Is that COP OUT 20?

[bilby]

No solution my arse. Here are a bunch of solutions:

Reprocess
Use in RTGs
Bury in abandoned deep mines
Dump in deep abyssal silt

That's four off the top of my head. Given that this is far from an exhaustive list, and given that four is greater than zero, can I take it that you won't be repeating the "No solution" canard again?

I didn't think so.

You'll have to reprocess before you build those RTGs. You want to build them out of alpha and beta emitters only.

You also missed another useful product: Death rays. A big pile of cobalt-60 is quite lethal. This can be quite useful if you want to kill things without destroying them--how about shelf-stable meat? (Kill the bacteria in it.) We do it frequently with thin enough things with electron beams or x-rays but sterilizing thick things requires gamma and generating gamma rays takes a pretty big piece of gear.

Sure; as I said, there's heaps of other options. Medical uses are important too, although generally it's easier to make the isotopes you want in specialised reactors optimised for those particular products.

Basically, if it's active enough to be a threat, it's active enough to be useful.

I am not sure that you need to do much in the way of reprocessing before building an RTG; You just need to wait a few half-lifes of the major gamma emitters, all of which are fairly short lived (a couple of weeks). The only gamma left by the time the rods come out of the initial cooling pond is from ¹³⁷Cs decays to ^137mBa; the Caesium has a half-life around 30 years, and the Barium decays in a couple of minutes, so the activity is determined entirely by the quantity and decay rate of the ¹³⁷Cs. If it is too high to tolerate, then it should be much simpler to remove the Cs chemically than it is to do a full reprocessing job that pulls out all the actinides for re-use. The Cs can go to medical uses, and the rest of the stuff can just go straight into an RTG - NASA likes to use units with just one isotope, so that they can control the activity and (more importantly) the mass of the unit very closely, but for terrestrial use, close enough is good enough - wrap a nice layer of lead (or better still a lead/steel laminate, with the steel on the outside) around the thing and stick it under the floor of a hut for year round free heating at high latitudes.

 

[untermensche]

One is either pro-life and wants to create renewable and sustainable societies or one is anti-life and is cheering as we drive off a cliff.

These are decisions WE have to make. We can't put them off any longer.

Oh such blithering nonsense. One of the most pointless activities on earth are the endless "action" committees of dreamy political change hawkers, 95 percent of which is devoted to generating powerpoint mission statements, bar charts, boxes, arrows, typology matrix's, action plans, goals, decision trees, frameworks, awareness scales, blah..blah blah. The world's overpaid grand poo-bahs arrive with their ring bound presentations, bloviate to one another about the earth ending "crisis", gorge themselves at lavish dinners, and leave with their waistlines incrementally larger.

None of this produces wealth, its merely climate ritualists crowing and preening, each plotting their own agenda's to expand political power over their people and the fruits of their labor. There is no need or hope of any plant-saving agreement - its purpose is merely to have a summit to wallow in terror - the sort of thrill children get seeing ghouls on Halloween.

It will come to nothing - nothing more than platitudes about what a particular nation is willing to claim it will saspire to, as long as none of it is binding or too specific. Some foolish leader will promise to slash greenhouse gas emissions for his nation by x percent, and others will offer nothing more than to try harder. But none of it will be serious...not even on the level of Kyoto (a spectacular failure, by the way).

Forget about climate change - its not worth worrying about something that can't be changed. Time to move on.

This rant is about something in your own mind.

I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

But I hear the cheers to drive faster over the cliff.

 

[barbos]

We can, spike is inconsistent with Chernobyl because it appears to be the same regardless of the region of former SU, when it's clear that effect should be bigger in Belarus and Ukraine, and author himself admits that there were no spikes in any other countries such as Poland which was clearly near that thing. Effect is uniform and confined to USSR only.

To determine that would require comparing separate graphs, that report simply lumped them.

They have separate graphs for Ukraine,Belarus and Russia and admit that there were no effect in other countries.
Most of the Russia is much farther from Chernobyl than eastern or even Western Europe. So unless radiation somehow stayed within USSR borders this study is bullshit.

 

[bilby]

You'll have to reprocess before you build those RTGs. You want to build them out of alpha and beta emitters only.

You also missed another useful product: Death rays. A big pile of cobalt-60 is quite lethal. This can be quite useful if you want to kill things without destroying them--how about shelf-stable meat? (Kill the bacteria in it.) We do it frequently with thin enough things with electron beams or x-rays but sterilizing thick things requires gamma and generating gamma rays takes a pretty big piece of gear.

That sounds delicious! Irradiated meat...just what I dream of nights. Totally dead. What do you say about us limiting our carbon emissions and also limiting our radioactive pollution in this century? What do you think about the "terrorists" giving Hollande an excuse for eluding criticism? I think it is pretty sick.

Why, do you prefer to eat your meat alive? Of course it's dead.

Or perhaps you think that revulsion at an process is a guide to how safe or enjoyable the food it produces is? Because if so, all I can say is that the wurst is yet to come.

Lots of food processing is icky. But icky is not the same thing as bad - if it was, we would have to ban homosexuality, defecation, and the consumption of vegetables grown in dirt.

Irradiated meat sounds awful to you because you have programmed yourself (or been programmed) to be repulsed by anything to do with radiation. But that's a purely emotional response; it owes nothing to reason.

It is far more reasonable to find 'organic' vegetables revolting - they have usually been fertilised by spraying shit on them, and people have died from not cleaning it off properly. And yet I will bet dollars to donuts that you find the idea of irradiated meat more disgusting than the idea of organic vegetables. That's OK - you are entitled to your irrational opinions when it comes to your own diet. But you need reason before you can justify imposing those emotional responses on others.

The only way to tell the difference between two pieces of meat, one of which was irradiated, is to test for bacteria - the one with lots of bugs living on it is the one that hasn't been irradiated. Yum, bacteria.

What do you say we worry about the problem of carbon emissions as a priority, and simultaneously massively reduce radioactive pollution, by switching coal power plants for nuclear? You do know that coal burning plants release more radioactive pollution into the environment in normal operation than nuclear plants do, don't you? Or perhaps you don't know, don't WANT to know, or don't care, because the REAL problem for you is not, in fact, radioactive pollution, but rather the very existence of nuclear power, which you have opposed so vehemently for so long that you cannot allow it even an instant's consideration - it is simply sinful, and your 'environmental' religion says it is an abomination, and must not be allowed. No thinking required or permitted. Even when it is the obvious solution to a REAL environmental problem.

 

[arkirk]

That sounds delicious! Irradiated meat...just what I dream of nights. Totally dead. What do you say about us limiting our carbon emissions and also limiting our radioactive pollution in this century? What do you think about the "terrorists" giving Hollande an excuse for eluding criticism? I think it is pretty sick.

Why, do you prefer to eat your meat alive? Of course it's dead.

Or perhaps you think that revulsion at an process is a guide to how safe or enjoyable the food it produces is? Because if so, all I can say is that the wurst is yet to come.

Lots of food processing is icky. But icky is not the same thing as bad - if it was, we would have to ban homosexuality, defecation, and the consumption of vegetables grown in dirt.

Irradiated meat sounds awful to you because you have programmed yourself (or been programmed) to be repulsed by anything to do with radiation. But that's a purely emotional response; it owes nothing to reason.

It is far more reasonable to find 'organic' vegetables revolting - they have usually been fertilised by spraying shit on them, and people have died from not cleaning it off properly. And yet I will bet dollars to donuts that you find the idea of irradiated meat more disgusting than the idea of organic vegetables. That's OK - you are entitled to your irrational opinions when it comes to your own diet. But you need reason before you can justify imposing those emotional responses on others.

The only way to tell the difference between two pieces of meat, one of which was irradiated, is to test for bacteria - the one with lots of bugs living on it is the one that hasn't been irradiated. Yum, bacteria.

What do you say we worry about the problem of carbon emissions as a priority, and simultaneously massively reduce radioactive pollution, by switching coal power plants for nuclear? You do know that coal burning plants release more radioactive pollution into the environment in normal operation than nuclear plants do, don't you? Or perhaps you don't know, don't WANT to know, or don't care, because the REAL problem for you is not, in fact, radioactive pollution, but rather the very existence of nuclear power, which you have opposed so vehemently for so long that you cannot allow it even an instant's consideration - it is simply sinful, and your 'environmental' religion says it is an abomination, and must not be allowed. No thinking required or permitted. Even when it is the obvious solution to a REAL environmental problem.

I was just wondering if you have ever heard of cooking. Really we don't need to irradiate meat to be safe from bacteria. Actually if a bacterial agent has already been in the meat long enough to produce its characteristic toxins, irradiation will not neutralize the toxins...but cooking can. We don't need radiation sources multiplying and being all over the place. When I worked at a wastewater plant, we had sludge density meters which utilized radioactive material. There were big warnings all over the stuff and gallery evacuation plans if the unit should accidentally open up as these units were under pressure in raw sludge lines. Over about three years, they were all replaced with electronic devices that did not rely on radionuclide decay. Your ideas of fitting this poison into everybody's lives are archaic and creating another safety hazard in a food processing plant are foolhardy. The real problem is no plan to REDUCE YOUR ENERGY CONSUMPTION and listening. You seem to feel that human life cannot exist without profits for the nuclear mining and processing companies which are easily as corrupt as Exxon, Chevron, Peabody Coal etc. Their potential to harm the human race is every bit as threatening.

Your country doesn't just uproot the Aborigines. After they are shoved out of the way, your mining industries create vast sacrifice zones that are not necessary in an informed world, which also would be a humane one. You simply are unaware.

 

[Will Wiley]

I wonder whether our nuclear waste will kill more people in the future or whether global warming from coal will kill more people in the future?

M'eh...who cares we will all be dead.

 

[arkirk]

I wonder whether our nuclear waste will kill more people in the future or whether global warming from coal will kill more people in the future?

M'eh...who cares we will all be dead.

Be careful my friend....that is what Dubbiya said! Your question is probably not answerable with today's knowledge.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Haven't found anywhere where it's been extrapolated to the entire industry. Uranium mining is a world-wide industry and cancers can come about years after the workers have left the mines. My point was simply that the nuclear industry is not nearly as safe as Bilby was trying to portray it.

Full cycle numbers:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Nuclear is less than half the deaths of the next closest power source and that only by omitting a disaster. (To be fair the comparison would have to also omit Chernobyl.) Without that it's a third of the deaths of the next closest option.

Is it a fair assumption that the level of regulation plays some part in this? Can the nuclear industry get away with holding safety violations suspended in appeal indefinitely as the coal industry can?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Full cycle numbers:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Nuclear is less than half the deaths of the next closest power source and that only by omitting a disaster. (To be fair the comparison would have to also omit Chernobyl.) Without that it's a third of the deaths of the next closest option.

Is it a fair assumption that the level of regulation plays some part in this? Can the nuclear industry get away with holding safety violations suspended in appeal indefinitely as the coal industry can?

If anything they're over-regulated at present.

 

[arkirk]

Is it a fair assumption that the level of regulation plays some part in this? Can the nuclear industry get away with holding safety violations suspended in appeal indefinitely as the coal industry can?

If anything they're over-regulated at present.

Come on, Loren, you know you are just plain WRONG. We will be seeing a major C change in energy usage within the next 10 years and you will look at what you have said here and be embarrassed. Either that or you will have developed another layer of insensitivity and not notice anything.

I do not see the Chernobyl shown on your link and I do not see deaths related to waste contamination and cancer there either.

Actually this thread is supposed to be about COP 20 and not nuclear power anyway. It is just another snow job, though I feel there are people at the conference that sincerely want to work on the problem. Unfortunately, they mostly got tear gassed! And terrorism was the excuse the government used to shut those activists up!

 

[dystopian]

Apparently you are have not studied the results of Chernobyl and its continuing problems with containment. You also do not seem to notice the constant updates on Fukushima.

Or perhaps it's you who hasn't really studied the subject very well. Even factoring in all of the nuclear accidents that have happened, nuclear power is still both cleaner and *safer* than fossil fuels. The average nuclear power plant actually puts out a lot less radiation into the environment than a coal power plant does. Living next to a coal power plant is far more hazardous to your health. And if we compare the damage done by nuclear power plants (including the accidents that have occurred with them) and the damage done by coal plants... coal plants are still worse by a significant margin. The combined environmental and health cost of nuclear power per unit generated is €0.0019/kWh, compared to coal at €0.06/kWh. It's even lower than solar when we factor in production of components (wind power is cheaper than nuclear though).

The notion that nuclear power is some super dangerous/polluting method of power generation is nothing but absurd hysteria.

Both of these events were terrible blows to the economy of the countries where they occurred and both have radioactive plumes thousands of miles long.

Yes. Neither of which compares to the environmental and healthcare costs incurred by the rampant burning of fossil fuels. 13.000 people die every year from the pollution put out by coal power plants in the US alone. But because it isn't a single event with the destruction easily visible on the news, it doesn't register to you as more important than the kind of disaster which is surely terrible but nowhere near as damaging or common. Nuclear power is like air travel, people get scared to fly every time there's a crash on the news, but they have no issues with taking a car even when you tell them they're far more likely to get killed in a car crash than a planecrash. People are fucking idiots.

It is you who are continually burying your head in the sand regarding long term disposal of nuclear waste.

While this is a problem of some significance, it's nowhere near as bad as people tend to think. For one, it's perfectly possible to safely store nuclear waste for extended periods of time. Secondly, with proper investment much of it can be recycled, something that many countries do to varying degrees (but the US doesn't).

And of course, this wouldn't be a serious problem if we unlocked proper fusion power.

Actually Chernobyl had an effect on Russian life expectancy.

Actually, no, it didn't. Though it's quite amazing that people believe this, since Chernobyl isn't even *in* Russia, and the overwhelming majority of the fall-out didn't blow into Russia either. If you think that the Russian life expectancy was affected by contamination that covered only 0.33% of Russia, you obviously haven't thought it through. A UN Study from 2005 predicted a total of 9000 deaths to result from exposure to radiation from Chernobyl, across the entire affected area (and not just Russia); this number isn't near high enough to have a significant impact on Russia's life expectancy. Even the kind of high numbers claimed by Greenpeace (200,000, across the entire world, a number not taken very seriously) wouldn't have too much of an impact.

 

[arkirk]

One is either pro-life and wants to create renewable and sustainable societies or one is anti-life and is cheering as we drive off a cliff.

These are decisions WE have to make. We can't put them off any longer.

Oh such blithering nonsense. One of the most pointless activities on earth are the endless "action" committees of dreamy political change hawkers, 95 percent of which is devoted to generating powerpoint mission statements, bar charts, boxes, arrows, typology matrix's, action plans, goals, decision trees, frameworks, awareness scales, blah..blah blah. The world's overpaid grand poo-bahs arrive with their ring bound presentations, bloviate to one another about the earth ending "crisis", gorge themselves at lavish dinners, and leave with their waistlines incrementally larger.

None of this produces wealth, its merely climate ritualists crowing and preening, each plotting their own agenda's to expand political power over their people and the fruits of their labor. There is no need or hope of any plant-saving agreement - its purpose is merely to have a summit to wallow in terror - the sort of thrill children get seeing ghouls on Halloween.

It will come to nothing - nothing more than platitudes about what a particular nation is willing to claim it will saspire to, as long as none of it is binding or too specific. Some foolish leader will promise to slash greenhouse gas emissions for his nation by x percent, and others will offer nothing more than to try harder. But none of it will be serious...not even on the level of Kyoto (a spectacular failure, by the way).

Forget about climate change - its not worth worrying about something that can't be changed. Time to move on.

To what? Warmer water? You need to reassess this problem. You don't seem at all informed. You seem to like coal and nukes so much, I hope Santa brings you a lump of coal and another of plutonium this Christmas. That ought to satisfy you.

 

[arkirk]

Or perhaps it's you who hasn't really studied the subject very well. Even factoring in all of the nuclear accidents that have happened, nuclear power is still both cleaner and *safer* than fossil fuels. The average nuclear power plant actually puts out a lot less radiation into the environment than a coal power plant does. Living next to a coal power plant is far more hazardous to your health. And if we compare the damage done by nuclear power plants (including the accidents that have occurred with them) and the damage done by coal plants... coal plants are still worse by a significant margin. The combined environmental and health cost of nuclear power per unit generated is €0.0019/kWh, compared to coal at €0.06/kWh. It's even lower than solar when we factor in production of components (wind power is cheaper than nuclear though).

The notion that nuclear power is some super dangerous/polluting method of power generation is nothing but absurd hysteria.

Both of these events were terrible blows to the economy of the countries where they occurred and both have radioactive plumes thousands of miles long.

Yes. Neither of which compares to the environmental and healthcare costs incurred by the rampant burning of fossil fuels. 13.000 people die every year from the pollution put out by coal power plants in the US alone. But because it isn't a single event with the destruction easily visible on the news, it doesn't register to you as more important than the kind of disaster which is surely terrible but nowhere near as damaging or common. Nuclear power is like air travel, people get scared to fly every time there's a crash on the news, but they have no issues with taking a car even when you tell them they're far more likely to get killed in a car crash than a planecrash. People are fucking idiots.

It is you who are continually burying your head in the sand regarding long term disposal of nuclear waste.

While this is a problem of some significance, it's nowhere near as bad as people tend to think. For one, it's perfectly possible to safely store nuclear waste for extended periods of time. Secondly, with proper investment much of it can be recycled, something that many countries do to varying degrees (but the US doesn't).

And of course, this wouldn't be a serious problem if we unlocked proper fusion power.

Actually Chernobyl had an effect on Russian life expectancy.

Actually, no, it didn't. Though it's quite amazing that people believe this, since Chernobyl isn't even *in* Russia, and the overwhelming majority of the fall-out didn't blow into Russia either. If you think that the Russian life expectancy was affected by contamination that covered only 0.33% of Russia, you obviously haven't thought it through. A UN Study from 2005 predicted a total of 9000 deaths to result from exposure to radiation from Chernobyl, across the entire affected area (and not just Russia); this number isn't near high enough to have a significant impact on Russia's life expectancy. Even the kind of high numbers claimed by Greenpeace (200,000, across the entire world, a number not taken very seriously) wouldn't have too much of an impact.

Don't lump me in with coal advocates. I have already posted sources indicating more than 125,000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl. These did not come from Greenpeace. The article charted life expectancy of Russians and affected other republics and clearly showed a decrease in life expectancy of these peoples. Not only that...the cause...lung cancer...not speculation...actual statistics. You are using a tobacco industry argument against something we have begun to understand...that some things are just not compatible with human beings...and most other animals. Increased radiation levels just happens to be one of them, along with tar from ciggies and pm10 from coal plants and heavy metals in our food and water and air. We will be changing how we use energy and also how much energy we use or we will die in large numbers and fall into civil chaos. It is already happening. The typhoon in the Philippines wiped a whole town off the map. Fukushima has dumped tons of radioactive pollution into the pacific and it is being incorporated into the food chain. These are not small matters. You mind appears too small to comprehend the gravity of the situation. Sorry about that. Maybe when you get a little OLDER you will come to understand better.

 

[bilby]

Or perhaps it's you who hasn't really studied the subject very well. Even factoring in all of the nuclear accidents that have happened, nuclear power is still both cleaner and *safer* than fossil fuels. The average nuclear power plant actually puts out a lot less radiation into the environment than a coal power plant does. Living next to a coal power plant is far more hazardous to your health. And if we compare the damage done by nuclear power plants (including the accidents that have occurred with them) and the damage done by coal plants... coal plants are still worse by a significant margin. The combined environmental and health cost of nuclear power per unit generated is €0.0019/kWh, compared to coal at €0.06/kWh. It's even lower than solar when we factor in production of components (wind power is cheaper than nuclear though).

The notion that nuclear power is some super dangerous/polluting method of power generation is nothing but absurd hysteria.





Yes. Neither of which compares to the environmental and healthcare costs incurred by the rampant burning of fossil fuels. 13.000 people die every year from the pollution put out by coal power plants in the US alone. But because it isn't a single event with the destruction easily visible on the news, it doesn't register to you as more important than the kind of disaster which is surely terrible but nowhere near as damaging or common. Nuclear power is like air travel, people get scared to fly every time there's a crash on the news, but they have no issues with taking a car even when you tell them they're far more likely to get killed in a car crash than a planecrash. People are fucking idiots.

It is you who are continually burying your head in the sand regarding long term disposal of nuclear waste.

While this is a problem of some significance, it's nowhere near as bad as people tend to think. For one, it's perfectly possible to safely store nuclear waste for extended periods of time. Secondly, with proper investment much of it can be recycled, something that many countries do to varying degrees (but the US doesn't).

And of course, this wouldn't be a serious problem if we unlocked proper fusion power.

Actually Chernobyl had an effect on Russian life expectancy.

Actually, no, it didn't. Though it's quite amazing that people believe this, since Chernobyl isn't even *in* Russia, and the overwhelming majority of the fall-out didn't blow into Russia either. If you think that the Russian life expectancy was affected by contamination that covered only 0.33% of Russia, you obviously haven't thought it through. A UN Study from 2005 predicted a total of 9000 deaths to result from exposure to radiation from Chernobyl, across the entire affected area (and not just Russia); this number isn't near high enough to have a significant impact on Russia's life expectancy. Even the kind of high numbers claimed by Greenpeace (200,000, across the entire world, a number not taken very seriously) wouldn't have too much of an impact.

Don't lump me in with coal advocates. I have already posted sources indicating more than 125,000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl. These did not come from Greenpeace. The article charted life expectancy of Russians and affected other republics and clearly showed a decrease in life expectancy of these peoples. Not only that...the cause...lung cancer...not speculation...actual statistics. You are using a tobacco industry argument against something we have begun to understand...that some things are just not compatible with human beings...and most other animals. Increased radiation levels just happens to be one of them, along with tar from ciggies and pm10 from coal plants and heavy metals in our food and water and air. We will be changing how we use energy and also how much energy we use or we will die in large numbers and fall into civil chaos. It is already happening. The typhoon in the Philippines wiped a whole town off the map. Fukushima has dumped tons of radioactive pollution into the pacific and it is being incorporated into the food chain. These are not small matters. You mind appears too small to comprehend the gravity of the situation. Sorry about that. Maybe when you get a little OLDER you will come to understand better.

By opposing nuclear power, you lump yourself in with coal advocates.

The figure of 125,000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl is ridiculous, and there is no evidence to back it up; But if we accept it as accurate, for the sake of discussion, and if we say that instead of happening once in sixty years of nuclear power generation, that it happens once a decade (I know, we haven't had six such disasters; but then, the one we did have didn't kill 125,000, so this is pure hypothetical territory). With a hypothetical death toll of 750,000 people, over the entire life of the industry, nuclear would still be less deadly than coal as a means of electricity generation.

Your mind seems too addled by fear to grasp this, but it is nevertheless true - EVEN IF YOU WERE RIGHT - even if your horror stories about the dangers of nuclear power plants were true - it would STILL be a net positive for humanity to switch from coal to nuclear, EVEN BEFORE global warming is considered.

Just think about that.

Don't emote about it. Don't go off an a rant about the tobacco industry. Don't try to claim that your advanced age grants you some kind of special powers of intuition that makes thinking, or listening to anyone younger than you, unnecessary. Don't accept my more accurate figures - stick with the massively inflated numbers you seem to prefer, and THINK about what they imply.

EVEN IF your figures were right, your conclusion should STILL be that replacing coal with nuclear reduces that total non-greenhouse gas harm to humanity, AND would nearly halve the worlds carbon dioxide emissions.

Your opposition to nuclear power is advocacy for coal, whether you believe it or not; and it is advocacy for MORE injury, illness and death, and for continuing emissions of carbon dioxide. These are the REAL WORLD results of your position.

 

[arkirk]

Or perhaps it's you who hasn't really studied the subject very well. Even factoring in all of the nuclear accidents that have happened, nuclear power is still both cleaner and *safer* than fossil fuels. The average nuclear power plant actually puts out a lot less radiation into the environment than a coal power plant does. Living next to a coal power plant is far more hazardous to your health. And if we compare the damage done by nuclear power plants (including the accidents that have occurred with them) and the damage done by coal plants... coal plants are still worse by a significant margin. The combined environmental and health cost of nuclear power per unit generated is €0.0019/kWh, compared to coal at €0.06/kWh. It's even lower than solar when we factor in production of components (wind power is cheaper than nuclear though).

The notion that nuclear power is some super dangerous/polluting method of power generation is nothing but absurd hysteria.





Yes. Neither of which compares to the environmental and healthcare costs incurred by the rampant burning of fossil fuels. 13.000 people die every year from the pollution put out by coal power plants in the US alone. But because it isn't a single event with the destruction easily visible on the news, it doesn't register to you as more important than the kind of disaster which is surely terrible but nowhere near as damaging or common. Nuclear power is like air travel, people get scared to fly every time there's a crash on the news, but they have no issues with taking a car even when you tell them they're far more likely to get killed in a car crash than a planecrash. People are fucking idiots.

It is you who are continually burying your head in the sand regarding long term disposal of nuclear waste.

While this is a problem of some significance, it's nowhere near as bad as people tend to think. For one, it's perfectly possible to safely store nuclear waste for extended periods of time. Secondly, with proper investment much of it can be recycled, something that many countries do to varying degrees (but the US doesn't).

And of course, this wouldn't be a serious problem if we unlocked proper fusion power.

Actually Chernobyl had an effect on Russian life expectancy.

Actually, no, it didn't. Though it's quite amazing that people believe this, since Chernobyl isn't even *in* Russia, and the overwhelming majority of the fall-out didn't blow into Russia either. If you think that the Russian life expectancy was affected by contamination that covered only 0.33% of Russia, you obviously haven't thought it through. A UN Study from 2005 predicted a total of 9000 deaths to result from exposure to radiation from Chernobyl, across the entire affected area (and not just Russia); this number isn't near high enough to have a significant impact on Russia's life expectancy. Even the kind of high numbers claimed by Greenpeace (200,000, across the entire world, a number not taken very seriously) wouldn't have too much of an impact.

Don't lump me in with coal advocates. I have already posted sources indicating more than 125,000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl. These did not come from Greenpeace. The article charted life expectancy of Russians and affected other republics and clearly showed a decrease in life expectancy of these peoples. Not only that...the cause...lung cancer...not speculation...actual statistics. You are using a tobacco industry argument against something we have begun to understand...that some things are just not compatible with human beings...and most other animals. Increased radiation levels just happens to be one of them, along with tar from ciggies and pm10 from coal plants and heavy metals in our food and water and air. We will be changing how we use energy and also how much energy we use or we will die in large numbers and fall into civil chaos. It is already happening. The typhoon in the Philippines wiped a whole town off the map. Fukushima has dumped tons of radioactive pollution into the pacific and it is being incorporated into the food chain. These are not small matters. You mind appears too small to comprehend the gravity of the situation. Sorry about that. Maybe when you get a little OLDER you will come to understand better.

By opposing nuclear power, you lump yourself in with coal advocates.

The figure of 125,000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl is ridiculous, and there is no evidence to back it up; But if we accept it as accurate, for the sake of discussion, and if we say that instead of happening once in sixty years of nuclear power generation, that it happens once a decade (I know, we haven't had six such disasters; but then, the one we did have didn't kill 125,000, so this is pure hypothetical territory). With a hypothetical death toll of 750,000 people, over the entire life of the industry, nuclear would still be less deadly than coal as a means of electricity generation.

Your mind seems too addled by fear to grasp this, but it is nevertheless true - EVEN IF YOU WERE RIGHT - even if your horror stories about the dangers of nuclear power plants were true - it would STILL be a net positive for humanity to switch from coal to nuclear, EVEN BEFORE global warming is considered.

Just think about that.

Don't emote about it. Don't go off an a rant about the tobacco industry. Don't try to claim that your advanced age grants you some kind of special powers of intuition that makes thinking, or listening to anyone younger than you, unnecessary. Don't accept my more accurate figures - stick with the massively inflated numbers you seem to prefer, and THINK about what they imply.

EVEN IF your figures were right, your conclusion should STILL be that replacing coal with nuclear reduces that total non-greenhouse gas harm to humanity, AND would nearly halve the worlds carbon dioxide emissions.

Your opposition to nuclear power is advocacy for coal, whether you believe it or not; and it is advocacy for MORE injury, illness and death, and for continuing emissions of carbon dioxide. These are the REAL WORLD results of your position.

This thread is NOT ABOUT THE SUPERIORITY OF ONE FORM OF POISON OVER ANOTHER. It is about COP 20. You keep drinking the nuclear coolaide and trying to fit it into the equation where it doesn't belong. The answer is that we need to quit globe trotting and hustling cheap labor and get down to handing our own affairs and get off the fossil fuel horse. There is no pollution from the operation of photovoltaics and windmills and hydroelectric systems. It is time for us to make appropriate adjustments and your arguments are not helping.

 

[bilby]

Or perhaps it's you who hasn't really studied the subject very well. Even factoring in all of the nuclear accidents that have happened, nuclear power is still both cleaner and *safer* than fossil fuels. The average nuclear power plant actually puts out a lot less radiation into the environment than a coal power plant does. Living next to a coal power plant is far more hazardous to your health. And if we compare the damage done by nuclear power plants (including the accidents that have occurred with them) and the damage done by coal plants... coal plants are still worse by a significant margin. The combined environmental and health cost of nuclear power per unit generated is €0.0019/kWh, compared to coal at €0.06/kWh. It's even lower than solar when we factor in production of components (wind power is cheaper than nuclear though).

The notion that nuclear power is some super dangerous/polluting method of power generation is nothing but absurd hysteria.





Yes. Neither of which compares to the environmental and healthcare costs incurred by the rampant burning of fossil fuels. 13.000 people die every year from the pollution put out by coal power plants in the US alone. But because it isn't a single event with the destruction easily visible on the news, it doesn't register to you as more important than the kind of disaster which is surely terrible but nowhere near as damaging or common. Nuclear power is like air travel, people get scared to fly every time there's a crash on the news, but they have no issues with taking a car even when you tell them they're far more likely to get killed in a car crash than a planecrash. People are fucking idiots.

It is you who are continually burying your head in the sand regarding long term disposal of nuclear waste.

While this is a problem of some significance, it's nowhere near as bad as people tend to think. For one, it's perfectly possible to safely store nuclear waste for extended periods of time. Secondly, with proper investment much of it can be recycled, something that many countries do to varying degrees (but the US doesn't).

And of course, this wouldn't be a serious problem if we unlocked proper fusion power.

Actually Chernobyl had an effect on Russian life expectancy.

Actually, no, it didn't. Though it's quite amazing that people believe this, since Chernobyl isn't even *in* Russia, and the overwhelming majority of the fall-out didn't blow into Russia either. If you think that the Russian life expectancy was affected by contamination that covered only 0.33% of Russia, you obviously haven't thought it through. A UN Study from 2005 predicted a total of 9000 deaths to result from exposure to radiation from Chernobyl, across the entire affected area (and not just Russia); this number isn't near high enough to have a significant impact on Russia's life expectancy. Even the kind of high numbers claimed by Greenpeace (200,000, across the entire world, a number not taken very seriously) wouldn't have too much of an impact.

Don't lump me in with coal advocates. I have already posted sources indicating more than 125,000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl. These did not come from Greenpeace. The article charted life expectancy of Russians and affected other republics and clearly showed a decrease in life expectancy of these peoples. Not only that...the cause...lung cancer...not speculation...actual statistics. You are using a tobacco industry argument against something we have begun to understand...that some things are just not compatible with human beings...and most other animals. Increased radiation levels just happens to be one of them, along with tar from ciggies and pm10 from coal plants and heavy metals in our food and water and air. We will be changing how we use energy and also how much energy we use or we will die in large numbers and fall into civil chaos. It is already happening. The typhoon in the Philippines wiped a whole town off the map. Fukushima has dumped tons of radioactive pollution into the pacific and it is being incorporated into the food chain. These are not small matters. You mind appears too small to comprehend the gravity of the situation. Sorry about that. Maybe when you get a little OLDER you will come to understand better.

By opposing nuclear power, you lump yourself in with coal advocates.

The figure of 125,000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl is ridiculous, and there is no evidence to back it up; But if we accept it as accurate, for the sake of discussion, and if we say that instead of happening once in sixty years of nuclear power generation, that it happens once a decade (I know, we haven't had six such disasters; but then, the one we did have didn't kill 125,000, so this is pure hypothetical territory). With a hypothetical death toll of 750,000 people, over the entire life of the industry, nuclear would still be less deadly than coal as a means of electricity generation.

Your mind seems too addled by fear to grasp this, but it is nevertheless true - EVEN IF YOU WERE RIGHT - even if your horror stories about the dangers of nuclear power plants were true - it would STILL be a net positive for humanity to switch from coal to nuclear, EVEN BEFORE global warming is considered.

Just think about that.

Don't emote about it. Don't go off an a rant about the tobacco industry. Don't try to claim that your advanced age grants you some kind of special powers of intuition that makes thinking, or listening to anyone younger than you, unnecessary. Don't accept my more accurate figures - stick with the massively inflated numbers you seem to prefer, and THINK about what they imply.

EVEN IF your figures were right, your conclusion should STILL be that replacing coal with nuclear reduces that total non-greenhouse gas harm to humanity, AND would nearly halve the worlds carbon dioxide emissions.

Your opposition to nuclear power is advocacy for coal, whether you believe it or not; and it is advocacy for MORE injury, illness and death, and for continuing emissions of carbon dioxide. These are the REAL WORLD results of your position.

This thread is NOT ABOUT THE SUPERIORITY OF ONE FORM OF POISON OVER ANOTHER. It is about COP 20. You keep drinking the nuclear coolaide and trying to fit it into the equation where it doesn't belong. The answer is that we need to quit globe trotting and hustling cheap labor and get down to handing our own affairs and get off the fossil fuel horse. There is no pollution from the operation of photovoltaics and windmills and hydroelectric systems. It is time for us to make appropriate adjustments and your arguments are not helping.

Photovoltaics create more pollution (mostly during the manufacturing process) than nuclear power; They also kill more people (mostly during installation). Windmills and photovoltaics are also intermittent sources, which creates a number of new problems. Hydroelectric systems are not possible in most terrain, as they require very specific conditions of both topography and climate; and if you think hydro systems are safe, google 'Banqiao Dam' - that one accident makes Chernobyl look like a picnic; and unlike Chernobyl, it is not the only accident of its type ever to occur.

I completely agree that we need to get off fossil fuels; But it is YOUR arguments that are counter-productive here. YOU are the one who is NOT HELPING.

I asked you to THINK; but you couldn't bring yourself to do so, so you emoted instead. That's a shame. Because this is not a matter for opinion - the objective fact remains that nuclear power is the safest way to generate carbon neutral power; and the objective fact remains that humanity needs that power to live happy, healthy and reasonably long lives.

If you seriously think that "There is no pollution from the operation of photovoltaics and windmills and hydroelectric systems", then you REALLY need to get informed. The problem with confirmation bias is that you are so busy seeking information about how bad nuclear power is, that you seem to have forgotten to find out how bad your preferred alternatives are; Or you simply pretend that the alternative is to generate less power - while hypocritically continuing to use power, and its products and benefits, yourself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If anything they're over-regulated at present.

Come on, Loren, you know you are just plain WRONG. We will be seeing a major C change in energy usage within the next 10 years and you will look at what you have said here and be embarrassed. Either that or you will have developed another layer of insensitivity and not notice anything.

I do not see the Chernobyl shown on your link and I do not see deaths related to waste contamination and cancer there either.

They didn't exclude it so the numbers should include it.

As for the waste--there's no reason to expect any deaths beyond the ordinary industrial and traffic accidents involved in moving it around.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You keep drinking the nuclear coolaide and trying to fit it into the equation where it doesn't belong. The answer is that we need to quit globe trotting and hustling cheap labor and get down to handing our own affairs and get off the fossil fuel horse. There is no pollution from the operation of photovoltaics and windmills and hydroelectric systems. It is time for us to make appropriate adjustments and your arguments are not helping.

You're drinking the green kool-aid.

Look at that chart I linked--all your means of generating power kill more than nuclear does.

As for photovoltaics: Nothing from it's operation but the cells don't last forever and people certainly do die obtaining the materials to make them. They also die falling while installing/servicing them.

Windmills: They also have to be manufactured. The fall danger is higher because they're higher up. And they kill a lot of birds.

Note that these two have major storage issues and the deaths involved from the production & maintenance of those systems are not included in that chart because it's only looking at the current grid.

Hydro: Still some deaths, quite a few if you count the one big dam failure. And the dams for hydro are far from environmentally benign.

 

[arkirk]

Or perhaps it's you who hasn't really studied the subject very well. Even factoring in all of the nuclear accidents that have happened, nuclear power is still both cleaner and *safer* than fossil fuels. The average nuclear power plant actually puts out a lot less radiation into the environment than a coal power plant does. Living next to a coal power plant is far more hazardous to your health. And if we compare the damage done by nuclear power plants (including the accidents that have occurred with them) and the damage done by coal plants... coal plants are still worse by a significant margin. The combined environmental and health cost of nuclear power per unit generated is €0.0019/kWh, compared to coal at €0.06/kWh. It's even lower than solar when we factor in production of components (wind power is cheaper than nuclear though).

The notion that nuclear power is some super dangerous/polluting method of power generation is nothing but absurd hysteria.





Yes. Neither of which compares to the environmental and healthcare costs incurred by the rampant burning of fossil fuels. 13.000 people die every year from the pollution put out by coal power plants in the US alone. But because it isn't a single event with the destruction easily visible on the news, it doesn't register to you as more important than the kind of disaster which is surely terrible but nowhere near as damaging or common. Nuclear power is like air travel, people get scared to fly every time there's a crash on the news, but they have no issues with taking a car even when you tell them they're far more likely to get killed in a car crash than a planecrash. People are fucking idiots.

It is you who are continually burying your head in the sand regarding long term disposal of nuclear waste.

While this is a problem of some significance, it's nowhere near as bad as people tend to think. For one, it's perfectly possible to safely store nuclear waste for extended periods of time. Secondly, with proper investment much of it can be recycled, something that many countries do to varying degrees (but the US doesn't).

And of course, this wouldn't be a serious problem if we unlocked proper fusion power.

Actually Chernobyl had an effect on Russian life expectancy.

Actually, no, it didn't. Though it's quite amazing that people believe this, since Chernobyl isn't even *in* Russia, and the overwhelming majority of the fall-out didn't blow into Russia either. If you think that the Russian life expectancy was affected by contamination that covered only 0.33% of Russia, you obviously haven't thought it through. A UN Study from 2005 predicted a total of 9000 deaths to result from exposure to radiation from Chernobyl, across the entire affected area (and not just Russia); this number isn't near high enough to have a significant impact on Russia's life expectancy. Even the kind of high numbers claimed by Greenpeace (200,000, across the entire world, a number not taken very seriously) wouldn't have too much of an impact.

Don't lump me in with coal advocates. I have already posted sources indicating more than 125,000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl. These did not come from Greenpeace. The article charted life expectancy of Russians and affected other republics and clearly showed a decrease in life expectancy of these peoples. Not only that...the cause...lung cancer...not speculation...actual statistics. You are using a tobacco industry argument against something we have begun to understand...that some things are just not compatible with human beings...and most other animals. Increased radiation levels just happens to be one of them, along with tar from ciggies and pm10 from coal plants and heavy metals in our food and water and air. We will be changing how we use energy and also how much energy we use or we will die in large numbers and fall into civil chaos. It is already happening. The typhoon in the Philippines wiped a whole town off the map. Fukushima has dumped tons of radioactive pollution into the pacific and it is being incorporated into the food chain. These are not small matters. You mind appears too small to comprehend the gravity of the situation. Sorry about that. Maybe when you get a little OLDER you will come to understand better.

By opposing nuclear power, you lump yourself in with coal advocates.

The figure of 125,000 cancer deaths from Chernobyl is ridiculous, and there is no evidence to back it up; But if we accept it as accurate, for the sake of discussion, and if we say that instead of happening once in sixty years of nuclear power generation, that it happens once a decade (I know, we haven't had six such disasters; but then, the one we did have didn't kill 125,000, so this is pure hypothetical territory). With a hypothetical death toll of 750,000 people, over the entire life of the industry, nuclear would still be less deadly than coal as a means of electricity generation.

Your mind seems too addled by fear to grasp this, but it is nevertheless true - EVEN IF YOU WERE RIGHT - even if your horror stories about the dangers of nuclear power plants were true - it would STILL be a net positive for humanity to switch from coal to nuclear, EVEN BEFORE global warming is considered.

Just think about that.

Don't emote about it. Don't go off an a rant about the tobacco industry. Don't try to claim that your advanced age grants you some kind of special powers of intuition that makes thinking, or listening to anyone younger than you, unnecessary. Don't accept my more accurate figures - stick with the massively inflated numbers you seem to prefer, and THINK about what they imply.

EVEN IF your figures were right, your conclusion should STILL be that replacing coal with nuclear reduces that total non-greenhouse gas harm to humanity, AND would nearly halve the worlds carbon dioxide emissions.

Your opposition to nuclear power is advocacy for coal, whether you believe it or not; and it is advocacy for MORE injury, illness and death, and for continuing emissions of carbon dioxide. These are the REAL WORLD results of your position.

This thread is NOT ABOUT THE SUPERIORITY OF ONE FORM OF POISON OVER ANOTHER. It is about COP 20. You keep drinking the nuclear coolaide and trying to fit it into the equation where it doesn't belong. The answer is that we need to quit globe trotting and hustling cheap labor and get down to handing our own affairs and get off the fossil fuel horse. There is no pollution from the operation of photovoltaics and windmills and hydroelectric systems. It is time for us to make appropriate adjustments and your arguments are not helping.

Photovoltaics create more pollution (mostly during the manufacturing process) than nuclear power; They also kill more people (mostly during installation). Windmills and photovoltaics are also intermittent sources, which creates a number of new problems. Hydroelectric systems are not possible in most terrain, as they require very specific conditions of both topography and climate; and if you think hydro systems are safe, google 'Banqiao Dam' - that one accident makes Chernobyl look like a picnic; and unlike Chernobyl, it is not the only accident of its type ever to occur.

I completely agree that we need to get off fossil fuels; But it is YOUR arguments that are counter-productive here. YOU are the one who is NOT HELPING.

I asked you to THINK; but you couldn't bring yourself to do so, so you emoted instead. That's a shame. Because this is not a matter for opinion - the objective fact remains that nuclear power is the safest way to generate carbon neutral power; and the objective fact remains that humanity needs that power to live happy, healthy and reasonably long lives.

If you seriously think that "There is no pollution from the operation of photovoltaics and windmills and hydroelectric systems", then you REALLY need to get informed. The problem with confirmation bias is that you are so busy seeking information about how bad nuclear power is, that you seem to have forgotten to find out how bad your preferred alternatives are; Or you simply pretend that the alternative is to generate less power - while hypocritically continuing to use power, and its products and benefits, yourself.

I use very little power. What you are not understanding is that my statement is true. You just want to sell us poison and you know it. Photovoltaics and windmills and hydroelectric systems are not perfect, but their OPERATION (MOST OF THE TIME THEY EXIST IN THAT CONFIGURATION) CREATES NO EMISSIONS AND NO NUCLEAR CONTAMINATION. FACT....UNDERSTAND?

Your expectations of the delivery of huge power budgets for everyone are what is out of line here. It is possible for the media and the internet to produce widespread expectations given our earthly environment. It is these expectations that keep you at the energy trough demanding ever more energy and seeing in your theory of economy growth as the only healthy condition. These expectations are keeping us from studying reduction of energy usage. Coal or Nukes these should be primary targets for reductions. All power must be more precisely portioned and used more effectively for the human good. Now there is a good idea, but somehow I doubt you are willing to cooperate and that is why we keep hearing all this bullshit and this demand that we grow our production of a lot of needless junk for profit and pollute the planet from end to end in that pursuit.

Things will be changing and there won't be any stopping it. You seem to have never heard about the emperor who dared to order the tide to quit coming in. It really is a matter of making adjustments we have neglected to make and to accept that we need to change some of our thinking and goals. It is a BIG thing, not a little thing. It can be an obstacle to the future existence of our race..we must stop unsustainability and that includes stopping the production of long term dangerous toxic and radioactive pollutants which accumulate and crowd all life on the planet. That is your nuclear industry and your coal industry and most major industrial processes. We need to hone our skill producing quality lives for our people more than merely more consumptive lives. So think about that a bit before you go thumbing your nose at me for wanting a better more finely tuned world with healthier people with longer lives.

 

[arkirk]

You keep drinking the nuclear coolaide and trying to fit it into the equation where it doesn't belong. The answer is that we need to quit globe trotting and hustling cheap labor and get down to handing our own affairs and get off the fossil fuel horse. There is no pollution from the operation of photovoltaics and windmills and hydroelectric systems. It is time for us to make appropriate adjustments and your arguments are not helping.

You're drinking the green kool-aid.

Look at that chart I linked--all your means of generating power kill more than nuclear does.

As for photovoltaics: Nothing from it's operation but the cells don't last forever and people certainly do die obtaining the materials to make them. They also die falling while installing/servicing them.

Windmills: They also have to be manufactured. The fall danger is higher because they're higher up. And they kill a lot of birds.

Note that these two have major storage issues and the deaths involved from the production & maintenance of those systems are not included in that chart because it's only looking at the current grid.

Hydro: Still some deaths, quite a few if you count the one big dam failure. And the dams for hydro are far from environmentally benign.

It is far better to die in a PV plant or a wind generator manufacturing operation as the types of deaths you are referring to are not concomitant with pollution of the environment. These alternative systems do not poison the land where they are installed. They do have environmental effects and some of these deserve better mitigation than they are getting, but they are far ahead of coal or nuclear power. Maybe you could expend some of your great expertise in making these systems better in terms of efficiency and environmental effects to good effect. So far all I ever get from you is the lazy man's argument: There's nothing we can do about anything whether it is our disgraceful national penchant for war or our serial destruction of our planet. Perhaps you should look at the current repackaging of Chernobyl and its continuing repackaging several times a century and start multiplying that times the likelihood of more melt downs...ie Fukushima. Your vitriol toward environmentalists is not something worthy of hanging onto. It keeps you from being at peace with most of society and nature itself.