Discussion About Anti-Nuclear Energy/Arms Protest

[Hot Breath]

Fact of the matter is that there is a remarkable amount of scaremongering when it comes to nuclear power. Talks of radiation poisoning and potential danger are so grossly overstated it's not even funny. Yes, there is a certain amount of risk associated with them, but reactors are generally very safe with multiple redundancies built into them. And quite frankly they are far more preferable to conventional coal power plants.

Alternative power plants don't have the risks associated with nuclear power plants or coal fired power plants either.

As for other non-fossil fuel energy sources, like wind and solar, those are way too situational to be used as primary source of power generation.

This would explain how Germany and Scotland have exceeded their base load power requirements using only Alternative power sources (wind and solar and hydro)?

Frankly, as xmotex implied, in the near term nuclear fission is one of the most effective methods of curbing carbon emissions and give our climate a much needed reprieve, but it's truly frustrating how so many people are lead to belief the exaggerated dangers of nuclear power. Look at what happened in Germany.

Nuclear power is inefficient, expensive and has too many risks associated with its use. I am unsure why people prefer high-tech to low-tech power generation. Do you people have shares in a nuclear power plants or something?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

You ever been to Shanghai? How about downwind from Fukashima or Chernobyl or Sellefield? How about downwind from Pine Ridge or in the Nevada desert or Moruroa? How about Emu Fields or Nova Zemyla? You willing to take the risk? I'm not and nor are most other people if given a choice.

Actually we are all pretty much downwind of Fukashima, Chernobyl, Sellefield, Pine Ridge, Nevada desert, Moruroa, Emu Fields and Nova Zemyla. The world is round and wind blows all around it. There are have been some 1,700 nuclear explosions on Earth, plus the various nuclear reactor accidents mentioned above and a few more. There have also been several naturally occurring nuclear reactions that had no shielding or safety mechanisms whatsoever.

But all this has amounted to very little damage to humans and individuals. Of all the people killed by nuclear reactions on earth (under 200,000 and 99.5% died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki) about 1.5% have been killed by radiation caused cancers which is what gets you if you’re worried about things blowing on the wind. Over 75% have died from fire and blast caused by the reactions and the rest by radiation sickness caused by direct exposure.

Radiation is part of life. It is actually the source of all fuel that we can tap for energy. Nuclear energy kills far less people per annum than solar energy does. Yet the ignorance and fearmongering of something that “looks evil” keeps it in the black books.

 

[Hot Breath]

I can just imagine how glad you'd be, living downwind from a nuclear power plant. When are you moving to Fukashima?

The reality is that most educated people understand that is not a risk they want to take. I am unsure why some people here don't seem to care about the dangers of radiation and treat it in such an off-handed, cavalier manner.

 

[CJGibson]

' and Scotland have exceeded their base load power requirements using only Alternative power sources (wind and solar and hydro)?

Interesting point. Dunno about Germany, but I understood that base load had to be available 24/7/365 regardless of the weather.

Chris

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

New Zealand manages (by geographic accident) to produce 70-75% of electricity from renewable sources.


In 2013, New Zealand generated 41,876 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity. The electricity generated in 2013 was 53% hydroelectricity, 19% natural gas, 14% geothermal, 5% coal and 5% wind.

 

[Hot Breath]

' and Scotland have exceeded their base load power requirements using only Alternative power sources (wind and solar and hydro)?

Interesting point. Dunno about Germany, but I understood that base load had to be available 24/7/365 regardless of the weather.

Chris

By not relying on one, sole energy source, and by spreading across the countryside, you reduce the problems associated with the opposite occurring. Coupled with economising the amount of electricity utilised, and you have a manageable system.

 

[Hot Breath]

Seems that Nuclear Power is the least supported power source...

 

[starviking]

Seems that Nuclear Power is the least supported power source...

Taken just after the Fukushima accident. Anyway, the public also generally believe in charms, ghosts, and ESP - so their opinion does not inspire confidence.

As for the Scottish Renewable Generation data - I see it is around 40% of Scottish demand. Of course, it can only be done by using the UK Grid to balance.

It would be better to have a time-series comparing demand with renewable generation.

[quote author=Hot Breath]I can just imagine how glad you'd be, living downwind from a nuclear power plant. When are you moving to Fukashima?

The reality is that most educated people understand that is not a risk they want to take. I am unsure why some people here don't seem to care about the dangers of radiation and treat it in such an off-handed, cavalier manner.[/quote]

I live near Fukushima - nice area. Has a problem with people stoking the fears of the inhabitants. Anyway, why does Abraham have to move there? Isn't that a very childish response?

Most people have their irrationalities and biasses. Look at the anti-vax crowd. Nuclear power ticks both boxes - "Invisible DOOM!" from those irresponsible capitalists/scientist/etc. And so, in places like Germany, NPPs are being shuttered whilst renewables and dirty coal are being rolled out...

 

[CJGibson]

'As for the Scottish Renewable Generation data - I see it is around 40% of Scottish demand. Of course, it can only be done by using the UK Grid to balance.'

Indeed, nice use of different scales. For the arithmetically challenged 1TWh = 1000GWh. (I think)

Well, I'm bailing out of this thread. I'll stick to what I know: rocks and aircraft.

Chris

 

[sferrin]

I can just imagine how glad you'd be, living downwind from a nuclear power plant. When are you moving to Fukashima?

Do you live under a wind turbine? When are you moving?

The reality is that most educated people understand that is not a risk they want to take.

ROFL! Based on your past posts, I'm sure you're intending to offend those who disagree with you with that little comment. You know, anybody who doesn't agree with you obviously isn't educated. That's rich coming from someone who's understanding of nuclear power is right up there with a medieval peasant's understanding of dragons.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I'll stick to what I know: rocks and aircraft.

Aircraft powered by either coal or uranium ore.

Yes? No?

 

[bobbymike]

I can just imagine how glad you'd be, living downwind from a nuclear power plant. When are you moving to Fukashima?

Do you live under a wind turbine? When are you moving?

The reality is that most educated people understand that is not a risk they want to take.

ROFL! Based on your past posts, I'm sure you're intending to offend those who disagree with you with that little comment. You know, anybody who doesn't agree with you obviously isn't educated. That's rich coming from someone who's understanding of nuclear power is right up there with a medieval peasant's understanding of dragons.

Don't forget the hate children because ignorance and 'profits'

"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"

Like Chris I am bailing on this thread as its' value to SPF is dubious but also because of the outright disrespect displayed to many members here (always the same two people with the personal attacks, interesting).

But one final thought - On a private forum that probably contains people who are in the 99.99 (or higher) percentile of technical and scientific knowledge to be called uneducated, uncaring and willing to hurt/have children die because they present VALID opposing arguments TO THEN BE presented with a chart/poll labelled "General Public Support" as PROOF OF ANYTHING is "hypocrisy too far" and represents the type of asinine post quite frankly beneath intellectual discourse.

That nuclear power got 38% in the face of 50+ of almost total negative media coverage, to me, is the most surprising thing in the poll.

 

[sferrin]

On the other hand the genius of this thread is it's managed to isolate the stupidity to one thread.

 

[CJGibson]

Coal - Lippisch P-13a with Kronach Lorin coal-burning ramjet. What else?

Chris

 

[Orionblamblam]

I can just imagine how glad you'd be, living downwind from a nuclear power plant. When are you moving to Fukashima?

Wouldn't "downwind from Fukushima" be out in the Pacific Ocean? I guess you're suggesting living on a luxury yacht. I'll take that bet, so long as you're paying.

I am unsure why some people here don't seem to care about the dangers of radiation and treat it in such an off-handed, cavalier manner.

Because those people are able to do a risk-benefit analysis, and have concluded that the risk of radiation is trivial compare to the benefits. How many people were injured by a radiation release from Three Mile Island?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Fortunately they still have votes and their votes outnumber your sorts'.

 

[xmotex]

I can just imagine how glad you'd be, living downwind from a nuclear power plant.

I lived in Ocean Beach in San Diego, not far from San Onofre and just over the hill from the USN sub base in San Diego, which is also very close to where two CVN's are homeported, so I was an very close proximity to a few running reactors at any given time.

I never really gave it a second thought... I was more worried about earthquakes, if anything.
I got a kick out of pointing out to my rather hippie-ish neighbor who was worried about San Onofre that the Navy had reactors a lot closer to us than that.


PS: I think anyone who puts forth Germany's rush to renewables as some kind of smashing success needs to do a little more reading...


I know you won't like the source, but here is a good place to start: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/

 

[starviking]

Indeed, nice use of different scales. For the arithmetically challenged 1TWh = 1000GWh. (I think)

Yes, nice use indeed - we can't have the casual reader making easy comparisions on such graphs.


Spot-on with the TWh to GWh conversion.

 

[sferrin]

Nuclear power is our only hope, or, the greatest environmentalist hypocrisy of all time.

Sobering news from the other side of the world: China is burning almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined, and projections put India on course for a similarly dramatic uptick in consumption. This is one of the consequences of globalization; as a larger proportion of the world is brought advanced technology, our energy needs will skyrocket. How would our atmosphere look today if all of Africa had, a hundred years ago, somehow vaulted into the first or even second world? How much more advanced might our climate crisis now be, with all those extra polluters?

If we really want to address world poverty, we need to accept that mass electricity is as fundamental to the modern experience as medicine or plumbing. If we aren’t ready to deal with the pollution this causes, all our humanitarian intentions might be for naught. We can’t ask the two most populous nations on the planet to politely refrain from adopting the electrical excesses that have only been supportable in the West for so long because so few people could previously afford them. Few are going to be willing to continue living like medieval peasants, just to save the world — think about how much power will be needed just to furnish an affluent India with air conditioning, let alone Netflix.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/147814-the-nuclear-power-vendetta-or-the-greatest-environmentalist-hypocrisy-of-all-time

 

[Orionblamblam]

Indeed, nice use of different scales. For the arithmetically challenged 1TWh = 1000GWh. (I think)

Yes, nice use indeed - we can't have the casual reader making easy comparisions on such graphs.


Spot-on with the TWh to GWh conversion.

For what it's worth, I've modified the chart to be more accurate.

 

[starviking]

Cheers Scott!

 

[Hot Breath]

 

[bobbymike]

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/08/the-death-of-the-green-energy-movement/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

 

[starviking]

Infographic Snipped

And interestingly enough, nothing to do with nuclear power or weapons in your inforgraphic. It does have a lot of good points though.

 

[Rickshaw]

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/08/the-death-of-the-green-energy-movement/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

What a pity he doesn't consider whats going to happen to the US Energy Market when the shale oil and gas runs out... :

 

[sferrin]

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/08/the-death-of-the-green-energy-movement/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

What a pity he doesn't consider whats going to happen to the US Energy Market when the shale oil and gas runs out... :

Or the nuclear market when the shale oil and gas runs out. B)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/08/the-death-of-the-green-energy-movement/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

What a pity he doesn't consider whats going to happen to the US Energy Market when the shale oil and gas runs out... :

The Athabasca oil sands have all by themselves some 1,700,000,000,000 barrels of very heavy oil (aka bitumen). 10% of which is recoverable as crude oil under current technology at economical levels. The Orinoco Belt contains some 1,200,000,000,000 barrels of heavy oil (a bit more viscus than bitumen). Of which some 20% is economically recoverable with current technology. As is likely in the future more of these two despots will become economically recoverable. If all of it becomes economically recoverable as crude oil this will increase the entire oil reserves of the planet by x3.


The point is it ain't going to run out soon and more and more deposits are being discovered and more can be recovered as more geology is explored and technology improves. The constant assumption that we are going to run out of oil is pretty stupid.

 

[Rickshaw]

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/08/the-death-of-the-green-energy-movement/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

What a pity he doesn't consider whats going to happen to the US Energy Market when the shale oil and gas runs out... :

Or the nuclear market when the shale oil and gas runs out. B)

Much investment in the nuclear market? When was the last nuclear power plant in the US opened? :

 

[marauder2048]

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/08/the-death-of-the-green-energy-movement/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

What a pity he doesn't consider whats going to happen to the US Energy Market when the shale oil and gas runs out... :

Or the nuclear market when the shale oil and gas runs out. B)

Much investment in the nuclear market? When was the last nuclear power plant in the US opened? :

Watts Bar Unit 2 is scheduled to start commercial operation in December.

 

[Rickshaw]

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/08/the-death-of-the-green-energy-movement/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

What a pity he doesn't consider whats going to happen to the US Energy Market when the shale oil and gas runs out... :

Or the nuclear market when the shale oil and gas runs out. B)

Much investment in the nuclear market? When was the last nuclear power plant in the US opened? :

Watts Bar Unit 2 is scheduled to start commercial operation in December.

How long has it taken for them to construct that reactor plant? 30 years? Not exactly overwhelmed with the need for the power from it... :

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Much investment in the nuclear market? When was the last nuclear power plant in the US opened? :

There's not much investment in growing and processing cocaine in the USA either. Despite it being a sure fire commercial money maker. But I guess getting a permit for such a development would be pretty hard. I wonder if that could also be a reason behind the lack of development in nuclear technology since the rise of the Green movement's political, legal and bureaucratic crusade against it?

 

[marauder2048]

Or the nuclear market when the shale oil and gas runs out. B)

Much investment in the nuclear market? When was the last nuclear power plant in the US opened? :

Watts Bar Unit 2 is scheduled to start commercial operation in December.

How long has it taken for them to construct that reactor plant? 30 years? Not exactly overwhelmed with the need for the power from it... :

Summer 2 estimated completion in 2018

Summer 3 "" 2019

Vogtle 3 "" 2018

Vogtle 4 "" 2019

So that's 6 years average construction time if they hit the current projected schedule. For something with a 60 year design lifetime that's not bad.

 

[sferrin]

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/08/the-death-of-the-green-energy-movement/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook

What a pity he doesn't consider whats going to happen to the US Energy Market when the shale oil and gas runs out... :

Or the nuclear market when the shale oil and gas runs out. B)

Much investment in the nuclear market? When was the last nuclear power plant in the US opened? :

You probably want to go back and reread what you're responding to. :

 

[Grey Havoc]

Much investment in the nuclear market? When was the last nuclear power plant in the US opened? :

There's not much investment in growing and processing cocaine in the USA either. Despite it being a sure fire commercial money maker. But I guess getting a permit for such a development would be pretty hard. I wonder if that could also be a reason behind the lack of development in nuclear technology since the rise of the Green movement's political, legal and bureaucratic crusade against it?

You have nailed it on the head sir.

 

[Rickshaw]

Or the nuclear market when the shale oil and gas runs out. B)

Much investment in the nuclear market? When was the last nuclear power plant in the US opened? :

Watts Bar Unit 2 is scheduled to start commercial operation in December.

How long has it taken for them to construct that reactor plant? 30 years? Not exactly overwhelmed with the need for the power from it... :

Summer 2 estimated completion in 2018

Summer 3 "" 2019

Vogtle 3 "" 2018

Vogtle 4 "" 2019

So that's 6 years average construction time if they hit the current projected schedule. For something with a 60 year design lifetime that's not bad.

Thats not what Wikipedia says about it:

Unit 2 construction project TVA is currently working to finish the partially completed Unit 2. Unit 2 was about 80% complete when its construction was stopped in 1988. The official reason given for halting construction was "a reduction in the predicted growth of power demand." Unit 2 remains partly completed (several of its parts being used on other TVA units), but on August 1, 2007 the TVA Board approved completion of the unit. Construction resumed on October 15, 2007, with the reactor expected to begin operation in 2015.[1] The project was expected to cost $2.5 billion, and employ around 2,300 contractor workers. Once finished, it is estimated to produce 1,180 megawatts and create around 250 permanent jobs.[2] Unit 2 is expected to be the first new nuclear reactor to come online in the USA in nearly two decades[3] and likely the last Generation II reactor.[4]
In February 2012, TVA said the Watts Bar 2 project was running over budget and behind schedule.[5] On April 5, 2012, TVA released a revised construction schedule and cost estimate for the Unit 2 project, stating that the new target start date for Unit 2 would be by December 2015.[6] As of December 2012, the plant's cost estimate was US$4–4.5 billion.[7]
As of October, 2014 the reactor is nearing completion and open vessel testing has begun as well as testing on plant systems. Initial fuel load could come as early as spring 2015. The plant could come online as early as December 2015 or early 2016. This could be affected by delays in issuance of the unit's operating license from the NRC. Because Watts Bar Unit 2 was constructed under the NRC's original licensing regime, its current license applies only for construction. The operating license is issued after construction. NRC's new licensing scheme grants a combined construction and operation license at the beginning of construction.[8]

[Source]

As construction actually started, according to that entry in 1973, we have a forty-five year construction project, to put into operation an out of date nuclear reactor and it's associated systems.

Compare that to a nice, spanking, new Solar or Wind farm, which just rolled out of the factory which made it.

So, how much investment is there again in the nuclear industry in the USA? :

 

[Rickshaw]

Much investment in the nuclear market? When was the last nuclear power plant in the US opened? :

There's not much investment in growing and processing cocaine in the USA either. Despite it being a sure fire commercial money maker. But I guess getting a permit for such a development would be pretty hard. I wonder if that could also be a reason behind the lack of development in nuclear technology since the rise of the Green movement's political, legal and bureaucratic crusade against it?

You have nailed it on the head sir.

Except of course that their political, legal and bureaucratic "crusade" is based upon real concerns about the safety of nuclear systems, which as we have seen, are only as safe as the weakest link in their construction, maintenance and of course, management systems. If a nuclear plant has an accident, you potentially kill hundreds, if not tens of thousands or even millions of people and the effects last generations. A solar/wind farm goes belly up, you kill maybe a dozen people at most.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Except of course that their political, legal and bureaucratic "crusade" is based upon real concerns

Even if real (even) still a crusade.

real concerns about the safety of nuclear systems

≠

If a nuclear plant has an accident, you potentially kill hundreds, if not tens of thousands or even millions of people and the effects last generations.

There have been many nuclear accidents to date and not a single one has killed hundreds, yet alone thousands or millions. Such megadeath accidents are based on ignorance and superstitious fear. Might as well be worried about witches blighting your crops or cursing your pecker.

 

[sferrin]

If a nuclear plant has an accident, you potentially kill hundreds, if not tens of thousands or even millions of people and the effects last generations. A solar/wind farm goes belly up, you kill maybe a dozen people at most.

Wow. That the left-wing media / politicians have dumbed down the population this much almost makes me angry.

 

[Hot Breath]

If a nuclear plant has an accident, you potentially kill hundreds, if not tens of thousands or even millions of people and the effects last generations. A solar/wind farm goes belly up, you kill maybe a dozen people at most.

Wow. That the left-wing media / politicians have dumbed down the population this much almost makes me angry.

Wow, that the Right-wing media/politicians have dumbed you down this much makes me really sad.

So, when are you going to move to Fukashima or Chernabyl, if radiation is that safe? You excuse is, I take it that you've been living downwind from these reactors all your life?

 

[marauder2048]

Or the nuclear market when the shale oil and gas runs out. B)

Much investment in the nuclear market? When was the last nuclear power plant in the US opened? :

Watts Bar Unit 2 is scheduled to start commercial operation in December.

How long has it taken for them to construct that reactor plant? 30 years? Not exactly overwhelmed with the need for the power from it... :

Summer 2 estimated completion in 2018

Summer 3 "" 2019

Vogtle 3 "" 2018

Vogtle 4 "" 2019

So that's 6 years average construction time if they hit the current projected schedule. For something with a 60 year design lifetime that's not bad.

Thats not what Wikipedia says about it:
[Source]

As construction actually started, according to that entry in 1973, we have a forty-five year construction project, to put into operation an out of date nuclear reactor and it's associated systems.

So, how much investment is there again in the nuclear industry in the USA? :

Nice of you to ignore the four 3rd generation reactors under construction (and their associated build times) to focus
on the statistical outlier. The five total reactors under construction represent ~ $50 billion investment.

Compare that to a nice, spanking, new Solar or Wind farm, which just rolled out of the factory which made it.

Full of toxic rare earths whose extraction and processing produces radioactive material by the ton.