Nuclear Power

[Skeptical]

To Iceaura

The figure of 2500 deaths from nuclear power came from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Frankly, your denial is absurd. Those guys are the experts.

And no. The Iraq war had nothing to do with nuclear power or nuclear weapons. Bush used the fictitious risk of weapons of mass destruction as a rationalisation. That is quite different to a reason.

Anyway, nuclear weapons are quite different to nuclear power. You would not be the first to fail to distinguish between them. It is ridiculous every time that distinction is not made. That is like failing to distinguish between an explosion of diesel liquid in a truck cylinder, to drive a vehicle, and the explosion of a major bomb to kill hundreds of people. Very, very different.

The solar number you claim is wrong is actually 100% correct. 25 cents per kilowatt hour. However, it is clear you did not read my post carefully enough. I said solar cell. Clear now?

Anyway. The result is simple. Nuclear power is the third cheapest form of electricity generation, after hydro and burning coal, and it is the second safest of the four main methods of generating power. As such, it is irrational to exclude it as an option for future power generation. It is now, and will remain for many decades, a vital component of the range of options for global electricity.

 

[iceaura]

The figure of 2500 deaths from nuclear power came from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Frankly, your denial is absurd. Those guys are the experts.

Your "experts" seem to have overlooked Iraq, for starters. 2500? Please.

And again - irrelevant number, really, unless you plan to use it carefully.

And no. The Iraq war had nothing to do with nuclear power or nuclear weapons. Bush used the fictitious risk of weapons of mass destruction as a rationalisation. That is quite different to a reason.

He used it to sell the invasion, and before that to block the removal of sanctions. It wasn't an after the fact rationalization - it was the direct means of launching the invasion, politically. It clearly illustrates one of the risks involved in spreading nukes around.

The solar number you claim is wrong is actually 100% correct. 25 cents per kilowatt hour. However, it is clear you did not read my post carefully enough. I said solar cell. Clear now?

Oh, my bad. I thought you were replying to my posts, or talking about solar power costs in the US - comparing the cost with nuke power, that kind of thing, like the thread topic does.

If you want to talk about other stuff, maybe another thread?

Nuclear power is the third cheapest form of electricity generation, after hydro and burning coal, and it is the second safest of the four main methods of generating power.

Wait - you are actually using those numbers for cost comparison? Without the environmental costs or accident cleanup or anything? You are going to ignore military use and waste handling in your safety analysis?

Uh, OK - - - but not what you'd call a serious argument, that.

 

[Skeptical]

Iceaura

You cannot use deaths in Iraq as caused by nuclear power. Surely you can see that is absurd. Even if your idea of Bush's rationalisation stacked up (it doesn't) that is about nuclear weapons - not power.

But that argument is wrong. Bush was determined to attack Iraq. He used weapons of mass destruction as a rationalisation, even though he knew there was no such risk. If it had not been that rationalisation, he would have come up with another. His decision to attack had nothing whatever to do with nuclear power, and you are really skating on thin ice to try to put that up as a safety issue for nuclear power.

Deaths in Iraq were casualties of sick politics. Nothing else. My figure of 2500 stands.

Disposing of nuclear waste is not a technical problem. A number of totally adequate options already exist. It is a political problem, due to the sad fact that thousands of total nutters protest against every measure that is suggested.

There is a mine near Kalgoorlie in Australia that, when worked out, will leave a hole in the ground big enough to hold the world's nuclear waste for thousands of years. It is in a geologically stable zone (no earthquakes or volcanoes for millions of years), and in the desert, so water flow could not be a problem. When the mine works out, it will also rapidly become depopulated. I suggest we simply dump nuclear waste there. The Australian people can become rich from dumping fees.
http://www.superpit.com.au/PhotoLibrary/OpenPit/tabid/176/Default.aspx

Of course, it will not happen. Too simple and too sensible, and the nutters will be out in force to prevent it.

 

[iceaura]

You cannot use deaths in Iraq as caused by nuclear power. Surely you can see that is absurd. Even if your idea of Bush's rationalisation stacked up (it doesn't) that is about nuclear weapons - not power.

Saddam had no nuclear weapons.

The threat from Saddam, the fear used to launch an otherwise senseless and insupportable war, was the capability he had acquired from the nuclear power program spread to Iraq. The same pattern is now playing out in Iran, and people may very well die in the tens of thousands because of it.

Before that, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Libya, and others. It's one of the known, obvious, accountable risks of spreading nuclear power around.

Deaths in Iraq were casualties of sick politics. Nothing else.

Until you cure the world of sick politics, the risks of spreading nuclear power will have to include their effects.

If it had not been that rationalisation, he would have come up with another.

Your hypothetical alternative world is not as reliable as an account of what in fact happened. The risk of the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud was central to the propaganda effort - the convincing claim.

Disposing of nuclear waste is not a technical problem. - - -

There is a mine near Kalgoorlie in Australia - - - - I suggest we simply dump nuclear waste there.

And getting it there, including the military stuff and the many thousands of tons of concrete etc, is not a technical problem? Or a political problem? Or a risk of any kind? Or even a serious expense?

We've got thermal solar up and running for less than 17 cents @ kwhr, on 1980s technology. No waste problem, no huge subsidiary costs and risks. Why are we even looking at nukes?

 

[Skeptical]

Iceaura

If you are going to blame nuclear energy for sick politics, you should start with oil. That is the real cause of the attack on Iraq, and is far worse in its political effects.

On forms of electricity generation. Currently the number 1 is coal burning. nuclear (last time I looked) was number 3.

When you tout solar, and wind etc., bear in mind that all those forms combined produce less than 2% of the world's electricity. Clearly, they are not as practical as the Big Four which produce 98% of all the electricity generated globally.

Nuclear has the major advantage that it is consistent. Solar power, wind power, tidal power etc are all intermittent. Either you have to accept that they will not generate power at night, or when the wind stops blowing, or when the tides are not flowing, or else you have to set up an expensive and horrendously wasteful method of storing power.

With nuclear, you get a steady power output 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Coal burning is still number 1 but for the sake of the climate must be wound down to zero, over the next few decades. Hydro-electricity is a good means of making power, but is already pretty close to 100% of capacity. Scope for expansion is limited. Natural gas still produces greenhouse gases, and suffers for the fact that the natural gas resource, though immense, is limited and will eventually be used up.

So, of the Big Four, only nuclear has scope for substantial growth. Wind power, no doubt, will also expand dramatically, as will a range of other means of generating power. However, to obtain the power generation the world will need in the next 50 years, without generating too many greenhouse gases, nuclear is an option that will need to be expanded very substantially.

On your point about transporting nuclear waste to the Kalgoorlie 'hole'.
Yes, it will be expensive. But as a percentage of the total cost of nuclear power generation, it will be minor. The thing is that the tonnage of nuclear waste is not actually great. In terms of radioactive isotopes alone in waste, it comes to less than 200 tonnes per annum world wide. Of course, impurities mixed with the waste will substantially increase the total tonnage, but those impurities are not toxic.

Thus, relatively small amounts need to be shipped to the disposal site. There are already techniques devised and proven for sealing the waste into containers that make it pretty much harmless. Even in the event of a shipwreck dropping waste into the ocean, it is unlikely that any significant harm could be done. After all, waste was dumped into the oceans in simple 44 gallon drums in the 1950's and there has been no record of any harm from that.

 

[iceaura]

If you are going to blame nuclear energy for sick politics,

Not at all. But its risks have to be evaluated in the real world.

Nuclear has the major advantage that it is consistent.
- - - - - -
With nuclear, you get a steady power output 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Again, more realistic assumptions need to be made. They shut down for various reasons quite frequently, and they stay down for weeks, sometimes months.

Another advantage the more distributed and decentralized solar plants enjoy - they very seldom completely shut down, or for long periods of time.

Thus, relatively small amounts need to be shipped to the disposal site.

If you separate out the "toxic" stuff from, say, the thousands of tons of containment structure and similar stuff, you multiply the expense. If you don't, you are shipping large quantities of concrete and the like.

Even in the event of a shipwreck dropping waste into the ocean, it is unlikely that any significant harm could be done.

You are also talking about train wrecks, river barge mishaps, theft and corporate malfeasance, truck accidents, and so forth.

After all, waste was dumped into the oceans in simple 44 gallon drums in the 1950's and there has been no record of any harm from that.

Well, maybe we can arrange to have no records in the future as well. And all the nuke proponents will be happy.

When you tout solar, and wind etc., bear in mind that all those forms combined produce less than 2% of the world's electricity. Clearly, they are not as practical as the Big Four

It's arguments like that that make me wary of the whole nuke proponent faction. You guys aren't paying attention or something. That is a ridiculous argument - and obviously so. C'mon.

 

[Skeptical]

iceaura

Re nuclear waste. In fact, there have been a number of situations when substantial amounts have been accidentally, or deliberately dumped into the environment, and with little measurable harm. Even at Chernobyl, apart from a very small zone very close to the actual reactor, the accident appears to have done little harm to the natural environment. The closed off area has rapidly become a very valuable wildlife refuge, with wolves, bears, deer etc all thriving.

The Soviets once had the habit of dissolving nuclear waste in acid and pumping it into the Arctic Ocean. Teams of researchers have tried to measure the damage and found very little, if any.

What people often forget is that radioactivity is part of the natural environment. If you live in a mountainous area, with granite rock, you are surrounded by a dense mass containing from 1 to 20 parts per million of uranium. The background radioactivity can be up to 200 times that which is experienced on the plains. Yet no measurable harm comes to those living in those areas. In fact, in the USA, average life span in mountain dwelling people is greater than those who live on the prairies.

When nuclear waste is disposed of in the ocean, the dilution factor is enormous. It is almost certain that dissolved waste in the oceans becomes harmless.

The amount of radiation to do significant harm to a human is actually rather high. Nuclear waste that is sufficiently diluted is unlikely to cause any such harm. Much of the publicity by such nutters as Greenpeace about nuclear waste is paranoid and exaggerated. While we should exercise care with handling and disposing of it, there is little point emulating Greenpeace and getting paranoid about it.

Safe disposal is not difficult, as I pointed out. And the inevitable occasional accident does not seem to do much harm. After all, we have already had a number of such cases, and the experience is of minimal environmental harm.

 

[ElectricFetus]

No. Life is too short to attempt to argue an issue like this via video feeds.

Life to short of input, for shame.

See, you say obviously ridiculous things like that and expect me to watch long videos of similar bs.

Well then lets go over your fears and lets review them in detail.

The Hanford decommissioning alone is more than that, by volume.

That a nuclear weapons plant. Nuclear waste is only waste because of how we use it, reprocessing could destroy 90% of it as fuel, fast neutron reactors could destroy 99% of it.

So? If as you say that only works for a few hours, then we use something else. You were the one objecting to thermal storage.

At what price, grid storage makes alternative energy significantly more uneconomical at market penetrations beyond 20%.

Socialized power production.

A good idea.

Before, you were talking about respiratory deaths from burning coal without capturing the hazardous smoke. Well, I am talking about the costs and problems of relying on nuclear power for electricity, including those from spreading nuclear power plants all over the landscape.

Nope still don't get it.

 

[iceaura]

In fact, there have been a number of situations when substantial amounts have been accidentally, or deliberately dumped into the environment, and with little measurable harm.

You mean little measured harm. That can be arranged in the future, as well.

When nuclear waste is disposed of in the ocean, the dilution factor is enormous. It is almost certain that dissolved waste in the oceans becomes harmless.

Good luck getting it back out of the ocean, when actual measurement and research (someday) turns up those ugly little details somebody overlooked.

What people often forget is that radioactivity is part of the natural environment.

So are background rates of cancer and birth defects. You aren't talking to "people", here.

Safe disposal is not difficult, as I pointed out

It's all but impossible, as you have overlooked. You can't even ship the stuff to Wyoming safely, let alone Australia, for starters.

So? If as you say that only works for a few hours, then we use something else. You were the one objecting to thermal storage.
”
At what price, grid storage makes alternative energy significantly more uneconomical at market penetrations beyond 20%.

There is no real world data or plausible analysis behind that assertion - "alternative energy" has never reached 20% relevant market penetration, nor have large scale storage facilities been wired in, nor has the major research included the better forms of solar (witness skeptical's use of small solar panel "cell" numbers for kwh cost comparisons of the "major" power sources).

No. Life is too short to attempt to argue an issue like this via video feeds.
”
Life to short of input, for shame.

Video feed is not input, in a serious argument. It's entertainment, if it's entertaining.

Illiteracy has its charms and strengths - complex technical discussion is not among them. If you haven't got anything better than a dumbass youtube video, you haven't got an argument.

Socialized power production.
”
A good idea.

A necessary factor, in nuke power safety. Not included in the current push, we notice.

Well then lets go over your fears and lets review them in detail.

I'd be satisfied with mere overt recognition of them. None visible so far.

And then, once your obsession with "fears" is sated, we can go back to my major point: nukes are the most expensive alternative known, to coal and the like. They are a mistake, economically. Better alternatives exist.

 

[Skeptical]

Just a comment on the health effects of increased background radiation. Small increases, up to 40 fold, have been well studied for their health impact. In fact, the results show no increase in cancers and the like. In fact, if anything, the reverse seems to happen - a phenomenon known as radio-hormesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

Just to put this into perspective, the average natural background radiation is about 2.5 millisieverts, while the phenomenon of radiohormesis appears to apply up to 100 mSv at least. That is, an increase in radiation of 40 fold does no harm. It may even be helpful to human health.

For this reason, iceaura, I have to say that your fears of harmful health effects from tiny increases in background radioactivity, such as from a massively diluted dose of nuclear waste dissolved in the oceans, are scientifically unfounded.

 

[ElectricFetus]

There is no real world data or plausible analysis behind that assertion - "alternative energy" has never reached 20% relevant market penetration, nor have large scale storage facilities been wired in, nor has the major research included the better forms of solar (witness skeptical's use of small solar panel "cell" numbers for kwh cost comparisons of the "major" power sources).

Aside for the technical analysis reports, please do look up scholarly articles on grid energy storage.

Video feed is not input, in a serious argument. It's entertainment, if it's entertaining.

This is not a serious argument, this a internet debate, get over you self.

Illiteracy has its charms and strengths - complex technical discussion is not among them. If you haven't got anything better than a dumbass youtube video, you haven't got an argument.

I never said I don't have more, and that a BBC documentary, just because its hosted on youtube does not make it irrelevant, you can't discard information simply because of its source no if you wanted to argue in favor of the linear no threshold model and denounce all counter-evidence in a legitimate argument then that would be great, but you don't even have the sense to go that far.

nukes are the most expensive alternative known, to coal and the like. They are a mistake, economically. Better alternatives exist.

If that was true then Places like France would have the most expensive electricity, which they don't, at present there are no alternatives other then fossil fueled that can provide baseline power.

 

[iceaura]

Aside for the technical analysis reports, please do look up scholarly articles on grid energy storage.

They are irrelevant to my point - which was that storage methods exist, of various kinds and new under development, and so the objection of intermittency is not fatal to thermal solar power generation.

This is not a serious argument, this a internet debate, get over you self.

My self is not going to waste its time on somebody's idea of persuasive youtube videos in this kind of discussion - its time is not that trivial. Your mileage may vary.

If that was true then Places like France would have the most expensive electricity, which they don't,

France has socialized power generation, which lowers apparent costs (and consequent nominal prices) immediately.

France has not solved the waste storage problem, including the decommissioning problems, and the costs of solving it remain off their books. Other costs of French power tech remain hidden or omitted from the French accounting (risk premiums, in particular - including, say, the costs of spreading nuke technology to Iran, which you may notice are getting pretty high and potentially explosive).

Thermal solar in the US, especially if installed in a more socialized power distro setup such as France's (with DC transmission etc) competes well with France's artificially low nuke power prices - using current, 1980s tech.

For this reason, iceaura, I have to say that your fears of harmful health effects from tiny increases in background radioactivity, such as from a massively diluted dose of nuclear waste dissolved in the oceans, are scientifically unfounded.

Your assumptions: that the public exposures to radiation from various nuclear power sources are of the same kind as "background" radiation; that they are evenly diluted or spread throughout whatever large entity you choose as their location; that they are reliably "tiny" compared to the prior state of affairs; that any of this stuff has been "thoroughly studied" in the real world; and so forth, would need some kind of serious, well-supported argument to overcome the obvious appearance of things.

The data on weather-mediated exposure to "background" increases in inhaled radiation sources, from the open air bomb tests during the Cold War, is still classified last I heard - for example.

Meanwhile, that was of course not my main argument - which is that nuclear power is very expensive (much, but not all, of the expense coming from the necessity of guarding against its known hazards, as well as the effects of its unpredicted ones).

But we can settle this debate without such reasoning and argument. Simply require any proposed nuclear power plants to obtain insurance on the private market, covering the full costs of their risk impositions.

You will see very few, if any, nuclear power plants built, under that circumstance.

 

[ElectricFetus]

They are irrelevant to my point - which was that storage methods exist, of various kinds and new under development, and so the objection of intermittency is not fatal to thermal solar power generation.

Never said it was only that it makes intermittent energy sources highly uneconomical as majority energy sources. You have to build the power plants and grid storage devices and the final price per kWH multiples.

My self is not going to waste its time on somebody's idea of persuasive youtube videos in this kind of discussion - its time is not that trivial. Your mileage may vary.

again its not a youtube video, its a BBC documentary, and you can watch it when ever you want.

France has socialized power generation, which lowers apparent costs (and consequent nominal prices) immediately.

Surely, but the price of nuclear clearly is not the determent on the whole of their system. Even in the US existing Nuclear power plants are producing at competitive prices even against coal.

France has not solved the waste storage problem, including the decommissioning problems, and the costs of solving it remain off their books. Other costs of French power tech remain hidden or omitted from the French accounting (risk premiums, in particular - including, say, the costs of spreading nuke technology to Iran, which you may notice are getting pretty high and potentially explosive).

The cost have been calculated for waste management and its not very serious, a nuclear power plant can operate for 40 years and store all its waste on site. Reprocessing would reduce waste by 90% , the use of fast neutron reactors would reduce waste down by 99%, considering the proposals of developing of fusion power via fusion driven sub-critical nuclear reactors there is no need for longer term waste storage: what is today's waste is tomorrows fuel.

Thermal solar in the US, especially if installed in a more socialized power distro setup such as France's (with DC transmission etc) competes well with France's artificially low nuke power prices - using current, 1980s tech.

Oh boy so we have to pay to rebuild our grids, add that cost in!

 

[Skeptical]

Just a point about your graph, electric. I note it is marked as costs of operations and maintainance and fuel, but not capital costs. If you add in the cost of commissioning and decommissioning nuclear power plants, and average it per kilowatt hour over the lifetime of the plant, the costs rise dramatically.

As I said earlier, the average cost in 2005 was 7.5 cents. Not the 2 cents your graph shows.

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

A well-designed nuclear reactor? Lol.. I fear you've never been inside one, nor near one, nor have you met and talked to people who actually work inside one. What can I say, it's absolutely shocking how neglected they are, (well you know..they also have under control who comes check the state the reactor is in..and well one big word comes to mind "corruption") and it happens regularly that some substances get out of the reactor, but it's barely ever mentioned in the News, because they pay good money to censor this kind of News, or the journalists don't even know about it (just remember how it was with czernobyl..if it wasn't for the Fins (i think it was them) noticing the radiation then people in Europe would have either never heard of it, or heard of it a lot lot later)..which is quite understandable as this would probably lead to people panicking..I mean..just check out some docus about french nuclear plants.. It's catastrophic.

 

[ElectricFetus]

A well-designed nuclear reactor? Lol.. I fear you've never been inside one, nor near one, nor have you met and talked to people who actually work inside one. What can I say, it's absolutely shocking how neglected they are, (well you know..they also have under control who comes check the state the reactor is in..and well one big word comes to mind "corruption") and it happens regularly that some substances get out of the reactor, but it's barely ever mentioned in the News, because they pay good money to censor this kind of News, or the journalists don't even know about it (just remember how it was with czernobyl..if it wasn't for the Fins (i think it was them) noticing the radiation then people in Europe would have either never heard of it, or heard of it a lot lot later)..which is quite understandable as this would probably lead to people panicking..I mean..just check out some docus about french nuclear plants.. It's catastrophic.

A well designed reactor would be neglectful proof, a turn key generator melt down proof by design. And the french have a very good record, not single fatality, unlike say coal power. And small dosages or radiation aren't going to cause any statical harm, many people live in areas of relatively high radiation, many dozens of time normal background and they have not statistical increase in cancer rates.

Just a point about your graph, electric. I note it is marked as costs of operations and maintainance and fuel, but not capital costs. If you add in the cost of commissioning and decommissioning nuclear power plants, and average it per kilowatt hour over the lifetime of the plant, the costs rise dramatically.

As I said earlier, the average cost in 2005 was 7.5 cents. Not the 2 cents your graph shows.

The graph states this so its a given.

 

[iceaura]

Never said it was only that it makes intermittent energy sources highly uneconomical as majority energy sources. You have to build the power plants and grid storage devices and the final price per kWH multiples.

So let's compare actual total costs, rather than comparing the rigged and partial underestimates of one with unanalyzed assumptions about the imagined and uninformed hypothetical expenses of the other.

Let's include, for example, the cost of decommissioning France's nuclear plants and final disposal of all their waste. Here's an example of what needs to be included in the bottom line:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste_dumping_by_the_'Ndrangheta

The 'Ndrangheta, an Italian mafia syndicate, has been accused by turncoat Francesco Fonti, a former member of 'Ndrangheta, of sinking at least 30 ships loaded with toxic waste, much of it radioactive. In 2005, Fonti revealed the conspiracy in the news magazine L'espresso. His statements led to widespread investigations into the radioactive waste disposal rackets, involving Giorgio Comerio and his disposal company, the Odm (Oceanic Disposal Management).[3]

Legambiente, an Italian NGO for the protection of the environment provided the public prosecutor’s office with all the data collected by Legambiente since 1994 concerning the disappearance of at least 40 ships in Mediterranean waters.[4] Over two decades Italian prosecutors have looked into more than 30 suspicious deep-water sinkings. They suspect that Italian and foreign industrialists have acted in league with the 'Ndrangheta, and possibly government agencies, to use the Mediterranean as a dumping ground. Vessels that sank in fair weather had suspicious cargo, sent no mayday or the crew vanished.[2]

According to Fonti a manager of Enea paid the clan to get rid of 600 drums of toxic and radioactive waste from Italy, Switzerland, France, Germany, and the US, with Somalia as the destination, where the waste was buried after buying off local politicians. Former employees of Enea are suspected of paying the criminals to take waste off their hands in the 1980s and 1990s. Shipments to Somalia continued into the 1990s, while the 'Ndrangheta clan also blew up shiploads of waste, including radioactive hospital waste, and sending them to the sea bed off the Calabrian coast.[5]

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

Following the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004, there have emerged allegations that after the outbreak of the Somali Civil War in late 1991, Somalia's long, remote shoreline was used as a dump site for the disposal of toxic waste. The huge waves which battered northern Somalia after the tsunami are believed to have stirred up tonnes of nuclear and toxic waste that was illegally dumped in Somali waters by several European firms. The European Green Party followed up these revelations by presenting before the press and the European Parliament in Strasbourg copies of contracts signed by two European companies—the Italian Swiss firm, Achair Partners, and an Italian waste broker, Progresso—and representatives of the warlords then in power, to accept 10 million tonnes of toxic waste in exchange for $80 million (then about £60 million). According to a report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) assessment mission, there are far higher than normal cases of respiratory infections, mouth ulcers and bleeding, abdominal haemorrhages and unusual skin infections among many inhabitants of the areas around the northeastern towns of Hobbio and Benadir on the Indian Ocean coast—diseases consistent with radiation sickness. UNEP continues that the current situation along the Somali coastline poses a very serious environmental hazard not only in Somalia but also in the eastern Africa sub-region.[60][61]

 

[ElectricFetus]

So some waste has been dump inappropriately that has to do with nuclear power how? You need to learn to separate corruption and a technology from each other.

 

[Skeptical]

The two examples of illegal dumping also support what I said before. Although it is harmful when concentrated, such as what was washed up on Somalian shores - when diluted sufficiently, like the stuff sunk in the middle of the Mediterranean, it actually does little harm.

I would like to add to that, that this can be laid at the feet of those nutters who continuously block every attempt at proper disposal. If a proper system of disposal was set up, whether a big hole in Australia or otherwise, there would be no incentive to pay criminals to dump it at sea.

 

[iceaura]

So some waste has been dump inappropriately that has to do with nuclear power how? You need to learn to separate corruption and a technology from each other.

Are we talking about the costs and benefits of nuclear power in the real world, or some hypothetical situation free of politics, bombs, corruption, error, fraud, crime, bribery, and war?

I would like to add to that, that this can be laid at the feet of those nutters who continuously block every attempt at proper disposal.

First, record it in the account books among the ongoing and inevitable costs of nuclear power generation.

Then you can lay it anywhere you want to.

Although it is harmful when concentrated, such as what was washed up on Somalian shores - when diluted sufficiently, like the stuff sunk in the middle of the Mediterranean, it actually does little harm.

So you are certain that the waste sunk in the Mediterranean has done little harm, and will do none in the future? You have decided it was diluted, etc - strange assumption to make, when even the location of the stuff seems to have been concealed. The Somalian dumping did not dilute itself magically into the whole ocean - it piled up where it was dumped, and washed ashore in the first bad storm.

I am afraid I have little faith in the omniscience of ignorance.

I suspect that what we don't know, what has been deliberately hidden, what is difficult to verify, etc, is not therefore harmless, in the realm of nuclear waste disposal and power generation.

If a proper system of disposal was set up, whether a big hole in Australia or otherwise, there would be no incentive to pay criminals to dump it at sea.

Pocketing large amounts of extra money strikes me as an incentive worth noticing. If a future "proper system of disposal" is ever set up, my suspicion is that it will be more expensive than throwing shit overboard in Somalian waters.

Or simply dumping it in the ocean nearby, as at Sellafield - where it has failed to dilute itself, for some reason.