Sky-High Radiation Found in Fukushima Fish

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/18-2

In the latest discovery revealing the ongoing and devastating effects of the Fukushima nuclear disaster of 2011, a fish contaminated with over 2,500 times the legal amount of radiation has been caught off the coast of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan, officials announced Friday.

Plant operator TEPCO stated that the radioactive element caesium was detected in a murasoi fish at levels "equivalent to 254,000 becquerels per kilogramme -- or 2,540 times more than the government seafood limit," Agence France-Press reports.

Radioactive contamination has remained consistent in the after-life of the crippled nuclear plant. In October, a group of scientists discovered that the plant was likely still leaking radiation into the sea, with up to 40% of bottom feeding fish near the site of the nuclear disaster still showing elevated levels of radiation.

"The fact that many fish are just as contaminated today with caesium 134 and caesium 137 as they were more than one year ago implies that caesium is still being released to the food chain," Ken Buesseler, senior scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution of the United States reported at that time.

[PearliePoo2]

1. More from the article:

"Radioactive contamination has remained consistent in the after-life of the crippled nuclear plant. In October, a group of scientists discovered that the plant was likely still leaking radiation into the sea, with up to 40% of bottom feeding fish near the site of the nuclear disaster still showing elevated levels of radiation."

"The fact that many fish are just as contaminated today with caesium 134 and caesium 137 as they were more than one year ago implies that caesium is still being released to the food chain," Ken Buesseler, senior scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution of the United States reported at that time.

"The (radioactivity) numbers aren't going down. Oceans usually cause the concentrations to decrease if the spigot is turned off," he added. "There has to be somewhere they're picking up the cesium."

[mother earth]

2. When exactly is this going to be deemed a global threat? Wonder when the cancer rates will show

a sharp increase, esp. on the USA West coast?

If it's not enough for radiation to continually be streamed into the food supply and ocean, what the hell is going to set off alarm bells? Why aren't scientists (like this guy in the article) screaming about this themselves & asking our own gov't to take action?

[MAD Dave]

3. One quick comment

Remember, assuming that the amount of caesium being released is relatively constant, the concentration of radioactive caesium decreases as the square of the distance from the source. In other words, you could likely dump the entire contents of the crippled reactor into the sea and not expect an increase in cancer rates on US Soil as a result.

Fearmongering really pisses me off!

Asbestos underwear on - Flame away.

[PearliePoo2]

5. No Flaming but...

two other words: FOOD CHAIN.
Up, up and AWAY...

[PearliePoo2]

6. Fukushima Radiation Found In California Tuna

http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Japan-s-radiation-found-in-California-bluefin-tuna-3591176.php

[flamingdem]

7. Many fish are migratory so the dilution is not going to help there

and high levels were discovered in tuna in CA. Mostly the fish aren't being tested, so who knows.

[FBaggins]

62. Sure it would.

In this case you replace the dilution of a concentration of contamination across of growing volume of water... with a fish that leaves the area of contamination for an area without it. The effect is the same.

The fish involved in this story is obviously one that stays near (and feeds in) an area on the sea bottom where large amounts of contamination settled. If it were a migratory fish, it wouldn't stay in the area of contamination.

and high levels were discovered in tuna in CA.

Only if you redefine "high" to mean something entirely different from how everyone else reads it. Total radioactivity was indistinguishable from other tuna, but the amount attributable to Cesium was something like 5bq/kg (when 1bq/kg is more common). This is a truly insignificant figure by any estimation... so calling it "high" is a bit disingenuous.

[Sirveri]

10. That formula is only viable for a gamma point source.

Radioactive contamination is different, you need to factor in a bunch of different stuff when it hits the food chain, like biological half life, predation rates. It's the reason we have mercury warning for seafood still.

[MAD Dave]

64. Mercury is a different bird altogether.

Mercury is a known bio accumulator. To my knowledge, very few, if any organisms have the requisite enzymes or biological pathways to excrete mercury. As a result, the amount of mercury in the food chain increases over time.

Caesium may also bioaccumulate to some extent, but its position in the periodic table posits that it will act very similar to potassium and the overall bio accumulation would be low.

This (http://www.nuclearactive.org/docs/BF_FS.pdf) summary paper suggests that if you comsumed 10,000 kg of game fish over the course of your lifetime from near Los Alamos National Labratory, a site with known high levels of radionuclide contamination including caesium that you would face an unacceptably increased risk of cancer from radioactive caesium. Assuming that you live 75 years, you would have to eat over 3/4 lbs of caesium contaminated fish per day to be exposed to an unacceptable risk. That is a shitload of fish, even marine cultures do not eat that much fish.

The amount of caesium being released into the ocean near Japan would have to be enormous to accumulate enough caesium to be dangerous to North American consumers.

Once again, I hate fearmongering and this whole thing is a prime example.

Again, asbestos (known cancer risk) underwear on - flame away!

[mother earth]

14. Sounds like you'd be a great help to the Japanese gov't...dump everything into the ocean, our work

here is done. All that's left to say is, WTF? For real?

[Buzz Clik]

26. Was that really what was said? No.

Please.

[kestrel91316]

51. You are assuming that ocean currents don't exist and sea life does not move around.

[PearliePoo2]

4. Rep. Markey wrote an excellent letter to NOAA and the FDA asking pertinent questions...

I can't find their reply to him yet (if there even was one)
Here's the article with links to the letters:

http://markey.house.gov/press-release/markey-focuses-fukushima-fish-fallout

[flamingdem]

8. Let's hope Markey continues his work from the Senate! He's great n/t

[bvar22]

9. "Everybody RELAX."

"I know Science,
and there is absolutely nothing to worry about!
They're just venting a little steam."

I know Science and YOU don't,
so you are all just stupid little Luddite Henny Pennies.
"These plants are perfectly safe
because they have redundant Back Up systems."

Did I mention that I know SCIENCE?
These new plants are so safe
that they can be built on known faults in seismically active areas,
and nothing can ever go wrong,
because they have redundant back up systems,
and I know Science!

So stop running around like a bunch of little Luddite girls,
put on your Big Boy pants,
and go eat some radiation!

...because wadda u gonna do?
Burn Coal?

Did I mention that I know Science,
and Nuclear Energy is perfectly safe?

[wtmusic]

11. No scientist is saying there's nothing to worry about.

That's a Luddite Henny Penny myth.

[bvar22]

13. Maybe, maybe not.

... but immediately after the tsunami in Japan,
DU was deluged by shills and idiots claiming to "know science" who were insulting and dismissive to anyone who expressed their legitimate concerns.

My favorites were:
"Relax. They are just venting a little steam.
I know science, and there is nothing to worry about."

Facing such a public and embarrassing failure of one's belief system such as Fukushima,
you would think that a rational person would re-evaluate their faulty belief system,
but no, some are choosing to Double Down with only minor caveats to their rationalizations.

Do you disagree with the following statement:

[font size=3]
The Lesson From Fukushima:

As long as we operate Nuclear Power Plants,
disasters like, or ever greater than, Fukushima CAN and WILL happen again....
and again.....
and again.[/font]

Man has NEVER created a Fail Safe machine.
The millennial persistence of the damage from a Failed (or even a non-failed) Nuclear Power Plant FAR outweighs their benefits.

[PamW]

17. It may be true!

bvar22 states:
My favorites were:
"Relax. They are just venting a little steam.
I know science, and there is nothing to worry about."


bvar22,

Depending on the circumstances; the above statement may very well be TRUE.

For example, if the power plant in question is a PWR; then there are are separate loops for the water that is the reactor coolant, and the water that is the working fluid of the Rankine steam cycle. The water that is the reactor coolant is slightly radioactive due mostly to the activation of contaminants in the water.

The water that is the working fluid of the Rankine steam cycle NEVER goes through the reactor in a PWR; and is hence as safe as the water that is the working fluid in a fossil-fuel fired plant. PWRs and fossil fuel fired plants both have the ability for atmospheric dump or venting of steam. This would be used if the turbine needed to be stopped for a short time to correct a malfunction. Rather than cooling down the whole system, steam is vented to the atmosphere instead of going through the turbine, and it can be stopped to adjust or repair. If repairs will be extensive; then the plant is shutdown and cooled down. However, if what is needed is a minor repair that takes a short amount of time, this venting obviates the need to cool down the whole system in order to stop the turbine.

If this procedure is done in a PWR; the discharge is monitored for radioactivity, as are all discharges from any nuclear power plant. It is conceivable, though unlikely; that the Rankine working fluid water could be contaminated with radioactivity by a leak or malfunction. Therefore, the monitors are there so that if there is a leak or malfunction, the atmospheric dump won't be done, or aborted if one is in process when the malfunction occurs.

Although Man has never created a machine that is 100.000% fail safe; that doesn't stop us from using such devices. Cars, airliners, bridges, you name it are never 100% fail safe; but we still use them.

Nuclear power plants come as close to 100% fail safe as we have gotten.

PamW

[chervilant]

22. Sad, really

The extent to which some will go to advocate for nuclear power...

Our species continues to pursue progress with our hedonistic blinders firmly affixed to our myopic 'eyes' as we barrel blithely toward our extinction event. Oh, wait--statistically, some of us should survive . Silly me, to be so concerned.

[PamW]

25. A picture is worth a thousand words.

If you don't understand the post above, perhaps a picture will help.

The following is a diagram of how a PWR - Pressurized Water Reactor works; courtesy of the NRC:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/animated-pwr.html

One can readily see the two loops; the primary reactor coolant loop is the yellow / red loop.

The secondary loop; which is the Rankine steam cycle working fluid is the light blue / dark blue loop.

If you replaced the "steam generator" with a coal-fired boiler; then that and the balance of plant would be exactly what is in a coal-fired power plant. The Rankine working fluid steam is the only steam that can be vented. The Rankine working fluid doesn't go through the reactor, and so is not radioactive.

There is no venting of the primary coolant, the yellow / red loop.

Contrary to the suggestion of another poster, it is NEVER sad to educate people with the scientific facts.

PamW

[chervilant]

39. Condescension

About our intellectual abilities does not mitigate the grim reality that our species' unfettered hedonism (yes, we're so godlike with our technological prowess ...) will likely be our swan song.

And, do not mistake my realism for pessimism. I find our existence most fascinating, and remain hopeful that we'll get a clue before global climate change radically reduces our numbers.

[PamW]

41. Pot calling the kettle black..

It wasn't an attempt to be condescending that prompted the explanations about the PWR design above.

It was an attempt at education. Some here evidently believed that the release of steam from a PWR automatically means a release of radioactivity.

The posts above are an attempt to educate the members of the forum that a PWR has three separate loops, and only one of those loops goes through the reactor and has radioactivity. Another of the loops is the working fluid of the Rankine steam cycle, and it doesn't go through the reactor and is no more radioactive in a nuclear plant than the analogous loop in a fossil plant. This loop is sealed from the environment unless there is an atmospheric dump of steam; i.e. the "venting" in question. The third loop cools the condenser, and normally dumps waste heat to the environment.

If there was any condescension here, it is on the part of the above poster who says, "The extent to which some will go to advocate for nuclear power... " is "really, really sad".

Now who is actually being self-righteous and condescending.

The vast majority of scientists, including over 99% of the physicists / engineers who really understand nuclear power in its finest details; are in complete support of nuclear power. The people that know these systems best are the ones with the most confidence in them.

So belittling those that support nuclear power, even though their knowledge is greater than yours; is the true condescension here.

PamW

[chervilant]

44. Again?

That trick never works! (Pardon the reference to Bullwinkle's relentless efforts to pull rabbits from his hat -- it just seems apropos...)

I do not need for you to repeatedly post your extensive knowledge of nuclear reactors or your numerous credentials. Nor do I need for you to presume that those of us who oppose nuclear energy simply don't understand the technology.

Chernobyl and Fukushima are powerful reasons for our species to devote our resources to developing renewable energy technologies. In fact, the majority of the GP agree that the time is right to develop 'green' energies.

Note that you presume to know my (and others') level of knowledge about nuclear power. Moreover, you completely missed bvar's rather delicious sarcasm. (Being pedantic seldom results in education...)

[PamW]

46. It's NOT presumption

chervilant states
Nor do I need for you to presume that those of us who oppose nuclear energy simply don't understand the technology.

It's NOT presumption when you say things that demonstrate that you don't understand the technology.

When someone states that atmospheric dump of steam from the Rankine working fluid in a PWR automatically means a release of radioactivity; that in and of itself demonstrates a lack of understanding.

I find the vast majority of the complaints and arguments against nuclear power by anti-nukes are founded on such lack of understanding of the technology and the requisite science.

Not all of us are nuclear physicists like myself; and when you've been shown to be in the wrong, don't get in a huff; just LEARN from your ERROR and do better next time.

PamW

[chervilant]

47. OIC

You are whingeing about whichever DUer presumed that all steam released from a nuclear reactor is radioactive?

Durn...lucky that wasn't me...

[PamW]

48. Why would I be lucky..

Why would I be lucky it wasn't you?

I can handle and correct the scientific errors promulgated by you or any other anti-nuke.

The poster above was complaining that someone said that the atmospheric dump wasn't radioactive, and that person said he / she knew the science. All I said was that, contrary to the poster making the complaint; that atmospheric steam dump in a PWR was non-radioactive. It is CORRECT that the atmospheric dump steam is not radioactive.

So many of the anti-nukes on this forum thrive on falsehoods and lies and fear-mongering. I want the members of this forum to know the accurate information.

I don't care who is LYING on this forum; be it pushing a particular political agenda, or just plain abject ignorance and stupidity because they didn't take science courses in high school.

I will always opt for correcting these errors so that the members here have accurate information.

I don't care who I have to disagree with, including you. I know I have the FACTS on my side.

PamW

[chervilant]

53. Wow, Pam

I am getting worried about you.

bvar was being facetiously sarcastic. He has a delightful wit that I very much admire.

And, I said that I am lucky that I'm not the DUer who asserted that an atmospheric steam dump is radioactive.

Good luck policing the internet for all the abjectly ignorant people who failed to take science classes in high school.

[kristopher]

56. Bvar was correct

Fukushima's reactors were boiling water reactors and the steam was contaminated.

Switching the discussion to pressurized water reactors is a transparently dishonest tactic.

The boiling water reactor (BWR) is a type of light water nuclear reactor used for the generation of electrical power. It is the second most common type of electricity-generating nuclear reactor after the pressurized water reactor (PWR), also a type of light water nuclear reactor. The main difference between a BWR and PWR is that in a BWR, the reactor core heats water, which turns to steam and then drives a steam turbine. In a PWR, the reactor core heats water, which does not boil. This hot water then exchanges heat with a lower pressure water system, which turns to steam and drives the turbine. The BWR was developed by the Idaho National Laboratory and General Electric in the mid-1950s. The main present manufacturer is GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, which specializes in the design and construction of this type of reactor.

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

List of BWRs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BWRs

They are large segment of the global reactor fleet.

[chervilant]

57. Indeed

AND, if you've read the rest of that person's posts, you might conclude (as did I) that her primary objective is to assert her 'superior' intellectual prowess.

DailyKos had an article recently that shows how survey methodology is cleverly used to generate 'positive' reactions about nuclear reactors. A preponderance of respondents (80%) support the development of 'green' energy technologies.

I suspect that the Fukushima disaster has had an impact on the GP's opinion about nuclear energy ...

[PamW]

59. WRONG AGAIN!!!

The purpose is TOTALLY to get the members of the forum good scientifically accurate information and NOT the self-serving propaganda that is the normal fare for the anti-nukes.

PamW

[chervilant]

63. Self-serving propaganda?

You are relentlessly pedantic and condescending in your assaults on "anti-nukes" and I doubt that your lengthy diatribes are garnering the attention you seem to think they warrant.

I think you are destined for my IL; you have become quite boring.

[PamW]

58. Damn it, Kris - I said PWR!!!

Last edited Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Kris,

Damn it, Kris - I specifically said PWR. Contrary to your ill-conceived contention above that I was using a "dishonest tactic" in switching to a PWR, my post was NOT dishonest. Do you know why? Because BWRs don't have atmospheric dump capabilities. ONLY PWRs have atmospheric dump capability.

Contrary to being a "dishonest tactic"; there's was no switch. The presence of atmospheric dump implies the reactor is a PWR. Nothing dishonest except Kris' tactics.

Courtesy of the NRC, here is the diagram of the PWR system:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/animated-pwr.html

Note that the only water loop that goes through the reactor is the "primary" loop with the yellow / red color. Since it is the only loop that goes through the reactor, it is the only loop that is slightly radioactive.

As I stated in my first explanation, the purpose of the atmospheric dump is so one can stop the turbine for a short time for adjustment or repairs. In order to stop the turbine, you have to stop the flow of the steam through the turbine, which means you have to vent the loop that is the working fluid of the Rankine steam cycle. In the PWR, that loop doesn't go through the reactor, so that water is non-radioactive, and hence one can vent it to stop the turbine.

Now here's the diagram of the BWR system:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/animated-bwr.html

The BWR doesn't have steam generators. Note that in the BWR, the Rankine working fluid that goes through the turbine also goes through the reactor. In the BWR, the reactor coolant and Rankine working fluid are one and the same loop. Since this loop goes through the reactor, it is radioactive.

Because of that, BWRs DO NOT have atmospheric steam dump capability

In a BWR, if you want to stop the turbine; there is a valve called the "turbine bypass valve". When you want to stop the turbine; the turbine bypass valve diverts steam from the reactor directly to the condenser without going through the turbine. Instead of dumping steam to the atmosphere, the steam is condensed, and the heat is dumped to the environment by the water loop that cools the condenser.

So if someone says a nuclear reactor plant is doing an "atmospheric steam dump"; then that reactor can NOT be a BWR since they don't have atmospheric dump capability. They have the turbine bypass to the condenser in lieu of atmospheric dump.

Therefore, if a nuclear plant in doing an atmospheric dump; it MUST be a PWR. In the PWR, the Rankine working fluid is NOT radioactive, and so it DOES NOT release radioactivity to the environment.

Thus, bvar and Kris are BOTH WRONG.

PamW

[FBaggins]

60. You've been pitching that strawman for about a year now. - Correction

Last edited Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:35 PM - Edit history (1)

I can find lots of places where you claim it was said... what I can't find is a single example of anyone actually saying it in March 2011.

Surely you can provide a link since you're using quotation marks?

On edit - My apologies. I did a more thorough search and find that in fact you've been pitching that strawman since three weeks after Fukushima... not "about a year".


I found it particularly interesting to note that the first instance was in reply to someone else who claimed expertise and recommended that people look at the thyroid cancer spikes around TMI... when in fact there have been no statistically significant increase in thyroid cancer around TMI.

[longship]

27. Straw man speaking there. Updated.

Science does inform with facts. But what science does most importantly, is ask questions. Both the facts -- the data -- and the questions are equally important.

Please resist the temptation to portray science as some monolithic, unchanging enterprise. It just isn't so.

I cannot think of any expression of the ideals of science more than those expressed by humanist-mathematician Jacob Bronowski in his BBC/PBS series, The Ascent of Man. It forms the capstone of the episode entitled, Knowledge or Certainty. Here it is:

And, for those who cannot view it all, here is what he said:

“There are two parts to the human dilemma. One is the belief that the ends justifies the means, that push button philosophy, that deliberate deafness to suffering has become the monster in the war machine. The other is the betrayal of the human spirit, the assertion of dogma that closes the mind and turns nations and civilizations into a regiment of ghosts -- obedient ghosts or tortured ghosts.

It's said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That's false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance, it was done by dogma, it was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken."

I owe it as a scientist to my friend Leo Szilard, I owe it as a human being to the many members of my family who died here, to stand here as a survivor and a witness. We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to touch people.”

That, DUers, expresses what science is about.

On edit: I am tempted to post this as an OP, given the lesson that Bronowski is relating here, is one we should never forget. Even here, I see ones who do not see what's important.

[bvar22]

28. Actually, YOUR post is the Strawman.

My post didn't attack "Science",
but those shills for the Nuclear Industry at DU who insisted that anybody worried about Fukushima didn't know "Science", and that those who DID weren't concerned.

[longship]

29. It didn't come off like that.

And I apologize if you took my post wrongly. Possibly you read the title, but not the post.

Regardless, the problems at Fukushima are not science problems, but the applications of science, which is an entirely different thing. For instance, Leo Szilard, the physicist who first realized that radioactivity might give rise to a weapon of incredible destruction, attempted to put that knowledge under a veil of secrecy. He attempted a patent in the UK. He knew what it meant and he did what he could to stop it. Even while FDR was dying, Szilard and others were attempting to stop the use of the monster he had first thought up, and which he, every step of the way, attempted to prevent.

If one actually reads my post, and maybe views the video, one may see the demarcation. I am passionate about science. But I am also very passionate about humanism. I don't know that one can separate one from the other. I do not think anybody could put it more succinctly or with such passion as Bronowski's final sentence in that essay.

We have to touch people!

Possibly you missed that part of the message. Maybe you ought to view the entire episode. Perspective is important here. Facts are important. Questions are important, even those which may never be answered. But we must keep on asking them, nonetheless.

View the video and maybe you'll see things differently.

[PamW]

30. Revisionist History - INCORRECT!!!

longship states:
For instance, Leo Szilard, the physicist who first realized that radioactivity might give rise to a weapon of incredible destruction, attempted to put that knowledge under a veil of secrecy. He attempted a patent in the UK. He knew what it meant and he did what he could to stop it. Even while FDR was dying, Szilard and others were attempting to stop the use of the monster he had first thought up, and which he, every step of the way, attempted to prevent.

longship,

The above is revisionist history. The USA's effort to develop nuclear weapons, the Manhattan Project; was started because of the famous "Einstein letter". The letter over Einstein's signature updated FDR on the possibility of making a nuclear weapon, and indications that Germany may be in the process of doing so. Hence, the USA needed to begin the effort to develop nuclear weapons as a hedge against Germany doing so.

Although Einstein signed the letter, he didn't write it. The person that actually wrote the famous "Einstein letter" was Leo Szilard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szil%C3%A1rd_letter

The Einstein–Szilárd letter was a letter sent to the United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt on August 2, 1939, that was signed by Albert Einstein.

However, the letter was largely written by Leó Szilárd in consultation with fellow Hungarian physicists Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner.

The letter suggested that the U.S. should begin its own research because of the potentially vast destructive power of atomic bombs. Einstein, Szilárd, Teller and Wigner were among a number of concerned scientists who initially feared Nazi Germany would develop the weapon first.

Contrary to the claim that Leo Szilard was attempting to stop the development of nuclear weapons; Leo Szilard, Edward Teller, and Eugene Wigner; were encouraging the USA to develop nuclear weapons technology, because they were afraid that Nazi Germany would develop nuclear weapons first, and have a monopoly on nuclear weapons, as the USA did at the end of World War II.

http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html

PamW

[longship]

33. Well, you are selective in your history here.

Szilard was one of the many physicists who abandoned physics for biological research after the war.

You really didn't bother to watch Bronowski's essay, did you. Szilard spent his last years at Salk Institute, not Los Alamos. He was prominent among physicists who petitioned Roosevelt to, instead of dropping the bomb on Japan, demonstrate its power in a non-killing demonstration to international observers, including the Japanese.

Unfortunately, Roosevelt died and in the shuffle of the transfer of power the letter may not have gotten to Truman's desk. Whatever happened, Truman opted to use the bomb against Japan, twice. His rationale was the number of GIs who would have died invading the Japanese homeland. History will never say who was correct, the scientists, or Truman. But make no mistake here, Szilard was foremost in advocating against the bomb's use, if not the premier and prominent among physicists of that sentiment. He did write the Einstein letter, but he did it because he realized that the genie was already out of the bottle and Germany had the same information as everybody.

Now Teller was an asshole from day one. He has been called the father of the H-bomb, but his first design tested was a dud -- it fizzled. So not only was he an asshole who wanted to make a bomb which was unnecessary and which responsible physicists opposed, including Oppenheimer, Szilard, and many others, he politically opposed those who opposed his saber rattling. He single-handedly destroyed Oppie for his opposition to The Super. Read about Oppie and you will know.

Please do not lecture me about history on this. As one educated in physics and this history, I know the players and the side they took.

Szilard was always against the use of the bomb. To state otherwise is to show ignorance of the man's character, and of the actual history.

You really didn't bother viewing Bronowski's essay, did you? That's your loss, my friend. You will never understand Leo Szilard until you do.

I don't know what history you are reading. I recommend Richard Rhodes' two books on the bombs as a start. Then, take some physics classes to understand the scientific/political milieu in the late thirties when physicists realized that world war was upon us and that there was no stopping the development of atomic weaponry. That was the situation that made Szilard, in spite of his previous attempts to keep atomic energy secret, to petition Roosevelt with the Einstein letter that Germany could develop such a beast. Indeed, Teller may have been part of that sentiment. But Szilard and Teller were continents apart (so to speak) by the time it came to using the bomb and developing the super.

Read Rhodes' books.

[PamW]

34. More REVISIONIST history

longship stated:
Now Teller was an asshole from day one. He has been called the father of the H-bomb, but his first design tested was a dud -- it fizzled. So not only was he an asshole who wanted to make a bomb which was unnecessary and which responsible physicists opposed, including Oppenheimer, Szilard, and many others, he politically opposed those who opposed his saber rattling. He single-handedly destroyed Oppie for his opposition to The Super. Read about Oppie and you will know.

longship,

I HAVE studied this - evidently more than you have, and have access to more of the history.

You are 100% WRONG about Teller. First, his first experiment was NOT a "fizzle". The first experiment in thermonuclear weaponry was the test code named "Greenhouse George". It was not supposed to be a full scale hydrogen bomb. What it was supposed to do - it did VERY WELL. That gave the scientists confidence to proceed with the design of Ivy Mike, which was the first full scale test. Ivy Mike had a yield of 10 Megatons - no fizzle.

You are also ignorant of the history of the need for the H-bomb. Read Andrei Sakharov's autobiography "Memoirs". I can tell you EXACTLY the place to read - page 99 and 100. Sakharov states that as of 1948, even before the USA decided on going forward with H-bomb development, Stalin and Beria had already decided the USSR would pursue it. He states the USSR was going full forward with H-bomb development whether or not the USA did. Sakharov says that while Oppenheimers and others motives were OK; they were naive. He says Teller was right, and glad the USA followed Teller and not Oppie.

Teller didn't destroy Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer did it to himself. Oppenheimer embarrassed AEC Chairman Lewis Strauss; and it was Strauss that "got Oppenheimer".

You not only are WRONG; you are also PRESUMPTUOUS. I have read all of Rhodes books. I also read the books of others involved in nuclear weapons development. I read Sakharov.

I did watch the video. No loss here. Why are you so arrogantly presumptive as to make claims you can't possible know?

I will lecture you because you just know the "popular" history and not the true story.

I've met Teller, attended seminars; and the main was positively BRILLIANT. He saw a way to make H-bombs, when Oppie thought it was impossible.

I don't need any more physics classes. I am a physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Lab. I DO KNOW the history of my profession.

PamW

[longship]

35. A Clarification

About Teller. He was an asshole. So many people said so. History will not be kind to him. He helped found the Livermore lab, IIRC, when he had become a pariah at Los Alamos, from which he resigned when he couldn't get his way. Teller might have been brilliant, but he was petulant and difficult to control and ideologically unmoveable, not a good tact for a scientist.

Oppie was different in character. Yes, he helped himself self-destruct. But Teller really stuck the knife in his back and twisted it. Remember, this was about McCarthyism, not atomic physics, and Teller and Oppie were on opposite sides, politically. Science took a back seat. It destroyed Oppie, as we both know. I do not dispute that Oppie did little to help his case.

On Teller's dud, I miss remembered the info. You were correct. It wasn't the George test, whose purpose was a demonstration of Teller's original ideas. It worked, albeit not a full scale demonstration, which was never meant to be.

I was speaking of the full scale Koon test, which had a predicted yield of one megaton and yielded 110 kilotons, a dud by any measure. It was the first thermonuclear out of Teller's team at Livermore, an alarm clock design. That was the one I recalled.

Finally, my friend, if you wish to be respected on these forums, please stop calling people names. I am no revisionist historian. It has been years since I read this history and my recall was inaccurate. I will gladly admit my errors but I do not like being called names. You would do well to not be so petulant. I will promise the same.

[PamW]

36. If you don't like the response; don't make the mistake.

longship,

If you are unsure about what you are about to post; then look it up before you post.

Actually, Los Alamos and its post Oppenheimer director Norris Bradbury were actually rather reticent to pursue the thermonuclear program. Bradbury and Los Alamos were set on a program of just designing bigger A-bombs, and not the H-bombs.

Rather than fight with the Los Alamos administration, Teller founded his own Lab with help from E.O. Lawrence. It's a good thing he did; because LLNL has really eclipsed Los Alamos.

Here is a wiki entry on the Koon test.

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

Actually, having a fizzle really isn't bad, because that's how we learn. In fact the first few tests of the newly created Livermore Lab were fizzles because the lab was devoted to being innovative:

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

From its inception, Livermore focused on innovative weapon design concepts; as a result, its first three nuclear tests were unsuccessful. However, the Lab persevered and its subsequent designs proved increasingly successful.

As far as the downfall of Oppenheimer; Teller played a really minor part.

All during the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer was doing things that if done by anyone else would certainly get their security clearance terminated. Oppenheimer was seeing a mistress, Jean Tatlock. Marital infidelity to his wife, Kitty would have gotten his security clearance yanked. Additionally, Oppenheimer associated with known Communists, including his mistress, Jean Tatlock.

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

During the Manhattan Project, General Groves "looked the other way" with regard to Oppenheimer's security infractions. However, after the war; Oppenheimer crossed swords with AEC Chairman Lewis Strauss, and made Strauss look very bad in front of a Senate hearing.

Oppenheimer was vulnerable due to his security infractions, and needed Strauss to look the other way as Groves did. Then he made Strauss look bad. Oppenheimer was asked why he did that later on in life, and his reply was, "...because I was stupid".

Teller went to the hearing with the original intention of speaking in defense of Oppenheimer. Just before his testimony, the prosecutor, Roger Robb; took Teller aside and showed him the security file on Oppenheimer with all those transgressions that would have gotten anyone else's clearance terminated.

Teller's testimony was basically that he didn't understand Oppenheimer's judgement in doing all these actions which were security offenses.

Oppenheimer was in so much trouble before Teller's testimony, that Teller could have saved him only with unswerving support. However, having just been shown all the infractions of the security rules that Oppenheimer committed; Teller just stated that he "didn't understand" Oppenheimer's judgement.

Although the popular myth is that Teller cost Oppenheimer his clearance; Teller's part was really very minor. Oppenheimer sealed his own fate by violating security rules, and getting a "pass" by Groves. But then Oppenheimer offended Strauss, the man who needed to continue to give him a "pass".

PamW

[longship]

38. Mea culpa for my early morning post.

But your response was more than a bit argumentative. However, I did not take your bait because I do not like chair throwing on DU.

I bow to your expertise. Next time, I would appreciate it if you would be less petulant.

Nice is better.

[wtmusic]

12. Wonder how the fish survived?

The fish is fine, yet just over 28,000 Americans have died from coal pollution since Fukushima. People are fucking nuts.

[mother earth]

15. Another WTF???!!? Adding radiation into the deadly mix isn't helping the planet or humanity.

Maybe you are unaware of dead animals, dead fish, dead birds, etc., reported in mass heaps all over the planet, here and there, with little to no explanations.

How much cesium would you like in your meal? Why not? It's all good. Little to no effects, dig in.

PS You can include coal pollution in my rant too, none of this is good. We are continually killing our planet.
I have it on good authority.

[wtmusic]

16. Perspective is important

and perspective comes with understanding the relative risks involved. And yes, that requires a rudimentary understanding of the science.

There's no doubt animals are dying and species are going extinct at unprecedented rates. If we start with clean slate, it's perfectly legitimate to ask the question, "Could it be a result of radiation poisoning?" But it takes not a lot of further examination to see that virtually none of it (i.e., an infinitesimally small percentage) is attributable to radiation introduced by man, and is mostly the result of habitat destruction, toxic chemical pollution, invasive species, and the effects of global warming.

Releases of radiation like those from Fukushima and Chernobyl certainly aren't helping the planet, or humanity. There's unquestionably a slightly elevated risk of cancer in the areas around Fukushima, and if you were to eat the fish they caught you would receive about the same radiation as 20 chest x-rays. Not lethal, but not healthy either and it might up your chances of getting cancer by several percent.

Now back to perspective: the World Health Organization has found that overall there may be up to 130 additional cancer cases attributable to Fukushima. Had the equivalent amount of power been generated by a coal plant, you could expect about 700 additional cases of cancer every year from the hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere.

If we're going to use computers, electric cars, televisions, washing machines, and refrigerators, nuclear power is far safer than coal. Unlike solar, wind and hydro, we have the technology to replace coal with nuclear today.

[PamW]

19. Continuing the math....

As above, the Fukushima plants save 700 additional cancer case each year; over a 40 year life.

That means that the Fukushima plants have already saved 28,000 cancers in comparison with coal plants.

Now WHO estimates the accident may be responsible for up to 130 cancers.

So even with the accident; the Japanese have 27,870 few cancers because of Fukushima.

It could have been the total 28,000; if only they hadn't done some really stupid things like not burying the fuel tanks for the backup diesels, and putting the backup diesels themselves in a non-watertight basement; so that a tsunami could take out both the diesels and their fuel tanks.

In the USA, the NRC mandates that the fuel tanks be buried, the diesels have to be in water-tight vaults, or high up in a building; and the reactor operator has to have more diesels and fuel offsite ready to be flown in and connected, and they have to drill on this. TEPCO attempted to get some offsite backup diesels to the plant; but they weren't ready and they didn't practice. The diesels they flew in had incompatible connectors. Had they practiced, they would have found that out on the first practice run.

TEPCO is / was a POOR reactor owner / operator. It doesn't have to be like that.

PamW

[mother earth]

20. Maybe your number is applicable today, but the worst of it is yet to be realized IMHO. I think

Fukushima is and was a continuing disaster.

My perspective is that we have f'd our planet over, and I do not accept your "nuclear" option as being our best and only.
To hell with that defeatist attitude. All we need is to actually slough off the lies & invest in solar, wind and alternatives because it is far better for the planet and actually life supporting.

We invest in the WRONG things all the time because of profit motives. We no longer have to bow to this foolhardy approach, the future will be what we make it...choose life or death, it's that simple. Perspective? We all need a serious REALITY check.

[wtmusic]

23. Whether people invest in solar, wind or nuclear, the profit motive is always involved

and I've never disparaged investment in anything that's carbon-free. There's profit to made in each.

There are really two reasons I've come to think that nuclear must be part of the global warming solution. One is that it's powerful enough to make a difference - we know it has the potential to power the planet for most applications. The second is that so-called "generation four" reactors have the promise of being far safer than what we have now.

It's comparable to the current state of civil aviation. I don't know how old you are, but I remember the 1960s, and there were a horrendous number of airline crashes. Every few months one would go down, and hundreds of people would die. Nowadays, domestic air disasters are few and far between, and safety has improved by a factor of...10? 20?. Similarly, new reactor designs are light years ahead of what was used at Fukushima.

My attitude toward energy is the opposite of defeatist. I believe in anything that works. But I don't believe most people understand the severity of the threat of global warming, and how we need to re-evaluate priorities. If global warming will make life on Earth impossible in 3 centuries, what's the point of worrying about whether Yucca Mountain can keep radioactive waste safe for 100 centuries?

You obviously care about the planet and preserving what's left to preserve, that's the important part. If everyone cared, we wouldn't have a problem.

[mother earth]

24. The risks for nuclear power are far too great, and the companies in charge of the sites are

incompetent and don't have a plan for disaster, just like the oil companies, when all hell breaks loose. They don't even care that it's catastrophic.

If we cannot contain a disaster, we should not be using the power source, not to mention nuclear waste generated & what those underground vaults pose as an eventual further threat to this planet. People forget about the waste...nuclear power has far too many cons to outweigh any pros.

It's time we start investing in what makes sense, is good and is right. Have we come this far to forget common sense and integrity? Apparently so, but we can change, and we had better do so before while we have the time and ability to do so, too much is at stake.

[PamW]

31. You've fallen for the anti-nuclear screed, hook, line, and sinker.

First, it's not ignorant people, or corporations that tell us that nuclear is our only true hope; it the SCIENTISTS.

No less than the scientists at the National Academies of Science and Engineering state that because renewables are intermittent, and can't be counted on; that is we don't have a "throttle" on Mother Nature to tell her what our energy demand is; renewables can be at MOST 20% of our electric power mix. They have stated this in numerous energy studies conducted over the last few decades, the most recent published in 2009.

Nobody is forgetting about the waste. The USA wouldn't have a waste problem if we reprocessed and recycled our spent fuel the way other countries like France do. Here's an excerpt from a Frontline program that has an interview with nuclear physicist Dr. Charles Till, who was at the time Associate Director of Argonne National Laboratory:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: And you repeat the process.

A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.

If you reprocess / recycle; then you DO NOT HAVE long lived isotopes; namely the actinides; in your waste stream. GONE is the multi-thousand year "problem" of nuclear waste. You have only fission product waste that have the MUCH SHORTER lifetimes that Dr. Till cites.

Scientist know the limits on renewables; and scientists say our only real solution is nuclear power.

PamW

[mother earth]

40. You forgot how "scientists" can be stifled & paid off, or must answer to the corporate sponsor or

employer. Not every study is objective & many result in dubious findings. When we get profit motive out of our think tanks, I'll trust their studies much more. Follow the money trail...

Hey, even the EPA has given us dubious info (i.e., air quality after 9/11 in NYC), thanks to gov't or political pressure.

Why should we have to embrace coal or nuclear? Why? We have clean alternatives, to hell with the costs, what we will reap is far more cost effective, both in preservation of life & our planet. What more is there?

[PamW]

42. That's CRAP and you should know it.

When we speak of the National Academy of Science; we are NOT talking about people that are "paid off".

It's like the most highly respected Medical Doctors with esteemed reputations; are you going to listen to their opinions on the best medical procedures; or are you going to just dismiss them as being "paid off".

We have to embrace nuclear because we DO NOT have clean alternatives regardless of the cost.

Evidently you didn't understand the above where I stated we don't have a "throttle" on Mother Nature. When it comes to a power grid, the generators have to meet the demand instant by instant. If they don't; the whole grid collapses.

As an analogy, think of it like a 5 men attempting to hold up a 500 lb weight. They all have to hold a 100 lb force on average for a total force of 500 lb. Let's say the 5 men can only generate an upward force of 450 lb at one point - 90% of the total weight. Does that mean that the weight will hover just 10% lower?

NO! If the weight is 500 lb and the men only exert 450 lb upwards; that 50 lb difference means the weight comes crashing down to the ground.

Well, that's how it is with an electric grid. If at any time, the generators are a little short of the energy demand; the whole grid crashes and has to be rebooted. We have a blackout.

We can't count on solar and wind. Solar is guaranteed to be down at night, and at any given moment in the day, there can be fog or clouds obstructing the sunlight. Likewise with wind. At any moment, the wind can die off. We don't have a throttle on Mother Nature to control how much energy she gives us. We can only accept what she is offering. If that isn't enough, and we don't have an alternate source; then our electric grid comes crashing down.

It's a MYTH that we have these clean alternative.

That's what scientists say. You can accept what the scientists like those in the National Academy tell us; or you can be just like the climate deniers.

The climate deniers don't like what the scientists say; so they deny it. They claim the scientists are wrong and are "paid off".

Don't look know; but that's EXACTLY what you are doing. You don't like what the scientists say; so you disparage them. In that case; you are no better than a climate denier. Same tactics and same results.

PamW

[mother earth]

43. BS, tell that to those that GWB enlisted for his agenda, climate deniers...sorry, YOU have it wrong.

I'm on board with real scientists, but it's difficult to separate the good from the bad these days. If you are arguing with me that alternative fuels are not feasible, I'd say any further discussion is moot. It is simply not so. We can subsidize what we want to promote. If we want to get off of oil and nuclear, we can, we only need the will.

[PamW]

45. BALONEY!!!

mother earth,

It's really very simple. In order for our electric grid to stay operational, the generators have to supply exactly as much energy as we draw off the grid. That doesn't mean averaged over the day, like the wind / solar proponents say; it means instant to instant. If the grid stayed up and we continued to draw the energy demanded from it; but the generators were putting less than that amount of energy into the grid; then we would be manufacturing energy out of nothing. The Laws of Physics don't allow for that. The grid would crash.

Think of the grid like your bank checking account. The banks now offer "over-draft protection"; if you write more checks than the amount you have in your account, the bank will loan you the money. As long as your income for the month covers all the checks you wrote that month, it doesn't matter that you wrote a bunch of checks in the early days of the month to cover mortgage and other expenses when you didn't have the money. As long as your income averaged over the month meets your outlay; you are OK.

Now think of how it was before banks offered overdraft protection. Back then, as soon as there was no money in your checking account since it had all been paid out; the bank would refuse to honor your checks due to lack of funds. It didn't matter that you were going to get another paycheck in the middle of the month that would cover the funds.

The Laws of Physics are like this latter case. The Laws of Physics don't extend us temporary credit when it comes to making energy. We have to generate the energy as we use it, and we don't get credit for energy we will generate in the future.

Suppose we run the grid on 100% wind and solar. Now think what happens at night when the wind stops blowing which can certainly happen. The solar panels can't see the sun, so they give us no energy. The wind has stopped, so our wind turbines don't give us energy. Mother Nature has stopped offering us wind / solar energy. If wind / solar were all we had; then the grid would collapse.

We need electric energy 24 / 7 to power our world. We need electric energy 24 / 7 to keep all our refrigeration systems running for our food supply. The whole food delivery chain is based on refrigeration to deliver us healthy food. We need a grid we can count on for that.

So where does the electric energy come from if we only have renewables and Mother Nature stops offering us energy?

NO - we need energy sources that WE control, that we have a throttle on. When the demand goes up; we have a throttle so we can increase generation.

Tell me how we keep a grid powered when the wind stops blowing at night. Solar power goes down for the entire country at night; and we don't have powerlines that reach half-way around the world.

We need more than will. Contrary to your ill-considered statement above, will is NOT ENOUGH.

We have to have systems that are consistent with the Laws of Physics. If the Laws of Physics say "NO"; then all the human will in the world can't get around that.

As long as you keep denying that reality; you are absolutely no better than a climate denier, and have no right to say that you are on the same side as science.

PamW

[mother earth]

49. Spare me your long winded comparisons & try to be succinct. You are writing off alternatives when

the surface & value of alternatives has barely been realized or scratched for that matter. Thermal is another alternative & there are ways to go off the grid, day and night. You can stay in the dark ages and cling to nuclear & oil, if you wish. Why would or should any of us accept this as our only option?

You may as well tell us, If man were meant to fly he'd have wings. Necessity, my friend, necessity is the mother of invention!

I will never believe for one instance that we are forever tied to fossil fuels & nuclear as our only options. We know better, and without a doubt, it is a better way for all including mother earth.

[PamW]

50. Ignorance of Science doesn't cut it.

mother earth states
You may as well tell us, If man were meant to fly he'd have wings. Necessity, my friend, necessity is the mother of invention!

The problem for mother earth is that he / she doesn't understand the limits that the laws of physics or the laws of nature constrain us.

Any scientist or engineer knows that there are some problems we can NEVER "invent" our way out of.

For example, one would find something like this on a science test. We have a source of heat at temperature T-hot and a sink of heat at temperature T-cold. What is the maximum efficiency for energy conversion that we can have operating between these two temperatures.

You see the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics limits the efficiency; and its a law that we can't "invent" ourselves out of. We have to accept that as a limit.

That's one of the big problems with the renewables crowd; they don't know the limits to which Mother Nature constrains us.

Go ahead, get the entire population to denounce nuclear; set up your renewable generation system; and then watch helplessly as Mother Nature won't let it work for you; and there will be NOTHING you can do about.

If you listen to scientists like myself; you will save yourselves a lot of disappointment.

It doesn't matter if you have the votes of every person in the USA and the President on your side.

If you don't have Mother Nature on your side; Mother Nature and the Laws of Physics won't let you do what you want.

Again, by not accepting the limits of the Laws of Physics; you are no better than, and in many ways a lot worse than, the climate deniers that you berate so much.

Don't be clueless; learn the Physics.

PamW

[mother earth]

52. Alternative energy is within the realms of science. You are just being ignorant to say it isn't.

You must be kidding, or are you just kidding yourself? You are just disagreeing to disagree, I can make no sense of your stance.
It simply is not so, nuclear energy has a price. For some of us, it's not one we need to pay when there are alternatives to explore. Enough said.

Nothing left to say, disagree all you want, that's your perrogative.

[caraher]

54. Getting the physics and math right does matter...

and it doesn't require relying on the assertions of people who try argument from authority in an anonymous forum.

Cambridge physicist David MacKay has a wonderful, free, not-at-all condescending guide to energy options called "Sustainable Energy without the hot air." It's written from the perspective of the UK (and includes five different energy plans) but the kind of reasoning used and the physics are universal. He's also very clear about his assumptions, non of which are unreasonable but many of which are certainly open to question. And the math involved is really just arithmetic.

Even better, there are some online tools that let you play around with various scenarios (again, for the UK) based on this kind of analysis. (I'm not aware of a version for the US.) One is a simplified version while the other is much more detailed (but harder to use). There are assumptions embedded in all these tools that are very much open to question, but they all have the virtue of letting one "test drive" whether one's pet scenarios really could add up.

[kristopher]

55. McKay's presentation can be very misleading

This blog link is worth reading fully:
http://energynumbers.info/british-energy-demand-and-professor-mackays-estimate-of-it-an-explanation-of-the-differences

...The numbers in the first third of Professor MacKay’s book all lead to the conclusion on page 103 that even if we used all of our renewable resource to its technical maximum, ignoring economic, social and environmental constraints, then it is not enough to meet our energy demand. And that (as he writes later in the book) this applies to Europe too?—?he writes: “Europe, like Britain, cannot live off its own renewables”.

And yet the figures on 103 are wrong?—?we all agree on that?—?you, me, David, the official statistics. So any conclusion based on them must be in doubt.

Indeed, there are plenty of reasons for doubt?—?because in addition to the inflated demand, the first third of the book also contains economic, social, and environmental constraints on supply, despite the statement to the contrary (I’ll write a bit more about the supply side in a new article, later). So those are not about the physics of the thing at all?—?they’re opinions. So, we have an inflated demand, and a set of political opinions on supply. That’s not (in Professor MacKay’s words) “what the laws of physics say about the limits of sustainable energy”.

As it turns out, Britain’s renewable resource is an order of magnitude higher than our energy demand.

And so Britain, (just like Europe and the whole world) can get 100% of its energy from renewable resources.

A much better approach is demonstrated by work such as this:
Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time

Abstract
We model many combinations of renewable electricity sources (inland wind, offshore wind, and photovoltaics) with electrochemical storage (batteries and fuel cells), incorporated into a large grid system (72 GW). The purpose is twofold: 1) although a single renewable generator at one site produces intermittent power, we seek combinations of diverse renewables at diverse sites, with storage, that are not intermittent and satisfy need a given fraction of hours. And 2) we seek minimal cost, calculating true cost of electricity without subsidies and with inclusion of external costs. Our model evaluated over 28 billion combinations of renewables and storage, each tested over 35,040 h (four years) of load and weather data. We find that the least cost solutions yield seemingly-excessive generation capacity—at times, almost three times the electricity needed to meet electrical load. This is because diverse renewable generation and the excess capacity together meet electric load with less storage, lowering total system cost. At 2030 technology costs and with excess electricity displacing natural gas, we find that the electric system can be powered 90%–99.9% of hours entirely on renewable electricity, at costs comparable to today's—but only if we optimize the mix of generation and storage technologies.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759

[caraher]

61. Thanks, kristopher

I think the real value of MacKay's book lies in the overall approach, but it is clear that one also needs to be a discerning reader. It's not hard to find places where he puts his thumb on the scales, but the the transparency of his book also makes it easy to do the kind of competing analysis found at the blog link.

Meanwhile I've bookmarked the other article to read later

[PamW]

18. Perspective...

mother earth,

You need to have perspective. You are getting radioactive cesium in your meal REGARDLESS of Fukushima and / or other nuclear power plants.

A decade and a half of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing by the USA and the Soviet Union put orders of magnitude more Cesium-137 into the environment than Fukushima ever could.

So you don't have the option of having food that is 100% free of Cesium-137; that ship has sailed long ago.

Is this Cesium-137 doing much damage. Again, in contrast to what Mother Nature herself is doing, this Cesium from weapons testing is THOUSANDS of times less damaging than what Mother Nature is doing to you already with natural radioactivity.

From the Health Physics Society Chapter at the University of Michigan:

http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm

which lists the contribution to the average person's radiation exposure due to both nuclear power ( "nuclear fuel cycle" ) and weapons test ( "fallout&quot ; and both are <0.03% of our background radiation exposure.

Even the ancient Egyptians were eating slightly radioactive food; courtesy of Mother Nature, which is why we can do "Carbon-14 dating" on them to find out their age.

So you can say that we are continually killing the planet; but Mother Nature started killing the planet long before we did, and we have only increased on what Mother Nature is already doing by a negligible amount.

If you want a life free of all radioactivity; you've come to the wrong Universe.

PamW

[mother earth]

21. I probably have, but since this OT is about Fukushima, I didn't bring up these other issues as you

have. I support you 100%, I want global peace too. End the wars yesterday.

As far as "natural" radioactivity, guess we have to live with it...and all we've already wrought.

Having said that, we don't have to add to it, now do we? Certainly, not when we have options that we can choose to put into action.
We just need to embrace change & know we have solutions available to us.

[PamW]

32. Tradeoffs...

mother earth,

There are trade offs. You say we "don't have to add to it". I would agree; if we got nothing in return. But that is not the case.

As you can see from the University of Michigan link above, the amount that we've added is NEGLIGIBLE compared to what Mother Nature already forces us to live with.

However, in exchange for that negligible increase; we get a power source that can meet our demand, is virtually carbon-free, and isn't causing all the negative health and environmental effects of coal.

Clearly, the benefits above of nuclear power simply outweigh that negligible increase.

You might be someone that doesn't want your taxes to go up. However, if I tell you we have a way to get clean, virtually carbon-free power, and eliminate the negative health and environmental effects of coal; and the cost to you is less than 0.03% increase in your taxes; wouldn't you consider it WORTH IT?

That's what we have with nuclear power.

PamW

[GliderGuider]

37. I don't normally get into these wrangles

I take it from your comments that you are 100% in favour of the current global growth culture; see human needs as the sine qua non of all cost-benefit calculus; have no issues with giving human beings as much energy as they want to play with; and believe that the required organization and technical infrastructure will always be available to take care of these new reactors for as long as their normal dynamic stability might pose a risk.

Would I be right?

And in case you're inclined to this sort of mind-reading, I'll tell you up front that my answer to all of those questions is "no".