[UnderseaLcpl]

[quote=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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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"

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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"

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.
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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by 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.
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 . 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: