A real energy future....

[Zachstar]

As I have grown tired of discussing fantasies of 300 years of oil from an Saudi sized reserve. I have decided to start a topic to discuss REAL LIFE solutions to the current energy crisis outside of the crap from the oil industry.

What is a fantasy you ask? A fantasy is thinking that remaining Oil reserves on the planet called earth are enough to keep current or reduced prices online for over 100 years when factoring in costs to develop and sustain extraction.

A fantasy is thinking hydrogen alone will save us. That it can be "mined" or "extracted" easily.

A fantasy is thinking some perpetual motion machine will come online and save us.

A fantasy is thinking China will stop growing anytime soon.

A bigger fantasy is thinking they will "go green" and save us.

A fantasy is thinking coal is clean in any way shape or form. And yes thinking that we can click our heels and make coal use vanish in 10-20 years is also a fantasy (Sorry Al Gore)

etc...

So with that in mind what is "Real" Real is research and development. Real is accepting that current solar and wind technology is just "not good enough" Real is the understanding that we need a better storage solution.

So with that in mind let us discuss! What is the big breakthrough you are currently looking forward to? What changes do you think need to happen? What amount of involvement is .gov needed in this?

[Skybird]

The greatest fantasy is to assume that by invention of new tools and discovering new reserves we can afford not to change our ressources-wasting way of life.

The greatets challenge will not be new technology. the greatest challenge will prove to be changing our mental attitudes, and redesigning our way of life - and very far-reaching so.

People keep on thinking that everything will change for the better, just they themselves have not to change at all, and have not to accept reducing their claims and expectations. But that is a lethal mistake. The earth can sustain only so many people with this living standard. If it becomes more people, the living standard has do decline. If you want more living standard, there have to be less people.

Unlimited economic growth is also a fantasy. Physically it is not possible to have unlimited growth within a system or environment of limited dimensions. Also, the more industrial growth, the more energy needs - the more pollution - the more problems the more people there are, with growing material expectations.

Medicine has a term for unlimited growth. It calls it cancer. and that is what human civilisation is behaving like.

Don't try to change the world. change yourself and your expectations first. A changing world then will come all by itself. Trying it the other way around will only lead to what we already experience in excessive dimensions: bringing our old problems to ever newer, ever greater proportions.

[Zachstar]

For my points I want to talk Short and Long term.

Short Term Problem: Believe it or not it is storage. Reason? Li-Ion batteries for cars can cost more than the cost of the car itself.....

The sun is not up for 24 hours and the wind does not always blow. So because of this we need to produce "excess" and store it or rely on nasty fossil fuels to power during the dark and calm times.

Solution: EEstor........

As you can tell I am a BIG fan of ZENN and EEstor. The reason being that EEstor is new and designed from the onset to be used in large load applications. It is not super toxic like the battery tech today. It is LIGHT compared to even Li-Ion. And mass production means prices that can open up the road again to the lower middle class. And on top of that. For short term Auto use... It moves the pollution to the power plant. Where emmission controls are MUCH more advanced than the converter on the average car today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEstor

And some news http://media.cleantech.com/3174/eestors-weir-speaks-about-ultracapacitor-milestone

Long Term: We either fix the energy Crisis or go into Depression. Need it any clearer?

Solution?: Fusion, Yes FUSION! Before you go into your bahs and "What about solar" Keep in mind I said LONG term. As there are multiple projects on the way with chances strong that one of them will show sucess by 2030.

Fusion can be powered with a number of different fuels. Including He3 if you want to take a mining trip to the moon. Tho its better with PB11.

I am a fan of EMC2 fusion. http://www.emc2fusion.org/ As I feel that with time it will be the reasonable solution. No giant plasma super plants. Just plants for counties and small countries suppling the energy needs without the danger and expence of current fission.

[Zachstar]

The greatest fantasy is to assume that by invention of new tools and discovering new reserves we can afford not to change our ressources-wasting way of life.

The greatets challenge will not be new technology. the greatest challenge will prove to be changing our mental attitudes, and redesigning our way of life - and very far-reaching so.

People keep on thinking that everything will change for the better, just they themselves have not to change at all, and have not to accept reducing their claims and expectations. But that is a lethal mistake. The earth can sustain only so many people with this living standard. If it becomes more people, the living standard has do decline. If you want more living standard, there have to be less people.

Unlimited economic growth is also a fantasy. Physically it is not possible to have unlimited growth within a system or environment of limited dimensions. Also, the more industrial growth, the more energy needs - the more pollution - the more problems the more people there are, with growing material expectations.

Medicine has a term for unlimited growth. It calls it cancer. and that is what human civilisation is behaving like.

Don't try to change the world. change yourself and your expectations first. A changing world then will come all by itself. Trying it the other way around will only lead to what we already experience in excessive dimensions: bringing our old problems to ever newer, ever greater proportions.

What? You think we are going to say "Screw it" to modern way of life? Who makes that decision?

One step at a time here... Lets fix the current crisis then work on getting offworld. The resources in space are great and the ability to use them grows. Hydroponics for instance can mean that people can live and work in space. And while I don't believe my generation will live in a giant space station. I do believe man will go to the stars before just saying we have grown enough. Can you imagine the wars if someone tried to tell another that we can't reasonably grow anymore?

[Skybird]

While EEstor sound slike being a thing to go for, the ZENN car does not sound convincing at all. Range 80 km? Loading batteries over 8 hours? Speed of 45 km? That is inferior to the air car in the other thread in every way! :p If this is the status of electic cars, they still have to go a long way. It also consumes obviously much, much more electric energy, costing you more money per one filling.

[Zachstar]

Their current model uses a puny battery for around the corner trips. The next model is what is going to use the EEstor battery for MUCH improved range, Quick Charge times, and Highway Speeds.

[Skybird]

What? You think we are going to say "Screw it" to modern way of life? Who makes that decision?

One step at a time here... Lets fix the current crisis then work on getting offworld. The resources in space are great and the ability to use them grows. Hydroponics for instance can mean that people can live and work in space. And while I don't believe my generation will live in a giant space station. I do believe man will go to the stars before just saying we have grown enough. Can you imagine the wars if someone tried to tell another that we can't reasonably grow anymore?

I must not say or imagine that: growth rates realises themselves. and actually, we already have wars over ressources. And plan for wars about things like sweet water. Western man lives excessively beyond what Earth support, and what can be replkaced in ressources, and what serves man well. the symptoms are many, from pollution over oceans empty of fish to individual and sociological neuroses. I do not say "stop teczhnological developement", so do not make it appear like that. I say that it will not save us if we fail to "modernize" our state of minds and our attitudes at the same time. We will not directly jump into a happy and bright new world. We and our chiuldren will need to pass through a phase of transition first, and nthat will be a time of deep crisis and bitter conflicts, like all times of major transormations are.

and it is not a given that we survive that: we may battle against each other until we have killed our selves, or we fall by being exposed to the long-lasting consequences that we already have triggered in the past and who have a self.-dynmaic that is beyond our immediate control. But nothing hinders us to try at least, so - let's become wiser AND technologically more competent as well. Both is needed, not just one. Engineering probölems are a reality. But so are problems of sociology. Religion. Environment. Zeitgeist. Tradition. City planning. Time windows widening or closing. For example what worth is it to have fantatsic tezhcnological possibilities, if the latest wave of relgious fundamentalism has turned into a flood meanwhile carrying the world away and forbidding technology as tool'S whose use is against the will of any god? What use is it if we could have fusion power in x year, when we do not have the breath to hold out that long to build the needed knowldge and industrial basis, or run out of energy meanwhile, or pollution kills us? When famlies in the present have no more the money to pay for heating in winter? and wosh - the wide field of complex economics enter the arena and share the same space with relgion and technology.

Yopu cannot afford to foc us on just one, and ignore the other factors.

Let'S fix the crisis and then go offworld, you simply said. Yeah - easy. Im free next saturday, then we can leave. ;) I have just a feeling that it will not run so smoothly.

[Zachstar]

Ok but bring some soda. Damn Pluto is running out again!

I get what your are saying but it is not something my generation can reasonably face so it is not my problem. When space runs out of resources and all the planets are filled to brim.. THEN we will have a problem. But until then we will have to adapt and evolve.

On the DU forum there was this person saying he opposed advanced energy technology because he feared the explosive growth rates that will result from it. I simply responded with a story of a possible energy depression.

A town surrounded by trees and streams. Energy depression hits, The trees fall and go into steam generators for energy. The streams are netted for every scrap of fish. And the water diverted for the steam and drinking water. Without regard to the ecological damage. Even the birds eggs would be cooked and the nests thrown into the fire.

Desperation means the death of environmentalism. Therefore I refuse to face the desperation I refuse to think about "limits" I know there is an amazing power in fusion that can give us "time" to think about what is next. And by the time the population starts going critical is the time we hopefully can leave this rock. Or die. Or whatever..

And yes if it was possible billions of people would choose to leave. Namely because there is untold riches in space. The other being space is well space and to make your "house" bigger you mine some roids. Therefore we can reasonably save what little of mother nature is left at that point.

[Skybird]

Or nature saves what little is left of us. I love Science fiction, but that is what we talk about from today'S perpsective. when I was at school, landing a man on Mars was projected to happen by the mid- or late 90s. but then budget cuts set in. Different orientations. Politcal changes. Etc etc. To cut it short: there can be no doubt that until today NASA has not landed a man on ars. Nor have the russians or the Chinese. The technology exists, although it remains to be a "Himmelfahrtskommando." But still it does not happen. Obviously reality man creates is oibject to more than just variables of logic, reason, technology and engineering. Money is such a factor. and how money isn spend is not decided by engineer, but by corportations and politicians. these can but must not have knoweldge aiout engineering. and if they have, they can but must not have interest in it, and may choose other priorities. This happening also is part of man'S reality.

until we get a new welath of energy, we will need to learn to manage energy running low, I'm sure. Peoppe already have become aware of diferences in their bills for heating if they waste heating headlessly in winter with open windows - or start to isolate theirt houses and windows. a profane example - but it illustrates how real progress sets in: not with fanafres and stampedes in the toewn hall, but slowly, unspectacular, often dictated by needs to scrifice, and enduring. I do not ruole out fusion powre in the future, I can't becasue I do not know enough aboiut it. what I know is that it still is many many years away, and is not a certainty. What to do until then? Oil becoming exopensive. Pollution going throzgh the ceiling. wind needing another 20-30 years before the now planned German Nordsee-Windpark will be finished. Building new nuclear powerplants due to the monumental hidden and follow-up costs of nuclear energy not really being an economic option, if you only look close enough. Gas meaning high dependency on producers again. Well, one recommendation that is obvious is: starting to save energy. that wins us time. This is one way of interpreting "sacrifice". Or to give up the demand to always travel by airplane, and have long-range voyages for holidays three times a year, so that you have enough money left to pay heating in winter. Not to run three cars in a family household, when one or two would do. The factor behind all this is: money. and on that, engineering cannot help you to avoid financial realities. people will chnage - but possibly not before lacking money forces them to do so. If that then will still be in time, is somethign different.

I do not know if we will ever do space mining. The task is huge, the challenge is right that: a challenge. Possible that it comes that way. Possible that we will not get there. Let'S wait and see. But what if we would make it into space right now, with our current state of mind? what different would that be than exporting our self-made problems to the stars, infesting them with the pleague of human spirit in infectous, lethal disorder and blowing our suicidal attitudes to stellar levels? I don't want that. i mean i would want to go to the stars eventually, but not as long as our mind is so seriously in disorder. I do not wish us to behave like the Aliens in Independance Day. also, as long as we do not use forieng ore on foreign worlds, but bring it to earth instead, it means to contribute to the already existing pollution of earth by injecting foreign potential pollutants into earth's system. and if we have no second earth to evade - what kind of life then? I strongly believe that every level of knowledge, technological as well as other wise, needs a level of sense of responsibility that can only come from mental evolution. but our mental developement already serious lags behind our current technological ponteitals and knowledge. this gap is what has brought us and planet Earth and all species living on it into the mess we are in.

[Zachstar]

Ok now you are talking about things that are just plain weird.

Lets keep it simple. I don't care about how we are infectious bacteria or whatever. I care about the culture and how I want it to continue.

As for the slow stuff? That was nice in the past when the population growing by a million was a BIG thing. Not so much anymore. Either we find solutions or people are going to "improvise" by tearing up the environment.

If a wind park is slated for 20-30 years of dev it is no better then these "magic" oil fields that supposedly will save us but take decades to develop. Again this is why current solar and wind tech is not enough.

For those two tho I prefer to focus on home solar mainly because what is one of the biggest power hogs in the home? The Air Conditioner... And when is it mostly used? When it is hot and sunny... Perfect time for solar panels.

[UnderseaLcpl]

A)The greatest fantasy is to assume that by invention of new tools and discovering new reserves we can afford not to change our ressources-wasting way of life.

2)The greatets challenge will not be new technology. the greatest challenge will prove to be changing our mental attitudes, and redesigning our way of life - and very far-reaching so.

3)People keep on thinking that everything will change for the better, just they themselves have not to change at all, and have not to accept reducing their claims and expectations. But that is a lethal mistake. The earth can sustain only so many people with this living standard. If it becomes more people, the living standard has do decline. If you want more living standard, there have to be less people.

4)Unlimited economic growth is also a fantasy. Physically it is not possible to have unlimited growth within a system or environment of limited dimensions. Also, the more industrial growth, the more energy needs - the more pollution - the more problems the more people there are, with growing material expectations.

5)Medicine has a term for unlimited growth. It calls it cancer. and that is what human civilisation is behaving like.

6)Don't try to change the world. change yourself and your expectations first. A changing world then will come all by itself. Trying it the other way around will only lead to what we already experience in excessive dimensions: bringing our old problems to ever newer, ever greater proportions.


WARNING: the following may contain another excessively verbose and possibly boring head-butt with skybird. Reader discretion is advised.


1) Actually, we can. For a brief period covering the entire span of human history, technology has provided the ability to do things that were impossible before. By your logic, we would all be hunter-gatherers because agricultural revolutions wouldn't solve our problems.

2) That's already happening. Consider gas for a moment. In the U.S., infamous for its' SUV's and prior to that, gun-boat Oldsmobiles and the like, people are making drastic changes to cope with rising fuel costs. But it isn't because some forward thinking environmentalist told them to do it, it's because fuel economics are hitting their wallets. Once again, the market is the determining force.

3) Everything WILL change for the better. All that is needed is a proper motivating force, like money. When people begin to suffer deleterious effects in terms of economics or environment they simply change the way they live and that becomes the new "standard". Examples include (insert country name here)'s industrial revolution and subsequent reforms of industry, China's resorting to "Special Economic Zones", the fall of the Soviet Union, the Great Depression, the 70's "Gas Crunch" etc etc ad infinitum.
Additionally, the argument that "If you want more living standard, there have to be less people." is untrue. The prosperity of some thrives at the expense of others. So, theoretically, as long as we maintain billions of deprived and/or dying people, the rest of us can live well. Increasing the number of suffering people directly translates into more of us having a first-world standard of living. As terribly heartless as that sounds, there is nothing any of you can do to change it significantly, short of eliminating competition for resources by making all resources unlimited. It's a cruel world and if you have a computer and internet access you are not part of the suffering and dying majority.

4)"Unlimited economic growth is also a fantasy. Physically it is not possible to have unlimited growth within a system or environment of limited dimensions. Also, the more industrial growth, the more energy needs - the more pollution - the more problems the more people there are, with growing material expectations."

No unlimited economic growth is not a fantasy. Who put limited dimensions on our system? The lives of those of us discussing this topic today are unimaginable by the standards of people even a thousand years ago. Once again, you underestimate the adaptability of humans, the power of science, and the omnipotent power of slef-interest.
It is true that obscene numbers of people may die from the "progress" of civilization and the effects thereof, but how is that any different from the rest of human, and natural, history?

5) Does cancer, at any stage, create a greater amount of order and prosperity in the body than exsisted before?

Granted, you can say that progress is leading us to destruction, but all evidence thus far disagrees, because we are still here and have a greater number of prosperous people and countries than ever. The view that our lifestyles are leading us to imminent destruction has been around for millenia.
I will agree that the "Western" world probably faces a significant downfall in the future for a variety of reasons, but humanity itself is in no immediate danger of being destroyed.

6) Wishful thinking at its' worst. Yeah, if only all 6 billion of us could subscribe to a peaceful and earth-friendly lifestyle wherin the vast majority of people were not denied prosperity for the gain of others. Sounds good. On paper. Sounds like communism, and we all know how well that works out.

In summation, not only is continiuing on our present course our best hope, it is also the only thing that will happen. Even if one was to introduce a New World Order wherein we all lived in a peaceful and "green" society, it would promptly be destroyed by the first group to point guns at some other group's heads and say "give us all your stuff or you die"

What you are proposing, skybird, is nothing short of changing human nature. A feat which could only be acheived via genetic manipulation and artificial selection, and I have a good idea how you feel about that already.

[Skybird]

Ok now you are talking about things that are just plain weird.
It is not weird. It is the complete picture that you decide to ignore. And that is exactly the attitude of human mind that has brought us into our present mess - not looking beyond the end of one's own nose. i mean no personal attack, but if you insist on just sticking to technological developement alone becaseu that is your prfession maybe and while having a hammer you want to see evertyhing as a nail, you will find yourself 1.) running out of time, and b.) will find yourself wandering on exactly the same path that has brought us to this pass. It is also the excuse by wehi9ch the Us blockaded and prevented many obligatoryx climate proptection agreements on international level: never coinbsiderign one's own way of life, never thinking baout the madness of unlimtied growth, but asusming one can continue like in thre past forever, and solve climate issues by assumed later technology alone. I am surprised. In the other thread you have just hammered it home that we will not drill our way out of the current energy crisis. but here you insist on sticking to the idea that it is all about technology alone, and evertyhign else than that is "weired".

Lets keep it simple. I don't care about how we are infectious bacteria or whatever. I care about the culture and how I want it to continue.

It cannot continue for much longer if it does not chnage and adapt to signifcantly chnaged environmental and economical variables. We need to chnage and understand that we cannot continue like this, like we just have done for the past decades. we were living on tic, and beyond our capacitiers, and beyond what earth can afford.

As for the slow stuff? That was nice in the past when the population growing by a million was a BIG thing. Not so much anymore. Either we find solutions or people are going to "improvise" by tearing up the environment.
yes. Too many people. and eventually, nature will take care of that, when it becomes too much. By starvations. Epidemics. Floodings. Or by wars. In the end ,nature does not have a problem with us, it juist reacts to disturbances of its relöative state of homeostasis. Man has a problem with nature. the globe is what it is. the bone with serious problem is not the globe, or the biosphere, but us. If the biosphere chnages, it chnages. If the biposphere chnages too much, man dies. If man dies, it means almost nothing to the biosphere. Maybe relief, that just nobody takes note of.

If a wind park is slated for 20-30 years of dev it is no better then these "magic" oil fields that supposedly will save us but take decades to develop. Again this is why current solar and wind tech is not enough.

So what to do? live on like usual, waiting for things to come and wasting energy like in the past? A clever man would starst sviong his ressources as the first immidiate measurement, in order to buy time.

For those two tho I prefer to focus on home solar mainly because what is one of the biggest power hogs in the home? The Air Conditioner... And when is it mostly used? When it is hot and sunny... Perfect time for solar panels.

air conditioners are not so comon in germany, his is still not the tropical region of the globe, although it becomes hotter. however, I have already described in I think two threads the economic madness especially Germany has created with it's once worldwide leading production of solar panels. I cut it short and say that we have trapped ourselves in suicidal subsidy practices that ruin the economical calculation from a perspective of state and national community, and only reward investors from outside germany, and asian producers. Economially, it is a nightmare. But that bis germany'S fault. Practically we are massively subsidizing overcapacities we had created, with two-digit billions per year. this is a loss for the tax-payer. the profit from these subsidies for the most now lands in the Far East. It is one of my prime examples how stupidly german politicians sometimes race the car against the wall.

I enjoyed the talk, but must leave now - day's obligations are waiting. Thanks for a decent conversation. ;)

[Skybird]

1) Actually, we can. For a brief period covering the entire span of human history, technology has provided the ability to do things that were impossible before. By your logic, we would all be hunter-gatherers because agricultural revolutions wouldn't solve our problems.

Nonsens, you are exaggerating. Why is it that these themes always trigger black-white-reactions? the current climate chnage takling place (as long as you do not deny it), the massive gap between the rich and the poor worldwide, the fact that we have global problems that derive from the industrialization of only the Western world, but now the much greater part of mankind claims the right to reach for the same living standard we enjoy (who can deny it to them?) gives clear signlas that we cannot continue by a principle of business as usual. Climate changes, respsurces getting thin, even food.

[quote]
2) That's already happening. Consider gas for a moment. In the U.S., infamous for its' SUV's and prior to that, gun-boat Oldsmobiles and the like, people are making drastic changes to cope with rising fuel costs. But it isn't because some forward thinking environmentalist told them to do it, it's because fuel economics are hitting their wallets. Once again, the market is the determining force.
I made the finacial and economic argument to Zachstar. He called it and more like that "weired". :D

3) Everything WILL change for the better. All that is needed is a proper motivating force, like money. When people begin to suffer deleterious effects in terms of economics or environment they simply change the way they live and that becomes the new "standard". Examples include (insert country name here)'s industrial revolution and subsequent reforms of industry, China's resorting to "Special Economic Zones", the fall of the Soviet Union, the Great Depression, the 70's "Gas Crunch" etc etc ad infinitum.

Colunter arguments are the fact that the west for centuries has formed its wealth at the cost of the third world, Russia has formed its wealth on the backs of the famrers, then the working class and small people, and china'S massive ignoration of social suffering party'Y economic prjects causes, and especially the infamous Three Gorges Dam. You quote from the ideal theories of past economic textbooks here. reality - proves to be more than just a bit different.


Additionally, the argument that "If you want more living standard, there have to be less people." is untrue. The prosperity of some thrives at the expense of others. So, theoretically, as long as we maintain billions of deprived and/or dying people, the rest of us can live well. Increasing the number of suffering people directly translates into more of us having a first-world standard of living. As terribly heartless as that sounds, there is nothing any of you can do to change it significantly, short of eliminating competition for resources by making all resources unlimited. It's a cruel world and if you have a computer and internet access you are not part of the suffering and dying majority.
While we say the same on the fact, we could not be more apart nevertheless. maybe you are willing to accept the comndtion quo and leave it untouched for you prfit from it. I certainly must and will not agree with that attitude. It certainly is wrong.


No unlimited economic growth is not a fantasy. Who put limited dimensions on our system?

Earth, and knowledge.


The lives of those of us discussing this topic today are unimaginable by the standards of people even a thousand years ago. Once again, you underestimate the adaptability of humans, the power of science, and the omnipotent power of slef-interest.

I know that for my living standard, people are dying, and for every man living at my standards, several other men live in poverty and misery. we live on tic, and by blood diamonds in the wider meaning of the term - we all in the industrialized world(s) do.

It is true that obscene numbers of people may die from the "progress" of civilization and the effects thereof, but how is that any different from the rest of human, and natural, history?
Should that be an excuse?

5) Does cancer, at any stage, create a greater amount of order and prosperity in the body than exsisted before?
Is material esxssive wealth of the West really always for the best of people? As I see it, it corrupts a greater and greater part of our young, and brings more and more people to turening into egoists and brings out more and more sociological neurosis and psychosis all over the place. there are more items being producedk, than thirty ysears ago. But still, life has become more unpersonal, jarder, more brutal, colder.

and the gab between the few having more and more, and the many having less and elsser, becomes wider. In the US - and in Europe and Germany as well.


Granted, you can say that progress is leading us to destruction,
I have not said that, never, nowhere. Again, disagreeing with what you and part of what Zachstar said, immediately triggers black-white-thinking.


but all evidence thus far disagrees, because we are still here and have a greater number of prosperous people and countries than ever. The view that our lifestyles are leading us to imminent destruction has been around for millenia.

Last time I checked UN statistics on global populaion and their social living conditions, they disagreed with you. Democracies are in decline. More people than before live in poverty, and increasingly get exposued to climate.-chnage-caused natural desasters. We live our life you celebrate by having expoited them and their countries for long time, and still do so in many, many cases. we deny them equal chances, just look at the fights the WTO had seen abiout agriculture again.

I will agree that the "Western" world probably faces a significant downfall in the future for a variety of reasons, but humanity itself is in no immediate danger of being destroyed.

Possibly not, if ignoring some nasty pandemcis. but human civilisation is at risk very well, and if it falls, man will not be anything more than a number of bands wandering around.


6) Wishful thinking at its' worst. Yeah, if only all 6 billion of us could subscribe to a peaceful and earth-friendly lifestyle wherin the vast majority of people were not denied prosperity for the gain of others. Sounds good. On paper. Sounds like communism, and we all know how well that works out.
Now you really try hard to distort what I said and mean, do you. I refuse to honour that with a reply.

In summation, not only is continiuing on our present course our best hope, it is also the only thing that will happen.

Rome has spoken (... before it fell)


Even if one was to introduce a New World Order wherein we all lived in a peaceful and "green" society, it would promptly be destroyed by the first group to point guns at some other group's heads and say "give us all your stuff or you die"

What you are proposing, skybird, is nothing short of changing human nature. A feat which could only be acheived via genetic manipulation and artificial selection, and I have a good idea how you feel about that already.

You assume quite lot about me in recent paragraphs what I allegedly should have said or meant, but actually havent, and that makes me a bit angry now. You and me, as well as the the typical American and the typical european disagree on a lot of things, yet share we the same key genes nevertheless. the cultural climate you live in just is very different than the one we live in over here. That points at the importance of education, not only schools, but the self-understanding that is propagated. and by that, people can learn to chnage. To be more presice: they already have started it, but you seem to be unaware. many people'sliofe have chnaged in your country, they have lost homes, become poorer, others feel the increasing costs for gasoline, and chnage their habits to cope with that. awareness for environmental issues is rising, even in america, sometimes lowoly, sometimes faster. Schwarzenegger, about whom I mocked at first, has launched a number of "green" policies that have catapulted California probably into the lead of american change in this regard.

One principle thing: I tend in discussions like this to not stick to any preferred utopia of mine, and what I hope and wish (as long as i do not explicitly say so), but focus on a style that could be described as "if we do this, the consequence probably will be that, and if we don't do it, then this will be the result." I do that without morally or subjectively judging, no matter if discussing nuclear strikes against Iran, environment or cultural issues. If I think this or that option is desirable or not, is something very different. that is why all your mentioning of communism, and me hoping this or not hoping that, is pointless. You can disagree with the likelihoods I see regarding events, but I would be thankful if you leave it to that, and not worry about my alleged personal preferances and wishes and hopes and desires so much, as long as I do not mark them as that: my wishes, hopes and desires.

all in all i must reject your comfortability by which you arrange yourself with the status quo and consider it to be okay to continue like that, forever, and in ignorration of dangerous disbalances and potentials for conflicts.

Damn, time is fleeting.

[Zachstar]

Ok I don't know how it got THAT derailed so can we return to the actual stuff that makes the *buzz* and bright blue light when it arcs?

Ya that is like teh power!!111one!

http://www.dailytech.com/New%20LiIon%20Battery%20Production%20Method%20May% 20Offer%20Valuable%20Savings/article12531.htm

http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/8817_lithium_ion.jpg


A new type of Li-Ion, less storage cap but seems to have the ability to be produced FAR cheaper than current Li-Ion packs that could cost you hundreds just to run one of those kids cars you see at wall mart. Much less a full size sedan...

With current technology, the biggest downside to the lithium iron phosphate is the manufacturing. Currently, the process takes hours of baking at temperatures in excess of 700 °C. The extra manpower and effort required due to this has meant that Lithium iron phosphate batteries, which should from a materials perspective be much cheaper than lithium cobalt oxide, are actually more expensive than their competitor.

Led by Professor Arumugam Manthiram, a U of T professor of materials engineering, the researchers at U of T examined how a microwave could be used to speed the cooking process. The results were dramatic.

[SUBMAN1]

Since this is a conversation only between Zachstar and Skybird, maybe you guys can keep it in PM? :hmm:

-S

[Zachstar]

Since this is a conversation only between Zachstar and Skybird, maybe you guys can keep it in PM? :hmm:

-S

Maybe you can read the entire topic first? And perhaps contribute? This was not meant for just Skybird as you can see.

But if it is driving you nuts with all this tech that is not OMG oil and coal then maybe the 300 years out of a Saudi sized field discussion is better for you.

[SUBMAN1]

Maybe you can read the entire topic first? And perhaps contribute? This was not meant for just Skybird as you can see....I'm not sure anyone else but maybe one or two other people care is the point. :D

-S

[Zachstar]

I see what you are trying to do. And I am not playing this time. If you aren't going to discuss these tech solutions to the current energy crisis. Leave

Go back to your oil and "clean" coal.

[Zachstar]

Now to get it back on topic YET AGAIN! (Can we keep it that way this time?)

I posted that news article on the Li-Ion tech. Now there is even more good news!

From MIT may have come the "solution" to home storage of energy.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUKN3145191020080731

By Scott Malone
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (Reuters) - A U.S. scientist has developed a new way of powering fuel cells that could make it practical for home owners to store solar energy and produce electricity to run lights and appliances at night.
A new catalyst produces the oxygen and hydrogen that fuel cells use to generate electricity, while using far less energy than current methods.



This was one of the big breakthroughs I have been waiting for!

Reason 1: We need a system to complement EEstor batteries in situations where either you need a steady flow over time or you need to be able to store a LARGE amount of energy (For say local grid)

Reason 2: Has to deal more with economics but EEstor is going to be in demand for a LONG time and I don't think many home owners are going to be able to get them at first. So these cells are a good mid range in my view.

[Skybird]

I do not wish to sound profance, but has anybody experiences with Sanyo's new Eneloop accu cells? They are said to store electric powerr over mkuch longer beriods of time with minimal losses only and by that are superior in capacity to regular NiMH accus even if by numbers they have a slightly higher capacity (mA).

Sorry, Zachstar, I cannot comment much on the tech stuff you linked to. but I need new accus. :)

[Zachstar]

What in the world is an accu?

[Skybird]

What in the world is an accu?

:rotfl:
:rotfl:

A lonely indignant question all alone in the prairie trying to raise attention! :lol:

Accumulator batteries? Rechargable batteries?

[Zachstar]

Accumulator batteries? Rechargable batteries?

I see.

Well I have not had experience with Sanyo's cells. Sorry

[UnderseaLcpl]

Nukes are the answer. As I am 25 years old and still know everything you should listen to me:rotfl:


Seriously, though, I consider nukes to be a good stopgap until we discover some new energy-harnessing capability that is nonthreatning, or at least less threatning than the old ones, whilst being much more economical thant running the world with wind-power and other ridiculous ideas.

I was going to write an exhaustive defense of this position, but given the increasing popularity of nukes, I would like to see contrary views before I do. However, I bet I can guess some of them;

1) Nukes are unsafe (explode, meltdown, melt people, make 3-eyed fish) I will enjoy answering that one.

2) Nukes are expensive. (before saying that, consider what, exactly makes them expensive)

3) Something relating to "real" clean energy sources:roll: (excepting hydroelectric turbines)

4) What do we do with all the waste, and by extension, what if the terrorists get it?

----------------------------

As far a gas and oil are concerned I have no great vision of a new power source other than that the market should be allowed to work. If people can't afford gas, they'll give up on cars and internal combustion engines. Either a revolution in portable potential energy (or an improvement on things like batteries) will be developed or people and industry will find other ways to adapt until something better comes along. I'm sure it will be a time of social and political upheaval, but hey, we've had lots of those before and we're still here.

Frankly, I am unconcerned about the gas situation. I will bet anyone here whatever they wish that we will not run out of oil in any of our lifetimes. Call me crazy, but I see an emerging historical pattern in environmentalism and resource conservation and I am certain that we will repeat it many times without ever learning our lesson.

[Zachstar]

Nuke plants take too long to construct BEFORE the court battles and all that.

[Skybird]

Nukes are too expensive, if only you calculate the follow up costs, and hidden costs. Running the existing ones is an option, but it has been shown that their cointribution to saving the climate is too small as if the current ones would make a significant difference. Buidling new nuclear pants is a calculation that does not work, from an economical standpoint. This is with regard to German conditions, vbut I can'T imagine it is so totally different elsewhere. Also, that that French plant has had a series of accidents over the past weeks, while that Swedish ones had several accidents last year and it's company tried to cover things up, is not encouraging. But the main cost is the fiancial one. If looking close enough, it simply ruins every economic calculation from the community's perspective.

[Skybird]

A real energy future - an honest political future? Energy, environment and politics are linked together and can't be seen as separate entities.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print


Now for the bad news: sheer irresponsibility may be a winning political strategy.

(...)

Hence my concern: if a completely bogus claim that environmental protection is raising energy prices can get this much political traction, what are the chances of getting serious action against global warming? After all, a cap-and-trade system would in effect be a tax on carbon (though Mr. McCain apparently doesn’t know that), and really would raise energy prices.

The only way we’re going to get action, I’d suggest, is if those who stand in the way of action come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral.

[August]

Go back to your oil and "clean" coal.

Oil and coal are going to subsidize your lifestyle for the foreseeable future whether you like it or not. Learn to deal with it.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I see the primary argument agains nukes is expense. So be it.

Nuclear reactors are actually quite cost-effective to build, even under most extremely cautious and sometimes silly Federal regs. The main cost of building and operating the plants comes from insurance costs. These insurance costs are based on irrational fear of nuclear catastrophes. How many dissenters have ever been inside a nuclear plant? The thing practically runs itself. You would have to be deliberately trying to cause a radiation leak to actually make one. Only a very unlikely series of unfortunate circumstances could cause one.

Nuclear disasters are also over-rated. Many people cite Three-mile island without actually knowing anything about it. Some think it was close to a "meltdown" without knowing what that term means. Others think the reactor leaked "dangerous radiation"

Firstly, a meltdown is nigh-impossible. I have said it before, and I will continue to say it until I stop hearing that stupid term; there is no meltdown. That term comes from that retarded movie "The China Syndrome" wherein a nuclear reactor "goes critical" (has an uncontrollable reaction) that causes the reaction mass to become so hot it melts the containment unit and threatens to melt through the Earth's surface until it reaches the water supply. The nature of the term is engendered by the ludicrous belief that such a reaction could melt a hole to all the way to China.
The very nature of this argument should discourage any belief in it but amazingly it does not.
Secondly, no American has ever had their cause of death established as "exposure to Nuclear power plant radiation". You are much more likely to die from cancer caused by natural radiation than that produced (assuming it was somehow released" from nuclear power plants.
Producing an "uncontrolled" reaction in a nuclear plant would have to be deliberate. Even the Russians haven't managed it and we know all about their history with nukes. Before anyone says something about it "The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency) (IAEA) and World Health Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization) (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyroid_cancer)), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer cases among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed and 5,000 among the 6 million living nearby.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#cite_note-iaea-3) Although the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_alienation) and certain limited areas will remain off limits, the majority of affected areas are now considered safe for settlement and economic activity"
This is from wikipedia but the deaths hardly constitute a threat on the level most anti-nuclear activists subscribe to.
The General consensus is that the "explosion was caused by atmospheric overpressure which was in turn caused by a fire that had nothing to do with the fissionable materials contained therin.
If the explosion was nuclear in origin, all the better. What a ptitiful amount of damage for something people fear so much.
Blame it on my being American, but I also consider the fact that the Soviet Union ran the damn thing to be a major factor. That's almost as bad as referring to an episode of "Captain Planet" for one's arguments.
The death toll from this one, isolated incident, in the hands of an irresponsible, and I must say, socialist government, caused fewer deaths than coal-mining accidents throughout America's history as a nation.

The failure of the nuclear industry to establish itself, until recently, as a primary power source in the U.S. is due to nothing more than irrational fear and the costs associated with it.


Skybird also posits that France and Sweden have had recent nuclear accidents. Maybe they did, but the lack of international outrage and the fact that U.S. media has somehow not covered these failures extensively leads me to believe that they were minor and probably killed no-one. Without doing any research whatsoever I can confidently say that news concerning gas prices somehow eclipsed these incidents and that is most likely because they are trivial and if they did kill some people it was not because of exposure to radiation, they pose no threat to the public of the aforementioned nations and, well what more is there to say?

[Zachstar]

Go back to your oil and "clean" coal.
Oil and coal are going to subsidize your lifestyle for the foreseeable future whether you like it or not. Learn to deal with it.

That was not the point of the statement.

I know damn well that Coal plants are going to see increased activity at night due to

A) Their ability to use much more of the energy in coal and pollute far less than the average motor car...

B) The Nuke plants are unable to feed the grid enough to prevent A...

I have "learned" to "deal with it" but I am not going to learn to live with outright false claims of centuries of oil and coal or other BS that even a high school student can tell you is not true without serious economic and environmental destruction.

And I am not going to learn to deal with false claims that solar and wind and tidal alone will supply our energy future. A real energy future requires a new massive power source. Either its space solar or fusion.. You take your pick...

[Zachstar]

Undersea, trying to convince the nation that we need more Fission plants is an act of futility for many reasons besides the supposed radiation threat to the bunnies.

The best we can hope for is that the current plants continue to be run near 100 percent for the next few decades so they do not get replaced by nasty coal plants.

[Zachstar]

A real energy future - an honest political future? Energy, environment and politics are linked together and can't be seen as separate entities.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print


Now for the bad news: sheer irresponsibility may be a winning political strategy.

(...)

Hence my concern: if a completely bogus claim that environmental protection is raising energy prices can get this much political traction, what are the chances of getting serious action against global warming? After all, a cap-and-trade system would in effect be a tax on carbon (though Mr. McCain apparently doesn’t know that), and really would raise energy prices.

The only way we’re going to get action, I’d suggest, is if those who stand in the way of action come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral.


Skybird there are still a small minority that believes GW is an Al Gore conspiricy. Which is strange because even their dear president and presidential candidate mostly supports the theory now.

So with that in mind and a Congress that will have a mad republican minority next year we have to almost accept that things like "cap and trade" which BTW has been a failure of epic proportions. And other measures to "Force" the economy to reduce emissions is almost without a chance.

So in my view the only way to get past this situation with the climate is to go right through it. Lets continue to see the polar regions melt, Droughts destroy food, etc... Then hopefully by the time congress will give a damn.. We will have the technology to do something about it.

If anyone, Here seriously thinks the world can come together in 100 months (The timeline I have heard recently that supposedly is in the range of "passive" environmental restoration) Well sorry but no... Aint gonna happen...

[Platapus]

What in the world is an accu?


Aint that one of them big birds in Australia?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Undersea, trying to convince the nation that we need more Fission plants is an act of futility for many reasons besides the supposed radiation threat to the bunnies.

The best we can hope for is that the current plants continue to be run near 100 percent for the next few decades so they do not get replaced by nasty coal plants.

:rotfl:


Please expound on that though. I 'm not sure why it is so futile. I mean, all I would have to do is get people to read a little about how nukes operate.....oh, maybe it is futile.:cry:

[Skybird]

Lance,

I see the primary argument agains nukes is expense. So be it.

Nuclear reactors are actually quite cost-effective to build, even under most extremely cautious and sometimes silly Federal regs. The main cost of building and operating the plants comes from insurance costs. These insurance costs are based on irrational fear of nuclear catastrophes. How many dissenters have ever been inside a nuclear plant? The thing practically runs itself.

Irrational? You are making irresponsible claims here.

You would have to be deliberately trying to cause a radiation leak to actually make one. Only a very unlikely series of unfortunate circumstances could cause one.

Just last month the French have had two or three such “unlikely leaks”. It is no rare event that radiation leaks show up during accidents in nuclear powerplants. They< have had four accidents in one of theirs in recent weeks. That the company tries to play it down and hide information about it, should not surprise anybody. The Swedes last year did the same, and regarding one of their plants they run in Germany via RWE company, they even actively hindred analysis by officials for long, and delayed action as long as possible. And this although one of the three accidents they had in Sweden last year today is considered to have been a extremely serious event during which they had not really 100% control but – luck. During many nuclear accidents radiation has been set free, or nuclear material has been released. It is by far jno0 exception from the rule.


Nuclear disasters are also over-rated. Many people cite Three-mile island without actually knowing anything about it. Some think it was close to a "meltdown" without knowing what that term means. Others think the reactor leaked "dangerous radiation"

Considering your explanations following, I wonder if YOU know it. This is not about China-Syndrome-movie-hysteria. This is about something like Chernobyl.

Firstly, a meltdown is nigh-impossible. I have said it before, and I will continue to say it until I stop hearing that stupid term; there is no meltdown. That term comes from that retarded movie "The China Syndrome" wherein a nuclear reactor "goes critical" (has an uncontrollable reaction) that causes the reaction mass to become so hot it melts the containment unit and threatens to melt through the Earth's surface until it reaches the water supply. The nature of the term is engendered by the ludicrous belief that such a reaction could melt a hole to all the way to China.

You simply are wrong informed. A meltdown can happen, and has happened in Chernobyl. It means not that the mass burns through all the globe, through the core, then climbs against gravity on the other side and pops up in china (this is the image behind the term “China-Syndrome”, and yes, that cannot happen indeed and is an image only). “Meltdown” (Kernschmelze) means that the temperature of the core due to lacking cooling becomes so hot that it indeed could melt/burn the shielding, walls, and isolation that seal the core chamber, and the building itself. THIS was one of the major problem the Russians had to fight with so hard: the immense temperatures inside the reactor building that now is sealed. But the seals are not solid anymore, but – using this word in lack of any better – “corrode” due to the radiation, and temperature from within.

Until today, you can measure significantly raised radiation levels in France, Germany, Britain, that are caused by the freed nuclear material from the Chernobyl disaster that escaped into the atmosphere.

The very nature of this argument should discourage any belief in it but amazingly it does not.

You are in need to re-adjust your position.

Secondly, no American has ever had their cause of death established as "exposure to Nuclear power plant radiation". You are much more likely to die from cancer caused by natural radiation than that produced (assuming it was somehow released" from nuclear power plants.

1 there is a world beyond America, believe it or not. 2. Americans make up for only 5% of the global population, the remaining 95% of people on this globe are not American. This becomes important regarding needed numbers of powerplants if they should have a solid effect on worldclimate, because most of the 1500 addito9nally needed (!) powerplants then would have to be built not only in the western world, but the second and third world including all those labelled rogue states as well – Iran, anyone? North Korea? 3. You may want to research the case of Karen Silkwood, there is also a movie about it, but the story is not fictional but real for sure. She worked in a plutonium factory by energy corporation Kerr McGee and became aware of mounting numbers of accidents during which employees got poisoned while the company – like so often in nuclear business – talked it down and tried to hide it. She later got killed under mysterious circumstances. I know that I have heared and read about more things like this, including staff from powerplants, but I do not remember the details and names out of the blue and don’T want to research it all now. – You point a 100% idealistic, hyper-optimistic picture here. Don’t be so naïve. There is no fail-safe technology, and there is no material or technology that does not suffer from wear and tear, and accidents. You can reduce the risk, but neither can you bring it to nill, nor can you reduce it so far as you seem to think.

Producing an "uncontrolled" reaction in a nuclear plant would have to be deliberate. Even the Russians haven't managed it and we know all about their history with nukes. Before anyone says something about it "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 (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer cases among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed and 5,000 among the 6 million living nearby.[4] Although the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and certain limited areas will remain off limits, the majority of affected areas are now considered safe for settlement and economic activity"

The IAEA has a bias, first said, and is under immense political influence. Second, I do not see listed those workers who in small groups but an endless stream got shuttled to the roof via helicopters and worked for 30 seconds only, then were brought back, heavily poisoned by the intense radiation on the open roof that they had to seal in this suffering and slow manner, and physically broken from the radiation after just 30 seconds. And that have been more than just half a hundred or so. Many of them died in the months and up to two years after their 30 second walk (and not because they were old).

The General consensus is that the "explosion was caused by atmospheric overpressure which was in turn caused by a fire that had nothing to do with the fissionable materials contained therin.

again, that is a statement by an organisation that has a policy to let use of nuclear energy appear as acceptable in principle and play down risks. It is not important why the core was exposed and burned up – that this was the consequence in which previous events resulted: this is the important thing. Technology can fail. And regarding nuclear technology one needs to be aware of what that could mean in consequences. Consider Chernobyl having happened at a Location near Frankfurt. It would have changed Europe’s face, it would not have wiped out Germany, but would have substantially prevented it to be what it is today in the present. The effects on economy, business and finances would have had truly global dimensions.


If the explosion was nuclear in origin, all the better. What a ptitiful amount of damage for something people fear so much.
Blame it on my being American, but I also consider the fact that the Soviet Union ran the damn thing to be a major factor. That's almost as bad as referring to an episode of "Captain Planet" for one's arguments.

That thing was old and badly maintained, yes. However be aware that there are accidents taking place in Sweden, Germany, Britain, France, America as well. I am not sure if I ever have heard of accidents in Japan. They surely build theirs to be rating high on the security scale, due to the risks of earthquakes. A very high problem see in control of these facilities not being objective and not influenced by lobbying. Energy producers have too much influence on how to handle inspection, how to handle accidents, and information policy. This should all be handled by an independent organisation that cannot be made subject to attempts of influencing it. But no western national nuclear control office qualifies for that, including german and american ones. It all looks nice on papers, but realities are something different.


The death toll from this one, isolated incident, in the hands of an irresponsible, and I must say, socialist government, caused fewer deaths than coal-mining accidents throughout America's history as a nation.

Handling by capitalist societies leaving information policies to private economical lobbies having interest in not being objective has been proven to be not trustworthy as well, we just learned it this and last year again, and many times before as well. Where bureaucracy meets oligarchies and lobbies, trust better comes to an end. And that constellation is fulfilled both in western nations today, as in the former USSR alike. In fact I think the more years go by, the more similar to the USSR structures the western nations start to look – but that is another discussion for another thread.

The failure of the nuclear industry to establish itself, until recently, as a primary power source in the U.S. is due to nothing more than irrational fear and the costs associated with it.

The costs are immense financially, and in germany: politically as well. The follow-up costs in the long run are even higher. Normally, costs for taking care of nuclear waste, are totally excluded from the company’s calculation on profits, these costs get externalized, means: they are being put onto the shoulders of the tax payer. We take about costs that in full depth cannot be calculated and will be existent for many generations to come. And I do not even refer to accidents in storage sites, disasters and contaminations. Plutonium has a half-life of 24.000 years. I am aware not all nuclear waste is plutonium, but we talk about isolating materials over time ranges of several ten thousand years until they have reduced their radioactivity to relatively harmless levels. We do not even have barrels that would hold that long, and we do not have writings and inks that would last for so long to warn man in 10.000 years of the nuclear garbage! ;) don’t laugh, such considerations are a serious problem. And I do not even mention things like unability to project changing ground water levels, influence of climate change and tectonic activity. If somebody thinks we know all about these factors, he better thinks twice.


Skybird also posits that France and Sweden have had recent nuclear accidents. Maybe they did, but the lack of international outrage and the fact that U.S. media has somehow not covered these failures extensively leads me to believe that they were minor and probably killed no-one.

They were covered, but I did not see American media report about them as much as british and german ones. Focusses differ here and there. The Swedish incident last year (or was it already two years), one of them, today is seen as a major accident, and triggered serious alarm at the IAEA. A lot of cover up has set in after that assessement first got reported.

Without doing any research whatsoever I can confidently say that news concerning gas prices somehow eclipsed these incidents and that is most likely because they are trivial and if they did kill some people it was not because of exposure to radiation, they pose no threat to the public of the aforementioned nations and, well what more is there to say?

All what you ignore, for example. ;)

Tricastin, for example, the French site that had several problems in a row recently. Since years, the facilty is regularly checked for extraordinary high radiation emission levels that by far exceed legal thresholds, but get ignored both by the company and the state. The last such warning came just days before the first of their four problem events. Just six years ago it became known that close to 800 tons of nuclear waste from France’s military is stored there since the 70s – laid out and covered with a thin level of sand and earth, that is all. During the accidents, the company hesitaded for hours after radioactive material – exceeding the critical allowed limits by a factor of 6000 – was released and the population got warned. And even then they did hide initially that radioactivity had been released and later put the info up in a way that only knowing minds were able to calculate that the info given translated into 360 kg of degraded uran that escaped. While even critics agreed that that amount probably posed a smaller problem only, it nevertheless illustrates the system of how to handle information policies – and these are criminal, to say the least. It has not been different with the Swedish problems, and the problems with a Swedish-run reactor in Germany – here they even delayed vital information not over hours, but days, and intentionally hid them from state officials investigating as well.

You cannot trust such structures.

You ignore several economic factors. The globe’s greatest resources of uran you find in Australia and Canada, they make up for roughly one third of all global, known ressource fields of Uran. BUT: all Uran mine of major importance have already peaked, and ha ve seen the best times of their exploitation (?). Experts usually agree that all known Uran resources today will last for only 60 more years, calculated on current energy demands of the world. That the energy demand in fact is rising fast, will cut these sixty years accordingly. In other words: Uran is becoming a rare resource, and we have already seen the times of “peak uran”. In other words: it can at best be a temporary provisional solution only, and no long-termed investment into an energy-safe future. Calculate against this the immense financial investments into building a nuclear powerplant, the long building time, the distortions in social and political conflicts about them, the immense costs for long time storage of nuclear waste, the security risk, the risks coming from the more nuclear technology is spreading in the world, the higher the chance becomes that nuclear material ends up in hands you do not wish to see it in, military concerns.

Processing Uran so that the ore can be used for any purpose, is energy intensive, the more intensive the less the quality grade is. It worstens the CO2 bilance.

You did not touch this issue, but in German discussion it plays a huge role, as in international policies and debates as well: the influence of nuclear energy on 1. energy, and 2. energy costs.

Starting with costs, in germany, for example, the price for energy consists of these three factors: 40% taxes, 30% grid costs (for trafficking energy via the powerline grid), and 30% production costs for creating the actual electricity. We run currently 17 powerplants, and official policy still is to fade them out in the near future, and not to build new ones (the so-called German “Atom-Ausstieg”).While it is true that nuclear energy is cheaper than that from coal and gas, the debate is about eventually allow longer running times for the existing reactors. This could, so they assume, reduce electricity costs by 1-2 cents per 1 kWH (current price is around 20,5-22,0 cents) . However, the calculation is wrong, since it is based on the total price, they did not link it to the fact that the needed calculation needs to exclude taxes and gridcosts, the calculated saving of money does not affect the 40% tax share of the total price, and not the 30% gridline costs. You could roughly substract two-thirds from those 1-2 cents, and then have a more realistic range of possible savings from the final total price for the consumer – what leaves you with a saving of 0.3-0.6 cents. That is not much. I would say it also gets swallowed up already today by the small fluctuations of prices on the (heavily monopolised) german energy market. And wether or not the four german energy producers would give these savings to their customer, must be strongly doubted anyway, referring to past experiences. It has a system since years if not decades that all rises at international energy stock markets and oil stockmarkets get delivered to the consumer immediately, and often at exaggerated quantities, but prices falling never lead to costs for consumer falling accordingly. We also see prices being raised referring to the international situation even if international oil prices had not changed at all, or even were falling. We see monopoles being used for maximum exploitation, the market does not regulate it but proves to completely fail in controlling such excesses. After all, capitalism is not about lowering prices by raising competition, but trying to establish monopoles so that one can dictate prices due to lacking alternatives for the consumer. The exclusion of competition is what the global monopoly is about. The market functions only as long as companies are hindered to grow beyond a certain critical size that would give them the ability to start influencing the political level that in fact should make sure there is a healthy homeostasis between private and communal interests (that is the “social” in the European concept of “social market economy”. For a reminder: “social” and “socialistic” are two different things, the first is a quality, the latter an ideology. Nothing wrong with being social, but with socialism I have my problems. Seeing what is happening in Europe, I would even say that in parts both are even mutually exclusive, maybe).

In Germany we expect to see an energy gap rising in the next 10-15 years, where demand is greater in germany then supply by german-produced electricity. This is the one of the two real interests of the energy companies: not to lower prices or save the climate, but to prevent that energy gap without needing to shrink their profits by following a policy that tries to save energy instead of carrying on to heedlessly waste it. Their second interest is even more obviously linked to allowing longer running times for existing reactors. Because reactors are not running on red but black umbers, I mean their construction costs already has earned again for the plants have started since long to produce real profits, instead of backward financing the costs for their construction. Money earned from producing with them now are real net profits – and we talk about billions per year. For the energy companies, this is a source of pure, black, massive income. Again, love for climate or saving the consumer from high costs have nothing to do with their intentions.

New investments into nuclear energy also would LOWER the pressure in the industry to develop new, renewable energy technology. It seems man only learns when pressure and pain become too great, else he prefers to party on blindly, and not caring about who cleans the kitchen.. We should not take that pressure away by playing the alleged “easy card”. In the long run, we would delay technological improvement and prevent us from increasing our number of option of how to adapt to the many unforeseeable implications of global climate change, and changes in availability of resources. And that is “unwise”, to put it very mildly.

t.b.c.

[Skybird]

Next climate savings.

Nuclear energy is emission free, and produces no CO2. BUT – the share of nuclear power in global power production is such that you would need ADDITONAL 1500 nuclear powerplants replacing an appropriate number of coal and gas powerplants of equal energy production to reduce global emission levels by a maximum of 12%.

1500!

Now consider the long building times, and the time for the political battles! Consider what I said above the limited availability of uran being enough for 60 years for the current level level of nuclear energy production! 1500 more powerplants…?

Even, more, nuclear powerplants do not produce heat energy that could be used for heating houses, they produce electricity. You still would need coal and gas bruning powerplants to produce warmth to heat houses, or you would need to raise electrically produced heating, which is one of the most uneconomical there is, letting demand for electricity explode even more, globally.

1500 new powerplants, and the according traffic of nuclear material. Secured and unsecured storage sites for thousands and thousands of tons of nuclear waste (in murmansk it is said nuke material from submarine reactors have been stolen). Rogue states. Pollution (Sellafield, anyone?). Wars with a chance to get nuclear facilities targeted. Terrorism, smugglers, robbery. Dwarfs states becoming nuclear powers – ypu cannot separate in principal the civilian use of nuke tech from the military use of it. These are risks that you do not need to put into financial numbers, they explain themselves.

The energy needed to build a nuclear reactor: it is immense if transforming all these steps and materials and efforts into energy calculation. A powerplant of modern security standards and technology levels would need to operate for 10-12 years before it has created the energy that was before put into building it. Then it must run for even more years before the financial investments have payed off – and then, after 20-25 years or so, you start talking about black number profits. And before, you have to add the years it took to actually construct the powerplant. Wowh!

Usually, all these things are not mentioned when media report about what somebody said in nuclear energy, and it does not seem to play a role in the currently growing demand for building more nuke plants. But these factors are solid realities, and it is stupid to ignore and to hide them, and shows an irresponsible lack of competence and long vision.

I am not hysterically afraid of the physical risks from nuclear power, but I am aware of the risks involved, and that certain problems remain unsolved. I am aware that we are running into a gap between energy demand and energy production, but while it is tempting to see nuclear tech as an answer, I limit this answer to let existing ones running longer indeed. Even in Germany, currently no energy company demands to build new reactors – economically, this is a no-brainer today, and practically cannot be compensated for. What they lobby for instead is exporting powerplants to foreign country that the want to talk into long credit deals and by that, lasting dependence, and they lobby for letting German powerplants run for longer than politically planned. NO energy company currently is enthusiastic about building new nuclear plants in germany – it simply does not pay off, economically.

[Platapus]

A lot has been written here on the risks of nuclear power plants. Let's not forget that other traditional sources of electric power generation are also very risky.

For example Hydroelectric power generation.

In the 20th century we have experienced 43 incidents where a hydroelectric dam has failed (dam broke). Killing thousands of people. Causing many billions of dollars in damage. Causing massive damage to the environment. And this is not not including the damage and risk of just building and operating a hydroelectric dam which is massive in itself.

Look at civilian nuclear power. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has a rating scale they call the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES) which is used to rate nuclear accidents. It is a scale of 0 (safe) to 7 (major accident or event)

Let's examine events that rate a 5 (accident with off-site risk) to 7

From 1958 to 2008 we have had eight incidents of a civilian reactor accidents of a level 5 through 7. Some of those here horrible like Chernobyl.

But then the Teton dam failure was not all that great also.

Every power source has its risks. The question is how easy can these risks be mitigated. One of the reasons I am in favour of Nuclear Power is that the risks are understood and can be mitigated. Most of the risks are internal and can be controlled as opposed to a hydroelectric dam which is under the influences of nature.

Using the technology of the 21st century as well as the horrible lessons learned in the 20th century, I believe it is possible to build safer nuclear reactors. I think the solution is to build more smaller reactors vice few huge ones.

Placement of these smaller reactors will improve safety. Go underground!

In 1969, there was an explosion at the nuclear reactor at needed - Lucen, Switzerland . Complete destruction of the containment vessel. Fortunately this experimental reactor was located underground and the earth acted like a secondary containment vessel. No radioactive leaks detected and few people are even aware of this incident.

As long as the right under ground location was selected (isolated from natural water sources and such), an underground reactor would be safer and more easily secured. By underground I am not talking about 10 feet, I am talking about 10,000 feet if necessary! It will be expensive but safer and more secure.

Nuclear power is the near future solution to our electric power needs. It works. It can be made safer. If an unreasonable standard of 100% safety is levied on nuclear power than the same standard needs to be placed on all other power systems to be fair. Nothing is 100% safe. The risks of nuclear reactors is understood and are capable of being mitigated. Nuclear waste is small and there are ways of safely disposing of it. I am in favour of the theory of deep sea crevice disposal. A most interesting idea I hope more investigation is made in this area.

I believe the problem is the fear of nuclear energy. It can be scary. We see movies of Giant Ants and other mutations. You can't see radiation. You might be being hit with radiation right now! In fact you are.

Like airline crashes, nuclear accidents are usually big and scary. Like Airline accidents nuclear accidents are rare considering all the hours that nuclear reactors are operating. If you still fly based on the logic that the odds are so overwhelming in your favour of safe flights why would you be concerned with nuclear accidents?

Your chances of being involved in an Airline crash, no matter how small, are still vastly higher than you being involved in a nuclear reactor accident.

One valid argument is that a large nuclear accident may cause more widespread damage than an Airline accident. This is true. A nuclear reactor does have the potential of causing more widespread damage to people and the environment. But that potential rarely occurs. With the exception of Chernobyl (which was a combination of crappy design, crappy construction, crappy procedures, crappy personnel) the damage caused by INES level 5-7 has not been that much.

And with proper design, proper construction, proper procedures, proper personnel, future accidents (and there will be accidents) can be controlled and contained.

Do I think that Fission nuclear reactors are the ultimate solution. Not at all. But today, with today's technology, I think it is folly to ignore the benefits of safe controlled nuclear power generation in our current situation.

[Platapus]

Even, more, nuclear powerplants do not produce heat energy that could be used for heating houses, they produce electricity.

Small nit to pick.

Nuclear reactors do not produce electricity. Nuclear reactors produce heat.

That heat could be used to generate steam. That steam could be used to drive an electricity generator. It could also be used to heat pretty much anything you care to if you want to move the heat to the location (not always feasible.)

Moving the heat is the problem, but that is not a nuclear problem, that is a thermal problem.

There is no way a fission nuclear reactor can directly produce electricity.

It is just a fancy way to boil water. :up:

[Skybird]

Even, more, nuclear powerplants do not produce heat energy that could be used for heating houses, they produce electricity.

Small nit to pick.

Nuclear reactors do not produce electricity. Nuclear reactors produce heat.

That heat could be used to generate steam. That steam could be used to drive an electricity generator. It could also be used to heat pretty much anything you care to if you want to move the heat to the location (not always feasible.)

Moving the heat is the problem, but that is not a nuclear problem, that is a thermal problem.

There is no way a fission nuclear reactor can directly produce electricity.

It is just a fancy way to boil water. :up:

Well, yes, but you got my idea. show me a nuclear powerplant with what in German is called Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung.

and in your posting before you said you believe "with proper design, proper construction, proper procedures, proper personnel, future accidents (and there will be accidents) can be controlled and contained.

Do I think that Fission nuclear reactors are the ultimate solution. Not at all. But today, with today's technology, I think it is folly to ignore the benefits of safe controlled nuclear power generation in our current situation."

However, I have pointed at numerous counterpoints, that are not just my imagination but are realities for sure, and you are in need to prove them wrong if you want to stick to what you said above. You need to prove black on white that the economic calculation about the longterm costs - that I am just reporting and have not opened up myself! - is wrong. But you have not, instead made a link nobody here has brought up before: the fear for horrific mutations from movies forming the impression of how dangerous nuclear stuff is (I call it the formicula-syndrome). But I cannot remember when the last time was that a reasonable, knowledge-basing critic used 5 m long ants to raise anti-emotions and make a point on why to reject nuke tech.

Are you making this link to horror movies to ridicule critical thinking about nuclear technoloy all together, then...? Better give me a comment on low-running uran-ressources, 20-25 years before a nuclear popwerpülant starts to pay off, and how to deal security concerns when 1500 plants were erected in an attempt to reduce pollution levels of CO2 by just 12% - when so very much more reduction would be needed. Let'S talk about why you still think it is worth it, and why the many points I touched upon do not interest you a bit, despite them being physical and economic realities you cannot escape. ;)

[Platapus]

There are many viable reasons not to like nuclear power reactors. However fear of another chernobyl like accident should not be one of them.

The nuclear accident at Chernobyl was a terrible accident. However, the chances of a similar "Chernobyl like" accident occurring is practically nil for the following reasons:

1. The reactors at Chernobyl were light water cooled, graphic moderated, enriched Uranium reactors. The Russian term for this is RBMK reactor. This is an obsolete design. The inherent instability of this design is well known and no one is going to build any more RBMK reactors. Better and more importantly cheaper reactors are available.

2. Currently there are 11 operating RMBK reactors in Russia. There are no other RMBK reactors operating on other countries. All 11 of these RMBK reactors are scheduled for shutdown, but since they are still operating, their risks must be considered.

After the Chernobyl accident, modifications of the existing RMBK reactors were made. These modifications corrected the design deficiencies of the original RMBK design.

These modifications included correcting a critical (no pun intended) design flaw with the control rod construction and their operations.

Changing the Enrichment of the Uranium to a safer level

Increasing the number of control rods

Instituting a SCRAM system

Powering the control rods (the rods at Chernobyl were manually operated)

and others modifications that will prevent.

The most important modification to the existing RMBK reactors was the changing of void coefficient of the reactor.

To keep this simple. A reactor that has either a coolant or moderator with a high positive reaction coefficient enables fusion at higher temps. This is hazardous. If there is a failure with the coolant system as the temps rise more fusion will take place. A bad situation as the emergency is self perpetuating. A better system are those with negative reaction coefficients where the higher temps mean a reduction of the reaction. Modern reactors strive for either negative reaction coefficients or very low positive ones. All the existing RMBK reactors were modified to bring their positive reaction coefficient to +0.7b which refers to the Neutron cross section (pretty complicated stuff).

So there are many valid reasons for not being a fan of nuclear power reactors. Fearing another Chernobyl accident should not be one of them.

No one is going to build another RMBKl reactor type
All existing RMBK reactors are slated for shutdown
All existing RMBK reactors have been modified to prevent a Chernobyl type accident.

It is also important to note that the majority of the problems that led up to the Chernobyl accident were things outside of the reaction itself. Problems with the power supply, poor instructions, untrained crew, falsified safety testing and many other logistical and managerial problems. If the Russians had their heads out of their butts, the Chernobyl accident would not have happened despite the RMBK being a poor design.

Chernobyl was a terrible accident that should not have occurred in the first place. However, man learns from his mistakes and fixes them. Chernobyl was a horrible but fortunately unique accident.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Lance,

[quote]I see the primary argument agains nukes is expense. So be it.

Nuclear reactors are actually quite cost-effective to build, even under most extremely cautious and sometimes silly Federal regs. The main cost of building and operating the plants comes from insurance costs. These insurance costs are based on irrational fear of nuclear catastrophes. How many dissenters have ever been inside a nuclear plant? The thing practically runs itself.

Irrational? You are making irresponsible claims here.

Hardly. The amount of actual damage inflicted by nukes versus the amount of public fear and loathing says otherwise.
Chemical plants, dams and fossil fuel extraction have killed many more than nuclear power plants ever have, even if you only take into account deaths caused since the advent of nuclear power. In the U.S. (I can't speak for other countries) many people think that nukes can explode like an atomic bomb. Some even think that they "vent" radiation in normal operations. I suspect many people's fears are based on media sensationalism, and in the worst cases; "The Simpsons".

You would have to be deliberately trying to cause a radiation leak to actually make one. Only a very unlikely series of unfortunate circumstances could cause one.

Just last month the French have had two or three such “unlikely leaks”. It is no rare event that radiation leaks show up during accidents in nuclear powerplants. They< have had four accidents in one of theirs in recent weeks. That the company tries to play it down and hide information about it, should not surprise anybody. The Swedes last year did the same, and regarding one of their plants they run in Germany via RWE company, they even actively hindred analysis by officials for long, and delayed action as long as possible. And this although one of the three accidents they had in Sweden last year today is considered to have been a extremely serious event during which they had not really 100% control but – luck. During many nuclear accidents radiation has been set free, or nuclear material has been released. It is by far jno0 exception from the rule.

Ok, where are the consequences of these leaks? Are here any hard data on whom was affected and how seriously?
I would also like to know what happened in this incident in Sweden? What is 100% control? Does that mean they couldn't shut the reactor down?


Nuclear disasters are also over-rated. Many people cite Three-mile island without actually knowing anything about it. Some think it was close to a "meltdown" without knowing what that term means. Others think the reactor leaked "dangerous radiation"

Considering your explanations following, I wonder if YOU know it. This is not about China-Syndrome-movie-hysteria. This is about something like Chernobyl. And I tried to explain, at great length, how Chernobyl was not the disaster it is often believed to be. Then you said my source was lying. Forunately, I have more source, which I will post in response below.

Firstly, a meltdown is nigh-impossible. I have said it before, and I will continue to say it until I stop hearing that stupid term; there is no meltdown. That term comes from that retarded movie "The China Syndrome" wherein a nuclear reactor "goes critical" (has an uncontrollable reaction) that causes the reaction mass to become so hot it melts the containment unit and threatens to melt through the Earth's surface until it reaches the water supply. The nature of the term is engendered by the ludicrous belief that such a reaction could melt a hole to all the way to China.

You simply are wrong informed. A meltdown can happen, and has happened in Chernobyl. It means not that the mass burns through all the globe, through the core, then climbs against gravity on the other side and pops up in china (this is the image behind the term “China-Syndrome”, and yes, that cannot happen indeed and is an image only). “Meltdown” (Kernschmelze) means that the temperature of the core due to lacking cooling becomes so hot that it indeed could melt/burn the shielding, walls, and isolation that seal the core chamber, and the building itself. THIS was one of the major problem the Russians had to fight with so hard: the immense temperatures inside the reactor building that now is sealed. But the seals are not solid anymore, but – using this word in lack of any better – “corrode” due to the radiation, and temperature from within.

You are correct in your definition of "meltdown" but this leaves unanswered the fact that most of the populace does not understand what it means. Also, there has never been a meltdown in any nuclear plant in the entire world, ever. Like I said, it is theoretically possible, but you would almost have to TRY to make one happen. All it takes to stop an uncontrolled reaction, and therefore a meltdown, is to drop the control rods into the reactor core.
I have no doubt the Russians battled high temperatures in the Chernobyl incident. But not "meltdown" temperatures, which would likely have vaporized them, and which were probably not helped by the fact that there was a normal, run-of-mill fire in there. Above, you doubt my references cited by the IAEA. To indulge you, here's one from the U.N.; "The UN report 'CHERNOBYL : THE TRUE SCALE OF THE ACCIDENT' published 2005 concluded that the death toll includes the 50 workers who died of acute radiation syndrome, nine children who died fromthyroid cancer, and an estimated 4000 excess cancer deaths in the future"- from a TIME magazine report on the U.N.'s report on Chernobyl.

Until today, you can measure significantly raised radiation levels in France, Germany, Britain, that are caused by the freed nuclear material from the Chernobyl disaster that escaped into the atmosphere.

Well, I posted the U.N. report and the IEAE report. They didn't say anything about health risks in those countries, although the reports themselves did cite concern over the possibility, but nothing has been proven.


Secondly, no American has ever had their cause of death established as "exposure to Nuclear power plant radiation". You are much more likely to die from cancer caused by natural radiation than that produced (assuming it was somehow released" from nuclear power plants.

1 there is a world beyond America, believe it or not. 2. Americans make up for only 5% of the global population, the remaining 95% of people on this globe are not American. This becomes important regarding needed numbers of powerplants if they should have a solid effect on worldclimate, because most of the 1500 addito9nally needed (!) powerplants then would have to be built not only in the western world, but the second and third world including all those labelled rogue states as well – Iran, anyone? North Korea? 3. You may want to research the case of Karen Silkwood, there is also a movie about it, but the story is not fictional but real for sure. She worked in a plutonium factory by energy corporation Kerr McGee and became aware of mounting numbers of accidents during which employees got poisoned while the company – like so often in nuclear business – talked it down and tried to hide it. She later got killed under mysterious circumstances. I know that I have heared and read about more things like this, including staff from powerplants, but I do not remember the details and names out of the blue and don’T want to research it all now. – You point a 100% idealistic, hyper-optimistic picture here. Don’t be so naïve. There is no fail-safe technology, and there is no material or technology that does not suffer from wear and tear, and accidents. You can reduce the risk, but neither can you bring it to nill, nor can you reduce it so far as you seem to think.

As far as America is concerned in this, I should probably have pointed out that I can only argue for America. I don't know enough about other nations and do not have the proper perspective on their people to offer them a solution. But America is a big part of the world's energy consumption, so I still think it is important.

As far as my %100 idealistic solution is concerned, I know we may have nuclear accidents. I just don't think they would be frequent or serious enough to turn away from nukes.

Producing an "uncontrolled" reaction in a nuclear plant would have to be deliberate. Even the Russians haven't managed it and we know all about their history with nukes. Before anyone says something about it "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 (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer cases among the approximately 600,000 most highly exposed and 5,000 among the 6 million living nearby.[4] Although the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and certain limited areas will remain off limits, the majority of affected areas are now considered safe for settlement and economic activity"


The IAEA has a bias, first said, and is under immense political influence. Second, I do not see listed those workers who in small groups but an endless stream got shuttled to the roof via helicopters and worked for 30 seconds only, then were brought back, heavily poisoned by the intense radiation on the open roof that they had to seal in this suffering and slow manner, and physically broken from the radiation after just 30 seconds. And that have been more than just half a hundred or so. Many of them died in the months and up to two years after their 30 second walk (and not because they were old).

Since I pointed out the U.N. and do not know at the time of this writing whether you would trust them or not all I can say is; Who would you like to see a study from?
Secondly, their are alternatives to using people to repair nuclear reactors. THe science of robotics has come a long ways. I also doubt the Soviets bothered to protect their workers effectively. The main issue here is how much harm neighbouring communities and countries felt.

Thirdly, people live in the "contaminated zone". Plants grow, animals live there. If that's not proof that Chernobyl is not a radioactive wasteland I don't know what is.

The General consensus is that the "explosion was caused by atmospheric overpressure which was in turn caused by a fire that had nothing to do with the fissionable materials contained therin.

again, that is a statement by an organisation that has a policy to let use of nuclear energy appear as acceptable in principle and play down risks. It is not important why the core was exposed and burned up – that this was the consequence in which previous events resulted: this is the important thing. Technology can fail. And regarding nuclear technology one needs to be aware of what that could mean in consequences. Consider Chernobyl having happened at a Location near Frankfurt. It would have changed Europe’s face, it would not have wiped out Germany, but would have substantially prevented it to be what it is today in the present. The effects on economy, business and finances would have had truly global dimensions.

I can't argue that it didn't have a meltdown that was covered up or misrepresented in some conspiracy. I can't prove aliens aren't real or that JFK wasn't assasinated by the CIA either. All I can do is present the existing evidence as above.


If the explosion was nuclear in origin, all the better. What a ptitiful amount of damage for something people fear so much.
Blame it on my being American, but I also consider the fact that the Soviet Union ran the damn thing to be a major factor. That's almost as bad as referring to an episode of "Captain Planet" for one's arguments.


The death toll from this one, isolated incident, in the hands of an irresponsible, and I must say, socialist government, caused fewer deaths than coal-mining accidents throughout America's history as a nation.

Handling by capitalist societies leaving information policies to private economical lobbies .........
In fact I think the more years go by, the more similar to the USSR structures the western nations start to look – but that is another discussion for another thread.
1) Hence my ongoing support of more restricted government, which I must admit, would likely have to be adopted to make nuclear policies work. If there is no one to lobby but the consumers, only prices, effectiveness and safety matter.
2) You're right, another time for that perhaps. I would like to discuss that with you.:D
Surprise preview: I think western nations resembling the U.S.S.R. in any way is a bad thing.



The failure of the nuclear industry to establish itself, until recently, as a primary power source in the U.S. is due to nothing more than irrational fear and the costs associated with it.

The costs are immense financially, and in germany: politically as well. The follow-up costs in the long run are even higher. Normally, costs for taking care of nuclear waste, are totally excluded from the company’s calculation on profits, these costs get externalized, means: they are being put onto the shoulders of the tax payer. We take about costs that in full depth cannot be calculated and will be existent for many generations to come. And I do not even refer to accidents in storage sites, disasters and contaminations. Plutonium has a half-life of 24.000 years. I am aware not all nuclear waste is plutonium, but we talk about isolating materials over time ranges of several ten thousand years until they have reduced their radioactivity to relatively harmless levels. We do not even have barrels that would hold that long, and we do not have writings and inks that would last for so long to warn man in 10.000 years of the nuclear garbage! ;) don’t laugh, such considerations are a serious problem. And I do not even mention things like unability to project changing ground water levels, influence of climate change and tectonic activity. If somebody thinks we know all about these factors, he better thinks twice.

To this, I can only provide an answer all too typical and Americanesque of me;
Combine privatization with not caring about the other side of the world. The result is private nuclear plants paying fees to dump their waste at a facility in Antartica. It could be publicly or privately run. But if it were privately run it would be best to encourage several other facilities of this type to establish themselves so competition and public opinion can provide some decent regulation. One of the few examples where I think the government might do a better job than the private sector.
Equally attractive are the recent advances made in space travel here by letting private industry in on the game. I will not repeat my extensive discourse on the virtues of privatized space travel here in the interest of preserving the sanity of readers, but basically Virgin Galactic gets you to space much more cheaply than NASA. If private industry can do so well in the initial pahses of space travel they could perhaps produce a cheap method of shooting nuclear waste into the Sun, Jupiter, or some other place that is already radioactive and inhospitable.
Hmmm.... somehow that seems to sound less like a serious suggestion than I inntended it to be. But it is serious.




[quote=Skybird]
Tricastin, for example, the French site that had several problems in a row recently. Since years, the facilty is regularly checked for extraordinary high radiation emission levels that by far exceed legal thresholds, but get ignored both by the company and the state. The last such warning came just days before the first of their four problem events. Just six years ago it became known that close to 800 tons of nuclear waste from France’s military is stored there since the 70s – laid out and covered with a thin level of sand and earth, that is all. During the accidents, the company hesitaded for hours after radioactive material – exceeding the critical allowed limits by a factor of 6000 – was released and the population got warned. And even then they did hide initially that radioactivity had been released and later put the info up in a way that only knowing minds were able to calculate that the info given translated into 360 kg of degraded uran that escaped. While even critics agreed that that amount probably posed a smaller problem only, it nevertheless illustrates the system of how to handle information policies – and these are criminal, to say the least. It has not been different with the Swedish problems, and the problems with a Swedish-run reactor in Germany – here they even delayed vital information not over hours, but days, and intentionally hid them from state officials investigating as well.

You cannot trust such structures.

You ignore several economic factors. The globe’s greatest resources of uran you find in Australia and Canada, they make up for roughly one third of all global, known ressource fields of Uran. BUT: all Uran mine of major importance have already peaked, and ha ve seen the best times of their exploitation (?). Experts usually agree that all known Uran resources today will last for only 60 more years, calculated on current energy demands of the world. That the energy demand in fact is rising fast, will cut these sixty years accordingly. In other words: Uran is becoming a rare resource, and we have already seen the times of “peak uran”. In other words: it can at best be a temporary provisional solution only, and no long-termed investment into an energy-safe future. Calculate against this the immense financial investments into building a nuclear powerplant, the long building time, the distortions in social and political conflicts about them, the immense costs for long time storage of nuclear waste, the security risk, the risks coming from the more nuclear technology is spreading in the world, the higher the chance becomes that nuclear material ends up in hands you do not wish to see it in, military concerns.

Processing Uran so that the ore can be used for any purpose, is energy intensive, the more intensive the less the quality grade is. It worstens the CO2 bilance.

You did not touch this issue, but in German discussion it plays a huge role, as in international policies and debates as well: the influence of nuclear energy on 1. energy, and 2. energy costs.

Starting with costs, in germany, for example, the price for energy consists of these three factors: 40% taxes, 30% grid costs (for trafficking energy via the powerline grid), and 30% production costs for creating the actual electricity. We run currently 17 powerplants, and official policy still is to fade them out in the near future, and not to build new ones (the so-called German “Atom-Ausstieg”).While it is true that nuclear energy is cheaper than that from coal and gas, the debate is about eventually allow longer running times for the existing reactors. This could, so they assume, reduce electricity costs by 1-2 cents per 1 kWH (current price is around 20,5-22,0 cents) . However, the calculation is wrong, since it is based on the total price, they did not link it to the fact that the needed calculation needs to exclude taxes and gridcosts, the calculated saving of money does not affect the 40% tax share of the total price, and not the 30% gridline costs. You could roughly substract two-thirds from those 1-2 cents, and then have a more realistic range of possible savings from the final total price for the consumer – what leaves you with a saving of 0.3-0.6 cents. That is not much. I would say it also gets swallowed up already today by the small fluctuations of prices on the (heavily monopolised) german energy market. And wether or not the four german energy producers would give these savings to their customer, must be strongly doubted anyway, referring to past experiences. It has a system since years if not decades that all rises at international energy stock markets and oil stockmarkets get delivered to the consumer immediately, and often at exaggerated quantities, but prices falling never lead to costs for consumer falling accordingly. We also see prices being raised referring to the international situation even if international oil prices had not changed at all, or even were falling. We see monopoles being used for maximum exploitation, the market does not regulate it but proves to completely fail in controlling such excesses. After all, capitalism is not about lowering prices by raising competition, but trying to establish monopoles so that one can dictate prices due to lacking alternatives for the consumer. The exclusion of competition is what the global monopoly is about. The market functions only as long as companies are hindered to grow beyond a certain critical size that would give them the ability to start influencing the political level that in fact should make sure there is a healthy homeostasis between private and communal interests (that is the “social” in the European concept of “social market economy”. For a reminder: “social” and “socialistic” are two different things, the first is a quality, the latter an ideology. Nothing wrong with being social, but with socialism I have my problems. Seeing what is happening in Europe, I would even say that in parts both are even mutually exclusive, maybe).

In Germany we expect to see an energy gap rising in the next 10-15 years, where demand is greater in germany then supply by german-produced electricity. This is the one of the two real interests of the energy companies: not to lower prices or save the climate, but to prevent that energy gap without needing to shrink their profits by following a policy that tries to save energy instead of carrying on to heedlessly waste it. Their second interest is even more obviously linked to allowing longer running times for existing reactors. Because reactors are not running on red but black umbers, I mean their construction costs already has earned again for the plants have started since long to produce real profits, instead of backward financing the costs for their construction. Money earned from producing with them now are real net profits – and we talk about billions per year. For the energy companies, this is a source of pure, black, massive income. Again, love for climate or saving the consumer from high costs have nothing to do with their intentions.

New investments into nuclear energy also would LOWER the pressure in the industry to develop new, renewable energy technology. It seems man only learns when pressure and pain become too great, else he prefers to party on blindly, and not caring about who cleans the kitchen.. We should not take that pressure away by playing the alleged “easy card”. In the long run, we would delay technological improvement and prevent us from increasing our number of option of how to adapt to the many unforeseeable implications of global climate change, and changes in availability of resources. And that is “unwise”, to put it very mildly.

t.b.c.

Holy crap.:o
First, I would like to say that is one of the finest arguments I have had the priveledge of seeing you produce, Sky. Bravo!

I almost need another post to address this, but I will try to bring up a few points of contention here. I'm sorry I do not have the time right now to break the whole thing up and multi-quote.

First paragraph. I doubt the nuclear waste material was only covered in a thin layer of dirt. If it was, France needs to re-think their nuclear policy or not use nukes. Surely, the spent rods must have been contained in concrete vessels?

Second paragraph. Uranium is not scarce and I don't care where it comes from as long as we have the money to buy it (in my dream world where America adopts more fiscally conservative and socially liberal policies shortly after it collapses under the current system)
Uranium is 3 times as common as silver and we get a lot more use out of it.
It has been said by U.S. government research comittees(sp? why can't I remember how to spell this?) , the IAEA, private researchers, and the World Nuclear Association that fast-breeder reactors have enough fuel in the form of U-238 to last our current society 5 billion years. Even if they are wildly exaggerating there is enough U-238 to last us well into the future of energy development.

The two little paragrpahs and the third one; This is an answer unfitting of your post but I'm really running short on time now and I think I have carpal tunnel syndrome. Please excuse any brusqueness as it is simply a side-effect of trying to compress my argument into such a small fascimile of itself.

1) 40% taxes is a big part of your costs. I know you mentioned the effects of taxes on prices but 40%? That's outrageous.

2) If your industry is monopolized something is wrong. I agree capitalism does tend towards monopoly, but monopoly can be a good thing if it is better than all services proffered before and all new ones. In my ideal society, which all my arguments are a part of, the educated populace in conjunction with the lack of any government protection of said agency can simply choose to boycott said entity or democratically force a vote to break it up and/or destroy it. A tad idealistic, yes?
In any case I'm sure lack of competition inflates your energy costs.

3) So what if nukes take a long time to build? Burn coal until they're ready. Better yet, let the market take control. Companies will build cheap, simple plants to fill the demand until the nukes are ready. Then the nukes will drive those plants out with cheaper (no matter by what margin) electricity. The best thing to do in any case is to not let the government handle it as they have been proven in nearly every incidence to be unable to reconcile supply with demand.

4) Yes nukes have a limited service life. Generally it has nothing to do with their actual service life here in the U.S.
The Feds strictly regulate the service life of a reactor regardless of its' condition or whether or not it can be refurbished. This policy is a knee-jerk reaction to the "irrational fear" i mentioned seemingly ages ago.

5) Another big part of costs is insurance. These costs are driven to insane heights by "irrational fear" and government-mandated liability thresholds.

6) And my favourite:D . Yes, nukes will lower the pressure to develop other renewable energy sources. Thank God!
My state (Texas) recently approved a 4.6 billion dollar package to create power lines and infrastructure for a new wind farm in the western part of the state. 4.6 billion dollars of taxpayer money. Utterly wasted on a project that will never recoup its' investment costs in its' operational lifespan. Given he need for wind turbines to be serviced very frequently because of their exposure to the environment and things like bugs getting splattered on the prop blades, the operational costs are going to be ridiculous! And as I said, they expect taxpayers to bear the burden!
Even more incredulous is that voters are championing this venture as a "major step forward" that will "boost Texas to a leading position in wind-power generation".
All politics, combined with stupidity. Mark my words, this project will be an irredeemable failure within two decades.
The pressure exerted by environmental advocates and politicians does nothing but distort and ruin the efficiency of the marketplace. I'm sure we can both agree that while market economics are not perfect unless perfect fairness and transperancy are maintained, it's still a damn sight better than messes like this.


Good discussion, but I wonder if we will ever find a happy medium:hmm:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Oh.......
After all the thought I put into my last post Platapus outdoes me:cry: .

[Platapus]

You are correct in your definition of "meltdown" but this leaves unanswered the fact that most of the populace does not understand what it means. Also, there has never been a meltdown in any nuclear plant in the entire world, ever.



Here is another nit I will pick until it bleeds and scabs over.

You are correct in that the definition of "meltdown" needs to be understood. The term meltdown has different meanings to nuclear engineers and the National Inquirer to give two extreme examples.

A meltdown occurs when there is a break in the containment vessel where the primary cause is high temps where the bottom (usually) of the containment vessel cracks, spalds, decays, melts or otherwise busts due to heat. Containment vessels can break due to other factors but they are not commonly referred to as meltdowns.

As much as I agree with your arguments, academic fairness requires me to to point out that your comment that there has never been a meltdown in the history of nuclear reactors is inaccurate.

Both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are considered meltdown incidents. At Chernobyl the meltdown was one of the minor concerns of the overall accident. The Three Mile Island incident was a meltdown but it was controlled. If you have to have a nuclear accident you want a TMI.

Wikipedia has a list of other meltdown accidents (copied below)
NRX, Ontario, Canada, in 1952
EBR-I, Idaho, USA, in 1955
Windscale, Sellafield, England, in 1957 (see Windscale fire)
Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Simi Hills, California, in 1959
SL-1, Idaho, USA in 1961. (US military)
Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station, Michigan, USA, in 1966
Chapelcross, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, in 1967
A1 plant at Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia in 1977.

However just because a nuclear reactor has a meltdown does not necessarily mean it will be a class 5 or higher event. Most of these meltdowns did not even rate a 4 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES).

The reason: Smart nuclear engineers design reactors to have secondary containment and dispersion capability. This is why in my previous argument I stress that risks can be mitigated by proper design, construction, and operations.

[Skybird]

swedish critical incident:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,430458,00.html

And I tried to explain, at great length, how Chernobyl was not the disaster it is often believed to be. Then you said my source was lying. Forunately, I have more source, which I will post in response below.


Dont put things in my mouth. I did not accuse you of lying. I said that a prominent number of workers that got sacrificed in the attempts to seal the roof are not mentioned in your numbers, they got heavily radiated (?), around two dozens died within days, while several hundreds got heavily toxicated, suffering for the rest of their lifes from radiation burns and nuclear intoxication.

Later I pointed out that organisations with a bias or an interest hardly should be seen as the ultimate authority regarding the issue at hand.

Regarding Chernobyl, the core produced so much heat when it got not cooled anymore, that the inner seals disappared and since the rood already was gone the nuclear material form the core was released into the atmosphere unhinderd, spreading over all europe. we could split hairs until christmas wether or not this qualifies as a meltdown or not. But maybe we can agree that it can't get much worse than this: heat melting the inner core seals and expose the nuclear material to the environment uncooled, which really is the worst case. Wether or not that was caused from problem in the core itself, or by failure of supporting subsystems like cooling, is of theoretical value only. the core cracked open, so to speak - that is the thing to focus on, not how to label it. the radiation is so heavy that the concrete seals they erected around the block, corrode and get weak again.

On Uranium, Australia and Canada hold one third of the global known reserves, around 1 million tons of Uranium in these countries would result - doing the maths - in around 3 million tons of known reserves. We speak of uranium of quality grade that can be of any use for further processing, but the best uranium is that from Canda and australia, the other ores are less pure and need more processing. However the total numbers are, it is calculated that what remains of these in usable industrial uranium translates into supplies for 60 years at current consumation level.

40% taxes is not unrealistic. Just look at gas prices: taxes also make up for very huge shares in them.

that I question your wisdom on letting market take care of powerplant construction and nevertheless rise nuclear energy instead of focussing on energy preservation and new energy technology, goes unsaid. I am also jot willing to leave control of storgae sites to market mechanism as well, since reducing costs and by that beat the rivals is one of the most dangeorus and destructive market mechanisms in security-sensitive fields.

Before I invest another 20-30 years before to-be-build nuclear powerplants with all the risks mentioned, from terror, over technology to politics, start to pay off, and before I waste hundreds of billions on that effort if going for those 1500 powerplants you would need to help climate, i prefer to let the existing ones run longer and focus on energy saving to buy us more time, and use that on energy revolution (new technologies). i have given many reasons why nuclear powerplants are not economic.

I must not point out that we could not be any more apart on the need of investing into new energy technology. However, I am in favour of the future option here, while you are defending to stick with the dinosaurs of the past, like Zachstar told subman as well who use to defend sticking with oil. that will be bad for the Us, and good for europe, because we will become dominant on the market for these new technologies of the future, while you are putting your money on dead bet, and loose attractiveness on global market for your energy solutions from the
18th (oil) and 20th (nuke) century. but the future is none of both. and it must be like that, becausue both lead us into even more dangerous sack-ends than we already managed to trap ourselves in.

In the end we cannot afford to carry on in the old ways that have directly lead us into the crisis we face, and the uncertain future changes. unfortunately, an attitude of thinking one can win the future by not adapting to the changes taking place and adressing appearing needs that to ignore could destroy us, make everybody with such attiotudes - persons and nations alike - a threat to survival and thus a problem for all other people on the globe. During an international climate conference some months ago the american delegation received so general and intense hostility by almost all other delegations and even was yelled down by other delegations in such a crude manner, that they sat silent and with stoned faces and in the end needed to make at leats minimal lip-confession after having been told bluntly - quoting one delegate - to "start acting responsibly or to step the hell out of the way." For diplomatic standards, the level of aggressiveness and yelling at the americans in public was outstanding. and unfortunately one has to say that due to the global blockading initiated by the US, often meaning to give India and China alibis to blockade themselves, honestly deserves that international hostility. If the EU's intentions for solutions are all that realistic and clever, can be argued abiut, and I have criticised the Eu over these in the past as well. but at least there is acceptance and understanding THAT we are undergoing massive changes that mean a critical risk for us, and THAT we miust adapt in difefrent ways than those of the past. Official national policy of the Us can't even recognise this and argues to freeze time itself. and that although some federal states and many citizens already have started to change and adapt, and are years and miles ahead of Washington'S mental attitude. That way, Washington gives americans a worse reputation on the international stage than many Americans by their own provate example-setting deserves. If I were american, I would take it personally if the govenrment gives an impression to the world of me being an idiot.

[UnderseaLcpl]

You are correct in your definition of "meltdown" but this leaves unanswered the fact that most of the populace does not understand what it means. Also, there has never been a meltdown in any nuclear plant in the entire world, ever.



Here is another nit I will pick until it bleeds and scabs over.

You are correct in that the definition of "meltdown" needs to be understood. The term meltdown has different meanings to nuclear engineers and the National Inquirer to give two extreme examples.

A meltdown occurs when there is a break in the containment vessel where the primary cause is high temps where the bottom (usually) of the containment vessel cracks, spalds, decays, melts or otherwise busts due to heat. Containment vessels can break due to other factors but they are not commonly referred to as meltdowns.


A nuclear explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_explosion) does not result from a nuclear meltdown because, by design, the geometry and composition of the reactor core do not permit the special conditions necessary for a nuclear explosion. However, the conditions that cause a meltdown may cause a non-nuclear explosion. For example, several power excursion accidents have caused coolant to rapidly overpressurize, resulting in a steam explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_explosion).


You raise an interesting point. After some consideration, I have decided that I will agree with you on this one.

Originally, I was going to split hairs over the definition by positing things like the above quote. However, I see how I am being misleading by not classifying these incidents as meltdowns. Such is the danger of believing what what wants to believe, and why I appreciate good arguments like this.

So, thank you.

[Platapus]

Yeah the whole nuclear explosion thing drives me nuts too.

It aint easy to get nuclear material to go supercritical although according to the tests done at the 1961 PL-1 accident, some supercriticality did occur. Which is pretty cool in itself. :up:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Firstly, thanks for the link. Good article.

swedish critical incident:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,430458,00.html


And I tried to explain, at great length, how Chernobyl was not the disaster it is often believed to be. Then you said my source was lying. Forunately, I have more source, which I will post in response below.



Dont put things in my mouth. I did not accuse you of lying. I said that a prominent number of workers that got sacrificed in the attempts to seal the roof are not mentioned in your numbers, they got heavily radiated (?), around two dozens died within days, while several hundreds got heavily toxicated, suffering for the rest of their lifes from radiation burns and nuclear intoxication.


Later I pointed out that organisations with a bias or an interest hardly should be seen as the ultimate authority regarding the issue at hand.


Sorry for the misunderstanding but I said that you said my source was lying. Not intended as a jab at you or to put words in your mouth. You said IAEA was biased and therefore incredible. If they are distorting the truth, they are lying, right?

Semantics aside I posted the relevant aspects of the U.N. report and they sound remarkably similar. Are they a decent source or would you prefer another? If so, what kind of source? Government sources? Private investigations? Whatever you please.

Unfortunately I fail to see where you will get bias-free authorities.
If the government appoints one you can get corruption, collusion, inefficiency, and generally a bias towards or against the industry they regulate, all for one low astronomical price.
If a private agency does it you can get all the same things, except it is easier to fire one agency and hire another.
The only real regulation comes from an empowered and informed populace.

To forestall any argument that agencies need not neccessarily have the above vices I will promise you that I can easily find a wealth of information that would say otherwise. There may be regulatory agencies out there that have never been touched by scandal but there are a lot more that have been.

If you choose to debate that, I'm sure we will only arrive at a deadlock.





Regarding Chernobyl, the core produced so much heat when it got not cooled anymore, that the inner seals disappared and since the rood already was gone the nuclear material form the core was released into the atmosphere unhinderd, spreading over all europe. we could split hairs until christmas wether or not this qualifies as a meltdown or not. But maybe we can agree that it can't get much worse than this: heat melting the inner core seals and expose the nuclear material to the environment uncooled, which really is the worst case. Wether or not that was caused from problem in the core itself, or by failure of supporting subsystems like cooling, is of theoretical value only. the core cracked open, so to speak - that is the thing to focus on, not how to label it. the radiation is so heavy that the concrete seals they erected around the block, corrode and get weak again.


Well, as you can see now I have revamped my definition of meltdown for practical purposes because of Platapus. So, yes, Chernobyl had a steam explosion caused by heat from nuclear fission. Also, you are right that the damage is the core thing to focus on.

Hopefully, with the U.N. report provided and perhaps a few additional reports we can discern the extent of that damage, which thus far, considering the circumstances of the incident and the death tolls incurred by other power generating facilities as mentioned in the previous post, I believe to be insufficient to rule out nuclear energy.

Oh, I must add that Chernobyl was destroyed by technicians performing unauthorized tests on the reactor. Or at least that's what the consensus is, for the time being.

On Uranium, Australia and Canada hold one third of the global known reserves, around 1 million tons of Uranium in these countries would result - doing the maths - in around 3 million tons of known reserves. We speak of uranium of quality grade that can be of any use for further processing, but the best uranium is that from Canda and australia, the other ores are less pure and need more processing. However the total numbers are, it is calculated that what remains of these in usable industrial uranium translates into supplies for 60 years at current consumation level.

THis argument is a distortion of the available supply of fissile uranium when one considers the nature of breeder reactors.
Sure, let's go with 3 million tons of fissile uranium.
U-238, the most naturally abundant uranium isotope, is, like I said, 3 times as common as silver. It is not fissile, but breeder reactors make it so by bombarding it with neutrons.
Previously I posited that it has been claimed there is enough u-238 to supply power for 5 billion years. That, I have discovered, is only if we consume it at the rate we did in 2003.
If nuclear energy were the world's only energy source, and we take into account current trends in population growth and resultant energy consumption, we have 3,000 to 10,000 years supply. There are 5 million tons (known) of U-238 that is considered "economical" to exploit in the U.S. alone.

As such, I do not see shortages being a problem before things like fusion can be perfected. Of course, it may never be perfected, but at least we get an additional 3,000-10,000 years of nuclear power.



40% taxes is not unrealistic. Just look at gas prices: taxes also make up for very huge shares in them.
Oh believe me I know. When I say outrageous I don't mean unrealistic, I mean ridiculous. That's a whole different thread, though.

that I question your wisdom on letting market take care of powerplant construction and nevertheless rise nuclear energy instead of focussing on energy preservation and new energy technology, goes unsaid. I am also jot willing to leave control of storgae sites to market mechanism as well, since reducing costs and by that beat the rivals is one of the most dangeorus and destructive market mechanisms in security-sensitive fields.

On your first point, governement hasn't given us much for the billions spent thus far in new energy research. They didn't develop solar or wind power, they have yet to produce fusion. Ironically, the only real energy source the government ever "developed" was nuclear energy, and that stemmed from trying to produce weapons-grade fissile materials.:hmm: Don't let it cross your mind that that is an argument for government energy research. Private nuclear research was underway before the U.S. government ever got involved and also produced the commercial reactor.
Private markets fund new energy research as well. Why not leave it to them where it costs us nothing. If they succeed, great! If they fail, too bad for their investors. Government research costs all of us (or all of us that actually pay taxes) whether they succeed or fail.

Before I invest another 20-30 years before to-be-build nuclear powerplants with all the risks mentioned, from terror, over technology to politics, start to pay off, and before I waste hundreds of billions on that effort if going for those 1500 powerplants you would need to help climate, i prefer to let the existing ones run longer and focus on energy saving to buy us more time, and use that on energy revolution (new technologies). i have given many reasons why nuclear powerplants are not economic.

And I have given many reasons they could be. Given that "irrational fear" in the form of inflating insurance and construction costs, and things like taxation are two major parts, the answer seems simple. No taxes, because they just get passed along to the consumer as energy costs, and, well actually that's all we need. I was going to say consumer education but if the price is right, especially in the current energy situation, I don't think they will need much convincing. It's already starting to happen here.


I must not point out that we could not be any more apart on the need of investing into new energy technology. However, I am in favour of the future option here, while you are defending to stick with the dinosaurs of the past, like Zachstar told subman as well who use to defend sticking with oil. that will be bad for the Us, and good for europe, because we will become dominant on the market for these new technologies of the future, while you are putting your money on dead bet, and loose attractiveness on global market for your energy solutions from the
18th (oil) and 20th (nuke) century. but the future is none of both. and it must be like that, becausue both lead us into even more dangerous sack-ends than we already managed to trap ourselves in.


Well, like I said, all our state research hasn't given us anything palpable thus far. We can argue that point forever but the fact remains that we have state-funded research and we have an energy crisis simultaneously.
Frankly, I don't think subman is wrong about oil either, but I will let him provide the arguments for that. I suspect they may include; "it works" and "show me something better that actually exists"
Perhaps your research, by which I take it you mean tax-funded research, will work. But it may not as well. If it doesn't, we're more broke and we have an energy crisis. That really is a dead-end. or sack-end, or cul-de-sac.

In the end we cannot afford to carry on in the old ways that have directly lead us into the crisis we face, and the uncertain future changes. unfortunately, an attitude of thinking one can win the future by not adapting to the changes taking place and adressing appearing needs that to ignore could destroy us, make everybody with such attiotudes - persons and nations alike - a threat to survival and thus a problem for all other people on the globe. During an international climate conference some months ago the american delegation received so general and intense hostility by almost all other delegations and even was yelled down by other delegations in such a crude manner, that they sat silent and with stoned faces and in the end needed to make at leats minimal lip-confession after having been told bluntly - quoting one delegate - to "start acting responsibly or to step the hell out of the way." For diplomatic standards, the level of aggressiveness and yelling at the americans in public was outstanding. and unfortunately one has to say that due to the global blockading initiated by the US, often meaning to give India and China alibis to blockade themselves, honestly deserves that international hostility. If the EU's intentions for solutions are all that realistic and clever, can be argued abiut, and I have criticised the Eu over these in the past as well. but at least there is acceptance and understanding THAT we are undergoing massive changes that mean a critical risk for us, and THAT we miust adapt in difefrent ways than those of the past. Official national policy of the Us can't even recognise this and argues to freeze time itself. and that although some federal states and many citizens already have started to change and adapt, and are years and miles ahead of Washington'S mental attitude. That way, Washington gives americans a worse reputation on the international stage than many Americans by their own provate example-setting deserves. If I were american, I would take it personally if the govenrment gives an impression to the world of me being an idiot.

I totally agree with the first sentence. Ignoring nukes and letting government decide energy policy ruins stuff.:D

As far as the American delegates go, they are in their position because of our government. We have an energy crisis, to some degree. Our government has failed to fix it, for the second time in 3 1/2 decades.

If America could combine the economic freedom that led to our becoming a superpower and combine it with the personal freedom that we have sort of embraced at some points, at least for some people, and gave that to all people in our nation, I would be proud to sit amongst an audience of jeering delegates and say "We'll remember this when your country is being invaded or you want money."

Luckily for the rest of the world we trudge inexorably towards financial collapse as we maintain a "benign" and unsustainable amount of federal spending and inflation.

Energy policy is just a small symptom of the economy-destroying nature of big government. Perhaps in Germany, a country known for its' remarkable efficiency and ability to bounce back from crisis, this may not be a concern but in the U.S. it is. Social and education issues have been exacerbated by government policy on several occassion. The energy crisis in the U.S. is no exception.
Personally, I think the causes may stem from administrating such a large country from a central location and the fact that we are not Germans.
Perhaps the solutions for our different nations may be different, but for a large, diverse nation with the vast economic potential of the U.S., my answer is the meter-shattering power of nuclear energy.

[McBeck]

Nice job keeping this argument based :D

Chernobyl was a steam explosion...right? Thats how I have come to understand it. It was not a nuclear chain reaction that blew the roof off....

Can anybody tell why they thought it would be a good idea to build the core from carbon....which can burn ?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Can anybody tell why they thought it would be a good idea to build the core from carbon....which can burn ?

I didn't know part of the core was made of carbon but at the temperatures created by a melt-down induced steam explosion I doubt it would matter much what was in there.

[Platapus]

They choose graphite as a moderator because graphite is a pretty good moderator. Graphite also had the advantage of being cheap, inexpensive, and it did not cost too much. When you need many tons of the stuff cheap is good.

Back in the 1950's Graphite moderators were pretty much what you had to work with. The U.S first reactor was graphite moderated.

It is true that Graphite will burn but it won't burn if it is inside a nuclear containment vessel with no oxygen. All is swell until the vessel breaks and lets out the coolant (liquid or gas) and lets in 02.

With the proper design there is nothing wrong with graphite moderated reactors. About 20% of today's reactors are graphite moderated.


"U-238, the most naturally abundant uranium isotope, is, like I said, 3 times as common as silver. It is not fissile, but breeder reactors make it so by bombarding it with neutrons."

Technically correct but incomplete. 238U is non-fissile. There is nothing you can do to 238U to make it sustain a fission reaction. However.....

238U is considered a Fertile Material. Which means you can turn it into a fissile material by smacking it with neutrons. Smack 238U the right way with a neutron and it will turn in to 239Pu (after a short period cross-dressing as Neptunium-239)

239PU and the heavier Pu's (241, 243) are fissile and can be used in Plutonium reactors

God I love nuclear stuff. :up:

[Platapus]

Here is a trivia question that will probably interest no one.

Wikipedia describes the Chicago Pile as "the world's first artificial nuclear reactor".

Why the careful wording? :know:

[UnderseaLcpl]

They choose graphite as a moderator because graphite is a pretty good moderator. Graphite also had the advantage of being cheap, inexpensive, and it did not cost too much. When you need many tons of the stuff cheap is good.

Back in the 1950's Graphite moderators were pretty much what you had to work with. The U.S first reactor was graphite moderated.

It is true that Graphite will burn but it won't burn if it is inside a nuclear containment vessel with no oxygen. All is swell until the vessel breaks and lets out the coolant (liquid or gas) and lets in 02.

With the proper design there is nothing wrong with graphite moderated reactors. About 20% of today's reactors are graphite moderated.


"U-238, the most naturally abundant uranium isotope, is, like I said, 3 times as common as silver. It is not fissile, but breeder reactors make it so by bombarding it with neutrons."

Technically correct but incomplete. 238U is non-fissile. There is nothing you can do to 238U to make it sustain a fission reaction. However.....

238U is considered a Fertile Material. Which means you can turn it into a fissile material by smacking it with neutrons. Smack 238U the right way with a neutron and it will turn in to 239Pu (after a short period cross-dressing as Neptunium-239)

239PU and the heavier Pu's (241, 243) are fissile and can be used in Plutonium reactors

God I love nuclear stuff. :up:


Can I use you as a reference material?

[Platapus]

Been working nuclear issues for nigh on to 25 years now. It is a wonderful technology. As for nuclear risks and the evil of nuclear weapons, don't blame nature, blame man. :yep: For it is up to man to decide whether to use this technology for good or evil (however you care to define THOSE terms).

I remember the first time I ever saw Čerenkov radiation first hand in the 1970's. I was hooked from then on. It is a beauty that is indescribable.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I remember the first time I ever saw Čerenkov radiation first hand in the 1970's. I was hooked from then on. It is a beauty that is indescribable.

I wish I could find a link to some of the things General Tao says in C&C Generals. I think you two would get along splendidly.

[McBeck]

Can anybody tell why they thought it would be a good idea to build the core from carbon....which can burn ?
I didn't know part of the core was made of carbon but at the temperatures created by a melt-down induced steam explosion I doubt it would matter much what was in there.Actully after the steam explosion the core was on fire - it was the carbon burning.
They poured some kind of material into the core to stop the fire, but I cant remember what it was...howevere, I do remember that my highschool physics teacher commented on it as "strange" until it he found out the core was on fire.

[Platapus]

They used helicopters to dump thousands of tons of sand, lead, boron, pretty much anything they could get their hands on to smother the fire.

Many firefighters and other rescue personnel died:down: Rumour has it that the initial team of firefighters were not even told that the fire involved nuclear materials. Knowing what I do about how the Soviet government worked, this rumour is probably true. :nope:

There is a film recording of one of the Helicopters malfunctioning and falling into the damaged reactor. Not a pleasant way for the crew to die.

[Tchocky]

Here is a trivia question that will probably interest no one.

Wikipedia describes the Chicago Pile as "the world's first artificial nuclear reactor".

Why the careful wording? :know:

Oh, oh!

*raises hand*

Underground natural reactors in West Africa!

[Skybird]

They used helicopters to dump thousands of tons of sand, lead, boron, pretty much anything they could get their hands on to smother the fire.

Many firefighters and other rescue personnel died:down: Rumour has it that the initial team of firefighters were not even told that the fire involved nuclear materials. Knowing what I do about how the Soviet government worked, this rumour is probably true. :nope:

There is a film recording of one of the Helicopters malfunctioning and falling into the damaged reactor. Not a pleasant way for the crew to die.
That is true, and what I had on mind. Two numbers I still have on my mind, regarding workers and operations. The day the desaster took place, around 600 workers were present in the compound, on the first day alone 200 of them, and firefigthers, were shuttled onto the roof via helicopters to work for 30 seconds (!) and then were evacuated. All of them had their dosimeters burned through. All of them became radiation-sick in the following 2 months (most within just hours and days), and one third was dead after one quarter of a year (several after just days), the others died from the consequences in the following years. and next, evacuation and other operations in the affected zone saw 500.000 civilian and military personnel sent there to conduct them. I can only assume the number was so great because personnel was rotating to reduce the dose of radiation the individual was exposed to.

While I see reports by the IAEA as biased, and do not know why UN reports are being trusted as a source when they bolster somebody's opinion but gets bashed when they report something one does not agree with, I give the ideological opposite of Lance's source, and refer to Greenpeace in regard to this:

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/chernobylhealthreport.pdf


Chernobyl, Ukraine — A new Greenpeace report has revealed that the full consequences of the Chernobyl disaster could top a quarter of a million cancer cases and nearly 100,000 fatal cancers.
Our report (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/chernobylhealthreport) involved 52 respected scientists and includes information never before published in English. It challenges the UN International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum report, which predicted 4,000 additional deaths attributable to the accident as a gross simplification of the real breadth of human suffering.

The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000.

The report also looks into the ongoing health impacts of Chernobyl and concludes that radiation from the disaster has had a devastating effect on survivors; damaging immune and endocrine systems, leading to accelerated ageing, cardiovascular and blood illnesses, psychological illnesses, chromosomal aberrations and an increase in foetal deformations.




Lance,

I will add some remarks to your latest, but since I am not too well at the moment, I do not sit at the PC workdesk too long in a row currently, sorry for the delay.

[McBeck]

This video shows the helicopter drop :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvAJ_u3Q0Hw

Video of the graphite burning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HPddRn-Sn8&feature=related

[McBeck]

The Discovery Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8smY5jv_L0

[Platapus]

Underground natural reactors in West Africa!

oh you rock!!!!! :rock: :rock: :rock:

The Oklo Fossil Reactors in Gabon

Nature beat us by 2 billion years.

So much for the theory that Plutonium is artificially created by man. Sorry Dr. Seaborg.

[Skybird]

Let me first say that I am not happy that this discussion about the critical sides of nuclear energy in gen-eral has tuned out be a discussion about Chernobyl almost exclusively. This not only ignores the many other reasons than just worst case scenarios that speak against it, but also gives the – wrong - impression that if Chernobyl only could be seen as harmless enough, all other problems with nuclear energy had been neutralised as well. I have tried to point at many different things, and even kept pointing at the popular debate on security issues short. The economical and political as well as the –time-related prob-lems remain, no matter Chernobyl being more or less bad.

Semantics aside I posted the relevant aspects of the U.N. report and they sound remarkably similar. Are they a decent source or would you prefer another? If so, what kind of source? Government sources? Private investigations? Whatever you please.

A party having interests to turn things into a certain direction, does not have the credibility to be seen as “objective” und unbiased. That is why I warn to blindly trust into such sources. Usually this forum sees extreme UN bashing and making ridicule on every report it releases and that is not in conformity with one’s own political views. The IPCC report for example was made mockery of in various threads. But the same organization should suddenly be all unsuspicious when it is about Chernobyl because this time it falls into political line?

I meanwhile gave a link to the extreme at the other end of the spectrum, the report linked by Green-peace. Additionally, somebody linked the videos about Chernobyl health consequences. Both should help to relativism any attempt of trying to minimize the damage by Chernobyl in the long run. While the early reports in the late 80s of hundreds of thousands gotten killed in the first two years (yes, there were such reports at the end of the 80s) meanwhile have been proven wrong, I must say that I consider at-tempts of rejecting that hundreds of thousands nevertheless got extremely effected in their health condi-tion and that cancer and deformation rates have seen a steep rise, as being falsified as well.

The only real regulation comes from an empowered and informed populace.

Which is a happy and thankful object of massive manipulation. The bigger the crowd, the less intelli-gence. The less stupidity on display, the more lonely the individual. For me, stupidity is a sociological phenomenon, with mob size and intelligence being naturally antagonistic :) . I see no true democracy in the West, not in Germany, and not in America, nowhere. Freedom is no right, it is an ability that must be learned. But people get systematically hindered and prevented from learning that, and get trained to use it only in such ways that the outcome serves the interests of interest groups, while the crowd sings hap-pily for having practiced it’s precious, valuable freedom. Oligarchies and plutocracies is what I see – like Aristoteles said that every democracy sooner or later necessarily must degenerate into. Since the western democracies are in such a poor condition, it is no wonder that they no longer seem to hold seri-ous attractiveness to the rest of the world:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-558832,00.html

On Uranium, Australia and Canada hold one third of the global known reserves, around 1 million tons of Uranium in these countries would result - doing the maths - in around 3 million tons of known reserves. We speak of uranium of quality grade that can be of any use for further processing, but the best uranium is that from Canada and Australia, the other ores are less pure and need more process-ing. However the total numbers are, it is calculated that what remains of these in usable industrial ura-nium translates into supplies for 60 years at current consummation level.

THis argument is a distortion of the available supply of fissile uranium when one considers the nature of breeder reactors.

Sure, let's go with 3 million tons of fissile uranium.

U-238, the most naturally abundant uranium isotope, is, like I said, 3 times as common as silver. It is not fissile, but breeder reactors make it so by bombarding it with neutrons.

Previously I posited that it has been claimed there is enough u-238 to supply power for 5 billion years. That, I have discovered, is only if we consume it at the rate we did in 2003.

That is an absurd claim – as if the difference in energy consummation between 2003 and 2008 would allow us to calculate differences in the longevity of current uranium resources with the precision needed to see changes in – as you claim – the “5 billion years span” that you claim. BTW, the earth is said to have been formed – how many billion years ago…? (hint-hint… ;) ).

I do not know where you get your numbers here, but they cannot be the numbers that drive the markets. I just stick to what I have kept in memory in a summarized form: that current natural uranium resources, no matter how they get processed, will be enough to support the current system and it’s current demands for around 60 more years. Uranium gets more and more expensive at stock-markets, and got a trading good of decreasing availability recently. Why that if our needs regarding nuclear energy as already taken care of for the next 5 billion years, as you claim? ;)

If nuclear energy were the world's only energy source, and we take into account current trends in population growth and resultant energy consumption, we have 3,000 to 10,000 years supply. There are 5 million tons (known) of U-238 that is considered "economical" to exploit in the U.S. alone.

We need to disagree on our numbers here. You claim that the US alone has almost twice as much known uranium that can be won under economical, profitable conditions than all continents hold altogether, and holds six times as much as Canada and Australia hold together, according to my numbers. Well, we dis-agree here beyond compromise, it seems. But I see the market behaviour of the past years supporting my position.

[Skybird]

On your first point, government hasn't given us much for the billions spent thus far in new energy research. They didn't develop solar or wind power, they have yet to produce fusion. Ironically, the only real energy source the government ever "developed" was nuclear energy, and that stemmed from trying to produce weapons-grade fissile materials. Don't let it cross your mind that that is an argument for gov-ernment energy research. Private nuclear research was underway before the U.S. government ever got involved and also produced the commercial reactor.

Private markets fund new energy research as well. Why not leave it to them where it costs us nothing. If they succeed, great! If they fail, too bad for their investors. Government research costs all of us (or all of us that actually pay taxes) whether they succeed or fail.
You essentially say: leave it to an economy world and a business model that prefers to stick heads into the sand and stick with oil. You say: let’s ignore that OPEC’s information on how much oil they have, is politically motivated, for the quotas allowed for each member to produce per year depends on it’s re-sources. The more the have, the more they are allowed to produce, the higher their income. That is the reason why you can see OPEC members sometime reporting higher and sometimes smaller reserves. Kuwait was needed to admit three or four years ago that in the nineties they reported a rise in resources because they wanted to produce more oil, but in fact at that time already knew they had smaller re-sources than before and after that rise reported. You also say that we should not learn a lesson from the oil crisis in the 70s, which should had been understood as a warning shot regarding our suicidal depend-ence on oil – but nobody reacted, nothing was done to reduce that, for profits from the status quo still shone too bright.

The current economical system is extremely short-eyed and does not look any farther than to the next Euro. And plenty of companies, like energy producers, have no interest in changing our course at all. On the other hand, the Arabs are spending stellar sums of money into investments in western business, getting shares and control over them for the time they have run out of the source of their wealth: oil. And I confess I belong to the camp being sure that we already are beyond peak oil since three or four years. This does not mean that we run out of oil in the next twenty years. It only means that the available oil will not cover all demand, that the gap will grow, and that prices beside weekly or even monthly fluctuations in micro-cycles will generally climb to the heavens over the next 50-60 years. Ironically, American economists argue that the recent fall in gas price in the US – was created by enough American car drivers having decided to leave their cars at home and use other tools of transportation, or not to travel at all. Since this means that with lower prices more drivers will return to cars, the current fall will be temporary only and thus gas prices will start to rise soon again.

Well, like I said, all our state research hasn't given us anything palpable thus far. We can argue that point forever but the fact remains that we have state-funded research and we have an energy crisis simultaneously.

the state can and should use taxes not to build, invent and create by himself, but it should influence the social environment in which economy is to unfold,. By laws, setting goals in education, taxes, etc. If you create an environment that extremely favours old structures and oil-dependant technology, that will be what you get. Bush is a prime example for that. If your create an environment by designing taxes and prices such that new energy technology and it’s invention gets rewarded and is profitable, and oil de-pendant economy gets penalised and discouraged, you get something different. If you do nothing and leave it all to a liberal market, you get monopole, predatory economy running amok in brutal search for just it’s own maximum interests no matter the costs, and consumers and private households helplessly exposed to this savaging of unscrupulous privateers. There are two extremes, and both do not work, and cause terribly costs for the community: the myth of 5-year-plans and state controlled economy like in the USSR, and the myth of the liberal market creating communal good effects by adjusting itself unregu-lated and not interfering with market processes: a view that is extremely popular with Americans, of course. But it is illusive. The American economy is one of the most protected in the world (followed the latest round of WTO talks and how they failed again, yes? ;) ), and when it comes to agriculture and high technology, the US is as protective as is the EU or China or Russia. Additionally, if there is one thing to know about pure, unregulated capitalism, than this: it leads to monopolism, and that is not in the interest of the national community, but takes the community prisoner. Monopoles do not lead but pre-vent free markets. The idea of a free market effectively destroys itself.

You need an authority that sets limits and defines rules that are beyond the conception of capitalism. Some regulation you need, to give the economy a vision of the direction at which to develop, and to make sure there is a fair balancing of private, economic interests, and communal interests. I say: as much regulation as needed, but as little as possible. Originally, this has been the idea behind the Euro-pean conception of “social market economy”, as I understand it. But for various reasons, this concept as well as the utopia of liberal markets has ruined itself. Our excessive living beyond our standards has something to do with it, as well as the creeping turning of democratic structures into oligarchic and un-regulated capitalistic structures (that no longer fall under the description of “social market economy”). Ironically, the so-called globalization has been the most prominent nail in the coffin of social market economy and protectionism as well. With very bad and costly consequences BOTH for Europe AND America. Maybe that is why the enthusiasm of many forethinkers of globalization has sharply decreased in the past couple of years - it did not work for us as intended, but has turned against us.

If America could combine the economic freedom that led to our becoming a superpower and combine it with the personal freedom that we have sort of embraced at some points, at least for some people, and gave that to all people in our nation, I would be proud to sit amongst an audience of jeering delegates and say "We'll remember this when your country is being invaded or you want money."

But you are no longer a superpower, and in fact are financially and economically extremely vulnerable and dependant, and currently deeply hurt by the mortgage crisis, a stellar deficit, stellar debts, consumer having accumulated suicidal debt credits. I do not take it as granted that my generation will see yours recovering from this - if it ever does. Your nation is running on tick, namely Chinese good will. If they would have stopped to buy your worthless treasury bonds, even Bush would not have been able to come up with the even greater deficits to finance the Iraq war. Mostly unnoticed, China and several Arab na-tions have slowly started to transform their dollar into euro reserves, and slowly more and more voices at OPEC dare to imagine that one could start doing oil sales not in Dollar, but in Euro. Could you imag-ine what that would mean for the US if it no longer makes a win from every barrel oil sold anywhere in the world (it effectively is a license to print money)? Just today Greenspan has warned of more major US banks collapsing. I do not know if the past two years already were the start of the big market earth-quake, but I know that this big one is coming and that it will leave the US stripped of major shares of it’s basis of former wealth. The US simply is extremely bad prepared for that event – and some prominent voices still warn to take that serious! That borders to maliciousness, or psychotic refusal of reality.

Luckily for the rest of the world we trudge inexorably towards financial collapse as we maintain a "benign" and unsustainable amount of federal spending and inflation.

At least YOU seem to have seen the danger ahead. But the world is not lucky because the world is that pays for the failures of the American financial system and the flaws in it’s economical design. As I said, you live on tick. On Arab tick. On Chinese tick. On European tick. Additionally, you have sold away several key parts of your economy, and jobs in huge quantity anyway. And sooner or later all three of these will conclude that they are no longer willing to afford the losses of such immense investments just to keep the patient alive so that they have still an American harbour where to unload their goods. China will soon hit a limit of growth, naturally, and will face growing problems from environmental sins it has committed, decreasing financial power due to raising demands of Chinese consumer to raise their living standard. They will be in need to consider twice and three times the pro and cons of continuing their current investment habits into the US financial system. Currently they only do it to keep the American market open for their exports. – and if they decide they do no longer wish or need these export to the US, and compensate for that in less costly ways than sticking to US treasury bonds? They are almost worthless these days, and are more a deal of buying a quantum of limited additional market stability for a limited additional period of time. Stop buying them and the show stops running. A banker my parents know called them a “last line of desperate final defence”, and a “great illusion”.

Energy policy is just a small symptom of the economy-destroying nature of big government. Per-haps in Germany, a country known for its' remarkable efficiency and ability to bounce back from crisis, this may not be a concern but in the U.S. it is. Social and education issues have been exacerbated by government policy on several occasion. The energy crisis in the U.S. is no exception.

I think you have exaggerated views of the Germany of today. The shining past is over.

German Focus-Magazine this week has a story about American needs to catch up with required invest-ments (German news are very much interested in American affairs, far more than American medias re-port about German issues.). They wrote that investments are desperately needed to repair 1/3 of the road-grid (costs 126 billion $), ¼ of all bridges (140 billion), 1/3 of the railway grid (195 billion), ½ of waterways, channels and rivers with economic traffic, dams and flooding protection (125 billion), and 1/5 of greater and intenratio0nal airports (15 billion). Investments into the power-grid would cost addi-tional 40 billion. Wowh – I would not wish to walk in your shoes! :D According to calculations done by the ASCE, in the next 5 years alone 1.6 trillion dollars would be needed to save the current infrastruc-ture, plus 130 billion per each year used on transportation exclusively. Compare that to the record defi-cit for 2008 of 482 billion and the state debts of 9.5 trillion. All that together sounds like a ticking time bomb to me. – The title of this article, and the subtitle for a book about the Iraq war, is “Koloß auf tönernen Füßen”. That means something like “giant standing on feet of clay” or “a giant with a shaky stand”. I think that fits well.

Personally, I think the causes may stem from administrating such a large country from a central location and the fact that we are not Germans.

Americans tend to regulate to little. Germans tend to regulate too much. :lol: Really, Germany is going crazy as well. Just in different ways than America. Or England. Or any other country.

Perhaps the solutions for our different nations may be different, but for a large, diverse nation with the vast economic potential of the U.S., my answer is the meter-shattering power of nuclear en-ergy.

Not that this thread was hijacked meanwhile, no… :D

*****

I must say that I enjoy such a discussion, although we disagree on many things, and agree only on some. What makes talking with you different to my experiences with several others is that it is easy for you and me of not becoming personal and offensive. I appreciate that, for it is a change to much of what has happened in the GT forum in the past.

Neal must rub his eyes, unbelieving. :lol: several years ago I told him that I think such talks are possible, in principle. He did not believe me. :)

On the nuclear issue we probably cannot close any more ground between us, so maybe it is a good idea to leave that one behind now, else we start running in circles.

[Zachstar]

This topic has completely derailed...

Can it be closed please? I will start another with a request not to turn this into a fission debate..

Edit: Can somebody report this post so the mods can see it? I can't seem to report my own posts.

[Skybird]

Consider it to be just one of these days at the office! ;)

[UnderseaLcpl]

This topic has completely derailed...

Can it be closed please? I will start another with a request not to turn this into a fission debate..

Edit: Can somebody report this post so the mods can see it? I can't seem to report my own posts.


I'm sorry Zachstar, this is my fault. I guess I misinterpreted your meaning of a real energy future. I'm sure you've been hit over the head enough with my idea that nukes are my idea of a real energy future, so I won't try to debate their relevance to your post.


I have a few points to reconcile with sky, but I will do it via PM. If you make a new thread I will try very hard to respond within your desired parameters. Now that I look at it, I think this thread was meant to entice discussion about exciting and plausible solution in the field of alternative energy that can be reasonably expected in the near future. I may not have much to contribute in that area, but one way or the other, I will try not to derail your thread again.

[Skybird]

That threads' content are shifting during the debate is a common thing in GT forum, and as long as the shifting does not include shifting towards personal hostilities, I think it is no serious issue at all. This is no academical forum. we come here to meet, to talk, and have some fun, like you go into your pub to meet your buddies and have a drink together. Part of the fun is how talkings develope, and threads can change. It is like this since I joined 8 years ago. and something tells me that it probably will not change.

It was a good debate anyway. So better relax everybody, enjoy, and not taking it too serious. No hard feelings, Zachstar! ;)