A fellow green just pissed me off, today.

She told me that we shouldn't build any nuclear power plants because it will just cause people to consume more electricity. WTF? If most of our energy comes from clean sources like nuclear and renewables increased energy consumption won't damage the enviroment anyhow! :banghead:

The green/environmental movement has always had its share of folks who wish that everyone would go back to some imagined agrarian paradise. The problem is that the amount of suffering and death required to get to a sustainable world where we don't use large amounts of energy is always skipped over. Unless large amounts of alcohol/drugs are consumed to loosen the tongue...

...can happen within one generation with very little suffering and death.

It's called birth control...

a rapidly aging population with no way to support thme in their old age. a zero growth is better. not negative or positive.

I can tell who these people are because they call any method based on new technology "worthless technofixes based on the evil mindset of a modern society that supports the evil of technological domination of Mother Earth, blah, blah, blah..." Technology is the solution, not the problem. We have too many people to turn back the clock, pre-industrial agriculture can sustainably feed 500 million people. Modern agriculture can sustainably feed AT LEAST 2 million at a BARE minimum. This is why I'm so angered by the anti-GM crop people whining a bitching about the supposed dangers of "messing with the essence of life" or such else technophobe nonsense since genetic engineering is, IMO as a biotech major, on of the best ways to increase crop yields (we just have to take the greed of Monsanto et. al. out of the picture). I find these "eco-luddites" just as frightening as the Fundies.

...ABUSE of the technology is no grouds to ban the technology.

Read the copy write laws as under the constitution.

Also read your history.

The first genetically modified organism was created back in the 1970's. it was a little critter that ate oil. The company sort out a patent on it. President Jimmy Carter said, no dice, it's unconstitutional.

then comes reagan. He allows it, thus violating 200+ years of constitutional law.

fast forward to today. monsanto continues to violate constitutional patent law by continually creating genetically modified seeds and foods and getting patents on them.

Also since you are so high on technology being the solution to societies ills, check out how genetically modified foods are tested. They aren't. They are field tested on the population.

do a little reading about a genetically modified tomato that came out years ago that claimed longer shelf life and better freshness. it did both of those things, but it also created major allergic reactions to anyone that ate it.

it's all about money, who lobbies who and who looks the other way. But in the end, it's still highly illegal and unconstitutional.

There are many many books, articles and documentaries out there supporting everything I have said. Start with the documentary, "the future of food" then go one to read, "food,inc" then, "fast food nation".

Those are a great primer. Afterwhich, just pay attention. this crap is being reported every single day. It's not like it has just dropped out of the sky.

I will never ever eat GM food.

Thats totally different then banning the technology. Yes, GMOs should be regulated, I am not agianst things to protect the public from corporate greed. Quit putting words in my mouth.

"Unconstitutional?" "huh?" not I.

The words are politely put back into your mouth.

I'm moving on. flame me all you want, you will get no responce. Knock yourself out.

Have a great weekend! :)

:dunce:

That is, the inherent belief that applying the same principles as before -- efficiency, centralization, growth -- will solve the problems that those principles helped create in the first place.

Far be it for me to say that technology does not have a significant role to play in all of this -- it certainly does. However, as E.F. Schumacher pointed out some 30+ years ago, we must rid ourselves of the worship we have of technology, that it must be used to control and tame nature. We must return technology to its rightful place -- one in which it is used to serve humanity, and to try and mimic the cycles of nature rather than disrupt them.

Technology has led us to believe that bigger and more efficient are better. I think that is a dangerous and false assumption, and the cause behind many of the changes in society that have removed our ways of living from what is actually more "human". We don't need a return to some idealized past -- however, looking back and dreaming forward for more decentralized social arrangements and infrastructure is what is needed here.

Positivism is just as much a false god as past-idealism.

Technology is a means to an end, the end being a high standard of living and ecological sustainibility.

... in the face of serious ecological restraints constitutes a "worship" of technology -- at least from my perspective.

There's a difference between technology being just one prong of a many-pronged approach and citing it repeatedly as THE approach, as you seem to do.

gainfully employed, almost without exception. One could do worse.

And good luck to them for exactly that reason. However, there are only ~200,000 Amish in the world, which leaves 6,522,449,399 people wanting drive-thru burgers, wide-screen TVs and disposable diapers...

(Not to mention access to DU, of course!)

or ANY sort of diapers...............

I am content with my vegetable garden and little old house and little old car and lots of books (secondhand mostly) and my very rewarding career.

Somebody once said: "That man is rich whose wants are few."

I'm happier to watch my daughter toddling around the vege patch in terry diapers, rather than catching the network premier of King Kong. (Except when she's been watching us weeding and helpfully pulls up all the broccoli seedlings :().

But we're not representative of the average Joe, which is something we treehuggers need to accept and deal with...

Remember: virtue is its own reward!

And I have personally observed some degree of contagiousness of our "disease" - my RW DBF has started to express some concerns about the environment, and is considering riding his bike to work! Who would have thought?!

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, but those of us in ivory towers can cover a hell of a distance ;)

I'm glad it's rubbing off on Himself: Try mentioning you can get 500 parsnips for $1.60 - in seed form. If he's got a proper RW sense of fiscal responsibility, he'll be down the garden with a trowel before you can say "vermiculture".

(Or if he's a bit more red-meat-and-guns, ease him into it gently with the prospect of a roast duck dinner for the cost of shotgun round :))

they've got gaslights with mantles running in their shops. I'd take flourescent over that anyday. Plus they exist in a world where they can buy and sell to people who use electricity.

Plus most of them have home theaters in their 'barns'. Just no electricity in the house.

Full of social problems...substance abuse, domestic violence, incest, etc. It's just well hidden because they are so removed from the rest of society. Little-known fact.

:evilgrin:

Sorry friend, but I'm being very serious when I talk about the problems that run in the Amish community. I wouldn't be so emphatic about this except that my family has Amish roots on every side and I've seen and esperienced first hand the results of it. Percentage-wise, there are far more healthy Republican families. Doesn't even compare. The Amish are a very specific cultural group, where the Republicans are not.

Please don't think I'm flaming you...what you said wasn't a big deal. It's just that the Amish are so often glorified b/c of their simple lifestyle, devotion to religious beliefs, etc, that very very few have any clue what's really going on. I just try to educate when and where I can, because those who have come out of the Amish often are in need of lots of support.

plants, I don't think that nuclear power is the enviromentally friendly and clean.

The goal to be focused on is to reduce our consumption of energy through whatever means are available.

Conservation is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.

You Nucleophobes forget that nuclear energy is practically spotless compred to energy from coal. It doesn't have to be perfect, it should be a stop-gap measure to use untill we perfect fusion power, the untimate clean and (for all practical purposes) renewable energy source. Anyone who thinks we gan get all our energy from solar and wind must be smoking some pretty stong stuff.

'green' -- you are believing utility company propaganda, IMO.

Helen Caldicott has argued that nuclear power plants do not begin 'producing energy' until many, many years into their lifespan -- because it takes so much energy to enrich the uranium that the plant has to operate for many, many years to 'pay back' the initial energy investment - at which point the plant is near the end of its 'safe' operation lifespan. More:



It is worse than a zero-sum game when it comes to nuclear power.

We SHOULD be investing big $$ in solar. Thom Hartmann says that in Germany citizens who hook up their homes to solar are connected to the city grid and the city must pay the home owner 3 times the going rate for each joule the home contributes to the grid -- why? If the utility company had to build another power plant it would cost that much to build the plant, so why not pay the citizens for installing 'power plants' on their rooftops.

Also - a South African scientist has just created new, much smaller and more effective solar panels - they will be mass produced by, I think, a German plant.

Edited to add link!

not enough sun hits the Earth every day to keep the lights on.

NNadir keeps rebutting thier nucleophobia and they still don't get it.

I just found out that there is a nucleus in every cell in my body! And I have nucleophobia!!

'rebutted' in past. I've actually never commented on a nuclear power discussion at DU and replies like yours -- tend to make it highly likely that I won't dare do so in future.

"NNadir keeps rebutting thier nucleophobia and they still don't get it."

Edited to remove a nasty temper-tantrumy finish. DU sucks today. I don't need to contribute to the negative tone.

Pretty much every argument against nuclear power has been disected here in the past, from comparative emmisions (PV actually produces more CO₂ than nuclear, per kWh: Manufacture of PV-grade silicon is a very long industrial process) to Caldicott's "Plutonium makes your nuts fall off" (Only if you're eating it).

Unfortunatly for the nuclear supporters, every so often one these arguments get dusted off in the press and is duly posted here, and we end up going through the whole damn thing again.

Unfortunatly for you, this means if you post one of these arguments the pro-nuke crowd (including myself) will fall on you like a pack of rabid hyenas. Don't take it personally. :)

go there because of the extreme infighting that happened during the period of election investigation and the period of recriminations after * was installed for the second term.

My comment about DU stands - when people who post in any given forum are experts and do not have patience with people who are new to the issue - we turn people off SO MUCH that they simply go away and do return to your forum.

If you post here at DU hoping to educate others then the sort of response I got to my post is not helpful.

Just a thought at the end of a long, pretty shitty day. :(

Thanks for letting me know that I don't need to take it personally.

I used to know a pack of hyenas -- though they weren't rabid. Colleagues at UC Berkeley studied hyena behavior and had a pack of hyenas that they housed in the UC Berkeley hills. During the Bay Area earthquake they moved the hyenas to the basement of the new research facility on campus and let them wander the halls. I, personally, suggested that we should leave the hyenas loose and let the biology faculty go into the new facility and claim the research space they wanted. Any space left unclaimed would be for the Psych Department faculty -> :D

Most of the threads are on the enviromental side, so we can rant in the same direction. But if you see "nuclear" or "ethanol" in title, bring a hard-hat and keep low :) I guess it's a consequence of having such a large group - you're bound to suck up a few people with lots of knowledge but limited patience. Maybe we should boot anyone who knows too much - seems to work for the EPA :(

Hyenas wandering the halls? wow, how cool is that... :D Or nuts, I'm not sure...

This is the main reason I don't really post on the science and environment fora anymore. Occasionally I just post some non-controversial thread topics and leave without further comment. The arrogance and meanness from some quarters isn't something I need and I certainly don't appreciate the contests to see who can make other posters look like foolish dumbshits. And yes, quite a lot of that comes from the pro-nuclear crowd. Y'all might catch more supporters if you didn't stomp on people every time they pose a question or have a differing opinion.

Now back to the shadows....

If I toss out an opinion on DU it's because I want it tested.

Support is nice, but it's the folks attempting to bring my opinion down who will make that opinion stronger or cause me to abandon it.

Yes, I come to DU to fight; to roam among the hyenas teeth bared and hungry.

For this reason I tend to hang out in forums where the flames are hottest-- GD, Election Reform, Energy/Environment, and Religion/Theology. In other places lame opinions are too often sheltered.

...and I'm all for it! I love a heated debate *on the issues* and my journal will bear that out. But attacking other posters in a manner that questions their intelligence and treats them as nitwits is another. People who aren't afraid of engaging in a real debate of opinions don't shut down discourse by belittling their opponent rather than debating their views. Apparently some folks would rather engage in the former and that's -- IMHO -- a shame.

Carry on!

We argue over crumbs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_energy_development

Historical and projected world energy production by energy source, 1970-2025,
Source: International Energy Outlook 2004, EIA. IEA makes a similar projection.

:sarcasm:

.. issues of heredity:


... Q. There's a concerted effort right now to rehabilitate the image of nuclear power. Proponents argue that fossil fuels are more damaging to the environment, as well as being in short supply, and that nuclear is the . What's going on here?

A. The people saying these things are not biologists, they're not geneticists, they're not physicians. In other words, they don't know what they're talking about. And that makes me very annoyed. First of all, every reactor produces about <20 to 30> tons of highly radioactive waste a year. The majority of it is very long-lived and will have to be isolated from the ecosphere for hundreds of thousands of years ... As it leaks into the environment, it will bio-concentrate by orders of magnitude at each step of the food chain: algae, crustaceans, little fish, big fish, us.

It takes a single mutation in a single gene in a single cell to kill you. has a half-life of 24,400 years. Every male in the Northern Hemisphere has a small load of plutonium in his gonads. What that means to future generations God only knows -- and we're not the only species with testicles. What we're doing is degrading evolution, and not many people understand that ...

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/05/03/dicum-caldicott/?source=rss

Is that really what you're saying?

the basics of physics and chemistry in particular, or science in general. She certainly from the tenor of this (stupid) argument about CFC's apparently is totally ignorant of energy density.

Let us suppose that Helen's evocation is correct, and that the only way to generate electricity for uranium enrichment is coal fired plants, that it is impossible to you use nuclear plants for the same purpose." Then I might ask Helen, who avoids comparisons, how she thinks silicon (used to make solar chips) is reduced. Does she have any idea? A fucking remote clue? A hint of decency to fucking get even a modicum of literacy?

One of the refuges of idiots who are avoiding the subject of how little they know about energy is to speak in percentage terms. Every year for instance there is an announcement from Caldicott types of a nine brazillion percent increase in solar energy generation but still, still, still, still - while the world is dying not one exajoule, not one.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/trends/table5b.html

Maybe Helen thinks global climate change is a joke?

Does Helen know what the fuck sulfur hexafluoride is? How about hydrofluouric acid? Do these subjects ever come up before she collects her ignorance honorariums? How about Cadmium. Tellurium? Is the only element in the periodic table on which Helen lectures uranium?

How much does Helen know about the difference between pyroprocessing and alkyl phosphate extraction? Does her acceptance by her audience presuppose the ignorance of the audience of this subject? Does one form of ignorance feed on another?

Since Helen is claiming the status of a nuclear expert, maybe she can give a lecture on fuel burn-ups and uranium ore normalized radiotoxicity evolution.

Let's get more obvious: I challenge people who accept her crap uncritically to produce one dead body that has resulted from the storage in the US of so called "nuclear waste," but they never do so. If such people ever do produce just one such body, I will further challenge them to produce as many bodies as are generated by air pollution in New York City. Helen was a pediatrician. Presumably she bothered enough with medical school to have understood some of the basics of pathology. Maybe she can direct us to a single case of mortality or even morbidity in this issue. Surely she retains enough of an education to manage this, no?

Maybe Helen Caldicott can show us where there is an exajoule of solar energy being produced on the planet, assuming that Helen knows what an exajoule is.

I end up saying this every time this detritus floats to the top: The solar fantasy she peddles in denial of reality is for rich kids who want to pretend they give a shit. It is this class of people who take people like Helen Caldicott (and similar professional nuclear opponents such as the even more idiotic Ernest Sternglass) seriously. People who know what they're talking about, don't take that class seriously. (Scroll down to citations: http://www.usnuclearenergy.org/nuclear_option_dr_cohen.htm) The rest of the world has a problem called global climate change and it will not be solved by prayer and chanting.

Helen Caldicott flying around the world, praying and chanting, and collecting speaking fees for distributing ignorance is not going to change that.

Helen Caldicott has no scientific credentials relevant to the subject of nuclear energy, other than those awarded to her by people who already buy her load of crap - that being precisely the group of people who understand the least about nuclear energy in particular and the hazards of all energy in general. Helen Candicott has never spoken out on coal, nor on oil, nor on natural gas. Instead she hides behind forms of energy that - when viewed on scale - are more myth than joules. She has not published one article on reactor physics, not one article on the chemistry of actinides or fission products, and I doubt that she has published one article on atmospheric chemistry. She has never participated in a study of oil wars, nor of global climate science, nor on chemistry of nitrogen oxides, or sulfur oxides, or carbon monoxide, or the pathology of particulates. For that matter, she has not studied the epidemiology of methyl mercury, or the impact of cadmium leaching from coal mines, or radon from natural gas wells.

How the fuck is it that she is declared expert? By whom?

She is a fraud. She is selling religion, not science, and in so doing, she is promoting the deaths of many millions of people worldwide.

If my daughter was suffering from cystic fibrosis, I'd be totally fucking insane to consult Dr. Charles Till on a treatment. So why the hell would anyone listen to Dr. Helen Caldicot about nuclear energy?

"Scientist" is not a blanket term for a boffin in a white coat, unless you're making a '50s B-movie: In real life, we have areas of expertise. Personally, I know fuck all about detailed reactor design or paediatric cystic fibrosis, but if you want a bitchin' secure corporate computer system or some fast'n'loose orbital merchanics, I'll leave both of them standing.

The last all-round scientist was probably Sir Francis Bacon...

Welcome to the 17th century.

(Hint: I know you have no idea who Dr. Till is, but use Google :))

You can google your way to the Greenpeace site fine.

If you want to find references to stupid Helen chanting, "Nuclear is bad...nuclear is bad..." I'm sure you can find it in your own church.

As for prayer, like most people who don't understand global climate change, I'm sure there are lots of references her repeating the fourty year old mantra (which reminds me of prayers for the return of Jesus) of "solar wind conservation."

medical school.

They also do not teach the chemistry of actinides in medical school.

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority," in which an authority who is not competant is used to justify an argument that has no bearing on her area of expertise. We are used to this sort of thing, of course. We often hear of celebrities endorsing subject about which they have no more expertise than I do.

Here is a some exposition on this logical fallacy:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

Given her inability to comprehend the basics of science, I suspect that she's a lousy physician as well. I would never put the health of my chidren in her care. She is apparently a complete idiot.

.. geneticists, they're not physicians. In other words, they don't know what they're talking about. And that makes me very annoyed. First of all, every reactor produces about <20 to 30> tons of highly radioactive waste a year. The majority of it is very long-lived and will have to be isolated from the ecosphere for hundreds of thousands of years ... As it leaks into the environment, it will bio-concentrate by orders of magnitude at each step of the food chain: algae, crustaceans, little fish, big fish, us.

It takes a single mutation in a single gene in a single cell to kill you. has a half-life of 24,400 years. Every male in the Northern Hemisphere has a small load of plutonium in his gonads. What that means to future generations God only knows -- and we're not the only species with testicles. What we're doing is degrading evolution, and not many people understand that ..."

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/05/03/dicum-caldicott/?source=rss

Nuclear power is the WORST for the environment because nuclear waste stays deadly for tens of thousands of years and we still don't know what to do with it, how to detoxify it, how in the hell we're going to keep future generations from digging it up and killing themselves with it.

Once they figure out what to do with the garbage, I'll be pro nuke. Until then, forget it. Stick to wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and hydro, thanks.

The United States was trying to make it even shorter until Bill Clinton killed the program. Once you figure out how to make solar work when its dark and wind work when its not windy, I'll be pro solar and pro wind. Until then forget it. Stick to somewhat proven technology instead of a pipe dream, thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

I wish to copy two clippings specifically from these links:

"In April of 1986, two special tests were performed on the EBR-II, in which the main primary cooling pumps were shut off with the reactor at full power (62.5 megawatts, thermal). By not allowing the normal shutdown systems to interfere, the reactor power dropped to near zero within about 300 seconds. No damage to the fuel or the reactor resulted. This test demonstrated that even with a loss of all electrical power and the capability to shut down the reactor using the normal systems, the reactor will simply shut down without danger or damage."

This stands in stark contrast to Chernobyl were the thing blew up when the operators ran a test in which they cut off most of the safety systems.

The second quote is:

"The waste produced contains no plutonium or other actinides. The radioactivity of the waste decays to levels similar to the original ore in about 300 years."

I misspoke. It's 300 years, not 400. So there you have it.

edit: Oh, and a third quote, implicating Clinton and Kerry for a stupid policy decision to cancel promising technology research:
With the election of President Bill Clinton in 1992, and the appointment of Hazel O'Leary as the Secretary of Energy, there was pressure from the top to cancel the IFR. Sen. John Kerry (D, MA) and O'Leary led the opposition to the reactor, arguing that it would be a threat to non-proliferation efforts, and that it was a continuation of the Clinch River breeder reactor effort that had been canceled by Congress. Despite support for the reactor by then-Rep. Richard Durbin (D, IL) and U.S. Senators Carol Mosley Braun (D, IL) and Paul Simon (D, IL), funding for the reactor was slashed, and it was ultimately canceled in 1994.

Experimental Breeder Reactor 1 had a meltdown in 1955
Boeing-Rocketdyne had a partial melt down in 1959
Hallam, a 75MW AEC "demonstration project" operated for about a year before being shutdown permanently
Fermi 1 had a partial meltdown in 1966; and there was an explosion there shortly before a planned restart in 1970
Monju has been closed for a decade after catching fire in 1996

http://www.fordfound.org/elibrary/documents/0335/344.cfm
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=06-P13-00003&segmentID=1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/nucene/nucacc.html
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/nuctek/accident.html
http://cnic.jp/english/topics/cycle/fbr/index.html

Are you saying technology hasn't progressed somewhat since then?

Sodium isn't the only option for coolant, btw. There is also lead-bismuth, which doesn't violently reactor with water vapor in the air like sodium does

I responded one post higher by mistake.

2006 - 1955 = 51 years
2006 - 1959 = 47 years
2006 - 1972 = 34 years
2006 - 1970 = 36 years

The United States has had success with the IBR-II, the U.K with the Prototype Fast Reactor, France with its first phenix reactor although not the super phenix. The Soviet Union also built some breeders, though I'm not sure I would trust them.

Sodium reactors have generally not been a happy experience, and some of us like to learn from our mistakes.


There was international interest in shutting down BN-350 is Kazakhstan: cf. http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/Frontiers/2001/e2part.html


Creys-Malville-Superphenix

Purpose: production of electricity and plutonium
Type: fast neutron reactor of industrial size
Location: Creys-Malville (Isère) 50 km east of Lyon and 100 km west of Geneva
Owner: originally Nersa (EDF 51%, Enel 33%, SBK 16%); since Dec. 30, 1998, only Electricité de France
Industrial operator: Electricité de France
Period of operation: 1985-1998, but see below
Fuel: mixed uranium-plutonium oxides
Materials handled: plutonium, uranium
Nominal capacity: 1242 MW electric gross; but 1200 MW electric net
Production: 8.2 TWh in total (average availability factor : 6.3%)
The reactor was inaugurated as a commercial industrial prototype. The objectives were the production of electricity and of plutonium. From its entry into operation, into 1994, the Superphenix had operated only the equivalent of 174 days at full power and, in the words of, deputy Bataille, in 1996, had “collected an impressive series of accidents.”

On 3 July 1990, the reactor was shut down because of impurities in the sodium in the core. This shut down lasted so long that Nersa was forced to relaunch the administrative procedure for an authorization to operate, necessary after two years without operating.

The new authorization decree, dated 11 July 1994, authorized Superphénix to operate as a research and demonstration reactor. The program, which was to cover the 1995-2000 period, had two new objectives: evaluation of the operation of a fast breeder reactor (RNR) as “net consumer of plutonium” and study of the possibility of destroying long-lived radioactive wastes in fast breeder reactors.

In February 1997 the Conseil d’Etat annulled the decree of 11 July 1994. Subsequently Nersa filed a new request for authorization to operate the reactor. In February 1998 the government decided not to grant this request and in April Nersa was asked to begin the permanent shutdown process ... http://www.francenuc.org/en_sites/rhone_crey_e.htm


"A year's worth of electricity once every ten years!" seems to have been their motto ...

It is easy to point to failures, more difficult to suggest possible successful alternatives. In the last category, successful alternatives, you have zero to propose, since you are a luddite.

Like all self-identified "progressives" who are in fact, luddites, you can complain about failed technology, but are totally incapable of producing a positive program of alternatives. In light of the new German program to build coal powered plants in that particular renewable nirvana, you're not going to issue still more platitudes about the solar promise, are you?

I don't happen to like sodium fueled breeder reactors, although I am confident that they could be built if the economics justified it, which it currently doesn't. I think the IFR, had it been built, might have worked quite well. It was substantially different than its predecessors, and did something to which you routinely object, but which the nuclear industry has done with enormous success: Learned from mistakes.

The world has more than 3000 metric tons of plutonium, enough to supply 100% of the world's energy needs for month long periods. If we needed more plutonium, we could make it. One would, necessarily, need to appeal to some of the millions of advances made in materials science since the 1970's, when the Superphoenix and other reactors were first designed, but I have no doubt it could be done. However with the enormous success of the pressurized breeder reactor, which has saved millions of lives, if not billions, in the last three decades, while you've been screaming for more coal, no case can be made for fast liquid metal fast reactors right now. If humanity survives global climate change, however, something you also oppose, there will be many types of reactors with breeding ratios substantially greater than one. No amount of the application of ignorance and misrepresentation can change that.

In fact, we have to deal with the fact that two of the three commercial breeder liquid metal sodium reactors did not operate very well. The Monju may have yet another shot, since the Japanese Supreme Court has authorized its restart, as of about a year ago. Of course these types of fast reactors that were built were only a small subset of possible liquid sodium reactors, which in turn were a small subset of possible liquid metal reactors, which are only a small subset of possible fast reactors, which are only a small subset of possible nuclear fission reactors.

Well we might point to one or two failures as reasons for the complete rejection of all technologies - coal plants excepted of course, on the grounds you approve of these. (I am quite sure that you never use solar energy, given the number of failed solar projects and failed solar promises over the last 50 years.)

The Superphoenix does not operate. Neither does the Monju reactor. On the other hand, we also need to acknowledge the fact that the number of deaths associated with the operation of your favorite fuel - that would be coal - each month vastly exceeds the loss of life from all nuclear reactors for the entire history of nuclear power. I believe the number is infinitely larger than the number of people who were killed in operations of the Superphoenix and the Monju. Or do you deny this too?

You, of course, don't know anything about nuclear engineering, and are not qualified in any way to adjudge whether breeder reactors can or cannot work. Any new technology will, of course, experience failures as will old technologies whose failures are ignored through familiarity.

The fact is, in any case, your objections will be ignored and the world will build nuclear capacity no matter how loudly you shout for more coal. It is merely a matter of survival.

They are dependent on a plutonium fuel cycle, which is known to be extremely dirty, mostly in terms of "classic" pollution.
The inherent problems of cooling big fast reactors hasn't been really solved yet. Gas is difficult to keep the system tight and sodium gets highly radioactive and corrodes the pipes. Very few breeders were built, all have/had problems far beyond what usually is considered acceptable for a nuclear facility.

And besides, the dangers of storing the stuff underground (Yucca Mountain) is overblown, as shown by the 1.5 billion year old natural nuclear reactors in Africa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

comprise 3% of electrical generation in the US. Combined.

...nuclear or coal fired.

We have to start with urban planning and reductions of use before we start siting more generation capacity.

It's easier to convince an elephant to raft across a river than it is to convince an American they need to live in the dark.

I see you as pro-technology. You've said that you are. And I don't see those as necessarily the same thing. Esp. when the technology is as problematic as nuclear is.

You sound pro-consumption to me. That sounds rather gray.

As long as the source of energy is clean an increase in energy production will not hurt the enviroment. a society powered entirely by fusion and renewables using, say, 3 times as much energy as we do now would be far, far, cleaner then our modern society. To increaee the availible energy is not the same thing support the wastefulness of modern society, thats like saying the new cervical cancer vaccine will cause people to be promiscuous.

...it's a sad fact of life. Mr Joe Average doesn't want a permaculture vegetable patch in his back garden, he wants a fucking big SUV to take to kids to camp via a drive-through burger joint. While those of us who count ourselves as "green" insist on replacing Joe's SUV with a hoe, we're not going to get anywhere: Not in a democracy. I'm sure as hell Joe won't be voting for us.

The only way we are going to get anywhere is by replacing the systems we already have with ones that do the same job without the impact.

If that means replacing coal with nuclear power, so be it.

We have to be pragmatic, not tie outselves into naively idealistic, ideological dogmatism. People won't conserve unless they are forced to, that is human nature. Also, that increrased enegy production does not have to be wasted, there are many areas (labs and industries for example) where that energy will be put to good use. The people whining about consumption are trying to moralize about a hard, spartan lifestyle that they naively thing will make us "at one with mother Earth" (BTW, I hate when people try to inject some kind of mysticism into the discussion). There is a reason the co-founder of Greenpeace supports nuclear energy.

Regardless of what Mr. Joe Average wants, the planet's ecology is placing limits on our "growth". According to the UN Millennial working group on ecology, we have used up some 60% of the world's ecological CAPITAL. That's not interest (the resources that the earth renews through its natural cycles), but the principle itself. We are rapidly approaching the point at which some of these cycles will collapse.

The only way we are going to get anywhere is if we stop worrying so much about large-scale politics, and instead rediscover community along more sustainable lines -- and in the process, provide people with an example of a viable alternative to the current cult of consumerism that feeds little more than our collective unhappiness.

My grandparents LEFT the farm and moved to the city for a reason, just like people are doing all over the world. Being a farmer is a hard life, and I really don't think we will ever see a large scale return to agrarianism.

The only way a few farmers can feed the masses is with modern technology, and I'm not defending the status quo but rather saying that giving up the tractor and combine and going back to the hoe and scythe would be suicidal.

Which isn't to say that organic agriculture, permaculture techniques, conservation tillage, and changing the way we eat (cough, cough, meat, cough) isn't a desirable end.

But seriously, I LOVE electricity. I've been without it for the last 2 weeks, and candles don't keep the food in the fridge cold or even produce enough light to read by. Electricity is very handy, and I don't see ever giving it up voluntarily.

The problem with rural-to-urban migration is a complex one. More than anything, it is the result of the disparity between rural and urban "development", accompanied by the unraveling of rural life as an expense of said urban development.

The phenomenon is especially acute in so-called "developing" nations. People continually flock from the rural regions to urban centers, even when the cities are wholly unable to cope with their arrival from the standpoint of employment, housing or sanitation.

I don't think any (sane) people are saying we should do away with electricity. What we are saying is that we should return its use, along with other technology, to its proper place. Electricity to run basic lights, refrigeration, etc. is certainly something we should seek to continue. However, increasing generating capacity just so that a house can power a 4th television set so that every family member can sit, transfixed, in complete isolation from one another is pure insanity.

People are consumed with consumption not because that is the natural state of affairs, but because we have MADE it as such. It's not the only course for humankind to take. However, it IS the course that will lead eventually to the collapse of just about everything we know and take for granted.

The problem is an economic system that makes making your next quarter's profits look good instead of longer-terned thinking, making investing in sustainibility very dificult. Permaculture and whatnot are definitely desirable, but we don't have to go back to the horse and plow to inplement it. Only our sort-sighted economic system gets in the way.

versus the entire planet!

I think you people in this thread need to take a moment and actually speak to a "Joe Average" rather than just using whatever stereotype that makes you feel superior to everyone else.

Most "Joe Averages," and I know, because I am surrounded by them, are not like what you describe. What you describe are what Rush would have you believe are "Joe Average," but are actually suburban angry white men who are nothing more than rebels without a clue.

Honestly, just because most people don't want your lifestyle doesn't mean that they're polar opposites.

I am Joe Average, by most standards: I also want a bitchin' off-road vehicle, 24/7 convenience everything, and a TV the size of Rhode Island. With Dolby.

I want the lights, heat and phone to work when I need them. I want the roads to be smooth and fast, the planes to be full off nubile hostesses ("I have a dream"), and the trains to run on time.

I want to be able to invest in stocks, bonds and property.

I want my kids to access to healthcare, schooling and college tuition.

More importantly, I want a secure, prosperous and safe environment for my kids and grandkids, that I can leave to them when I pass on.

Is there anything there that Joe doesn't want? Did I miss anything major?

Me and Joe both look out for our own kids. The only difference is, I'm trying to look out for his as well.

but they'd just over-eat.

We produce more food than is necessary. We owe that ability to the 'green revolution' of industrial farming, not biotech. But the willingness to distribute the food is lacking.

Against that background, tinkering in situ with GMOs (for example) without even thoroughly researching any unintended consequences, is a ploy to corner a market by turning food into "intellectual property" ( 1990s made-up concept).

somehow....

That's about the only thing I can think of to explain that sort of statement (except maybe some sort of primitivist life wish).

Basically, if people conserve energy- many actually end up using more of it as their savings are used to "fuel" expansion or increased consumption of "things."

Jevon's paradox

"In economics, the Jevons Paradox is an observation made by William Stanley Jevons who stated that as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase, rather than decrease. It is historically called the Jevons Paradox since it ran counter to Jevons's own intuition, but it is not a paradox at all and is well understood by modern economic theory which shows that improved resource efficiency may trigger a change in the overall consumption of that resource, but the direction of that change depends on other economic variables."

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

The problem is nuclear is NOT a renewable source, so moving from fossil to nuclear power generation does NOT give you carte blanche to keep unsustainable patterns of energy consumption.

The worlds reserves of high-grade Uranium will last for just FIFTY years. That's at the current rate of nuclear power generation, if all countries decided to have a nuclear programme, you can knock that down to 3 years.

If you want to keep going with nuclear after that after all the billions you've spent subsidising the industry, then you have to look at ways of extracting low grade uranium ore. This is horrendously inefficient, and the process of mining it will cause more CO2 emissions than the fossil fuel power station you were trying to replace.

If you spent all that money on energy efficiency (something the Bush administration would throw their hands up in horror at), and investment in solar, wind, wave, tidal and geothermal renewable energy, you wouldn't need to build any new nuclear power stations - UNLESS of course everyone insists on driving hummers instead of 60mpg+ cars.

Many european countries (look at Sweden) and Caribbean nations are hoping to become completely fossil fuel free in the next couple of years, so it can be done if there's a political will.

We can also recycle the used fuel as well. As I said before, the purpose of nuclear is a stop-gap measure to hold us over untill we get fusion.

As I said before, the purpose of nuclear is a stop-gap measure to hold us over untill we get fusion.

And what makes you so certain that we will discover how to develop controlled fusion? Acceptance of events that have not yet come to pass, and of which there are no real signs they are close to coming to pass, is something that has much more in common with religion than science.

In the 1940's there were significant breakthroughs in rocketry (Werner von Braun) that provided the platform for the moon launch. There really are no such "platforms" currently present for fusion.

And even if there were, would such a course really be the one we wanted to embark upon? The major problem I have with the kind of positivist outlook you promote is that it is one completely devoid of metaphysical considerations, and relies upon the power of one of the major forces (technological advancement) that has placed us in the precarious situation in which we find ourselves. How do we know that fusion power would not have significant detrimental effects on our environment? Have we performed controlled tests over a number of years? Or are we going to treat such an advancement as we have all others -- fully embracing it only to discover after 1 or 2 generations that it has serious problems we failed to consider.

Furthermore, the question I think that begs to be asked (and never is) is whether or not our current living arrangements are really that desirable. Sure, we live longer lives than ever before -- but we are also increasingly isolated from each other and the natural world upon which we depend for our survival. Our standard of living has increased dramatically, but our quality of life has suffered an inverse reaction, declining precipitously over the same period. Personally, I believe that any technological advancement that further enhances centralization and efficiency without consideration of social ramifications is something we want to seriously reconsider before we make use of it.

Finally, the notion that such power sources are 100% non-polluting is pure balderdash. It requires significant pollution to mine the fuel and construct the plants. Or, are we to assume that fuel sources and power plants simply spring whole out of the ground or fall from the sky?

Buddy, it's not technology, it's people.

Eliminate technology, and we'd still be butting up against the limits of our ability to provide for ourselves within the constraints of our ecosystem. And that's as close as I'll get to Malthus, ever.

I agree that technology is a neutral force. However, given that technology does not apply itself -- rather, that people apply it (and often in careless and destructive ways), I think the question begs to be asked if we should just jump headfirst into any technological advancement that comes along. Furthermore, I think the question that is never asked is whether technological advancement will actually improve our lives in meaningful ways, or if it will lead to more and more complex systems that take us further from each other and the natural world.

I'll use educational pedagogy as an example. One of the most discussed and most betrayed educational theorists in modern history was John Dewey. At the core of Dewey's theories was the idea of "professions" -- a misleading term that does not mean that children should be simply trained for a job, but rather the idea that children learn through the direct experience of their environment and human history. Much of human history has been, I am certain we can agree, the way in which societies seek to modify their living environments. One of the primary aspects of this educative experience, however, is maintaining the link between the person and the environment. A classic activity used by Dewey in his Laboratory School was the spinning of wool into thread -- from the carding of wool forward. Through this experience, students were able to understand a concrete application of modifying the natural world (in this case, sheep's wool) into something "useful".

The problem with applications of "technology" in the manner presented by the OP, however (and much of society-at-large), is that it is too far removed from the "natural environment". In fact, it is so far removed that it quickly becomes an abstraction, and this allows the "externalization" of costs in both environmental and social terms. All I am advocating is that we need to adopt a more precautionary principle when it comes to the application of technology -- not that technology is in itself bad, but rather that the way in which people use technology often proves to be inherently destructive in both environmental and social terms.

As for the limitations of our ecosystems, judging by the recent UN Millenial Report on the World's Ecosystems, we're going to hit those limits rather hard in the not-too-distant future.

I tend to think that such problems are actually economic problems: the benefits of technological improvements tend to accrue to a minority of the world's populations - even after patents expire and such technology becomes open-source.

These benefits accrue to the ownership class, not the working class - and while most people in the US straddle these two classes, most are by and large members of the working class - earning far more over their lifetimes from wages & salaries than from rents & interest.

Technological advancements tend to increase 'profits', & rents more than they do wages - wages are still set by what people are willing to work for, interest is still set by what people are willing to lend capital for. Rents, however, are a product of privilege and monopoly.

A modern example of this would be the massive shifting of wealth from the public to private hands when a public improvement is made. A specific example would be when the government(s) spend millions of tax money, usually raised from wages, on a transit system. Theses systems raise the value of adjacent real estate by several times the investment cost, value that is not recaptured for the public's use.

The mother of all such privilege is the portion of our property laws and conventions that allow individuals & corporations to withold access to natural resources, including land property, from others, without compensating those others. Typically, property taxes only recapture pennies on the annualized dollar value, and penalize improvements, to boot.

The free market works wonders for allocating goods and services. It fails at natural resources. For goods & services, increased demand leads to increased prices, which leads to increased production. There is no price level that increases the production of natural resources. In fact, natural resource price increases tend to cause speculators to hoard such resources in hopes of still further price increases. Witness oil & real estate, this boom or previous ones.

The UN also reports 5 Billion Ha of arable land in the world. Modern organic, sustainable agricultural technology allows enough food for 20 people to be grown on one Ha of land - allowing us to feed 100 Billion, or at least several times the current world population. The question isn't whether there's enough land, or fresh water, it's whether or not they're being allocated efficiently: a politicoecenomic problem, not a biophysical one.

Tokamaks have been around for decades: The current fusion platforms are the UK's JET and Japan's JT-60 , both of which have run D-T fusion generating more energy than went in. ITER is currently expected to fire up before 2020 and produce around 500MW, although it won't be generating grid power - it will be a test-bed for the plasma containment, Lithium-Tritium breeding, and sundry engineering tweaks.

The plant will will indeed need constructing, but the fuel is easy - Deuterium is a natural isotope of Hydrogen, and just needs refining (or rather, the water is refined and the Deuterium split out of it): The Tritium is made out of Lithium using the spare neutron of the D-T fusion, so the reactor effectively consumes Lithium (same stuff that batteries are made of - one of the less painful elements to extract): They might also muck around with synthesising Tritium out of Deuterium, Boron or Nitrogen, although these are not as efficient in terms of absorption.

The only serious danger to the environment is hordes of nuclear physicists roaming the French countryside impersonating Mickey Mouse: The waste from all of this is Helium.

Copying what the universe has been doing anyway for the last 15 billion years should not be a cause for metaphysical anguish, although I'd agree that we are, in general, too far removed from our ecology: We're also over-populated by at least 4 billion. How long it would take to fix these two problems organically (if indeed, such a goal is achievable) I wouldn't even like to guess at.

Humans are creatures of habit, so there's going to be a lot of inertia to overcome before we get going in the right direction.

A quick question -- what do you mean by "D-T fusion"? I'm a degreed (former) engineer, so I understand everything else you posted here, but I'm unfamiliar with that term. :dunce:

Being too far removed from our ecological systems, and each other, is the primary source of my "metaphysical anguish".

And I agree with you that there is a helluva lot of inertia for human beings to overcome. My primary concern is that we have shown an extreme blindness to the myriad of problems caused by continued centralization and complexity (not that I'm romanticizing the middle ages by any means), and that introducing technologies that further exacerbate this problem may continue the process of social unraveling. :shrug:

:D

D-T is Deuterium-Tritium fission (or ²H + ³H if you prefer), which gives you ⁴He + n + 17.4 MeV of power: n + ⁶Li gives you ³H + ⁴He, which is the breeder side.

It's not the most efficient form of fusion by any means, but it's the easiest one to implement.

As for centralisation... Yeah, it's going to be problem. There was a report a couple of days ago that half the population of the planet will be city dwellers by 2020 (IIRC - something bad, anyway). I really have no idea how we undo that... :(

(Sorry for the delay, BTW. Those superscripts are a real pain :))

n + ⁷Li gives you ³H + ⁴He + n should be the breeder side, but I've missed the edit.

That'll teach me to cut and paste.:dunce:

In theory - but theory only - one could imaginably have a tritium breeding fusion reactor. As a practical matter, given the nature of neutrons, one can never have such a reactor.

Fission breeders do not produce exactly two neutrons, one to sustain the chain reaction and another to be captured by U-238. In fact, all fission reactors produce substantially more than 2 neutrons, on average, per fission. However there is a rather large escape probability, as well as a probability of absorption by structural materials. This limits the efficiency with which neutrons can be put to work. This is why only fission nuclear reactors with an output of more than 2.35 neutrons can be considered under most circumstances to be "breeders," in the sense that most people understand breeders - reactors that produce more fuel than they consume.

This is especially true given the high energy of fusion neutrons. Also lithium consists of two isotopes, and therefore must be subject to the difficult, expensive, and seldom perfect process of isotopic separation. Moreover, tritium is unstable and decays as it is formed. Thus one's accumulation is limited by equilibrium conditions, conditions obtained in all physical processes that couple a rate of formation and a rate of destruction. The equilibrium position requires that even under perfect breeding conditions, a breeding ratio of 1 of tritium from lithium, which I have shown do not exist, indicates that there would be substantially less tritium available to sustain the reactors.

The world supply of tritium, accumulated in over 3 decades of CANDU operations and other production methods, would be scarcely enough to run a single moderate sized fusion reactor for six months. That's reality.

In any case, the first fusion reactor will bring out the usual set of people who understand essentially zero about risk analysis. While it is true that these people are abysmally stupid and horribly dangerous and enormously ignorant, they will be lead weights around the construction of any commercial fusion reactor.

Finally, the world doesn't have time to work these problems out. To the extent that people fantasize about fusion, they are dooming themselves more quickly.

...As I have said before, I'll be lucky if I'm hobbling around with a zimmer frame when the first commercial fusion plant is built - There are a lot of problems to be solved, particularly in materials technology, given the rather extreme environment. Merely pointing out that it's not in the same league as ZPE.

(or cheap solar :evilgrin:)

However, I think you may be overestimating the problems of Tritium production: Most Lithium is ⁷Li, which yields n + ⁷Li = ³H + ⁴He + neutron still kicking around: depending on the energies (of which I have no idea) you're as likely to wind up with too much as too little. I believe current designs are based on used the natural ratio of Lithium, so isotopic separation should be minimal for a bit of "fine tuning": Nor can I see the 12-year half life will be an major issue if it's being made in the same reactor that's simultaneously burning it...

You're certainly right about one point, though. Oh, for fuck's sake

That's one fast neutron.

The cross section for this reaction can be found by plotting from the Table of Nuclides. At 10 MeV, it is less than one barn, and much lower at lower energies. The value at 14 MeV is reported in the table: It's 302 mb. This is not especially high. I imagine that the reason it is possible to make tritium from lithium in fission reactors has more to do with the fact that there are a lot of neutrons compared with the number of tritons required, and efficiency isn't all that important. (The fission spectrum average is 20 mb.)

Since the fusion reaction is mononeutronic, every leaking neutron, and every neutron lost by reactor materials is very significant. There are no excess neutrons theoretically to make up any lost, which contrasts with the fission situation rather dramatically. By analogy with fission reactors, we should expect this loss to be at least 15%. When you couple this with the fact that resonances make the capture of neutrons in U-238 far more probably than the release of tritons from Li-7, it's even worse. Unquestionably the leaking probability of 14 MeV neutrons is probably very high.

Then, as you acknowledge, we have the matter of some tritium decaying to give helium-3. Helium-3 is potentially a fusion fuel in its own right, but with the higher nuclear charge, the matter is far less simple.

I still think it's quite feasible, but now I have to go and brush up my nuclear physics to argue properly and with facts - or at least convince myself. Curse you and your informed logic!

It would be much easier if you just called me a fusion-nazi...

:D

americium and curium, and increase your neutron yield but the less said about that, the better.

;)

...One of the things I wanted to wrestle with is the effect of dropping assorted actinides in to a D-T plasma - as a means of disposal, since it's an idea I've heard kicked around.

Hey, I need the practice. It's been over 12 years since I did any of this properly...

Besides, there's bugger all on TV. :D

...why don't you set up a spreadsheet to offer an analytical solution to the equation E = m_ov²/(1-(c²/v²))^1/2. It would be fun to know how fast that neutron's going. The classic answer for the speed of a 14 MeV neutron says 17% of the speed of light and it's clear we need the relativistic correction. 0.17c is a good first estimate, though, if you're going to use Newton's method to arrive at your solution.

:rofl:

It would seem that the "temperature" of the thing, classically, is around 100 billion K.

Actually, I would like to do this myself, but I'm too damn lazy and too damn old.

I was googling around last night and came across some guys talking about 60 MeV neutrons. How the hell does one get a neutron with that much energy? Spallation and accelerators must be involved, but shit, even I wouldn't want to be around one of those things.

Every wonder why all the lights are on every night throughout America?? Its a sign of of a wasteful society.. We could avoid building nuclear and coal fired electrical plant by simply conserving!!

I wonder how much electricy wouldn't have to be produce if American's UNPLUGGED all their electrical devices they don't use on a daily basis?? From can openers to computers, if its not in use, unplug it!!

> I wonder how much electricy wouldn't have to be produce if American's
> UNPLUGGED all their electrical devices they don't use on a daily
> basis?? From can openers to computers, if its not in use, unplug it!!

I wish more people would recognise this as the *starting* point of
economy ... not only does it not cost you money, it saves it!

If you want to go a tiny bit further (for the sake of children,
grandchildren, nephews, nieces, etc.) then the next four are:
- Replace standard bulbs with energy efficient ones (CF or ideally LED).
- Insulate hot water tank and hot water pipes.
- Reduce draughts.
- Insulate the loft space.

This is all low-cost stuff that saves you money over <3 years.

After that then fine, join in with the longer term issues but all
of the above make an instant improvement - a positive personal step
that buys everyone a fraction more time.

If it's not needed, switch it off and save *your* money as well as
*our* planet.

and I believe everyone should do the same. but its the huge skyscrapers that need to turn out the lights when everybody goes home..

Clean energy, by definition, doesn't harm the enviroment. I am agianst wateful energy use not because I moralize about lowering energy use, but because they energy can be better used in productive things, like researching new clean energy sources (fusion research!) powering a electric rail system and charging up eletric cars.

...and we are too well-traveled along those paths already: A generally high rate of consumption is destroying forests, sea life, all large mammals, amphibians, and countless vegetation through processes that aren't directly related to power plant emissions. They result from rampant and thoughtless leveraging of energy.

We have an overactive, entropy intensive, far-flung, energy-junkie culture and spoon-feeding it more nuclear energy under the current regime of subsidies and bailouts will NOT make coal and oil go away... Efficiency incentives would evaporate (preserving coal's indispensible status) and nuclear construction will spew mega CO2 into the atmosphere in the short term, at the worst time possible in terms of climate change, without the emissions savings kicking in for several decades (too late). No thanks, I'd rather use wind and PV panels that cover their emissions cost in 2 years not 20!

You want energy you don't have to think about when you arrive home from school; an energy source you'll never touch nor even recognize its shape on your skyline.

You want to wave the word "technology" around like its a magic wand so people will automatically stand up and confer respect. But such haphazard promotion of self-defeating techniques is a poor excuse for technology if you ask me.

Apparently "technology" and "hitek" mean that we cannot pick and choose what is sustainable.

But if it doesn't pass holistic scientific scrutiny, then it sucks as far as "technology" goes. "Technology" and "neo-luddite" are buzzwords that corporate PR uses to make the scientific community shut up so we will all swallow the hackish, corner-cutting industrial tricks that are continually dressed up in tinsel-y futurism.



There WILL be situations where nuclear power can be built with less overhead (and for less frivolous wants) possibly making the tradeoff worthwhile. Regions with extensive grid infrastructure in place may be the best candidates; Building large new grids I think would be counterproductive. Water desalinization could be another laudable use of nuclear.

Our technological civilization depends on energy, but most is simply wasted

I want to ban coal fired power plants.

Shut them ALL down, everywhere in the world, even if it means replacing them with nuclear power plants.

In my own home we've already done the easy conversions. All our lights are compact fluorescents, our refrigerator is a high efficiency model, we don't use air conditioning, our house is well insulated, and so on. The next steps will be more expensive and will include solar water heating, a heat pump, and maybe a low-pollution wood stove. After that I would like to have more photovoltaic panels, but these are probably toys for people who can afford them, much like sailboats are toys. Sure, it's better for the environment to use sailboats than motorboats, but realistically these are playthings for people with above-average incomes.

Nigerians have a per capita power consumption of 8 watts.

What percent do you anticipate them conserving? How many computers should they turn off?

The right denies global climate change and, unfortunately, some on the left deny the possibility of doing anything about global climate change except to mutter (indolently and insipidly) "conservation, wind, solar."

Conservation, wind and solar a good things to the limits they can be used but they are in fact limited, greatly limited. People have been chanting "conservation, wind, solar..." for decades with almost no result. It is time to be realistic.

While many people believe conservation is a viable alternative to building more, I wonder what you believe is the realistic approach?? Unabated building of nuclear power plants to pollute future generations??

Your use of the word "pollute" constitutes yet another use of poor argument.

Yet again, I find the need to refer to a description of an appeal to a logical fallacy:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

I have noted many times here with appeal to data that no source of energy, including the oil you continually cry about, is free of risk. I note that the risk of no energy is much greater than the risk of nuclear energy. In fact, the risk associated with nuclear energy mostly has to do with the release of radon from the decay of unused uranium. One way to further reduce the risk of nuclear energy is to be absolutely sure that all the uranium is fissioned rather than be allowed to naturally decay.

In any case, without nuclear energy there may not be any future generations to worry about.

I have demonstrated many times, by appeal to the scientific literature and not the daisy chain self-referential websites like those that inform the "peak oil" worrywarts, that it is well known that the nuclear fuel cycle can easily reduce the overall radioactivity of the planet earth faster than would happen through natural decay. (This will not include the 400 billion curies of potassium-40 that now is suspended in the ocean as a result of the supernovae from which our solar system formed.) How quickly this reduction will take place will depend sensitively on the types of fuel cycles chosen by future generations - and they will probably choose many nuclear cycles depending on their particulars - but I can assure you that they will find your conception of "pollution" very quaint and amusing indeed.

25% of the CO₂ from 2% of the population?

That's pretty fucked up

No-one is saying the US should go to Nigerian levels. Hell, getting down to Australia's levels would be a start, then aim for the UK levels and on to Switzerland...

... is the inability to recognise a solution that has more than
one component.

With cash in your hand now, you still will not have a new powerstation
this year (nuclear, coal, oil, gas, wind, solar, whatever).

Even without cash in your hand now - i.e., zero expenditure, private
or public - you can save electricity by not wasting it, today and
every day until your new clean nuclear station comes online.

Nigeria doesn't come into the equation at this level: as you said,
having a per capita power consumption of 8W puts their total energy
consumption (never mind wastage) leagues below the pointless, vain
and totally fixable wastage of a large US city.

Cut out the waste and you can avoid having to replace some of those
filthy coal-fired plants and just concentrate on getting a solid,
safe and efficient nuclear generating backbone up. Keep the waste
and you're just re-arranging the deck-chairs.

I *want* new powerstations to be nuclear (for heavy loads) or
renewable (for localised light loads) but the reduction of power
wastage is not an "either/or" solution, it is an "and".

Why can't people (especially American people) grasp this?

...but it would be like shooting fish in a barrel :evilgrin:

.. to climate problems. You yourself regularly post a graphic that shows we waste at least 60% of the energy we consume. If short-lived materials headed for landfills were included in the waste, it might well be 75%.

The US, with less than 5% of the world's population, accounts for over 20% of world energy consumption:

we WASTE more energy than the second largest consumer (China) USES;
we WASTE more energy than the COMBINED TOTAL USE of Russian Federation and Japan;
we WASTE more energy than the COMBINED TOTAL USE of India, Germany, Canada, and France;
we WASTE more energy than the COMBINED TOTAL USE of Iceland, Ecuador, Lithuania, Peru, Azerbaijan, Republic of Ireland, Bangladesh, Qatar, New Zealand, Denmark, Slovakia, Turkmenistan, Bulgaria, Kuwait, Hungary, Hong Kong, Portugal, Philippines, Chile, Colombia, Finland, Switzerland, Algeria, Greece, Austria, Norway, Romania, Czech Republic, Singapore, Pakistan, Sweden, United Arab Emirates, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Malaysia, Argentina, Venezuela, Belgium, Thailand, Turkey, and Poland.

http://www.geohive.com/charts/charts.php?xml=en_cons&xsl=en_cons


Your anti-conservation argument -- phrased as noble and benevolent concern for Nigeria -- seems not to fit into any comprehensive program to benefit the good people there ...

I've heard some conservatives argue that the impending energy crisis is actually good because it will force us to find innovative solutions. They say the free market will always provide a solution.

yep, we have them on both sides.

Technology does not equal Pollution, that's what I'm trying to get into peoples heads. Fusion is more high-tech then coal and it's perfectly clean.

Which is pretty rare with greens.

The overall CO2 production rises in-line with the power consumed - even if fantastically CO2 free electrical power is assumed.

Nuclear does have many drawbacks, which basically forbid its exclusive use. Especially the assumption of nuclear being Co2-free is wrong. Also, while nuclear plants themselves are reasonably safe and clean, it should not be forgotten that the fuel industry needed is most "dirty".

Also there's the privatization problem:
Without widespread governmental support, nuclear plants are economically not feasible. Governmental support in the billion $ ballpark is a problem, when given to private companies and not public utility services. Moreover, electrical companies, regardless of their size, shy away from investing the money needed for a nuclear plant. At least in Europe, the privatization of the electric power producers has essentially stopped all nuclear power plant constructions; just countries not going along with the EU - like France - continue.