Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumWho Killed the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)?
A nuclear reactor with passive safety benefits, that ran on an abundant material safe enough to hold in your hand, and that generated 1/100th the waste of pressurized-water reactors ran successfully for three years at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s. Alvin Weinberg, ORNL's director, thought it was the way of the future until he was fired and his mission cut short by none other than Richard Nixon.
Now a group of investors is trying to revive the concept, which was killed (they believe) not because it was impractical but because it didn't cost enough and it didn't generate enough jobs - in short, it was too practical. A Google TechTalk with FLIBE Energy's Kirk Sorenson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bbyr7jZOllI
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
SpoonFed
(853 posts)That nuclear power generation (and the entities behind its overpriced, under insured, poorly operated and insanely risky proposition) should be given another shot despite all the shortcomings that have been well discussed here and elsewhere?
I think not.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)and if you think they are, you quite possibly don't know enough.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)They have been weighed against their performance in 4 areas - cost, safety, waste, proliferation.
The once through fuel uranium cycle achieved the best balance of results in those 4 areas; all other technologies scored worse.
Since the nuclear revival has shown itself to be a dud, the industry is trying to revive flagging interest by flogging the "also rans" as THE ANSWER that has been ignored but is waiting in the wings to save the day if we would just pump a shitton of money into it...
Its the traveling wave reactor that will save us. No, it's the thorium fuel cycle that will save us. No it's the LFTR that will save us. No it's the SMR that will save us. No it's the AP1000 that will save us. No it's the EPR that will save us. No its the pebble bed reactor that will save us. No it's the Gen IV that will save us.
Meantime Flamanville is years behind schedule and billions over budget. Ditto Olkuluito. And the proposed projects here have ballooned 4X from their initial proposed costs and are 5X-6X more than where the price of those (not) completed units was supposed to have led us to by now.
IOW the OP is more nuclear industry hype.
txlibdem
(6,183 posts)Your post is nothing but anti-nuker bad wind. Flap, flap, flap. The mouth is moving but nothing is coming out but (insert despised industry here) talking points.
PamW
(1,825 posts)They have been weighed against their performance in 4 areas - cost, safety, waste, proliferation.
--------------------------
Yes - and all the possible airliner designs have already been designed and evaluated.
Boeing is completely wasting their time in designing / building the Boeing 787.
There can be only 4 types of jet airliners; that's all there can ever be.
For someone who knows so little about science and engineering, who has shown contemptible ignorance of basic physical laws like Conservation of Energy, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ...
For someone of such meager acumen in the sciences to say that everything in the nuclear realm has been done and evaluated is manifestly laughable.
Sounds like the early 20-th century when some "thought", on the heels of Edison, Westinghouse,... that everything that could be invented had already been invented.
They never imagined transistors, integrated circuits, microchips, and the products of Steve Jobs.
So just keep tell us how everything has already been invented and evaluated in the fields of science and technology that you have demonstrated such dismal expertise in.
PamW
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Fast spectrum research died after TMI and LWRs have ruled the day.
The money spent on one year investigating fast spectrum was more than all the money invested the entire history of thermal neutron (liquid) reactors.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Fast spectrum research died after TMI and LWRs have ruled the day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the USA, the principal Laboratory for fast reactor research is Argonne National Lab.
The fast reactor program at Argonne National Laboratory didn't die off after TMI, as erroneously claimed above. The fast reactor program at Argonne continued all during the '80s in the Reagan, and Bush I Administrations, as well as the first year or two of the Clinton Administration.
It was during this time that Argonne developed the breakthrough technology associated with the Integral Fast Reactor or IFR. Argonne developed a fast reactor that is inherently safe, as demonstrated by actual testing with the prototype, as mentioned in the following interview by PBS's Frontline with then Associate Director of Argonne, nuclear physicist Dr. Charles Till:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
Q: And you in fact ran an experiment that was comparable to what happened at Chernobyl?
A: Yes, yes. Let me go on a little bit about that, because it is a rather dramatic characteristic. The Chernobyl accident happened in April 26 of 1986. Earlier that month, the first week in April, with our test reactor in Idaho, in fact the same reactor control room where we're now sitting, we performed a demonstration of that characteristic, where if you cut off the coolant from the reactor, what would happen? And there are two ways to cut off the coolant. One is that simply the pumps that are pumping the reactor stop. The reactor just shut itself down. And in the afternoon, we brought the reactor back up to full power again and did an accident situation where the reactor's unable to get rid of the heat it produces, because the heat normally is taken away by the electrical system, and so we isolated the electrical system from the plant, and the reactor then has to deal with the heat it produces itself. Again, another real accident situation. Again, the reactor just quietly shut itself down.
The IFR reactor is also an "actinide burner", it can burn the long-lived components of nuclear waste down to short-lived fission products. The IFR is also designed to be proliferation resistant:
Q: So it would be very difficult to handle for weapons, would it?
A: It's impossible to handle for weapons, as it stands.
It's highly radioactive. It's highly heat producing. It has all of the characteristics that make it extremely, well, make it impossible for someone to make a weapon.
PamW
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Interesting. It's certainly not before TMI. But perhaps you have a different perspective of linear time.
I like the IFR. I think the IFR will be built, eventually, because it would be irresponsible to let nuclear waste lie for tens of thousands of years.
If you watch the video funding for fast spectrum reactors dropped big time after TMI, though it wasn't the death knell for the technology, it certainly didn't help it.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)"This analysis leads us to a conclusion of great significance: the open, once-through fuel cycle best meets the criteria of economic attractiveness and proliferation resist- ance. Closed fuel cycles may have an advantage from the point of view of long-term waste disposal and, if it ever becomes relevant, resource extension. But closed fuel cycles will be more expensive than once through cycles, until ore resources become very scarce. This is unlikely to happen even with significant growth in nuclear power deployment until the end of this century. We also find that the long-term waste management benefits of separation are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs."
kristopher
(29,798 posts)"1. our analysis of thorium versus uranium fuel cycles (appendix a) found advantages and disadvantages for both fuel cycles—but the differences were not sufficient to fundamentally alter conclusions."
Their analysis does not include liquid fueled MSR reactors. Thus its inapplicable to LFTR.
Yes, thorium offers little advantages when used as traditional solid fuel in LWR. But MSR + thorium is where the cake is.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I can't disagree with the economics of the things until the economics change.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)There are no significant environmental considerations. If environmentalism were your motive you'd never be arguing the path you are. 700+ environmental organizations can't all be wrong.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...for tens of thousands of years?
Can you cite one that thinks that's a good idea?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You are hyping thin air.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)PamW
(1,825 posts)Interesting. It's certainly not before TMI. But perhaps you have a different perspective of linear time.
====================================
TMI occurred in 1979. The IFR was killed in 1994.
The time period 1979 - 1994 is after TMI. According to the statement, "Fast spectrum research died after TMI", the period from 1979 to 1994 is after TMI, and hence by the quoted statement, fast reactor research was dead.
However, during the period 1979 - 1994; fast reactor research was NOT dead.
The IFR was developed during that time. Argonne was still researching fast reactors after TMI.
Fast reactor research continued after TMI. TMI was NOT the event that killed fast reactor research.
Fast reactor research was killed by President Clinton:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
Q: Is the IFR still operating?
A: No. The IFR was canceled in the end of September of 1994, two years ago.
Q: Who made that decision?
A: The decision was made in the early weeks of the Clinton administration. It was tempered somewhat in the Department of Energy in that first year. Congress then acted to keep the program alive in that first year. And then in the second year of the Clinton administration, the decision to really reinforce the earlier decisions was made final, and the Administration put a very considerable effort into assuring successfully that the IFR would be canceled.
Contrary to the previously posted statement that fast reactor research died after TMI, it wasn't TMI that killed fast reactor research. There was a decade and a half of fast reactor research after TMI. What killed fast reactor research was a decision by then President Clinton.
PamW
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Did you even watch the video in the OP?
PamW
(1,825 posts)Fast reactor funding dropped dramatically after TMI
----------------------------------------------------
You need to go back and look at the video again!!!
The graph shows the increased funding on the LMFBR up until about 1977 at which it hits a peak. Then there is a sudden drop off due to the opposition to the LMFBR instituted by newly elected President Carter, as the speaker explained.
However, if you look at the graph post 1979 and TMI; you will see that the spending on LMFBR was modestly INCREASING not decreasing. The graph then shows another drop off in 1984, which is due to the cancellation of the Clinch River Breeder reactor project.
However, the graph presented by the speaker ends at about 1984.
The graph didn't show the years 1984 to 1994 in which LMFBR research recovered, and those were the years that Argonne developed the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). There was a drop in LMFBR research in 1994 when the Clinton Administration cancelled the IFR as Dr. Till explained.
BTW, I also noted in the talk that just prior to the 24 minute mark, the speaker makes a point that I have made many times here. There is a difference between "weapons grade" plutonium, and "reactor grade" plutonium, and the speaker makes the point that reactor grade plutonium is not suitable for making nuclear weapons.
PamW
BTW, I would also like to comment that the video referenced in the OP is quite informative.
The speaker very aptly gives the history of how whole lines of research were forestalled and shutoff by the politicians of the day; for one reason or another.
This is at variance with the contention by kristopher ( who knows his science so well - snicker snicker ), that all possible nuclear technologies have been explored, and there is nothing that can be discovered, it has all been proven to be fruitless....
Yea - RIGHT!!
PamW
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)We can build LFTRs, and we can build them relatively rapidly, and there is plenty of thorium around.
This is not at all pie-in-the-sky stuff, and since it looks like electric and electric hybrid vehicles are here to stay, we need a way to generate enough electricity to run them.
Because of the on-grid difficulties with wind, and the high cost of wind when combined with the necessary storage, it's clear that we will have to add something else to the mix in electricity generation in the next ten years, or go back to coal.
China, India and Japan are all heavily into thorium technology now - there is no stopping this one.
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)Make it possible to add even more wind without building any storage.
We can generate 25% (Eastern grid), 30% (Western grid) or 35% (Hawaiian grid) of the total grid power with wind and solar without adding any storage. EVs would take those numbers higher.
Cheap wind could let us remove most of the coal from our grids. Without storage.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Where are the prototypes?
SpoonFed
(853 posts)brought me Fukushima and Chornobyl and lots of little presents, too?
The metaphorical nuclear family needs an intervention as one of the children or more of the children are crackheads.
Why keep lending them money?
eppur_se_muova
(41,946 posts)So early on, the industry was steered away from other designs, no matter their advantages. Thorium reactors are near-useless for making weapons. From DOD's POV, not practical enough. As a result, new reactor construction by foreign powers is viewed as weapons development. Ironically, India (and possibly "other" countries in the region ?) has abundant supplies of thorium.
Both the thorium cycle and the liquid fluoride reactor were much discussed in E/E in DU2. Some of the revived interest in the LFTR is in its ability to "burn up" waste generated from other reactors.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=thorium_fluoride_reactor&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
Much maligned by the knee-jerk anti-nukes, who feel that just wanting something better than what he have now is radically "pro-nuke".
PamW
(1,825 posts)So early on, the industry was steered away from other designs, no matter their advantages. Thorium reactors are near-useless for making weapons. From DOD's POV, not practical enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Evidently you are manifestly ignorant of how much of the plutonium and other special nuclear materials came from commercial reactors in the USA. The answer is precisely NONE!!!.
ALL - 100% of the nuclear material in US nuclear weapon came from US Government-owned "production" reactors at Hanford, Washington and Savannah River, South Carolina.
The DOD had ZERO interest in the production capability of commercial reactors because it is the policy of the USA to separate the military and commercial facilities. Besides, the production reactors at Hanford and Savannah River supplied all the Plutonium and special nuclear material that the US weapons program could use. In fact, the USA has stockpiled more Plutonium and special nuclear material than it can use. The USA hasn't made fissile material for weapons in years, and shutdown both Hanford and Savannah River decades ago.
The only exception to this separation of military and commercial applications involves tritium production. The USA shutdown the last tritium production reactor at Savannah River in 1988. However, tritium is radioactive with a 12-year half-life; so it goes away on its own if you don't make more. The USA either had to build a new tritium production reactor, or find another way to make tritium. That decision was made by the Clinton Administration. Rather than building a new tritium production reactor, President Clinton decided that the USA would use a Government owned power reactor, owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to produce tritium. That reactor is Watts-Bar Unit I.
Other than the production of tritium, starting just a few year ago at Watts-Bar, the production of weapons materials, and the commercial power sector have been kept completely separate.
PamW
From the Arms Control Association:
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_10/OCT-Tritium
Departing from a long-standing U.S. tradition of separating civilian and military nuclear activities, Washington transferred tritium produced in a commercial nuclear reactor in late August to a Department of Energy facility in South Carolina for eventual use in nuclear weapons.
However, the United States has not produced new tritium since 1988, when the Energy Department reactors in Savannah River, South Carolina, were shut down...
In 1998, following an extensive review of options, the Energy Department announced that it would adopt the lowest-cost option of producing tritium in a commercial plant in Watts Bar, Tennessee.
PamW
Wilms
(26,795 posts)This article differs.
snip
A 1951 study undertaken by the AEC concluded that commercial nuclear reactors would not be economically feasible if they were used solely to produce electricity; they would be, however, if they also produced plutonium which could be sold. Utilities themselves were only mildly intrigued with the notion of being able to produce "too cheap to meter electricity," and only so long as someone else took over the responsibility for the waste products, and indemnified them against catastrophic nuclear plant accidents. The 1952 Annual Report for Commonwealth Edison is instructive on the former point:
"In last year's report, we announced that our companies, as one of four non-governmental groups, had entered into an agreement with the Atomic Energy Commission to study the practicability of applying nuclear energy to the production of power. The first year's study has been completed and a report has been completed and a report has been made to the Commission. Included in the report were preliminary designs of two dual-purpose reactor plants. By "dual-purpose" we mean that the plants would be primarily for the production of power but would also would produce plutonium for military purposes as a by-product. In our judgment, these plants...would be justified from an economic standpoint only if a substantial value were assigned to the plutonium produced."7
snip
In 1954 utilities which were to operate commercial nuclear reactors were given further incentive when Congress amended the Atomic Energy Act so that utilities would received uranium fuel for their reactors from the government in exchange for the plutonium produced in those reactors. The plutonium was to be shipped to Rocky Flats in Colorado, where the federal government made plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons.
In retrospect it is a simple matter to see that there never was an intention to separate nuclear weapons production from the use of commercial nuclear power. In a document from the Los Alamos National Laboratory dated August, 1981, one finds this statement:
"There is no technical demarcation between the military and civilian reactor and there never was one. What has persisted over the decades is just the misconception that such a linkage does not exist." ("Some Political Issues Related to Future Special Nuclear Fuels Production," LA- 8969-MS, UC-16).4
http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/weapcon.htm
jpak
(41,780 posts)fail
Watts Bar is a commercial power reactor
================================
Watts Bar is a commercial power reactor that is no different in design or function than other commercial power reactors that are owned by private corporations.
The difference is that Watts Bar is owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) which is a Government entity. Therefore, when the Government needed a reactor to produce tritium they had a choice of either building a new reactor for the purpose or use one that the Government already owned. President Clinton made the decision to use a Government-owned reactor, Watts Bar, instead of building a new reactor just for tritium production.
The Government owns lots of items that are also owned by private corporations. Let's take the airliner analogy a bit further.
For example, the US Air Force has an aircraft that is designated as the C-32. The Air Force uses this aircraft to transport dignitaries such as the First Lady when she travels without the President. However, the C-32 if it were owned by an airline would be called a 757:
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=90
The C-32 is a specially configured version of the Boeing 757-200 commercial intercontinental airliner. The C-32 body is identical to that of the Boeing 757-200, but has different interior furnishings...
What are we to make of this? NOT MUCH!!
PamW
jpak
(41,780 posts)also made commercial reactor fuel.
nuclear power and bombs - joined at the hip...
yup
PamW
(1,825 posts)Oh yeah - the same uranium enrichment plants that produced HEU for bombs
also made commercial reactor fuel.
nuclear power and bombs - joined at the hip...
========================================
While it is true that the same Government-owned enrichment plants that produce fuel are also used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons is true, that doesn't mean that there is an equality between commercial power and nuclear weapons.
The commercial reactors use uranium that has been enriched to about 3% to 4%; while the nuclear weapons use highly enriched uranium that is enriched >90%.
Boeing makes commercial airliners. Boeing also makes military bombers and fighters. It is not surprising that the expertise of aeronautical engineers that design airliners can also put their skills to use designing fighters / bombers. However, does this mean that there is some type of moral equivalency between airliners and bombers? Does this mean that every time you buy a ticket on United Airlines or American Airlines, that you are financing the military acquisition of aircraft? Of course not.
The airlines and the Air Force are not considered to be "joined at the hip"; even though they have a common supplier in Boeing.
Why would one then use the same specious logic to make a conjunction between the commercial nuclear power sector and nuclear weapons?
PamW
jpak
(41,780 posts)yup
PamW
(1,825 posts)Iran & North Korea
===============
Did it ever occur to you to express your "thoughts" ( term used loosely ) in terms of complete sentences?
PamW
jpak
(41,780 posts)and US light water reactors were developed using naval reactor R&D?
.
and that North Korea produced plutonium for its nuclear weapons from a power reactor?
and that India's nuclear weapons and power reactor programs are one in the same?
ditto for Pakistan?
and that the developing crisis in the Persian Gulf is the result of Iran's nuclear POWER program?
and that Israel used a French research reactor to build its nuclear arsenal?
apparently not
yup
PamW
(1,825 posts)Did it ever occur to you that the US commercial nuclear fuel cycle was developed to produce bombs
---------------------------------------------------------
NO - because I KNOW better.
Every OUNCE of Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium that are in US nuclear weapons came from US Government facilities; BY LAW. The Plutonium was made at either Hanford or Savannah River. The Uranium came from the Government facilities at Oak Ridge, either the K-25 plant or the Y-12 plant.
The same plant that enriches Uranium to very high levels >90% enrichment can be used to enrich to lower levels 3% - 4%; you just tap off the cascade earlier. So in essence, the nuclear weapon program provides material to the commercial program; NOT the other way around.
NONE of the Plutonium in US nuclear weapons came from the commercial power reactors. Commercial power reactors make "reactor grade" plutonium which is not suitable for nuclear weapons. The speaker in the video in the OP makes this point just before the 24 minute mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bbyr7jZOllI
Besides, the Government has all the much more desirable "weapons grade" Plutonium from the Hanford and Savannah River facilities; in fact they have a lot in storage that are not in weapons; they have no need for the inferior "reactor grade" Plutonium.
Two of the companies that design reactors, GE and Westinghouse; also were the contractors for the naval reactor design facilities at Knolls Atomic Power Lab and Bettis Atomic Power Lab. However, this was basically the Navy tapping into the expertise of the commercial sector. It's actually no different than the Air Force buying fighters and bombers from Boeing when Boeing is the company that designs and builds airliners for the commercial airline industry. Do we somehow consider that we are supporting the military when we buy a ticket on United or American airlines just because United and American bought their airliners from the same entity that makes fighters and bombers for the military; namely Boeing?
Besides, the GE boiling water reactor is totally unsuitable for use in a naval vessel. The GE boiling water reactor has a "free surface" that is a boundary between liquid water and steam. In a naval vessel, with the pitching and rolling; this surface would slosh around and you would not have a stable power distribution. On land, that is no problem.
You are in ERROR in saying that North Korea produced plutonium from a power reactor. It was NOT a power reactor, but a specially built graphite-moderated "production reactor" that looks more like the graphite-moderated production reactors the USA has at Hanford ( which produced our weapons material ) than any resemblance to a commercial power reactor.
You are in ERROR on the Pakistan program. Pakistan's nuclear weapons are Uranium bombs. The ONLY thing you need for that is an enrichment program. You don't use reactors when you make Uranium bombs.
Likewise for Iran. The facilities at Natanz, which is an enrichment plant, is the true nuclear weapons facility for the Iranians. The Iranians are working on a Uranium bomb, for which they do NOT need a reactor in the development thereof.
The Iranians, with the help of Russia, are building a power reactor at Bushehr. However, the Bushehr reactor is NOT a component of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. They are just using Bushehr for political cover to say that the Natanz facility is making fuel for Bushehr rather than making fuel for the Iranian nuclear weapons.
So - NO; the US commercial reactor program does NOTING to aid in the making of nuclear weapons. In fact, it is the other way around; the facilities for the weapons program are used to make fuel for reactors.
But the US nuclear weapons complex of design labs and production facilities is self-sufficient and not dependent on the commercial program. In fact, it is that way, BY LAW. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 provides for that.
jpak
(41,780 posts)yup
PamW
(1,825 posts)You just proved my point for me
A generating capacity of 5 Mw(e) is hardly a "power reactor". Power reactors have electrical generating capacities of hundreds or thousands of megawatts.
It would be as if you bought one of those little Honda backup generators:
http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/models.aspx?page=models§ion=P2GG&category=home
and then went around telling everybody that you "OWNED A POWER PLANT".
If you have a Honda backup generator; you do NOT "own a power plant".
Likewise, this 5 Mw(e) was not optimized for generating power:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/yongbyon-5.htm
Although this reactor Was frequently termed a "5-MW(e)" research reactor, in fact it was thought to be capable of a thermal power output of between 20 and 30 megawatts. This was up to twice the thermal output that would normally be associated with a 5 megawatt electrical output.
Countries like North Korea and Iran make these claims that their weapons program facilities are really power sources, when it is clear they are not. They are using these claims of power production as political cover for activities that are illegal under the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty that both countries had signed onto.
However, some buy into their charades, and that is why we have problems stemming nuclear proliferation in this world. Too many are giving the cheaters a "pass" because they accept the charade of the cover story.
PamW
(1,825 posts)I don't know why people make such a fuss about connecting a heat source to an electric generating cycle.
What's the big deal? Any heat source that produces temperatures in excess of the boiling point of water can be used to boil water into steam to drive a Rankine heat engine.
Just because someone does that does that in any way, shape, or form alter the "morality" or the "goodness / badness" of the original heat source?
The nations that want to illegally develop nuclear weapons are counting on just that type of obfuscation. They can run an illegal production reactor for making nuclear weapons, but as long as they hook it so that the waste heat goes into an electric power production plant, that makes their illegal activities all OK, because they are just producing power.
It seems like more and more that obfuscation is ruling the day. If someone can make a tenuous connection between a civilian activity and a military one; then they can claim the civilian activity is bad. If someone makes a tenuous connection between a military activity and a civilian one; then they can claim the military activity is good.
We will never stem the tide of nuclear proliferation if we allow these silly games to continue. The proliferants are playing us for fools, and we are going right along with them because so many accept the political cover story and not what is really happening.
These tenuous links are used to obfuscate reality and make claims that are just not true.
PamW
txlibdem
(6,183 posts)His stupidity? Thinking that tiny Uranium reactors that work flawlessly in ships and submarines can be scaled up to hundreds of megawatts with equal efficiency.
Unfortunately not true.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)That is my only reservation about contemporary nuclear power right now, that it can't safely be shut-down during prolonged power-loss.
But this technology would be the perfect way for us to wean ourselves off fossil-fuels while maintaining maximum safety.
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)while maintaining maximum safety is to forget nuclear and install renewables.
We can do the job with renewables cheaper, faster and safer.
It's going to be ten years or more before we know whether 'gen four' nuclear ideas even work. Then another ten years or more to build a few reactors in order to get the probable bugs out. Decades and decades before we start making a dent in fossil fuel use if we take the nuclear route.
Maslo55
(61 posts)Its far more advantageous to wait and pursue development of a technology that would take time to develop, but once is complete offers very abundant and cheap power capable of RAPIDLY displacing fossil energy, than deploy immature renewables now, which would fail to do the job of rapidly and completely displacing fossil energy since they simply do not have the energy density - even when they are deployed sooner.
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)That there is a better technology which will emerge soon enough to save our bacon.
It's got to be 100% guaranteed and able to be put in place in less than 20 years from now.
We've got technology right now that could get us off fossil fuels in 20 years if we decided to implement. Energy density is not a problem.
Maslo55
(61 posts)are simply unable to get us off of fossil fuels in just 20 years, thats just ridiculous fantasy. It socially, economically and physically impossible. They might supply some % of electricity supply in countries with abundant sunlight / wind (California, UK), but thats all. It would require billions of wind turbines and solar panels, smart grids and long-distance lines everywhere (in fact complete world electric grid overhaul), and also huge amounts of costly storage to offset the intermittency and poor capacity factors to make it. Thats with current electricity consumption, which would increase in the future, and hugely - just wide deployment of electric cars and trucks would probably double our electricity needs, developing and third world would be another source of consumption increase.
100% guarantee is never possible. But since there are no significant hard technical, physical and economic obstacles to rapid advanced nuclear deployment (LFTRs, IFRs..) as opposed to renewables, just ignorance and public/political opposition due to irrational nucleophobia, its far more probable that we will succeed to displace fossil energy sooner in higher amounts with this approach.
With moderate funding, we can have working small modular LFTR in just 5 years. 10 years to factory mass production of SMR-LFTRs (think Boeing planes), which would produce abundant electricity with half the cost of fossil power plants, 24/7, independent of weather or location, always with nameplate capacity. No need for smartgrids or any big storage investments (you will just buy a little more powerful power plant, then dump excess into resistors when its not needed, or electrolytically/thermochemically produce hydrogen).
IFR (EPR-II) was also already prorotyped and run excellently for decades. It is ready for deployment now (GE Hitachi S-PRISM), and factory mass production in 5 years, not 20 years in the future.
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)We can't build 100 full sized nuclear reactors in the US in the next 20 years. So let's just put that bit of bull argument behind us.
Will SMRs be cheaper than full sized reactor? Many think not. There are no significant economies of scale when you're dealing with small production runs. If SMRs were cheaper to build then China would be building them.
Where would we site 100 full sized nuclear reactors in the US? Remember, reliable cooling water supplies and NIMBY issue.
And given that there just aren't 100 sites for full sized reactors where would one find places for 500 SMRs? You think we put them all in Georgia, South Carolina and a couple of other very red states and run power lines to the rest of the country?
Is it impossible to get us off fossil fuels in 20 years using renewables? If we have the political will here's the plan....
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030
If you want to argue that it would be somehow easier with nuclear, remember that output price is set by the cost of inputs as long as there is no significant fuel cost. Wind, geothermal and solar electricity are cheaper than nuclear electricity. It costs more to build reactors.
Maslo55
(61 posts)for complete worldwide fossil phaseout, even with nuclear, and not with renewables for sure, lets be realistic. More like 2050. We cannot avoid the first phase of warming, its too late for that already. Maybe we could have if LFTRs and IFRs were not stopped in 1970 and 1994, respectively..
But we can avoid catastrophic warming that would result if we do nothing and continue using fossil fuels beyond 2050.
SMRs will be cheaper to build than full sized reactors per TWh of energy they produce. Economies of scale of full sized reactors are more than compensated by many other technical advantages of SMRs, as well as automated factory production. See very good Chicago university SMR analysis here:
http://epic.uchicago.edu/sites/epic.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/SMRWhite_Paper_Dec.14.2011copy.pdf
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-small-reactors-figure-energy-future.html
SMRs dont need a lot of cooling, and are passively safe, so site availability is not a concern. Every large town can have its own SMR.
‘A path to sustainable energy by 2030′ does not adequately answer the concerns about intermittency and poor capacity factors of renewable energy, it ignores them. Good critique of it is here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/
Renewables are not cheaper than nuclear energy. Not per energy produced and without much higher subsidies per TWh. And not if you take into account needed smart grids and storage systems which would be required for more than marginal grid deployment.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Renewables are not cheaper than nuclear energy. Not per energy produced and without much higher subsidies per TWh.
============================
Correct - renewables are not cheaper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
One can see from the chart in the link above that solar is the most expensive
My sources in the DOE tell me that the solar community is going to have to brace for some major cut-backs in subsidies and loans. President O'Bama and Secretary Chu don't want any more Solyndra's; so the bar on solar just went up a major amount.
It looks like the solar proponents sunk their own ship!
PamW
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)"Correct - renewables are not cheaper: " - the person who posts as "Pam"...
Total System Levelized Cost - $ per MWh
Advanced nuclear 113.9
Biomass 112.5
Geothermal 101.7
On shore wind 97.0
Hydro 86.4
That's some snazzy new math you got going there Pam.
Your link predicts that PV solar will be 210.7/MWh in 2016. However installed large rooftop solar in sunny areas is now 153.4/MWh. Those DOE projections were made before solar experienced the tremendous price drops, which are expected to continue.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Those DOE projections were made before solar experienced the tremendous price drops, which are expected to continue.
==========================
However, your projections and costs are BEFORE the collapse of Solyndra.
They include subsidies and loans which are NOT going to continue.
The bureaucrats at DOE went against the advice of the scientists at the national labs like myself; and approved the Solyndra deal. The fallout from that blunder cost the job of someone with the rank of Program Director. Another blunder would take out anyone of that rank or lower. Therefore, the lower ranking bureaucrats are not going to be sticking their necks out and opposing the national lab scientists in the future, I suspect.
The national lab scientists, of which I am one; are pretty much in solidarity with which direction we think the USA's energy policy should go. Since the bureaucrats are not going to oppose us over fear of losing their jobs; odds are we scientists are going to get our way in the future.
Besides, we only need to get our way for a couple years or so; and the financial and capital environment will take care of the rest.
Yes - the solar proponents surely torpedoed their own ship, from where I stand.
PamW
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)The DOE numbers do not include subsidies and loans.
BTW, new nuclear would get even higher subsidies than most renewables. Massive loan guarantees, free liability insurance and FiTs/PTCs....
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)I suspect those DOE numbers do include some subsidizes.
If the DOE used financing costs for nuclear builds with rates based on taxpayer loan guarantees rather than what non-guaranteed loans would cost then the price of nuclear is lowered due to subsidies. Without the government guaranteeing the loan the price of nuclear would rise several cents per kWh.
And if the DOE numbers did not include the value of taxpayer provided liability insurance then, again, the listed price of nuclear is too low.
Overall that nuclear price is probably four to nine cents per kWh too low, based on Union of Concerned Scientists' calculations.
Could be that non-subsidized solar is already cheaper than nuclear if we remove all the federal subsidies for nuclear. Probably several cents per kWh cheaper....
PamW
(1,825 posts)And if the DOE numbers did not include the value of taxpayer provided liability insurance then, again, the listed price of nuclear is too low.
----------------------------------------
See the other post with the provisions of the Price-Anderson Act.
You've been reading the anti-nuke propaganda; because the Price-Anderson
liability insurance is NOT FREE. As the article on Price-Anderson describes,
the Price-Anderson Act requires the utilities to pay for that insurance.
It's a well known LIE by the anti-nukes that the insurance is free.
PamW
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)Nuclear plants are required to carry only a small amount of liability insurance.
US taxpayers assume the major risk.
It's a major subsidy for nuclear.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Nuclear plants are required to carry only a small amount of liability insurance.
US taxpayers assume the major risk.
It's a major subsidy for nuclear.
----------------------------------
WRONG - you've gullibly bought the anti-nuke propaganda "hook, line, and sinker".
You can't read? I gave you the reference to what the LAW - the "infamous" Price-Anderson Law says. Evidently it doesn't say what you "think" it says. Price-Anderson requires that nuclear power operators get their 1st tier coverage from commercial insurers ( the anti-nuke propaganda is that insurance companies won't insure the plants, but they do ).
The second tier of insurance coverage is a no-fault insurance administered by the Government, but funded by the nuclear industry.
READ IT!!! READ IT!! READ IT!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act
Don't just parrot the propaganda off the anti-nuke websites; it right there for you to READ.
PamW
PamW
(1,825 posts)free liability insurance a
----------------------------
Still promulgating that old lie that the nuclear industry doesn't pay for its insurance under Price-Anderson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act
Power reactor licensees are required by the act to obtain the maximum amount of insurance against nuclear related incidents which is available in the insurance market (as of 2011, $375 million per plant). Any monetary claims that fall within this maximum amount are paid by the insurer(s). The Price-Anderson fund, which is financed by the reactor companies themselves, is then used to make up the difference. Each reactor company is obliged to contribute up to $111.9 million per reactor in the event of an accident with claims that exceed the $375 million insurance limit. As of 2011, the maximum amount of the fund is approximately $12.22 billion
PamW
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)"Each reactor company is obliged to contribute up to $111.9 million per reactor in the event of an accident with claims that exceed the $375 million insurance limit. As of 2011, the maximum amount of the fund is approximately $12.22 billion"
$375 million insurance company payout. $12.22 billion in the "Oops we really fucked up" fund.
Fukushima could run as high as $250 billion. That's early estimates and we know how early estimates are often low-balled....
PamW
(1,825 posts)Yes - hydro is very cheap. However, do you really think that we're going to be able to build many more dams? Most of the really good locations for dams already have dams in place. Besides, your own environmental community opposes dams almost as much as they oppose nuclear power. In fact, they want to rip out the dams that we have. Look at those that want to tear down the Hetch Hetch dam and return the valley to what they "think" will be another Yosemite. Fat Chance. After spending so many decades under water, that valley is going to be no Yosemite.
There's a very limited number of sites for geothermal. The good ones that have dry steam like The Geyers have power plants. The "wet" sites have to deal with all the toxic crud that falls out of solution when the energy is extracted and the temperature drops.
Wind power just doesn't have the capacity factors. You are lucky to get a 25% capacity factor for wind. So the cost should be adjusted accordingly.
Biomass is another one that people don't want in their back yards.
Besides, the 20 or 30 cents difference between those methods and nuclear is a drop in the bucket. Solar has cost differentials of a dollar or two, and that's with the subsidies that are going to be going away.
Tighten your belts solar proponents; it's going to get bumpy.
But just remember; it's always darkest just before it goes totally black.
PamW
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)We have about 80,000 existing dams. We use about 2,500 for electricity production. Based on a study of existing dams on federal lands another several thousand should be usable for electricity.
At the moment several existing dams are being converted to production facilities.
--
Our geothermal resources are massive. Check the new maps which show, among other places, very large geothermal resources in West Virginia.
--
The DOE price of wind is already adjusted for capacity.
--
Biomass is largely getting used in existing coal plants in order to reduce the amount of coal burned. Siting is not an issue.
--
I'm glad to see you admit that nuclear is not cheaper than all other renewable energy sources. That's an improvement over your previous incorrect claims.
--
"Solar has cost differentials of a dollar or two, and that's with the subsidies that are going to be going away. "
Solar is currently more expensive than what new nuclear is projected to be, but those prices do not include subsidies. Advanced nuclear 113.9/MHw and industrial level solar 153.4/MWh - those are non-subsidized numbers.
Solar prices are going to drop with our without US subsidies. The rest of the world is driving the price of solar now.
Will solar continue to drop over the next decade and be as cheap or cheaper than new nuclear? Many people in the business believe so.
Can nuclear compete on a mixed grid where part of the 24 hour cycle input will be very cheap electricity from wind? Don't think so.
Nuclear, using the DOE number, would have to sell its power 24/365 for $0.114/kWh to break even. Wind can sell for $0.097/kWh. Who is going to purchase nuclear at a higher price? Nuclear, since it can't shut down or turn off its loan payments will have to sell at a loss and then crank its price up higher during the time when wind is not on line.
Let's assume wind will capture 50% of the market (remember, capacity does not mean the percent of the time the wind is blowing, only the average output compared to maximum potential). That would mean that nuclear would have to raise its break-even price to $0.13/kWh. Now we're only a couple of pennies of further price drop before solar takes away another 20% of the 24 hour cycle making nuclear even more expensive.
And then there's natural gas. Not what we should be using from a climate change/environmental position, but what the energy industry will use.
That's why the utility companies which have to compete in the free market are telling us that nuclear is priced off the table.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Let's assume wind will capture 50% of the market
-------------------------------------------
Why don't you assume that wind will be 99.9% of the market for all
that means - it's a made-up, fabricated number.
Scientists from the National Academy of Science and Engineering have studied
this and say that renewables including solar and wind will be no more than
20% - 30% of our electric energy supply - MAXIMUM.
You and the other denizens of DU who don't have any credentials or experience
in science can make up and fabricate numbers till the cows come home.
As a good scientist; I will go with the assessment of other good scientists in the
National Academy of Science and Engineering, every time.
PamW
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)What was said is that wind and solar can provide as much as 30% of our power on the Western grid, 25% of our power on the Eastern grid and 35% of the Hawaii grid - without any significant changes/additions to the grid.
Add storage or more dispatchable power and those numbers go higher. Just adding a bunch of EVs to the grid lets the percentage go higher. Obviously, with enough storage wind and solar could provide 100% of our electricity. (Not that we'd choose to do that, unless the price of storage drops quite low.)
When I assumed 50% wind input for my back of envelope argument I was talking about the portion of the year that the wind blows usable power. That number is likely on the low side.
You are not a good scientist. Not by any definition of the word. You are heavily biased and do not operate on a factual basis.
PamW
(1,825 posts)You are not a good scientist. Not by any definition of the word. You are heavily biased and do not operate on a factual basis.
==============================
Said by someone whose credentials in science are what? NONE ZERO ZIP
Someone who hasn't taken a science course since elementary school?
Then you are in no position to judge are you?
Opinion IGNORED - NOT QUALIFIED!!!
PamW
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)Why do you think you know jack about my credentials?
And what might my having or not having a background in science have to do with your heavy bias which you let get in the way of rational thought?
PamW
(1,825 posts)Why do you think you know jack about my credentials?
-----------------------------------------------------
Don't you think a physician would know if someone were another physician
or not if they were to discuss medicine?
Don't you think a lawyer would know if someone were another lawyer
or not if they were to discuss law.
Then why doubt whether a scientist would be able to recognize
another scientist.
PamW
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)and I assume that you have, at best, a masters degree and are basically a lab flunky.
Did I get close?
(You missed big time in your guess.)
PamW
(1,825 posts)You are not a good scientist. Not by any definition of the word. You are heavily biased and do not operate on a factual basis.
---------------------------------
What ever you "think" about my biases or not; as a scientist from a national lab, who shares the same opinions as the majority of my colleagues; we will have a REAL say in the future energy policy of the USA.
The more I hear from you; the more I will redouble my efforts to send renewables into the toilet.
What say you? You want to bash me some more - then renewables will suffer.
Your choice.
PamW
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)But the future of energy is pretty much out of the hands of scientists at national labs. Sure, they will add new technology, but the real decisions will be made by utility companies and financiers.
Right now the US is not going to build more than a very few new reactors because the utility companies look at the numbers and invest in wind, solar and natural gas. The only places where reactors might be built are where the utility companies have strangleholds on their customers and can ram cost overruns down their throats.
And I can assure you that if you are as biased at your workplace as you are here then your colleagues are dismissing your opinions.
But the future of energy is pretty much out of the hands of scientists at national labs. Sure, they will add new technology, but the real decisions will be made by utility companies and financiers.
----------------------------------------
The utility companies are actually chomping at the bit to build more nuclear
power plants - IF - we can deal with the uncertainty of licensing.
That's where the scientists will influence the Government.
We are already working on legislation to roll back the incentives for solar, gas, and
wind; and to guarantee funding for nuclear power programs.
As many here have said; the only reason the utilities liked nukes is all the profits
which cheap renewables don't provide.
The utility executives will surely sign on when they see the future profits.
Happy New Year - I'm sure looking forward to it. ( Renewables are going down. )
PamW
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)"We are already working on legislation to roll back the incentives for solar, gas, and
wind; and to guarantee funding for nuclear power programs. "
Then you definitely aren't scientists. You're nuclear industry tools.
Just like the "scientists" who worked for tobacco companies and told us smoking wouldn't hurt us.
PamW
(1,825 posts)Then you definitely aren't scientists. You're nuclear industry tools.
Just like the "scientists" who worked for tobacco companies and told us smoking wouldn't hurt us.
---------------------------------------------
We'll get the job done. We know what the science says.
I'm somewhat concerned that a lot of Democrats don't know the science,
and what really needs to be done. They've pretty much been conned by the
"greenies". However, the Republican-controlled House will support us. That
just leaves the Senate. With the support of the Republicans in the Senate,
and the "blue-dog" Democrats in the Senate - the way is clear. Of course,
we have the support of the President; Secretary Chu has seen to that.
You may not like it. But we'll get the job done....
PamW
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)The price of solar is going to continue to rapidly fall because the scientists working in that area are producing ways to bring prices down.
Looks like some other scientists have figured out how to make wind turbine magnets for less money than REE tech so that will bring those prices down as well. Then there's the new blade tech that some other scientists have created.
If you think you've got the support of PBO you don't understand the rope he handed the nuclear industry with which to hang itself.
You're even losing the support of Republican officials as they see the financial benefits of installing wind generation in their states. There's the crackpot segment of the Republican party we hear from so frequently but there's also a segment of the party that can do math....
PamW
(1,825 posts)Right now the US is not going to build more than a very few new reactors because the utility companies look at the numbers and invest in wind, solar and natural gas.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You evidently don't know the pricing algorithms and how utilities make money. See:
http://www.coadengineering.com/book/SECTION-4-32-THE-STRUCTURE-OF-ELECTRIC-UTILITY-RATES.pdf
One is the fixed cost or investment cost in conversion and distribution systems. As has been stated in other chapters, this cost is not related to the energy delivered but rather to the rate at which the plant can convert and deliver the energy.
If we can deal with the uncertainty problem, the utility execs and financiers will go for the nuclear plants because of the large fixed cost portion of the utility rate. They're really chomping at the bit...
PamW
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)You do realize that it applies to fuel burning systems? No, I don't think you do.
Nuclear gets hurt because it must deliver 24/365 in order to break even. When it gets included in a merit order pricing system it has to sell at a loss during times when less expensive power is available. Unlike gas which can be shut off and which has significantly lower capex nuclear cannot sit idle without suffering losses.
When utility companies have a number of providers that can deliver power part of the day for less than nuclear's break-even point nuclear is put in a position where it must charge more for those hours when the less expensive sources are not producing. That creates an economic situation called "extraordinary profits" which causes new players to enter a market.
Already we're starting to see coal and gas plants shut down because there's enough cheap wind on the grid to make their operation non-profitable, even with paid off plants. Anyone thinking about building a new nuclear plant is going to be aware that they are almost certain to be competing against cheaper power and that they will fail. That's why we've seen Exelon, Duke, and other utility companies abandon their reactor plans.
Again, the only places in the US where new reactors may be built are in the Southeast where regulations let utility company pass the high cost of nuclear on to their customers.
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)"Every large town can have its own SMR."
Most large town and even small towns will not allow a SMF in their area. If you think people are going to allow a reactor to be plopped down in their neighborhood you are delusional.
--
You also do not understand that economy of scale is not achieved at a few dozen unit levels. The first SMRs produced, were they to be produced, would be very expensive. You'd have to have either buyers who would be willing to pay exorbitant prices for their power or massive government subsidies to offset the cost.
If SMRs would be cheap to build, why is GE not building them? Why, instead is GE manufacturing wind turbines, a new natural gas turbine optimized for use with renewables, and opening a solar panel factory?
If SMRs would be cheap to build, why is China not popping them out and selling them to all the places where governments can override local opposition and plop them down?
SpoonFed
(853 posts)with categorical comparitive statements of cost for an undeveloped, unproven technology that won't be accepted even if all the technical and costs challenges were met. Don't burst the bubble by pointing out the subsidies and lack of adequate insurance, otherwise in almost seems plausible. 
We need to build a 100ft teflon cover pole to push ourselves away from any and all nuclear designs as well pundits and industry insiders. Then we can spend the free time figuring out what to do with the waste fuel, finally.
Maslo55
(61 posts)not thinking rationally about the issue at hand, but ideologically. Blanket statements like "all nuclear energy must be bad", despite huge differences between different reactor designs (especially LWRs and MRSs, as well as 40 years old and new Gen III reactors) only show your ignorance of nuclear engineering.
*SpoonFed* by nucleophobic propaganda.
Transmutating nuclear "waste" (more like fuel for Gen IV reactors) into short lived isotopes is the only way how to get rid of it once and for all. All other "solutions" are just pushing the problem out of sight. More than 100 billion was spent on geological waste disposal projects already, with no results. All because of the irrational fear of waste burning breeder reactors, which would get rid of the problem while generating carbon-free electricity in the process (turning liability into an asset), for fraction of the cost.
SpoonFed
(853 posts)You're flawed argument (and personal attack) rests on the premise that anyone who thinks that nuclear power (in all it's forms promised over the years) is a waste of time and money is irrational. You'd do a better job at pretending to have a rational, superior position on the subject if your post wasn't rife with personal insults and otherwise content-less. You've apparently come to the right place and fitting right in after only 50 posts.
Here's a suggestion if you want to be perceived as more than a pro-nuke insulting interloper, make some valid points supporting nuclear power. The problem for you ofcourse is that all rational arguments point in the other direction. Nuclear power in all its varied forms is an incredibly risky, costly and totally unnecessary way to generate power in 2011 and forward.
Thanks for stopping by to throw it out there that it's those against wasteful spending on flawed technology, massive government subsidies of giant elephants with inadequate insurance with no realistic plan for waste fuel storage are to blame for the technology's and industry's shortcomings. It's funny. Not valid, but funny.
Oh woah is me, the irrational fear that the nuke power industry is unnecessary!
Maslo55
(61 posts)"an incredibly risky, costly and totally unnecessary"
1. Safety: Nuclear power has the least amount of deaths caused per TWh of energy it produces, from all energy sources. So much for it being dangerous.
Deaths per TWh by energy source: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
Not even talking about the fact that comparing 40 year old and soviet reactors with modern ones is intellectualy dishonest at best, but even if we ignore it, still its the most safe source as demonstrated above.
2. Cost: Except fossil energy, nuclear has the lowest cost per TWh of energy it produces (DoE numbers). Despite receiving far lower subsidies per TWh than alternative sources. So much for it being costly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
3. Every additional tonne of CO2 released into the air caused by opposition to nuclear energy (as has been demonstrated recently in germany - nuclear phaseout already resulted in increase in fossil energy use, and more fossil expansion is planned - more warming) puts us closer to the risk of runaway GW. No CO2-free source is "unnecessary" in such situation, we need everything we can do to lower emissions.
"with no realistic plan for waste fuel storage"
4. Storage is not the solution as I have said. Burning it is - turning liability into an asset, and its perfectly viable:
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/12/05/a-waste-of-waste/
So much for your arguments. No stand up to factual scrutiny, just generic anti-nuclear propaganda with no hard numbers to back it up.
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)The deaths attributed to wind that I've seen include things like someone sneaking on to a wind site and committing suicide, a skydiver parachuting into a tower, a truck overturning during a delivery, someone crushed by pipes falling off a truck during delivery, a crane operator driving into a power line - stuff like that.
Included in wind turbine deaths are homeowners falling from their rigs and a child being killed when an unsecured home rig rolled over on her. Deaths that have nothing to do with the wind industry.
One of the 'wind deaths' was that of a crop duster who flew into a test rig that was measuring wind potential.
I've never seen "nuclear deaths" include construction deaths and operational deaths. No mention of workers falling or workers that have been scalded to death by steam leaks.
---
Cost. Please, don't go all Pammy on us. Nuclear is the fifth most expensive non-fossil fuel electricity source on the page you link. There are four cheaper production methods.
And those numbers are likely "corrupt". The projected price of nuclear probably is calculated using loan rates available only with taxpayer loan guarantees and taxpayer provided liability insurance.
New nuclear would receive very high subsidies. Not only loan guarantees and free liability insurance but also the PTC subsidies that wind and solar receive.
PamW
(1,825 posts)One of the 'wind deaths' was that of a crop duster who flew into a test rig that was measuring wind potential.
I've never seen "nuclear deaths" include construction deaths and operational deaths. No mention of workers falling or workers that have been scalded to death by steam leaks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
About 25 years ago, a worker died at the Surry nuclear power plant after the worker mis-adjusted a "steam dump" valve. The steam dump valve is a valve that allows workers to temporarily shunt the energy of a power plant and dump the steam into the atmosphere so that short-term work can be performed on the turbine. It is a feature of found in both nuclear and fossil-fuel plants. So the death here was not unique to a nuclear plant, but could have happened in any steam power plant:
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-12-11/news/mn-2442_1_nuclear-plant
Wind power can have its dangers too:
PamW
Worker electrocuted at nuclear plant
SEPT 17, MINNEAPOLIS, MN - Ricky D. Cummings, 47, of Delano, died Wednesday morning just outside the gates of the nuclear plant in Monticello. Officials say Mr. Delano came in contact with a power line, and his death was caused by thermal injuries due to electrocution.
When you look through the list of fatalities charged to wind energy you get these sorts of deaths added to the record. We have no similar accounting for the people who have died during construction and operation of nuclear plants.
Should the above death be charged against nuclear energy? Not in my opinion. But neither should a delivery truck overturning be charged against wind energy.
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)Homeowner rig accidents...
mid-70s,atop tower removing small turbine (homeowner rig)
descending tower without lanyard, without fall restraint system in place, lanyard found holding nacelle cover open, found at base of tower
raising turbine with tower-mounted gin pole, used tower, pully at top of gin pole, no base pulley, tower collapsed with Skarski strapped to it
Small turbine undergoing repairs, temporarily strapped down, children playing on what may be the gin pole, strap loosened, and the turbine came down.
--------------------
Construction/shipping accidents...
rebar cage for foundation came in contact with overhead power lines (construction accident)
driving tractor as tow vehicle, tractor flipped over crushing him (construction accident)
servicing Dynergy crane
unloading towers from a truck with a crane, towers rolled off truck
crane operator, travelling, locking pin failed, boom swung downhill into 66 kV power line
tower crane collapsed
One dead, Met tower accident, on or around 11/10/08, no details, unloading pallet of tower sections possible
A county road near Port Burwell collapsed under a heavy crane, causing it to roll into a ditch, killing its operator, Ontario's Labour Ministry has confirmed. A culvert was plugged causing water to weaken the road's foundation. The operator drowned.
One man was killed and another injured aboard the Dutch registered anchor handling vessel Typhoon. The boat was assisting Seaway Heavy Lifting vessel Stanislav Yudin during turbine monopile installation operations. reNews 3 June 2010
Construction, the main contractor for the project, as a semi-tractor with a flatbed trailer loaded with rebar was backing up to unload the materials
during operations handling turbine monopiles for a European project. The ship was alongside Parkeston Quay in Harwich International Port carrying out “wind turbine loading operations”, according to police
------------------
Just weird attributions...
parachutist on first solo jump drifts into Enercon machine on Fehrman
Crop duster pilot killed after striking a guy wire on a meteorological mast installed one-month prior.
Man hung himself from inside the tower. Apparent suicide.
--------------
When you see stats on wind-energy related deaths remember that these are some of the incidences included.
There are some legitimate deaths from the earlier years when safety regs were not as stringent, deaths which should have not happened. Most of those deaths involve falls by people not using safety gear and a couple of deaths when safety lanyards were caught in the spinning machinery.
Let's restrict ourselves to apples to apples comparisons. We don't have a database for the workers who were probably killed while constructing nuclear plants, that stuff happened before the internet saved those local news items for us. We don't have a data base for the workers who were probably killed while hauling materials to plants. We don't have a data base for uranium mining accidents.
Throckmorton
(3,579 posts)I know, I was there. The LA Times Article is just plan wrong, if was wall thinning of a main feedwater pipe that caused the rupture.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/info-notices/1988/in88017.html
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)Here's a bit of info from a National Geographic article on nuclear...
"A long deferred cleanup is now under way at 114 of the nation's nuclear facilities, which encompass an acreage equivalent to Rhode Island and Delaware combined. Many smaller sites, the easy ones, have been cleansed, but the big challenges remain. What's to be done with 52,000 tons (47,000 metric tons) of dangerously radioactive spent fuel from commercial and defense nuclear reactors? With 91 million gallons (345 million liters) of high-level waste left over from plutonium processing, scores of tons of plutonium, more than half a million tons of depleted uranium, millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and other waste? And with some 265 million tons (240 million metric tons) of tailings from milling uranium ore—less than half stabilized—littering landscapes?"
We're going to "burn up" all that stuff?
How do you burn up 240 million metric tons of uranium tailings? Or millions of cubic feet of contaminated tools, metal scraps, clothing, oils, solvents, and other waste?
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0207/feature1/
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)" Every additional tonne of CO2 released into the air caused by opposition to nuclear energy (as has been demonstrated recently in germany - nuclear phaseout already resulted in increase in fossil energy use, and more fossil expansion is planned - more warming)"
Germany was already on a path to close down their nuclear reactors. They just sped it up.
And while there might be a small, temporary upwards blip in CO2 coming from Germany the country is still on the path to become a world leader in low-carbon electricity...
"1. Agreement to phase out nuclear energy, but on a slower timeframe. To do so they decided to extend the lifetimes of the 17 German nuclear power plants by eight to twelve years.
2. Agreement to an ambitious set of short and long-term energy and climate policy goals including:
* a 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 coupled with a longer term 80 to 95% target by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels),
* a massive expansion of renewable energy in all sectors, e.g. an increase of renewable power in power generation from 17% in 2010 to 35% in 2020 and 80% in 2050
* a target to reduce energy consumption from buildings by 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
* A target to reduce energy consumption from transportation by 10% in 2020 and 25% in 2050."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/29/nuclearpower-energy
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)[font size=5]Monday, August 29, 2011[/font]
[font size=3]What are the problems with MSR/LFTR technology? This turns out to be a hard question to answer. Since there are a large number of LFTR design options, however, it is difficult to identify a set of problems that shared all of the options. Rather we should talk about elective choices, and the problems that a MSR/LFTR designer would face if a certain option were chosen.
…[/font][/font]
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)of the challenges facing MSR tech is equivalent to an acknowledgement that the problems are so daunting as to be insurmountable?
You surely wouldn't be making that inane of a suggestion. Would you? 
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)is that there are significant unsolved problems. And if they aren't solved they could be insurmountable.
That's a worst case.
Best case, we can solve them. But we won't know that for many years.
Time is running out. Each year we wait to get cracking on cutting fossil fuels makes that much harder to avoid a climatic runaway. If, a decade or two from now, someone figures out how to make these whiz-bang ideas work then we can reassess. Right now we need to get going with what does work, is cheapest, and brings no new dangers to us and those who follow us.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)I simply felt that I could not do it justice with 4 paragraphs (since a number of topics are covered) and wished to encourage people to read the entire item on their own.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Which was almost completely designed.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 28, 2011, 05:51 PM - Edit history (1)
I don't, however, currently participate in advocacy for those technologies because their proponents are largely pro-GenIII+-nuclear advocates and fail to have an environmental message whatsoever.
Barry Brook at least is an environmentalists, I can't say the same for Kirk Sorenson.
edit: btw, I watched the video, and as I suspected, Kirk spent a whole half minute on the environment. Or 1.3% of the entire talk. While I understand the environment was not his focus, he couldn't even go to a few minutes?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)And his Climate Change Chair is funded by the State government - an entity known to be far more interested in (uranium) mining than climate change.
Paydirt 2009 Uranium Conference
http://uraniuminvestingnews.com/3174/uranium-prices-set-to-climb.html
That is flatly contradicted by MIT and other specialists in nuclear energy.
Selling the expansion of a uranium mine in his home state:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/05/carbon-footprint-of-the-olympic-dam-uranium-mine-expansion/
Downplaying concerns about effect of Fukushima on uranium demand:
"Attached please find a press release on: A pro-nuclear advocate says the serious problems faced by the tsunami-hit Fukushima nuclear power plant has not killed one member of the public, but has generated a new basis on which much wider debate in Australia and overseas can now take place.
Addressing a specially arranged Japan nuclear issues session this afternoon on the first day of the Paydirt 2011 Uranium Conference in Adelaide, Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide, Professor Barry Brook, said although Fukushima has emerged as a serious Level 5 accident on the international nuclear event scale, it was wrong to call it an ‘accident’ as it was in all effect, an act of God."
http://www.miningweekly.com/article/company-announcement-climate-change-head-says-japan-nuclear-incident-has-not-killed-one-member-of-public-but-will-fuel-useful-debate-2011-03-22
Featured speaker at "Paydirt's 2012 Uranium Conference"
http://www.paydirtsuraniumconference.com/prof-barry-brook/
http://uraniuminvestingnews.com/2839/uranium-demand-set-to-quadruple-by-2050.html
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)His background is almost entirely environmental:
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/barry.brook
A total of 6 publications out of 197 mention nuclear power. SIX:
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/barry.brook?dsn=directory.file;field=data;id=2722;m=view
I don't know why you insist on slandering scientists.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The issue is his use of the academic title to promote sales for an industry important to those who gave him the chair.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I dunno, it seems really weird how you insist on slandering Barry anonymously. I'd think if you weren't so anonymous, maybe you wouldn't shit so much on other publishers, Phil.
6 out of 197 papers are nuclear related. The guy is no more industry insider than yourself.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)wtmusic
(39,166 posts)"Professor Barry Brook from the University of Adelaide's new Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability has been awarded the prestigious Edgeworth David Medal from the Royal Society of New South Wales.
The medal is for distinguished contributions by a scientist under the age of 35 of any discipline, for work in Australia or which assists the advancement of Australian science.
Professor Brook, aged 33, has recently been appointed to the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at the University of Adelaide, a position funded by the South Australian Government."
https://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/print17901.html
Clearly a tool of South Australia's burgeoning uranium industry...if only there was one:
"South Australia's economy includes the following major industries: meat and meat preparations, wheat, wine, wool and sheepskins, machinery, metal and metal manufactures, fish and crustaceans, road vehicles and parts, and petroleum products. Other industries, such as education and defence technology, are of growing importance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_australia
I can hardly wait for your smoking-gun link between uranium and SA's high-stakes trade in sheepskins...
kristopher
(29,798 posts)...The most significant deposits are in South Australia, the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland.
Uranium companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year searching for new deposits and more accurately measuring the quality and size of deposits that have already been identified.
...Mining is currently limited to South Australia, Western Australia (where the first mine is expected to be operating by 2014) and the Northern Territory.
The Olympic Dam deposit in South Australia is the single largest deposit in the world...
http://www.aua.org.au/Content/UraniumDeposits.aspx
The Australian Uranium Association's website specifically touts Brooks as their "nuclear expert" to spin Japan's nuclear meltdowns:
Useful links for information about the nuclear reactor situation in Japan
Journalists may find the following websites to be useful sources of information concerning the situation with nuclear reactors in Japan following the devastating earthquake and tsunami.
The World Nuclear Association: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/
International Atomic Energy Agency: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html
Japan Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI): http://www.meti.go.jp/english/
Japan Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA): http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/index.html
Brave New Climate, the blogsite of nuclear energy expert Professor Barry Brook:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/#more-3970http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/#more-3970
The World Health Organisation: http://www.who.int/hac/en/index.html
http://www.aua.org.au/Content/140311MediaReleaseInfoLinks.aspx
...In 2005, Australia’s uranium oxide exports earned $573 million with a record production of over 12 000 tonnes. Those exports are enough to generate more than twice Australia’s current annual electricity demand. Exports are forecast to increase strongly both from rising prices and rising production, reaching over 20 000 tonnes by 2014–2015.
Australia will increase production over the medium and longer term by expanding existing mines. Each of the three operational mines (Olympic Dam, Ranger and Beverley) can expand production or extend their lives through the discovery of further reserves on already approved mine leases. Many smaller known deposits could be developed relatively quickly, but are currently not accessible under state or territory government policy.
...Australia’s exports of uranium oxide of $573 million in 2005 could be transformed into a further $1.8 billion in value after conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication. However, challenges associated with the required investment levels and access to enrichment technology are very significant.
Commonwealth of Australia 2006, Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy — Opportunities for Australia?,
Report to the Prime Minister by the Uranium Mining, Processing and Nuclear Energy Review Taskforce, December 2006
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)It doesn't merit your claims. 6 out of 197.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)also known as the "Nobel Prize of Energy":
"The Global Energy Prize is an independent award for outstanding scientific research and technological development in energy, which contribute to efficiency and environmentally friendly energy sources for the benefit of humanity.
The award was established in Russia, through the non-commercial Global Energy partnership and with the support of leading Russian energy companies Gazprom, FGC UES and Surgutneftegaz. Laureates are presented with their award by the President of Russia.
The Global Energy Prize promotes energy development as a science and demonstrates the importance of international energy cooperation, as well as public and private investment in energy supply, energy efficiency and energy security. It stands for the belief that advances in science and technology should serve the long-term interests of human development, improving social security and living standards of people in all countries.
Professor Brook has also been made a 2012 Senior Fellow at the California-based think tank, The Breakthrough Institute.
The Institute is dedicated to “modernizing liberal thought for the 21st Century” and creating “secure, free, prosperous, and fulfilling lives on an ecologically vibrant planet”.
http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/73228/global-energy-prize-and-breakthrough-institute
IIRC, Breakthrough was unflagging in their support of the Cape Wind project. Why do you think would they want a uranium-industry tool as a Senior Fellow?
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Nederland
(9,979 posts)I suppose you are upset because you wanted the job of Host Climate Chair...
SpoonFed
(853 posts)that the ivory tower has never kowtowed to the interests or pressure of government or industry at the expense of integrity.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The last thing this planet needs is ever more human beings using ever more energy. Aren't we doing enough damage to life with the energy we already have?
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)No reason why everyone can't have all the energy they need from cleantech sources.
We can feed everyone and provide everyone with a reasonably comfortable lifestyle if we use sustainable methods.
We're on route to maxing out our population and then letting it gradually decline. It would be smart if we worked to drop the projected peak and get us on the down-slope sooner.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)For example, energy produced by burning coal has proven to be a great harm. Had that energy been produced by capturing sunlight, the harm would not have been as great.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Even if we eliminate waste products like CO2 we'll still be left with ecocidal damage produced by the energy use itself - habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, water and soil depletion, industrial wastes of all sorts. Getting rid of CO2 does nothing whatsoever to address those.
If we are truly serious about reducing our desecration of life on this planet, we'll work both ends f the problem - we will reduce the waste products of the energy we use, but more importantly we will reduce our level of activity, for which energy of any sort or source is the main proxy and driver.
From this viewpoint LFTR is utterly unnecessary, so any additional risk it might bring to the planet - no matter how small - is insupportable.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)Poor choices of how to use energy lead to “ecocidal damage.”
For example, having cheap energy enables us to drive “dune buggies” through sensitive desert terrain, but is the problem really the energy use? or is it insufficient thought as to the effects of that use of energy?
Having a clean source of (relatively) cheap energy might lead to a more rapid dismantling of plants which generate electricity by burning stuff, or to the more rapid decommissioning of hydro-power dams.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Human activity of all sorts - resource extraction, the construction of buildings and roads, and especially agriculture - causes the damage. And human activity is driven by energy.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)Thoughtless agriculture causes damage. Thoughtful agriculture causes less damage, or may even be restorative.
Which do you suppose is more destructive? “slash and burn” agriculture or “no-till” agriculture?
Which one uses more energy?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)"No till" or "no agriculture"?
Every human activity damages the environment in one way or another. As long as Mom Nature can repair the damage we do in a timely fashion everything is OK. We are well past that point, unfortunately, and have been for a couple of hundred years now. Until we are back below the activity level that permits the planet's ecosystems to repair themselves we need to reduce both the impact of each human action and the number of actions.
LFTR would only be interesting if it could replace more damaging energy sources while not increasing human activity. I don't see that happening, so I'm against the introduction of new variables into the ecological equation until we have the current ones sorted.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)You suggest that energy use (more specifically any technology at all) is just plain bad.
Energy use and technology enable us to practice “no-till” agriculture, rather than other more destructive forms of agriculture.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I'm not in favour of policies or practices that stand in the way of moving towards that goal. Getting there will require reducing human population and activity levels to a very great extent. Changing technologies is at best a small interim step. However focusing on technology carries the inherent risk that we will lose sight of the ultimate necessary goal, and end up destroying the global village in our efforts to save it.
OKIsItJustMe
(21,875 posts)Population is the problem. I haven’t lost sight of that. (Had you?)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11272430#post52
Even if we eliminate waste products like CO2 we'll still be left with ecocidal damage produced by the energy use itself - habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, water and soil depletion, industrial wastes of all sorts. Getting rid of CO2 does nothing whatsoever to address those.
If we are truly serious about reducing our desecration of life on this planet, we'll work both ends f the problem - we will reduce the waste products of the energy we use, but more importantly we will reduce our level of activity, for which energy of any sort or source is the main proxy and driver.
…
The truth of the matter is, reducing waste products like CO2 will decrease “ecocidal damage.” If we are smarter in our sources and uses of energy, we can have a much less devastating effect on the rest of nature.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:38 PM - Edit history (4)
The impact of aggregate human activity is the product of the number of people times the per capita impact. We need to reduce population, the level of activity and the impact of the activities in some combination.
One of the most significant impacts we have on the planet is through agriculture. I don't think we can reduce the wide-ranging ecological impact of agriculture by 85% and still feed 9 or 10 billion people, so reducing the demand for food - i.e. the population - will have to play a major role.
The greater the level of human activity, the greater the demand for raw materials and natural habitat to be converted for human use. Again, efficiency gains seem unlikely to give us the requisite 85% payback, so reduced levels of human activity will be required.
The impact of our activities depends on the extent to which they displace other species and pollute the land, water and air. CO2-induced climate change, eutrophication, urban sprawl, desertification and ocean fish depletion are a few examples of the impact of our activities.
Taking a page from the concept of the IPAT equation, the change in our planetary impact (PI) is the product of the change in each of these three factors: population (P), activity level (AL) and activity impact (AI). So, deltaPI = deltaP * deltaAL * deltaAI.
If we wish to create a specific change in planetary impact we can get some general idea of what changes we would need to make in the other factors given various assumptions about population levels, activity levels and the impact of our activities.
For instance, let's set deltaPI to 0.15 to achieve what I think is necessary for true long-term planetary sustainability. If we assume a future population of 10 billion, then deltaP will be 1.43. If we then assume that on average we can reduce the overall average impact of human activities (in some general sense) by 1/3, then deltaAI will be 0.66. To achieve the stated goal of (deltaPI=0.15), then the level of activity will have to drop to 0.15/(1.43*0.66) or 0.16 - we will need an 84% reduction in our activity levels.
On the other hand, if we could reduce our population by a third to 4.5 billion and also cut the average impact of our activities by a third, we could achieve that same level of sustainability with a "mere" 65% reduction in our activity levels.
A lot depends on what we are prepared to accept as a definition of sustainability, and how much reduction in numbers, activity levels and impacts we can achieve voluntarily.
As always, I'm of the opinion that we will achieve sustainability only as the result of involuntary changes, but the more progress we make between now and whenever Mother Nature finally bites our ass, the better off we will be.
To bring it back on topic, I am quite sure LFTR would make little noticeable difference in the larger picture, as the impact reduction would be quite modest even in the most optimistic case, and it would not promote the reduction of either activity levels or population.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Human impact on the planet is 6 times what it should be to guarantee long-term sustainability. That means that our impact needs to go down by 85%. So the planetary impact has to decline to 15% of what it is today. That's why I used 0.15 for deltaPI.
Feel free to try it out with your own numbers - I found it was a good aid to thinking about the situation from a big-picture perspective.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Since it's your claim, i'm interested in your numbers, not mine. Thanks.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 30, 2011, 08:26 PM - Edit history (1)
Here are the factors:
World population was about a billion, for a deltaP of 0.15.
The level of human activity was much lower because it was not leveraged by technology (specifically internal combustion engines), though the impact of each action was probably much greater.
The activity impact was higher both because the forms of energy being used had greater environmental impact per BTU (esp. deforestation and horse-shit), and because the technologies were inefficient both in energy use and waste production. My impression is that the average activity impact may have been several times higher than today.
So I've settled on an deltaAL of 0.5 and a deltaAI of 4.0.
That gives a deltaPI of 0.15*0.5*4.0 = 0.3 or about a third as much as today.
However we also know that the ecological impact of this situation was already significant and worsening. Evidence for this is Middle East desertification, the deforestation of of Europe, the pollution of rivers near cities and the extinction of notable species such as buffalo and passenger pigeons.
Combining those two threads of thought leads me to the conclusion that a truly sustainable deltaPI is much less than 0.3. For lack of any more precise method of estimation I've settled on a value of half that, 0.15. While that may still be too high, it's closer to being truly sustainable over the long term (i.e. over thousands of years) than our current situation.
Of course this is all guesstimation, and is coloured by my personal inner state and residual beliefs. The estimation method is crude, the definitions of sustainability are open to question, and the future impact of today's activity is unpredictable. Nevertheless, this is how I've arrived at my conclusion that we need to reduce human impact on the planet by 85%.
We won't, of course, but it's nice to know what it would take to rectify our imbalance with the planet's natural systems and other inhabitants.
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)Massive gas chambers?
Walling off major parts of the population so that they can't migrate to places where they can find food and water?
Got a whiz-bang hi tech way to off a few billion folks? Some super-dooper poison we could put in candy bars and drop over continents?
How about human-killing solar-powered robots?
And, in your fantasy, do you somehow survive to be the tribal chief?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)The best we can do is limit the damage we do between now and then, and preserve as many of the planet's innate capabilities and resources as possible.
Everyone dies eventually.
I am an anarchist, with no desire to rule over anyone else.
Your comments are puerile.
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)I asked you some questions which you did not answer.
The required change. I take that to mean the required change needed to get us off fossil fuels and to feed 9-10 billion people at the peak?
We're going to have to replace every single coal plant, every single gas plant, and every single nuclear plant in existence today, one way or another. Things wear out. The only questions are what we will use to replace them with and how rapidly we'll get the job done.
We already produce enough food to feed 9 billion people. We just lose a lot to spoilage, vermin and misuse. Africa produces 2x the amount of food it consumes but loses about half of their production because they don't have adequate transportation and storage facilities. That's food for one billion right there. And Africa could produce far more food with better agricultural practices.
Will we make the transition off fossil fuels fast enough to keep some of us from perishing from climate change? Probably passed that point already. We seem to have increased the frequency of major weather events and we're already taking out small numbers of us via floods, heat waves, forest fires, droughts, etc.
Will we improve our food systems fast enough to keep people from dying of starvation? Way too late to prevent everyone from dying of starvation, that's been going on throughout history.
Science is working hard to improve our production ability. China is bringing ag tech to Africa. We've probably got a decent chance of feeding everyone.
Will we crash our systems and kill off most of us? It's possible, but not a certainty. We probably still have a few years to get serious about reducing greenhouse gases. And we have the technology we need to replace fossil fuels.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It has much more to do with preserving the sustainability of life overall. I view human beings as one thread in the global ecological tapestry. My orientation is toward preserving as much of the tapestry as possible, rather than focusing solely on the preservation of just a thread or two.
From this point of view, feeding humans is not my sole concern - I care equally if not more about what we are doing to the rest of life in the process. Likewise, getting us off fossil fuels is not so much about preserving (very adaptable) human life, but more about keeping the pH of the oceans from soaring past life-threatening limits, and keeping the planet from warming past the adaptability thresholds of innumerable other, less mobile species.
I'm more concerned about the welfare of life as a whole - not just because our own welfare depends on it, but also because I feel that all life has intrinsic value and deserves to be respected and protected because of that.
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)How do you propose getting rid of 85% of the people on the planet?
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)redway420
(9 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)No one (certainly not me) wants to kill that many people to make the planet more habitable for other life.
However, I do think true long-term sustainability can only be achieved with fewer than a billion humans. Things that can't continue, don't continue. Unsustainable situations by definition can't continue. Since we will not redress the balance deliberately, Nature will eventually do it and we will be involuntary participants.
Do you see the difference?
My position is that the more the imbalance between humans and all other life is widened, the more painful the eventual redress will be for all concerned. To accomplish that, I'd love to see a number of generations of single-child families. That won't happen, but we still have to do what we can.
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)Is that 85% of all people die off from starvation and dehydration?
We achieve your goal by doing nothing to mitigate the great die-off?
"Nature will eventually do it and we will be involuntary participants" implies that we are going to sit back let "nature" whack us a big one....
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)However that doesn't mean we will do nothing to try and mitigate it, and certainly not that we should do nothing. I just expect that most of those efforts will be unsuccessful in one way or another.
Policies that don't take account of the fact that we are facing an existential crisis are likely to produce the wrong outcome. Certainly a policy of simply kicking the can down the road (aka "extend and pretend"
is going to prove singularly unhelpful.
Most people don't get that we're already in the end game, or that we're still pushing the levers the wrong direction. You might read Donella Meadows' paper on leverage points (PDF) for more insight.
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)I just don't see any realistic thinking on your part.
"I just expect that most of those efforts will be unsuccessful in one way or another."
" are likely to produce the wrong outcome"
"we're already in the end game"
"we're still pushing the levers the wrong direction"
Too doomer for me....
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)wtmusic
(39,166 posts)and some who are either:
1) not bearing witness to it,
2) have a profound lack of imagination, or
3) have a profound lack of compassion
feel quite comfortable writing them off as a statistic.
"You know, I never feel comfortable on these sort of things. Victims? Don't be melodramatic. Look down there. Tell me. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax - the only way you can save money nowadays." Harry Lime, The Third Man
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)During the 1990s the rate was about 10 million a year. About the same as 30,000 per day if one adjusts for population growth.
I think we'd have to see a rate increase to blame those deaths on climate change. I'm not seeing "already well underway" from the little data at hand....
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Well underway.
"Since 1988, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reviewed scientific research, and provided governments with summaries and advice on climate problems. In its most recent report, the IPCC concludes that the average temperature of the earth's surface has risen by 0.6 °C since the late 1800s. It is expected to increase by another 1.4–5.8 °C by the year 2100 – a rapid and profound change. Even if the minimum predicted increase takes place, it will be larger than any century-long trend in the last 10 000 years. The principal reason for the global increase in temperatures is a century and a half of industrialization, with the burning of ever-greater quantities of oil, gasoline, and coal; the cutting of forests; and use of certain farming methods.
Climatic changes already are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually."
http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/
Bob Wallace
(549 posts)I would imagine that numbers are quite a bit higher now.
Attribution is very difficult.
Maslo55
(61 posts)Your assertion that increased energy usage (when satisfied by clean energy) will lead to damage to the environment is ridiculous.
And even if it wasnt, it would still be far better than humanity reverting to stone age. People first.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)To be so sure...
Here's what drives my concern:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11272820
Hansen explained his decision to speak out as "a matter of intergenerational justice." He began voicing his concerns after he "realized governments were not responding to the information that was available." "This is what we must get the public to understand—that people wouldn't intentionally leave children in a situation guaranteed to have tragic results but that's the pathway we're on," said Hansen. "We have a really sensitive climate system ... and we have only witnessed so far a fraction of the results."
Maslo55
(61 posts)Your argument against abundant CO2-free energy sources is that humans are now causing climate change by releasing CO2 from fossil fuels? Its a non sequitur. If anything, it supports my point that CO2-free energy would result in bettering the environment, since it would displace such fossil energy.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:41 PM - Edit history (1)
The predicament that humanity finds ourselves in extends far beyond the simple issue of C02 and climate change. The following excerpt is the opening of an article I wrote earlier in the year to sketch out my views more completely.
We are now well into a global crisis that may mark the end of this cycle of human civilization. In this note I present a summary of what’s going on as far as I can tell, as well as a scenario for how things might develop over the next 75 years or so.
Because the global predicament manifests itself in some way in virtually every area of human endeavour, any useful approach to it must be massively cross-disciplinary. Fruitful areas for investigation include:
Human Issues:
- Politics
- Economics
- Finance (especially the characteristics and behaviour of money)
- History
- Anthropology
- Sociology
- Neuro-psychology
- Agriculture
- Peak Oil and oil production in general
- Classical electrical generation (coal, nuclear and hydro power)
- Renewable electrical generation (wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and biomass)
- Biofuels (including ERoEI considerations)
- Rare Earth metal supplies
- Copper and Iron ore concentrations
- Ecology (especially related to carrying capacity and footprint)
- Climate change
- Ocean acidification
- Methane tipping points (permafrost and oceanic hydrates)
- Species extinctions (including oceanic overfishing)
- Deforestation and desertification
- Fresh water depletion
- Soil fertility depletion
- Pollution: chemicals, heavy metals, radioactive waste, eutrophication, oceanic debris fields etc.
- Complex adaptive systems and resilience theory
- Complexity theory and “Liebig’s Law of the Minimum”
- Geoengineering
- Genetic engineering (especially related to agriculture)
- Habitat loss due to human numbers/activity
- Overpopulation
- “Peak Food”
C02-free energy will address some of these issues, but not all. And IMO nuclear power of any sort is far too risky to be building out this close to the end game. Let renewables to what they can. There are many other places where we can apply our efforts, to issues that will have more far-reaching benefits for the planet, at far lower risk and cost.
Did that help explain my position?
Maslo55
(61 posts)is based on faulty apocalyptic vision that there is an "end game" (whatever you mean by that), or better, that there will be an end game even with abundant clean energy source (without it there may indeed be), and by faulty assertion that Gen III+/IV nuclear energy such as IFR or LFTR is "too risky".
Yes, we must eventually address all these points you listed. While clean abundant energy wont solve all, its still better than nothing (status quo). It certainly wont lead to damage - which was your original point. That does not follow.
And in fact, cheap abundant energy can address majority of those issues you listed. Energy is the ultimate raw material. If LFTR promises deliver, it would be a complete game-changer. We can use the cheap electricity and heat for many things which are not economical or possible now. Large scale desalination of sea water, vertical farming, heat/electric catalysed production of hydrogen, carbon neutral fuels from CO2 and H2 (methanol, DME), ammonia (both for fertiliser and as a promising fuel), wide deployment of electric cars, cheap district heating, fission products of a LFTR include stable rare elements such as rhodium, ruthenium, palladium, technetium, cesium, xenon, neodymium, molybdenium and zirconium which are relied heavily on in modern electronics and industrial processes. These can be extracted from the waste. Medically valuable isotopes such as bismuth-213, very promising radiotherapy agent, are also in the LFTR waste..
LFTR is essentially a very efficient source of high intensity heat. How do you harness and utilise this energy for useful and interesting work is only limited by the laws of thermodynamics and the imagination.
The most important point, argued also by Kirk Sorensen, is that abundant energy increases quality of life, which is the most effective way to lower human population growth, even to turn it negative. If we want to stop overpopulation without resorting to killing or population control, increasing quality of life is the only way.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)That's a good thing. Whatever shape the future takes, it will arise from the dynamic interplay of 7 billion individual visions, many of which are even farther apart than yours and mine. I wish you the best of luck in manifesting your personal vision of the future.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)
hunter
(40,691 posts)“How did 25 million worlds get settled in just 20,000 or so years?”
The answer they came up with is not pretty.
I'll always put those people who are already here on earth first, I am a bleeding heart social justice liberal Democrat, but I still think that until we humans get our shit together and achieve some collective wisdom we're just another invasive species, little more than reindeer on the island who will eat everything and then perish.
http://dieoff.org/page80.htm
Birth Control, education, a cessation of war, outlawing coal mining... these are the kinds of things that will move us forward. A source of cheap, clean energy in and of itself will not; it would only add fuel to the firestorm of humanity that is destroying entire ecosystems.
A source of cheap, clean energy would probably result in increased availability of birth control, education, a cessation of most wars and outlawing coal and oil mining (or they would be mined only as a source of hydrocarbons for plastics and chemical industry, not for fuel).