Water leaks from Onagawa nuclear plant

[jprad]

Quote from dcraig:

This immense scale of pollution (nearly 1kg CO2 per kWh for coal) does not happen because of accidents - it is the normal way these industries operate.

For every KG of CO2 produced by power plants there are 3kg produced from sources that nuclear power will not affect.

Worse, 20 years from now China by itself will generate more CO2 than the world combined does today and you're still going to be faced with the same 3:1 ratio.

Nuclear power is not a solution, it's a problem due to our inability to come up with safe disposal program capable of lasting millennia.

 

[jprad]

Quote from dcraig:

Generating electricity is both expensive and capital intensive - whatever the technology. To get any real understanding you have to compare apples to apples not apples to some pundits idea of what is expensive. But anti-nukes just wave around big numbers for nuclear, dishonestly avoiding comparative analysis. This is exactly what the linked article does.

NUCLEAR POWER:
Still Not Viable without Subsidies
Union of Concerned Scientists
February 2011
In total, we estimate the value of legacy subsidies to nuclear power were at least 7.5 ¢/kWh—equivalent to nearly 140 percent or more of the value of the power produced from 1960 to 2008. In other words, the value of government subsidies to the first generation of nuclear reactors actually exceeded the value of the power produced by those plants.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf

Nuclear Power: Clean, Safe & Cheap.

Yep, tell me another one, Mr. Nuke Apologist...

 

[dcraig]

Quote from jprad:

For every KG of CO2 produced by power plants there are 3kg produced from sources that nuclear power will not affect.

This extensive IAE report on CO2 emissions shows electricity generation and heating to dominate CO2 emissions at about 40% of emissions. Transport and industry in that order are the next biggest emitters.

http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf

See table "CO2 emissions by sector in 2008"

For this reason and the need to move transport and industry away from direct fossil fuel use to electricity use, low emission electricity is pivotal to meaningful emissions reductions. Much more important than any other factor.

I find it disingenuous that anti-nukes bring up arguments that "electricity is responsible for only x% of emissions".

 

[futuman]

Quote from jprad:



Nuclear Power: Clean, Safe & Cheap.

Yep, tell me another one, Mr. Nuke Apologist...

You know, it's easier to turn a muslim to a buddhist than to get a nuke believer to rethink his agenda.

Anyway, it should thrive a hell out of everyone to think there's several new Fukushimas in places like Vietnam, Indonesia or on top of all, Bangladesh.

 

[benwm]

When they build a nuclear plant, they should really also be forced to buy up every plot of land within 20-30km of the plant.

Because when the inevitable nuclear disaster occurs every few years, anywhere within 20-30km becomes uninhabitable for humans. When you factor this into the 'real' cost of nuclear, it doesn't seem so cheap. This shouldn't be a problem for the nuclear industry because they usually build them on out of the way, derelict sites, where the land is plentiful and cheap. So make them pay the real cost for their plants.

Yes, technology has improved, but it has not improved enough to deal with the cleanup operations. It would be folly to build an improved version of a Ferrari if you hadn't yet figured out the brake system...

If the technology is good enough, why are they not able to cool the Fukishima reactors, weeks after the quake? Why are men in white suits having to risk their lives on the cleanup operation? Why isn't the heavy lifting being done by robots? Did the nuclear industry only just think about this?

Until robots can conduct 90% of the cleanup operation - no humans required at all - the technology is not yet good enough for nuclear.

 

[jlancaster]

Quote from benwm:

Until robots can conduct 90% of the cleanup operation - no humans required at all - the technology is not yet good enough for nuclear.

That makes a lot of sense.

 

[jprad]

Quote from dcraig:

This extensive IAE report on CO2 emissions shows electricity generation and heating to dominate CO2 emissions at about 40% of emissions. Transport and industry in that order are the next biggest emitters.

I'm well aware of that report.

PBS Frontline ran a show on 2008 that broke it down as I stated in my last post.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/etc/worldco2.html

I find it disingenuous that anti-nukes bring up arguments that "electricity is responsible for only x% of emissions".

Say what you want, fact remains that nuclear power creates a much longer term problem for the planet and many future generations than the short-term issue that it solves for this and the next few generations.

 

[jprad]

Quote from benwm:

If the technology is good enough, why are they not able to cool the Fukishima reactors, weeks after the quake? Why are men in white suits having to risk their lives on the cleanup operation? Why isn't the heavy lifting being done by robots? Did the nuclear industry only just think about this?

Until robots can conduct 90% of the cleanup operation - no humans required at all - the technology is not yet good enough for nuclear.

Technology does not cause a reduction in the workforce at these plants. Nor does it lower the competence of the remaining workforce and it certainly doesn't cause spotty maintenance and continued use well beyond reactor design life.

All of those, over time, is what leads to these disasters occurring.

 

[dcraig]

Quote from jprad:

I'm well aware of that report.

PBS Frontline ran a show on 2008 that broke it down as I stated in my last post.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/etc/worldco2.html



Say what you want, fact remains that nuclear power creates a much longer term problem for the planet and many future generations than the short-term issue that it solves for this and the next few generations.

Nuclear weapons testing at the height of of the cold war was possibly the worst case of deliberate environmental vandalism in history. All up, something like 14 tonnes of Plutonium was deliberately blown up in the atmosphere. At it's peak in 1963 it increased the average worldwide background radiation level by 5%. That figure has decayed away to about 0.2% today.

Any future problems due to nuclear power are utterly insignificant compared to the inevitable damage to ecosystems on a planet wide scale from climate change caused by burning fossil fuels.

Has any species gone extinct due to nuclear power - not to my knowledge. Is nuclear power likely to cause species extinctions - I've never heard of credible claims. Estimates of species extinctions from climate change coupled with loss of habitat are in the range 20%-30% this century

A fairly recent study reported a decline of phytoplankton in the worlds oceans of 40% over the last century. The phytoplankton are the basis of the ocean food web and the largest mass of life on earth. The decline is most likely caused to increased ocean layering due to the rate of temperature increase. If this study is backed up by further research, this is surely a matter of the gravest concern - right now not 1000 years in the future.

Every ecosystem on earth will be stressed by a few degrees warming. There is no possible scenario where purported problems for future generations caused by nuclear power can match the scale of damage from climate change.

 

[jprad]

Quote from dcraig:

Nuclear weapons testing at the height of of the cold war was possibly the worst case of deliberate environmental vandalism in history. All up, something like 14 tonnes of Plutonium was deliberately blown up in the atmosphere. At it's peak in 1963 it increased the average worldwide background radiation level by 5%. That figure has decayed away to about 0.2% today.

Uh, nice try there, sparky...

Fact of the matter is that 5% background radiation was the actual fallout of above-ground thermonuclear testing. A thermonuclear device is typically 90-95% efficient in matter to energy conversion since it's a two-stage, fission-fusion device.

In other words, most all of that 14 tonnes of Plutonium was consumed in a fusion reaction. The fallout was the result of the Uranium fission "sparkplug" used to drive the Plutonium "pit" to critical mass.

The earlier devices, Fat Man, Little Boy were fission-only devices and produced a hell of a lot more fallout due to their much lower nuclear yield.

BTW, that's exactly why nuclear power is so god-awful stupid. The fuel is hardly used up because it quickly becomes "poisoned" with neutron absorbing fission byproducts.

That's the industry's "dirty" little secret. That 97% of the Uranium is still present in the "spent" fuel rods. It's also why the damned things have to sit in a cooling tank for 5-6 years after they're removed from the reactor.

Yep, "clean" energy, yep, right...

Any future problems due to nuclear power are utterly insignificant compared to the inevitable damage to ecosystems on a planet wide scale from climate change caused by burning fossil fuels.

So much crap has been spewed from both sides of the climate change debate by people who have been funded by opposing commercial interests and similarly funded politicians.

In the end, I'm inclined to believe that both sides have equally over-stated their case.