The Remarkable Progress of Renewable Energy

[bilby]

Well, and ignoring secondary death related to nuclear energy and weapons. Many miners have died and are dying from cancers caused by their mining activities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#United_States

Despite efforts made in cleaning up uranium sites, significant problems stemming from the legacy of uranium development still exist today on the Navajo Nation and in the states of Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. Hundreds of abandoned mines have not been cleaned up and present environmental and health risks in many communities.^[53]

FFS.

WEAPONS ARE NOT A POWER SOURCE.

POWER PLANTS ARE NOT WEAPONS.

Conflating the problems of the two is dishonest and reprehensible. You should be seriously ashamed of yourself.

Unless, of course, you refuse to drive a gasoline powered car because of the horrors of napalm - in which case you may be a fucking idiot, but at least you aren't a hypocrite.

When you have to resort to this kind of dishonesty to make a case, it makes people think that you really don't have an honest case to make.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Yes, WEAPONS ARE NOT A POWER SOURCE. But I was mentioning the problems of mining uranium. Which was mined for both wearpons and nuclear weapons. You seemed to have missed the point here. Do we think in the days of Trump/GOP whole sale crusade of deregulation things will be getting better in regard to the mining problem we have here in the US?

 

[Tigers!]

Yes, WEAPONS ARE NOT A POWER SOURCE. But I was mentioning the problems of mining uranium. Which was mined for both wearpons and nuclear weapons and some power plants. You seemed to have missed the point here. Do we think in the days of Trump/GOP whole sale crusade of deregulation things will be getting better in regard to the mining problem we have here in the US?

FIFY

 

[steve_bank]

Energy is power. National power and corporate power.

Since WWII the unwritten quid pro quo with the Saudis was we provide security and they keep oil flowing at reasonable prices. Alternative energy is a direct threat to the Saudis. Most in the country are paid directly or indirectly from oil revenue, and they can have a serious cash flow problem when oil prices drop.

Alternative energy decentralized to the home and community level is a serious threat to centralized power and corporate profit and control.

 

[bilby]

Yes, WEAPONS ARE NOT A POWER SOURCE. But I was mentioning the problems of mining uranium. Which was mined for both wearpons and nuclear weapons. You seemed to have missed the point here. Do we think in the days of Trump/GOP whole sale crusade of deregulation things will be getting better in regard to the mining problem we have here in the US?

The problems of mining uranium are real, but if you care about mining problems, you will find that the harm per unit of power generation is FAR lower for uranium mining than for any other power source - including wind and solar.

So you are saying that if you cannot have complete perfection, and if historically there were serious problems, you would rather have much larger and more serious current problems, that you can comfortably ignore.

That's batshit fucking crazy.

The 'Trump factor' of course also applies to other mined resources in the USA, and even the worst US mines are better than the best Chinese mines that produce your wind tubine and solar panel components.

But maybe you don't care about Chinese mineworkers today, and only about the unpleasant early history of uranium mining in the US (which by the way was almost entirely driven be demand for WEAPONS).

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Again, are we building plants in the US? No. The US screwed around for decades and is now woefully behind in design of cheap, reliable modern reactor designs. The old way of doing this is dead in the water because cost, cost over runs and high operating costs. And seeming inability to actually build a plant without botching it totally at great cost. It will take years to create designs, get financing and actually build them. And it may not be doable without massive subsidiaries from the US government. Which in the future may not be possible with the massive deficits the GOP is plunging us into today.

Sorry, but this is the reality on the ground here. Nuclear is not coming to the rescue for years, even decades. Meanwhile, renewables forges on, sometimes hampered by political sabotage by conservatives in some areas. Nuclear plants will not be springing up like toadstools anytime soon. But here in Texas, wind power generators are. Renewables are doable cost effective and in some states, are moving fast while nuclear is dead in the water for the immediate future. Because they are beginning to do the hard work and making nuclear viable which the industry neglected to do years ago when that needed to be done.

That is the reality here. Nobody is waiting for nuclear.

 

[bilby]

Again, are we building plants in the US? No. The US screwed around for decades and is now woefully behind in design of cheap, reliable modern reactor designs. The old way of doing this is dead in the water because cost, cost over runs and high operating costs. And seeming inability to actually build a plant without botching it totally at great cost. It will take years to create designs, get financing and actually build them. And it may not be doable without massive subsidiaries from the US government. Which in the future may not be possible with the massive deficits the GOP is plunging us into today.

Sorry, but this is the reality on the ground here. Nuclear is not coming to the rescue for years, even decades. Meanwhile, renewables forges on, sometimes hampered by political sabotage by conservatives in some areas. Nuclear plants will not be springing up like toadstools anytime soon. But here in Texas, wind power generators are. Renewables are doable cost effective and in some states, are moving fast while nuclear is dead in the water for the immediate future. Because they are beginning to do the hard work and making nuclear viable which the industry neglected to do years ago when that needed to be done.

That is the reality here. Nobody is waiting for nuclear.

You are right - Americans are clearly fucking incompetent. Fortunately you are only 5% of the world. China, India, and many South East Asian nations are in the process of building new nuclear power plants, so clearly they are better at it than the Americans - Perhaps you guys should bring in some South Koreans to show you how it is done.

Regardless of your nation's incompetence, it remains true that if we are to have any hope of mitigating climate change, nuclear power will need to be a very significant part of our future energy mix. Opposition to nuclear power is demonstrably extremely harmful both to human life and to the environment - and yet many of the opponents of this technology like to think of themselves as humanists and environmentalists. Truly we live in a post-factual society, when "humanists" block the replacement of lethal coal with far less dangerous nuclear plants, and "environmentalists" tolerate the burning of vast quantities of gas and coal, rather than support a proven low carbon energy source.

 

[steve_bank]

Actually China is the biggest consumer of solar panels. They have projects developing solar power transportation systems.

China built the largest hydro system in the world.

They are taking an integrated approach.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If commercial aviation was as safe as nuclear power, there would have been just three plane crashes in the last sixty years, only one of which caused any fatalities.

Disagree--for "as safe as" you need to compare airframes to reactors, not industry to industry. Scaling this (looking at current numbers, not totals--and I think my numbers include cargo aircraft) I get 900 crashes. That's still 60% below the airliner numbers, though.

But I tend to agree; Regulations to minimise risk are a good thing. We need sufficient regulation in the other power generation industries to bring their death and accident rates down to the same order of magnitude as nuclear.

Of course, that would make fossil fuel generation prohibitively expensive. But that's OK; We have safe alternatives. Wind and solar only need to become about five or ten times as safe as they are now, so that's achievable.

I doubt the risk of either could be brought down to nuclear levels. Most of those fatalities are falls and there's a limit to what you can do about falls in exposed locations.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Cher noble, Fukishima, Three Mile Island.

Aircraft and nuclear safety is a false dichotomy. Staring in the 30s the deaths and casualties per 1000 hours of flight or per number of flights per year have dropped to a vey small value.

The actual failure rate of commercial jets are tiny. How many nukes gave been built since 1960 and how nanny failures and problems have occurred.

Nuke is still ahead.

And note that Three Mile Island was more akin to a ground traffic accident than a jetliner crash. The NRC stepped in (some of their people happened to be on site) and managed to wreck the reactor. The radiation release was trivial, though--if you were living right at the fence it was more dangerous to cross one street than to stay put. (Note, also, that the radiation that was released was normally released, just at a time when the weather was more favorable. It's not deemed worthwhile to try to contain the Krypton forever, it's normally released when the wind will blow it away from population centers.)

- - - Updated - - -

Well, and ignoring secondary death related to nuclear energy and weapons. Many miners have died and are dying from cancers caused by their mining activities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#United_States

Despite efforts made in cleaning up uranium sites, significant problems stemming from the legacy of uranium development still exist today on the Navajo Nation and in the states of Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. Hundreds of abandoned mines have not been cleaned up and present environmental and health risks in many communities.^[53]

Black Lung would like to have a word with you.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Solar and wind want to have a word with your black lung coal habit. And it's particulate matter pollution. It has been estimated that here in Texas, renewables will long term all but replace coal all together.

http://ieefa.org/ieefa-report-begin...city-industry-rising-competition-wind-solar
/

IEEFA Report: ‘Beginning of the End’ of Texas Coal-Fired Electricity Industry; Rising Competition From Wind and Solar


 

[steve_bank]

If nukes are so safe would you live and raise kids down the street from one without hesitation? I doubt even hard core nuke supporters would not have some hesitation.

 

[Worldtraveller]

If nukes are so safe would you live and raise kids down the street from one without hesitation? I doubt even hard core nuke supporters would not have some hesitation.

This is a dumb comparison.

I wouldn't want to "live" next to a nuclear plant, but I wouldn't want to live next to any of our current coal/gas plants, either. I would support building a nuclear plant in most locations where it's deemed safe for coal or gas, though.

I would prefer that we still go with an integrated plan that uses nuke, wind and solar in a combined, intelligent manner, but that's daydreaming.

 

[bilby]

If nukes are so safe would you live and raise kids down the street from one without hesitation? I doubt even hard core nuke supporters would not have some hesitation.

This is a dumb comparison.

I wouldn't want to "live" next to a nuclear plant, but I wouldn't want to live next to any of our current coal/gas plants, either. I would support building a nuclear plant in most locations where it's deemed safe for coal or gas, though.

I would prefer that we still go with an integrated plan that uses nuke, wind and solar in a combined, intelligent manner, but that's daydreaming.

It's an incredibly dumb comment on any number of levels. Certainly I would have no problem with living right next to a nuclear power plant. The only concerns I would have would be purely cosmetic - industrial sites are not particularly pretty. But I wouldn't waste a nanosecond on worrying about safety - nuclear plants are the safest industrial facilities ever, by a huge margin. It would make FAR more sense to worry about living next door to a large warehouse facility - all that truck traffic is a real hazard.

I certainly wouldn't want to live close to a coal power plant, particularly not in the prevailing downwind direction.

This challenge is the anti-nuclear campaign equivalent of the fundy Christian challenge that even the most committed atheist wouldn't dare sell their soul. It's nonsense based on nonsense founded in nonsense. But for some reason they imagine it to be a hugely compelling thought experiment.

It boils down to "I have a massive irrational fear of this, so you must be lying when you say you are unafraid".

Fuck off.

 

[steve_bank]

If nukes are so safe would you live and raise kids down the street from one without hesitation? I doubt even hard core nuke supporters would not have some hesitation.

This is a dumb comparison.

I wouldn't want to "live" next to a nuclear plant, but I wouldn't want to live next to any of our current coal/gas plants, either. I would support building a nuclear plant in most locations where it's deemed safe for coal or gas, though.

I would prefer that we still go with an integrated plan that uses nuke, wind and solar in a combined, intelligent manner, but that's daydreaming.

Why not nukers? They are indeed safe from a local daily operation perspective. No gas and particulate emissions. Only water vapor from cooling towers. Radiation is indistinguishable from background.

Why the hesitation about nukes? You can't claim nukes are safe to the environment and adopt a 'not in my backyard mentality'.They are safe, but I think they are not aesthetically pleasing...that is a new one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If nukes are so safe would you live and raise kids down the street from one without hesitation? I doubt even hard core nuke supporters would not have some hesitation.

Heavy industry does not belong in residential neighborhoods, period.

However, if there had to be a major power plant nearby I'd prefer it be nuclear.

 

[steve_bank]

If nukes are so safe would you live and raise kids down the street from one without hesitation? I doubt even hard core nuke supporters would not have some hesitation.

Heavy industry does not belong in residential neighborhoods, period.

However, if there had to be a major power plant nearby I'd prefer it be nuclear.

It is not heavy industry, there is no pollution, there are no heavy trucks or trains bringing in coal, there is no danger of a natural gas explosion, and there is no noise. There is no worker traffic burden.

So we just need to make a nuke plant aesthetically pleasing.

I think we should put a large array of nukes in north Canada where it is always cold, makes colling easier.

 

[Worldtraveller]

If nukes are so safe would you live and raise kids down the street from one without hesitation? I doubt even hard core nuke supporters would not have some hesitation.

Heavy industry does not belong in residential neighborhoods, period.

However, if there had to be a major power plant nearby I'd prefer it be nuclear.

It is not heavy industry, there is no pollution, there are no heavy trucks or trains bringing in coal, there is no danger of a natural gas explosion, and there is no noise. There is no worker traffic burden.

So we just need to make a nuke plant aesthetically pleasing.

I think we should put a large array of nukes in north Canada where it is always cold, makes colling easier.

Now you're just fabricating a new reality for yourself. I'm going to assume that you either can't/won't change your opinion based on facts, or your intentionally trolling.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If nukes are so safe would you live and raise kids down the street from one without hesitation? I doubt even hard core nuke supporters would not have some hesitation.

Heavy industry does not belong in residential neighborhoods, period.

However, if there had to be a major power plant nearby I'd prefer it be nuclear.

It is not heavy industry, there is no pollution, there are no heavy trucks or trains bringing in coal, there is no danger of a natural gas explosion, and there is no noise. There is no worker traffic burden.

So we just need to make a nuke plant aesthetically pleasing.

I think we should put a large array of nukes in north Canada where it is always cold, makes colling easier.

Anything dealing with gigawatts of power, no matter what the form, is heavy industry in my book.

There's also the security zone around it. It's better to separate areas that warrant armed guards and explosive defenses from areas frequented by kids.

 

[bilby]

It is not heavy industry, there is no pollution, there are no heavy trucks or trains bringing in coal, there is no danger of a natural gas explosion, and there is no noise. There is no worker traffic burden.

So we just need to make a nuke plant aesthetically pleasing.

I think we should put a large array of nukes in north Canada where it is always cold, makes colling easier.

Anything dealing with gigawatts of power, no matter what the form, is heavy industry in my book.

There's also the security zone around it. It's better to separate areas that warrant armed guards and explosive defenses from areas frequented by kids.

Those defences are absurd. Nuclear plants in sane countries are lightly defended, as they are poor targets for any kind of attack. A high fence to stop kids from getting close to high voltage switchgear is necessary; and sufficient.