Environmentalists divided on nuclear power

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8239.html

Environmentalists divided on nuclear power

By: Erika Lovley
January 31, 2008 11:43 AM EST

On different sides of the nuclear fence now, Chris Miller and Steve Cochran vividly remember the 1979 meltdown at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island.

Miller, 11 at the time, is now the global warming campaign director for Greenpeace and dismisses nuclear energy as a safe alternative fuel. Cochran, then 27, is now the climate campaign director for Environmental Defense and believes nuclear must be considered a potential solution.

And their differences illustrate divisions in the environmental lobby over global warming legislation that would reduce the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels but would offer no clear alternative energy solutions.

The proposed Climate Security Act in the Senate would cap carbon emissions that could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent by 2050 and reduce the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels. But the bill has no guidelines for what low-emissions energy source the country should lean toward.

...

[NNadir]

1. There are fundies who call themselves "Christians" while embracing extremely

bigoted positions.

Likewise there are fundies who call themselves "Environmentalists" who know nothing at all on the subject of environmentalism.

There are no anti-nuke "environmentalists."

[kestrel91316]

3. Stop with the namecalling already. It's worse than juvenile.

If you hate us here so much, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU HERE????

All you do is insult DU environmentalists all day long.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. Lowering your blood pressure

I tried reason. It doesn't work.

I tried polite persuasion. It doesn't work.

I finally figured out there's only effective course of action for my own mental health:


(I've only used the "nuclear option" for one poster. I must say that my life is now much better for it.)

[bananas]

43. I've tried that, the problem is some people actually think NNadir is a real nuclear engineer

and then we have to deal with people making "Appeal to Misleading Authority Fallacy",
maybe it should "Appeal to Misleading Non-Authority" because NNadir is Misleading but he is not an Authority!

Here's an example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2810928&mesg_id=2812854
(in my reply to that post I show that NNadir is not a nuclear engineer and is ignorant of basic aspects of nuclear engineering)
and: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=62912
(NNadir is summoned to another thread where his post gets deleted)

[NNadir]

8. I have never considered you an environmentalist.

According to George W. Bush's wind generating pal, Sam Wyly, speaking in 2000, George W. Bush was a self described "environmentalist."

I am unimpressed by self descriptions.

Cult thinking has nothing to do with environmentalism, except, maybe as an abstraction.

True environmentalists are not interested in abstraction. They are interested in something called "reality," and coupled with that, something called "results."

[madokie]

19. Why is his bullshit allowed on here is what I want to know. If anyone can explain it to me I would

greatly appreciate it. Hell I can't even start a thread about anything in this forum without having to see or read his trash talk. I must say it pisses me off to no end too.
anyways
I don't go around ignoring people in the real world so why should I have to in the cyber world.

[pscot]

10. Instead of name calling

Why not try a more constructive approach. Most of us are capable of taking on new information and adapting to new realities, but there's a difference between argument and invective. My last experience with nuclear power was the WOOPS debacle. Many of the people currently peddling nuclear power are extra chromosome conservative whackos like R. Emmett Tyrell. Confrontation just pisses people off. But if you can make your case, I'm willing to listen. I have yet to see a clear explanation of the newest technology and how it differs from Chernobyl or TMI. Explain the technology, tell us how you're going to deal with the waste.

[NNadir]

11. Oh please...

I've spent thousands of hours doing this and the same fundies continue to be fundies.

I've produced thousands of references on line now showing that the external cost of nuclear energy is the lowest of all forms of energy.

This does not mean that nuclear energy is perfect, only that it is vastly superior to everything else.

This is not a matter of debate any more than the reality evolution is a matter of debate.

When one is dealing with fundamentalism - which is the adherence to dogma in spite of any amount of scientific information - there is really no reason to be polite. As we see in the case of evolution - an equally obvious case - being polite only encourages ignorance.

When it comes to evolution, Richard Dawkins approach is superior to wafflers on the matter. The same is true for the nuclear/coal question. In fact, arguably, the urban myth that nuclear energy is unsafe compared to its alternatives probably became accepted by an ignorant television watching public mostly because the matter was stated too politely. Someone should have said 30 years ago, for instance, that Ralph Nader was scientifically illiterate. The world would now be infinitely safer.

Ignorance kills.

[Greyskye]

38. By your own definition

By your own definition, you seem to be as much of a fundamentalist as those you so passionately decry.

You come on here and attempt to shoot down every single energy option which is not nuclear. You appear to be a smart guy, your nothing-but-nuclear obsession notwithstanding. What in the world is wrong with a diversified approach? Solar? Crap. Wind? Double crap. Tidal? You would probably say that it is too localized.

There is no one, grand energy source which will instantly solve our energy problems. For now, we need every scrap of (hopefully clean) energy we can get, even if it doesn't instantly produce exojoules of energy.

Your tag is "NNadir". 'Nadir' is defined as an extreme state of adversity; the lowest point of anything. Quite appropo of your posts in this forum.

[Terry in Austin]

59. bzzt!

> there is really no reason to be polite.

Sorry, NNadir, that is SO wrong.

[Systematic Chaos]

12. Read through his post history, paying special attention to his links and data.

Put all of the "namecalling" and what have you to the side and just concentrate on the facts and statistics.

You may also encounter a post or three where he admits that he was huge into the whole renewables thing a long time ago. Then he got smart and thought for himself. :shrug:

[diane in sf]

17. Twaddle!

[phantom power]

22. You want to know why NNadir displays such contempt?

It's because so many anti-nukes have such obvious contempt for data-driven reasoning.

The pro-nuke argument can be boiled down to pretty simple arguments:

1) The only sane way to evaluate energy sources is to divide the damage caused by using an energy source by the amount of energy produced.

2) Nuclear power, due to the extremely high energy-density of fission sources, causes very little damage per unit of energy produced.

3) Although sources like wind and solar might be construed as causing "no" damage while operating, they require a lot more physical infrastructure to deploy, simply because they are very low-density energy sources. So the lifecycle impact, (again, per unit of energy produced), is higher than most people assume. In fact, we have not very much data about that, simply because so little of it has been deployed (that is changing, for better or worse).

4) nuclear power is base-load. You can run a nuclear generator 24/7, regardless of whether the sun is out, or whether the wind is blowing. In that regard, it competes directly with coal.

5) CO2-induced climate change is on track to kill at least a billion people between now and 2100. It might be much worse than that. spent nuclear fuel isn't going to kill anywhere near a billion people, not in the next 10,000 years.

Now, whether you like those arguments or not, they are data-driven arguments. But you feel free to respond to them with clever rejoinders like "Twaddle."

So, yeah, I confess it's hard not to have contempt for that kind of attitude. NNadir simply stopped trying to not have contempt.

[Systematic Chaos]

39. So that's what you kids are calling "thinking for oneself" these days?

Well then I'm proud to be a twaddler too!

:evilgrin:

[diane in sf]

41. Sorry to be so rude earlier, but I read this site for three years before posting

and in all that time I have never seen NN defend his position without insults and name calling. Further I've observed him not answering people's technical challenges to his information.

His contributions seem to aimed at curtailing any kind of discussion that doesn't pimp nuclear or offers alternatives to that choice.

[hunter]

54. It's like answering the technical challenges of creationists...

It's a total waste of time.

Myself, if I'm arguing with creationists (or their confused and deceptive brethren, the "Intelligent Design" supporters) I go after their theology. Usually their theology is just as weak as their biology.

Likewise people stuck in a 'seventies sort of environmentalism are afraid to deal with the social and economic issues that are the root causes of our current predicament. They want to believe that first world economies can continue merrily along with technical fixes such as solar and wind power, LED lighting, and plug-in-hybrid-ethanol automobiles. That's bunk, it is a false hope that is setting the stage for nature's solution to all biological problems of this sort: death. If we don't do something quickly a large number of us will starve, a large number of us will succumb to organisms taking advantage of our weakened state, and what's left of us will be fighting for whatever scraps are left. There's nothing so special about humans that we are exempt from the usual rules governing the growth and decline of biological populations.

Organizations such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and numerous other environmental groups tend to stand far, far away from the bleeding edges of social change. Fearing for their government chartered existences they become mainstream and cease effective pursuit of strong targets that bite back.

link

If environmentalism is not first and foremost an issue of universal human rights, then it is simply a fight for the lifeboats.

[Dogmudgeon]

25. I have a much "softer" approach; it doesn't help at all.

I still get jumped on. But big deal.

There are actually some anti-nuclearists who are NOT recklessly aggressive. They deserve the benefit of the doubt, always. But this is a quasi-religious crusade for many people. It's also a way to affiliate with "cool" people. There is a deep divide and celebrity has never impressed me much.

All I have to do is post in favor of nuclear energy, and I am treated to the full measure of the wrath of the anti-nuclear crusaders. Earlier in the week, one of these self-appointed firebrands poured his hatred out at me in spite of the fact that the post I made was unrelated to nuclear energy -- it was about the system of "imaginary numbers" engineers use. This led another crusader to fits of laughter and ridicule.

I used to make the point that the "flavor" of energy was only secondary. They couldn't even deal with that.

They DON'T go after NNadir because they know they'll get crushed, AND it will be humiliating. Their retorts to him are laughable, consisting mainly of making fun of metric prefixes and 11th-grade math, and trying in vain to prove we're all getting money from the nuclear lobby. They have nothing to support their claims, their FUD, or their hipster preening. They can have a sig quoting peace and love, and scream that we're all fools and liars and murderers doing the work of Xenu, Dick Cheney, and the eeevil corporations.

Yet we aren't the ones posting one corporate press release after another.

Anti-nuclearists DO go after me because it's not my style to call them idiots and hypocrites. This is probably the most aggressive post I have made, and you'll notice that it calls out no one. But I personally don't care if some buffoon loses control as a result of what I post. Just because they won't be made to suffer as badly as they would from an NNadir whipping, they feel free to say anything they can get away with -- and who am I to object? I'm playing to the audience, many of whom have not made up their minds. They can well see how the dialog is going; who is talking about the facts, and who is throwing tantrums.

But then, I'm not in this for my ego, either.

--p!

[NNadir]

31. That about sums it up, I think.

[bananas]

44. So that's why your posts always sound like propaganda

they are propaganda, you're playing the audience.

[bananas]

46. "They DON'T go after NNadir because they know they'll get crushed, AND it will be humiliating."

:scared: :scared: :scared: Oh noes! Darth will crushed AND humiliate me! :scared: :scared: :scared:
:scared: :scared: :scared: Look out - here he comes now! :scared: :scared: :scared:

[GliderGuider]

2. You don't need to be an "environmentalist" to know which way the wind is blowing on nuclear power

Pro: It could reduce CO2 emissions and keep the lights on.
Con: It might poison us and our children in our sleep.

Reality: It will cost too much to do a major nuclear construction push with the world's economy melting down, draining the world's pool of capital and making what capital remains intensely risk-averse.

The third way out of the false dichotomy: Given that a conserved watt costs about a quarter of what a produced watt does, for the moment conservation makes a lot more economic and environmental sense than any new form of energy.

[kestrel91316]

4. But Unka Dick says conservation is merely virtuous and isn't

really helpful at all!!!1!!!!

[GliderGuider]

5. Dick sucks...

[NNadir]

9. How many "conserved watts" exactly, are there?

Who, exactly, is doing the "conserving" in question?

The citizens of Sierra Leone?

[diane in sf]

16. Conservation is the first, cheapest, easiest thing to do--we have so much waste built into our

energy and resource use. Some environmentalists estimate that we could cut our current energy use by 90% and actually improve our lives rather than diminishing them. So much of these savings, using current technology, are really low hanging fruit.

One of many possible examples:


http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/66691;_ylt=AiJXeZqgfg3wkS0zf0w6fYbxMJA5


Ann Arbor to Light Up City with 100% LEDs

Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:37PM EST

America has a reputation for overlighting its towns at night, and while we probably can't change long-ingrained fears of even the hint of darkness, we can at least make the lights a little more environmentally efficient. With that in mind, Ann Arbor is turning to power-sipping LED lamps for its city streetlights instead of the usual sodium lamps, which can suck up to 1,000 watts each.

The city will start installing 1,000 such lamps beginning next month. Based on power savings of about 50 percent and a lifespan five times longer than standard lamps, the city expects to recoup its investment in less than four years. The project will also reduce greenhouse emissions by 2,425 tons of carbon dioxide each year.

I also happen to think that the lights, which contain dozens of LED bulbs in each housing, look pretty cool. They're modern, but they still have a sort of classic feel to them.

Toronto and Raleigh, N.C., among others, are also turning to LEDs instead of vapor-based lighting. How's your burg doing when it comes to greening up its public lighting?

[madokie]

20. by conservation we have lowered our averaged electric bill by 1/4th

no small potatos by anyones measure. we're total electric too and just changing out our incandescence to CFL's was a big change
Due to the continued efforts by my wife and I we expect to see our bill dropping even more as time goes on.

[NNadir]

30. Do you have any idea - any at all - what the per capita energy consumption of Nigeria is?

You don't?

You couldn't care less?

Why am I not surprised?

One of the more amusing things about yuppie anti-nukes is that while they're stuck with their heads up their asses trying to figure out how "cool" LED's look in (our outside) their McMansions, Nigerians are living on 8 watts of power for all purposes.

It is always amazing to see fundie anti-nukes who are outraged because the Indians and Chinese have not agreed to remain impoverished so Americans could declare themselves "environmental."

There is nobody on this planet who seriously believes that "we could cut our energy use by 90%."

Nobody.

Zero.

There is not <em>one</em> scientific publication anywhere that makes such a claim.

It would also appear that, because of the type of intellectual laziness and a lack of an ability to do even the most basic research, you have failed to understand that lighting accounts for about 8% of US electricity demand.

[hunter]

7. I know I'm divided.

:P

But I'm certain coal and hydrogen fantasies blow chunks.

[Vogon_Glory]

13. Unpleasant Facts Favor Nuclear Power

The unpleasant fact for many environmentalists and many environmentalist sympathizers is that industrialized societies use energy. They use a LOT of energy, and despite the fact that renewables like wind and solar could supplant some of the electrical energy currently being generated by fossil fuel power plants, they can't hope to even replace half of the coal, oil, and gas-fired power plants currently in operation. I agree with NNadir that nuclear power, preferably based on safer designs than the one that the boobs at TMI screwed up, is the less-dangerous approach.

Having seen the environmental devastation caused by practices and attitudes toward nature in poorer Latin American countries, I believe that only wealthy, industrialized societies have the capacity to care for their local natural areas.

[bananas]

14. Renewables can replace all fossil fuel

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan&page=1

Scientific American Magazine - January, 2008

A Solar Grand Plan

By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions

By Ken Zweibel, James Mason and Vasilis Fthenakis

<snip>

The technology is ready. On the following pages we present a grand plan that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy (which includes transportation) with solar power by 2050. We project that this energy could be sold to consumers at rates equivalent to today’s rates for conventional power sources, about five cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). If wind, biomass and geothermal sources were also developed, renewable energy could provide 100 percent of the nation’s electricity and 90 percent of its energy by 2100.

<snip>

[Dead_Parrot]

15. Could, if, after a century?

I think one of the basic requirements of being an enviromentalist includes knowing something about the state of the environment, and how it is changing.

So perhaps you'd like to tell us what the planet will be like in 2108 when we finally get our renewable nirvana. What, exactly, is the leagacy you'd like to leave for our great-great-grandchildren?

Assuming the "ifs" come good, of course.

[diane in sf]

18. The cheapness and scalability of conservation, wind, solar

are the reasons these are growing so rapidly right now. Your entry implies that nothing will happen for the duration of this century. The paybacks on a lot of this stuff for homeowners and industry occur in 4-20 years. This kind of return tends to encourage the exponential rates of adoption we're currently seeing.

[Dead_Parrot]

27. I see the emissions profile for this scenario

as resembling the twenty century played backwards. So, 2030 might match 1970's use, 2050 matching 1950, 2070 matching 1930. The use of fossil fuels (in EJ) of 1900 probably matches the 10% of total energy this paper leaves un-dealt with after 100 years. (We can, for the the sake of argument, ignore the fact that peak oil & gas make this a non-starter anyway)

Renewables can (and should) easily grow to the point where they are providing ~30% of total energy: After that you hit problems with storage and distribution that take up the rest of the century to iron out.

I don't see this as an environmentally responsible approach. One century of that has already fucked the planet: Another one would finish it.

[bananas]

24. We could do it faster

it might cost more, but it would still be cheaper than trying to do it with nukes.

[Dead_Parrot]

28. Are you giving any detailed plans or figures for that?

Or should I get the ouija board out again?

[wtmusic]

49. Tall order

How many spooky nitemarish scenarios equal one detailed plan these days?

[Dead_Parrot]

53. Shouldn't be that hard

According Zweibel, Mason and Fthenakis, their scenario should take a century to pan out: According to Bananas, it takes less than that. Since he's evidently spotted a fundamental mistake in their 6-page paper, It should only take him two minutes to tell us all about it.

Admittedly he seems more interesting in hurling insults about at the moment, but I'll bet he will get around to it soon.

[cedric]

21. James Lovelock favours nuclear power

http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm

Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in 1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer anyway, mainly because we breathe air laden with that all pervasive carcinogen, oxygen. If we fail to concentrate our minds on the real danger, which is global warming, we may die even sooner, as did more than 20,000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer.

I find it sad and ironic that the UK, which leads the world in the quality of its Earth and climate scientists, rejects their warnings and advice, and prefers to listen to the Greens. But I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy.

[bananas]

26. He's wrong about that

For example, in the U.S., the biggest opposition to nuclear power comes from investors. The CBO said the risk of default on new plants is well over 50%, and investors have done their own analysis with the same conclusion. So investors are much more worried about a financial meltdown than a nuclear meltdown or any release of radiation. We just saw that in Idaho, where a proposed nuclear plant was cancelled.

Globally, most opposition to nuclear energy is based on opposition to nuclear weapons proliferation. For example, there has been little concern about Iran's nuclear reactor, but a lot of opposition to it's enrichment facilities, which could be used to make weapons. Another example is the Nukes-for-Mangoes deal with India - most of the opposition to that is because it enables India to greatly expand it's weapons production, which could result in an escalating arms race with Pakistan.

There are lots of other reasons for opposition - what to do with the waste; groundwater contamination from in-situ uranium mining; etc etc.

[losthills]

23. Interesting (well, not very....)

to hear our friendly, local nuke-heads proclaiming their "environmentalism." This is laughable in the extreme....

The fact is that every major environmental organization, worldwide, opposes nuclear power. Nuclear power is an environmental threat of the first magnitude. Even if nuclear power represented a solution to global warming (and it doesn't,) it would still be an environmental catastrophe. How many times have we heard these self-proclaimed DU "environmentalists" rail against Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and every other dedicated environmental defefender who dares to point out the truths about nuclear power.

Sorry, my friends, no sale. You nuclear power proseletizers are not environmentalists. You are the farthest thing from it....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the_United_States

[TheWraith]

29. Actually, you're wrong on all counts.

"The fact is that every major environmental organization, worldwide, opposes nuclear power."

Wrong. In fact, an increasing number of environmental groups--including the founder of Greenpeace--have admitted that they were wrong in opposing the expansion of nuclear power back in the 1970s and 80s, when it stalled.

"Nuclear power is an environmental threat of the first magnitude."

No, it's not. Which is why you fall back on hyperbole, rather than facts.

"Even if nuclear power represented a solution to global warming (and it doesn't,)"

Actually, it does. Far more so than solar power.

[hunter]

32. If I thought these were organizations of environmentalists I'd join.

For a long time I was a member of the Sierra Club, but then they stopped making sense to me. It was sort of like a playgroup for affluent people.

http://www.sierraclub.org/outings/national

Most green organizations have never appealed to me, mostly because of their stifling atmosphere of anti-intellectualism and group-think.

In the early 'eighties I was working as a furniture mover. One Friday, after a particularly brutal work week, one of the drivers gave me a case of Coors beer to thank me. The next morning I was driving a bunch of people to an anti nuclear rally, so I left the beer in the car. I offered it up to the mob that evening, and OMG it was like I'd pissed on a crucifix at a Catholic picnic. But there was a stench of hypocrisy about their reaction because half these guys were smoking weed distributed by drug lords operating under the protection of right wing U.S. puppet governments in Latin America.

When I look at the Greenpeace "issues" page the core environmental problems of consumerism, coal, overpopulation, and war are entirely absent. There's little said about human rights and social justice.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns

"Global Warming, Oceans, Forests, Nuclear Energy, Toxics, and Genetic Engineering" are very narrow issues to focus on for a group that purports to be seeking solutions to our environmental problems. It's almost as if they are going out of their way to be inoffensive and ineffective in their political actions.

The reason Greenpeace structures itself this way is that people living in poverty don't have the time, the money, or the inclination to contribute to Greenpeace. So Greenpeace has to appeal to the people who do have the time and money, and most of these people do not want to be involved in politically dangerous Social Justice movements. Behind the green banners the members of these groups are mainstream Americans and Europeans who engage in these causes as an exciting sort of hobby.

I personally believe the most effective forms of environmental activism are found in groups promoting Social Justice and Human Rights. Populations that experience some sense of political empowerment are much better equipped to protect their own environment. Places like Haiti (or even U.S. factory farms) are environmental wastelands because people have no political power.

[Dead_Parrot]

33. I think you've got that backwards

Your claim appears to be that environmentalism is defined by policy, not environmental impact: So, Greenpeace's plan to build over 1,000 GW of new natural gas generation is environmental simply because it's not nuclear. Likewise, it's OK to keep using coal beyond 2050 because it's not nuclear: The extra CO₂ doesn't matter - it's a just a side effect of being that shade of green.

Sadly, that's horseshit. GP's plan to reduce fossil fuel energy from 11,015TWh in to 9,491TWh in 2050 - just a 13.8% decrease - would have a massive effect on the environment.

If you actually give a shit about the environment, I would expect you to show some slight concern about their scenario. On the other hand, If you only care about being anti-nuclear, you'll love this plan: Sure, there's no fish, coral, forests, icecaps or tundra left, but I guess that's a small price to pay, right?

Greenpeace don't 'do' 2060, of course, because having burned over 90% of the world's gas by 2050 we would have a world destroyed by climate change and no gas left for energy, fertiliser or plastics (and therefore solar panels, oddly enough).

That's your idea of a great future, is it?

[losthills]

34. Thanks for proving my point,

which you do for me regularly.

Every major environmental organization opposes both coal and nuclear power, and for the same reasons. Anyone who knows how to punch a query into Google can ascertain for themselves that nuclear power can never replace fossil fuels or make a measurable dent in global warming-- it can only degrade our environment, threaten our health and safety and make big piles of money for the same energy corporations who attack our environment with fossil fuels. Yet the DU nuke crew continues to chant coal vs, nuclear like a magic mantra.

Every environmental organization promotes renewable energy, and every person with common sense can see why. Why this so-called debate continues here is beyond me, I'm just an environmentalist. Those who would try to claim that title when they are so far out of step with the great organizations who are working so hard to make our world a better place have no credibility.

There is a clear path out of the dilemma we are in, and that path is to develop renewable energy sources and abandon the antiquated technologies that are destroying our planet. We post good news here every day, and those who refuse to listen, and who continue to promote environmental destruction are truly a sad bunch. The rest of us can see light at the end of the tunnel, and it looks pretty good.....

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[losthills]

36. Thanks again!

You help me every time!
I value and appreciate your input....

[Dead_Parrot]

37. Oh dear, did that require too much joined-up thinking?

I'm sorry. Here, have a kitten.



You can go back to sleep now.

[Systematic Chaos]

40. Does that kitten come with a solar pool heater?

How about a free 40 of Allen's Coffee Brandy?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Dead_Parrot]

42. Nope...

A solar oven. With the looming food shortage, I'm investigating alternatives.

You also get a 40 of coffee tequila, which is easier to produce under conditions of expanding desertification.

And some "Catsup", naturally. :)

[wtmusic]

45. An interesting contrast between your arguments

is that you provide facts, where losthills provides nothing but rhetoric.

Antinukers' hearts are in the right place but they are sadly mistaken. By fixating on small amounts of contained toxic chemicals they fail to recognize the dangers of vast quantities of less toxic chemicals freely released into the air.

[losthills]

47. Nobody here is "for" fossil fuels.

People who are real environmentalists don't want to see concerns over global warming used as a pretext by the same corporations to sell us something worse. Nuclear power is worse, and one of the reasons it is worse is that it will not and cannot replace fossil fuels. Money spent on nuclear power is money that should be spent on developing clean energy sources. Money spent on nuclear power is money spent to insure our long term dependence on fossil fuels. And money spent on nuclear power is money spent building an environmental catastrophe that will curse future generations for eons.

Nice try, though....

[wtmusic]

48. There is no way the technology for "clean energy sources"

(I assume you're referring to wind, solar, wave, etc) will be ready in time to avert a global warming disaster. I wish it weren't true, but wishing doesn't make it less of a fact.

So a realistic, practical, relatively safe solution is to switch to nuclear while these avenues are being explored. And nobody here believes nuclear is completely safe either.

[GliderGuider]

50. A quick question, and a couple of observations

You say, "one of the reasons it is worse is that it will not and cannot replace fossil fuels." If nuclear power cannot replace fossil fuels, how will wind/solar/tidal replace fossil fuels? After all, they are all electricity sources. Any functional disadvantage of one is shared by all.

If there is no functional advantage of one over the others (at least in terms of output), it all comes down to cost. Although the Big Nuclear Bun Fight is over safety, I really think that cost is going to be the primary driver of any future development of energy sources. In a scenario of a declining global energy supply, it's going to be increasingly difficult to get people to accept additional costs to cover externalities. Because of the public perception of the safety issues, the externalities of nuclear power will have to be costed in at least to some extent. So between those costs and escalating construction costs nuclear power is probably off the table. In the remaining fight between coal, gas and renewables, "clean power" is probably going to remain at a disadvantage for the next decade.

However, you've hit on a really good point. Electricity simply cannot replace liquid fuels, at least not in terms of capital cost or utility, and certainly not on a global scale given the potential rate of post-Peak decline and the resulting bidding wars. Electricity will have more of a role in that capacity in some places than others, but I remain unconvinced that Malawi's transportation difficulties are going to be fixed by Chevy Volts charging off windmills. Heck, I don't think the looming transportation problems of China, India or Pakistan are going to be fixed that way either, and they're a lot further up the industrial ladder than Africa.

It's all well and good to exhort people to dump coal, nuclear, oil and natural gas, but at some point reality intrudes. Those sources currently supply 94% of the world's energy. We simply have no way of keeping our civilization going without them. Given that their continued use is actually threatening civilization, that doesn't leave us with a hell of a lot of options.

[wtmusic]

52. Nuclear costs almost exactly the same as coal

per Mw-hr, according to this comprehensive comparison (which still doesn't take any responsibility for the greenhouse gases generated by coal):

http://www.virtualnucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm

Nuclear may be off the table, but if so it will be because of irrational fears and misconceptions. I thought Republicans had a lock on those...

[losthills]

55. Why compare coal and nuclear in the first place?

You might as well compare arsenic vs. strychnine.

Coal and nuclear are both poisoning our planet. It's been demonstrated over and over that you can't build enough reactors to make a significant dent in global warming, and that is why no one who really cares about the environment is supporting nuclear power.

From Public Citizen:
"The vast majority of public interest and environmental groups are adamantly opposed to nuclear power. Over 300 national, state, and local organizations have endorsed a statement clearly outlining why nuclear power is not a viable solution to global warming.<1> Earlier this year, the environmental ministers of Austria, Iceland, Ireland and Norway also stated that the risks and problems of nuclear energy could not be outweighed by its potential to mitigate climate change.<2>

How Many Reactors Would it Take?

An unfeasible number of nuclear reactors would have to be built by mid-century in order to make a substantial reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. According to a report from the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, between 1,900 and 3,300 nuclear plants would need to be built worldwide by 2050 in conjunction with renewable energy measures in order to stabilize carbon emissions at their year 2000 levels.<3> Carrying out this scenario would mean building about one reactor each week for the next 40 years.<4> Given the long construction time and tremendous expense of nuclear plants, building this many reactors is simply unachievable. Since no new reactors have been built in the US in the past 30 years, rapid growth of nuclear energy would require exorbitant government subsidies and place stress on the declining numbers of nuclear engineers, safety inspectors, and building materials.<5>"

http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/articles.cfm?ID=13872

....

So what's the reason to keep promoting this poison? Nuclear power, like coal, pollutes at every stage of the chain. Nuclear power, like coal, depends on a finite resource for fuel. A resource that will run out in time, that causes severe environmental destruction to obtain it, and is already incresing in cost. Nuclear power produces toxic waste that is impossible to contain for the lifetime of it's toxicity. Renewable's have none of these negatives.
So where would the smart person put their money?

[GliderGuider]

57. What else have you got that has a chance of scaling up in time?

Oil and natural gas are about to start declining world-wide. Those two sources supply 60% of the energy our civilization uses. Within a decade we will probably see global decline rates of 5% or more per year in those two sources. Coal supplies another 24% of the world's energy. That leaves hydro at 6% and nuclear at 6% as the only other large-scale energy sources. With oil and gas in decline, if you take coal off the table due to it's massive environmental problems and reject nuclear because of all that radiation, then all you've got left is hydro - and hydro is pretty much maxed out.

You may not like nukes, and you may not like coal, and you may not like oil and natural gas either. Fair enough, show me that it's feasible to replace 94% of the world's primary energy consumption using wind and solar. Hell, I'll even give you 20 years to do it and throw in a 20% reduction for conservation and efficiency.

We can't get from here to there with an intact civilization. End of story.

Humanity is deep into overshoot. We can't keep going, and we can't stop. I don't get why that's so hard for people to comprehend.

Clapping harder won't help.

[bananas]

56. Those numbers are way off - Nuclear is much more expensive than coal.

see this article in Nuclear Engineering International Magazine http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=76&storyCode=2047917

[wtmusic]

58. This is what I hate.

You are comparing two different units. One is the kW, or kilowatt, which is a measure of power. The other, the mW-hr or megawatt-hour, is a measure of energy.

Apples and oranges and ignorance.

Here is a primer. Learn your stuff or expect to get smacked down with it.

"Nuclear energy is, in many places, competitive with fossil fuel for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalise all waste disposal and decommissioning costs. If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, nuclear is outstanding."

http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

[bananas]

60. Oh great, another pro-nuke who makes a fool of himself when he tries to insult people.

This is what I don't like.
I didn't insult you.
I was in a hurry when I wrote that post,
and presumed that you would understand the significance of the skyrocketing capital cost estimates.
But you don't, and instead of politely asking what the significance is, you tried to insult me.
But your insult was based on your own ignorance.
But you can learn.

In MIT's 2003 report "The Future of Nuclear Energy" they wrote:
"electricity produced from new nuclear power plants today is not competitive with electricity produced from coal"
"It is also important to emphasize that the nuclear cost structure is driven by high up-front capital costs".

What is important to emphasize?
"nuclear cost structure is driven by high up-front capital costs".

Those high up-front capital costs are measured in $/kW, not $/kWh.
If you read the report, you will learn how to calculate $/kWh from $/kW,
the report pdf is at http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

The Uranium website you just linked to says that nuclear is more expensive than coal:

Based partly on these figures the European Commission in January 2007 published comparative cost estimates for different fuels:

Comparative generating cost in EU - 10% discount rate (EUR) 2005 Projected 2030
with EUR 20-30/t CO2 cost
Gas CCGT 3.4-4.5 4.0-5.5
Coal - pulverised 3.0-4.0 4.5-6.0
Coal - fluidised bed 3.5-4.5 5.0-6.5
Coal IGCC 4.0-5.0 5.5-7.0
Nuclear 4.0-5.5 4.0-5.5
Wind onshore 3.5-11.0 2.8-8.0
Wind offshore 6.0-15.0 4.0-12.0

http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm

I don't know who "virtual nucular tourist dot com" is and I really don't care,
MIT estimated nuclear at 6.7 c/kwh and coal at 4.2 c/kwh in 2003.
They also said that nuclear might become cheap as coal if:

+ Reduce construction cost 25%
+ Reduce construction time 5 to 4 years
+ Further reduce O&M to 13 mills/kWe-hr
+ Reduce cost of capital to gas/coal

"We judge the indicated cost improvements for nuclear power to be plausible,
but not proven. The model results make clear why electricity produced from
new nuclear power plants today is not competitive with electricity produced
from coal or natural gas-fueled CCGT plants with low or moderate gas prices,
unless all cost improvements for nuclear power are realized. The cost comparison
becomes worse for nuclear if the capacity factor falls. It is also important
to emphasize that the nuclear cost structure is driven by high up-front capital
costs, while the natural gas cost driver is the fuel cost; coal lies in between
nuclear and natural gas with respect to both fuel and capital costs."
driven by high up-front capital costs"

But capital costs have been going up since then.
Nuclear is getting even more expensive compared to coal.
The article I linked to in my other post mentioned the Keystone report:

There are many other figures available, including the June 2007 report by The Keystone Center, titled Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding. This study, which was funded by several nuclear plant operators as well as other interested parties including General Electric and NEI, estimates overnight costs of $2950/kWe (in 2007 dollars). With interest, this figure translates to between $3600/kWe and $4000/kWe.

Interestingly, when Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding was released, the nuclear industry press chose to either focus on other aspects – in particular the ‘finding’ that nuclear is a viable option for dealing with climate change – or ignore the report altogether. Considering the number of organisations involved in the nuclear industry that backed the report, this low level of coverage is anomalous, and suggests a certain amount of discomfort with the findings.

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=76&storyCode=2047917

The Keystone report estimated nuclear at 8.3 to 11.1 cents/kWh.
Here's what a pro-nuke wrote on the Nuclear Energy Institute blog when the Keystone report came out:

The fact that the "official" capital cost estimates for new reactors has been going up, oh, about 50% per year for several years now is annoying enough ($1000/kW ~7 years ago, then $1500/kW, then $2000, then $2500, and now I'm even hearing about $3000-$4000). Am I being lied to now or was I being lied to then? Inflation and materials cost escalation is nowhere near enough to explain this.

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/06/keystone-report-on-nuclear-energy.html

Well that guy must be psychic, because Moody's now estimates $5000-6000/kW, which is another 50% increase.

You can find a link to the pdf of the Keystone report and a lengthy discussion of it on the Grist Magazine website: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/6/18/161052/155
One of the people involved in the Keystone report commented there:

In response to deezakin, no, the factors that are driving nuke to 8-11 cents kWh are pushing wind to about 6.5 cents, and that includes grid connections and balancing resources. Add another 2.5 cents to the nuke cost for a comparable figure. Also note that wind prices are up not just because of the general run-up in materials costs, but because wind is booming and the supply chain is still being built.

So go read the MIT and Keystone reports and learn why $/kW is so important in calculating $/kWh.

[hunter]

51. The curse on future generations has already been cast.

And it was fully fueled by coal, oil, and natural gas.

Nuclear waste will be an utterly trivial concern in comparison to the climate changes and mass extinctions we have set in motion by our use of fossil fuels.

We could be stashing nuclear waste in almost any old hole in the ground and it wouldn't cause anything approaching the damage our fossil fuel driven economy has done to the earth.

Future generations are going to hate us, and it won't have anything to do with nuclear power.