Thread: Solar/Wind vs. Nuclear Who will win?

So you think current climate or that of 1980s is optimal? Defend your position, preferably on another thread more suitable.

In view of vast changes in climate before technology and even humanity appeared, the AGW crowd's belief that they can substantially affect global climate is pretty naive.

Proposing to change this is also hubris.

Attempting to do so by the sole means of reduction of CO2 emissions is politically motivated agenda driving "science", in effect prostituting research.

Worst of all, AGW is not topic of this thread, you digress. Prince might mention also that terms "Right" and "Left" are political in nature and not scientific except as applied to bilaterally symmetrical organisms in biology. Such terminology only serves to obfuscate the REAL issue, which is, YOU ARE WRONG.

Integral Fast Reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lynx Fox @94 - I'm not sure you are understanding me correctly. The collapse of climate change denial will do many things and one of them is greater acceptance of nuclear as a solution but it will also bring greater acceptance and support for renewables, warts and all for some time yet. The latter much more than the former. It will put nuclear nearer the place it might have been had the Right not sold nuclear out 20 years ago but there is a lot of ground for nuclear to catch up. To say that Fukashima has been a PR disaster for nuclear is understatement - it is starting from behind and is severely handicapped besides but I will not advocate hobbling the renewables push in order to give nuclear a boost; you are welcome to try of course. I would hope such advocacy will not involve letting fossil fuels off the hook as has been the case with a lot of nuclear advocacy to date - giving aid and comfort to the guys who dumped nuclear in it.

Most of all I do not want fossil fuel growth to continue unchecked and I want that now, not when the nuclear industry feels it's ready. Steeply rising carbon pricing has to come first - a clear and unmistakeable message that the game is over for fossil fuels.

Note though, that as I see it there is an internal consistency within Green thinking that the Right's lacks - climate isn't the only issue where the Right is prepared to deny science based reality and most involve resource management, sustainability and environment. That the Green position includes energy frugality as an important part of the mix isn't the impossible to accept condition for me as it appear to be for others here and there are reasons why I don't see the intermittency issues as the impossible to solve or work around problems others appear to. Later maybe if anyone here is interested in my humble thoughts.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Spain, for instance, ran half of its electric power demand, the equivalent of 11 nukes, on wind power for a short time in 2009. How can that be when it’s supposed to be impossible to integrate wind into the grid?

Obviously, in the unlikely event your claim is true, the Spaniards are not doing so anymore.

Probably because it did not work, being a stupid idea.

Hey, if you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions- where is Don Quixote when you need him?

Originally Posted by Ken Fabos

Lynx Fox @94 - I'm not sure you are understanding me correctly. The collapse of climate change denial will do many things and one of them is greater acceptance of nuclear as a solution but it will also bring greater acceptance and support for renewables, warts and all for some time yet. The latter much more than the former. It will put nuclear nearer the place it might have been had the Right not sold nuclear out 20 years ago but there is a lot of ground for nuclear to catch up. To say that Fukashima has been a PR disaster for nuclear is understatement - it is starting from behind and is severely handicapped besides but I will not advocate hobbling the renewables push in order to give nuclear a boost; you are welcome to try of course. I would hope such advocacy will not involve letting fossil fuels off the hook as has been the case with a lot of nuclear advocacy to date - giving aid and comfort to the guys who dumped nuclear in it.

Most of all I do not want fossil fuel growth to continue unchecked and I want that now, not when the nuclear industry feels it's ready. Steeply rising carbon pricing has to come first - a clear and unmistakeable message that the game is over for fossil fuels.

Note though, that as I see it there is an internal consistency within Green thinking that the Right's lacks - climate isn't the only issue where the Right is prepared to deny science based reality and most involve resource management, sustainability and environment. That the Green position includes energy frugality as an important part of the mix isn't the impossible to accept condition for me as it appear to be for others here and there are reasons why I don't see the intermittency issues as the impossible to solve or work around problems others appear to. Later maybe if anyone here is interested in my humble thoughts.

Perhaps take your humble thoughts to an AGW thread where your soapbox will fit better. Argue the merits of your case, such as they are, at that venue. Just a suggestion.

I find the "story" very probably Ken, but what the thread is lacking is documentation. Was is a passive or an active process, and if the later, who were the players, what were their tactics etc?

The US abandoned nuclear power in the 1970s, well before the political debate about man-made climate change (though the majority of climate research was already pointing that way). Some of the same ignorant-based fears and connection to nuke warfare in this thread, perhaps a desire by the young to resume the protest of the 60s and Hollywood willing to exploit those fears and add to them with films like the China Syndrome. Some of the irony is New England is when nuclear power plants were put up to referendums, the communities where the nukes were to be build overwhelmingly supported them, but they were rejected by the state populations. Of course, like today, there were many renewable options even the 1970's (I know several families off the grid in rural Maine), but they were for homeowners, not wholesale grid solutions.

I agree that we need wider acceptance of AGW. In spite of what Prince says, global climate change is a reality, and there is a vital need to carry out action to minimise it.

Nuclear power is a powerful weapon in our arsenal to do just that. Renewables will have their place, of course. There are, however, two problems with renewables that are not shared by nuclear.
1. Higher cost per kwh
2. More erratic energy supply.

For those reasons, renewables will probably never be more than a minority part of the total energy supply.

It is crazy that Fukushima was such a set-back for nuclear. It actually did little harm. By far the greatest harm at that time came from the earthquake and the tsunami. There was even a dam (admittedly for irrigation, not electricity) that burst as a result of the earthquake, and killed more people than the nuclear power plant did. Three people died at Fukushima, and all three were from industrial, not nuclear, accidents. The increase in radiation away from the plant was minimal.

However, there are always irrational people who play the political anti-nuclear game, and will sieze on anything to achieve their dubious ends.

What is needed is a big push into new approaches to nuclear. We have some great approaches, with pebble bed reactors, the Toshiba column approach, and the use of thorium instead of U235. It will not take much to introduce a new generation of nuclear fission power that will transform the industry.

Lynx Fox, prior to climate as an issue, I don't know. I suspect that the fossil fuel lobby had more to do with that than Greenpeace but at this point I think that's a side issue. The collapse of support for climate change denial from mainstream politics my primary goal in all this and I don't believe that this is, as FP suggests, off topic for a debate about energy in the environmental issues forum. I can start start one if necessary - "Fossil fuels vs Nuclear; how they stomped on nuclear and persuaded the industry that it was radical environmentalists."

Documentation? Like through FOI? Maybe, but this whole issue is so messy and noisy that it's not likely to change any minds if I could find it. I think, once the obvious gets pointed out, it's self evident that climate denial is the primary means by the political Right to back fossil fuels. Hobbling nuclear may have been seen as collateral damage if it figured into the decision making at all but truly, the captains of commerce and industry didn't get to where they are by failing to look at least a few years ahead and the long term threat to fossil fuels from nuclear could well have been apparent to them all along.

I should make it clear that I think climate science denial is, in terms of business decision making (and the Right is primarily the political voice of commerce and industry) not entirely irrational, however it represents a business decision, based on issues of cost, competitiveness and profitability, not a scientific one. It tells us nothing about the validity of the relevant science. Since commerce and industry is where the real stuff gets done it rightly has enormous influence but the inappropriateness of climate science being decided by commercial criteria needs stronger emphasis by those across the political spectrum willing to look beyond the demands of entrenched commercial interests.

I suppose I am hoping that some of those here who accept climate science but have opposed carbon pricing or other near term restrictions on emissions growth reconsider that position even if current political circumstances strongly favour renewables over nuclear. I still think that, practically and pragmatically, the roundabout route is the only route left for nuclear and any concessions that allow fossil fuels to go on growing until circumstances favour nuclear will actually make the route even longer. If I have changed even one mind it will probably be the first time - there is so little willingness to compromise in these debates - but I urge people who think the climate issue is truly important to consider it.

We need to factor in likelihood of winning political ground too. It's been pretty well established by Lynx and others that nuclear isn't really as dangerous as people think it is. Fine. Great. People who frequent "thescienceforum" know that. How would that information ever be successfully disseminated throughout the population at large? If you consider the price for PR these days, and factor in how much PR it would take, that would probably affect the cost.

The population at large believes that

1) - If there's ever a nuclear meltdown, the whole tri state area will be totally uninhabitable for 2000000000000 (add more zeros as you feel it necessary) years.

2) - All you have to do is fire a gun at the fuel rod, and you get a full thermo-nuclear explosion.

3) - Radiation didn't exist before nukes. If you get hit by even 1 rad, you'll contract cancer (or mutate into a superhero, take your pick.)

Their only misconception about renewables is that they will get cheaper in the future if they just sit back and wait.

Kojax, Skeptic, Lynx Fox and others, I know that the thread is Solar+Wind vs Nuclear but I suggest that, besides thinking it should be Solar+Wind+Nuclear vs Fossil Fuels, it should step off the well trod paths of arguing the relative benefits and risks of each technology into the murkier realms of political motivations because, surely, that's what has put the climate problem into the too hard and intractable basket and in the process, has seen nuclear lose serious mainstream political backing in fossil fuel rich nations like Australia, Canada and USA. And I'd like to discuss what needs to happen to break through the impasse on climate and see real action on limiting emissions, preferably real soon. It's clear to me at least that if politics can so readily disregard facts and logic on climate then facts and logic on nuclear won't get you to your destination. And clearly haven't so far. Change the ground.

NB Left, Right, Green etc are necessarily shorthand and the broad motivations I've ascribed may not apply to individuals who identify with such groupings and what makes someone Left or Right or Green here in Australia may not be quite the same as in the USA - The Right in Australia for example, would not seriously contemplate undoing state subsidised health care even if they have an ideological objection to state welfare.

There's also the possibility that it has played out quite different in Australia than in the US.

Here's an article talking about the nuclear protest gaining growth in New England, with it's core being in large part the same radical political groups who'd protested the Vietnam war; they are very different than the conservative fossil fuel based groups.

Tracking the protest movements that had roots in New England - Boston.com

Seabrook plant was less than an hour from where I was raised.

Originally Posted by Zesterer

This debate relies on one particular question that I believe will sway the tables of this argument one way or another.Will humans create the necessary technology to use nuclear fusion?Currently, all nuclear power stations use nuclear fission as a power source. This involves the radiation of atomic components of an atom such as electrons so exit the realms of an atom and trigger a similar event in a neighbouring atom. This process releases a large amount of energy, bu produces a dangerous bi-product - radioactive waste. This waste is capable of causing the deterioration of nearby atoms through the means of radiation (nb: methods of heat transfer). This is why the waste is generally kept in secure underground containment facilities that are capable of resisting large amounts of radiation for long periods of time, preventing the contamination of nearby matter. But there is another option. Nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is fundamentally the opposite of nuclear fission, and involved the bonding of several atomic sub particles. This too releases a large amount of energy, much larger than nuclear fission. The bi-products are also alot easier to care for. They are non-toxic, and will no affect surrounding matter in the same way as nuclear radiation. So far, nuclear fusion has only been achieved on a small scale in scientific laboratories across the globe, but technology is constantly improving, and this may soon be possible on a scale large enough for creating a significant amount of power. If this is achieved, the age of fossil fuel power stations and nuclear fission power stations are over, and this is not a bad consequence. These grease spots of the planet shall no longer be churning out large amounts of damaging CO2, or radioactive waste. If this happens, most of the gloves power problems are over almost indefinitely. We may even have a chance of reversing the problems that the previous 5 or so previous generations have placed on us - global warming and pollution. It is certainly an exiting prospect, and is definitely an option to be considered with greater interest than it is currently given...Zesterer

Excellent point, though Prince would term prospect "exciting" rather than "exiting", but his limitations concerning your English are obvious. To develop and maintain fusion economy will take skilled physicists, engineers, and technicians- fission reactors would provide incentive for many to enter fields, another point in favor of nuclear vs, flaky unreliable alternatives. Fusion power is the real brass ring for humanity and development of same is inevitable, only a matter of who will perfect it and when.

ITER - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Bunbury

This thread however, through its belligerent title, was deliberately set up as an unproductive argument thread with an inevitable descent into politics. Nothing of value has or will come of it. Instead of posting politics in a science thread perhaps we should be reading up on what the rest of the world is doing.

It is difficult to know what kind of stupor you were in when you wrote this, thread was founded as technical discussion contrasting merits of nuclear power vs flaky unreliable wind and solar. Politics has much to do with the current fashionable status of flaky wind and solar and undeserved poor reputation of nuclear in public eye. Same is true for AGW cult, whose front man is Nobel Laureate, Academy Award winner, legislator, lawyer, and mediocre undergraduate student of science Al Gore.

Keeping in mind that both flaky unreliable wind and solar AND nuclear are not big emitters of THE DEADLY CO2, one would expect some sort of neutrality from AGWanker crowd, but NO, this has not been the case. Thread has been bombarded with nonsensical "Left/Right" rhetoric and usual AGWanker hand-wringing, to its detriment. If you deplore the entry of "politics" into the thread, then refrain from doing so again, and perhaps Ken Fabos will follow your example.

As a peace offering and in the spirit of returning to TECHNICAL merits of the case, Prince will point out to you lot that flaky unreliable wind and solar often requires backup from the grid due to flaky unreliability, and that in the ABSENCE of nuclear, this must come from facilities which emit THE DEADLY CO2, so where is the REAL "aid and comfort" coming from?

Consider that.

Originally Posted by Ken Fabos

Kojax, Skeptic, Lynx Fox and others, I know that the thread is Solar+Wind vs Nuclear but I suggest that, besides thinking it should be Solar+Wind+Nuclear vs Fossil Fuels, it should step off the well trod paths of arguing the relative benefits and risks of each technology into the murkier realms of political motivations because, surely, that's what has put the climate problem into the too hard and intractable basket and in the process, has seen nuclear lose serious mainstream political backing in fossil fuel rich nations like Australia, Canada and USA. And I'd like to discuss what needs to happen to break through the impasse on climate and see real action on limiting emissions, preferably real soon. It's clear to me at least that if politics can so readily disregard facts and logic on climate then facts and logic on nuclear won't get you to your destination. And clearly haven't so far. Change the ground.

NB Left, Right, Green etc are necessarily shorthand and the broad motivations I've ascribed may not apply to individuals who identify with such groupings and what makes someone Left or Right or Green here in Australia may not be quite the same as in the USA - The Right in Australia for example, would not seriously contemplate undoing state subsidised health care even if they have an ideological objection to state welfare.

You are perfectly welcome to start your own thread and in fact invited to do so. It is too late to start this one, if you are not pleased, too damned bad. Kojax has done a fine job here and if you cannot appreciate it, too bad for you, Ken Fabos. Prince is ambidextrous in service to TRUTH, so it goes... Good point about Left/Right labels being essentially meaningless, Spanish Republicans were Communists and early US Republicans, e.g. Lincoln, were endorsed by Marx.

The Civil War in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lynx Fox @111 -In Australia - the Cold War, MAD Nuclear brinkmanship, followed up by French Nuclear tests in the South Pacific and the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior were all fuels for anti-nuclear, civil and military, sentiment. Plus, of course, civil nuclear, in a nation abundantly endowed with coal, had no eager adopters of the technology and it has never had real defenders. There is no mainstream political support for nuclear. A few individual politicians profess support but not sufficiently to actually propose or vote for it. Or to stand up against climate change denial or the fossil fuel industry. One outspoken exception but I expect Malcom Turnbull too is waiting for the denial thing to collapse for his chance to shine. As for documenting how and why the Right adopted climate change denial and betrayed nuclear - maybe that will have to wait until the scam's post-mortem.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

There's also the possibility that it has played out quite different in Australia than in the US.

Here's an article talking about the nuclear protest gaining growth in New England, with it's core being in large part the same radical political groups who'd protested the Vietnam war; they are very different than the conservative fossil fuel based groups.

Tracking the protest movements that had roots in New England - Boston.com

Seabrook plant was less than an hour from where I was raised.

Certainly people are afraid of opening Pandora's Box any wider than it already is. Acceptance of nuclear energy as a part of everyday life, unprotested, and with no taboos associated with it, is a step in that direction. There are some (very naive) people who think total nuclear disarmament is a possibility world wide, but if peaceful nuclear programs are in place, then most countries would never be more than a few months away from simply building another bomb again.

It's another one of the PR obstacles. I'd prefer to mobilize people around going somewhere they might actually go, rather than entertain the pipe dream of a population that unanimously understands the basics of nuclear physics. Sometimes if you aim too high you miss and nothing happens at all, instead of aiming a little lower and getting a less-than-ideal result (which you can then add to, and build on to work toward arriving at the more ideal result later).

Technologically and economically, it certainly makes more sense to start with nuclear and migrate toward solar/wind. Politically it's more likely to work if we do it the other way around. Get people turned onto something they're not irrationally scared of, so then they start thinking about and studying energy solutions, and eventually the facts about nuclear will become common knowledge. We need to stop taking education as a given, and instead plan for how that education will happen.

Originally Posted by Ken Fabos

Lynx Fox @111 -In Australia - the Cold War, MAD Nuclear brinkmanship, followed up by French Nuclear tests in the South Pacific and the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior were all fuels for anti-nuclear, civil and military, sentiment.

None of these things had anything to do with nuclear power. The Rainbow Warrior was a fossil fueled boat with which Greenpeace hypocritically spewed carbon dioxide into the atmosphere while tooling around on a useless mission to protests something which had negligible environmental impact. They diverted attention from the true environmental issues. Don't they deserve a bit of your disapproval? Your politicisation of the issue only fuels suspicion among some that global warming is a leftist attack on free enterprise. So maybe attitudes like yours are not helpful. Maybe you ought to look in the mirror and see what more you could be doing, instead of blaming "the right" for everything.

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

As a peace offering and in the spirit of returning to TECHNICAL merits of the case, Prince will point out to you lot that flaky unreliable wind and solar often requires backup from the grid due to flaky unreliability, and that in the ABSENCE of nuclear, this must come from facilities which emit THE DEADLY CO2, so where is the REAL "aid and comfort" coming from?

Consider that.

Due credit must be given to Harold for pointing out much the same above in the thread. How many times Ken Fabos must be bludgeoned by this point before it sinks in is up to him.

Kojax points RE public perception of exaggerated danger of nuclear power are spot on target and underlined by Ken Fabos and others. So what to do about all this?

Originally Posted by Ken Fabos

As for documenting how and why the Right adopted climate change denial and betrayed nuclear - maybe that will have to wait until the scam's post-mortem.

You refer to the AGW scam, of course. May its demise be sudden and soon. Then perhaps you can focus on topic better.

While we await this happy event, you may wish to consider a few FACTS:

1.) As alluded to above and is verifiable on the Web, opponents of nuclear in both AUSTRALIA and UK include coal-mining unions, organized labor is generally considered to be more "left" than "right" in political orientation, undercutting your boring and inaccurate rhetoric.

2.) You persistently invoke the abundance of coal possessed by Australia as a reason for its nuclear backwardness. Given that it also has abundant uranium deposits and the fact that other countries with substantial combustible fuel reserves are actively pursuing nuclear power, does this not seem rather defective as an argument?

Arabs push nuke energy despite Fukushima - UPI.com

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

2.) You persistently invoke the abundance of coal possessed by Australia as a reason for its nuclear backwardness. Given that it also has abundant uranium deposits and the fact that other countries with substantial combustible fuel reserves are actively pursuing nuclear power, does this not seem rather defective as an argument?

Actually, no.

Having lots of uranium ore does not confer the ability to build nuclear power stations. There is a lot of technical expertise required, which Australia does not have. For Australia to fully refine uranium ore to reactor fuel would take a lot of expertise and infrastructure not currently present. Similarly, building the plants to use the fuel.

Coal is much easier. Dig it outta the ground and set fire to it, and you are already releasing energy. To convert it to electricity is far easier than the same with uranium ore.

Prince,

You really must get past this fallacy that AGW is a hoax. It is real, and needs to be dealt with.

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

So what to do about all this?

My modest goal is to have a science based discussion on the original thread topic, from which a small number of people may learn something about the relative merits of the non-carbon dioxide producing electrical generation methods.

Nuclear power is a powerful weapon in our arsenal to do just that. Renewables will have their place, of course. There are, however, two problems with renewables that are not shared by nuclear.
1. Higher cost per kwh
2. More erratic energy supply.

Solar thermal has been built and run at much lower cost per kwh than actual nukes, and the sun is pretty reliable - compared with, say, Fukushima's nukes, one would almost call it inevitable.

Iceaura

As I keep asking. Give numbers and references. A simple claim of lower cost is insufficient.

Nuclear power is a powerful weapon in our arsenal to do just that.
Renewables will have their place, of course. There are, however, two
problems with renewables that are not shared by nuclear.<br>
1. Higher cost per kwh<br>
2. More erratic energy supply.

Solar thermal has been built and run at much lower total cost per kwh than actual nukes, and the sun is pretty reliable - compared with, say, Fukushima's nukes, one would almost call it inevitable.

Here are some links to cost estimates for currently available solar thermal technology of various kinds and installation size: Shrinking the cost for solar power - CNET News

http://www.solarthermalworld.org/fil...t.pdf?download

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/upda...ost-review.pdf

Concentrated solar power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can read, the cost estimates run from $.04 to $.17 @kwh, or about half the cost of the more optimistic nuke forecasts (the ones that presume the waste problem has been solved at reasonable cost, no wars started over proliferation, no terrorist exploits, no really bad disasters, no more serious medical costs, etc).

Originally Posted by skeptic

As I keep asking. Give numbers and references

And as I keep pointing out, I have, in the past. Several times. To your face, specifically. Relevantly. And as I keep pointing out, you haven't. Not once. Your goofy, repetitively stupid and debunked claims notwithstanding, there is no such thing as the categories you posted, or the costs you posted, with any relevance here. They don't exist. You keep posting irrelevant bullshit, and then demanding other people go to lots of trouble to "refute" it. Why should anyone bother?

How many times does it need to be pointed out that a direct comparison of cost per kilowatt hour is invalid? I will keep doing so as long as people keep posting a comparison of the cost per kilowatt hour.

As of right now, there is no way to power an electrical grid exclusively by renewable power sources. Therefore the cost of solar or wind power must include the cost of the backup generating station which will be used at night or on cloudy days. It also needs to account for the carbon dioxide or nuclear waste produced by the backup generating station. It is either that or accept frequent blackouts.

To Iceaura

Re costs of solar thermal.

I took a look at your three references. All three admit that solar thermal is more expensive than its main competitors as of right now. It may come down in price, and I welcome that. But right now it is not competitive.

Nuclear, though, is cheaper, safe compared to the main alternatives, does not release any appreciable amount of greenhouse gas, and provides a steady baseload of electricity. So far, nuclear is much more attractive than solar thermal.

The reality is that, of all energy forms capable of meeting the world's expanding needs, nuclear power yields the least and most easily managed waste. The insoluble waste problem arises from fossil fuel consumption and not nuclear power. The problem has two aspects: the huge volume of waste products, primarily gases and particulates; and the method of disposal, which is dispersion into the atmosphere. In contrast, nuclear waste is small in volume and subject to sound management.The amount of nuclear waste is relatively low – annually, some 800 tonnes from an average reactor. Such waste can be handled safely through standard techniques of controlled burial or storage in near-surface facilities. Half of such waste comes from industrial and medical activities rather than from power production.

As long as people think it's about 'facts' and 'logic' and whether renewables are better or worse than nuclear - and not about politics and motivations - the impasse will remain. If it really is about those, how come this wasn't sorted out 2 decades ago? They say greenies? And everyone believes it? A fringe minority they label as irrational crazies has the Repubs and equivalents backing down? Nah, the politics of the middle are what matters and the Right's irrationality on climate is why the middle is divided.

I suggest that the fossil fuel guys may have read The Art of War, especially the bits about subterfuge and deception. And the bits about getting your enemies to turn on each other, using deception. But the bits they seem not to have taken on board are the bits about how essential moral uprightness of it's leaders is to ultimate victory.

Climate science denial is both a potent weapon, much underestimated, as well as the whole scam's greatest weakness. A combined, all out attack by their currently squabbling enemies, who theoretically might put differences aside for a while, aimed at that weak point - could prove more productive than decades of arguments using statistics and graphs and 'facts'.

Ken

You are right about the impact of corrupt politics. I still tend to think of greenies, though. They may be a minority, but their influence is vast beyond their numbers.

Ken, you really do have a one track mind. The fact is that even without the sweeping climate change legislation you desire, the use of renewables has been increasing. One need only look at the IEA web site to confirm this.
IEA Statistics
There are also over 60 reactors under construction in 14 countries.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html

Given the above, don't you think people should try to learn the advantages and disadvantages of these energy sources, and therefore that it is an issue worth discussing here? Why are you so intent on trying to derail this discussion?

Totally against the misuse of uranium and nuclear power! To have more than seventy nuclear plants on a highly seismic and volcanic island is not very intelligent, and we have more than a hundred, all near large water sources which makes almost all of them near fault lines. Spent fuel rods with a half life of nearly a million years stored in salt mines that are thought may last ten or twenty thousand years. Who feels responsible?
Although wind and solar will be helpful, it is my belief that regeneration and kinetic energy will be the best options for the future.

Kalopin

Welcome to the forum. I hope you will enjoy participating.

Are you from Japan? Lots of reactors on an island that is highly seismic seems like Japan.

My view is that the fact that every one of those reactors survived a 7 scale earthquake, except one plant that was overrun by a tsunami, is a pretty good recommendation. Even the Fukushima nuclear power station caused relatively little problem, with only 3 deaths, none of which were to do with anything nuclear. The same earthquake collapsed an irrigation dam that killed more people than Fukushima did.

Perhaps a small correction is in order. Nuclear waste does not have a half life of a million years. In fact, it will degrade to the point where it is no longer harmful in about 10,000 years. Still a bit radioactive, but not enough for it to be a health problem.

I'm sorry, but it's my belief that you're playing with "Pandoras Box" when it comes to nuclear power! Is that 800 tons per reactor, and three, four or more per plant times more than a hundred in the U.S., more than seventy in Japan, and how many in other countries,annually? Handled safely? Transported on trains, semis, and ships, without letting the public know. I think they should shut them ALL down, yesterday! Let's see, Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukashima, to bad it's not baseball. All the testing and accidents, have you seen Bikini Island? well no bikinis! What's wrong with human mentallity, to know anything can fall from space and hit anywhere and to accept it? What if an meteor or even some of our spacejunk were to hit a refinery, chemical plant, or a nuclear power plant? and we steadily build without adequate safety, well who's responsible? There are much easier and better ways to produce and store electricity. Study Dr. Nikola Tesla's ideas and inventions!

Kalopin, what are these regeneration and kinetic energy ideas you refer to? With your reference to Tesla's inventions as a source of power, you seem to be dabbling in pseudoscience.

Uh,that last one was for Nuclearspeak! Thanks, Skeptic, but no, I'm from the good ole U.S.A., although I sure would love to visit New Zealand! Could you all run on geo-thermal ,like Iceland as Japan could? If not I'm sure there's plenty of hydro-electric energy there. I understand that I sound strongly opinionated, and apologize if I offend, but this has been a rediculously uphill climb to promote safe, alternative energy. I have an invention similar to Tesla's car [not the Tesla Car that runs on laptop batteries] that can actually produce and store electricity as you travel. Special interests have bought governments and are destroying the environment! Although there are many good uses, using oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear for electrical production, in my opinion, has already lost this arguement!

kalopin

Here in NZ we have lots of hydroelectricity, and that is our main method of generating power. However, we have pretty much run out of hydro potential, and are looking for alternatives. I think myself that the most likely alternative, coal, is about the worst. NZ has plenty of coal, making this very tempting to a cash strapped government. However, it is the most polluting of all. You may be unaware that coal burning power stations generate a lot more radioactive waste than nuclear, and they spew it all immediately into the wider environment, mainly through smoke stacks.
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American

Hydroelectricity has not such a great history either. There have been a number of dams that burst, killing lots of people. One dam alone, Banqiao in China, killed 171,000 people (mainly from disease and starvation), which is many, many times the total of all people killed by nuclear power. It also made 11 million people homeless.
Banqiao Dam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The worst nuclear disaster was Chernobyl, and the International Atomic Energy Agency estimates (via computer model) that a total of 4,000 people died or will die from its effects.
News Center : In Focus : Chernobyl
There have been other estimates, ranging up to 30,000 deaths, but even the highest such estimate falls way short of the devastation of hydroelectricity gone wrong.

For this and other reasons, I am an advocate of nuclear power.

Originally Posted by skeptic

I took a look at your three references. All three admit that solar thermal is more expensive than its main competitors as of right now. It may come down in price, and I welcome that. But right now it is not competitive.

According to their numbers, there exists right now setups for new built solar thermal that would be cheaper than new built coal in meter charge alone (let alone total cost estimates), and cheaper than new built nuclear even if much of the total cost of nuclear is omitted and the meter charge is subsidized (as its proponents seem to think is "rational").

Originally Posted by skeptic

Nuclear, though, is cheaper,

Even using your silly $.12 kwh number, with no waste disposal or risk premiums or security costs or medical expenses or anything, nuclear is and will be more expensive than most of the new build thermal solar designs as considered in those links.

Now if someone wants to actually compare, realistically, nukes to thermal solar - so some of the infrastructural, political, and related aspects of new build thermal solar come into play, as well as some kind of reality based estimate of what these new nukes would cost us - then we would have a discussion. But that is extraordinarily difficult on a bandarlog site like this.

Here, for example, is what passes for science on this site - defended by moderators, repeated by the self-proclaimed "rational" posters:

You may be unaware that coal burning power stations generate a lot more radioactive waste than nuclear, and they spew it all immediately into the wider environment, mainly through smoke stacks.
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American

And only someone actually reading all the way through the article linked will encounter this little item, as the editors of the magazine attempt to walk back the ridiculous implications of their headline and original story:

Originally Posted by sci am editors

*Editor's Note (posted 12/30/08): In response to some concerns raised by readers, a change has been made to this story. The sentence marked with an asterisk was changed from "In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—and other coal waste contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste" to "In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy."

In other words, coal ash is not more radioactive than what people normally refer to as "nuclear waste". Coal plants are not bigger radiation exposure hazards than nuke plants. The entire point of the link and the assertion is bogus.

Originally Posted by iceaura

In other words, coal ash is not more radioactive than what people normally refer to as "nuclear waste". Coal plants are not bigger radiation exposure hazards than nuke plants. The entire point of the link and the assertion is bogus.

There is nothing in the editor's note to contradict the statement that "coal burning power stations generate a lot more radioactive waste than nuclear." Nor is there anything to support your assertion that "Coal plants are not bigger radiation exposure hazards than nuke plants." Why do you ignore this part:
"carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant"?

Originally Posted by iceaura

Even using your silly $.12 kwh number, with no waste disposal or risk premiums or security costs or medical expenses or anything, nuclear is and will be more expensive than most of the new build thermal solar designs as considered in those links.

Iceaura

The 12 cents per kwh number for nuclear power is not "mine". It comes from the reference I posted. If you read the reference properly, you will note that the number includes all the extraneous costs. The actual cost of generating nuclear power, in terms of nuclear fuel burned, is less than 2 cents per kwh. When you include all other costs, including commissioning and decommissioning, it lifts to 12 cents.

As I have said before, if and when solar thermal energy can have its cost reduced to become competitive, I will cheer. I like solar energy, but it is not yet practical or competitive, much though you may want it to be. Right now, natural gas is cheapest at 8 cents. Coal and hydroelectricity are next. Geothermal is in there also. Nuclear is about 5th in cost.

Coal and natural gas are undesirable due to greenhouse gas emission. Hydroelectricity and geothermal are limited resources, and are already close to maximum capacity. That leaves nuclear as the next most practical, and cheapest source of electricity.

Even when wind and solar become cost competitive, nuclear will still be needed, since it provides a base load of generation, without the wild fluctuations that are characteristic of both wind and solar power.

Oh well, oops, foiled again! Does anyone know where my posts are going? It happens every time! Anyway, I agree for better education, and obviously there will always be right and left wing nuts on most every matter. But what is the difference in the fear factor between living next to a nuclear plant, downhill from a hydro-electric dam, or living near a windfarm, or solar power plant. Although all will give off electromagnetic disturbance, which effects all animals. Where do you want your children to grow up? That's why I promote free, personal electrical production. It's much safer in all aspects. Hey, guess what I'll bet it's not the "greenies" taking my posts down!

I have sent your pseudoscience post to the pseudoscience forum. If you find your posts missing, that's probably where they will be.

Originally Posted by skeptic

The 12 cents per kwh number for nuclear power is not "mine". It comes from the reference I posted. If you read the reference properly, you will note that the number includes all the extraneous costs.

No, it doesn't. And you are responsible for the repeated posting of it as the cost of nuke power without having dealt with the problems pointed out to you. You are also responsible for its invalidity as an estimate of future new build nuke costs, in the first place.

Originally Posted by skeptic

As I have said before, if and when solar thermal energy can have its cost reduced to become competitive, I will cheer.

So what's wrong with the very competitive costs - far below even your bogus number for nukes - linked above?

So what's wrong with the very competitive costs - far below even your bogus number for nukes - linked above?

Other than you still got to build ANOTHER plant to base load and sized to handle 80% of the total max load of the grid? Solar, even if much cheaper by itself doesn't save a damn thing for the consumer because they've still got to bare the burden for two generation systems. There's lots of reasons to go toward renewables, but cost isn't one of them.

Harold, I'm sorry, but regeneration and the use of kinetic energy is in no way pseudoscience, as I have stated it has and is being used already in many different ways. Have you studied "dynamic braking"? It's mostly used on trains when going downhill. The polarity of the motor is reversed producing electrical energy which is then burned off, in the form of heat on a resistor wall. These resistors could just as easily be capacitors and hold a charge for other uses. How do I know, because this was already being done several decades ago, when electric motors were first being installed on trains and trolleys. As to why it's not still common, well I'll let you guess the answer to that one.
About the cost of all these systems, I believe you should factor in ALL costs, some of which are priceless!

Originally Posted by lynx

Other than you still got to build ANOTHER plant to base load and sized to handle 80% of the total max load of the grid? Solar, even if much cheaper by itself doesn't save a damn thing for the consumer because they've still got to bare the burden for two generation systems.

Or install adequate storage, grid backup network, etc. This is too complex for you guys?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

How many times does it need to be pointed out that a direct comparison of cost per kilowatt hour is invalid? I will keep doing so as long as people keep posting a comparison of the cost per kilowatt hour.

As of right now, there is no way to power an electrical grid exclusively by renewable power sources. Therefore the cost of solar or wind power must include the cost of the backup generating station which will be used at night or on cloudy days. It also needs to account for the carbon dioxide or nuclear waste produced by the backup generating station. It is either that or accept frequent blackouts.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

So what's wrong with the very competitive costs - far below even your bogus number for nukes - linked above?

Other than you still got to build ANOTHER plant to base load and sized to handle 80% of the total max load of the grid? Solar, even if much cheaper by itself doesn't save a damn thing for the consumer because they've still got to bare the burden for two generation systems. There's lots of reasons to go toward renewables, but cost isn't one of them.

This depends on how it's applied. If the base load is a hydro dam, as in Oregon/Washington, then absent extreme cases like this years excessive rain (and the unfortunate shortage of HVDC long range power lines to carry the extra energy out to the surrounding regions), then one dam can generate a highly variable amount of energy, determined more by the flow of water than the size of the dam. Worst case, we have to add a few more turbines to the same dam.

For other base loading systems, you're still saving both fuel and depreciation of your machinery. Just like how putting miles on your car is considered part of the full price of driving it, a gas power turbine or nuclear reactor that sits idle isn't wearing itself out. Coal boilers suffer a lot of wear and tear from being turned on and off, though, so if you're using coal as the base load then it doesn't save anything other than just the price of the fuel.

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

2.) You persistently invoke the abundance of coal possessed by Australia as a reason for its nuclear backwardness. Given that it also has abundant uranium deposits and the fact that other countries with substantial combustible fuel reserves are actively pursuing nuclear power, does this not seem rather defective as an argument?

Arabs push nuke energy despite Fukushima - UPI.com

Coal isn't nearly as valuable as natural gas or crude. Those countries do that because the export price of the fuels they have is better than anything they would get out of it domestically. The main motivation for a country like Australia or the USA to use coal is that it saves us having to import something more costly.

This depends on how it's applied. If the base load is a hydro dam, as in Oregon/Washington, then absent extreme cases like this years excessive rain (and the unfortunate shortage of HVDC long range power lines to carry the extra energy out to the surrounding regions), then one dam can generate a highly variable amount of energy, determined more by the flow of water than the size of the dam. Worst case, we have to add a few more turbines to the same dam.

This year's surplus doesn't matter. You've got to build energy production around the droughts, not the surplus rains. It's nice to not burn as much coal, and it would even be better if the US had a modern power distribution system so we don't waste the surplus in renewable energy, but no matter what you do you still end up needing fossil fuels or nuclear power for base loading.

but no matter what you do you still end up needing fossil fuels or nuclear power for base loading.

No, you don't. You just need adequate storage and distribution setups.

Then, the cost for fossil fuels is too high! There ARE better ways, and if we won't find and use them, then we shouldn't use electricity at all! A bold admission, as "the emporer has no clothes"! So, call the N.R.C., inform the E.P.A., stop drilling, fracking, mining, cutting down the mountains, spilling in the sea, radiating the land, and filling our lungs with lead, mercury, radiation, and smog just to be spoilt. Using up all the natural resources, and poisoning the environment with no consideration for the next generation shouldn't even be an option. Time to take the blinders off, open your mind real wide, and recieve logic! The Earth will take it back, without us!

Originally Posted by iceaura

but no matter what you do you still end up needing fossil fuels or nuclear power for base loading.

No, you don't. You just need adequate storage and distribution setups.

Which thus far are pipe dreams with zero large scale examples. The only places solar can get much beyond 25% of the grid without another system for base loading is subtropical regions with reliable sunshine.

--

Kalopin. You're not making any arguments. Tone it down.

Originally Posted by lynx

Which thus far are pipe dreams with zero large scale examples. The only places solar can get much beyond 25% of the grid without another system for base loading is subtropical regions with reliable sunshine.

Why "pipe dreams"? Suitable plants have been built, suitable storage systems tested and run. The engineering and economic calculations are done and checked. They have at least as much physical reality behind them as the claim that the US can be run on nukes for a generation without losing a major river system and its cities, or that we can handle the waste stream generated without major expense.

The new build nukes are untested designs with uncertain expenses, after all. The only stuff we have already built is the stuff we have already built - that's what we want to replace.

I'm sorry, it must be that wee bit of Native American blood. But, really, do you realize what we've "accomplished"in the last forty or fifty years? All take and no give doesn't leave much for a descent future. I can't see arguing for nuclear, I guess you would have had to live near Three-mile, Chernobyl, Or Fukashima, and that last one was supposed to be about an earthquake and tsunami, but was overshadowed from a meltdown. Although, I believe the land around The Fukashima Plant has been poisoned with cesium, I suppose they're not storing the spent fuel rods on site anymore, and have relocated the back-up generators from the basement. What else could have been overlooked? Maybe the volcano?
Has anyone seen the Russians plans to build floating and submerssable nuclear stations in the Arctic, so as to exploit the gas and oil reserves in that region?

Kalopin

As I keep emphasizing, it is important to look at the numbers. If you are concerned about safety and about harmful radiation pollution, check the numbers first, before jumping to conclusions.

The key number is recorded in millisieverts. As I have pointed out before, humans can accept a radiation dose of up to 100 millisieverts as a single instant dose, and much more if spread over time, with no harm at all.
Sievert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Here are some figures from the above reference to put things into perspective.

The dose from living near a nuclear power plant is 0.0001 to 0.01 mSv per year.
The dose from standing in front of the granite of the US Capitol building: 0.85 mSv/year.
The dose from smoking 30 cigarettes a day: 60–160 mSv/year
<sup>For the Fukushima incident, the dose for those living in the city of Fukushima is 14 mSv per year.

This should give you a better idea of the radiation cost from nuclear power. Note also that the global average background dose of radiation is about 2.5 mSv per year, but this can range up to 250 mSv per year in a few places, apparently without any rise in cancer rates.</sup>

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Then, the cost for fossil fuels is too high! There ARE better ways, and if we won't find and use them, then we shouldn't use electricity at all! A bold admission, as "the emporer has no clothes"! So, call the N.R.C., inform the E.P.A., stop drilling, fracking, mining, cutting down the mountains, spilling in the sea, radiating the land, and filling our lungs with lead, mercury, radiation, and smog just to be spoilt. Using up all the natural resources, and poisoning the environment with no consideration for the next generation shouldn't even be an option. Time to take the blinders off, open your mind real wide, and recieve logic! The Earth will take it back, without us!

Then I assume you are off the grid, and do not drive a car. Correct?

I'm sorry, it must be that wee bit of Native American blood. But, really, do you realize what we've "accomplished"in the last forty or fifty years?

I share a quarter of that blood and have taking a keen interest in the issue for about 35 of those years. I completely agree we have severe problems accepting the realities of fossil fuel damage, an irrational fear of nuclear power as a nation (as exhibited by the lack of studies supporting that position here), and deep resentment for even minor adjustments to our lives, homes, and modes of transportation. Can some of us go off the grid? Sure, I know people who do this, but in every case it was with a storage solution far more environmentally damaging than someone on the grid because of heavy, maintenance intensive batteries that need replacement every five to ten years. (and molten unumtomiam batteries are thus far no different). They were also extremely conservation minded, starting with homes that ran on a fraction of the energy of a typical American home--that were more comfortable than most, but also needed day to day conservation technique that most Americans would completely reject--like pulling a set of drapes every day.

I understand the difficulty, but one-day there may be no choice. It seems as though we could all work on this together. I mean without the greed factor. There have been many advancements held back from te special interests. I heard of a new type battery that would outlast all others combined, I believe it was invented by an older couple in Michigan, but they sold the patent, and I haven't heard anything since, do you know of this? Why aren't the new solar panels, so readily available in China and India, as easy and cheap to get here? And what about the cars running on natural gas in other countries? Doesn't Brazil run mostly on bio-fuels? I always considered the U.S. the most free and innovative, but I'm not so sure anymore.
The smear campaign towards nuclear energy has been obvious, from movies like Godzilla to shows like The Simpsons, and obviously burning coal, oil, and gas couldn't be much better, but there are few excuses. Other countries have been leading the way with windfarms and solar plants. I believe Tesla had several brilliant ideas, but I don't want this to be believed as pseudoscience, so I just ask you all to study a couple like electrostatic induction, and his invention using telegeodynamics, The Mechanical oscillator.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

2.) You persistently invoke the abundance of coal possessed by Australia as a reason for its nuclear backwardness. Given that it also has abundant uranium deposits and the fact that other countries with substantial combustible fuel reserves are actively pursuing nuclear power, does this not seem rather defective as an argument?

Actually, no.

Having lots of uranium ore does not confer the ability to build nuclear power stations. There is a lot of technical expertise required, which Australia does not have. For Australia to fully refine uranium ore to reactor fuel would take a lot of expertise and infrastructure not currently present. Similarly, building the plants to use the fuel.

Coal is much easier. Dig it outta the ground and set fire to it, and you are already releasing energy. To convert it to electricity is far easier than the same with uranium ore.

Prince,

You really must get past this fallacy that AGW is a hoax. It is real, and needs to be dealt with.

So Australia is incapable or simply too lazy to build such infrastructure? Funny, smaller and poorer countries have done so.

"The population of 22.7 million is heavily concentrated in the Eastern states and is highly urbanised.A highly developed country, Australia is the world's thirteenth largest economy and has the world's sixth-highest per capita income. Australia's military expenditure is the world's twelfth largest. With the second-highest human development index globally, Australia ranks highly in many international comparisons of national performance, such as quality of life, health, education, economic freedom, and the protection of civil liberties and political rights.^[16] Australia is a member of the G20, OECD, WTO, APEC, UN, Commonwealth of Nations, ANZUS, and the Pacific Islands Forum."-Wikipedia on Australia

Finland has 5.4 million people and the world's largest nuclear reactor.

Finland has no coal or oil, true, but as pointed out above, Saudi Arabia has an amplitude of oil and is pursing nuclear technology as well.

AGW is a real hoax, and does need to be dealt with, and is not the topic of the thread, and if you wish to make a convincing argument in its favor, you will have to do better than the one you advance explaining Australia's nuclear backwardness, dotcomrade.

Thank you for post #153, well done.

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

Saudi Arabia has an amplitude of oil and is pursing nuclear technology as well.

I can pull up numbers for you, but I'm pretty sure using oil is the least cost-effective way to generate electricity of them all. They're incurring the opportunity cost associated with keeping the oil instead of selling it, which is a tremendous cost.

Coal producing countries like the USA and Australia aren't incurring such a large cost. The coal wouldn't have much more value if they sold it abroad, but at least it has the economic benefit that it gives jobs to the citizens who mine for it. (As would wind power also, since most of the cost of wind generation is the labor that is being used to produce and set up the wind mills.- money that stays in circulation after it is spent and goes on to bolster other industries.)

AGW is a real hoax, and does need to be dealt with, and is not the topic of the thread, and if you wish to make a convincing argument in its favor, you will have to do better than the one you advance explaining Australia's nuclear backwardness, dotcomrade.

Thank you for post #153, well done.

AGW - Is that global warming? What does the "A" stand for?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

This depends on how it's applied. If the base load is a hydro dam, as in Oregon/Washington, then absent extreme cases like this years excessive rain (and the unfortunate shortage of HVDC long range power lines to carry the extra energy out to the surrounding regions), then one dam can generate a highly variable amount of energy, determined more by the flow of water than the size of the dam. Worst case, we have to add a few more turbines to the same dam.

This year's surplus doesn't matter. You've got to build energy production around the droughts, not the surplus rains. It's nice to not burn as much coal, and it would even be better if the US had a modern power distribution system so we don't waste the surplus in renewable energy, but no matter what you do you still end up needing fossil fuels or nuclear power for base loading.

During a drought, you can just turn the turbines around and use them in reverse to create pumped storage. You're still getting an 85% efficiency by using the dams as a way to store the excess energy produced during the windy parts of the year.

Basically, when we move toward re-newables, like wind, solar, and hydro, and use them together like this, we're putting ourselves in the same position farmers are in already. There's randomness involved, but it can be mitigated by making the system large enough to cover small setbacks. We're transitioning from being hunters and gatherers (hunting for and gathering fossil and mineral resources such as oil, natural gas, and uranium) over to being agriculturalists. It's the natural evolution of society, and a very desirable result. Greed is curtailed a lot more when people become producers instead of takers.

Hey, let's not forget Geo-thermal. Anywhere ther is a magma chamber should have a generator. Works pretty good in Iceland.

A.G.W. stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming, meaning man-made

During a drought, you can just turn the turbines around and use them in reverse to create pumped storage. You're still getting an 85% efficiency by using the dams as a way to store the excess energy produced during the windy parts of the year.

What are you talking about? When water is low, you not only loose that power generating capability so other sources are going to be under more demand with no extra power to pump the water back upstream. Also that water will be a short demand by needy farmers, cities and wildlife.

To Prince.

I appreciate your comments on my post 153. Thank you.

Re Australia.
Are they lazy? Not really, but they go with what is cheap and easy, just like everyone else. Coal is cheap and easy, and nuclear is tougher. The Aussis could do nuclear if they wanted to, but hey.....

AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is not a hoax. Many of the details are debatable, and especially detailed predictions of future climates, but the basics are sound. The world is warming, and it is due to human activity raising levels of greenhouse gases. The average warming is 0.9 C over 50 years. This correlates with increases in CO2 and, frankly, there are no other possible causes for the warming.

ToKalopin

Re geothermal.
Geothermal energy is an excellent way to generate power. But sadly, it is a limited resource. There are only a few suitable sites with geothermal steam readily available, and most of those sites are already in use.

One alternative is hot rock geothermal, which is under development. Instead of relying on geothermal steam, as is traditional, you drill down to where the dry rock is 200 C plus, and pump water down. The steam generated then turns a turbine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_geothermal_system

This system is still under development, but one day may make a major contribution. Not just yet, though.

Our galaxy, the solar system, and this planet are just as giant machines. It wil take a giant machine to control one. We must think on a much larger scale. Study into tele-geo-dynamics, study thermo-acoustic-refrigeration, look up "Our Electrostatic Earth and The Powers of the Pyramids". Using very low frquency-high intensity sound waves in a pressure tube produces an extreme cooling effect. I believe there is a way to change global warming, maybe using these technologies to refreeze polar ice, reducing the amount of water-weight at the equator, lowering levels, and this will also give us a less elliptical orbit causing milder summers and winters. These technologies will also be an extraordinary energy source.

an irrational fear of nuclear power as a nation (as exhibited by the lack of studies supporting that position here),

No one has exhibited an irrational fear of nuclear power on this forum, or even an irrational disparagement of it.

In the larger world, the shiniest example of panic involving nuclear power I've seen recently was the industry reaction to Fukushima - they went into full court flail mode, emergency response, packing every media outlet with the familiar deflection script and reassurance lies (almost word for word from the TMI PR mess, often - slow learners, apparently, unless drumming up fear and incidents of foolish precaution based in mistrust, to use in future mockery, was the plan) planting editorials and media references every other day about the foolish and ignorant fearful, basically hippie-punching 24/7 for weeks.

Of course, they had hundreds of billions at stake, on the point of being flushed into the Pacific. One can sympathize.

Fukushima was a most over-rated disaster. The melt down caused a massive rise in radiation within the plant, but more than a kilometre from the plant, radiation levels were low enough to be harmless. Yet a widespread evacuation was carried out, causing immense suffering to an enormous number of people.

All that was needed was to do the homework first. Find out what was happening before making panicky decisions. But politicians were in charge .....

Dear members and guests at this forum, I want it to be known that I am appealling to the webmaster over Harold14370's decision to remove my posts from this thread. The first to be moved was addressed to Lynx Fox, another Moderator, who did not appear to consider my posts off topic.

Note that I am alleging an attempt to silence my views by Harold14370 because of strong disagreement with them, not because of the reason he alleges.

Ken Fabos, Member.

This is just one of nuclear energies troubling faults, when there is a problem it can turn into a huge problem extremely fast. Even most of the workers at the plant weren't sure of the magnatude of the situation. There are many places on our planet already, that have been poisoned from fallout, and are unliveable. Does anyone consider the animals that may encounter these places? Have you looked into the many tests that were done, and how so many didn't understand the consequinces of radiation? Yes, under normal circumstances being near a nuclear plant is safe, but if there's a meltdown from just one reactor, radiation has the potential to poison countless acres of land, with undetermined results. You realize how few know how to operate a reactor safely, and how many back-ups are available? What if a pandemic strikes? Even totally automated controls can develop problems. I believe to high a risk for comfort.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Fukushima was a most over-rated disaster. The melt down caused a massive rise in radiation within the plant, but more than a kilometre from the plant, radiation levels were low enough to be harmless. Yet a widespread evacuation was carried out, causing immense suffering to an enormous number of people.

All that was needed was to do the homework first. Find out what was happening before making panicky decisions. But politicians were in charge .....

How does one do the homework before the extent of the contamination is known? It was fortunate that much of the contamination went out to sea and much was precipitated in rainfall. The authorities' crystal balls evidently were unable to predict this. Furthermore the radiation that did spread was not in a neat circular area with a radius of one kilometre. Farmland has been contaminated with cesium up to 150 miles from the plant. Had the wind blown the other way the contamination could have been much worse, and even Tokyo could have been affected.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

During a drought, you can just turn the turbines around and use them in reverse to create pumped storage. You're still getting an 85% efficiency by using the dams as a way to store the excess energy produced during the windy parts of the year.

What are you talking about? When water is low, you not only loose that power generating capability so other sources are going to be under more demand with no extra power to pump the water back upstream. Also that water will be a short demand by needy farmers, cities and wildlife.

I guess I'm a little confused then. Every dam I've ever seen has a huge lake of water behind it. If that lake starts to become empty, then what stops us from pumping water into it from downstream? We only run the pumps when the wind is blowing, of course. The rest of the time we clearly wouldn't run the pumps. Otherwise, I the hydro power would be limited by rainfall..... which is already true as things stand, is it not? Am I missing something?

My suggestion is that if we build a lot of wind mills near a big hydro-electric supply, we're effectively multiplying the output of the hydro by some factor determined by how often the wind blows. IE. if wind power is available 35% of the time, and we build an appropriately large number of windmills, then the output of the dams is effectively multiplied by 100/(100-35) = 1.57. If wind power is available more often than 35% of the time, then the multiplier gets even larger. That would be way more energy than the Pacific NW needs, of course, but we could build more HVDC lines out to California, or improve the one we already have.

Originally Posted by Ken Fabos

Dear members and guests at this forum, I want it to be known that I am appealling to the webmaster over Harold14370's decision to remove my posts from this thread. The first to be moved was addressed to Lynx Fox, another Moderator, who did not appear to consider my posts off topic.

Note that I am alleging an attempt to silence my views by Harold14370 because of strong disagreement with them, not because of the reason he alleges.

Ken Fabos, Member.

Ken. You are supposed to put complaint about moderator actions in the feedback section.

Kojax

The problem with pumping water upstream is the same problem as any form of energy storage. That is, loss of energy. When energy is generated by wind, water, nuclear, or whatever, and is stored, an average of more than 50% of that energy is lost. Simple laws of thermodynamics. If wind is used to generate electricity, and that electricity is used to pump water uphill, a good 50% of the energy is lost forever.

It makes much more sense to have a good size storage lake, and simply use that water to generate electricity when the winds are not blowing, if you want to rely on something as variable as wind energy. The other alternative is to provide baseload energy with nuclear, or some other reliable system, and use wind power as 'top up' when the wind is blowing.

bunbury

On Fukushima.
The evacuation was too thorough. I can understand evacuating people close to the plant, but they did far more, and turfed people out of their homes a long, long way from the plant. There was no need, without a clear indication of genuine risk.

kalopin

Re nuclear contamination of wild places.

Sorry, but that is wrong. Even at Chernobyl, wildlife suffers only very, very close to ground zero. In fact, the closed area around Chernobyl has become a major and very valuable wildlife reserve.
Despite Mutations, Chernobyl Wildlife Is Thriving
When a nuclear accident happens, even one as bad as Chernobyl, the effects diminish over time. The damage is far less than anti-nuclear activists would have you believe.

Originally Posted by kojax

My suggestion is that if we build a lot of wind mills near a big hydro-electric supply, we're effectively multiplying the output of the hydro by some factor determined by how often the wind blows. IE. if wind power is available 35% of the time, and we build an appropriately large number of windmills, then the output of the dams is effectively multiplied by 100/(100-35) = 1.57. If wind power is available more often than 35% of the time, then the multiplier gets even larger. That would be way more energy than the Pacific NW needs, of course, but we could build more HVDC lines out to California, or improve the one we already have.

They already planned to put windmills in the area. Some have been built, but others will never happen. The wind in the gorge blows too hard sometimes. Your idea is in progress however. Probably not to any large scale.

Originally Posted by skeptic

The evacuation was too thorough. I can understand evacuating people close to the plant, but they did far more, and turfed people out of their homes a long, long way from the plant. There was no need, without a clear indication of genuine risk.

This is what we call Monday morning quarterbacking.

Skeptic,
Hey, all anyone can do is go by what they see or hear in the funny papers. I personally, have seen and heard of sites in Navada, New Mexico, and The Bikini Islands, in the Pacific, where testing had been done, and radiation levels were still extreme. These are just a few of the U.S. sites, as you can imagine almost every nuclear power has several. They measured levels in the coconut milk on Bikini Island and it was way beyond dangerous levels, and they had asked the natives to leave the island just for a while for the testing, they were never able to return. Maybe some truth to "The Hills Have Eyes"! I guess you would need to walk in someone elses shoes. Be told to "evacuate", GO, leave your home, until we say you can come back, because of the mistakes WE made.

Kinda' sad, and messed up, that a country with a dictatorship will outdo a free country from the greed and ignorance of the "free" country, and the rich, lucky few there will just hoard the wealth, giving very little, if anything to the poor workers. It has been politics, such as lobbyists, special interests, and getting elected, that have allowed corporations to use, what is really, slave labor and no environmental control, to make more profits, killing our middle class, destroying the air, water, and land and continuing to divide the classes in these undeveloped nations, where there never has been a middle class. These are the real reasons for the lack of safe, efficient, and personal energies. This will come back on all of us, every country will eventually pay the ultimate price for this ignorance and selfishness. The wealthy don't need it, the poor can't afford it, if there is no middle, then there's no economy and noone to promote progress and keep the lower and upper in check.

YEA, there IS more!

Kalopin

Like you, I am opposed to nuclear weapons, which are a major danger in my view.

However, we are discussing nuclear power, which is a totally different thing. For this reason, using examples like Bikini and other weapons testing sites is just misleading.

Your argument is like describing the evils of thermobaric bombs used in warfare (Thermobaric weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and saying that this makes a petrol engine evil also, since it is the same chemical reaction.

Sorry, but trying to say nuclear power is evil because nuclear weapons cause harm is just not a logical or reasonable argument.

Skeptic,
Yes, true to a point, but isn't it true that once the fuel rods have been used, that they can then use that material [plutonium] for weapons?

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Skeptic,
Hey, all anyone can do is go by what they see or hear in the funny papers. I personally, have seen and heard of sites in Navada, New Mexico, and The Bikini Islands, in the Pacific, where testing had been done, and radiation levels were still extreme.

In at least one case you heard wrong or your data is decades obsolete. Bikini Atol, where they detonated 23 nuke weapons, radiation levels were not extremely high as of 1997 according to the independent study done by International Atomic Energy Agency at the behest of the Marshall Islanders. Their biggest concern, before recommending resettlement was the amount of radiation the natives might receive if they 100% subsisted on atoll grow food and layed out a strategy to mitigate much of that effect. Conditions at Bikini Atoll. Meanwhile Bikini toll has become one of the most abundant marine wildlife locations in the Pacific, though some groups of species such as corals are still recovering. I doubt any of the above ground testing sites have very high residual radiation levels anymore.

Lastly the comparison between nuke power production and test sights where more than a dozen nuke weapons were used are symptomatic of the sort of weak comparisons and fear mongering that keep people from making objective risk vs reward decisions about nuclear power.

The melt down caused a massive rise in radiation within the plant, but more than a kilometre from the plant, radiation levels were low enough to be harmless. Yet a widespread evacuation was carried out, causing immense suffering to an enormous number of people.

Individual exposures at various distances from the plant were not measured. The radiation and chemical exposure regimes threatening individuals around the plant are estimations and guesswork - landscape averages are of course not very informative.

Generally, when a nuclear plant is threatening meltdown and major catastrophe, one evacuates possible victims before this happens if at all possible. If one's luck holds, and meltdown or other major catastrophe is fended off (at enormous expense and risk), then that is good news - not an indication that there was no such threat.

Originally Posted by lynx

Lastly the comparison between nuke power production and test sights where more than a dozen nuke weapons were used are symptomatic of the sort of weak comparisons and fear mongering that keep people from making objective risk vs reward decisions about nuclear power.

Depends on the comparison. Nuke power production is more dangerous, in some ways, than bomb testing. It's in some ways longer term, more accident prone, involving larger quantities of more dangerous or persistent material, etc. So we see people on this forum arguing for the safety of nuke power based on data from the Hiroshima bomb, for example, or by comparing the landscape averaged and generalized "millisieverts" estimated from a nuke accident with that left over from weapons detonation (referred to as "background" ).

That is misleading and weak, but not fearmongering.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Kojax

The problem with pumping water upstream is the same problem as any form of energy storage. That is, loss of energy. When energy is generated by wind, water, nuclear, or whatever, and is stored, an average of more than 50% of that energy is lost. Simple laws of thermodynamics. If wind is used to generate electricity, and that electricity is used to pump water uphill, a good 50% of the energy is lost forever.

It makes much more sense to have a good size storage lake, and simply use that water to generate electricity when the winds are not blowing, if you want to rely on something as variable as wind energy. The other alternative is to provide baseload energy with nuclear, or some other reliable system, and use wind power as 'top up' when the wind is blowing.

You wouldn't think it, but pumped storage is near the top of the list for being the most efficient way to store energy. It's about 70-85% efficient. Only a few other storage methods can exceed that.

Pumped-storage hydroelectricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

kalopin

Re nuclear contamination of wild places.

Sorry, but that is wrong. Even at Chernobyl, wildlife suffers only very, very close to ground zero. In fact, the closed area around Chernobyl has become a major and very valuable wildlife reserve.
Despite Mutations, Chernobyl Wildlife Is Thriving
When a nuclear accident happens, even one as bad as Chernobyl, the effects diminish over time. The damage is far less than anti-nuclear activists would have you believe.

You're also running into people's fear of birth defects. People who live in the area want to be able to have children without being afraid of what horrible life-long consequences they might be inflicting on those children.

It's just like anything else. The natural human response is to be even more afraid of being maimed than killed, and when you apply that to a person's children, it's even more true. A lot of people would rather abort than bear a screwed up baby.

I am taking my complaints about being declared off topic here to Feedback to argue the matter directly with Forum members. Anyone interested in taking bets on the outcome of this dispute with Harold14370 should take a look there.

This thread however, through its belligerent title, was deliberately set up as an unproductive argument thread with an inevitable descent into politics.

You're absolutely right. We should have shut it down much earlier before we had to take actions against membership for getting too deep into that inevitable descent.
I'm locking this.