Discussion About Anti-Nuclear Energy/Arms Protest

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jemiba said:
It started from a discussion about specific nuclear weapons and the discussion about civil nuclear applications
was split. Is it really useful to merge it with a thread about nuclear weapons in general ?
This thread has already drifted from its original subject. Some of the OP's posts linked to stories about protests against a civil nuclear plant (Hinkley Point C) and nuclear waste processing in Taiwan. Which were commented on.

Is it useful to merge with a thread about nuclear weapons in general? It looks like this thread is moving in the other thread's direction.
 
Fair enough, and it certainly won't hurt this thread either.
The original topics were retained, so nobody should be irritated, I think.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Hot Breath said:
As Chernobyl, Fukashima, Three Mile Island, Sellafield and numerous other accidents have shown, we cannot make a Nuclear power generating system that won't stop working, occassionally catastrophically and possibly kill thousands of people.

Death Count (due to radiation)

Chernobyl 102
Fukashima 0
Three Mile Island 0
Sellafield 0

So you're far from thousands.

On the other hand tens of thousands of people have died in fires caused by the petroleum industry. And many more hundreds of thousands have died prematurely due to the effects of coal workers’ pneumoconiosis (black lung). In 2013 alone 25,000 people died from CWP. Yet all you hear about is the evils of radiation. The ignorance, petty moralising and superstition of the anti-nuclear crowd makes me sick. Acute useful idiot poisoning.

Facts? Well you won't be welcome in this thread for long.
 
Hot Breath said:
. We do not have to utilise the most dangerous means of producing electricity as the main means to do so.

What, using modified retro viruses to genetically engineer prisoners into enormous green ragemonsters to manually crank generators? Because as Abraham pointed out, you're clearly not referring to nuclear power.
 
Jemiba said:
Hot Breath said:
I see nothing wrong with posting news of anti-nuclear events, people, issues, etc. in that thread.

The forum rules clearly state, that this forum is meant "to discuss unbuilt military and aerospace/military technology"
...
"Political, ...posts are prohibited ..."

The "Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY" started as general thread about nuclear weapons. That's a theme, that often is
hard to divide from politics and that thread already was more, than once, locked, because debates had reached a level,
which was unacceptable, because of personal attack and insults. You may have noticed, that there are other themes,
that are locked and probably will remain so for quite a while, because experience has shown, that political views and
opinions are rarely discussed publicly in a sensible way.
Let's see, perhaps this thread will show, that things are different now ! ;)

Arjen said:

It started from a discussion about specific nuclear weapons and the discussion about civil nuclear applications
was split. Is it really useful to merge it with a thread about nuclear weapons in general ?

Jemiba - Thanks for supporting the Nuclear Weapons - NEWS ONLY thread IMHO it has worked well as a clearing house of information related to the topic. We now have many stories of US, Russian and Chinese (and other) nuke modernization involving real aerospace/military technology, you know missiles, submarines, bombers, etc. and a story about protesters with a giant inflatable missile hardly qualifies and needed to be separated out.
 
Hot Breath said:
We do not have to utilise the most dangerous means of producing electricity as the main means to do so. As Chernobyl, Fukashima, Three Mile Island, Sellafield and numerous other accidents have shown, we cannot make a Nuclear power generating system that won't stop working, occassionally catastrophically and possibly kill thousands of people.

Give this a good hard read: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

You'll note that, far from being the "most dangerous means of producing electricity", nuclear power is actually among the safest means. Per unit of energy generated, more people die as a result of rooftop solar panels (because of falls from the roof while installing/maintaining them) than by nuclear power.

The most dangerous/deadly means of power production is the burning of coal, killing people through mine accidents, mine conditions, and pollution. Oil isn't quite as bad, but still results in deaths from pollution, drilling accidents, and transportation accidents. If wars aren't included in the total, it'll get even worse.

And when you're done with that, look at this: http://xkcd.com/radiation/
 
Although thinking, that at least some statistical tricks may have been used, I would really like
to read this statistic, but cannot open a single page on www.nextbigfuture.com .
Perhaps it can be found elsewhere ? Or is this problem just temporarily ?
 
I have the same problem with Next Big Future at work - their provider's DNS Lookup does not have it. Fortunately I have access at home.

Prof Jim Hansen has a similar study which looks at deaths from nuclear vs coal and gas. It can be found here: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_Hansen_1.pdf

Hansen references this Lancet paper, of which Table 2 and Figure 3 are notable: http://www.bigthunderwindpower.ca/files/resources/Electricity_generation_and_health_(The_Lancet_2007).pdf

The takeaway points from these papers is that nuclear causes the least deaths per TWh.
 
gtg947h said:
...And when you're done with that, look at this: http://xkcd.com/radiation/

In addition, for those who may have not seen the older part of the thread: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,20469.msg201971.html#msg201971
 
Here is the webpage in question printed as a .pdf without all the stupid adverts that caused your firewall to block it. Should be readable to just about everyone except those forum members sticking to DOS.
 

Attachments

  • Deaths per TWh for all energy sources.pdf
    317 KB · Views: 5
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/liberals-and-progressives-for-nuclear

Liberals and Progressives for Nuclear
The Coming Atomic Age

"While historically conservatives have been the prominent supporters of nuclear energy, the urgency of climate change has recently compelled liberals and progressives to reconsider nuclear as the best zero-carbon source of baseload electricity for a world with rapidly rising energy demand.

A couple years prior to the release of Robert Stone’s documentary Pandora’s Promise, which follows five anti- to pro-nuclear converts, Breakthrough Senior Fellow Barry Brook, writing at his blog Brave New Climate, composed a list of the most prominent intellectual leaders and public figures who changed their mind about nuclear energy and now support it."
 
As usual, the pro-nuclear crowd are missing the point. When a nuclear accident occurs, all too often the effect will not be seen immediately, it will not show for generations as we see increased cancer rates and genetic mutations. Today, we have no deaths directly from what happened at Fukashima but in a generation or two, how many will have died from cancer or mutation?

Personally, I find the idea of genetic mutations arising from the short-mindedness of certain people, interested in profit over safety disgusting and we see it shrugged off all too often here by some of the pro-nuclear people. It is obvious they have no children of their own, from their comments. Considering that we have, now, as alternatives to nuclear energy, solar, wind and other "alternative" power sources, I do not see much point in the continued use of such a dangerous power source as nuclear energy. Two words cover my attitude towards nuclear energy - "stop it!"
 
Hot Breath said:
As usual, the pro-nuclear crowd are missing the point. When a nuclear accident occurs, all too often the effect will not be seen immediately, it will not show for generations as we see increased cancer rates and genetic mutations.

Mate you aren’t the first person to ask this question. And the answer is of course deaths over time are included. Increased cancer rates leading to death are factored into nuclear accidents. For example of the 100 or so Chernobyl deaths only 31 were at the time of the accident. The rest have been by terminal cancer. Chernobyl happened 30 years ago and almost all of the workers at the plant and clean-up are in their old age when cancers emerge in even the un irradiated. There isn’t a ticking time bomb of Chernobyl deaths about to happen.

The amount of radiation released by Fukashima is a drop in the ocean compared to Chernobyl. Literarily. Less than 8% of the radiation of which some 80% went into the pacific Ocean. Which means human occupied land received 1.6% of the radition. And without the reactor explosion and fire there is no fall out. Which is irradiated matter which is far more dangerous than radiation.

The inconvenient truth is radiation by itself is actually extremely benign. We live in a world bombarded by natural radiation. But thanks to the n squared law of attenuation you have to be really close to a radiation source to get fried. Sit in a natural hot spring and you’re body is being saturated with radiation. One hour a week over a year in some hot springs and you will reach the recommended annual maximum dose of radiation.
 
Hot Breath said:
Personally, I find the idea of genetic mutations arising from the short-mindedness of certain people, interested in profit over safety disgusting and we see it shrugged off all too often here by some of the pro-nuclear people. It is obvious they have no children of their own, from their comments. Considering that we have, now, as alternatives to nuclear energy, solar, wind and other "alternative" power sources, I do not see much point in the continued use of such a dangerous power source as nuclear energy. Two words cover my attitude towards nuclear energy - "stop it!"

So any SPF member that contributes a reasoned and rational defense of the benefits of nuclear power are really big corporate profit whores that WANT TO KILL THE CHILDREN!! :eek:

Now that's a great way to debate an issue ad hominen attacks on people.
 
bobbymike said:
Hot Breath said:
Personally, I find the idea of genetic mutations arising from the short-mindedness of certain people, interested in profit over safety disgusting and we see it shrugged off all too often here by some of the pro-nuclear people. It is obvious they have no children of their own, from their comments. Considering that we have, now, as alternatives to nuclear energy, solar, wind and other "alternative" power sources, I do not see much point in the continued use of such a dangerous power source as nuclear energy. Two words cover my attitude towards nuclear energy - "stop it!"

So any SPF member that contributes a reasoned and rational defense of the benefits of nuclear power are really big corporate profit whores that WANT TO KILL THE CHILDREN!! :eek:

Now that's a great way to debate an issue ad hominen attacks on people.

That seems to be the general level of "reasoning" from the left when presented with facts. They tend to go into a meltdown. (Heh, no pun intended.)
 
Hot Breath said:
As usual, the pro-nuclear crowd are missing the point. When a nuclear accident occurs, all too often the effect will not be seen immediately, it will not show for generations as we see increased cancer rates and genetic mutations. Today, we have no deaths directly from what happened at Fukashima but in a generation or two, how many will have died from cancer or mutation?


The science says that few, if any will have died from cancer or mutation.

Hot Breath said:
Personally, I find the idea of genetic mutations arising from the short-mindedness of certain people, interested in profit over safety disgusting and we see it shrugged off all too often here by some of the pro-nuclear people. It is obvious they have no children of their own, from their comments. Considering that we have, now, as alternatives to nuclear energy, solar, wind and other "alternative" power sources, I do not see much point in the continued use of such a dangerous power source as nuclear energy. Two words cover my attitude towards nuclear energy - "stop it!"


I live near Fukushima, have a kid, and want the nuclear plants back on.


When they were shuttered, electricity prices went up, and we had to stop using electric heaters in our apartment. Now instead we have to use truly dangerous stuff - kerosene. I'm sure my kid's lungs are glad of that.
 
bobbymike said:
Now that's a great way to debate an issue ad hominen attacks on people.

It might not be the best way but it matches the attacks on myself and my viewpoint. Where are your attacks on say, Orionblamblam and the other pro-nuclear posters?

There also seems to be an assumption that I am arguing in favour of fossil fuel sources when in reality I am anti-Nuclear and anti-Fossil. Bring in alternative energy sources and the number of deaths per KwH becomes considerably fewer than the nuclear industry and the fossil fuel industry. I see no reason why we should produce more toxic, radioactive waste than we need to, when the energy that the sun/wind/tides/oceans/etc. produce are more than adequate for the needs of most of humankind.
 
Hot Breath said:
Bring in alternative energy sources and the number of deaths per KwH becomes considerably fewer than the nuclear industry and the fossil fuel industry.

Would you be so kind as to provide some objective evidence?
 
sferrin said:
Hot Breath said:
Bring in alternative energy sources and the number of deaths per KwH becomes considerably fewer than the nuclear industry and the fossil fuel industry.

Would you be so kind as to provide some objective evidence?

I think those that want wind and solar should start with themselves right now. No gas, coal, natural gas, nuclear for their electricity or their cars (no buses or mass transit they use fossil fuels as well) and in fact stop buying anything that was transported using fossil fuels either.

http://neutronbytes.com/2015/03/10/carnival-of-nuclear-energy-bloggers-251/
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
Hot Breath said:
Bring in alternative energy sources and the number of deaths per KwH becomes considerably fewer than the nuclear industry and the fossil fuel industry.

Would you be so kind as to provide some objective evidence?

I think those that want wind and solar should start with themselves right now. No gas, coal, natural gas, nuclear for their electricity or their cars (no buses or mass transit they use fossil fuels as well) and in fact stop buying anything that was transported using fossil fuels either.

http://neutronbytes.com/2015/03/10/carnival-of-nuclear-energy-bloggers-251/

Odds are everything in their house (bicycles included) was made using fossil fuels providing the power. Oh, they need to get rid of everything petroleum derived too. Plastic for example.
 
You may find this article on SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) from 2012 of some interest: http://www.gizmag.com/small-modular-nuclear-reactors/20860/
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
Hot Breath said:
Bring in alternative energy sources and the number of deaths per KwH becomes considerably fewer than the nuclear industry and the fossil fuel industry.

Would you be so kind as to provide some objective evidence?

Perhaps you need to learn to use Google?

I think those that want wind and solar should start with themselves right now. No gas, coal, natural gas, nuclear for their electricity or their cars (no buses or mass transit they use fossil fuels as well) and in fact stop buying anything that was transported using fossil fuels either.

http://neutronbytes.com/2015/03/10/carnival-of-nuclear-energy-bloggers-251/

Odds are everything in their house (bicycles included) was made using fossil fuels providing the power. Oh, they need to get rid of everything petroleum derived too. Plastic for example.

Plastics are not used to provide power. You really are reaching for the bottom of the barrel, aren't you?

When the full cost - social, political and environmental of all energy sources are considered, other than just how many human lives have been lost in the production of each kilowatt produced per hour, we find that the alternative energy sources of Solar/Wind/Tidal/Ocean/etc. are all considerably less than that of the fossil and nuclear fueled sources. Remove the subsidies available to the nuclear and fossil fuel industries and it becomes even better!
 
Hot Breath said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
Hot Breath said:
Bring in alternative energy sources and the number of deaths per KwH becomes considerably fewer than the nuclear industry and the fossil fuel industry.

Would you be so kind as to provide some objective evidence?

Perhaps you need to learn to use Google?

I think those that want wind and solar should start with themselves right now. No gas, coal, natural gas, nuclear for their electricity or their cars (no buses or mass transit they use fossil fuels as well) and in fact stop buying anything that was transported using fossil fuels either.

http://neutronbytes.com/2015/03/10/carnival-of-nuclear-energy-bloggers-251/

Odds are everything in their house (bicycles included) was made using fossil fuels providing the power. Oh, they need to get rid of everything petroleum derived too. Plastic for example.

Plastics are not used to provide power. You really are reaching for the bottom of the barrel, aren't you?

When the full cost - social, political and environmental of all energy sources are considered, other than just how many human lives have been lost in the production of each kilowatt produced per hour, we find that the alternative energy sources of Solar/Wind/Tidal/Ocean/etc. are all considerably less than that of the fossil and nuclear fueled sources. Remove the subsidies available to the nuclear and fossil fuel industries and it becomes even better!

Yes because there are no positive in the pros and cons is there? The advent and widespread use of fossil fuels has produced the most incredible advancements in EVERY human endeavour as to defy description. Go to your cave and leave us alone.
 
bobbymike said:
[Yes because there are no positive in the pros and cons is there? The advent and widespread use of fossil fuels has produced the most incredible advancements in EVERY human endeavour as to defy description. Go to your cave and leave us alone.

You don't think the world is running out of fossil fuels and that sources such as solar and wind for example, off excellent alternative sources of electricity to nuclear?
 
Hot Breath said:
sferrin said:
Would you be so kind as to provide some objective evidence?

Perhaps you need to learn to use Google?

In other words, "I can't backup my emotional, baseless, feel good assertions". I'm shocked.
 
Kadija_Man said:
bobbymike said:
[Yes because there are no positive in the pros and cons is there? The advent and widespread use of fossil fuels has produced the most incredible advancements in EVERY human endeavour as to defy description. Go to your cave and leave us alone.

You don't think the world is running out of fossil fuels and that sources such as solar and wind for example, off excellent alternative sources of electricity to nuclear?

"excellent alternative" implies "superior". By almost any measurable metric, nuclear is far superior to either solar or wind. (BTW, where are you getting your energy to produce the solar cells and the energy and material to produce your wind turbines?)
 
sferrin said:
where are you getting your energy to produce the solar cells and the energy and material to produce your wind turbines?)

As for wind turbines... what are the blades made from? Generally either fiberglass or carbon fiber. In the case of the carbon fiber, the fibers are themselves produced from fossil fuel feedstock. And in *both* cases, the resin binding the glass or carbon fibers together is also produced from fossil petrochemical feedstocks. So if you get rid of petroleum, you'll need to replace the resin used to make wind turbines. I've heard of such things being made from, say, corn-based precursors. So, there's one more use for corn other than as cheap food. So if you want a world powered by breezes, you'll need a *vast* number of wind turbines which not only take up some space otherwise useful for agriculture, you'll also use a good fraction of the actual agriculture to build the wind turbines themselves.
 
Orionblamblam said:
sferrin said:
where are you getting your energy to produce the solar cells and the energy and material to produce your wind turbines?)

As for wind turbines... what are the blades made from? Generally either fiberglass or carbon fiber. In the case of the carbon fiber, the fibers are themselves produced from fossil fuel feedstock. And in *both* cases, the resin binding the glass or carbon fibers together is also produced from fossil petrochemical feedstocks. So if you get rid of petroleum, you'll need to replace the resin used to make wind turbines. I've heard of such things being made from, say, corn-based precursors. So, there's one more use for corn other than as cheap food. So if you want a world powered by breezes, you'll need a *vast* number of wind turbines which not only take up some space otherwise useful for agriculture, you'll also use a good fraction of the actual agriculture to build the wind turbines themselves.

And never mind the huge eyesore wind farms are. (And all the birds and bats they kill.)
 
I remember Slippery Jim diGriz recoiling in horror at the thought of valuable fossil hydrocarbons being burned as fuel in airliners. Precious resources for manufacturing plastics - burnt - squandered - surely nobody would be that wasteful? Not even in 1975?

That's in 'The Stainless Steel Rat Saves the World' by Harry Harrison. You don't need to burn tons of fossil hydrocarbons to turn other tons of fossil hydrocarbons into plastics.
 
Orionblamblam said:
sferrin said:
where are you getting your energy to produce the solar cells and the energy and material to produce your wind turbines?)

As for wind turbines... what are the blades made from? Generally either fiberglass or carbon fiber. In the case of the carbon fiber, the fibers are themselves produced from fossil fuel feedstock. And in *both* cases, the resin binding the glass or carbon fibers together is also produced from fossil petrochemical feedstocks. So if you get rid of petroleum, you'll need to replace the resin used to make wind turbines. I've heard of such things being made from, say, corn-based precursors. So, there's one more use for corn other than as cheap food. So if you want a world powered by breezes, you'll need a *vast* number of wind turbines which not only take up some space otherwise useful for agriculture, you'll also use a good fraction of the actual agriculture to build the wind turbines themselves.

One interesting contradiction I've never seen explained is that when the alternative energy crowd discuss wind, solar, etc. energy technology the regale us with talk of amazing technologies around the corner that will 'improve' performance and save the world YET at the same time they treat traditional carbon based and nuclear energy as if it's Three Mile Island and 'There Will Be Blood.' Archaic technology that is doomed to kill us all. Only their technology will get better in the future, somehow.

Their technology is always amazing and dynamic and 'other' technology somehow remains static, never changing.
 
Whenever high technology is sought for the solution of a problem:
Optimism and stupidity are nearly synonymous.
-Hyman G. Rickover
 
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
bobbymike said:
[Yes because there are no positive in the pros and cons is there? The advent and widespread use of fossil fuels has produced the most incredible advancements in EVERY human endeavour as to defy description. Go to your cave and leave us alone.

You don't think the world is running out of fossil fuels and that sources such as solar and wind for example, off excellent alternative sources of electricity to nuclear?

"excellent alternative" implies "superior". By almost any measurable metric, nuclear is far superior to either solar or wind. (BTW, where are you getting your energy to produce the solar cells and the energy and material to produce your wind turbines?)

From the sun? From the temperature differential it produces in our atmosphere? ::)
 
Would we “go broke” without coal? > Check the facts March 3, 2015 · in Mining Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce has said that without coal “we go broke”. Would Australia, or any particular state encounter serious fiscal difficulty if coal production and consumption was reduced?
New South Wales and Queensland are Australia’s main coal producing states, producing 257 and 294 million tonnes respectively in 2013-14. Victoria the next largest is far behind, producing around 70 million tonnes, while the other states produce only around 10 million tonnes between them.
Even in New South Wales and Queensland, revenue from coal royalties makes up only 2 and 4 per cent of state revenue. So while a reduction in these royalties would make a difference of hundreds of millions of dollars, more than 95 per cent of their revenue would remain. To put it in perspective, in both Queensland and NSW they raise about the same amount of revenue from car licences and registration and traffic fines as they do from coal royalties.
At a federal level, research commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia shows that all mining paid around $12 billion in company tax last financial year. While the study does not disaggregate the coal sector from other mining, given the size of the Australian iron ore sector and the low profitability of coal mines over the last few years it is unlikely to amount to even half of this sum. If company tax from coal did amount to $6 billion in 2013-14, this would represent around 1.5 per cent of the Commonwealth’s revenue. Again, losing this money would reduce government income, but would not threaten the vast bulk of its revenue.
While not significant for Australian governments, the large amounts of coal Australia produces do sell for large amounts of money. However, as the coal industry is 80 to 90 per cent foreign owned most of this money does not stay in Australia.
As an employer, the coal industry is insignificant. 43,000 people are employed in the coal industry out of 11.6 million people employed in Australia, or less than half of one per cent.
Clearly, Australia would not “go broke” without coal.
[Source]
 
Kadija_Man said:
sferrin said:
Kadija_Man said:
bobbymike said:
[Yes because there are no positive in the pros and cons is there? The advent and widespread use of fossil fuels has produced the most incredible advancements in EVERY human endeavour as to defy description. Go to your cave and leave us alone.

You don't think the world is running out of fossil fuels and that sources such as solar and wind for example, off excellent alternative sources of electricity to nuclear?

"excellent alternative" implies "superior". By almost any measurable metric, nuclear is far superior to either solar or wind. (BTW, where are you getting your energy to produce the solar cells and the energy and material to produce your wind turbines?)

From the sun? From the temperature differential it produces in our atmosphere? ::)

Try again?
 
Kadija_Man said:
From the sun? From the temperature differential it produces in our atmosphere? ::)


Where do you think those fossils that became fuel come from? They were something, plants, that can actually tap the power of the sun and turn it into an easy to use energy source.


Unlike plants the rest of us have no internal process to turn solar radiation into energy we can use. Solar power cells require huge investment into their construction and continual replacement. Even then all they produce is electricity. In order to use electricity in many applications you require a means to store it, it batteries. Which are even more expensive to construct and replace at their end of life.


Replacing fossil fuels with batteries is quite simply beyond the means of human economy. Ie costs more than our GDP. Or if you want to use that electricity to produce hydrogen for fuel you are going to need a lot, lot more electricity. And your solar power farms start to be measured not in hectares of coverage but in national landmasses. And I'm not talking multiples of Luxembourg. Try multiples of Australia for global demand.


Its far cheaper and easier to just use nature's stored solar power. Fossil fuels. Running out of them in the next hundred years or so is a thing of fantasy. Just like Malthus's opinion on the food sustainability of population growth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom