Nukes, Baby, Nukes! Don't worry. Nuclear energy is safe. Just like oil, an accident is unlikely

[Better Believe It]

Oil Spill Shows Why We Must Plan for the Worst
by Ed Garvey
May 3, 2010

Is anyone in the administration "planning" for the big one in San Francisco? How about another nuclear accident like the one at Three Mile Island? Could a meltdown occur? The nuclear experts, like BP, will borrow from Huck Finn: "I don't speak the truth - I speak what ought to be the truth." Not to worry: "Nuclear energy is safe," nuclear energy experts tell us. An accident is very unlikely, those experts say. But suppose an earthquake hits directly under a nuclear power plant. Any problem? No? Oh, good.

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/03-2

[G_j]

1. [phone]....

[uponit7771]

2. I rethought my stance on nuke power & now Republicans are the my biggest objections to nukes power

[Better Believe It]

4. Not sure I understand your post. Republicans are opposed to nuclear power plants?

[Dogmudgeon]

10. Yup. It's "Socialism".

Now that Democrats support it, the Republicans have discovered that they're against it.

They were happy when it was just Alec Baldwin and all those 1970s folkies against it, but now they're particularly upset that so many unions support nuclear power.

--d!

[Statistical]

11. Good paying middle class jobs that can't be outsourced.

No wonder why Unions like it and the party of the rich doesn't.
Can't be letting the people of the country share in the prosperity of this country.

[Better Believe It]

14. A nuclear "workers paradise"! I don't think so.

While many top union officials currently support nuclear plants, offshore oil exploration and dirty coal, millions of union workers don't!

The fact is, the growth of a massive clean, safe energy industry could create hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of good paying union jobs with government support.

That will be more than enough to replace those jobs that are destroying this planet.

[Statistical]

17. Who said "workers paradise"? But 80% of nuclear workers are unionized.

There are very few (if any) other industries with same level of union support.

The average build time for a pair of reactors is 6-7 years and it employs thousands (5000 to 7000 on average) of skilled union laborers.

Once plant is operational it will employ hundreds of full time permanent highly paid workers.
Technicians (non-degreed operators) tend to make $60-$80. Nuclear engineers can make six figures.

http://www.ibew.org/articles/10daily/1004/100414_TexasNuclearPLAr.htm

http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/02/17/union-leaders-praise-obamas-support-for-nuclear-plant/

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/94983-labor-likes-nuke-jobs-prospects

[Better Believe It]

19. I did! But, what's your point?

Are you suggesting that those jobs destroying the environment can't be replaced with good clean energy union jobs and that all union members support nuclear energy, big oil and dirty coal?

[underseasurveyor]

24. HEY..... An 'upside' to a nuke workers paradise.

Jobs!


Mmm:think:, that could be a windfall for morticians too.

[Pavulon]

117. You guys are insane. 80k your first day, safer than a warehouse

good paying union jobs. Beats the shit out of being a windmill mechanic making $14 an hour to change the oil in a bezillion little generators every month.

[underseasurveyor]

185. Well HOT DAMN! Lookie at all that MONEY!!!!!

Shit I changed my mind. Screw the earth and it's inhabitants I'm going to be living high on that hog with that kinds MONEY. And Hell if I'm real lucky there might just be more than 4 hocks on that hog too.

Because boys and girls, listen up now, MONEY makes everything O-KAY:bounce:

[WhoIsNumberNone]

12. I don't think the Republicans are against nuclear power-

but they would favor further deregulation. After all, it's hard to turn an obscene profit when you've got all those useless safety regulations to contend with. All those redundant failsafes that never get used for anything. It didn't blow up yesterday, so it won't blow up today. All that money would be better spent on bonuses for CEO's. And while we're on the subject, all that crap about waste disposal really cuts into profits too. Once the nuclear fuel is expended, it shouldn't be the power companies' problem anymore. If we just dump it in the sea, or in some poor neighborhood it will take care of itself.






Do I really need to put up the sarcasm tag here?

[kristopher]

136. Nuclear power is a Republican darling and has been for 50 years.

Expanding nuclear power has been a fundamental plank of the Republican Party for decades - including this past election.

Stat's etal are trying to create the false impression that nuclear is now compatible with placing a high priority on environmental values - that is false. It is supported by those who also support coal mining and drill baby drill.

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[Pavulon]

152. No it is supported by people at MIT.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

Now if you can tell me how many of what it takes to make 137,000 mw/hr all the time for the tristate go for it. If you can tell me how much even better..

[NJmaverick]

3. Better not fly

I hear those things can crash:eyes:

[tekisui]

16. Are you eye rolling the oil leak in the Gulf and a

possible nuclear meltdown? Cold, dude, even for you.

[NJmaverick]

32. I am eye rolling the illogical position that an accident in the gulf coast

should mean the end of nuclear power. As for your temperature problems, get yourself a sweater

[Zoeisright]

94. FAIL.

When human beings try to control things that are uncontrollable, like nuclear waste and oil, there are accidents that are catastrophic.

If you can't see the parallels between that oil rig and the nuke industry, apparently you didn't study logical reasoning in school.

Grow up and start thinking before you spout off.

[KansasVoter]

57. Wow, dumb logic. Happens a lot here! You have to fly You have to drive......

You don't need nukes or off shore drilling unless you have no other choices....we do.

And a nuke accident can kill 10,000. Flying, maybe 200 a year currently.

Are you thinking?

[Statistical]

59. Automobiles kills millions of people, fossil fuels millions, radon gas (natural radion) millions.

Commercial nuclear power in the United States has killed exactly 0 members of the public.

[NJmaverick]

72. There you go ruining a perfectly good rant with all your fancy facts and reason

[KansasVoter]

77. But unbelievable potential for death. Any industry has accidents, the shuttles...

blew up. Oil wells have had major leaks. Coal plants have exploded.

Given enough time a major nuke accident will happen and the chances increase as you have more of them.

Wow!

[underseasurveyor]

88. But don't you know that humans and their machines are now perfect

There could never be a serious nuclear accident... ever!

Silly you.

[Pavulon]

121. SO how many more thousands of safe reactor years does the navy

need for you guys to accept it? Or we can plug our thumbs up our asses and continue to burn coal. There is no jesus juice from wind and solar to run cities like NY. Coal or nukes, that is the reality of the world.

That or ebola may wipe out 70% of the population, then wind and solar may cover it. Maybe.

[madokie]

157. A big difference between the Navy and the private nuclear industry

I doubt the navy tells us the truth all the time either

[Pavulon]

159. oh sure, the just meltdown reactors on billion dollar vessels all the time...

they tell the truth.

[madokie]

186. you might believe that

but in the time I was in the Navy I know of a couple times they did not tell the truth because I was there when these incidences I'm referring to happened. I'm not talking nuclear here I'm talking truth telling and out right lying.
The Navy and the civilian reactors are not run the same by the personnel involved so they hardly would be a good comparison.

[NJmaverick]

63. You don't have to fly, so with that off the table

try to back up your claim of "dumb logic". Although logic is yes or no proposition. Either something is logical or it is not. There is no such thing as "dumb logic"

[Statistical]

5. Had BP had even a single level of redundancy the accident could have been avoided.

Oil industry is almost completely unregulated and allowed to operate with no redundancy.
There was a SINGLE Blow out preventer (BOP) valve. There is absolutely NOTHING to backup the BOP.

The whole risk mitigation scenario could be summed up as:
a) in explosion BOP closes oil flow
b) if BOP is damaged/defective fails to operate ....... there is no absolutely no plan so hopefully that never happens.

In this case the BOP was damaged and there was no backup so oil flows uncontrolled. Too bad the regulation on oil industry isn't more like regulation on nuclear energy.

If oil industry was subject to same level of scrutiny and regulation ad nuclear industry there would be a minimum of 2 valves and each one capable of operating independently. There would be redundant safety equipment on the rig. Triple redundant backup systems to trigger the BOP before the rig sank (and damaged oceanfloor complex). There would be some sort of containment system on the rig to extinguish the explosion/fire to prevent it from sinking. Also some system to isolate the crippled rig from ocean floor complex so that the BOP wouldn't be damaged when rig sunk.

Of course none of that exists because the oil industry has successfully lobbied for the bare minimum safety equipment and no redundancy.

When the oil industry has quadruple redundant safety systems, federal onsite inspectors living at the rig, a containment building over drilling platform then lets see how much the accident rate comes down.

[Better Believe It]

6. But they win government safety awards every year. Except the gov't postponed this years awards.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8263508&mesg_id=8263508

[NJmaverick]

7. So you don't fly or drive, because accidents happen and you could be killed

correct? or do you just select certain risks to take to extremes?

[underseasurveyor]

15. Because everyone knows that comparing the risks of modern daily life

to nuclear accidents is comparable:eyes:

[Statistical]

18. Your right they are not comparable.

You a thousand times more likely to die in a car accident than from a nuclear accident.

[Better Believe It]

23. Therefore we should make nuclear power driven cars! :)

[underseasurveyor]

37. But I can choose not to drive or fly.

It only takes one nuclear accident to destroy,....... how many and for how long? Oh sure, and we still believe what we're told, that the record is safer, because they said so:eyes:

[Statistical]

41. Kinda hard to hide something like that.

There is a silent radioactive killer and it is in millions of homes right now: Radon gas.

http://www.epa.gov/radon/healthrisks.html

The natural decay of uranium in the earth produces toxic radon. It kills at least 200,000 Americans ever year and is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers. In last 50 years radon has killed tens of millions of Americans while reactors in the US have killed exactly 0.

Somehow people are more afraid of reactors then they are of radon gas.
One danger is very real and widespread the other one is just pure anti-science BS.

[underseasurveyor]

56. The front range of Colorado is loaded with radon gas.. Yea I know

So let's add to it by adding clean, totally and unmistakenly, risk free, never-fail, safe nuclear energy everywhere.

Sure.

[Statistical]

58. Radon occurs naturally. It isn't a man made product.

There is a billions of tons of uranium in earths crust. That uranium decays and has been decaying for billions of year. When uranium decays it produces radon.

Radon is 100% natural and unavoidable. The only thing people (either mine owner or homeowner with a basement) can do is ensure the space is well ventilated to keep concentrations below lethal levels.

[underseasurveyor]

62. Yea I know but the question is, so we add man-made fallibilities

on top of the already existing natural health hazards?

Foolish foolish humans.

[NJmaverick]

43. You can choose not to live next to a reactor

[G_j]

25. LOL, yea, you could slip in the bathtub!

therefore, nuclear power is OK

[NJmaverick]

30. Your comments do not address your illogical position on nuclear power

[G_j]

36. both my parents worked on the first reactor at Hanford

my mother holds patents on some reactor safety systems. The subject is not foreign to me.

Let me ask you, what was your stance on offshore drilling two weeks ago?

[NJmaverick]

40. LOL, my father holds all sorts of patents for pump designs, that doesn't make me a pump expert

As for my position on off shore drilling it still is the same. I will adjust my position on off shore drilling once all the facts are known as to how this accident occurred and could it have been prevented. While waiting for the facts before forming an opinion or taking a position may not be the most popular choice for internet posters, it's the one I plan on sticking to.

[G_j]

44. thank you for proving my point

but, trusting huge corporate entities to tell you something is safe, is life asking a madman to give you a shave.

[NJmaverick]

66. Nothing has been "proven" in regards to your points

As for your claims about not trusting the government investigators who will perform the investigation, I can't agree with you.

[underseasurveyor]

42. Ouch my head

Hurry, save my life with some of that nukular shit:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

27. True, you are far more likely to die in a plane crash or car crash

[underseasurveyor]

50. I can choose not to drive or fly

In other words I can choose my own day to day risks but I choose not to expose my life, the lives of entire neighborhoods, towns and cities for generations to come and the environment that I love and already work very hard to recover, revive and restore from very MINOR (comparably) accidents caused by human errors and accidents, to the inevitable nuclear accident that will someday happen.

Those of us opposed to nukes have this innate ability to be able to think unselfishly beyond ourselves and into the future.

You pro-nuke people seem to believe that an accident/meltdown will never ever happen. How is that, because odds and statistics are not in your favor?


So tell me how does one clean up and restore the environment after a nuke accident? I and many others would love to know?
Convince me 'how and why' they are safe?

[NJmaverick]

67. People are killed on the ground by crashing planes

so got another way to dispute my point?

[underseasurveyor]

69. Nuclear energy is 100% safe?

[NJmaverick]

70. Is flying?

[underseasurveyor]

75. I have absolutely no expectations that flying or driving is 100% safe.

Nor have I ever held that expectation since there is too much human error to factor into the equation.

Now answer my question.

Is nuclear energy 100% safe?

[NJmaverick]

76. Your question is built on the foundation that any risk is unacceptable

however since you refuse to ban driving and flying (which both great far greater risks) you are not even true to your own belief. So I don't answer you question, because it's a faulty one.

[underseasurveyor]

83. Nice cop out... So then we agree that nuclear energy is not 100% safe?!

Not a faulty question on my part but you sir are still too eager to continue to believe the big energy industries of this world that the nuclear industry is safe.

I refuse to ban driving and flying:rofl: What a ridiculous and desperate attempt.

[NJmaverick]

84. What we can agree upon is that your position against nukes is an illogical one

[underseasurveyor]

87. And your proof? Because the industry itself says it's safe?

Because there hasn't yet been a major meltdown... yet? Because humans and their machines are now perfect and infallible? Because the earth is no longer subject to extreme forces of nature like earthquakes, volcanoes... oh I know, the tectonic plates are now stable and will never shift again? What?

How is my position on no nuclear energy any more illogical than your pro nuclear energy stance?

[NJmaverick]

89. The difference between our positions is that my in one that is based on risk/cost analysis

It sees the world in all of it's shades of gray, while you are pushing a "you are either with us or against us" anti-nuke policy. The fact of the matter is that nuclear energy is a good stop gap answer until ultimately better sources are established. Currently there are only two sources of energy that can answer the world's needs, nuclear and fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have pollution, global warming and oil spill and mine disasters and other risks. Nuclear power has safety concerns as well as spent fuel concerns. However unless we are willing to tank both the US and the world economy causing millions if not billions die of diseas and starvation something has to power the planet until solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and fusion power come online.

[underseasurveyor]

91. Flying is not safe, planes fall out of the sky.

Build more nuke plants for planes to fall on or for terroists to target. Good idea:think:


Let's see so in the mean time we should build nuclear power plants so we can have enough energy to get by on until we can get solar and wind energy plants built and on line. Mmm another brain storm idea.

I guess building solar energy plants and wind farms, etc. before we build more nuclear energy plants is a crazy idea:crazy:

[NJmaverick]

93. So you think that with the current technology all the world's energy needs

can be met with just wind and solar. ooooookkkkkkkkkkk:eyes:

[kristopher]

138. There is absolutely no question that renewables are enough.

The ONLY people who don't want to accept that proven fact are the nuclear and fossil fuel industries.

[eqfan592]

140. Evidence? (nt)

[kristopher]

150. Yes

http://www.google.com/

[Pavulon]

153. And your position just falls apart. 137,000 MW hr. Please supply a simple bom

here's mine. 37 AP1000 plants mixed with wind solar and hydro. No coal, have a nice day.

[Statistical]

99. Have you looked at how much energy we use?

Have you compared that against global production capacity for wind/solar?

If we build nonstop wind/solar/geothermal AND nuclear power plants as fast as global capacity allows it will STILL take decades.
Anything less than a full response delays a low carbon world by decades or centuries. Something the planet can't wait for.

[kristopher]

139. We can build out renewables faster and cheaper than nuclear.

Any money spent on nuclear SLOWS the response to AGW.

[kristopher]

137. Really? What do you know about the limits of such analysis?

Experts Are Often Wrong

Experts Are Often Wrong
That expert interpretations in the area of science and technology are often questionable, and that there is no positivist rule to guarantee their complete reliability, is illustrated by a recent study by hazard assessors in the Netherlands.

They used actual empirical frequencies obtained from a study done by Oak Ridge National Laboratories to calibrate some of the more testable subjective probabilities used in the famous Rasmussen Report, WASH-1400, probably one of the most famous and most extensive risk assessments ever accomplished.14

The Oak-Ridge frequencies were obtained as part of an evaluation of operating experience at nuclear installations.

These frequencies were of various types of mishaps involving reactor subsystems whose failure probabilities were calculated in WASH-1400.

The Oak-Ridge study used operating experience to determine the failure probability for seven such subsystems, and the Dutch researchers then compared these probabilities with the 90 percent confidence bounds for the same probabilities calculated in WASH-1400.

The subsystem failures included loss-of-coolant accidents, auxiliary feedwater-system failures, high-pressure injection failures, long-term core-cooling failures, and automatic depressurization-system failures for both pressurized and boiling water reactors.

Amazingly, all the values from operating experience fell outside the 90 percent confidence bands in the WASH-1400 study.

However, there is only a subjective probability of ten percent that the true value should fall outside these bands.

This means that, if the authors’ subjective probabilities were well calibrated, we should expect that approximately ten percent of the true values should lie outside their respective bands.

The fact that all the quantities fall outside them means that WASH-1400, the most famous and allegedly best risk assessment, is very poorly calibrated.

Moreover, the fact that five of the seven values fell above the upper confidence bound suggests that the WASH-1400 accident probabilities, subjective probabilities, are too low.

This means that, if the Oak-Ridge data are correct, then WASH-1400 exhibits a number of flaws, including an overconfidence bias.

This direct test of the process of risk assessment you are relying on shows that there is a very real and significant problem with the level of certainty that the nuclear industry asserts the assessments prove.

Kahneman and Tversky have uncovered other biases of experts. They corroborated the claim that, in the absence of an algorithm completely guaranteeing scientific rationality, experts do not necessarily or always make more correct judgments about the acceptability of technological risk than do laypersons.

Kahneman and Tversky showed that virtually everyone falls victim to a number of characteristic biases in the interpretation of statistical and probabilistic data. For example, people often follow an intuition called representativeness, according to which they believe samples to be very similar to one another and to the population from which they are drawn; they also erroneously believe that sampling is a self-correcting process.16

In subscribing to the representativeness bias, both experts and laypeople are insensitive: to the prior probability of outcomes; to sample size; to the inability to obtain a good prediction; to the inaccuracy of predictions based on redundant and correlated input variables; and to regression toward the mean. Nevertheless, training in elementary probability and statistics warns against all these errors.

Both risk assessors and statistics experts also typically fall victim to a bias called “availability,” assessing the frequency of a class, or the probability of an event, by the ease with which instances or occurrences can be brought to mind.

In subscribing to the availability bias, they forget that they are judging a class on the basis of the retrievability of the instances, and that imaginability is not a good criterion for probability.18

Most people also fall victim to the “anchoring” bias, making estimates on the basis of adjusting values of an initial variable.

In so doing, they forget:
that diverse initial starting points typically yield different results;
that insufficient adjustments can skew results;
and that probabilities of failures are typically underestimated in complex systems.

Although employing each of these biases (representativeness, availability, and anchoring) is both economical and often effective, any of them can lead to systematic and predictable errors.19

These systematic and predictive errors are important because technology and:
"... risk assessment must be based on complex theoretical analyses such as fault trees, rather than on direct experience. Hence, despite an appearance of objectivity, these analyses include a large component of judgment. Someone, relying on educated intuition, must determine the structure of the problem, the consequences to be considered, and the importance of the various branches of the fault tree."

In other words, the risk assessor must make a number of unavoidable, sometimes incorrect, epistemic value judgments.


Kahneman and Tversky warned that “the same type of systematic errors,” often found in the epistemic or methodological value judgments of laypersons, “can be found in the intuitive judgments of sophisticated scientists. Apparently, acquaintance with the theory of probability does not eliminate all erroneous intuitions concerning the laws of chance.”21 The researchers even found that psychologists themselves, who should know better, used their feelings of confidence in their understanding of cases as a basis for predicting behavior and diagnosing ailments, even though there was no correlation between their feelings of confidence and the correctness of the judgments.22

Such revelations about the prevalence and causes of expert error are not totally surprising since, after all, the experts have been wrong before. They were wrong when they said that irradiating enlarged tonsils was harmless. They were wrong when they said that x-raying feet, to determine shoe size, was harmless. They were wrong when they said that irradiating women’s breasts, to alleviate mastitis, was harmless. And they were wrong when they said that witnessing A-bomb tests at close range was harmless.23

For all these reasons it should not be surprising that psychometric analysts have found, more generally, that once experts go beyond the data and rely on value judgments, they tend to be as error-prone and overconfident as laypeople.

With respect to technological risk assessment, psychometric researchers have concluded that experts systematically overlook many “pathways to disaster.”

These include:
(l) failure to consider the way human error could cause technical systems to fail, as at Three Mile Island;

(2) overconfidence in current scientific knowledge, such as that causing the 1976 collapse of the Teton Dam; and

(3) failure to appreciate how technical systems, as a whole, function. For example, engineers were surprised when cargo- compartment decompression destroyed control systems in some airplanes.

Experts also typically overlook:

(4) slowness to detect chronic, cumulative effects, e.g., as in the case of acid rain;

(5) the failure to anticipate inadequate human responses to safety measures, e.g., failure of Chernobyl officials to evacuate immediately; and

(6) the inability to anticipate “common-mode” failures simultaneously afflicting systems that are designed to be independent. A simple fire at Brown’s Ferry, Alabama, for example, damaged all five emergency core cooling systems for the reactor.

Scientific Method, Anti-Foundationalism and Public Decisionmaking
Kristin Shrader-Frechette*

[immoderate]

181. Don't you see the difference in the level of risk?

Lots of things are subject to accidents -- even fatal ones, but do not make the planet uninhabitable.

How many car accidents does it take to sterilize the earth?

--imm

[Dogmudgeon]

9. BP actually IS pretty good -- for the oil industry

The bar has been set low, to say the least.

--d!

[hunter]

8. Do you drive or ride in cars or busses or airplanes? Do you buy stuff delivered by truck?

Do you use plastic? It's your fault. Those things kill people. Oil kills people every day.

Had this oil been put to its intended use instead of being spilled into the ocean it would have killed many more than the 11 lost when the platform blew up, and it would have done equally grave damage to the natural environment.

Nuclear power has a much better safety record than oil or gas.

[Better Believe It]

13. Nukes, Baby, Nukes! Is that taken from nuclear power industry news release?

Just the facts:



http://nuclearlie.org/safety/







As the planet wakes up to the fact that global warming is a reality and that fast action is needed, the nuclear industry, having floundered for a few decades, has seized on the opportunity to promote itself as the answer to our energy fears.

It seems that global governments are suffering from mass amnesia and are doing a good job of spreading it around. The reality of nuclear power is no different now than it was in the 20th Century - it is inherently dangerous. Time and time again the industry has demonstrated that safety and nuclear power is a contradiction in terms.

Safe reactors are a myth. An accident can occur in any nuclear reactor, causing the release of large quantities of deadly radiation into the environment. Even during normal operations radioactive materials are regularly discharged into the air and water. The policy of secrecy, which surrounded the development of the bomb, was transferred to civil nuclear power projects after World War II and lives on today.

The nuclear industy was suffering serious nuclear accidents long before the catastrophic Chernobyl accident in 1986. Twenty years later the industry is plagued with incidents, accidents and near-misses.

Read the full article at:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear/safety


President Obama: Nuclear Power Is Neither "Safe" nor "Clean
By John Rosenthal
John Rosenthal is the President of Meredith Management
February 28, 2010

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rosenthal/president-obamanuclear-po_b_480018.html

[SidDithers]

21. You deride the poster upthread for posting what you think is...

"taken from nuclear power industry news release", and then go on to post information from the anti-nuke site nuclearlie.org?

So, agenda-driven information is OK as long as it's your agenda. :rofl:


Sid

[Better Believe It]

26. So you object to DU'ers using progressive websites for their information?

If you prefer corporate websites for objective news and information that's your right of course.

[Statistical]

28. Nothing progressive about anti-science garbage.

Majority of Democrats (including the President) now support nuclear power.

The same old scare tactics are starting to get tired after nuclear energy provided a couple decades of clean, safe, reliable power in the United States.

[kristopher]

141. No they don't.

[SidDithers]

31. No, I prefer objective sites for my objective news and information...nt

Sid

[hunter]

55. Just the facts: I hate cars. I hate oil. I hate coal. I hate natural gas.

Fossil fuels are killing my natural environment.

The normal use of fossil fuels has done greater damage to the earth's environment and killed millions more people than the accident at Chernobyl. Chernobyl was perhaps the worst possible nuclear accident, and was the consequence of gross negligence and deeply flawed power plant design. Nobody would build a power plant like Chernobyl today. Yet even If we'd had a dozen Chernobyl sorts of accidents nuclear power still wouldn't approach the deadly record of fossil fuels.

Countless coal accidents have killed more people and mining has destroyed more natural environment than the worst nuclear accident.

Don't be a tool of the fossil fuel industry. There is no good reason to use fossil fuels. None. We should have banned fossil fuels thirty years ago. The world might have been a much more pleasant place.

Sadly the fossil fuel companies owned our government then, as they own our government now.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I think you missed the point

The issue isn't how likely an accident will be under routine circumstances. the issue is how cataclysmic would worst case scenario effects of an accident be should that type accident (or sabotage) occur. A jet liner could crash into a football stadium during a game with the loss of a thousand lives. An unstoppable oil gusher can poison the oceans, a core nuclear meltdown could .contaminate a nation for thousands of years and mutate the human gene pool for as long or longer

[Statistical]

22. "a core nuclear meltdown could contaminate a nation for thousands of years" - Nope

The nation? Really.

Science is dead in the United States.
Nuclear reactors have a containment building for a reason. A meltdown in a western reactor would contaminate the inside of containment building, costs billions to cleanup, and render reactor a paperweight but would not contaminate the nation.

TMI was a meltdown was the entire nation containment for thousands of years? Nope.
Chernobyl had no containment building so when reactor melted down and breached pressure vessel it was exposed to the open air.

[Better Believe It]

29. And that of course is why Three Mile Island was not at all a serious problem.

Is that right?

[Statistical]

33. TMI was a serious accident however the danger to the Public was contained

Accidents happen. Trying to design a system in which accidents will never happen is a fools errand. While systems should be designed so that serious accidents almost never occur (one partial meltdown in 50 million operating hours nationwide) safety doesn't stop at risk prevention. The next step is risk mitigation. Reactors are designed to not just be safe but to safely handle accidents. The safety systems at TMI didn't prevent an accident but they did contain the accident.

Had the rig in Gulf been designed with similar standards as TMI there might have been an accident in Gulf and the rig may have sunk and sadly 11 people may have lost their lives however the massive flood of oil would have been contained at the source.

TMI illustrated how redundant systems can prevent an accident from becoming an uncontrollable (like the Gulf spill currently is and likely will remain for 90+ days).

[Better Believe It]

45. You right. Just like the oil spill. Shit happens! Can't do anything about it. Nukes, baby!

[Statistical]

48. No you can do something about it.

That is why nuclear reactors have multiple layers of redundancy and contingency safety equipment.

Oil rigs. Not so much. A single blow out valve and single method to activate it (which failed).
They aren't even close to the same level of engineering.

[Tom Rinaldo]

102. "It was kind of like the Titanic."

LONDONDERRY TOWNSHIP, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- Twenty years ago Sunday, an accident at Three Mile Island began with a small mechanical problem -- and ended as the worst accident in the history of American nuclear power.

The nuclear power plant's cooling towers still loom over the farms and small towns that line Pennsylvania's Susquehanna River. Back in the 1970s, they were symbols of progress.

"We actually thought the plant was too well designed to have a serious accident," said former Nuclear Regulatory Commission official Harold Denton. "It was kind of like the Titanic."

That thinking changed on March 28, 1979, when a small valve stuck open, cooling water escaped and the reactor core of TMI's Unit 2 began to melt. But at the time, nobody seemed to know what was going on."
http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/28/3mile.anniversary/

The good news is that we learn from previous miscalculations.

The bad news is that miscalculations never cease.

[Occulus]

35. No n/t

[Recursion]

52. In a word, yes

It actually wasn't that much of a problem.

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. Yes. Really

The United States is an unusually large nation. Hete the effect might be contamination of a number of States, in Europe it could be a number of nations. You think that a breech of a containment building is impossible, I don't. The world would be a safer place if you are right and I am wrong, but I don't buy it. TMI was not a full core meltdown, but it came a lot closer to happaning than the industry would have had us believe at the time.

[Statistical]

38. You seem to confuse a core meldownl with loss of containment.

Containment buildings are designed to handle an overpressure far greater than would be created by core melting through reactor pressure vessel.

It is possible (although highly improbable on the order of 1/million of a % per year) to have a full metldown but even a complete meltdown wouldn't breech the containment structure.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Maybe another poster has more facts at his fingertips than I right now

If not tonight I might go digging. TMI happened, you might recall, shortly after the release of "The China Syndrome". The premise there, if memory serves me right, was that a full core meltdown would have radioactive fuel melting and dissolving the floor of the reactor, dropping into the ground and contacting the water table with an explosive release of steam which would not be subject to the neat confines of a containment building.

A couple of points to keep in mind. Science has an optimistic bias. People like solving problems and history is littered with failed scientific solutions that only were abandoned when the underlying scientific assumptions upon which those solutions were based were overturned when subsequent reality discredited them. The history of radiology study is littered with them for example, with multiple findings on the safe level for exposure to radiation having to be revised downward in hindsight.

There is no possible triumph of human engeneering that can completely comensate for the pervasive potential for "human error" and/or willful malicious human behavior, and or greed/corruption bypassing safety standards and falsifying safety records.

[Statistical]

51. China syndrome was a movie.

Not based on reality of an event.

The containment building is anchored to a 50ft thick concrete slab. The molten core from Chernobyl didn't even penetrate the basement floor. If Chernobyl had a containment building the radioactive release would have been contained inside. It didn't and it was built with flamable graphite which created a firestorm exposed to the open atmosphere and diapered radioactive material for miles.

Chernobyl = positive void coefficient (fission speeds up as reactor gets hotter) - prohibited in US
Chernobyl = graphite moderated reactor -graphite ignites in oxygen at reactor temperatures - prohibited in US
Chernobyl = no redundant safety equipment - Both primary and emergency cooling systems are independently redudant in US.
Chernobyl = no containment building - all 104 reactors in US have containment buildings attached to concrete slab.

Using a movie as a basis for stopping a clean, reliable, safe more of energy is silly.

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. Well Duh....

The movie didn't invent the concept described in it's title. The Poseidon Adventure was a movie also and that doesn't prove that Rogue waves aren;t capable of sinking large ships.

Redundancy is a wonderful concept. Three Mile Island used it. Redundancy is not fail safe. How effective do you suppose it is if and when insiders conspire to overcome it?

[Pavulon]

171. Has a nuclear weapon ever been armed fused and fired in the us by "insiders"

I mean other than the many we detonated here on purpose. No. The system is designed to limit the impact of error or attack.

[Tom Rinaldo]

174. I suggest you rethink....

trying to make a direct ciomparisons between the levels of security and screening employed by the U.S. military for those assigned to protecting nuclear weapons with the security measures and people employed by the nuclear industry at commercial power plants. Apples and oranges doesn't begin to express the differences.

[Pavulon]

175. As of yet no security personnel have contributed to an event.

the us air force flew nuclear weapons by accident. This was one of the largest failure in nuclear security ever disclosed to the public.

[Tom Rinaldo]

118. Fact (not fiction). From the Smithsonian:

7:20 a.m. Pumps are turned on to inject water into the reactor. The core is finally bathed again in cooling water, but the water cannot penetrate the mass of collapsed and melted fuel rods. This dense conglomerate continues to heat itself up.

7:45 a.m. By now there are at least 20, perhaps as many as 60, operators, supervisors, and other persons in the control room. Although none is yet ready to believe that the core had been uncovered, radiation levels in the power plant buildings are so high that Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations require the declaration of a general emergency. While state and federal officials are being informed of elevated radiation levels, unbeknown to all, a molten mass of metal and fuel—some twenty tons in all—is spilling into the bottom of the reactor vessel. The bottom of the reactor vessel is steel, five inches (13 cm) thick. But even that thickness of steel would not be expected to hold up for more than a few hours against such heat.

If this meltdown were known, or even merely surmised, drastic emergency measures, including evacuation of the region for miles around, would certainly be ordered by the governor.

9:00 a.m. The reactor vessel holds firm, and the molten uranium, immersed in water, now gradually begins to cool. The real danger is past without anyone knowing how great it had been..."

http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi03.htm

[Better Believe It]

49. You're right again. Nuclear meltdowns are no big thing. Shit happens! Nukes, baby, nukes!

Earthquakes? Don't sweat it!

[Statistical]

54. Your President supports nuclear power as does majority of Democrats and majority of Americans.

Your silly non-substance bumper sticker slogans are part of a small and shrinking minority.

[Better Believe It]

90. So you think I ought to join the silent "nuclear majority"?

I wonder what your poll numbers will show after the next major nuclear accident.

Let me guess.

For

Nukes, Baby, Nukes! 95%

Safe Clean Energy 5%

[Statistical]

92. What "next" major nuclear accident?

Wouldn't we need a FIRST major nuclear accident in the US that kills a single member of American public first?



Support for nuclear energy has grown from 48% to 62% in just the last decade. This isn't a one year "blip".

Nuclear energy is supported by Obama, Democrats, and the American public.

[Better Believe It]

96. The one after TMI. Oh. You didn't think warranted being callled a nuclear accident.

How long do you think those poll numbers will stay high after that next major nuclear accident?

Probably about as long as pro offshore oil drillings stayed high after this oil rig explosion.

You wrote: "Wouldn't we need a FIRST major nuclear accident in the US that kills a single member of American public first?"

Do you also think that someone must die before one can call an oil spill a significant event?

Since you seem to accept nuclear energy industry propaganda I'm surprised you don't swallow hook, line and sinker big oil propaganda .... or did you just prior to the BP disaster?

If leading Democrats and President Obama were to announce their opposition to building new nuclear power plants tomorrow and the polls showed majority opposition to nuclear power would you do a flip flop or have you held your pro-nukes position for a long time?

[Pavulon]

169. Proof that dumbshits should not set policy. Reality is lost on the usa today crowd

health care should be a pretty big red flag.

The reality is we will continue to depend on petroleum for at least a decade, even if trillions were online and a plan existed right now to phase out coal and most petro.

Popularity and need are not the same. The reality is we need oil, nuclear, and renewables in some balance for the near future.

How we balance them is based on dollars.

BTW the navy is 5700 reactor years between accidents. No one died at TMI because fail safes worked as design.

[underseasurveyor]

60. And a containment building could never be breeched?

It's impossible? They're indestructible?

Who knew something man-made could be totally indestructible:shrug:

[Tom Rinaldo]

106. There were real fears it might happen at TMI

"On the third day following the accident, a hydrogen bubble was discovered in the dome of the pressure vessel, and became the focus of concern. A hydrogen explosion might not only breach the pressure vessel, but, depending on its magnitude, might compromise the integrity of the containment vessel leading to large scale release of radiation. Fortunately, it was determined that there was no oxygen present in the pressure vessel, a prerequisite for hydrogen to burn or explode. Immediate steps were taken to reduce the hydrogen bubble, and by the following day it was significantly smaller. Over the next week, steam and hydrogen were removed from the reactor using a plasma recombiner and, controversially, by venting straight to the atmosphere..."

"...Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry executive who is now an expert witness in nuclear safety issues doing business as Fairewinds Associates, Inc.,<36><37>... Gundersen offers evidence, based on pressure monitoring data, for a hydrogen explosion shortly before 2 p.m. on March 28, 1979, which would have provided the means for a high dose of radiation to occur.<29> Gundersen cites affidavits from four reactor operators according to which the plant manager was aware of a dramatic pressure spike, after which the internal pressure dropped to outside pressure. Gundersen also notes that the control room shook and doors were blown off hinges. However official NRC reports refer merely to a "hydrogen burn." <29> The Kemeny Commission referred to "a burn or an explosion that caused pressure to increase by 28 pounds per square inch in the containment building".<38> The Washington Post reported that "At about 2 p.m., with pressure almost down to the point where the huge cooling pumps could be brought into play, a small hydrogen explosion jolted the reactor."<39>

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

[Pavulon]

113. Yet now major studies conclude there was no impact to public

health, except we continue to burn coal by the megaton. No one died from or at TM then or in the time sinceI.

[Tom Rinaldo]

123. There are conflicting studies, you know that, and questions raised...

about the studies you note. But that was never my point on this thread to begin with. If we accept your reports as truth they only show that we dodged a bullet that time. We dodged some bullets in the Gulf also before the current catastrophy finally erupted.

[Pavulon]

124. Pitt study is 25 year independent study

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/safetyandsecurity/factsheets/tmi2accidentimpactlessonspage5/

there are conflicting studies on everything, I choose the ones written by the independent smart people. I assume you have seen the MIT position on nuclear power.

[fascisthunter]

39. I see the pro-nuke crowd doesn't like your message

I wonder why...

[eqfan592]

61. More like the "pro-logic" crowd.

As the OP is totally devoid of it.

[G_j]

68. so you actually think that in the context of the BP accident,

that we should accept corporate and government assurances of safety?

[eqfan592]

78. Not in the least.

Please point to where, in particular, I even hinted at that? I'm saying that the BP disaster does not, by itself, reflect on nuclear energy and it's pros/cons. If you want to debate the values of government assurances of safety, then that's a more broad topic where this example may be of more value as a failure of those assurances, though the easy counter argument would be that the safety standards and oversight for nuclear power plants are many times higher than those of off shore oil facilities.

[G_j]

82. I thought the point of the OP was that we are constantly being lied to

which essentially puts us all at risk.

[eqfan592]

103. A somewhat fatalistic position, is it not?

Saying you shouldn't trust somebody 100% of the time is not saying you should think everything they are telling you is a lie. The OP's post is irrational in the extreme, and ignores history.

[immoderate]

183. Sounds like you are determined to learn from experience.

If there are nuclear plants there will be a nuclear accident. Everything in human experience is subject to error. Name an area where this is not true. If there are nuclear plants, there will be nuclear accidents. And corporations don't always lie, but then there's those times when they want to cover up mistakes, or scams.

Cars, trains, boats, space ships, bicycles, power plants, dams, bridges, factories are all subject to accidents. I went to an engineering high school. And we had the perfect answer to all design problems:

LET'S MAKE IT FOOLPROOF!

--imm

[fascisthunter]

101. would you really trust businesses to do the right thing with Nuclear Power Plants

haven't you been paying any attention? Do you not care about repercussions of nuclear waste, or of a possible leak or meltdown? Is money and progress really that valuable to you in particular?

This country isn't even holding current energy companies accountable nor are they regulating for proper safety measures, yet you come onto this thread and claim you are being logical? Uh uh...

You want to know what's logical? Clean energy that can't be controlled the way fossil fuels are. I'm sure the greedy bastards will find a way ....

[eqfan592]

108. What a load of bull.

Of course I care about possible repercussions. But I also recognize the safety measures put into place. Our worst nuclear disaster in the US, 3 Mile Island, didn't come close to the environmental impact that coal burning plants have had on our planet, and it was caused by HUMAN ERROR. If the entire control room team had been locked out of the control room moments before the accident, the built in safety systems would have tripped and prevented things from getting as bad as they did. And the technology has only gotten better since then.

We need to get BETTER government oversight of these facilities, because I DON'T trust the businesses involved at all, nor did I ever claim to. But I don't take the fatalistic position that just because our government has screwed the pooch from time to time, that it should be 100% distrusted 100% of the time, and that it is totally incapable of improving it's track record.

There is NO perfect solution to our environmental problems, but nuclear offers a much better solution than wind and solar do at this point in time (not to mention the fact that wind and solar are not without their own environmental impacts). This fear-mongering has only extended the damage that coal burning plants continue to do, damage that far outstrips anything a nuclear plant has done, and that has far longer lasting repercussions.

[kristopher]

142. You keep repeating that false assertion. It is FALSE, get it?

Renewable energy sources are far better for meeting our energy and climate change needs than nuclear power. Nuclear power is, literally, a third rate solution.

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.

[eqfan592]

145. A single, relatively recently published paper, is no slam dunk counter argument.

(nt)

[kristopher]

146. Show me one that says renewables can't do it.

EVERY SINGLE STUDY OR PLAN TO MEET AGW IS BUILT AROUND RENEWABLE ENERGY.

ALL OF THEM.

NO EXCEPTIONS.

[Pavulon]

154. Your position, link one that can, tomorrow.

here is a nice starting point. I'm sure you have seen it.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

[kristopher]

177. MIT

MIT nuclear study – findings

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

2009 Update:

while there has been some progress since 2003, increased deployment of nuclear power has been slow both in the United States and globally, in relation to the illustrative scenario examined in the 2003 report. While the intent to build new plants has been made public in several countries, there are only few firm commitments outside of Asia, in particular China, India, and Korea, to construction projects at this time. Even if all the announced plans for new nuclear power plant construction are realized, the total will be well behind that needed for reaching a thousand gigawatts of new capacity worldwide by 2050. In the U.S., only one shutdown reactor has been refurbished and restarted and one previously ordered, but never completed reactor, is now being completed. No new nuclear units have started construction.

In sum, compared to 2003, the motivation to make more use of nuclear power is greater, and more rapid progress is needed in enabling the option of nuclear power expansion to play a role in meeting the global warming challenge. The sober warning is that if more is not done, nuclear power will diminish as a practical and timely option for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material contribution to climate change risk mitigation.

[Echo In Light]

71. They are a diligent lot

[WinkyDink]

47. We in PA know the truth.

[Recursion]

53. Nuclear power doesn't make us invade middle eastern countries

All forms of energy are unsafe. Oil is just rather less safe than the rest.

[Better Believe It]

79. Does that include Iran and what guarantees can you provide?

Aren't they trying to develop nuclear power .... so they claim.

[Recursion]

85. Yes they are, pursuant to their rights under the NPT

They have the right to develop nuclear power; the is that we want to inspect them more than they want to be inspected. But the simple pursuit of nuclear power is within their rights currently.

[Better Believe It]

86. So you don't think their pursuit of nuclear power could lead to military attack on their land.

Does anyone else think that?

And I was also wonderning .... What nation's inspect the United States nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons arsenals?

[Recursion]

95. Under the old SALT, the Soviets did

That was Reagan's whole "trust but verify" thing.

As it stands today, the world is fairly well-informed about our nuclear arsenal and wouldn't really gain much from inspections. As we decommission weapons (under most decommissioning regimes), that process is verified by an international body.

[closeupready]

64. Yep. You nailed it.

n/t

[G_j]

73. Chernobyl Still Poses 'Urgent' Threat on Anniversary

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=244625&mesg_id=244625


President Viktor Yanukovych Monday warned that Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear plant remains an urgent threat due to lagging safety measures, on the 24th anniversary of the world's worst nuclear disaster.

The plant's fourth nuclear reactor still presents an active danger after work to replace an aging sarcophagus around the facility was delayed due to a shortage of funds last year, Yanukovych said according to a statement.

(...)

The atomic fallout from the 1986 accident at Chernobyl, when one of the reactors exploded, spread to neighboring European states, leaving some two million people still suffering from contamination, Yanukovych said.

"There are still more than two million people suffering from harmful effects of radiation exposure, of whom 498,000 are children," he said.

The death toll from the Chernobyl disaster is bitterly disputed, with a United Nations toll from 2005 setting it at just 4,000, but non-governmental groups suggesting the true toll could reach tens or even hundreds of thousands.

According to Ukrainian official figures, more than 25,000 people known as "liquidators" from then-Soviet Ukraine, Russia and Belarus have died since taking part in the bid to limit radioactive fallout after the catastrophe.

(...)



But that was Russia, we don't have such accidents, oh wait, we just did!!!!

==

http://www.examiner.com/x-11234-Public-Education-Examiner~y2010m5d3-Gulf-of-Mexico-oil-deluge--our-childrens-Chernobyl

Gulf of Mexico oil deluge - our children's Chernobyl
May 3, 2:58 AMPublic Education ExaminerPeter McBride


In April of 1986 the Eastern Hemisphere suffered the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant Disaster, the worst nuclear accident in history. As a result over 1,100 square miles of Ukraine have been designated, “The Zone”, too dangerous for human habitation or harvest.

No one knows when the region, a section of "the bread basket of Europe", will be safe once again – best guess is hundreds of years from now.

A generation later the Western Hemisphere is on the verge of its own Chernobyl, the oil deluge of the Gulf of Mexico. Even if the massive, gushing undersea oil well were to be capped today, no one can predict how much environmental and economic damage has already been wrought upon the "fish basket" of North America.

Unfortunately, the situation is even worse than this. No one knows when or exactly how we will manage to halt the uncontrolled flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. “BP is throwing all the resources it has available at the spill” with no luck.

..more..

[eqfan592]

104. two very different situations.....

...and you lose credibility by trying to say they are identical. We have NOT had a similar NUCLEAR accident as Chernobyl. For that matter, nobody has.

[G_j]

107. identical?

who said that?

[eqfan592]

109. Don't be childish.

Unless you're trying to claim now that you weren't attempting to draw a direct comparison between the two situations, then my point is very obvious, and you're dodge is just as obvious. Even saying they are close to identical, or even similar enough to warrant a direct comparison as you did, would be just as foolish and damaging to your credibility.

[G_j]

110. give me a break

I don't need credibility with you, or corporate apologists.
and you might look up the definition of identical, for your own credibility.


similarities?

This oil gusher will probably be the largest, most devastating ecological accident in American history

[eqfan592]

112. Lol, simply because I call you out on your bullshit, I'm a "corporate apologist?"

Seriously, could you back peddle any faster?

[G_j]

116. more lack of word comprehension

I was careful with my words, you could learn something.

[eqfan592]

120. No, you weren't careful with your words.

If you were, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. ;) And you're still dodging and back peddling as fast as your little feet will allow you.

[G_j]

122. I think we wouldn't be having this discussion

if you weren't an ass.
:rofl:

[eqfan592]

125. "If weren't an ass?"

If what weren't an ass? Perhaps a basic grammar course is in order here? ;)

Seriously, if you're going to try ripping somebody on their reading comp, it might be a good idea to proof read your own posts for errors such as these. Especially after claiming that you were being careful with your words :P

[G_j]

128. welcome

to my ignore list

[eqfan592]

131. Hey, not my fault you have no sense of humor!

Nor is it my fault you neglected a key word in your zinger of a post! :P

[mwooldri]

74. Speaking of nukes, didn't I hear somewhere that a good way to shut off that oil geyser...

... is to shove and detonate a nuclear warhead down deep in that well?

That's what I was thinking when I saw "Nukes, Baby, Nukes!" in the subject line...

But then I might be wrong...

[SidDithers]

80. No, that's not a good way to shut off the oil geyser...

and the blogger that proposed it is an idiot.

Sid

[dchill]

148. Oh, dammit!

That was gonna be MY idea!

[LanternWaste]

81. I imagine that the Outpatient Cancer Treatment/Radiation Center

I imagine that the Outpatient Cancer Treatment/Radiation Center I worked at in the 90's is little more than a ticking time bomb...

[BlooInBloo]

97. Nothing will work if implemented poorly. And while some fools seem to think that's an argument for

doing nothing, the rest of us with brains understand that's an argument for doing things, but requiring that they be done *correctly*.

[G_j]

98. "get a brain"

oops, wrong context.....
:banghead:

[Better Believe It]

100. And some may think you just made an argument in favor of offshore oil drilling

If only its done properly.

But, you didn't, right?

[eqfan592]

105. Nice loaded question there.

Loaded questions, straw-men, and other such intellectual sink-holes, and their usage, make freepers and freeper wannabe's happy.

[Pavulon]

115. The navy is on a 5700 reactor year run.

seems like they have it right. Here is the reality of the world, you have coal or nuclear to run the country. Choose.

[Jennicut]

127. Let's face it, it would all be done better if the companies involved were not all greedy bastards.

I suppose, that more then anything, makes me leery of nuclear energy. Though we do have one in CT that seems to be doing okay.
I am not against nuclear energy. But after this oil spill, one thing is clear. Corporations running anything cannot be trusted. At all.

[Pavulon]

134. Heavily regulated, as it should be.

nuclear energy is very safe.

[Pavulon]

111. Choices, coal, nuclear, or kneepads

for all they time you will be prayin for some miracle technology that does not exist to run industry and major cities.

BTW the navy has 5700 reactor years with no accidents.

[G_j]

114. you left out hemp

http://www.stateuniversity.com/blog/permalink/Is-Hemp-the-Answer-To-Our-Energy-Problems-.html

[eqfan592]

119. Hemp can replace many petroleum products

But it can't power the world, or even a single country.

[Better Believe It]

130. Guess you never heard of wind or solar along with other alternatives. So Nukes, Baby, Nukes and

Drill, Baby, Drill!

[Pavulon]

132. You know that some people at MIT wrote a neat little paper on this

unlike you snark I actually come to these things with more than sarcasm.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

You can go drill yourself.

[kristopher]

178. MIT

MIT nuclear study – findings

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

2009 Update:

while there has been some progress since 2003, increased deployment of nuclear power has been slow both in the United States and globally, in relation to the illustrative scenario examined in the 2003 report. While the intent to build new plants has been made public in several countries, there are only few firm commitments outside of Asia, in particular China, India, and Korea, to construction projects at this time. Even if all the announced plans for new nuclear power plant construction are realized, the total will be well behind that needed for reaching a thousand gigawatts of new capacity worldwide by 2050. In the U.S., only one shutdown reactor has been refurbished and restarted and one previously ordered, but never completed reactor, is now being completed. No new nuclear units have started construction.

In sum, compared to 2003, the motivation to make more use of nuclear power is greater, and more rapid progress is needed in enabling the option of nuclear power expansion to play a role in meeting the global warming challenge. The sober warning is that if more is not done, nuclear power will diminish as a practical and timely option for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material contribution to climate change risk mitigation.

[eqfan592]

133. The day somebody shows me wind and/or solar...

...power generators that can supply energy in large enough quantities to rival that of nuclear, while also keeping cost down and not requiring excessive amounts of land to do it (and the major environmental impact that goes along with that land usage) then I'll be 100% in support of it.

I do support wind and solar energy as it is right now in small scale, reducing overall power usage from the grid where possible, but by themselves they cannot handle the load as of yet.

[kristopher]

151. I provided that study. You rejected it.

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.

[eqfan592]

155. Perhaps you should look up the word "rejected" and it's meaning.

I did no such thing. But it's a single study. A compelling one in many ways, but still a single study.

[Pavulon]

158. 150,000 wind turbines, or 37 nuclear, and no mention of storage problems

your study references intermittency. But there is currently no technology available to address this. NONE.

We are selling ap1000 to china and could easily build them here. Just like reactors in submarines.

I read your study, it relies on technology that does not exist.

[kristopher]

164. No it doesn't. You must have read that study like you read the MIT study.

[Pavulon]

166. Yes, I read it. I gave you page numbers. Like nuclear they want gov money too

so please dont try to pass this off as actionable technology.

This requires cooperation at multiple levels of government. PP170

PP 167 **my comments**
And where it all goes to shit...
Whether or not intermittency affects the power supply depends on whether effort to reduce intermittency are made. Five methods of reducing intermittency or its effects are (
a) inter- connecting geographically-disperse naturally-intermittent energy sources (e.g., wind, solar, wave, tidal), **smart grid, pipe dream, does not exist***
(b) using a reliable energy source, such as hydroelectric power, to smooth out supply or match demand, **relies on a to move energy from hydro source to places where there is no hydro**
(c) using smart meters to provide electric power to vehicles in such a way as to smooth out electricity supply, **does not exist, or worse rationing energy.***
(d) storing the electric power for later use, and (e) forecasting the weather to plan for energy supply needs better. These are discussed briefly, in turn. **does not exist, will not exist for at LEAST a decade***

[eqfan592]

167. Yes, it in fact does.

Your study is a very interesting one, but it relies on a large number of battery operated vehicles (that do not currently exist) connected to the grid and used as a storage medium, as well as a greater level of interconnectivity between the various power grids than currently exists.

The technology may "exist" in the broad sense for these things, but not in a way that would allow for immediate implementation of the system laid out in your study. But I haven't even come close to reading the entire study, so it's very possible he addresses these issues somewhere within.

[kristopher]

176. You don't seem to have a full view of the situation.

The action we are engaged in is "What do we need to do to transition to a noncarbon economy being cognizant of the second order considerations of sustainability and environmental impact?"

That is the goal.

With regard to your objection, "it relies on a large number of battery operated vehicles (that do not currently exist) connected to the grid and used as a storage medium, as well as a greater level of interconnectivity between the various power grids than currently exists. The technology may "exist" in the broad sense for these things, but not in a way that would allow for immediate implementation of the system laid out in your study. But I haven't even come close to reading the entire study, so it's very possible he addresses these issues somewhere within."

Nuclear power is no better positioned to meet the goal without precisely the same alterations to our infrastructure as Jacobson assumed for the study.

We have to move to EVs in order to eliminate petroleum. Due to the inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine it must be replaced no matter the 'energy carrier' we use (ethanol, direct electricity, biomethane etc). So yes that assumption is at the heart of his study - he uses it as a yardstick.

We have to have load following ability with the grid. So if we move to nuclear power, we will either run nuclear at an extremely low average capacity factor, or we will have to have an additional noncarbon alternative for meeting peak power demands. The logical way to do that with both nuclear and renewables is some form of storage such as H2, batteries (chemical and thermal), or biofuels. There are many options out there and deploying them is not considered to be a technical obstacle. In the meantime (nuclear or renewables) we will rely on the stored energy in natural gas to accomplish the load following.

Nuclear power is a suboptimal choice for meeting our goal.

In addition to what Jacobson wrote about there are additional reasons for preferring renewables, such as the benefits of a distributed grid with a diversity of energy sources and the socio-economic implications of moving from system of reliance on centralized generation.


There are no plans built around nuclear power - all plans are oriented around renewables. Jacobson isn't making things up, he has captured the essence of the situation in a realistic manner. I don't have the scoring of his study in a form for posting here (its a table) but it isn't even close.

As much as proponents of nuclear power would love everyone to believe that those eschewing nuclear power do so because of irrationality, the fact of the matter is that rationality is not on their side.

[eqfan592]

180. I have to admit, you make a very compelling argument.

And you make some very valid points, which are causing me to take another look at the entire situation. I plan on reading the study in detail as the opportunity presents itself.

[kristopher]

143. Nope

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.

[Pavulon]

161. You didn't actually read it did you.. See it relies on stuff that is not invented yet

like storage or a massive interconnected grid. All great but like men on mars, not happening in the next decade. I prefer the mixed method mit report. More smart people contributing, more realistic.

See it says we can go right now.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

[kristopher]

179. No it doesn't

MIT nuclear study – findings

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

2009 Update:

while there has been some progress since 2003, increased deployment of nuclear power has been slow both in the United States and globally, in relation to the illustrative scenario examined in the 2003 report. While the intent to build new plants has been made public in several countries, there are only few firm commitments outside of Asia, in particular China, India, and Korea, to construction projects at this time. Even if all the announced plans for new nuclear power plant construction are realized, the total will be well behind that needed for reaching a thousand gigawatts of new capacity worldwide by 2050. In the U.S., only one shutdown reactor has been refurbished and restarted and one previously ordered, but never completed reactor, is now being completed. No new nuclear units have started construction.

In sum, compared to 2003, the motivation to make more use of nuclear power is greater, and more rapid progress is needed in enabling the option of nuclear power expansion to play a role in meeting the global warming challenge. The sober warning is that if more is not done, nuclear power will diminish as a practical and timely option for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material contribution to climate change risk mitigation.

[Confusious]

126. Well, it's a good thing we don't have lawyers designing nuclear reactors

Ones who doesn't even know the first thing about geology.

Now if we can just get them to stop practicing law.....

[workinclasszero]

129. Hey what could possibly happen?

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :scared:

[eqfan592]

135. Yeah, because doing what we're doing now is working so well, right?

Or have you found a way to go all wind and solar and have it power the entire world that some of the best minds have yet to come across?

[kristopher]

144. Dude there are hundreds of studies showing that assertion is false.

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.

[eqfan592]

147. There are hundreds, yet you keep posting this same one.

Please, PLEASE tell me your entire argument isn't based entirely off of this one paper?

[kristopher]

149. Show me ONE plan / resource assessment that says renewables can't do it.

Just one.

[eqfan592]

156. Hey, you first :P You claimed there were hundreds supporting your position.

I have yet made no such claim about mine (though that is not to say they don't exist, of course).

Ball's still in your court.

EDIT: And let me make something clear, if you really can show the evidence that these other sources are, without a doubt, fully capable of meeting all the worlds energy demands in a timely fashion, and can continue to do so in the future, without the aid of nuclear, then I will be 100% in support of it.

I have no love for nuclear energy. I just haven't see how we can do without it, and it's not as deadly a poison as coal, IMHO.

[Pavulon]

160. That would be yours (page 167).. It references storage technology that does not exist now

and will not exist for 10 years at LEAST. The section on load leveling renders it useless.

[Robeson]

162. Hard to believe on a "progressive" site, this only has 10 recs....

...oh, well.

[eqfan592]

163. That's because there are some solid arguments in support of expanded...

...nuclear energy. Nothing anti-progressive about it.

[Robeson]

168. Maybe so. But I have a sneaking feeling that if the President came out against expanding...

...nuclear energy, some of the proponents for this, would be saying what a great decision the President had made.

[Pavulon]

170. Some would. But there is a long term national security interest

to be addressed with an energy policy. Both parties have missed this boat for decades.

[Pavulon]

165. Progressive does not mean stupid, reactionary, argue from emotion

screamy children. Adults tend to like balanced fact. Progressives analyze and form opinions. Others manipulate and twist them to fit an agenda.

[Better Believe It]

184. So exactly why do you consider Greenpeace and environmental groups "stupid and reactionary"?

[Tutankhamun]

172. I live about 15 miles from the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant in SoCal.

If/when there's an accident, I'm pretty sure I'm fucked. On the bright side, there is a chance my corpse could be re-animated in some sort of radiation-induced zombie-like state, allowing me to "live" indefinitely.

[Pavulon]

173. I have lived or worked around reactors for 30 years

no problems. Much safer than any refinery or chemical plant. Parts of jersey are bhopal waiting to happen.

[breadandwine]

182. Oh don't be so squeamish. What hijacker would fly a plane into a civilian target?

Nook-ya-ler energy is as safe as flying a plane on 9/11.

As a matter of fact, Nook-ya-ler energy is part of our NATIONAL SECURITY.