The Long Shadow of Chernobyl

Harness mega-tsunami power for the free energy win?

So – no answers then. I thought not.

I have read every post of yours and seen no answers to the questions posed. On “what to do with the waste” you just said “put it in a hole in the ground and ignore it” that is no answer

YOu have made no answer at all to the point about finding the fuel for all the new nukes need to have any effect on AGW – but now you seem to be accepting that despite your previous assertions that new nuclear s essential to combat AGW that nuclear cannot play any significant part in preventing AGW?

Then why do you want to spend all that money and create all that long lived deadly pollution which we have no way of dealing with for so little gain?

Again on sharing the tech – if you are not going to give reactors to every country on earth then nuclear cannot make an signitficant contribution to preventing AGW. so share the tech or accept it is going to make no difference

These three point show the impossibility of nuclear having any major effect on agw thus show the stupidity of wasting time energy effort and resources on it.

So – no answers then. I thought not.

Erm:

On “what to do with the waste” yo just said put it in a hole in the ground and ignore it”

That looks like an answer to me. At least by disagreeing with it you’re acknowledging its existence, which is a start. I would suggest you find out what conventional power stations do with their waste. I think it involves chimneys and it being emitted to the atmosphere. So in most peoples’ eyes, putting the waste securely underground would be a big improvement over breathing it in. But I accept that it is a point for debate, but the top and bottom ash from coal power stations is radioactive, and chemically toxic. Guess what current waste disposal routes there are for that…. You guessed it: a big hole in the ground (where unlike nuclear waste it won’t be monitored or secured)

YOu have made no answer at all to the point about finding the fuel for all the new nukes need to have any effect on AGW – but now you seem to be accepting that despite your previous assertions that new nuclear s essential to combat AGW that nuclear cannot play any significant part in preventing AGW?

I did, then Junkyard did a better job than me, forcing you to accept that you were wrong and change your estimate from 40+ years to 80+ years.

Then why do you want to spend all that money and create all that long lived deadly pollution which we have no way of dealing with for so little gain?

Because right now the alternative is more coal, which will have far longer lasting and far more serious repercussions. Given the numbers of deaths projected from AGW, the numbers of deaths attributed to AGW per year already dwarf the wildest estimates of deaths caused by Chernobyl.

Take away the AGW argument entirely, and that still leaves 80 years of people dying in coal mines at a rate per TWh far far in excess of deaths caused by nuclear power

Again on sharing the tech – if you are not going to give reactors to every country on earth then nuclear cannot make an signitficant contribution to preventing AGW. so share the tech or accept it is going to make no difference

With whom do we need to share the technology? Both Iran and North Korea have civilian nuclear facilities. The next big threats to USA dominance of international politics, China and India, have nuclear power. On the other hand as aracer pointed out at the end of the first page, Switzerland is going to have a very hard time making any electricity from tidal power, and I doubt there’s much capacity for solar in Iceland. For large parts of Oz, hydro might be a bit tricky…

By your argument, presumably no technology that can’t be universally applied, be it for political or geographical reasons, should be pursued. This is a nonsensical argument no matter what technology (wind, solar, nuclear, wave) you apply it to. So, leave the obfuscation out of it and deal with the answers.

Because right now the alternative is more coal,

Nope – the alternative a whole raft of alternatives.

For example -In the UK putting the money spent on one nuclear reactor into house insulation will save more energy than the nuke would produce.

I have shown that nuclear cannot possibly do what you claim

Take away the AGW argument entirely, and that still leaves 80 years of people dying in coal mines at a rate per TWh far far in excess of deaths caused by nuclear power

so you are back claiming a massive expansion of nuclear generation is what is needed? without that massive expansion the re will be no significant difference in this.

this is the absurdity in the centre of your argument that you simply refuse to address.

You have now seemed to accept that there can be no massive expansion in nuclear power generation world wide as we do not have the fuel as well as various political consideration. However you keep claiming that nuclear will do all these things such as reducing deaths from coal mining. However without a massive increase in nuclear plants then there will be no change in the amount of coal used.

So which is it?
1) massive expansion in the number of nuclear power plants or
2) nuclear power will continue to have no significant effect on AGW or deaths from coal or anything else?

Dig a hole and chuck the waste is is no answer and you full well know that.

If I said – the answer is energy conservation ( which it is) you would rightly be pressing me for detail.

Coal isn’t the alternative, it’s one of many. Don’t forget to include the cost of land lost to rising sea levels when you calculate the price/kWh.

Switzerland has potential for hydro, wind, solar, biomass and geothermal but I agree the tidal range in lake Geneva is small.

Iceland has geothermal and hydro.

Oz has a massive PV and wind potential.

I don’t want to apply one universal technology. I want to apply the most appropriate mix of technologies to each region. I don’t think we should let natiional boundaries get in the way of energy planning.

Switzerland has potential for hydro, wind, solar, biomass and geothermal but I agree the tidal range in lake Geneva is small.

Iceland has geothermal and hydro.

Oz has a massive PV and wind potential.

If you are not going to give tidal/solar/hydro to every country on earth then tidal/solar/hydro cannot make an signitficant contribution to preventing AGW. so share the tech or accept it is going to make no difference

You have still not given an answers to those three questions.

Are we reading the same thread? Can I shout that
He even numbers them to help you see it – he has answered so many times I have lost count 😯 😯 😯

What about you and windmills and the metals required – I bet you wish to claim you have answered that one as well don’t you 🙄

can you please then quote the answers as they are not visible to me.

OH this really is pathetic you are a grown man – no one reading this thinks he has not answered. This is the internet version of sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalalalalaala

o – no answers then. I thought not.
I have read every post of yours and seen no answers to the questions posed. On “what to do with the waste” you just said “put it in a hole in the ground and ignore it” that is no answer

That is an answer it is just that you do not like it but it still an answer so the windmills and the metals needed where are you getting it from that is not answering a question

My irony meter just blew up it

YOu have made no answer at all to the point about finding the fuel for all the new nukes need to have any effect on AGW

I answered that numerous times with actual links and proper “stuff” as did others but hey you stick to form and ignore it

I have shown that nuclear cannot possibly do what you claim

Yes just like the pope shows me god exists
🙄

What helmet for nuclear power?

Junkyard – go on then – where are the answers? Real meaningful answers or else I can simply say energy conservation will solve the problem.

He and you have ignored the key point that there is not enough fuel even using your numbers to fuel the massive expansion in nuclear power plant numbers that would be needed for nuclear power to have any significant effect on AGW or anything else.

So which is it?
1) massive expansion in the number of nuclear power plants or
2) nuclear power will continue to have no significant effect on AGW or deaths from coal or anything else?

If its 1) where is the fuel coming from?

Thankfully, Edukator, you can see all this. You clearly missed aracer’s sarcasm which I was echoing, as TJ had stated that if every country couldn’t have nuclear then there was no point any country utilising it.

If I said – the answer is energy conservation ( which it is) you would rightly be pressing me for detail.

At last we can agree on something. 😀

So if we save much more energy we need to use less of it, which means that what renewables we currently can use will go further, with nuclear filling in the gaps, and no more dirty coal. However, there are limits to the amount of energy that a very selfish westernised democracy can be expected to save. Given the huge number of complaints there are about something as trivial as incandescent light bulbs being phased out, I suspect any government either presiding over enforced energy efficiencies, or radically increased energy prices (e.g. petrol demonstrations) will soon cease to be a government. Its successor will most probably be voted in on the back of revoking said legislation.

Sadly I won’t have to suggest this soon. Australia now has a tax on carbon emissions, and in about 1 year’s time, there will be a general election. I’m prepared to eat my shorts (a la Mark and the new forum) if Abbott’s main manifesto point isn’t repealing the carbon tax.

Jesus wept – who actually cares? This could have been a pretty interesting thread, and now its not. Well done…

That 28 days later site is amazing, the one on the Hydro-electric power station behind Niagra falls is something else….

Indeed, Clubber. That’s because the sound of their own fingers typing is a more favourable source of aural pleasure…

If you are not going to give tidal/solar/hydro to every country on earth then tidal/solar/hydro cannot make an signitficant contribution to preventing AGW. so share the tech or accept it is going to make no difference

I think you may have missed the point of that post.

I’m not fluent in italian. Does piedi di formaggio mean cheesy feet?

I think you may have missed the point of that post.

No – I think you missed the point of mine (I even included the typo).

I think those arguing wtih TJ need to read what he posted: “this essentially becomes a faith arguemnt and no ones mind can be changed.”

i.e. I’m not going to change my mind, no matter how much many rational arguments and evidence is put before me.

There is no point in arguing with someone who bases their argument on faith. I just hope that the majority of politicians are rational empiricists, otherwise we are all screwed.

Judging by the emphasis on faith, I reckon TJ is probably putting his faith in god to sort it all out. Now, where did I put that bucket of sand . . .

oh. sorry.

I think those arguing wtih TJ need to read what he posted: “this essentially becomes a faith arguemnt and no ones mind can be changed.”

i.e. I’m not going to change my mind, no matter how much many rational arguments and evidence is put before me.

Indeed. I enjoy intelligent and sometimes robust debate on here, but I have to concede that discussing energy policy with TJ is a bit like arguing with The Pope that the world wasn’t made in seven days. For that reason, I’ll leave it to you guys.

Or Junkyard arguing that as there might not be enough rare earths to make enough wind turbines to power the whole world, wind power isn’t the answer, eh Zokes (using current magnet types, there are generators that don’t need powerful permanent magnets).

We have a mix in which coal, gas and nuclear play the biggest part. I’d like to see overall demand come down and the priority given to renewable sources when investments are made for the future. That way we will be as independant of international energy and raw materials markets as possible.

Or Junkyard arguing that as there might not be enough rare earths to make enough wind turbines to power the whole world

that might have been me…

i know very little about turbine design, but i have a friend who designs electrical motors/generators for volvo trucks, he says neodymium is already difficult / expensive to get hold of – and the situation is quickly getting worse.

i’m going to guess that neodymium isn’t used because it sounds cool, but because the alternative is heavier / inefficient electrical machines…

pretend that we have enough of the stuff to make enough turbines to make a difference to climate change, that’ll make it so valuable that wind farms will need to be guarded.

neodymium is already difficult / expensive to get hold of – and the situation is quickly getting worse.

It’s actually the subject of a WTO dispute at the moment because most of the relevant rare earths are found in China, which is restricting export because it’s worth a lot of money and has military applications (if I have understood/remembered it correctly).

I’m not fluent in italian. Does piedi di formaggio mean cheesy feet?

Yes, ‘cos that’s what my moniker on here was (and kind of still is in my profile on here) before teh hack incident.

I want it back as my posting name though!

Anyway, isn’t there a lot of arguing on here!

there’s also a lot of interesting stuff.

Edukators posts particularly – i do like a nice graph.

A bit like Saudi/OPEC limiting oil supply then. Except that China doesn’t need to consider keeping its military protectors happy.

So wind turbines might be a little less efficient without super powerful permanent magnets, still plenty efficient enough though. Just as electronic management systems have resulted in much more efficient internal combustion engines so the management of wind turbines and generators is improving. I’m convinced that if there are no rare earths to play with then engineers will optimise other technologies and arrive at much the same result.

I always thought the simple issue with turbines was economics. Power made by wind turbines is simply very expensive, and doesn’t provide base load (so can’t be the full solution).

He and you have ignored the key point that there is not enough fuel even using your numbers to fuel the massive expansion in nuclear power plant numbers that would be needed for nuclear power to have any significant effect on AGW or anything else

We have ignored this – did your reference slip me by? – is it a an indisputable fact or just something you are saying that is open to debate ? Ps only you think the former so please dont answer.

Arguing we are ignoring you whilst not even bothering to answer about wind turbines and magnets is franklyt shameful and , even for you , an absurd level of unawareness.

As for your question AGAIN the link I gave you disputes your 40 years [ did I miss the reference for your claim?] and argues we have enough for thousands of years. Others have posted up links that refute your claim as well. Please feel free to ignore these links , the questions posed to you or indeed the answers given to your questions whilst “engaging in this debate”.

Indeed. I enjoy intelligent and sometimes robust debate on here, but I have to concede that discussing energy policy with TJ is a bit like arguing with The Pope that the world wasn’t made in seven days. For that reason, I’ll leave it to you guys.

Wise words dully noted yes TJ wins by attrition again and just repeating his view ad infinitum till other just give up “debating” with him

Edukator – my point re wind generator is that TJ applies double standards to his argument. ie we are running out of nuclear fuel [ which is debatable] but iognoring the fact we are running out of magnets – yes we may get more efficiency[ must do I assume] but remember that is not allowed in huis argument fo rnukes being more efficient so i assume we apply the same rule her too.

We have a mix in which coal, gas and nuclear play the biggest part. I’d like to see overall demand come down and the priority given to renewable sources when investments are made for the future. That way we will be as independant of international energy and raw materials markets as possible.

I dont disagree with this at all. Unfortunately given AGW the risk of traditional methods using equally source resources means we will need to have greater reliance on nukes in the short run to replace coal/gas whilst the world adapts to using less energy and utilises renewable sources more effectively.
I assume we all agree on the solution in the long run it is the short run [ next 40 years] we are debating.

You might be trying to debate, but that’s a tricky proposition against a protagonist who has an faith based, axiomatic position.

Bit like trying to argue that TJ doesn’t exist.

Just as a last attempt to make an argument based on TJ’s faith in other greeny lefty types, I’ll link to here: http://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/21/going-critical/

“Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power. “

From the same bloke, here’s a link to an article that thoroughly debunks the casualty figures for Chernobyl that TJ is so fond of spouting http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/.

Junkyard – your own link I followed only gave 80 years of known nuclear fuel at current consumption rates. YOUR LINk!

This remains the question you will not face or answer – no one has yet on this thread. If nuclear is going to be a significant part of combating AGW then there needs to be a massive expansion of the number of reactors – where is the fuel coming from?

Not from any known source according to the sources you provided.

As for the question about rare earth magnets and so on – a complete irrelevance to the point which is about what is the case for nuclear.

Chinese wind turbines without rare earths.

A quick click on the tag “TJ Argues” shows that my posts above have already been done.

Glancing at that exchange seems to confirm that TJ has a dogma based approach. The only purpose in arguing with him is to publically rebut his faith based waffle, and I think that’s been done adequately.

dj – can you answer that question? Or are you going to pretend this major flaw in the pro nuke argument does not exist?

Its not faith based waffle – this is a well founded logical position that no one has rebutted.

For those that are interested in sustainable power, this is fantastic resource IMHO:

It answers, in detail, several of the questions that have been discussed on this thread. The answers are not simple, and it’s big on numbers, which might put off the non-techy types (but obviously they are pretty essential to the arguments).

http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

As for the question about rare earth magnets and so on – a complete irrelevance to the point which is about what is the case for nuclear.

So if questioning the case for sustainable energy technology is irrelevant to the nuclear debate, what exactly is it you’re planning on replacing nuclear with?

This is a fascinating website by the daughter of a Chernobyl technician, who used to ride her motorbike inside the dead zone:

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/

If nuclear is going to be a significant part of combating AGW then there needs to be a massive expansion of the number of reactors – where is the fuel coming from?

we don’t need nuclear power stations to combat climate change, we need them because we need new power stations.

Edukator – Member

Chinese wind turbines without rare earths.

great, they don’t need rare-earths, they just need even more copper.

(interesting read though – ta)

Ok – so nuclear power stations will not have any appreciable effect on AGW then awwhiles – so why have them with all the drawbacks and costs involved?

they’re cleaner and safer way cooler than coal power.

here’s a question:

…nuclear power stations wind turbines will not have any appreciable effect on AGW – so why have them with all the drawbacks and costs involved?

the answer is (i think), that we can use a bit less coal/gas when it’s windy.

but relying on coal and gas doesn’t strike me as a great idea when i think about who supplies us with the fuel.

coal, gas, nuclear, wind, wave, tidal, efficiency measures, etc. it’ll all add up, and we’ll be fine.