Do you support the use of 21st century nuclear energy technology to slow global warming?

[calteacherguy]

May 29, 2007
NASA: Danger Point Closer Than Thought From Warming
'Disastrous Effects' of Global Warming Tipping Points Near, According to New Study

Even "moderate additional" greenhouse emissions are likely to push Earth past "critical tipping points" with "dangerous consequences for the planet," according to research conducted by NASA and the Columbia University Earth Institute.

With just 10 more years of "business as usual" emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gas, says the NASA/Columbia paper, "it becomes impractical" to avoid "disastrous effects."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3223473&page=1

James Lovelock: Nuclear power ithe only green solution

We have no time to experiment
with visionary energy sources;
civilisation is in imminent danger.

Published in The Independent - 24 May 2004

Sir David King, the Government's chief scientist, was far-sighted to say that global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism. He may even have underestimated, because, since he spoke, new evidence of climate change suggests it could be even more serious, and the greatest danger that civilisation has faced so far.

<snip>

So what should we do? We can just continue to enjoy a warmer 21st century while it lasts, and make cosmetic attempts, such as the Kyoto Treaty, to hide the political embarrassment of global warming, and this is what I fear will happen in much of the world. When, in the 18th century, only one billion people lived on Earth, their impact was small enough for it not to matter what energy source they used.

But with six billion, and growing, few options remain; we can not continue drawing energy from fossil fuels and there is no chance that the renewables, wind, tide and water power can provide enough energy and in time. If we had 50 years or more we might make these our main sources. But we do not have 50 years; the Earth is already so disabled by the insidious poison of greenhouse gases that even if we stop all fossil fuel burning immediately, the consequences of what we have already done will last for 1,000 years. Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendants and for civilisation.

Worse still, if we burn crops grown for fuel this could hasten our decline. Agriculture already uses too much of the land needed by the Earth to regulate its climate and chemistry. A car consumes 10 to 30 times as much carbon as its driver; imagine the extra farmland required to feed the appetite of cars.

By all means, let us use the small input from renewables sensibly, but only one immediately available source does not cause global warming and that is nuclear energy. True, burning natural gas instead of coal or oil releases only half as much carbon dioxide, but unburnt gas is 25 times as potent a greenhouse agent as is carbon dioxide. Even a small leakage would neutralise the advantage of gas.

<snip>

Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breathe air laden with that all pervasive carcinogen, oxygen. If we fail to concentrate our minds on the real danger, which is global warming, we may die even sooner, as did more than 20,000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer.

<snip>

Even if they were right about its dangers, and they are not, its worldwide use as our main source of energy would pose an insignificant threat compared with the dangers of intolerable and lethal heat waves and sea levels rising to drown every coastal city of the world. We have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear - the one safe, available, energy source - now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.

http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm

Please post your reasons for voting yes, no, or maybe. Thanks.

[gobblechops]

1. if we

could only figure out what to do with all the waste.







on edit spelling goof.

[glitch]

13. Not to mention the energy it takes to mine, refine the uranium and build the reactors

and then there are issues insuring them. We the people have to do it, private industry (aka, "the market") won't. And we haven't even begun to talk about the cost of protecting them from terrorists, since that will also be our responsibility and so far no one is taking it, should it even be possible.
And what about how long it takes to even bring them online?

:thumbsdown:

[pinto]

2. I support nuclear energy as a component of production. And I favor de-sensationalizing

the debate, in favor of a risk/benefit framework, as well as furthering discussion on realistic solutions to nuclear waste.

Not a popular stand, but my two cents.

[calteacherguy]

3. Good thinking. How can a risk/benefit framework not be popular?

:thumbsup:

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. I think there's quite a few people who'd agree with you

That's more or less my thoughts on it too. We're not going to get enough of a decrease in fossil fuel use without nuclear - but it's not great, and safety and disposal have to be a priority. If it can replace the planned coal stations around the world, it's almost certainly worth it. In the long term, we ought to be able to do without it.

[wtmusic]

4. Nuclear -- full speed ahead

the greenest energy source we've got. By far.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Can you do it faster, cheaper, and cleaner with wind power?

[calteacherguy]

7. No.

Variation of supply
Wind energy

Electricity generation using wind is not controllable, it depends on the vagaries of when the wind blows. On average, this is about 35% of the time.

Wind power is unsuitable as the main energy source for the national grid because it is intermittent. Wind power at 100% load is still uneconomic, not only because three times as many windmills are necessary, but also because considerable storage capacity would be required for when the windmills are unable to generate power, because no wind is blowing in that region.

Average power over a region
Consider a region that can be supplied with electricity from a 1000 MW generating plant. Assuming that this is a controllable power generator, it can be regarded as 80% efficient—it can be relied upon to produce about 800MW. Remember that in an advanced country, there will be many such generating plants, and that they will not tend all to be operational at the same time. Homes, factories, power stations in the region are all connected to a ‘national grid’. Thus, if one power plant is having problems, other plants connected to the grid will normally take up the load, thus maintaining a relatively steady supply of electrical power.

Now come to wind and windmills. A windmill is operational for only about 35% of the time, and if the wind does not blow in one part of the region, it is quite probable that the wind will not be blowing in other parts of that region. So, unlike a nuclear power station, the production of energy cannot increased at will. Because of this lack of flexibility in wind power, it has been estimated that only approximately 10 – 20% of grid power can be supplied economically and efficiently by wind generation.

If the electricity generated by wind systems could be stored, then, if approximately three times the wind generating capacity desired for peak load were installed, theoretically such a system would be satisfactory.

But another problem still remains. There are probably not enough suitable sites to establish anything like sufficient windmills.
For more see Renewable energy: current and potential issues by David Pimentel et al., BioScience,Vol.52 No.12, pp. 1111 – 1120, December 2002 (paper also available for purchase here – $10 US).

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/replacing_fossil_fuels.htm#scale_of_the_problem

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. What percentage of the time are nuclear plants off line?

If wind farms are working at capacity 35% of the time, couldn't you just build three or more wind farms in three different locations, for the price of one nuclear reactor?

[ThomWV]

17. They shut them down once every 3 years for fuel

They replace 1/3 of the fuel rods once every 3 years in many plants.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. And how long does that take?

Don't they shut them down for other maintenance? Safety problems?

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Every Two Years In Most, Thom

I play golf every Saturday and Sunday with a nuclear engineer who used to be the reactor officer on a nuke in the Navy for 20 years. He was on a sub for three tours, and on a carrier most of the rest of the time. Just a coincidence, but we just talked about refueling schedules last Sunday. (Side not: Because military reactor uses 94% pure uranium, the refuel rates are 16 or 18 times greater. So, they will run efficiently for 20 years.)
The Professor

[pinto]

24. Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee: Outage Management:

http://www.dcisc.org/annual_report_16_2005_2006/volume1/4_17_outage_management.html

[rawtribe]

6. NO

http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/climatenukes.pdf

Such claims fail to account for the entire nuclear fuel chain. For instance, the nuclear industry conveniently omits the fact that the nuclear fuel chain emits more CO2 than most of the real-world sustainable options. The emissions related to nukes are caused by the fossil fuel intensive processes involved in uranium mining, conversion, enrichment, transport and construction. As a result nuclear power produces direct and indirect emission of 73 to 230 grams of CO2 per kWh electricity produced. Wind and solar, by comparison, are virtually greenhouse-gas free, recouping construction emissions in the first years of operation.
Nuclear-related CO2 emissions will grow with time, mainly due to the ‘impoverishment’ of future uranium sources. As limited high-grade uranium ore deposits are exhausted worldwide, the processing of lower grade ore will emit CO2 at the same or greater rates than coal-fired stations.1 In essence, obtaining the necessary quality and quantity of uranium to run nuclear reactors will get more difficult as the uranium ore becomes scarce.

[porphyrian]

9. Other: I support a comprehensive alternative energy solution.

Perhaps some of that is nuclear, certainly if the only other option is coal, say. But I think it's ridiculous to push nuclear over solar or wind or even an as-of-yet-undeveloped generator using the force of ocean waves. We cannot allow nuclear contractors to make this decision for us. Contractors make their money as soon as something is built, leaving everyone else with the consequences. That's why so many American cities are so stupidly developed. It's unacceptable, and we need to be aware of it and prevent it.

[htuttle]

10. Sure, but I'm not thrilled about 21st century for-profit corporations running them

They have this habit of cost cutting in the wrong places...

[fwiff]

11. Hell, no. That would be asinine.

And incredibly foolish.

There are 3 HUGE reasons to not build more nuclear power plants-

1. Um... how do you get rid of incredibly damaging waste that could destroy massive areas for hundreds or even thousands of years (and forget Yucca Mountain, that's a joke).
Even drilling and implanting in bedrock undersea(as Sweden has proposed, is very risky)

Our current technology has no truly effective way to deal with nuclear waste.

When *they* find something to do with it, then we'll talk.

2. Someone has to live by them. Indian Point and Brookhaven plants in NY alone have chronic radioactive leaks.

3. The security issues in an age of terrorism add another huge layer to the risk.


We have the technology, we just have to implement it in smaller scales and support the research, and we're going to have to completely change the techniques we use to generate power.

[blues90]

12. I don't support nuclear power

It's just to risky , one mishap would be worse than where we are already . And there is the waste , who is willing for this waste to be put in their back yard . This crap lasts for thousands of years , at least we assume so , we have not been here long enough to prove this out .

[Auggie]

14. Yes -- but only temporarily

[fwiff]

15. There's no such thing as 'temporarily' with nuclear power.

Even rushing, it would take at least 10-13 years to get one built and ready to run.

[Auggie]

21. I wouldn't want to see nuclear become the only solution.

And by temporary, I mean a time frame that lasts 30-40 years until other technologies and efficiencies can be put into place.

[nosmokes]

19. Nuke energy is no more *immediately available* than many

renewables given the time it takes to approve, plan, permit and construct a single power plant. and then given the fact that generally nuke plants produce on average 30% of the power they're designed to produce due to shutdowns for regular maintenance and upgrades, nuclear power w/ the same old problem it's had since dsy one, namely what to do with the waste product, is no solution, and certainly no green solution.

[Warpy]

22. I can't support current technology

until they figure out what to do with the nuclear garbage. It will be deadly for thousands of years, much of it, and we have no way to deal with it for that long.

Either they will figure it out, or they will manage to do commercially viable fusion, or we will have a decentralized system of water, solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Oh Absolutely. I Have No Doubt The Benefits Outweigh The Risks And I Think It's About Time We Use

the technology. I have faith that the industry could produce the energy safely and I think the benefits far outweigh the risks. I'm always a strong proponent for technological advancement and I think this solution is long past due.

[walldude]

25. Yeah let's stop fucking up the air and start fucking up the ground

good plan... :eyes: I know, maybe we can store the waste in the backyards of all the people who think this is a good idea...

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Yes, But-

rather than using it as a crutch and not thinking through where all the waste will go, I would like to see us take a good chunk of the half trillion military industrial complex budget, along with the $40 Billion a year war on pot smoking cancer grannies, and funnel that into REAL forward-thinking research that solves this problem.. fusion, solar, wind, hydro, wave... shit, cover the fucking MOON with solar panels and beam the power back to Earth...

but enough of this "lets get the power now, we'll think about the consequences tomorrow" mentality. We need to solve these problems permanently, and with foresight and vision.

[pitohui]

27. no it's nonsense

apparently these people have no idea of the time required to build and get into operation a nuclear reactor

if they want quick'n'dirty nuclear reactors thrown up in time to make a difference, in other words, built yesterday, suggest they volunteer their own backyard

but what they want instead is to volunteer my backyard and the backyard of the poorest and least able to fight against this crap in their neighborhoods

a quickly built nuclear power plant thrown up in a hurry to deal w. the current emergency won't be safe--a minimal knowledge of human nature should have taught us that much

[KoKo]

28. NO! It's the DISPOSAL PROBLEM for which there's no Solution that doesn't cause

MORE Problems..in the end.

[ConsAreLiars]

29. He also has argued the CFC pollution would have no effect on the ozone layer.

He advocated for nuclear energy at least since 1984 and worked for Shell at the beginning of his long career of using the Gaia Hypothesis reasoning to absolve Mega-Corporations from any responsibility for damage their rapacious nature has caused.

See http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/James_Lovelock to find out who he is and where his loyalties lie.