Energy for tomorrow, 15 pp

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

56 posts / 0 new

Markus Vogt
Energy for tomorrow, 15 pages
Perspectives of the transition to a post-fossil economy
This article has been published in the series “Church and Society”, as no. 387,
edited by the Catholic Centre of Social Sciences at Mönchengladbach (North-
Rhine-Westphalia)
Translated from German by Mrs. A. Elmendorff-Pfeifer, Düsseldorf

http://ordosocialis.de/pdf/M.Vogt/Energy%20for%20tomorrow.pdf

Here the protection of the climate can enter a future-resistant alliance with
economic thought. For the dawn of the fossil era has already begun. “The time
of cheap and abundant energy comes to the end. It is the beginning of the
transition of the fossil era to a post-fossil age, a transition which will be in the
same measure fundamental and decisive as it was the by fossils imprinted
industrial revolution of about more than 200 years ago”.1 The change to the solar
energy and resources basis will have pioneering importance for the future safety
of the world society whose effects in depth, breadth and distance will only be
comparable with the importance of the industrial revolution.2 Only an economic
globalization based on solar energy will be ecologically resistant. There exists,
however, an important problem of transition: The introduction of regenerative
energies does not keep pace with the growing demand of energy throughout the
world. The difference between the utilization of regenerative and fossil energy is
growing in favour of the latter.
But for the mankind, particularly for the development of the countries of the
Global South, the fossil civilization model is an energetic impasse, out of which
only one path exists: the linking of social and technical innovations or a
permanent development with clear priority of regenerative energies.3 But it must
be kept in mind that the isolated exchange of certain components of the fossil
energy structure by regenerative energies does not suffice because these ones
need other structures and developments of civilization. The provisioning of
energy therefore never is purely or primarily an ecological matter, but a
fundamental structural question with considerable consequences for
development and prosperity.

demandside's picture
demandside
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

No sign whatsoever of this end of fossil fuels. Eventually it will come of course, but could take till the end of this century. Solar is utterly incapable of replacing fossil fuels, that is just a silly pipe dream. We need on demand power 24/7, north or south, cloudy, monsoons, volcanic eruptions, rainforest, snow & cold not just where it happens to be sunny. Just the EROI for solar is far too low to be physically capable of replacing fossil fuels.

So the transition will most assuredly be to nuclear energy. Which is has a fuel cost < 1/10th that of fossil fuels. And essentially an infinite supply of fuel.

So with factory mass production of nuclear power plants, small modular reactors, fusion power plants the days of abundant, clean, cheap energy are soon to begin.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm
Quote Instant-RunOff-Voting:

No sign whatsoever of this end of fossil fuels. Eventually it will come of course, but could take till the end of this century. Solar is utterly incapable of replacing fossil fuels, that is just a silly pipe dream. We need on demand power 24/7, north or south, cloudy, monsoons, volcanic eruptions, rainforest, snow & cold not just where it happens to be sunny. Just the EROI for solar is far too low to be physically capable of replacing fossil fuels.

So the transition will most assuredly be to nuclear energy. Which is has a fuel cost < 1/10th that of fossil fuels. And essentially an infinite supply of fuel.

So with factory mass production of nuclear power plants, small modular reactors, fusion power plants the days of abundant, clean, cheap energy are soon to begin.

So cheap you will not have to meter it!

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

Well that quote of Strauss was:

"...In 1954, Strauss predicted that atomic power would make electricity "too cheap to meter."[7] He was referring to Project Sherwood, a secret program to develop power from hydrogen fusion, not uranium fission reactors as is commonly believed.[8] [9]..."

This is just a statement of some dude, just as we hear everyday people claiming solar power is "free energy from the sun". That's why Ontario was paying 40-80 cents/kwh for it and Japan 53 cents/kwh and Germany upwards of 40 cents/kwh.

Proper engineering analysis of nuclear power costs done at the birth of commercial nuclear power all showed its cost to be competitive to coal power, not one showed "too cheap to meter". In fact it turned out cheaper than coal, which was why it was rapidly replacing coal generation throughout the world in the 70's & 80's before the boycott.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm

Hope, one world where many worlds fit and where everyone has a place (Zapatistas), is the radical hope of system change and is not incremental or cosmetic change

Capitalism contains crisis as rain clouds contain rain (Jean Jaures in the 19th century). War and speculation are normalized in late stage financial capitalism. Contradictions like labor as only a cost and not also vital demand are faded away in a system where the richest 65 according to Oxfam have more wealth than 3 1/2 billion people.

Shareholder value capitalism worships profit and short-term constraints and makes long-term necessities and alternatives taboo. Labor becomes a cost factor, society moves into a modern feudal mode, communities are reduced to locations for capital, public education is seen as a prize of billions and respecting other civilizations is called pre-modern. We have squandered energy and assumed that nature was only a free good, external or sink instead of our partner and hope for future strength. Neoliberalism confused the goat with the gardener, ends and means, private and public, part and whole and real and imaginary. Those who make decisions and turn private risks into public risks must take responsibility and liability for their decisions.

Our thinking has to change and become more inclusive and post-material or we adopt the "Newspeak" of the ruling class.

demandside's picture
demandside
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Instant-RunOff-Voting:

Well that quote of Strauss was:

"...In 1954, Strauss predicted that atomic power would make electricity "too cheap to meter."[7] He was referring to Project Sherwood, a secret program to develop power from hydrogen fusion, not uranium fission reactors as is commonly believed.[8] [9]..."

This is just a statement of some dude, just as we hear everyday people claiming solar power is "free energy from the sun". That's why Ontario was paying 40-80 cents/kwh for it and Japan 53 cents/kwh and Germany upwards of 40 cents/kwh.

Proper engineering analysis of nuclear power costs done at the birth of commercial nuclear power all showed its cost to be competitive to coal power, not one showed "too cheap to meter". In fact it turned out cheaper than coal, which was why it was rapidly replacing coal generation throughout the world in the 70's & 80's before the boycott.

They are shutting down plants right and left for economic reasons. They cannot compete. Make them pay for insurance and they will all shut down.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

Nuclear reactor construction in the world is accelerating, with over 60 reactors under construction in 15 countries, with an additional 173 on order. In the USA, nuclear gets zip of the massive municipal, state & federal subsidies that wind & solar gets, in spite of being the #1 source of clean energy in the country, and must compete on electricity markets with heavily subsidized wind that is dumped willy-nilly on the grid whether it is needed or not. Plus it has the most stringent regulator in all of world history demanding all NPPs in the USA be totally immune to a Fukushima style earthquake & tsunami, that's even in the mid-west. Ever hear of a tsunami in Illinois?

And heavily subsidized gas, which gets free money from criminal Banksters, gets to sell its product at $3/mmbtu when the cost of production is $8/mmbtu. And all Electricity Utilities are going Enron, loving the giant profits of speculation in fluctuating gas prices. They ain't interested in low cost nuclear. NG generation is all about fuel cost and that is cost plus - no competition - just maximum profit. They even get capacity payments - incredible.

In a rational United States, all energy sources would be unsubsidized, all clean energy sources would benefit equally with a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend which Hansen and all uncorrupted environmentalists advocate. No mandates, which of course exclusively support Wind & solar, no Renewable Portfolio Standards, no Net Metering (just Solar gets that massive subsidy), just a Carbon Fee & Dividend.

And NG, unlike today, would be required to meet all safety standards, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Radioistope emissions regulations, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Emergency Planning Community Right to Know Act. National Environmental Policy Act. All of which only Big Oil/NG is exempt. Gas gets to use our atmosphere, rivers & lakes and land as a free dumping ground for its waste. No fees. No costs. How come I don't get free garbage disposal?

In that environment, Nuclear in the USA would compete very well, very well indeed. And wind & solar would die an early death.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm

It's not easy to get a fully comprehensive analysis of the complexities of energy subsidies without access to a good university library. This puts all of us here at Thom's at a disadvantage when a shyster comes to this site to sell his or her industry's product using technical jargon and intentional oversight of the complexities involved to make a point.

But it should be noted that the issue of subsidizing any energy source to make it viable and affordable for everyone is, in fact, taking place and in some cases, the fledgling industries are seeming to benefit more than the more mature energy industry providers think they should in order to make them "competitive" in the short term, while the mature industries are seemingly being short-changed.

Nuclear energy was once a fledgling industry, and, like today's renewables, solar and wind power, not to mention the fuel sources that create ethanol, it was subsidized well beyond its EROEI.

This 2011, 146 page report from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable Without Subsidies (pdf download link)

Argues that:

LOW-COST CLAIMS FOR EXISTING REACTORS IGNORE HISTORICAL SUBSIDIES

The nuclear industry is only able to portray itself as a low-cost power supplier today because of past government subsidies and write-offs. First, the industry received massive subsidies at its inception, reducing both the capital costs it needed to recover from ratepayers (the “legacy” subsidies that under - wrote reactor construction through the 1980s) and its operating costs (through ongoing subsidies to inputs, waste management, and accident risks). Second, the industry wrote down tens of billions of dollars in capital costs after its first generation of reactors experienced large cost overruns, cancelations, and plant abandonments, further reducing the industry’s capital-recovery requirements. Finally, when industry restructuring revealed that nuclear power costs were still too high to be competitive, so-called stranded costs were shifted to utility ratepayers, allowing the reactors to continue operating.

These legacy subsidies are estimated to exceed seven cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh)—an amount equal to about 140 percent of the aver - age wholesale price of power from 1960 to 2008, making the subsidies more valuable than the power produced by nuclear plants over that period. Without these subsidies, the industry would have faced a very different market reality—one in which many reactors would never have been built, and utilities that did build reactors would have been forced to charge consumers even higher rates. Without these subsidies, the industry would have faced a very different market reality—one in which many reactors would never have been built, and utilities that did build reactors would have been forced to charge consumers even higher rates.

ONGOING SUBSIDIES CONTRIBUTE TO NUCLEAR POWER’S PERCEIVED COST ADVANTAGE

In addition to legacy subsidies, the industry continues to benefit from subsidies that offset the costs of uranium, insurance and liability, plant security, cooling water, waste disposal, and plant decommissioning. The value of these subsidies is harder to pin down with specificity, with estimates ranging from a low of 13 percent of the value of the power produced to a high of 98 percent. The breadth of this range largely reflects three main factors: uncertainty over the dollar value of accident liability caps; the value to publicly owned utilities (POUs) of ongoing subsidies such as tax breaks and low return-on-investment requirements; and generous capital subsidies to investor-owned utilities (IOUs) that have declined as the aging, installed capacity base is fully written off.

Our low-end estimate for subsidies to existing reactors (in this case, investor-owned facilities) is 0.7 ¢/kWh, a figure that may seem relatively small at only 13 percent of the value of the power produced. However, it represents more than 35 percent of the nuclear production costs (operation and maintenance costs plus fuel costs, without capital recovery) often cited by the industry’s main trade association as a core indicator of nuclear power’s competitiveness; it also represents nearly 80 percent of the production-cost advantage of nuclear relative to coal. With ongoing subsidies to POUs nearly double those to IOUs, the impact on competitive viability is proportionally higher for publicly owned plants.

SUBSIDIES TO NEW REACTORS REPEAT PAST PATTERNS

Legacy and ongoing subsidies to existing reactors may be important factors in keeping facilities operating, but they are not sufficient to attract new investment in nuclear infrastructure. Thus an array of new subsidies was rolled out during the past decade, targeting not only reactors but also other fuel-cycle facilities. Despite the profoundly poor investment experience with taxpayer subsidies to nuclear plants over the past 50 years, the objectives of these new subsidies are precisely the same as the earlier subsidies: to reduce the private cost of capital for new nuclear reactors and to shift the long-term, often multi-generational risks of the nuclear fuel cycle away from investors. And once again, these subsidies to new reactors—whether publicly or privately owned—could end up exceeding the value of the power produced (4.2 to 11.4 ¢/kWh, or 70 to 200 percent of the projected value of the power.

This UCS report, whatever it's shortcomings -- and fully anticipate that the nuclear industry and its shills will undoubtedly do their best to reveal them -- should at minimum give the average citizen some idea of the complexities involved with investing in an extremely expensive and highly technical product before making a long term Faustian bargain involving decades of public investments.

Of course the first stages of this bargain were already made with those "legacy" investments mentioned in the first section of the above quote. But nuclear energy, which accounts for only a fraction of the total electrical portion of this nation's total energy consumption, has a long way to go to equal the still relatively cheap fossil fuel energy sources, though those of course are destined to rise as we desperately begin to crush the earth itself to squeeze out the last of its viable margin of energy cost to energy returned ratio.

There may be something with more up to date figures, but here's a 2007 effort from the Institute for Energy Research to provide an overall breakdown the way we subsidize our Energy here in the U.S.:

Subsidizing American Energy: A Breakdown By Source

It concludes:

The bottom line: traditional fuels continue to be more efficient and cost-effective than renewable fuels, which is why EIA forecasts show them representing 91 percent of energy consumption in 2030.

See also: Record Profits for Oil Companies, Record Revenue for Taxpayers

*all data courtesy of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

The bottom line here at Thom's is that few people are going to want to take the trouble to fully research these issues, so bull shit from industry shills who come here to try to make us look silly in our discussions of these problems is going to fly.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Some renewables are not thought of as renewables. Some wood and plant material sucks more CO2 while growing than it gives off as it burns. It is renewable because it grows back or always grows giving off oxygen and sponging or mopping C02. Dispensing CO2 is not a problem or humans would not exist, we generate it with every breath. Forest management can be done, energy management can be done, fuel sources can be modified, but I don't think they ever will be, at least not in the US. The US is to fossil fuel as Columbia is to drug cartels.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

2 nuke plants evacuated of non-essential personnel in Belgium due to terror threat. We have about 400 security guards per plant in the USA.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/brussels-airport-explosions-live-coverage/be...

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

Post 10 was yesterday. This is todays post and why the nukes were evacuated.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/brussels-attackers-were-targeting-nuclear-pla...

This is really bad for nukes. They have not been targets. The 9/11 bombers flew right over Indian Point. Like I said in post 10 they have 400 security guards at each plant for a reason. They are vulnerable. Calculate an annual cost for 400 security guards.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

Amazing, hyping the EU islamic Terrorism attacks as somehow about Nuclear power. Jesus how gullible and stupid can people get. Big Oil buys our politicians, gets them to invade Iraq because they want access to their $4/bbl high grade crude, World's 2nd largest reserves, end result somewhere around 3 million deaths, $4-5 trillion in American taxpayer expenses, 9300 coalition deaths, basically destroyed the entire Middle East, causing a mass exodus of Muslims & Terrorists into Europe and many into the US, and somehow that disaster is gotta be blamed on nuclear energy.

If we had pursued nuclear energy instead of Big Oil, we wouldn't need any Iraqi Oil or Afghan pipelines and avoided this entire Mother of All Disasters.

That's real scary a couple brain dead idiots, good candidates for suicide bombers are going to takedown a nuclear power plant - unbelievable anyone could be that gullible and stupid to believe that. They couldn't make it past the front gate and their mickey mouse explosives wouldn't even make a dent in the outer concrete containment never mind penetrate the steel pressure vessel. Which wouldn't do zip anyway. Man poeple are stupid.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm

Then why do we pay for 400 security guards per plant? Name something else that requires 400 security guards.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

There are not 400 guards at a nuke plant.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yes there is. That covers the shifts 24/7/365. Plus they work lots of overtime.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

After 9/11, the NRC (Nuclear Rejection Commission) ordered all Nuclear Power plants to have 20 guards on each shift so ~80 guards per plant. They are private, fairly low paid, so that would be total 80 X ~$60k/yr or $4.8M/yr total. For a 1GW plant that would add 0.06 cents per kwh to the electricity cost. Compare with the Net Metering subsidy that only Solar PV gets = ~ 8-12 cents per kwh.

Funny our Big Oil owned government demands nuclear has all these safety protection but could care less about oil & gas explosions happening daily, killing thousands of people. Blew up a whole neighbourhood in San Bruno, California and destroyed a city in Quebec, roasted 47 people to death.

Terrorists could easily connect a Natural gas line from an NG power plant or an LNG tanker to a city sewer line causing a massive firestorm that destroys the city and kills a million people. Not much you could do to a modern (i.e. not Fuku) NPP.

Or use a remote control submersible to put remote detonation mines on wellheads in the Gulf of Mexico, causing massive oil leaks which would destroy the entire Gulf and shutdown a large portion of US oil supply. And why doesn't our corrupt government require similar security at Hydro plants? Blow up a Hydro dam could kill a million people.

And Big Oil's liquid CO2 pipelines, which they get 100% full liability protection at no cost, easy for a terrorist to locate a pipeline near a city, with the right weather conditions blow it open, the heavy CO2 cloud blankets the city asphyxiating everyone, as does happen in volcanic regions.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm

Like every department at a nuclear plant, sucurity became an empire. You say 80 per plant. That is managed by a middle manager. But if I can show 400 are needed I am an upper manager. Thus a bloated expensive industry. Each and every department is managed like this in the nucear power industry. There is no plot by the fossil industry to bring down the nuclear industry. It has burned itself out with management that are the intelligence of climate deniers and cannot figure out how to sell its product. Empire buiders that run it into the ground. The industry would be building plants as fast as they could if it made sense. Unfortunately the new plants are all ready over budget and over schedule. And it will get worse. It is an industry that cannot solve its problems.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

Nope, you are being ridiculous, 80 security guards and 320 managers!*!. Maybe that's how Big Oil operates, pumping oil out of the ground at $4/bbl and selling it at up to $150/bbl. So the reality 20 security guards each shift, as req'd by NRC regulations, one shift supervisor X4 =4, one foreman & office assistant on steady day shift, 5&2 = total 86 people. A far cry from your invented number of 400. More imposed nonsense from the NRC but a minor overall expense. You can be sure China, India, South Korea, Russia doesn't require all that security.

I wonder when Big Oil is going to plug that disastrous leak into the Gulf of Mexico they can't stop, zero coverage on the MSM. Zero protests from Greenpeace or the UCS. Funny how the UCS = Union of Concerned Lawyers (do they even have one scientist?) has blanked out the list of big donors on their IRS990 form. But they get $25M in donations every year from somewhere. Nice how 27 of their executive make over $100k per year with the top crook getting $300k per year. Nice donations from the Rockefeller & Pew Oil Barons and other Big Oil lobby groups. No wonder they are rabidly anti-nuclear.

Why won't our politicians charge Big Oil for their, good guestimate $10 trillion Iraq Oil war disaster? Those $billions in campaign contributions and other forms of graft from Big Oil wouldn't have anything to do with it would it?

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm

I thought that you worked at a plant IRO but you obviously do not. I will stand on my 400 figure. Use your imagination. It is easy.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/26/officials-reportedly-have-concer...

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am
Quote Legend:

I thought that you worked at a plant IRO but you obviously do not. I will stand on my 400 figure. Use your imagination. It is easy.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/26/officials-reportedly-have-concer...

OK, YOu got me there. I will accept that there are 400 guards if I use my imagination.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Use your imagination was in reference to the FoxNews link. Get ISIS sympathizers employed at a plant. Easy.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

Nothing of much interest in the schlock Fox news article. Just more fearmongering with lots of "reportedly" and "fears of". Pretty easy to vet the few employees that a NPP will hire each year. If some arsehole was able to destroy a turbine by dumping the lubricant then that must be some ancient plant that the greenie regulator wouldn't allow to be upgraded to a modern PLC/DCS control system.

Terrorists couldn't do zip with uranium contrary to what the MSM likes to pretend. And a dirty bomb can most easily be built with medical, agricultural or industrial radioisotopes that are far more suitable and vastly easier to obtain. We had 29 unguarded radioisotope sources at a plant I worked at (not nuclear) including the hard gamma emitter Cobalt-60. Still a very ineffective weapon, lot's of hype in the media but likely few if any deaths.

By far and away, the best option for ISIS if they want to do serious damage, death & spread fear in Europe would be bioterrorism. Easily a thousand times easier than any nuclear and probably a million X more effective. Easiest thing grab one of the many Ebola bodies lying on the ground in Africa, extract the infected fluids and spread the aerosal in large cities in Europe. Major panic in the USA over even a few contained cases at hospitals there. Why no fear mongering in the MSM over that?

And the most important point is all of this fear, death and destruction was all caused by Big Oil and their insatiable lust to get access to more & more lucrative oil & gas reserves. Don't forget even the Iran mess was directly caused by BP buying US & British polticians getting the CIA to overthrow the legitimate democratic Iranian gov't which was nationalizing their oil industry. Replacing that government with the brutal, savage Shah. Another in a long line of US gov't, CIA led regime change disasters, much of them fueled by the lust for oil. For these reasons, and the many associated mega-natural-disasters it has caused, Oil has often been called "The Devil's Tears".

Nuclear energy can eliminate the need for oil, and quite quickly get America out of the Middle East Quagmire. And solve the immense Climate Change Conundrum. There is no other energy source remotely capable of achieving that.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm
Quote Instant-RunOff-Voting:

Terrorists couldn't do zip with uranium contrary to what the MSM likes to pretend. And a dirty bomb can most easily be built with medical, agricultural or industrial radioisotopes that are far more suitable and vastly easier to obtain. We had 29 unguarded radioisotope sources at a plant I worked at (not nuclear) including the hard gamma emitter Cobalt-60. Still a very ineffective weapon, lot's of hype in the media but likely few if any deaths.

By far and away, the best option for ISIS if they want to do serious damage, death & spread fear in Europe would be bioterrorism. Easily a thousand times easier than any nuclear and probably a million X more effective. Easiest thing grab one of the many Ebola bodies lying on the ground in Africa, extract the infected fluids and spread the aerosal in large cities in Europe. Major panic in the USA over even a few contained cases at hospitals there. Why no fear mongering in the MSM over that?

When I said to ue your imagination I did not mean for you to divulge it. If they did not know they do now.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

Actually a CNN security expert said pretty much the same thing with millions of audience, so I hardly think the small audience here is going to be a significant addition to that. It's not rocket science you know.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm
Quote Legend:Use your imagination was in reference to the FoxNews link. Get ISIS sympathizers employed at a plant. Easy.
Did ya her the one about the Belgian Nuke facility guard murdered and ID stolen?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/12204863/Brussels-terror-attacks-nuclear-isil-suspects-victims-latest.html

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The fact that they are even thinking about it is not good. Even in the USA we have Iranian and Iraqi Engineers working at nuclear plants. Europe has a lot. They do not have to try and smuggle materials out (virtually impossible). There is a history in Europe of nuclear terroism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemoniz_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

If you read the article, the supposed plot in Belgium was all bull. This is only scary to know-nothings who are very susceptable to MSM fear mongering. Not much a Nuclear worker could do to cause a significant radiation release incident at a NPP. At worst some localized damage, no off-site deaths. And of course much worse damage can be done at the thousands of oil refineries, hydro dams, chemical plants & natural gas processing and storage sites that are ubiquitious in modern cities. Good example of a lone employee terrorism is the Chemical Plant disaster in Bhopal India:

"....a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release.[3] A government affidavit in 2006 stated that the leak caused 558,125 injuries, including 38,478 temporary partial injuries and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries.[4] Others estimate that 8,000 died within two weeks, and another 8,000 or more have since died from gas-related diseases...."

Funny no fearmongering in the MSM about that. With all those deadly Ammonia plants near populated areas. No scary reports from Greenpeace or the UCS.

Another much bigger concern is terrorists infiltrating an LNG tanker, 20 LNG tanker loads each year to replace one NPP, each LNG tanker has more energy than a nuclear bomb. A terrorist could wipe out a large city with one of those.

Any Idiot can write a story about Nuclear Terrorism:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/08/17/anyone-can-write-a-sto...

"....The fact is, nuclear plants are the best-defended places in the country outside of a military base. They use physical security, access deterrents and cyber defenses to make them the most secure of all industrial facilities. Just ask the FBI and DHS (U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; background information).

In a recent NRC report to Congress and the entire intelligence community, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission laid this issue to rest. We’ve all been thinking about this a lot since 9/11, and even the terrorists know nuclear plants are lousy targets. They’re about as military-hardened as you can get. A 747 crashing into one would do little, except to the passengers. It would take a bunker buster to breach it, and even then, it wouldn’t go critical..."

Fox and Friends, Typical MSM Nonsense Fear-Mongering about Nuclear Terrorism:

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.ca/2016/03/fox-and-friends-and-nuclear-p...

Contemplating the Terrorist Who Strikes the Indian Point Nuclear Station:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/28/284948/-Contemplating-the-Terro...

Debunking Another Fear-Mongering piece of garbage from the UNC = Union of Concerned Lawyers, with their one paid scientist, Ed Lyman, who has zero qualifications in Nuclear Energy:

"....Agitation to shut nuclear plants is always accompanied by grand discussions of windmills and solar plants and geothermal facilities and lots of biomass. But every single nuclear plant that has been shut because of public stupidity has not been replaced by any of these things. Every nuclear plant that has been shut by public stupidity has been replaced by fossil fuels. I have no ambiguity at all about fossil fuels. I want them banned.

Dr. Lyman and many of his supporters - some of whom are right here at DKos and who already hold a very low opinion of me and my rage - think that I impressed by the their imaginations but I am not. There is no way in hell that I am going to elevate the lives of 44,000 people who could die - if Indian Point were attacked by a highly trained band of terrorists armed with sophisticated weapons - over the lives of the 40,000 people who are likely to die this year in New York City from air pollution without any terrorist events happening.

Yesterday, the island of Lochara in India disappeared below the seas. Ten thousand people once lived on that island. The low lying nation of Bangladesh, with hundreds of millions of people is nearby. Those lives matter every bit as the 518,000 and not 518,411, people who Dr. Lyman is trying say that the terrorists will get when - and he doesn't want you to really weigh the word "if" - they attack Indian Point.

There is no such thing as risk free energy. There is only risk minimized energy. That energy is nuclear energy...."

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm

Fukushima proved that if you take out the off site power supply and emergency diesel generator supply you have a meltdown. It does not take a tidal wave and earthquake to do that. Every idiot uses the 747 into containment crash scenario. Totally unprooven. If they wanted to proove it they would crash one into the unused but finished containment at Marble Hill. BWR's do not have a containment. The target is the SF pool and cooling water intake.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

All bullshit. They have multiple generators, battery supplies and diesel fueled pumps at all US reactors and after FUKU at all reactors. Pretty simpleminded. The big problem at Fuku, was they had the electrical switchgear, fuel supply and generators below the height of the tsunami wave. And no diesel pumps. And they foolishly didn't have hydrogen recombiners, standard on all US NPPs and now on all reactors. Japan relied on venting but some idiot had a regulation that they had to wait for permission from the biggest moron in all of Japan, namely PM Naoto Kan, to vent the hydrogen & minor amount of volatile isotopes.

End result, zero radiation deaths, a lot of damage, but pretty small compared to Big Oil's regular & routine everyday disasters. No earthquake, tsunamis, hurricanes or tornados needed. They blow up all by themselves. And kill 3.5 million every year just due to their toxic waste. With their global warming amplifying that by a large factor.

GenIII reactors, the AP1000 is stable for 72 hrs after total electrical shutdown with makeup water tank on top of the containment. Pretty simple-minded to maintain cooling if you do the analysis.

Obviously you have zero knowledge of aircraft, or you wouldn't claim you could fly a 747 into a SNF pool or buried cooling water multiple intakes. Ever hear of ground effect, air density, collision avoidance avionics, rate of descent, aircraft structural mechanics? Didn't think so.

Engineers, I.e. people unlike yourself who actually know something about materials science, computer modeling, stress mechanics, can easily model the effect of an aircraft collision. That is well established. Not a significant safety issue.

Funny how you Big Oil spokespeople, demand Nuclear must have all these protections, and extraordinary expensive tests, like crashing a remote controlled 747 into a containment structure (again = zero knowledge of aircraft) but Big Oil facilities need no tests, no protection, no fear mongering. How about flying an aircraft into an oil refinery or oil rig or NG or LNG storage or LNG tanker or NG pipelines or liquid CO2 pipelines or Hydro dams or Ammonia storage - the list is long? No comment. Listen to the Crickets.

And only the biggest idiot who ever walked the face of the Earth would claim a BWR does not have containment:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/bwrs.html

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm

They have 2 emergency diesel generators that fail a lot during testing. Batterys do not last long and are for instruments. The plants at Fukushima were identical to many plants in the USA. They were not lacking anything installed in the USA. The designs and design changes done in the USA were also incorporated in all BWR's. Hydorgen recombiners were added in the USA after TMI and would have been added at all USA designed plants.

The AP1000 does have the tank on top of the containment structure for gravity feed of cooling water. Thus prooving the need at the 70 or so PWR plants built in the USA and hundreds elsewhere. Maximum of 72 hours. As low as 24. There are 4 AP1000's under construction. All 4 all ready over budget and delayed in start up at billions of dollars.

Obviously you have zero knowledge of aircraft, or you wouldn't claim you could fly a 747 into a SNF pool or buried cooling water multiple intakes. Ever hear of ground effect, air density, collision avoidance avionics, rate of descent, aircraft structural mechanics? Actually quite simple. They land planes on the moving decks of aircraft carriers. Land on a dime at thousands of airports every hour. Total amatuers flew into the towers and Pentagon. What more can I say.

Let's talk about your engineers that do all of these calculations. Are these the same ones that foolishly put electrical switchgear, fuel supply and generators below the height of the tsunami wave at Fukushima? And no diesel pumps. And they foolishly didn't have hydrogen recombiners. Were these the same engineers? That was an American designed plant, designed by engineers. Interesting that several engineers did quit GE over the Mark 3 design, saying it would not work. Your "engineers" are no better than the next engineer so do not give me that crap.

The BWR type 3 has a Torus for Containment which obviously did not work at Fukushima. It does not have the structural integrity that a PWR Containment structure has. GE BWR type 6's went into a contaiment type structure. There are 3 in the USA. Again prooving the need at the 24 or so type 3 designs that do not have it.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

"...they have 2 emergency diesel generators that fail a lot during testing. Batterys do not last long and are for instruments..."

Its pretty straightforward having solid, reliable standby diesel generation. Done everyday in every city in America. I've actually done that. Easy, breezy like color-girl. High reliability Utility-grade emergency battery supplies are becoming ubiquitous, due to the growth of unreliable wind & solar power. Doesn't take much of a battery pack to run a couple water pumps for a couple days. You don't need rocket scientists to restore power in a day or two.

"...All 4 all ready over budget and delayed in start up at billions of dollars..."

Only in the totally corrupt USA, with $billions annually flowing from Big Fossil to Greenie groups like the UCS, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for [Clean?!?] Energy with non-stop lawsuits designed to delay & push up nuclear costs. Still substantially cheaper than unreliable, intermittent and heavily subsidized wind & solar power that can only operate in companion with fossil. As Shell Oil calls wind & solar "They are a dancing partner for natural gas". Those are the facts. Sorry to burst your balloon.

"...they land planes on the moving decks of aircraft carriers. Land on a dime at thousands of airports every hour. Total amatuers flew into the towers and Pentagon..."

Sorry, you really don't know anything about aircraft. Landing on aircraft carriers with highly maneuveralbe fighter jets at low speeds, by exceptional fighter pilots with a thousand hours of sophisticated training. Totally different to fly into a high altitude big target like the WTC. Flying a 747 into a NPP would take a super-expert pilot and he would have to plan that his descent from 20-30 miles away at low speed, with nose up. and all he could do is crash his belly into the large containment building with 3 ft reinforced concrete at a low angle, and low speed. Aircraft are fragile, lightweight, composites & aluminum which would disintegrate on impact. This is not some feeble building like the WTC which was not structurally damaged by the impact, the serious damage was all the fuel that burned. That would have negligible effect on a NPP. Nope, not a chance, only a complete idiot would waste $millions on that nutty terrorist plot, that would not achieve anything when they could one millionX easier attack a soft target like a skyscraper or sports stadium. You are only proving you have zero credibility and zero knowledge coming up with nutty scenarios like that. Grow up child.

"...Your "engineers" are no better than the next engineer..."

Yes, engineers did screw-up allowing Fuku meltdowns to occur. Fortunately zero deaths unlike the typical Big Oil disaster. And other screw-up idiot, corrupt bureaucrats in the Japanese regulator, and dumbo "experts" in the Japan Meteorological Agency that claimed a Tohoku event tsunami was impossible. And brain-dead polticians like Naoto Kan. Welcome to the real world. According to you, the Titanic screw-up means all shipping should be banned. The cluster-fuck Deepwater Horizon, another of many Big Oil disasters, means all Oil Drilling rigs should be banned. Exxon Valdez mismanagement means all Oil Tankers should be eliminated. The 9/11 screw-up means the FBI, CIA, NSA and all airlines should be shutdown. And all big buildings should be banned. The NG drilling disaster super-Mud Volcano in Indonesia means all NG drilling should be outlawed. And the massive 200k dead Banqiao Hydro dam failure means all Hydro should be shutdown.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm

Legend, here works for Big Oil and his true love is Fracking. That's why he likes to go by his nickname which is "Frackie". Well I'm really sorry to tell Frackie that his hero, Aubrey Mclendon, has committed suicide. A sad day for Frackie, many tears will be shed:

Death of a Shale Gas Salesman. Aubrey McClendon was fracking's greatest advocate -- until he drove his car into a concrete wall:

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/03/28/Death-Shale-Gas-Salesman/

"...He symbolized the excesses of the shale gas industry and its brute force accomplice, hydraulic fracturing.

The high-energy, optimistic entrepreneur gambled everything in the bust-and-boom casino of unconventional, high-risk hydrocarbons. For a short time, he outran the looming realities of a growing debt load, bad land deals and an underperforming technology.

But ultimately, debt -- all that money borrowed for risky shale gas gambles -- threw the former accountant and landman into the middle of a Shakespearean tragedy with the usual ingredients of ambition, greed and waste.

McClendon lived the American dream long enough to encounter its sister nightmare. He seized an opportunity, conquered nature and gained and lost a fortune.

As a history major, McClendon probably knew the fates of others who bet all on a resource boom. But like so many driven energy CEOs, he embraced risk like a moth to the flame.

His personal and corporate life exposed the contradictions in the industry. Big-spending, high risks and lavish lifestyles abounded, the expression of everything antithetical to conservative values. Yet the industry serves as the most persistent funder of the political right in North America.

In his excellent book on the shale revolution, The Boom, journalist Russell Gold described McClendon aptly – "part pied piper, part early adopter, and part rapacious capitalist."..."

Does anyone feel sorry for the criminal Banksters who funneled many 10's of $billions of almost free money, money they create out of thin air, into the Shale Gas industry only to see it go belly up? They sell shale gas at $3/mmbtu and the cost of production is $8/mmbtu. The wonders of free money created by the criminal private Banksters who are awarded this incredible gift, the greatest case of welfare in the history of human civilization, the license to create our money supply. What is their agenda in making America not only dependent on Middle East terrorist, child-killer oil, but also Middle East terrorist, child-rapist LNG imports, at least in 20-30 yrs or so? And that is along with the de-industrializing America, as Obama's science czar John Holdren ( a close friend of the Rockefeller Bankster/Oil Barons) advocates.

In this report, Deborah Rogers from Energy Policy Forum explores the role of Wall Street investment banks in the recent shale gas drilling frenzy and related drop in natural gas prices:

http://shalebubble.org/wall-street/

Unredacted U.K. Fracking Report Shows Extreme Health and Financial Costs of Shale Gas:

http://www.occupy.com/article/unredacted-uk-fracking-report-shows-extrem...

Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html

Cold, Hungry and in the Dark: Exploding the Natural Gas Supply Myth:

http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Hungry-Dark-Exploding-Natural/dp/0865717435

"...Cold, Hungry and in the Dark argues that declining productivity combined with increasing demand will trigger a crisis that will cause prices to skyrocket, damage the economy, and have a profound impact on the lives of nearly every North American.

Relying on faulty science, bought-and-paid-for-white papers masquerading as independent research and "industry consultants," the "shale promoters" have vastly overstated the viable supply of shale gas resources for their own financial gain. This startling exposé, written by an industry insider, suggests that the stakes involved in the Enron scandal might seem like lunch money in comparison to the bursting of the natural gas bubble. Exhaustively researched and rigorously documented, Cold, Hungry and in the Dark:..."

It is notable that the Sierra Club was being secretly financed from by Aubrey McClendon, Frackie's all time greatest hero.

A disgusted whistleblower in the Sierra Club leaked that they received $25 million from 2007 to 2010 to fund their anti-nuclear and anti-coal campaigns. With another $30 million to follow. This was largely through personal donations of the CEO of Chesapeake Energy, namely Aubrey McClendon. And of course, during that time Sierra Club supported natural gas as "a bridge fuel" while being vehemently opposed to nuclear & coal. With some solar & wind to greenwash the natural gas.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm

You do nothing but discredit yourself by ignoring the fact that a total amatuer pilot flow a plane into the Pentagon despite ground effect etc. Anyways there are plenty of ways to do damage to a nuke without an airplane.

"...they land planes on the moving decks of aircraft carriers. Land on a dime at thousands of airports every hour. Total amatuers flew into the towers and Pentagon..."

Sorry, you really don't know anything about aircraft. Landing on aircraft carriers with highly maneuveralbe fighter jets at low speeds, by exceptional fighter pilots with a thousand hours of sophisticated training. Totally different to fly into a high altitude big target like the WTC. Flying a 747 into a NPP would take a super-expert pilot and he would have to plan that his descent from 20-30 miles away at low speed, with nose up. and all he could do is crash his belly into the large containment building with 3 ft reinforced concrete at a low angle, and low speed. Aircraft are fragile, lightweight, composites & aluminum which would disintegrate on impact. This is not some feeble building like the WTC which was not structurally damaged by the impact, the serious damage was all the fuel that burned. That would have negligible effect on a NPP. Nope, not a chance, only a complete idiot would waste $millions on that nutty terrorist plot, that would not achieve anything when they could one millionX easier attack a soft target like a skyscraper or sports stadium. You are only proving you have zero credibility and zero knowledge coming up with nutty scenarios like that. Grow up child.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am
Quote Legend:

You do nothing but discredit yourself by ignoring the fact that a total amatuer pilot flow a plane into the Pentagon despite ground effect etc. Anyways there are plenty of ways to do damage to a nuke without an airplane.

"...they land planes on the moving decks of aircraft carriers. Land on a dime at thousands of airports every hour. Total amatuers flew into the towers and Pentagon..."

Sorry, you really don't know anything about aircraft. Landing on aircraft carriers with highly maneuveralbe fighter jets at low speeds, by exceptional fighter pilots with a thousand hours of sophisticated training. Totally different to fly into a high altitude big target like the WTC. Flying a 747 into a NPP would take a super-expert pilot and he would have to plan that his descent from 20-30 miles away at low speed, with nose up. and all he could do is crash his belly into the large containment building with 3 ft reinforced concrete at a low angle, and low speed. Aircraft are fragile, lightweight, composites & aluminum which would disintegrate on impact. This is not some feeble building like the WTC which was not structurally damaged by the impact, the serious damage was all the fuel that burned. That would have negligible effect on a NPP. Nope, not a chance, only a complete idiot would waste $millions on that nutty terrorist plot, that would not achieve anything when they could one millionX easier attack a soft target like a skyscraper or sports stadium. You are only proving you have zero credibility and zero knowledge coming up with nutty scenarios like that. Grow up child.

I just want to call attention to something here. Please do not take offense. I'm just trying to help with some clarity about who says what in your above post.

If I was an idle reader who happened to glance at the last post on this thread (which was yours quoted above), I wouldn't have a clue that the last bolded paragraph is not you shouting at the other guy with bolded words, telling him to grow up, child -- which I think any casual reader would find to be offensively rude and disrespectful towards him, whereas it was originally rude and offensively disrespectful towards you.

Offensive language is behavior I personally won't tolerate with a response of any kind, respectful or otherwise, for a variety of reasons. If I really feel offended I can click on the flag as offensive button, but I generally don't, I don't think it's there for any other reason that allowing us to let off steam. But ignoring offensive posts is my personal solution after many other trials and errors.

If you don't want to help a nuclear industry salesman (which is my personal opinion of this guy you are "conversing" with) sell his unwanted goods to the average reader through repititious exposure on this board (much like Donald Trump's media enhanced run for the presidency, or Ray Kroc's famous dictum, location, location, location, meaning exposure, exposure, exposure), you could give some thought to trying to be clear who says what in your post, which is about all we can control for ourselves. Please, don't be offended, it's just a suggestion.

I personally had to double check to see where those words came from and I already have a good sense of who uses what language here. In fact, that's why I checked. But someone else might not. It doesn't sound like you. It really would discredit your points if you were to actually write like that. And in general, I don't see you needing to bait people in that way in order to get your points noticed.

Using the board's recognized bbc quote codes is not that hard to get used to if you want to show something as a quote. Simpy type the brackets [ and ] with quote enclosed at the beginning and /quote enclosed at the end. If you want to get really clear you can put quote= followed by the name of the person you are quoting in those brackets. It's a little extra effort, but it can really help the reader.

This board's software certainly has its awkward-inducing flaws but with just a little effort it can be made to work for us, rather than against us, when it comes to writing with clarity.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

"...Anyways there are plenty of ways to do damage to a nuke without an airplane.."

There are vastly more ways to damage every other bit of infrastructure we have than almost certainly futile efforts to attack a NPP. And the statistics bear that out by an overwhelming margin. You really are grasping at straws. And you still completely ignore the climate change catastrophe and 7 million deaths a year your favorite Oil, Gas, Coal & Biomass cause. As well as Hydro risk and vast land destruction even without a failure.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm

"...help a nuclear industry salesman (which is my personal opinion of this guy you are "conversing" with) sell his unwanted goods to the average reader through repititious exposure on this board (much like Donald Trump's media..."

A good example of an offensive, unprovoked personal attack and Ad Hominem. Because you have no rational argument you resort to such diversions.

Quite a giant conspiracy theory you have there ren. Like 65% of AAAS scientists support Nuclear Power (PEW opinion poll 2015), 71% of climate scientists including James Hansen himself and millions of citizen advocates for rational energy policy like myself. According to the warped mind of ren we are all paid by some giant nuclear industry conspiracy. What ren can't understand is nuclear is a pipsqueak, most nuclear industry is publicly owned, what is private doesn't even make the Fortune 500 largest world companies. Whereas its main competitor, Oil & Gas is six of the top 10 Fortune 500. But big, bad nuclear is out here kicking poor Big Oil's ass - not the other way around - according to Ren's conspiracy theory.

Funny how .ren's giant Nuclear conspirators can't even manage one lousy TV ad. I see non-stop ads on TV news shows 24/7 almost every commercial break - "...Vote for Oil & Gas - Vote for US - We will save America...". "Solar and Wind are Dancing partners of Natural Gas" "Chevron big Gas Generation plant in California with Solar adjunct - see how wonderful we are". I have yet to see even one nuclear ad on TV in the past 5 yrs. Some conspiracy that is. In spite of its huge relevance to Global Warming mitigation. But according to .ren they can afford to pay me to come on this tiny website to promote nuclear power. Talk about a wacky conspiracy theory.

So to put the record straight. I don't work in any form of nuclear industry, never have. Not invested in Nuclear and don't make one penny from nuclear anything. In fact I advocate for rational energy policy. I'm not even much of a proponent of nuclear power in the west beyond just the run-of-the-mill maintaining nuclear capacity. This is because the financial power of its fossil opposition is so immense that it is not realistic to expect significant Nuclear growth in the West for at least a decade or more.

I support more of a campaign like Bill Gates & Richard Branson's Breakthrough Energy Coalition:

http://www.breakthroughenergycoalition.com/en/index.html

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/30/bill-gates-breakthrou...

"...THE WORLD NEEDS WIDELY AVAILABLE ENERGY that is reliable, affordable and does not produce carbon. The only way to accomplish that goal is by developing new tools to power the world. That innovation will result from a dramatically scaled up public research pipeline linked to truly patient, flexible investments committed to developing the technologies that will create a new energy mix. The Breakthrough Energy Coalition is working together with a growing group of visionary countries who are significantly increasing their public research pipeline through the Mission Innovation initiative to make that future a reality...."

The key words here are reliable, affordable low carbon energy. That does not include present day wind & solar.

There is way too much money in fossil and way too much apathy for climate change to expect any significant move from fossil in the west. Best we could do is have a massive R&D program to at least develop the best solutions for a future mobilization when the shit does hit the fan. The last thing we need is throwing $trillions down the sewer on nutty Wind & Solar scams which only serve to push up the price of electricity so the poor can't afford it and supply a public subsidized greenwashing for fossil fuel as well as ensuring fossil fuel lock-in, since solar & wind cannot function without a mostly fossil fueled economy.

Also a revenue neutral, carbon fee & dividend would also be desireable, and realistic, which of course Hansen advocates, instead of the massive, worthless subsidies being given to solar & wind. It also protects the poor from high energy prices while charging the rich for overconsumption of energy. Carbon trading or Cap n' Trade does the exact opposite.

And the Flex-Fuel mandate would be an inexpensive, effective and realistic way to provide a path away from Oil, especially Middle East imported Oil.

Robert Zubrin, on Achieving Energy Victory by Robert Zubrin:

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/achieving-energy-victory

http://energyvictory.net/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLRuGUPkyh4

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm
Quote Instant-RunOff-Voting:

"...help a nuclear industry salesman (which is my personal opinion of this guy you are "conversing" with) sell his unwanted goods to the average reader through repititious exposure on this board (much like Donald Trump's media..."

A good example of an offensive, unprovoked personal attack and Ad Hominem. Because you have no rational argument you resort to such diversions.

It's merely an observation on my part. After spending a number of years as a marketing consultant, it's clear to me that you are endeavoring to sell something here. Maybe, if you don't like being told that you come across as a salesman, you could review your tactics so that, if you want to be seen as a reasonable, sensible and mutually respecting participant in conversations, you can see what you are doing that has given me that impression. Of course, if I'm the only one, it hardly matters.

An 'Ad hominem' falls in the general category of argumentative rebuttal fallacies. Since I am not rebutting anything you say, in fact, I make a regular habit of ignoring your posts, that's an innaccurate description. I urge you to press the "Flag as offensive" button if you are offended. As far as I'm concerned, you are as free as anyone to publish your opinions or sell whatever product or idea you want to try to sell on this board. It's not up to me what you publish. I'm merely noting to Legend that you are trying to sell nuclear energy as the solution for just about every energy option or social change option anyone tries to talk about. Anyone can read your posts and come to their own conclusion. That's mine.

Speaking of diversions, did you actually read the article so that you could respond to its subject matter and extensive content, rather than bring in the nuclear option as the only possible topic of conversation once again? I read your first post and it left me wondering.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Let's get this straight that I am against nuclear power based on it abysmal record. Especially in the USA. 1 Meltdown that was almost a lot worse. One individual who came in on dayshift saw the problem and started to cool the reactor. 5 close calls that would have resulted in meltdown. These are ones that I know of and did get minor publicity. Each time reported like it was something minor. A LOCA is not minor. What has not been reported is unknown. Hundreds of canceled plants that Trillions of dollars were spent on. Every plant under construction goes billions over budget and over schedule. Plants shut down for years due to unsafe operation. 400 security guards required to guard each plant and nothing is done to protect aerial attack. In South Korea they have anti aircraft facilities nearby each plant. They have had 50 years to solve the spent fuel waste problem and have done nothing. We are building 4 more nukes with nowhere for the fuel to go or be reprocessed. It is only a matter of time, maybe in the USA or Internationally, there will be another major accident.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canceled_nuclear_plants_in_the_Uni...

The USA has had one attack on the grid. This could have been a trial run.

http://kron4.com/2015/10/16/video-new-development-in-south-bay-pge-subst...

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

Once again you have proven you have zero credibility, in fact below zero since you just make stuff up, whatever impresses your little mind. Like the 400 security guards when NRC regs say 80, admit you just pulled that number out of your asshole.

And $trillions spent on cancelled NPPs, again you reached deep into your butt to get that number.

And your nutty aerial attack scenario, I already proved is all bull.

And as usual you totally ignore the vastly worse dangers, proven dangers at any alternative to Nuclear Energy.

You are a person devoid of integrity, devoid of honesty, devoid of rationality.

But you do admit you work for Big Oil. Which explains why you completely ignore climate change, could care less about it, and the 7 million who die every year from your fossil & biomass fuels.

Nuclear was dirt cheap until Big Oil's heavily financed stooges went after it, this is precisely documented here, including stupidly shutdown NPPs, Frackie here believes the more who die due to his fossil fuel pollution the better for the world's population. Except for Frackie its always the other guy that should die, not him:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100227025542/http://depletedcranium.com/wh...

https://web.archive.org/web/20150224035402/http://depletedcranium.com/he...

https://web.archive.org/web/20100104004052/http://depletedcranium.com/th...

And the spent fuel nuclear waste problem is already solved as the Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission declared. But Frackie here claims nothing has been done. Again utter nonsense from someone who has zero knowledge of spent fuel management.

"...There are multiple plans for the spent fuel. Over the course of the next few years or decades, the main repository is most likely to be the on-site cooling pools or dry cask storage. There are no serious technical problems with that approach, and that could easily see us through the remainder of this century. If you can think of any respect in which contained spent fuel with its ridiculously tiny geographic footprint is not massively greener than coal, I'd be interested to hear about it.

For intermediate term storage, I expect several underground repositories will be set up and those might see some use for another 2 or 3 centuries.. But spent fuel is only "spent" with regard to the current class of reactors. Even high-burnup spent fuel has only extracted about 5% of the energy potential of the fuel. There are multiple teams working on developing fast, mixed, or epithermal spectrum reactors which can make use of the rest, and most of them would operate in a temperature range which makes the heat produced more useful, so these reactors should deliver between 20 to 30 times the amount of usable energy that we got from the fuel on its first pass through current reactors. Final burnup will convert all of the transuranics into fission products.

The fission products themselves will be divided into three categories. Around 80% of it will go into well-shielded short-term sequester for up to ten years while it drops down to or below background radiation levels. There will be 7 very long-lived fission products, some of which have uses, or can be converted into stable and even valuable elements by transmutation, and the remainder of which will be very mildly radioactive, easily-shielded beta emitters, in very small quantities. Around 17% of the fission products will have intermediate half-lives--up to around 30 years. In three or four centuries, they will be cold elements, all of which are usable. These might wind up in a recoverable sequester, or we might just vitrify them and drop them down deep boreholes--whichever turns out to be cheapest at the time. Earthquakes would pose no problem for borehole disposal. They might collapse underground repositories rendering the fission products unrecoverable, but posing negligible risk to anyone above ground, and Australia is currently investigating setting up a global nuclear waste repository, and Australia has some of the most tectonically stable land on the planet. The net long-term risk from earthquakes would be trivial compared to the risks posed by the energy alternatives.

As for cost, a metric ton of spent fuel easily has the potential to produce a gigawatt-year of electricity. At a wholesale rate of, say, 3 cents per kw hour, that would translate into revenues of over a quarter billion dollars. Even a metric ton of gold is only worth around 35 million. So let me turn your question around. If someone were to dump several tons of gold dust in your front yard, how much do you think it would "cost" you to dispose of it?..."

Deaths per TWh of electricity:

Coal: 161

Oil: 36

Biomass: 12

NG: 4 . So Frackies fav energy source is only 100X more dangerous than Nuclear. Poor Frackie, wrong again as usual.

Hydro: 1.4

Wind: 0.15

Nuclear: 0.04

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Note that doesn't include billions who will die from runaway global warming caused by Frackie's oil, gas & coal power source. And even the mess in Europe & the Middle East caused by Frackie's fossil fuels. Mass emigrations and social disruptions. That is just the warmup to what follows. As usual Frackie doesn't want to talk about those things.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm

I think it's hilarious that somebody pushing for nuclear annihilation would call someone else dishonest and irrational after having claimed that nuclear is cheaper than other forms of electrical generation and that the problem of waste disposal is solved. Nuclear is, in fact, the most expensive way to generate electricity and we both know that radioactive waste disposal has not been solved and nor will it be solved. It's shocking to find someone so thouroughly duped by industry happy talk of innovation and next generation reactors. The nuclear industry ought be held responsible for cleaning up and/or containing the fucking disasters they've created already and made to provide an actual viable plan for disposing of their waste before any new development of radioactive waste generation is even considered. You're living in lala land if you actually believe the industry propaganda you're spouting.

Here's what the Union of Concerned Scientists has to say:

Cheap dreams, expensive realities

The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.”

The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.

With this track record, it’s not surprising that nuclear power has failed to attract private-sector financing—so the industry has looked to government for subsidies, including loan guarantees, tax credits, and other forms of public support. And these subsidies have not been small: according to a 2011 UCS report, by some estimates they have cost taxpayers more than the market value of the power they helped generate.

When nuclear energy was an emerging technology, public support made some sense. But more than 50 years (and two public bailouts) after the opening of the first U.S. commercial nuclear plant, nuclear power is a mature industry that should be expected to stand on its own.

Instead, the industry has responded to escalating costs with escalating demands for government support. A 2009 UCS report estimated that taxpayers could be on the hook for anywhere from $360 billion to $1.6 trillion if then-current proposals for nuclear expansion were realized.

If we want to reduce the climate impact of electric power generation in the United States, there are less costly and risky ways to do it than expanding nuclear power. A 2011 UCS analysis of new nuclear projects in Florida and Georgia shows that the power provided by the new plants would be more expensive per kilowatt than several alternatives, including energy efficiency measures, renewable energy sources such as biomass and wind, and new natural gas plants.

Public financing for energy alternatives should be focused on fostering innovation and achieving the largest possible reduction in heat-trapping emissions per dollar invested—not on promoting the growth of an industry that has repeatedly shown itself to be a highly risky investment.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm

Instant, you are losing all credibility. Look at the cancelled nukes list. Look at the 2 right columns, Construction start and Project end. Many were years under construction. Many were near completion. Billions are spent before construction even begins. Billions are spent during construction. These were cancelled for a very good reason. They were uneconomical to complete. It was nothing about some fossil industry plot.You are dillusional on that. Now would you loan a utility money to buld one with a list like that? I can keep posting articles all day long if I want. Did you even read about the substation attack?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bec7189e-f64e-11e5-96db-fc683b5e52db.html#axzz...

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Olkiluoto-3-start-up-pushed-back-to...

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Flamanville-EPR-vessel-anomalies-un...

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

Here is Hillary corporate democrat mdhess showing us his true colours:

Fracking -- We need more of that,

Climate Change -- Bring it On.

Oil Wars, Middle East Destruction, Mass migrations --- Luv it.

7 Million annual Fossil Fuel & Biomass deaths -- Reduces the World population.

And all he has for a source is the Big Oil Lobby firm erroneously named the Union of Concerned Scientists, aptly named the Union of Concerned Lawyers. They do have one scientist they pay very well to promote their (Big Oil's) anti-nuclear agenda, Ed Lyman who is a physicist with zero qualifications in Nuclear Energy.

So using reputable sources:

IEA 2015 projected Levelized Cost of Electricity Baseload

Puts nuclear at the lowest at avg 5.5 cents/kwh vs gas at avg 10 cents/kwh & coal at avg 7.5 cents. for the 3% discount rate. ECB is already at negative discount rates.

And those numbers for Nuclear will get much better if Hansen's Carbon Fee and Dividend recommended $10/ton annual increase was invoked.

Solar & Wind cannot compete:

IEA 2015 projected Levelized Cost of Electricity Solar & Wind

Running 7-16 cents per kwh at the 3% discount rate, but does not include hidden subsidies such as lucrative tax avoidance, no decommissioning fees, the >5 cents per kwh grid integration & transmission costs, the 12-25 yr lifespan vs 60-100 yr lifespan of Nuclear or the Geographic Impossibility of Wind & Solar in most regions or all the Energy Inefficiency Losses I list below or the low EROI for Solar & Wind makes them physically impossible to substitute for fossil.

What is really laughable is the UCS calling for energy efficiency when Wind & Solar are the biggest sources of energy inefficiency being put on the grid. I.e.

Overbuild = total energy wastage or 100% loss of that amount

Curtailment, when wind & solar are high but demand is low, or wind is too high for the turbines = 100% loss

Long distance transmission = upwards of 10% energy loss plus high embodied energy in transmission lines

Energy Storage = round trip losses typically of ~20%

High Embodied Energy or Low Energy Return on Invested = ~30% energy loss

Incuded Cycling Inefficiencies in the fluctuating shadowing Fossil Power plants = 10-70% losses

Economic forcing of Oil, OCGT & conventional coal substitution for CCGT & Super-critical Coal = ~30% losses.

So Wind & Solar are the Epitome of Energy Inefficiency.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm

We could follow France's example

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

"Here is Hillary corporate democrat mdhess showing us his true colours:" -- Instant-Jackoff

Gee, pay attention to what anyone else says much? I'm an avowed socialist and Bernie supporter who will not vote for a Republican should Bernie lose the nomination and that becomes a "Hillary corporate democrat" in your mind? Pathetic.

You are so steeped in industry propaganda that you blithely ignore the $trillions already lost to utter and total environmental contamination. And you haven't addressed the fact that safe storage and disposal is, as yet, purely hypothetical.

Between the Price-Anderson subsidy, the inclusion of environmental destruction to the actual cost of generating electricity and the oft overlooked expense of safely storing radioactive waste (as if the industry really is or ever was prepared to make a centuries long commitment) and nuclear is not just expensive but it's ridiculously, life threateningly expensive. I will never accept the validity of a technology from an industry that simply chooses to avoid its obligation to safely store or dispose of deadly poisonous waste it produces and nobody in their right mind should either.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm

Nuclear energy is problematic at each stage of its cycle:

1. Uranium mining. Uranium is extracted from underground and open pit mines. For every ton of uranium oxide produced, thousands of tons of wastes, or tailings, are left behind. Often the tailings are simply dumped on the land near the mine and left to the effects of the elements. Wind carries radon gas and radioactive dust from these tailings for many miles. Contaminated rainwater enters the soil, the watershed, and, eventually, the food chain, endangering the health of people, animals, and the planet. Uranium mining on indigenous and tribal peoples' lands has devastated local communities and environments in North America, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

2. Enrichment. After mining the uranium mineral is refined to uranium oxide, called yellowcake. This natural uranium is processed and then enriched. Industrial processes enrich uranium by concentrating the amount of its fissile isotopes to 3% or more for use as reactor fuel. Uranium can be further enriched for use in nuclear weapon—the technology used to enrich uranium to 3% is the same as is used to enrich it to 20%, the level necessary for use in a nuclear weapon.

3. Reprocessing. Reprocessing is a chemical reaction that separates plutonium and uranium from fuel which has been irradiated in reactors. The plutonium is important for weapons production, while the uranium is basically a byproduct that can be recycled as fuel. Because reprocessing is also part of the civilian nuclear fuel cycle, reprocessing is a key link between civilian nuclear power and nuclear weapons production. Thus, the existence of a reprocessing plant is what gives a country the ability to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Four-fifths of the plutonium in the world today has been produced by commercial nuclear power reactors. This spread of plutonium through nuclear power has increased the number of potential nuclear weapons states to 46. The five declared nuclear weapons nations—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—are only one-ninth of the real "nuclear club". (Jan Thomas et al, Safe Energy Handbook, Plutonium Free Future, Santa Barbara, CA: INOCHI, 1997.)

4) Radioactive waste. By the year 2000, the nuclear industry had created 201,000 tons of highly radioactive irradiated (used) fuel rods. Waste from nuclear energy production must be safely and securely stored for between 10,000 years and 240,000 years in order to prevent health and environmental disasters from radioactive contamination. None of the 44 countries with nuclear reactors has a solution to the waste problem. The wastes are either kept in "temporary", above-ground storage facilities or buried in shallow pits. Wastes have been dumped directly into the ground, lakes and oceans of the world. A 2003 MIT study projected that, if the world expands its nuclear energy production to 1,000 gigawatts by 2050 (an increase of 2% per year), a new storage facility equal to the currently planned capacity of Yucca Mountain would have to be created somewhere in the world about every three to four years to permanently store the spent nuclear fuel. (John Deutch and Ernest J. Moniz et al, The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2003.)

http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/fact-sheets/critical-issues/5445-nuclear-energy

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm

"...Bernie supporter who will not vote for a Republican should Bernie lose the nomination..."

And yet Bernie is doing very well and your main mission right now has been telling Bernie supporters to roll over and bow down before the corporate Bankster stooge Hillary. If you kept your silly mouth shut until Hillary actually won I would believe you, but you haven't so I don't.

"...steeped in industry propaganda that you blithely ignore the $trillions already lost to utter and total environmental contamination..."

Unlike you, I ignore all industry or corporate propaganda. I insist on scientific authenticity and technological integrity, You are an obvious dupe, tool, stooge, sucker of Big Oil's propaganda machine.

"...you haven't addressed the fact that safe storage and disposal is, as yet, purely hypothetical..."

Yep, in fact I did, in post #39, about a 1/2 page into it. Read it and weep:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2016/03/energy-tomorrow-15-pp#comment-...

"...the Price-Anderson subsidy, the inclusion of environmental destruction to the actual cost of generating electricity and the oft overlooked expense of safely storing radioactive waste..."

Price-Anderson isn't a subsidy, unlike your Big Oil energy sources, nuclear actually pays for liability, much more than any other industry. And environmental destruction is orders of magnitude less for Nuclear than your favorite Big Oil & KIng Coal energy sources. Only nuclear contains its waste, and unlike your energy source pays up front for both waste storage & decommissioning. The only overlooked expense is your fav energy sources get to use our atmosphere, lakes, rivers, oceans & land as a giant free waste dump. How come I can't dump my household waste for free like your oil, gas & coal buddies do? Why do your energy source need all these exemptions: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Emergency Planning Community Right to Know Act. National Environmental Policy Act & Radioisotope emissions regulations:

Is New York’s Marcellus Shale Too Hot to Handle?

https://www.propublica.org/article/is-the-marcellus-shale-too-hot-to-han...

"...he validity of a technology from an industry that simply chooses to avoid its obligation to safely store or dispose of deadly poisonous waste ..."

Again you are confusing your oil, gas & coal waste with safely stored and managed nuclear waste which is over one million X lower quantity. Your knowledge on the subject is close to zero.

Hey , I will bury my one cup of Nuclear Waste generated if all my lifetime’s worth of Electrical Energy was generated by Nuclear on my property, if you bury your substitute 110 tonnes of radioactive, carcinogenic, forever, Coal Solid Waste you generate during your lifetime on your property. And also you should bag up the 580,000 cubic meters of CO2 you will produce, and store it on your property. That will be a column of about 1 km high. Good luck on that.

Also, I don’t see why you should get away with burning up that 420,000 cubic meters of oxygen for free, whereas I don’t burn any for my Nuclear Power. How about a reasonable charge of $1 per cubic meter, that’s a bill to you for $420,000 for wasting the Earth’s Oxygen needlessly. Will that be cash or cheque?

And both Coal & Natural Gas release > 100X more radiation to the environment than Nuclear.

Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-t...

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm

Just a minor problem at Fukushima. Probably a plot by the fossil fuel industry.

http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2016-03-31/ice-wall-at-fukushi...

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

You can't even read or comprehend your own article. They have planned and now installed an ice wall to block the leakage of water soluble low-level radiatioisotopes from inside the Fuku reactors, mostly Cs-137. This is actually a common industrial practice, it should be used at all fracking wastewater ponds to block all the deadly toxic carcinogens like Benzene that they leak into the water table, and also radioisotopes. Oh, I forgot Cheney had them declared exempt for those regulations. How come Nuclear - which unlike gas, actually is clean energy gets no exemptions.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2016/03/30/Stanford-Study-Fracking-Groundwater/

https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2015/04/09/new-study-raises-pos...

"....Radon levels in buildings near unconventional natural gas development in Pennsylvania are higher than those in other areas of the state, suggesting that hydraulic fracturing has opened up new pathways for the carcinogenic gas to enter people’s homes, according to a study published on Thursday. Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer worldwide...."

Fracking Boom Accompanied by Rise of Silent, Deadly Carcinogen in Homes: Study:

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/09/fracking-boom-accompanied-ri...

Radioactive Waste Is North Dakota's New Shale Problem:

http://www.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702304026304579453992...

Duke study finds radium and elevated salinity in treated oil and gas wastewater; highlights need for revised water quality regulations

A Duke University study of treated oil and gas wastewater finds that current water quality regulations are inadequate to prevent accumulation of radioactive material in surface waters.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/duke-study-finds-radium-a...

"...The Times also found never-reported studies by the E.P.A. and a confidential study by the drilling industry that all concluded that radioactivity in drilling waste cannot be fully diluted in rivers and other waterways.

But the E.P.A. has not intervened. In fact, federal and state regulators are allowing most sewage treatment plants that accept drilling waste not to test for radioactivity. And most drinking-water intake plants downstream from those sewage treatment plants in Pennsylvania, with the blessing of regulators, have not tested for radioactivity since before 2006, even though the drilling boom began in 2008.

In other words, there is no way of guaranteeing that the drinking water taken in by all these plants is safe.

That has experts worried...."

High levels of Radioisotopes released into Drinking Water from Fracking Wastewater:

https://www.propublica.org/article/is-the-marcellus-shale-too-hot-to-handle-1109

"...which analyzed 13 samples of wastewater brought thousands of feet to the surface from drilling and found that they contain levels of radium-226, a derivative of uranium, as high as 267 times the limit safe for discharge into the environment and thousands of times the limit safe for people to drink...."

"....The same may be required of some of the equipment used in drilling, which can eventually emit much higher levels of radiation than the water itself. Louisiana, for example, began regulating radioactive materials after it found radioactive build-up in pipes dumped in scrap yards and in the steel used to build schoolyard bleachers.

But the levels in that state were just one-eighth of those measured so far in New York...."

But the NRC imposed regs on steel recycling for NPPs is 1000X lower than that for Oil & gas pipeline steel. Fracking wastewater has leaked radiation levels 15,000X maximum allowable into drinking water sources, without any action taken. If a NPP leaked even 1/100th of that it would be immediately shutdown with a dozen lawsuits from the likes of Greenpeace, Sierra Club, SACE.

It sure helps when you have enough influence and cash to buy every politician, his wife, kids and the family pet as well.

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 12:41 pm

One from the Cancelled Nuclear Power Plants list, Unit 1 is complete and unit 2 is 85% complete. Each plant on that list had a huge team of supporters that after spending billions of dollars had to admit they were wrong and cancel the plant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/never-completed-tva-nuclear-plan...

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

Some quotes from an article: Nuclear costs roll onwards and upwards

Building new nuclear power stations is becoming hugely more expensive by the day, but decommissioning old ones might prove to be even more costly.

A plant spokeswoman says the decommissioning process will take the 2,000 workers at present on site until 2038 to complete. In addition, there is the problem of the disposal of long-term nuclear waste, initially to be stored on site in a series of steel casks.

From the linked story in that quote: Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage

It is expected to construct deep-earth repository for such type of waste after the termination of ISFSF operation period but its location and technical specifications will be considered in the future. Consequently, the issue of SNF management after 50 years remains currently unresolved.

Back to the first article:

The technical problems and costs of decommissioning have become a worldwide issue. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN body that oversees developments across the nuclear sector, 157 nuclear power reactors around the globe have been permanently shut down, but only 17 of these have so far been fully decommissioned.

...Only 17 out of 157 already shut down reactors on this planet have been fully decommissioned....

From the linked story in that quote: Nuclear costs in uncharted territory

LONDON, 18 April, 2016 − If you want a job for life, go into the nuclear industry – not building power plants, but taking them down and making them safe, along with highly-radioactive spent fuel and other hazardous waste involved.

The market for decommissioning nuclear sites is unbelievably large. Sixteen nations in Europe alone face a €253 billion waste bill, and the continent has only just begun to tackle the problem.

----->

Add to the European nuclear legacy the dozens of old nuclear power stations in North America, Japan, Russia and central Asia, and nuclear decommissioning could already be classed as one of the biggest industries in the world, and it can only grow.

And this does not count the millions of dollars still being spent annually to contain the damage from the nuclear accidents in Chernobyl, Russia, in 1986, and Fukushima, Japan, in 2011.

------->

As some governments press on with new nuclear installations to address climate change, a multi-billion dollar industry will be needed to make safe old power plants and their hazardous waste.

It's also true that the oil and coal industries have not been held accountable for their waste. "We," as a whole species who have benefitted from the energy they brought to our economic growth over the past two hundred or so years, have, therefore, not been held accountable.

And while our GNP may soar as the cost of dealing with waste soars, and the appearance of a healthy economy goes on, the inevitable unpaid costs of unaccounted for wastes that will debilitate the natural systems and therefore our own capacity to survive as a species in this biospheric system is a bill that also will come due.

Nuclear power does us the favor of calling this to our attention because the potential danger of its waste is such a public matter at this point. The long term danger of everything else we are doing with the externalized costs of our economic endeavors is not so public. And we can rest assured that those who make the most profit from all of that are eager to keep it under wraps.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 7:50 am

Another bites the dust due to economic reasons. This one has a terrible operational history . Was shutdown for several years. Came within 1 inch of flooding, even with a temporary emergency built dam.

http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-05-12/nebraska-utility...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Calhoun_Nuclear_Generating_Station

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 am

Why Hasn't Congress Taken War Powers Away From Trump?

Thom plus logo Donald Trump's pathetic betrayal of our Kurdish allies in northern Syria highlights the importance of Congress taking seriously it's constitutional obligation to define and authorize war.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system