Nuclear Power – Yes Please! (why we need nuclear energy to beat climate change)

I just wonder if it will be within 1 year, 5 or 10. How far down the path of failure (to replace coal/gas) do they have to go before the penny drops?

I fear that under a re-elected labour government, not for at least the next term, with the Greens holding the balance of power. The same probably goes for the coalition as well.

LikeLike

Dead right Fisho,
Bipartisanship on nuclear is essential. I suggested Rudd offer it to Howard when he mentioned it a few years ago. I’ve also just written toJulia suggesting it as well. Let’s ALL contact Julia with the idea now, in time for the election. Take five minutes from this blogging exercise guys and do it.

LikeLike

fisho,
You summed it up really well. There are plenty of reasons to hope for a broad coalition in favour of an industrial society based on cheap electricity generated by NPPs.

LikeLike

The ALP is unlikely to support such an initiative if the Greens hold the balance of power in the senate.

LikeLike

The penny that has to drop really is the Wong one. Although an ALP supporter, I’m sorely tempted to support the coalition on the strength of Greg Hunt’s stand. But his mob are pretty half-hearted about it if Abbott’s response to my letter is any indication. Aaarrrggghhh! When are the hopeless buggers all going to wake up??

LikeLike

As I’ve said a number of times, Terry, if there is going to be nuclear power in this country, it has to come from the ALP with Green neutrality. The Libs will never do it alone.

It’s the same as other reforms like floating the dollar, reducing protectionism, independent RBA and so forth …

LikeLike

Huw Jones,
You are so right. Even a 1 GWe NPP can be built in less than 4 years. Imagine how many small (~75 MWe), factory built nukes could be built in the same interval.

During WW2, 2750 “Liberty Ships” each weighing ~10,000 tonnes were built in 4 years.

It is amazing what can be achieved when the public understands the need for it. Can we persuade enough people to get even one NPP built in Australia?

LikeLike

I just cant make up my mind on the Nuclear debate, both sides seem to make such good arguments.

I’ve read David Mackay’s ‘Sustainable Energy’ which suggests we cant get all our energy from Renewables (economically at least), but then I read an article by Amory Lovins which suggests we can.

Who the hell do I believe?

I’ve been a lurker on this website for a while now, and you all seem to know your stuff. I can see no reason why you would be making it up.

I need to make up my mind which side I’m on in the next few months, as I have to decide what to study at college (I’m trying to decide between a degree in Nuclear Technology or Renewable energy – I want to do whatever will help the battle against global warming the best).

Thanks for any and all help.

LikeLike

Tom Williams says,

I need to make up my mind …

Greenpeace can help. (Notice the two nuclear power plants in the top right corner photo. Windpower and gas for the rest of us, but
when Greenpeace associates need clean reliable power …)

(How fire can be domesticated)

LikeLike

Tom, feel free to post any specific questions that will help you make your choice.

You might look to review posts here by Barry under the Sustainable Nuclear tab and the Renewable Limits tab.

Whatever you do, stay focussed on two things: a rational decision making process, and the end outcome you want to achieve. Be ruthlessly objective, and ruthlessly pragmatic.

Good luck with your decision.

LikeLike

Tom Williams,
Many years ago I was at the cross roads similar to the one you describe. My physics tutor advised me to go into the nuclear power industry because he predicted that it would overwhelm all competing technologies. Nuclear power would be “too cheap to meter”.

I decided he was crazy and opted for a career in telecommunications. I sometimes wonder what would have happened if he had recommended a career in telecommunications because inter-continental video communications would be “too cheap to meter”. Probably, I would have reacted by training as a nuclear power scientist.

Contrary to my expectations, I make video calls to my Australian friends free of charge but I am still paying $0.10/kWAh for electricity.

LikeLike

@quokka — The purpose of linking to the Ray Harvey “Peak Oil” piece was not to spread ‘libertarian ideology’ but to cause people to reflect on the history of inaccurate predictions of the imminent demise of the resource or increase in famine and mass starvation.

Why don’t you address that history rather than attack the source of the information? Do you dispute the contention of the inaccurate predictions?

You will note that I fully support the expansion of all sizes of nuclear power plants and both uranium and thorium fuel cycles. Finally, my ire is directed at the neo-Malthusians who seem quite content with relegating the 2+ billion who don’t have electricity to remain in energy poverty.

LikeLike

Scott,

http://physics.anu.edu.au/nuclear/

Surely postgrad study here and a degree in physics/electrical engineering would have you on your way? Then again, I don’t know much about nuclear engineering!

LikeLike

Tom:

attend to Finrod’s joke: there are no industrial nations obtaining the majority of its kwe from wind and solar.

I’m guessing there won’t be, unless the nation is small (and so can manage a fluctuating grid more easily), with spectacular hydro storage.

I say go nuclear, though learn as much as possible about renewables. I’m curious. Can you share with us what you take to be convincing in Amory Lovins’ analysis?

LikeLike

Barry Brook 27 July 2010 (Nuclear Power – Yes Please) Five Main Objections
The included five main objections:
“Opponents claim that if the world ran on nuclear energy, uranium supplies would run out in at most a few decades and nuclear power plants would then have to shut down. This is false…… Yet even if it lasted a mere 1,000 years, we would have ample time to develop exotic new future energy sources.”
When critics claim uranium supplies are limited, they are referring to the more likely situation where standard LWR’s are still being used (or variants), while no reprocessing is being done or fast breeder reactors are yet in widespread use. Recall the US Ford Foundation study (1977) recommended reprocessing not to be used for reasons of safety & expense. It doesn’t seem likely that the minimum 1,500 – 2,000 reactors required around the world (to counter GW) will be IFR’s as that technology will need fine tuning before being widely implemented. One of the best off-the-shelf models offered now is supposed to be the AP 1000, to get the ‘renaissance’ underway. Therefore the concern about uranium shortage isn’t entirely false as Prof Brook claims. Furthermore, 1,000 years will definitely NOT be needed to devise a superior energy source, as there have already been many dedicated minds working on this for the last 80 yrs with breakthrough concepts identified. Just because James Lovelock or Prof Brook cannot see other possibilities doesn’t mean that other researchers cannot. Thorium may not be adequate as an alternative.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115×235481

“Critics argue that past nuclear accidents mean the technology is inherently dangerous. However, this simply ignores the fact that it is already hundreds of times safer than the coal, gas and oil we currently rely upon.”
Unfortunately, the nuclear industry continues to use immediate & obvious death statistics only, to defend their own industry & ignore or dispute any delayed deaths, while simultaneously pointing to both immediate & delayed deaths from coal plants. B. L. Cohen wrote that about 25 deaths each year can be expected from each 1,000 MW coal plant (1987). Yet any mention of cancer clusters near nuclear plants immediately attracts derision from pro-nukes. Prof Brook is ignoring such delayed effects from nuclear plants during normal operation & after major accidents.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/12/28744.htm
http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2010/01/08/opinion/srv0000007264703.txt
http://www.radiation.org/spotlight/090804_Huffingtonpost.html
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html

“Some contend that expanding commercial nuclear power would increase the risk of spreading nuclear weapons. Firstly, this has not been true historically.”
Prof Lowe has already given the example from Al Gore while he was in the White House, saying: “every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program.”
Why doesn’t Prof Brook accept that view from someone in a position to know?
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/UN_atomic_chief_warns_of_nuclear_power_dangers_999.html

“Those opposed to nuclear energy claim it would leave a legacy of nuclear waste which would have to be managed for tens of thousands of years. This is true only if we do not recycle the uranium and other heavy metals in the waste (called “transuranics”) to extract all their useful energy.”

Again, the success of the IFR program is essential for Prof Brook to successfully counter this objection. The history of nuclear power is littered with failures; Ford nucleon car, nuclear rocket & plane, X-ray laser, ploughshare program & of course the never-ending sinkhole for fusion energy. Will the IFR program really live up to its promise?

“Finally, when all other arguments have been refuted, critics fall back on the claim that nuclear power takes too long to build or is too expensive compared to renewable energy. These arguments are perhaps the most regularly and transparently false arguments thrown up by those trying to block nuclear power from competing on a fair and level playing field with other energy sources.
Indeed, the evidence on energy replacement I present in the ‘yes’ case of the new book I’ve co-authored with Ian Lowe demonstrates that large-scale nuclear power actually offers the fastest, cheapest and the only complete solution to ending our dependence on coal, oil and gas.”

Unfortunately, conditions in some Asian countries with non-democratic political systems, cannot be directly compared with the western world. New reactors could readily cost much more in western countries. Already, some bloggers on this site have actually suggested implementing similar authoritive restrictions on citizen’s rights to prevent them from interfering with the nuclear ‘renaissance’ while refusing to acknowledge there is anything wrong about nuclear power to concern those same citizens. They are trying to shove nuclear plants upon us undemocratically, while using any convenient evasive description (propaganda) to allay our concerns. When you look more closely at their explanations, they are the ones that fail to stack up.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=nuclear-power-could-cost-trillions-2009-06-19

An informed public is key to acceptance of nuclear energy

LikeLike

Machiavelli:

you accuse barry of ignoring indirect radiation effects and then you cite “evidence.” but that evidence is not accepted by barry cause the studies upon which it is based are bogus (Mangano/baby teeth).

when you can show the seriously elevated levels of radiation pouring from a nuclear power plant and manifesting itself in fencepost man as millirem, then you have real evidence of radiation release.

then of course you need good studies connecting very low levels of radiation release with higher cancer rates. but once you start down this road, you have to explain the inconvenient data on the lack of correlation and sometimes inverse correlation between rising cancer incidence and higher natural background radiation.

DV: We Miss You!!

LikeLike

Machiavelli,
I read your long post carefully and then decided to examine the sources you quoted.

The first link was “Thorium Fuel: No Panacea for Nuclear Power”
By Arjun Makhijani and Michele Boyd

Every major point made in that paper is flat out false. I wondered how anyone would publish such nonsense so I checked Arjun’s qualifications and it turns out he is less qualified than I am to discuss fission reactors (we both worked on fusion processes). Arjun’s real problem is that he works for an outfit pushing a “No Coal, No Nuke” energy policy.

For example Arjun says that Thorium does not solve the proliferation issue because Thorium is converted into U233 which is an excellent material for making bombs. Through ignorance or deliberate deception he fails to mention that the U232 is also produced. U232 is a powerful gamma emitter that would destroy nearby electronics while advertising its location. In other words the Uranium produced in Thorium reactors not usable in weapons.

While I could debunk this paper point by point, would you listen if I did?

Oak Ridge National Laboratories is a reliable source of information on thorium reactors:

http://energyfromthorium.com/

LikeLike

Something else I was thinking about on the train today – a large part of the assumed Life Cycle Emissions (and uncertainly) associated with Nuclear Plants is the cost of decommissioning. Now most of the reactors under consideration have life spans around 60 years (its worth mentioning that many reactors which have had their lifespans increased to 60 years – AGR for example – had projected lives of 25 years, so its probably longer than 60 years).

Now, we can assume that the bulk of the ‘next gen’ will be built in the 2020’s, based on the 60 year life span, therefore, they will be decommissioned in the 2080’s. Lets face it, if we haven’t ‘decardonized’ our economy by 2080, then we never will. Therefore we can assume the decommissioning costs (and a lot of the waste treatment costs) in terms of C02, to be zero, is near that.

LikeLike

Does anyone know where I can find a LCA for various forms of energy production? I’ve been trying to find one by the IEA but to no avail.

LikeLike

Very interested article on the risks of radiation from New Scientist.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727715.800-whos-afraid-of-radiation.html

LikeLike

@quokka —

You seem particularly concerned about CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Do you think the 3+ billion people who can’t imagine the quality of life you currently enjoy give a flying flip about CO2 or its possible climate effects?

The vast majority of them just hope to find enough calories to consume to keep them alive for another day. And we in the west navel-gaze and hand-wring over possible events 30-50-100 years hence. Is this the best use of our time?

LikeLike

quokka,
“Aside from what people think, one could reasonably ask in what way is spewing ever increasing volumes of GHGs into the atmosphere going to help the poorest people on the planet. On the contrary, there is every indication that they will cop the worst of it.”

What the “poorest people” need is electricity but we in the developed world are trying to restrict them to “renewables”. In many cases this amounts to denying them electric power.

Fortunately we are not in a position to impose such cruel restrictions on nations such as China and India who will embrace prosperity whether we like it or not.

LikeLike

quokka (4 Aug 2010)

“And just what might these be? What we desperately need is solution to the CO2 problem over a 20-50 year time frame. Technological cargo cults need not apply.”

I have provided a very basic preview of a newly identified source of renewable energy by a private Australian researcher that seems to have been missed by many (a). Although other mavericks have found varying forms of new energy generation principles throughout the 20th century, I am not aware of anyone else claiming potentially large industrial size outputs. No practical model has yet been made due to lack of finances & adequate working area. Yes, I know, you would prefer to have more details but proprietary reasons & security concerns prevent this. Keep in mind however the very early confidence of the atomic bomb theorists. Despite their totally new, hard-to-believe concept at that time, they were eventually vindicated.
(a) https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/06/18/21c-nuclear-renaissance/#comment-92286

LikeLike

The above entry was addressed to Greg Meyerson’s comment on 4 Aug 2010

LikeLike

@Macchiavelli: you write that we must come up with something better and safer? This is prattle. Have you heard of Arrhenius? do you know that C02 is at 382 ppm? .

So what is your opinion of the clash on BNC between Brooks and Jacobsen over the latter’s pro-renewable energy calculations in Scientific American late last year?

As I see it, these are the options: 1. reduce the ca 6 bn people on earth to ca 1 bn by murder/war/virus, as suggested by the captain of Sea Shepherd, the whale-saving NGO. 2. do nothing and stick with coal and natgas and take the AGW consequences. 3. adopt wind and solar and tide and wave and hydro and accept eg blackouts and brownouts and scarce food and water rationed in favour of the Haves and Capital by all-party Governments of National Emergency backed by the military applying martial law. 4. go nuclear.

LikeLike

machiavelli: please read the material science on this blog.

especially the stuff on material inputs of wind and solar compared to nuclear. Finrod has some good material on his site on the mining question.

see also the post on double standards or anti nuclear hypocrisy.

why is france’s overall cancer rate less than most other european countries? quokka or someone posted a nice link on these rates.

even if tritium were causing all the french cancer (preposterous of course), france’s electrical system is still the cleanest in europe, along with sweden (46 percent nuclear/46 % hydro). and it’s efficient enough that electricity via nuclear is their main export.

DV and Luke: I’d be interested in hearing your response to M’s tritium business.

Greenpeace recently noted that France was experiencing shutdowns with their nuclear plants to the point where they had to import electricity from elsewhere. but when you compare the imports, it’s a fraction of their electricity exports.

LikeLike

@Machiavelli

I think we can both agree that the IPCC is an independent and trusted source on solutions to solving AGW, yes? I suggest you read their latest report:

Click to access ar4-wg3-chapter4.pdf

Page 283, Carbon Intensity from various sources.

LikeLike

Huw Jones, on 5 August 2010

“The evidence that there are elevated cancer rates around Nuclear plants is very weak, and even if there is a causal link, I don’t honestly care.” H. Jones

It looks like the “don’t honestly care” attitude is shared by many nuclear supporters. Perhaps they would change their mind if they were raising a family of their own near a nuclear plant. The KiKK study was independently confirmed to having showed a clear dose-distance relationship (a). Unfortunately, it looks like the nuclear industry around the world doesn’t care either about accepting the results, preferring to adopt the same denial attitude as the employers of the radium-painters & the early tobacco industry, even after the evidence of toxicity became overwhelming. The nuclear industry seems to justify their indifference below:

“It is also interesting, how the limits of 0.3 mSv per year due to airborne releases and wastewater from nuclear plants were set, valid in Germany for the public. In the justification for these limits, the ICRP (1958) explains that these limits represent a considerable burden for the public by genetic damage. “However, they can be regarded as sustainable and justified regarding the advantages that can be expected by the application of nuclear energy.” (b)

Of course if a much safer form of power generation having additional advantages, were to be discovered, then the above nuclear risks can no longer be considered “sustainable & justified”.

“There’s a proven link between driving and increased likelyhood of death, but no-one is calling for that to be banned. “ H. Jones

If there was an economical effective way to improve the risk-benefit ratio with automobiles even further, then it probably would’ve been done.

“Why does Nuclear have to have 0% public risk when nothing else we do does?” H. Jones

Simply because the public is entitled to expect this, since we are supposed to be living in the most powerful knowledge based & creative era in all history. With countless scientists & engineers having graduated from universities all around the world, to help improve our lot, why is the power generation industry been stagnant for so long after hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on nuclear research & particle accelerators? Where is the value for money? The electronics industry is streaking ahead with innovative & functional products, while we’re still stuck with dirty coal & expensive, radioactive nuclear power. At least gas power has advanced a bit.

Furthermore, if nothing else has a 0% risk – then it’s about time our ‘expert’ scientists & engineers started reducing as many pubic risks as possible, because there are far too many now & the cancer rate is too high in most western countries, not to mention other health issues. Reasons for this inaction seems to be economics & a lack of suitable solutions yet. Look at all the 1,000’s of new chemicals & drugs being released amongst the public, many having ingredients that are later shown to have ill-effects. Even the more well known toxic products took far too long to be banned. Lead was identified in about 1912 to have ill-effects on children, yet look how vigorously the industry fought off a ban from including it in petrol & paint products – about 55 years. A similar story with asbestos & mercury. It had been established there is no safe internal dose for mercury, yet small amounts were still deliberately added to some vaccines. There was a recent US study confirming organophosphate pesticides as a likely cause of ADHD in young children after their mother was exposed during pregnancy (c). There are many examples of products having a poor risk-benefit ratio if you look (d, e). Some scientists & politicians are letting the public down badly. If they cannot manage these simpler public health issues adequately, then how can they possibly deal with the more involved nuclear radiation hazards? Existing NPP countries have already got a poor track record in hazard management judging by the known falsehoods & cover-ups. In the case of nuclear power, it is the whole spectrum of disadvantages that makes that technology unacceptable, not just one or two problems (f). A much safer energy base would relieve governments of many headaches.

“The increased likelyhood quoted by anti-nukes is very low and not statistically viable – 37 over a 30 year period, for example in the KIKK report. I very much doubt there is a cancer link, why would there be?” H. Jones

In Germany, just natural background radiation is considered to cause about 20,000 – 40,000 cancers a year (2002) (b). There is absolutely no question that nuclear power plants release both gaseous & liquid radioactive emissions, being effectively another form of waste. At every stage of the industry, there is some form of waste being generated. We have enough ordinary garbage to deal with without having another expensive & prolific waste producing industry send more into the air, water & landfill. Nuclear engineering cannot contain all the internal radiation inventory indefinitely, due to corroding parts, wearing seals, accidents, undisciplined operators & maintenance practices. The global industry releases “mega-curies” of tritium annually (g). So much for the unbelievable ‘safe’ banana comparison (h).

“People who are exposed to higher rates of radiation on a regular basis – air traffic workers for example, are exposed to a much higher rate of radiation than Nuke workers.” H. Jones

Not necessarily. Even though ref (i) seems to support H. Jones, it does so only if nuclear workers are not subjected to any mishaps & accidents. But there are already accounts published including examples of mistakes involving larger doses of radiation (j). Additionally, there is the interesting twist where the yearly dose could readily reach 4 mSv or more for a regular high-flyer. Prof Brook suggests there is a “consensus” for 5x background levels being safe or beneficial (k). There are alternative studies however indicating the opposite in pilots (l).

The main difference between NPP radioactive effects & those of general background radiation have already been pointed out (h). Airline staff are NOT exposed to NPP radionuclides that are capable of being ingested internally, but rather to external cosmic radiation that is more readily controlled, therefore being less dangerous in a one sense. NPP workers definitely are subjected to radionuclides of varying levels due to mishaps, failures & accidents. That is why they are allowed a higher limit than the public. But that limit cannot cover more extreme exposures as occurred at TMI in 1979. One or two plant workers received a brief exposure from a 1,000 rad/hr source when they were taking a cooling water sample. Nuclear industry workers definitely get cancer attributed to their employment (m). This is the whole point about NPP’s – they do NOT work under practical guidelines as excepted by the general public. There are technical failures allowing occasionally larger than expected radiation releases. This is why the technology is still not acceptable, having a poor risk-benefit ratio that isn’t compensated well enough by its alleged low carbon footprint.

“France, producing 3/4ths of its electricity from Nuclear, and using Reprocessing (which is perhaps the most radiological of all nuclear processes) you would expect to have a high cancer rate right?” H. Jones

The cancer figures shown in your link seem to be at odds with other data. Taking the US for example, only about 322 deaths per 100,000 is shown in your link. If you then go to another link (n), giving US state figures it can be seen the minimum is about 389 deaths per 100,000. In any case, this isn’t the best indicator of pollution-related deaths. A localised study done for 1978-98 showed a leukaemia increase of about 6x in the 5-9 age group near the La Hague plant (o). The cancer rate doesn’t have to be high to be noticeable.
The French government is having similar problems with nuclear power as other countries (p, q).
(a) http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/1006/nuclear-safety-1006.cfm
(b) http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=706
(c) http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/pesticide-link-to-adhd-20100518-vaqm.html
(d) http://www.smh.com.au/national/chemicals-banned-in-eu-found-in-shampoo-pet-products-20090511-b0kt.html
(e) http://smh.domain.com.au/the-killers-within-how-our-homes-are-making-us-sick-20100429-tv9k.html
(f) http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/IsNuclearTheAnswer.pdf
(g) http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/tritiumbasicinfo.pdf
(h) https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/19/radiation-facts-fallacies-and-phobias/#comment-92008
(i) http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2005/0907-flying_and_radiation_risk.htm
(j) Such as the book ‘Nuclear Witnesses’ Chap 1 L. J. Freeman 1981
(k) ‘Yes’ case for nuclear Power (Why vs Why p29)
(l) http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/123/8/1102.pdf
(m) http://www.jsi.com/Managed/Docs/Publications/EnviroHealth/Leukemia_FactSheet.pdf
(n) http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_can_inc_per_100-cancer-incidence-per-100-000
(o) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1731936/pdf/v055p00469.pdf
(p) http://www.alternet.org/environment/132852/the_french_nuclear_industry_is_bad_enough_in_france%3B_let's_not_expand_it_to_the_u.s./?page=entire
(q) http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article6626811.ece

LikeLike

greg meyerson, on 4 August 2010 at 21.55

“You accuse Barry of ignoring indirect radiation effects and then you cite “evidence.” but that evidence is not accepted by barry cause the studies upon which it is based are bogus (Mangano/baby teeth).” G. Meyerson

I haven’t used any direct evidence from Mangano baby teeth studies yet. Despite no indication of which evidence you’re really referring to above, I will continue with the baby-teeth issue anyway.
I am aware of the rejection of strontium 90 baby-teeth studies by the nuclear industry (a, b, c). This isn’t unusual, as they have rejected virtually all evidence implicating nuclear power of affecting people’s health.
The Sellafield (UK) Director of Health & Safety however, (Dr Roger Berry) DID accept the Gardner Report (1990) recommendations to lower occupational radiation exposure levels due to child leukaemia risks while management attempted to resist it. The industry is following the same procedure pioneered by ‘Big Tobacco’ of looking for any way to ridicule the study or its authors. The independently verified German KiKK child leukaemia study has also been rejected by the same industry, even though it was found to have been adequately done. Meanwhile, ill-effects will continue until more conclusive evidence is found to convince the hard-headed industry. Here is a big chance for ‘Big Nuke’ to locate alternative explanations for the observed ill-effects, but they haven’t come up with anything convincing yet, & still continue to claim it couldn’t be caused by nuclear plant emissions. Many closely involved in the technicalities of that industry know very well that radioactive gas & liquid emissions are hard to contain, yet nuclear power is still falsely portrayed as being benign. The onus should be on the nuclear industry to show why their technology is safe & won’t cause any harm, like the US EPA requiring manufacturers to do likewise before they introduce a new chemical onto the market. The US govt also assured their public that atom bomb tests were safe too, but they were later shown to be wrong. The Mangano teeth studies are still good enough to illustrate a disturbing trend. When combined with alternative methods of fission product fallout assessment, as done by Dr E. Sternglass with the 1st Shippingport reactor showing similar results, then the significance becomes even stronger. Pay particular attention to Dr C. Busby’s comments in ‘Discussion’ paragraphs 5 & 6 about Strontium 90 activity & background radiation differences (i). Strontium 90 activity is surprisingly high (d, p2).
As for “bogus” studies the nuclear industry definitely hasn’t got much to crow about in view of the known examples of fraud, suppression, understatement & misleading claims (Peter Bradford at – (e) & the flawed banana comparison (f) along with the so-called “fair and level playing field” claim (g).

(a) http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2004-01-02-babyteeth_x.htm
(b) http://www.elements.nb.ca/theme/nuclear_energy/sharon/flatt.htm
(c) http://www.unplugsalem.org/radioactive_strontium.htm
(d) http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/krubin/GG425/Lect44.pdf
(e) https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/06/18/21c-nuclear-renaissance/#comment-92269
(f) https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/19/radiation-facts-fallacies-and-phobias/
(g) https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/28/nuclear-power-yes-please-for-cc/

“When you can show the seriously elevated levels of radiation pouring from a nuclear power plant and manifesting itself in fencepost man as millirem, then you have real evidence of radiation release.” G. Meyerson

I am not saying radiation is continually pouring from nuclear plants today, even though it could’ve been 30 years ago due to weaker standards. There is already adequate circumstantial evidence for intermittent radioactive gaseous & liquid releases to account for the observed ill-effects in local residents (h, i). The TMI II accident (1979) certainly appears to have released much higher doses than officially acknowledged due to the known measurements taken at the time with hand-held portable monitors & a more detailed analysis of the accident much later (j).

“Then of course you need good studies connecting very low levels of radiation release with higher cancer rates.” G. Meyerson

There are adequate studies showing low-level radiation causes measurable harm. I have already included two recently on BNC (k, l). There are more available if you look.

“But once you start down this road, you have to explain the inconvenient data on the lack of correlation and sometimes inverse correlation between rising cancer incidence and higher natural background radiation.” G. Meyerson

Again, there are no supportive links with your claim. If you are referring to the hormesis issue, my views on that have already been posted on BNC (m, n, o). There are many examples covering decades showing how humans have considerable trouble deciphering some difficult phenomena. It was still generally held amongst scientists up to about 1903-6 that heavier-than-air flight wasn’t possible – a monumental failure of scientific reasoning. The other problem is the ethical & competency issue. We need genuine independent researchers that are not funded by obvious vested interests or compromised by a conflict of interests (see last two ‘Discussion’ paragraphs at – (i).

“I will always find a scientist with the ‹correct› results, if I pay enough.” (p)

“We cannot deny that in science – more frequent than the scientists prefer – there are lies and deception, not only negligent sloppiness, but really intentional fraud.” (p)

“We can completely prove that with asbestos, passive smoking, Chernobyl consequences and other examples (that) influential circles in politics and economics make use of “suitable” scientists…” (p)

(h) http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/43
(i) http://www.greenaudit.org/childhood_leukaemia_and_radiation_near_newbury.htm
(j) https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/06/18/21c-nuclear-renaissance/#comment-92269
(k) http://www.alfred-koerblein.de/background/downloads/AEOH2006.pdf
(l) http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/123/8/1102.pdf
(m) https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/19/radiation-facts-fallacies-and-phobias/#comment-76703
(n) https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/19/radiation-facts-fallacies-and-phobias/#comment-81280
(o) https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/19/radiation-facts-fallacies-and-phobias/#comment-92008
(p) http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=706

LikeLike

@Macchiavelli: you have adverted several times to German studies. You do not read German.

There is high controversy over the meaning of the Mainz KiK (Kinderkrebs= child cancer) study. Anybody can see this even from Wikpedia.

It is true that the doctor on the nuclear power desk at IPPNW in Germany would agree with you on trend; IPPNW alleges some sort of malfeasance by the German BfS (Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz) in regard of the KiK-study which it had itself commissioned. However, BfS has a website which I advise you read.

On another topic, some EU countries eg France. Germany have set up a notification system for NPPs such that any and all irregularities are reported by the operator so as to build public confidence post-Chernobyl. It thus happens that small mishaps of any sort at all get into the newspapers whereas to my knowledge there is no such statute governing coal-fired plants.

LikeLike

WTF?? You’re going ro base your criticism on the text of the cover flaps?

And you’ll only do it if you have successfully transcribed said text?

Quit your squirming and defend your claim.

LikeLike

Comments on book cover-flap claims ‘The Power to Save the World’

1) That a stroll through Grand Central Terminal exposes a person to more radiation than a walk of equal length through a uranium mine;

“External exposure is mainly due to gamma emitting nuclides in the uranium decay series. The risk of internal exposure comes partly from radon, which can migrate through rock, be inhaled & deposit its daughter elements, partly from radionuclides in dust that can settle in the lungs. G.M. Ritcey 1996

In terms of just ionising radiation, it doesn’t seem appropriate to directly compare an area above ground that is likely to be well covered in concrete (or similar), with an area that is specifically opened up below ground (or even open-cut) for mining. Greater access to radon & ore-bearing radioactivity would therefore be expected in the mine, even though mines are supposed to be ventilated. If the author is trying to make the point that uranium bearing ore is only weakly radioactive, then she would’ve been better off using a different comparison.

2) That average background radiation around Chernobyl & in Hiroshima is lower than in Denver;

Averaging is another method often used to mask the existence of areas having more dangerous levels of radioactivity, such as mentioned in New Scientist (a). No mention is made of those areas in this statement.

After 65 yrs, I’ll accept Hiroshima is likely very low in surface radiation, but I have no useful data yet on this.

(a) https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/19/radiation-facts-fallacies-and-phobias/#comment-95378

3) That there are no cancer clusters near nuclear facilities;

“By 1987, leukaemia clusters had been identified near 15 UK nuclear installations & was considered ‘overwhelming’ evidence. Sir Douglas Black even changed his mind, saying that there was a ‘high likelihood’ that in small areas near Windscale there was an increased risk of leukaemia in young children. He described the evidence around other installations handling radioactive materials as ‘disquieting’. There was now, ‘quite a likelihood that there is a genuine link’ between nuclear power plants & childhood leukaemias.” J. Cutler & Rob Edwards (b)

See also Dr Ian Farlie’s views (c).

(b) https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/19/radiation-facts-fallacies-and-phobias/#comment-103595
(c) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmenergy/memo/nps/uc8202.htm

4) That terrorists could neither penetrate the security at an American nuclear plant, nor make an atom bomb from its fuel;

Terrorists have regularly shown determination & resourcefulness. They may not need to actually try to steal any plutonium or fuel rods from a US nuclear power plant, but rather to take over the control room in order to help destroy it. It would probably be more likely for terrorists to crash a fuel-laden plane into it or align themselves with a ‘rogue country’ & convert their existing nuclear processing facilities to get their bomb material.

“……..I have been persistent in calling for the prompt global abolition of all nuclear weapons and the key nuclear materials needed for their production. Since all of the more than 400 nuclear power plants now operating in 32 countries produce large quantities of plutonium that, when chemically separated from spent fuel, can be used to make reliable, efficient nuclear weapons of all types, I have also found it necessary to call for phasing out all nuclear power worldwide.” Ted Taylor 1996 (d)

“Inadequately controlled plutonium or highly enriched uranium, combined with secret design and testing of non-nuclear components of nuclear warheads, can allow a nation or terrorist group to have deliverable nuclear weapons within days, or even hours, after acquiring a few kilograms or more of the key nuclear weapon materials.” Ted Taylor 1996

“……..there have been major developments of nuclear weapons technology that make it possible to design all types of nuclear weapons to use reactor grade plutonium without major degradation of the weapons’ performance and reliability, compared with those that use weapon grade plutonium.” Ted Taylor 1996

(d) http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1996/07/00_taylor_nuclear-power.htm

5) That nuclear waste can be – & already is – safely stored;

Unfortunately, the industry seems to be using a weaker definition for ‘safe’ than the general public is. The public want the waste to be truly isolated indefinitely. Yucca Mountain repository has had its funding cancelled. Pond storage, dry cask & vault storage are interim solutions only.

6) That wind power & solar power, while important, can meet only a fraction of the demand for electricity;

There are some that will not agree with this (e), at least for Australian circumstances. Granted – the US has a much larger population. But I am satisfied that inventors & researchers have already identified new renewable ideas during the same period that nuclear power was developing.

(e) http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/solar-wind-power-may-meet-2020-energy-use-20100621-ysdt.html

7) That a coal-fired plant releases more radiation & emits deadly toxic waste that kills thousands of Americans a month;

No argument about the toxic elements being released, but the radioactivity is only due to small amounts of mainly uranium or thorium in the ash. Now we have just seen attempts above to show a uranium mine is apparently safe to walk through, so the much smaller content in fly ash must be even less dangerous.

“……the average population dose attributed to coal burning is included under the consumer products category and is much less than 1 percent of the total dose.” (f)
“Radioactive elements in coal and fly ash should not be sources of alarm. The vast majority of coal and the majority of fly ash are not significantly enriched in radioactive elements, or in associated radioactivity, compared to common soils or rocks. This observation provides a useful geologic perspective for addressing societal concerns regarding possible radiation and radon hazard.” (f)

It doesn’t seem likely that a coal plant releases more radiation than a nuclear plant, particularly when there are radioactive liquids or gases being released intermittently. Nuclear plants are known to each release up to hundreds of curies (even thousands) annually in gas purges along with large amounts in radioactive liquids (g). As pointed out earlier, coal ash will also not have any fission products that can be readily ingested, targeting specific organs (h). This counter statement is NOT being used to justify the use of coal power, but merely comparing radioactivity.

Furthermore, researchers like Dr Sternglass feel that many people have already died prematurely from the effects of nuclear plant radiation releases either normal or accidental – mainly as child mortality. A case has even been made for about one million deaths so far, resulting from Chernobyl fallout (i).
(f) http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html
(g) http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/tritiumbasicinfo.pdf
(h) https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/19/radiation-facts-fallacies-and-phobias/#comment-92008
(i) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html

8) That in its fifty-year history American nuclear power has not caused a single death.

Well there were definitely 3 early deaths resulting from the 3MW boiling-water SL-1 experimental reactor in 1961, while the date is within the 50-yr claim limit if we use the publishing date of the book in which the claim is made, to go back 50 yrs (j).

Delayed deaths are still contested by the nuclear industry despite the long assessment by people such as Dr Sternglass (above). Double standards are apparent, where delayed deaths from coal plant operation are readily used by the nuke supporters, yet they refuse to acknowledge any likelihood of delayed low-radiation effects that have been studied or analysed by some independent researchers for at least 20 yrs (c).

Here is an effective general acknowledgement of nuclear plant & reprocessing releases:

“While most of the radioactive materials generated by the civil nuclear industry are confined & shielded to minimise external exposure, some do escape or are released into the environment.”

“Intentional discharges with significant radioactive content are from stacks to ensure dispersion before the discharged plume touches the ground.”

But this simple principle isn’t foolproof in preventing radioactive fallout from chimney stacks.

“In the absence of evidence for other detriment, the chief concern about environmental radioactivity relates to health. The ideal way to determine its impact might be to establish unequivocally:

a) How the components of a radioactive discharge became distributed….
b) The radiation doses delivered to the exposed population….
c) The effect of these doses.

“Like all ideals, it is not realised in practice, as witness the widely divergent estimates of consequences due to any particular event.” Dr Peter Wilson BNFL Sellafield 1996

Dr Rosalie Bertell has provided an estimate using a general cancer relationship in the Nov 1999 Ecologist, claiming about 1m deaths have occurred due to the nuclear power industry up to that time (1942-1999), without including the new Chernobyl figures (another possible 1m).

So the claim in (8) is NOT believable.

(j) http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/accident/critical.html

“And she demonstrates how, time & again that political fearmongering & misperceptions about risk have trumped science in the dialogue about the feasibility of nuclear energy.” Cover Flap

More likely, people are genuinely concerned about the regular denial & assurances from the industry that are no longer convincing in view of the known accidents.

“In the end we see how nuclear power has been successfully & economically harnessed here & around the globe to become the single largest displacer of greenhouse gases, & how its overall risks & benefits compare with those of other energy sources.” Cover Flap

This depends on how “successfully & economically” is defined. The industry has in an overall sense, consumed huge amounts of money, clearly contributing to governments being in the red with significant debts; US, UK, Canada & France. If these debts have not been cleared up yet, then how can we say it is economical? The whole industry is built on a ‘house of cards’. Just a few more blunders & it will collapse for good. Apparently, pro-nukes want to sell even more reactors. Radiation roulette (k).

As far as being technically successful is concerned, this is suspect as well, due to the many engineering demands of this extreme form of power where the high radioactivity causes many new problems in the materials used. Some of them are not lasting & are expensive to replace. A small number of US plants have already been closed due mainly to technical failures that were not economically repairable.

(k) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/who-will-pay-for-americas_b_191455.html

LikeLike

Full fissioning in (iso-)breeder reactors of thorium or uranium yields roughly 3 million times as much energy as burning the same weight of coal. See

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2592&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=39

for the calculation written out in full with references. So the claim is true for coal more than about 0.33 parts per million (U + Th), with the ‘about’ required because of the variable heat content of coal.

Actual trace element levels in coal vary widely. This article from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, USA

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

discusses radiation emissions from coal plants, and gives the average U and Th contents of US coals as 1.3 and 3.2 ppm, respectively, but with over a factor of ten variability from low to high samples. On that basis, there’s more than ten times the nuclear energy available from the coal ash than there is chemical energy available from the coal. For the most U-rich coals, it might even be economic to mine the ash for U today, given that the mining costs have already been paid.

LikeLike

I wonder how much of the fissile elements in coal exit the smokestack into the atmosphere as opposed to filtered/precipitated out or left in the boiler ash. Non-fissile U238 would be inhaled or settled in waterways with similar chemical hazards to other heavy metals. Case in point I’ve been wondering whether to eat some salmon this weekend grown in water rich in copper and lead. Fissiles like U235 are hopefully minor in coal flue gas.

At one time there was a proposal to make coal-to-liquids in SA’s Arckaringa Basin north of Olympic Dam
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/mining/bn-arckaringa-coal-deal-sealed/story-e6fredi3-1225800074360
The coal originated in peat swamps seeped in uranium bearing waters from the basement rocks. Think of CTL fuelled cars spewing radio-isotopes from the tailpipe.

LikeLike

Following this thread

LikeLike

Prescription for the Planet Chap 2 Fusion Power Tom Blees

“Politics is a big part of ITER. Opposition to the ITER project has been generated most vociferously from the same environmental groups that oppose nuclear fission power. “Pursuing nuclear fusion & the ITER project is madness,” said Bridget Woodman of Greenpeace. “Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste & the risks of a nuclear accident.” T.B.

It seems reasonable to assume that B. Woodman is familiar with enough of the fusion basics to be able to justify her response.

Tom Blees responds to B. Woodman

“Whoa lady! Take a chill pill. I’m sorry, but I have little patience for hysteria when it comes to discussing the serious problems that face us today. While I call myself a serious environmentalist, off-the-wall statements like that are simply out of bounds. This is a typical knee-jerk reaction to anything with the word ‘nuclear’ in it, & is either based on the rankest ignorance or an appalling disingenuousness. “ T.B.

This is just another attempt at unjustified ridicule when no valid counter-claims are made.

“ridicule is not a legitimate tool of honest skeptics” Joel M. Kauffman

There is no need to call B. Woodman hysterical when she is more likely concerned about the known extremes fusion power requires. (see below)

“But for fusion to occur, exceptionally high temperatures are required – greater than 100 million degrees Kelvin.”

“Heating the plasma requires massive amounts of electricity – typically about 5 million amperes.

Although vast amounts of power are required to generate the heat & the magnetic fields, the fusion process generates far more.”

“The latest machine being tested is ITER in France, run by an international collaboration. It should be able to produce about 500 MW, nearly 10x the power needed to heat the plasma to the required temperature for fusion.” (a) R.W.

A temperature of 100 million degrees & 5 million ampere current are adequate examples of extreme engineering being stretched to the limits if not beyond them. All practical, realistic projects have a very clearly defined safety margin included, such as the fail-safe concept. What happens to the hot plasma if the power fails for the magnetic field? If nearly10x the power required for the plasma heating, is achieved as an output – is that supposed to be a big deal? I wouldn’t think so. What about the power required for the magnetic field? No mention is made of that by R.W. Even though we are not given the magnet system voltage, we can see what would be required in a non-superconducting system, where 5 million amperes @ 200v requires the complete output from a 1 GW plant, just to supply the magnetic field. Superconducting equipment will reduce that requirement, but it has to be powered as well. Easier to see now why it can be called madness, when tens of billions of dollars has been spent on fusion research covering 50 years, with no sign of any practical rector yet. With those extreme temperatures & currents, accidents are still more likely, & that example has only a 500 MW output. It doesn’t even make any good engineering or economical sense. The technology required to safely handle 5 million amperes in such a confined area would be very expensive – resembling the same problem of economics with nuclear fission plants all through their history, even today (b).

“Fusion reactors, should they be proven viable as they almost surely will be – eventually, would produce a pittance of nuclear waste with so short a half-life that it would be harmless within 10 – 100 years. The accident risk is likewise overblown, since it would be impossible for a fusion reactor to undergo a runaway chain reaction. It’s not the safety that’s the problem; it’s the time it will take to make the concept commercially viable.” T.B.

All T.B. has managed to do here is offer reassuring overstatement without directly addressing any of the really hard fusion issues head-on.

See what others think about the engineering hurdles & accident risks being ‘overblown.’

“In the physics area there are numerous problems to be solved in the areas of ignition, burn, impurity and disruption control.” (c)

“In the engineering area significant development is required in plasma heating, blanket design, magnet design, tritium handling and control, materials development, shielding, and maintenance.” (c)

“there are also a variety of problems to be solved in the safety area.” (c)

“Lithium reacts strongly in air, liberating about 3.7 times more energy by weight than liquid sodium.” (c)

“Calculations based on conceptual designs have shown that in excess of 1 GCi of activity can be produced. Activation products are built up rapidly in the structural material of a fusion reactor and a significant fraction of the equilibrium inventory is present in the reactor after only a few days of operation. (c)

Standard 1 GW fission power plants can accumulate 10 – 20 billion curies of radioactive inventory.
There is no guarantee that the very significant 1 Gigacurie-plus amount of radioactivity can be contained under all circumstances.

“There are only around 20 kilograms of tritium in the world.” (d)

“Jan Beranek of Greenpeace claims that, “to sustain a reaction for a year for just one reactor it would need to burn 50 kgs of tritium… at the moment we are able to get one kg for about $30 million (£20 million)”. (d)

“Dr Michael Dittmar, a physicist at CERN working for the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology thinks this is a comforting folly, a process fraught with problems in physics, mathematics and engineering.” (d)

He says the vast expenditure on experimental reactors should be halted until that basic problem is resolved. (d)

“If this doesn’t work we can forget the entire rest of the project,” he says. (d)

Is this an indication of how well these problems have been solved over 50 years of trying?
Just the above challenges appear too difficult & probably failed to inspire any confidence in B. Woodman with that technology. So why is she being called hysterical when an insider such as Dr Dittmar also has significant doubts about fast breeders & fusion research (e)?

Any half-life is unacceptable for humanity considering how many of these reactors are required & the likely increasing population. At those extreme temperatures, safety certainly WOULD be a problem. How much more time, money & excuses do the researchers need before they concede it is impractical technology?

We are not interested in the hyped-up claims of pro-nukes when their key previous claims have failed to materialise. They will probably claim they are close to success & lobby politicians even harder for continued funding, despite the bottomless sink-hole they have already created. They are performing the same role as a car salesman trying to sell the public a clunker, with nuclear power being the worst clunker ever devised, but the industry cannot bring itself to admit that even though some key staff have recognised the many faults of nuclear power.

(a) Bad Ideas? Chap 9 Is Nuclear Energy an Option? Robert Winston 2010
(b) http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf
(c) http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp;jsessionid=A6B97E6187631E1853C20510651D3572?purl=/6876244-lyoVCT/
(d) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8547273.stm
(e) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0911/0911.2628v1.pdf
(see Fusion Illusions Section 5, p 17-24)

LikeLike

Nuclear is still a limited resource. We can get all our energy needs through simpler, less expensive forms of green energy like wind, wave, solar and geothermal. I would far rather rely on these, which are so much less trouble to build and really are green – because you’d never run out of wind!

Even if it worked, it’s not necessary and I don’t think we should give governments the wrong idea. Essentially nuclear is NOT OK and that’s something we need to remember. Before we get carried away.

LikeLike

“This claim sounds exaggerated, when viewed with alternative practical reactor operation basics.

By using just one power plant, we should still be able to assess the above claim (1), if the plants are similar. So if a 1 GW coal plant had a genuine 1 GW rated electrical output for 1 year, then about 8,760,000,000 kWh (electrical) would have been generated for consumers over that period.

If also about 5.2 tons of natural uranium were released as waste from the same coal plant during the year, then this is supposed to contain more (theoretical) energy than that delivered by the coal plant over the same 12 months.

Unfortunately, this theme is used too often to mislead people about energy outputs. To be consistent, we should also be reminded that theoretically, ALL matter is supposed to have varying but significant potential for energy release (E=MC2), so in a similar sense used by A. Gabbard, there is a huge amount of energy being ‘wasted’ with countless simple everyday items being instead used for mundane tasks because no-one has found a way to power their car on such items. Why just limit criticism to idealised figures from coal plant emissions?”

Such statements regarding the actinide content of coal waste containing more available nuclear energy than the coal originally released when burned do assume that the coal ash’s uranium-238 and thorium content is all harnessed for energy, using a fast reactor like the IFR and/or a reactor such as a LFTR capable of efficiently burning the thorium. Such technologies already exist. It’s true that there’s no way you could equal the coal’s chemical energy content if you were inefficiently using only the U-235 content of the uranium in a LWR.

Your comparison to the ridiculous goal of harnessing all the mass-energy content from any matter is plainly ridiculous.

“What happens to the hot plasma if the power fails for the magnetic field?”

Then the plasma rapidly cools, dissipates energy into its surroundings, and it is no longer fusing.

I’m not going to waste my time arguing with you – or something copied and pasted from some representative of Greenpeace – when it seems that you, and certainly Greenpeace as well, don’t have even the most basic understanding of how these systems behave.

The physics of fusion in a tokamak is well understood; what is going on today is mainly just engineering… developing the technology for industrial manufacturing of very large superconducting magnets, which is getting better all the time, driven by medicine, research, and of course things like the LHC.

I think those links you posted went some way towards answering your own questions – assuming, of course, that you really want answers and not just to spread FUD. The ITER magnets will consume about 35 MW of power, which is mainly needed to run the cryoplant that keeps them cold. Superconductors don’t dissipate any power, they just need power for the cryogenics plant. ITER will generate 10 MW out for every 1 MW put into the overall system – including plasma heating energy, energy needed for magnet cryogenics, all of it.

angelofthewest:

What’s wrong with nuclear energy? It sounds to me like you just have a bit of a dogma against nuclear energy, with nothing of substance to reasonably back up such a position.

The hydrogen in the sun represents a finite energy resource… the potential energy of the earth-moon tidal system is a finite energy resource.

There are no “infinite” energy resources.

There is enough uranium on Earth to support the energy needs of an advanced civilization on Earth for billions of years, as long as the Sun will support life on Earth – and then there’s plenty of thorium and deuterium too.

LikeLike

Luke Weston, on 17 November 2010 at 6:05 AM

Your comparison to the ridiculous goal of harnessing all the mass-energy content from any matter is plainly ridiculous. L.W.

In one particular sense, that WAS my point – the continued use of idealised theoretical estimates still being used for uranium potential (when obtained from coal plant waste) could be regarded as ridiculous, & was probably done by A. Gabbard (& others) to impress the public.

Then the plasma rapidly cools, dissipates energy into its surroundings, and it is no longer fusing. L.W.

Yes, I am aware it would cool down, but just that general statement you have given isn’t enough to answer my concerns. I was thinking more of the DURATION of decay heat, & what is being done to minimise it. No doubt, the likely interlocking of all plasma heat generating systems with the magnetic field failure, means that all the heating power for the plasma, will probably be shut down quickly. But as in fission reactor-core decay heat, it would be interesting to know how long it takes for a 100 million degree temperature to decay away, & what effect it has on the surrounding enclosure. The usual operating temperature of a fission reactor is about 600 deg K – a lot lower than the fusion plasma example.

The comparison case of Lower Temperature Fission (decay heat)

“For example, a reactor generating 3,400 MW of thermal energy (about 1,100 MWe) will still be producing 215 MW at 1 second after shutdown, 47.5 MW after 1 hr, & about 0.8 MW 1 year after shutdown.” (a)

Similar figures for fusion reactors are probably not publically available yet since they are still experimental & not established in engineering training courses.

Response to ‘angelofthewest’

“What’s wrong with nuclear energy? It sounds to me like you just have a bit of a dogma against nuclear energy, with nothing of substance to reasonably back up such a position.” L.W.

That’s a bit rich. If anyone has a “dogma” in accepting anything, it would surely be some of the pro-nuke contributors. Just for a start, there have been some key industry insiders publically confirm the dangers of nuclear power, along with other defects (b-e).

“There are no “infinite” energy resources” L.W.

“There is enough uranium on Earth to support the energy needs of an advanced civilization on Earth for billions of years, as long as the Sun will support life on Earth – and then there’s plenty of thorium and deuterium too.” L.W.

Both the above comments appear to contradict each other. The highly touted Fast Breeder Reactors were supposed to provide power indefinitely. Billions of years is close to “infinite”. It is very unlikely humans will be on Earth after that length of time anyway, for other reasons. We are already confronted with several major challenges while not even 7 billion people are present yet.

David B. Benson, on 17 November 2010 at 8:20 AM

Maybe ‘angelofthewest’ is thinking of similar plans put forward for renewable energy (f), where the disadvantages of those ideas are more preferable that the MANY disadvantages of nuclear power.

(a) Introduction to Nuclear Power 2nd Edition by G.F. Hewitt & J.G. Collier
(b) https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/06/18/21c-nuclear-renaissance/#comment-92269
(c) https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/19/radiation-facts-fallacies-and-phobias/#comment-95378
(d) https://bravenewclimate.com/2010/06/18/21c-nuclear-renaissance/#comment-98112
(e) http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24414/ (Chapters 1-4 at bottom)
(f) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

LikeLike

Is There a Nuclear Industry Misinformation Conspiracy?

“So, we’ve got to know that there is a conspiracy out there & the conspiracy is against the people,” rants Dr Helen Caldicott in 1999. Let’s examine this allegation with a bit of logic. (a)

Author Tom Blees responds:

“There are many thousands of nuclear physicists & engineers who are more than willing, nay eager, to support the use of nuclear power. Few would argue that these people are Strangelovian monsters who care nothing for their children as they push an agenda for poisoning the world for their descendents. Nor would any substantial number of those very smart people have made financial decisions to invest in the nuclear power industry, since it’s been on the skids now for at least a few decades. Conspiracies of this magnitude, involving tens of thousands of scientists, engineers, accountants, technicians & politicians are all the more ludicrous when you consider that all these people would knowingly & maliciously be dooming their own progeny to lives of misery & ultimately death. Yet such absurd charges are tossed about repeatedly, despite the complete lack of rationale for anyone to so clearly work against their own well-being & that of their families.” (a)

(a) ‘Prescription for the Planet’ Chapter 2

Although originally referring to a chemical industry, the following response could also apply to nuclear industry behaviour.

Author M. Robin, asks K. Cook from the Environmental Working Group:

Indeed, there is something I still have trouble understanding: how could people knowingly run the risk of poisoning their customers & the environment & not stop to think that they themselves or their children might be the victims of their negligence? I am not speaking of ethics or morality, abstract concepts foreign to the logic of capitalism, but merely of the survival instinct: was it lacking in the managers of ………..?
“A company like ………… is a world of its own, (where) the pursuit of profit at any price anesthetizes people devoted to a single purpose: making money.”

Prof K. Stanovich has a comment about ‘smart’ people:

“There is a narrow set of cognitive skills that we track and that we call intelligence. But that’s not the same as intelligent behaviour in the real world,” What the professor argues is that intelligence by itself can’t (always) guarantee rational behaviour. In other words, you can be intelligent without being rational, and you can be a rational thinker without being especially intelligent. Kurt Kleiner 2009

Tom Blees seems to be ignoring the possibility with his ‘logic’ argument, that there is such a condition in a collective culture, where many like-minded people, possibly originally & genuinely believing in a common goal, can still develop tunnel vision & ignore any evidence against their common interest, with some more fanatical types even becoming very defensive & even hostile to such people with counter evidence that threatens their livelihood. They can be in such a state of denial that they are really ‘dysrational’, making the issue far more serious. They don’t have to be all consciously plotting together to destroy humankind, but they can still be on the wrong path ‘unintentionally’, with the aid of other human failures such as ignorance, prejudice & hostility. There have already been several earlier examples (DDT, CFC’s, HFC’s, PCB’s, PVC, Lead, Mercury, tobacco etc) that were originally defended vigorously, only to be eventually shown to be dangerous enough to be banned or heavily restricted. Meanwhile, during the decades it can take for a complete ban to occur, still more people suffer ill-effects from the suspect substance, due to the persuasiveness of the lobby groups defending those items.

Examples of Unsatisfactory Industry Behaviour

http://www.independent.co.uk/…/uk/…/ios-investigation-officials-plotted-sellafield-coverup-1224473.html

Psychological Persuasion & Manipulative Techniques

Marketing Concepts & Strategy can Reduce Resistance to Nuclear Power Plant Installation
http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-07242009-31295002141744/unrestricted/31295002141744.pdf.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/now-sellafield-admits-to-22-faked-nuclear-safety-checks-1120931.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/civil-servants-lived-the-high-life-courtesy-of-nuclear-lobby-789185.html

Why would scientists dedicated to uncovering the truth about the natural world deliberately misrepresent the work of their own colleagues? Why would they spread accusations with no basis? Why would they refuse to correct their arguments once they had been shown to be incorrect? And why did the press continue to quote them, even as their claims were shown to be false? N. Oreskes & E. M. Conway 2010

Scientific Ideal Aaron Wildavsky 1995

“We might add unanimity to the list of missing items; after all, if it is science, it is supposed to be objective, & doesn’t that mean everyone reaches the same right conclusion?”

LikeLike