However it's small, and preferable to fossil fuels imo.
And James Lovelock's (the guy who came up with the Gaia Hypothosis). The Revenge of Gaia is a very good read. You'd think he'd be a tree-hugging hippy. Well he is, but he's a a pro-nuclear anti-pointless-crap tree-hugging hippy.
Oh, and we're all screwed anyway according to Lovelock so no point arguing. 😉
My point is that the consequences of future nuclear accidents will not be anything like as bad (imo) as the consequences of continued fossil fuel usage.
Oh I like this guessing game I disagree it will be worse – can we at least keep the argument away from utter conjecture? Think the point is everyone expects both of these are bad some think we can avoid the former by just not having nukes some think the risk is so small /controlled it is safe. Lets at least stick to facts rather than speculation.
if it is so small and unlikely to be bad why are they not built in the middle of town centres ?
when you say preferabale [re risk]what risks do you mean? The carbon costs or something else [health risks]?
Gaia is nonesense of the highest order.
Molgrips - the risk is large - the frequency may be small but the severity is huge
Even the frequency is not that low - there are around 500 nuclear reactors in the world, in 50 years we have had half a dozen loss of life incidents with releases from reactors. Increase the number of reactors significantly as the pro nukes want and we will be having a fukushima every couple of years and a Chernobyl every decade - then we will get a really big incident at some point
And its a Global risk as well- look how far the plume from chernobyl went and note that 20 years on there are still farms in the UK where levels are above safe.
How many people have died in car accidents in the same period?
Cars seem safe enough to most people.
Molgrips - the risk is large - the frequency may be small but the severity is huge
No
Its
Not
As [b]proven[/b] the the actual, researched, validated, accepted death figures, which show that only a very, very small number of people have actually been killed, either cumulatively or in any individual one of the "disasters" that have taken place. The truth is that the frequency is small, and the severity is small.
Its like saying that you should ban aeroplanes, on the basis that one might fly into a skyscraper!
Molgrips - the risk is large - the frequency may be small but the severity is huge
Overall net risk to population then is small COMARED WITH GW.
we will be having a fukushima every couple of years
Ooooh, that's flawed reasoning! The more we do it, the better we'll get at it, surely to goodness?
a Chernobyl every decade - then we will get a really big incident at some point
Too right - as I pointed out earlier:
There's almost certainly another Chernobyl (or something far worse) lurking round the corner because the people in charge there were actually the best trained and most cautious in the world, and Chernobyl had lots of failsafes other reactors don't have.
Bearing that in mind I'm surprised you're only extrapolating based on the number of reactors, TJ. Though I'm slightly unsure who it is suggesting the massive expansion you seem so concerned about.
Chernobyl had lots of failsafes other reactors don't have.
Hang on - I thought it was inherently risky? Gravity fed?
sarcasm detector: fail.
8P
1000!
I missed a bit that might help you out, molgrips:
we will be having a fukushima every couple of years
Or worse, given just how many nuclear power stations are situated in locations where they're vulnerable to tsunamis, and just how small that earthquake was - I mean it's quite shocking how many people got killed by the nuclear power station compared to the numbers killed by the earthquake.
Oh.. sorry.. 🙂
[url= http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html ]Probably all made up...[/url]
aracer - MemberBearing that in mind I'm surprised you're only extrapolating based on the number of reactors, TJ. Though I'm slightly unsure who it is suggesting the massive expansion you seem so concerned about.
You for one 🙄
Though I'm slightly unsure who it is suggesting the massive expansion you seem so concerned about.
That'll be me, oh and James Lovelock. If I have to side with either TJ or JL, I'll take JL every time.
You for one
Quote me.
New UK power stations proposed: 8
UK power stations due to close before the likely end of all new build: 9 (though do feel free to prove me wrong on this point by suggesting the new build will happen sooner than that 😉 )
UK power stations closed in the last decade: 5
Though don't you ever let fact get in the way of your fiction, TJ
Aracer - you have been saying that energy consumption will rise, that there is no point in building any renewables as they don't work and that we must get rid of fossil fuels thus the only remaining answer is an expansion of nuclear. Or what is your position if I understand that wrongly?
No I haven't, no I haven't and no I haven't. I ought to be surprised you don't know what my position is after a month of this thread, but actually I'm not. Not quite sure why I should expend effort repeating it all when you've clearly not been paying attention (I've even restated my position a couple of times) - sorry you'll just have to go back and read it all again.
As I said, quote me - remembering what other people have written and being able to quote them is a useful skill 😉
Ah well aracer - you do keep contradicting yourself and changing your argument so it does make it hard to keep up.
Now please tell us what you want the future mix of generation to be in 2020. More nuclear than now or not? More nuclear in other parts of the world or not? Less more or the same number of reactors?
or are you just going to continue to attempt to rubbish anyone who does not agree with you
You still haven't answered the question I asked about nuclear power BTW
So lets get this clear - you agree with me that energy consumption can be reduced thru efficiency measure, renewables will be effective and thus we don't need nukes while meeting Kyoto standards?
Why is Kyoto the aim?
because its feasible and achievable and we as a country committed to it
But is it actually going to fix AGW?
you do keep contradicting yourself and changing your argument
Actually no I don't. You just keep changing your interpretation of it (and not really paying attention to what other people write). I've been pretty consistent the whole way through. Do your research (though there is a pretty big clue to how much new nuclear I think is reasonable in the UK on this page if that helps at all).
Though I'll point out that disagreeing with "energy consumption will rise, that there is no point in building any renewables as they don't work and that we must get rid of fossil fuels" isn't the same as agreeing with "energy consumption can be reduced thru efficiency measure, renewables will be effective and thus we don't need nukes". If you think they are equivalent that would explain your problem with sensible discussion on this thread.
I'll continue to rubbish rubbish arguments, nothing personal.
How many people have died in car accidents in the same period?Cars seem safe enough to most people.
........ and your point is? Presumably that we should ignore any saftey concerns and neither be honest about them or seek to mitigate them. The simple fact is that the nuclear industry has lied about safety since its earliest days, and continues to do so. Fukishima is a classic case in point where consistently the Japanese public have been told not to worry and that its under control, when clearly and self evidently it isn't.
My point is that I can't be in favour of this form of energy generation while that situation persists. I know its dangerous, so some twunt telling me not to worry and its unbelievably unlikely that an accident might happen is not going to brighten up my day. There is a point above about how bad does the earthquake have to be and so forth. Sizewell is built on the fastest eroding coastline in Europe, averaging a metre per annum into the briney blue. If you know anything at all about the history and geography of the region you will also know how foolhardy building there is. Don't for one moment think that Fukishima couldn't happen here just because we don't have earthquakes of any magnitude. It'll happen because people have used blinkered and flawed thinking. Thats what leads to accidents.
Thats why its important to have open and honest debate.
........ and your point is? Presumably that we should ignore any saftey concerns and neither be honest about them or seek to mitigate them.
Yeah, that'll do for arguments sake.
The benefits far outweigh the risks and the risks are trivial compared to stuff we consider safe. Then throw in the massively greater damage done by co2 and it's all blindingly obvious. Crack on with nuclear.
Sorry, been stuck well beyond the arse-end of nowhere, so forgive me for skim-reading the last 5 pages
1) if the solution is uranium reactors then how does this apply worldwide? Nukes in Iran? Afghanistan? How about countries with geological instability?
The solution is not uranium reactors, the solution is uranium reactors as a stop-gap to thorium, better renewables and greater energy efficiency. As said before, if this doesn't lead to fusion sooner or later, I think we'll all see a nice little discussion over the remaining oil with the one type of fusion reaction we have mastered being the currency...
2) Where is the fuel going to come from
Over the next 85 years as the stop-gap listed above, where we know it is. I know more use = shorter time, but more use also = more efficient reprocessing = more fuel. See above for probable events when it runs out. I'm shying away from saying we have centuries of it because what needs to be remembered is if it costs more to extract, it probably costs a lot more energy to extract, which after a while, starts to defeat the point somewhat.
3) what to do with the waste?
Leave it where it can be monitored and do so, or bury the really nasty stuff in a geologically-stable deep hole. Neither is rocket science, both perfectly feasible.
Now have you worked out how to break the laws of thermodynamics from the conventional alternative that doesn't have such rigours placed on its waste management policies and turn all that CO2 back into geogenic carbon?
4) How to cope with fluctuations in demand using nukes?
By having a balanced energy mix including storage and renewables (sound familiar?)
5) How are you going to fund both nukes and reneawables?
Not my problem, frankly. But making conventional fossil-based generators pay the full cost of their pollution would go some way. The two are not exclusive - it's only the anti-nuclear leaning writers on here who keep pushing this erroneous argument
6) why discount solar ( PV and heat), wind, wave?
The manufacture of solar requires lots of Rare Earth Elements, and the clue is in the name there as to how abundant they are. Also, waste from their manufacture is toxic and radioactive. Wind is hopelessly inefficient and unreliable - I believe someone else has highlighted just how much steel would be needed to build enough turbines to power the UK. Wave is under-developed, and shows lots of promise for countries with a coastline. They all have a part to play, but cannot be the whole answer.
7{) why discount energy usage reductions?
I don't think you'll find anyone is. What we are discounting is meaningful reductions in a global economy where per-capita energy usage is rising.
Assuming oil will run out, this means more cars will be powered by electricity. So even if the UK cuts its energy usage by some margin, its electricity usage likely increases. Same goes for gas and space / water heating. This is a common sense argument that noone should have any difficulty with.
Now my questions:
1) Why does nuclear have to answer for all its wastes, when the chemical toxicity of coal ash seems to be being ignored? Bearing in mind that these do not decay in any form, and our current methods of disposal are either disperse throughout the environment from the flue, or dump in a shallow hole and hope they don't leak at some later date.
2) Why are none of the anti-nuclear leaning posters seriously contrasting projected / actual loss of life from a nuclear disaster with real disasters from conventional power - hydro dams being the obvious. It is unlikely that one fails, just as it is unlikely that a nuclear plant fails, but when one does and you're in the path of it, you are dead. Not maybe attributable in 30 years time depending on statistical significance, but absolutely, definitely dead.
3) The elephant in the room lingers on - no anti-nuclear leaning writers are willing to pay any real credence to actual or projected deaths from AGW - why is this?
4) Having now been accused of moving the goal-posts twice, I'll re-state my stance. We need to produce our energy in the most sustainable, least damaging way possible. We can (and have) sit here for weeks trading nuclear vs conventional disaster, but I'm afraid AGW trumps them all. The Kyoto protocol is nearly 15 years old now - doesn't anyone think we should be striving for higher targets than pre-1990 levels? It's a political benchmark - a compromise to try to kickstart action (and a fat lot of good it did there). It is far from ideal.
the Japanese public have been told not to worry and that its under control, when clearly and self evidently it isn't
Does that mean no-one will learn from this? I don't think so. The actions of a government or organisation don't invalidate a technology.
We still make and drive cars after the Ford Pinto scandal for instance.
The benefits far outweigh the risks and the risks are trivial compared to stuff we consider safe. Then throw in the massively greater damage done by co2 and it's all blindingly obvious. Crack on with nuclear
Succint.
the risks are trivial compared to stuff we consider safe. Then throw in the massively greater damage done by co2 and it's all blindingly obvious
I dont think the risk of radiation is trivial the chances of it occuring may be lwo but the consequnces [ demonstrated by an ever increasing exclusion zone] demonstarte the consequences are anything but trivial.
Why are none of the anti-nuclear leaning posters seriously contrasting projected / actual loss of life from a nuclear disaster with real disasters from conventional power
it is a reasonable point but a nuclear reaction is inherently unsafe if left unattended bad things happen. The same is not as true with a dam say though everything has risks. I guess people asess risk differently it is why we need h & s to establish rules- I am not saying this is my view just explaining
no anti-nuclear leaning writers are willing to pay any real credence to actual or projected deaths from AGW - why is this?
i think they are trying to articulate the view that Nukes are not as green as claimed nor are they suggesting AGW is not an issue. They seem to have done far more to reduce thier own footprint than the pro nuke lobby so not sure it is a fair argument to use against people who oppose nukes. Environmentlaist are divided on this issue. Reduction is their solution to AGW.
Interestingly some AGW deniers use the green benefits of Nukes to support them which is hypocrisy the anti - nukes just offer another solution
Thanks for at least attempting to answer the questions Zokes
I could take task with a couple of things - using Uranium as a "stop gap" means gambling on Thoruim and / or fusion becoming a reality. We will not get the development of renewables as quickly as we might if we spend the money on nuclear as renewables will continue to be starved of investment (my prediction).
Waste - burying it keeps being mooted but has major drawbacks. Surface storage is preferable IMO as at least it can be monitored. Not a solution tho.
Still no answer to why not pass the nukes onto Iran and so on. UK using nukes for a small % of its energy usage will not make any significant dent in CO2 production
A quick bash at your questions
1) nuclear waste is far far more toxic
2) the risk from nuclear is so much higher. a really serious accident would dwarf all deaths from conventional generation and nuclear will not reduce this anyway by a significant amount as nuclear will only replace a small amount of the energy used worldwide as you won't share it with some countries
3) as above - AGW will not be halted by nuclear unless the majority of electricity production worldwide is switched to nuclear - a modest use of nuclear as you seem to be espousing will not make any significant reduction in CO2 production -= simply because it will be such a small % of global energy usage
4)Why Kyoto - its feasable and realistic to achieve. No country on the planet is actually going to acheive it anyway aiming higher is unrealistic and bound to fail.
so basically a small amount of nuclear will have no impact on waste from conventional stations and AGW, a large amount of nuclear carries unnaceptable levels of risk
a small amount of nuclear will have no impact on waste from conventional stations and AGW, a large amount of nuclear carries unnaceptable levels of risk
It's clear where one of your fallacies is - you're measuring risk in the wrong way. I presume you also reckon wind power is really safe because the absolute number of deaths is low? In fact the level of risk is the same no matter how much you have (and measured the correct way, the danger due to wind power is rather higher).
AGW will not be halted by nuclear unless the majority of electricity production worldwide is switched to nuclear - a modest use of nuclear as you seem to be espousing will not make any significant reduction in CO2 production -= simply because it will be such a small % of global energy usage
Well we might as well give up now then. The new UK nuclear build will provide ~1/4 of the UK's electricity requirements, and if the reduction in CO2 due to that isn't significant enough, we might as well stop bothering with anything, as it's all pointless in the face of China's consumption. Anybody got a petrol Range Rover they'd like to sell me? I need something to go and pick up my patio heaters.
1/4 of the uks electricty consumption is 1/16th (ish) of its energy consumption and nukes do especially in the building phase produce CO2 - so that will only be a few % reduction in CO2 - and as you won't share the nuclear power with the world then it won't even be the few % of the worlds CO2 production.
Thats one of the fallacies in the pro nuclear argument
You cannot have it both ways on risk - if its safe than share it with the world and build the stations in the middle of cities.
I do understand risk - clearly better than you do. 🙄
You are not reducing CO2 production by any significant amount with eth nuclear stations notr are you reducing the amount of convenntional generation worldwide by a significant amount but you are introducing a new risk of the increased numbers of nuclear power station.
Spending the money on reneawables and efficeincy would reduce these risks
you both understand it you just place different values to different risks. You can both see th logic in each others position - do either of you expect to change your mind or persuade the other?
mmm wonders if you can actually reach consensus on this question 😉
I'm thinking hard but failing to see how all the wind turbines ever built (and to be built) could contaminate as much land for so long or poison as many people as Tchernobly.
- do either of you expect to change your mind or persuade the other?
mmm wonders if you can actually reach consensus on this question
Thats been apparant for the last few hundred posts. I might as well give up I guess.
I might as well give up I guess
ok so you agree with him then 😆
Don't you bloody start!
nukes do especially in the building phase produce CO2
So does wind power - lots of it. For real installed capacity vastly more than nukes. Explain to me why we're bothering with them?
I do understand risk
OK - what's the relative risk of dying due to generating electricity by nuclear, coal, hydro and wind?
Aracer - did you look at the figures for embedded energy given a couple of pages back in a link? Shows nukes to be worse than wind by a large factor.
As for relative risk its depends on too many factors. and the deaths occur in different pattern. Nuclear will continue to kill for hundreds of years with an increase in cancers. One heck of a lot of dodgy stats about as well.
I might as well give up I guess
Ok. So let's summarise.
1) Nukes have locally severe risks
2) Coal has global possibly severe risk
3) Renewables have feasibility issues
4) Energy reduction is always good no matter what
TJ thinks 1 outweighs 2, I and others don't.
did you look at the figures for embedded energy given a couple of pages back in a link?
Was this what you mean?:
[i]From Sustainable Energy- Without the hot Air
To create 48 kWh per day of offshore wind per person in the UK would require 60 million tons of concrete and steel...
For comparison, to make 48 kWh per day of nuclear power per person
in the UK would require 8 million tons of steel and 0.14 million tons of concrete.[/i]
TJ thinks 1 outweighs 2, I and others don't.
I don't think 1 is even true if you assess the risk properly.
As for relative risk its depends on too many factors
ie you don't actually understand how to scientifically assess risk.
Nuclear will continue to kill for hundreds of years with an increase in cancers
Even in the very rare case of an accident, not if the radioactive contamination released is iodine-131, as appears to be largely the case for Fukushima.
Nuclear in principle DOES have locally severe risks. In the same way as having an open fire is risky cos it could burn out of control.
It's the level of risk that's important. Open fires serve people well for heat all over the world, despite some houses burning down.
I think that as we develop more modern nukes we'll get better and better at containing the risks. It will probably be worth it.
I was quite on the fence about nuclear at the start of this thread, now I'm pro.
I've been following this from the beginning, I've enjoyed reading (most of) the debate! I reckon I was pro nuke at the start but now I'm edging toward anti but just can't see a reasonable alternative 😕
No - diffent link http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/01/eroie.html Looks like a biased source but interesting reading and counters the bias of the hot air book
Molgrips - nuclear has global issues as well - the pollution is worldwide. The pollution from Chernobyl still means some UK farms are unable to sell teh sheep as they are not safe to eat. the pollution from Fukishima has reached the UK
Anyone who wants to read the greenpeace rebuttal of the pro nukes
