We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[Merle]

Uh, no, the entire nuclear reactor becomes unusable after 60 years. (World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2023. ) 212 reactors have already been decommissioned. I don't think that a single one of these intends to use the existing infrastructure to support a new reactor. It is all scrap at that point. The intention is to level the building and clear the land to be used for a new purpose. But the process is very slow, taking decades. Some power plants may be left as permanent junk. A few are scheduled to keep the existing buildings for the next client, but I don't think any is keeping any of the powerplant equipment. ( World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2023.)

Just because political realities have kept them from simply being reactor vessel replacements doesn't mean it's not possible.

Besides, things being replaced now are from the early days of reactors, a modern design would be far better. That doesn't mean that replacement of the whole system always needs to happen.

And every country on Earth is making the same mistake? All are leveling their old nuclear reactors completely down to the ground over a course of decades, other than a few that are planning to salvage the building shells and nothing else.

And if you came along and said, "Why don't you just pop a hole in the roof, pull out the old reactor, and put in a new one?" they would all slap their foreheads and ask why they didn't think of that? Is that the basic gist of this?

 

[Millrat]

Uh, no, the entire nuclear reactor becomes unusable after 60 years. (World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2023. ) 212 reactors have already been decommissioned. I don't think that a single one of these intends to use the existing infrastructure to support a new reactor. It is all scrap at that point. The intention is to level the building and clear the land to be used for a new purpose. But the process is very slow, taking decades. Some power plants may be left as permanent junk. A few are scheduled to keep the existing buildings for the next client, but I don't think any is keeping any of the powerplant equipment. ( World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2023.)

Just because political realities have kept them from simply being reactor vessel replacements doesn't mean it's not possible.

Besides, things being replaced now are from the early days of reactors, a modern design would be far better. That doesn't mean that replacement of the whole system always needs to happen.

And every country on Earth is making the same mistake? All are leveling their old nuclear reactors completely down to the ground over a course of decades, other than a few that are planning to salvage the building shells and nothing else.

And if you came along and said, "Why don't you just pop a hole in the roof, pull out the old reactor, and put in a new one?" they would all slap their foreheads and ask why they didn't think of that? Is that the basic gist of this?

The reason I chimed in on this thread is because I work at nuclear generating station. We’re currently refurbishing reactors that have been operating for almost fifty years and we’re not popping a hole in the roof to do so.

Like all other modern technologies, nuclear power generation will get more efficient and less expensive. Part of that is to collectively overcome decades of irrational fear.

 

[Merle]

The reason I chimed in on this thread is because I work at nuclear generating station. We’re currently refurbishing reactors that have been operating for almost fifty years and we’re not popping a hole in the roof to do so.

Like all other modern technologies, nuclear power generation will get more ef6arficient and less expensive. Part of that is to collectively overcome decades of irrational fear.

Great to have you input, Millrat.

With the refurbishing effort, how long do you expect the nuclear reactors you are refurbishing to last? 60 years? 100 years?

 

[steve_bank]

Millrat. Can a nuclear plnat be maintained indefinably?

 

[bilby]

until the population suddenly crashes from 12 billion to 1 billion due to mass starvation in a few decades?

The population isn't likely to reach 12 billion ever, unless something radical changes.

Mass starvation is a twentieth century problem; The last mass famine was the on the Live Aid concert was all about.

Today there are more people who suffer life threatening health problems from eating too much, than there are who suffer life threatening health problems from eating too little.

You are terrified by a scenario that is utterly implausible and hugely unlikely ever to arise.

 

[Millrat]

The reason I chimed in on this thread is because I work at nuclear generating station. We’re currently refurbishing reactors that have been operating for almost fifty years and we’re not popping a hole in the roof to do so.

Like all other modern technologies, nuclear power generation will get more ef6arficient and less expensive. Part of that is to collectively overcome decades of irrational fear.

Great to have you input, Millrat.

With the refurbishing effort, how long do you expect the nuclear reactors you are refurbishing to last? 60 years? 100 years?

25 more years for the critical components

 

[Millrat]

Millrat. Can a nuclear plnat be maintained indefinably?

No - same as any other major infrastructure.

 

[unapologetic]

The last mass famine was the on the Live Aid concert was all about.

More likely it was only the last one you heard about.
Perhaps things are better now, but populations grow to consume all available resources.
We fix the food shortage, population grows, fresh water gets short, fix water shortage, population grows, oil gets short,
fix oil shortage, population grows, food gets short again, and on and on...

 

[bilby]

The last mass famine was the on the Live Aid concert was all about.

More likely it was only the last one you heard about.

Feel free to cite a more recent one.

Likely it was the last one anyone heard about, what with no others having occurred since.

Of course, everything depends on the entirely subjective question of when a famine is a "mass" famine. It's all irrelevant to population, anyway - the cause of famine isn't population; It's war.

Ethiopa has had worse droughts since the one Bob Geldof sang about; It's had such droughts at a time when population was four times what it was before the Live Aid famine; And yet, with no sustained war, there was no widespread hunger.

The idea that population causes, or even contributes significantly to, famine is completely at odds with the evidence. It's one of those things that's so obvious you feel like you don't need to even bother looking at the evidence. But when you do, it's suddenly one of those ideas that's clearly nonsense.

Perhaps things are better now,

They are.

but populations grow to consume all available resources.

Apparently not. Since the introduction of the contraceptive pill, population growth has slowed despite increasing availability of resources.

We fix the food shortage, population grows, fresh water gets short, fix water shortage, population grows, oil gets short,
fix oil shortage, population grows, food gets short again, and on and on...

Population growth is steadily slowing, and is projected to stop in the nect two or three decades. Your concerns are forty years out of date.

https://ourworldindata.org/famines

...it is nonetheless very clear that in recent decades the presence of major life-taking famines has diminished significantly and abruptly as compared to earlier eras. This is not in anyway to underplay the very real risk facing the roughly 80 million people currently living in a state of crisis-level2 food insecurity and therefore requiring urgent action. Nevertheless, the parts of the world that continue to be at risk of famine represent a much more limited geographic area than in previous eras, and those famines that have occurred recently have typically been far less deadly – as we will go on to show in this topic page.

...

Thus, overall, we can see in the rapid decline of famine mortality one of the great accomplishments of our era, representing technological progress, economic development and the spread of stable democracies. Viewed in this light, however, it also serves to highlight the appalling continued presence of famines which are, in the modern world, entirely man-made.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To bilby's point...

 

[Swammerdami]

The idea that population causes, or even contributes significantly to, famine is completely at odds with the evidence. It's one of those things that's so obvious you feel like you don't need to even bother looking at the evidence. But when you do, it's suddenly one of those ideas that's clearly nonsense.

...it is nonetheless very clear that in recent decades the presence of major life-taking famines has diminished significantly and abruptly as compared to earlier eras. This is not in anyway to underplay the very real risk facing the roughly 80 million people currently living in a state of crisis-level2 food insecurity and therefore requiring urgent action. Nevertheless, the parts of the world that continue to be at risk of famine represent a much more limited geographic area than in previous eras, and those famines that have occurred recently have typically been far less deadly – as we will go on to show in this topic page.
...
Viewed in this light, however, it also serves to highlight the appalling continued presence of famines which are, in the modern world, entirely man-made.

This report -- https://www.wfp.org/global-hunger-crisis -- doesn't mention population and may seem to agree with bilby's claims.

The scale of the current global hunger and malnutrition crisis is enormous. WFP estimates – from 78 of the countries where it works (and where data is available) – that more than 333 million people are facing acute levels of food insecurity in 2023, and do not know where their next meal is coming from. This constitutes a staggering rise of almost 200 million people compared to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels.
...
Conflict is still the biggest driver of hunger, with 70 percent of the world's hungry people living in areas afflicted by war and violence. Events in Ukraine are further proof of how conflict feeds hunger – forcing people out of their homes, wiping out their sources of income and wrecking countries’ economies.

The climate crisis is one of the leading causes of the steep rise in global hunger. Climate shocks destroy lives, crops and livelihoods, and undermine people’s ability to feed themselves. Hunger will spiral out of control if the world fails to take immediate climate action.

Global fertilizer prices have climbed even faster than food prices, which remain at a ten-year high themselves. The effects of the war in Ukraine, including higher natural gas prices, have further disrupted global fertilizer production and exports – reducing supplies, raising prices and threatening to reduce harvests. High fertilizer prices could turn the current food affordability crisis into a food availability crisis, with production of maize, rice, soybean and wheat all falling in 2022.

HOWEVER, there was no need for expensive fertilizers when the Earth's human population was at a sustainable size. Diverse ecology has many advantages but is precluded by over-population.

 

[bigfield]

HOWEVER, there was no need for expensive fertilizers when the Earth's human population was at a sustainable size. Diverse ecology has many advantages but is precluded by over-population.

Can you point to a period of history where we had neither famines nor "expensive" fertilisers?

Pretty sure famines were commonplace even before the planet held a billion people. Which suggests that these "expensive" fertilisers were needed but simply not available.

 

[steve_bank]

Millrat. Can a nuclear plnat be maintained indefinably?

No - same as any other major infrastructure.

No long term radiation effects on materials?

 

[Swammerdami]

HOWEVER, there was no need for expensive fertilizers when the Earth's human population was at a sustainable size. Diverse ecology has many advantages but is precluded by over-population.

Can you point to a period of history where we had neither famines nor "expensive" fertilisers?

Pretty sure famines were commonplace even before the planet held a billion people. Which suggests that these "expensive" fertilisers were needed but simply not available.

You assume that fertilizers would have solved the problems (mainly weather or climate, e.g. too much or too little water, but also pests, e.g. locust swarms) that led to famine. I do not believe that is correct. Natural fertilizers are readily available in a balanced ecology. Artificial fertilizers are used to increase yield, obviously needed only to support high population densities.

 

[bilby]

HOWEVER, there was no need for expensive fertilizers when the Earth's human population was at a sustainable size.

Yes, there was.

As the routine occurrence of famines in that "sustainably sized" population attests.

There was a need; What there wasn't was the fertilizer - at any price.

What changed was that technologies were developed to produce large quantities of cheap fertilizer, in the form of the Cyanamide process in the 1890s, and the Haber-Bosch process a couple of decades later; And that the technologies were developed to transport the crop surpluses (in part due to these fertilizers) from places where the harvest had been good that year, to the places where it had not - railways and steamships in the 19th Century, and then Container ships and Bulk Carriers, and trucks and all-weather road networks in the 20th.

When the Earth's human population was "at a sustainable size", life was nasty, mean, brutish and short. No time in the past was a paradise (or even very pleasant) despite most of it containing comparatively minuscule human population by today's standards.

 

[bilby]

HOWEVER, there was no need for expensive fertilizers when the Earth's human population was at a sustainable size. Diverse ecology has many advantages but is precluded by over-population.

Can you point to a period of history where we had neither famines nor "expensive" fertilisers?

Pretty sure famines were commonplace even before the planet held a billion people. Which suggests that these "expensive" fertilisers were needed but simply not available.

You assume that fertilizers would have solved the problems (mainly weather or climate, e.g. too much or too little water, but also pests, e.g. locust swarms) that led to famine. I do not believe that is correct. Natural fertilizers are readily available in a balanced ecology. Artificial fertilizers are used to increase yield, obviously needed only to support high population densities.

It's only obvious that increased yield is to support high population densities, if you assume that food will be consumed near where it was produced - as was almost invariably the case until the nineteenth century.

Population density is no longer relevant to food production, as a consequence of improved transportation, which has allowed the population to become more concentrated (people now mostly live in big cities); And this has had the effect of reducing human impact on our environment. Cities are highly efficient in their resource use, and provide more stuff to their inhabitants than is available in rural areas, while having far fewer resources used per capita.

In short, living in the countryside sucks, because everything is more expensive, and there are no decent foreign restaurants.

Cost is a pretty effective proxy for resource use; And to provide niche services (like Nepalese cuisine*) that are only demanded by one person in a thousand, you need thousands of people living within a few minutes travel of your business.

High population density was a boon, even before high population was a thing. Cities were invented very shortly after the invention of farming, and have been with us ever since.




*Or Czech cuisine, if you happen to live in Kathmandu, where Nepalese cuisine is easily found, but Czech cuisine is foreign and exotic. Czech Pub Nepal is located at Chaksibari Marka, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal.

 

[bigfield]

HOWEVER, there was no need for expensive fertilizers when the Earth's human population was at a sustainable size. Diverse ecology has many advantages but is precluded by over-population.

Can you point to a period of history where we had neither famines nor "expensive" fertilisers?

Pretty sure famines were commonplace even before the planet held a billion people. Which suggests that these "expensive" fertilisers were needed but simply not available.

You assume that fertilizers would have solved the problems (mainly weather or climate, e.g. too much or too little water, but also pests, e.g. locust swarms) that led to famine. I do not believe that is correct. Natural fertilizers are readily available in a balanced ecology. Artificial fertilizers are used to increase yield, obviously needed only to support high population densities.

I don't assume that, although I did overlook the fact the the pre-industrial world lacked modern supply chains, and wouldn't be able to move food long distances from productive farmland to places without.

 

[Millrat]

Millrat. Can a nuclear plnat be maintained indefinably?

No - same as any other major infrastructure.

No long term radiation effects on materials?

On some materials close to the fission process, sure.

 

[steve_bank]

Ships going back to ancient civilizations provided supply chains. Caravans.

The Mediterranean was crisscrossed with shipping routes.Wrecks have been found with wine and olive oil jugs.

19th century Yankee Clipper were fast sail powered cargo ships.

Clipper - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Our technology based modern global trade is the logical conclusion of thousands of years of trade and economic expansion.

Today drones drop packages at your front door. Pizza within 15 or 20 minutes.

 

[Merle]

Mass starvation is a twentieth century problem; The last mass famine was the on the Live Aid concert was all about.

Today there are more people who suffer life threatening health problems from eating too much, than there are who suffer life threatening health problems from eating too little.

You are terrified by a scenario that is utterly implausible and hugely unlikely ever to arise.

[SATIRE]

Have faith! As it is written:

1 Nuclear Power is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He maketh me to lie down in the Green Revolution: he leadeth me beside the desalinated waters.
3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of industry for his name's sake.
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of apocalyptic predictions, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy control rods and thy cooling towers they comfort me.
5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of the doomsters: thou fillest my car with synthetic oil; my tank runneth over.
6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell next to a nuclear power plant for ever.
Amen
-- Psalm 23, Saint Bilby Version

Yes, and how do we explain that 212 nuclear plants have been closed, and that few are being built? We now have 31 reactors less than the peak in 2002. Those nuclear plants that are still running are plagued with maintenance issues and frequently require government subsidies to keep them running.

Have faith!

17 Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls:
18 Yet I will rejoice in Nuclear Power, I will joy in the God of my salvation.
19 Nuclear Power is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds' feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places.

-- Habakkuk 3:17-19, Saint Bilby Version

You see, our religion also believes there is a Satan: Government Regulations. Bind Satan, and all will be will. For it is written:

1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on government regulations, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled:
-- Revelation 20:1-3 King Bilby Version

[/SATIRE]

Nuclear energy is important. We need it. It is part of our future energy mix.

But we need to keep our heads grounded in reality. See World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2023.