Explosions and Slicks - More Reasons for Considering the Benefits of Nuclear Energy

[wtmusic]

"I am not a fear monger. I enjoy the fruits of human civilization and celebrate the accomplishments of engineers, designers, architects, manufacturers and builders. I recognize that consuming energy at a high rate is the very definition of "power" and that power is the ability to do work.

<>

In the four months that we have completed so far in 2010, each of the competitors to nuclear energy have demonstrated some of their limitations in very public ways. The natural gas burning Kleen Energy Plant in Middletown, CT exploded and killed six people, the Upper Big Branch coal mine at Montcoal, WV experienced a methane explosion and killed 29 people, and the Deepwater Horizon off shore oil rig exploded, killing at least 11 people, seriously injuring another 7 people and causing what is estimated to be at least $12 billion worth of damage to the environment.

How many more such incidents will it take to convince doubters to take another hard look at the safety and environmental record that has been complied by the nuclear energy industry during the past 50 years?"

http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/64659?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

[liberal N proud]

1. What could go wrong?

:sarcasm:

[kristopher]

9. Fossil fuels are not competitors with nuclear, they are partners.

The competition is renewable energy.

DON'T DRINK THE FOSSIL FUEL ARSENIC!!!!!!!!

Guzzle the nuclear power cyanide instead, it is just so, so, so tasty...

Yum.


The lesson from the Gulf is that HIGH consequence, LOW probability events happen - such as Chernobyl scale events associated with nuclear power.

[drm604]

2. I'm pretty sure that most nuclear opponents are also against long term use of the other three.

So I don't think you're going to convince anybody with this argument.

[madokie]

5. You know that and I know that

but the false dichotomy of its either nuclear or fossil runs deep in some veins

[Nederland]

14. Nuclear has replaced those three, no other form of power has

We have the example of France--a country that has shown that you can generate 80%+ of your electricity with nuclear. No other form of power has demonstrated that capability. Oh sure, we've gots lots of papers that show how it can be done in theory, and I am pretty sure that a certain someone will respond to this post by posting for the millionth time a certain paper by Mark Z Jacobson claiming exactly that. However, that is merely a proposal on paper, the French example is real. Until the advocates of wind, solar or whatever can show me a real live working example of your pet technology doing what France has been doing for 20+ years, all I ask is this:

Don't hold up the construction of nuclear reactors.

Is that so much to ask? That we be sure that there is something that can replace nuclear before actually killing off the only thing that has a proven example of success? Is it so much to ask that you build something that can power a small city 24/7, without having to rely on some other source of power when the wind isn't blowing, or the sun isn't shining, or whatever your pet technological weak spot is? And you know what? I hope you can do it. I really do. I'd love to have something that doesn't suffer from the problems that nuclear has. Hell, I'll even support tax increases to send billions of dollars your way so you can try. Just don't kill off the one thing that has a proven ability to replace coal, oil and natural gas until we actually are sure your replacement will work.

[kristopher]

18. Yes, that is too much to ask - building nuclear slows the response to AGW.

I find your argument to be absolutely hilarious. You've spent years here arguing that AGW is bullshit, now here you are pleading for us not "kill off the one thing that has a proven ability to replace coal, oil and natural gas until we actually are sure your replacement will work."

Your definition of "proven" is also full of shit. Renewables are "proven" by decades of use and intense analysis. That is why ALL PLANS TO ADDRESS AGW ARE BUILT AROUND RENEWABLE ENERGY, NOT NUCLEAR.

At best (from the view of the nuclear industry) nuclear is a bit player.

[Nederland]

29. LOL

ALL PLANS TO ADDRESS AGW ARE BUILT AROUND RENEWABLE ENERGY, NOT NUCLEAR.

Really? After about 30 seconds of google searches I found these:

India's plan - http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=52858


In our country, we see nuclear energy as a vital component of our global energy mix. The vast energy potential of the three stage programme allows us really to think big. Our nuclear industry is poised for a major expansion and there will be huge opportunities for the global nuclear industry to participate in the expansion of India’s nuclear energy programme.

If we can manage our programme well, our three stage strategy could yield potentially 470,000 MW of power by the year 2050. This will sharply reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and will be a major contribution to global efforts to combat climate change.


Japan's plan - http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/464661a.html


Like most countries that embraced nuclear power decades ago, Japan has soured on the technology in recent years. But prompted by worries about climate and energy security, the country's industry ministry last week placed a big bet on a rapid expansion of its nuclear power capability.

When the draft energy plan is finalized and signed by the Japanese cabinet in June, it will stand as a roadmap for the country's new government, which campaigned on a platform of reducing carbon emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by 2020.


Sweden's plan - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/05/nuclear-sweden


The Swedish government plans to reverse a nearly 30-year-old ban on building nuclear power plants, giving the green light to a new generation of reactors.

The centre-right government wants the new reactors to be built to replace the country's 10 existing stations.

The decision reverses a 1980 referendum when the majority of voters backed an end to nuclear expansion and the government pledged to phase out nuclear power plants.

But public support has grown since nuclear power has been repositioned as a low carbon energy source and a weapon in the fight against climate change. The decision by Sweden to back nuclear power contrasts with the nation's careful cultivation of its green image. In 2006, Sweden pledged to replace the use of all fossil fuels by 2020, but nuclear was not part of that plan.



Finland's plan - http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2010/04/23/finland-plans-more-nuclear-renewables/


The Finnish government yesterday (21 April) unveiled plans for two new nuclear reactors as part of the country’s drive to meet the EU’s climate obligations and free itself completely from Russian imports.


I know it's really hard to believe given your track record, but I'm pretty sure you've never been more wrong.

[kristopher]

33. Those are global plans to address climate change?

[Nederland]

45. I'm sorry

I didn't realize that you specified "global" in your post. Wait, I just checked. You didn't.

Hmmmm. Looks like someone was so embarrassed to be called out to be so incredibly wrong that are trying to rewrite their post history...

But wait. Another few minutes of google search found a GLOBAL plan by the International Energy Agency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that calls for increasing nuclear from the 370 GWe produced today to 1250 GWe by 2050. Here it is everybody:

http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/intersessional/accra/press/application/pdf/080826_awg_accra_mt_bradley.pdf

Now what is your excuse Kristopher? :rofl:

[kristopher]

57. Yes, you are; you are also wrong.

As I said, I'm was taking about the plans that look at moving to a carbon free energy infrastructure for the globe. It's fair enough for you to attempt to exploit the lack of clarity in my claim, but you have done a poor job even then:

The IEA plan you link to shows a goal of:

Coal CCS 19%
Nuclear 6%
Efficiency and renewables: 75%


The information you provided on India was a speech by the PM to a nuclear power conference. It was not a statement of their plans to meet climate change needs. That plan is here:
http://www.pewclimate.org/international/country-policies/india-climate-plan-summary/06-2008
And this is a snip of the same prime minister's remarks when introducing that plan:

Nevertheless, we have decided to focus our national energies on Eight National Missions which will be pursued as key components of our strategy for sustainable development. These include National Missions on Solar Energy, on Enhanced Energy Efficiency, on Sustainable Habitat, on Conserving Water, on Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem, on creating a “Green India”, on Sustainable Agriculture and finally, on establishing a Strategic Knowledge Platform for Climate Change. Our vision is to make India’s economic development energy-efficient. Over a period of time, we must pioneer a graduated shift from economic activity based on fossil fuels to one based on non-fossil fuels and from reliance on non-renewable and depleting sources of energy to renewable sources of energy. In this strategy, the sun occupies center stage, as it should, being literally the original source of all energy. We will pool our scientific, technical and managerial talents, with sufficient financial resources, to develop solar energy as a source of abundant energy to power our economy and to transform the lives of our people. Our success in this endeavour will change the face of India. It would also enable India to help change the destinies of people around the world.

http://www.pmindia.nic.in/lspeech.asp?id=690


Sweden has been committed to ending dependence on fossil fuels for a long time. They also enacted a moratorium on new nuclear power in 1980. In that time they upped the level of renewable energy to 26% of their total energy supply and reduced oil from 70% to 30%. They get 30% of their energy from the nuclear plants built in the 70s.

And while the recently elected rightist government is talking of building reactors to replace the ones they have that are aging, they have also stated the goal of expanding renewables to more than 50% of energy consumption. There are no references to increased use of nuclear power at the governments website on energy policy. http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/5745/a/19594

Public opinion supports replacement of the existing fleet, but there is very low support for expanding the role of nuclear. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf42.html

As I said, all the energy plans are oriented built around renewable energy. I will give you Japan as an exception (even though I wasn't referring to individual nations).

Still my point remains and is proved by the examples you've provided - the claims being made that renewable energy is not able to meet our climate change and energy goals, that the resource is somehow not a desirable option, are totally disproved by the way renewable energy is the centerpiece of ALL global energy plans and VIRTUALLY all national plans.

[Nederland]

73. You are the most dishonest poster here Kristopher

The IEA plan you link to shows a goal of:

Coal CCS 19%
Nuclear 6%
Efficiency and renewables: 75%


The report I linked to says no such thing and you know it.

[kristopher]

76. IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2008

ENERGYTECHNOLOGY
PERSPECTIVES
Scenarios &Strategies
to 2050
2008 INTERNATIONAL

Supply side
CCS power generation
Nuclear III + IV
Wind
Biomass –IGCC & co-combustion
Solar –PV
Solar –CSP
Coal –IGCC
Coal –USCSC
2ndgeneration biofuels

Demand side
Energy efficiency in buildings
Heat pumps
Solar space and water heating
Energy efficiency in transport
Electric and plug-in vehicles
Fuel cell vehicles
CCS in industry
Industrial motor systems

Page 4 above lists the "technology options"

Page 5 is a graph breaking down the contributions of each one.
Coal CCS 19%
Nuclear 6%
Renewables and efficiency (total of all other options) 75%

[Nederland]

77. You mean this chart?

Take a look at the label on the vertical axis Kristopher.



That chart does NOT list the percentages of power production by each technology.

Did you really think you'd fool anyone? Like I said, you are the most dishonest poster here.

I'm done listening to your lies.

[kristopher]

79. ROTFLMAO Dude, it's YOUR chart!!!

You chose it to prove me wrong, yet when it proves you wrong, suddenly it is measuring the wrong thing????

WTF did you think when you wrote:

I didn't realize that you specified "global" in your post. Wait, I just checked. You didn't.

Hmmmm. Looks like someone was so embarrassed to be called out to be so incredibly wrong that are trying to rewrite their post history...

But wait. Another few minutes of google search found a GLOBAL plan by the International Energy Agency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that calls for increasing nuclear from the 370 GWe produced today to 1250 GWe by 2050.

Here it is everybody:
http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/intersessional/accra/p...

Now what is your excuse Kristopher?

Nuclear is currently producing about 2% of the world's energy, WTF did you think tripling it was going to amount to, 80%?!?
Nuclear is a minor part of the solution.


Now, about you trying to promote nuclear by appealing to AGW when you've been denying AGW here for years....

Care to comment?

[Nederland]

81. I'm done with your lies and dishonesty (nt)

[kristopher]

82. ROFLMAO

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=245608&mesg_id=245740

[Nederland]

92. You are in denial

Only in Kristopher reality could tripling a power source that currently provides 16% of the world's electricity be considered a "minor" part of the solution. Only in Kristopher reality could adding 880 GWe to the grid be considered a "minor" addition. The fact is that the IEA plan calls for renewables to be ~50% of the final power mix and nuclear around ~30%. Neither are bit players. Both are and will be necessary going forward.

[kristopher]

95. Expanding nuclear (currently 2% of world energy supply) slows the response to AGW.

The IEA is wrong. They are excluding from their analysis a set of technologies that are not speculative and are poised to perform the function of nuclear and coalCCS.

The issue that nuclear cannot overcome is the huge capital cost and the associated payback time. The industry might be successful in getting a few built, but the economic landscape facing those plants is extremely fluid and it is very unlikely that they can be competitive over the long term. Therefore they can't be a market driven technology, the only way they can get built is if governments override the economics and shift all the risks to the taxpayers and ratepayers.

Since there ARE alternative technologies that can perform the same function in a way that is more compatible with renewaables than nuclear would be, and since those alternatives are much smaller scale with shorter, more predictable paybacks, *they* are going to attract all the capital from investors and *they* will make the economics of nuclear even worse.

I'm still waiting to hear about your use of AGW as a reason for advocating for nuclear when you have spent years here denying AGW.

[Nederland]

97. You are a liar

I have never denied AGW. All I have ever done is disputed the degree of certainty that exists in climate science models and questioned whether or not warming would be as large as claimed. I have never claimed that the world isn't getting warming, nor that CO2 wasn't a significant cause of that warming.

[kristopher]

98. Sure you have.

It has been your reason for being on this forum.

[Nederland]

101. Prove it

Provide a link to a post of mine where I deny AGW is real.

[Nederland]

117. *Crickets*

As expected...

[Vincardog]

55. The French dump their Nuclear waste in the North Sea. A VERY BAD IDEA. Nuclear power is deadly at

every step of its' life cycle. From mining thru transportation refining use and disposal. It is a very bad idea. Why not just conserve instead?

[Liberation Angel]

61. The French Nuclear project has been a total failure, economically and energy-wise

You can read the reports on the failures at www.nirs.org

It has a dismal track record and is draining resources that should go into renewables.

all I can say is

:puke:

[Nederland]

99. Wow. A report by the NIRS

An organization dedicated to eliminating nuclear power. A real unbiased source of information you've provided there. I guess if you expect me to accept that as a source, you'll be happy to accept the NEA as a source?

:eyes:

[kristopher]

100. Considering motives...

NIRS isn't motivated by profit, but by the general welfare of PEOPLE.

The nuclear industry IS motivated by protecting profit, NOT by the general welfare of PEOPLE.

Hmmmm, which should I give weight to - profit seeker or concerned specialists?

[Statistical]

102. So you give equal weight to every anti wind coalition too?

The belief that PROFIT can be the only motivation for dubious/false claims is silly.

[kristopher]

111. Most of the "antiwind coalition" is astroturf.

None of the opposition to nuclear is generated by threatened economic interests, while the vase majority of opposition to wind IS generated by threatened economic interests.

In other words, the opposition to wind is largely manufactured by the fossil-fuel/nuclear/utility power structure as part of their well documented anti-environmentalist campaign. The first line of strategy has been oriented towards preserving the place of fossil fuels, and as that line fails the fallback strategy is to ensure the largest slice of the pie to nuclear as is possible.

There IS no existing power structure built around renewables with the resources to wage the professional lobbying and public relations campaign that we've seen with threatened industries such as tobacco, petroleum, coal, nuclear vendors etc.

[joshcryer]

116. Not on this forum.

[Nederland]

103. The NEA is a non-profit (nt)

[Deep13]

3. That's much better than using the nuclear furnace in the sky.

You know, the one that produces no terrestrial pollution and is free.

[NoNothing]

8. At terrible power density, unfortunately

If one wants to be taken seriously on energy policy, one has to be able to offer solutions that are practical, feasible, and beneficial to humans. Nuclear energy is the best candidate to fit all three criteria. Solar and wind - on their own - are too disperse and too unreliable to be practical or feasible, and slashing energy consumption is not beneficial to humans. Nuclear power is *not* perfect, but it is *better* than coal in almost every way, *and* can realistically replace it.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[kristopher]

20. An effective mitigation option.

The IPCC doesn't provide a plan for addressing climate change. That is a resource assessment - a review of things that *can* work to address climate change. When actual plans are drafted detailing where we should expend resources nuclear is a bit player or is not included at all.

IN ALL CASES the plans center on renewable energy sources and nuclear is at best a bit player.

Your apology is accepted.

[NoNothing]

26. You've shifted your claims

Now I see we're only talking about plans to *expand* - convenient, since nuclear power *already* provides a substantial portion of our energy supply, and renewable energy provides almost none. Do those same proposals call for shutting down nuclear power plants? No? Then by default nuclear plays a significant role.

Anyways, Obama himself has talked about the need to expand nuclear power. Did you miss the news?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61F33V20100216

[kristopher]

30. I've shifted nothing - and Obama also endorsed offshore drilling.

When your claims are shown wrong, you don't accept that YOU are wrong, you instead are driven to gasping at straws.

Why not just admit your perspective was not well informed and stop plugging a bad choice for meeting our energy and climate change needs?

I mean your entire rational for supporting nuclear power is based on your false assessment of renewable potential. You clearly have come up against the truth of my statement that all plans are built around renewables, so why persist in a position that has no merit?

[NoNothing]

39. Not necessary

You have responded to none of the technological or practical points I have raised. Even accepting your point of view that since all "legitimate" plans increase renewables by a larger factor than they increase nuclear (which as I explained is only sensible - i.e., an increase from 1% to 2% is a factor of 100%!), that means they are "built around" renewable, it is irrelevant to the OP's point, which is that those plans should increase nuclear *more,* for technological reasons.

Your argument on the other hand is fundamentally circular: Nuclear is bad because no plans are "built around it." No plans are "built around" nuclear because it is bad.

[kristopher]

46. It isn't a circular argument, and you are again wrong about renewable energy

It was an offer of evidence that the conclusion you assert regarding the role of renewables is wrong. All plans are predicated on a distributed renewable energy grid and that is fundamentally different than a grid built around central thermal generation.


http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

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

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


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

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

Mark Z. Jacobson

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

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

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

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

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

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Deep13]

13. A few points.

Solar and wind are too disperse locally. If their collection were widespread, active areas could make up for bad weather elsewhere. This would be especially true if the purpose of the wind and solar were used for electrolysis to generate hydrogen. As global temperatures rise, the air will become increasingly energetic. We can use that for wind power. We're smart. We'll figure it out if we make a serious effort to do so and we don't keep sinking our resources in unsustainable energy.

"...and slashing energy consumption is not beneficial to humans."

That is an ideological statement unsupported by fact. First, I think we would all be better off if we were not so damn wasteful with energy, including electricity. Just making buildings with higher ceilings and opening windows and accepting that it is hot in the summer would be better for our health and more energy efficient than air conditioning. We should be a lot more stingy with our outdoor lighting anyway. (And crime is a red herring. There's no evidence that I can find that outdoor lighting deters it.) And we really ought to turn off the gadgets once in a while too. And when those gadgets need to be made so that when they are "off" they're not still drawing electricity.

And this does not even touch on improvements in efficiency being realized with advancing technology. A big part of that efficiency can come from decentralizing energy distribution. Solar home and water heat is actually very efficient, especially if the house is built around it. If it's night or cloudy, then a fuel cell in the basement can take over. If junior wants to watch TV, he can hop on the generator. He's getting too fat anyway. I suspect this is the real reason energy companies are not supportive of solar, wind, tidal or geothermal electrical generation. They will have no real purpose anymore.

So just how much uranium is there in the world? And what will we do with the waste when it's used up? Presently, it is being stored in cooling pools at the reactor site.

[NoNothing]

17. You make some good points

Solar and wind are too disperse locally. If their collection were widespread, active areas could make up for bad weather elsewhere. This would be especially true if the purpose of the wind and solar were used for electrolysis to generate hydrogen.

That would help control for variability, but at the cost of truly staggering capital requirements. That would mean that in order to account for underproducing facilities, you'd have to *overbuild* capacity by a factor of *at least* 50%. That is in itself *wasteful* - you are building facilities you know in advance you won't be using to their maximum capacity. Facilities which occupy a lot of land and require significant maintenance. Not to mention the enormous transmission inefficiencies incurred by shipping electricity - or hydrogen, for that matter, since we don't have any bulk hydrogen transport infrastructure, quite an engineering challenge all on its own - imposed by such a design. With nuclear, you can plan on your capital being used at near full capacity almost all the time, making overbuilding and bulk long-distance transmission unnecessary.

Manufacturing methane might be more practical, but would incur a significant efficiency penalty again.

That is an ideological statement unsupported by fact. First, I think we would all be better off if we were not so damn wasteful with energy, including electricity. Just making buildings with higher ceilings and opening windows and accepting that it is hot in the summer would be better for our health and more energy efficient than air conditioning. We should be a lot more stingy with our outdoor lighting anyway. (And crime is a red herring. There's no evidence that I can find that outdoor lighting deters it.) And we really ought to turn off the gadgets once in a while too. And when those gadgets need to be made so that when they are "off" they're not still drawing electricity.

No offense, but all the stuff you list is small potatoes. Cutting all of it would not be "slashing" energy use, it would be more like "nibbling." I'm talking about reductions that would be large enough to affect global climate change within a decade, reducing our current consumption by 75% or more. That means giving up modern conveniences like "aluminum" and "internet." It is a nice dream that we can maintain our luxurious lifestyle while making big cuts to energy consumption, but the OP is right: energy is power. Power to create, power to destroy, power to shape the universe to make it more comfortable for us.

So just how much uranium is there in the world? And what will we do with the waste when it's used up? Presently, it is being stored in cooling pools at the reactor site.

That's actually a very good question - since current known reserves adequately provide existing demand, very little exploration has been done. Furthermore, modern reactors are capable of transforming non-reactor fuel metals into reactor fuel. With this ability, just *known* reserves are sufficient for tens of thousands of years.

[Deep13]

22. I'm not suggesting we can maintain extravagant lifestyles. nt

[NoNothing]

31. I suppose I disagree

With your notion of "beneficial" in that case. That which makes us comfortable, helps us live longer, happier lives, I find beneficial. I for one would consider it a great tragedy if the internet became not as widely accessible as it is, or if we found ourselves once again toiling in hard labor to stave off starvation.

[Deep13]

43. Not suggesting that either.

I'm really talking about making some rather obvious choices about what is necessary, what is extravagant and what is truly wasteful.

[kristopher]

23. You really know nothing of energy except what you learned at the Nuclear Energy Institute.

The idea of "overbuilding" is far more applicable to nuclear than to renewables.

All energy plans to deal with AGW are built around renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Can you provide a source that shows renewables and energy efficiency are not central to our energy future?

[NoNothing]

27. Nonsense

Nuclear facilities have by far the most uptime of any energy source, an average of about 90%, c.f. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html. Are you really going to claim that either wind or solar will, on average, generate 90% of their maximum capacity? That the wind will blow 90% of the time? That the sun will shine 90% of the day?

Renewables currently play a very minor role in our net energy production. Clearly, their use will expand greatly. However, nuclear power is in my opinion much better suited to efficiently replace the bulk of coal generating capacity. Renewable use on such a scale is, as yet, not a proven technology. Nuclear is.

[kristopher]

37. Capacity factor is a red herring.

The use of capacity factor as a measure of the "best technology" is a red herring designed to deflect attention from a wide array of very important considerations that score poorly for centralized thermal generation. Large scale centralized thermal generation refers to systems that burn fuel to heat water to produce steam to run a generator. Coal nuclear and natural gas all have the potential for high capacity factors.

Since wind and solar both have significantly lower capacity factors, this is the favorite point of attack by those supporting Republican energy plans.

What that attack ignores is that actual capacity factor a system operates under is as more a function of the designed system of the grid than an unchangeable characteristic of how a grid must be operated.

It is entirely possible to design and operate a grid with a combination of technologies ALL having low operational capacity factors.

Here is a link to a Scientific American article that demonstrates how this can be accomplished.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

[NoNothing]

44. Sure, at a cost of - conservatively - $100 trillion

In other words, not feasible. Not practical.

[kristopher]

49. What will be spend on energy during the same period under a business as usual scenario?

The amount of money we need to spend isn't an isolated figure, it fits into a pattern of global expenditures for energy and if you use nuclear power it is even more.

The losers in this transition aren't those who will spend the money for they will spend money for energy no matter what. The losers are those who own carbon based energy assets as they see their anticipated profits reduced or eliminated when the cash stream is diverted to noncarbon alternatives.

In other words, you once again have no idea what you are talking about.

[Dead_Parrot]

32. Quick eveyone, catch that goalpost! nt

[Nederland]

54. Yup, he does it all the time

Check out posts 18, 29, and 33.

Those suckers moved more than a field length, and I still managed to score!

[kristopher]

58. Don't forget this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=245608&mesg_id=245707

[Deep13]

40. I think you underestimate just how much power is wasted in this country.

We with 3 or 4% of the human population of the world use 25% of its energy. Further, the places in this country with the highest electrical use are in the South which strongly suggests that much of that usage is air conditioning. It just seems to me that having survived without a/c for 2 million years, we could be using a lot less of it. Look at a major city skyline at night when you get a chance. How much of that illumination is REALLY necessary?

The need to build wind generators or solar collectors is part of the attraction for switching over. More American jobs and all that.

[NoNothing]

50. We "survived" without A/C and had much shorter lives

I'm interested in a little more than "survival." Lack of A/C killed thousands of people in France a few summers ago. I personally would prefer to keep it, and consider it a loss to humanity if we had to give it up.

[Statistical]

16. Solar power is free?

By that logic hydro-electric power is free too. Hell coal is free and nuclear is free (it uses natural coal & uranium respectively).

[Deep13]

21. Yup. and Nope.

The earth is constantly being radiated with usable energy. There's no way to reduce it to possession like the other things you mentioned. Granted solar panels cost money as do the other gadgets that make it work, but the raw energy itself is free because there is nothing to mine, burn or dam.

[Statistical]

24. "but the raw energy itself is free because there is nothing to mine, burn or dam"

the solar panel is the plant.

By that logic hydro-electric is free because the water contains the energy.
There is a lot to mine and manufacturer in a solar panel. It isn't that solar panels cost money it is the plant requires resources like all forms of energy production.

A solar plant has a cost in resources to construct it then has an operation cost and an economic lifespan (panels degrade over time).

If you add up all the costs of solar plant and divided it by the amount of power produced over its lifetime you get the lifecycle cost.

To pretend solar is somehow free because it comes from the sun is silly.

[NoNothing]

28. Only solar "fuel" is free

Similar to the way that hydro "fuel" is free or geothermal "fuel" is free.

However, each of those requires *capital* costs and *operational* costs equal to or greater than conventional combustion technologies.

[Statistical]

34. Agreed.

Still even the concept of "fuel costs" is a rather meaningless metric.

Nuclear fuel costs are a tiny fraction of coal fuel costs but coal (sadly) still has a lower lifecycle cost (because carbon is currently free).

The only metric that matter cost per unit of energy (not power).
CAPITAL COSTS + FINANCIAL COST + O&M (Operating & Maintenance Costs) + FUEL COSTS = TOTAL COSTS
TOTAL COSTS / LIFETIME ENERGY = cost per unit of energy (usually cents per kWh).

[Deep13]

36. No, the nuclear furnace in the sun is the plant, and that's the point.

Water does not contain energy. Falling water contains kinetic energy that is reduced to possession by owning the river. The reason the water got that high in the first place is because of a natural cycle that is fueled by heat from the sun. Once the river is reduced to posession, that company owns the resource and charges for its use. Sunlight falls everywhere (though not equally). It is usable in it unconcentrated form as it is. Once a person buys the tools to collect it, the energy collected will be free. If everyone had a river running through his or her yard, then hydro would be free too. But they don't.

[Statistical]

41. "Once a person buys the tools to collect it, the energy collected will be free" Once again wrong.

All "collectors" (most people would call them electrical plants) have finite lifespan. Given they will last a finite amount of time the energy they can potentially collect is also finite.

Electricity from the sun would only be "free" if a solar panel lasted forever and never required any maintenance.
Even then it wouldn't exactly be free but rather very low cost (one time cost for nearly unlimited return).

Solar energy has a cost. It is very easy to compute.
Cost of plant (capital costs) + financing costs + maintenance/operation/repair costs = lifetime costs

lifetime costs / lifetime energy = cost per unit of energy (cents per kwh).
Solar energy isn't any more free than other forms of energy.

Once again if solar energy is free then hydro-electric is free to. All you need to do is
1) build a damn for free
2) have damn last forever
3) never require any maintenance

by that metric hydro is just as "free" as solar energy is.

[Deep13]

48. You would also need to own the river.

So how long does a solar panel or a solar cell last? With no moving parts, it seems like it would be a very long time, especially for passive solar heat. A solar cell converts light into electricity, heating panel just has to sit there.

Take the real cost of adding passive solar to the cost of a subdivision. Divide it up among the residences there. Make sure that cost includes all the stuff you mention. Take the cost of an N-plant and divide that up among the residences that will use it for heat. Make sure to add in the cost of liability insurance and safety planning and background check for the employees, and the cost of storing waste essentially forever. Add the cost of mining and refining uranimum and the cost of eventually decommissioning the plant. How much is that?

Speaking of hydro, why don't we use the kinetic energy of falling rain to generate power? That's pretty much a free source.

[wtmusic]

52. After twenty years a PVC's output is down by about 40%.

and they do need to be cleaned, or their output is cut drastically.

It comes down to bang for the buck. Solar panels generate such a small amount of power for the cost (monetary and environmental) that we're going one step forward and two back.

An enormous amount of energy is generated with just a very small amount of nuclear fuel - a spherical pellet of uranium the size of a dime contains as much useable energy as a ton of coal.

[NYC_SKP]

56. Disagree. Warranty says 80% or better for first 25 years. And 90% for first 12 years.

My experience is that some go as high as 90% for first twenty years, but I went out to be sure.

Here's the section from Sunpower's warrantee, for example:

2. Limited Power Warranty

a) SunPower additionally warrants: If, within twelve (12) years from date of delivery to the Customer any
PV module(s) exhibits a power output less than 90% of the Minimum Peak Power1 as specified at the
date of delivery in SunPower's Product datasheet, provided that such loss in power is determined by
SunPower (at its sole and absolute discretion) to be due to defects in material or workmanship
SunPower will replace such loss in power by either providing to the Customer additional PV modules to
make up such loss in power or by providing monetary compensation equivalent to the cost of additional
PV modules required to make up such loss in power or by repairing or replacing the defective PV
modules, at the option of SunPower
b) SunPower additionally warrants: If, within twenty five (25) years from date of delivery to the Customer
any PV module(s) exhibits a power output less than 80% of the Minimum Peak Power1 as specified at
the date of delivery in SunPower's Product datasheet, provided that such loss in power is determined by
SunPower (at its sole and absolute discretion) to be due to defects in material or workmanship
SunPower will replace such loss in power by either providing to the Customer additional PV modules to
make up such loss in power or by providing monetary compensation equivalent to the cost of additional
PV modules required to make up such loss in power or by repairing or replacing the defective PV
modules, at the option of SunPower.

:patriot:

[kristopher]

75. Will a second hand market develop for used solar panels?

[Statistical]

85. Possibly. However you start running into voltage mismatch issues.

If ever panel had the exact same output and decayed at the same rate it wouldn't be a "problem".
Overall system output would simply be the sum of the panel outputs. However real world doesn't work that way.
Panel output isn't uniform between panels at construction. Good panels are +/- 5% on output. Bad panels are +/- 10%.

Whenever voltage is not same (panel 1: 20v, panel 2: 18v, panel 3: 21v) you get voltage mismatch and that lowers the system output by a few extra %. The higher the mismatch the more energy lost. The decay rate will vary by panel so the mismatch grows as panels get older. You might have 80% output on average panel after 20 years but you might lose another 5%-10% due to mismatch.

Still the 40% number was too high. A good rule of thumb is that overall system (not panel) performance degrades about 1% a year (say 30% after 30 years). After 30 years the variability between panels means overall system output will decay rapidly due to voltage mismatch.

This can be mitigated somewhat by restringing panels. Instead of say 12 panels on a string go to 2 strings of 5 panels and eventually 3 strings of 4 panels. Of course the more parallel the you make the system the more current losses you face so there is no free lunch.

The raw material in solar panels is rather expensive and at some point the parts become worth more than the sum. This is especially true as newer panels become cheaper and use less raw material and older panels (thicker) have more raw material in them. In 30 years it is entirely possible that used 30 year old panels will be worth more to recycling center than a second hand buyer.

For anyone interested on planning, installing, maintaining PV systems here is a good resource:
http://homepower.com/home/

[blueworld]

4. I think you mean the publicized/sanitized safety & environmental record n/t

[madokie]

6. That would be correct

[wtmusic]

7. Fossil fuels kill more people every day than nuclear has in 60 years

It doesn't need a lot of sanitizing.

[kristopher]

11. Every plan for dealing with climate change centers around renewable energy, not nuclear.

[Dead_Parrot]

19. Wrong, but keep saying it.

It makes you look really clever.

[Teka]

15. Exactly - NUCLEAR POWER is the safest form of MASS-PRODUCED energy

Using western designs.

Everything that could go wrong at TMI did, yet no one was killed, only SMALL amounts of radiation were released into the atmosphere.


To deny nuclear is to further kill the planet

[kristopher]

25. Yes, what could possibly go wrong?

Nuclear power is not and cannot be any safer than any other complex human endeavor. The Deepwater Horizon is a result of exactly the type of hubris you display.

[Statistical]

35. No Deep Water Horizon is the result of no redundancy.

The contingency plan was to shut the BOP.
When that failed there was no backup.
There still is no backup and there won't be one for 90+ days.

Had their been redundancy the rig may have sunk and it would be big news story but the oil would have been contained by the safety equipment at the wellhead.

Oil and nuclear have both been around for 50+ years however their is a major oil spill about 3 or 4 times a year while their hasn't been a major nuclear "spill" in the US from commercial power plants ever. Even TMI the redundant safety systems protected the public.

The emergency systems at TMI protected the public DESPITE the actions of humans.

[kristopher]

38. No, it is a failure of imagination and greed, just as nuclear power is.

[Statistical]

42. Strange how one has mean time between failures of months and the other decades.

One kills hundreds of thousands of people every year (both directly and from fossil fuel emissions) and the other has extremely low occupational fatality rate and has never killed a member of the public in the United States.

The only industry hasn't had a single year they didn't spill millions of gallons of oil in water and of course that doesn't even include the routine "spillage" of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Yup they are "exactly" the same.

[Teka]

47. Some people have irrational fear of the facts

They hate what they can't understand.

[wtmusic]

51. You should have been around here last week.

We learned from an antinuke that the element plutonium crawls and burrows, and magically changes colors.

I wish I was joking.

(btw welcome to DU :bounce: :toast: :bounce:)

[Teka]

53. LOL - wow

Thanks

[Liberation Angel]

68. when absorbed into the tissue of worms and moles it probably does

and the color changes are just the green rot of gangrene (not all that magical except in an esoteric sense if you consider death and rot magical)

[Nihil]

84. You just *had* to go and do that didn't you?

Bet you also walk around poking sleeping dogs don't you?

Now, in addition to the habitual goalpost-movers, we have gained
the distraction of someone whose mental focus only visits reality
once in a blue moon ...
:spank:

[Liberation Angel]

67. Some folks actually understand the dangers of nuclear radiation (cancer, mutated foetuses, etc)

and some neglect to consider them

[wtmusic]

71. Ok then, you understand the dangers, and I don't.

I love to be educated. What's your background?

[Liberation Angel]

74. I worked in the industry

I also worked with whistleblowers and participated in NRC safety hearings as well as Congressional hearings on safety issues. I am a downwinder who has medical issues related to my own exposure as well as my children's exposure.

I have spent many years researching and working on the safety issues in various capacities.

In the industry i worked in a unit that handled the environmental health issues of workers and local civilians.

[Liberation Angel]

62. Its also the deadliest form of mass produced energy: 60 million dead from cancer globally

according to the European Study on radiation effects released in 2003.

The industry has covered up this mass murder and heavily propagandizes against anyone or anything who says nukes are not safe.

Nukes are massive killers deforming babies in the womb, killing them shortly after birth and killing us with cancer, thyroid diseases and multiple other forms of damage to our internal organs and bodies as well as all of nature.

Nothing about nukes is safe or ever will be.

[Confusious]

83. Yea, someone else posted that a while back

60 million dead from above ground nuclear testing.

[Liberation Angel]

87. The study covers ALL nuclear "projects" including toxic nuclear power plant emissions

NOT just above ground testing

You should read the executive summary (which I have posted here numerous times) before misrepresenting what it says.

[Confusious]

112. misrepresenting what it says

"Its also the deadliest form of mass produced energy: 60 million dead from cancer globally according to the European Study on radiation effects released in 2003."

Don't see it do you?

[joshcryer]

59. More reasons to consider a social policy that puts profit below external costs.

Such a policy would include nuclear but would not be all nuclear.

[Liberation Angel]

60. WTF???? This oil mess is EXACTLY why nuclear corporations are just as likley to fuck up

The technology does not exist to make them free from human error.

Nearly 1 MILLION people have died from the Chernobyl accident (according to a recent article posted here and ll over the net)

Corporations, energy corporations in particular, CANNOT be trusted to protect us at all.

A European study in 2003 concluded that nuclear energy has killed many millions with mutagenic and carcinogenic releases which are odorless, invisible and cannot be detected without a radiation detector.

Unlike oil we cannot see it when it is in our air food and water.

Anyone who supports nukes because of this accident is either ignorant of the scientific facts or an industry tool.

[wtmusic]

65. Have a link to the article purporting 1 million died from Chernobyl? nt

[Liberation Angel]

70. Sure - it was reported in Counterpunch

normally they are a bit too reactionaru for me, but this was a solid article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/grossman04232010.html

[Liberation Angel]

63. Nuclear Projects since 1945 (includes power plants):60 MILLION + DEAD (European Commission study)

Read it and barf:
http://www.euradcom.org/


(and save the snarky industry lies and bullshit - this is a solid scientifically based study which the industry wants desperately to discredit.

But the nuke industry is just as fucked up as the oil industry (and is virtually run by the same people: Halliburton does oil AND nukes) . So if you trust Cheney then you can trust big fucking oil and the big fucking nuke industry.

If yopu trust human beings then you can trust this study by people who actually care about humanity

[wtmusic]

64. Where does it sayt 60 million + dead? nt

[Liberation Angel]

66. Right here: (better link)

http://www.euradcom.org/2003/execsumm.htm

[wtmusic]

69. Who are these people?

I don't see any qualifications or details of the study on the website.

[Liberation Angel]

72. You can look at the main website for the names

But a primary member of the study group can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Busby

The other names can be found pretty easy at the main website or google.

It is an active debate in Europe but the industry promoters get the most media and spend a lot of propaganda attacking Busby and the other members of the Committee which is essentially a creation of some members of the Green Party which is pretty active and influential in Europe.

I trust this work and I have worked in the industry (dealing with environmental medicine and nukes)


btw - if you want to debate Busby's credentials or attack him you might check out the wiki debate page on him: he is so far up the butt of the nuclear industry attacking them that there is a cottage industry of pronukers trying to discredit him. don't bother soing that here as the wiki page has the details for anyone to check out or you can research it yourself. Suffice to say that the nuke industry has aimed all their hguns at him and he STILL has earned and maintained prominent government and other academic positions in Europe

The debate at wiki can be found here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Busby#Dubious

[Nederland]

78. Interesting Wiki article you linked to

However, according to a fellow CERRIE committee member, "much of Chris Busby’s work is self-published and difficult to access; he seems mainly to avoid publication in the recognised scientific literature, which presents difficulties for a proper review of the evidence underlying his conclusions."<9>

[kristopher]

80. How the reference for your wiki quote reads:

I was a member of the Committee throughout the almost three years of its existence, during which time 16 full meetings, four sub-committee meetings, a three-day workshop and a press conference took place. CERRIE membership was an eclectic mix of anti-nuclear campaigners (one each from Greenpeace, the Low Level Radiation Campaign (LLRC) and Green Audit), the National Radiological Protection Board (three members), the nuclear industry (me) and five scientists with backgrounds in academia or research institutes who hold a variety of views on the health effects of exposure to low-level radiation.

So the person you quote who is trying to undermine Busby is, and I quote, "the nuclear industry (me)".

This has all the earmarks of deliberate character assassination by "the nuclear industry (me)" and you.

[Liberation Angel]

94. That is the industry's propaganda against the study authors

and again folks can read the wiki discussion on the bona fides etc.

You take the industry position as gospel which is to be expected.

[Nederland]

104. I read the Wiki discussion

It's clear that Wikipedia editors felt that Chris Busby does not meet the established professor test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROF) and that his positions in the field meet the Wikipedia criteria of "Fringe Theories" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FRINGE).

[Liberation Angel]

105. I guess the UK Government commissioned study group disagrees

Here is the committee info and there is a link to Busby's bio for that study group

http://www.cerrie.org/about.php

[Statistical]

86. Even if the 60 million number is true it is FROM ABOVE GROUND NUCLEAR WEAPONS testing.

Something prohibited by the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963

[Liberation Angel]

88. Wrong, stat, it is from ALL sources INCLUDING nuclear "energy" and nuke power plant emissions

You did not read the executive summary.

I posted a Link above

It is for all sources including nuclear power plants emissions which release during "normal" operations massive amounts of man made nuclear radiation which is absorbed into the organs of humans and other living things when breathed in, drunk in, or consumed in exposed dairy, produce, vegetables etc.

If you buy "organic" fruit, say, from California, for example, it may have strontium 90 in it from emissions at a local nuke plant which has gotten into the rain, then the water, then absorbed into the fruit (and next into your reproductive organs, teeth, blood and bones causing miscarriages, bone and brain and testicular and breast and ovarian and prostate cancer) etc.

If you swim in Long Island Sound or lay on the beach there you may well be breathing in the particulates which arise from the action of waves on the beach when you smell the sea air. You also absorb the radiation through your skin.

This is how we all get exposed in many forms from this murderous filthy industrial waste and nuclear byproducts of nuclear "energy" and "power". The nuclear emissions and effluents are what kills us, kills foetuses in utero and which results in more than 60 Million dead (including those dead from nuke testing).

Don't lie about the study, pronukers. Read it and shudder.

[Statistical]

89. Yeah all sources.

Just like saying in the US 50,000 people die from gunshots and jellyfish.

When one source (nuclear weapons testing) has contributed 99.99999997% of strontium-90 in the atmosphere then it is kinda BS to combine anything else with it.

Why not publish a peer reviewed "study" on just the effects of nuclear power.
Oh yeah just like the "gunshots & jellyfish" study you would see the headline numbers decline 99.99999997%.

It is junk science to combine nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere (5000 detonations globally none of which had any form of containment) with safe, reliable, clean nuclear energy.

In related new Jellyfish (and guns) kill 50,000 people a year. Ban Jellyfish!

[Nederland]

91. Ban Jellyfish!

I like it. The anti-nukes should make that their new slogan.

[Liberation Angel]

93. Baloney - stontium 90, radioiodine, radioactive tritium and cesium and a nuclear cocktail

of some 130 radionuclides emitted and contained in waste effluents come from NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS during routine operation!

You make an absurd claim with NO source or citation to back it up (as far as the amount of strontium 90 and its sources in the environment) and expect to make an absurc argument credible by bluster and fabrication (your numbers are fabricated)

Unfortunately radiation does not have a source tag like a chemical id or a vehicular ID so the industry claims over and over, for example, that radiation in and around Long Island Sound comes from Chinese Nuclear testing (when the source is from local milk where cows downwind of Indian Point and other planst eat the tainted grass)

The radiation and public health project has published peer reiewed studies showing that baby teeth in the vicinity of nu8clear power plants have much higher levels of strontium 90 than those teeth collected farther away - thus rebutting the nuclear industry lie that it is "above ground" nuclear testing that is causing the exposure.

These studies and reports may be read at

www.radiation,org

I strongly urge those with any concern for the future at all to read these studies and reports, especially if you want your children to be protected as well as all future generations from the deathly evil which is nuclear energy

[Statistical]

96. www.radiation,org is pure junk science.

Nothing there has been peer reviewed, has recognition of ANY international body, or been published in any respectable science journal.

As far as nuclear weapons being the largest (99.999999%+) contributor to radioactive material in air, water, soil it is very simply to prove.

First you have the common sense of it. A nuclear bomb is a massive amount of fission (more fission in a few seconds than a reactor has in a year). You combine:
a) huge number of nuclear tests (5000 globally vs 400 reactors)
b) huge amount of fission in each test
c) 0% containment of any of the radiation or radioactive products.

It is kinda common sense that the overwhelming majority of unconstrained man-made radioactive material came form nuclear weapons.
Still there is plenty of empirical evidence to back that up.

The amount of Sr-90 in milk has fallen > 97% since above ground testing ended.



It correlates almost perfectly with number of global weapons tests. Even a nice blip for Chinese, Indian, and Pakistani tests.

If there Sr-90 in the air, water, soil? Of course.

Has if fallen 99% in last five decade. Yup.
As number of nuclear reactors continues to rise globally the amount of Sr-90 has fallen by 97%.
We are reaching the limits of measurement accuracy (less than one picocurie per liter).

[Liberation Angel]

106. Absolutely untrue, RPHP has some of the most respected scientists around (though against nukes)

name calling is bullshit and saying that the founder of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine's department of Radiological Physics and the former Director of the joint Westinghouse/NASA Apollo Lunar Scientific Station Project (a project killed by Nixon btw) is without credibility is like saying Einstein was ignorant of physicis.

Dr. Ernest Sternglass has impeccable credntials. So much so that the nuclear industry pulls out all their big guns to smear him any chance they get.

The studies at the Radiation and Public Health Project site HAVE appeared in peer reviewed journals and in numerous other publications. Yet the industry refuses to acknowledge the truthfulness of their claims and concern.

I have worked with the folks in this project on NRC hearings and public awareness and know that your smearing their good names is nothing but that: an industry-like smear.

As for the chart you have posted I need to look at it more carefully before I comment.

But your smear is just a smear. The professionals who honestly CARE about the Earth at RPHP, and who are NOT motivated by greed and profit, can be trusted and have impeccable credentials.

People need to read the materials and links at the site for themselves to decide but suffice it to say that this group scares the bejesus out of the nuclear lobby because they are trustworthy and speak truth to power, to greedy fascist deadly power.

[Liberation Angel]

107. Without any link or source for your chart I can't really respond

But the fact that there is STILL strontium 90 in milk nearly five decades after the US stopped above ground tests should give folks more pause than blinde acceptance of your position. Plus your chart proves practically NOTHING about the sources of the strontium 90 in the milk which is exactly how the nuke industry gets away with claiming it isn't THEIR strontium 90 in the local cow's milk and vegetables and water.

On top of that where are these tests being conducted and ARE they being conducted on cow's milk downwind or downstream of current nuke plants? Your chart is virtually useless to determine these facts.

The radiation and public health project is testing BABY teeth in chicldren and adults from many many sources and finding that damn near EVERY TOOTH TESTED contains mutagenenic and carcinogenic strontium 90.

Because strontium 90 is not "tagged" as to its source the industry's bogus claim that it isn't from operating nuke plants (which have PERMITS to emit strontium 90 into the water and atmosphere from their nuclear power plants) rings totally false. It is JUST LIKE the tobacco industry claim THEIR TOBACCO PRODUCTS didn't cause YOUR LUNG CANCER (or at least you can't prove it did hah hah). The industry has no credibility nor do any of its supporters because the industry is run by folks like Cheney and Bush and the big oil and energy cartels which lie for profit every second of every day.

What is causing the strontium 90 NOW in baby teeth? What exposure are cows getting TODAY from the grass and oats they eat to produce milk and cheese? WHERE is it coming from.

The nuke industry lies when it says "it ain't from us" and they point their fingers at the Chinese.

But, again, this chart is a waste of time without a link or much better info.

[Statistical]

109. No way you have any experience in nuclear industry given your lack of knowledge on simple concepts,

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/rert/nuclearblast.html

"But the fact that there is STILL strontium 90 in milk nearly five decades after the US stopped above ground tests should give folks more pause than blinde acceptance of your position. Plus your chart proves practically NOTHING about the sources of the strontium 90 in the milk which is exactly how the nuke industry gets away with claiming it isn't THEIR strontium 90 in the local cow's milk and vegetables and water."

We know the source because the concentrations correlates with increased weapons testing. Notice number of above ground detonations ramps up from a tiny number in 1950s to a peak in 1962. The concentration of Sr-90 in milk followed the same spike. Since there were no more above ground tests since 1967 (except a couple by China) the concentration has fallen predictibly because radioactive material has a halflife and is slowly decaying into inert (non-radioactive) material. Since 1967 hundreds of nuclear reactors have been built. If nuclear reactors were adding new Sr-90 into the atmosphere we would see Sr-90 concentrations rise not fall. It didn't the concentration kept falling at predictable level even as number of reactors increased worldwide. The concentration is still falling today and will continue to fall for next decade or so before it falls below the limit of measuring.

The only thing that could increase Sr-90 concentration would be release of new Sr-90 because nothing can prevent the decay of the Sr-90 released in 1950s and 1960s. A nuclear weapon, or large number of above ground tests could increase the concentration. If nuclear reactors were leaking Sr-90 (as you claim) the concentration would be rising (as new Sr-90 replaces decayed Sr-90) but it isn't.

"What is causing the strontium 90 NOW in baby teeth? What exposure are cows getting TODAY from the grass and oats they eat to produce milk and cheese? WHERE is it coming from."

WTF? I mean how can you claim to work in nuclear industry and not understand half-life. The Sr-90 today is from the 1960s. It hasn't been enough time for it to decay below the threshold of detection. Sr-90 (or any radioactive material) doesn't disappear just because it is "old". Even when it decays only half of it becomes inert not all of it. then a half of the half remaining, then a half of that, then a half of that. So the concentration is much lower but obviously it still exists. The strontium-90 in milk today is from nuclear detonations in the atmosphere which spread Sr-90 around the globe. Same Sr-90 today as in 1970s and 1960s but a tiny fraction as time has decayed most of the Sr-90 away.

It has been decaying predictably over the decades because no new strontium-90 is being released into atmosphere. We know how fast it will decay off because half life of Sr-90 is well known. Since the amount of Sr-90 found in milk is following that half life we know that no NEW Sr-90 is being released into atmosphere.

This is halflife 101. The fact that you don't even understand how it works makes any claims of close working experience with the "industry" (whatever the hell that means) suspect. I mean we are talking high level science here. This is high-school physics something well understood my anyone with even working theory of nuclear power.

[kristopher]

113. Where is the detailed information on distribution of sampling behind that graph?

That really doesn't prove your case at all.

We could expect the amounts from open air testing to be more than enough to drown out any contribution from power plants. In your graph there could be an additional rising slope tracking the contributions from power plants and you'd never see it.

Busby's thesis is that there is far more damage from far lower levels of radioactivity than is generally accepted. The CERRIE report seems to have been designed to discredit Busby's theories, but all the did was literature review. To me, the nature of the literature review was such that the outcome was predetermined. In no sense could I see how Busby's ideas could be falsified without research specifically designed to test it.

I don't know if Busby is correct, but I don't think he has been shown to be wrong; and I'm particularly troubled by the fact that the industry was allowed a seat on the government sponsored committee. Both the government and industry have a lot of skin in the game given the liability structure that exists.

[madokie]

90. You're asking that a pro-nukie not lie

Never gonna happen, its the industries MO.

[Liberation Angel]

108. Another nail in the Nuclear Power coffin

Spotlight

Nuclear Power Causes Cancer: What Industry Doesn't Want You To Know
Dr. Sam Epstein
Huffington Post, Tuesday, August 4, 2009


Nuclear power, frequently mentioned as one option for meeting future energy needs, would pose a health threat to Americans if a meltdown occurred. But despite meltdowns at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, and many other near-miss accidents, there is another dirty little secret the nuclear industry doesn't want you to know. Cancer risk from nuclear plants aren't just potential risks, they are actual risks.

Every day, reactors must routinely release a portion of radioactive chemicals into local air and water -- the same chemicals found in atomic bomb tests. They enter human bodies through breathing and the food chain. Federal law obligates nuclear companies to measure these emissions and the amounts that end up in air, water, and food, and to report them to federal regulators. However, nuclear advocates consistently claim that these releases are below federally-permitted limits, and thus are harmless. But this thinking is a leap that ignores hard evidence from scientific studies. Now, after half a century of a large-scale experiment with nuclear power, the verdict is in: nuclear reactors cause cancer.

The claim that low doses of radiation are harmless has always been just a claim. It led to practices like routine diagnostic X-rays to the pelvis of pregnant women, until the work of the University of Oxford's Dr. Alice Stewart found that these X-rays doubled the chance that the fetus would die of cancer as a child. Many studies later, independent experts agreed that no dose is safe. A 2005 report by a blue-ribbon panel of the National Academy of Sciences reviewed hundreds of scientific articles, and concluded that there is no risk-free dose of radiation.

Federal health officials, who should be responsible for tracking cancer near nuclear reactors and analyzing their nuclear contaminants, have ignored the dangers. The only national analysis of the topic was a 1990 study mandated by Senator Edward Kennedy, and conducted by the National Cancer Institute. But this study was biased before it even got started. A January 28, 1988 letter to Senator Kennedy from National Institutes of Health Director Dr. James Wyngaarden brazenly declared "The most serious impact of the Three Mile Island accident that can be identified with certainty is mental stress to those living near the plant, particularly pregnant women and families with teenagers and young children." Not surprisingly, the study concluded there was no evidence of high cancer rates near reactors. No updated study has since been conducted by federal officials.

With government on the sidelines, it has been up to independent researchers -- publishing results in medical and scientific journals, to generate the needed evidence. Studies were limited until the 1990s, but the few publications consistently documented high local cancer rates near reactors. Dr. Richard Clapp of Boston University found high leukemia rates near the Pilgrim plant in Massachusetts. Colorado health official Dr. Carl Johnson documented high child cancer rates near the San Onofre plant in California.


More at link:

http://radiation.org/spotlight/090804_Huffingtonpost.html


Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health; Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; and author of over 200 scientific articles and 15 books on cancer, including the groundbreaking 1979 The Politics of Cancer, and the 2009 Toxic Beauty.

(This is one of those folks whose articles are posted at www.radiation.org that the pronukers here claim are "junk science.

I guess they'd say this good Dr. has no credibility

[Nederland]

110. "No dose is safe"

Well folks, the news is in: no dose is safe. As a result, please observe the following:

1) Don't ever use your computer. Don't you know your computer emits harmful radiation that can kill you?

2) Don't ever go outside. The big nuclear reactor in the sky is continually sending evil doses of radiation your way. You need to protect yourself from those evil particles so they don't mutate your cells and give you cancer. Adding a lead lining to your house is something you should seriously consider.

3) Don't ever go inside. Dangerous radiation from decaying radon gas is constantly accumulating in your house making it unsafe. You were told in #2 to never go outside, and this recommendation simply makes it clear that you will be safe, so long as you stay someplace that is neither inside nor outside. Got it?

4) Don't ever get an X-ray. If you happen to break your leg you should let it heal naturally, just like humans did for centuries before the evil invention of modern medicine. Those people lived to be 35, sometimes even 40. That should be good enough for you too.

5) Don't ever go to the dentist. Even if you tell your evil radiation wielding dentist that you don't want him to X-ray you, her or his office will inevitably be filled with radiation emitted when other people who aren't as smart as you get their X-Rays. Just stay away, teeth are overrated anyway.

6) Don't ever eat. Just like your skin cells can mutate when struck by solar radiation, plant and animal cells in your food mutate when struck by radiation from the evil nuclear reactor in the sky. Do you really want to eat mutant food? No, you're way smarter than that.

Follow these instructions carefully and you'll be sure to live a long and prosperous life.

[wtmusic]

115. What about the 50 trillion neutrinos from the sun that pass through me every second?

I really don't know what to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

[wtmusic]

114. Nonsense.

"Every day, reactors must routinely release a portion of radioactive chemicals into local air and water."

The good Dr. is full of shit.