[UnderseaLcpl]

Firstly, thanks for the link. Good article.

Originally Posted by Skybird

swedish critical incident:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

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.