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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

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.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

[quote=UnderseaLcpl] 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.

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".

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...ticle12531.htm




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]

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/eest...itor-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.

[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]

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.