[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.