Nuclear power poll #4

[Sentinel]

Time to restart this. I know that the old thread hasn't got 500 replies, but the OP and some of the votes are really old (2008). These polls usually run like 2 years, this one has already for 4 and a lot of people's positions change in that kind of time.

Especially when it coincides with a new age of revolutions and counter revolutions! Anyway, time to see what the current membership thinks about this important issue.

I think a lot of opinions might have changed lately, due to changing circumstances. With the Fukushima disaster, the crisis of capitalism deepening and the new left wave and lots of new activists entering the scene, etc.

All these things might be making people reconsider their positions and give a poll result totally different. It will be interesting to see what people think.

Feel free to vote! Also feel free to quote and continue any interrupted, still ongoing discussions - stuff posted at least this year - in the last thread (that would be Poll 3).

Old polls:

Poll 1 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nuclear-power-t26967/index.html)
Poll 2 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nuclear-power-against-t54002/index.html)
Poll 3 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nuclear-poweri-poll-t71075/index.html)

The last poll, in which totally 529 members voted, ended in favour of the use of nuclear power, with 38.37% (203 voters) supporting it's increased use, 30.81% (163 votters) it's limited use, 23.82% (126 voters) opposing it totally and demanding it's abolition and 6.99% (37 voters) voted 'uncertain'.

[hetz]

Support 100%, I want cheap and clean energy. That isn't dependent on weather conditions.

[The Jay]

The waste that it produces is minimal for the benefits. We may even find a way to get rid of the waste so that we don't have to worry about it.

[Psy]

Limited support, nuclear power as it exists now can't really can't be expanded to do more especially since radioactive material is limited. Yet nuclear research needs to continue as the short falls of nuclear power is due to our current limited nuclear technology level.

[l'Enfermé]

http://i.imgur.com/2fCbg.jpg

[Comrade J]

It would have to be very limited. One can see where nuclear power would be useful in certain hostile political situations, like having a cold war situation, I'm saying in defense against others with nukes. Now, It would be nice if we had no nukes altogether but so many feuding countries currently do. I'd like to one day see that done away with.

Nuclear weaponry is a different discussion altogether, and is very much a different process. This discussion is for nuclear power to provide electricity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Carbon emissions almost completely limited to the construction phase of the plant, fuel that could last for centuries even if we don't bother to reprocess the waste (although doing so would be a really good idea), and relatively low volumes of that waste per unit of energy extracted?

Count me in. Even under capitalism major accidents in nuclear energy can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Compare that with this list of oil spills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills).


Nuclear weaponry is a different discussion altogether, and is very much a different process. This discussion is for nuclear power to provide electricity.

Well, if proliferation is a concern, then there's always Thorium as illustrated by l'Enferme's image link.

Personally, I reckon that the best energy solution would use a combination of nuclear fission and renewables. When it comes to energy production, diversity equals security.

[Rakshaal]

Well they're also experimenting with nuclear fusion which would produce considerably less waste and alot more energy per mass. So that may be a good way to go if it becomes a viable option.

[Yazman]

I said "cautiously, limited support" because I don't support nuclear fission, but I do support more advanced forms of nuclear power that are still experimental, like nuclear fusion in its various forms.

[MarxSchmarx]

I've "evolved" on this issue from being generally sympathetic to being totally opposed. I guess Fukushima was a big part of it, but more generally I realized that nuclear power, as the technology currently exists and is likely to be for the next century or two, is only possible even under capitalism with enormous government subsidies and resources which seem better directed towards other new technologies like biofuel algae or geothermal energy.

It might be, as Yazman notes, that a fusion powered super space shuttle or something might one day be possible. But I suspect that by the time we are able to get fusion to work, we'd have figured out alternative energy sources to self sustain. Indeed, the stagnation that has beset nuclear engineering is typical of that of a rather mature energy, and there is little reason to believe that there will be leaps and bounds innovation anytime soon without astronomical investment.

In short, I think the merits of nuclear energy have been pragmatic ones, arguing that we had few technologies that were preferable. But the sheer speed with which solar and wind has improved, and the very real prospect of alternative synthetic fuels within the next several decades, has made me less impressed with nuclear technology as a serious alternative.

[hetz]

But the sheer speed with which solar and wind has improved, and the very real prospect of alternative synthetic fuels within the next several decades
And what would these be?

[MarxSchmarx]

And what would these be?

Apart from biofuels there's methanol and synthetic hydrocarbonates. There are also carbon neutral fuels that are non-nuclear in nature that have begun commerical production:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutral_fuel

[Timthemarxist]

Nuclear power is good for the short term, it is cleaner and safer than coal or oil. However, it may not be good for everyone. Japan for example is very geologically volatile, and as we saw with Fukushima, the idea of nuclear power here might not be a good idea.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Apart from biofuels there's methanol and synthetic hydrocarbonates. There are also carbon neutral fuels that are non-nuclear in nature that have begun commerical production:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutral_fuel

Biofuels are a "carbon neutral fuel", yet they have problems in that they displace food crops, therefore driving up food prices. France do a pretty good job with their nuclear energy industry. The problem is the implementation, not the energy source.

Which is a problem for me because energy policy in the UK is under the control of an aristocratically alienated bunch of greedy short-sighted idiots.

[MarxSchmarx]

Biofuels are a "carbon neutral fuel", yet they have problems in that they displace food crops, therefore driving up food prices. France do a pretty good job with their nuclear energy industry. The problem is the implementation, not the energy source.


Well, if you want to talk about the problem being with the implementation, biofuels are a perfect example (and the associated problems are a lot more benign than nuclear power's problems).

Biofuels based on traditional food crops as a source of the problem are a convenient scapegoat.

http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/biofuel-energy-investing/703

but the claim that they raise food prices has somewhat lackluster evidence. This has been disputed by agronomists, econometricians, and even people working on biofuels that are not utilizing food or feed crops e.g., those working on synthetic energy from algae who are trying to displace traditional biofuels and would have a vested interest in repeating this myth (the last one is based on personal communication with a scientist in the field so I don't know any internet links). To the extent that it is remotely credible, it is only applicable to corn/maize based ethanol which has been a notorious technological failure. Even somewhat more crop related uses like sugar based ethanol that are much more effective for instance doesn't really suffer this problem because we have advanced beet sugar technologies that work quite well as sugar cane substitutes.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, if you want to talk about the problem being with the implementation, biofuels are a perfect example (and the associated problems are a lot more benign than nuclear power's problems).

Compared to the relatively minor problems (http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-s-doses-tallied-1.10686) of Fukushima, I'd say rising food prices as a consequence of growing biofuels instead of food results in far more misery.


Biofuels based on traditional food crops as a source of the problem are a convenient scapegoat.

http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/biofuel-energy-investing/703

but the claim that they raise food prices has somewhat lackluster evidence. This has been disputed by agronomists, econometricians, and even people working on biofuels that are not utilizing food or feed crops e.g., those working on synthetic energy from algae who are trying to displace traditional biofuels and would have a vested interest in repeating this myth (the last one is based on personal communication with a scientist in the field so I don't know any internet links). To the extent that it is remotely credible, it is only applicable to corn/maize based ethanol which has been a notorious technological failure. Even somewhat more crop related uses like sugar based ethanol that are much more effective for instance doesn't really suffer this problem because we have advanced beet sugar technologies that work quite well as sugar cane substitutes.

You're still going to need energy to synthesise carbon neutral fuels - and where is this energy going to come from?

[hetz]

but the claim that they raise food prices has somewhat lackluster evidence.Yeah well it's about turning corn into ethanol.
It's obviously "eating up" a lot of food, 10+% of total corn crops in America IIRC.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

You guys are crazy! What if the reactor explodes!?

We will have another chernobyl, or what happened in Japan!
You say it is clean, but it is only clean until it explodes and gives us all thyroid conditions!
Not to mention that it sounds very impractical to use nuclear reactions, which create lethal levels of radiation, create waste, and cause an unstopable chain reaction, just to make a fucking turbine turn!

As I mentioned before, you guys are insane. My country does not have any nuclear reactors, besides an experimental one that does not do anything, and I do not want a nuclear reactor here. It is already enough that Spain has one!

Nuclear power is just stupid! Why create a chain reaction that will last for millions of years, which produces gama radition, and can explode and unleash all that radiation on everything around it!?

I would rather have wind power. It is an amazing sight to see the south of Portugal filled with those "windmills".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You guys are crazy! What if the reactor explodes!?

Reactors can be designed not to do that.


We will have another chernobyl, or what happened in Japan!
You say it is clean, but it is only clean until it explodes and gives us all thyroid conditions!

Did you check that link to nature.com that I provided in my last post in this thread? Fukushima's health impact has been minimal.

I'd say one or two major accidents over several decades is a pretty damn good safety record.


Not to mention that it sounds very impractical to use nuclear reactions, which create lethal levels of radiation, create waste, and cause an unstopable chain reaction, just to make a fucking turbine turn!

It may sound impractical, but you can actually get far more energy out of a kilogram of uranium/thorium/plutonium than can be got out of a kilogram of coal.


As I mentioned before, you guys are insane. My country does not have any nuclear reactors, besides an experimental one that does not do anything, and I do not want a nuclear reactor here. It is already enough that Spain has one!

Calling something insane does not make it so. Have you compared the number of deaths per terawatt-hour for each energy generation method? You might be surprised at the results of such an analysis.


Nuclear power is just stupid! Why create a chain reaction that will last for millions of years, which produces gama radition, and can explode and unleash all that radiation on everything around it!?

Because:

A) the lifetime of nuclear waste can be reduced via reprocessing, which also serves to wring out more energy from nuclear fuel. This deals with the "millions of years" issue you mention.

B) Gamma radiation is dangerous, but we also know how to shield it.

C) Reactors can be designed to completely contain their fuels in the event of a criticality accident.


I would rather have wind power. It is an amazing sight to see the south of Portugal filled with those "windmills".

If we're going with personal preferences, I'd rather have nuclear power. It's amazing to be able to have electricity when the wind isn't blowing.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I fully support nuclear power.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

I voted cautiously support, because I strongly support the use of Pebble Bed reactors. Because they have a negative temperature coefficient (meaning more heat dissipates from the reactor than is generated), it is impossible for the reactor to melt down.

[Yazman]

I don't think nuclear fusion is as far off as you think it is. Given organisations in the US like General Fusion and Los Alamos are making huge strides in magnetised target fusion and in the case of General Fusion, plan to have a demonstration up and running in the next few years, and then you consider the National Ignition Facility which has also made huge leaps and bounds and plans to have its own early systems up and running not too far in the future, and then ITER within the next few decades.

I firmly believe nuclear fusion will be achieved, commercially, within this century, if not within 30-50 years.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Reactors can be designed not to do that.

Until nature says otherwise.


Did you check that link to nature.com that I provided in my last post in this thread? Fukushima's health impact has been minimal.

I hope the health impact has been minimal, if not the whole pacific ocean is radioactive.


I'd say one or two major accidents over several decades is a pretty damn good safety record.

How many people have solar panels killed, given cancer, thyroid conditions, or birth defects?


It may sound impractical, but you can actually get far more energy out of a kilogram of uranium/thorium/plutonium than can be got out of a kilogram of coal.

I know, but I am not telling you coal is the best.


A) the lifetime of nuclear waste can be reduced via reprocessing, which also serves to wring out more energy from nuclear fuel. This deals with the "millions of years" issue you mention.


Once you have started the reactions you can't stop them, only shield them.


B) Gamma radiation is dangerous, but we also know how to shield it.

C) Reactors can be designed to completely contain their fuels in the event of a criticality accident.

What if, in a war, the enemy decides to bomb your nuclear power facility?


If we're going with personal preferences, I'd rather have nuclear power. It's amazing to be able to have electricity when the wind isn't blowing.

You have obviously never been to the south of portugal... The wind is constant and very strong there.

[MarxSchmarx]

Compared to the relatively minor problems (http://www.nature.com/news/fukushima-s-doses-tallied-1.10686) of Fukushima, I'd say rising food prices as a consequence of growing biofuels instead of food results in far more misery.


With all due respect, I think the fact that you are referring to the problems of Fukushima as "relatively minor" betrays an unwillingness to look at or take seriously the alternative perspective. It's also worth noting that the article just claims the effects on cancer incidence are hard to detect, which is only one facet of the entire ordeal. There was enormous investment by an incredibly wealthy country to prevent anything worse from happening (which may explain why the health risks are manageable), one of the (if not the) most technologically advanced societies on earth came to a standstill, and it took months to stabilize the situation. And that's just one plant. If one adds in the costs that were associated with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and much less famous cases, it's no longer obvious the technology is a tremendous bargain. To trivialize these costs associated with even a single event that happened on one day in a pretty remote rural area - is, well, I suppose one's prerogative.

And even the capitalist bean counters are starting to agree. Arguably no new plants will be insurable (and thus built) in North America because of this without tremendous state intervention from people that agree with you, and it has strengthened the resolve in places like Germany to extricate itself from nuclear power.

But ultimately, it's not productive to quibble on what the "true cost" of any given disaster was. The bigger issue is how nuclear power fares relative to alternative technologies.

I'd be curious to see your statistics on how the health effects of food price rises caused specifically by biofuels have been, and how these are heavier costs than those associated with Fukushima, Chernobyl, etc...

But that's still sidelining what I see as the main issue about biofuels: biofuels need not rely on consumable commodities like maize or wheat or even sugar.

It also neglects the broader issue that biofuels need not be the silver bullet - geothermal energy, hydro, tide and yes, improved solar and wind capabilities are all active areas of research. No one of these has to solve all our problems. I don't think the case against nuclear power rises or falls depending on the long-term large scale potential of any one of these technologies. Although I'm pretty confident that the case against any of them sofar is quite premature.



You're still going to need energy to synthesise carbon neutral fuels - and where is this energy going to come from?

It only takes a generation or so of initial investment - this is true of any new technology and the time frame for bringing these technologies to market is rapidly shrinking. Even if we used less clean technology like hydro or natural gas for the very first generation, it's not clear nuclear technology needs to e be a part of that. Realistically it probably will, because you can't transition out of nuclear overnight so in places like France the initial investment will rely on nuclear- but this doesn't mean we should keep nuclear around indefinitely.

[hetz]

Fukushima is in Japan.
Most of the earth isn't that prone to earthquakes, tsunamis and so on. Or that densely populated.

Also Noxion is perfectly right.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Fukushima is in Japan.
Most of the earth isn't that prone to earthquakes, tsunamis and so on. Or that densely populated.

Also Noxion is perfectly right.


Have you forgotten that radiation spreads through air and water for killometers and kilometers?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Until nature says otherwise.

Nature is not some entity with agency that seeks to frustrate our designs, so I'm not sure what your trying to say here.


I hope the health impact has been minimal, if not the whole pacific ocean is radioactive.

It's already radioactive. It does occur in nature, you know. Ever heard of radon gas?


How many people have solar panels killed, given cancer, thyroid conditions, or birth defects?

Not as many as Green propaganda would have lead you to believe:

http://qupload.com/images/deathtwh.jpg

The above chart comes from data in this report (http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp%7E1.pdf) (PDF link). As you can see nuclear compares favourably with other sources in terms of death per terawatt hour.

As for Chernobyl, this World Health Organisation study in 2005 (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html) indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous. There have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents."


I know, but I am not telling you coal is the best.

Got any other good ideas for basleoad power sources that aren't dependent on specific meteorological and geographical conditions?


Once you have started the reactions you can't stop them, only shield them.

Nonsense. You can stop the reactions by removing the fuel, or by adding reactor poison.


What if, in a war, the enemy decides to bomb your nuclear power facility?

Won't cause nearly as much trouble as if they decide to bomb the hydroelectric dams. Or the chemical factories.


You have obviously never been to the south of portugal... The wind is constant and very strong there.

Good for you. What about the rest of the world?


With all due respect, I think the fact that you are referring to the problems of Fukushima as "relatively minor" betrays an unwillingness to look at or take seriously the alternative perspective. It's also worth noting that the article just claims the effects on cancer incidence are hard to detect, which is only one facet of the entire ordeal.

You know, it is possible to unambiguously link the incidence of things like cancer to specific activities or phenomena - it's been done in the case of cancer and smoking. So I don't buy your argument.


There was enormous investment by an incredibly wealthy country to prevent anything worse from happening (which may explain why the health risks are manageable), one of the (if not the) most technologically advanced societies on earth came to a standstill, and it took months to stabilize the situation. And that's just one plant. If one adds in the costs that were associated with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and much less famous cases, it's no longer obvious the technology is a tremendous bargain.

How are you calculating these costs?


To trivialize these costs associated with even a single event that happened on one day in a pretty remote rural area - is, well, I suppose one's prerogative.

What are you blathering on about? If you want to talk about "perspective", maybe you should consider that a word to remember if one day the Three Gorges Dam breaks and hundreds of thousands of people die.


And even the capitalist bean counters are starting to agree. Arguably no new plants will be insurable (and thus built) in North America because of this without tremendous state intervention from people that agree with you, and it has strengthened the resolve in places like Germany to extricate itself from nuclear power.

Something the Germans will come to regret, as their alternative to nuclear seems to be becomign dependent on Russian oil and gas. Idiots. That the US nuclear industry has been fucked around with doesn't surprise me, I imagine the fossil fuel companies are loving the fact that nuclear reprocessing has stopped in the US, making nuclear look less economical.


But ultimately, it's not productive to quibble on what the "true cost" of any given disaster was. The bigger issue is how nuclear power fares relative to alternative technologies.

I'd be curious to see your statistics on how the health effects of food price rises caused specifically by biofuels have been, and how these are heavier costs than those associated with Fukushima, Chernobyl, etc...

Well, check the links above for some like-for-like comparison.


But that's still sidelining what I see as the main issue about biofuels: biofuels need not rely on consumable commodities like maize or wheat or even sugar.

I think it's a better idea to stop producing the CO2 in the first place rather than going to the enormous effort and expense of building the infrastructure necessary to catch and collect all of our carbon-containing industrial fart-gases.


It also neglects the broader issue that biofuels need not be the silver bullet - geothermal energy, hydro, tide and yes, improved solar and wind capabilities are all active areas of research. No one of these has to solve all our problems. I don't think the case against nuclear power rises or falls depending on the long-term large scale potential of any one of these technologies. Although I'm pretty confident that the case against any of them sofar is quite premature.

However, I do think the case against them being suitable as base load power sources is long settled.


It only takes a generation or so of initial investment - this is true of any new technology and the time frame for bringing these technologies to market is rapidly shrinking. Even if we used less clean technology like hydro or natural gas for the very first generation, it's not clear nuclear technology needs to e be a part of that. Realistically it probably will, because you can't transition out of nuclear overnight so in places like France the initial investment will rely on nuclear- but this doesn't mean we should keep nuclear around indefinitely.

Establishing a proper fissionables-based energy economy would also take "a generation or so of initial investment", so I'm not sure why should limit ourselves to renewables.


Have you forgotten that radiation spreads through air and water for killometers and kilometers?

What are you talking about? The parts per billion of radioactive isotopes that can be detected by highly sensitive modern methods, thus providing perfect panic-fodder for hyperventilating anti-nuclear activists?

[Grenzer]

We will have another chernobyl, or what happened in Japan!

Hopefully you're aware that those are both extreme anomalies. Chernobyl was due to human stupidity of an epic scale(Ok, one might argue that this is not an extreme anomaly), and Japan is just the most tectonically unstable place on Earth.

[l'Enfermé]

Comrade NoXion's arguments are far too convincing to be ignored.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Nature is not some entity with agency that seeks to frustrate our designs, so I'm not sure what your trying to say here.

It does not have a will of its own, but it puts to test any structure of Man.


It's already radioactive. It does occur in nature, you know. Ever heard of radon gas?

I have also heard that radon is dangerous.


Not as many as Green propaganda would have lead you to believe:

The above chart comes from data in this report (http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp%7E1.pdf) (PDF link). As you can see nuclear compares favourably with other sources in terms of death per terawatt hour.

The thing is a nuclear reactor produces much more energy than the others. I wonder why solar power isn't there, I think it has potential, especialy in places where it does not rain much. In Portugal we have lots of "windmills" that produce electricity in the south, and in the Alentejo it almost never rains, and the sun here is very powerfull. If you are going to use nuclear power, disregarding its problems, just because you do not want to be limited by geography or weather conditions, you are not thinking well.


As for Chernobyl, this World Health Organisation study in 2005 (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html) indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous. There have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents."

My mother developed a thyroid condition, specificaly goiter, in about the same time as when the chernobyl disaster happened.


Got any other good ideas for basleoad power sources that aren't dependent on specific meteorological and geographical conditions?

So you don't want to use solar because you cannot be bothered to get bateries?


Nonsense. You can stop the reactions by removing the fuel, or by adding reactor poison.

You can? You mean if you want you can go to a nuclear reactor and stop the reactions, just like that?


Won't cause nearly as much trouble as if they decide to bomb the hydroelectric dams. Or the chemical factories.

Yeah, those hydroelectric dams do like to cause trouble. What happens if your nuclear reactor is bombed?


Good for you. What about the rest of the world?

The same condition applies to all countries of southern Europe, they all have much sun, no rain on summer, and hilly terrain. In case you do not know the hills and mountains make the wind stronger.


What are you talking about? The parts per billion of radioactive isotopes that can be detected by highly sensitive modern methods, thus providing perfect panic-fodder for hyperventilating anti-nuclear activists?


And how do you stop the advance of radiation?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It does not have a will of its own, but it puts to test any structure of Man.

Then we might as well not bother building any kind of bridge at all, since they have been known to fall down and they cost energy and resources to maintain. Can you see how your kind of argument could apply to pretty much anything?


I have also heard that radon is dangerous.

It is radioactive, and yet people manage to live in high-radon areas without coming out in tumours.


The thing is a nuclear reactor produces much more energy than the others. I wonder why solar power isn't there, I think it has potential, especialy in places where it does not rain much. In Portugal we have lots of "windmills" that produce electricity in the south, and in the Alentejo it almost never rains, and the sun here is very powerfull. If you are going to use nuclear power, disregarding its problems, just because you do not want to be limited by geography or weather conditions, you are not thinking well.

You're the one who's not thinking well, wanting to reject nuclear power on the basis of danger, after having been shown evidence that the fatalities caused on a per-terawatt basis are way better than fossil fuels and on par with renewables.


My mother developed a thyroid condition, specificaly goiter, in about the same time as when the chernobyl disaster happened.

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.


So you don't want to use solar because you cannot be bothered to get bateries?

Batteries only store energy that has already been generated.


You can? You mean if you want you can go to a nuclear reactor and stop the reactions, just like that?

Yes. It's called a Neutron poison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison).


Yeah, those hydroelectric dams do like to cause trouble. What happens if your nuclear reactor is bombed?

What happens if any industrial facility gets bombed? That says nothing about how safe nuclear power is in normal operation, which is what it'll be in 99% of the time.


The same condition applies to all countries of southern Europe, they all have much sun, no rain on summer, and hilly terrain. In case you do not know the hills and mountains make the wind stronger.

You miss the point, which is that it is self-defeating to limit one's options based on geography.


And how do you stop the advance of radiation?

What advance of radiation?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Then we might as well not bother building any kind of bridge at all, since they have been known to fall down and they cost energy and resources to maintain. Can you see how your kind of argument could apply to pretty much anything?

My argument just expresses the need to build our structures in a way that they can stand the test of nature.


It is radioactive, and yet people manage to live in high-radon areas without coming out in tumours.

That is because radon is in the ground. If you stand in a basement you will be more exposed to radon than if you are in a top floor of a house.


You're the one who's not thinking well, wanting to reject nuclear power on the basis of danger, after having been shown evidence that the fatalities caused on a per-terawatt basis are way better than fossil fuels and on par with renewables.

You said there were only 50 people that died as a direct result of the explosion of the chernobyl reactor, yet Pripyat had a population of 50000, so there is no way only 50 died. Not to mention the amount of people who got cancer, became sterile, got genetic anomalies, got cancer conditions, because of the radiation.


Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

There is more than one example, and all are from more or less the time when the chernobyl reactor exploded.


Batteries only store energy that has already been generated.

2 words: Solar Panels.


Yes. It's called a Neutron poison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison).

You can stop the reactions with this?


What happens if any industrial facility gets bombed? That says nothing about how safe nuclear power is in normal operation, which is what it'll be in 99% of the time.

You would cause disease to thousands upon thousands of people just to have energy?


You miss the point, which is that it is self-defeating to limit one's options based on geography.

It is also self-defeating to build new, actualy clean, forms of producing energy, just because of a fucking mountain, or the fucking weather!


What advance of radiation?

Perhaps you were not aware of this, but Earth is a closed system. This means all the radiation we produce here will stay here with us. Why do you think there are so many people with cancer, thyroid conditions, and poorly functioning production of sperm? They have detonated many atomic weapons on Earth, it is a wonder any people can survive in southern USA, where they tested all those nuclear weapons. The radiation makes the land unusable, makes people get cancer, makes people sterile...
Why would you risk so much for so little gain?

Furthermore, you can use actualy clean forms of producing energy, which have no imediate, nor long term, adverse efects, like solar power, or "windmills". Why would you forsake these perfectly good forms of energy production, which have never harmed anyone, for a form of producing energy we all know is dangerous and has bad short term, and long term effects?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My argument just expresses the need to build our structures in a way that they can stand the test of nature.

For how long? Because two major accidents in nearly 60 years are statistics most industries would kill for.


That is because radon is in the ground. If you stand in a basement you will be more exposed to radon than if you are in a top floor of a house.

People are still exposed to it, because people spend most of their lives close to the ground.


You said there were only 50 people that died as a direct result of the explosion of the chernobyl reactor, yet Pripyat had a population of 50000, so there is no way only 50 died.

Do you know what the word "evacuation" means?


Not to mention the amount of people who got cancer, became sterile, got genetic anomalies, got cancer conditions, because of the radiation.

Incredulity on your part isn't good enough. You need to provide conclusive evidence that such abnormalities are due to Chernobyl.


There is more than one example, and all are from more or less the time when the chernobyl reactor exploded.

So? All sorts of things can cause cancer and thyroid problems such as goitre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goitre). In order to make a case against nuclear, you need to rule out other causes.


2 words: Solar Panels.

Three words: Inverse square law. Since only so much solar energy falls on a given square metre of ground every day, if we want twice as much energy from solar panels we will have to build twice as many solar panels over twice as much land. Whereas nuclear power plants can have multiple reactors on the same site.


You can stop the reactions with this?

If you knew anything about nuclear physics (which considering your comments on radiation, I don't think you do), then you wouldn't be asking that question.


You would cause disease to thousands upon thousands of people just to have energy?

Industrial society is a messy business, but people dying for lack of energy is even messier. If there's a war, perhaps the problem lies with the side bombing power stations and not the side building them, hey?


It is also self-defeating to build new, actualy clean, forms of producing energy, just because of a fucking mountain, or the fucking weather!

You still don't seem to understand that some parts of the world don't have any "fucking mountains" and/or the "fucking weather" is not being conducive to constant energy generation.


Perhaps you were not aware of this, but Earth is a closed system. This means all the radiation we produce here will stay here with us.

Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. The Earth is an open system, absorbing and emitting radiation to and from space and the other objects within it.


Why do you think there are so many people with cancer, thyroid conditions, and poorly functioning production of sperm?

Yet despite this there are 7 billion people and counting, and they all need a reliable source of energy and not petit-bourgeouis green bullshit.


They have detonated many atomic weapons on Earth, it is a wonder any people can survive in southern USA, where they tested all those nuclear weapons.

Isn't it just. In fact, since there are still plenty of people living without excessive tumours in Nevada today, doesn't that rather suggest the threat is overblown on your part?


The radiation makes the land unusable, makes people get cancer, makes people sterile...
Why would you risk so much for so little gain?

Because I'm interested in building power plants, not additional nuclear weapons testing sites. There is a difference.


Furthermore, you can use actualy clean forms of producing energy, which have no imediate, nor long term, adverse efects, like solar power, or "windmills". Why would you forsake these perfectly good forms of energy production, which have never harmed anyone, for a form of producing energy we all know is dangerous and has bad short term, and long term effects?

Because they're not good enough. Intermittency and energy black spots are not what a global society consisting of billions is made of.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

For how long? Because two major accidents in nearly 60 years are statistics most industries would kill for.

How many major accidents have there been with solar panels?


People are still exposed to it, because people spend most of their lives close to the ground.

Radon is naturaly occuring, which means either we have become resistant to it, or it never occured in enough amounts to cause harm.


Do you know what the word "evacuation" means?

They managed to evactuate 50 000 people THAT fast?


Incredulity on your part isn't good enough. You need to provide conclusive evidence that such abnormalities are due to Chernobyl.

If you are asking for some graph with numbers of people who got cancer or thyroid conditions in relation to the years, you know I cannot get one of those.


So? All sorts of things can cause cancer and thyroid problems such as goitre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goitre). In order to make a case against nuclear, you need to rule out other causes.

Why were there so many cases of thyroid conditions in that period? You can say it is just coincidence, but then why did my mother develop a thyroid condition at age 22?


Three words: Inverse square law. Since only so much solar energy falls on a given square metre of ground every day, if we want twice as much energy from solar panels we will have to build twice as many solar panels over twice as much land. Whereas nuclear power plants can have multiple reactors on the same site.

I know nuclear power plants are big, but not as big as the gigantic fields of solar panels. The thing is, to build a nuclear power plant you need a free, flat space, and with solar panels you can put one anywhere. You can put solar panels on the roofs of buildings, you can't do that with nuclear reactors, this, I think, balaces things out.


If you knew anything about nuclear physics (which considering your comments on radiation, I don't think you do), then you wouldn't be asking that question.

I know basic stuff, but I did not read on how that neutron poison works.


Industrial society is a messy business, but people dying for lack of energy is even messier. If there's a war, perhaps the problem lies with the side bombing power stations and not the side building them, hey?

And after the side who just bombed you nuclear power plant into nothing realises you are now facing power shortages they will take advantage of the situation and attack. If you have solar panels everywhere you don't have the same problem.


You still don't seem to understand that some parts of the world don't have any "fucking mountains" and/or the "fucking weather" is not being conducive to constant energy generation.

Which places? The artic cirle?


Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. The Earth is an open system, absorbing and emitting radiation to and from space and the other objects within it.

If it were open I could easily get out of Earth. Energy does come in and out, but matter stays in. Not to mentio that there is not that much matter comming in and out of Earth.


Yet despite this there are 7 billion people and counting, and they all need a reliable source of energy

1 solar panel is enough for 1 house.


and not petit-bourgeouis green bullshit.

I knew it! You just want to use nuclear power because the USSR did it! You consider that nuclear power is the energy of the people and you beleive that it should be used, instead of solar panels.


Isn't it just. In fact, since there are still plenty of people living without excessive tumours in Nevada today, doesn't that rather suggest the threat is overblown on your part?

It does, but you can consider the lack of inteligence of the people of those areas as a factor, then you would have all the evidence needed:D


Because they're not good enough. Intermittency and energy black spots are not what a global society consisting of billions is made of.

Maybe if you weren't so worried with people that live in the artic circle you would see we do not need nuclear power.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How many major accidents have there been with solar panels?

None so far as I know, but I'm sure the safety of solar panels will come as a great comfort to the people wanting to keep warm in colder latitudes. Where the sun is scarcely seen for 6 months of the year.


Radon is naturaly occuring, which means either we have become resistant to it, or it never occured in enough amounts to cause harm.

Nonsense. This is simply the naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy) restated.


They managed to evactuate 50 000 people THAT fast?

You think they all died?


If you are asking for some graph with numbers of people who got cancer or thyroid conditions in relation to the years, you know I cannot get one of those.

I'm pretty sure the information is publicly available.


Why were there so many cases of thyroid conditions in that period? You can say it is just coincidence, but then why did my mother develop a thyroid condition at age 22?

Were there "so many thyroid conditions"? I've only got your say-so and frankly I don't trust it.


I know nuclear power plants are big, but not as big as the gigantic fields of solar panels. The thing is, to build a nuclear power plant you need a free, flat space, and with solar panels you can put one anywhere. You can put solar panels on the roofs of buildings, you can't do that with nuclear reactors, this, I think, balaces things out.

Nuclear reactors can operate in total darkness. Which is handy if doesn't shine much, in which situations solar panels are useless.


I know basic stuff, but I did not read on how that neutron poison works.

Why not? If you're going to argue against something, shouldn't be learning everything you can?


And after the side who just bombed you nuclear power plant into nothing realises you are now facing power shortages they will take advantage of the situation and attack. If you have solar panels everywhere you don't have the same problem.

What's to stop them attacking the really obvious solar panelling? Would you argue against building a dam because somewhere down the line in some hypothetical war it could be targeted?


Which places? The artic cirle?

Not just there. As a further example, solar panels in the UK take an awful long time to recoup costs because of our rotten levels of sunshine.


If it were open I could easily get out of Earth. Energy does come in and out, but matter stays in. Not to mentio that there is not that much matter comming in and out of Earth.

Radiation is a form of energy.


1 solar panel is enough for 1 house.

How big is the solar panel? What's the consumption of the house?


I knew it! You just want to use nuclear power because the USSR did it! You consider that nuclear power is the energy of the people and you beleive that it should be used, instead of solar panels.

No, I think nuclear fission should be used alongside solar panels.


It does, but you can consider the lack of inteligence of the people of those areas as a factor, then you would have all the evidence needed:D

Whatever one's personal assessment of the mental quality and conditions of the inhabitants of Nevada, the fact remains that mental retardation is not a consequence of radiation exposure, so their stupidity has to have another explanation.


Maybe if you weren't so worried with people that live in the artic circle you would see we do not need nuclear power.

Listen to yourself. Do people have less worth in your eyes because they live in areas that aren't great for renewable energy?

[MarxSchmarx]

With all due respect, I think the fact that you are referring to the problems of Fukushima as "relatively minor" betrays an unwillingness to look at or take seriously the alternative perspective. It's also worth noting that the article just claims the effects on cancer incidence are hard to detect, which is only one facet of the entire ordeal. You know, it is possible to unambiguously link the incidence of things like cancer to specific activities or phenomena - it's been done in the case of cancer and smoking. So I don't buy your argument.


Just because it's possible doesn't mean it always means that if there's a signal, we'll detect it, much less quantify its magnitude.



There was enormous investment by an incredibly wealthy country to prevent anything worse from happening (which may explain why the health risks are manageable), one of the (if not the) most technologically advanced societies on earth came to a standstill, and it took months to stabilize the situation. And that's just one plant. If one adds in the costs that were associated with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and much less famous cases, it's no longer obvious the technology is a tremendous bargain. How are you calculating these costs?


There are economic costs, there are costs to disruptions of supply chains, there are costs associated with containment and cleanup, I'm not an economist so I don't know what the total bill is, although I've read it's in the hundreds of billions in terms of that last item alone. Money that could have been spent investing in alternative fuels.




To trivialize these costs associated with even a single event that happened on one day in a pretty remote rural area - is, well, I suppose one's prerogative. What are you blathering on about? If you want to talk about "perspective", maybe you should consider that a word to remember if one day the Three Gorges Dam breaks and hundreds of thousands of people die.

Actually that strange article from over a decade ago you linked to in the post from some polish government site claims hydro-induced deaths are also quite rare, so it's a curious example you choose to use. But, as the authors themselves claim: "It is clear that there are substantial uncertainties in the ExternE calculations of health and environmental damage effects." so maybe you have enough of a fudge factor to work with about the horrors of hydro.

But economic costs and costs to human lives can't be put on the same measuring scale. Nor can factors like Pripyat being unlivable be compared readily to something like the extirpation of the Yangtze river dolphin. I'm all for measurements, but there are limits to comparative assessments.



And even the capitalist bean counters are starting to agree. Arguably no new plants will be insurable (and thus built) in North America because of this without tremendous state intervention from people that agree with you, and it has strengthened the resolve in places like Germany to extricate itself from nuclear power. Something the Germans will come to regret, as their alternative to nuclear seems to be becomign dependent on Russian oil and gas. Idiots. That the US nuclear industry has been fucked around with doesn't surprise me, I imagine the fossil fuel companies are loving the fact that nuclear reprocessing has stopped in the US, making nuclear look less economical.


That's the kind of enemy-of-my-enemy is my friend mentality that doesn't advance the discussion at all.



But ultimately, it's not productive to quibble on what the "true cost" of any given disaster was. The bigger issue is how nuclear power fares relative to alternative technologies.

I'd be curious to see your statistics on how the health effects of food price rises caused specifically by biofuels have been, and how these are heavier costs than those associated with Fukushima, Chernobyl, etc... Well, check the links above for some like-for-like comparison.


I checked your links, but if all the scholarship on this seems to be largely one measly report delivered at some conference in 2001 that says that there is "substantial uncertainty" in their measurements and is by somebody who lists their street address as their corresponding address and a co-author from some Swedish entity (Energiforum AB) I can't find anything about on google , well, it's not very indicative of a strong scientific consensus. By contrast, even a popular press article like these:
http://www.economist.com/node/21549098
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/business/energy-environment/after-fukushima-does-nuclear-power-have-a-future.html?_r=0
address nuclear's place in the broader scheme in a much more realistic setting. Is this because decision makers care more about money and are happy to kill as many people to avoid the costs of implementing a nuclear future?




But that's still sidelining what I see as the main issue about biofuels: biofuels need not rely on consumable commodities like maize or wheat or even sugar.
I think it's a better idea to stop producing the CO2 in the first place rather than going to the enormous effort and expense of building the infrastructure necessary to catch and collect all of our carbon-containing industrial fart-gases.
Brazilian sugarcane and the algae sequester C02, so it's not clear to me why you still see them as producing CO2.





It also neglects the broader issue that biofuels need not be the silver bullet - geothermal energy, hydro, tide and yes, improved solar and wind capabilities are all active areas of research. No one of these has to solve all our problems. I don't think the case against nuclear power rises or falls depending on the long-term large scale potential of any one of these technologies. Although I'm pretty confident that the case against any of them sofar is quite premature. However, I do think the case against them being suitable as base load power sources is long settled.

Hardly.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/why-baseload-power-is-doomed/445
to quote from the article:

As the MIT report notes, the hardware to provide better grid information already exists, but few operators have employed it in their control and dispatch operations. The obstacle is not technology, but “the industry’s culture of resistance to new and experimental projects.” That’s not a problem for China, however. The MIT report mentions that China is piloting a program that will allow it to monitor the national grid in real-time and control it automatically. The system eventually could allow China’s grid to uptake a far greater percentage of renewably-generated power than the antiquated and obsolete U.S. grid can, although the former is still the world’s top consumer of coal for power generation.
A more indepth analysis is provided here:
http://www.energyscience.org.au/BP16%20BaseLoad.pdf





It only takes a generation or so of initial investment - this is true of any new technology and the time frame for bringing these technologies to market is rapidly shrinking. Even if we used less clean technology like hydro or natural gas for the very first generation, it's not clear nuclear technology needs to e be a part of that. Realistically it probably will, because you can't transition out of nuclear overnight so in places like France the initial investment will rely on nuclear- but this doesn't mean we should keep nuclear around indefinitely.
Establishing a proper fissionables-based energy economy would also take "a generation or so of initial investment", so I'm not sure why should limit ourselves to renewables.


I'm not a nuclear engineer so I have no idea if what you say is true (although my understanding is that designs have, with small modifications, largely remained constant for the last 4 decades despite enormous investments). But I don't see long term issues like what to do with the waste byproducts going away in nearly the same time frame as it would take to develop algal biofuels for instance.

[hetz]

But economic costs and costs to human lives can't be put on the same measuring scale. Nor can factors like Pripyat being unlivable be compared readily to something like the extirpation of the Yangtze river dolphin.The Chinese Three Gorges Dam displaced more than 1,3 million people ( compared to some 200 thousand displaced because of Chernobyl ) and it also turned large swathes of land unlivable.


Brazilian sugarcaneI'd prefer my cane used for sugar, and my coal/oil/whatever used for something else.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

None so far as I know, but I'm sure the safety of solar panels will come as a great comfort to the people wanting to keep warm in colder latitudes. Where the sun is scarcely seen for 6 months of the year.

It is what I am saying: artic circle.
The thing is, just because solar panels don't work in the artic circle it does not mean we should build nuclear reactors there. After all there are few people who live in the artic circle, so we are not going to need huge ammounts of energy there.


Nonsense. This is simply the naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy) restated.

You know I want to live in a world not poluted, but I also like the idea of transhumanism.


You think they all died?

Obviously not, but more people would have died from that.


I'm pretty sure the information is publicly available.

I am prety sure nobody made such a study.


Nuclear reactors can operate in total darkness. Which is handy if doesn't shine much, in which situations solar panels are useless.

Then we have to find a solution that does not involve a potentialy explosive reactor.


Why not? If you're going to argue against something, shouldn't be learning everything you can?

I was expecting you would explain how it works.


What's to stop them attacking the really obvious solar panelling? Would you argue against building a dam because somewhere down the line in some hypothetical war it could be targeted?

I don't like dams, they destroy ecosystems! The giant solar panel fields are vurnerable, but they are still more spread out than a nuclear reactor, and if they get bombed we would get a power outage, but if a nuclear reactor were to be bombarded we would have both a power outage and cancer.


Not just there. As a further example, solar panels in the UK take an awful long time to recoup costs because of our rotten levels of sunshine.

So what are the options for renewable energy for the UK?


Radiation is a form of energy.

I know enough physics to know this...
I also know we have an atmosphere that holds the heat and radiation in.


How big is the solar panel? What's the consumption of the house?

I had a website that explained this, but I can't find it now. I know a solar panel for a house with 4 people with a big energy consumption would take 20 000€ in solar panel. Also you can aparently sell excess energy for profit.


No, I think nuclear fission should be used alongside solar panels.
I think we should not take chances with something that can have consequences for the environment. We need to find alternatives that do not have negative effects on the environment.


Whatever one's personal assessment of the mental quality and conditions of the inhabitants of Nevada, the fact remains that mental retardation is not a consequence of radiation exposure, so their stupidity has to have another explanation.

I know, I was just joking.


Listen to yourself. Do people have less worth in your eyes because they live in areas that aren't great for renewable energy?

Alternatives must be found for them.

[Spurcatu]

Nuclear Power is not all bad. There are two types of nuclear energy. The first and most used is through Nuclear Fission, where the nucleus of an atom splits and transforms into a different element while releasing neutrons and photons and a large amount of energy. That process can be triggered by bombarding the nucleus with fissile neutrons which sustain a chain reaction. This whole process is very dangerous as it has to be contained with great measures as all elements needed are radioactive without being subjected to fission. Most commonly used are Uranium235 and Plutonium.
On the other hand there is Nuclear Fusion which is a totally opposite phenomenon.
In nuclear fusion two or more nuclei fuse together (instead of crushing each other) and form a single nucleus. While this process takes place a new element is formed which does not need the amount of neutrons that it would have by summing up all the mass so it releases a neutron and a great amount of energy. Again by contrast fusion needs elements with a small atomic mass (Hidrogen, Helium) which are not radioactive and once those elements would be exposed outside any of those processes they would be inert. But to achieve that, there must be a great amount of energy needed in order to make those elements fuse, so the input might be bigger than the output. Because of lack of technological investment into fusion and not being "profitable", fusion is not used. But under a non-capitalist system fusion might be achieved with a greater output than input which would have 100% release of energy, radiation free.
hydrogen can be used with its isotopes to create hydrogen bombs. But the trigger for that process is again done by radioactive elements. Uranium is needed to trigger the fusion.
There is also the Neutron Bomb or "capitalist bomb". The neutron bomb is made to kill people and leave properties untouched. The neutron bomb relies on radiation and not explosion.

[John Lennin]

I oppose the 'traditional' nuclear power plants. I'm living close to one and to be honest:
I don't trust this *****!
Having tons of nuclear material in your Neighbourhood is not very pleasant.

[DoCt SPARTAN]

Killing the environment to the point of our extinction! If you have no earth then all these problems and ideas we leftists discus on this site. Shall seize to exist!

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Killing the environment to the point of our extinction! If you have no earth then all these problems and ideas we leftists discus on this site. Shall seize to exist!

Because of Nuclear Energy? :rolleyes:

[Orange Juche]

If you can use solar on a mass scale, I don't see any reason why nuclear would be an option. Beyond the waste it produces, it's dangerous. Say - hypothetically - power grids get knocked out in an entire region (which can happen, if we had solar flares like in 1859 for example) - the plant itself has to then run on backup generators. It can only do so for so long (probably like a week), after which nothing is being cooled anymore, the heat rises, and the plant finally explodes.

Essentially, it's a nuclear bomb that doesn't explode because it's being kept cool. With solar as an alternative, I just don't understand why it's even bothered with.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, it's a funny thing to talk about nuclear power without talking about, y'know, uranium mining. You know, that tremendously destructive thing that, in 2/3 of the world's main uranium producing countries (Canada and Australia), is happening disproportionately on unceded indigenous land?
Like, suppose a socialist future - most likely indigenous peoples' will continue to resist destructive extraction on their traditional territories. Will "socialists" uphold colonial relationships 'cos, "Damn, we need that uranium for our 'clean' energy!"?
Fuck that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What about Thorium?

[LOLseph Stalin]

I have very mixed feelings on nuclear power tbh. I heard that when being used it's actually very clean energy. However, it does produce a lot of waste that obviously sticks around for a long time. Of course you have things like Chernobyl and the Japanese Tsunami disaster too that can interfere. Fortunately incidents like that are rare though.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What about cold fusion?
… and pie in the sky when I die?

[ed miliband]

the way i see it, if you take a pro-nuclear power position in the here-and-now you are concerning yourself with the management of capital, and i don't believe it's the job of communists to do so. of course, proving their fidelity to the gods of "progress" and technology is an priority to some leftists.

so, nuclear power? no thanks.

[Vanguard1917]

the way i see it, if you take a pro-nuclear power position in the here-and-now you are concerning yourself with the management of capital, and i don't believe it's the job of communists to do so.

Interesting approach. Would you extend it to all other sectors of production, too? Are we only concerning ourselves with 'the management of capitalism' when we say that we are pro-electricity?

[Orange Juche]

Of course you have things like Chernobyl and the Japanese Tsunami disaster too that can interfere. Fortunately incidents like that are rare though.

Rare, but they occur, and are tragic enough that I'd say even the rare occurrence isn't worth it.

[black magick hustla]

Interesting approach. Would you extend it to all other sectors of production, too? Are we only concerning ourselves with 'the management of capitalism' when we say that we are pro-electricity?

i think his point is that the politics of "pro vs anti" nuclear power are completely on the bourgeois terrain. anyway that's how i see it, really. i mean, in theory i'm pro "nuclear power" cuz' i like science and stuff but i wouldn't lobby for it today or anything like that.

[Dropdead]

I support nuclear power cautiosly and limitedly.

[Creative Destruction]

Biofuels are a "carbon neutral fuel", yet they have problems in that they displace food crops, therefore driving up food prices. France do a pretty good job with their nuclear energy industry. The problem is the implementation, not the energy source.

Which is a problem for me because energy policy in the UK is under the control of an aristocratically alienated bunch of greedy short-sighted idiots.

I'm not sure if this has been addressed in the thread so far, but: the only biofuel that may displace food crops is corn, but that would only be because farmers chose to start harvesting feed corn instead of edible corn, like sweet corn. The stuff that is turned into ethanol is mostly used for feed. What it can do is raise prices for meat -- beef, specifically -- but other corn-based foodstuffs, it wouldn't affect people much unless we relied on dent corn for things like corn tortillas. So I should revise further: in the United States it isn't an issue, but turning corn into biofuels has been a huge issue in places like Mexico, where foodstuffs don't necessarily rely on sweet corn. Tortillas are made from dent corn.

The bigger issue with using corn for fuel is the massive amount of crops it would take to replace gasoline and diesel as an energy source. Food prices would rise simply because feed would rise in prices. And areas might need to be deforested to make way for more corn fields. Just leading to more degradation of the land with fertilizers, etc. The issues we have with monoculture agriculture these days would definitely be magnified if we just relied on corn.

However, there is some interesting things going on with sources like algae, which can be grown just about any place. If hemp were ever legalized for cultivation, then it would also have a promising future as a fuel. So, biofuels aren't completely out of the question. We just need to shift our perspective toward that way and not get carried away with ethanol.


If you can use solar on a mass scale, I don't see any reason why nuclear would be an option. Beyond the waste it produces, it's dangerous. Say - hypothetically - power grids get knocked out in an entire region (which can happen, if we had solar flares like in 1859 for example) - the plant itself has to then run on backup generators. It can only do so for so long (probably like a week), after which nothing is being cooled anymore, the heat rises, and the plant finally explodes.

Essentially, it's a nuclear bomb that doesn't explode because it's being kept cool. With solar as an alternative, I just don't understand why it's even bothered with.

Solar can be used on a mass scale to an extent. With the technology we have right now, though, it can't replace the fuel sources we have right now. It would likely need to be complimented with something else, like increased wind, and increase in hydroplants.

Right now with nuclear, there are a lot of exciting things going on but it's essentially dead because there's no funding for it. France is looking for ways to dispose or reuse the waste. I cautiously support nuclear. I think it would be a good stop gap on the road toward a more renewable, appropriate future for our energy needs. A policy which needs to take into account reducing our energy use overall.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

… and pie in the sky when I die?

How in the fuck is thorium-based fission "pie in the sky"?


the way i see it, if you take a pro-nuclear power position in the here-and-now you are concerning yourself with the management of capital, and i don't believe it's the job of communists to do so. of course, proving their fidelity to the gods of "progress" and technology is an priority to some leftists.

so, nuclear power? no thanks.

Taking any position vis-a-vis energy generation in the here-and-now is "concerning [oneself] with the management of capital", because the here-and-now is where one actually lives.

So if you oppose nuclear power, you're just as "guilty", only you take an opposite tack.

[Loony Le Fist]

Thorium is certainly not pie in the sky. Several countries are already actively developing it for commercial use. It has the benefits of not producing as much waste, and being much safer in the event of a meltdown by design. The supercritical materials end up encased underground. The other benefit is that there is no need for a source of water nearby unlike light water reactors (LWR). The concept was developed in the 1960's, but was turned down by the US government since it would not produce desired fissile material for weapons use. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory built a functioning one years ago. It operated from 1965-1969. You can check it out if you search Wikipedia for "Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment".

[Sinister Intents]

I am totally opposed to nuclear power regardless of thorium being less disasterous, or if meltdowns and other associated disasters are rare.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I support self-sustaining energy options such as the green alternatives, Tesla power, etc. Nuclear energy is somewhat sketch but I think if done correctly it's pretty alright.

[the debater]

I may be missing the mark here, but perhaps we could entertain the possibility of combining nuclear fusion and renewable energy, by using mini-nuclear reactors to power the devices that acquire electricity from sunlight and water and such. I'm pretty sure advanced alien civilizations use nuclear fusion reactors to power their spaceships, whereas they get their energy from their stars. I read it somewhere on the internet.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I support a global network of renewable energy sources. Energy can be transported from one area to another and grid technology is improving. It seems to deal with a lot of the shortcomings of renewable energy if solar power from the Sahara could be used to power houses in Norway.

Noxion - saying Fukushima didn't have bad consequences because few people if any died misses one important point - thousands of people lost their homes, or won't be able to move back for quite some time. Chernobyl is still emptied of people nearly thirty years on.

Then, as others have said, there's the issue of uranium mining, which has caused huge harm to the communities which it is mined from.

Perhaps there could be a dialogue on thorium power and its costs/benefits but I think more research should be done. It might be a good way for India to produce power as there is a great deal of it there, but again, like with all early science, it seems premature to say that the process of extraction, refinement and use won't bring dangers.

[TriPac Dude]

I am an ex-nuclear engineering student and reactor operator, and I can say I definately support it all the way. Yes Chernobyl happened in my country, and it made a big mess but only about 32 people died as a direct result of it. Wildlife in the exclusion zone is doing great, plants thrive, and a few people still live in the zone, even in Chernobyl town itself. If you want to ask the particulars of what went wrong that night, and design faults with the reactor that led directly to the explosion, just ask. I have talked to ex-operators at the plant, people who currently work there, or experts on the subject. Also I can tell you how to solve the radwaste issues with a very simple solution that will also extend our amount of useable fissionable materials almost indefinately. I love talking about this stuff, so if you're interested, just ask!

[RedStar98]

I've always been against nuclear power myself. Not simply because I believe the dangers and environmental risks aren't worth it, but because there are just safer/better alternatives. Nuclear power is expensive to set up, manage and maintain, as well as the disposal of waste (which is a huge problem in itself, especially since not a huge amount is known about the long term storage of nuclear waste). Whether the risks are real or not, many people are still afraid of the risks of nuclear energy and naturally no one wants a huge power station in their area. Sustainable energy is a very realistic alternative since the technology does exist and it would be possible to implement with enough funding, especially as there is no dangerous waste or risk of massive nuclear disaster... To put it simply, I don't think there is any real need for nuclear power and the disadvantages of it outweigh the advantages. That's just my opinion.

[blake 3:17]

Wow! I'm really shocked by the pro-nuke vote now & in the past! Yikes -- I'm against

[TriPac Dude]

Disposal of nuclear waste is pretty easy, actually. A lot of fission products can be "burned" ie, transmuted into things that decay much faster. As for transuranic elements, those can be eliminated in a breeder reactor. Plus breeders can recycle fuel from light water reactors, extending useable fuel for about another 60 to 70 passes through the breeder/light water reactor cycle. People just need to learn more about this amazing technology and maybe they'd be more willing to promote nuclear power

[Ritzy Cat]

100% if the energy is not being hoarded by capitalists of course.

nuclear fusion video (http://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wilson_yup_i_built_a_nuclear_fusion_reactor .html)

And possibly, when the US finally releases its nuclear fusion technology it has probably had for 200 years, there will be huge amounts of energy, even the capitalists won't be able to use it all!

[vijaya]

I live 3 miles from a major UK nuclear site (no longer a power-plant, but soon to have a new reactor installed). People forget that it's one of the most energy-intensive, oil-consuming energy industries to operate. It does generate massive amounts of renewable energy, but at other exhaustive, not to mention potentially devastating, costs.

The site I live near basically just sells nuclear materials to Japan, but had to have one of it's on-site plants close because Japan haulted the import of nuclear material after Fukushima. The county where I live also experience a small earthquake back in 2010, earthquakes (albeit small ones) and nuclear power station don't mix well. We've had frequent visits from Norwegian and Irish protesters, because the waste use to travel up and down the Irish Sea, respectively, and effect Norwegian and Irish waters. The high lukemia rates of 1970s Dublin was apparently based on said nuclear site.

To cut a long story short, there's a reason the Germans have abandoned it in favour of green renewable.

[CommissarNgugu]

Nuclear fusion could be used to power the world soon. The moon has plenty of Helium-3 and deuterium can be extracted from desalination of Earth's oceans. It is safer, cleaner and produces more energy without the lasting nuclear fallout. The downsides that will arise are the facts that it is expensive and a difficult feat to supplement enough He-3 to power our cities and factories and is critical on who controls the supply.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

Whether I agree with it or not, I do support it every time we pay our electric bill. There are several nuclear plants in Ohio and a fraction of our electricity comes from it. I personally have mixed feelings about it. It does not produce CO2, which is the biggest draw. OTOH, there is the possibility of a serious disaster like Fukashima, Chernobyl, and, to a lesser degree, 3 Mile Island. In principle, those risks can be minimized by strict safety oversight and plant designs with redundant safety features. As a practical matter, however, the capitalist nature of utilities in this country anyway means that the nuclear industry controls the regulatory process.

If only there were a sustained fusion reaction somewhere that was far enough away to be safe for us, but still covered the world with free energy. So much for fantasy. :blink:

[exeexe]

I find it disturbing that only 25 % of the members of a radical leftwing forum is against nuclear power.
UHORHE7YcbM

[Loony Le Fist]

I find it disturbing that only 25 % of the members of a radical leftwing forum is against nuclear power.

It depends on what you mean by nuclear. If you are talking about light water reactors (LWR), then I am opposed. If you are talking about Thorium molten salt reactors (TMSR) or fusion then I'm very much in favor (esp. fusion).

There's more than one kind of nuclear.

[exeexe]

It depends on what you mean by nuclear. If you are talking about light water reactors (LWR), then I am opposed. If you are talking about Thorium molten salt reactors (TMSR) or fusion then I'm very much in favor (esp. fusion).

There's more than one kind of nuclear.
Well consider this scenarie..

A Group of people vote for nuclear power. The result is handed to a group of politicians and now they can see by peoples opinions that they have a green light and can use nuclear power. An economic analysis showed that LWR was the cheapest solution. So now they build a LWR nuclear power plant.

My point is the vote is about nuclear power , so it covers everything there is in the term nuclear power.

[exeexe]

So around 10.000 years ago humans began farming which allowed there to be cities. People lived happily for thousand of years without electricity. Then at around 1800 Alessandro Volta invented the battery and the story of electricty takes off.

So why is it that people are so thirsty of gambling with other peoples lives not only now but also long into the future with unsafe nuclear power, when we could easily manage ourselves for around 8200 years without electricity? And add to that we can easily cover our demand for electricity with 100% safe power from other sources.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Well consider this scenarie..

A Group of people vote for nuclear power. The result is handed to a group of politicians and now they can see by peoples opinions that they have a green light and can use nuclear power. An economic analysis showed that LWR was the cheapest solution. So now they build a LWR nuclear power plant.

My point is the vote is about nuclear power , so it covers everything there is in the term nuclear power.


LWR isn't cheaper though. Or better in any way whatsoever except in being a relatively mature technology. I think I mentioned this a while ago, but we use such reactors because they can be used to produce the isotopes of uranium and plutonium used in nuclear weapons. If you recall when most nuclear plants were built, it was at a time when many governments were totally in to having the latest nuclear bombs.

Alternate forms of nuclear power generation were squashed - the more immediately realisable Thorium Molten Salt type (it produces less of the dangerous isotopes you need to really kill people) even though thorium is more abundant and safer, and the longer-term project of nuclear fusion power. Essentially, we got power generation almost as an after-thought :/

I'm also a strong advocate for renewables and changing our energy infrastructure ant the way we use energy in general, but there are some things that will require really huge amounts of reliable energy, possibly in a relatively compact space (space exploration and possibly more comprehensive deep sea exploration spring to mind immediately) where some form of nuclear generation is really the best option.

[Loony Le Fist]

A Group of people vote for nuclear power. The result is handed to a group of politicians and now they can see by peoples opinions that they have a green light and can use nuclear power. An economic analysis showed that LWR was the cheapest solution. So now they build a LWR nuclear power plant.

Well you don't really vote for nuclear power. You vote for a piece of legislation that would allow or disallow certain things. Depending on the phrasing and intent of that piece of legislation I might be for or against it. There is nothing that limits a piece of legislation from specifying what kind of nuclear plants are to be built. Unless that is layed out, I would be against it. That doesn't mean I am against nuclear power in principle.



My point is the vote is about nuclear power , so it covers everything there is in the term nuclear power.

I guess what I'm saying is that the term nuclear power is rather broad. There are unsafe types of nuclear power generation, and there are those that are more safe. I'm against LWRs but for TMSR and fusion because they happen to be safer. A meltdown in a TMSR reactor would be contained without the need of safety mechanisms. It is built into the design.

This issue isn't about a blanket yes or no on nuclear power in general. It's really about trying to discover what are safe ways of using it. There are safe designs. The problem is that the defense industry (in the US) forced the hand of the nuclear power industry to use LWR because the waste was weaponizable. We know that TMSR is better. Oak Ridge (US national laboratory) figured that out in the mid-1960s and had a functioning reactor going until 1969 when it was shut down.

TMSRs produce a mere fraction of the waste, are much safer in meltdowns, their waste is very difficult to weaponize, and do not require a nearby source of water. This reduces the environmental hazard of storing nuclear waste, and eliminates the threat of raising the water temperature of nearby bodies of water, as is posed by LWRs.

[KobeB]

I hereby support Nuclear energy as something benefactory for the future of humankind but I am aware that Nuclear weapons should be used only in need and not to experiment and destroy eco-habitats.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think we should use more crematorium energy. People die all the time. It's genius.