Methane Hydrates - Interview with Natalia Shakhova

[bilby]

But don't let the fact that you are wrong about the trivial part of my analogy distract you from focusing on ignoring the important part.

Weapons have nothing to do with power generation. The only reasons to conflate the two are dishonesty or incompetence.

When you get a bone you concentrate on it without exception. I conceded the power/weapons point. Your current post suggests you missed that.

Thanks for playing.

Can I take it that this is as close as you can get to saying 'Sorry for being snarky, bilby, I now concede that you were correct on all points'?

I reiterated my main point, because you seemed to have buried it in your haste to dismiss my (completely apt) analogy. And because it is worth saying very clearly, very loudly, and very often. The world might depend on killing the idea that nuclear power is dangerous; and many people believe it to be precisely because of the dishonest conflation of power with weapons by the anti-nuclear propagandists.

 

[fromderinside]

When you get a bone you concentrate on it without exception. I conceded the power/weapons point. Your current post suggests you missed that.

Thanks for playing.

Can I take it that this is as close as you can get to saying 'Sorry for being snarky, bilby, I now concede that you were correct on all points'?

I reiterated my main point, because you seemed to have buried it in your haste to dismiss my (completely apt) analogy. And because it is worth saying very clearly, very loudly, and very often. The world might depend on killing the idea that nuclear power is dangerous; and many people believe it to be precisely because of the dishonest conflation of power with weapons by the anti-nuclear propagandists.

There are other, less lethal, ways to boil water to make turbines turn causing electromagnetic field motions to produce electrons. Using the sun in a mirror field is one pretty good example.

Aside from that little point you're analysis only misses the human element in a complex physical stew called nuclear energy. Whether it be bad human factors, poor training, politics or religion - Iran for instance - nuclear power always risks conversion to weaponry. From there brings all the risks attendant to those elements of my position which included the military.

Hanford, by the way, has been a civilian national enterprise since the forming of AEC.

I'll grant your wish with only one caveat. That is nuclear energy is safe if it is well maintained and implemented and buffered from political interference. For the most part it is failures of those aspects that have lead to most 'accidents' and breakdowns in nuclear energy.

I fear NE specifically because it can be weaponized from commercial production capabilities. Its not whether commercial plants will generate a catastrophic atomic explosion, they won't and a hot core won't cause the earth to blowup or even hiccup if it does melt down. Its whether nations will chose to weaponize those plants when political times are hard.

 

[bilby]

Can I take it that this is as close as you can get to saying 'Sorry for being snarky, bilby, I now concede that you were correct on all points'?

I reiterated my main point, because you seemed to have buried it in your haste to dismiss my (completely apt) analogy. And because it is worth saying very clearly, very loudly, and very often. The world might depend on killing the idea that nuclear power is dangerous; and many people believe it to be precisely because of the dishonest conflation of power with weapons by the anti-nuclear propagandists.

There are other, less lethal, ways to boil water to make turbines turn causing electromagnetic field motions to produce electrons. Using the sun in a mirror field is one pretty good example.

There hasn't been enough power generation using that specific solar technique to assess its level of safety when deployed on a large scale; but rooftop solar power has caused about two or three times as many fatalities per TWh as nuclear power. I believe that you are, quite simply, wrong, but am happy to reconsider if you can provide a source showing such facilities with full cycle fatality rates below nuclear's 0.04 per TWh.

Not that solar power is dangerous - it certainly isn't. But no large engineering endeavour is without risk.

(Source)

Aside from that little point you're analysis only misses the human element in a complex physical stew called nuclear energy. Whether it be bad human factors, poor training, politics or religion - Iran for instance - nuclear power always risks conversion to weaponry. From there brings all the risks attendant to those elements of my position which included the military.

Hanford, by the way, has been a civilian national enterprise since the forming of AEC.

The facility was designed and built for the purpose of making bombs.

I'll grant your wish with only one caveat. That is nuclear energy is safe if it is well maintained and implemented and buffered from political interference. For the most part it is failures of those aspects that have lead to most 'accidents' and breakdowns in nuclear energy.

I fear NE specifically because it can be weaponized from commercial production capabilities. Its not whether commercial plants will generate a catastrophic atomic explosion, they won't and a hot core won't cause the earth to blowup or even hiccup if it does melt down. Its whether nations will chose to weaponize those plants when political times are hard.

The enrichment effort needed to make nuclear weapons is the limiting factor in places like Iran getting a bomb. Having a modern commercial power reactor without such technology is useless, and if they have the centrifuges or other enrichment technology needed for making bombs, then a commercial power reactor is needless - they can start with natural uranium.

Your fears are misplaced. Making bombs doesn't need commercial power reactors, as is obvious from the fact that the bomb was developed in 1945, and the first nuclear power stations didn't come online for a further nine years.

As a very wise person once said, "Fear is man's real problem".

 

[fromderinside]

As a very wise person once said, "Fear is man's real problem".

Damn. Here I am thanks to my own petard again.

Still. If, as the very wise man writes "fear is man's real problem" why shouldn't we factor those elements where fear is pretty certain to intervene in a process into the overall plan and implementation of it.

IOW I am rational considering where fear need be countered in implementation of nuclear power.

As the US determined it is much cheaper in the long run to use more enriched nuclear product in generating nuclear power with a reactor can produce high grade plutonium can be used for both commercial and military purposes.

In fact the stat of Washington began to build three enriching plutonium reactor power plants at Hanford in the late 60's (WPSSS). Rate payers lost a bundle when attitudes turned against the project because of bad management and bad science which lifted the cork loosened when my friend and neighbor, David Pesonen recruited a Seismologist Pierre St. Amand to study the Bodega Head nuclear project site.

From: U.S. citizens prevent construction of nuclear power plant in Bodega Bay, California 1962-64 http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/co...ear-power-plant-bodega-bay-california-1962-64

He visited the site with county member Doris Sloan and, after a two-day trip viewing the fault line, concluded that “a worse foundation condition would be tough to envision.” Amand communicated his conclusions to Gilliam at the Department of the Interior.

from: Forces of Nature http://theforcesofnature.com/movies/david-pesonen/

At the Bodega Head north of San Francisco, California, one can observe the actual "Hole in the Head" where PG&E had excavated the footings for the nuclear plant right alongside the San Andreas Fault.

The footings to be right along side the San Andreas fault.

So I guess I have to add greed which leads to cheating as another one of man's problems related to nuclear power.

Yeah, I'm just a naive little old man who knows nothing worrying about something I shouldn't be worrying about.

Items so far:


Stupidity/fear
1. Site production of enriched uranium and plutonium to be far away from separation (Oak Ridge) for security. No study of problems associated with seismic activity or proximity to river (actually river considered good source of water). Now temps are up more than three degrees along the Columbia north of Tri-cities because of leaks which is being cleaned up at a cost of over 40-80 billion dollars some 70 years later.

Greed/fear
1. California pubic power hid studies and findings from public about Bodega bay including nearness of site to
San Andrea fault


Just plain stupidity and arrogance
1. Oh and lets not forget  Semipalatinsk Test Site

The Soviet Union conducted last tests in 1989.^[9] After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the site was neglected. Unguarded fissile material was left behind in mountain tunnels and bore holes, virtually unguarded and vulnerable to scavengers, rogue states, or potential terrorists. The story of the secret cleanup of Semipalatinsk has recently been made public, and is a testament to cooperation among countries: Kazakhstan, Russia and the United States worked together for 15 years to secure the former test site, which is bigger than the American state of New Jersey.^[10]

After some of the tests, radioactive material remained on the now abandoned area, including significant amounts of plutonium. The risk that material might fall into the hands of scavengers or terrorists was considered one of the largest nuclear security threats since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This involved, in part, pouring special concrete into test holes, to bind the waste plutonium. In other cases, horizontal mine test holes were sealed and the entrances covered over. Finally in October 2012, Kazakh, Russian, and American nuclear scientists and engineers completed a secret 17-year, $150 million operation to secure the plutonium in the tunnels of the mountains.^[

Again most of this is military and business (same mentality?)

So here are several years after Japan reactors are still leaking into the Pacific and groundwater arguing about its safe and we know what to do.

 

[bilby]

Damn. Here I am thanks to my own petard again.

Still. If, as the very wise man writes "fear is man's real problem" why shouldn't we factor those elements where fear is pretty certain to intervene in a process into the overall plan and implementation of it.

IOW I am rational considering where fear need be countered in implementation of nuclear power.

As the US determined it is much cheaper in the long run to use more enriched nuclear product in generating nuclear power with a reactor can produce high grade plutonium can be used for both commercial and military purposes.

In fact the stat of Washington began to build three enriching plutonium reactor power plants at Hanford in the late 60's (WPSSS). Rate payers lost a bundle when attitudes turned against the project because of bad management and bad science which lifted the cork loosened when my friend and neighbor, David Pesonen recruited a Seismologist Pierre St. Amand to study the Bodega Head nuclear project site.

From: U.S. citizens prevent construction of nuclear power plant in Bodega Bay, California 1962-64 http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/co...ear-power-plant-bodega-bay-california-1962-64

He visited the site with county member Doris Sloan and, after a two-day trip viewing the fault line, concluded that “a worse foundation condition would be tough to envision.” Amand communicated his conclusions to Gilliam at the Department of the Interior.

from: Forces of Nature http://theforcesofnature.com/movies/david-pesonen/

At the Bodega Head north of San Francisco, California, one can observe the actual "Hole in the Head" where PG&E had excavated the footings for the nuclear plant right alongside the San Andreas Fault.

The footings to be right along side the San Andreas fault.

So I guess I have to add greed which leads to cheating as another one of man's problems related to nuclear power.

Yeah, I'm just a naive little old man who knows nothing worrying about something I shouldn't be worrying about.

Items so far:


Stupidity/fear
1. Site production of enriched uranium and plutonium to be far away from separation (Oak Ridge) for security. No study of problems associated with seismic activity or proximity to river (actually river considered good source of water). Now temps are up more than three degrees along the Columbia north of Tri-cities because of leaks which is being cleaned up at a cost of over 40-80 billion dollars some 70 years later.

Greed/fear
1. California pubic power hid studies and findings from public about Bodega bay including nearness of site to
San Andrea fault


Just plain stupidity and arrogance
1. Oh and lets not forget  Semipalatinsk Test Site

The Soviet Union conducted last tests in 1989.^[9] After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the site was neglected. Unguarded fissile material was left behind in mountain tunnels and bore holes, virtually unguarded and vulnerable to scavengers, rogue states, or potential terrorists. The story of the secret cleanup of Semipalatinsk has recently been made public, and is a testament to cooperation among countries: Kazakhstan, Russia and the United States worked together for 15 years to secure the former test site, which is bigger than the American state of New Jersey.^[10]

After some of the tests, radioactive material remained on the now abandoned area, including significant amounts of plutonium. The risk that material might fall into the hands of scavengers or terrorists was considered one of the largest nuclear security threats since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This involved, in part, pouring special concrete into test holes, to bind the waste plutonium. In other cases, horizontal mine test holes were sealed and the entrances covered over. Finally in October 2012, Kazakh, Russian, and American nuclear scientists and engineers completed a secret 17-year, $150 million operation to secure the plutonium in the tunnels of the mountains.^[

Again most of this is military and business (same mentality?)

So here are several years after Japan reactors are still leaking into the Pacific and groundwater arguing about its safe and we know what to do.

OK, I get it. You are terrified and irrational on this matter.

I know people who refuse to be in the same room as moths too. It's sad. But not a basis for policy.

By the way, nobody has, nor likely ever will, die due to radiation in the Pacific from Fukushima Daiichi. A number of people have died due to dioxins (and various other carcinogenic and toxic materials) released into the Pacific from chemical plants damaged by the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami.

Nobody talks about those deaths due to the chemical industry; but apparently radioactive material that is a literal drop in the ocean is of worldwide concern. This is not reasonable not rational - but fear sells newspapers, so here we are.

This derail has gone on long enough. and you have merely proven my point - people would rather face an actual disaster than accept nuclear power, despite the undeniable (but oft denied anyway) fact that nuclear power is the safest way to make electricity. This is exactly as rational as my sister choosing to be late for a job interview because she thinks she might have seen a moth in the bathroom.

Please feel free to tell us more about how poor decisions made by the military in pursuit of bombs means that vaguely related mature technologies that have an exemplary safety record over six decades render nuclear power unthinkable; I have rebutted your position completely and thoroughly, and don't intend to continue this derail. The last word is yours if you want it.

 

[fromderinside]

Just one comment on your comment. You took longer to congratulate yourself than did I to provide one last attempt to keep reason in the discussion.

Thanks for reading and responding.*

*I don't walk the sky bridge over Peach Tree Center in Atlanta either.

 

[Thomas II]

Good derail! Well, let's all move along now...

 

[barbos]

• The meltdown is accelerating and could become unstoppable as early as Sept 2015
• Immediate action must be taken to refreeze the Arctic to halt runaway melting
• Greenhouse gas emissions reduction, however drastic, cannot solve this problem
• Calculations show that powerful interventions are needed to cool the Arctic
• Any delay escalates the risk of failure
• Arctic meltdown is a catastrophic threat for civilization.

How can they refreeze the Arctic?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)