Last Friday, President George W. Bush urged delegates of the world's 16 biggest emitters of greenhouse gases to agree on an approach to deal with global warming. "By next summer, we will convene a meeting of heads of state to finalize the goal and other elements of this approach, including a strong and transparent system for measuring our progress towards meeting the goal we set," Bush said.
What kind of an 'approach' can we expect from Bush? Bush suggests that developing nations obtain "secure, cost-effective and proliferation-resistant nuclear power", adding that "nuclear power is the one existing source of energy that can generate massive amounts of electricity without causing any air pollution". (1)
In August 2007, there were 438 nuclear power plants in the world, producing some 17% of the world's electricity. (2) The vast majority of these plants are located in the US, Europe, Japan and South Korea. (3) Evidently, Bush regards nuclear energy as the solution and seeks to talk further nations into adopting nuclear power.
Quite likely, the proposal will be rounded off with a global "carbon trading scheme", which would allow nations that achieved better outcomes than their targets to sell carbon credits to underachievers.
What will such an approach lead to? Nations like the US, the UK, France and Japan would sell nuclear plants to developing nations, while nations like Australia, Canada and Russia could supply the uranium. How would developing nations pay for this? How could they, other than by means of carbon credits?
So, what is the true goal of such an approach? Indeed, this looks like a scheme designed to allow developed nations to continue polluting the Earth's atmosphere, by buying carbon credits from poor nations. It would put pressure on poor nations to cut their emissions by trading in their coal-fired plants for nuclear plants, which would make them dependent on these nuclear plants, on supply of uranium and on technical and security assistance.
As nations are forced into budgeting for nuclear plants, there will be less support for the mix of clean and renewable energy alternatives that we really need. Proponents of nuclear energy will argue that solar power and wind power are not continuous; but that's why we need a mix of technologies, including fuel cells, to meet the growing demand for electricity. If governments prevents this mix of technologies to develop, in all its diversity, by instead privileging, protecting and subsidizing the nuclear industry, then it will be even harder for each of such alternatives individually to get off the ground.
But already now, such alternatives are more cost-effective than nuclear energy, because so many cost elements of nuclear are hidden. Having more nations turn to nuclear energy would require a massive apparatus of inspectors with military backup to avoid proliferation of technology and risking material and intelligence getting into the hands of terrorists. This would come at a huge price, with unacceptable risks of accidents and with global traffic in nuclear waste that would require secured transport and long-term storage, at the risk of terrorists and rogue regimes getting their hands on some of that waste to create a 'dirty bomb'. Such nuclear plants and storage facilities would become sitting ducks, predictable targets for any terrorist organisation that might arise in the future.
Why did Bush call for "a long-term goal" for reducing global greenhouse gases, rather than for immediate cuts? Building these proposed nuclear plants comes with long lead times, indeed so long that they won't be likely to make much difference to greenhouse-gas emissions, for a long time if at all. It's just a giant smokescreen to avoid making the changes in society that are really needed to make an impact.
And of course, nuclear plants do come with pollution. Bush's remarks on this point are simply deceptive. Over its total lifespan, a nuclear plant has a huge carbon footprint, and especially so if investment in renewable energy is discouraged by budgeting for nuclear plants. Apart from building the plant and operating it, the emmissions resulting from mining, refining and enriching of uranium must be taken into account, as well as the transport and storage of waste, decommissioning the plant and restoring the site, training of operational staff and all the scientists, the security and technical experts that are needed to monitor things.
An even more insidious form of pollution is radiation. The risks of accidents and terrorist attacks are such that they cannot be insured. Also, building them is financially risky, governments have to guarantee investors against loan defaults and liability.
In case you needed any further convincing, read Steve's excellent article called 'Why Nuclear Energy Is Not the Solution to Global Warming', at:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977118748
Source of quotes:
(1) Climate change: Bush goes on the attack (AFP, Sept 29, 2007)
http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/070929013128.gm565in0.html
(2) Basic facts about Nuclear Power Plants in the World (Jožef Stefan Institute)
http://www.icjt.org/an/tech/jesvet/jesvet.htm
(3) Nuclear Power Reactors: WORLD MAP (US Department of Energy)
http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/world_map.php
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 109
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976952727
On a more optimistic note, here's a short video re: the work of Rocky Mountain Institute. For those, who hope or fear that Lovins work is "pie in the sky" nonsense, this will quickly correct those misperceptions. He is alot of influence with decision makers, especially in industry. Government might even catch up.
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid329.php
Solar and wind power, along with wave-powered energy sources are the most efficient ways to go...and the cleanest.
Why, in the world do we keep barking up the wrong trees?
Because the 'big money' keeps steering public opinion towards their benefit.
https://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Climate/C07-09_NuclearPwrandClimate.pdf
Anyone taking the time to read this article will quickly understand how bad an idea nuclear energy is.
"The proviso I would put on nuclear, let's not do it for profit. Let's let NASA design and build the plants, and the military or the government run them so the profit motive does not lead to cutting corners on the plant hardware, training, personnel or security. Do you want security officers like at the airport who get paid practically nothing guarding or servicing nuclear plants?"
"We cannot trust the deregulated global energy companies to manage nuclear power, not to mention the security aspect of it."
Nuclear energy is the only way we are going to be able to generate enough energy to drive the lifestyles we have become accustomed to. You can make hot water and a bit of energy for a house, but as it is and will be for the near future solar cells themselves are still to expensive and they only work during the sunny days. That is without considering the cost of batteries.
Nuclear right now is working and the total cost is about $.02/kwh compared to 7-15 cents/kwh for natural gas which is clean pollution wise. Coal is an ecological nightmare and releases thousand of tons or radiactive elements into the atmosphere that are in coal and released through burning and millions of times more radiation and disperses it like a giant low level dirty bomb.
The waste for 20 years energy generation for a family of two can be stores in a volume about the size of a shoebox, after 50 years it can reduced to about the volume of a shotglass. That is without reprocessing. Reprocess the waste and you have more fuel, and less waste at a lower level.
The technology exists now, it is perfectly clean, no CO2, no radiation dispersal like coal. Start opening your minds and doing some reading, this is not about your fears, it is about solving the future of energy and the environment.
In fact, the risk of accidents associated with nuclear plants and their waste is so huge that it's impossible even for all combined insurance companies in the world to jointly carry it. That's why governments have until now taken the risks and backed such plants and storage of their waste, effectively writing out blank checks and forcing such plants and waste upon communities and futuire generations that wouldn't have agreed to it, if they had a say in the matter.
Note also that insurance companies normally only cover the risks of human error and natural disasters (while often excluding risks of earthquakes and flooding). Insurance companies will not even insure risks associated with war, civil unrest and terrorist attacks. Add to that the cost of the security required to deal with theft, sabotage and civil protests, the legal actions, the need for staff to manage all such issues and it becomes clear how much of the real costs have until now been hidden within the budgets of police, military, education and research and all kinds of collaborating government departments. In short, a nuclear power plant is a huge sitting duck waiting for an accident to happen, without the authorities having much of a clue what to do if such an accident did occur.
The powerful military-industrial complex has long supported nuclear power plants, as it felt a need to maintain access to nuclear expertise and technology. But in practice, the military prefers non-radiation type of weapons such as the BLU-82 daisy cutter that was used in Vietnam and its descendent, the MOAB. More recent developments are the Russian vacuum bomb and the "thermobaric" bomb used by US forces in campaigns against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Such weapons will create very high temperatures that evaporate anything alive, without contaminating the area with radiation (see article and video). Multiple strikes with lower yield bombs and missiles carrying smaller conventional loads can be even more effective, as they can be self-directed to their targets using video cameras and military strength GPS navigation for pin-point accuracy.
So, even the military has little or no need for nuclear bombs or nuclear technology. In conclusion, it's time politicians stood up to ban both nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants worldwide.
Read here about this: http://www.uic.com.au/nip48.htm
The information you are citing is almost 40 years old. Do you know
what a computer looked like 40 years ago? Do you think that nuclear
plants of today are anything like the plants back then, and then ones
back then there had never been an accident that killed 1 person.
France and Japan have both invested hugely in nuclear, they have
never had accidents in which anyone died. If you read the new you
know how many people die in coal mine accidents.
Your talk about the military and bombs has no place in this discussion
except to scare people, but that is what you side of the argument has
to do because you do not understand or want to believe the facts.
Todays nuclear plants even if sitting on a faultline having an
earthquake are still not a problem. Even if a bomb went off blowing
them up there is not danger. It is virtually impossible because of
the design to have a meltdown or runaway reaction, and the
plants can be turned off quickly and are not a danger even if
blown completely up are mostlty a complicated toxic cleanup,
not as bad as most pollution site we have now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant
operating without incident since 1984 supplying 2.2 million
people with clean cheap electricity.
You are in serious denial to think we can turn up our noses
at this incredible non-polluting source of energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station
Nuclear plants are the lowest-cost producer of baseload electricity. The average production cost of 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour includes the costs of operating and maintaining the plant, purchasing fuel and paying for the management of used fuel.
Understand, the lowest cost of electrical generation, AND
not environmental remediation cost, no CO2, and not toxic
clouds of heavy metals rained down from smoke in the air
for thousands of miles on people below.
Add those two costs together and then try to explain how
you want to NOT use nuclear?
Proponents of nuclear power conveniently leave out many cost elements, when budgeting for nuclear plants, since they expect government to cover such costs. Just think of all the extra security requirements, in terms of police, military, government law-makers, administrators and scientists who need to be trained on safety and security issues. Think of all the future litigation and compensation of people who become victims of errors in the operation of plants, in waste management. Think of the cost of accident prevention and recovery, long-term insurance cost, extra cost of fire and emergency services, extra police and security staff, safety investigations, cleaning and monitoring, prevention of proliferation of technology and theft of radio-active material, setting standards and regulations, training of scientists capable of assessing emergencies and risks, decommissioning the plant and cleaning up the site afterwards.
In the past, many such cost elements, including developing and building nuclear power test facilities, building up and sustaining the technical know-how of scientists and ensuring there is competent staff to run the plant and act in emergency situations, have often been partly hidden in scientific, educational, research and military projects that were supposed to give a country an edge in nuclear technology (read: access to nuclear weapons). The link between nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons has long been a hidden argument to choose nuclear power for countries that aspired more military power.
But increasingly, the link between nuclear power and nuclear weapons starts to count against nuclear power plants. Concern for proliferation of nuclear weapons has increased since 9/11, as people worry more about terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons to hold the world at ransom. Furthermore, there is increasing concern that nuclear power plants become targets for terrorists or that terrorists could hijack
nuclear waste to create a 'dirty bomb'.
Are nuclear plants clean? Nuclear power plants may not emit as much CO2, compared to power plants that burn fossil fuel. But the radio-active waste of nuclear plants is a much more insidious and arguable more dangerous form of pollution. Furthermore, nuclear plants do add heat that contributes to global warming, while alternatives like solar, hydro, geothermal and wind power merely re-use energy that was already naturally there. Such added heat may seem minimal, causing far less than 1 degree increase in global temperature, yet this does constitute another argument against nuclear, as discussed at:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976926336
Even if one disregarded the radiation and waste problems, nuclear plants still wouldn't be the environmentally cleanest - wind and solar power are environmentally cleaner, since they do not add extra heat, they merely transform the energy that is already in the atmosphere into electricity, without adding extra heat to the atmosphere.
You don't get the costs involved ... nuclear is the most profitable form of power out there, the generation is the cheapest, and remedicatio or effects from pollution is less.
Hey but don't let me stop you from complaining.
Now you say, "...the nuclear industry wants money to expand. It is not because of the inherent risk of nuclear power, it is because of the risk of the nucleaophobes who will not understand what is going on no matter what."
And yet your "proviso" you mention would be extremely expensive, and the fact that you would not "...trust the deregulated global energy companies to manage nuclear power..." shows that you don't think it's safe, except under fairly stringent control.
bruce: "...nuclear is the most profitable form of power out there...."
But - "We cannot trust the deregulated global energy companies to manage nuclear power, not to mention the security aspect of it."
You don't appear to have thought this through very well.
Finally, I have posted many point by point facts that dispute your claims of safety, and yet you continue with your old, tired name calling, like, "nucleaophobes". When you are better prepared to discuss the facts, then you might carry some credibility. Until then, I'm sure we can count on you to continue name-calling.
Here's what Lovins has to say about it:
"In 2006, micropower surpassed nuclear power's total global output and added roughly 34 GW of global net capacity, 15 GW of it from wind power. Why is micropower winning? Well, as Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's 2007 wind review (PDF) found, the median price of power provided by new U.S. wind farms added during 1999-2006 was 3.4 cents per kWh in 2004 dollars, while the cheapest cost less than 2 cents.
If you take the higher median price, "firm" that variable wind power to make it fully dispatchable whether the wind is blowing or not, and take away its 0.86 cent Production Tax Credit (far less than nuclear's subsidies), it still costs less than half of what Keystone found new nuclear plants would cost. Wall Street understands this arithmetic."
"In 2006, distributed renewable power sources worldwide got $56 billion of private risk capital; nuclear projects got zero. As Peter Bradford rightly notes, recent industry efforts to entice the U.S. Treasury to give it $50 billion are a desperate response to private capitalists' unwillingness to finance plants they consider too costly and too risky."
Nuclear Power and Climate Change
By contrast, what works better is a more distributed network, based on a mix of numerous alternative energy sources. It's less prone to political bribery, it's cheaper, safer, cleaner, more reliable, more efficient, more flexible, it provides easier access to new suppliers as well as independence from imports, while creating many local jobs in the process.
What really leaks out the ass, is there are numerous means we can generate energy without any of these dangerous and costly means. I have been trying to work with some engineers, some who have looked at my ideas are posative on the basics, just hard to get beyond that stage yet.
I would like to find some information on the expanding of the thermo-generators off from the Yellowstone Caldera, so far the test prodject has worked better than expected.
The only problem with nuclear is the perception of those who are afraid of it and do not understand it - that is also where the risk comes from - the economic chilling effect of ignorant luddites will keep people from investing in nuclear for fear they will lose money like they did last go-round.
The true cost of nuclear has been calculate and known all over the world for 30+ years Sam, do look ... what on Earth are you talking about. Look at the "true cost" of oil, or solar or any energy generation process. All forms of energy production have good points and bad points.
All the number and ideas you have proposed are looking at the rosiest PROJECTIONS, whereas nuclear energy has a worldwide proven track record.
By the way ... read this about wind power. Norway did a study where they did indeed get a lot of energy out of the wind turbines the put into production, but they were not able to shut down a single powerplant because of the intermittancy of the wing.
Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary "greenhouse" gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off.
You two are so high on this idea you have lost all perspective of what the result is - to generate the safe clean and sufficient energy for the future for everyone.
We shouldn't rely on any single source of power (we should use wind, hydro, solar power and more). Similarly, we shouldn't rely on a single way of storing power either.
We can store surplus electricity in many ways, e.g. in car batteries, by compressing air in cavities underground, it can be turned into hydrogen or it can be used to pump water back uphill, e.g. we could use the Great Lakes as a reservoir not only of water, but also of power. At times of peak supply of wind and solar power, surplus power could be used to pump water back from a lower to a higher lake, in order to use hydro-power at times when supply of other types of power is low.
Free markets are good in sorting out which technology works best where and when.
Lovins argues that government should do away with subsidies for energy - let the markets actually be free. However, fossils and nuclear have enjoyed subsidies and incentives for decades, while renewables have not. That said, I'd be willing to go with Lovins recommendation. That would sink nuclear - of course, we're still going to have to pay for damages it has already caused.
bruce: "Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind...."
That's been addressed many times, but you seem to insist on bringing it up still. Energy storage from renewables is not an issue.
bruce: "The only problem with nuclear is the perception of those who are afraid of it and do not understand it - that is also where the risk comes from - the economic chilling effect of ignorant luddites will keep people from investing in nuclear for fear they will lose money like they did last go-round."
As I said above, "I have posted many point by point facts that dispute your claims of safety, and yet you continue with your old, tired name calling, like, "nucleaophobes". When you are better prepared to discuss the facts, then you might carry some credibility. Until then, I'm sure we can count on you to continue name-calling."
Thanks for proving me right, once again. BTW, I notice you don't address your own inconsistencies, which I noted above.
Congress is a creature of constituencies, and the money and power of the constituencies are almost all on the supply side. There is not a powerful and organized constituency for efficient use, and there's a very strong political (but not economic) constituency against distributed power, particularly renewables. So I would not pay too much attention to what Congress is doing. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, but ultimately economic fundamentals govern what will happen -- things that don't make sense, that don't make money, cannot attract investment capital.
We see this now in the electricity business. A sixth of the world's electricity and a third of the world's new electricity comes from micropower -- that is, combined heat and power (also called cogeneration) and distributed renewables. Micropower provides anywhere from a sixth to over half of all electricity in most of the industrial countries. This is not a minor activity anymore; it's well over $100 billion a year in assets. And it's essentially all private risk capital.
So in 2005, micropower added 11 times as much capacity and four times as much output as nuclear worldwide, and not a single new nuclear project on the planet is funded by private risk capital. What does this tell you? I think it tells you that nuclear, and indeed other central power stations, have associated costs and financial risks that make them unattractive to private investors. Even when our government approved new subsidies on top of the old ones in August 2005 -- roughly equal to the entire capital costs of the next-gen nuclear plants -- Standard & Poor's reaction in two reports was that it wouldn't materially improve the builders' credit ratings, because the risks private capital markets are concerned about are still there.
So I think even such a massive intervention will give you about the same effect as defibrillating a corpse -- it will jump but it will not revive.
I do agree with wind and solar being valid points of research, mostly because we are still just slightly advanced from our baby steps in both of these fields, and both have more potencial than we have explored yet. Just as wave generation has shown to be a very possible alternitive, it has mostly fallen on the way-side due to envitonmental groups raising unfounded agruements and lobbiest pushing the Government away from allowing further research.
I do believe the Government can influence further research if they use finacial support towards researchers of alternitive energy, to help them with funding and expenses, as well as big business could do the same. In fact, I believe it was Exxon that supplied the largest funding for the Wave Generation experiements where the Government would not.
Joe, that is not the case when you simply look into the nuclear plants that have been running worldwide for 30 or more years.
The problem with nuclear is people like Sam and Steve who bash it based on emotional arguments. The talk about micropower, but if you pulled all the nuclear plants the world would have a major catastrophe. Pull the micropower plants and the world would probably just have to raise prices.
The risks Steve and Sam keep throwing up are the risks due to nucleophobes who will not listen to facts. Steve and Sam say I am namecalling when I use this word, apparently they do not understand that I have a very good reason for using it, and even applying it to them, althought I think they are slandering nuclear and attacking it than fearful of it. They just do not like the idea.
They do not seem to care about looking for real solutions, as many people don't. They would rather (other people) not even have energy or pay up to 10 times more than for them to have clean cheap nuclear energy.
It is already there, with the numbers and the costs ... whereas these is some evidence that wind or geothermal can add to power generation, but there is no developed country that is close to meeting their energy needs without industrial power generation - and that has to include nuclear in the future unless we want to continue polluting and mining coal, and adding CO2 into the air.
I just love how in the same breath you say these technologies will work, and that they need government research and subsidies. I think it is obvious how any person who is responsible for supplying real power to real people and expecting to get paid for it is going to want to use nuclear instead of thousands of different systems patched together that are unmanageable and unfixable when something goes wrong, and susceptibale to who knows what kinds of failures or sabotage.
First of all, my name is Dan not Joe.
Your information is faulty, and you should listen to Steve and Sam on this. They are much more closer to the truth than you are. Also I am not talking about "Piece Meal" systems, but systems based on the area that they are set up in, that can actually ruin clean and more effectively, and much more safer. Your views on safety, do not match up to the facts, in the 40+ years of Nuclear Energy, there have been five times more accidents than with any existing form of power generation. I do not see that is being emotional, but looking at facts. Then you have the potential for storage accidents that have already happened, and are too likely to have more. THe total costs of nuclear energy are way too high, and too dangerous for usage.
A Post Fossil-Fuel America: Are Americans Ready to Make the Shift?
You reliance on a survey of where people would like to get their power if cute. If you gave them a choice I bet they'd answer that they would like to pull money gold bullion out of their asses too, but that doesn't mean there is any there ... and in your case probably no room in there with head taking up all the space.
Blah, blah, blah....
bruce: "I just love how in the same breath you say these technologies will work, and that they need government research and subsidies."
You make stuff up. Subsidies will speed things up, but Lovins clearly states that he'd like all energy subsidies terminated
__________
And what would Amory ask Presidential candidates if he could ask anything?
"How would you feel about de-subsidizing the entire energy sector so that everything could compete on merit and honest prices?" Amory asked. "Most of the foolish stuff we've got that has gotten us into this mess was bought because we leveraged private-sector money into stupid places it wouldn't have gone otherwise by subsidizing them more than other stuff. Energy policy is not based on rationality. It's based on lobbying and campaign contributions, basically corrupt practices."
__________
Dan: "I do not see that is being emotional, but looking at facts."
Why would bruce look at facts, when he can simply throw up insults? His so-called "facts" run exactly opposite of reality, as you rightly point out re: what bruce claims are "...thousands of different systems patched together that are unmanageable and unfixable when something goes wrong...." In fact, distributed energy is what makes renewables much LESS vulnerable than the centralized power plants he advocates.
Yes, I agree with that, though I will continue to post Lovins' comments re: ending subsidies to all energy sectors. That is because folks like bruce will keep saying that renewables cannot make it in a free market without subsidies. Actually, it is nuclear that can't survive without subsidies. It draws no private capital investments, as I've noted on several occasions. Subsidies (and taxes on carbon) would only speed things up, which I favor because our energy situation is a national emergency.
Thanks for the survey reference. Looks like bruce loses in the public opinion arena also. Let's just hope people will vote their convictions on this.
By the way .... still waiting ... what insults?
Read your own comments, bruce. If you don't know what an insult is, then that can only further reflect poorly on your own deteriorating credibility.
BTW, speaking of waiting..., I am still waiting for you to address your inconsistencies, which I mentioned above. But I'm not holding my breath, because I'm fairly certain you won't.
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html
Fact outweights fantasy, and your arguement is based on Pro Nuclear Fantasy.
Dan .... it's Green Peace.
By the way I do not count Chernobyl, the one real nuclear catastrophe, against the nuclear power industry of the West because I don't need to make ridiculous statements to make my point.
The record is up there, the record is clear, and you teenagers - go try to find a Green Piece rally to march in. Over and out.
Thanks for making my point, bruce.
Few people are yet fully aware of the additional problems that come with nuclear power plants, such as that they lead to centralization, that they create government bureaucracy, that they need extra funding to educate and train specialists, and that all this makes the nuclear lobby prone to bribery attempts and distortion of the truth. But the more you come up with nonsense and the more you seek to distort the true cost picture, the more I'll expose the facts. Wake up to the facts, Bruce, and accept that nuclear power is not a viable alternative. Start instead spending your efforts on finding better solutions to reduce greenhouse gases.
I see your still spreading your misinformation about. I guess your thread needs a clarifier.
Of course like usual neither of you post very many facts to support your OPINIONS, except for Steve and his single source Lovins, how's your messiah doing Steve?
Sam,
"Over its total lifespan, a nuclear plant has a huge carbon footprint"
http://www.npcil.nic.in/nupower_vol12_4/indis_role1n.htm
"the fossil fuels are a separate category of the highest full chain emission factors in the range of ca. 500-1300g CO2-equiv./kWh (e) The lower values can be obtained from combustion chemistry and assume 39% efficiency of electricity production."
The data presented here are based on two investigations,from Japan and from Switzerland, dealing with 1000 MW (e) Japanese Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) and Swiss Light Water Reactors (LWR), typically of 70- 75% load-factor, 30-40 years of lifetime, 30-40 GWd/ton burn-up; the type of uranium-enrichment is a variable. The results of the two studies are in very close agreement, yielding 8.90 ± 0.02 g CO2-equiv./kW.h(e)
Cradle to grave nuclear does not even come close to fossil fuels.
The consensus value for wind power is 15 g CO2-equiv./kW.h (e),applying to windy sites.This value depends strongly on the site-specific prevailing wind speed, which determines the annual yield. 50 years lifetime is assumed for the foundation and 20 years for the rest of the installation. A Japanese lifecycle study, accounting e.g. for material losses of production etc.,derives a total emission factor of about 30g C02 equivalent./kW.h (e).
Generally, current solar PV systems emit in the range of 100-200 g CO2-equiv./kW.h (e).Future emission factors might be as low as 3OgCO2'-equivalent/kW.h (e), if technological development allows.
And look at that nuclear beats out wind and P.V.
"Quite likely, the proposal will be rounded off with a global "carbon trading scheme", which would allow nations that achieved better outcomes than their targets to sell carbon credits to underachievers.'
Ahh Sam this was the U.N.s plan to get nations to buy into Kyoto years ago.
Nuclear subsidies
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/03/disputing-nuclear-subsidies-myth.html
The 2006 Department of Energy research and development budget provides $1.2 billion for renewables and conservation, $800 million for clean coal, and $510 million for nuclear.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf12.html
Extensive safeguards of the civilian nuclear programs.
Nuclear accidents:
13'000 reactor operation years and only two major accidents.
Besides Chrynobal no deaths or serious contamination has occurred.
Don't let these two, Sam & Steve frustrate you.
Besides being incredibly myopic they can't past the end of their noses.
The reason I come to post is to make sure people reading their threads are aware of Sam & Steve's misinformation.
There are people who have geiger counters all around every nuclear plants waiting for the slightest burst, and nothing.
Thanks Dan, you're very perceptive. Lucky for these nucleophobes that they seem be made for each other. At least they won't be lonely trembling in their boots and peeing their pants waiting for the China syndrome.
What I find oxymoronic (if that's the right term) about Steve and Sam is that they reference all of these "accidents" that apparently haven't been reported yet still there hasn't been any deaths or serious contaminations..... unless all of these nuclear countries have disappeared the affected? ;-)
Sam loves to reference Steve's articles against nuclear energy but when you go read them it's just more of the same assumption and conjecture with very few facts presented.
If you want a laugh go see Sam's Article titled "Hydrogen Efficiency"
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977121475
You'll see the extent to which these two will hold on to their "dreams" no matter how many facts are presented.
Sure, renewables also have a carbon footprint, but the figures used in the study are based on theoretical situations that shouldn't occur in practice, such as when a hydro power lake was built in such a way that vegetation would be intermittently submerged, resulting in methane. Further contributing to hydro's footprint in the study was a supposed need for backup-electricity generated during extended droughts, when the study assumed that electricity had to be generated by burning fossil fuel instead.
The carbon footprint for wind power and for concentrated solar thermal power in the study was supposedly caused by their use of steel and concrete. Concrete is a problem, actually. Estimates are that manufacturing of concrete is still responsible for up to 10% of all CO2 emissions worldwide. However, there are alternative manufacturing processes that are much better, some of them even claiming to be carbon-negative. For more details, explore a site like this one:
http://www.tececo.com
In the case of solar panels, the study argued that the use of electricity to make silicon and aluminium was causing carbon emissions. But this issue could be very simply resolved, if the plants manufacturing the various components of solar panel would install solar panels on their roofs. Similarly, if steel was manufactured using heat from solar power, little or no carbon would be released in the process.
But my point wasn't even to compare theoritical carbon footprints of the various alternatives. I mentioned the polluting aspects of nuclear power inresponse to Bush's remark that nuclear power was not "causing any air pollution". And of course, nuclear power plants create more pollution than just greenhouse gases. The radioactive waste is such an insidious and dangerous type of pollution, riddled with risks of contaminating air and soil for decades to come, that it is deceptive to suggest that nuclear power was not "causing any air pollution" (Bush) or was a "non-polluting source of energy" (Bruce K.). And apart from pollution, there are further risks, such as something going wrong at the plant itself (as a result of human error, sabotage, terrorist attack, war, etc), material falling into the hands of terrorists, etc, etc, etc.
If you want to discuss the facts, let's do so. But if nuclear power cannot be supported by facts and if you instead resort to personal attacks against people with different views, then you're merely reinforcing another argument as to why nuclear power should be avoided: it appears to go hand in hand with coercion and forcing the wrong solution upon people, even when the facts show that it doesn't make sense and is too risky.
Facts are there, Dan. You just don't acknowledge them.
1. Why do industry lobbyists urge a one-sentence provision buried in the Senate's recently passed energy bill, inserted without debate?
Lovins says it's because nuclear energy can't draw investors without it, while renewables drew $56 billion in private investements in 2006. The FACT is that nuclear can't survive without government.
Yes, it is worth noting that the nuclear proponents tend to be aggressive, resorting to illogical attacks, when confronted with facts. I don't know if there is a psychological correlation between "favoring nuclear energy" and "psychological aggression", but it would probably be worth studying.
I'll give you another shot at it, though I'm not very optimistic that you'll address your own inconsistency. Here are your own words:
__________
"The proviso I would put on nuclear, let's not do it for profit. Let's let NASA design and build the plants, and the military or the government run them so the profit motive does not lead to cutting corners on the plant hardware, training, personnel or security. Do you want security officers like at the airport who get paid practically nothing guarding or servicing nuclear plants?....We cannot trust the deregulated global energy companies to manage nuclear power, not to mention the security aspect of it."
Now you say, "...the nuclear industry wants money to expand. It is not because of the inherent risk of nuclear power, it is because of the risk of the nucleaophobes who will not understand what is going on no matter what."
And yet your "proviso" you mention would be extremely expensive, and the fact that you would not "...trust the deregulated global energy companies to manage nuclear power..." shows that you don't think it's safe, except under fairly stringent control.
bruce: "...nuclear is the most profitable form of power out there...."
But - "We cannot trust the deregulated global energy companies to manage nuclear power, not to mention the security aspect of it."
_________
You see, not only do you resort to personal attacks (which are informally illogical), but your arguement isn't even formally logical. Now those are FACTS. We'll see if you deal with them or avoid/evade them.
You think that the most words posted wins! ;-)
Please address the lack of human death and injury that has occurred in the nuclear field.
You too Steve!
Please address that no current form of energy production produces less C02 than nuclear.
You too Steve!
Steve one of your articles to which Sam referenced as such a great resource of the hazards of nuclear accidents referenced
1. The last earthquake in Japan (BTW any serious radioactivity release was contained)
2. In Germany (they shut down the reactors before any accident could occur.)
Pretty much a testament to the safety standards of the civilian nuclear field.
Sorry you guys lose!
Sorry Sam I didn't read all of your last post, because as usual it is mostly gobbledygook, meaning that you're reasoning out the facts that discount your argument by nonsensical posts with no basis in reality.
1. Why do industry lobbyists urge a one-sentence provision buried in the Senate's recently passed energy bill, inserted without debate?
Because they know you nutbags are out there and will throw a tizzy! even though all of the evidence shows that nuclear is a great benefit to reducing GHG's
"But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes. "
MIT refers to the use of Nuclear Energy as "very limited". But I guess by your views, they would be people speaking with a lack of knowledge as well.
There are hazards in life!
Don't walk out your front door! You might be run over crossing the street or driving down the street in your car!
You have a greater possibility of being injured in a airplane crash than a nuclear power plant accident.
Do the research! Don't realty on the doomsday environmentalists!
One other thing that has come out lately is the coming lack of water in the near future. Reservoirs are drying up. Maybe die to global warming or changing weather patterns. When one looks at how much it costs and how much energy it takes to desalinate and then transport water I have to imagine that somewhere in the future if we do not lower population that we will have to circulate clean water all over the country. I don't see anything other than nuclear that can generate enough power, and useful heat to help with this. Pumping water in CA if one of the most energy intensive things we do in the state.
"Tokyo Electric Power, the plant's operator, said the tremors last week were more than twice as strong as the plant's design limits. So the plant's vulnerability to damage has distressed many Japanese."
Dan E. "In Germany (they shut down the reactors before any accident could occur.)"
Germany is closing them down - Germany is moving away from nuclear.
Dan E. "Because they know you nutbags are out there and will throw a tizzy!"
Looks like you and Cheney are out the same mold. You want these things decided in secret. The reasons it was done in secret is because it can't survive the light of day.
Dan E. "...all of the evidence shows that nuclear is a great benefit to reducing GHG's"
There are better solutions that don't involve the other risks associated with nuclear energy - which your proclamations of denial don't absolve.
So how many people were injured, died or effected by the radiation?
"There are better solutions that don't involve the other risks associated with nuclear energy"
I've already shown that Nuclear has a history of safe operation, that security considering terrorists and proliferation is already mandated.
that solar and wind has a higher cradel to grave C02 output.
Anything you have to add is nothing more than fear mongering.
The designers and engineers know what to expect and design for it. Will there be some things missed or mistakes made, maybe, over a long period of time, probably. They are just not on the order of a Chernobyl.
But as in Japan, there is concern anytime there is a problem with a nuclear plant. Was there a danger ... probably not. Do the designers learn from anything that happens out of the ordinary to every reactor ... yes, and just like in airplances they figure out fixes and retrofits or even decommission plants that are unsafe.
Fortunately, none. But it was not a matter of design - it was a matter of luck (fortunately). You miss the point of the Tokyo Electric's admissions.
Dan E. "Anything you have to add is nothing more than fear mongering....But it is fun to allow you two to show how radical you are!"
Yep. You and Cheney/Rove must be from the same mold.
Dan E. "I've already shown that Nuclear has a history of safe operation, that security considering terrorists and proliferation is already mandated...that solar and wind has a higher cradel to grave C02 output."
You haven't shown anything. You've referred to industry propaganda.
Try reading what Tokyo Electric said about the incident: "Tokyo Electric Power, the plant's operator, said the tremors last week were more than twice as strong as the plant's design limits. So the plant's vulnerability to damage has distressed many Japanese."
Also:
"But perhaps the most startling discovery came in the days that followed, when scientists used data from the magnitude 6.8 earthquake to conclude that the builders of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, the world's largest by electrical output, may have unknowingly constructed it directly on top of an active seismic fault."
"'Not finding the fault was a miss on our part,' said Toshiaki Sakai, who heads the engineering group in charge of Tokyo Electric's nuclear plants. 'But it was not a fatal miss by any means.'"
References are at my article here.
Dan and bruce. You can insult, deride, derrogate, discount and belittle all you want, but until you start dealing with the real vulnerabilities with nuclear energy instead of denying them, then IMO you have no arguement. The nuclear industry has long history of minimizing dangers, which are documented and have been presented in these threads.
Steve you just do not seem to understand that lots of people are "distressed" about the mere existence of a nuclear plant, (especially in Japan) and given a poll which measures their distress will show it. The issue is not how distressed people are ... can't you open you eyes just a crack to try and see that?
The issue is that there is very minor danger from nuclear plants, and that danger is most likely one of extended plant shutdown not any kind of nuclear incident.
It is you that have been doing all the negative things. You pile on the same old URLs and ignore any facts, ideas or questions, and in general just close you mind, while pushing this Amory Lovins manifesto. It is fine to be interested of enthused about something, but you guys have to ignore and distort nuclears record in favor of something that is not even defined let alone tested or a saleable product. I hope all Lovin's stuff takes off. I'm saying it is not going to be enough to meet our energy challenges and the cheaper we can make energy the easier it is going to be to fix all the major challenges we have in the future.
When you have talked about nuclear's "history" you are really talking ancient history, and using an extrapolated increasing line of dangers where none exists, that is really weird if you really want to look objectively at all systems.
That IS part of the issue - because we live in a democracy. You think that people's "distress" is neurotic. I don't. I think, with incidents like this, people have every right to be distressed. People can make judgements in a democracy that there are risks not worth taking. That is the point.
bruce: "You pile on the same old URLs and ignore any facts, ideas or questions, and in general just close you mind, while pushing this Amory Lovins manifesto."
I'm sure that's how you see it. The way I see it is that you ignore the concerns I've brought up time and time again. You characterize them as neurotic - not based in reality. But you're wrong. You're the one, who dismisses Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. You're the one, who insists that the public take risks it apparently doesn't want to take. What right do you have on insisting on that? This is not a monarchy, a dictatorship. A minority of lobbyists and industry self-promoters don't get to decide this.
Re: Lovins, you fail to produce any source as knowledgeable as he is. Your prejudiced view of him is palpable in your derrogatory remarks, and it has been for some time. I am sure you've never read anything he's written - with an open mind. You are so set on shoving nuclear energy down everyone's throats, regardless of what they want for themselves.
bruce: "...you guys have to ignore and distort nuclears record in favor of something that is not even defined let alone tested or a saleable product."
I haven't distorted anything. I've presented my sources - I know you hate URLs. And I've presented sources re: alternatives. Your charges here are simply not accurate. I've been very thorough in my presentations. I can't help it if you don't read.
bruce: "I hope all Lovin's stuff takes off.
It already is taking off. It is drawing substantial investments. Boeing is using carbon fiber composites. Ford hired Boeing's CEO. Wind is quickly becoming competitive with fossils, and solar is not far behind. Hydrogen fuel cells are already being introduced for power in buildings. BMW already is advertising its hydrogen car. Nanosolar is within a decade of producing a $5K residential solar system to replace your utility bill. There are numerous examples. It's happening because it makes the most economic sense. Nuclear makes no sense at all.
bruce: "When you have talked about nuclear's "history" you are really talking ancient history...."
1986. Chernobyl showed what can happen. Look, you yourself wouldn't trust managing nuclear plants or their security to "for profit" corporations. I'm not conceding that "for profit" corporations would be able to make nuclear profitable (they haven't so far, except by market manipulation), but your plan absolutely precludes any economic feasibility for nuclear energy. NASA designing the plants and the military managing them? No thanks!
bruce: "I'm saying it is not going to be enough to meet our energy challenges and the cheaper we can make energy the easier it is going to be to fix all the major challenges we have in the future."
I've addressed the economics many times. Your numbers don't add up - nuclear draws on investments - 0 - why is that?
Producing enough energy is an issue of will - not potential. I have documented many times that enough of the sun's energy hits the earth to meet our needs many times over. The Dakotas alone have enough wind potential to meet all of our nation's transportation needs. Don't tell me we can't do this - since when did we become such a "no-can-do" nation?
Post the injuries and deaths attributed to nuclear energy!
You haven't because despite you claim that there are accidents unreported you have no proof that any have been harmed by those accidents.
You and Sam are fear mongers.
"1986. Chernobyl showed what can happen"
Steve are you ready for this????
Yes you are right!
The Chernobyl accident was a result of old technology and operators ignoring the warnings.
More people have been affected by traditional energy technology than ever by nuclear.
Steve don't get out if bed tomorrow cause you might not survive the day due to a myriad of reasons!
But nuclear is NOT going to be one of them!
I want to apologize for the way I have responded to you in the past.
I know that you both are concerned with our environment in a helpful manner. I may continue to disagree with you, but I thank you for your concern.
Sorry
Daniel A. Erskine
Many people were affected by nuclear incidents. Here are some cases, found after just five minutes searching.
The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths to the incident and estimated that 4,000 will die due to thyroid cancer out of the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
Incidents have occurred of radioactive material being disposed of improperly, of shielding during transport being defective, or of material being abandoned or stolen from a waste store. The World Customs Organization (WCO) reported 234 confirmed cases of seizures of illicit traffic of radioactive and nuclear materials between 1993-98.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull413/article1.pdf
In the former Soviet Union, waste stored in Lake Karachay was blown over the area during a dust storm after the lake had partly dried out.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/chelyabinsk-65_nuc.htm
In other cases lakes or ponds with radioactive waste accidentally overflowed into the rivers during exceptional storms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste
Scavenging of abandoned radioactive material has been the cause of radiation exposure.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PubDetAR.asp?pubId=3684
Apology accepted. Disagreement is fine by me. I promise also to stay away from personal insults.
Sincerely,
Steve Blumberg
I agree why don't you try it sometime Sam?
Yes but I like to measure my odds with reason and intelligence, not stupidity. You whole arguement is based on a stupid beliefe that Nuclear power is safe. You refuse to use reason or your head to logically figure out the odds and ballances, to see where the truth is. You are lead around like some cow on the end of a Nose ring about this subject then try to make others look dumb by your own arrogance about the facts.
Seems to me like you just say you like to, or imagine that you are. It is obvious when you cannot seem to accept that nuclear plants are operating all over the world with no accidents and the accidents you exaggerate in your mind were in Russia 20 years ago that you do not have the intelligence or will not accept new information that counteracts your emotional prejudice and fear.
Nuclear is not a delusion, but there is not information or logic that will change your mind or open your eyes ... yet you still think you are using your head. The questions is, for what are you using it?
Do yo9u ??
Sam posted a link to a survey above, showing that a large majority oppose nuclear. I think the task isn't necessarily to convince nuclear proponents to change their minds, but to keep congress from approving federal loan guarantees for construction of new plants. There is a petition to that effect here.
Maybe in addition to boning up on your science, you two should bone up on your democracy theory. Democracy is supposed to make the best use of the informed citizen to petition the government ... if you are concerned about dictatorial and totalitarian power maybe you ought to look at the uneducated and technophobic enviro-wackos.
Brucy boy, you you haver yet to provide any fact that is in any way convincing enough to listen to your arguements. The truth is, Nuclear Power is just too risky to be using, and may always be that way. If we could find an effective way to dispose of the byproduct and make the plants safer, then I might agree, but that is very unlikely.
Apart from waste, there is so much more wrong with nuclear power. Just look at the risk of rogue regimes getting access to technology and radioactive material. The risk of proliferation alone makes it impossible to promise nuclear power to developing countries, as Bush seems to be doing. Instead, we should ban both nuclear power and nuclear weapons altogether.