Which is a bigger threat to humanity's future -- climate change or nuclear power? According to two op-ed authors from Oakland's Breakthrough Institute writing recently in the San Francisco Chronicle, it's no contest, and only the former matters: "For Millennials like us, global warming is the intergenerational threat today, not nuclear power."
This seems to me a false dichotomy. But what seems to have set them off is a coming revival of the 1970s Musicians United for Safe Energy concerts against "nukes." They note that the MUSE artists such as Graham Nash and Jackson Browne are "misguided" and maybe worse than that, tend to be "sexagenarian."
Now, leaving aside why anybody would willingly self-adopt corporate marketing labels like "millennial," as somebody who is neither adolescent nor geriatric, I'd say these young whippersnappers are themselves a bit confused. Since March's Fukushima meltdown, I've followed the debate on nuclear power more closely than I had in many years. I wrote on this topic here.
Subsequently, I moderated an online Collaborative on Health and the Environment forum on the Fukushima disaster and nuclear power with two leading experts, a nuclear physicist and a physician, which can be heard here -- although be warned, it is an hour long.
Thus, the more I've learned about nuclear energy, and the more that is revealed about the many human foibles leading to disasters thus far and how many close calls there have been, the less faith I put in its safety. I do tend to agree that climate change is the most sweeping environmental threat; it's undeniably a looming worldwide disaster (and for more on that, here is another online discussion I held on that, with a leading longtime journalist on this issue, Mark Hertsgaard). But that specter does not make nuclear power any safer.
There are good reasons we have not built more nuclear plants here in many years, and the fact that nobody will insure them against meltdown is telling -- if the actuarial geniuses won't wager money even on something so profitable as a power plant, should we wager our lives? Add in the still-unsolved and likely unsolvable problem of how to safely store radioactive waste for thousands of years and the scale tips further away from humanity being able to manage nuclear power safely and economically in the long run.
Admittedly, it's doubtful that the revived MUSE shows (which, by the way, feature some, er, millennial-type stars) will tip the nuclear scale in any direction -- but they might well educate some more people, including even younger ones, and will be sending proceeds to disaster relief in Japan, a very good thing and I hope nobody would think that, at least, to be "misguided."
But what else is to be done (beyond perhaps invoking widespread cultural traditions urging people to "respect your elders")? The task before our species is huge -- a radical decrease in energy consumption, re-design of how and where we live, and yes, an eventual decrease in human population. Leaders in Europe are realizing that nuclear energy is a Faustian bargain that does not fit into that equation -- Germany has decided to phase out nuclear plants altogether. In Japan, of course, the story gets worse with each new revelation of technological and human shortcomings, with the highest officials recently resigning in shame and scandal.
It's silly, even immature, to try to divide people on this crucial technological and ecological issue based on arbitrary age categories. For in fact we're all in this together, and radiation can hurt you -- no matter how old you are.
http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/hvistendahl/
"In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant - a by-product from burning coal for electricity - carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." Our source for this statistic is Dana Christensen, an associate lab director for energy and engineering at Oak Ridge National Laboratory..."
I am not too impressed with your analysis.
I think the risks are well represented in the history of the industry in the US: 0 civilian deaths over more than 30 years.
Considered on a deaths:TWh basis, nuclear power worldwide (including Chernobyl and TMI) has generated more power while harming fewer human beings than hydroelectric, which is in turn safer than any fossil technology.
Surely that is the relevant number. How many people are harmed to produce how much CO2-free energy?
Coal is not the topic, and it sidesteps the dangers of nuclear:
Forget civilian deaths, that also is a faint away from deaths...
There are many deaths from Nuclear
+ The accidents are getting worse and more frequent
2011 Fukushima
1999 Tokaimura
1993 Tomsk
1986 Chernoblyl
1979 Three Mile Island
1979 Church Rock
1957 Windscale accident
1964 Santa Susana (aka Semi Valley, CA)
xxxx SL-1 research reactor explosion
Tomsk was not a reactor.
SL-1 was an Army test reactor.
Goiana Brazil? You need to use that one.
In comparison to nuclear, which may eventually be responsible for the early deaths from cancer of a few thousand as a result of its worst-ever accident - which is lamentable - coal has been responsible for MILLIONS of deaths around the world in normal operation. Indeed, some estimates suggest the toll is on the order of 1m per year.
1400 is well below any known adverse affect even for women and children.
The truth is that nobody needs any more radiation from spewing reactors!
The Japanese have been really lucky (so far),
... That one or more of their reactors and or spent fuel pools,
... Has not literally blown up in their face!
Who can afford another Trillion Dollar Eco-Disaster?
Answer: N☢BODY
The worldwide average background dose for a human being is about 2.4 millisievert (mSv) per year.[8] wiki background radiation.
That, by itself, is reason enough to outlaw nuclear power.
A. Before any solar/wind is built, energy conservation, and cogeneration of all big buildings will immediately make up all of the energy that nuclear currently makes--without making any energy!
B. Then--after our houses and apt. buildings are fully weatherized, provided with the most energy efficient appliances, including electric, tankless water heaters, as well as co-generation when possible, only then will we build solar/wind, and underground heat pumps directly into the structure of our own buildings, so that we can never again be held hostage by a bunch of greedy billionaires and their "scientific" dogsbodies.
Yeah!
Faved
see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/japan-withheld-nuclear-information_n_921810.html
All this rigamarole of conservation will not change the fact that power is required for modern society.
Look at how gasoline consumption has gone way down!
If we started taxing NUCLEAR REACTORS then folks would switch in a heartbeat!
We could then put that money into clean Solar R & D to get off Nuclear ASAP!
"Nuclear power is the only energy source where mishap or malice can kill so many people so far away; the only one whose ingredients can help make and hide nuclear bombs; the only climate solution that substitutes proliferation, accident, and high-level radioactive waste dangers. Indeed, nuclear plants are so slow and costly to build that they reduce and retard climate protection.
Here's how. Each dollar spent on a new reactor buys about 2-10 times less carbon savings, 20-40 times slower, than spending that dollar on the cheaper, faster, safer solutions that make nuclear power unnecessary and uneconomic: efficient use of electricity, making heat and power together in factories or buildings ("cogeneration"), and renewable energy. The last two made 18% of the world's 2009 electricity, nuclear 13%, reversing their 2000 shares--and made over 90% of the world's additional electricity in 2008."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amory-lovins/with-nuclear-power-no-act_b_837708.html
Chose your words more carefully. You are directing them at someone with immensely more knowledge in this subject matter than yourself.
If you and the E-GREEN GROUPS would stop suing at every step and then having a new group sue each time you lose until the approvals after delayed by years or decades then you say they cost to much - The technology is available to produce power for under $ .02/KWH if you GREENS would do like the old President of the Sierra club said - he is sorry he helped destroy the nuclear power industry with false information as it is the last best choice to reduce C02.
You all just blab and attack what ever source of improvement to the Human cause - you are all now suing to stop irrigation of farm land to produce food that the world needs to stop the suffering. Oh, that is right I forgot you E-GREENS want to reduce the human numbers by 2/3 so the system will be sustainable in you warped estimations.
How about this as an argument against it? Rich people get fantastically rich from huge, corporate, centralized energy production. That is why we have nuclear power, not for any other reason. If it weren't so, we'd be using Franklin stoves and goosedown quilts.
1. The same people who sold us the old ones are trying to sell us the new ones. They shouldn't be trusted.
2. A snowstorm of technical-sounding avoidance and misdirection from Wikipedia is not an argument.
3. Brittleness.
4. Corrupt politicians.
5. Cost-cutting contractors
6. Incompetent engineers
7. Terrorists
8. Earthquakes
9. Tidal Waves
10. Floods
13. Wars
14. Nuclear Waste-still not solved by the new ones. The burning of nuclear waste just creates more nuclear waste--and a host of other unforeseen technical problems.
15. The chances that there will be severe unforeseen problems with an undertaking so complex and dangerous are infinite. Count on it, there will be.
16. Quote me Wikipedia again. I love people who quote their own proplgandl as if somebody responsible wrote it.
Copied to disc!
Hope others spread your list,
... And also add the words "And One or More of the Following Things" to your title:
Here is (One or More of the Following Things), what is wrong with the new ones.
Because thats all you advocate.
The fuel and cladding are designed such that when they expand due to increased temperatures, more neutrons would be able to escape the core, thus reducing the rate of the fission chain reaction. In other words, an increase in the core temperature will act as a feedback mechanism that decreases the core power. This attribute is known as a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity. Most LWRs also have negative reactivity coefficients; however, in an IFR, this effect is strong enough to stop the reactor from reaching core damage without external action from operators or safety systems. This was demonstrated in a series of safety tests on the prototype.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
LFTR hey wanna buy a bridge?
http://www.grist.org/nuclear/2011-06-04-nuclear-power-is-expensive-and-uninsurable
more expensive than gren energy.
LFTR is a scam http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/952238/dont_believe_the_spin_on_thorium_being_a_greener_nuclear_option.html
Your links demonstrate as much expertise as you do.
We must do the right thing. Steve Kirsch was correct. The IFR was the golden goose.
* Breeder reactors (such as the IFR) in principle could extract almost all of the energy in uranium or thorium, decreasing fuel requirements by nearly two orders of magnitude. This could dampen concern about fuel supply or energy used in mining.[2]
* Breeder reactors can “burn” some nuclear waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides), which could turn a liability into an asset. Another major waste component, fission products, would stabilize at a lower level of radioactivity in a few centuries, rather than tens of thousands of years. The fact that 4th generation reactors are being designed to use the waste from 3rd generation plants could change the nuclear story fundamentally—potentially making the combination of 3rd and 4th generation plants a more attractive energy option than 3rd generation by itself would have been, both from the perspective of waste management and energy security.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
Con't...
http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/ca/part-8-msr-lftr/8-4-the-isotope-separation-plant/
great citqiue of LFTR an nuke poe in general
Pro LFTR aritlce also shows how bad LWR is and how the LFTR waste still needs to be stored for 300 years.
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/downloads/American_Scientist_Hargraves.pdf
You do know that your know it all world nuclear attitude is no longer believed, right?
Yes, the fission products from a LFTR reactor need 300 years. Do you understand that they are free of actinides? Actinides like plutonium are present in conventional LWR waste and need tens of thousands of years of storage. Get it?
Fission products can be fused into stable ceramic which keeps toxins from leaching into the environment for many centuries so the 300 years is no problem. "Synroc" is one of the commercial ceramic technologies that is available today.
Maybe you got caught up in your acronyms like NB and TDED.
That was 2002. It’s not that it was a good design with few problems. It was just the least problematic compared to all the others. It has significant drawbacks:
from http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/2009-07_NuclearSameOldStory
1. "uranium and enrichment are known to get cheaper while reprocessing, cleanup, and nonproliferation get costlier—destroying the economic rationale— "
2. ”…IFRs have been rebranded as a way to destroy the plutonium (and similar transuranic elements) in long-lived radioactive waste. .. However, most LWRs will have retired before even one commercial-size IFR could be built; LWRs won’t be replaced with more LWRs because they’re grossly uncompetitive; and IFRs with their fuel cycle would cost even more and probably be less reliable.
3. It’s feasible today to “burn” plutonium in LWRs, but this isn’t done much because it’s very costly, makes each kg of spent fuel 7× hotter, enhances risks, and makes certain transuranic isotopes that complicate operation. IFRs could do the same thing with similar or greater problems, offering no advantage over LWRs in proliferation resistance, cost, or environment. “
My 9:35 PM post makes no sense with out it.
CaptD_post (atoi(argv[1]));
Yes, the GOP love the profits, but the companies that build these monstrosities are the only ones that profit. Time WE the PEOPLE profited from going in a NEW DIRECTION.
Turn down the thermostat. Turn lights off when you leave the room. Turn big bunches of electronics off with surge protector type devices- computers and TV equipment eat lots of energy even when turned off if plugged in. Learn which appliances are energy vampires and act accordingly to stop the drain of electricity.
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/appliances.html
Conservation is not big money for GOP so they hate it. But it's good for us.
Do a solar hot water heater- huge energy savings. Or a windmill if you have wind. Or solar if you have sun... INNOVATE and we'll save our economy, create green jobs and help our exports and our bottom line. HUGE OPPORTUNITY- Do we want to double down on dinosaur nukes? or free ourselves with new industries, products and jobs!
Make yourself a pest pestering energy wasters- shame them. Nuclear plants so we can live like wasteful pigs? No thanks.
Do all of those things that the "hippies" told us to do with regards to conservation of energy and our planet will be a safer, better, cleaner place.
It is not a partisan issue; plenty of Democrats advocate nuclear power technology. The Liberal environmentalist George Monbiot (UK) is a big advocate of nuclear energy.
The most aggressive conservation measures will not even keep up with the projected 50% increase in energy demand by 2030.
http://www.eia.gov/neic/speeches/newell_12162010.pdf
"Make yourself a pest pestering energy wasters- shame them. Nuclear plants so we can live like wasteful pigs? "
This world is a little more complicated than you think. Perhaps you should do a little more research before making yourself a "pest".
Together we Can stop waste and make a cleaner World!
Fanned and Fav'd!
Nuclear-waste costs go critical.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904292504576484133479927502.html
Imagine a football field packed 20 feet high with highly radioactive nuclear waste. That's about the volume of the 65,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel stranded at dozens of nuclear sites across the U.S. It isn't just a potential public health hazard, as Japan's recent nuclear disaster showed, but a growing burden on the federal government's groaning finances.
We have debunked that early on!
We need more SOLAR R & D money N☢T more nukes...
Oh you mean the IFR that has never been proven and or constructed in real life!
I guess you can take your expertise and go to China or India if they would have you! Lab work does not count...
Short sighted people always look at the nuclear waste issue as if it were some unreachable, far off ideal. There are many chemicals and biotoxins with a half life of infinity.
The responsible thing was to finish the IFR concept as many have advocated and deploy a demonstration reactor.
However President Clinton listened to the likes of those "pundits" of nuclear and instead of embracing the solution, killed the golden goose.
Something to think about the next time you pine over nuclear waste. ..
Unfortunately, anti nuclear activists who have the capacity to understand the technology have no interest in presenting it honestly. Exaggeration of risks and misstatements of the technical facts are all too often their preferred way of advancing their political beliefs. The world's environment suffers the consequences of their actions.
Japan Ignored Own Radiation Forecasts
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2087568,00.html
snip
(NAMIE, Japan) — Japan's system to forecast radiation threats was working from the moment its nuclear crisis began. As officials planned a venting operation certain to release radioactivity into the air, the system predicted Karino Elementary School would be directly in the path of the plume emerging from the tsunami-hit Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant.
But the prediction helped no one. Nobody acted on it.
The school, just over six miles (10 kilometers) from the plant, was not immediately cleared out. Quite the opposite. It was turned into a temporary evacuation center.
Reports from the forecast system were sent to Japan's nuclear safety agency, but the flow of data stopped there. Prime Minister Naoto Kan and others involved in declaring evacuation areas never saw the reports, and neither did local authorities. So thousands of people stayed for days in areas that the system had identified as high-risk, an Associated Press investigation has found.