TheRPGSite

Ok, since it seems we can bring up a serious topic, like the death penalty, and get rational, calm, intelligent discourse on it let's try again with another serious topic, namely nuclear power.

How do you feel towards nuclear power, as it exists today?

Personally I'm all for it, but would like to see a couplke minor changes made which I'll get to in a moment. But as is I believe nuclear power is a safe, viable source of clean, cost effective electricity, and the facts really do bear me out on this when looked at fairly.

First off, you must realize that two modern, industrialized nations, namely france and japan, get the overwhelming majority of their electricity from nuclear power, and it's safe, clean and affordable because those countries do it right.

First off, a well designed and operated nuclear plant is safe and ecologically friendly, it's cleaner than burning coal or oil that's for damn sure. Now some people will holler "Chernobyl!" and some older gits will holler "3 mile island!" but both those cases are examples of things being done very wrong, and are completely atypical of a properly ran nuclear plant.

First off, chernobyl was a type of nuke plant that would NEVER be allowed in the west, the design was totally different than ANY approved plant in the west and a plant like it would not be allowed in any western nation due to the crude and unsafe nature of the design. Comparing the cherbobyl plant to a plant made in the west is like comparing the hinderburb to the goodyear blimp and assuming because the hindenburg exploded the GYB could explode, and most people knw it can't.

As to 3MI, that was a case of a great design that actually worked despite everything possible going wrong and the media making a disaster out of an incident. In the first place, the design was good, but some greedy corporate pigs cut corners to save money, a criminal act known as "graft". Secondly, the operators were poorly trained and did not handle the incident properly in it's early stages, which, if they had, would have prevented any notable event from occuring.

BUT, and pay attention here, despite the plant being poorly constructed due to graft and poorly ran due to poor training, the findamental design was so good that despite these factors, it worked. No appreciable amount of radiation escaped from the plant. None. The containment system worked despite human greed and laziness. No  notable radiation escaped, and what did dissipate into the environment gave people less rads then they'd lget from a dental xray.

The fact is a well designed and ran nuclear plant is safe, the french have been using them for decades with ZERO dangerous incidents. Japan had an incident at a plant a few years ago, but it was due to poorly trained workers and the containment features of the plant kept the public safe.

As to disposing of nuclear waste, it's very easy, actually, once you ignore the shrills of anti-nuclear fanatics and just deal with it logically. In the first place if you use breeder reactor tech you reduce the amount of waste by a long shot, and secondly, fusing the waste into glass blocks (Vitrification) and sealing it in bedrock makes it nice and safe for as long as it takes to decay.

Also, consider this: 1 pound of nuclear material in an efficient nuclear plant generates as much electricity as 12 million pounds of coal.

I'm for nuclear energy, we just need to have ZERO tolerance form graft in the nuclear industry, with long rpsion sentences for anyone caught cutting corners.

So, how do you feel about nuclear power? Does your country use it?

I'm all for the peaceful atom.

I would not have had the life I had if not for my father, who almost exclusively has worked in nuclear plants since I was 12 years old.  

When he was just swinging a wrench, life sucked because we were so poor...then he got certified somehow to work in a nuke plant as a safety inspector for valves or something, and BAM, no mo' po'!  I mean, not rich, but no more public aid.

So, nuclear power is forever tied to me through my father.  I can't imagine anything safer, cleaner, more efficient, or better for everyone.

Gimme my nuclear power!

For.

Like a madman.  For.

So muchh for pundy's theory that 'geeks' aren't more intelligent than normal people, because so far every response to this issue has been the intelligent one, and a study of the facts that ignores then hysterical hyperbole of the anti-nuclear power crowd will show that to be true.

You know, I really wish the greens would get on the truth bandwagon and start supporting nuclear energy. When you consider that one pound of nuclear fuel can produce as much energy as 12 million pounds of coal it becomes obvious that nuclear power is more environmentally friendly than coal, which it can replace easily.

Wow.  I'm agreeing with Nox and Levi.  This is an untapped message for some politician.

For, for, for, for, for.

But then, I'm for drilling in my backyard if someone tells me there's oil there, so.

Quote from: joewolzI would not have had the life I had if not for my father, who almost exclusively has worked in nuclear plants since I was 12 years old.  

When he was just swinging a wrench, life sucked because we were so poor...then he got certified somehow to work in a nuke plant as a safety inspector for valves or something, and BAM, no mo' po'!  I mean, not rich, but no more public aid.

Dude, your dad had Homer Simpson's job???

RPGPundit

Nuclear power has two problems: one that is more serious than the other.  The less serious one, but the one that gets a lot of attention, is what to do with the toxic byproducts of nuclear energy.   The current solution, putting them deep in underground vaults for ten thousand years along with attempted warning signs so future civilizations won't accidentally open said vaults, is probably not the wisest course.  Something like launching this waste into the sun would probably be wiser, but much more costly.

And that's where we get into the other problem with Nuclear energy: its not actually cost efficient.  The costs of what it takes to get nuclear energy quickly gobbles up most of the return we get in the form of power. Add to that the fact that nuclear power is very expensive to maintain, and the question that we really should be finding another, more costly, solution to the nuclear waste issue than "lets put it in a hole and hope future humans won't wipe themselves out when they open it up in ten millenia", and you end up having something that isn't financially very viable, especially if you're thinking of nuclear power as the "answer" to the oil issue.

RPGPundit

Well, I'll agree that it wouldn't work as our sole power source, but few things would. I'd favor a shift in the direction of coal, supplemented by things like nuclear power, solar power, wind, and hydroelectric. Although waste disposal is a bit of a problem...

Designs like the pebble bed reactor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor) are radically safer than all the crap that people got themselves terrified of.  The feedback cycles all run the other direction (when reaction goes up the reaction itself damps further reaction).  But the issue of waste is an unsolved one.  We're basically piling up a problem for a future generation to solve, and solving it is going to require a lot of energy.  So nuclear power seems (to me) like a perfectly workable stop-gap until you get new energy sources.  But then, what's the next step in the ladder?  How do you get rid of that waste someday?

Personally, I think Tokamak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak) fusion reactors will be workable in our lifetimes, so I do think that there is a next step in the ladder.  Whether fusion will generate enough energy that we'll actually bother with whatever supercollider nonsense is necessary to render nuclear waste inert (is this even possible?) I don't really know, but it certainly looks like we've got at least one or two more steps of "new technology saves us from the crisis of the last technology" left to figure it out.

Well, we're making radical gains in the cost-efficiency of solar power. It becomes increasingly feasible to look to solar and wind power as two unlimited natural resources that will be able to provide for our power needs.  Of course dirtier fuel systems, including fossil and nuclear, continue to need to be used until the aforementioned are set up to run in a way that will work.

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, we're making radical gains in the cost-efficiency of solar power. It becomes increasingly feasible to look to solar and wind power as two unlimited natural resources that will be able to provide for our power needs.  Of course dirtier fuel systems, including fossil and nuclear, continue to need to be used until the aforementioned are set up to run in a way that will work.

I thought solar and wind were still bolloxed by the peak-demand issue?  I mean, I suppose you could go with genuinely massive batteries, but this is the first I've heard about someone proposing that kind of setup in a serious way.  Color me intrigued.

For.

There's still nothing better than the High-Temperature, Gas-Cooled designs now being used in India and parts of Southwest Asia.  Couple them with desalination plants and you solve both power and water problems in one go, allowing for the creation of a revived basic economic infrastructure where there's plenty of room for private enterprise to operate for the commonwealth of the nation and to promote its posterity.  Solar, wind, biodiesel, etc. still consume more power than they generate overall.  The expended fuels can be reprocessed into new fuel with a high degree of efficiency, greatly reducing waste (and thus making it easier to deal with it), and the new designs don't deal in heavy water; you get hydrogen as a byproduct, making hydrogren fuel cells a viable battery-centric power system.  These are not the '70s anymore.

For.

For, for the reasons Dominus so eloquently sets out.

In addition, the environmental impact of fossil fuels is much greater in the immediate term, which we have to survive before we start worrying about the next ten thousand years.  And that's ignoring any issues about fossil fuels becoming an increasingly depleted resource.

Wind and solar are cool and all, but most companies I work with that are investing in that sector are doing it for portfolio reasons or to meet government targets, they are not producing the power that we need and are unlikely to do so on current models.  In addition, wind farms are attracting increasing public resistance.

I don't dismiss the issues Pundit rightly raises, but the other reasons cited by many posters in this thread are currently very persuasive.

Increasingly now I work in the energy sector investing in stuff like plants, but I'm too tired now to go into this in more detail.  More later.

Good threads by the way Dominus.

Quote from: TonyLBI thought solar and wind were still bolloxed by the peak-demand issue?  I mean, I suppose you could go with genuinely massive batteries, but this is the first I've heard about someone proposing that kind of setup in a serious way.  Color me intrigued.

Electrolyzers and fuel cells are a pretty efficient means of power storage -- instead of using batteries, you use the energy to produce a fuel which you can reclaim the energy out of at your leisure.  True, at this point, fuel cells are non mass producable and require expensive platinum plates, but these problems would be solvable with a fraction of the money that gets spent on nuclear.

Also, while this isn't a primary thing, direct solar is really effective as a supplement in places that get hot in the summer.  California is propogating a net-metering system by which anyone can generate electricity and get paid for it at a standard rate -- the idea being to make putting solar panels on your roof a simple, rewarding investment -- which is going to be a massive boon to the air-conditioning of SoCal.

I think that, given the costs, economically viable nuclear power is a complete pipe dream.  I think it is useful in places where it is difficult to store your power (long range spacecraft, submarines).

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: Ben LehmanI think that, given the costs, economically viable nuclear power is a complete pipe dream.

That's given the current costs, right?  I don't think there's any inherent dollar value to a kilowatt, so whether costs are economically viable is in balance with the prices of other sources of energy.

I think that once you get too much further than that you start to get into realms where macro-economics and foreign policy turn into a mish-mash of interconnected perception.  Does increasing a country's ability to switch away from oil to nuclear power lead to reducing oil prices?  Seems possible to me.

But, really, I don't have the background for this kind of debate.  I know just enough to know that I really don't know all that much.  Basically, I have two very limited points:

• "Tokamak" rolls trippingly off the tongue.  Just try it!  Plus, fusion is a nice dream.
• Some countries appear to make nuclear work well in their society.  What are they doing right?

And beyond that ... well, really, I'm interested to hear things from folks who know much more than I do.

Quote from: RPGPunditNuclear power has two problems: one that is more serious than the other.  The less serious one, but the one that gets a lot of attention, is what to do with the toxic byproducts of nuclear energy.   The current solution, putting them deep in underground vaults for ten thousand years along with attempted warning signs so future civilizations won't accidentally open said vaults, is probably not the wisest course.  Something like launching this waste into the sun would probably be wiser, but much more costly.

And that's where we get into the other problem with Nuclear energy: its not actually cost efficient.  The costs of what it takes to get nuclear energy quickly gobbles up most of the return we get in the form of power. Add to that the fact that nuclear power is very expensive to maintain, and the question that we really should be finding another, more costly, solution to the nuclear waste issue than "lets put it in a hole and hope future humans won't wipe themselves out when they open it up in ten millenia", and you end up having something that isn't financially very viable, especially if you're thinking of nuclear power as the "answer" to the oil issue.

RPGPundit

First off, you've fallen for the typical anti-nuke propaganda about "Ten thousand years!!!" which is bullshit. The simple fact is that by concentrating radioactive material to make it more potent andn thus serve as reactor fuel, you cause it to decay faster. Information I've been given indicates that the vast majority of processed racioactive material will decay to safe levels in at most 600 years. Sure, it's still a long time, but not 10,000 years.

Disposal is not an expensive problem if done right, one of the best ways, ironically, to dispose of nuclear waste is to put in in old oil wells. The underground pockets that held oil deposits held them for MILLIONS of years, they would lieklly hold the vitrified waste for a few centuries.

Likewise old gold/silver mines in deserts could hold also hold waste safely isolated from groundwater for the necessary time, it's not a problem.

Also factor in then environmental costs of burning even 'clean' coal and the greenhouse emission it produces, compared to the fact a nuke plant produced ZERO greenhouse gas.

Lastly, the french, for god's sake, use nuclear power on a massive scale and do do safely and effectively. If they can do it then surely other countries can as well.

Much of the cost assosiated with building and running a nuclear power plant, in the US certainly, is dealing with the rabid 'anti-nuke' crowd. Seriously, the plants themselves aren't superhumanly complex monstrosities only buildable with 'precursor' technology or some shit.  Building a mile long bridge is more challenging from an engineering standpoint, and they've been doing that shit since the black and white era before they invented colors.


Take my local area. Some power company started building a nuclear plant. On came the lawsuits, the protests of 'not in my back yard' and so on and so forth. After about ten years of dealing with the protesters and class action suits they went out of business. Irony? The plant was fully built and ready to go, but never once used.

Quote from: TonyLBThat's given the current costs, right?  I don't think there's any inherent dollar value to a kilowatt, so whether costs are economically viable is in balance with the prices of other sources of energy.

There is a baseline cost, in my book, although it is quite high -- the cost of producing with wind power.

Now, wind power is bloody expensive compared to coal and even to oil and gas.  In the modern economic world, it's largely a feel good option, or made possible by government subsidies / restrictions.

My thought is this: No matter how efficient nuclear power gets, the whole cost (including waste storage and transfer) is never going to be cheaper than wind.  Solar, maybe (though there's a way to go), but not nuclear.

(Once you start having an reasonable fuel-cell infrastructure, which we're going to need regardless of whether we're using solar, wind, or nuclear, the timing issues of solar and wind are totally moot.)

Hence: cost-efficient nuclear power is a pipe dream.

Secondarily, I think we need to move our energy production out of its hunter-gatherer phase (digging for coal, uranium, petroleum) and into a farming phase (using solar energy in the form of solar, wind, or hydro power.)

If we develop fusion reactors, I'll be totally psyched, but I'm not holding my breath.  Myself, I'm all for diversifying energy production away from powerplants, and into backyards and rooftops.

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: BalbinusIn addition, the environmental impact of fossil fuels is much greater in the immediate term, which we have to survive before we start worrying about the next ten thousand years.  And that's ignoring any issues about fossil fuels becoming an increasingly depleted resource.

There are two important things you're forgetting here.

The first is that to create nuclear power requires the depletion of fossil fuels. Diesel-fuelled digging machinery digs, diesel-powered trucks cart the ore away, coal-fired plants mill the ore, gas-fired stations provide the electricity for the gas centrifuges doing the enrichment, etc. It may be objected that in future we could have hydrogen-fuel-celled machinery, and nuclear power stations for the enrichment, etc; but currently we don't have these things. It's prudent to base your plans on what has been proven to be technically possible, not on what may or may not happen. No-one is proposing that we set up vast hydrogen-generation plants powered by nuclear reactors, etc. They're only proposing more nuclear reactors.

So, generating nuclear power burns fossil fuels. Generating energy also consumes energy, and this energy has to come from somewhere.

The second point is that uranium, like coal, gas and oil, is a finite resource. We often see grand numbers tossed around of the amount of uranium available, giving amounts available in the sea, too. But while there are large amounts available, the useful amounts are considerably smaller.

Again, getting this uranium consumes energy. Now, uranium is an ore like any other. Sometimes you'll find a seam of the ore where 5% of it is uranium; sometimes only 0.0001%. So from one mine, for every 100 tonnes of ore you process, you'll get 5 tonnes of uranium, but from another mine, only a couple of kilogrammes of uranium. To process 100 tonnes of ore takes the same amount of energy whether you get 5 tonnes or 2 kg of actual uranium out of it. Of course the enrichment takes less energy, but the mining and milling takes the same energy.

So, if you have this 5% ore, getting 5 tonnes of uranium out of that 100 tonnes of ore, that's great, you'll get lots more energy from the uranium than you consumed mining it. But when you come to that 0.002% ore, with 2kg out of 100 tonnes, then the energy balance doesn't look so good.

What that means is that only ores of a certain grade are useful for energy. This has nothing to do with money - it's a physical process to dig the stuff up and mill it. It's energy. So what you can do is to calculate how much energy the stuff can generate, and then calculate how much energy it takes to mine it and mill it, and then you'll find the ore grade below which it's not useful to mine for energy.

When you go through and do all the calculations, it turns out that below ore grades of 0.02% - less than 20kg of available uranium per 100 tonnes of ore - you spend more energy processing it than you'll get out of it in a nuclear reactor.

So, only uranium ores of above 0.02% grade are useful for energy. This cuts out a lot of the uranium which actually exists in the world. When you divide the total energy this uranium can get by the current electricity production of the world - that is, suppose that all the electricity gets generated by nuclear - you get about seven years' supply.

Some people answer that "fast breeder" reactors will solve this problem. Now, in uranium, there are two main isotopes - U-238, and U-235. U-235 is the one we want for nuclear power, because it's radioactive, breaks down; but it only makes up 0.7% of the natural ore. A "fast breeder" reactor is designed to turn some of the U-238 into Pu-239 (plutonium) and U-235, so that in principle instead of using 0.7% of the uranium, we'd use 100% of it; instead of 7 years, then we'd have 1,000 years. However, in practice the best performance attained by any fast breeder reactor has been to create another 0.2% of U-235 and Pu-239, and the best performance hoped for in theoretical designs is to create 0.5%. That would mean that you'd put (say) 2kg of U-235 in, and when that was consumed, you'd then have 1.6kg of U-235 and Pu-239 left.

So the best we can hope for from fast breeder reactors is that they'll increase the effective supply by 80%; so we get 12 years of world electricity supply instead of 7 years.

You can fiddle with the figures a bit and get much more pessimistic or optimistic results, but you can't reasonably hope for more than 20 years' electricity supply, with any foreseeable technology.

That's the energy balance. Let's imagine a perfect nuclear world.

• nuclear power and waste disposal becomes perfectly safe.
• we develop a method for decommissioning power plants and rendering the area they were on usable - not one single power plant in the world has ever been completely decommissioned, usually they just put up a fence - but let's imagine we actually do it.
• the other problem of fast breeder reactors is that they produce weapons-grade plutonium. Imagine every country in the world with weapons-grade plutonium. Iran, Libya, Botswana, Chile - all of those countries with the means to make nuclear weapons.
• for the world to produce nuclear energy entirely, we'd be talking about one new nuclear power station being built somewhere every month for the next forty years.
• so that means nuclear energy not only for Australia and Canada and the like, but for Ghana and Zimbabwe and El Salvador. Will they be as safe as us?

Let's imagine that Perfect Nuclear World, that all these problems are magically solved.

That still leaves less than twenty years' energy supply from nuclear power - at best.

Then what? Then the uranium runs out, and... we're back to where we are now, wondering about renewable energy.

Wouldn't it be simpler to not bother, and just go straight to the renewable energy? Think of it this way - you learn that you're going to be fired from your job. You're not sure when you'll be jobless, and lose your money supply. Could be a month from now, could be a year. But you know your time is limited, it's finite. And they're also going to halve your wages at some point along the way. When do you start looking for a new job? Now? Or do you wait until you're actually fired?

So, we know that the fossil fuels, and the uranium, are going to run out. Maybe fifty years, maybe twenty, who knows. Before they completely run out, at some point world demand will exceed world supply. What happens when demand of a vital resource exceeds supply? War, social chaos, famine. So when should we start looking at resources which do not run out, ever?

We can continue using resources which will run out - coal, oil, gas, uranium - or we can use resources which are infinite - wind, solar, tidal, geothermal. Use finite resources, or infinite? Wow, difficult question!

So I oppose nuclear power for the simple reason that it's stupid to use a finite resource when we have an infinite one at our disposal.

Certainly there are technical difficulties involved in establishing renewable energy networks. Likewise, there are technical difficulties with nuclear power. The technical difficulties with renewable energy do not involve relying on every tin-pot little country in the world being able to deal with radioactive materials safely, and relying on them never to be tempted to develop nuclear weapons.

Seems like an easy question to me.

Quote from: Dominus NoxAlso factor in then environmental costs of burning even 'clean' coal and the greenhouse emission it produces, compared to the fact a nuke plant produced ZERO greenhouse gas.

The plant itself produces none, but as I explained, the mining, milling, refining, etc, produces greenhouse gases. It's rather like the fact that the tomatoes I get from the supermarket actually absorbed greenhouse gases while growing, but to fertilise, pesticide, harvest and transport them hundred of kilometres to the market produced several times more greenhouse gases than they consumed while growing.  

Quote from: Dominus NoxLastly, the french, for god's sake, use nuclear power on a massive scale and do do safely and effectively. If they can do it then surely other countries can as well.

The French also have nuclear weapons. Do you fancy Botswana, Libya, Ghana, and Chile with nuclear weapons? Do you think those countries can build, operate and maintain nuclear reactors as efficiently and safely as the French? Perhaps you're too young to remember the nervousness of the world when the Soviet Union had a coup d'etat, and later Pakistan. We got lucky, and the nukes were safe. Are we willing to trust to luck again? The current world pressure on Iran seems to suggest we're not willing to trust to luck, and the good judgment of those countries...

Use a finite resource, or an infinite resource. You're a citizen in a democracy, so it's up to you.

Quote from: Ben LehmanNow, wind power is bloody expensive compared to coal and even to oil and gas.  In the modern economic world, it's largely a feel good option, or made possible by government subsidies / restrictions.

It should be noted that fossil fuel use is also only made possible by public subsidies. If the entire cost of drilling for oil, refining it, and building metalled roads, traffic lights, etc, had to be borne by private companies... it just wouldn't happen. Power stations of all kinds are paid for by government - public - money. No private company ever came up with a couple of billion dollars on its own to build a power station. The public ponies up the cash, whether it's coal, oil, gas, solar, nuclear, whatever.

Power stations, whatever their source of energy, are quite simply public works projects, like roads, dams, canals, railways. Private companies may build the things, and fund them in little corners here and there, but the stuff on the national scale is funded from the public purse.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt should be noted that fossil fuel use is also only made possible by public subsidies. If the entire cost of drilling for oil, refining it, and building metalled roads, traffic lights, etc, had to be borne by private companies... it just wouldn't happen. Power stations of all kinds are paid for by government - public - money. No private company ever came up with a couple of billion dollars on its own to build a power station. The public ponies up the cash, whether it's coal, oil, gas, solar, nuclear, whatever.

This is %100 true.  That said, wind farms are, right now, an order of magnitude more expensive than coal plants.

I mean, I'm with you.  I would rather my government invest money in wind, solar, and hydro than coal.  Coal is cheaper, but I just spend three years in China with its Dickensian levels of air pollution, and I'd rather have functioning lungs and less money, thanks a bunch.

Nuclear has all the advantages:  more expensive, non-renewable, and polluting (although largely less and in a more controlled manner than coal).

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: Ben LehmanThis is %100 true.  That said, wind farms are, right now, an order of magnitude more expensive than coal plants.

"An order of magnitude" means "ten times." Wind turbines cost about twice what coal turbines cost to build. "Twice" is not "ten times." However, once built, the wind is free; you have to keep feeding coal, oil, gas, or uranium into the other reactors. The $ cost of a power station is,

+$ cost to build (ratios, nuclear 4: solar/wind 2: coal/gas 1)
+$ cost to maintain (ratios, roughly the same for all)
+$ cost to fuel (ratios, nuclear 10: solar/wind 0: coal/gas 1)
+$ cost to decomission (unknown, no nuke station has ever been fully decomissioned, nor have wind and solar stations)

Coal-generated electricity here in Australia has been the cheapest in the world because they build the coal-fired station next to a coal mine, and supply the energy company with the coal for nothing, the company just has to dig it up, and they even get a public subsidy for that. It'd be like my running a trucking company and getting the diesel for free, or running a restaurant and getting the food for free. You can bet I'd be boasting about the cheap prices I could supply our services at. Coal-fired stations which have to pay the market price for it are rather more expensive to run... and end up, over their lifetime, more expensive than wind, solar, etc.

But in the end, the dollar cost doesn't matter. Over the lifetime of a power station - 24 years for a nuke station, a bit more for fossil-fuelled stations, about 50 for wind, 20 for current solar - inflation, deflation, wage costs, interest rates, all that shit can change, so who the fuck knows.

What's important is the energy cost, and whether you're getting your energy from a finite or infinite source. At some point, the coal, gas, oil, and uranium will run out. So it doesn't matter what the price is, then - there's none left. Whereas the sun is always up there, shining, heating air and making wind, helping things grow, which things we can turn to ethanol and burn....

Some mixture of wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and ethanol-fired steam turbines, in combination with lower consumption, is what'll work well. Lowering consumption is very effective. Most countries, for example, just the homes changing to fluro bulbs from incandenscents will lower national power consumption by about 5% (more in developing countries without heavy industry using lots of power, less in developed countries). That 5% is usually a couple power plants' worth. Shutting off appliances with "standby" modes will in the developed West save another 5%.

In the developed West, we're very focused on using labour efficiently. The farm which produces 1,000 people's food with 1 man's labour is considered better than the same farm using 50 people's labour. We ought to have a similar focus on using resources efficiently. At the moment we don't bother because money's the most important thing to us, and labour is expensive but resources are cheap. A few government regulations could change this easily. For example, the Olympic Dam uranium mine in South Australia gets for free access to the water table, and uses as much water as all the homes in Adelaide; the farmers next to the mine have to pay for their water. Uranium mining and power generation wouldn't look quite so cost-effective if the Olympic Dam blokes had to actually pay for the water they used. Same goes for the coal-fired electricity generation at Hazelwood here in Victoria.

If they have to actually pay for the resources they use, then they'll use the resources efficiently. Then that'll put a fresh perspective on fossil and nuclear power vs renewable.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt should be noted that fossil fuel use is also only made possible by public subsidies. If the entire cost of drilling for oil, refining it, and building metalled roads, traffic lights, etc, had to be borne by private companies... it just wouldn't happen. Power stations of all kinds are paid for by government - public - money. No private company ever came up with a couple of billion dollars on its own to build a power station. The public ponies up the cash, whether it's coal, oil, gas, solar, nuclear, whatever.

Power stations, whatever their source of energy, are quite simply public works projects, like roads, dams, canals, railways. Private companies may build the things, and fund them in little corners here and there, but the stuff on the national scale is funded from the public purse.

Although Ben may believe what you've written here is 100% true, I'm not so sure.  Could you provide some links or other information source supporting your assertion that fossil fuel use is only made possible by public subsidies?

I mean "No private company ever came up with a couple of billion dollars on its own to build a power station," is quite an assertion.

EDIT: I see your response to Ben, are you talking about Australia, the US, the world?

Quote from: James J SkachAlthough Ben may believe what you've written here is 100% true, I'm not so sure.  Could you provide some links or other information source supporting your assertion that fossil fuel use is only made possible by public subsidies?

To say "only made possible" was wrong. Fossil fuel use would happen without public subsidy. It's bettter to say, "fossil fuel use is only as cheap and widespread as it is, due to public subsidy."

You can research this easily for yourself. Get out your street map of your city, and locate the major roads, and power stations. Then go and look up who paid for them. It's the public. Then consider your favourite petrol station, and find out where he gets his petrol from. Then look up that major oil company, and see how much taxes they pay, and what subsidies they receive from the government - from the public.

Add all that up, and it's billions of dollars. Now imagine that there was no public money for it, the private companies had to come up with the billions by themselves. Not likely to happen.

Quote from: James J SkachI mean "No private company ever came up with a couple of billion dollars on its own to build a power station," is quite an assertion.

Yep, it is. But I can't prove a negative, you can only disprove it. Just look up all the commercial power stations you can think of, then look up how they were funded. There are too many power stations and roads and so on in the world for me to link you to references to them all. Look up your local ones for yourself. Follow the money.

Quote from: James J SkachEDIT: I see your response to Ben, are you talking about Australia, the US, the world?

I talk mostly about Australia because I know it best, and because we're such a dreadful example of wasteful fossil fuel use, and also a country whose government is considering nuclear power generation. We're also an example of a developed nation, and most countries in the world want to be developed nations - so when we talk about the world using nuclear energy, that doesn't mean just the happy friendly Western democracies, it means poor countries suffering civil conflict, and plenty who hate us, too.

I mention that because one of the central boasts of nuclear power is that it's greenhouse-neutral. As I've pointed out, that's not true. But let's suppose it is - it doesn't do the world climate any good if the developed West stops generating its half of the world's greenhouse gases and the developing world doubles its own output. We close down 1,000 fossil fuel stations and open 1,000 nuke stations - fine. But then China and India and Zimbabwe and Iran and Chile open 1,000 fossil fuel stations. Woops. Haven't improved things much, have we? So if we propose nuclear power as a solution to global warming, that means nuclear power for everyone.

QuoteSomething like launching this waste into the sun would probably be wiser, but much more costly.

Do you really want to risk having a Challenger explosion spray bits of toxic waste instead of school teacher? :eek:

Quote from: JimBobOzTo say "only made possible" was wrong. Fossil fuel use would happen without public subsidy. It's bettter to say, "fossil fuel use is only as cheap and widespread as it is, due to public subsidy."

While I appreciate your candor, I'm not sure it's right to make the assertion you have. In particular, the widespread use of fossil fuels was on it's march long before the government ever started with tax incentives. And cheap?  I wish I could use you to convince people here who do nothing but complain about how expensive it is. Until I have more evidence, however, I'll let this one pass to you.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou can research this easily for yourself. Get out your street map of your city, and locate the major roads, and power stations. Then go and look up who paid for them. It's the public. Then consider your favourite petrol station, and find out where he gets his petrol from. Then look up that major oil company, and see how much taxes they pay, and what subsidies they receive from the government - from the public.

I hope you're not implying that roads are subsidies for power companies, are you?  I mean, my word, the absurdity of that, from you, takes me a bit by surprise. Perhaps in Australia it's different. Do you have public roads that were created solely for the power companies? That would piss me off, too.  We tend not to do that here. Are there joint ventures here? Yeah, that happens. But they tend to be neutral – that is, for a mall to be put it, they have to pay for a portion of the improvement required to keep traffic moving (new turn lanes, traffic light, etc.).

But we can agree on one thing - subsidies are crap, whether for agricultural or oil.

Quote from: JimBobOzAdd all that up, and it's billions of dollars. Now imagine that there was no public money for it, the private companies had to come up with the billions by themselves. Not likely to happen.

I'm not so sure I'd make that claim. Instead, I think the problem lies in allowing those same power companies to charge what they want.  See, here in Illinois, in the states, we're going through this interesting problem. If you want the details, I'll go into them.  However, suffice it to say that there was an exchange of monopoly for rate control.  That's changing, but there's still a hew and cry for the government to control the rates, you know, to avoid us being raped by the eeevil power company. If you stop that crazy cycle, I'd bet the companies would rush in to fill the demand.

Quote from: JimBobOzI mention that because one of the central boasts of nuclear power is that it's greenhouse-neutral. As I've pointed out, that's not true. But let's suppose it is - it doesn't do the world climate any good if the developed West stops generating its half of the world's greenhouse gases and the developing world doubles its own output. We close down 1,000 fossil fuel stations and open 1,000 nuke stations - fine. But then China and India and Zimbabwe and Iran and Chile open 1,000 fossil fuel stations. Woops. Haven't improved things much, have we? So if we propose nuclear power as a solution to global warming, that means nuclear power for everyone.

I know the argument made against yours. That it is better to still be at 2000 fossil fuel stations than at 3000.  I don't agree with it, but that's the argument I always see. However, I disagree with the idea that just because we have nuclear power, Zimbabwe and Iran get to as well. To try and create some sort of moral equivalence is abhorrent to me.

Quote from: James McMurrayDo you really want to risk having a Challenger explosion spray bits of toxic waste instead of school teacher? :eek:

That's just totally in fucking poor taste, and uncalled for.

Quote from: James J SkachWhile I appreciate your candor, I'm not sure it's right to make the assertion you have. In particular, the widespread use of fossil fuels was on it's march long before the government ever started with tax incentives.

Certainly. But it would not be as widespread as it is without subsidies. Places like Ghana would not have large power stations without government investment. Here in Australia we've seen how the level of service in telecommunications drops when ownership goes from public to private. If it were a matter of providing that service in the first place, some places here would never have got telephones; many don't yet have internet, and no private citizens in Australia have internationally-recognised broadband (more than 2Mbps), only companies and government.

Power stations, lines, the whole infrastructure - it costs billions. Private companies simply can't raise that amount of capital by themselves, they rely on public subsidies, government-guaranteed loans and so on.

Quote from: James J SkachAnd cheap?  I wish I could use you to convince people here who do nothing but complain about how expensive it is. Until I have more evidence, however, I'll let this one pass to you.

Try discussing petrol prices online. The cheapest place in the developed world for petrol is the USA, but they're the ones who complain the most about the price. Having worked in various restaurants, I can honestly say that the cheaper the food, the more the complaints - about price, quality, everything. No-one sends a $40 plate back to the kitchen; they often send $10 plates back.

I call it "cheap" when people on minimum full-time wage can afford it, provided they're prudent with their money. Electricity is "cheap" across most of the Western world, by that standard.

Quote from: James J SkachI hope you're not implying that roads are subsidies for power companies, are you?  

No. They are indirectly subsidies for energy companies like Shell, etc. Without roads, consumers would not have the means to consume fuel in their cars. But I didn't mention them as a subsidy for power companies, or energy companies - I mentioned them as an example of a large project which is almost never undertaken entirely by private funds, but almost entirely by public funds. If a private company won't spend $10 million on a stretch of road without public subsidy, they sure as shit won't spend $2 billion on a power station.

Quote from: James J SkachAre there joint ventures here? Yeah, that happens. But they tend to be neutral – that is, for a mall to be put it, they have to pay for a portion of the improvement required to keep traffic moving (new turn lanes, traffic light, etc.).

Ours are not neutral, but favour the corporations. For example, a highway was built in Sydney. The negotiations went something like this,

Govt: "We want to ease congestion on the roads, and build another road. So, we offer you $200 million to build the highway, and $10 million annually for forty years to maintain it."
Corp: "Not enough."
Govt: "Okay, $300 million and $15 million. But we can't afford to pay you that straight out."
Corp: "Well, we could collect tolls for the road."
Govt: "Okay, a few bucks for each car that uses the road? Fair enough."
Corp: "But then, if there's a toll road, and a free road, people will of course use the free road. Same if you put in a railway."
Govt: "Okay, we promise to close the surrounding roads, and not to build any railway parallel to your highway for forty years. Good enough?"
PUBLIC: "Oi! You're building the highway to ease congestion, but to afford the highway you have to promise to cause congestion?!"
Corp & Govt: "Who the fuck asked you?"
 

Quote from: James J SkachBut we can agree on one thing - subsidies are crap, whether for agricultural or oil.

I don't think subsidies are crap. I'm simply responding to the assertion that renewable energy isn't feasible without subsidies by saying, "well, fossil fuel gets subsidies, too." I believe in subsidising what we want to encourage, and not subsidising what we don't.

Quote from: James J SkachI know the argument made against yours. That it is better to still be at 2000 fossil fuel stations than at 3000.  I don't agree with it, but that's the argument I always see. However, I disagree with the idea that just because we have nuclear power, Zimbabwe and Iran get to as well. To try and create some sort of moral equivalence is abhorrent to me.

It's not a matter of moral equivalence. It's a matter of politics, and physics.

The politics is quite simply that if all across the Western world we replace our coal-fired stations with nuclear ones, then Iran and Zimbabwe are going to do that, too. Doesn't matter if it's immoral or whatever, it'll happen. As the developed world, we lead, they follow. That's the political reality.

As to physics, the argument is that if the West uses more nuclear, the world will have no greenhouse gas emissions. But of course that's rubbish, because if the West uses nuclear, then the developing world - supposing we can stop them using nuclear - will use coal, oil and gas. You say they can't have nukes? Fine. But they want to live better, which means consuming more energy. That energy has to come from somewhere. If we can't use renewables, how can they? That leaves nukes, and fossil-fuel.

Currently, the USA has 4% of the world's population and uses 25% of the world's energy, producing 25% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. If China and India want to live a lifestyle like the USA, with 40% the world's population they'll produce 250% of the world's emissions. So even if they don't go entirely nuclear, we have a problem.

So, "we'll stop greenhouse gas emissions if we use nuclear" only makes sense if the whole world uses nuclear. It's not about moral equivalence or any of that rubbish, it's a response to what people have been saying. It goes like this.

"Nuke power is free of greenhouse emissions, if everyone changes to that, no more greenhouse effect."
"It's not free of greenhouse emissions, and even if it were, everyone changing to it means China, India, Zimbabwe, etc. And if those guys don't change to it, then they'll build more fossil-fuel burning stations, so we just move the greenhouse gas problem from West to East. How is this an improvement?"

Okay, so we go nuclear, Zimbabwe doesn't. How does Zimbabwe get its power? Fossil fuels? But hang on, aren't we rejecting fossil fuels because of greenhouse gases? Renewables? Hang on, aren't people saying that's impossible, impractical, and too expensive? So how does Zimbabwe get power, then? Are they supposed to do without it? Try arguing that to Zimbabweans.

Greenhouse gases, and the finite resources of the Earth, combined with the need for energy, are a global problem. So they need global solutions - that is, solutions which will work for all countries, not just our nice happy rich ones.

Quote from: Dominus NoxThat's just totally in fucking poor taste, and uncalled for.

Pardon my smile...I think somebody said something amusing.

QuoteI hope you're not implying that roads are subsidies for power companies, are you? I mean, my word, the absurdity of that, from you, takes me a bit by surprise. Perhaps in Australia it’s different. Do you have public roads that were created solely for the power companies? That would piss me off, too. We tend not to do that here. Are there joint ventures here? Yeah, that happens. But they tend to be neutral – that is, for a mall to be put it, they have to pay for a portion of the improvement required to keep traffic moving (new turn lanes, traffic light, etc.).

In the town where I spent all of junior high and high school, the city built a new road, and entire new underpass by the main highway, for a Wal-Mart.  In another case, they completely redesigned and remapped a dozen city blocks for specifically to direct traffic to a new Fred Meyer.

In my present town, most of road and highway budgets go towards paving new streets for new luxury home developments, instead of being used to properly repair sidewalks and streets that in many cases have gone decades without any repair.  Whole neighborhoods with pulverized sidewalks, and in some cases, even sidestreets that have become impromptu dirt roads.

Public service subsidies go to shit way less important than a power plant all the time.  When the big business shows up and starts waving handfuls of cash under the city councilor's noses, shit tends to happen.

Well, we've reached our 4%/25% impasse again.  It took us a while to get there, but it always gets tossed in at some point.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, though I think we're miscommunicating on a couple of points.  Could be cultural. I appreciate your discussion.  I just think we're going to agree to disagree on a couple of things. Most actually.

J Arcane - I'd love to see the funding records for that interchange, as well as the tax revenues the town was able to reap from the Wal-Mart. Then we could add in all the money people who shopped there saved.  I'd bet that even if your town funded the entire interchange project, the folks in the town, particularly those who shopped at the Wal Mart, made money on the deal.

But that argument is for another thread.

Quote from: Dominus NoxThat's just totally in fucking poor taste, and uncalled for.

Perhaps, but it's a valid question. Until we've perfected space flight, launching toxic waste entails more risk than necessary for its reward.

Quote from: James J SkachWell, we've reached our 4%/25% impasse again.  It took us a while to get there, but it always gets tossed in at some point.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, though I think we're miscommunicating on a couple of points.  Could be cultural. I appreciate your discussion.  I just think we're going to agree to disagree on a couple of things. Most actually.

J Arcane - I'd love to see the funding records for that interchange, as well as the tax revenues the town was able to reap from the Wal-Mart. Then we could add in all the money people who shopped there saved.  I'd bet that even if your town funded the entire interchange project, the folks in the town, particularly those who shopped at the Wal Mart, made money on the deal.

But that argument is for another thread.

Said Wal-Mart, like most such projects in smaller towns, was given a tax waver for at least the next decade.  They aren't paying a goddamn thing.  And that's usually prety standard practice really, goes on all across the country, basic corporate welfare stuff really.  

You really are out of touch, you know that?  I admire your naivete in a way, but really, you are pretty well sold on an America that doesn't exist.

Quote from: J ArcaneSaid Wal-Mart, like most such projects in smaller towns, was given a tax waver for at least the next decade.  They aren't paying a goddamn thing.  And that's usually prety standard practice really, goes on all across the country, basic corporate welfare stuff really.  

You really are out of touch, you know that?  I admire your naivete in a way, but really, you are pretty well sold on an America that doesn't exist.

I'm out of touch?  How many people work at that Wal Mart? How many now have a job? How much are they paying in taxes that would not have existed if not for that job? What happens at the end of ten years - does Wal Mart pack up and leave?

Who is out of touch? Who is naive? Who is simply buying the arguments of class warfare because they make one feel good to be for the "little guy?"

Quote from: James J SkachI'm out of touch?  How many people work at that Wal Mart? How many now have a job? How much are they paying in taxes that would not have existed if not for that job? What happens at the end of ten years - does Wal Mart pack up and leave?

Who is out of touch? Who is naive? Who is simply buying the arguments of class warfare because they make one feel good to be for the "little guy?"

You asked this:

QuoteDo you have public roads that were created solely for the power companies?

I answered that it's quite common in the US for the public to subsidize roads for all kinds of things.

Now you're bringing up a bunch of unrelated shit that doesn't have anytihng to do with your question, or the subject of the thread.

But, since you asked, the city or the county didn't collect one red cent from the new batch of Wal-Mart employees, because neither the city or the county have a local income tax, and there is no sales tax on any level in the state of Oregon.  

But I'm sure the councilman got himself a sweet new Ford Explorer.  For his next campaign of course.

Quote from: J ArcaneI answered that it's quite common in the US for the public to subsidize roads for all kinds of things.

OK, so you asserted that it's quite common.  I'm asserting it's not as common as you think. More accurately, I'm arguing that it's more common that other factors neutralize the public subsidy.

Quote from: J ArcaneNow you're bringing up a bunch of unrelated shit that doesn't have anytihng to do with your question, or the subject of the thread.

Well, we're all over the map in these threads. perhaps we should just have a thread to argue all policies. I'll cop to not being relevant directly to Nuclear Power.  However, my questions are directly to your assertion. So I think we're both way off topic here.

Quote from: J ArcaneBut, since you asked, the city or the county didn't collect one red cent from the new batch of Wal-Mart employees, because neither the city or the county have a local income tax, and there is no sales tax on any level in the state of Oregon.  

But I'm sure the councilman got himself a sweet new Ford Explorer.  For his next campaign of course.

And I would being voting that person out of office.  It's a horrible return. Hold him or her reponsible and can his (or her) ass. The fact that you and I agree it's a horrible deal, the two of us from (it seems) very different areas of the political spectrum, should be an indicator of how common it occurs without neutralizing factors.

Quote from: James J SkachWell, we've reached our 4%/25% impasse again.  It took us a while to get there, but it always gets tossed in at some point.

It's relevant, as I said, because we're discussing global greenhouse gas emissions, and global energy policy.

The entire USA could switch off all its electricity, and turn off all its cars tomorrow, and it'd be a 25% decline in greenhouse gas emissions globally. But in about seven years, China, India and Africa would have made up for it, and we'd be back where we started.

So if you want to talk about whether nuclear power is good for the world, you have to talk about whether it's good for those developing countries, too. And if you say, "it's not good for them, only for us," then you have to answer: where should China, India and Africa get their electricity from?

Do they get it from fossil fuels? Then we in the West may as well not bother with nuclear power, because developing world emissions will easily exceed our savings.

Do they get it from renewable energy? Then why can't we? What is different between a car factory in China, and a car factory in Australia, that theirs can be powered by solar panels (or whatever), and ours can't?

Or do you want to say to the developing world, "you can't have nuclear, you can't have fossil fuels, and renewable energy doesn't work"? They will reply, "so how do we power ourselves?" What's your answer?

Greenhouse gas emissions, and the development of nuclear power industries in any country have global consequences. CO2 and methane don't stop at the border, and neither do nuclear bombs.

So, the USA is wonderful and right and true and good, and the rest of the world should do as you say. Rightyo, what are you going to tell the developing world to do? They want more energy - how should they get it?

Of course none of this affects my main point, which is: why use a finite resource when you have an infinite one available?

I havn't read the entire thread... I'm under the weather...

I'm for.

And yes nuke waste issues are blown out of proportion. And we get most of our power generation from coal. not oil. and we get about ~20% of our power from Nuke. And we havn't built a new one in quite some time.

NEI (http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=95) has some good info on it.

Plus the deaths from coal mining and coal burning pollution outstrip the deaths from Nuke plants... at least in the US. Russia may be another story.

Sorry if I'm being redundant, wanted to get my vote and two cents in.

EDIT: One of the founders of Green peace advocats for nuclear (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html)

ultimately I'm really for fusion or good solar power, hoping that Ray Kursweil is correct and that nano-tech fabrication processes will lead to a golden age of solar power.

Quote from: TonyLBPersonally, I think Tokamak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak) fusion reactors will be workable in our lifetimes, so I do think that there is a next step in the ladder.  Whether fusion will generate enough energy that we'll actually bother with whatever supercollider nonsense is necessary to render nuclear waste inert (is this even possible?) I don't really know, but it certainly looks like we've got at least one or two more steps of "new technology saves us from the crisis of the last technology" left to figure it out.

Tokamak coils will need to be replaced every few months as they will be irradiated, and have to be disposed of in a nuclear dump. However it would be wonderful to get a functional fusion reactor that gives more power out than is pumped into it.

Nox exactly where did you get the 600 year number from?

I'm for it, too.

But only until we can replace it with something really bitchin', like antimatter, or one of those cool geothermal tap things.

Quote from: laffingboyI'm for it, too.

But only until we can replace it with something really bitchin', like antimatter, or one of those cool geothermal tap things.

Geothermal taps would indeed be cool when compared to antimatter. Antimatter would go from bitchin to BOOMIN' if you didn't handle it with hyperuberultraextreme care.:eek: But as a stardrive for a spacecraft, antimatter would be perfect, though you wouldn't want to get in the way of the gamma rays coming from the rear of the ship!

Quote from: RPGPunditDude, your dad had Homer Simpson's job???

RPGPundit

Actually, in a very basic way yes.  He's a safety inspector at various Nuke plants around the country.

Again, I feel that I should remind people that the french have a very safe, cost effective, sane nuclear program that works efficiently and satisfies the needs of an energy hungry nation quite well.

But then france does have a more socialist mentality than america, and in france a lot of america's "Business as usual" corporate/government corruption would not be tolerated.

Quote from: Dominus NoxAgain, I feel that I should remind people that the french have a very safe, cost effective, sane nuclear program that works efficiently and satisfies the needs of an energy hungry nation quite well.

Let's look back at the accidents in France alone in 1980 (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/accidents-1980%27s.htm).

   LA HAGUE, FRANCE - Five workers at a French nuclear reprocessing plant at Le Hague in Normandy were exposed to radiation after an accident at the plant yesterday. ("The Age", "The West Australian" 22/5/86 )

 CATTENOM 1 & 2, FRANCE - 8,000 litres of water initially thought to be from the primary coolant system flooded underground cellars at Units 1 and 2 of the Cattenom nuclear plant on August 23. The flooding, reportedly due to human error, left a valve open and is said to have destroyed electrical systems and pipelines. Later reports say it was not coolant water but a leak of river water. ("Nucleonics Week" 4,115 8/9/86, "Financial Times" 12/9/86, "The Scotsman" 12/9/86, WISE NC260 3/10/86).

 SAINT LAURENT DES EAUX, FRANCE - An accident occurred at the second reactor at Saint Laurent des EAUX. No official description was given but it was admitted that repairs would take several weeks. It was reported that there was a break in the protection around the fuel charges. A similar accident there in 1969 led to a shutdown for a year. (W.I.S.E. Ibid) (mar 13, 1980)

 CHOOZ, FRANCE - The Chooz nuclear power plant closed until the end of May due to a damaged reactor. (W.I.S.E. Ibid) (27 Mar, 1980)

 LA HAGUE, FRANCE - France came very close to a major nuclear accident when fire caused a breakdown of the cooling system at the waste dump and reprocessing plant at La Hague. The fire destroyed the transformer leaving the emergency generators without current. Electricity is vital for the pumps which work non-stop cooling the highly radioactive waste in the giant storage tanks. With the cooling system not working, the tanks began to boil. It was estimated that it would only take three hours before the water would evaporate and the waste would be spread into the atmosphere. With the failure of the electricity, everything went out of action - the instruments used for checking the Plutonium to make sure no critical mass is formed, the central instrument board, the intercom and loudspeaker system used to warn workers to evacuate. All areas of the plant were contaminated. It will take several months to repair the electrical installations. Authorities have tried to deny that any failure occurred. (W.I.S.E. Vol.2 No.4 p.15) (15 Apr 1980)

 LA HAGUE, FRANCE - Divers completed repairs to a faulty undersea pipeline which carries radioactive water from the nuclear treatment plant for the second time in a month. This time the breach occurred in calm water and spilt radioactive water into the channel. This is the 39th time the pipe has broken. Unionists have called for a six months closure of the factory claiming the equipment is "decrepit". The Regional Anti-Nuclear Committee has demanded closure of the plant saying the health of the workers, neighbouring populations, and consumers of sea and land produce were being affected. (International Nuclear News Service, No.12 p.12) (Apr 1980)

 FESSENHEIM, FRANCE - According to Mr. ETEMAD, a nuclear expert who used to work with the French reactor building company FRAMATOME, there are cracks in the Fessenheim nuclear power plant where ten relatively minor accidents have occurred. The Director of the plant had to admit that faulty parts had been built into the reactor. There are probably cracks in the part which connects the pipes to the reactor vessel, a place which cannot be reached until after the reactor starts operating. This is one of the most sensitive parts of the reactor because of high pressure and temperature changes. Etemad estimates the part could break within five years of starting the reactor. The reactor had already been operating for three years. The resulting accident would be more serious than Harrisburg. (W.I.S.E. Vol.2 No.3 p.9) (Apr 1980)

 LA HAGUE, FRANCE - 300-500 litres of liquid containing Plutonium (1 to 20 grams/ltr) was spilt on concrete floor. Cause of accident unknown but thought to be another breakdown in patched up electricity work. (W.I.S.E. Ibid) (21 May 1980)

 MARCOULE, FRANCE - Two workers radiated during an explosion at the nuclear factory in Marcoule. Similar accident occurred two weeks earlier. (W.I.S.E. Vol.2 No.5 July/September 1980 p.27) (5 Jun 1980)

 FESSENHEIM 1 & 2, FRANCE - Both units at the Fessenheim nuclear reactor in France were shut down after a defect in Unit 1 caused the leakage of "some water." News of the breakdown was withheld from the press for one day because the plant operators did not want to 'worry the public'. Fessenheim has been proved to be one of the most accident prone reactors in Europe. (W.I.S.E . vol. .2 No.6 October/December 1980 p.10) (occured 8 Aug 1980)

 LA HAGUE, FRANCE - An accident occurred at the La Hague reprocessing plant, on the coast of Normandy. The accident, which occurred at the plant's temporary waste storage site, resulted in the release of large quantities of radioactive water. Although workers discovered the leak immediately on 22nd September, it was not until 1st October that the plant's Director admitted the failure of the pump but denied that any contamination had taken place. On 3rd October the S.N.P.E.A. - C.F.D.T. the leading trade union at La Hague, distributed a written statement concerning the seriousness of the accident to all plant employees. In the paper the union also charged that the plant officials had attempted to cover up the contamination leak in an effort to down play the seriousness of the accident. (W.I.S.E. Vol.2 No.6 October/December, 1980 p.21) (occurred 22 Sep 1980)


Not looking so good. Any better now?

Apparently not. France has 59 active nuclear reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_plants_of_Europe_and_CIS#France). These are on average over 17 years old (you can see a list of them all here (http://www.icjt.org/npp/lokacija.php?drzava=8)), and will all have reached the end of their projected design life by 2010. They have 1 under construction.

Any machine as it grows old requires more maintenance, and has more accidents. Not one nuclear reactor has ever been completely dismantled and decommissioned - typically they just close it down, remove the fuel rods, put a padlock on the gate and walk away. Someone else's problem!

Plus, you know, the French have nuclear weapons. And if we suppose a world full of Frances which are all "safe" with their nuclear power, still, that's a world of countries with nuclear weapons. Even if living next door to a station gave you vitamin C and a larger penis, still, there's the bombs. More nuclear power stations in the world means more nuclear bombs in the world.

No, merci.

Quote from: JimBobOzLet's look back at the accidents in France alone in 1980 (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/accidents-1980%27s.htm).

   LA HAGUE, FRANCE - Five workers at a French nuclear reprocessing plant at Le Hague in Normandy were exposed to radiation after an accident at the plant yesterday. ("The Age", "The West Australian" 22/5/86 )

 CATTENOM 1 & 2, FRANCE - 8,000 litres of water initially thought to be from the primary coolant system flooded underground cellars at Units 1 and 2 of the Cattenom nuclear plant on August 23. The flooding, reportedly due to human error, left a valve open and is said to have destroyed electrical systems and pipelines. Later reports say it was not coolant water but a leak of river water. ("Nucleonics Week" 4,115 8/9/86, "Financial Times" 12/9/86, "The Scotsman" 12/9/86, WISE NC260 3/10/86).

 SAINT LAURENT DES EAUX, FRANCE - An accident occurred at the second reactor at Saint Laurent des EAUX. No official description was given but it was admitted that repairs would take several weeks. It was reported that there was a break in the protection around the fuel charges. A similar accident there in 1969 led to a shutdown for a year. (W.I.S.E. Ibid) (mar 13, 1980)

 CHOOZ, FRANCE - The Chooz nuclear power plant closed until the end of May due to a damaged reactor. (W.I.S.E. Ibid) (27 Mar, 1980)

 LA HAGUE, FRANCE - France came very close to a major nuclear accident when fire caused a breakdown of the cooling system at the waste dump and reprocessing plant at La Hague. The fire destroyed the transformer leaving the emergency generators without current. Electricity is vital for the pumps which work non-stop cooling the highly radioactive waste in the giant storage tanks. With the cooling system not working, the tanks began to boil. It was estimated that it would only take three hours before the water would evaporate and the waste would be spread into the atmosphere. With the failure of the electricity, everything went out of action - the instruments used for checking the Plutonium to make sure no critical mass is formed, the central instrument board, the intercom and loudspeaker system used to warn workers to evacuate. All areas of the plant were contaminated. It will take several months to repair the electrical installations. Authorities have tried to deny that any failure occurred. (W.I.S.E. Vol.2 No.4 p.15) (15 Apr 1980)

 LA HAGUE, FRANCE - Divers completed repairs to a faulty undersea pipeline which carries radioactive water from the nuclear treatment plant for the second time in a month. This time the breach occurred in calm water and spilt radioactive water into the channel. This is the 39th time the pipe has broken. Unionists have called for a six months closure of the factory claiming the equipment is "decrepit". The Regional Anti-Nuclear Committee has demanded closure of the plant saying the health of the workers, neighbouring populations, and consumers of sea and land produce were being affected. (International Nuclear News Service, No.12 p.12) (Apr 1980)

 FESSENHEIM, FRANCE - According to Mr. ETEMAD, a nuclear expert who used to work with the French reactor building company FRAMATOME, there are cracks in the Fessenheim nuclear power plant where ten relatively minor accidents have occurred. The Director of the plant had to admit that faulty parts had been built into the reactor. There are probably cracks in the part which connects the pipes to the reactor vessel, a place which cannot be reached until after the reactor starts operating. This is one of the most sensitive parts of the reactor because of high pressure and temperature changes. Etemad estimates the part could break within five years of starting the reactor. The reactor had already been operating for three years. The resulting accident would be more serious than Harrisburg. (W.I.S.E. Vol.2 No.3 p.9) (Apr 1980)

 LA HAGUE, FRANCE - 300-500 litres of liquid containing Plutonium (1 to 20 grams/ltr) was spilt on concrete floor. Cause of accident unknown but thought to be another breakdown in patched up electricity work. (W.I.S.E. Ibid) (21 May 1980)

 MARCOULE, FRANCE - Two workers radiated during an explosion at the nuclear factory in Marcoule. Similar accident occurred two weeks earlier. (W.I.S.E. Vol.2 No.5 July/September 1980 p.27) (5 Jun 1980)

 FESSENHEIM 1 & 2, FRANCE - Both units at the Fessenheim nuclear reactor in France were shut down after a defect in Unit 1 caused the leakage of "some water." News of the breakdown was withheld from the press for one day because the plant operators did not want to 'worry the public'. Fessenheim has been proved to be one of the most accident prone reactors in Europe. (W.I.S.E . vol. .2 No.6 October/December 1980 p.10) (occured 8 Aug 1980)

 LA HAGUE, FRANCE - An accident occurred at the La Hague reprocessing plant, on the coast of Normandy. The accident, which occurred at the plant's temporary waste storage site, resulted in the release of large quantities of radioactive water. Although workers discovered the leak immediately on 22nd September, it was not until 1st October that the plant's Director admitted the failure of the pump but denied that any contamination had taken place. On 3rd October the S.N.P.E.A. - C.F.D.T. the leading trade union at La Hague, distributed a written statement concerning the seriousness of the accident to all plant employees. In the paper the union also charged that the plant officials had attempted to cover up the contamination leak in an effort to down play the seriousness of the accident. (W.I.S.E. Vol.2 No.6 October/December, 1980 p.21) (occurred 22 Sep 1980)


Not looking so good. Any better now?

Apparently not. France has 59 active nuclear reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_plants_of_Europe_and_CIS#France). These are on average over 17 years old (you can see a list of them all here (http://www.icjt.org/npp/lokacija.php?drzava=8)), and will all have reached the end of their projected design life by 2010. They have 1 under construction.

Any machine as it grows old requires more maintenance, and has more accidents. Not one nuclear reactor has ever been completely dismantled and decommissioned - typically they just close it down, remove the fuel rods, put a padlock on the gate and walk away. Someone else's problem!

Plus, you know, the French have nuclear weapons. And if we suppose a world full of Frances which are all "safe" with their nuclear power, still, that's a world of countries with nuclear weapons. Even if living next door to a station gave you vitamin C and a larger penis, still, there's the bombs. More nuclear power stations in the world means more nuclear bombs in the world.

No, merci.

As I looked thru your little list, which I'm sure was composed by antinuclear power advocates, I noticed that no one was measurably injured in any of them. The nebulous term "irradiated" was applied to a cople workers, but how much "irradiation" did they get? Millirems? I get irradiated every time I walk outside during daylight as I'm exposed to radiation from the sun. I'm going to be "irradiated" tomorrow when I get a dental xray, I get "Irradiated" when I change the battery in my smoke detector which uses a small amount of radioactive material.

So how much were the people in these reports "irradiated"?

Other reports say 'radioactive water" was released. Again, how radioactive? How much was released into the volume of the surrounding water, and how rapidly was it dispersed?

All these anti-nuclear reports use temrs like "irradiated" and "radiation release" while rarely, if ever, going into much details because they might not want to let people know that the typical basement can expose you to more radiation, via radon gas, than these "incidents" do.

But then again i wouldn't espext you to understand any of this, jimboob, you're nothing but a colossal asshole and brains are located in skulls, not assholes.

Not power related, interesting nonetheless.

Mishap In Dismantling Nuclear Warhead
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Mishap_In_Dismantling_Nuclear_Warhead_999.html

Quote from: RockViperNot power related, interesting nonetheless.

Mishap In Dismantling Nuclear Warhead
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Mishap_In_Dismantling_Nuclear_Warhead_999.html

This sounds a little suspicious to me. Nuclear warheads do NOT "accidentally" detonate under any conditions. There are too many safeties built in, even to the cruder soviet warheads, to allow for "accidental" detonation.

The detonation sequence has to be done very carefully and precisely, with a lot of safeties previously being disarmed.

Let me give you an example: There was a disaster at an american missile silo years ago, and a nuclear missile actually exploded in it's silo, killing several workers. Note that I said the MISSILE exploded, not the warhead. Apparently while servicing and refueling a missile, someone dropped a wrench which struck a fuel valve, broke it, triggered a spark and set off the fuel, which exploded in the silo.

The warhead was blown out of the silo like a round out of a mortar, landing some distance outside the perimeter fence. it was leaking radiation but it did not detonate, obviously.

it's pretty hard to get a nuke to go off, with the shaped charges having to all be detonated simulteaously and a lot fo safete features prevent that from happening, accidental detonations just don't happen, even when nuclear weapons have been lost at extreme depth in the oceans.

Looks like incompetence.

Here is the NNSA press release

http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/docs/newsreleases/2006/PR_2006-11-29_NA-06-45.htm

and the DOE enforcement letter
http://www.hss.doe.gov/Enforce/els.html

[Nox]That US Department of Energy, especially their National Nuclear Security Administration, they must be "antinuclear power advocates"! And the FAA are against flying, and the FCC wants you to turn off your tv and radio!

What a bunch of fucking commies! [/Nox]

Quote from: Dominus NoxThis sounds a little suspicious to me. Nuclear warheads do NOT "accidentally" detonate under any conditions. There are too many safeties built in, even to the cruder soviet warheads, to allow for "accidental" detonation.

Actual detonation, yes, but getting a sub-critical or even critical mass while dismantling one is quite easy

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonActual detonation, yes, but getting a sub-critical or even critical mass while dismantling one is quite easy

Ah, the so called "fizzled nuke" that doesn't really go BOOM, but makes one hell of a nuclear mess by scattering intensley radioactive matter about. Not something anyone needs, but dismantling them in large, sealed buildings can keep even that hellish mess under control.

I'm all for nuclear power. I couldn't give a shit about future generations. :incrediblehulk: