Well-informed people, explain nuclear energy to me. Good or bad?

[CynicalIdealist]

I've heard some advocates of renewable energies advocate nuclear energy, and I suppose I'm somewhat open to the idea of nuclear energy in the context of a world that engages in collective planning. However, it seems that a few people on this board are technophiles and dismiss anyone who's anti-nuclear as an environmentalist anti-humanist shill.

What are the benefits of nuclear energy, and how can we minimize its inherent risks (if we can)? Why aren't wind and solar enough?

I've also heard people claim that some renewable energies are just as dangerous as nuclear, which seems absurd at face value, but maybe somebody can explain this claim as well.

EDIT: It's also just my assumption that collective planning would minimize the risk due to the nature of people caring for their communities, but wouldn't it also be in the nuclear industry's economic interests to minimize the risks of a meltdown?

[piet11111]

Newer nuclear plant designs can utilize radioactive materials we currently consider waste as fuel and leave waste that is much less dangerous.

Energy safety is measured in deaths per terrawatt hour and nuclear power does indeed have the lowest share.

Germany is going to replace its nuclear power for coal and you can imagine what that would do for carbon emissions.
If we are to get rid of nuclear completely we wont be able to switch over entirely to renewable fast enough instead we would need to fill the power gap with coal.
However nuclear power is safe enough when using modern designs to actually switch from coal to nuclear until we can go for renewable 100%

Fukushima was a design from the 1950's and had a long record of security violations including terrible maintenance unqualified personnel and forging security reports and somehow this means nuclear power is forever unsafe according to some.

Also nuclear power has 1 important benefit no other energy source has namely the creation of medical isotopes used for cancer treatment and painkillers no amount of windmills or solar can ever make up for the loss of such isotopes.

I hope this answers your questions or at least show you where the "technophiles" are coming from.

[Broletariat]

The main criticism of nuclear power is of nuclear power under capitalism. We do not trust the capitalists to get it right at all, in fact, we fully and reasonably expect them to shirk safety policies for profit like they do with everything else.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why aren't wind and solar enough?

Energy density. Even assuming ideal conditions, there is only so much energy than can be extracted from a square kilometre of ground being used for renewable energy generation (also, land that is being used for renewable energy purposes is less suitable for other purposes, such as housing or growing food). It may never run out but there is certainly an upper limit on how much can be extracted at one time.

Then there's the problem that conditions are rarely ideal, so we get even less from renewables than a naive calculation may make it appear.

Nuclear, on the other hand, is one of the densest energy sources (even better than fossil fuels) and can thus deliver more power relative to surface area.

[Summerspeaker]

Solar collection in orbit (http://inhabitat.com/japan-plans-21-billion-solar-space-post-to-power-294000-homes/) or on the Moon gets around the problem of surface land use. The energy can be beamed back to Earth. All speculative, of course.

Current nuclear plants are a mess of centralization and disaster risk. I'm much more interested in smaller-scale generation techniques that could get communities off the grid. Solar offers much in this respect.

[piet11111]

Solar balloons are something i do find very promising as it gets around the excessive land use relative to surface area of the panel.

http://inhabitat.com/sunhope-solar-balloons/

http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/prettyprettysolarballoons.jpg

http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/solarballoonbigger.jpg

[Psy]

The main criticism of nuclear power is of nuclear power under capitalism. We do not trust the capitalists to get it right at all, in fact, we fully and reasonably expect them to shirk safety policies for profit like they do with everything else.
The same is true for all industry, for example railways ship very deadly chemicals yet take far less safety precautions then the nuclear industry. The problem is radiation is over hyped in the media, yes radiation found in a nuclear reactor is deadly if it leaked by many industrial chemicals will kill you much faster then radiation when they leak (and they leak far more often), and there are cases of chemical waste being just dumped where they leak into water tables (that is rare for radioactive waste).

[Nox]

Nuclear Fission is, at this time, both the safest and most productive way of producing energy that we have.

Why do people even debate using it?

[Broletariat]

The same is true for all industry, for example railways ship very deadly chemicals yet take far less safety precautions then the nuclear industry. The problem is radiation is over hyped in the media, yes radiation found in a nuclear reactor is deadly if it leaked by many industrial chemicals will kill you much faster then radiation when they leak (and they leak far more often), and there are cases of chemical waste being just dumped where they leak into water tables (that is rare for radioactive waste).

And of course we oppose both, we trust the Capitalists with nothing.

[citizen of industry]

A good article on the myths about the necessity of nuclear energy and its mismanagement under capitalism:

http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/?q=node/1639

And one from Japan related to Fukushima: http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/?q=node/1640

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A good article on the myths about the necessity of nuclear energy and its mismanagement under capitalism:

http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/?q=node/1639

And one from Japan related to Fukushima: http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/?q=node/1640

Neither of those article address the issue of energy density. If we want to maintain a technologically advanced society, yet not use fossil fuels for sound environmental reasons, we will need the quantities and densities of energy that nuclear fission can provide. South East England is a small chunk of a small island, but it has over 8 million people living there as of 2001. How will renewables alone provide the power for all their homes, workplaces and industrial centres? It's one of the most crowded parts of the UK, but there are at least 52 million other people living in the country also. Other parts of the world are similarly crowded and worse.

[citizen of industry]

Part of the problem I have with nuclear energy (aside for the contaminated tapwater and rush to find bottled water at empty supermarkets a few months ago) is that claims that it is "green" interfere with serious efforts to explore alternatives. In 2003 here in Japan, there was some scandal involving forged documents or faked inspection, so they shut down all the nuclear plants for inspection. After the recent disaster, they did rolling blackouts to conserve energy, but the media was full of claims that "we're dependent on nuclear energy, the power infrastructure will collapse if we shut the plants down, etc." That's because there were thousands of people demonstrating against nuclear power. In fact, we can shut the plants down and have enough energy using conventional methods, while developing safer and greener alternatives.

Another factor is distribution. In Kansai, the western end of the island, home to the city of Osaka, they use a different electrical infrastructure. After the crisis, they couldn't transfer any power to Tokyo. Osaka was bright with neon lights while Tokyo was undergoing blackouts (but only in living areas, not in financial districts). Conservation is the buzzword this summer. It's hot as hell in the buildings, but there haven't been anymore blackouts.

I talked to a nuclear engineer here. He said it is simple from an engineering standpoint to run cables internationally, i.e; Japan to Korea, China and Taiwan. But nobody has ever done this for obvious reasons, they don't want their power in the hands of another country in the event of a war. In an international socialist society, where the motive isn't simply profit, you can do a lot more with the energy you have already.

And right now the exploration of alternatives is in the hands of corporations and banks. That stuff costs a lot of money, and investors are unlikely to invest in a risky endeavor. So you have oil companies throwing a tenth of 1% of their profits into green energies so they can re-brand their logo as "green," like BP before the oil spill. The reason alternative energies are expensive and not as efficient is because they are under-researched. Some scientist here said if they built solar panels in a space as large as lake Biwa it could provide enough power for the entire country (and we're talking 120 million people in an area the size of California - how's that for population density?) but that the problem is storage. The battery technology we have today isn't good enough, to power a building you'd have to have battery storage space the same size as the building. Who's researching battery technology? Corporations, for profit, for products, not for powering the nation in the long term.

Also, I'd be critical of nuclear scientists talking about all the problems in replacing nuclear energy. Their careers, whole field of study is dependent on nuclear power and nuclear weaponry. When you say, "No nukes!" and advocate a non-nuclear world, you threaten them with redundancy and they start gathering information in defense of nuclear power.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why do people even debate using it?Because contemporary scientists can't even yet guess at what the long-term effects are and have no idea what to do with the waste it produces.

A pro-nuclear energy MIT paper sated:


But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes.Their recommendations were for the US to begin to fund research and development of ways to deal with waste. The other implication in this report is that since it is cost-prohibitive and capitalists wouldn't be able to turn a quick profit on this, nuclear power under capitalism would only be a supplement to a fossil-fuel based energy system... so it's not much of a green alternative.

Really Nuclear power was put forward as a way to legitimize the production of nuclear weapons during the cold war (another reason that the US government doesn't push it as much as it did in the 80s - along with the public outcry against nuclear power). Now they've only begun to push it again as part of their "we must stop our dependance on foreign oil" war propaganda.

Why does a lot of the left support it unquestioningly and treat any left-opposition to it as "anti-technology"? I think the origins of those arguments can probably be traced back, again, to cold-war politics. Since the so-called communist countries also promoted nuclear power, since their scientists justified it, this view has been adopted by many on the left either directly or indirectly.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Part of the problem I have with nuclear energy (aside for the contaminated tapwater and rush to find bottled water at empty supermarkets a few months ago) is that claims that it is "green" interfere with serious efforts to explore alternatives. In 2003 here in Japan, there was some scandal involving forged documents or faked inspection, so they shut down all the nuclear plants for inspection. After the recent disaster, they did rolling blackouts to conserve energy, but the media was full of claims that "we're dependent on nuclear energy, the power infrastructure will collapse if we shut the plants down, etc." That's because there were thousands of people demonstrating against nuclear power. In fact, we can shut the plants down and have enough energy using conventional methods, while developing safer and greener alternatives.

"Conventional methods" meaning fossil fuels, of course. But hang on, I thought later in your post you said that "right now the exploration of alternatives is in the hands of corporations and banks" - so doesn't this mean that if nuclear is not used, then given this current sorry situation, fossil fuels will take the place of nuclear as the primary energy generator?

I thought you would be in favour of preserving the global environment, not contributing to it's pollution. Even the worst nuclear accident, every decade or so and relatively localised, would do less overall damage to the environment than the constant emissions of carbon and other pollutants which contribute to a global problem.


Another factor is distribution. In Kansai, the western end of the island, home to the city of Osaka, they use a different electrical infrastructure. After the crisis, they couldn't transfer any power to Tokyo. Osaka was bright with neon lights while Tokyo was undergoing blackouts (but only in living areas, not in financial districts). Conservation is the buzzword this summer. It's hot as hell in the buildings, but there haven't been anymore blackouts.

Sounds like poorly maintained or established electrical transmission infrastructure. But that sort of thing can happen with any energy source.


I talked to a nuclear engineer here. He said it is simple from an engineering standpoint to run cables internationally, i.e; Japan to Korea, China and Taiwan. But nobody has ever done this for obvious reasons, they don't want their power in the hands of another country in the event of a war. In an international socialist society, where the motive isn't simply profit, you can do a lot more with the energy you have already.

And in the meantime? Sure, a sufficiently large solar plant in the Sahara could provide abundant power to Europe and North Africa, but that's not going to happen for the same reasons you mention.


And right now the exploration of alternatives is in the hands of corporations and banks. That stuff costs a lot of money, and investors are unlikely to invest in a risky endeavor. So you have oil companies throwing a tenth of 1% of their profits into green energies so they can re-brand their logo as "green," like BP before the oil spill. The reason alternative energies are expensive and not as efficient is because they are under-researched.

Nonsense. At all times there is an upper limit on how much energy can be extracted from a given square kilometre of land at once - even assuming physically ludicrous 100% efficiency. Also, this upper limit will change according to conditions. Some of those changes are predictable, at least to a degree, but the rest are not.

On the other hand, nuclear energy provides a steady, concentrated source of energy that is more directly controllable. If more power is needed, an additional reactor takes up relatively little land.


Some scientist here said if they built solar panels in a space as large as lake Biwa it could provide enough power for the entire country (and we're talking 120 million people in an area the size of California - how's that for population density?) but that the problem is storage. The battery technology we have today isn't good enough, to power a building you'd have to have battery storage space the same size as the building. Who's researching battery technology? Corporations, for profit, for products, not for powering the nation in the long term.

Before we even talk about battery technology, let's address the idea of solar panels in space. While it is technically feasible, with current state of both spacecraft engineering and our general lack of preparedness with regards to launching tons of shit into Earth orbit, it would be ridiculously expensive. If we want orbital solar panels, we're going to have to industrialise space and improve our surface-to-orbit capability. Those two endeavours are major initiatives on their own.

I'm not saying it's something we shouldn't do, but it's not a near-term solution.

[citizen of industry]

In most countries nuclear energy only makes up a minority of the total power usage. 20% in the US, 30% in Japan. And these are two countries that produce, export and develop nuclear technologies. That percentage is far less in most countries in the world. Using fossil fuels in the meantime? Yes. Most nuclear plants are aging relics. Countries in Scandinavia have taken the lead in using safer alternatives, such as geothermal energy, wind power, solar power, wave power, etc. Not one of these is in itself enough to replace nuclear power, but a combination of the other technologies we have can surely take up the slack of the 20% of so nuclear dependency we have. We can phase out nuclear power while implementing these alternatives and researching others, which really isn't necessary, when we can shut down all the nuclear plants we have now with no loss of power. It doesn't necessarily mean more dependence on fossil fuels.

Where are you getting your information? A politician like Obama, who gets millions in campaign contributions for companies pushing nuclear construction, has only to get in touch with a few nuclear physicists whose jobs are threatened by recurrent nuclear disasters, to make nuclear power look like the answer to the world's environmental problems. They have mass media to push this line down everyone's throats, while opponents of the nuclear industry end up looking like hippies spouting off about a pipe dream.

[citizen of industry]

Before we even talk about battery technology, let's address the idea of solar panels in space. While it is technically feasible, with current state of both spacecraft engineering and our general lack of preparedness with regards to launching tons of shit into Earth orbit, it would be ridiculously expensive. If we want orbital solar panels, we're going to have to industrialise space and improve our surface-to-orbit capability. Those two endeavours are major initiatives on their own.

I'm not saying it's something we shouldn't do, but it's not a near-term solution.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say "in space." I said "in a space as large as Lake Biwa." Meaning on land, 63km by 22km.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In most countries nuclear energy only makes up a minority of the total power usage. 20% in the US, 30% in Japan. And these are two countries that produce, export and develop nuclear technologies. That percentage is far less in most countries in the world.

So? That's merely indicative of the fact that fossil fuels have historically had an economic and political advantage over nuclear.


Using fossil fuels in the meantime? Yes. Most nuclear plants are aging relics.

All the more important then to replace them with newer designs.


Countries in Scandinavia have taken the lead in using safer alternatives, such as geothermal energy, wind power, solar power, wave power, etc. Not one of these is in itself enough to replace nuclear power, but a combination of the other technologies we have can surely take up the slack of the 20% of so nuclear dependency we have.

And what about the rest of the burden, which would still be carried by fossil fuels? What about countries like the UK which have large populations in small areas?


We can phase out nuclear power while implementing these alternatives and researching others, which really isn't necessary, when we can shut down all the nuclear plants we have now with no loss of power. It doesn't necessarily mean more dependence on fossil fuels.

You just said it does. You've pointed out that the current situation does not favour renewables, which means that even if we generously assume that renewables take up the slack left by nuclear, there is still what fossils fuels are currently providing to consider.


Where are you getting your information?

The laws of physics as we know them.


A politician like Obama, who gets millions in campaign contributions for companies pushing nuclear construction, has only to get in touch with a few nuclear physicists whose jobs are threatened by recurrent nuclear disasters, to make nuclear power look like the answer to the world's environmental problems. They have mass media to push this line down everyone's throats, while opponents of the nuclear industry end up looking like hippies spouting off about a pipe dream.

The nuclear and renewables industry is just as capitalist as the fossil fuels industry, which has a greater influence over the US government than either.


I didn't say "in space." I said "in a space as large as Lake Biwa." Meaning on land, 63km by 22km.

I did some calculations:

63 * 22 km gives 1386 square kilometres, which equals 1,386,000 square metres. The solar radiation maximum for Earth is given on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight) as 1413 watts per square metre, so let's go with that. 1,386,000 * 1413 gives a total of 1,958,418,000 watts. Knowing that a watt is equivalent to a joule a second, multiply that by the number of seconds in a year (31,536,000 according to onlineconversion.com) gives us a total of 61,760,670,048,000,000 joules, or 1,475,128 tonnes of oil equivalent.

But there is a problem. According to this document (http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2010/key_stats_2010.pdf) by the IEA, on page 52, it says that Japan's energy production for 2010 was equal to 88.66 megatonnes of oil equivalent. Oops!

And the above calculations contain a number of idealistic assumptions, among them that the sun shines 24 hours a day (it doesn't!), it assumes 100% efficient generation and transmission, and it assumes maximum insolation at all times. Clearly, even with these optimistic (to say the least!) assumptions, an area the size of Lake Biwa is not adequate to power Japan.

[citizen of industry]

fossil fuels have historically had an economic and political advantage over nuclear. That's no excuse for advocating mass construction of nuclear plants.

All the more important then to replace them with newer designs. Which will in turn become aging relics prone to disaster.

You just said it does. You've pointed out that the current situation does not favour renewables, which means that even we generously assume that renewables take up the slack left by unclear, there is still what fossils fuels are currently providing to consider. As a stop-gap, until fossil fuels can be replaced by renewables. You, on the other hand, seek an expansion of nuclear facilities.

The nuclear and renewables industry is just as capitalist as the fossil fuels industry, which has a greater influence over the US government than either. Which is a good reason not to expand the nuclear industry.

And what about the rest of the burden, which would still be carried by fossil fuels? What about countries like the UK which have large populations in small areas? The UK has 19 nuclear power plants and only about 15% of it's energy comes from nuclear power. I'd venture to guess you could operate without that 15% using existing conventional plants, while constructing renewable sources and phasing out fossil fuels.


I did some calculations And in related news, "Japan (http://topics.bloomberg.com/japan/) is beginning a shift to solar energy that lacks one ingredient: bank financing." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-25/japan-s-shift-to-solar-power-hinges-on-banks-ending-loan-drought.html So let's hinge on to something more attractive to politicians and financiers, like nuclear power:confused:

What's your plan regarding nuclear waste disposal? How can you ensure safety of nuclear plants when they are in private, for-profit hands?

[citizen of industry]

And since we're in the habit of using bourgeois sources like the IEA to cite facts, lets not neglect others like the EPA, which claims there is a lot more we can do to reduce emissions from conventional plants, without building unstable nuclear ones:

When the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990, EPA was given authority to control mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from major sources of emissions to the air. For fossil fuel-fired power plants, the amendments required EPA to conduct a study of hazardous air pollutant emissions. The Adminstrator was required to consider the study and other information and to make a finding as to whether regulation was appropriate and necessary. Standards of control were to be issued if a positive finding was made. In 2000, the EPA Administrator found that regulation of hazardous air pollutants, including mercury, from coal and oil-fired power plants was appropriate and necessary. This page provides a detailed chronology of events concerning the control of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from electric power plants.
In 1999, EPA estimated that approximately 75 tons of mercury were found in the coal delivered to power plants each year and about two thirds of this mercury was emitted to the air, resulting in about 50 tons being emitted annually. This 25-ton reduction was achieved through existing pollution controls such as fabric filters (for particulate matter), scrubbers (for SO2) and SCRs (for NOx). As more scrubbers and SCRs are installed to comply with the Clean Air Interstate Rule and other regulations, and as mercury control technology is used in response to state mercury regulation, emissions may decrease.

Or the EIA (http://205.254.135.24/oiaf/servicerpt/gps/gpsstudy.html):

There are many policy instruments available for reducing power plant emissions, and the choice of a policy will affect compliance decisions, costs, and prices faced by consumers. In a previous analysis, the Energy Information Administration analyzed the impacts of power sector caps on nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, assuming a policy instrument patterned after the SO2 allowance program created in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.1 This report compares the results of that work with the results of an analysis that assumes the use of a dynamic generation performance standard (GPS) as an instrument for reducing CO2 emissions.2 In general, the results of the two analyses are similar: to reduce CO2 emissions the power sector is expected to turn away from coal-fired generation to natural gas and, to a lesser extent, renewables. However, when a GPS program to reduce CO2 emissions is assumed, the electricity price impacts of the program are projected to be lower, while natural gas prices, CO2 allowance prices, and total resource costs for electricity generators are projected to be higher. More generation from renewable fuels is also expected under the GPS program.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That's no excuse for advocating mass construction of nuclear plants.

No, but what is a damn good reason is the fact they provide energy comparable to fossil fuels but without the whole "fucking up our global atmospheric composition six ways from Sunday" thing.


Which will in turn become aging relics prone to disaster.

Actually, if we mass-produce reactors, reliability becomes less of an issue because of a greater abundance of replacement parts, as well as the existence of ancilliary industries in reactor servicing.


As a stop-gap, until fossil fuels can be replaced by renewables. You, on the other hand, seek an expansion of nuclear facilities.

Because fossil fuels cannot be replaced by solely renewables. The way they produce energy is simply not suitable for providing large, steady baseloads.


Which is a good reason not to expand the nuclear industry.

Which just leaves the playing field to fossil fuels, nice going there.


The UK has 19 nuclear power plants and only about 15% of it's energy comes from nuclear power. I'd venture to guess you could operate without that 15% using existing conventional plants, while constructing renewable sources and phasing out fossil fuels.

According to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/energy_stats/fuel_mix/fuel_mix.aspx), nuclear provides 17.3%, while Coal and Gas combined total over 50%. Renewables provide only 7.9%.

Note though that this is a "disclosure", so if any shenanigans are going on then they will be tilted towards renewables for propaganda purposes.


And in related news, "Japan (http://topics.bloomberg.com/japan/) is beginning a shift to solar energy that lacks one ingredient: bank financing." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-25/japan-s-shift-to-solar-power-hinges-on-banks-ending-loan-drought.html So let's hinge on to something more attractive to politicians and financiers, like nuclear power:confused:

Did you even read what I wrote? Physics overrules economics.


What's your plan regarding nuclear waste disposal? How can you ensure safety of nuclear plants when they are in private, for-profit hands?

Nuclear waste disposal would be far less of an issue if we were allowed to reprocess the damn stuff, rather than argue about burying it before having it disturbed in an accident because the only place they could store it was on-site. Also, if we develop designs such as the Integral Fast Reactor (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/12/integral-fast-reactors-for-the-masses/), we will produce minimal waste consisting of short-lived fission products.

How can you ensure the safety of chemical factories when they are in private, for profit hands?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And since we're in the habit of using bourgeois sources like the IEA to cite facts, lets not neglect others like the EPA, which claims there is a lot more we can do to reduce emissions from conventional plants, without building unstable nuclear ones:

When the Clean Air Act was amended in 1990, EPA was given authority to control mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from major sources of emissions to the air. For fossil fuel-fired power plants, the amendments required EPA to conduct a study of hazardous air pollutant emissions. The Adminstrator was required to consider the study and other information and to make a finding as to whether regulation was appropriate and necessary. Standards of control were to be issued if a positive finding was made. In 2000, the EPA Administrator found that regulation of hazardous air pollutants, including mercury, from coal and oil-fired power plants was appropriate and necessary. This page provides a detailed chronology of events concerning the control of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from electric power plants.
In 1999, EPA estimated that approximately 75 tons of mercury were found in the coal delivered to power plants each year and about two thirds of this mercury was emitted to the air, resulting in about 50 tons being emitted annually. This 25-ton reduction was achieved through existing pollution controls such as fabric filters (for particulate matter), scrubbers (for SO2) and SCRs (for NOx). As more scrubbers and SCRs are installed to comply with the Clean Air Interstate Rule and other regulations, and as mercury control technology is used in response to state mercury regulation, emissions may decrease.

Or the EIA (http://205.254.135.24/oiaf/servicerpt/gps/gpsstudy.html):

There are many policy instruments available for reducing power plant emissions, and the choice of a policy will affect compliance decisions, costs, and prices faced by consumers. In a previous analysis, the Energy Information Administration analyzed the impacts of power sector caps on nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, assuming a policy instrument patterned after the SO2 allowance program created in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.1 This report compares the results of that work with the results of an analysis that assumes the use of a dynamic generation performance standard (GPS) as an instrument for reducing CO2 emissions.2 In general, the results of the two analyses are similar: to reduce CO2 emissions the power sector is expected to turn away from coal-fired generation to natural gas and, to a lesser extent, renewables. However, when a GPS program to reduce CO2 emissions is assumed, the electricity price impacts of the program are projected to be lower, while natural gas prices, CO2 allowance prices, and total resource costs for electricity generators are projected to be higher. More generation from renewable fuels is also expected under the GPS program.

This sort of shit only encourages the construction of additional fossil fuel plants, because they're "clean" now.

[citizen of industry]

How can you ensure the safety of chemical factories when they are in private, for profit hands?

Because the mechanics involved in a coal or diesel fired plant are so simple a child could operate them. If there is any kind of emergency, any operator can pull a pin and yank down on a lever and shut down the plant. You don't need radiation suits and nuclear physicists to make delicate repairs, just a technician with simple training and a few tools. These kinds of plants can be put back in operation in a matter of hours.

Worst case scenario you might have a boiler explosion or a big oil fire. You're not going to have a meltdown and release harmful radiation into the atmosphere and water supply. You don't have to worry about trying to construct a big cement dome over exposed rods while everyone trying to contain a disaster is exposed to harmful doses of radiation. You don't have to get out your protractor and draw a 20km circle on your map and say everyone has to evacuate here, this area is unihabitable for the next several decades.

[jake williams]

1386 square kilometres, which equals 1,386,000 square metres.
Apologies if this was a typo rather than a math error because I'm too sleepy to go through the rest of your math to see if it adds up, but 1386 square kilometers is 1 386 000 000 square meters, not 1 386 000.

[citizen of industry]

Apologies if this was a typo rather than a math error because I'm too sleepy to go through the rest of your math to see if it adds up, but 1386 square kilometers is 1 386 000 000 square meters, not 1 386 000.

Which would mean 1,475,128,000 tonnes of oil equivalent, or 1338 megatonnes, more than enough to power a country that only uses 88 megatonnes of power annually [someone better check my calculations, I'm awful at mathematics]. That would allow for all weather conditions, not to mention energy you could glean from wind power, geothermal power, wave power, hydroelectric power, etc.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Apologies if this was a typo rather than a math error because I'm too sleepy to go through the rest of your math to see if it adds up, but 1386 square kilometers is 1 386 000 000 square meters, not 1 386 000.

Gack. You're right.


Which would mean 1,475,128,000 tonnes of oil equivalent, or 1338 megatonnes, more than enough to power a country that only uses 88 megatonnes of power annually [someone better check my calculations, I'm awful at mathematics]. That would allow for all weather conditions, not to mention energy you could glean from wind power, geothermal power, wave power, hydroelectric power, etc.

Remember that even with the correction, there are still the idealistic assumptions of 24/7 sunlight, perfect conditions year-round and maximum efficency of generation and transmission.

Also, unlike nuclear, renewables are limited in their effectiveness by geography - wind is useless in calm areas, geothermal is useless in geologically quiescent areas, wave power is useless inland, and hydroelectric power is useless in flat areas. Whereas a nuclear reactor can function at full capacity pretty much anywhere, even in the depths of the ocean as nuclear submarines demonstrate.

Another problem is the spread-out and scattered nature of renewable energy generation - a region powered entirely by renewables has to deal with shortfalls and excesses by shunting stuff over the grid, which will involve transmission losses and wasted energy. Given the current state of Japan's grid I predict that a switchover to entirely renewables will result in more rolling blackouts. Let's also not forget that Japan imports energy to the tune of 418.89 megatonnes of oil equivalent, and that considering the current crisis this figure has likely increased from those 2010 figures.

As an aside, nuclear compares favourably (http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html) to renewables in terms of deaths per TWh:


Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

Note that despite killing only 0.04 people per TWh, nuclear provides 5.9% of world energy. Events like the failure of the Banqiao Dam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam) serve to illustrate that cutting corners with renewables can be just as deadly, if not more so, as cutting corners with nuclear power.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because the mechanics involved in a coal or diesel fired plant are so simple a child could operate them. If there is any kind of emergency, any operator can pull a pin and yank down on a lever and shut down the plant.

Scramming a reactor is easy too. Dump reactor poison in the chamber and the reaction dies. It becomes even safer if you set up the system on a "dead man's switch" so that if the cooling system or some other vital system fails or loses power, the laws of gravity kick in and reactor poison is dumped into the core.


You don't need radiation suits and nuclear physicists to make delicate repairs, just a technician with simple training and a few tools. These kinds of plants can be put back in operation in a matter of hours.

It's a pity then that they fuck over our atmosphere as part of their normal operations.


Worst case scenario you might have a boiler explosion or a big oil fire. You're not going to have a meltdown and release harmful radiation into the atmosphere and water supply. You don't have to worry about trying to construct a big cement dome over exposed rods while everyone trying to contain a disaster is exposed to harmful doses of radiation. You don't have to get out your protractor and draw a 20km circle on your map and say everyone has to evacuate here, this area is unihabitable for the next several decades.

Fossil fuel storage/generators go up in flames much more often (thus doing more damage to people and the environment in the process) than nuclear reactors meltdown. The accidents involved in the transportation of fossil fuels are also more environmentally damaging (due to the greater volumes and masses of fuel required), ruining marine and coastal environments.

Fossil fuels are bad mojo, even as a "stop-gap" solution.

[citizen of industry]

[QUOTE=ÑóẊîöʼn;2226699]Scramming a reactor is easy too. Dump reactor poison in the chamber and the reaction dies. It becomes even safer if you set up the system on a "dead man's switch" so that if the cooling system or some other vital system fails or loses power, the laws of gravity kick in and reactor poison is dumped into the core.[QUOTE]

Then why didn't this happen at Fukushima? My understanding is that nuclear power relies on a cooling source, whereas conventional power is a heating source. Cut fuel to a conventional plant, shut down air and water supply and it is secure. In Fukushima all the back-up cooling systems failed, because they were wiped out by tsunami, leading to meltdown. I watched the spectacle first of army helicopters dumping water on exposed rods (and missing), followed by the fire department spraying water directly on them from fire engines out of Tokyo (being exposed to radiation in the process). Where was the magical "reactor poison" and "dead man's switch?"

At the last labor rally I attended I heard from two teachers, one - half her class of elementary students are dead (tsunami). The second, they are alive but wear sleeves and masks, the windows are shut in the school and they don't go outside for recess anymore. They keep raising the acceptable radiation limits which makes one wonder why the original ones were established. Everyone is worried about black rain (and this is stamped on everyone's brains because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). I've experienced searching empty supermarket shelves for water to give to an infant because the tap water was above acceptable radiation levels for children, so I'll admit my bias on the issue. We are seeing a lot of mislabeled foods because farmers in the area can't sell their produce and have to survive, so you've gotta giga-counter all the food. Radiation goes up the food-chain, so fortunately the government is paying farmers for their cattle (allowing them to buy more - good) and killing the contaminated cows. And the whole area is done for for fifty years or so. The fisherman in the area are fucked - radiation leaked directly from the reactors into the sea, so Fukushima fisherman don't have jobs anymore.

The statistics you quote on on-the-job deaths may be valid, but mostly they affect workers on-site, rather than the community. Fuck nuclear power. Shut it down and replace the fossils with renewables. Yes, they depend on nature, and yes, weather changes. But a variety of renewable sources makes up for weather fluctuations.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Then why didn't this happen at Fukushima? My understanding is that nuclear power relies on a cooling source, whereas conventional power is a heating source. Cut fuel to a conventional plant, shut down air and water supply and it is secure. In Fukushima all the back-up cooling systems failed, because they were wiped out by tsunami, leading to meltdown. I watched the spectacle first of army helicopters dumping water on exposed rods (and missing), followed by the fire department spraying water directly on them from fire engines out of Tokyo (being exposed to radiation in the process). Where was the magical "reactor poison" and "dead man's switch?"

Fukushima was built before such important engineering lessons were learnt, and such events underline the importance of good construction and maintenance, just as Banqiao Dam did, the failure of which directly resulted in the deaths of thousands of ordinary people.


At the last labor rally I attended I heard from two teachers, one - half her class of elementary students are dead (tsunami). The second, they are alive but wear sleeves and masks, the windows are shut in the school and they don't go outside for recess anymore. They keep raising the acceptable radiation limits which makes one wonder why the original ones were established.

One also wonders if Chinese dams (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timcollard/100042402/china-cracks-in-the-three-gorges-dam-so-300000-people-can-wave-goodbye-to-their-homes/) will remain up to snuff, but one doesn't consider that an argument against hydro in general.


Everyone is worried about black rain (and this is stamped on everyone's brains because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

A meltdown can't be compared to a nuclear explosion.


I've experienced searching empty supermarket shelves for water to give to an infant because the tap water was above acceptable radiation levels for children, so I'll admit my bias on the issue. We are seeing a lot of mislabeled foods because farmers in the area can't sell their produce and have to survive, so you've gotta giga-counter all the food. Radiation goes up the food-chain, so fortunately the government is paying farmers for their cattle (allowing them to buy more - good) and killing the contaminated cows. And the whole area is done for for fifty years or so. The fisherman in the area are fucked - radiation leaked directly from the reactors into the sea, so Fukushima fisherman don't have jobs anymore.

How is this any worse than the (far more regular and unregulated) pollution from other industries?


The statistics you quote on on-the-job deaths may be valid, but mostly they affect workers on-site, rather than the community.

I imagine the community of Banqiao weren't to pleased to have their homes and livelihoods washed away either. The figures include deaths among the general public.


Fuck nuclear power. Shut it down and replace the fossils with renewables. Yes, they depend on nature, and yes, weather changes. But a variety of renewable sources makes up for weather fluctuations.

Nuclear deserves a place in our fuel mix and we would be foolish to disregard it.

[Summerspeaker]

ÑóẊîöʼn (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=8267),you're assuming that energy consumption should stay at current levels or increase. Given the harm associated with all current methods of generating electricity, that's a problematic place to start. We need to seriously consider the possibilities available. Existing consumption levels in developed countries aren't necessary for decent health; for example, Cuba uses less than an eighth of what the United States does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita ) but produce similar health outcomes. Social justice may require reducing energy consumption, at least for the short term.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

ÑóẊîöʼn (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=8267),you're assuming that energy consumption should stay at current levels or increase. Given the harm associated with all current methods of generating electricity, that's a problematic place to start. We need to seriously consider the possibilities available. Existing consumption levels in developed countries aren't necessary for decent health; for example, Cuba uses less than an eighth of what the United States does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita ) but produce similar health outcomes. Social justice may require reducing energy consumption, at least for the short term.

False dilemma (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Factor-Four-Doubling-Halving-Resource/dp/1853834068). We don't need to adopt some kind of "simple (read: BORING) lifestyle", as seen through rose-tinted glasses, in order to avoid the worst excesses of capitalism.

[RedTrackWorker]

Because contemporary scientists can't even yet guess at what the long-term effects are and have no idea what to do with the waste it produces.

New generation nuclear reactors (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor) are the only things I've ever heard of that can significantly reduce nuclear waste, so I always fail to understand the "what about the waste" argument when it would seem one would want to produce these new generation plants if only to reduce the nuclear waste.

The other question I have not seen the socialist anti-nuke crowd address is that of the need for more energy, not less, in a system of production based on need for stuff like desalinization to supply water.

[Summerspeaker]

False dilemma (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Factor-Four-Doubling-Halving-Resource/dp/1853834068). We don't need to adopt some kind of "simple (read: BORING) lifestyle", as seen through rose-tinted glasses, in order to avoid the worst excesses of capitalism.

I like the benefits of technological civilization as much as anybody, but I'm unsure whether existing manufacturing and resource extraction systems could function in a liberated society. While I hope we'd find ways to extend and enhance convenience in the absence of capitalist inefficiency, I value liberty and equality above abundant energy and material comfort. I suspect revolution may well disrupt production in the short term and I'm okay with that if it happens to be the case.

Because of Soviet record in particular, your insistence on nuclear power as necessary worries me.

[Desperado]

but wouldn't it also be in the nuclear industry's economic interests to minimize the risks of a meltdown?

It partially is, but the profit motive is necessarily short sighted* (see: catastrophic depletion of world's resources). Not to mention that nuclear power is often not about economic interests at all (weapons), or that it's at least skewed (by government funding).

*Something about selling rope...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I like the benefits of technological civilization as much as anybody, but I'm unsure whether existing manufacturing and resource extraction systems could function in a liberated society. While I hope we'd find ways to extend and enhance convenience in the absence of capitalist inefficiency, I value liberty and equality above abundant energy and material comfort. I suspect revolution may well disrupt production in the short term and I'm okay with that if it happens to be the case.

Underinvestment in infrastructure has little to do with an actual lack of economic or industrial strength under the contemporary capitalist price system. However, you may be right if the revolution involves a major civil war, something that we should be avoiding if at all possible.


Because of Soviet record in particular, your insistence on nuclear power as necessary worries me.

I'm not saying that implementations of nuclear power have been without important issues. I would like to see, for example, revolutionary support for nuclear workers who leak information on safety violations and similar abuses.

[EvilRedGuy]

We should DEFINITELY work to get Fusion energy, but for now i think Nuclear (fission) energy should be used, but limited (or more?) and isolated away from a public population, like on an island or underwater or just anyway away from a huge human population. Green energy (air, thermal, solar, etc.) should definitely also be heavily used.

[Zav]

Nuclear energy is safe if produced properly. The first problem with it is nuclear waste. There isn't a safe and efficient way of getting rid of it. The second is that if something does go wrong with a plant, it REALLY goes wrong.
Solar and wind power would not be enough to cover the power requirements we have for three reasons:
1. PV cells and turbines, as well as green tech. in general are under-funded due to corporate lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry and their dirty tricks.
2. We use more energy per hour than the sun provides us because of our incredibly heavy reliance on stored energy.
3. The applications we have for electricity are either wasteful in themselves or the appliances that use electricity are not as efficient as they could be.

Technophiles are like Capitalists in that they both want 'progress' for the sake of 'progress'. Technology is a tool, and it is foolish and wasteful to have it if it doesn't fill a genuine need. Think about all the thousands of new inventions that have been made in the past twenty years. There have been major advances in efficiency and the Internet. Apart from those, what has been truly useful?

[citizen of industry]

Nuclear energy is safe if produced properly. The first problem with it is nuclear waste. There isn't a safe and efficient way of getting rid of it. The second is that if something does go wrong with a plant, it REALLY goes wrong.
Solar and wind power would not be enough to cover the power requirements we have for three reasons:
1. PV cells and turbines, as well as green tech. in general are under-funded due to corporate lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry and their dirty tricks.
2. We use more energy per hour than the sun provides us because of our incredibly heavy reliance on stored energy.
3. The applications we have for electricity are either wasteful in themselves or the appliances that use electricity are not as efficient as they could be.

Technophiles are like Capitalists in that they both want 'progress' for the sake of 'progress'. Technology is a tool, and it is foolish and wasteful to have it if it doesn't fill a genuine need. Think about all the thousands of new inventions that have been made in the past twenty years. There have been major advances in efficiency and the Internet. Apart from those, what has been truly useful?

Great comment. In other words, in a socialist society our energy use drops to such an extent that power concerns are trivial, and green energy, without the profit-motive, is enough to cover our needs. Everyone is hung-up on "freeing productive forces," but how much more productive do we need to be? I like the toothpaste analogy - there are a dozen or so toothpastes on the shelf, from a half dozen or so companies, all competing with each other and using excessive energy for production, advertising, etc. And these companies have long since stopped using human workers, a machine can produce and tube toothpaste, all of which have expiration dates and a bunch of which gets thrown out if nobody buys it. Who gives a shit about toothpaste? Planned economy - Calculate toothpaste needs, produce a bit over that just in case, look at all the energy saved.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nuclear energy is safe if produced properly. The first problem with it is nuclear waste. There isn't a safe and efficient way of getting rid of it.

This is nonsense. Reprocessing and vitrification (http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/thompson2/) of waste is something that can be done today, never mind the proposed reactor designs which can burn up the worst of the waste.


The second is that if something does go wrong with a plant, it REALLY goes wrong.

As opposed to when a dam bursts or an oilfield catches fire?


Solar and wind power would not be enough to cover the power requirements we have for three reasons:
1. PV cells and turbines, as well as green tech. in general are under-funded due to corporate lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry and their dirty tricks.
2. We use more energy per hour than the sun provides us because of our incredibly heavy reliance on stored energy.
3. The applications we have for electricity are either wasteful in themselves or the appliances that use electricity are not as efficient as they could be.

Technophiles are like Capitalists in that they both want 'progress' for the sake of 'progress'. Technology is a tool, and it is foolish and wasteful to have it if it doesn't fill a genuine need. Think about all the thousands of new inventions that have been made in the past twenty years. There have been major advances in efficiency and the Internet. Apart from those, what has been truly useful?

All the funding in the world will not change the laws of physics. Even if we were to economise our use of energy, there is the consideration of the energy requirement for giving most of the people on this planet a decent standard of living. The ruling classes are already telling the workers from on high to tighten our belts - we shouldn't be doing their work for them.


Great comment. In other words, in a socialist society our energy use drops to such an extent that power concerns are trivial,

Evidence for this extraordinary claim is required, since historically total energy use has been increasing even as we make better use of it.


and green energy, without the profit-motive, is enough to cover our needs. Everyone is hung-up on "freeing productive forces," but how much more productive do we need to be? I like the toothpaste analogy - there are a dozen or so toothpastes on the shelf, from a half dozen or so companies, all competing with each other and using excessive energy for production, advertising, etc. And these companies have long since stopped using human workers, a machine can produce and tube toothpaste, all of which have expiration dates and a bunch of which gets thrown out if nobody buys it. Who gives a shit about toothpaste? Planned economy - Calculate toothpaste needs, produce a bit over that just in case, look at all the energy saved.

The differences between nuclear and renewables run much deeper than brands, surely you can't be serious?

[Zav]

This is nonsense. Reprocessing and vitrification (http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/thompson2/) of waste is something that can be done today, never mind the proposed reactor designs which can burn up the worst of the waste.

As opposed to when a dam bursts or an oilfield catches fire?

All the funding in the world will not change the laws of physics. Even if we were to economise our use of energy, there is the consideration of the energy requirement for giving most of the people on this planet a decent standard of living. The ruling classes are already telling the workers from on high to tighten our belts - we shouldn't be doing their work for them.

I'm pretty sure vitrification doesn't work well as a permanent solution. Radioactive elements don't simply disappear. They decay, often-times VERY slowly. Reconsuming the waste would simply disperse it.

If a solar farm breaks, it just stops working. A turbine can be more dangerous when broken, though certainly not as much as a nuclear meltdown. Hydroelectric and fossil fuel power are both hazardous. That does not justify dangers resulting from other methods like nuclear fission.

There is no law stating that electronic devices cannot be much more efficient than they are now. Why could they not be engineered to be 99.99% efficient? Many devices, amplifiers, for instance, need not be electric at all. Proper application of the laws of physics can be the most effective way to reduce energy consumption. More energy is spent on a refrigerator than any other home appliance. Most foods need not be refrigerated, and those that need be kept cool will keep in a root cellar. Also, due to the fact that cooler air sinks, opening a vertical refrigerator (as most are now) lets out a lot of cold air, meaning the device needs to consume more energy to sustain the desired temperature. If one needs a refrigerator, a small ice chest will do (the new ones are very well insulated, as opposed to the old fashioned sheet metal models). There is enough food on the planet to feed everyone well, even with inefficient factory farming methods that are only efficient at producing profit. There are enough safe empty buildings in the U.S. to comfortably house all of its homeless. Many billions of dollars worth of consumer goods are thrown away each year. Why is there not enough energy from the sun to provide the planet's seven billion humans with a better than decent standard of living? As a Communist, you should recognise that we plan to tear the wealth from the rich in order to provide for the poor, so yes, the rich Americans might have to tighten their belts just a little (maybe they should lose some weight, too).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm pretty sure vitrification doesn't work well as a permanent solution. Radioactive elements don't simply disappear. They decay, often-times VERY slowly. Reconsuming the waste would simply disperse it.

Vitrification works because glass is non-porous - that's why even if vitrified waste somehow escapes both the storage area and its little storage casing, it still won't poison the local water table.

Reprocessing waste does not "disperse" it at all, rather the opposite - it concentrates the more radioactive isotopes so that they can be more easily used with fuel.

Also, while radioactive materials may take centuries to decay to background levels, lead, arsenic and other common chemical pollutants are toxic forever, yet people don't seem to wig out as much over them despite the fact that they are vastly more common and therefore present a greater risk to health.


If a solar farm breaks, it just stops working. A turbine can be more dangerous when broken, though certainly not as much as a nuclear meltdown. Hydroelectric and fossil fuel power are both hazardous. That does not justify dangers resulting from other methods like nuclear fission.

The same argument could be made against any complex yet potentially hazardous industry. Besides, as I have pointed out earlier in this thread, nuclear power compares favourably with other methods in terms of deaths per TWh. This whole "nuclear reactor are more dangerous" argument is a red herring because nuclear reactors, even under capitalist management, simply do not fail often enough to be considered an unacceptable risk by reasonable people.

But what does make nuclear accidents different from the constant, low-level pollution that results from the normal operations of fossil plants is that it is much easier to dramatise. This is a boon for Greenpeace propagandists, but not so good for the rest of us who have to endure their hysterical maunderings.


There is no law stating that electronic devices cannot be much more efficient than they are now. Why could they not be engineered to be 99.99% efficient? Many devices, amplifiers, for instance, need not be electric at all. Proper application of the laws of physics can be the most effective way to reduce energy consumption. More energy is spent on a refrigerator than any other home appliance. Most foods need not be refrigerated, and those that need be kept cool will keep in a root cellar. Also, due to the fact that cooler air sinks, opening a vertical refrigerator (as most are now) lets out a lot of cold air, meaning the device needs to consume more energy to sustain the desired temperature. If one needs a refrigerator, a small ice chest will do (the new ones are very well insulated, as opposed to the old fashioned sheet metal models).

All of this ignores the fact that there is always an upper limit to the amount of renewable energy that can be extracted from a given square kilometre of land, whereas with nuclear one is limited only by how efficiently and safely one can stack reactors into an area.


There is enough food on the planet to feed everyone well, even with inefficient factory farming methods that are only efficient at producing profit. There are enough safe empty buildings in the U.S. to comfortably house all of its homeless.

Current farming methods are energy intensive, occupied houses consume energy, and the world's population, while perhaps not growing as fast as it was, certainly isn't shrinking. This sounds more like an argument for having as much energy as we can make, i.e. we should be using nuclear.


Many billions of dollars worth of consumer goods are thrown away each year. Why is there not enough energy from the sun to provide the planet's seven billion humans with a better than decent standard of living?

Because that energy is spread out all over the face of the Earth, and collecting and distributing all that energy in a practical manner is impossible without science fictional technology.


As a Communist, you should recognise that we plan to tear the wealth from the rich in order to provide for the poor, so yes, the rich Americans might have to tighten their belts just a little (maybe they should lose some weight, too).

Tell me, what distinguishes you from Third-Worldists who also think that workers in the US and elswhere need to be taken down a peg or two "for their own good"?

[Psy]

Why is there not enough energy from the sun to provide the planet's seven billion humans with a better than decent standard of living?

First the sun is basically a giant nuclear fusion reactor, its radiation is what creates all energy in our solar system. Next eventually the sun will lose energy and become a red giant (in about 5 billion years) and Earth would be consumed by it. Thus humanity has a time limit to colonize the stars as eventually we will have abandon Earth thus we need to develop energy systems that can far from our sun, 5 billion years is a long way off but we have tons of technology we have to invent so humanity doesn't die with our sun.

[Zav]

Vitrification works because glass is non-porous - that's why even if vitrified waste somehow escapes both the storage area and its little storage casing, it still won't poison the local water table.

Reprocessing waste does not "disperse" it at all, rather the opposite - it concentrates the more radioactive isotopes so that they can be more easily used with fuel.

Also, while radioactive materials may take centuries to decay to background levels, lead, arsenic and other common chemical pollutants are toxic forever, yet people don't seem to wig out as much over them despite the fact that they are vastly more common and therefore present a greater risk to health.



The same argument could be made against any complex yet potentially hazardous industry. Besides, as I have pointed out earlier in this thread, nuclear power compares favourably with other methods in terms of deaths per TWh. This whole "nuclear reactor are more dangerous" argument is a red herring because nuclear reactors, even under capitalist management, simply do not fail often enough to be considered an unacceptable risk by reasonable people.

But what does make nuclear accidents different from the constant, low-level pollution that results from the normal operations of fossil plants is that it is much easier to dramatise. This is a boon for Greenpeace propagandists, but not so good for the rest of us who have to endure their hysterical maunderings.



All of this ignores the fact that there is always an upper limit to the amount of renewable energy that can be extracted from a given square kilometre of land, whereas with nuclear one is limited only by how efficiently and safely one can stack reactors into an area.



Current farming methods are energy intensive, occupied houses consume energy, and the world's population, while perhaps not growing as fast as it was, certainly isn't shrinking. This sounds more like an argument for having as much energy as we can make, i.e. we should be using nuclear.



Because that energy is spread out all over the face of the Earth, and collecting and distributing all that energy in a practical manner is impossible without science fictional technology.



Tell me, what distinguishes you from Third-Worldists who also think that workers in the US and elswhere need to be taken down a peg or two "for their own good"?
Now since when does radioactivity require porosity? Does not radiation escape anyway? Gamma rays need to be shielded by a very large mass to be blocked, such as an inch of lead.

I'm going to skip this because I am not up to date with the latest reactor designs. Sources would be nice.

That is true, but the fact that there are other dangerous materials about does not make it a good idea to add more to the mix.

While I know for certain that it is safer than fossil fuels (deaths from old-fashioned coal mining, for instance), I highly doubt that it is safer than solar and biogas. Wind power I'll give you. Sources please.
That is not an argument.

That amount of energy is more than enough.

I did not say otherwise. I said that there is enough food EVEN with today's farming. Local permaculture is far more efficient. They do consume energy, but the small increase in usage from housing the homeless will be easily offset by the aforementioned reasons, or by a Socialist Revolution.
Earth's human population growth is slowing. It will balance out at nine billion or so within the next fifty years.

You must have misinterpreted that, because you surely agree. The argument I posited there was one against the inefficiency of Capitalism.

I said nothing about the American proles. I was talking about the American bourgeois (I said, and I quote: "the rich Americans"). There is enough energy (from the sun) to provide everyone with a comfortable life.

[Zav]

First the sun is basically a giant nuclear fusion reactor, its radiation is what creates all energy in our solar system. Next eventually the sun will lose energy and become a red giant (in about 5 billion years) and Earth would be consumed by it. Thus humanity has a time limit to colonize the stars as eventually we will have abandon Earth thus we need to develop energy systems that can far from our sun, 5 billion years is a long way off but we have tons of technology we have to invent so humanity doesn't die with our sun.
In five billion years, everything we know will have fallen out of memory. I think we should focus more on the more urgent issues.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Now since when does radioactivity require porosity? Does not radiation escape anyway? Gamma rays need to be shielded by a very large mass to be blocked, such as an inch of lead.

Do you know how radiation works? Have you ever heard of the inverse-square law? Even without any kind of shielding, sufficient distance from living things will ensure safety as long the materials remain undispersed.

Gamma rays are a form of light. They may be more penetrative than visible photons, but they are still subject to the same laws of physics as other wavelengths of light.


I'm going to skip this because I am not up to date with the latest reactor designs. Sources would be nice.

To start with, here's a page referencing the Integral Fast Reactor (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/12/integral-fast-reactors-for-the-masses/), which can work with fuels that other designs would treat as waste.


That is true, but the fact that there are other dangerous materials about does not make it a good idea to add more to the mix.

The amount added from nuclear power is minimal compared to the payoff in terms of energy. If France can produce most of their energy through nuclear power (also having enough to be a net exporter of energy into the bargain) without suffering from outbreaks of multiple heads or massive tumours, then why can't the rest of the world?


While I know for certain that it is safer than fossil fuels (deaths from old-fashioned coal mining, for instance), I highly doubt that it is safer than solar and biogas. Wind power I'll give you. Sources please.

Deaths per TWh for all energy sources: Rooftop solar power is actually more dangerous than Chernobyl! (http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html)


That is not an argument.

What isn't?


That amount of energy is more than enough.

Sez you. Not all of us have a penchant for hemp clothing and treehouses. If you're not using energy, you're not having fun.


I did not say otherwise. I said that there is enough food EVEN with today's farming. Local permaculture is far more efficient.

Keeping a few chickens around your vegetable garden is a good idea, but don't delude yourself into thinking that sort of thing will be sufficient to replace the industrial approach to food production.


They do consume energy, but the small increase in usage from housing the homeless will be easily offset by the aforementioned reasons, or by a Socialist Revolution.

Handwaving. The "Socialist Revolution" is not some magic wand which upon waving will make everything green, clean and efficient. The vision of the future as proffered by the likes of Greenpeace has just as much "austerity" if not more so than the visions offered by the ruling classes.


Earth's human population growth is slowing. It will balance out at nine billion or so within the next fifty years.

Maybe they will, maybe they won't. In any case, the more energy abundance the better.


You must have misinterpreted that, because you surely agree. The argument I posited there was one against the inefficiency of Capitalism.

I said nothing about the American proles. I was talking about the American bourgeois (I said, and I quote: "the rich Americans").

Bullshit. Obesity in the US is just as common if not more so among the working poor as among the rich.


There is enough energy (from the sun) to provide everyone with a comfortable life.

Really? Show us your working, please.

[Psy]

In five billion years, everything we know will have fallen out of memory. I think we should focus more on the more urgent issues.
There are other threats like a large asteroid colliding with Earth. Thus developing long range space travel is a urgent issue.

[Summerspeaker]

Underinvestment in infrastructure has little to do with an actual lack of economic or industrial strength under the contemporary capitalist price system.

I'm not sure existing industrial systems will function efficiently or at all without the coercion currently involved. I hope so, but as I noted I'll take freedom over abundance if I have to. Assuming production would continue unhindered if we had a global revolution tomorrow strikes me as excessively sanguine. I'd imagine significant disruption in the short term, perhaps followed by increased production in the future depending on how folks want to live and what innovations emerge.


I would like to see, for example, revolutionary support for nuclear workers who leak information on safety violations and similar abuses.

Does this actually happen? Sounds interesting.


Evidence for this extraordinary claim is required, since historically total energy use has been increasing even as we make better use of it.

Why does this mean it must continue increasing? The fact energy use per capita has increased historically doesn't automatically make this trend desirable.


Because that energy is spread out all over the face of the Earth, and collecting and distributing all that energy in a practical manner is impossible without science fictional technology.

Then I guess we'd better invent that science fictional technology. :lol:


Sez you. Not all of us have a penchant for hemp clothing and treehouses. If you're not using energy, you're not having fun.

Exalting a high-energy lifestyle isn't any better than fetishizing low consumption. Indeed, given the costs associated with energy production, it's rather more dangerous. Is reductive and downright silly to equate energy usage with fun. For example, riding a bicycle six miles isn't inherently less enjoyable than driving a car despite the massive difference in joules involved. I suspect the frenzied culture of capitalism and competition drive a considerable amount of current energy use. We need to honestly figure out what we want, why we want it, and how we can get it without causing extreme harm. I recommend prudence and pluralism.


Really? Show us your working, please.

You can do the math. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28energy%29)

[Zav]

There are other threats like a large asteroid colliding with Earth. Thus developing long range space travel is a urgent issue.
It would be MUCH more efficient to research methods of destroying or redirecting said asteroid.

[Zav]

Do you know how radiation works? Have you ever heard of the inverse-square law? Even without any kind of shielding, sufficient distance from living things will ensure safety as long the materials remain undispersed.

Gamma rays are a form of light. They may be more penetrative than visible photons, but they are still subject to the same laws of physics as other wavelengths of light.



To start with, here's a page referencing the Integral Fast Reactor (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/02/12/integral-fast-reactors-for-the-masses/), which can work with fuels that other designs would treat as waste.



The amount added from nuclear power is minimal compared to the payoff in terms of energy. If France can produce most of their energy through nuclear power (also having enough to be a net exporter of energy into the bargain) without suffering from outbreaks of multiple heads or massive tumours, then why can't the rest of the world?



Deaths per TWh for all energy sources: Rooftop solar power is actually more dangerous than Chernobyl! (http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html)



What isn't?



Sez you. Not all of us have a penchant for hemp clothing and treehouses. If you're not using energy, you're not having fun.



Keeping a few chickens around your vegetable garden is a good idea, but don't delude yourself into thinking that sort of thing will be sufficient to replace the industrial approach to food production.



Handwaving. The "Socialist Revolution" is not some magic wand which upon waving will make everything green, clean and efficient. The vision of the future as proffered by the likes of Greenpeace has just as much "austerity" if not more so than the visions offered by the ruling classes.



Maybe they will, maybe they won't. In any case, the more energy abundance the better.



Bullshit. Obesity in the US is just as common if not more so among the working poor as among the rich.



Really? Show us your working, please.
Yes I know how radiation works.
You could put the reactors in deserts, and you would still have air pollution.

The technology for reactors that produce almost zero waste doesn't exist yet, while renewable energy technology does. Even if a reactor can utilise all of its fuel, the fuel is still limited, as opposed to the wind and sun.

Nuclear waste. Not minimal.

The key word there is 'rooftop'. Those deaths are a result of falling of roofs, NOT from solar power, which does not always involve roofs.. What a person was doing on the roof is irrelevant. Again, I grant you wind power. As for hydroelectric power, I am more opposed to it than nuclear power.

The part of your post where you mentioned Greenpeace was not an argument, and I noted that.

Energy consumption does not equal fun, as "sez you". You see, this is an opinion, and not valid for debate. As a side note, treehouses, while efficient, are not as safe as sustainable homes built on/in the ground.

I happen to produce more than enough food for me in my permaculture garden of two acres (and I eat a lot), the excess from which I give to the local shelters. I could easily support three people with it, and I could expand it if I wanted to. Agrobusiness requires much more land to produce the same amount of food, and much, much, much more energy to move it around. It's not physically possible for industrial agriculture to be more efficient than my back yard due to transport costs. Don't assume that because it uses more energy it necessarily is more efficient.

The mention of a Revolution was in reference to the Capitalist means of production. That's a red herring.

There is already an abundance from the sun.

That's due to fast food, which is cheaper than actual food. Perhaps if that industry never existed people would have revolted when they could no longer buy food. Anyway, the point of this argument (I meant this specific point, but it applies to the whole) has long been lost.

Summerspeaker did this already, but here you go again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28energy%29
Total world energy consumption: 5.67×1019 joules
Amount of energy that hits Earth each year: 5.5×1024 joules
That means humans could use about 100,000 as much electricity as present and still have solar energy to use. Assume half that solar energy is reflected back into space. Obviously the world can't be covered in panels.
About 1 kwh can be produced from a square meter at 100% efficiency. Currently panels produce electricity at about 10-20% efficiency. Even with today's crappy tech., it is still possible to be entirely off-grid (like myself), which means it is entirely possible for the world to run on solar power. As efficiency increases, fewer and fewer panels will be needed. Eventually a square kilometer of solar farm will power New York City.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not sure existing industrial systems will function efficiently or at all without the coercion currently involved. I hope so, but as I noted I'll take freedom over abundance if I have to. Assuming production would continue unhindered if we had a global revolution tomorrow strikes me as excessively sanguine. I'd imagine significant disruption in the short term, perhaps followed by increased production in the future depending on how folks want to live and what innovations emerge.

In which case, don't you think it's stupid to deliberately cripple ourselves by ruling out nuclear fission?


Does this actually happen? Sounds interesting.

If it doesn't, it should.


Why does this mean it must continue increasing? The fact energy use per capita has increased historically doesn't automatically make this trend desirable.

As long as we can secure enough of it, I don't see why we shouldn't use more energy. Even with maximal efficiency current energy production is still an arbitrary limit on our capabilities.


Then I guess we'd better invent that science fictional technology. :lol:

Room-temperature superconductors are the sort of thing we're looking for here. You know, Nobel Prize material.


Exalting a high-energy lifestyle isn't any better than fetishizing low consumption. Indeed, given the costs associated with energy production, it's rather more dangerous. Is reductive and downright silly to equate energy usage with fun. For example, riding a bicycle six miles isn't inherently less enjoyable than driving a car despite the massive difference in joules involved.

Really? I don't consider myself a huge car fan, but if I was offered the opportunity to tear it up round a track for a day I would take it over any pedal-powered experience. The exhilarating speeds, the roar of the engine, the delightfully industrial bouqeut of aromas - bike riding can be fun, but I don't think the experiences are comparable. And that's precisely my point. The more energy one has to spend, the greater one's leisure options.


I suspect the frenzied culture of capitalism and competition drive a considerable amount of current energy use. We need to honestly figure out what we want, why we want it, and how we can get it without causing extreme harm. I recommend prudence and pluralism.

Pluralism costs energy, and prudence is all too often a cover for ulterior motives. "We're gonna reduce the amount of energy available to you - for your own good, of course... "


You can do the math. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28energy%29)

Look, it's not good enough to just point out that loads of energy hits the Earth's face every day, if you don't have a plausible mechanism for capturing and distributing the majority of that energy.


Yes I know how radiation works.
You could put the reactors in deserts, and you would still have air pollution.

Er, how? :confused:


The technology for reactors that produce almost zero waste doesn't exist yet, while renewable energy technology does. Even if a reactor can utilise all of its fuel, the fuel is still limited, as opposed to the wind and sun.

Zero-waste reactors are not necessary, just a nice bonus. We're not running out of uranium any time soon (especially if waste is reprocessed), and even if we do there is about three times as much thorium, another nuclear fuel, to be found.


Nuclear waste. Not minimal.

Compared to most industries it is.


The key word there is 'rooftop'. Those deaths are a result of falling of roofs, NOT from solar power, which does not always involve roofs.. What a person was doing on the roof is irrelevant. Again, I grant you wind power. As for hydroelectric power, I am more opposed to it than nuclear power.

Isn't rooftop installation of solar panels the very kind of thing that anti-nuclear types advocate? They're all about "energy independence" and "decentralisation" and other ideologically-derived rot.


The part of your post where you mentioned Greenpeace was not an argument, and I noted that.

Energy consumption does not equal fun, as "sez you". You see, this is an opinion, and not valid for debate. As a side note, treehouses, while efficient, are not as safe as sustainable homes built on/in the ground.

It is a fact, not an opinion. Fun activities cost energy. The more energy one has available, the greater one's choice of potential activities. It is very hard to enjoy the manifold fruits of the industrial age if one has access to barely enough energy to make one's bathwater tepid.


I happen to produce more than enough food for me in my permaculture garden of two acres (and I eat a lot), the excess from which I give to the local shelters.

Nice, you have access to two acres. I, like the majority of the urban-dwelling human population, have absolutely no access to any land whatsoever.


I could easily support three people with it, and I could expand it if I wanted to.

And the teeming masses who have higher aspirations than tilling soil? What of them?


Agrobusiness requires much more land to produce the same amount of food, and much, much, much more energy to move it around. It's not physically possible for industrial agriculture to be more efficient than my back yard due to transport costs.

It also requires less physical labour, can produce more than enough food (cf. wine lakes and butter mountains), and is more designed towards providing millions and billions of people with food than permaculture.


Don't assume that because it uses more energy it necessarily is more efficient.

And don't assume that a solution that works for you is one that anybody else wants or needs.


The mention of a Revolution was in reference to the Capitalist means of production. That's a red herring.

And you were handwaving.


There is already an abundance from the sun.

That's why solar energy is a multi-billion dollar industry with the ear of the US government - oh wait no, that's fossil fuels, with their massive EROEI despite recent rises in the price of oil.

Fossil fuels did not gain their prominence because the CEOs of oil companies are evil sorcerors with the ability to charm their victims - they gained that prominence because the relatively easy availability of oil put them in the best position to do so.

Without the kind of energy concentrations that nuclear provides, we'll be back in the situation we were before the latter half of the 18th century, where industrial power was provided by windmills and watermills. Except that we'll have more people to look after.


That's due to fast food, which is cheaper than actual food. Perhaps if that industry never existed people would have revolted when they could no longer buy food. Anyway, the point of this argument (I meant this specific point, but it applies to the whole) has long been lost.

Fast food is "real food", it just happens to be loaded with fat, sugar and salt. A reduction in our capacity to produce food means a reduction in healthy as well as less-healthy foods. In fact, it seems likely that producing enough food to give everyone a healthy diet would require more land than otherwise - land that, under your scheme, would be covered in solar panels. Or wind farms.


Summerspeaker did this already, but here you go again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28energy%29
Total world energy consumption: 5.67×1019 joules
Amount of energy that hits Earth each year: 5.5×1024 joules
That means humans could use about 100,000 as much electricity as present and still have solar energy to use. Assume half that solar energy is reflected back into space. Obviously the world can't be covered in panels.
About 1 kwh can be produced from a square meter at 100% efficiency. Currently panels produce electricity at about 10-20% efficiency. Even with today's crappy tech., it is still possible to be entirely off-grid (like myself), which means it is entirely possible for the world to run on solar power.

The fly in your ointment is population density. Also, if solar power is so great, why are my bills increasing even though the housing association has installed solar panels on the roof?

Energy independence my arse!


As efficiency increases, fewer and fewer panels will be needed. Eventually a square kilometer of solar farm will power New York City.

And the mass transit will be powered by moonbeams.

[Psy]

It would be MUCH more efficient to research methods of destroying or redirecting said asteroid.
No it is not due to physics, if you blow up a asteroid you have the same mass with the same momentum minus what ever pathetic force used to break it up (even a 50 megaton nuclear bomb is pathetic compared to the kinetic energy of larger asteroids. Thus instead of one steroid hitting earth there would be a whole clump of them hitting Earth as objects in motion want to remain in motion.

Redirecting it is a possibility yet the problem is you'd have to start redirecting it before it entered our solar system meaning you'd need long range space craft (we are not that threatened by asteroids in our solar system their orbit is mostly stable, the threat is asteroids passing through our solar system).

Also why wouldn't we want humanity to industrialize the rest of our solar system and beyond?

[citizen of industry]

Monday was the さよなら原発! (sayonara genpatsu - goodbye nuclear power) rally in Tokyo. Up to 100,000 people attended. This was the largest demonstration I've ever been to (the numbers have typically been around 10,000 or less), and was especially significant because this was the largest demonstration in Japan in the past decade.

http://mainichi.jp/select/wadai/graph/20110919/9.jpg

It was a united front of many labor unions, anti-nuke groups, environmental groups, the communist party, the social democratic party, smaller revolutionary parties, student groups, parent groups, etc. I even spotted a christian group.

People are fed up with being lied to by the government and having energy in the hands of a corrupt corporation with poor government oversight (so many safety violations swept under the rug over the years, ya know, it melted down on the first goddamn day and they lied about it for weeks. They were employing day laborers to work in a nuclear power plant to save labor costs). People here are generally tired of being nuked, and want to see a world free of anything nuclear. Nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors, all of it. No more. Done.

ÑóẊîöʼn, you've raised some great points in this thread, I'll admit that. But it doesn't matter to us here. I listened to an elementary school teacher from Fukushima relate how the tsunami wiped out half her class of 8 year old kids. And the rest of them now get to be shit on by the radioactive filth spewing out of Fukushima Daiichi. Do you know what the government did? They raised the acceptable radiation standards for children! Oh, you're above the limit? We'll just raise it a bit. By the way, um, here's some iodine tablets for the kiddies. Try to stay indoors with the windows shut and don't play outside, especially if it's raining. In 10 years or so we'll start to see the real consequences in these kids. They'll get free medical care though just like the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oh boy.

Earlier I said I admit my bias. Because you weren't there. I will never be an advocate of nuclear power after Fukushima. Never. And 100,000 people marching through Tokyo demanding change. That's impressive. For once there weren't enough police to box everyone in.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So you admit your position is not based on reason, but on emotion and "going with the crowd"? Despite the fact that the original tsunami has killed many thousands more people than the meltdown, which as far as I can tell has not directly resulted in any fatalities of its own?

Why is this completely unsurprising? Because fear of nuclear power is almost never about reason or an objective assessment of the risks. It's all about tugged heartstrings and preying on the worries of parents and carers, and for some reason treating a slightly elevated risk of cancer on the same level as losing a limb or loved one.

What's even funnier is the idea that opposition to nuclear power is somehow tied to opposition to capitalism, as if the renewables industry was somehow communist. Fat fucking chance! If renewables ever become a major part of our energy mix, then we're going to see the same kind of shit from the renewables industry that we see from everyone else.

[citizen of industry]

What's even funnier is the idea that opposition to nuclear power is somehow tied to opposition to capitalism, as if the renewables industry was somehow communist.

It is here, because it is only the left that points out the contradiction in a government that privatizes its energy industry, leaving it in the hands of a company that produces energy for profit, not consumption. The left is up in arms about this every time there is a disaster, near-disaster, or radiation leak and it turns out the company was hiding something or the government wasn't listening to whistleblowers or they were paid off. Monju, Tokai, Mihama, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, Fukushima, almost Tokai again. It's the same story over and over again.

And it is tied into article 9 of Japan's constitution, which doesn't allow the production of offensive weapons (including nuclear weapons), which many in the government are trying to revise. Also, the left is against the US occupation of the country and the hypocrisy of the US having nuclear weapons here.

Then, there is the sensitive history of the atomic bombings and a large peace movement. At the annual hiroshima convention, it is often socialist groups attending. So it is a multi-faceted issue.

Also, you have a tendency to only focus on immediate death toll. Not the displacement of 60,000 people, food contamination, exposure to radiation that will show up in later years, the fact that they wont be able to remove these rods for another 100 years or so, and the crippling of the agriculture and fishing industries. There is more to the problem than how many people die right when it goes "pop."

In terms of immediate deaths - one worker, and several of them hospitalized for radiation sickness, some of them in critical condition.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is here, because it is only the left that points out the contradiction in a government that privatizes its energy industry, leaving it in the hands of a company that produces energy for profit, not consumption. The left is up in arms about this every time there is a disaster, near-disaster, or radiation leak and it turns out the company was hiding something or the government wasn't listening to whistleblowers or they were paid off. Monju, Tokai, Mihama, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, Fukushima, almost Tokai again. It's the same story over and over again.

Right, but what has privatisation of energy production got to do with nuclear fission exactly? In fact, if Japan had no nukes the private energy industry would be able to get away with even more shit because their corner-cutting wouldn't obviously and immediately result in casualties and as a result nobody would give a shit except to complain about their electricity prices.

To demonstrate my point, compare the fuss made over Fukushima with the deafening silence regarding hydrocarbon fuel storages going up in smoke.


And it is tied into article 9 of Japan's constitution, which doesn't allow the production of offensive weapons (including nuclear weapons), which many in the government are trying to revise. Also, the left is against the US occupation of the country and the hypocrisy of the US having nuclear weapons here.

What has pacifism got to do with communism? More to the point, a pacifism imposed on the Japanese by imperialists?


Then, there is the sensitive history of the atomic bombings and a large peace movement. At the annual hiroshima convention, it is often socialist groups attending. So it is a multi-faceted issue.

Parasitic politics. I thought taking advantage of human tragedies for political gain was the province of the right-wing turds?


Also, you have a tendency to only focus on immediate death toll. Not the displacement of 60,000 people, food contamination, exposure to radiation that will show up in later years, the fact that they wont be able to remove these rods for another 100 years or so, and the crippling of the agriculture and fishing industries. There is more to the problem than how many people die right when it goes "pop."

In terms of immediate deaths - one worker, and several of them hospitalized for radiation sickness, some of them in critical condition.

So yeah, my point exactly. Tsunamis are more deadly than nuclear power plants. They have killed more people and will continue to kill people long after nuclear fission becomes obsolete. I know, let's ban tsunamis!

[citizen of industry]

if Japan had no nukes the private energy industry would be able to get away with even more shit because their corner-cutting wouldn't obviously and immediately result in casualtiesThis - you are pointing out the severity of a nuclear disaster compared to other disasters. Which is the very reason why it must not be in private hands.


What has pacifism got to do with communism? More to the point, a pacifism imposed on the Japanese by imperialists?It's not pacifism. It's opposition to the right-wing wanting to revise the constitution so they can join in imperialist wars abroad, direct funds from social services into military spending, and produce nuclear weapons. It's about getting the US military out of Japan so they cannot use the country as a base to project military power into Asia.


Parasitic politics. I thought taking advantage of human tragedies for political gain was the province of the right-wing turds?Not when the human tragedies are the result of imperialism, fascism or capitalist mismanagement. The most revolutionary period in Japan's history was immediately post-war. Human tragedies are what spark revolutionary movements.


Tsunamis are more deadly than nuclear power plants. They have killed more people and will continue to kill people long after nuclear fission becomes obsolete. I know, let's ban tsunamis!We cannot control tsunamis. We create and run nuclear power plants. We can choose not to build them on the coast in one of the most earthquake prone areas in the world, vulnerable to tsunami. And we can shut them down and use alternatives. We aren't slaves to nuclear power. Nuclear fission only supplies about 16% of the world's energy. We don't have to replace them with fossil fuels. And we can be more efficient and less wasteful with the energy we do produce.

By your own admission, solar energy is capable of providing 1338 megatonnes of energy to a country that only uses 88 megatonnes. And that is just one type of energy. We need to diversify, not substitute nuclear power for everything.

[CommunityBeliever]

Earlier I said I admit my bias. Because you weren't there. I will never be an advocate of nuclear power after Fukushima. Never. And 100,000 people marching through Tokyo demanding change. That's impressive. For once there weren't enough police to box everyone in.

I agree with you that you are biased. You shouldn't evaluate something entirely based upon individual personal experiences. For example, if you personally experienced the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill you would probably strongly oppose oil as well. You could probably find similar events with basically every source of energy in significant use today, so why are you particularily targeting nuclear fission?


We cannot control tsunamis. We create and run nuclear power plants. We can choose not to build them on the coast in one of the most earthquake prone areas in the world, vulnerable to tsunami. And we can shut them down and use alternatives. We aren't slaves to nuclear power. Nuclear fission only supplies about 16% of the world's energy. We don't have to replace them with fossil fuels. And we can be more efficient and less wasteful with the energy we do produce.

France already gets 78.8% of its electric power from nuclear fission, and it hasn't had any incidents comparable to Fukushima. Yes, we should be more careful when building around the Pacific Ring of Fire, which is prone to earthquakes, but besides that point, nuclear fission is generally pretty safe and clean, so I see no reason why we should "replace" it.

We should acquire new energy sources, including solar-power, but we don't need to "replace" our existing nuclear fission plants. After all, we eventually need to vastly increase our energy use to become a Kardashev-1 civilisation.

[citizen of industry]

I agree with you that you are biased. You shouldn't evaluate something entirely based upon individual personal experiences. For example, if you personally experienced the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill you would probably strongly oppose oil as well. You could probably find similar events with basically every source of energy in significant use today, so why are you particularily targeting nuclear fission?



France already gets 78.8% of its electric power from nuclear fission, more then Japan, and it hasn't had any incidents comparable to

Why should we replace them with alternatives, when we can build much better plants in safer areas? Which isn't to imply that they aren't already incredibly safe, after all look at France which gets 78.8% of its electric power from nuclear fission without comparable incidents

But it is a bias which convinced me in the necessity of creating safe and sustainable energy sources, of diversifying energy, sharing energy and being more efficient and responsible with the energy we produce. And I stand by those convictions.

Here's a blurb from France, 3 days old:
Accident at nuclear plant southern France near Avignon&the city of Nimes,50 miles north west of Marseilles&100miles NW of Cannes, westerly wind at this time of year will likely be taking any pollution into the mainland. Nuclear monitoring groups in the region report test levels of radiation 10 times above normal.

Which isn't so harmful unless there is continuous exposure, but it shows that France isn't the mecca of safe nuclear energy. I spoke to a French activist on Monday who related a near accident due to a storm. Apparently, the only thing that prevented an accident was low-tide, instead of high-tide. He also said 78% is the official number, but that the percentage is actually higher. France also makes a lot of $$ exporting that technology.

I'm not "for oil," I'm for shutting down nuclear plants and phasing out fossil fuels, and bringing production in line with consumption.

[Zav]

Er, how? :confused:



Zero-waste reactors are not necessary, just a nice bonus. We're not running out of uranium any time soon (especially if waste is reprocessed), and even if we do there is about three times as much thorium, another nuclear fuel, to be found.



Compared to most industries it is.



Isn't rooftop installation of solar panels the very kind of thing that anti-nuclear types advocate? They're all about "energy independence" and "decentralisation" and other ideologically-derived rot.



It is a fact, not an opinion. Fun activities cost energy. The more energy one has available, the greater one's choice of potential activities. It is very hard to enjoy the manifold fruits of the industrial age if one has access to barely enough energy to make one's bathwater tepid.



Nice, you have access to two acres. I, like the majority of the urban-dwelling human population, have absolutely no access to any land whatsoever.



And the teeming masses who have higher aspirations than tilling soil? What of them?



It also requires less physical labour, can produce more than enough food (cf. wine lakes and butter mountains), and is more designed towards providing millions and billions of people with food than permaculture.



And don't assume that a solution that works for you is one that anybody else wants or needs.



And you were handwaving.



That's why solar energy is a multi-billion dollar industry with the ear of the US government - oh wait no, that's fossil fuels, with their massive EROEI despite recent rises in the price of oil.

Fossil fuels did not gain their prominence because the CEOs of oil companies are evil sorcerors with the ability to charm their victims - they gained that prominence because the relatively easy availability of oil put them in the best position to do so.

Without the kind of energy concentrations that nuclear provides, we'll be back in the situation we were before the latter half of the 18th century, where industrial power was provided by windmills and watermills. Except that we'll have more people to look after.



Fast food is "real food", it just happens to be loaded with fat, sugar and salt. A reduction in our capacity to produce food means a reduction in healthy as well as less-healthy foods. In fact, it seems likely that producing enough food to give everyone a healthy diet would require more land than otherwise - land that, under your scheme, would be covered in solar panels. Or wind farms.



The fly in your ointment is population density. Also, if solar power is so great, why are my bills increasing even though the housing association has installed solar panels on the roof?

Energy independence my arse!



And the mass transit will be powered by moonbeams.
I was trolling you a bit, but you didn't bite. I'm well aware that reactors only emit water-vapour.

All non-renewable, which means you will run out eventually.

Most power-producing industries, yes. Most industries, no.

Yes, perhaps. Explain to me how an Anarcho-Communist favours centralisation and dependence on producers. I smell closet bourgeois.

No shit. Breathing also costs energy. It is your opinion that the more power one has access too, the more fun one has. You implied that you need copious amounts of electricity to have any fun at all, and tied that to your justification of nuclear power.
I had to disconnect one of my three solar water heaters because they made the water too hot.

There is enough space for you to not live in the modern idea of a city. Even with cities, I could feed you. :p

Honestly, that's insulting. I probably have higher aspirations than you. Plus, that shows an ignorance of permaculture, which requires no tilling after the garden is started.

The greatest amount of work involved in permaculture is the planning. After a permaculture garden is started, it pretty much takes care of itself, unlike commercial farms, which require research of chemicals, development of chemicals, distribution of chemicals, spraying of chemicals, the designing and building of farm equipment, maintenance of farm equipment, and the processing of the harvested food. That is SO much less work then walking fifty feet from the house and picking an apple off the tree and the occasional tool-sharpening. Sure, commercial farming provides millions and billions for people.

My solutions are not what people want largely because few people know about proper energy-independence and fewer know anything about permaculture. They are what people need because people want power, want food, want to work as little as possible, and dislike being wage-slaves.

No, I was offering Revolution as an alternative solution to the solutions I had mentioned.

Yeah, that would be called the effects of Capitalism. You know that oil lobbyists have put through legislation restricting the development of renewable energy, yes? Fossil fuels were popular because they were easy to get at, yes, and so?

The larger solar farms would be placed in non-arable land, obviously. There's nothing wrong with windmills and water wheels. Wind and streams provide energy that require relatively little work to direct, hence they were developed before oil refineries. I prefer a hand mill for my flour. It's much easier and far more efficient than industrial flour mills.

It's food if you consider food to be any digestible substance with at least a tiny bit of nutritional value. It requires about the same land, if not a little less, but that's only if you count the physical space the food uses. Once you add the amount of space and energy needed to make Monsanto corn into food and ship it a thousand kilometres or more, there's a huge difference.

Populations move around, and self-reliance is attractive, so no, population density isn't a problem. One, you live in an apartment and are being exploited. Two, a couple panels won't power a city apartment complex, and are probably there to look good on paper. Three, the economy in the U.S. sucks. Four, those panels are probably feeding the grid for pocket change instead of giving you electricity.

The same was attitude was had about the Internet way back in the 80s. Now our toasters can be Wi-Fi enabled. And you, being overly optimistic about the advance of technology, are suddenly pessimistic about it. Is that because it will put nukes out of business? You shouldn't have pet ideas, you know.

[CommunityBeliever]

But it is a bias which convinced me in the necessity of creating safe and sustainable energy sources, of diversifying energy, sharing energy and being more efficient and responsible with the energy we produce. And I stand by those convictions. In your previous you posts you exhibited an irrational anti-nuclear predilection that extended beyond achieving the goals of safety, sustianability, and efficiency. For example you stated "I will never be an advocate of nuclear power" based upon the Fukushima accident. This implies that you oppose not only contemporary nuclear fission reactors, but also *neglected* thorium-based nuclear reactors like the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR).

D3rL08J7fDA

Which isn't so harmful unless there is continuous exposure, but it shows that France isn't the mecca of safe nuclear energy. So what if you can find some minor "accidents"? That doesn't make nuclear fission inherently unsafe, and as already mentioned non-nuclear sources of energy can be just as dangerous if not more so.


I'm for shutting down nuclear plants Why? I think that we shouldn't just maintain current energy output, and even *increase* it using nuclear energy (eventually fusion), solar power, ocean thermal energy conversion, wind energy, tidal, etc so that we can become a Kardashev-1 civilisation.

In the process we must eliminate the the social constraints on the development of our technological productive forces. The greatest constraint of that sort is capitalism, and other primitivist, anti-technology, and anti-nuclear elements are included.

[Zav]

No it is not due to physics, if you blow up a asteroid you have the same mass with the same momentum minus what ever pathetic force used to break it up (even a 50 megaton nuclear bomb is pathetic compared to the kinetic energy of larger asteroids. Thus instead of one steroid hitting earth there would be a whole clump of them hitting Earth as objects in motion want to remain in motion.

Redirecting it is a possibility yet the problem is you'd have to start redirecting it before it entered our solar system meaning you'd need long range space craft (we are not that threatened by asteroids in our solar system their orbit is mostly stable, the threat is asteroids passing through our solar system).

Also why wouldn't we want humanity to industrialize the rest of our solar system and beyond?
Smaller objects burn up in the atmosphere. Now for the very large mass extinction-type asteroids, you have a point. Redirection would be costly, but I'm sure people will want to pay for it.

By the time we have the capability to do that, I doubt we will be humans any longer, but regardless of that, I fear humans and/or their descendants will become parasitic rather than living in cooperation with other organisms. There is no point in industrialisation if it is not solely for the survival of existing populations except profit, a motive which will, with any luck, not exist then. I am not against humans spreading around the universe. I am against colonialism and the mass destruction of life for the sake of 'progress', and think we should solve our internal problems on this beautiful planet before we move on to grander things. An artificial moon dedicated to growing food is a lot better for humanity than a Death Star.

[CommunityBeliever]

Actually, thorium based nuclear-fission reactors (like LFTR) were partially suppressed by the capitalist military because you can't make weapons with thorium. This is just another example of capitalist technical failure.

[citizen of industry]

Why? I think that we shouldn't just maintain current energy output, and even *increase* it using nuclear energy (eventually fusion), solar power, ocean thermal energy conversion, wind energy, tidal, etc so that we can become a Kardashev-1 civilisation.

In the process we must eliminate the the social constraints on the development of our technological productive forces. The greatest constraint of that sort is capitalism, and other primitivist, anti-technology, and anti-nuclear elements are included.

We need to unleash the productive forces of society, sure. But why do we need more? There are plenty of productive forces already. Our society is wasteful and inefficient with it's energy, and technology is used for profit, not to meet human needs. Automation is a great thing, for example. Except in a capitalist society it means workers are put out of jobs. In a socialist society it means we can labor less.

There are plenty of enjoyments, but we don't have the time or money to enjoy them because of wage slavery. That is capitalism. Why do you feel we need to create some hyped-up technological society that is always creating more needs?

[CommunityBeliever]

There are plenty of enjoyments, but we don't have the time or money to enjoy them because of wage slavery. That is capitalism. Why do you feel we need to create some hyped-up technological society that is always creating more needs?

I agree that we should get rid of capitalism which also happened to neglect cleaner/safer thorium-based nuclear fission reactors after WW2 because you can't weaponize thorium. However, I do not share your general "anti-nuclear" stance. You seam to oppose the technology itself.

[Psy]

Smaller objects burn up in the atmosphere. Now for the very large mass extinction-type asteroids, you have a point. Redirection would be costly, but I'm sure people will want to pay for it.

You need the technology first.



By the time we have the capability to do that, I doubt we will be humans any longer, but regardless of that, I fear humans and/or their descendants will become parasitic rather than living in cooperation with other organisms. There is no point in industrialisation if it is not solely for the survival of existing populations except profit, a motive which will, with any luck, not exist then. I am not against humans spreading around the universe. I am against colonialism and the mass destruction of life for the sake of 'progress', and think we should solve our internal problems on this beautiful planet before we move on to grander things. An artificial moon dedicated to growing food is a lot better for humanity than a Death Star.

Yet even to build efficient space colonies in our own solar system requires advanced nuclear technology.

[citizen of industry]

I agree that we should get rid of capitalism which also happened to neglect cleaner/safer thorium-based nuclear fission reactors after WW2 because you can't weaponize thorium. However, I do not share your general "anti-nuclear" stance. You seam to oppose the technology itself.

I don't trust nuclear fission in the hands of capitalism, period. In a capitalist society I will oppose the technology. My experience vindicates that. Even in a socialist society, given the possibility, however remote, of a nuclear disaster, I don't think we should be using this technology in our communities until we can first solve the waste issue and and ensure the complete safety of the technology. I think alternative energies are sadly neglected and "unleashing the productive forces of society" allows us to develop them more. I'll hypothetically support the development of nuclear power in a future socialist society where it isn't a for-profit industry, provided the former conditions are met, and if society deems it necessary or desirable, which may very well not be the case.

[CommunityBeliever]

I don't trust nuclear fission in the hands of capitalism, period. In a capitalist society I will oppose the technology. My experience vindicates that. Even in a socialist society, given the possibility, however remote, of a nuclear disaster, I don't think we should be using this technology in our communities until we can first solve the waste issue and and ensure the complete safety of the technology. I think alternative energies are sadly neglected and "unleashing the productive forces of society" allows us to develop them more. I'll hypothetically support the development of nuclear power in a future socialist society where it isn't a for-profit industry, provided the former conditions are met, and if society deems it necessary or desirable, which may very well not be the case.

Not to mention uranium mining (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Health_risks_of_uranium_mining) which leads to environmental damage and considerable health risks for the uranium miners, many of whom die of lung cancer or other complications. This should problem should also be solved before we continue using uranium-fission.

One alternative is thorium-fission, which is far safer, easier to acquire, and much cleaner then uranium-fission. Unfortunately, this technology and other alternative energy technologies, are being neglected under capitalism, as you already mentioned.

You can't trust capitalists to handle your safety. Period. Just look at their epic failure at securing automobile transportation. The government had to step in and ensure capitalists used seat belts and other basic safety features.