Nuclear Power

[Skeptical]

iceaura

Even with these illegal activities taken into account, the harm from nuclear power does not even approach the harm from burning coal. All the deaths, and environmental harm from 50 years of nuclear power still falls way short of the harm done by one single year of burning coal.

And yes, dumping nuclear waste in the ocean, though not to be condoned, has been done numerous times, and so far we have not seen measurable harm. It might happen, and so we should use a different method of disposing of it. But the fact that no such harm has been detected shows that nuclear waste is not as hazardous as the anti-nuclear enthusiasts would have us believe. This ties in with my earlier point about radiohormesis.

And as I also pointed out, even at the site of the world's worst nuclear accident - Chernobyl - apart from a tiny space right up close to the affected reactor - wildlife thrives. Harm is minimal.

All our traditional sources of energy carry risks. IAEA says no more than 2500 deaths associated with nuclear power throughout its history, with most coming from Chernobyl. Coal burning kills hundreds of thousands per year from respiratory disease. (Out of a total of about 20 million deaths per year from respiratory disease caused by breathing smoke of one kind or another - mainly tobacco, but also including cooking fire smoke, and definitely coal smoke).

The real enemy is not nuclear power. The enemy is the burning of coal which kills so many people, and causes serious illness from respiratory complaints, and pours greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. it has always struck me as insanely lousy priorities for the enviro-nutter movement to expend energy in opposing nuclear power. They should instead embrace it as a major improvement over what we have now.

 

[ElectricFetus]

To the left-wing nuts cost-benefit analysis does not apply, in general humans are pathetic at risk assessment, the benefits of nuclear power: a nearly-limitless source of continues energy is far better then the risks from small amount of radio-toxic waste or the extremely unlikely event of a meltdown from a domed reactor.

 

[iceaura]

Even with these illegal activities taken into account, the harm from nuclear power does not even approach the harm from burning coal. All the deaths, and environmental harm from 50 years of nuclear power still falls way short of the harm done by one single year of burning coal.

In the first place, you must deny the role of nuclear power in such events as the Iraq invasion - things overtly motivated and directly justified according to the side effects of nuclear power programs, you simply assert would have happened anyway - to come up with that claim.

A certain probably substantial percentage of the deaths from coal burning would have happened in a world without it as well, as well (wood burning, oil burning, side effects of lack of heat or power, etc). So?

In the second place, we aren't comparing nukes with coal - we are comparing fossil fuel replacements with each other.

To the left-wing nuts cost-benefit analysis does not apply

I'm the only one in this thread even attempting a reasonable, approximate cost assessment. Nuke proponents seem to operate in denial mode, on that particular issue - review the thread.

No one here has been comparing benefits, AFAIK - the distributed nature, mechanical reliability, and politically low-level control of solar thermal and related setups have enormous advantages over nuclear power plants, advantages we have not been discussing.

And yes, dumping nuclear waste in the ocean, though not to be condoned, has been done numerous times, and so far we have not seen measurable harm.

More accurately put, we have not measured any of even the most visible harm - AFAIK "we" have not even recorded the locations, distributions, and trends in movements of the major deposits of nuke waste in the various oceans.

If it were about to kill off the majority of the Mediterranean fishing industry, say, as soon as the barrels corroded a little bit more, we would have no way of knowing.

It might happen, and so we should use a different method of disposing of it. But the fact that no such harm has been detected shows that nuclear waste is not as hazardous as the anti-nuclear enthusiasts would have us believe.

There is no safety in blind ignorance and willful overlooking of obvious sources of possible disaster. Until we have control and experience and management capability over nuclear waste, it is not really sane to double or triple the yearly production of it worldwide. Its dangers are blatantly, famously, obvious.

And leaving the costs of these risks out of one's debit ledger is not sound bookkeeping.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I'm the only one in this thread even attempting a reasonable, approximate cost assessment. Nuke proponents seem to operate in denial mode, on that particular issue - review the thread.

No you have just been ignoring our arguments on cost assessments, we posted numbers, charts and links on the topic, demonstrating competitive performance and reasonable prices even when considering end-stage waste handling when that is not consider for coal or fossil fuel power plants.

 

[iceaura]

No you have just been ignoring our arguments on cost assessments, we posted numbers, charts and links on the topic,

There is no argument here, and no chart, number, or link from you on this thread, even attempting or asserting a total cost comparison of nuclear with thermal solar electricity generation.

Nothing from you even begins to deal with some of the major costs of nuclear power generation - you even asked what the circumstance of organized crime waste dumping had to do with the subject ! That's not a joke - here's the quote:

So some waste has been dump inappropriately that has to do with nuclear power how?

You post estimates of deaths from nuke power generation that ignore even blatant political and military consequences, assertions about risks and costs that deliberately - openly - dismiss the effects of poor design and maintenance and operating practices as irrelevant, claim subsidized and socialized retail price comparisons as cost comparisons (and needed correction on them even), post assertions about cost that assume cheap solutions to a waste disposal problem as yet unsolved even at great expense, and so forth.

 

[ElectricFetus]

There is no argument here, and no chart, number, or link from you on this thread, even attempting or asserting a total cost comparison of nuclear with thermal solar electricity generation.

Well now your just changing the argument, this thread is not titled "thermal solar vs Nuclear power" now is it? The argument purported by this is about why people fear nuclear power (or something). Now if you could show me a thermal solar power has yet to be demonstrate at capabilities and load performance anywhere compared to solar.

Nothing from you even begins to deal with some of the major costs of nuclear power generation - you even asked what the circumstance of organized crime waste dumping had to do with the subject ! That's not a joke.

Nothing from you shows the cost of nuclear waste and significant.

You post estimates of deaths from nuke power generation that ignore even blatant political and military consequences, assertions about risks and costs that deliberately - openly - dismiss the effects of poor design and maintenance and operating practices as irrelevant, claim subsidized and socialized retail price comparisons as cost comparisons (and needed correction on them even), post assertions about cost that assume cheap solutions to a waste disposal problem as yet unsolved even at great expense, and so forth.

political, military problems are problems of their own, that need to be solve separately, I have advocated repeatedly for smarter designs and even with limited subsidizing nuclear is competitive over time, like your solar thermal vast amounts of subsidizing would be needed to get it up and running. Waste disposal is not a unsolved problem, its not much of a problem to begin with, the plants them selves can store all their waste and it technological feasible through reprocessing and more advance reactors to use that waste a fuel.

 

[Skeptical]

iceaura

Your argument about nuclear power causing the war in Iraq is just plain wrong. The war was caused by the fact that the president of the US was an idiot. Nuclear power had nothing to do with it. Even if you assume that the rationalisation for going to war based on the myth of weapons of mass destruction was focused on nuclear weapons, that still has nothing to do with nuclear power.

There is a weapon called a cookie cutter bomb. It works by spraying petrol into the air and then igniting it. The results are devastating. Chemically it is exactly the same as what happens inside the piston of your car. Does this mean that your car is evil? Of course not. In spite of the fact that the chemistry is identical, a cookie cutter bomb and a petrol driven car are two totally different things. Denying that is the idiotic level of your argument about WOMD and the idiot Bush and the war in Iraq. Your argument makes no sense.

And you still have not accepted that small amounts of radioactivity do no harm. It is only large doses that are harmful. I remember about 30 years ago when a Soviet satellite crashed into Canada. It carried a small nuclear reactor. Imagine the paranoid reaction at the time! In fact, again, no measurable harm was found. Nuclear waste should be disposed of responsibly, and I have suggested how that can be done. But if some excapes into the environment, it does little or no harm.

 

[iceaura]

Your argument about nuclear power causing the war in Iraq is just plain wrong. The war was caused by the fact that the president of the US was an idiot. Nuclear power had nothing to do with it. Even if you assume that the rationalisation for going to war based on the myth of weapons of mass destruction was focused on nuclear weapons, that still has nothing to do with nuclear power.

The only source of plausibility for the claimed nuclear threat from Iraq, the threat that was the principle and essentially persuasive motive for much of the sanction regime that killed so many Iraqis and the eventual invasion familiar to us all, was the technological capability and means acquired via (an under the cover of) the nuclear power program established in Iraq.

We are seeing a similar situation unfolding in Iran - would you say the Iranian nuclear power program has had nothing to do with it? Would you say France and Russia's nuclear power programs were not involved?

These situations, seen in North Korea, Libya, Israel, Iran, Iraq, India, Pakistan, etc etc, are consequences of nuclear power proliferation.

And you still have not accepted that small amounts of radioactivity do no harm. It is only large doses that are harmful.

That is not true of, say, small amounts of inhaled plutonium, or small chronic doses of inhaled radon.

Furthermore, your assertion that larger doses of radiation of any kind are not predictable risks from nuke proliferation is without support. Tell it to the Somalians, or keep the reassurance on hand if weird stuff starts going down in the Irish Sea or the Mediterranean - why you think dumped waste automatically dilutes itself in the appropriate amount of seawater I don't know, but there is little evidence of such cooperation in the waters off of Sellafield, et al.

Well now your just changing the argument, this thread is not titled "thermal solar vs Nuclear power" now is it?

My objection to nuclear power as a fossil fuel replacement is that it is more expensive than the alternatives, more dangerous than the alternatives, and unnecessary given the alternatives.

That is directly thread relevant.

You have posted nothing here dealing with any of that claim. Your cost assessments omit the major costs, especially risk premiums; your assessment of danger overlooks technological, political, economic, and human reality; and your dismissal of alternatives seems completely uninformed about those alternatives;

as far as is visible here.

 

[Skeptical]

iceaura

Your argument is exactly the same as blaming the metal gold for the harm done by the Spanish conquistadores in South and Central America. Wrong. Gold is just a metal. The harm was done by people. By evil people.

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with nuclear power. If anything, it was a result of the greed for oil.

The potential problems with Iran have nothing to do with nuclear power either. The problem there stems from the Iranian insistence on setting up facilities to enrich Uranium to weapons grade. Note. Weapons, not electricity generation.

You can generate electricity from quite low grade uranium, and the Iranians could enrich uranium to electricity generation levels very easily. But to make a bomb requires highly enriched uranium. It is the Iranian insistence on enriching uranium to this level that is causing the problem.

So, I suggest you accept the fact that nuclear power generation is not the same as nuclear weapons manufacture. Admittedly, lots of the eco-nutter movement have shown the lack of even this level of intelligence, but I hope you are smarter than that.

And incidentally, there is no evidence that low level radon exposure is harmful. Above a certain threshold, yes. But not at background levels from such sources as having a house built from granite rock, which emits radon, albeit in tiny amounts.

 

[Stryder]

The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that the total number of people killed by nuclear power (mainly from the Chernobyl accident) is 2500. This is way less than coal or hydro.

They of course neglect to mention that people around the world were effected by the fallout from that one. they might not have died like those who came into close proximity but there are still many conditions that have been spawn by it, much like how the coal stations cause respiratory conditions.

 

[Skeptical]

Actually Stryder, that is not correct. I got that information from an issue of New Scientist several years ago, and the article specifically stated that the estimate included every death from Chernobyl, including all fallout.

 

[iceaura]

You can generate electricity from quite low grade uranium, and the Iranians could enrich uranium to electricity generation levels very easily. But to make a bomb requires highly enriched uranium. It is the Iranian insistence on enriching uranium to this level that is causing the problem.

No such insistence is present, at least visibly.

The Iranians have done nothing, so far, inconsistent with their announced goal of enriching their own reactor fuel.

Saddam hadn't even done that much, at the launch of the '03 invasion.

And the entire setup exists only because of nuclear power proliferation - just like Iraq's, North Korea's, India's, Pakistan's, and all the rest. It's an unavoidable, dangerous, violence provoking consequence of nuclear power proliferation. It's a cost - add it to the bottom line.

Actually Stryder, that is not correct. I got that information from an issue of New Scientist several years ago, and the article specifically stated that the estimate included every death from Chernobyl, including all fallout.

How many did they list as succumbing to the various effects of economic dislocation and being evacuated from their homes, farms, etc. ? Heart attacks from stress, bad diet, accidents, complications of untreated chronic conditions, the tribulations of living in bad circumstances far from friends and neighborhood support, that kind of thing.

0, right?

 

[Skeptical]

iceaura

I read about the Iran situation from the scientific view in an article in Scientific American some time ago. Wish I had kept that item, since they actually mentioned percentages of purity required for the various end uses of the uranium. Anyway, the thing is that Iran is definitley attempting to enrich uranium well beyond what is needed for nuclear power, and the US powers that be are not happy. They do not care about nuclear power, but get very paranoid about weapons.

Re your question about the IAEA estimate of deaths from Chernobyl.

Short answer : I don't know. I am aware that Greenpeace came up with its own estimate, in the millions. I can tell you this. Given the choice between believing the world's top experts in the subject working for IAEA, and believing a bunch of paranoid nutters in greenpeace...

Well, I am sure you can work it out!

 

[iceaura]

Short answer : I don't know. I am aware that Greenpeace came up with its own estimate, in the millions. I can tell you this. Given the choice between believing the world's top experts in the subject working for IAEA, and believing a bunch of paranoid nutters in greenpeace...

Well, I am sure you can work it out!

So once again what you don't know is offered as reassurance or information, and the existence of nutters is presented as evidence of the safety or low cost or reliability of nuclear power.

Anyway, the thing is that Iran is definitley attempting to enrich uranium well beyond what is needed for nuclear power, and the US powers that be are not happy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran Iran has a couple of reactors, at least one of which requires the level of enrichment they are now approaching. IIRC it produces medical isotopes, is running out of fuel, and the US has blocked its refueling. Unreliability of fuel supplies is Iran's claimed justification for its enrichment program.

(We have seen the blockade of medical supplies by the US frequently in the middle east - it is one of the areas in which the US can impose serious hardship, and take effective action, with minimal cost to itself or domestic political fallout).

But the point remains: none of this even exists without the proliferation of nuclear power. It's a cost. Add it to the bottom line.

 

[Skeptical]

iceaura said

"So once again what you don't know is offered as reassurance or information, and the existence of nutters is presented as evidence of the safety or low cost or reliability of nuclear power. "

I am not an expert on the subject, and neither are you. What I am offering is the statement by the world's top experts, which you are arguing against. If the scientists in the International Atomic Energy Agency do not know what they are talking about, I can guarantee that you do not!

What I do know is that there are any number of nutters who oppose the testimony of experts. Logical. We expect that of nutters. I trust you will not make it apparent that you belong to the same camp.

The Iran thing boils down to which set of propaganda you choose to believe. I believe what I read in Scientific American. You appear to believe the statements of the Iranian government. OK, I suppose. Either or both could be wrong.

What you need to admit, though, is that you are putting up a hypothetical risk - not a real one - as argument.

 

[iceaura]

The Iran thing boils down to which set of propaganda you choose to believe. I believe what I read in Scientific American.

If it is the same article I read, you have misinterpreted it in the context of this argument.

There are several kinds of non-military nuclear reactors that employ uranium enriched to the levels so far established - in factual reality to date - for Iran's enrichment program, and Iran operates at least one.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/02/20102852752669556.html

HEU is also used in fast neutron reactors, whose cores require about 20% or more of fissile material, as well as in naval reactors, where it often contains at least 50% 235U, but typically does not exceed 90%. The Fermi-1 commercial fast reactor prototype used HEU with 26.5% 235U. Significant quantities of HEU are used in the production of medical isotopes, for example molybdenum-99 for technetium-99m generators.[5]

What I am offering is the statement by the world's top experts, which you are arguing against.

I was not aware that the IAEA was "expert" in such a wide range of political, historical, economic, biological, oceanographic, and ecological matters. Are you sure?

At any rate, I have no intention of arguing against experts, merely your employment of their conclusions.

My contention - a part of my larger argument above - was that the nuke power programs in Iran, Iraq, and Israel are of central and negative importance to the worst aspects of a situation that has already cost many lives, and bids to cost more. Pretending that these geopolitical influences and consequences do not exist is silly, and ignoring them in one's cost evaluations of nuclear power proliferation is very poor cost accounting.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/02/iranian-laser-enirchment-of-uranium.html
http://www.cfr.org/publication/16811/

What you need to admit, though, is that you are putting up a hypothetical risk - not a real one - as argument.

The distinction, in this context, escapes me. What distinguishes the "real" from the "hypothetical" risks of criminal and promiscuous dumping of nuclear waste in the world's oceans, for example? Or the "real" from the "hypothetical" risks of spreading nuclear reactors and their associated technologies throughout the Middle Eastern or East Asian subcontinents?

 

[Stryder]

Actually Stryder, that is not correct. I got that information from an issue of New Scientist several years ago, and the article specifically stated that the estimate included every death from Chernobyl, including all fallout.

Thats like saying there was no recorded cases of deaths caused by lead being in fuel prior to unleaded.

It was suggested that after Chernobyl, everyone for miles around would inhale radioactive dust particles. Now the ppm might well be low, but there is still the possibility that various respiratory conditions could have stemmed from it. Of course it won't register as deaths since these people are probably still walking around, coughing up their lungs and probably on various medications for other diagnosed conditions that would be seemingly unrelated.

 

[Skeptical]

Stryder (and icearua)

Re IAEA

This is a large organisation, and has scientists from many specialties, but all doing work that is related to nuclear energy. So they have medical people, ecologists etc etc., as well as nuclear physicists.

And I reiterate. I believe their expert opinion and disdain the bullsh!t that comes from eco-nutter organisations like Greenpeace.

When IAEA state unequivocably that the total death toll from all nuclear energy, including Chernobyl, over 50 plus years, is less than 2500 people, then why the hell are you arguing?

 

[ElectricFetus]

It was suggested that after Chernobyl, everyone for miles around would inhale radioactive dust particles. Now the ppm might well be low, but there is still the possibility that various respiratory conditions could have stemmed from it. Of course it won't register as deaths since these people are probably still walking around, coughing up their lungs and probably on various medications for other diagnosed conditions that would be seemingly unrelated.

No the Chernobyl survivors are very closely watched

 

[iceaura]

When IAEA state unequivocably that the total death toll from all nuclear energy, including Chernobyl, over 50 plus years, is less than 2500 people, then why the hell are you arguing?

Because there have been more than 250,000 people - a hundred times that number - killed at least partly as a side effect of the nuclear power proliferation into Iraq and Iran and Israel.

And because the increase in the mortality rates in the large geopolitical areas affected by Chernobyl, apparently at least partly due to various demographic and economic effects of the evacuations etc, account for many tens of thousands of extra or premature deaths.

And because the IAEA does not count deaths from the various side and ecological and economic effects of nuclear contaminations it does not know about or cannot track, such as the illegal and military dumping. No extra deaths from miscarriage along the North African coast, for example, are included in the IAEA numbers.

And so forth.

So clearly the IAEA counts of those directly killed by radiation etc, in known accidents and events that it can track and estimate, is not a complete count of the extra mortality due to nuclear power proliferation. And especially, it is a very, very poor basis for estimating the costs - in mortality as well as money - of further proliferation.

And I reiterate. I believe their expert opinion and disdain the bullsh!t that comes from eco-nutter organisations like Greenpeace.

Obsessions with Greenpeace belong in another thread.