Nuclear Power Resurgence

[Nederland]

Anybody else out there change their mind about nuclear power?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16272910/

On edit: By this I mean are you now in favor of nuclear power?

[closeupready]

1. You mean, you're now in favor?

I don't understand what you are asking.

No, I've been against ever since 3-Mile Island. I don't anticipate that changing.

[Nederland]

2. Sorry

I edited the OP to be more clear.

Yes, I was wondering is if the concern over global warming has led anyone here to reverse their position on nuclear power. I think that the fact that Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, has reverse his position on nuclear power speaks volumes about where environmentalists should stand on this issue today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

[jpak]

3. Patrick Moore is a loon and PT Barnum was right

Greenpeace co-founder praises global warming

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Jan/13/bz/FP601130327.html



Global warming and nuclear energy are good and the way to save forests is to use more wood.

That was the message delivered to a biotechnology industry gathering yesterday in Waikiki. However, it wasn't the message that was unconventional, but the messenger — Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. Moore said he broke with Greenpeace in the 1980s over the rise of what he called "environmental extremism," or stands by environmental groups against issues such as genetic crop research, genetically modified foods and nuclear energy that aren't supported by science or logic.

Hawai'i, which is one of the top locations nationwide for genetically modified crop research, has become a focal point in the debate about the risks and value of such work. Friction between environmentalists and other concerned groups and the biotech industry surfaced most recently in relation to the use of local crops to grow industrial and pharmaceutical compounds. Last year that opposition halted a Big Island project planning to use algae for trial production of pharmaceutical drugs.

Zero-tolerance standards against such research by environmental groups delay developments that could help those with unmet basic needs, Moore said. Instead Moore called for compromise rather than confrontation on the part of the environmentalists.

<more>

[NNadir]

18. Patrick Moore has little credibility as an environmentalist.

Being a member of Greenpeace or a founder of Greenpeace is totally divorced from environmental responsibility. In fact, being a member of Greenpeace is about being a Western world consumer with dangerous fantasies.

The reason for being for nuclear power has everything to do with rational analysis and nothing to do with who is for it and who is against it.

The fact is that the use of nuclear power is extraordinarily clean and safe when compared to its alternative, which is pretty much fossil fuels, particularly coal, alone. One can determine this simply by asking oneself about the loss of life connected with nuclear energy in the last decade. It is zero. No other serious means of generating electricity is remotely as safe.

I changed my mind about nuclear energy after the worst case, Chernobyl, clearly defined the limits of the technology's potential negatives. It still hasn't killed as many people as a single year of air pollution.

[XemaSab]

82. To play super devil's advocate

Chernobyl resulted in the creation of a really nice impromptu wilderness area. :D

[GliderGuider]

83. Pix of a motorcycle tour through the area

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/





Check out the stories and pictures. It's really haunting.

[Dead_Parrot]

85. Haunting, but bollocks.

You can sign up for the same bus tour here. Remember to take a helmet, and make up a good story about having special clearance.

But I'd agree there are some are nice photos...

[bananas]

25. You've been fooled by a Hill & Knowlton PR campaign

The Nuclear Energy Institute hired Hill & Knowlton to do a PR campaign,
Hill & Knowlton hired Patrick Moore and Christie Todd Whitman.
Christie Todd Whitman is famous for lying about the air safety at ground zero, when she was head of the EPA.
Hill & Knowlton is famous for their PR campaing for the first Gulf War - they hired someone to lie to Congress - live televised coverage of her false testimony that she was a nurse from Kuwait who saw Iraqi soldiers pull babies from incubators in a hospital. She was not a nurse at all - she was actually the daughter of an arab diplomat - she had diplomatic immunity and could not be prosecuted for lying before Congress.

(edited to add "she was not a nurse at all" for clarity)

[GliderGuider]

4. Yes, I did.

Within the last year, actually.

I liked nuclear power back in the '70s. Then in the '80s I was swept along in on the tide of paranoia after Chernobyl. I didn't bother to reexamine my assumptions, I just accepted the position of the environmental movement, with whom I agreed on so many other issues. What swung my compass was accepting the possibility (or even probability) of an economic crash following a sharp peak in oil production. If that happens, we will do everything in our power to keep the lights on. And the only two technologies that have the needed capacity to do that within the next 20 years are coal and nuclear. Faced with that Hobson's Choice, nuclear power is to me obviously the lesser of two evils.

Once I started to re-examine the technology in that light, it became evident that it's not nearly the technical boogeyman it's been painted as.

[closeupready]

5. From Moore's editorial:

>>What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do -- prevent radiation from escaping into the environment.<<

He claims that the disaster at 3 mile island was a "success story". His phrase, not mine.

Isn't that irresponsible?

[jpak]

6. It was a billion dollar accident - paid for by PA ratepayers, NOT the plant owners

A revolting turn of events...

[closeupready]

8. Yeah, what person interested in recounting the facts accurately

would ever characterize 3 Mile Island as "a success story"?????

I think that's insulting to my intelligence.

Say what it was: "a disaster whose design succeeded in averting an even larger disaster."

No snake oil for me, thanks.

[Massacure]

31. Some people say Apollo 13 was America's most successful failure.

So why not just claim Three Mile Island was America's second most successfully failure?

[GliderGuider]

7. Try this analogy

Due to a combination of human error and poor maintenance, one engine on a fully loaded Boeing 767 fails catastrophically in mid-flight. The aircraft continues to limp along on its remaining engine, and makes a successful emergency landing. Nobody is hurt.

Was that a disaster or a success?

[closeupready]

9. You have got to be kidding.

Again, I would characterize that as a disaster for which an even larger disaster was averted due to the design of the aircraft. Nobody who, through neglect or even error, is responsible for an engine breakdown is going to be applauded for doing a "heckuva job." In fact, that person would probably be disciplined.

[GliderGuider]

10. Uh, no, actually.

In both examples, a system failure chain that might have killed people was interrupted by designed-in safety features. In one case it was the second engine and the other requirements that go with ETOPS (Extended-range Twin Engine Operations) certification, in the other case it was a containment dome. The safety philosophy was the same in both cases.

Actually the reactor was safer than the plane because the plane's safety relied on a second identical engine that could have failed at the same time in the same way. The reactor's safety was ensured by a very different type of system (physical containment) that could not have failed in the same way as the cooling system. This is a fundamental aspect of safety design, having layered sets of dissimilar safety features that can interrupt a failure chain in different ways, and are therefore unlikely to themselves fail simultaneously.

[closeupready]

11. So you think an engine failure is a success?

And a nuclear meltdown is cause for applause?

Please explain. Thanks.

[phantom power]

12. The safety features worked properly. No more, no less.

I can't think of anybody who is happy that the 3-mile island incident happened. Preventing the problem from occurring would have been an infinitely better outcome. Especially considering that the event effectively halted all nuclear reactor development from that point onward, thus putting us all behind the 8-ball in fighting climate change.

[GliderGuider]

15. The fact that safety features kept anyone from being injured is the success, such as it is.

As phantom power says, it would have been much better to prevent either incident from happening in the first place. Big, complex, high-energy systems like power plants need effective safety designs, procedures and training. They are not exempt from the standard risk/benefit analysis that is normally done on such systems. What will forever divide camps such as yours and mine is the evaluation of those risks and benefits.

[Nederland]

16. Explanation

The first thing to address is the assumptions being made on this thread. The assumption is that because one reactor did not perform 100% flawlessly all nuclear technology is somehow flawed as a whole. This assumption is false. The reality of any piece of complex machinery is that you cannot completely eliminate all possible points of failure. This is true of automobiles, airplanes, power plants, computers, or any piece of complex machinery. To believe otherwise is to live in a fantasy world where entropy does not exist and people never make mistakes.

Once we accept the fact that failures will occur on occasion, the proper and responsible course of action is to design systems that deal with all sorts of possible events. Yes, the meltdown of the reactor was a "failure" in the sense that you don't want reactors to meltdown. It was a "success" in the sense that the system handled the failure in precisely the manner it was designed to: the partially melted reactor did not breach the containment structure. I would classify any system that behaves as it was designed as a "success"--evidently you would not.

Regardless, words and labels are not what's important here. What is important here is for environmentalists in the US to realize what the French realized 30 years ago: that nuclear power is on balance the best option. Is it perfect? No, but nothing is. What nuclear power is is the best option available today. I challenge you to prove otherwise by a rational, itemized comparison of the pros and cons of each power generation technology available today.

[bananas]

26. Here's a comparison - nuclear loses.

'Nuclear power faces, as the Executive Summary says, "stagnation and decline," chiefly because it's uneconomic.'

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:b2fcX1EBA0AJ:www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E04-22_FutureNucPwr.pdf+mit+nuclear&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10&client=opera

Comment on MIT study "The Future of Nuclear Power"
A letter to correct the public record

Nuclear News's otherwise fairly accurate September 2003 report of the MIT study “The Future of Nuclear Power”
says it found that "billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere could be avoided by 2050 only
by drastically increasing the number of operating nuclear power plants ...." The MIT study said no such
thing. It was built around a 1-TW-by-2050 scenario, which it found could avoid 1.8 GTC/y (a fourth of the
projected incremental carbon emissions). But it couldn't have found that "only" such trebled nuclear capacity
could achieve this result, because, as its Executive Summary states, "We did not analyze other options for
reducing carbon emissions—renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration, and increased energy
efficiency—and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power"—let
alone about what the non-nuclear ones could do.

Therein lies the unreported basic logical flaw of the widely misreported MIT study. Nuclear power faces, as the
Executive Summary says, "stagnation and decline," chiefly because it's uneconomic. The study correctly finds
that "In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas," but major cost
reductions "could reduce the gap," and very large "Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give
nuclear power a cost advantage." Yet that advantage is only against other (coal and gas) central-station options
that the market is rejecting because they're all uneconomic, with U.S. utilities' ordering rates shrunken to
Victorian levels.

The market winners are chiefly distributed gas-fired co- and tri-generation (which the study doesn't mention even
as an omission), windpower, and end-use efficiency. The study finds that new nuclear plants' busbar power under
current conditions costs 6.7¢/kWh (levelized 2002 $). For conservative comparison with distributed options, we
must add to nuclear or wind busbar cost the empirical 1996 investor-owned utility's embedded average delivery
cost of 2.6¢/kWh in 2002 $ (marginal delivery costs more). Compared with new nuclear plants' 9.3+¢/kWh
delivered, their three unanalyzed competitors are thus respectively about 5-10x (net of thermal credit), 2x, and 10-
30x cheaper today, and the latter two would be equally advantaged by carbon pricing.

<snip>

[Dead_Parrot]

32. Amory Lovins, huh?

Be still, my beating heart...

[Dogmudgeon]

36. One anti-nuclear article recently cited a *Larouche* website

The article was originally at an Indymedia website.

Imagine the reaction if one of we nuclear energy proponents had cited from Larouche -- even second-hand. Or third-hand. Considering that Larouche and his gang of knuckleheads takes original work, and then stamps it with their "Made In CloudCukooland" brand, make that third or fourth hand.

Makes you wonder where those hands have been ...

:evilgrin:

--p!

[bananas]

37. You have that backwards - LaRouche is pro-nuclear

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=larouche+nuclear&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 245,000 for larouche nuclear. (0.18 seconds)

Executive Intelligence Review - LaRouche PublicationsThe LaRouche Youth Movement was all over Capitol HIll in a week of action on the ... by Lyndon LaRouche. Why 110th Congress Must Go With Nuclear Power (PDF) ...
www.larouchepub.com/ - 44k - Cached - Similar pages

Nuclear Power Is Crucial for Survival, by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr ...Nuclear Power Is Crucial for Reconstruction. by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. At a meeting of the LaRouche movement in Europe on Dec. 29-30, 2005, Lyndon LaRouche ...
www.larouchepub.com/lar/2006/3302germany_nukes.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

Lyndon LaRouche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaLyndon LaRouche at a news conference in Paris in February 2006. ... LaRouche also became a strong advocate of nuclear energy and directed energy ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche - 160k - Cached - Similar pages

LaRouche Economics for Civilization and a New RenaissanceDialog with LaRouche at the LAROUCHE NUCLEAR FORUM IN IBERO-AMERICA - June 15, 2006. Governments that won't go with a nuclear/thermonuclear policy ...
members.shaw.ca/rolfwitzsche/ canada/civilization/index.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

LaRouche: Mexican LYM Statement on Nuclear PowerJoin the LaRouche Youth Movement to change the future today. Come to our international seminar on "Oil for Nuclear Technology," to be held in Mexico City on ...
www.larouchepac.com/pages/press_ releases_files/2006/060412_mexico_lym.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

LaRouche to Address Oil-for-Nuclear Events in Mexico City/Buenos AiresJune 12, 2006 - Lyndon LaRouche will address the June 15, 2006 simultaneous oil-for-nuclear events in Mexico City and Buenos Aires, by videoconference ...
www.larouchepac.com/pages/press_releases_files/ 2006/060612_oil_for_nuclear.htm - 7k - Cached - Similar pages

Bush Must Say 'No' To Israeli Nuclear Blackmail - LaRoucheWith those two conditions met, LaRouche warned, the gravest, ... It was the threat of an Israeli nuclear attack on Iraq in 1991 that blackmailed the first ...
www.rense.com/general29/noa.htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

Lyndon LaRouche1980, Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche releases the policy paper America Must Go Nuclear! wherein he declares: "On my first day in office, ...
www.rotten.com/library/ bio/religion/cult/lyndon-larouche/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

LaRouche Says: Bush Must Say No To Israeli Nuclear BlackmailTo Israeli Nuclear Blackmail Statement by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. September 18, 2002. For a More Printable Version of this Release Click Here. ...
larouchein2004.net/pages/pressreleases/ 2002/020918isrblackmail.htm - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

Schiller Institute-- LaRouches in Dialogue 2006Lyndon LaRouche: The Senate Must have the Guts to Keep Fascist Alito off the Supreme Court · Lyndon LaRouche: Nuclear Power is Crucial for Reconstruction ...
www.schillerinstitute.org/ lar_related/2006/lar_list_2006.html - 34k - Cached - Similar pages

[Dead_Parrot]

41. I think that's the point... nt

[bananas]

42. Lyndon LaRouche, Patrick Moore, Christie Todd Whitman, Dick Cheney, ...

you pro-nukes are in good company...

[Dogmudgeon]

53. I don't have it backward. You misread me.

It was an anti-nuclear article citing Larouche work -- all the stranger.

Original DU article: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x79119

Citation in link: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/01/17/18348080.php

This was no secondary or incidental link. The DU thread was posted to bring attention to the Indymedia article which based a big chunk of its criticisms on the Larouche figures.

By the way, if anyone wants to try to yoke the Larouchians to anyone who isn't anti-nuclear, they may want to consider that neo-pagan neo-Nazis are strongly anti-nuclear, too. Assigning guilt by association a logical fallacy, and with good reason. There's always a whacko out there who thinks he's your bestest buddy in the whole political world. In the case of Generalissimo Dr. Lyndon Larouche, heir to Socrates, Reimann and Schiller, some of those whackos publish slick magazines that almost seem to be real journalism.

--p!

[bananas]

55. Could you be more specific?

At the indymedia article, I see lots of organizations mentioned,
which of these is Larouche?

The Energy Analysis Office at NREL

Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fresno_Nuclear_Energy_Group_LLC

Public Utility Commissions in the respective states

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/nuclear_power.html

Dick Cheney’s Energy Policy of 2003, Title IV

Worldwatch Institute

World Nuclear Association

Ontario Power Authority

Price-Anderson Act

Department of Energy

California Solar Initiative

The Solar Energy Industries Association

Governor Schwarzenegger

GE Commercial Finance, Chevron Energy Systems, Honeywell, PowerLight/DEPFA Bank, MuniMae/MMA Renewable Ventures, HSN Nordbank, Regenesis Power, Nautilus Energy, and Solar Power Partners

Fresno Airport administration

Ted Turner

the City of Fresno and the Farm Bureau

Citigroup, PNC, Bank of America, Toyota, GM, Ford, Honda, Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, Lowes and Chipotle

Unlimited Energy Solar Solutions

Sierra Club


Those are organization mentioned in the article,
here are the Endnotes, which of these are Larouche?

http://www.taxpayer.net/greenscissors/LearnMore/2003%20Sen%20Nuclear%20Fact%20sht.pdf
http://www.taxpayer.net/greenscissors/LearnMore/2003%20Sen%20Nuclear%20Fact%20sht.pdf
http://www.greens.org/s-r/11/11-09.html
National Renewable Energy Lab (http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/analysis_tools_benefits.html)
http://awea.org/legislative/#PTC
http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/csi/tax_credit.html
http://www.uic.com.au/neweconomics.pdf
“Nuclear burial site delayed” Fresno Bee, 14 Aug 2006, page B7
http://www.cleanair.web.net/resource/fs20.pdf
http://www.pge.com/rates/tariffs/ResElecCurrent.xls
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~ned/warming/mills.pdf , page 8
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/nuclear_disasters/framesource.html
http://www.greenscissors.org/energy/price-anderson.htm
http://www.areva-np.com/common/liblocal/docs/Brochure/EPR_US_%20May%202005.pdf, page 55
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0902.html
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html
http://www.sdenergy.org/ContentPage.asp?ContentID=136&SectionID=122&SectionTarget=44
Analysis performed for Fresno area location using the OnGrid Solar Financial Analysis Tool, http://ongrid.net/payback
http://www.seia.org/solarnews.php?id=128
IBID
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/static/hottopics/1energy/r0404026.htm
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/_spotlight/051102_renewableenergy.htm
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/breaking_news.htm
http://www.ceiinc.net/Download/Bethel%20Energy%20Solar%20Hybrid%20Project%20Overview%20-%20R3.pdf
http://www.dtsolar.com
Green Revolution, by Frank Geve, Fresno Bee, 17Dec2006, page E1
http://www.brook.edu/fp/cuse/analysis/nuclear.htm
http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/default/dok/164/ href="mailto:[e-mail]">164228.nuclear_power_plants en.htm
http://sierraclub.org/energy

[Dogmudgeon]

56. Sorry about that, Chief

It was the 21st Century Science and Technology article:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/nuclear_power.html

I tried to find the original source at the PA Public Utility Commission, but was unable to. It may be buried deeper than I looked (I spent 30 minutes on that damned website -- information is good, but a little bit of indexing would be nice.) On the other hand, I agree with the point -- I'm a PECO ratepayer. But PECO passes along all costs, and they're championing wind farms now. I am not optimistic. We need laws to prevent tax-subsidized utility failure and greed in general. Some of the laws in Pennsylvania date to long before the nuclear era or even concerns about petrochemical pollution. They made sure early on that their investments would be guaranteed.

--p!

[hunter]

72. Amory Lovin's chief commercial product is greenwash.

Don't worry folks, the American Consumer will be okay.

All we have to do is slow down our digging a bit and pretty soon we'll be rising up and out of this deep hole we are in.

[Systematic Chaos]

13. I never thought it would happen, but yes.

The exchanges in this forum have caused me to completely change my mind about nuclear power. I still don't love it, mind you, but I now understand that it is the best hope we have at this point. All of the other so-called "alternatives" seem to just be going nowhere fast.

[jpak]

21. "the other so-called "alternatives" seem to just be going nowhere fast"

When was the last US nuclear plant ordered????

(1973)

How much wind power capacity came on line in the US last year alone???

(3100 MW - equivalent to the power output of a 1000 MW nuclear plant)

How many ethanol plants are in operation in the US and how many are under construction???

(105 and 41).

How many EU nuclear power plants were closed last year???

(6)

How many new EU nuclear plants were commissioned last year???

(zero)

How much EU wind power capacity came on line last year???

(6000 MW - equivalent to the power output of two 1000 MW nuclear plants)

How much EU PV capacity was installed last year????

(850 MW name plate - equivalent to a 283 MW power plant)

Globally, how much net new nuclear power came on line last year???

(only 458 MW)

How much global wind power capacity came on line last year????

(11,000 MW - equivalent to power output of four 1000 MW nuclear plants)

How fast is global wind power growing???

(24% per year)

How much global PV capacity came on line in 2005???

(1700 MW - equivalent to a 500 MW nuclear power plant)

How fast is global PV production growing???

(34% per year)

Yup - them so-called "alternatives" are going nowhere fast...

:evilgrin:

[Dead_Parrot]

27. Why don't you run the same comparisons with coal

then tell us how fast renewables are taking over the planet.

You're still looking in the wrong direction.

[Systematic Chaos]

38. Yeah, and?

Please supply us with the statistics about how many coal and gas plants have come online. Then, calculate how many more millions upon millions of tons of CO2 have been emitted from them.

As for your numbers about the increase in renewables and such, it's just a fart in the wind compared to what is really needed.

Just for the record, I'm glad that we're seeing increases in alternative energy output. Problem is, it doesn't mean squat when the vast majority of our new energy output is causing the planet to cook and rendering the air too toxic to breathe. Would there be as many children developing athsma globally if there were less fossil fuel power and more nuclear power? I would think so.

One dollar invested with 2.5% interest per year, for the longest time, is in effect "going nowhere fast". And that's what renewables, solar, and the like really represent when you crunch the numbers.

[jpak]

51. and How

If renewables are a "fart in the wind" - then nuclear is a "small squeak".

So how is nuclear supposed to save us???

(it won't)

Additions of new renewable capacity are out-pacing new nuclear capacity *today* and will soon overtake nuclear in total electrical and energy output in a very few years.

[Systematic Chaos]

62. All I can do is refer you to posts 39 and 54.

And Questions 67 and 68 if you're so inclined. :P

All I can tell you is that I've spent a great deal of time reading the dialogues and arguments between pro- and anti-nuclear people, and my own informed decision after reading through the reports, Googling some names and putting two and two together leads me to believe that the pro-nuke camp has a much higher tendency to be spot-on than those of you who are dead set against it.

I can't make any expert arguments. I can't pull reams of statistics out of my butt on command. I can only read and decide for myself, and while NNadir might be one uppity sumbitch around here sometimes, I'm sorry but I fully believe that his anger is justified and his reasoning is more thorough. With the renewables arguments it just seems to me like a broken record after a while. Not that I don't want those things to work eventually but for now my "fart in the wind" analogy is pretty damn accurate. Numbers don't lie.

[GliderGuider]

39. Here's a graphic that puts it all in perspective

The monthly IEA electricity stats for the OECD. Courage, mon vieux, courage.

[jpak]

49. And by 2020 the EU will produce 20% of its total energy from renewables

Sadly, all currently operating UK, German and Swedish reactors will have been shut with no new ones to replace them.

C'est dommage...

[Dead_Parrot]

64. And 80% from coal, in your scenario.

You in the funeral business, per chance?

C'est la mort.

[Xithras]

14. I've always been a nuclear power advocate.

Granted, Three Mile Island was before my time, but I remember Chernobyl and know what the downsides are. I'm also aware that modern reactor designs are far safer than the 1960's era designs that both TMI and Chernobyl were built on, and that hundreds of reactors have operated around the world for decades without any serious incidents.

The question isn't about whether nuclear power is safe, because it's overall track record says it is. The question is whether or not the United States has the temerity to oversee and audit its plants the same way Germany and France do to keep the corporations from cutting corners and skimping on safety. A properly maintained, well inspected nuclear reactor is far less environmentally harmful than a gas burning plant, a coal plant, or even a hydroelectric dam. My fear is that, if nuclear installations multiply, we'll skimp on the whole "properly maintained, well inspected" part.

[GliderGuider]

17. The human factor is the one remaining one that gives me the willies.

We can't make a fool-proof reactor if Mother Nature keeps coming up with better fools.

[Porcupine]

28. Combine the US corporate model and nuclear power........

and you have a recipe for disaster. Nuclear power may or may not be a part of the solution for overall power generation but there are issues it has to deal with. Before the US can begin building new commercial nuclear plants I would like to see some of the following problems dealt with.

1) Build and demonstrate a plant that can fail safely and restart in a week. PWRs just can't do this. If the coolant drains they melt into a radioactive junk pile. Nobody wants to pay for a reactor that turns into a 5 billion dollar junk pile in 10 minutes.

Demonstrate a reactor with the ability to do a core dump if all controls are turned off. With proposed molten salt reactors the reactor core would dump into storage tanks half full of more salts removing the possibility of continued chain reactions. Demonstrate this level of safety with all proposed reactor types.

2)Clean up a significant portion of existing waste. Set up a pilot reactor, burn off the hotter stuff and get us a demonstrable waste volume reduction. Clean up environmental disasters like Hanford. Prove to us that we are not signing of on eternal dead zones. Consider storing the waste on the east coast where the geology is old rather than near and active earthquake and geothermal zone. We don't have a reasonable waste storage and removal system.

3) Show us an organizational structure that allows safety engineers veto over ever body else. American corporate structures consistently reduce spending on safety to maximize profits. Government structures eliminates safety checks to achieve political goals. I don't think we can build a trustworthy organization.

4) Prove you can secure private funding at the same interest rates as wind power. Change the laws that exempt nuclear plants from liability laws and subsidize insurance. Stick to the budget you publish like every solar and wind project does.

The rest of us will be installing windmills while the nuclear industry avoids it's real issues.

[closeupready]

19. How do pro-nuke parties account for the recent scandals in Illinois?

There was some kind of contamination, wasn't there?

And also, once we start going nuclear, how do we stop countries like Saudi Arabia, countries located on fault lines, etc.?

[Nederland]

20. Like this

You do a side by side comparision of nuclear energy to any other alternative. When you do that, you quickly realize that nuclear power, while not perfect, is the best option. Just look at all the anti-nuclear posts in this thread. You'll see a common theme: absence of about the downsides of alternatives and complete focus on the downsides of nuclear. That's not the way to do a rational analysis, doing that involves a list of the pros and cons of all the possibilities. Any other response is merely an emotional one, not a rational one.

[bananas]

22. A side-by-side comparison was done at Princeton

The famous "carbon wedges" study.
In an interview, one of the authors said, "I personally think nuclear is a non-starter."
Read the interview here: http://www.theclimategroup.org/index.php?pid=549

[GliderGuider]

24. Pacala's objections were political, not technical.

Here's his comment in context:

I personally think nuclear is a non-starter. In the article we were not trying to choose sides, only to point out the mitigation technologies that are already in place. However, I cannot imagine that in this era of concerns about terrorism that we are going to start the production of fissionable material all over the world. It is disingenuous when the Bush administration says that the way to solve this problem is through coal and nuclear. (...) If you try to solve even one wedge of this problem with nuclear, it would require a doubling in the amount of nuclear power deployed. Solving the problem entirely with nuclear means increasing deployment by a factor of 10, and if you calculate how many of these plants would have to be in countries like Sudan and Afghanistan, you are just not going to do it.

I happen to agree with him about the political aspect of nuclear power, but that's a separate issue from whether I think it's a good technology.

[Dogmudgeon]

30. And it advocates DOUBLING nuclear power

Here is the relevant section from the "wedges" study that you just quoted:

- Adding double the current global nuclear capacity to replace coal-based electricity
- Increasing wind electricity capacity by 50 times relative to today, for a total of 2 million large windmills
- Installing 700 times the current capacity of solar electricity
- Using 40,000 square kilometers of solar panels (or 4 million windmills) to produce hydrogen for fuel cell cars
- Increasing ethanol production 50 times by creating biomass plantations with area equal to 1/6th of world cropland

(Formatting is mine.)

But look at those multipliers:

Double nuclear power;
OR
Increase wind energy 50-fold;
OR
Install 700 times the capacity in PV cells;
OR
Increase ethanol production 50-fold

Nuclear is not cheap, or completely safe, or easy, or simple. But it IS cheaper, and safer, and easier, and simpler than the alternatives. And in spite of the optimistic talk, the alt-energy industry is woefully underfunded, unorganized, and weak. I would dearly love to see it give nuclear a run for the money, but it's not capable of doing that now.

I do agree with Porcupine's challenge, though. In fact, I think it's a little too easy. The nuclear industry will probably be able to meet it within five years if it is established as the "gold standard" for nukes. Sadly, the non-nuclear renewables industries can not even meet the challenge of ramping up production or manufacturing infrastructure.

My ideal scenario would be if both sets of industries meet -- and surpass -- the challenges their critics set for them. I do not consider myself to be so much pro-nuclear as pro-energy. The time for debating our druthers was the 1960s and 1970s. But we blew too many opportunities for decision-making, and now we're starting to see the fruits of our folly. We need to make a whole lot of world-shaking changes, and soon.

But, as Little Lord Bush has illustrated so well, this is no time for tribalism. We should argue the merits and drawbacks of the sources of energy we're considering -- while we continue to work for a sustainable, healthier, more humane, better world.

--p!

[bananas]

33. No, they don't "advocate" it, they list it as one option among many.

You should read it more carefully - it's not "OR" between those, it's "AND" - we could do this AND we could do that AND we could do that ... it's not "pick one", it's not "all are needed", it's "we have more than enough choices".

The study doesn't address the costs - it just shows that we don't need new technology - a combination of existing technology will provide more than enough energy.

[Dogmudgeon]

35. Indeed, as most of us pro-nuclearists do

I would say they "advocate" it because they advocate controlling carbon gas emissions, and have proposed nuclear energy in their wedge system as a way to plan for environmentally-friendly technology. In this respect, nuclear energy is an option. But this is getting into quibbling. The decision to use it or reject it is what counts.

I generally find myself arguing against rejecting nuclear energy as an option (and a viable one, at that) more often than actually promoting it. Another quibble, maybe, yet I do not also reject other forms of energy, and I am quite aware of nuclear power's drawbacks.

More important than the nukes/no-nukes distinction in the list was the recognition of how difficult climate and energy issues will be to fix. I'd seldom seen the size of the problems expressed in numbers as simply that -- for instance, solar energy needs to grow 700 times as large to comprise a single wedge. I certainly support solar (and wind, and tidal, and geothermal, etc.) energy. But a factor of seven hundred is enormous -- and the investment money is too scanty and being too haphazardly spent. We need to change this, fast, whether or not nuclear energy is on the table.

--p!

[closeupready]

23. You're not answer the questions I've asked; you're answering the questions you want to be asked.

Please address the scandals in Illinois with the failure to disclose and also how we can retain a moral high ground vis-a-vis developing countries. thanks.

[Nihil]

44. Try this

> Please address the scandals in Illinois with the failure to disclose
> and also how we can retain a moral high ground vis-a-vis developing
> countries.

The general answer to "how we can retain a moral high ground ..." is
"You can't, you are too corrupt to manage any strategy in a responsible
manner regardless of the technology involved as your only driving force
at a national level is personal greed".

So how does that help you choose between pro- & anti-nuclear?
:shrug:

[Nederland]

45. This?

Is this the scandal you are referring to?

http://www.neis.org/press/03_05_NAS_Report_Supressed-pr.htm

[closeupready]

46. this one

http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2006_05/20060524b.html

[Nederland]

48. Okay

I would respond by saying that the number of nuclear plants that release pollution into the environment is much much lower than the number of coal plants that release pollution into the environment. That would place nuclear poweer clearly on the moral high ground.

[closeupready]

50. Valid point.

n/t

[bananas]

43. That's total bullshit - look at the CBO report

The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) did an analysis of Dick Cheneys nuclear revival bill - they concluded that more than half of the proposed new nuclear plants will financially default ("go broke" for innumerate illiterates who believe Patrick Moore and Christie Todd Whitman) before they are even turned on.

Look around and you can find a copy of the CBO analysis.

'According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the risk of loan default by industry would be very high – “well above 50 percent” '
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1972

[Dogmudgeon]

65. Looking around ...

1. What's "Dick Cheney's nuclear revival bill"? A Google search turned up plenty of screeds but no public laws. On a more general search (searched on "federal energy bill"), there have been at least half a dozen bills passed since 2001 with provisions for nuclear energy, including S.14 (2003) and the now-infamous S.10 (2005) (see below). If you want us to find what you're discussing with authority, you're going to have to give us at least the name of it.

2. I went to the Public Citizen website (your source) and looked through their links. Their PDF broadsides are slick, but contain very little verifiable information; most of what they do contain refers back to other Nader-group publications. They mentioned the bills, but cited little or nothing specific. This is one of Nader's favorite tricks when he can't back up his rhetoric with facts.

3. S.10 (2005), a.k.a. the elephantine The Energy Policy Act of 2005, consisting of 1840 sections, was widely condemned as an omnibus barrel of GOP pork for a number of industries, including the oil and nuclear industries -- as well as the "green" energy industry. It also changed Daylight Saving Time. Most of us will remember it as one of the bills designed to allow the rape of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge by oil companies.

One of the points I have consistently made is that all energy industries are "Big Corporate Business", and will wheedle enormous amounts of pork from the Federal Government. It is NOT limited to the nuclear industry, no matter how many times it's cited as such. Energy industry subsidy is a fairly big chunk of the federal budget; the recent bill to cut the oil industry's tax breaks was a small, initial attempt to remedy this problem.

I personally have no objection to subsidizing energy research, development, or deployment, of any and all kinds, providing that the public profits from these subsidies. But the practice of claiming that nuclear energy is the only industry that gets them, and that they're all being used nefariously, is just nonsense. Or, in your words, bullshit.

In reference to where you, specifically, use the word, I don't doubt that there is a 50% attrition rate in nuclear generator construction. I am surprised it is not higher. Anti-nuclear groups campaign and sue aggressively; could that have anything to do with it? It used to be a bragging right among anti-nuclear groups, and I would have to guess that it still is. So the anti-nuclear groups work to force nuclear energy development into bankruptcy, then claim that nuclear energy is a loser.

And anybody with two brain cells to rub together is supposed to believe that's honest?

Presenting the flaws of any plan, devoid of background, is a rhetorical feint. What part does executive misbehavior play in the failure of nuclear power, and what part do activists play?

--p!

[bananas]

76. Here's the CBO report.

1. I was referring to the CBO analysis of S.14 (2003)

2. The link I gave did have specific references, see below.

3. The CBO said:

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high--well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources.

I pasted the whole section below.


Getting back to your question #2, here are the specific references:

From the link I gave:
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1972

<snip>

Separately, the loan guarantees in the Senate bill could prove extremely costly to taxpayers. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the risk of loan default by industry would be very high – “well above 50 percent” – leaving the public to pay as much as 80 percent of the cost of building a reactor. This provision authorizes “such sums as are necessary,” but if Congress were to appropriate funding for loan guarantees covering six nuclear reactors, this subsidy could potentially cost taxpayers $6 billion (assuming a 50 percent default rate and construction cost per plant of $2.5 billion, as the CBO has estimated)

<snip>

For more information about the subsidies and other incentives in the Senate energy bill, click here. http://www.citizen.org/documents/senatebillnukeprovisions.pdf

<snip>

From that pdf:

<snip>

The Senate energy bill (S.10, “The Energy Policy Act of 2005” ) contains over $10.1 billion in
subsidies and tax breaks, as well as unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees and other
incentives, to the mature nuclear industry to build new nuclear reactors.

<snip>

Unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for up to 80% of the cost of a project, including
building new nuclear power plants. This provision authorizes “such sums as are necessary,”
but if Congress were to appropriate funding for loan guarantees covering six nuclear reactors,
this subsidy could potentially cost taxpayers approximately $6 billion (assuming a 50%
default rate and construction cost per plant of $2.5 billion, as Congressional Budget Office
has estimated1) (Title XIV)

<snip>

1 Congressional Budget Office, S. 14 Energy Policy Act of 2003, May 7, 2003,
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/42xx/doc4206/s14.pdf. The Congressional Budget Office concluded that the risk of
loan default by industry would be “well above 50 percent.”

I went to the cbo website and searched for s14 from 2003,
the full CBO report can be viewed as html here:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4206&sequence=0

Here's the relevant section:

<snip>

Loan Guarantees for Nuclear Power Plants. S. 14 would authorize DOE to provide loan guarantees for up to 50 percent of the construction costs of new nuclear power plants and would authorize DOE to enter into long-term contracts for the purchase of power from those plants. The Secretary could provide loan guarantees for up to seven plants (with a capacity of 1,100 megawatts each). No new nuclear plants have been ordered in the U.S. in the last 25 years, and the last was completed in 1996.

Based on information from DOE about preliminary construction plans at three sites, we expect that the department would provide credit assistance for six nuclear power plants over the next 20 years. Based on information from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), DOE, and industry sources, CBO expects that construction of the first new nuclear power plant would begin after 2010. Estimates of the cost for such a plant range from $2.1 billion to almost $3 billion, including engineering, procurement, and construction, as well as costs associated with construction delays, and first-of-a-kind engineering costs.

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the first nuclear plant built using a federal loan guarantee would have a capacity of 1,100 megawatts and have associated project costs of $2.5 billion. We expect that such a plant would be located at the site of an existing nuclear plant and would employ a reactor design certified by the NRC prior to construction. This plant would be the first to be licensed under the NRC's new licensing procedures, which have been extensively revised over the past decade.

Based on current industry practices, CBO expects that any new nuclear construction project would be financed with 50 percent equity and 50 percent debt. The high equity participation reflects the current practice of purchasing energy assets using high equity stakes, 100 percent in some cases, used by companies likely to undertake a new nuclear construction project. Thus, we assume that the government loan guarantee would cover half the construction cost of a new plant, or $1.25 billion in 2011.

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high--well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources. In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.

In its 2003 Annual Energy Outlook, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that production from new nuclear power plants would not be cost-competitive with other power sources until after 2025. EIA also reports that current construction costs for a typical electricity plant range from $536 per kilowatt of capacity for natural-gas-powered combined-cycle technology to $1,367 per kilowatt of capacity for coal-steam technology. Although construction costs could diminish significantly as a new generation of nuclear plants are built, a new nuclear power plant starting construction in 2011 would have a construction cost of about $2,300 per kilowatt of capacity. By 2011, that cost would result in capital costs that are 40 percent to 250 percent above the cost of capital for electricity plants using gas and coal. Because the cost of power from the first of the next generation of new nuclear power plants would likely be significantly above prevailing market rates, we would expect that the plant operators would default on the borrowing that financed its capital costs.

Assuming the nuclear plant is completed, we expect it would financially default soon after beginning operations, however, we expect that the plant would continue to operate and sell power at competitive market rates. Thus, over the plant's expected operating lifetime, its creditors (which could be the federal government) could expect to recover a significant portion of the plant's construction loan. The ability to recover a significant portion of the value of the initial construction loan would offset the high subsidy cost of a federal loan guarantee. Under the Federal Credit Reform Act, funds must be appropriated in advance to cover the subsidy cost of such loan guarantees, measured on a present-value basis. CBO estimates that the net present value of amounts recovered by the government on its loan guarantee from continued plant operations following a default and the project's technical and regulatory risk would result in a subsidy cost of 30 percent or about $375 million over the 2011-2013 period. Based on information from DOE, we expect other loan guarantees would not be issued for nuclear power plants until after 2013.

Alternatively, under the bill, DOE could choose to forgo the loan guarantee and enter into a long-term purchase agreement to buy some or all of a nuclear plant's production instead. Under this option, the full value of funds committed by the government to purchase power from a nuclear plant over many years would need to be appropriated in advance, prior to construction, to assure a private lender that future cash flows would be adequate to cover debt-service costs. CBO estimates that this option for financial assistance would cost more than a federal loan guarantee and that DOE would probably not use this alternative.

<snip>

[Porcupine]

69. Existing designs are "engineered to fail" economically....

the designers, Westinghouse and GE, get paid upon completion of the project and get paid more every time a specialized widget breaks. So they design reactors with a maximum of specialized widgets that only they can replace.

Then they make pipe mazes and fill the whole thing with superheated radioactive water under high pressure to make it more fun. Everything reacts with superheated, distilled water. (not really but you get the point) Then the whole mess is dependant upon more water getting actively pumped every which way to ensure the plant remains intact and safe. Massive mazes of electronic sensors monitor the whole thing.

It's like the space shuttle; when it works it works great. When they fail you sometimes have to scrap the plant. I'm not even going into the fuel rod mazes that things like CANDU reactors involve.

For all of the complexity if the plant doesn't work then the same group of companies who built it get to make another few billion taking it apart. Then somebody else gets to profit for eternity guarding the waste. Due to their connections to national security none of the companies risk criminal charges of fraud if they go over budget or break down.

Where's the incentive to get it right? They get paid triple for screwing up.

I want a reactor that safely scrams and cools if I cut all the power to the controls and pull all personnel out of the building. Then we can restart it in a week. Molten-salt reactors are supposed to be able to do that but is there even a testbed running?

Nobody is even building molten-salt reactors or lead bismuth reactors for demonstration plants as far as I know. Only India is interested in thorium reactors.

Also nobody, not even enough republicans, wants the waste storage facility in their state. They have some trust issues with nuclear scientists.

Why should we trust these people when they are hardly trying.

[Dogmudgeon]

34. Which particular scandals?

Exelon seems to have been lax with control-room safety in its Illinois nuclear power stations. Tim Johnson Watch was all I could find in a quick search. Mr. Johnson (R, District 15), of course, has been in bed with Exelon.

If you were referring to other scandals, please fill us in.

I live in an Exelon-dominated state, too: Pennsylvania. My preferred solution isn't to decommission the nuclear power plants, but to crack the whip at Exelon's heels. This isn't a particularly nuclear problem; it's a problem we have in our political and legal system in general. I assume that most of us lefties share this political stance, even if not our ideas on energy generation.

--p!

[hunter]

29. On this issue the United States doesn't matter.

The opinions of the U.S. public are childish and irrelevant and we probably won't do anything about our energy problems until a few more cities are underwater, and millions of formerly middle class U.S. citizens are wandering around as economic refugees of some sort.

The level of corruption in the United States is probably too great for any solution to emerge in a well thought out manner. Our first responses to the crisis will be both ineffective and dangerous. Iraq is only one of the first such blunders. One thing the anti-nuclear activists have right is that the current corporate and political structures in the United States are probably incapable of safely managing a rapid expansion of nuclear power.

What the United States will probably do, once we root out the vast corruptions of our current government and corporate management, is import technology from nations that have made such expansions work.

I used to be an anti nuclear activist more than twenty years ago. I haven't been for a long time now. Nuclear power looks very attractive in comparison to the escalating horror of coal.

[MadBiologist]

40. Nope

I have ALWAYS been pro-nuclear power. It is safe, and clean compared to every single alternative that is feasable. Solar power only works in places with year-round sunlight like my home state and requires ridiculous amounts of space to be effective. Same with wind. Hydro-electric power destroys ecosystems on a level seen only by and advent of farming (not that I hate farming mind youP

The only objections I have ever seen basically amount to knee jerk reactionary bullshit. Chernobyl resulted from the soviets deliberately pushing the reactor's safety protocols using a shitty design in the first place.

Three mile island was a SUCCESS of the design. A public relations nightmare, but a SUCCESS. The partial core meltdown caused all of ONE casualty. ONE. uno, eins.

There is ZERO real reason to be afraid of nuclear power.

[jpak]

61. "Solar only works in places with year-round sunlight" - absolute nonsense

Solar works everwhere in the lower 48...

http://www.solarhouse.com/

http://www.mainesolar.com/

http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2007/01/18/hallowell_inn_cuts_ribbon_to_solar_electric_system/

[XemaSab]

79. Solar panels get really hot

so even in snowy areas they will just melt the snow and keep on chugging.

[closeupready]

47. Lot of shills on this board lately.

oh, and Mr. "Zero reason to be afraid of nuclear power" has all of 4 posts. :eyes: Yep.

[hunter]

52. Yep.

:eyes:

[Dogmudgeon]

54. Lots of dilettantes, too

The reasoning (if it could be called that) follows a familiar line --

If you support using nuclear power, you're a shill, a disinfo agent, secretly in the pay of Evil Lord Cheney, a dupe, or some other form of scoundrel. You're not just wrong, you're eeevil.

But if you're anti-nuclear, no criticism whatsoever may be applied, or it's "KKKorproate oppression". Your motives, intelligence, and very presence may not be questioned. And you may feel free to mis-quote any of the bad people, i.e., the nuclear energy advocates, at whim.

I've carefully read the posts of every "pro-nuclear" writer on this forum, just to make sure I wasn't missing anything -- because the anti-nuclear writers were making such outrageous accusations. Sure enough, some of the anti-nuclear writers have especially active imaginations. They are able to miss the main points of any post with which they disagree, but have excellent perceptual skills when it comes to marginalia they find pleasing. The Mr. "Zero reason to be afraid of nuclear power" is a good example.

I was under the impression that this kind of thinking (so-called) was the specialty of the Religious Right. I guess I was wrong. Yep, the anti-nuclear faction has proven to me that it's the moral and intellectual superior of those of us with the "wrong" opinions.

--p!

[closeupready]

57. This post is my number 945, and I've been active here for years.

I signed up here because I support most of the dem agenda, not because I'm anti-nuclear. Can you say something similar about everyone on this thread? No. I think that's clear.

[Dead_Parrot]

58. I think you can say something similar about everyone on DU, to be honest.

Just sayin' :hi:

[Dogmudgeon]

59. What point are you making? You started with the "shills" accusation.

I'm not questioning how long you, or anyone else (like MadBiologist), may have been here. That's your concern, not mine.

I'm knocking the idea that everyone who disagrees with the anti-nuclear stance is bad, evil, un-Democratic, and subversive. "Shills," as you say.

--p!

[closeupready]

60. I just object to dogma in all its forms (i.e., words like "never," use of all caps, etc.)

Everyone is free to speak their mind as far as I'm concerned, and I apologize if my tone was unduly disrespectful, which in hindsight, I can see how it could have seemed that way. Peace. :hi:

[Dogmudgeon]

67. My thanks -- I appreciate that

This argument tends to get pretty hot, and it can get quite difficult to "keep it real". I accept your apology, and it reminds me that I, too, should put more effort into keeping the temperature cool.

And, as I've posted, I'm keen on the use of in-ground pipes instead of energy-intensive air conditioning units. :)

:handshake:

--p!

[NNadir]

70. I hardly think you object to dogma in any form.

On the contrary, you seem to appeal to dogma.

You cannot and will not be able to produce a single person injured by nuclear power in this country in the last three decades and still you attempt to suggest that anyone pointing out this very poor thinking must be a "shill."

For the record, I fully support the "nuclear lobby" mostly because what it says is essentially true. It is an element of poor thinking to assume that the existence of a lobby constitutes a fraudulent approach.

Planned Parenthood has a lobby, but I assume that the people employed in that lobby are not there because they are paid by "corporate abortionists." On the contrary, every single member of that lobby is a person who believes that women have the right to control their own bodies. I agree. I am glad that they pay people to meet with members of Congress. It would be unfortunate if the matter were left only to disinterested parties.

If the nuclear industry paid me, I would be happy to accept the money, since I agree with the objectives of that industry, which is to displace the extremely dangerous deadly fuel known as coal, about which anti-nuclear activists care little and apparently know nothing. I refer to the nuclear industry's website at www.world-nuclear.org frequently and there is very little on it with which I disagree broadly.

Over and over and over and over again the anti-nuclear crowd claims that the choice between nuclear and coal is "false," but not one member of that crowd, not a single one of them, can produce a workable alternative to coal. NOT. ONE. In fact they either apologize for coal or engage in stupid and irrational handwaving involving the torturing of numbers through mathematically illiterate appeals to "percent growth" or some such thing. Next as always, they will attempt mindlessly mumble platitudes that are nothing more than ill supported predictions about what will happen two generations from now. This, I think, is a moral and intellectual dodge since not one of these "false dichotomy" pretenders will live long enough to see their balderdash about 2050 disproved. Thus in fact, these nonsensical assertions are "risk free," since they are not grounded in the present emergency of climate change. They are simply an immoral attempt to shift responsibility on to future generations, and they should be regarded as being beneath contempt.

On the other hand, pro-nuclear "shills" such as myself insist that people look at the record of the nuclear industry, which has produced the best overall safety record in the exajoule scale energy industry, and done so by several orders of magnitude. Our ideas are not hand waving. On the contrary they are tested and can be evaluated by direct experience.

You will probably - if you're like the rest of the poor thinkers here - blather all sorts of crap about Chernobyl and so on - but I will point out that the dead and injured from Chernobyl do not compare to a few weeks of air pollution. Neither is Chernobyl representative of the nuclear industry, any more than the crash of Flight 800 is representative of the airline industry.

For the record, producing links to the middle class masturbation at the Greenpeace website, or www.ratical.org or the drooling inanity produced by "Doctor" Helen Caldicott will not substitute for critical thinking, at least not to me.

I don't care how long you've been at DU though I have been spared from reading any of your comments up until now. The fact is that your thinking is precisely the sort of dogma that is repeated here year after year after year after year.

You may or may not be a "shill," but neither do you exhibit a shred of ability to engage in serious debate. If you wish to assert that nuclear energy is dangerous, produce evidence of injury. I warn you though, that primitive name calling will not substitute for making comparisons. If you have an alternative for coal produce it right now because climate change is happening right now.

I will never assert that nuclear energy is risk free, but I will point out readily that the insistence that only form of energy that must be risk free is nuclear energy is mindless, pat, arbitrary, and fatal. No form of energy is risk free. Only one exajoule scalable form of energy is risk minimized. That form is nuclear energy.

[MadBiologist]

71. NNadir, you sir/maddam

are my new best friend

[Systematic Chaos]

75. Same here regarding this issue.

Reading through his information, links and discussions of his own changes in attitude have really been an epiphany for me.

I remember back in the early 90's when I worked at an Indian casino in Minnesota (Treasure Island to be exact), which was only a couple miles away from a nuclear power station. The whole lot of us employees were terrified of having the damn thing so close, and I believed that it was another Chernobyl waiting to happen. Of course, this was back when it regularly got into the minus teens and twenties in the wintertime, and more than once the place had to close to new visitors and all current guests and employees were kept on the property for their own safety until the roads could be sufficiently cleared after a black ice incident or blizzard. This place truly was in the middle of nowhere, the nearest town being Red Wing at like 20 miles away.

We just keep on belching CO2 from coal and gas into the atmosphere, and if I were to go back to Minnesota today I think I'd find that Treasure Island almost never had to restrict access or detain employees. And that plant, I am sure, is still humming along and is NOT the contributor to the collapse of our climate that fossil fuel energy is, while providing a hell of a lot more power than wind and solar.

:shrug:

[MadBiologist]

78. exactly

The big stink about nuclear power has nothing to do with actual facts. It is scare-mongering. Scare-mongering perpetrated by people who are both anti-corporate, and anti-technology/science. It was a devilishly effective media campaign, what with Captain Planet saying that nuclear energy was evil... Now, I don't like large monolithic corporations as much as the next center-leftist, but I also have no stomach for lies and my positions are based upon evidence, not any sort of ideology (I am just a utilitarian)

[Dogmudgeon]

84. He's not a sir or madam. He's a concierge.

Bialystock und Bloom -- Goddag på dig!

--p!

[MadBiologist]

66. your point?

You just committed an ad hominem attack. If you have anything intellectually honest to say, I will be here.

However, I am apparently a "shill" because I think technology can solve our energy problems. Because I think that a knee-jerk, strawman representation of historical facts is bad. If that is what constitutes a shill,then I question why more people are not considered shills. I suppose it has to do with the abysmal state of science education in this country, where even smart and talented students like myself have to pull themselves up by their own boostraps until they hit college (I taught myself before and during high school half of what I have been taught in biology as an undergraduate) But I digress.

The safety concerns are bullshit. Three Mile Island was a success of the safety systems and chernobyl was the result of intentionally pushing a poorly designed safety control system (hollow tipped control rods, etc). American designed reactors are GREAT. TO put this in perspective, it is in EVERYONE's best interest to have a well designed nuclear reactor. Because if something does go wrong... the company that cut corners, if they cut corners (or even if they didnt) will cease to exist due to public lynching (IE. CLass action lawsuits and governmental sanctions)

What about waste disposal? We can re-enrich the fuel rods to extend their lives, and later bury them where they can never harm a thing. We have the technology to do that. Oh, but of course we are the only Nuclear Power in the world last I checked, that banned the recycling process.

Oh, and for burgeoning ecologists like me, the circulation of the coolant water, and the area around the plant will be protected like a wildlife preserve. I would not that the recent beginnings of the comeback of the American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) is the direct result of this. The channels used to cycle the coolant water for a reactor in central florida are prime, protected habitat for the crocodiles.

...

Reply to another individual.


As for solar power. It is a WONDERFUL energy source. But it also is not economical on a large scale. A family with enough initial capital can build a solar powered house. But I don't think we can economically retrofit every house, and our industrial complex. It would require a restructuring of our entire infrastructure dealing with energy. We cannot do it on a mass scale unless we use fields of solar panels. This is basic logistics. Those fields require a lot of surface area, which requires a lot of habitat destruction.

Of course, that belies the fact that annually the average household in the US uses 10,656 kilowatt hours, which translates to ~29 kilowatt hours daily... that house in Maine generates less than that at 20 kilowatt hours on a good day. In other words, they have to manage their power consumption better than more than half the US population. Even if EVERYONE in the US switched to solar power (and many homes are not designed for it, have low usable surface areas on their roofs etc) we would STILL need supplemental power for homes ALONE. Also I would point out the logical fallacy you commit when you say that "because it works in Maine, it will work across the entire lower 48 states" to paraphrase. You commit an over-generalization. To illustrate, lets take coastal Washington as an example. That area lies in a temperate rainforest. It is cloudy most days and thus solar panels on a house will generate much less than 20 kilowatt hours per day.

They would need supplemental power.

Then, if we transition to Electric vehicles, they would need yet more energy, which would likely need to be powered by a municipal grid. Then there are major universities. Just the equipment I use in the lab I work in (gene sequencers, several computers, high powered microscopes, environment chambers, fume hoods) eat power like you wouldn't believe. Now imagine a floor using that. A building. Several departments. Imagine several different wings of a top 20 research institution. IE, ASU's biodesign institute, the entire school of life sciences, the fulton school of engineering, the school of earth and space exploration. All of them. All of them using power. Kilowatt hour after kilowatt hour.

You get the point.

[XemaSab]

80. Nice response!

Welcome to DU, fellow biologist!

I'm officially neutral on nukes. I can argue both ways. :P

[jpak]

89. can't use solar on a "mass scale" - nonsense

Germany installed 837 MW of PV in 2005 alone - a *single* manufacturing facility under construction in Germany will start producing 1600 MW of PV per year starting 2008.

Portugal is building two large-scale PV farms - one 64 MW and the other 116 MW.

One utility in California is building 900 MW of solar thermal electric capacity.

California and New Jersey will easily develop and deploy 3000 and 1500 MW of PV capacity in 10 years time.

Here's some pix of solar homes in Washington State where - "solar don't work"...

http://www.solarwashington.org/

The Maine Solar Home produces MORE electricity over the course the year than it consumes. During the 3-4 winter months when it drew net power from the grid, the house consumed between 1.3 and 10 kWh per day.

http://www.solarhouse.com/index2.htm

Using Energy Star rated appliances and lighting and solar hot water heaters available today - the average American home (assuming it's not John Edward's new home :evilgrin:) could reduce its electrical demand by >75% (to ~7 kWh per day or less).

A 2.5 kW PV system could easily supply that electricity anywhere in the lower 48 and Hawaii...

http://www.solar4power.com/solar-power-insolation-window.html

Also - the "solar only", like the "wind power only" and "biomass only" argument is a red herring and false...

[tinrobot]

63. Lesser evil than carbon...

Still way more evil than solar, wind, geothermal, etc...

[MadBiologist]

68. Not really

Wind requires a shitload of surface area, which means raw habitat destruction on a massive scale. Solar has the issues I outlined above, and geothermal has relatively few sources, they are far apart (relatively speaking) and is generally as far as I have read, just not economical on a nation wide scale.

[Porcupine]

73. Geothermal is not economical since when?

A very large portion of every buildings power budget is thermal controls. Space heating, space cooling, water heating, refrigeration for products or processes.

Now where would be the closest thermal sink at an ideal temperature that would allow both heating and cooling? Under the freaking building that's where.

Geothermal loop HVAC and water heating is more economical than natural gas, oil or standard heat pumps. Of course they still require an electric power source to power the pumps and fans but they are economical in most situations. Houses built on solid granite excepted of course.

Generally the savings pay for the install within 5 years and then keep accumulating. Saves tons of carbon for every unit installed.

[Dead_Parrot]

74. I think MB's talking about geothermal power generation

not heat pumps. And whilst I'm not sure about the economics, the current tech is still quite limited by geography: Of course, that may not be what tinrobot was talking about... :crazy:

[MadBiologist]

77. um

I was reffering to power generation,not heat pumps. And again, to use even that on a mass scale is not economical because it would require every home to be retrofitted. I have said this before and will say it again. We.do.not.have.the.industrial.capacity.to.do.that.any.time.soon. And it is geographically limited(try digging in, for example, granite). If you think we can pull it off as a mass-scale alternative to coal and oil power plants for providing the energy needed for heating and cooling within the near future, you are on crack. It works great for individuals apparently, but the whole is not necessarily the sum of the parts.

I will reiterate. Nuclear power is efficient, safe, and clean, and would not require a massive restructuring of our power grid. When combined with alt fuels and electric vehicles, it would reduce CO2 emissions WAY the fuck better than anything else we can REALISTICALLY use. It wins, until we can build a fusion reactor.

[Porcupine]

86. We can install geo-exchange units tomorrow.

Using people with existing skills. The pumping units are little different from standard AC units. The ground loops can be installed by the same crews that install underground power and phone lines with little additional training.

Where are you going to get the additional trained crews to run your nuclear power plants?

More significantly where are you going to get the political agreement to install new nuclear power plants? You couldn't get local agreement for a new nuclear power unit installed in Idaho or Utah if you tried. Last time I checked there were no utilities trying.

Energy savings reduces the carbon load as much as installing carbon-free capacity.

[MadBiologist]

88. And what would this do?

I am going to ask you a few simple questions.

How will you fund this little venture?

Where will the units come from? I dont think we have millions lying around

How will you obtain the consent of EVERYONE involved including local governments? Hell, how will you force corporate entities to give their consent to press-ganging their workforce? Cox communications would not be pleased. Neither would their employees I wager

What is the time-scale you are looking at?

Getting consent from governments is easy for nuclear power. Local agreement can be gotten with an intelligent PR campaign to counteract idiots with good people skills. You just have to target it correctly. As for Utah and Idaho, they can be "fixed" or power can be imported into the states.

Utilities arent trying because of nut bags operating under the guise of environmentalism have good PR. Either way, that course of action is easier than the one you suggest logistically, and moreover it is not a HALF MEASURE.

[Porcupine]

90. With half the subsidies the nukes get....

We could have done this. Since the units generally save money over a ten year period after install including unit installation they could be funded through the utility bill on the building. The user could get savings and never see a seperate bill.

State and local governments usually have permitting processes that allow geo-exchange units in most locations as they don't interact with groundwater. The systems are sealed. They also cut local noise pollution as they are much quieter than standard heat pumps.

The units themselves consist are minor variations of air conditioning compressors coupled with plastic tubing. Existing AC production plants can make them no problem.

Conservation works and saves everybody money and environmental hassle. Sure it's not a big stack of concrete with a plumbers nightmare inside but you can get conservation projects built.

[XemaSab]

81. Wind power can actually protect open space

The Altamont wind farm may be evil, but it's keeping the Bay Area and the Central Valley apart.

[Porcupine]

87. California Wind Projects list: lInk

http://www.awea.org/projects/california.html#Solano%20County

Could somebody please provide a list for approved nuclear power projects in the US? How about the world?