[karajorma]

Bob, Newman, Cool it you two, you're obviously rubbing each other up the wrong way about what should be a calm rational discussion.

[newman]

I tend to agree. I can see how parts of my original post might have been misconstrued. So for clarity's sake...

what I was saying:

- nuclear lobby has a product they want to sell, nuclear power. There's some research into cold fusion and other power generation methods being done, but imo not enough. Nuclear lobbies are powerful enough to somewhat impede the development of power generation methods that could cut into their profits. With the tragic going-ons at Fukushima, they will need to lay low for a while meaning now's a great time to push into R&D funding for better power generation methods. If this happens at least something good will have come out of the tragedy.
- there's always a set of circumstances you couldn't have taken into account; an extraordinary natural event, terrorist attack, whatever. With that in mind the less things with actual nuclear material out there, the better.
- I disagree about fission reactors being safe under all circumstances no matter how modern they are. Modern ones are safer, yes. A lot safer. That's great. With nuclear power even "a lot safer" sometimes isn't good enough, though. Granted, there are no completely safe power generation methods, but nuclear mishaps tend to have a potential for more global and lasting effects than others. I realize that until we have something better "a lot safer" will just have to do. My point was, I hope this event sparks more serious efforts into getting that something better.

what I was not saying:

- we need to shut down all nuclear plants now;
- we need to stop building new nuclear plants before we have a better alternative;

Those two points would be just silly. As for personal attacks and comparisons to creationist ramblings... less coffee, man.

[Black Wolf]

Gotta say, I'm with bobboau. I mean, Japan was always a silly place for a nuclear reactor, so too would be New Zealand, California, Argentina etc. etc. But a modern reactor in Western Australia? No problem. Same with many parts of Russia, china, Canada - anywhere where you've got a big, stable craton.

As for the direct damage, I'd love to compare the number of people directly harmed by nucler power incidents to the number who have or will be harmed by global warming induced climatic disasters, or the number affected by hydro dam formation (Aswan, 3 gorges etc.) - there basically is no such thing as a completely non-intrusive, non damaging form of base-load electricity generation. A good analogy is aeroplanes - millions of people travel safely every day on planes, but people are terrified because of the media attention that plane crashes get. Whereas probably billions of people travel by car/bus, and the road death rate is much, much higher, yet nobody minds because less attention is paid.

[Kosh]

Nuclear fission is about as unsafe as we have ever gone in terms of power generation, it is literally the mechanics of a nuclear bomb with the breaks applied.  the thing is we have learned a large number of lessons about how to use it and minimize the risks, though constant vigilance and rigorous maintenance will always be required up to the point in time where the there is no nuclear material on the site.

I think the problem here is the questionable sanity in constructing a fission plant in a country that straddles 3 tectonic plates and is very close to the fault line for a 4th.  I know i am talking in hind sight and what a wonderful thing it is and i know that Japan has some unique energy issues but it still strikes me as an odd decision to make.

The air pollution from coal fired powerplants is responsible for killing thirteen thousand people a year in the US alone, not to mention all the miners that are killed from mining that **** around the world. To match that kind of an annual body count we'd need 3 Chernobyl's a year, which frankly isn't going to happen. What's the death toll directly attributable to the reactor? You should be more worried about all the toxic chemicals that were potentially released from the destroyed factories in the area.

It's also worth mentioning that the reactor facility was only designed to withstand a 8.something quake, and that the reactor vessel is still intact shows that contrary to the scaremongering it isn't nearly as dangerous as it sounds.   

Anything that has a snowball's chance in hell of humans coming in contact with nuclear material is potentially unsafe. You know, a few years ago I'd be right in your camp defending nuclear power. I was younger, cocky, and so damn sure that there's always a way to account for every possible eventuality. There isn't.

There's trace amounts of nuclear material in your food. Also Cobalt 60 is used in many applications.

[watsisname]

Nuclear fission is about as unsafe as we have ever gone in terms of power generation

In terms of power generation?  I seem to remember a link within a post on page 3 that says quite the opposite.

And Newman, would you be interested in comparing the number of deaths related to nuclear power versus coal power?  Or how about hydroelectric dam breaks?  Oh yeah, lots of people remember Chernobol, but does anyone remember Bianqiao Dam?

I see nothing wrong with people discussing the potential risks of nuclear power, but if you're going to argue that it's bad or needs to be gotten rid of because it poses a threat to human lives, then please also take a moment and have a good, hard look at the loss of life that has been incurred through other means of power generation.

edit:  mixed up who I was quoting, sorry.

[Klaustrophobia]

i don't have time for a proper response to all this (because i have to go work on keeping reactors operating safely), but newman please go back to page three and read the link/copied text.  i will be happy to calmly and respectfully explain why nuclear is not inherintly dangerous when i get back.

[newman]

And Newman, would you be interested in comparing the number of deaths related to nuclear power versus coal power?  Or how about hydroelectric dam breaks?  Oh yeah, lots of people remember Chernobol...

In a word, no. Mainly because a) I know the point you're making and b) I agree with it. That's not the point I was making. I refer you to my clarification post above yours where I pretty much said we can't do away with nuclear power at present, but the political climate is good to get some more serious funding into r&d for future, safer power generation technologies.
I don't and never did dispute your points. The issue here was people misinterpreting the point I was making and not any outright disagreement about nuclear power being less safe than other, older methods.
By the way, it's Chernobyl, not Chernobol

[Herra Tohtori]

Well, a matter where I can certainly agree is that advanced nuclear power research is not getting nearly enough funding and resources as it should.

I suspect it's the same deal as with cars: There's no incentive to come up with a better alternative as long as it's good business to build cars that eat gasoline.

Similarly, since fission reactors are still a profitable business, there's really no commercial interest in researching something like fusion. Why would the energy industry shoot themselves in the leg and come up with a way to produce abundant amounts of energy from practically* endless resource? After all, all business is built on scarcity. Saturating the energy market will lead to the collapse of the price of energy and make it unfeasible to operate current power plants.

So, I wouldn't count on the energy industry being too eager to fund fusion research, and for some reason governmental funding doesn't seem to be very high either.


What this approach ignores is that there are many, many better uses for fossil fuels than burning them for energy production. The energy density of hydrocarbons makes them a very good fuel for vehicles such as aeroplanes and, until widespread hydrogen refueling infrastructure is in place, regular automobiles too. Oil would still be a valuable resource for production of plastic, too.


Should this tangent be split into a dedicated thread? It seems somewhat inappropriate to keep discussing it on this particular thread - while the topic is interesting I feel it detracts from the rest of the events in Japan, which have caused by far more damage than negligible (so far) leaks of radioactive material.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Should this tangent be split into a dedicated thread? It seems somewhat inappropriate to keep discussing it on this particular thread - while the topic is interesting I feel it detracts from the rest of the events in Japan, which have caused by far more damage than negligible (so far) leaks of radioactive material.

...we are so good at derailing topics, I don't even notice any more.

[Kosh]

Should this tangent be split into a dedicated thread? It seems somewhat inappropriate to keep discussing it on this particular thread - while the topic is interesting I feel it detracts from the rest of the events in Japan, which have caused by far more damage than negligible (so far) leaks of radioactive material.

The only reason the nuclear incident even happened was because of the earthquake/tsunami, and unfortunately the media is really dead centered on this matter, making it relevant.


And guys, fusion is a real long ways off, even if the ITER meets its expectations. In the meantime fission is the best we have so lets keep building them to get rid coal for good.

[jr2]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html


Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources

Energy Source                                          Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average                             161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China                                           278
Coal – USA                                             15
Oil                                                           36  (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas                                            4  (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass                                      12
Peat                                                        12
Solar (rooftop)                                        0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind                                                       0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro                                                      0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao)            1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear                                                   0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Wind                                                       0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)

I assume death tolls arising from wind power plants are a direct result of this.

Maybe the reason why the death toll related to nuclear power is low is because it's new compared to the other energy sources and because of more safety measures as compared to plants that generate other forms of energy.

[Colonol Dekker]

Squaddie coping mechanisms in effect, please don't click if you are easily offended.......

[jr2]

Maybe the reason why the death toll related to nuclear power is low is because it's new compared to the other energy sources ...

I would think that that would make the death toll higher, unless it was brand-spanking-invented-less-than-ten-years-ago new.

And please note, the deaths are per Tera-Watt-hour. 

[Sushi]

The problem is, people aren't very good at risk assessment. We consider a super catastrophic but super rare disaster as being more risky than something with common and constant lower-level danger. Nukes vs Coal and Flying vs Driving are two very good examples...

We aren't really programmed to take the long-term, empirical view of things.

By the way, If anyone has a chart with price per kWh for various power sources (like the deaths per TWh one) I'd love to see it.

[Scourge of Ages]

I know. It's pretty unlikely that the winds would blow in the right direction to cause a problem but if you live 600-700 miles from the site I can see a reason for concern at least. It's much stranger for America to be worried.

I bet you feel pretty silly now! Look at this headline: Diplomat says minuscule fallout reaches Calif.

Sure, the article itself says that the levels are practically zero and as harmless as anything, but this is America got-dangit! I reserve my right to panic! Now where's my potassium iodide?!

(Obligatory to indicate sarcasm)

[Mongoose]

I assume death tolls arising from wind power plants are a direct result of this.

Damn...when those things fail, they really fail.

What I find most telling about this entire topic is that everyone seems to have forgotten those spectacular images of that refinery near Tokyo that went off like a Michael Bay movie, and for all we know is still burning to some extent.  How much toxic crap did that fire spew into the atmosphere?  And I can pretty much guarantee that it wasn't the only refinery fire that occurred.

[jr2]

Yeah I know.  I imagine a conventional power plant operating normally wouldn't react very well to what those reactors just went through.  Fireworks, anyone?

[NGTM-1R]

If that had been an LNG plant you could simply erase a couple miles of the map, I expect.

[Klaustrophobia]

back from work, but frankly i'm too tired/lazy to hunt back through the about 3 pages of this thread that happened since i read it last and figure out what is still floating around.  so how bout yall tell me if there's any outstanding issues or whatever else if anyone cares for my opinion.