Nuclear Power? Poll #3

[Sentinel]

This is the third 'official' RevLeft nuclear power poll. See poll #1 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nuclear-power-t26967/index.html) (2004-2006 ) and poll # 2 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nuclear-power-against-t54002/index.html) (2006-2008) for previous discussions on the subject. Vote for the option you feel most accurately describes your position on the usage of nuclear energy -- and please continue any interrupted discussions from the previous threads here.

The last poll ended 129-64 (66.84%-33.16%) in favor of the pro-nuclear sentiment. 193 members voted.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Where's the poll?

[Psy]

The problem is large scale nuclear reactors are costly and carry risk, also nuclear power at a large scale means the problem of producing fuel rods at a larger scale and dealing with more waste.

[apathy maybe]

Not advisable or recommended in the present political and economic climate.

However, might be a plausible option in a future post-capitalist system.

See also Thorium for another option which might be preferable to uranium as an initial fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle#Thorium_cycle

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Now that the poll is added, I say go for it. Despite Greenpeace propaganda, nuclear power is clean, safe and efficient. I'm no NIMBY - I'd much rather live next to a nuclear plant than a fossil fuel plant.

[Kropotesta]

Now that the poll is added, I say go for it. Despite Greenpeace propaganda, nuclear power is clean, safe and efficient. I'm no NIMBY - I'd much rather live next to a nuclear plant than a fossil fuel plant.
so what do we do with the waste that is clean?

[Nakidana]

http://scruss.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/solukfar.gif

Renewable energy is the way to go. (Until we reach fusion power :D)

[Psy]

so what do we do with the waste that is clean?
On small scales the waste is actually very small, the problem is in large scale use. Meaning in a limited role nuclear power is not that bad.

[Kropotesta]

On small scales the waste is actually very small, the problem is in large scale use. Meaning in a limited role nuclear power is not that bad.
so? that don't answer the question. nuclear is extremely hazardous and there is no way of 'cleanly' disposing of it.
nuclear is stupid.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

so what do we do with the waste that is clean?

We reprocess it, and the relatively small (compared to the amount of smoke and ash produced by coal burning plants) amount of unusable waste left over from that is stored in a watertight facility located in a geologically quiescent area. It's not difficult.


so? that don't answer the question. nuclear is extremely hazardous and there is no way of 'cleanly' disposing of it.

Yes there is. Engineers will most likely find even better ways of safely storing nuclear waste, if only Greenpeace and their sheep like you would let them.


nuclear is stupid.

Nuclear is the answer if we want a low-pollution, low-carbon energy source capable of working at night, in calm weather, and in the middle of contintental crusts away from coasts.


Renewable energy is the way to go. (Until we reach fusion power :D)

Enjoy your rolling blackouts. :rolleyes:

As for me, I enjoy having an abundance of energy and believe that such an abundance is necessary in order to raise everyone's quality of life. It's simply physics - less energy does less work, and less work means less goods produced and less infrastructure built. Less goods + infrastructure = lower quality of life.

[Kropotesta]

you really are a fool.
"sheep" na mate. you falling for the governments quick scheme is sheepish.
no that does not get rid of the waste or stop it being radioactive. do your own research. placing it in a certain area also has no regard for the future either. what did they say earlier? put it in the polar ice caps? fortuntatly they didn't do it in the 80's as the ice caps are melting. in case you didn't know.

[Psy]

you really are a fool.
"sheep" na mate. you falling for the governments quick scheme is sheepish.
no that does not get rid of the waste or stop it being radioactive. do your own research. placing it in a certain area also has no regard for the future either. what did they say earlier? put it in the polar ice caps? fortuntatly they didn't do it in the 80's as the ice caps are melting. in case you didn't know.
But in a limited role the waste from reactors would insignificant, that does mean nuclear power playing a small role but the advantage of nuclear power is small reactors are efficient to supply, meaning you can produce power efficiently in remote locations (which is why navies use nuclear power for their ships)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

you really are a fool.
"sheep" na mate. you falling for the governments quick scheme is sheepish.

I've fallen for government scheming? Is that why the US administration is so deeply in the pockets of Big Oil? :rolleyes:


no that does not get rid of the waste or stop it being radioactive. do your own research.

Safety is paramount, not the complete elimination of radioactivity, which is an absurdly impractical goal considering the existance of natural background radiation which means that a sufficiently low amount of radiation is harmless.


placing it in a certain area also has no regard for the future either.

If a location where nuclear waste is stored becomes unsuitable, then move it. What's so careless about that?


what did they say earlier? put it in the polar ice caps? fortuntatly they didn't do it in the 80's as the ice caps are melting. in case you didn't know.

I never advocated putting nuclear waste in the polar icecaps. Too remote.

[Kropotesta]

by stating about the ice caps i was saying how we can't tell what the area shall be like in the future.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

by stating about the ice caps i was saying how we can't tell what the area shall be like in the future.

Thats why I advocate making nuclear waste relatively easy to move, as well as placing them in the middle of continental plates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_plate) for the really long term.

[Psy]

by stating about the ice caps i was saying how we can't tell what the area shall be like in the future.
I doubt any suggest abandoning waste somewhere, meaning where ever we put it we'd check up on it regularly and ensure proper signage to ensure people that happen apon the compound understand that it is dangerous and only authorized workers with proper protective gear should be on the grounds at any given time.

[apathy maybe]

Did I mention as well that energy efficiency is also required?

[Black Dagger]

Lol at making the poll public - 'know your enemy' i guess

But yeah, pollutive finite resource-based energy production FT (long term) W! :rolleyes:

[Sentinel]

Lol at making the poll public - 'know your enemy' i guess

Why did I just know that you could not post here without at least somehow complaining about the poll. One would have thought you'd come up with something better though. Seriously, why would people wish to vote anonymously in the first place? This is a political discussion poll, not an administrative one. If people can't stand for their political convictions (even under pseudonyms), why post on a discussion forum in the first place?

[Davie zepeda]

No to nuclear plants we can find other sources of power wind,solar,volcanic,water,
why go to fucking something that will just be no way to get rid of and is expensive as hell.
i STill DON"T KNOW WHY THE US HASN'T GIVEN UP ON THIS IGNORANT WAY OF TRANSPORTATION I MEAN IF THEY REALLY CARED THEY MAKE A NATIONAL MONORAIL SYSTEM THAT WOULD JUST CUT EMISSION IN HALF .

[Jazzratt]

No to nuclear plants we can find other sources of power wind,solar,volcanic,water,

1) Wind & solar are just fucking unreliable, I'm not into blackouts. Maybe if we had orbital solar panels I'd be up for it, but that's not feasible in the near future.

2) What the hell do you mean by volcanic? Geothermal? Have you also considered that there are a lot of places that are utterly devoid of volcanoes for fucking miles?

3) Hydroelectric energy has caused more deaths per Terrawatt hour than nuclear. Waaaaay more. (Source: A study from the Paul-Scherrer Institute in Switzerland, surveying 4290 accidents in the commercial energy industry between 1969 and 1996, which showed 884 deaths in civil hydroelectric planst, compared to 8 in nuclear.).


why go to fucking something that will just be no way to get rid of and is expensive as hell.

1) It's a piece of piss to get rid of it, as NoXion explained further up the thread.


i STill DON"T KNOW WHY THE US HASN'T GIVEN UP ON THIS IGNORANT WAY OF TRANSPORTATION I MEAN IF THEY REALLY CARED THEY MAKE A NATIONAL MONORAIL SYSTEM THAT WOULD JUST CUT EMISSION IN HALF .

What the fuck are you talking about?

Black Dagger


Lol at making the poll public - 'know your enemy' i guess

But yeah, pollutive finite resource-based energy production FT (long term) W! :rolleyes:

Pollutive?

http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/img/co2.jpg
(Source: 2000 IAEA Study)

As for the resource being finite, well given the vast amount of fissile materials and the fact that fission is simply a step on the way to fusion I don't think it's much of a concern as you are painting it. Then again FUD has always been a favourite with your type.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No to nuclear plants we can find other sources of power wind,solar,volcanic,water,

The availability of alternatives is no reason to turn down nuclear, especially considering the shortcomings of the alternatives and the advantages of nuclear.


why go to fucking something that will just be no way to get rid of and is expensive as hell.

Safe storage of nuclear waste is not the big problem that eco-mystics make it out to be - in fact, environmentalist opposition to nuclear power is what creates the most problems for the establishment of waste storage facilities and the movement of waste.

What's the fucking point of opposing waste shipments? It has to go somewhere, and stopping it from going anywhere doesn't make it go away.


i STill DON"T KNOW WHY THE US HASN'T GIVEN UP ON THIS IGNORANT WAY OF TRANSPORTATION I MEAN IF THEY REALLY CARED THEY MAKE A NATIONAL MONORAIL SYSTEM THAT WOULD JUST CUT EMISSION IN HALF .

Supporting a national rail system and supporting nuclear power are not mutually exclusive. I am in fact in favour of limiting private motor transport in favour of public transport.

As for the finity of uranium, the important thing is not finding a dense energy that lasts forever, but a dense energy source that lasts long enough, and uranium and other radioisotopes such as thorium fit that bill as far as I can see.

[LavenderMenace]

On small scales the waste is actually very small, the problem is in large scale use. Meaning in a limited role nuclear power is not that bad.

Small use small waste, large use large waste...this is true and I think, the way most things work. Used in moderation, there won't be much waste. The problem with nuclear power is the length of time it takes to get rid of it; it has to fully decompose in order for the waste to become completely non-toxic. (And where do we put it while it is decomposing?) Nuclear power reduces carbon emissions but replaces those issues with others.

[Psy]

Small use small waste, large use large waste...this is true and I think, the way most things work. Used in moderation, there won't be much waste. The problem with nuclear power is the length of time it takes to get rid of it; it has to fully decompose in order for the waste to become completely non-toxic. (And where do we put it while it is decomposing?) Nuclear power reduces carbon emissions but replaces those issues with others.
The most logical place to put the waste is in remote warehouses, that way workers can keep an eye through cameras and the occasional inspection. This way you won't have society forgetting where they put the waste and won't have people accidentally coming across the waste. High fences, barbwire, locked air tight steel doors and covering the area in warning signs should give trespasser a good idea they shouldn't go inside.

[Kropotesta]

it looks like you have to much confidence in the capitalist class. there'd more likely sell the waste to some other countries to attempt to use or something

[Coggeh]

I would support nuclear power in socialism , but capitalisms drive for profit , and cost cutting measures will mean nuclear power will not be a safe option until capitalism is smashed .

[Jazzratt]

it looks like you have to much confidence in the capitalist class. there'd more likely sell the waste to some other countries to attempt to use or something

You don't understand the class analysis do you? Not really? Here's a fucking clue, because you need it - Science != The Bourgeoisie. It's silly to oppose something beneficial to all of humanity because it happens to be better for the bourgeoisie than us at the moment. I personally think it would be crap to attempt to get any kind of infrastructure without the vast amounts of energy we get from Nuclear, not only that but chances are high that if it is developed in capitalism we will have fusion by the time the revolution comes around.

[Kropotesta]

don't try and patronise we cos we differ in opinions dickhead. class analysis? haha your attempted, and laughable, attacks really belittles any input that ou may have to give.
"It's silly to oppose something beneficial to all of humanity because it happens to be better for the bourgeoisie than us at the moment" . Yeah ok but what exactly are you doing to bring the rich down? anything that would make this possible in the forseeable future? get in the real world you pretenious prick.

[Jazzratt]

don't try and patronise we cos we differ in opinions dickhead.

Don't hold such fucking imbecilic views and I won't treat you like a fucking imbecile.


and in case you didn't know i don't think anarchism or communism or whatever is gona come anytime soon with wankers like you sitting on the net all day.

What the fuck do you do then? Are you out there waving an AK-47 and shit? Or are you just coming onto the internet to make blind assertions about people you know fuck all about? More to the point what the fuck has your post got to do with nuclear power?

[Sentinel]

conflicting_interests, would you mind answering his arguments against you, instead of posting mere personal insults? I would be interested in a serious reply from you to Jazzratt's last post, but your above post basically constitutes spam.

[Coggeh]

Stop trolling lads and stick to the topic .

[LavenderMenace]

The most logical place to put the waste is in remote warehouses, that way workers can keep an eye through cameras and the occasional inspection. This way you won't have society forgetting where they put the waste and won't have people accidentally coming across the waste. High fences, barbwire, locked air tight steel doors and covering the area in warning signs should give trespasser a good idea they shouldn't go inside.
That may be logical but I really have no faith of logic in capitalist society...that and I'm not really willing to trade one problem for another potential problem. Using wind, water and solar options would be pretty awesome - I'm not all that concerned with blackouts - perhaps we don't need to use as much power as we currently do?

[Jazzratt]

That may be logical but I really have no faith of logic in capitalist society...

You don't need faith in logic, it's logical and that's it - it's even logical under capitalism. Logic doesn't change.


that and I'm not really willing to trade one problem for another potential problem.

Everything has its problems. If I were being beaten with a stick every day, I would consider that a problem, but if I could change that to having a fly buzzing around my head (the noise being a problem) I would happily do so.


Using wind, water and solar options would be pretty awesome - I'm not all that concerned with blackouts - perhaps we don't need to use as much power as we currently do?

That's nuts. The reason we want new sources of power is so we can continue using energy, not so we can stop - don't be so daft.

[Black Dagger]

Pollutive?

http://www.freedomforfission.org.uk/img/co2.jpg
(Source: 2000 IAEA Study)



Does this graph factor in the fact that nuclear power relies on the mining (an ecologically destructive and pollutive process) of uranium? And the transport of mined goods from a mine (more pollution) around the planet?

It also happens that a large proportion of the uranium in oz (oz has one of the largest uranium sources on the planet) is on Indigenous land - i guess they should just be relocated (by force if necessary)?



As for the resource being finite, well given the vast amount of fissile materials and the fact that fission is simply a step on the way to fusion I don't think it's much of a concern as you are painting it.

Except by the time fusion is developed (50 years from now? Who knows?) other clean and renewable sources of energy will have been vastly improved - endorsing nuclear power (among other reasons) because it's a 'step on the way' to a technology that is not yet workable and will not be for an indeterminate period of time is definitely one of the weakest arguments put forward.


Then again FUD has always been a favourite with your type.More 'us' vs. 'them' crap.

[BobKKKindle$]

I do not support nuclear power as a long-term solution to our energy needs, only as a temporary measure, which should be used to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels until alternative energy is efficient enough to be used as the main source of electricity - something which should, hopefully, not take a long time, if research in this field were provided with sufficient resources, in the form of human expertise and funding. These sources currently remain weak, because they receive very little funding relative to nuclear energy, and political parties are unwilling to make alternative energy a key part of their platform because they are closely tied to companies that have an economic interest in maintaining dependence on fossil fuels.

Statistics showing nuclear energy's carbon output rarely factor in the cost of mining the radioactive material used in the core of a plant, and making this material suitable for use in a plant; this material cannot be used as soon as it is removed from the ground, it has to be separated from other metals, and enriched to the right concentration, depending on the type of reactor. These processes require energy, and if these the energy required for these processes processes was part of the calculations, nuclear power would not be so efficient as the statistics have led people to believe.

That being said, I support every country's right to develop nuclear power.

[Black Dagger]

That being said, I support every country's right to develop nuclear power.

Given the immense cost, technology and expertise required - and the fact that just two 'western' countries control not only the vast majority of the uranium deposits (australia has something like 40% of the worlds uranium ore reserves) but also their production - how feasible is nuclear power for most countries (particularly so-called 'developing nations')? Let alone socialist ones?

It's unlikely that australia or canada will ever selling uranium to cuba or venezuela for example - and given the finite nature of uranium and near the monopoly of its production - a global shift towards nuclear power as a 'temporary' measure to mitigate against climate-change will also drive up the price of uranium - making it even less economically viable for 'poorer' countries.

[BobKKKindle$]

It's unlikely that australia or canada will ever selling uranium to cuba or venezuela for example - and given the finite nature of uranium and near the monopoly of its production - a global shift towards nuclear power as a 'temporary' measure to mitigate against climate-change will also drive up the price of uranium - making it even less economically viable for 'poorer' countries.It is true that the unequal distribution of uranium reserves means that countries which contain large reserves are able to exercise power over other countries which need to buy nuclear material. However, once a country has gained access to material, it can continue to provide a source of power for a long time, and there are also some reactor types which actually produce waste which can be used as a fuel, and so nuclear power could be the best option for countries which do not have reserves of fossil fuels. Given the current level of efficiency, renewable energy is not a feasible alternative, especially for developing countries, which do not have the required scientific resources to make renewable energy efficient enough to be used as the primary method of electricity generation before fossil fuels have expired. Hence the need to find a "stop-gap" to provide energy until renewable energy is feasible.

The best long-term solution would, in my opinion, be to cover a large part of the Sahara desert with Solar panels, which will produce more than enough energy for the entire world, combined with reductions in demand, provided that these reductions do not result in a lower standard of living or inconvenience.

[Black Dagger]

However, once a country has gained access to material, it can continue to provide a source of power for a long time,

The problem is as global uranium stocks are depleted over the coming decades (i'm assuming nuclear power is going to gain momentum in countries that can afford it - and obviously in places like australia and canada were there is room for big $$$) the small holders of uranium will be squeezed out - leaving only the big players like canada and the australia to provide the bulk of uranium (well they already do this - but moreso - ditto for price control) - meaning access will probably become a bigger problem in the future than it is even now (well not for canadian, oz etc. allies) - but for pariah AKA socialist states definitely.



The best long-term solution would, in my opinion, be to cover a large part of the Sahara desert with Solar panels, which will produce more than enough energy for the entire world, combined with reductions in demand, provided that these reductions do not result in a lower standard of living or inconvenience.

Would it possible to store/transfer this energy across the entire planet in an efficient way?

[Unicorn]

I oppose nuclear power in capitalist countries because the risk of accidents is intolerably high.

Soviet-built nuclear plants and reactors were generally pretty safe. (Chernobyl was an unfortunate accident which would have a 0% chance of happening again)

[Lord Testicles]

I support nuclear power untill we can use fusion power.

[Psy]

I oppose nuclear power in capitalist countries because the risk of accidents is intolerably high.

Soviet-built nuclear plants and reactors were generally pretty safe. (Chernobyl was an unfortunate accident which would have a 0% chance of happening again)

LOL :lol: :laugh:

Soviet nuclear engineers had to cut corners like their American counter parts to meet production plans. In both case engineers did have any say about what was an acceptable risk.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I support it for now as an answer to global warming. It isn't an ideal solution of course, but all other alternatives are worse at present.

Nuclear power in tandem with renewables like wind and solar is the way forward for now, so we can decrease our dependence on any one particular source of energy.

Long term, we need something totally new, like fusion.

-Alex

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I've always been on the fence about nuclear power... I used to be quite belligerently opposed to it, but the light I see it in these days is that renewable means of generating energy produce quite modest amounts of energy.

Nuclear is efficient and the amount of nuclear waste is creates is reasonably minimal. The most compelling argument I've heard for disposing of waste is to dump it in fissures which open up in the earth's crust which are already radioactive and will close up... I'm not sure what it's called, perhaps someone more scientifically minded could elaborate - my high school science teacher spoke about it a lot.

[Goatse]

I oppose nuclear power in capitalist countries because the risk of accidents is intolerably high.

Soviet-built nuclear plants and reactors were generally pretty safe. (Chernobyl was an unfortunate accident which would have a 0% chance of happening again)

NO

NO NO NO

WRONG

SO FUCKING WRONG

NO

JUST NO

That beign said, I support nuclear power 100%.

[Comrade-Z]

You need probably 70% baseload for the grid to be stable. Here's how I see things ideally playing out in the U.S., assuming current technology (not counting fusion possibilities):
*5% hydro baseload
*5% geothermal + tidal + wave baseload
*20% nuclear fission baseload
*40% Concentrated Solar Thermal Power (CSTP) + Heat/Pumped/Compressed-Air/Battery/Ammonia storage + integrated natural gas/hydrogen/biomass peaker baseload
http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3791#more
*20% wind (intermittent, although storage can be applied here too for slightly greater costs than with CSTP).
*10% local and large solar photovoltaics.

CSTP lends itself to baseload, despite the intermittency of the sun, because the sun's heat decays slowly in the device's heat absorber/steam cycle anyways, and increased heat storage can be added by using molten salt or heated graphite. Also, integrated natural gas/biomass peaker boilers can be fired to heat the same steam cycle with ease, without having to build an entirely new plantWithout storage. Wind can't really go much higher than 30% due to intermittency and grid stabilizing issues. Also, nuclear fission can't really take the place of natural gas/biomass integrated into CSTP because nuclear fission is quite challenging to adjust frequently while keeping the plant stable. It is generally best to keep nuclear fission plants "steady as she goes."

Nuclear waste doesn't strike me as much of an issue, if handled intelligently. And usually the most intelligent thing is to store the waste on site: first in cooling ponds, then in regular dry casks. Sealing nuclear fission waste in caverns seems absurd to me. Not only does that make the waste more liable to get into the ecosystem, but it makes it much more difficult for future reprocessing (although I guess in a war it might make sense to hide it away from potential missile strikes...see below). A lot of nuclear fission waste can be reprocessed, or with reactors such as the relatively safe CANDU reactor, burned directly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU
(Sometimes I wonder why Iran isn't going the CANDU route with its nuclear electricity program. CANDU uses heavy water, which slows down more neutrons, allowing natural, unenriched uranium to be used. I think Iran should be entitled to pursue light water reactors using slightly enriched uranium as well, but if Iran really wanted to demonstrate the U.S.'s duplicitious nature, Iran could build reactors of the CANDU type and not get into enriching uranium, leaving the U.S. war hawks pissing and moaning, desperately grappling for an excuse to justify their imperialist belligerence...then again, the U.S. would probably just find another lame excuse to be belligerent towards Iran, so maybe it isn't worth it to Iran to go out of their way to avoid this criticism after all).

I'm not too worried about depletion of supplies of fissile material. Current uranium "reserves" are calculated as reserves that can be extracted below a given price. For each doubling of price, the accessible resource base of uranium goes up by something like a factor of ten. I think I remember reading somewhere that the average energy density of the uranium in the earth's crust is higher than the energy density of coal. And thorium, which can be burned in CANDU reactors, about 200 times as plentiful as uranium. There's just been no reason to deal with resources such as thorium yet. Extraction of uranium has not grown as it should have in recent years due to the availability of cold war-era stocks of decommissioned weaponized fissile material, but for the next 20 years, as these cold-war era stocks deplete, I expect uranium prices to increase, more extraction to follow, and then prices to stabilize.

Chernobyl was fuckin' awful. The fuckin' reactor core exploded and tore right through the flimsy containment vessel, spreading radioactive stuff right out into the open air. Fortunately, I don't think it could have gotten any worse. The reactor design was flawed (lack of sensors, faulty coolant valves, graphite-tipped control rods that actually accelerated the rate of reaction at first when being inserted to SCRAM (shut down) the reactor, a positive void coefficient that tended towards positive feedback rather than stability, etc.), the personnel was not trained very well (many workers had been recently transferred from coal plants), they were trying to run a test while the reactor was operational, a test that should have been done initially, etc. Hundreds of people died, and a whole 50,000 population city had to be permanently evacuated. Lots of radiation released (something like 1,000 hiroshimas of radioactive fallout, although all of the atomic bomb tests probably released more radiation), etc.

The main misgiving I have about nuclear fission reactors is I fear what would happen if one were struck with a bunker-busting missile...if it hit the coolant system the reactor could still shut down in time. But if it penetrated containment structure and hit the reactor core...that would be bad. I could foresee that as being a very nasty military tactic employed against countries with nuclear electricity but without nuclear weapons...if you blow up their nuclear reactor, you get radioactive fallout as if you had hit them with a nuclear missile yourself, but you can try to have the deniability that you ever fired a nuclear device at them and claim that hitting the reactor was some sort of mistake (obvious bullshit, I know, but quasi-plausible deniability is all that matters sometimes in the realm of domestic opinion or international diplomacy, unfortunately). So I guess I'm lukewarm about nuclear. I would maintain the current share of nuclear fission electricity (which in the U.S. will require another vigorous round of construction to replace aging plants). But 20% would be the max share that I'd recommend. CSTP just has so much potential!

[ckaihatsu]

December 17, 07

Toshiba Builds 100x Smaller Micro Nuclear Reactor

Toshiba has developed a new class of micro size Nuclear Reactors that is designed to power
individual apartment buildings or city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet,
could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of
neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy
needs.

The 200 kilowatt Toshiba designed reactor is engineered to be fail-safe
and totally automatic and will not overheat. Unlike traditional nuclear
reactors the new micro reactor uses no control rods to initiate the
reaction. The new revolutionary technology uses reservoirs of liquid
lithium-6, an isotope that is effective at absorbing neutrons. The
Lithium-6 reservoirs are connected to a vertical tube that fits into the
reactor core. The whole whole process is self sustaining and can last for
up to 40 years, producing electricity for only 5 cents per kilowatt hour,
about half the cost of grid energy.

Toshiba expects to install the first reactor in Japan in 2008 and to begin
marketing the new system in Europe and America in 2009.

w w w.ne xten erg ynew s. com



h tt p: //d iscu ssion .ne wyo uth. com/i ndex.p hp/to pic,25 13 .0.html


Also see: h ttp ://tin yur l. co m/2 zcn 9v [YFIS Science & Technology]











--
___

YFI S Dis cussion B oard
ht tp:// discussion. newy outh .com

Fa vor ite we b si tes: chica go.indym edia. org, wsw s. org, ma rxist. com, rwor .org, lab ourstart .or g, fightba ckne ws .org, lab oraction. org, ifam ericansknew .org, subst ancenews . com, soci alismandliberation .o rg, wh atreally hap pened .co m, ple nglis h. com, moneyfile s.o rg/temp .h tml, inform ationcl earingho use .i nfo, blac kcom menta to r. com, na rconew s. com, tru tho ut. org, ra ven1 .n et

Ph otoi llustr atio ns, P oliti cal Di ag rams by Ch ris K ai hatsu
h ttp :/ /co mmunit y.w ebsho ts. co m/u ser /ck aihatsu/

M ySp ace:
ww w. mys pace .co m/ck aihatsu

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

December 17, 07

Toshiba Builds 100x Smaller Micro Nuclear Reactor

Toshiba has developed a new class of micro size Nuclear Reactors that is designed to power
individual apartment buildings or city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet,
could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of
neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy
needs.

The 200 kilowatt Toshiba designed reactor is engineered to be fail-safe
and totally automatic and will not overheat. Unlike traditional nuclear
reactors the new micro reactor uses no control rods to initiate the
reaction. The new revolutionary technology uses reservoirs of liquid
lithium-6, an isotope that is effective at absorbing neutrons. The
Lithium-6 reservoirs are connected to a vertical tube that fits into the
reactor core. The whole whole process is self sustaining and can last for
up to 40 years, producing electricity for only 5 cents per kilowatt hour,
about half the cost of grid energy.

Toshiba expects to install the first reactor in Japan in 2008 and to begin
marketing the new system in Europe and America in 2009.

That's absolutely fascinating news. I never thought they could make reactors that small.

Also, I think your spacebar is broken.

[Dean]

I feel that we should primarily use solar power, and expand on the technologies to make it cheeper and greener. I think that we should use nuclear reactors as a basis where huge energy needs must be met, and augment these grids with solar and wind energy. Until we can more effectively utilize energy, and build on the technologies for these greener and self-perpetuating energy resources, we should keep fission reactors.

[meL_]

The brain got too big. THAT is the situation !

WE are running out of time.

A natural extinction is very possible.

i KNOW You can SEE THIS.

WE are over-populated.

Evolution wont save us...Evolution brought us here.

See us at the other forum.
WE are not political...WE have nothing to do with some holybusine$$
.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The brain got too big. THAT is the situation !

WE are running out of time.

A natural extinction is very possible.

i KNOW You can SEE THIS.

WE are over-populated.

Evolution wont save us...Evolution brought us here.

See us at the other forum.
WE are not political...WE have nothing to do with some holybusine$$
.

Just what has any of this gibberish got to do with nuclear power?

[eyedrop]

Just what has any of this gibberish got to do with nuclear power?


The result of a brain exposed to nuclear radioation of course, how could you be so blind?:cursing:

I don't think we should be afraid of nuclear power just because of some accidents in it's infant years.

There are also other options of utilizing nuclear power today, like for example thorium nuclear power.

It is so sad that there are political authorities deciding on it who doesn't have a clear grasp of nuclear power at all.

In Norway Egil Lillestøl is fighting for thorium based nuclear research with mostly all the relevant fields of scientists behind him. While there are politicians with no knowledge about it making the decisions based on feelings. http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2007/desember/kjensler_og_kjernekraft

Sorry for Norwegian source as most news I read is Norwegian.

[meL_]

Just what has any of this gibberish got to do with nuclear power?
A natural extinction is very possible.

Wake up( mass Awakening/Rapture )
AND
WE( You ) wont do anything *wrong.

Welcome to Heaven.
"Heaven is at hand" -- the sage JC

The xtians dont believe JC.
They are liars like JC said( satan is just a liar )

i hope the pope is wearing clean underwear
when He has to throw off
his robes of authority.
ho ho ho
.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I am extremely encouraged by the high levels of support for some kind of nuclear power. Logic prevails ;)

[DustWolf]

LOL :lol: :laugh:

Soviet nuclear engineers had to cut corners like their American counter parts to meet production plans. In both case engineers did have any say about what was an acceptable risk.

Soviet nuclear plants were Plutonium factories. They needed it for nuclear warheads. When Chernobyl blew, it made 17 tons of it, if memory serves. If you don't want a plant to blow, don't construct it in such a way that it manufactures explosives.

On the topic of disposing of the waste, I have a question. Isn't nuclear power fuel just as radioactive as the waste? As I understand there are purely political reasons why the radioactive waste isn't put where the fuel was in the first place.

[Jazzratt]

On the topic of disposing of the waste, I have a question. Isn't nuclear power fuel just as radioactive as the waste? As I understand there are purely political reasons why the radioactive waste isn't put where the fuel was in the first place.

Interesting question, I'll have to look further into it but currently I would guess that the reason we need to be careful with nuclear by-product is not simply radioactivity but increased toxicity - though I'm only really guessing on this because I know for a fact that depleted uranium, while being (as the name suggests) pretty much non-radioactive, is highly toxic.

[DustWolf]

Interesting question, I'll have to look further into it but currently I would guess that the reason we need to be careful with nuclear by-product is not simply radioactivity but increased toxicity - though I'm only really guessing on this because I know for a fact that depleted uranium, while being (as the name suggests) pretty much non-radioactive, is highly toxic.

Depleted uranium is still slightly radioactive, given the characteristics of radioactivity, it's likely that something so depleted that passing by it on your way to work every day will have no effect, being in long term direct contact with it (such as is the case if it's eaten) could still expose you to a lethal dose.

On that though, I think solar cells aren't too crunchy either and that even many of the more "safe" energy sources have parts that need to be periodically replaced and produce a lot more toxic waste than there is nuclear waste.

[ckaihatsu]

Interesting question, I'll have to look further into it but currently I would guess that the reason we need to be careful with nuclear by-product is not simply radioactivity but increased toxicity - though I'm only really guessing on this because I know for a fact that depleted uranium, while being (as the name suggests) pretty much non-radioactive, is highly toxic.


Okay, conversation's over -- the steady march of technology (albeit slowly and harmfully, under capitalism's incrementalism) wins again. Go ahead and go nuclear -- yes, we need better sources of energy than coal and oil, but first we need energy.


See: "Toshiba Builds 100x Smaller Micro Nuclear Reactor" -- #46 in this thread.


So after you get this thing and give your utilities the finger, then go tell your Green buddies not to worry -- they should go ahead and throw out their nuclear waste, rusty appliances, leaky cars, nonbiodegradable plastics, and dirty diapers right into the landfill -- * IT DOESN'T MATTER * !

Here's the solution to all waste disposal concerns (in my opinion):


Plasma arc breaks solid waste down into constituent atoms, virtually at-cost

> Relatively high voltage, high current electricity is passed between two electrodes, spaced apart, creating an electrical arc. Inert gas under pressure is passed through the arc into a sealed container of waste material, temperatures as high as 13,871°C (25,000°F)[1] are reached in the arc column. The temperature one meter from the arc can reach ~4000°C (~7,200°F)[2]. At these temperatures most types of waste are broken into basic elemental components in a gaseous form, and complex molecules are atomized - separated into individual atoms.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/plasma-arc-breaks-t75767/index.html



Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Kami]

Here's the solution to all waste disposal concerns (in my opinion):


Plasma arc breaks solid waste down into constituent atoms, virtually at-costNot really much of a solution when we're talking about toxic elements, is it? On top of that, you'd still be left with exactly the same mass of waste as when you started.

[ckaihatsu]

Not really much of a solution when we're talking about toxic elements, is it? On top of that, you'd still be left with exactly the same mass of waste as when you started.


What???

What's the *^%#! difference???

Once something is broken down chemically, to the level of atoms, it *isn't* toxic anymore!

I'd imagine / guess that larger atoms, like uranium, would easily be altered, atomically, by this process, thus rendering it into simpler types of atoms....

[Kami]

Once something is broken down chemically, to the level of atoms, it *isn't* toxic anymore!
Er... not sure how to tell you this, but yes, yes it is. why would it loose its chemical properties just because its in smaller doses?
In fact, by boiling it, you'd probably have just made it a lot easier for you to get poisoned.



I'd imagine / guess that larger atoms, like uranium, would easily be altered, atomically, by this process, thus rendering it into simpler types of atoms....
Why? Not saying they're not (I don't know), but what leads you to think this? It certainly wouldn't be easy, as you suggest, and I severely doubt it's true

[ckaihatsu]

Er... not sure how to tell you this, but yes, yes it is. why would it loose its chemical properties just because its in smaller doses?


Kami, my understanding of it is that the temperature produced is *so* high that *any* material breaks down into its *constituent elemental atoms*. To take a simple example, each molecule of water is made up of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. Water is only present if those three atoms are joined by ionic bonds. If the atoms are not bonded together -- as can be forced through electrolysis -- then the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen are separate and gaseous.

This same basic principle of chemistry is valid for *any* compound and its constituent elements. Even toxic compounds are made up of basic elements -- it's the combination and structure of the elemental atoms in the compound's molecules that give it its toxic properties, *not* the component elements themselves.

Chemistry is counterintuitive this way -- it's not in the realm of everyday experience, but it is real.



In fact, by boiling it, you'd probably have just made it a lot easier for you to get poisoned.


This process is *way* past simply boiling the material -- the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius, or 212 degrees Fahrenheit. Please note the temperatures described in the article.



Why? Not saying they're not (I don't know), but what leads you to think this? It certainly wouldn't be easy, as you suggest, and I severely doubt it's true


Kami, the larger an atom is, the more subatomic particles (neutrons, protons, and electrons) it has to manipulate. Elements that are radioactive are high in atomic number, meaning that they have over two hundred neutrons in the nucleus. The configuration of these subatomic particles can change, based on radioactive decay, ionic bonding, or even very high temperatures.

I can't say the following for certain -- since I haven't been around a science classroom in awhile -- but I think it's reasonable to say that a uranium atom (or other radioactive-waste product) could very possibly lose protons and neutrons when subjected to the temperatures described in the article. In other words, the high temperature would force a simplification of the atom, stripping it of its subatomic particles and thus transforming it into a different, simpler element altogether. It's really not much of a stretch to speculate this way.

[NoArch]

People may label me a sort of "primitivist" for this but I don't think any society should be industrialised or large enough to ever need nuclear power.

I'd much rather live in a smaller society and use solar energy for most of my needs than live in a mass society (the city I'm in) and need to burn ridiculous amounts of fuel or create nuclear waste.

Sustainability before Profitability.

[MarxSchmarx]

Soviet nuclear engineers had to cut corners like their American counter parts to meet production plans. In both case engineers did have any say about what was an acceptable risk.

The fact is, right now the cost of building nuclear plants is so gargantuan, it can't be done without massive government subsidies. It is far from obvious that these subsidies aren't better spent on slightly less problematic, but very promising, energy sources like hydro or alternative biofuels.

There is frantic research in countries like Mexico that have historically relied on oil to meet their energy needs to find renewable alternatives to petroleum. The sheer cost of nuclear power will make this undertaking unattractive, and it is not clear that nuclear delivers more in the means of efficiency anymore than other technologies. Part of this is due to general neglect of nuclear engineering, but part of it is due to the fact that other renewable resources like wind, alternative biofuel and wave are rapidly catching up in terms of cost effectiveness.

Therefore, nuclear power (yes, fission) will whither away. Within 20 years, once we get other alternative energy sources working well (and I am confident we will), there will be no need for nuclear and all the controversy that comes with.

Another problem with nuclear power that makes it seriously unrealistic as a GLOBAL solution is the problem of proliferation. Except for the USSR and the USA, all nuclear powers like Pakistan, North Korea, Israel and South Africa started out as civilian programs. Thus there is a strong reason why the global north will want to prevent the third world from developing its nuclear program. This is the problem Iran is having right now. There will therefore be strong incentives for a country like Iran to find other alternative energy sources that don't invite the scrutiny and ire of Uncle Sam. Hell if I were Iranian and serious about finding renewable sources of energy for my people, I would not want to work on a power plant that could get bombed at the whims of some American nut.

Between the extreme costs, improving alternatives, and the proliferation problems, I am cautiously optimistic that nuclear energy will whither away.

[ckaihatsu]

People may label me a sort of "primitivist" for this but I don't think any society should be industrialised or large enough to ever need nuclear power.

I'd much rather live in a smaller society and use solar energy for most of my needs than live in a mass society (the city I'm in) and need to burn ridiculous amounts of fuel or create nuclear waste.

Sustainability before Profitability.



These are all very complex issues, ones which can't be passed over lightly or given simple answers to. With all due respect to the serious concerns of fellow leftists like yourself I'd like to address these points.


- Industrialization is probably a very good place to draw a line as to whether someone could be considered a 'primitivist' or not -- some people would draw that line earlier, even before the point of agriculture and the written word. It's fascinating just to consider the myriad ways in which human societies could exist, and the pros and cons of all, at various levels of technologization.

- I, for one, am *not* a primitivist -- I bemoan the destructive dynamics of competitive, industrial capitalist development, but at the same time I appreciate its fruits, for those who have access to them and can use them well. A simple example would be plumbing, and a more sophisticated example would be germ theory, and antibiotics, or the Internet.

- If anything, societal technological development has been *too slow*, because of capitalism. It has to slow down and scarcify every benefit in order to create markets for it, thus slowing overall progress. Under a system of worker-controlled, centralized planning we could decide what we want, en masse, and then set to work bringing it about for everyone. Nuclear power might wind up being considered wimpy compared to some innovation developed by millions of minds, perhaps on message boards like this one, pushing the envelope of energy sourcing.

- On a tangent, I'd recommend the movie "There Will Be Blood", based on Upton Sinclair's _Oil!_, which is a stunning piece of work. It deals with coal and oil development in a very close-up, historical way.

- Simply put, why *shouldn't* we have abundant sources of energy at our fingertips, to be harnessed for sophisticated and enlightened / enlightening uses? This is precisely where I walk a distinctly different path from Green types, because I don't think that we should have to make compromises (like conservation) when it comes to energy usage. The question shouldn't be how to conserve it, the question should be why don't we have enough of it, cheaply?

- "Sustainability before Profitability" seems to be an admirable principle, but it is entirely too facile and simplistic an argument. If I may, I'd like to compare this approach as being similar to the treatment of animals by science. In both cases, with energy sourcing and animal testing, we could say that profits should take a backseat to the preservation of natural and animal resources. In general, I'd agree with this, *but* there will always be exceptions where research and development *should* be carried out with both, even if it leads to the destruction of resources and animals, and then to increased profits for some corporations.

Why would a leftist say such a thing? Imagine if a disease had to be fought, or dirty, polluting energy is needed to light homes for people (including poor people) in a sprawling city.... Granted, I'd rather not trust these decisions to capitalist management, but there may be cases where it *is* necessary, and the correct decisions *are* made by corporate boards.

[Kami]

Kami, my understanding of it is that the temperature produced is *so* high that *any* material breaks down into its *constituent elemental atoms*. To take a simple example, each molecule of water is made up of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. Water is only present if those three atoms are joined by ionic bonds. If the atoms are not bonded together -- as can be forced through electrolysis -- then the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen are separate and gaseous.

This same basic principle of chemistry is valid for *any* compound and its constituent elements. Even toxic compounds are made up of basic elements -- it's the combination and structure of the elemental atoms in the compound's molecules that give it its toxic properties, *not* the component elements themselves.

Chemistry is counterintuitive this way -- it's not in the realm of everyday experience, but it is real. Y'see here's the problem; we're not talking about a compound, we're talking about a toxic isotope of uranium. Uranium, in case you didn't know, is toxic.

This process is *way* past simply boiling the material -- the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius, or 212 degrees Fahrenheit. Please note the temperatures described in the article.And the boiling point of uranium is 4000 degrees centigrade; again, this isn't water we're talking about, it's uranium, and it's very, very different.

It's really not much of a stretch to speculate this way.Perhaps not, but as you yourself noted, chemistry can be counter-intuitive, and assumptions just don't cut it ^^

[ckaihatsu]

Y'see here's the problem; we're not talking about a compound, we're talking about a toxic isotope of uranium. Uranium, in case you didn't know, is toxic.


Yes, but toxicity is not synonymous with radioactivity. Plenty of compounds are toxic without being radioactive. For any compounds that are toxic a separation into their elemental atoms will, by definition, de-toxify them, rendering them harmless.



And the boiling point of uranium is 4000 degrees centigrade; again, this isn't water we're talking about, it's uranium, and it's very, very different.


The plasma arc process described in the article reaches a consistent temperature of over 4000 degrees Celsius, while the boiling point of uranium is below 4000 degrees Celsius. I don't exactly know what boiling would do to uranium, but perhaps that would hasten its radioactive decay to such an extent as to make it inert.

[Kami]

Yes, but toxicity is not synonymous with radioactivity. Plenty of compounds are toxic without being radioactive. For any compounds that are toxic a separation into their elemental atoms will, by definition, de-toxify them, rendering them harmless.
... again, we're not talking about compounds. depleted uranium is chemically toxic; it's nothing to do with compounds at all. Who brought up compounds?

The plasma arc process described in the article reaches a consistent temperature of over 4000 degrees Celsius, while the boiling point of uranium is below 4000 degrees Celsius. I don't exactly know what boiling would do to uranium, but perhaps that would hasten its radioactive decay to such an extent as to make it inert.
I can tell you exactly what boiling uranium does; produces a highly (chemically) toxic vapour!
My point was that the temperatures your talking about aren't necessarily enough to split Uranium. We really need a chem whizz in here -.-

[DustWolf]

Er... guys...

4000C will not induce or speed up nuclear fission in uranium. Heat affects the orbit of the electrons around the core and does not touch the core itself (electrons are far far away from the core and are to small to in any way affect it).

Either way, radioactive elements have halflife, which means that even as they decay they never become completely inactive, just less and less, for each period half as much as before. Given the point that uranium's halflife is 4.5 billion years, even if you accelerated it tremendously, you'd probably still not get it inactive (changed into lead) by the time the universe ended.

[hekmatista]

Are we reforming capitalism and debating energy sources?
Are we projecting which energy sources we would use under the D of P?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What???

What's the *^%#! difference???

Once something is broken down chemically, to the level of atoms, it *isn't* toxic anymore!

Nonsense. A sufficient amount of plutonium will still kill you, whether it's in the form of a macroscopic solid or in the form of an atomic dust.


I'd imagine / guess that larger atoms, like uranium, would easily be altered, atomically, by this process, thus rendering it into simpler types of atoms....

Chemical reactions do not change what elements are - they may bind elements to other elements or seperate them out, but no matter what chemical reaction happens you still have the elemnts you started with.

Uranium is an element, not a compound, therefore it can only be changed by nuclear reactions, not chemical reactions.

[ckaihatsu]

Nonsense. A sufficient amount of plutonium will still kill you, whether it's in the form of a macroscopic solid or in the form of an atomic dust.



Chemical reactions do not change what elements are - they may bind elements to other elements or seperate them out, but no matter what chemical reaction happens you still have the elemnts you started with.

Uranium is an element, not a compound, therefore it can only be changed by nuclear reactions, not chemical reactions.


So at this point can we conclude / agree that this process would be useful for processing any kind of garbage waste except for radioactive kinds?

[CheGuevaraRage]

Even it takes a lots of time for uranium to decompose we can use the nuclear fission,but in reasonable ammounts.
We should wait until nuclar fusion is possible and then we can get more energy from the same ammounts of uranium.

[Kami]

So at this point can we conclude / agree that this process would be useful for processing any kind of garbage waste except for radioactive kinds?
... where did the word "radioactive" come from in that scentence? I thought we'd finally hammered into your skull that plutonium was a problem because it was toxic.
same would apply with all toxic elements, radioactive or no.

[ckaihatsu]

... where did the word "radioactive" come from in that scentence? I thought we'd finally hammered into your skull that plutonium was a problem because it was toxic.
same would apply with all toxic elements, radioactive or no.


[...]



[T]oxicity is not synonymous with radioactivity. Plenty of compounds are toxic without being radioactive. For any compounds that are toxic a separation into their elemental atoms will, by definition, de-toxify them, rendering them harmless.

[Jazzratt]

[T]oxicity is not synonymous with radioactivity. Plenty of compounds are toxic without being radioactive. For any compounds that are toxic a separation into their elemental atoms will, by definition, de-toxify them, rendering them harmless.

We're not talking about compounds, genius. If you superheat a toxic heavy metal you'll get a toxic heavy metal gas - which is even more dangerous.

[eyedrop]

Hehe I got this funny picture of a green blob of several thousand degrees uranium gas floating around killing people.


Edit; In all fairness it would be a heavy gas so it would creep along the ground.

[Kami]

[T]oxicity is not synonymous with radioactivity. Plenty of compounds are toxic without being radioactive. For any compounds that are toxic a separation into their elemental atoms will, by definition, de-toxify them, rendering them harmless.Are you just trolling? the element is chemically toxic. Yes, it's radioactive, but in this case to such a small degree that it's not the real problem. Read Jazzratt's above post.

Hehe I got this funny picture of a green blob of several thousand degrees uranium gas floating around killing people.
EVIL FLUBBER!

[ckaihatsu]

Are you just trolling? the element is chemically toxic. Yes, it's radioactive, but in this case to such a small degree that it's not the real problem. Read Jazzratt's above post.


No, relax -- what's at stake here is the removal of waste, particularly toxic types. Wouldn't it be preferable for toxic *elements* to be rendered into gaseous form, and removed through the negative-pressure apparatus?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No, relax -- what's at stake here is the removal of waste, particularly toxic types. Wouldn't it be preferable for toxic *elements* to be rendered into gaseous form, and removed through the negative-pressure apparatus?

You still have to store it or render it less harmful through combining it with other elements (for instance, salt is made partially of chlorine, a poisonous gas, even though people put it on their food).

[Jazzratt]

No, relax -- what's at stake here is the removal of waste, particularly toxic types. Wouldn't it be preferable for toxic *elements* to be rendered into gaseous form, and removed through the negative-pressure apparatus?

I'm with NoXion (if I read him correctly) - toxic elements are better removed by creating non-toxic, potentially useful compounds (although I don't know how far you'd get doing that with uranium or plutonium...)

[ckaihatsu]

Okay, so then it's settled -- however you score your toxic elements, the best is to combine them into harmless compounds, except for anything radioactive, which we're still working on...?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm with NoXion (if I read him correctly) - toxic elements are better removed by creating non-toxic, potentially useful compounds (although I don't know how far you'd get doing that with uranium or plutonium...)

Uranium and plutonium are metals, so it's concievable that one could create "salts" out of them. For what use, I cannot say, but doubtless there is some kind of application for unusual metal salts.

[Kami]

Okay, so then it's settled -- however you score your toxic elements, the best is to combine them into harmless compounds, except for anything radioactive, which we're still working on...?


You've really got this radioactive thing stuck in your head, don't you?

[sonicbluetm]

Americans find anything "public" icky. They want to ride in a freshly made car to work every morning. Anything less is UNCLEAN!!!!

[ckaihatsu]

Americans find anything "public" icky. They want to ride in a freshly made car to work every morning. Anything less is UNCLEAN!!!!


Heh -- Maybe we should implement that in reality -- since war production saved the U.S. from the Great Depression, maybe consumers should enjoy disposable cars as well...! This plasma-arc waste disposer (below) would take care of the unwanted, day-old cars...! <grin>

Reminds me of the show 'American Dad' -- same mentality, in a cartoon show!

[Malakangga]

Ah, fuck nuclear power

[Jazzratt]

Ah, fuck nuclear power

There's nothing like an argument that is brilliantly reasoned, fantastically presented and brimming with scientific evidence and logical conclusions. And this is nothing like an argument that is brilliantly reasoned, fantastically presented and brimming with scientific evidence and logical conclusions. Please try again.

[Colonello Buendia]

Nuclear power is in my opinion important. If it can be done cleanly as in safely disposing of waste then it can provide us with alot of power for lower emissions. you could even have solar panels on the building. Nuclear shouldn't be ruled out and should definitely be explored

[Sharon den Adel]

Before Howard lost the 2007 election, he mentioned us Aussie having nuclear power. There was a lot of opposition to it, I remember. Now that Rudd is in office, I am not sure whether this nuclear power plant will go ahead.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I support (1) limiting the use of nuclear power, (2) throwing the radioactive waste into volcanoes so that it melts with all the magma and shit in the deep layers of the Earth's mantle and we can forget about it, (3) reversing the trend of decentralization of power generation, and (4) replacing current fossil fuels for whale blubber.

If this proves inefficient, I propose we put massive solar panels on satellites that follow the earth's rotation to gather solar rays directly.
Like this:

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/4899/futureeeaq6.png
(not to scale)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

We should also wave red flags and send evil capitalists to the sun

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Killing whales for their blubber is also not sustainable. We must drill them for blubber at a non-life-threatening rate, so that they can live and continue producing blubber. Like this:


http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/6210/whaleszzgk1.png

[Colonello Buendia]

I almost wish you were serious

[Comrade B]

Cough cough, Chernobyl, cough cough

[DancingLarry]

Plutonium has a half-life (the period to emit half its radioactivity) of 24,000 years. To properly manage the wastes would take securely sequestering it, managing and overseeing that sequestration, for at least one Pu half-life. How many human institutions are there that have lasted 24,000 years?

[Kami]

Cough cough, Chernobyl, cough cough
Cough cough, TIRED STRAWMAN, cough cough.

Plutonium has a half-life (the period to emit half its radioactivity) of 24,000 years. To properly manage the wastes would take securely sequestering it, managing and overseeing that sequestration, for at least one Pu half-life. How many human institutions are there that have lasted 24,000 years?


Plutonium is used in nuclear weapons. Uranium is used in reactors.

[DancingLarry]

Plutonium is used in nuclear weapons. Uranium is used in reactors.

Ahem. Plutonium is one of the waste products produced by the uranium chain reaction. But I guess you didn't know that, did you?

[Kami]

Ahem. Plutonium is one of the waste products produced by the uranium chain reaction. But I guess you didn't know that, did you?
fuck off, I misread your statement.

Plutonium produced as waste can be mixed with uranium and reprocessed as MOX.

[Mirage]

CANDU reactors don't produce any dangerous wastes, and the thorium needed to run them can be produced in labs. It's almost ideal, the only wastes are from building the reactors (They last like what? A century?) and transportation. The downside is they produce only a third of a regular nuclear plant's electrical output.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What do you guys think of this shit?

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/6729/whalezzzzwb9.png

Have I just single-handedly solved the world's energy crisis, or what?

[Lost In Translation]

Quite impressive. But then you have to think about the whales. With our increasing energy demands, we have to constantly take this crap out of whales, eventually killing them. Plus, they're not exactly abundant, per se. We can't go back to the era where we excessively exploited these whales.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The same way that cows and chickens and other animals are raised in factories for human consumption, we could raise whales in factories. Have large warehouses with hundreds of whales. And they don't necessarily have to die. It would be like giving them monthly liposuctions, or something.

[Mirage]

We already have renewable energy sources. Our main problem is global warming right now; that will toast us wayyyyy before we run out of resources.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Oil? You think global warming will fuck us over before petroleum runs out? lol I doubt that.

[Milgram Experiments]

So the hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste rock produced from uranium mining, many of the mines on indigenous lands where tailing ponds have polluted important water resources, and blowing radioactive dust has contaminated wildlife doesn't bother anyone? It doesn't bother people that the waste needs to be managed for a million years before it's safe according to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization who is in charge of managing the spent fuel in Ontario? Beyond that, nuclear power demands strict management and oversight to remain safe and under capitalism the impetus is to cut corners and save money which makes nuclear technology an inherently dangerous choice. Even under state control the management and oversight of this technology has never been good, hence the 7 reactor shut down in Ontario due to grotesque inadequacies in safety precautions leading to regular spills of radioactive tritium and multiple accidents. The efficiency argument is also bunk, at least in Ontario, where nuclear plants have consistently run at under 65% capacity.
Uranium deposits are also depleting rapidly all over the world, in Canada the cost of uranium has risen seven fold in the last decade! There is currently virtually no reprocessing done due to the dangers of proliferation and the extreme cost.
In Ontario the cost of maintaining our nuclear fleet has left the Province 20 billion dollars of stranded debt and never delivered the electricity load predicted. Due to major shut downs because of safety inadequacies coal power had to take up the deficit and smog is now killing over 3000 people a year.
Decentralized power systems (look up Amory Lovins 'soft energy' stuff) using the right type of energy where it's needed, can be built quickly and is much more efficient then centralized large scale megaplants. If we want to talk about reprocessing, and we're envisioning a technological future that doesn't currently exist, why not Photovoltaic Solar, Wind, Small scale non-invasive Hydro, Heat Capture power production, and energy efficient user end technologies? This stuff could work, is pretty much available, and could supply us with what we need, and doesn't have the uncountable problems of Nuclear power.

[Pifreak]

Nuclear power actually has a lot of potential. There are definitely possibilities to reduce the radioactive wastes produced. It's just that people automatically associate "nuclear" with "bomb, a splosion, etc."

[Lost In Translation]

So the hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste rock produced from uranium mining, many of the mines on indigenous lands where tailing ponds have polluted important water resources, and blowing radioactive dust has contaminated wildlife doesn't bother anyone? It doesn't bother people that the waste needs to be managed for a million years before it's safe according to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization who is in charge of managing the spent fuel in Ontario? Beyond that, nuclear power demands strict management and oversight to remain safe and under capitalism the impetus is to cut corners and save money which makes nuclear technology an inherently dangerous choice. Even under state control the management and oversight of this technology has never been good, hence the 7 reactor shut down in Ontario due to grotesque inadequacies in safety precautions leading to regular spills of radioactive tritium and multiple accidents. The efficiency argument is also bunk, at least in Ontario, where nuclear plants have consistently run at under 65% capacity.
Uranium deposits are also depleting rapidly all over the world, in Canada the cost of uranium has risen seven fold in the last decade! There is currently virtually no reprocessing done due to the dangers of proliferation and the extreme cost.
In Ontario the cost of maintaining our nuclear fleet has left the Province 20 billion dollars of stranded debt and never delivered the electricity load predicted. Due to major shut downs because of safety inadequacies coal power had to take up the deficit and smog is now killing over 3000 people a year.
Decentralized power systems (look up Amory Lovins 'soft energy' stuff) using the right type of energy where it's needed, can be built quickly and is much more efficient then centralized large scale megaplants. If we want to talk about reprocessing, and we're envisioning a technological future that doesn't currently exist, why not Photovoltaic Solar, Wind, Small scale non-invasive Hydro, Heat Capture power production, and energy efficient user end technologies? This stuff could work, is pretty much available, and could supply us with what we need, and doesn't have the uncountable problems of Nuclear power.

Yes, there are lots of shortcomings in Nuclear power in this age, but look at the alternatives. If we're going to use Hydro, we have to flood everything, and it's not that efficient. Solar's a joke. You basically need to pave the entire Sahara Desert to get sufficient energy. Geothermal's coming along. But in terms of ready-to-use power with great potential, Nuclear should be on top of all countries' lists.

[Milgram Experiments]

"Yes, there are lots of shortcomings in Nuclear power in this age, but look at the alternatives. If we're going to use Hydro, we have to flood everything, and it's not that efficient. Solar's a joke. You basically need to pave the entire Sahara Desert to get sufficient energy. Geothermal's coming along. But in terms of ready-to-use power with great potential, Nuclear should be on top of all countries' lists."

We can use non-invasive hydro which uses the power of rivers without blocking them, and avoids flooding vast areas. Wind power is becoming more and more efficient, and it's intermittent production of electricity can be managed through the pumping of water to create hydro power in down times. Solar power is incredibly effective at generating heat, and paving the Sahara with panels is a perfect example of the centralized power production ideology which obscures the technologies real value which is decentralized solar on every rooftop for every home. Heat capture electricity generation from industries like steel which produces amazing amounts of heat that is simply wasted could generate untold megawatts, and is another good example of decentralized energy production that no one has addressed.

End use energy efficient products can also cut demand, and flips the debate from a supply side debate to a demand side one. Cutting energy demand doesn't mean being a Luddite, it just means using energy efficient technology and design where it's needed.

Also in your argument you fail to address the dwindling supplies of uranium in the world. We're approaching, and some would say past, 'peak oil' why invest in another non-renewable when we've likely past 'peak uranium' at least in terms of discovery.

[Pifreak]

"Yes, there are lots of shortcomings in Nuclear power in this age, but look at the alternatives. If we're going to use Hydro, we have to flood everything, and it's not that efficient. Solar's a joke. You basically need to pave the entire Sahara Desert to get sufficient energy. Geothermal's coming along. But in terms of ready-to-use power with great potential, Nuclear should be on top of all countries' lists."

We can use non-invasive hydro which uses the power of rivers without blocking them, and avoids flooding vast areas. Wind power is becoming more and more efficient, and it's intermittent production of electricity can be managed through the pumping of water to create hydro power in down times. Solar power is incredibly effective at generating heat, and paving the Sahara with panels is a perfect example of the centralized power production ideology which obscures the technologies real value which is decentralized solar on every rooftop for every home. Heat capture electricity generation from industries like steel which produces amazing amounts of heat that is simply wasted could generate untold megawatts, and is another good example of decentralized energy production that no one has addressed.

End use energy efficient products can also cut demand, and flips the debate from a supply side debate to a demand side one. Cutting energy demand doesn't mean being a Luddite, it just means using energy efficient technology and design where it's needed.

Also in your argument you fail to address the dwindling supplies of uranium in the world. We're approaching, and some would say past, 'peak oil' why invest in another non-renewable when we've likely past 'peak uranium' at least in terms of discovery.

No matter what you do with hydro, you're going to make the fish suffer. "Hey, what's that spinning blade thingy?"
What's the point of using wind power energy to make hydro power during down times? Hmm, I don't think hydro has a >100% efficiency.
Solar power is definitely very effective, especially if you have all the money in the world, can improve efficiency over 10%, and find a way to increase its life span over 50 years.

Geothermal energy is clearly the best option, seeing as you're getting energy from the earth's magma, which is replenished all the time. There's no by-product other than steam, where part of it can be condensed to reuse. But no one knows about geothermal yet. The supply of uranium can last at least another half century, where at that point geothermal will have probably developed fully.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Yes, let's not use hydroelectric power because fish might suffer. lol
What a monumental load of rubbish.

Besides, they don't let everything and anything that's in the water into the turbines. Surely they would get severely damaged over time that way. A simple net would solve the problem.

[Pifreak]

OK then, consider what would happen during a flood. The plant would be overloaded, and sooner or later you'd either have to bomb it or watch it be destroyed by the force of the water, resulting in a huge wave of water crashing down onto whatever town may be below.

And besides, if you see a leak in a plant, you can't do anything about it. If you plug the leak, pressure will build up and eventually destroy the entire thing.

[Jazzratt]

Yes, let's not use hydroelectric power because fish might suffer. lol

Okay. Let's not use it because in 3 decades it civil hydroelectric power plants have caused more than 110 times as many human deaths as nuclear. (http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/PSI_Report/ENSAD98App.pdf <- if you can be arsed with it, that's the source.)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Don't be stupid. They're not deadly. Those were accidents. The places which use hydroelectric power do so because it's affordable and clean, much like nuclear, except even cheaper.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So the hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste rock produced from uranium mining, many of the mines on indigenous lands where tailing ponds have polluted important water resources, and blowing radioactive dust has contaminated wildlife doesn't bother anyone?

Yes, industry pollutes, thank you for informing us. What's your alternative? Solar? What precisely do you think the panels are etched with, rosewater? And just what makes you think the highly toxic and corrosive chemicals used in solar panel production (not to mention the associated pollution with making wind turbines) are not just as badly mismanaged (if not worse) as uranium mining?

All human industrial activity has an impact on the environment. I've seen nothing to indicate that nuclear power is much worse than any of the others.


It doesn't bother people that the waste needs to be managed for a million years before it's safe according to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization who is in charge of managing the spent fuel in Ontario?

An unsourced, paraphrased statement. How convincing. :rolleyes:


Beyond that, nuclear power demands strict management and oversight to remain safe and under capitalism the impetus is to cut corners and save money which makes nuclear technology an inherently dangerous choice.

They cut corners in all industries. So what's the alternative?


Even under state control the management and oversight of this technology has never been good, hence the 7 reactor shut down in Ontario due to grotesque inadequacies in safety precautions leading to regular spills of radioactive tritium and multiple accidents.

And how many died or were injured as a result?


The efficiency argument is also bunk, at least in Ontario, where nuclear plants have consistently run at under 65% capacity.

Good grief! Of course a nuclear power plant is going to be inefficient if you run it under capacity! It would happen with any other source of power. Nuclear power plants are more efficient overall.


Uranium deposits are also depleting rapidly all over the world, in Canada the cost of uranium has risen seven fold in the last decade! There is currently virtually no reprocessing done due to the dangers of proliferation and the extreme cost.

Then bring back reprocessing, abolish the stupid agreements that make it so expensive and it will be less of an issue. Doubtless Australia will get off it's anti-nuclear fixation and be looking for buyers of it's surplus as the energy crisis starts to bite.

As for proliferation, that's a moot point. Even now it's easy to get nukes - a lot of other countries are too poor to afford a nuclear reactor, let alone a fully-equipped SDI system.


In Ontario the cost of maintaining our nuclear fleet has left the Province 20 billion dollars of stranded debt and never delivered the electricity load predicted. Due to major shut downs because of safety inadequacies coal power had to take up the deficit and smog is now killing over 3000 people a year.

Thus showing how eco-friendly the real alternatives are, as in the alternatives that are actually used instead of the pie--in-the-sky schemes of Greenpeace and their ilk.


Decentralized power systems (look up Amory Lovins 'soft energy' stuff) using the right type of energy where it's needed, can be built quickly and is much more efficient then centralized large scale megaplants.

They're also a whole lot less powerful.


If we want to talk about reprocessing, and we're envisioning a technological future that doesn't currently exist, why not Photovoltaic Solar, Wind, Small scale non-invasive Hydro, Heat Capture power production, and energy efficient user end technologies? This stuff could work, is pretty much available, and could supply us with what we need, and doesn't have the uncountable problems of Nuclear power.

Nuclear doesn't have "uncountable" problems - that's meaningless hyperbole.

[Jazzratt]

Don't be stupid. They're not deadly. Those were accidents. The places which use hydroelectric power do so because it's affordable and clean, much like nuclear, except even cheaper.

But less safe. The sheer volume of accidents in those places shows that hydroelctric plants are less well engineered than nuclear and, of course, do not generate as much usable energy.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In relation to the investment involved, are you sure they don't generate as much electricity?

And being "less safe" than nuclear isn't a reason to not use hydoelectric power. It might be a reason to not substitute nuclear for hydroelectric, but that isn't even a possibility.

[Jazzratt]

In relation to the investment involved, are you sure they don't generate as much electricity?

Fairly, but if you can prove me wrong I would be prepared to concede on that point.


And being "less safe" than nuclear isn't a reason to not use hydoelectric power. It might be a reason to not substitute nuclear for hydroelectric, but that isn't even a possibility.

There, that's the other problem - Nuclear is a lot more flexible in its placing - if we moved to primarly hydro power we'd be back to making settlments along large bodies of water like the 17th century and before.

[DancingLarry]

I think we're getting a pretty good demonstration of why the state socialist nations are by and large the most disastrously contaminated places on earth. Because Marx and Lenin never wrote about the environment the state socialists are simply incapable of conceiving that environmental factors matter. After all, if they did, Marx and Lenin would have said so, right?

[Psy]

Yes, industry pollutes, thank you for informing us. What's your alternative? Solar? What precisely do you think the panels are etched with, rosewater? And just what makes you think the highly toxic and corrosive chemicals used in solar panel production

There is also solar thermal plant where many large mirrors concentrate the suns heat to a water tower to boil water to turn turbines. Also solar updraft plants were collectors stores heat from the sun that causes updrafts that drives turbines.

Yes they take up a lot of room but both are best suited for the desert environments that are mostly uninhabitable anyway.



(not to mention the associated pollution with making wind turbines) are not just as badly mismanaged (if not worse) as uranium mining?

Yet wind turbine in the long run pollute much less as when properly manufactured they require little reproduction.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

There, that's the other problem - Nuclear is a lot more flexible in its placing - if we moved to primarly hydro power we'd be back to making settlments along large bodies of water like the 17th century and before.

That's my point exactly: nobody is suggesting we move to primarily hydro power. That isn't conceivable except for in a few countries, mine included. What I'm defending is the use of hydroelectric power in places where it is possible. In most places where it's possible, it's already used, for its enormous affordability and cleanliness. There are more rivers, of course, that can be dammed for hydro power, and they should be for the reasons cited above.

[Lost In Translation]

Nobody is suggesting we move to primarily hydro power. That isn't conceivable except for in a few countries, mine included. What I'm defending is the use of hydroelectric power in places where it is possible. In most places where it's possible, it's already used, for its enormously affordability and cleanliness. There are more rivers, of course, that can be dammed for hydro power, and they should be for the reasons cited above.

I don't think that was the point of this thread. We're simply discussing whether or not the use of Nuclear power should be increased or not. I'm not suggesting that Hydro be discarded completely, but that Nuclear should become more prominent in the years to come.

[Psy]

I don't think that was the point of this threat. We're simply discussing whether or not the use of Nuclear power should be increased or not. I'm not suggesting that Hydro be discarded completely, but that Nuclear should become more prominent in the years to come.

On a large scale I don't see nuclear practical, just training competent nuclear engineers and technicians on a massive scale would be impractical. Then there is the problem that uranium is a non-renewable resource and is estimated that world supply of uranium will last 120 years at current levels of extraction (and of course if we drastically increase nuclear power we would drastically shorten our supply or uranium)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I don't think that was the point of this threat. We're simply discussing whether or not the use of Nuclear power should be increased or not. I'm not suggesting that Hydro be discarded completely, but that Nuclear should become more prominent in the years to come.

I agree absolutely that the use of nuclear power should be increased. The list of places that are able to rely purely on hydroelectric power and other clean and efficient means is tiny. But jazzratt did say that hydroelectric power shouldn't be used because it's unsafe. That's absurd.

[farleft]

I don't really have anything to add to this conversation but I voted for: Yes, increasingly

I really dont understand those saying it should be abolished, are there really people that stupid?

[Pifreak]

I don't really have anything to add to this conversation but I voted for: Yes, increasingly

I really dont understand those saying it should be abolished, are there really people that stupid?


Anyone who tries to make a connection between the nuclear power of today and the nuclear bombs a while back will. This is why nuclear power isn't being used in large quantities.

But of course, if you actually do some research on this, you'll find nuclear power is actually really safe.

[Lost In Translation]

Anyone who tries to make a connection between the nuclear power of today and the nuclear bombs a while back will. This is why nuclear power isn't being used in large quantities.

But of course, if you actually do some research on this, you'll find nuclear power is actually really safe.

The reaction used to produce energy in nuclear plants is fission. The reaction used in nuclear bombs is fusion, so I really don't see how anybody can make such a comparison and have evidence to back it. We all remember Chernobyl, but that was decades ago. Nuclear reactors (the CANDU ones anyway) are safer, and more efficient.

[Cult of Reason]

Actually, ALL nuclear bombs use nuclear fission reactions. It is thermonuclear bombs that use fusion reactions in addition to fission reactions.

[Lost In Translation]

Actually, ALL nuclear bombs use nuclear fission reactions. It is thermonuclear bombs that use fusion reactions in addition to fission reactions.

Whoops, my bad. But that still doesn't give a person who relates nuclear power plants to nuclear bombs any other substantial room to work with.

[The Intransigent Faction]

It wouldn't post at first and now I've lost my response..damn. Ah well.
I've done a project on this and I'll try to sum up what I was going to say.
First of all, nuclear power is inefficient. It doesn't provide enough power despite all the labour involved in the building of plants/uranium mining etc.
Then there's the many tonnes of nuclear waste that have been produced and will be produced exponentially. Even a single microgram of plutonium can act as a carcinogen, so we're going down a dangerous road there and can't keep storing the stuff forever, considering that as much as 1600 tonnes of nuclear waste has been produced thus far. The half-life of plutonium is nearly 24 100 years, so it will be around for a while!
Nuclear power's also not really sustainable. There's a very limited amount of uranium left to mine.
As for alternative energy sources--before scoffing at renewable energy sources, it's important to realize that technology in that area is still improving. Methods of using this energy are becoming increasingly efficient.
Finally, the next person to tell me that nuclear energy is "clean" will be shot. People are understandably fixated on greenhouse gases, but they aren't the only harmful substances that can be introduced into the environment. Regardless, the process of building new plants and mining uranium emits greenhouse gases along with the obvious benefit of toxic waste later on.
Most importantly, I would hope that nobody here has forgotten the terrible tragedy at Chernobyl.
I will keep an open-mind but I hope that any response amounts to more than "You're an idiot".

[Lamanov]

Renewable energy is the way to go. (Until we reach fusion power :D)

I'm told by one of the comrades that fussion can be reached only through experimentation which recquires large amounts of energy, namely nuclear.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Nuclear waste can be safely disposed of. In the best of cases, the waste is kept in capsules that are extremely resistant to degradation, checked up on every few years, and placed in parts of the Earth's crust so deep that even if radioactive material did leave the capsule, it wouldn't possibly be in contact with any living thing or with ground water.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yes. Nuclear power is the cleanest, most efficient source of energy we have right now. Work should be done to perfect that source.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

First of all, nuclear power is inefficient. It doesn't provide enough power despite all the labour involved in the building of plants/uranium mining etc.

[citation needed]


Then there's the many tonnes of nuclear waste that have been produced and will be produced exponentially.Which is not an insurmountable problem. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed or stored.


Even a single microgram of plutonium can act as a carcinogen,Urban myth. While plutonium is toxic and carcinogenic, it is not so to the degree which it is portrayed by green propaganda.


so we're going down a dangerous road there and can't keep storing the stuff forever, considering that as much as 1600 tonnes of nuclear waste has been produced thus far. The half-life of plutonium is nearly 24 100 years, so it will be around for a while!Longer half-life - lower levels of radiation emitted over a the same period of time as a higher half-life isotope, since there are only so many neutrons a radioactive isotope can lose before it stops being radioactive.

So something with a half-life of thousands of years is less dangerous than something with a half-life of five days.


Nuclear power's also not really sustainable. There's a very limited amount of uranium left to mine."very limited"? Citation please. Also, it does not matter if the amount is limited, as long as it is enough. Uranium is also not the only available fissionable fuel.


As for alternative energy sources--before scoffing at renewable energy sources, it's important to realize that technology in that area is still improving. Methods of using this energy are becoming increasingly efficient.And you think that nuclear technology won't also improve? The thing is, uranium has the highest energy density of all available power sources. That means there is room for improvement, unlike things like solar, because only so much energy hits the face of the earth in the form of sunlight every day. Where as a nuclear power plant can operate when it's raining, when it's cloudy, when it's windy (wind turbines have to stop if the wind is too strong) and at night.


Finally, the next person to tell me that nuclear energy is "clean" will be shot. People are understandably fixated on greenhouse gases, but they aren't the only harmful substances that can be introduced into the environment. Regardless, the process of building new plants and mining uranium emits greenhouse gases along with the obvious benefit of toxic waste later on.It's certainly clean compared to the competition. Churning out thousands of square kilometres of solar panels and the hundreds of thousands of wind turbines necessary to provide for our current energy need (alone our projected energy needs) would also produce pollution. I'm not convinced that producing and building "renewable" energy plants is any less harmful to the environment than building nuclear power plants and uranium mining.


Most importantly, I would hope that nobody here has forgotten the terrible tragedy at Chernobyl.Which is an enormous red herring considering that safety features had to be disabled in order for it to happen, and also that design faults that contributed to the accident have not been replicated in modern reactors - in fact, there are some reactor designs where meltdown is a physical impossibility due to their being only a certain density of fuel in the reactor at any one time.

[Lamanov]

First of all, nuclear power is inefficient. It doesn't provide enough power despite all the labour involved in the building of plants/uranium mining etc.

[citation needed]

I'll resort to hear-say for the sake of time, but I think France is over 97% nuclear energy, so it simply can't be non-efficient.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Fair enough. I'm no expert.


[citation needed]

http://www.consact.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=92&Itemid=32



Which is not an insurmountable problem. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed or stored.

As mentioned, you'll have to do so for quite a long time. Remember there will be far from unlimited space for this. Maybe it's not "insurmountable" but it's certainly inconvenient, and it would be arrogant to think you can just store it all away forever. Oh and it can also be dumped in rivers--something I'd rather avoid. Regardless, the point was that it's not so clean as nuclear propaganda portrays it to be.


Urban myth. While plutonium is toxic and carcinogenic, it is not so to the degree which it is portrayed by green propaganda.

"Citation needed."


Longer half-life - lower levels of radiation emitted over a the same period of time as a higher half-life isotope, since there are only so many neutrons a radioactive isotope can lose before it stops being radioactive.

So something with a half-life of thousands of years is less dangerous than something with a half-life of five days.

Even with "most" of the radiation gone, its still going to be pretty dangerous. Radioactive waste is radioactive for a very long time.
It is a common misperception to imagine that a long half-life means high radioactivity. It's actually the opposite. The longer the half-life, the more stable and less radioactive the substance: in other words—it ‘leaks’, or radiates, its radioactivity more slowly. The shorter the half-life, the more ‘unstable’ and the more radioactive is the substance


"very limited"? Citation please. Also, it does not matter if the amount is limited, as long as it is enough. Uranium is also not the only available fissionable fuel.

*sigh*. No offense but do some research. The information's out there. I'm not writing an essay, so I'm not going to source every last word I say. In any case, of course it matters if the amount is limited. That implies that there won't be "enough" much longer! Just like fossil fuels, fissionable material exists in limited nonrenewable quantities. It also produces greenhouse gases, but in addition it produces toxic waste.


And you think that nuclear technology won't also improve? The thing is, uranium has the highest energy density of all available power sources. That means there is room for improvement, unlike things like solar, because only so much energy hits the face of the earth in the form of sunlight every day. Where as a nuclear power plant can operate when it's raining, when it's cloudy, when it's windy (wind turbines have to stop if the wind is too strong) and at night.

You do know it doesn't have to be sunny for 24 hours to run solar power? Same goes for wind energy. That technology is improving. If enough work is put into it, there will be ways to get around the deficiencies you mention. Funny you should mention rain *coughacidraincough*.


It's certainly clean compared to the competition. Churning out thousands of square kilometres of solar panels and the hundreds of thousands of wind turbines necessary to provide for our current energy need (alone our projected energy needs) would also produce pollution. I'm not convinced that producing and building "renewable" energy plants is any less harmful to the environment than building nuclear power plants and uranium mining.

Hundreds of thousands with current technology, perhaps. That and no technology can be enough to compensate for excessive demand. This is getting frustrating. You really have to look into uranium mining and the building of nuclear power plants more before you make such ridiculous assertions. That mining produces greenhouse gases and also causes other ecological damages in the process. Unlike the case of nuclear power, the end result of constructing necessary technology to gather renewable energy is methods that don't release more greenhouse gases or any toxic waste in the process. So overtime the pollution caused by nuclear power would greatly overcome any pollution produced by capturing renewable energy sources. Try telling any of this to the family of the uranium miners who have died of cancer at high rates as a result of exposure. A clear correlation has been established http://www.ccnr.org/uranium_deadliest.html#evidence


Which is an enormous red herring considering that safety features had to be disabled in order for it to happen, and also that design faults that contributed to the accident have not been replicated in modern reactors - in fact, there are some reactor designs where meltdown is a physical impossibility due to their being only a certain density of fuel in the reactor at any one time.

There are numerous reasons why nuclear accidents can occur, including human error, mechanical failure, design flaws, administrative flaws (or some combination of them), to say nothing of military or terrorist attacks and natural disasters such as earthquakes. Obviously, the more nuclear facilities there are in existence, the more statistically inevitable further such releases becomes, both due to the proliferation of nuclear reactors, and the wastes they generate. Nuclear reactors themselves, when they go off-line, also become a nuclear waste disposal problem. There are certainly more risks than are involved in other power sources, with or without meltdowns.


I'll resort to hear-say for the sake of time, but I think France is over 97% nuclear energy, so it simply can't be non-efficient.

France uses it and therefore it's efficient? Got me there :rolleyes:.
Well coal power plants are used to produce about half of America's energy, therefore by that logic they must be efficient.
Sorry about the sarcasm but I had to point out that one country using one energy source more than other sources, and that the same country using the source (nuclear) more than other countries may use it, does not make it the most efficient source.
I understand time constraints though, so no worries. We all have that problem at some point(s).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://www.consact.org.au/index.php?...d=92&Itemid=32 (http://www.consact.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=92&Itemid=32)

So you point me to website with a vested ideological interest in disowning nuclear power. Colour me unsurprised.


As mentioned, you'll have to do so for quite a long time. Remember there will be far from unlimited space for this. Maybe it's not "insurmountable" but it's certainly inconvenient, and it would be arrogant to think you can just store it all away forever.You don't need to store it forever. That's just meaningless hyperbole. You only need to store for as long as it takes for the really nasty isotopes to decay. Which incidentally, have the shortest half-lives.

Of course, the whole "problem" of storage of nuclear waste would be reduced if reprocessing and breeder reactors were more widely used.


Oh and it can also be dumped in rivers--something I'd rather avoid. Regardless, the point was that it's not so clean as nuclear propaganda portrays it to be.Compared to coal, it's damn clean. In fact, coal plant ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste).


"Citation needed."Very well...


Toxicity

Isotopes and compounds of plutonium are toxic due to its radioactivity[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-ATSDR-18) While plutonium is sometimes described in media reports as "the most toxic substance known to man", from the standpoint of actual chemical or radiological toxicity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity) this is incorrect.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-19)[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-world-nuclear-20) When taken in by mouth, plutonium is less poisonous than if inhaled, since it is not absorbed into the body efficiently when ingested. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates the increase in lifetime cancer risk for inhaled plutonium as 3×10−8 pCi−1.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#cite_note-21) (this means that inhaling 1 μCi, or about 2.5 μg of reactor-grade plutonium is estimated to increase one's lifetime risk of developing cancer as a result of the exposure to 3%).


Note the citations.


Even with "most" of the radiation gone, its still going to be pretty dangerous. Radioactive waste is radioactive for a very long time.But as I pointed out, the isotopes with the longest half-lives are the least dangerous because the radiation flux is lower.

Remember that ionising radiation is a form of energy, and that energy has to come from somewhere according to the laws of thermodynamics. It follows therefore that the most dangerous time to be around nuclear waste is just after it's created, but that it gets safer as time passes due to the more radioactive isotopes decaying faster.

What do you think one of the sources of natural background radiation is apart from naturally-occurring, long-lived isotopes? You're being irradiated as we speak!


It is a common misperception to imagine that a long half-life means high radioactivity. It's actually the opposite. The longer the half-life, the more stable and less radioactive the substance: in other words—it ‘leaks’, or radiates, its radioactivity more slowly. The shorter the half-life, the more ‘unstable’ and the more radioactive is the substanceSo why are you presenting storage as such a big problem? Surely it won't be that long until the radioactivity of a given batch of nuclear waste reduces to background levels?


*sigh*. No offense but do some research. The information's out there. I'm not writing an essay, so I'm not going to source every last word I say. In any case, of course it matters if the amount is limited. That implies that there won't be "enough" much longer! Just like fossil fuels, fissionable material exists in limited nonrenewable quantities.Bald statements of fact do not answer the question of whether there is enough damn uranium in ground for the venture to be worthwhile. "Worthwhile" meaning "long enough for us to keep the damn power on until we can get fusion working".

Not to mention the fact that you do not need as much uranium as you do coal in order to get the same amount of energy.


It also produces greenhouse gases, but in addition it produces toxic waste.The greenhouse gases produced by nuclear power plants are negligable compared to the output of fossil fuel plants (which, like it or not, are still in common use) or the gases produced by the production of thousands of wind turbines or solar panels just to equal one nuclear power plant.

A nuke plant's waste is self-contained and fuel reprocessing offers the solution to the longterm storage problem by recovering a high percentage of burnable fuel from the waste mass. Also that fuel reprocessing essentially means a fuel source which will last possibly hundreds of millenia. So while nuclear may be a high-end investment in the short term, it will provide energy to run this civilisation for just about any term in the forseeable future without the supply and pollution problems inherent in fossil fuels, or the geographical limitations on the greener alternatives.


You do know it doesn't have to be sunny for 24 hours to run solar power? Same goes for wind energy. Yes, but it sure helps, doesn't it? Face it, if clouds are absorbing or scattering part of the light needed for optimum output (or it's a calm day), then you simply aren't going to get that optimum output without "cheating".


That technology is improving. If enough work is put into it, there will be ways to get around the deficiencies you mention.I highly doubt that we are going to break the laws of thermodynamics within the foreseeable future.


Funny you should mention rain *coughacidraincough*.Funny you should bring up acid rain, as nuclear power doesn't cause it.


Hundreds of thousands with current technology, perhaps. That and no technology can be enough to compensate for excessive demand.Ah, the old "You're consuming too much!" whine, beloved of sandal-wearing neo-Puritan idiots the world over.

Suffice to say, I don't buy into "green" neo-Luddism. High rates of energy consumption are absolutely necessary for maintaining a high-technology society.


This is getting frustrating. You really have to look into uranium mining and the building of nuclear power plants more before you make such ridiculous assertions. That mining produces greenhouse gases and also causes other ecological damages in the process.If it keeps the power on, then most people won't give a fuck - if the price of oil keeps going up as it is, then people will reject the middle-class hippie propaganda they've been fed for the past 50-odd years and demand nuclear power!


Unlike the case of nuclear power, the end result of constructing necessary technology to gather renewable energy is methods that don't release more greenhouse gases or any toxic waste in the process.It's more effort for less energy. Only an idiot would go for that.


So overtime the pollution caused by nuclear power would greatly overcome any pollution produced by capturing renewable energy sources.The pollution caused by nuclear power is negligable compared to the combined effect of all other human industrial activity.

If you really want to stop pollution, you'd better become a primitivist.


Try telling any of this to the family of the uranium miners who have died of cancer at high rates as a result of exposure. A clear correlation has been established http://www.ccnr.org/uranium_deadliest.html#evidenceSob stories from yet another pressure group aren't an argument. Many essential industries produce deaths simply through their existance. This can be countered somewhat with personal protective gear and so on, but you can't protect 100% of the workforce 100% of the time.


There are numerous reasons why nuclear accidents can occur, including human error, mechanical failure, design flaws, administrative flaws (or some combination of them), to say nothing of military or terrorist attacks and natural disasters such as earthquakes. Obviously, the more nuclear facilities there are in existence, the more statistically inevitable further such releases becomes, both due to the proliferation of nuclear reactors, and the wastes they generate.Against all of which measures can be taken to make them less likely. Stop treating it as if it were some physically impossible problem, like breaking the laws of thermodynamics as you seem to be so fond of proposing.


Nuclear reactors themselves, when they go off-line, also become a nuclear waste disposal problem. There are certainly more risks than are involved in other power sources, with or without meltdowns.But the payoff is bigger.


France uses it and therefore it's efficient? Got me there :rolleyes:.Do you think they would waste all that money building and maintaining reactors if it wasn't? France is a standing refutation to Green propoganda.


Well coal power plants are used to produce about half of America's energy, therefore by that logic they must be efficient.Coal is efficient because it's currently cheap.

Don't confuse cheapness, efficiency and environmental friendliness. They are not the same things.


Sorry about the sarcasm but I had to point out that one country using one energy source more than other sources, and that the same country using the source (nuclear) more than other countries may use it, does not make it the most efficient source.Well obviously it works for France, so the sensible thing especially considering the current oil situation is to find out why France can run most of their country off nuclear power, and to see if those reasons can be applied to other countries.

[The Intransigent Faction]

So you point me to website with a vested ideological interest in disowning nuclear power. Colour me unsurprised.

Yes because that clearly makes the information therein illegitimate.
Communist sites have a vested interest in opposing Capitalist regimes. That doesn't mean a Communist web-site's information can be automatically dismissed.


You don't need to store it forever. That's just meaningless hyperbole. You only need to store for as long as it takes for the really nasty isotopes to decay. Which incidentally, have the shortest half-lives.

Shortest is still a long time, then. Besides that, the shortest and most extreme will be consistently produced as waste is disposed of, so there will always be such waste and limited space to store it all as more plants are built.


Of course, the whole "problem" of storage of nuclear waste would be reduced if reprocessing and breeder reactors were more widely used.

Compared to coal, it's damn clean. In fact, coal plant ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste).

"Problem" eh. You don't think nuclear waste is undesirable? Yes I'm aware of that. Some pesticides are stronger than others, but even the weaker ones shouldn't be ingested.


Note the citations.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6152-plutonium-cancer-risk-may-be-higher-than-thought.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E1DE113BF935A15755C0A9659C8B 63

Even a minor increase in cancer is not a good thing. It's not something that one should try to trivialize.


But as I pointed out, the isotopes with the longest half-lives are the least dangerous because the radiation flux is lower.

Least dangerous and yet still quite dangerous.


Remember that ionising radiation is a form of energy, and that energy has to come from somewhere according to the laws of thermodynamics. It follows therefore that the most dangerous time to be around nuclear waste is just after it's created, but that it gets safer as time passes due to the more radioactive isotopes decaying faster.

Not much safer. It can still pose health risks, hence the correlation with cases of cancer.


What do you think one of the sources of natural background radiation is apart from naturally-occurring, long-lived isotopes? You're being irradiated as we speak!

So why are you presenting storage as such a big problem? Surely it won't be that long until the radioactivity of a given batch of nuclear waste reduces to background levels?

As mentioned, plutonium has a half-life of 24 100 years, and a single microgram of plutonium can cause cancer.
I highly doubt that our bodies are naturally that toxic by comparison.


Bald statements of fact do not answer the question of whether there is enough damn uranium in ground for the venture to be worthwhile. "Worthwhile" meaning "long enough for us to keep the damn power on until we can get fusion working".

Not to mention the fact that you do not need as much uranium as you do coal in order to get the same amount of energy.[/quote]

There's enough to last a few decades at most.
Besides, extracting and enriching this uranium would require more energy than it could produce.


The greenhouse gases produced by nuclear power plants are negligable compared to the output of fossil fuel plants (which, like it or not, are still in common use) or the gases produced by the production of thousands of wind turbines or solar panels just to equal one nuclear power plant.

A bald-faced lie. Besides your failure to address that "Unlike the case of nuclear power, the end result of constructing necessary technology to gather renewable energy is methods that don't release more greenhouse gases or any toxic waste in the process. So overtime the pollution caused by nuclear power would greatly overcome any pollution produced by capturing renewable energy sources.", you don't seem to have a problem with fossil fuel plants still being in common usage,. You're showing your true colours, and none of them are green.


A nuke plant's waste is self-contained and fuel reprocessing offers the solution to the longterm storage problem by recovering a high percentage of burnable fuel from the waste mass. Also that fuel reprocessing essentially means a fuel source which will last possibly hundreds of millenia. So while nuclear may be a high-end investment in the short term, it will provide energy to run this civilisation for just about any term in the forseeable future without the supply and pollution problems inherent in fossil fuels, or the geographical limitations on the greener alternatives.

Most uranium is found in poor-grade ores, but the use of these ores in nuclear power will increase greenhouse gas emissions, due to mining and milling processes. For example, uranium is found in ocean water, at a concentration of 0.0000002%. Again, extracting and enriching this uranium would require more energy than it could produce.


Yes, but it sure helps, doesn't it? Face it, if clouds are absorbing or scattering part of the light needed for optimum output (or it's a calm day), then you simply aren't going to get that optimum output without "cheating".

Maybe not. That's why with technology we'll be able to come up with other renewable sources.

I highly doubt that we are going to break the laws of thermodynamics within the foreseeable future.

Maybe not. That's why with technology we'll be able to come up with other renewable sources and ways of storing and enhancing efficiency of this energy. It will require some limits until we can cheaply produce ways of capturing this energy..which obviously the current bourgeois market would like to keep expensive.


Funny you should bring up acid rain, as nuclear power doesn't cause it.

Okay, I'll concede that point, but neither do any of the renewable sources which I could mention.


Ah, the old "You're consuming too much!" whine, beloved of sandal-wearing neo-Puritan idiots the world over.

Suffice to say, I don't buy into "green" neo-Luddism. High rates of energy consumption are absolutely necessary for maintaining a high-technology society.

First off, I was hoping for civil responses. If personal attacks cannot be avoided, then this debate will degrade into something worth little consideration.
I'm not against technological innovations. That's a complete straw-man. I do, however, believe that we should recognize their inevitable negative aspects. Also you're taking up quite the illogical position by opposing conservation while at the same time promoting use of a non-renewable energy source. I hope you realize that society does have to be responsible as far as energy consumption. That does not amount to primitivism--what it amounts to is that we should recognize that some energy sources are limited, and thus if we insist on using them we must not be so recklessly wasteful. That was a complete straw-man.


If it keeps the power on, then most people won't give a fuck - if the price of oil keeps going up as it is, then people will reject the middle-class hippie propaganda they've been fed for the past 50-odd years and demand nuclear power!

I certainly don't advocate the use of oil for energy in the current state of affairs. I do believe that it could at the very least be mixed in with other sources rather than relying on nuclear alone.


It's more effort for less energy. Only an idiot would go for that.

Even if it means fewer drawbacks?

The pollution caused by nuclear power is negligable compared to the combined effect of all other human industrial activity.


If you really want to stop pollution, you'd better become a primitivist.

Yes because everyone against pollution is a primitivist.


Sob stories from yet another pressure group aren't an argument. Many essential industries produce deaths simply through their existance. This can be countered somewhat with personal protective gear and so on, but you can't protect 100% of the workforce 100% of the time.

Ah, sacrifice the workers, eh? Don't know about that one.


Against all of which measures can be taken to make them less likely. Stop treating it as if it were some physically impossible problem, like breaking the laws of thermodynamics as you seem to be so fond of proposing.

Less likely, but still possible. It's not impossible and no I don't advocate breaking the laws of thermodynamics. It's not necessary to do so to make advances with renewable sources.


But the payoff is bigger.

Bigger payoff rarely if ever comes without bigger drawbacks.


Do you think they would waste all that money building and maintaining reactors if it wasn't? France is a standing refutation to Green propoganda.

Who's "they"? Bourgeois companies/government?
The amount of money spent does not have a causative link with efficiency. They just don't give a damn about the environmental damages as long as it means profit.


Coal is efficient because it's currently cheap.

Well there you go. Even cost-effective energy sources have drawbacks.
Of course being cheap has more to do with cost-effectiveness than efficiency as far as producing more energy at a quicker pace with a limited level of risks.


Don't confuse cheapness, efficiency and environmental friendliness. They are not the same things.

You're right, they aren't.
"Cheapness" is subject to inflation, among other economic factors in current society. Efficiency can be part of environmental friendliness since technological advances may allow for the production of more energy with less resulting pollutants.


Well obviously it works for France, so the sensible thing especially considering the current oil situation is to find out why France can run most of their country off nuclear power, and to see if those reasons can be applied to other countries.

Again, America can run largely off coal. I'm not trying to suggest here that we should not look at why France is taking it's current path. I'm merely stating that the case of one country investing a lot into a certain form of energy does not prove its efficiency (as long as it's cheap, they may go for it), cheapness (not a constant), or environmental friendliness (self-explanatory).

I will close this by saying that I appreciate your input and it has left me with much to consider, even changed my outlook somewhat. I would certainly be more compelled to examine your points seriously if you didn't resort to attacking "hippie" "green propaganda" at every turn. Maybe I was an idiot..but calling people that is rarely an effective method in convincing someone who would otherwise be willing to listen and stop being an "idiot" as a result.

[Lynx]

Hearing T. Boone Pickens talk about developing the 'western wind corridor' and spending billions to adapt the transmission infrastructure to carry that power doesn't bode well for the future of nuclear in North America.

[butterfly]

GEO-THERMAL, GEO-THERMAL, GEO-THERMAL. Do you wan't to see uranium replace oil in a global tug-of-war for resource security?

[butterfly]

Note; Volcanoes have absolutely NOTHING to do with geo-thermal energy as a base-load electricity source.

[Comrade B]

As someone that lived near a nuclear research center and power plant, may I say, NO! YOU DON'T WANT THIS!

We had a problem a few years ago with radioactive tumbleweed...
A high up company employee once boasted that their containers would last "a good 50 more years." What do you fellows expect will be done in 50 years?

[Cult of Reason]

GEO-THERMAL, GEO-THERMAL, GEO-THERMAL

What the hell are you babbling about? Geothermal power has no chance of becoming a main power source worldwide for one simple reason: there is a limit to the rate of energy extraction, otherwise you will cool the rocks so much that the source will stop until they warm up again. Geothermal power can only be sustainable if the rate of extraction is balanced with the rate of heat travelling through rock to your location.


The stuff at this site should be required reading: http://www.withouthotair.com/

The book at the above site has a chapter on geothermal power.

Fuck it, I am going to see if I can fit that in my signature.

[ckaihatsu]

Does anyone keep up with laser technology?

The point is that it harnesses several light sources into a single, focused discharge for a fraction of a second, producing an explosion of power output.

I don't know much more than that offhand, but I'll come back to this later....


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Djehuti]

Fission power is not a long term solution, it is preferable to fossil fuel but there are some sorts of renewable energy that have great potential.

Fusion would be ultimate though, so we must do nuclear research.

[Comrade Looter]

Nuclear Power is dangerous, but it is also a great source of constant energy. The only accidents that have happend involving a Nuclear Power Plant were due to Human Error in monitoring, and Human Error in not responding appropriately (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl NPP, ETC) - One of the bad things about Nuclear Power is that it can go from good to bad very quickly, and thats when Nuclear Meltdowns occur, which can permanently damage the environment if not handled correctly.

I voted "Yes, but limitedly" - Because Nuclear Power is a great resource for large-scale cities, but it shouldn't by any means be our only source of power - Nor should the United States restrict other nations from developing it, but sometimes Nuclear Power in other countries is just an excuse to obtain uranium legitly, then use it for building Nuclear Weapons (see North Korea). The United States developed the bomb first, and got away with it - nobody else will as long as the UN is around (Yea, right hahaha)

[butterfly]

What the hell are you babbling about? Geothermal power has no chance of becoming a main power source worldwide for one simple reason: there is a limit to the rate of energy extraction, otherwise you will cool the rocks so much that the source will stop until they warm up again. Geothermal power can only be sustainable if the rate of extraction is balanced with the rate of heat travelling through rock to your location.


A report endertaken in 2006 which took into account Enhanced Geothermal Systems, calculated that the worlds EGS resources would be sufficient to provide the world's current energy requirments for several millennia. It also estimated that hard rocks below 10km below the US could provide current global requirments for 30,000 years.
This is an open forum and everyone's imput should be valued and considered. Personally i'm ready to embrace geo-thermal over Nuclear, regardless of how minimised the risks are, because it's unlikely you'll ever be able to completely eliminate them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

A report endertaken in 2006 which took into account Enhanced Geothermal Systems, calculated that the worlds EGS resources would be sufficient to provide the world's current energy requirments for several millennia. It also estimated that hard rocks below 10km below the US could provide current global requirments for 30,000 years.

Why don't you cite it, so that we can all find out how on Earth spending years drilling 10Km down is going to be significantly cheaper than than simply taking advantage of plentiful uranium supplies. The Russians drilled a hole just over 12Km into the Earth, and it took them twenty-four years.


This is an open forum and everyone's imput should be valued and considered.

This is indeed an open forum, but nobody is under any obligation to value or consider the opinions of others, particularly if they make absurd statements like saying that taking years at a time to drill holes into the ground is a better idea than simply building nuclear power plants.


Personally i'm ready to embrace geo-thermal over Nuclear, regardless of how minimised the risks are, because it's unlikely you'll ever be able to completely eliminate them.

It's not a question of complete elimination of risks - that is something that is impossible for any source of power. Or any kind of venture, come to think of it. The important thing is that levels of risk should be acceptable.

[butterfly]

Why don't you cite it, so that we can all find out how on Earth spending years drilling 10Km down is going to be significantly cheaper than than simply taking advantage of plentiful uranium supplies. The Russians drilled a hole just over 12Km into the Earth, and it took them twenty-four years.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/future_geothermal.html
Yes well the US must possess some pretty effective technology because Exxon and Shell have no problem in drilling to that level

Geo-thermal is certainly cheaper to construct than coal-fired power stations, and of coarse there's no cost in dealing with hazard-prone waste


This is indeed an open forum, but nobody is under any obligation to value or consider the opinions of others, particularly if they make absurd statements like saying that taking years at a time to drill holes into the ground is a better idea than simply building nuclear power plants.
Nuclear as a base-load source in some part's of the world will probably be inevitable due to the reluctance to invest in technology that doesn't generate ongoing profit, however renewable's have great potential, more so outside of the capitalist framework. :D


It's not a question of complete elimination of risks - that is something that is impossible for any source of power. Or any kind of venture, come to think of it. The important thing is that levels of risk should be acceptable.

I agree, but also like the idea of sustainability.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/future_geothermal.html
Yes well the US must possess some pretty effective technology because Exxon and Shell have no problem in drilling to that level.

Yeah, and how long did it take them to drill those holes? Also, they were drilling in the hope of hitting big paydirt in the form of oil supplies, while a geothermal well would be searching for hot rocks, which would rapidly cool to uselessness if energy was extracted.

Basically, do you get more energy from such geothermal wells than you expend drilling them in the first place? I don't think so.


Geo-thermal is certainly cheaper to construct than coal-fired power stations, and of coarse there's no cost in dealing with hazard-prone waste

Geothermal stations are only cheap in areas like Iceland which are relatively geologically active - elsewhere, the rate of heat transfer through subsurface layers is too slow to make it worthwhile.


I agree, but also like the idea of sustainability.

Due to the abundance of uranium (and other fissionables) and the existance of technologies such as reprocessing and breeder reactors, nuclear power is to all intents and purposes sustainable.

[Severi]

I support the nuclear power for being most effective form of energy currently available. The world needs energy and we can't go backwards or deny poorer countries access to energy. The supply of energy should be in hand-to-hand with demand of energy. Also the construction of nuclear power plants is really slow process and takes years to complete and the development of fusion power has gone forward. ITER is supposed to be ready in 2016. These are thoughts to be consider.

More about ITER project in this website
iter.org
Well i can't post links yet so I hope you get that

[butterfly]

Yeah, and how long did it take them to drill those holes? Also, they were drilling in the hope of hitting big paydirt in the form of oil supplies, while a geothermal well would be searching for hot rocks, which would rapidly cool to uselessness if energy was extracted.

Basically, do you get more energy from such geothermal wells than you expend drilling them in the first place? I don't think so.


First it isn't necessary to drill 12ks in most areas, so concerning how long it takes, it varies, can't give a definitive statement on that one.
Hot rocks don't cool to nothingness if the rate of energy extraction is balanced against the heat produced.
The heat is replenished over time so you do aquire more energy then you expend in the drilling process.

Geothermal stations are only cheap in areas like Iceland which are relatively geologically active - elsewhere, the rate of heat transfer through subsurface layers is too slow to make it worthwhile.

Iceland is not alone, many areas possess the potential to harness this technology, however in isolation it cannot compensate for global energy requirements, particularly when bourgeoisie interests are at stake.
Given current observations, I don't think you can be an informed environmentalist, or humanist for that matter, and reject Nuclear as an energy source.
I support it in moderation and in conjuction with the usual list of alternatives.

[butterfly]

Also quick question, aren't breeder reactors and reprocessing technology in their early stages of development, generation 5 reactors, expected to be available 2030 or am I confused?

[Revy]

I'm disappointed with the amount of people that voted yes. I am strongly against nuclear power.

We can use solar, wind, hydroelectric, clean alternative energy. Solar is constantly being developed as more and more efficient. Solar is the answer, with wind and hydro as supplements. This is eternal energy that we don't need power plants for.

Nuclear energy produces TOXIC WASTE and is a public safety hazard (there have been hundreds of averted Chernobyl's in America alone).

It's like those people who want us to use ethanol, which is NOT green in the least and leads to deforestation and CO2 pollution (ironically, in its production).

[Jazzratt]

Nuclear energy produces TOXIC WASTE and is a public safety hazard (there have been hundreds of averted Chernobyl's in America alone).

Nuclear waste, when disposed of properly and safely, is not a huge problem. The fact that these meltdowns have been averted (oh, and nothing could happen on the scale of Chernobyl. Reactors are designed and housed differently, people have stopped doing stupid things like running at above capacity with safety features turned off and so on.) is an indication that it's safe. Since Chernobyl there have been 0 deaths from meltdowns and only 2 meltdowns that spring to mind - 3 mile island which was a textbook example of how to handle a meltdown and a japanese meltdown which, similarly, resulted in no one dying. The paul-scherrer (misspelling I think) published figures showing that nuclear power is one of the safest power sources at 8 accidental deaths per terrawatt hour.

[casper]

it would be interesting to see what could be developed if a a amount of money equal to a large fraction of the money spent on the Iraq war was invested in alternative energy, like solar,geothermal, fusion etc.

[butterfly]

In retrospect I can understand how easy it is to dismiss Nuclear as a form of energy, however in reality the fear we experience is statistically unfounded yet yet reinforced by the car crash mentality; when we think of Nuclear we think of events like Chernobyl or we fail to differentiate between energy and weaponary.
It is this methodology of thought was applied to other sources of energy they too would be dismissed.

Then there is the issue of waste.
As mentioned by NoXion and JazzRat, the waste produced is minimal and the ways in which it is disposed off or reprocessed have improved as well, despite a significant lack of investment to fund research.
I would highly recommend reading into this progress before coming to any astute conclusions.

The waste output generated by coal-fired power-stations, our current baseload electricity source, continues to have a formidable affect on an individuals health; the quality of the air we breath, the food we eat, water we drink and generally the ecosystem that supports life on earth. These are basic human rights.
Carbon dioxide is not stored, it is pumped freely into our atmosphere and the extent to which this occurs is constantly increasing. (keep in mind China constructs one of these stations every week.
Sequestration, as we well know, does not offer an alternative solution.

Ppm is a measurment of the concentration of Co2 in our atmosphere.
We currently stand at 383ppm, in contrast to 270ppm pre-industrial levels, this increases by approximately 2-3ppm per year.
300million years ago when Co2 concentration was estimated to be around 400ppm the sea levels were 25m higher then they are today.

Of course the construction of plants requires energy and will add to global emmissions, however to limit the effects of climate change is not to put a ban on bottled water or to urge households to switch of the light now and then, (though if you choose to that's great:D)
What is required is a major transition, in a rather short period of time, one that cannot be compensated by the traditional concept of renewable energy alone

[Coggeh]

I may have voted yes before , not sure . But not please change to a firm NO .

Their are other seriously viable alternatives and these are played down as ineffective . Nuclear energy may be a short term solution but its a long term problem , and a needless one at that .

With technological advancements and real investments we could easily do away with the need for fossil fuels but this won't be done in a capitalist system as we all know ,and nuclear energy is the perfect capitalist solution to this problem , we must not surrender into their backwards short term way of thinking.

I do support Nuclear fusion obviously on the other hand .

[swirling_vortex]

I voted yes, but very limited. Solar and wind are nice, but they're not yet economically viable, nor do we have mature enough batteries for a constant 24/7 power output. However, nuclear plants take a good 10 years to construct, so by then the money could have been used to advance other cleaner technologies.

I'm pretty much open to any idea. Nuclear or hydrogen fusion would be a neat thing to become reality.

[Iowa656]

I voted for yes to increase Nuclear power.
However nuclear power is not the solution to the worlds energy crisis.

Only a combination of Nuclear and renewable power will be sustainable in the medium term future. ( I would recommend a 70% 30% respective split as a start). This eventually changing to 100% renewable by a set time point.

Having read through the debate so far I would like to add some points.

1. Nuclear power is "dangerous".

Following from this argument consider this: How many people have died or been injured as a DIRECT result of cars? A number most probably in the millions. Does that mean cars should be banned? According to your logic they should. Cars are continually being upgraded and re modified to increase their safety. When you drive a car there is never a 100% chance of you surviving the journey. Does that prevent you from ever using a car?

A common misconception is the danger of planes. Due directly to the regulation and control of aircraft, travel in an aircraft is many many times safer than travel by car. Planes are flown / controlled / designed / engineered / regulated / checked etc by so many professionals that their safety record is quite extraordinary.

The same applies with Nuclear reactors. Yes I admit, there is a chance that a nuclear reactor will "explode", in the same way there is a chance of a plane crashing, but with ever increasing safety and security measures this probability is insignificant.

2. Uranium is a finite resource

Yes. That statement is correct. However I think you fail to understand the amount of power that is obtained from a set mass of Uranium. A kg of Uranium fuel produces 10,000 times more energy than a kg of Oil/gas/coal.

www . uraniumsa . org/esd/energy_comparison_table . htm (remove spaces)

3. Nuclear reactors = Nuclear bomb.

This is quite an ignorant response, showing a fundamental lack of knowledge of the subject.

Would you ban sales of matches because they can cause uncontrolled fire?

The key is control. Without going into the detailed physics, a nuclear reaction is CONTROLLED inside a power plant and is UNCONTROLLED in a bomb. The purpose of a bomb is the get as many atoms to react as possible, whereas a reactor sets a certain amount of reactions per unit time and KEEPS it at that level. Easy preventative measures can be added to stop the reaction becoming uncontrolled (something which Chernobyl failed to have). This can be backed up and double backed up to reduce the percentage of an uncontrolled reaction to something not likely to occur in a billion billion years.

4. Nuclear is expensive.

Again I refer to this website.

www . uraniumsa . org/esd/energy_comparison_table . htm (remove spaces)

Cost per unit energy is relative to Coal / oil /gas and significantly lower than renewable energy.
In fact it is renewable energies that are most expensive to run.

5. Radiation from waste is dangerous.

Yes true. You have to understand the danger of radiation for this to make any sense.
Firstly there is absolutely no such thing as a safe amount of radiation. Estimates often quote X amount of radiation increases likely hood of cancer by Y %. Perhaps these may be true, but these are only averages. Due to the random nature of radiation these are not "accurate" predictions. Also keep in mind that there is radiation all around us in several forms, yet we seem to be living fine, don't we?
Furthermore is isn't just a case of "burying it". A certain percent of it can be reused. The remaining waste if properly disposed of is no danger to anyone. With the correct and thorough regulations this waste poses no danger.


In conclusion, Nuclear is the energy resource of the present and near future, until 100% renewable is practical, and is as safe as you can dream it to be.

[Iowa656]

Apologies for double post.

[Kassad]

With the potential environmental damage I have heard about and witnessed, I could never be a suporter of such a thing. With continuing breakthroughs in wind, solar, tide, wave and assorted other innovative types of efficient energy, I don't think it will be necessary. There are many more environmentally safe means of achieving energy and without the massive risk of nuclear power.

Furthermore, energy should be handled by the people. In the current political climate, I would hope that the state would manage it, since letting the private sector manage enery would result in the same monetary schemes and repression that we see from the oil and automobile companies. If we let them privatize energy again, we will likely see the same problem again in the future as those making money will refuse to move into the future because it will be too expensive.

[Psy]

I voted for yes to increase Nuclear power.
However nuclear power is not the solution to the worlds energy crisis.

Only a combination of Nuclear and renewable power will be sustainable in the medium term future. ( I would recommend a 70% 30% respective split as a start). This eventually changing to 100% renewable by a set time point.

Having read through the debate so far I would like to add some points.

1. Nuclear power is "dangerous".

Following from this argument consider this: How many people have died or been injured as a DIRECT result of cars? A number most probably in the millions. Does that mean cars should be banned? According to your logic they should. Cars are continually being upgraded and re modified to increase their safety. When you drive a car there is never a 100% chance of you surviving the journey. Does that prevent you from ever using a car?

A common misconception is the danger of planes. Due directly to the regulation and control of aircraft, travel in an aircraft is many many times safer than travel by car. Planes are flown / controlled / designed / engineered / regulated / checked etc by so many professionals that their safety record is quite extraordinary.

The same applies with Nuclear reactors. Yes I admit, there is a chance that a nuclear reactor will "explode", in the same way there is a chance of a plane crashing, but with ever increasing safety and security measures this probability is insignificant.

The problem is the risk due to amount of damage a large reactor can do.



2. Uranium is a finite resource

Yes. That statement is correct. However I think you fail to understand the amount of power that is obtained from a set mass of Uranium. A kg of Uranium fuel produces 10,000 times more energy than a kg of Oil/gas/coal.

www . uraniumsa . org/esd/energy_comparison_table . htm (remove spaces)

If you increase nuclear power you'd increase Uranium usages and Uranium reserves would quickly deplete.




4. Nuclear is expensive.

Again I refer to this website.

www . uraniumsa . org/esd/energy_comparison_table . htm (remove spaces)

Cost per unit energy is relative to Coal / oil /gas and significantly lower than renewable energy.
In fact it is renewable energies that are most expensive to run.

If nuclear energy was cheap it would be more widely used as it has been heavily subsided yet the reality is that nuclear is just no cost effective.



5. Radiation from waste is dangerous.

Yes true. You have to understand the danger of radiation for this to make any sense.
Firstly there is absolutely no such thing as a safe amount of radiation. Estimates often quote X amount of radiation increases likely hood of cancer by Y %. Perhaps these may be true, but these are only averages. Due to the random nature of radiation these are not "accurate" predictions. Also keep in mind that there is radiation all around us in several forms, yet we seem to be living fine, don't we?
Furthermore is isn't just a case of "burying it". A certain percent of it can be reused. The remaining waste if properly disposed of is no danger to anyone. With the correct and thorough regulations this waste poses no danger.

You also have significantly increased cancer rates in workers that work at Uranium mines.



In conclusion, Nuclear is the energy resource of the present and near future, until 100% renewable is practical, and is as safe as you can dream it to be.
Nope, nuclear power is just not practical thus why capitalists can't extract any surplus value out of nuclear power.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem is the risk due to amount of damage a large reactor can do.

Such as? Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen, and lo, it did. No surprise when you override safety features designed to prevent such accidents in the first place!


If you increase nuclear power you'd increase Uranium usages and Uranium reserves would quickly deplete. 1) We can go prospecting for more uranium.

2) There are plenty of other fissionables, such as thorium which is considerably more abundant than uranium.

3) Breeder reactors and reprocessing of used fuel would serve to further extend current reserves.

But for how long? THIS page (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html) suggests that uranium alone could last for billions of years. It doesn't address thorium, which is 4 times as abundant and can also be used in breeder reactors and can presumably be reprocessed. It also gives us plenty of time to develop nuclear fusion.


If nuclear energy was cheap it would be more widely used as it has been heavily subsided yet the reality is that nuclear is just no cost effective.For the most part fossil fuels have been considerably cheaper than nuclear fission, and petrochemical companies have enjoyed government support that the nuclear industry can only dream of. How many countries have been invaded for uranium?

This will change however as fossil fuels become increasingly scarce and therefore more expensive.


You also have significantly increased cancer rates in workers that work at Uranium mines. The actual number of cancers caused by radiation from nuclear power is insignificant next to the number of cancers caused by commonplace pollutants such as chemical plant effluent, tobacco smoke, etc.


Nope, nuclear power is just not practical thus why capitalists can't extract any surplus value out of nuclear power.That's because the alternative - fossil fuels - has been so much cheaper.

Not for much longer.

[Psy]

Such as? Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen, and lo, it did. No surprise when you override safety features designed to prevent such accidents in the first place!

I was thinking more Three Mile Island when where mechanical malfunctions was amplified by human error reacting to those malfunctions as operators didn't understand the true nature of the malfunctions.



1) We can go prospecting for more uranium.

2) There are plenty of other fissionables, such as thorium which is considerably more abundant than uranium.

3) Breeder reactors and reprocessing of used fuel would serve to further extend current reserves.

But for how long? THIS page (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html) suggests that uranium alone could last for billions of years. It doesn't address thorium, which is 4 times as abundant and can also be used in breeder reactors and can presumably be reprocessed. It also gives us plenty of time to develop nuclear fusion.

To make nuclear power a primary energy source would still drastically increase consumption of fissionables.



For the most part fossil fuels have been considerably cheaper than nuclear fission, and petrochemical companies have enjoyed government support that the nuclear industry can only dream of. How many countries have been invaded for uranium?

This will change however as fossil fuels become increasingly scarce and therefore more expensive.

Solar and wind is also cheaper then nuclear. Plus there are already power plants that burn methane from manure from farms.



The actual number of cancers caused by radiation from nuclear power is insignificant next to the number of cancers caused by commonplace pollutants such as chemical plant effluent, tobacco smoke, etc.

I said uranium mining, their cancer rates are higher then those that work at nuclear power plants.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I was thinking more Three Mile Island when where mechanical malfunctions was amplified by human error reacting to those malfunctions as operators didn't understand the true nature of the malfunctions.

Three Mile Island didn't even hurt anyone. It was a textbook case of a meltdown dealt with properly.


To make nuclear power a primary energy source would still drastically increase consumption of fissionables.So? Doesn't matter as long as it lasts long enough for our purposes. It's not like it's going to be useful just sitting there.


Solar and wind is also cheaper then nuclear. Plus there are already power plants that burn methane from manure from farms.All well and good. But it's not enough.


I said uranium mining, their cancer rates are higher then those that work at nuclear power plants.You think uranium mining has got nothing to do with nuclear power? :rolleyes:

[Psy]

Three Mile Island didn't even hurt anyone. It was a textbook case of a meltdown dealt with properly.

No it is a textbook case of a runaway reactor not dealt with properly, while the computer scramed the reactor like it was suppose to and pressure was automatically bled off the value jammed open and the sensor broke, once the computer stabilized the reactor that was the end of emergency procedure and as far as the computer was programmed to do automatically, at that time there was no meltdown just a very serious leak and reactor only stable with a constant flow of water from emergency pumps, the water the computer pumped in to cool the reactor was leaking out, while the pumps was still able to pump more water then was leaking out it mean the water reserves was being diminished, since operators didn't know the value was stuck open they didn't the real state of the reactor, due to more wrong readings in the control room operators cut the flow of water to the reactor thinking there was too much water in the reactor that quickly exposed the reactor causing it to run away again, the sudden pressure from the reactor caused more leaks and before the reactor was shut down half of it had melted down. Three Mile Island didn't turn out like Chernobyl only through dumb luck as the operators caused the reactor to runaway after the computer stabilized it.



So? Doesn't matter as long as it lasts long enough for our purposes. It's not like it's going to be useful just sitting there.

How much environmental damage would be caused by such a escalation in mining mining?



All well and good. But it's not enough.

You think nuclear power can realistically do more?



You think uranium mining has got nothing to do with nuclear power? :rolleyes:
Yes but uranium miner does have high cancer rates.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No it is a textbook case of a runaway reactor not dealt with properly, while the computer scramed the reactor like it was suppose to and pressure was automatically bled off the value jammed open and the sensor broke, once the computer stabilized the reactor that was the end of emergency procedure and as far as the computer was programmed to do automatically, at that time there was no meltdown just a very serious leak and reactor only stable with a constant flow of water from emergency pumps, the water the computer pumped in to cool the reactor was leaking out, while the pumps was still able to pump more water then was leaking out it mean the water reserves was being diminished, since operators didn't know the value was stuck open they didn't the real state of the reactor, due to more wrong readings in the control room operators cut the flow of water to the reactor thinking there was too much water in the reactor that quickly exposed the reactor causing it to run away again, the sudden pressure from the reactor caused more leaks and before the reactor was shut down half of it had melted down. Three Mile Island didn't turn out like Chernobyl only through dumb luck as the operators caused the reactor to runaway after the computer stabilized it.

Dumb luck you say? None of that blinding technobabble changes the fact that the effect on the public was negligable.

And of course, you're also ignoring that there was an engineering lesson learned. Also, you're forgetting the role of the reactor housing.

But why bother with such niceties when we could run around like headless chickens about how TMI "could" have turned into another Chernobyl (Not possible by the way - different reactor designs, PLUS some safety features were deliberately disabled at Chernobyl)


How much environmental damage would be caused by such a escalation in mining mining? You tell me. But I'm game for it if it keeps the power on.


You think nuclear power can realistically do more? Why, yes. Nuclear reactions are inherently more energetic than the chemical reactions that form the heart of fossil fuel plants, and unlike renewables can operate 24/7 in a wide range of conditions, providing an enormous baseload of power.

And of course, we'll be needing all the power we can get once we stop paying a pittance some poor stiff on the other side of the world to make our computers and other manufactured goods. The "service economy" isn't going to be here forever, no matter what capitalist ideologues say.


Yes but uranium miner does have high cancer rates.Citations please. Just how "high" is high?

[Psy]

Dumb luck you say? None of that blinding technobabble changes the fact that the effect on the public was negligable.

And of course, you're also ignoring that there was an engineering lesson learned. Also, you're forgetting the role of the reactor housing.

But why bother with such niceties when we could run around like headless chickens about how TMI "could" have turned into another Chernobyl (Not possible by the way - different reactor designs, PLUS some safety features were deliberately disabled at Chernobyl)

Three Mile Island was lucky in that they were only dealing with decay heat from a scramed reactor, if they exposed the reactor while it was active is would have quickly melted through the reactor housing, they were also lucky the next shift was not later and that the next shift noticed the malfunction as the next shift flooded the reactor stopping the meltdown, the reactor was had already melted to the point fuel rods were breaking, if the meltdown continued eventually all the fuel rods would have melted and there would have been a major hydrogen bubble in the reactor that could have blown through the reactor housing.



You tell me. But I'm game for it if it keeps the power on.

There are other sources of power.



Why, yes. Nuclear reactions are inherently more energetic than the chemical reactions that form the heart of fossil fuel plants, and unlike renewables can operate 24/7 in a wide range of conditions, providing an enormous baseload of power.

Yet it is easier to extract fossil fuel and nuclear power requires lots of water so they can't operate in as a wide range of conditions.



And of course, we'll be needing all the power we can get once we stop paying a pittance some poor stiff on the other side of the world to make our computers and other manufactured goods. The "service economy" isn't going to be here forever, no matter what capitalist ideologues say.

Renewables can take a significant chunk.



Citations please. Just how "high" is high?
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uhm.html

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Three Mile Island was lucky in that they were only dealing with decay heat from a scramed reactor, if they exposed the reactor while it was active is would have quickly melted through the reactor housing, they were also lucky the next shift was not later and that the next shift noticed the malfunction as the next shift flooded the reactor stopping the meltdown, the reactor was had already melted to the point fuel rods were breaking, if the meltdown continued eventually all the fuel rods would have melted and there would have been a major hydrogen bubble in the reactor that could have blown through the reactor housing.

But nothing serious happened, and we can learn from that. Do you think engineers have single-digit IQs or something?


There are other sources of power.They're not good enough. Remember that it would use energy and create CO2 to mine the materials for the big windmills that they use nowadays, turn them into windmills, and ship and place them all at their widespread locations. Whereas you can build a nuclear power plant next to a railway or even build it's own railhead, and ship the construction materials along by rail.



Yet it is easier to extract fossil fuel and nuclear power requires lots of water so they can't operate in as a wide range of conditions.Oil is a finite resource that unlike fissionables we have been using large amounts of for decades. The prospects of fossil fuels remaining more viable than fissionables are not looking good.

Not all reactor designs use water for coolant. Molten Salt Reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor) are compact and efficient enough to fit on aircraft.


Renewables can take a significant chunk.Show your working.


http://www.wise-uranium.org/uhm.htmlI'm not a statistician, so humour me and point out the the relevant parts. Of course, every kind of mining kills people; mining is one of the more disgusting things that our technological society requires, and all of us who don't do it should be grateful to those who do. The correct response is to demand better conditions and more automation, not embeggar the rest of society.

[Psy]

But nothing serious happened, and we can learn from that. Do you think engineers have single-digit IQs or something?

We learned that reactor cooling is a highely critical system, even when a reactor is scramed it needs cooling to avoid melting down. We learned that one malfunction can cause other malfunctions including misreadings.



They're not good enough. Remember that it would use energy and create CO2 to mine the materials for the big windmills that they use nowadays, turn them into windmills, and ship and place them all at their widespread locations. Whereas you can build a nuclear power plant next to a railway or even build it's own railhead, and ship the construction materials along by rail.

Windmills don't require as much resources to build as nuclear power plants, even the location of wind farms is not that much of a problem since on land they are near roads and when in water they near the cost line.




Oil is a finite resource that unlike fissionables we have been using large amounts of for decades. The prospects of fossil fuels remaining more viable than fissionables are not looking good.

We are not running out oil anytime soon, we are just reaching the maximum rate of extraction of oil.



Not all reactor designs use water for coolant. Molten Salt Reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor) are compact and efficient enough to fit on aircraft.

Okay most reactors require water.



Show your working.

You don't think renewables can take up a significant chunk? Even though Denmark was able to do just that (19.7% of Denmark's power comes from wind)?



I'm not a statistician, so humour me and point out the the relevant parts.

They are all summaries of studies into cancer at uranium mines




Of course, every kind of mining kills people; mining is one of the more disgusting things that our technological society requires, and all of us who don't do it should be grateful to those who do. The correct response is to demand better conditions and more automation, not embeggar the rest of society.
Uranium mining has the added risk of exposure to radioactive material that while at low levels at close proximity for long periods of time.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We learned that reactor cooling is a highely critical system, even when a reactor is scramed it needs cooling to avoid melting down. We learned that one malfunction can cause other malfunctions including misreadings.

Why can't we investigate what happened and find ways of preventing or reducing such incidents in the future? Wait, we did. That's why there hasn't been another incident like it.


Windmills don't require as much resources to build as nuclear power plants, even the location of wind farms is not that much of a problem since on land they are near roads and when in water they near the cost line.Nuclear power plants have a much greater energy density. To get the same output as a decent nuclear plant, you need to build a lot of windmills over a wide area.


We are not running out oil anytime soon, we are just reaching the maximum rate of extraction of oil.Same difference. Oil is becoming increasingly unviable through it's cost. It's just as useless sitting there in the ground because it's not worth the expense of digging it out.


You don't think renewables can take up a significant chunk? Even though Denmark was able to do just that (19.7% of Denmark's power comes from wind)?What provides the other 80-odd percent of Denmark's power? You also can't assume that other countries/regions can use renewables to the same degree.


They are all summaries of studies into cancer at uranium mines And?


Uranium mining has the added risk of exposure to radioactive material that while at low levels at close proximity for long periods of time.So? Everytime I cross the street I risk getting run over, but I don't let that paralyse me. Same logic applies.

[Das war einmal]

There should be an investigation whether or not the amount of cancer patient will decrease or increase when CO2 producing power plants are being replaced by nuclear power plants, also taking the risk of meltdown in account.

[Psy]

Why can't we investigate what happened and find ways of preventing or reducing such incidents in the future? Wait, we did. That's why there hasn't been another incident like it.

It still means reactors are vulnerable, for example natural disasters could cause a melt down even if the reactor scrams if the natural disaster causes a large enough leak that the reactor is exposed and water pressure can't be restored in a timely manner. Decay heat is a real *****, spend fuel rods have to sit in pools of boric acid for 6 months as decay heat is a problem for that long. So you have a reactor that even when scrammed will have a heat problem for 6 months more then enough time to melt through any man made barrier if the resources don't exist to deal with the heat problem.



Nuclear power plants have a much greater energy density. To get the same output as a decent nuclear plant, you need to build a lot of windmills over a wide area.

They have the same footprint if you include uranium mines, waste pools and waste storage



Same difference. Oil is becoming increasingly unviable through it's cost. It's just as useless sitting there in the ground because it's not worth the expense of digging it out.

No, it is like saying running out of water and reaching maximum water pressure is the same.




What provides the other 80-odd percent of Denmark's power? You also can't assume that other countries/regions can use renewables to the same degree.

Mostly coal, oil and natural gas. Denmark though of nuclear power but decided wind was more economical.



So? Everytime I cross the street I risk getting run over, but I don't let that paralyse me. Same logic applies.
Mining radioactive minerals significantly shortens lives of those miners more then other miners. Add the cost of having uranium miners wear rad suits and the wear and tear on the suits and the cost of nucelar power would make it highely impracticable.

[REVOLUTIONARY32]

WIND

SOLAR

BIOMASS

HYDRO POWER

All proven great power sources and 100% friendly to the enviroment.One massive problem.Nuclear power is more cost effective.So the capitalists continue to destroy the planet because large scale enviromentaly friendly energy sources cost too much.IDIOTS

[swirling_vortex]

WIND

SOLAR

BIOMASS

HYDRO POWER

All proven great power sources and 100% friendly to the enviroment.One massive problem.Nuclear power is more cost effective.So the capitalists continue to destroy the planet because large scale enviromentaly friendly energy sources cost too much.IDIOTS
Well no, there are other reasons as well. Nuclear can scale up very well and outputs consistent power 24/7. Wind and solar are variable and our battery technology is still not very good and a big hazard to the environment, chemically and in CO2 emissions. What really needs to be done is further research so that these technologies can be deployed on a larger scale. In their current state, they're not going to do much good.

[REVOLUTIONARY32]

Well no, there are other reasons as well. Nuclear can scale up very well and outputs consistent power 24/7. Wind and solar are variable and our battery technology is still not very good and a big hazard to the environment, chemically and in CO2 emissions. What really needs to be done is further research so that these technologies can be deployed on a larger scale. In their current state, they're not going to do much good.


I look forward to the day when they will be deployed in larger scale.

[piet11111]

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22114/

and the important part being


Gilleland's aim is to run a nuclear reactor on what is now waste. *Conventional reactors use uranium-235, which splits easily to carry on a chain reaction but is scarce and expensive; it must be separated from the more common, nonfissile uranium-238 in special enrichment plants. Every 18 to 24 months, the reactor must be opened, hundreds of fuel bundles removed, hundreds added, and the remainder reshuffled to supply all the fissile uranium needed for the next run. This raises proliferation concerns, since an enrichment plant designed to make low-enriched uranium for a power reactor differs trivially from one that makes highly enriched material for a bomb.
But the traveling-wave reactor needs only a thin layer of enriched U-235. Most of the core is U-238, millions of pounds of which are stockpiled around the world as leftovers from natural uranium after the U-235 has been scavenged. The design provides "the simplest possible fuel cycle," says Charles W. Forsberg, executive director of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle Project at MIT, "and it requires only one uranium enrichment plant per planet.

[political_animal]

There have to be alternatives to the current way we produce most of our energy and until any sustainable green ways become available, it is surely the best alternative.

I will admit to having changed my mind on this subject over the years. I started off as completely against but the more I have read of the attitudes and beliefs of 'green' politicians, the more I dislike and the more I believe they are anti-progress and anti-technology and so don't accept their arguments about nuclear power and reject the assertion that being for nuclear power is cosying up to the energy suppliers.

[Hyacinth]

Revising Duration of Nuclear Power (http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/revisiting-duration-of-nuclear-power.html)


With deep burn reactors there is enough nuclear fuel available to support 100 times current world electricity usage for 1 billion years.
Interesting article I thought I would share, provided someone else hasn't already.

But just to give my 2-cents on the question: I'm resoundingly in favor of expansion of the use of nuclear (fission) energy generation. Many of the problems which people cite, such as waste production, etc., are all in principle solvable, even with our current existing technology, and still more promising is the fact that 3rd generation and 4th generation reactors improve upon both the efficiency of the energy production, but also do away with safety issues, such as possibilities of meltdowns (for example, as in with molten salt cooled reactors), etc., which are issues with existing reactors.

[Rosa Provokateur]

No nukes! Not now, not ever.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No nukes! Not now, not ever.

Then why did "God" allegedly create a world with Uranium etc in it?

[Jazzratt]

No nukes! Not now, not ever.

Why? Just saying stupid crap like this is absolutely fucking meaningless, do it again and I will warn you for spam.

[Picky Bugger]

WIND

SOLAR

BIOMASS

HYDRO POWER

All proven great power sources and 100% friendly to the enviroment.One massive problem.Nuclear power is more cost effective.So the capitalists continue to destroy the planet because large scale enviromentaly friendly energy sources cost too much.IDIOTS

I know this is quite an old post but I found it rather funny. I am assuming that you do not regard the mass destruction of habitat as being 'unfriendly' to the environment. Hydro Power for instance is usually initiated by the flooding of valleys to make reservoirs usually dislodging many villages and habitats alike. A prime example of this would be the Three Gourges Damn in China. Another example say Tide power for instance distabilises the ecosystem around it not only whilst it is being installed but forever afterward especially the type that relies upon giant underwater blades much like that on wind turbines. (Will nobody think of the Seals :()

I would even refute Biofuels as being 100% friendly to the environment whether you mean on a large or small scale. It's posts like this that make it difficult to actually solve the energy issue much like the way the Kyoto agreement has done massive damage to our research and development of new power methods. End Rant.

[pastradamus]

There are a number of Pros and Cons in relation to Fission powerplants.
The Main pros is that its clean, hugely efficient and contributes little in the way of global warming.

But for the cons of a meltdown and radioactive waste I believe Nuclear power should be used but only limitedly. I believe that for all the positive aspects of Nuclear power the risk of a meltdown alone could mean we lose EVERYTHING and end up like chernobyl. On another note the UK government dumping radioactive waste into the Irish sea in the past has had catastrophic effects on the ecology of the Irish sea.

I believe we should look to other sources such as Tidal,Wind and other forms of renewable energies but still not rule out nuclear as an option. The main reason I believe that Fuming fossil factories are still mainly used is that the oil industry has a big say in this and it just goes to show how well in with the oil barons most western nations are.

[pastradamus]

I know this is quite an old post but I found it rather funny. I am assuming that you do not regard the mass destruction of habitat as being 'unfriendly' to the environment. Hydro Power for instance is usually initiated by the flooding of valleys to make reservoirs usually dislodging many villages and habitats alike. A prime example of this would be the Three Gourges Damn in China. Another example say Tide power for instance distabilises the ecosystem around it not only whilst it is being installed but forever afterward especially the type that relies upon giant underwater blades much like that on wind turbines. (Will nobody think of the Seals :()

I would even refute Biofuels as being 100% friendly to the environment whether you mean on a large or small scale. It's posts like this that make it difficult to actually solve the energy issue much like the way the Kyoto agreement has done massive damage to our research and development of new power methods. End Rant.


Hmmm.... good points there. However on the issue of biofuels - I have made my own in the past for an old diesel car I had. But the problem with biofuels is that huge cultivations of land are being replaced with such things as rape seed and other non-edible cereals which bear the problem of possibly future food shortages.

[Picky Bugger]

I do agree, biofuels are necessarily the way out.

I think the threat of melt down is minimal, the real danger comes from prolonging the life of current reactors. The UK government is trying to do his at the moment, extending a lifespan of 40yrs to 60yrs without completely replacing the reactor, this is a bad idea (I shudder to think how badly those reactors were built compared to today's standard.)

Waste is an issue. It can't be blasted into space, it can't be buried deep in the ground due to tectonic movement and conventional above ground storage is hard to maintain. There is a current idea to store waste in glass containers above ground as this inhibits waste escape etc.

Another real problem with waste is funding to maintain the waste storage centers. As it is generally quite expensive to store and maintain waste companies/governments etc can find getting funding hard. For instance at the moment its hard to get a loan full stop but who ever is going to issue a loan for 10000 years... The issue of maintaining the waste will not be solved anytime soon and I don't think Nuclear will be accepted until people don't have any guilt over the impacts of waste.

I agree the oil barons do have a large say but it is also that the infrastructure is already there for fossil fuels. It is much harder to build a new infrastructure when there is a cheaper alternative that is giving jobs now.

[Jazzratt]

But for the cons of a meltdown and radioactive waste I believe Nuclear power should be used but only limitedly. I believe that for all the positive aspects of Nuclear power the risk of a meltdown alone could mean we lose EVERYTHING and end up like chernobyl. On another note the UK government dumping radioactive waste into the Irish sea in the past has had catastrophic effects on the ecology of the Irish sea.


Chernobyl was quite clearly an aberration, as illustrated by the fact nothing like that has happened since, not only that but by all accounts they were running the place in an incredibly moronic manner: pushing it beyond capacity, deliberately switching off safety features, using outdated safety features. The whole place was an accident waiting to happen. Not only that, but the scale of meltdown was mainly the fault of the reactor design; an outdated soviet model which is now used absolutely nowhere.

As for irresponsible disposal of nuclear waste, that isn't a problem with the technology itself but with the authorities in charge of such matters.

[Killfacer]

I'm all for nuclear power. Chernobyl was clearly an abberation.

[Picky Bugger]

As for irresponsible disposal of nuclear waste, that isn't a problem with the technology itself but with the authorities in charge of such matters.

I would disagree, there is no way to properly and safely dispose of Nuclear waste in a manner that will have no environmental impacts. Of course the authorities are a problem but they cannot act until waste can be disposed of. The technology such as glass and ceramic housing is the best we have at the moment but this is not nearly good enough.

[Janine Melnitz]

The waste problem is a real one, and why I voted "limitedly"; however, does anyone know much about disposal via subduction zones? If it's as promising as it sounds, I'll bump my opinion up to "increasingly", but I don't know much about it.

[Picky Bugger]

You mean jamming barrels of nuclear waste into subduction zones between plate boundaries? I haven't read anything about it but it sounds like something that would cause complicated issues which would be hard to predict.

If the science is sound it may be a good idea

[Janine Melnitz]

Yeah -- this site (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04ap2.html#subduction_zones) tells you why it hasn't been implemented (basically, countries don't like to cooperate and some are understandably nervous about going into the water with this shit) but really, if it does work like it's supposed to, we'd be idiots not to do it.

Some stuff on this:
Permanent Radwaste Solutions (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Edengelhardt/)
Nuclear Waste Summary (http://www.cppa.utah.edu/publications/environment/nuclear_waste_summary.pdf) (PDF) -- search for "subductive", it's pretty far down
Radioactive Waste: The Problem and its Management (http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec252001/1534.pdf) (PDF) -- also requires a search

(All from the wiki page on radwaste management)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I would disagree, there is no way to properly and safely dispose of Nuclear waste in a manner that will have no environmental impacts.

There is no way to properly and safely dispose of any industrial waste in a manner that will have no environmental impacts. All that lead, mercury and other heavy metals produced by industry that have subsequently been released into the environment? That shit's gonna stick around until the Earth gets swallowed by the Sun, but hardly anyone seems to give a fuck. But when it comes to nuclear waste that is dangerously radioactive for a limited period of time, some people get the screaming meemies because they haven't bothered to question Greenie dogma.

However, the reality of the situation is that reprocessing of spent fuel combined with vitrification of wastes greatly extends the fuel cycle, reduces the volume of waste produced and converts it into an inert glassy form that is much easier to safely store than any other kind of waste.

As I pointed out in another thread, to talk of industry with zero environmental impact is to talk of absurdities. But by the same token it is entirely possible to reduce the environmental impact of industry.

As for biofuels, can I get a great big FUCK NO from anyone around here? It is almost literally taking food off people's plates and shoving it into the fuel tanks of SUVs. We need to try and wean ourselves off of our frankly idiotic assumption (mostly implicit but sometimes explicit) that ownership of a private motor vehicle is some kind of right. Biofuels will only serve to make that harder as well as artificially jacking up food prices, which are dear enough as it is.

[Picky Bugger]

I completely agree with you NoXion not enough is done against other contaminants, the clean up of old Industrial sites for Lead contamination for example hardly ever occurs. Nuclear power should be used increasingly but as you said there is a Greenie Dogma that causes people to question it over other issues.

Yep Biofuels are bad but with America seemingly driving this trend I think it is unlikely that production will reduce untill Hydrogen fuel cells or something similar are used in cars etc.

[pastradamus]

Noxion, you just hit that one out of the Park. Spot on!
I share the exact opinion. The cultivation of biofuels is indeed a threat to humanity.......so if I may may a statement in large boldface:


BY GROWING BIOFUELS WE ARE MORTGAGING THE LIVES OF THE WORLDS POOREST PEOPLE SO NARCISSISTIC FUCK FACES IN GENERAL MOTORS CAN LINE THEIR POCKETS WITH THE PROFITS OF DEATH.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yep Biofuels are bad but with America seemingly driving this trend I think it is unlikely that production will reduce untill Hydrogen fuel cells or something similar are used in cars etc.

Hydrogen fuel cells are even worse - they're a way of storing energy, not producing it.

[Picky Bugger]

Well yes but I wasn't actually advocating the use of Fuel cells I was stating that the main reason for biofuels is to be used in motor vehicles and power cells will remove that need.

[Jack]

Definitely not. I live not too far from a nuclear plant. The fish in the bay near it are sometimes mutated and are just HUGE.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Definitely not. I live not too far from a nuclear plant. The fish in the bay near it are sometimes mutated and are just HUGE.

Wow. I hope you're pulling my leg. :blink:

[piet11111]

Definitely not. I live not too far from a nuclear plant. The fish in the bay near it are sometimes mutated and are just HUGE.

its far more likely to see such effects from mercury build up instead of radiation.
i suspect you live near a very industrial area ?

[Picky Bugger]

I suspect he's lying / joking...

[Jazzratt]

Definitely not. I live not too far from a nuclear plant. The fish in the bay near it are sometimes mutated and are just HUGE.

It's incredibly unlikely this is anything to do with radiation from the power plant. Unless it's powered by cartoon uranium.

[OriginalGumby]

Fuck that, no way. This stuff is seriously toxic and dangerous, extremely expensive, AND it is not and can not be a clean replacement. We are being told that it is cleaner than traditional fossil fuels but that is only with the rich ore. The estimation is that if all of the electricity of the world were generated with nuclear power this ore would only last NINE YEARS. After that using the poorer quality ore would produce more CO2 than using fossil fuels as we do now. This is capitalism "solution" to climate change. The same shit as usual.
International Socialist Review ran a two part article on climate change and capitalism and the second part has stuff on nuclear power, but its not online yet. The first can be found by googleing the name of the magazine.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why doesn't anyone seem to read the thread before posting?


Fuck that, no way. This stuff is seriously toxic and dangerous, extremely expensive, AND it is not and can not be a clean replacement.

1) The toxicity is a minor issue with appropriate storage. Groundwater contamination is a non-issue with vitrification of wastes, and the worst of the radiation drops off after time. Haven't you heard of a "half-life"?

2) Building any kind of decent energy infrastructure is going to be expensive and I see no reason why nuclear would be exceptional in this regard.


We are being told that it is cleaner than traditional fossil fuels but that is only with the rich ore. The estimation is that if all of the electricity of the world were generated with nuclear power this ore would only last NINE YEARS.Where'd you get that number from? Does it take into account reprocessing? Breeder technology? Prospecting for more ore? Use of other fissionables such as thorium?


After that using the poorer quality ore would produce more CO2 than using fossil fuels as we do now.Show your working.


This is capitalism "solution" to climate change. The same shit as usual.I'm actually more concerned about keeping the damn lights on. Besides, if climate change is the great threat that doomsayers make it out to be, then the potential dangers of nuclear power are small beer in comparison.

[black magick hustla]

Nuclear energy is the best bet green folks have right now. Beyond some issues with the waste becoming tank armor, I honestly feel that a lot of the "fear" behind it is really base luddism.

[butterfly]

*
Green folks= we/everyone.
Doomsayers= the bearer's of bad news.

[Picky Bugger]

You can hardly put "Green Folks" under the banner of everyone. Many people couldn't give a fuck.

[Jazzratt]

You can hardly put "Green Folks" under the banner of everyone. Many people couldn't give a fuck.

I think she meant that "green folks" in marmot's post should be "everyone".

[Picky Bugger]

:blushing: Heh indeed she did, I totally misread that one.

[rosa-rl]

Like most things in life nuclear power has its up side and down side. The down side is the possibility of such things as melt downs and contamination as well as the questions about how to get rid of the waste.

The up side is that right now its one of the cheapest ways to generate energy but at the same time there is a lot of waste of energy - right down to the 4 bulbs in my living room hanging lamp.

[Manifesto]

Why not send the nuclear waste into Space?:lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why not send the nuclear waste into Space?:lol:

Because it would be easier, cheaper and less risky to simply reprocess as much as we can and vitrify what's left.

[piet11111]

Why not send the nuclear waste into Space?:lol:

rockets have a tendency to explode when they are not perfect and we would not want to see a rocket loaded with nuclear waste explode on the launch platform or worse in mid flight (assuming its a multi stage rocket) where the nuclear waste could spread in the atmosphere.

my preferred solution would be to build a gigantic underground bunker in Chernobyl region and store it there as its already radioactive leaves out accidental tourists and a slight contamination would not be much of a problem and to my knowledge its not an earthquake zone.
and when the ability to reprocess the waste entirely is available we can empty the bunker out eventually.

[proudcomrade]

I just came across this thread, and cast my vote as undecided. I was born in the '70s and went to grade school in the early '80s; Chernobyl is a clear memory for me. Decades later, a lot of formerly-classified information is being made public, much of it absolutely horrifying, the most damning evidence coming from the survivors' own testimonies. On the other hand, I have heard the arguments for the abundant and "cleaner" energy that nuclear power can produce, although I lack the physics background to interpret the arguments well. So, I remain undecided.

[MilitantWorker]

NUCLEAR ENERGY IS A MUST IN A COMMUNIST FUTURE.

I am really amazed at the amount of ignorance and misinformation in this thread. I will post again here, in lengthy detail, but before I do I wanted to get some reactions on a few quick points.

1. Wind and Solar Power by themselves don't meet our energy needs.

If we were to power the U.S. on Wind and Solar energy alone, wind turbines and solar panels would take up 40-45 percent of ALL ARABLE LAND IN THE COUNTRY.

2. Nuclear technology today is almost completely safe.

As with all other Nuclear mishaps to date, direct human error is the only way to cause a big (and potentially dangerous) disaster. A full meltdown is 99.9% likely to not happen, because of the numerous fail-safes. Oh, and in case you were wondering...they don't blow up.

3. Nuclear technology is becoming "green" technology.

Today, with reactors that use boron, nuclear technology is reaching the point where it will be considered renewable, with reactors that even burn their own waste as fuel.

[Ovi]

NUCLEAR ENERGY IS A MUST IN A COMMUNIST FUTURE.

I am really amazed at the amount of ignorance and misinformation in this thread. I will post again here, in lengthy detail, but before I do I wanted to get some reactions on a few quick points.

1. Wind and Solar Power by themselves don't meet our energy needs.

If we were to power the U.S. on Wind and Solar energy alone, wind turbines and solar panels would take up 40-45 percent of ALL ARABLE LAND IN THE COUNTRY.

I've also heard that it would take 12 planets earth if everyone would consume as much as in the US


2. Nuclear technology today is almost completely safe.

As with all other Nuclear mishaps to date, direct human error is the only way to cause a big (and potentially dangerous) disaster. A full meltdown is 99.9% likely to not happen, because of the numerous fail-safes. Oh, and in case you were wondering...they don't blow up.

Sure they do. High pressure in boilers, hydrogen pockets. It happened at Chernobyl.


3. Nuclear technology is becoming "green" technology.

Today, with reactors that use boron, nuclear technology is reaching the point where it will be considered renewable, with reactors that even burn their own waste as fuel.
And create more waste in the process.

There's nothing green about disposing thousands of tons of highly radioactive material each year, about mining uranium or enriching it. If we have enough inexhaustible energy sources then why do we need nuclear? Plus who would want to mine uranium or thorium?:laugh:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've also heard that it would take 12 planets earth if everyone would consume as much as in the US

I hear something like this trotted out with considerable frequency. Of course, without knowing what the assumptions were behind the calculations, it could be bullshit for all we know.

Besides, what with nuclear energy lasting potentially billions of years (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html), I'd say that's more than enough energy to improve the living standards of the vast majority of the Earth's population for the foreseeable future.


Sure they do. High pressure in boilers, hydrogen pockets. It happened at Chernobyl.

And it won't happen again because such designs were never used outside Russia, and the currently operational designs within Russia have since been modified.


And create more waste in the process.

Citation?

Even if that is the case, nuclear waste is unique among energy generation technologies in that waste products are a significant asset as well as a liability (although not as much of a liability as some seem to make out) - nuclear waste can be reprocessed and the same energy that makes it dangerous can be reclaimed and put to use.


There's nothing green about disposing thousands of tons of highly radioactive material each year, about mining uranium or enriching it.

The same argument could be made for the materials used to build windmills and solar panels, but in both cases it would be fallacious because it fails to take into account the total environmental impact of a given energy source. Windmills and solar panels may pollute less than nuclear reactors, but you need more of them spread over a wider area, compared to fission.


If we have enough inexhaustible energy sources then why do we need nuclear?

Because they're not enough now, let alone in the future when it seems likely that there will be more people who need and deserve energy. Nuclear fission will certainly give us enough time to develop fusion, never mind massive solar farms in the nearest desert or in orbit, which is what will be needed if renewables are to have anything greater than a supplemental (though still important) role.


Plus who would want to mine uranium or thorium?:laugh:

Why would anyone want to do any unpleasant/dangerous but nonetheless necessary job? The answer depends, don't you think?

[pranabjyoti]

Man, the toxicity is from radiation and that comes from the nucleus of the atoms, and so far I know, there is no way to change a radio-active nucleus into a non-radioactive one. By breaking it into atomic level by plasma means you can alter its chemical property, but not the nuclear property.

[Ovi]

I hear something like this trotted out with considerable frequency. Of course, without knowing what the assumptions were behind the calculations, it could be bullshit for all we know.

Besides, what with nuclear energy lasting potentially billions of years (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html), I'd say that's more than enough energy to improve the living standards of the vast majority of the Earth's population for the foreseeable future.

The cost of generate electricity using Coal is around $0.04/KW/h. To generate power from gas and oil is a little bit more but still in the range of $0.08KW/h.
Wind power cost is about $0.12KW/h (currently) but the trend is going down so with economies of scale and better materials it should be heading to just a few cents higher than coal.
http://www.renewable-energy-sources.com/2008/08/12/the-cost-of-renewable-energy/

Looks like it's not impossible after all. Of course as long as truly clean energy is more important than a few cents per kwH



And it won't happen again because such designs were never used outside Russia, and the currently operational designs within Russia have since been modified.

Accidents happen all the time.


Citation?

It's obvious.


Even if that is the case, nuclear waste is unique among energy generation technologies in that waste products are a significant asset as well as a liability (although not as much of a liability as some seem to make out) - nuclear waste can be reprocessed and the same energy that makes it dangerous can be reclaimed and put to use.

How can you reclaim the energy of a non fissile non fertile radioactive isotope with a half-life of 50.000 years? You can't.




The same argument could be made for the materials used to build windmills and solar panels, but in both cases it would be fallacious because it fails to take into account the total environmental impact of a given energy source. Windmills and solar panels may pollute less than nuclear reactors, but you need more of them spread over a wider area, compared to fission.



Because they're not enough now, let alone in the future when it seems likely that there will be more people who need and deserve energy. Nuclear fission will certainly give us enough time to develop fusion, never mind massive solar farms in the nearest desert or in orbit, which is what will be needed if renewables are to have anything greater than a supplemental (though still important) role.

Yes they are enough. And the price is not that greater.




Why would anyone want to do any unpleasant/dangerous but nonetheless necessary job? The answer depends, don't you think?
True. But cleaning toilets is a bit different from mining uranium. I believe we can live without nuclear energy and some estimates that I've made show the same thing. However it takes a bit more than that to choose the best solutions and hopefully nuclear won't be one of them.

[Psy]

NUCLEAR ENERGY IS A MUST IN A COMMUNIST FUTURE.

I am really amazed at the amount of ignorance and misinformation in this thread. I will post again here, in lengthy detail, but before I do I wanted to get some reactions on a few quick points.

1. Wind and Solar Power by themselves don't meet our energy needs.

If we were to power the U.S. on Wind and Solar energy alone, wind turbines and solar panels would take up 40-45 percent of ALL ARABLE LAND IN THE COUNTRY.


Wait why would a communist USA consume the same amount of energy as the current capitalist USA? All the unproductive production would stop meaning energy won't be wasted on stuff like printing advertisements, lighting cities at night (due to very few night shifts), far fewer traffic lights (due to less traffic on the roads due to mass transportation), manufacturing automobiles (due to mass transit) and less manufacturing all around (due to a end to the throwaway society and durables lasting decades).

Also I don't think anyone seriously thinks Wind and Solar Power alone would hold up the entire grid, there would still be hydro electric. Now don't get me wrong I can see nuclear power plants being used but I don't see a need to drastically increase them since odds are a communist USA would have less of a demand for electricity not more thus the goal would be more phasing out coal power plants then adding more capacity to the grid.



Today, with reactors that use boron, nuclear technology is reaching the point where it will be considered renewable, with reactors that even burn their own waste as fuel.

No since uranium is non-renewable thus nuclear power is no more renewable then coal power plants are.

[Ovi]

Not to mention that the argument


If we were to power the U.S. on Wind and Solar energy alone, wind turbines and solar panels would take up 40-45 percent of ALL ARABLE LAND IN THE COUNTRY.

is completely bogus. A (very) rough estimate would be something like this: on average the solar irradiance is 342W/m2. It would thus take 30 sq m2 to cover up the energy need of one person from the US. It would take 9000 sq km to cover up all the energy needs of the US. This is a lot; we would have to take in account cloudy days, the different efficiencies of solar and conventional power plants and so on. However this, as an order of dimension, is quite reliable. Considering the 3.73 million sq km of agricultural land, 9000 sq km is 0.25%. It's still an enormous surface to be covered with solar pannels, but it's 200 times less than the other "estimate"

[proudcomrade]

I hear something like this trotted out with considerable frequency. Of course, without knowing what the assumptions were behind the calculations, it could be bullshit for all we know.

Could be; but maybe it is valid. I hesitate to dismiss these kinds of concerns hastily.


Besides, what with nuclear energy lasting potentially billions of years (http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html), I'd say that's more than enough energy to improve the living standards of the vast majority of the Earth's population for the foreseeable future.The slightest mishap can provoke damage that lasts that long as well.



And it won't happen again because such designs were never used outside Russia, and the currently operational designs within Russia have since been modified.Famous last words. I was already here during Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; people my age and older are frequently left with a certain instinctual fear and hesitancy surrounding nuclear power. On both sides of the world divide, we were given similar reassurances by governments and so-called "think tanks" composed of the most cutting-edge engineers of the time. In the USSR, there was the notion of "mirnii atom", the "peaceful atom", etc. And yet, the unthinkable happened, and generations of people in Belorus and Ukraine are still being born into the most unspeakable medical suffering imaginable. Forgive those of us old-timers who can't take that stuff as lightly as our university-aged counterparts. Living through things alters one's perspectives in ways that it can be difficult to convey academically.


Citation?I'll admit, I have no formal citations for anything that I am saying here.


Even if that is the case, nuclear waste is unique among energy generation technologies in that waste products are a significant asset as well as a liability (although not as much of a liability as some seem to make out) - nuclear waste can be reprocessed and the same energy that makes it dangerous can be reclaimed and put to use.Nuclear waste leaks, leeches into the environment, continues undergoing further reactions, etc.


The same argument could be made for the materials used to build windmills and solar panels, but in both cases it would be fallacious because it fails to take into account the total environmental impact of a given energy source. Windmills and solar panels may pollute less than nuclear reactors, but you need more of them spread over a wider area, compared to fission.Windmill boneyards won't contaminate the environment for thousands of years or more (with radioactivity, that is), or result in people being born with cardiac systems coming out of their abdomens. If this last claim sounds loaded or far-fetched, I assure you that it has happened. This, I can easily cite if you require it.



Because they're not enough now, let alone in the future when it seems likely that there will be more people who need and deserve energy. Nuclear fission will certainly give us enough time to develop fusion, never mind massive solar farms in the nearest desert or in orbit, which is what will be needed if renewables are to have anything greater than a supplemental (though still important) role.It may be time to cut down on the whole world's consumption of energy, then, and way further than the liberals' "green" campaigns even begin to address.



Why would anyone want to do any unpleasant/dangerous but nonetheless necessary job? The answer depends, don't you think?I guess that that's another discussion altogether.

[CallMeSteve]

Also I don't think anyone seriously thinks Wind and Solar Power alone would hold up the entire grid, there would still be hydro electric. Now don't get me wrong I can see nuclear power plants being used but I don't see a need to drastically increase them since odds are a communist USA would have less of a demand for electricity not more thus the goal would be more phasing out coal power plants then adding more capacity to the grid.

It is quite clear that given the ingrained nationalist sentiment that pervades American society and the distinct lack of a strong and united leftist movement that America will not be 'communist' any time soon... For the time being, priorities with regard to energy are to ensure a huge output to meet demands for the existing society (and not the one you envisage), which would not happen with anything but nuclear power.

Fact is, if we don't replace existing nuclear facilities in the next 50-60 years (with other nuclear facilities) then that would result in an increase of 12.5 gigatons of C02 in the atmosphere (can't link source as I have less than 25 posts) - so unless we plan to build an unfeasible amount of wind/solar power stations and connect them to the grid then the only option is more nuclear power plants.

As for your comment about uranium being no more renewable than coal, it's a redundant point really. Firstly, there is an abundance of uranium, and the fission of one atom of uranium produces 10 million times the amount of energy released by the combustion of one carbon atom from coal. Also, the use of breeder reactors and uranium enrichment allows nuclear physicists to transform U-235 from a concentration of 0.7% to about 5%, making it even more efficient. Basically, there is enough to last for thousands upon thousands of years, in which time we can master fusion (the problem here lies in keeping hydrogen at 10 million degrees celsius for several seconds).

There is no alternative, and your arguments are unscientific, outdated and based on unfounded and disproportionate levels of concern and fear regarding previous nuclear accidents. If you want statistics to put your mind at ease and shatter your misconceptions, I'll be happy to provide them when I'm past 25 posts.

[Psy]

It is quite clear that given the ingrained nationalist sentiment that pervades American society and the distinct lack of a strong and united leftist movement that America will not be 'communist' any time soon... For the time being, priorities with regard to energy are to ensure a huge output to meet demands for the existing society (and not the one you envisage), which would not happen with anything but nuclear power.

The long boom is over, I doubt the capitalist class will build any more nuclear power plants due the amount of fixed capital required, they probably won't even expand the grid much and simply raise rates to discourage consumptions and increase profit per kilowatt, remember the US only drastically expanded its energy production capacity under nationalized energy companies or with huge subsides to private electric companies.




Fact is, if we don't replace existing nuclear facilities in the next 50-60 years (with other nuclear facilities) then that would result in an increase of 12.5 gigatons of C02 in the atmosphere (can't link source as I have less than 25 posts) - so unless we plan to build an unfeasible amount of wind/solar power stations and connect them to the grid then the only option is more nuclear power plants.

That assumes capitalism can ease its problem of chronic overproduction and falling rate of profit enough to grow energy production, the crisis could result in decades of stagnation.



As for your comment about uranium being no more renewable than coal, it's a redundant point really. Firstly, there is an abundance of uranium, and the fission of one atom of uranium produces 10 million times the amount of energy released by the combustion of one carbon atom from coal. Also, the use of breeder reactors and uranium enrichment allows nuclear physicists to transform U-235 from a concentration of 0.7% to about 5%, making it even more efficient. Basically, there is enough to last for thousands upon thousands of years, in which time we can master fusion (the problem here lies in keeping hydrogen at 10 million degrees celsius for several seconds).


It is still not renewable and there is a peak rate of extraction of uranium where to extract any more results in more extra energy in extraction the gained in extra uranium.



There is no alternative, and your arguments are unscientific, outdated and based on unfounded and disproportionate levels of concern and fear regarding previous nuclear accidents. If you want statistics to put your mind at ease and shatter your misconceptions, I'll be happy to provide them when I'm past 25 posts.

Nuclear just has too high of a labor cost to be heavily used by a communist society, even capitalists can't afford to build more of them even with heavy exploitation of workers without huge governess subsidies so how would a communist society be able to afford to run a large number of nuclear reactors? Nuclear are also not install and forget like modern solar and wind farms where when built reliability they can go for a very long time before needing servicing (I doubt we would ever see a nuclear power plant where it can generate power without any human intervention for years).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Man, the toxicity is from radiation and that comes from the nucleus of the atoms, and so far I know, there is no way to change a radio-active nucleus into a non-radioactive one. By breaking it into atomic level by plasma means you can alter its chemical property, but not the nuclear property.

Given sufficient time, radioisotopes decay into stable forms. Due to the nature of the process of nuclear decay, the stuff with half-lives of millions or billions of years, which is exactly the sort of thing anti-nuclear activists like to harp on about, are in fact that least radioactively intense (they have to be, in order to be radioactive for any geological length of time) and hence the least dangerous in terms of radiation exposure.

It's obvious when you think about it if you realise that naturally-occuring uranium has been radioactive for billions of years, and life doesn't seem to have minded.


The cost of generate electricity using Coal is around $0.04/KW/h. To generate power from gas and oil is a little bit more but still in the range of $0.08KW/h.
Wind power cost is about $0.12KW/h (currently) but the trend is going down so with economies of scale and better materials it should be heading to just a few cents higher than coal.
http://www.renewable-energy-sources.com/2008/08/12/the-cost-of-renewable-energy/

Looks like it's not impossible after all. Of course as long as truly clean energy is more important than a few cents per kwH

What's not impossible? I'm not denying that renewables have a part to play, perhaps even a major part given given sufficient time and effort, but to deny the perfectly valid option of nuclear power is pure foolishness.


Accidents happen all the time.

So? Nuclear is one of the safest options in terms of deaths per TWh:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/NoXion604/deathTWH.jpg

(source (http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf))

Hard hats won't protect one from every concievable accident on a construction site. Does that mean we should stop wearing them, or worse, stop building things altogether?


It's obvious.

Again, so? Waste volume can be reduced (never mind the fact that relative to the vast majority of industries nuclear power generation has one the lowest waste volumes link (http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/manradwa.html#note_b)) and energy reclaimed through reprocessing.


How can you reclaim the energy of a non fissile non fertile radioactive isotope with a half-life of 50.000 years? You can't.

It's good thing that's not all what nuclear waste is then, isn't it? Part of reprocessing involves seperating the type of useless dross you mention from the good stuff.


Yes they are enough. And the price is not that greater.

Enough by what measure? I'm sure the sandalistas think it's a hoot to sleep in a tent eating cold tofu and only getting energy from solar panels or bicycle dynamos for a week or so, but I think even they would chafe if they had to get by with less than even that on a pretty much permanent basis, like a distressingly large number of less fortunate people are forced to.


True. But cleaning toilets is a bit different from mining uranium. I believe we can live without nuclear energy and some estimates that I've made show the same thing. However it takes a bit more than that to choose the best solutions and hopefully nuclear won't be one of them.

We probably could live without uranium, but why should we? Without abundant amounts of energy, life is worse.


Could be; but maybe it is valid. I hesitate to dismiss these kinds of concerns hastily.

Maybe it is valid, but I've seen no reason to believe it to be so.


The slightest mishap can provoke damage that lasts that long as well.

The slightest mishap? That's pure hyperbole.


Famous last words. I was already here during Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; people my age and older are frequently left with a certain instinctual fear and hesitancy surrounding nuclear power.

Three Mile Island hurt nobody, and Chernobyl has been the only major nuclear accident in over 60 years of the technology existing. That's a safety record most industries would kill for.

No, the antipathy towards nuclear power has an ideological and emotional basis, rather than a scientific one.


On both sides of the world divide, we were given similar reassurances by governments and so-called "think tanks" composed of the most cutting-edge engineers of the time. In the USSR, there was the notion of "mirnii atom", the "peaceful atom", etc. And yet, the unthinkable happened, and generations of people in Belorus and Ukraine are still being born into the most unspeakable medical suffering imaginable. Forgive those of us old-timers who can't take that stuff as lightly as our university-aged counterparts. Living through things alters one's perspectives in ways that it can be difficult to convey academically.

This seems to bear out my thesis that objections to nuclear power mainly have an emotional rather than rational basis. Motor vehicles kill more people than nuclear power ever will, yet we don't get tearful pleas from distraught relatives to ban cars now and forever.


I'll admit, I have no formal citations for anything that I am saying here.

Fair enough, but I see no reason why the latest generation nuclear reactors will produce more waste in and of themselves. If anything they should produce less as they would consume fuel more efficiently.


Nuclear waste leaks, leeches into the environment, continues undergoing further reactions, etc.

Such things are known about and can be accounted for. What's your point? Reeling off a list of potential accidents and mishaps is not an argument for anything.


Windmill boneyards won't contaminate the environment for thousands of years or more (with radioactivity, that is), or result in people being born with cardiac systems coming out of their abdomens. If this last claim sounds loaded or far-fetched, I assure you that it has happened. This, I can easily cite if you require it.

And how many people are born with birth defects or contract cancer from say, tobacco smoke, or even natural causes, in comparison? It's all very well saying that nuclear waste can cause birth defects - I have no doubt it can - but if the rate is comparable to, or even less than, the natural rate, why single out nuclear power?


It may be time to cut down on the whole world's consumption of energy, then, and way further than the liberals' "green" campaigns even begin to address.

How can you call for a reduction in world consumption of energy when it is clear that most people have far from enough?

[Psy]

How can you call for a reduction in world consumption of energy when it is clear that most people have far from enough?

Because most energy is used very inefficiently, it is like looking at a wagon with square wheels and saying what its needs is more energy. A prime example would the automobiles where electricity is wasted pumping oil out of ground and refining it, powering gas pumps, producing short lived automobiles all for a means of transportation more inefficient then even the early electric trams of the 1920s and the fact even diesel trains are vastly more efficient is more of a waste of energy as it means oil extracted and refined could be used to power trains instead so there really isn't a need to electrify rural lines unless there is a shortage of diesel fuel.

We really don't want developing nations to be energy hogs like capitalist USA.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because most energy is used very inefficiently, it is like looking at a wagon with square wheels and saying what its needs is more energy. A prime example would the automobiles where electricity is wasted pumping oil out of ground and refining it, powering gas pumps, producing short lived automobiles all for a means of transportation more inefficient then even the early electric trams of the 1920s and the fact even diesel trains are vastly more efficient is more of a waste of energy as it means oil extracted and refined could be used to power trains instead so there really isn't a need to electrify rural lines unless there is a shortage of diesel fuel.

We really don't want developing nations to be energy hogs like capitalist USA.

It's one thing to call for more efficient use of the energy we currently use (something I support), but it's quite another to call for an overall reduction in energy use.

Total worldwide energy production in 2008 was 474 exajoules. Divide that by 7 billion and the result is about 68 gigajoules, or about 18,000 kWh per person. According to this page (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_US_household_electricity_consu mption_in_2008), the average US household consumed 10,656 kWh in 2001. So it appears that in energy terms we are just a bit more than breaking even, assuming energy is distributed equitably. But of course it isn't. Further, this is a static measure - world population will increase, which will mean less energy for everyone assuming energy production does not increase, something that the eco-fundamentalists seem desperate to bring about.

So, in addition to providing a useful excuse for the ruling class to immiserate the powerless (in both the political and physical senses of the term) even further in the name of "the environment", conventional environmentalism has an implicit call for a reduction in living standards via reduction in world energy production.

This point is further reinforced when one looks carefully at the above figures - note that I included world production of energy, which presumably includes sectors other than the domestic, which was my only consideration for sharing energy. But agriculture, manufacture and transport are the bedrock upon which the rest of world civilisation rests. Without it we would be limited to Nature's miserly dole-out, and unimaginable suffering would be the result. I'm not one to mince words, so fuck that idea!

In conclusion, contrary to your last sentence, we do want developing nations to become "energy hogs". What little energy they do have at moment is clearly not enough, hence the development. What we should be encouraging is increased efficiency of energy usage, rather than reduction. Reduction benefits nobody but increased efficiency benefits everyone.

[Psy]

It's one thing to call for more efficient use of the energy we currently use (something I support), but it's quite another to call for an overall reduction in energy use.

Total worldwide energy production in 2008 was 474 exajoules. Divide that by 7 billion and the result is about 68 gigajoules, or about 18,000 kWh per person. According to this page (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_US_household_electricity_consu mption_in_2008), the average US household consumed 10,656 kWh in 2001. So it appears that in energy terms we are just a bit more than breaking even, assuming energy is distributed equitably. But of course it isn't. Further, this is a static measure - world population will increase, which will mean less energy for everyone assuming energy production does not increase, something that the eco-fundamentalists seem desperate to bring about.

So, in addition to providing a useful excuse for the ruling class to immiserate the powerless (in both the political and physical senses of the term) even further in the name of "the environment", conventional environmentalism has an implicit call for a reduction in living standards via reduction in world energy production.

This point is further reinforced when one looks carefully at the above figures - note that I included world production of energy, which presumably includes sectors other than the domestic, which was my only consideration for sharing energy. But agriculture, manufacture and transport are the bedrock upon which the rest of world civilisation rests. Without it we would be limited to Nature's miserly dole-out, and unimaginable suffering would be the result. I'm not one to mince words, so fuck that idea!

In conclusion, contrary to your last sentence, we do want developing nations to become "energy hogs". What little energy they do have at moment is clearly not enough, hence the development. What we should be encouraging is increased efficiency of energy usage, rather than reduction. Reduction benefits nobody but increased efficiency benefits everyone.

Again we waste tons of energy, fuel that could be go to more efficient trains mostly go to trucks and cars with horrible fuel efficiency, hell trucks are now just starting to get diesel-hydraulic, technology that we seen in diesel multiple units since 1949. Then we have the energy are reproducing cars and trucks as they have far shorter lives then trains, there are a significant number of DMUs from the 1950's and 60's still in service today sure they have been heavily refurbished and modernized but most trucks and cars are not rebuilt like trains but instead melted down as scrap metal and rebuild from scratch. Production of cars and trucks takes a lot of electricity, electricity wasted since they have a very short life span for the energy required to build.

For example we really don't want India or China to simply go with hyrdogen cars and use nuclear power to manufacture the hyrogen as they'd still be producing junk cars and trucks.

[RotStern]

Whoa, some great posts in this thread :D

[proudcomrade]

Maybe it is valid, but I've seen no reason to believe it to be so.

Several of us have brought up multiple reasons.


The slightest mishap? That's pure hyperbole.So is saying that nuclear energy is just dandy because a couple of extra safety measures were put into place in recent years.



Three Mile Island hurt nobodyIt hurt the environment and risked causing human damage.


and Chernobyl has been the only major nuclear accident in over 60 years of the technology existing. That's a safety record most industries would kill for.You are skirting completely the enormity of the damage that it did. Once is once too often, especially on a scale of magnitude even approaching that of what happened in Pripyat.



No, the antipathy towards nuclear power has an ideological and emotional basis, rather than a scientific one.Science has its limits. Scientists are not infallible, and ideology and emotion are not automatically worthless. The fallacy of scientism is a bias, in and of itself.


This seems to bear out my thesis that objections to nuclear power mainly have an emotional rather than rational basis.You're repeating yourself now.



Motor vehicles kill more people than nuclear power ever willstrawman


yet we don't get tearful pleas from distraught relatives to ban cars now and forever.strawman, combined with weird ad hominem against survivors of accidents in general...



Fair enough, but I see no reason why the latest generation nuclear reactors will produce more waste in and of themselves.It has been mentioned that the nature of the waste is more of a problem than its volume.



If anything they should produce less as they would consume fuel more efficiently.see above




Such things are known about and can be accounted for. What's your point? Reeling off a list of potential accidents and mishaps is not an argument for anything.Sure it is. My point, since you appear to have missed it, is twofold: I. Treat nukes with caution. II. When someone who has lived through history firsthand, tells you about experiences that you are too young to have known other than secondhand, don't dismiss. There is much less new under the sun than you may realize at this point in your life, no offense.


And how many people are born with birth defects or contract cancer from say, tobacco smoke, or even natural causes, in comparison?strawman


It's all very well saying that nuclear waste can cause birth defects - I have no doubt it can - but if the rate is comparable to, or even less than, the natural rate, why single out nuclear power?see above


How can you call for a reduction in world consumption of energy when it is clear that most people have far from enough?overuse in First World; inefficiency in distribution

[Ernest Valdemar]

The poll asks: "Should we use nuclear (fission) power?"

I ask: Who's "we"?

If "we" means the capitalist system under which most of us live today, then I wonder why leftists should be giving advice to the capitalists on how to keep their system going. Nuclear power to a capitalist is like crack cocaine to a drug addict. It only fuels their productivist drive to reach ever greater levels of production, creating waste and environmental devastation in their wake - quite apart from increasing their material wealth and their power to remain in control of the economy and society.

If "we" means the ones who will one day build a new kind of society to replace capitalism, then the answer is maybe. It's not for us to rule out or prescribe in advance what kinds of energy will be available to a society run on principles of collectivism, democracy, and harmony with nature.

[Psy]

If "we" means the ones who will one day build a new kind of society to replace capitalism, then the answer is maybe. It's not for us to rule out or prescribe in advance what kinds of energy will be available to a society run on principles of collectivism, democracy, and harmony with nature.

Well if we had a world revolution tomorrow I don't see the point in rushing to build more power plants, for example what good would a nuclear power plant be to Cuba? Cuba has perfectly good 1949 Budd Diesel-Hydraulic Multiple Units and doesn't really have to worry to much about emissions giving Cuba's low density, thus I would much rather see Cuba be given diesel fuel so they can start up their old transpiration system from the USSR days and the means to modernize their old diesel equipment. Diesel would probably be the energy source of choice for a communist Africa as well along with the rest of the rural regions in a communist world.

As for us in the developed world, I would think we would be able to increase efficiency enough that we wouldn't need to increase our capacity that much.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Solar, Hydro and Wind should be enough to power a communist nation.

[Ernest Valdemar]

Well if we had a world revolution tomorrow I don't see the point in rushing to build more power plants, for example what good would a nuclear power plant be to Cuba? Cuba has perfectly good 1949 Budd Diesel-Hydraulic Multiple Units and doesn't really have to worry to much about emissions giving Cuba's low density, thus I would much rather see Cuba be given diesel fuel so they can start up their old transpiration system from the USSR days and the means to modernize their old diesel equipment. Diesel would probably be the energy source of choice for a communist Africa as well along with the rest of the rural regions in a communist world.

Haven't you heard? Fossil fuels are being used up; they are non-renewable; and they are causing catastrophic climate change. The socialist future will not be built on fossil fuels, but on solar, wind, tide, geothermal, and renewable carbon (wood) energies.

[Revy]

NUCLEAR ENERGY IS A MUST IN A COMMUNIST FUTURE:
I would agree if we are talking about nuclear fusion because that is said to be clean and renewable. However, nuclear fusion has not been developed yet and represents something altogether different from the current form of nuclear energy.



1. Wind and Solar Power by themselves don't meet our energy needs.

Wind and solar power are constantly improving technologies that are becoming energy efficient. And if cars and homes had in-built solar panels, that would reduce the need for huge sprawling "solar farms".



2. Nuclear technology today is almost completely safe.
Chernobyl.


3. Nuclear technology is becoming "green" technology.It's not renewable. There are tons of toxic waste and nowhere to put it. They're trying to hollow out mountains to put it in.

[Psy]

Haven't you heard? Fossil fuels are being used up; they are non-renewable; and they are causing catastrophic climate change. The socialist future will not be built on fossil fuels, but on solar, wind, tide, geothermal, and renewable carbon (wood) energies.
While true trains consume alot less fossil fuel then automobile, and the urban world moving to electric would mean the rural and developing world would have plenty of fossil fuel and since they are rural emissions wouldn't really be much of a concern either due to realitivly little traffic. Also since tons of disel equipment already exists it means they don't have to be produced for the rural and devloping world making them a perfect stop-gap technology till they can build something better.

[Jazzratt]

Chernobyl.

Please read the fucking thread before wading in with stupid crap that's already been covered ad fucking nauseum.

[proudcomrade]

Please read the fucking thread before wading in with stupid crap that's already been covered ad fucking nauseum.
Do you ever have even the most slightly positive or constructive thing to say on this site? Toward anyone? Ever? :rolleyes:

[Ernest Valdemar]

While true trains consume alot less fossil fuel then automobile,

Trains still do consume fossil fuels, and that cannot continue indefinitely. Besides, converting railroads to electrical power is a lot easier than converting automobiles to electrical power. And there's no way we're going to be driving around in electric cars while trains are still burning diesel.


...and the urban world moving to electric would mean the rural and developing world would have plenty of fossil fuel and since they are rural emissions wouldn't really be much of a concern either due to realitivly little traffic.

The "developing" world, as you so quaintly put it, has plenty of traffic and is becoming more and more urbanized. Ask the representatives of the imperialist countries at Copenhagen next month whether the CO2 emissions of the rest of the world are "much of a concern". CO2 emissions are a world problem, regardless of which countries are emitting them; it's like peeing in a swimming pool.


Also since tons of disel equipment already exists it means they don't have to be produced for the rural and devloping world making them a perfect stop-gap technology till they can build something better.

There's something of a colonialist mentality in saying we can let the "developing" world struggle along with outmoded, polluting, planet-destroying "perfect stop-gap" technology while we are using planet-friendlier technology. I would have thought that the revolutionary society that gets rid of the internal combustion engine (and for sure it will take a revolution to do that) would be happy to share their technology with other like-minded societies, rather than leaving them to pee in the pool until "they can buld something better".

[piet11111]

Do you ever have even the most slightly positive or constructive thing to say on this site? Toward anyone? Ever? :rolleyes:

he does but he does not have patience to deal with the same bullshit over and over again.

especially when said bullshit was dealt with earlier in the same damned thread.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

For example we really don't want India or China to simply go with hyrdogen cars and use nuclear power to manufacture the hyrogen as they'd still be producing junk cars and trucks.

It's better than rapidly using up heavily polluting fossil fuels, which seems to be the path they're currently travelling.

Also, considering the population densities of the two countries, the nuclear option makes sense in terms of power - the more people you have concentrated in a given area, the less energy (from renewables) there is available for everyone. High population densities also lend themselves well to mass transport as opposed to private motor vehicles.


Several of us have brought up multiple reasons.

Really? Where?


So is saying that nuclear energy is just dandy because a couple of extra safety measures were put into place in recent years.

Did you miss the graph I provided in my last post? Nuclear power's good record of safety, relative to other power generation methods, is not just my opinion. It is a historical fact.


It hurt the environment and risked causing human damage.

The environmental damage was negligable - no more than the equivalent of a chest x-ray on average within 10 miles of the plant. I've probably had more radiation exposure thanks to my dentist than to any nuclear power plant. The risk, to the environment or the people within it, was minimal and people willingly expose themselves to much greater risks on a daily basis, myself included.


You are skirting completely the enormity of the damage that it did. Once is once too often, especially on a scale of magnitude even approaching that of what happened in Pripyat.

You really have no idea how many people are killed anually in the routine operations of all industry, do you? Granted, there is room for improvement (there always is, thanks to improving technology with regards to health and safety), but even if all reasonable precautions were to be taken more people would die in say, coal mining or chemical manufacture than nuclear power generation.

So if you're going to be using Chernobyl as a yardstick for unacceptable potential industrial accidents, why are you not calling for the banning of all chemical manufacture? The Bhopal disaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster) killed between 8000-10,000 people within 72 hours of the accident, a tragedy indeed.


Science has its limits. Scientists are not infallible, and ideology and emotion are not automatically worthless. The fallacy of scientism is a bias, in and of itself.

Indeed, science does not know everything and individual scientists are as human as everyone else. But that is not the same thing as saying that the risks associated with nuclear power cannot be made acceptable.


You're repeating yourself now.

If I'm repeating myself it's because you're making crap arguments. There's nothing I can do about that, that's your own cross to bear.


strawman

So what is an acceptable level of risk? Before you answer, you must realise that all activities carry a risk of injury or death or environmental degradation. Don't forget to justify why you think so.


strawman, combined with weird ad hominem against survivors of accidents in general...

I was attacking you in particular, not accident survivors in general. They're the ones with the sense, unlike you, to realise that one doesn't call for the prohibition of an entire technology based on emotional and ideological arguments that cannot even countenance the idea of acceptable risk factors


It has been mentioned that the nature of the waste is more of a problem than its volume.

Vagueness. What nature do you mean precisely? Radiation? That falls off in intensity down to background levels. Toxicity? Vitrification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Vitrification) of waste renders it chemically inert and impermeable to water, so even if its storage container is damaged or otherwise breached little risk is posed to local water sources.

Also, note that Ovi said "And create more waste in the process" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1573913&postcount=216) indicating that volume is a problem, at least according to him.


Sure it is.

No it isn't and you bloody well know it. I could tell you in gruesome detail all the nasty things that could happen to you if you cross a road, but that does not change the fact that the vast majority of the time, provided you take sensible precautions, you will safely cross roads.


My point, since you appear to have missed it, is twofold: I. Treat nukes with caution.

Sure, but you seem to be exaggerating the risks out of all proportion.


II. When someone who has lived through history firsthand, tells you about experiences that you are too young to have known other than secondhand, don't dismiss. There is much less new under the sun than you may realize at this point in your life, no offense.

Firstly, experiencing a nuclear accident does not give you any special insight into nuclear safety. Secondly, you overestimate the importance of first hand experience - just because you experience something does not mean you necessarily understand it. Conversely, you do not have to experience something to understand it.

Of course, this is me assuming good faith on your part. For all I know you could just be a confabulator with an ideological axe to grind. This is the reason data is superior to anecdotes - they can be checked.


strawman

The argument appears to be talking about risk, so I bring up risky activities as points of comparison. Now, you could present your own argument as to why you think nuclear power is too risky even though it has an excellent safety record, or you could continue to be intellectually lazy and carry on throwing up the names of logical fallacies. If you don't want to lay your rhetorical cards on the table then I can easily see things getting tedious for the both of us.


see above

You've got the "refute the other guy's argument" bit of debate down pat, or at least you seem to think so, but you really need to work on supporting your own position. I've provided data (as opposed to your anecdotes) supporting my assertion that nuclear power has a good safety record, data you have not disputed. So what's your problem?


overuse in First World; inefficiency in distribution

Did you not read this post? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1585905&postcount=227)? In short, we have enough energy for everyone on the planet to live comfortably, but only if we omit industry and assume no further population growth, as well as egalitarian distribution of said energy, something which is plainly ridiculous. Since currently distribution of energy is not egalitarian, and we live under a Price System, implementing a reduction in energy production will make it more expensive, thus hurting everyone who isn't rich enough to afford the now more expensive energy. It would not be any better to call for a reduction of energy production in an egalitarian society either - that would simply mean that everyone would be worse off.


The poll asks: "Should we use nuclear (fission) power?"

I ask: Who's "we"?

If "we" means the capitalist system under which most of us live today, then I wonder why leftists should be giving advice to the capitalists on how to keep their system going. Nuclear power to a capitalist is like crack cocaine to a drug addict. It only fuels their productivist drive to reach ever greater levels of production, creating waste and environmental devastation in their wake - quite apart from increasing their material wealth and their power to remain in control of the economy and society.

Unfortunately, it's the system under which I happen to live. Speaking as someone who has to pay their own energy bills, I'd prefer not to have to choose between having something to eat and being warm in the winter.


If "we" means the ones who will one day build a new kind of society to replace capitalism, then the answer is maybe. It's not for us to rule out or prescribe in advance what kinds of energy will be available to a society run on principles of collectivism, democracy, and harmony with nature.

Harmony with nature is overrated.


Wind and solar power are constantly improving technologies that are becoming energy efficient.

There's an upper limit to that efficiency, however. Thermodynamically speaking you cannot have a perfectly efficient machine. Another consideration is the fact that only so much sunlight falls/wind blows in a given area, assuming ideal conditions which, needless to say, are not always present.


And if cars and homes had in-built solar panels, that would reduce the need for huge sprawling "solar farms".

Huge sprawling solar farms are actually the best way of collecting solar energy - the more area you can cover, the more energy can be gathered. Also, being specially built for the purpose as opposed to being tacked onto the roofs of houses and cars, it makes engineering considerations easier and the plant can be sited in an ideal location, say, the Sahara Desert.


Chernobyl.

A propaganda coup for eco-fundamentalists but in terms of industrial accidents it was a hiccup.


It's not renewable.

Doesn't matter when there's enough to last billions of years.


There are tons of toxic waste and nowhere to put it.

It can be stored on-site until reprocessing or vitrification. Compared to say, coal ash the volume of nuclear waste is minimal.


They're trying to hollow out mountains to put it in.

They wouldn't need to do that if they just reprocessed the damn stuff.

[proudcomrade]

If I'm repeating myself it's because you're making crap arguments. There's nothing I can do about that, that's your own cross to bear. I was attacking you in particular, not accident survivors in general. They're the ones with the sense, unlike you...you could continue to be intellectually lazy...

At this point, you're simply behaving like a petulant adolescent, and I've had my fill of it.


You've got the "refute the other guy's argument" bit of debate down pat, or at least you seem to think so, but you really need to work on supporting your own position...what's your problem? Did you not read this post? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1585905&postcount=227)? ...Harmony with nature is overrated.

Ah, yes, the hubris of the young student...:rolleyes:


I can easily see things getting tedious for the both of us.

Indeed. I'm done with you. Good day.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

At this point, you're simply behaving like a petulant adolescent, and I've had my fill of it.

Yeah, slink off and claim moral superiority instead of having the intellectual fortitude to address my arguments, why don't you?


Ah, yes, the hubris of the young student...:rolleyes:

So you're quite capable of looking down your nose at other people, but you can't defend your own opinions. I wonder why you even bothered to express them.


Indeed. I'm done with you. Good day.

If a few snide remarks is all it takes to put the wind up you, one wonders how you manage to get through the day without bursting into tears.

[Psy]

Trains still do consume fossil fuels, and that cannot continue indefinitely. Besides, converting railroads to electrical power is a lot easier than converting automobiles to electrical power. And there's no way we're going to be driving around in electric cars while trains are still burning diesel.

They can continue to consume fossil fuels for hundreds of years if most automobiles are not consuming fossil fuels, epically since train diesel engines are becoming even more fuel efficient as railways combat raising fuel costs.



The "developing" world, as you so quaintly put it, has plenty of traffic and is becoming more and more urbanized. Ask the representatives of the imperialist countries at Copenhagen next month whether the CO2 emissions of the rest of the world are "much of a concern". CO2 emissions are a world problem, regardless of which countries are emitting them; it's like peeing in a swimming pool.

Most of Africa is so spread out that the emissions from diesel trains in Africa would be insignificant till Africa actually industrializes.



There's something of a colonialist mentality in saying we can let the "developing" world struggle along with outmoded, polluting, planet-destroying "perfect stop-gap" technology while we are using planet-friendlier technology. I would have thought that the revolutionary society that gets rid of the internal combustion engine (and for sure it will take a revolution to do that) would be happy to share their technology with other like-minded societies, rather than leaving them to pee in the pool until "they can buld something better".
The U.S.S.R had a massive electrification of its rails (even though the USSR mostly used coal to generate electricity) yet the U.S.S.R still had to develop new diesel trains due to rural communities not having enough traffic to be of much priority to electrify the track and the shear size of the U.S.S.R and how much time it takes to electrify all its tracks plus lay down new tracks.

A communist world have the same problem, just too many track to electrify all at once and many areas were traffic is so low they won't benefit much from electrifying the tracks thus like the U.S.S.R did you prioritize what lines get electrified first focusing on urban areas and heavy traffic lines.

[Psy]

It's better than rapidly using up heavily polluting fossil fuels, which seems to be the path they're currently travelling.

Also, considering the population densities of the two countries, the nuclear option makes sense in terms of power - the more people you have concentrated in a given area, the less energy (from renewables) there is available for everyone. High population densities also lend themselves well to mass transport as opposed to private motor vehicles.

Mass transport also reduces energy consumption so while nuclear probably help I don't see a need to use nuclear to greatly increase production of electricity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Mass transport also reduces energy consumption so while nuclear probably help I don't see a need to use nuclear to greatly increase production of electricity.

Yes, but mass transport is only one thing that guzzles energy. I'm not convinced that renewables alone are up to the task, especially in areas of high population density.

[Psy]

Yes, but mass transport is only one thing that guzzles energy. I'm not convinced that renewables alone are up to the task, especially in areas of high population density.
The next big guzzler of energy is manufacturing but why would a communist world be increasing its manufacturing in the long term? Capitalist manufactures use planned obsolesces so costumers consume their product more frequently and to lower production costs. Yes there would be a short period were there would increased energy demands while society produces new long lasting products but once they are in the market in large qualities many factories would be running at much lower rates thus consuming far less electricity.

[Ernest Valdemar]

Unfortunately, it's the system under which I happen to live. Speaking as someone who has to pay their own energy bills, I'd prefer not to have to choose between having something to eat and being warm in the winter.....

Harmony with nature is overrated.

Harmony with nature is all about "having something to eat and being warm in the winter" without having to pay a terrible price down the road. If you think that's "overrated" then you (or your descendants) are welcome to starve and freeze when there's nothing left of the earth's natural resources.


They can continue to consume fossil fuels for hundreds of years if most automobiles are not consuming fossil fuels, epically since train diesel engines are becoming even more fuel efficient as railways combat raising fuel costs.

You are apparently labouring under the delusion that the only potential problem with burning fossil fuels is running out of them. The real problem is what they are doing to the environment. You'd like to ignore that and merrily continue burning fossil fuel until it's all gone. Your vision of a revolutionary future society seems to resemble the Soviet Union, which is now an environmental disaster area.


Most of Africa is so spread out that the emissions from diesel trains in Africa would be insignificant till Africa actually industrializes.

You're living in the past. You have an outdated view of that continent. You also assume that "third world" countries would continue indefinitely to be held back in their development even after the yoke of capitalist imperialism has been removed from their necks.

And why shouldn't Africans be allowed to decide for themselves what technology they are going to use for transportation?


The U.S.S.R had a massive electrification of its rails (even though the USSR mostly used coal to generate electricity) yet the U.S.S.R still had to develop new diesel trains due to rural communities not having enough traffic to be of much priority to electrify the track and the shear size of the U.S.S.R and how much time it takes to electrify all its tracks plus lay down new tracks.

The USSR was a poverty-stricken, isolated country at war with powerful imperialist forces. There is no comparison to modern capitalist countries. We have enough traffic everywhere to justify electrifying the railroads, and we have the wealth and technology to be able to do it.


A communist world have the same problem, just too many track to electrify all at once and many areas were traffic is so low they won't benefit much from electrifying the tracks thus like the U.S.S.R did you prioritize what lines get electrified first focusing on urban areas and heavy traffic lines.

You're pretty good at making excuses for holding back on change and at deciding for other people what they need and don't need. You would have felt right at home in the Soviet bureaucracy, circa 1950.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The next big guzzler of energy is manufacturing but why would a communist world be increasing its manufacturing in the long term? Capitalist manufactures use planned obsolesces so costumers consume their product more frequently and to lower production costs. Yes there would be a short period were there would increased energy demands while society produces new long lasting products but once they are in the market in large qualities many factories would be running at much lower rates thus consuming far less electricity.

Well, if we're going to be taking the long-term view, then I still think energy usage should increase, but for different reasons than under capitalism - for one, expanding the presence of humanity beyond the Earth (for long-term survival reasons) for a start, with research and exploration as a secondary priority.

Other differences include the rate of increase - it doesn't have to be at breakneck pace, we have plenty of time - and also the increasing scope of available resources. We needn't worry about using up the Earth's resources (at least in pure practical terms, but for the sake of prudence we should still be careful) if we're exploiting the relatively vast resources of the rest of the Solar System.


Harmony with nature is all about "having something to eat and being warm in the winter" without having to pay a terrible price down the road. If you think that's "overrated" then you (or your descendants) are welcome to starve and freeze when there's nothing left of the earth's natural resources.

Fissionable fuels could potentially last billions of years, certainly long enough for us to gain access to off-world resources - I hardly think that myself or any of my recognisable descendants will freeze or starve if we utilise the nuclear option, which is why I support it whole-heartedly.

Besides, you haven't defined exactly what "harmony" means.

[Psy]

You are apparently labouring under the delusion that the only potential problem with burning fossil fuels is running out of them. The real problem is what they are doing to the environment. You'd like to ignore that and merrily continue burning fossil fuel until it's all gone. Your vision of a revolutionary future society seems to resemble the Soviet Union, which is now an environmental disaster area.

I think it is better to manage emissions rather then hold back progress, diesel trains spread out don't produce that much pollution when using high quality diesel fuel on tuned engines epically you have a line with only one train rocketing down the tracks at 110 KM/H, the heavier pollutants (those don't rise up to the atmosphere) would be spread over a large area and mostly soaked up with thick vegetation right next to lines use to muffle noise pollution. You'd only start getting local pollution problem once the line gets regular train traffic for example multiple trains a day rather then a few trains a week or even a month (there are seasonal freight trains that only go down branch lines once a year when the harvest is ready to be transported and the rest of the time used as a long siding to park rail cars).



You're living in the past. You have an outdated view of that continent. You also assume that "third world" countries would continue indefinitely to be held back in their development even after the yoke of capitalist imperialism has been removed from their necks.

Sure we want these held back countries to urbanize more but do we want all of their population areas to urbanize? Do we want every small town and village to urbanize? Would they all want to? There are rail lines in North America running through the middle of wilderness with no sign of civilization other then the rail line and you want to run catenary in even more rural wildness where track wildlife getting shocked by 25 kilo volts would be a real issue (many animals like to climb, so you will get animals climbing the poles holding the catenary and causing a arc through their body killing them and shorting out the system causing delays on the line).



And why shouldn't Africans be allowed to decide for themselves what technology they are going to use for transportation?

They have to have the ability to built their own railway, they will have to rely on engineers from industrialized nations and rely on the industrial output of the industrialized nations.



The USSR was a poverty-stricken, isolated country at war with powerful imperialist forces. There is no comparison to modern capitalist countries. We have enough traffic everywhere to justify electrifying the railroads, and we have the wealth and technology to be able to do it.

Everywhere? Then why did the U.S.S.R create the 750mm light rail standard for the entire soviet bloc? The 750mm standard suggests even in Eastern Europe there was not enough traffic to warrent even normal size track to connect rural towns with major lines or in connecting distant factories to populated areas.