have succeeded admirably at that.

[XemaSab]

89. .

:patriot:

[Confusious]

81. Don't forget, no containment building. nt

[GliderGuider]

84. Good point. Thanks. nt

[madokie]

52. Nuclear energy is hardly green

All phases of getting fuel from the ground to the reactor is very energy dependent and therefore very dirty by way of the nature of the way the energy thats used is used and a lot of that process really can't be cleaned up much with present technology. Only is nuclear energy sorta good and that is the phase where everything is going right and they're producing energy. Coming to that place and going away from it is not so good. At best nuclear energy barely breaks even co2 wise so whats the big deal we want to take the chances of something going really wrong for a 'at best only a small decrease in co2 produced overall?'
I don't get it... It sounds stupid to me to be still having this same argument today

[GliderGuider]

57. You say "nuclear energy barely breaks even co2 wise"

You've said this before. Can you define what you mean by "breaks even" and what the source of your information is? Because I just don't believe it. If you're relying on Storm van Leeuwen and Smith (SLS), I found this comment about their results:

Information from this source shows that using data from Storm van Leeuwen & Smith one gets annual energy costs for three major uranium mines of 5 PJ for Ranger, 60 PJ for Olympic Dam (both in Australia) and 69 PJ for Rossing in Namibia. These mines report their energy use as 0.8 PJ, 5 PJ and 1 PJ respectively, with that at Olympic Dam including copper production (only about 20% of value of output is uranium). Rossing mines very low-grade ores, but its energy cost is overestimated sixty-fold or more by Storm van Leeuwen & Smith and the figure they predict is more than that for the whole country (c 50 PJ).

While the quote is from the nuclear industry, they are simply reprinting reported data from the mines themselves. That page also gives links to a robust and detailed back-and-forth rebuttal and counter-rebuttal of SLS's work by Martin Sevior and Adrian Flitney of the University of Melbourne, including references to Vatenfall's empirical data that utterly contradicts SLS's predictions. It looks to me as though Dr. Sevior and Dr. Flitney have effectively rebutted what appears to be erroneous work by SLS.

More generally accepted figures show nuclear power producing only about 1% to 3% of the CO2 of coal, over the full life cycle. these are the numbers I accept as well, unless anyone can come up with an independent analysis that conclusively demonstrates otherwise. Storm and Smith have not done so, IMO.

[kristopher]

63. So you are confortable answering a critical question with anecdotal evidence from the industry?

The mines are ALSO part of "the nuclear industry" you know, and there is absolutely no indication that their records are in any way reliable as a test of van Leeuwen's extremely comprehensive and highly detailed paper.

What is remarkable is that you are willing to dismiss his work on the word of the industry that is threatened by it. That and your characterization of environmental groups above really tells us everything about where you priorities lie.

[GliderGuider]

65. More comfortable than I am with SLS's prognostications, for sure.

And, are you referring to my characterization of environmental groups as "politically astute"? I can't believe I was so derogatory...

[kristopher]

67. What is wrong with his paper?

Where does the content go astray? The nuclear industry pours millions into public relations yearly, and you know they've poured over that paper dozens of times trying to find a real way to discredit it, yet the only thing they could come up with was probable poor record keeping re: ore quality at one of their mines.

You described envirnomental organizations in a way that clearly conveyed the idea that they are nothing more than greedy, stupid, irrational panderers. Trying to recast those words in post #14 as "politically astute" just shows you don't even have the courage of your convictions.

[GliderGuider]

71. Read Sevior's rebuttals.

The problems are mostly in the amount of embedded energy SLS claims for plant construction, and the amount of energy SLS claims it takes to mine and mill uranium.

[kristopher]

73. I have read the rebuttal

It doesn't hold water. The ONLY error found was that van Leeuwen's paper was an expansion of one he wrote in the mid80s and he didn't account for improved enrichment technology. He corrected that and it made very little difference to the end result - any large scale expansion of nuclear looks set to result in CO2 life cycle emissions at a level that is comparable to natural gas.

[GliderGuider]

75. Ah. so you seem to be saying that while current CO2 emissions from nuclear power may be low

If we try to do a lot of it things will get worse?

The Vattenfall life cycle study found that nuclear power currently emits around 3g CO2 per KWhe:



Other sources appear to agree. The following chart is annotated here:

Table 1.  Total lifetime releases of CO2 from electricity generating technologies
 	                Coal	Gas	Solar	Nuclear	Wind	Hydro
 	                               kg CO2/MWeh
ExternE  	        815	362	53	20	7	-
UK SDC 	                891	356	-	16	-	-
U. of Wisconsin  	974	469	39	15	14	-
CRIEPI, Japan   	990	653(a)	59	21	37	18
Paul Scherrer Inst.     949(b)	485	79	8	14	3
UK Energy Review  	755	385	-	11–22	11–37	-
IAEA     	        968(c)	440(c)	100(c)	9–21	9–36	4–23
Vattenfall AB     	980	450	50	6	6	3
British Energy     	900	400	-	5	-	-

So, the issue must be with what happens as uranium ores decrease in concentration.
Unfortunately, reality appears to be SLS's undoing.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeEnergyLifecycleOfNuclear_Power

It is worth noting that the widely quoted paper by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith (SLS), which gives a rather pessimistic assessment of the Energy Lifecycle of Nuclear Power, assumes a far larger energy cost to construct and decommission a Nuclear Power plant (240 Peta-Joules versus 8 Peta-Joules(PJ)). The difference is that Vattenfall actually measured their energy inputs whereas Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Smith employed various theoretical relationships between dollar costs and energy consumed. This paper also grossly over-estimates the energy cost of mining low-grade Ores and also that the efficiency of extraction of Uranium from reserves would fall dramatically at ore concentrations below 0.05%. Employing their calculations predicts that the energy cost of extracting the Olympic Dam mine's yearly production of 4600 tonnes of Uranium would require energy equivalent to almost 2 one-GigaWatt power plants running for a full year (2 GigaWat-years). You can follow this calculation here. This is larger than the entire electricity production of South Australia and an order of magnitude more than the measured energy inputs.

The Rossing mine has a lower Uranium concentration (0.03% vs 0.05% by weight) than Olympic Dam and the discrepancy is even larger in the case of Rossing. Here SLS predict Rossing should require 2.6 Giga-Watt-Years of energy for mining and milling. The total consumption of all forms of energy in the country of Namibia is equivalent to 1.5 GigaWatt-Years, much less than the prediction for the mine alone. Furthermore, yearly cost of supplying this energy is over 1 billion dollars, yet the value of the Uranium sold by Rossing was, until recently, less than 100 million dollars per year. Since Rossing reports it's yearly energy usage to be 0.03 GigaWatt-years, SLS overestimates the energy cost of the Rossing mine by a factor of 80.

Additionally SLS predict that the yield of of Uranium extracted from low grade Ores will fall to 0 at concentrations of 0.0002% (2 ppm). The Olympic Dam mine extracts gold at high efficiency at concentrations of 0.0005% (5 ppm (parts per million)) and there are many other gold mines which produce gold profitably at this concentration. Given the huge Uranium reserves present at 5 ppm, it unlikely we will ever need mines that operate lower than this.

It is interesting to see what effect using the correct energy cost of 8 PJ for the construction, decommissioning and waste disposal of a power plants and the measured energy consumption of the Rossing mine has within the methodology of Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Smith. If we assume that the energy cost of extraction scales inversely with concentration and employ the Rossing experience as a benchmark, ore concentrations as low as 0.001% (10 ppm) provide an energy gain of 16. This also (and very unrealistically) assumes no further progress in mining technology or efficiency improvements in Nuclear Power operations over the course of hundreds of years. As shown here there is an estimated 1 trillion tonnes of Uranium at concentrations of 10 ppm or higher within the Earth's crust. This provides a resource over a factor of 300 times greater than predicted by Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Smith to be recoverable. So once the correct energy cost for plant construction and mining operations are used, the work of Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Smith imply that resource exhastion will not be a problem for Nuclear Power for the foreseeable future.

Our additional investigations strengthen the conclusion that there is far more minable Uranium than predicted by Storm and Smith

Relying on a single paper like SLS is like relying on a single paper by Mark Jacobson. You may be comfortable doing it, but if you want to discredit things like the Vattenfall Life Cycle Study (involving actual empirical data from plant construction and operation) you'll have to cast your net a bit wider than that.

[kristopher]

77. I prefer to give independent analysis greater weight than that sourced to any industry

And that goes double for the nuclear industry, which has a history of presenting false information to protect themselves.

"It is worth noting" that your rebuttal was produced by the nuclear industry; and that van Leeuwen's paper is often cited by independent analysts who are qualified to spot valid criticisms if they are offered.

It is worth noting that the widely quoted paper by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith (SLS)

Simply put, you will believe anything the nuclear industry tells you; enough said.

The Emissions Argument for Using Nuclear Power
Besides questions about costs, there is the issue of whether atomic energy should replace scrubbed coal plants. Is nuclear power a good (low-carbon) way to generate electricity? As noted, the MIT and IPCC reports suggest so. The US DOE, the UK Environment Secretary and others make the ‘emissions argument’. They say that atomic energy must be tripled because it is ‘carbon-free’.8,15 Official US government, Nuclear Energy Institute and World Energy Council documents, respectively, claim that more nuclear power is necessary because it is “clean” and “emission-free”, “does not emit greenhouse gases” and is “not a source of carbon dioxide”.16–18 However, subsequent paragraphs suggest that this argument is erroneous. It trims nuclear-related GHGE and ignores analyses showing that renewable energy technologies produce fewer emissions.

Trimming Greenhouse Emissions from the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
...Emissions argument proponents also often trim atomic-energy-related GHGEs by making unrealistic assumptions about empirical factors that influence emissions levels. One problematic assumption is that nuclear GHGEs arise only from higher-grade (roughly 0.1% yellowcake) and not low-grade (≤0.01% yellowcake) uranium ores.

However, cleaner, higher-grade ores are nearly gone, and the lower-grade, higher-emissions ores are widely used.13

Nuclear-fuel cycles using 10 times less concentrated uranium ore (<0.01% yellowcake) have total GHGEs equal roughly to those for natural gas fuel cycles; all other things being equal, such nuclear fuel cycles (using lower-grade uranium ore) release 12 times more GHGEs than solar cycles and 49 times more GHGEs than wind cycles.31 Thus, when reactors use lower-grade uranium ores, the full fuel cycle GHGE ratio is 112 coal: 49 natural gas: 49 nuclear: 4 solar: 1 wind. With lower-grade uranium ores, nuclear energy emits 12 times more GHGEs than solar power and 49 times more than wind power. Some scientists even claim that lower-grade uranium ore fuel cycles could require more energy than they produce.27,32

"Greenhouse Emissions and Nuclear Energy," Modern Energy Review 1, no. 1 (August 2009): 54-57

Download entire report here: http://www.nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/

[Confusious]

82. Vantenfall operates everything

Wind, solar, coal, nuclear, hydro, sooo.... it's in their best interest to find the best.

Why spend money you don't have to, or need to?

I know, I know, the nuclear conspiracy infects all.

[kristopher]

85. Nuclear industry data.

[Confusious]

92. Just out of curiosity, if you get your power from a nuclear plant,

are you infected too?

Be good for me to know, because that would increase the number of infected nuclear conspiracy zombies by 1000 times or more, and I need to be prepared.

[XemaSab]

90. You work for the wind industry

You are hardly an impartial voice here.

[kristopher]

94. I am an independent energy policy analyst.

I'm curious what you base your perception on, since I'd actually be more inclined to work in the solar or storage area if I moved to the private sector.

[XemaSab]

97. You need a degree in order to do that

:P

[GliderGuider]

100. Your analysis hasn't been showing many signs of "independence" thus far

Seeing as how it's pretty much in lockstep with the anti-nuclear flock and depends almost entirely on the thoughts of others.

[joshcryer]

93. Are you debating Jacobson's numbers? It rates better than Coal-CCS.

And if you go by Gen IV reactors with 120 year lifecycles, it obliterates even hydro.

Using Jacobson's numbers.

[kristopher]

95. Union of Concerned Scientists

Nuclear Power: A Resurgence We Can't Afford

Nuclear power could play a role in reducing global warming emissions because reactors emit almost no carbon while they operate and can have low life-cycle emissions. Partly for that reason, advocates are calling for a nationwide investment in at least 100 new nuclear reactors, backed by greatly expanded federal loan guarantees. However, the industry must resolve major economic, safety, security, and waste disposal challenges before new nuclear reactors could make a significant contribution to reducing carbon emissions.

The economics of nuclear power alone could be the most difficult hurdle to surmount. A new UCS analysis, Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy, finds that the United States does not need to significantly expand its reliance on nuclear power to make dramatic cuts in power plant carbon emissions through 2030—and indeed that new nuclear reactors would largely be uneconomical.

That analysis shows that by significantly expanding the use of energy efficiency and low-cost and declining-cost renewable energy sources, consumers and businesses could reduce carbon emissions from power plants as much as 84 percent by 2030 while saving $1.6 trillion on their energy bills. And, under the Blueprint scenario, because of their high cost, the nation would not build more than four new nuclear reactors already spurred by existing loan guarantees from the Department of Energy (DOE) and other incentives.

A forced nuclear resurgence, in contrast, could make efforts to cut the nation’s global warming emissions much more costly, given the rising projected costs of new nuclear reactors. A nuclear power resurgence that relies on new federal loan guarantees would also risk repeating costly bailouts of the industry financed by taxpayers and ratepayers twice before.


Download: Nuclear Power: A Resurgence We Can't Afford at: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-resurgence.html