Nuke Crisis : Level 7 on overall impact

[TomT]

And I agree with that premise.

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, has written what I consider to be a thoughtful article on why we should continue to use nuclear power, despite the disaster in Japan.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_18225283

No energy source is without risk, and it is appropriate to re-examine the safety of nuclear energy at this time. However, we must remember that nuclear energy offers an environmentally responsible way to power the economy today and for the future.

Ray

 

[TEG]

Wasn't one of the reactors using a much more persistant uranium type. I though it was supposed to have a VERY long half-life.

Plutonium ... more dangerous:
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/17/mox-the-fukushima-word-of-the-day-and-why-its-bad-news/

...It's half life is a whopping 24,000 years, and since radioactive contamination is dangerous for 10 to 20 times the length of the isotope's half.life, that means plutonium emitted in Fukushima today will still be around in close to half a million years...

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/fukushima-what-is-plutonium-and-what-are-the-dangers-20110330-1cfmb.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/031736_plutonium_enriched_uranium.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/07/3237318.htm

 

[AndyH]

Unfortunately, Mr. Moore has been paid to be part of a pro-nuclear front group since 2006.

Greenpeace is less than impressed...
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/news-releases/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/

Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.

While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he "saw the light" but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, has written what I consider to be a thoughtful article on why we should continue to use nuclear power, despite the disaster in Japan.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_18225283

No energy source is without risk, and it is appropriate to re-examine the safety of nuclear energy at this time. However, we must remember that nuclear energy offers an environmentally responsible way to power the economy today and for the future.

Ray

 

[evnow]

Irrespective of what Patrick is or says - I can't fault the basic premise of the article. The only way in the near future (like in the next couple of decades) to retire fossil fuel power plants is to replace them with nukes. I prefer them to be gen4 - LFTR. Otherwise, there won't be too many left on this planet to worry about the planet, anyway.

 

[cdub]

Well... we can do what Japan is doing and mandate solar on rooftops. That would do it.

Or do the solar roadways.

http://www.solarroadways.com/main.html

Worst webdesign ever. Best new idea ever.

 

[evnow]

Well... we can do what Japan is doing and mandate solar on rooftops. That would do it.

No. You need baseload power - that can't come from solar or wind, unless we invest massively in batteries and other storage. So massively that we we won't have resources to do anything else in society.

 

[EVDrive]

Well... we can do what Japan is doing and mandate solar on rooftops. That would do it.

No. You need baseload power - that can't come from solar or wind, unless we invest massively in batteries and other storage. So massively that we we won't have resources to do anything else in society.

That is a wild opinion and you are entitled to it. I don't buy it however.

I think we need some more credit for our cultures creative problem solving skills. 15 years ago my friends lived off the grid with solar, deep cycle lead-acid batteries and a 4inch pipe that carried water from the creek behind their house to a tiny hydro-electric generator for topping off their batteries. Their are many solutions out there to supplement nighttime power demand. Power storage solutions are expensive but not so out of the realm of the possible that if we tried to solve the problem it would take all of humanities resources.

Perhaps this is where hydrogen storage makes sense... create hydrogen gas during the day with solar arrays, convert it back to electric grid power at night, add in some wind and wave power plus racks of used electric car batteries in everyones houses which store their point of source rooftop solar arrays excess daytime capacity for later nighttime household use and car charging.

 

[TEG]

Fukushima nuclear plant may have suffered 'melt-through', Japan admits

 

[EVDrive]

Fukushima nuclear plant may have suffered 'melt-through', Japan admits

A melt-through is really bad. It's hard to get the truth in these catastrophic situations. I feel for the people of Japan.

No nuke plants for me. It's not worth the risks and we have no idea what to do with the waste other than to let it sit around and wait for a meltdown or melt-through.

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

Well... we can do what Japan is doing and mandate solar on rooftops. That would do it.

No. You need baseload power - that can't come from solar or wind, unless we invest massively in batteries and other storage. So massively that we we won't have resources to do anything else in society.

I respectfully disagree. Nuclear energy is the most expensive way of producing electricity, particularly counting the rent to pay to store the waste for eons. As long as you privatize the profits and socialize the costs, it looks great, just like big oil and the fat cats will line up for another feeding from the public trough any chance they get. When things go horribly wrong, they can always declare bankruptcy and hand over the mess to the public sector to pay for the clean up.

Finding good ways of storing electricity for base power is going to be a lot easier than finding nearly eternal ways of storing nuclear waste, particularly in a politically and geologically unstable world. Yucca mountain has been scrapped because in the end they could not certify it for even the minimum 10,000 years it would have to remain stable to deal with high level nuclear waste. It's true, all sources of energy come with their risks, but the risks and costs of nuclear energy out way their benefits and that is why Germany has decided to decommission all their nuclear plants.

I believe hydrogen fuel cell technology could be the long term ticket even for our cars, but it will take a lot more R&D before it's ready for the mainstream and leads to the kind of economy of scale necessary to make it affordable. I remember an interview with a hydrogen fuel cell car driver who described it like this: "these systems can hold so much energy, it's not that you will come home and plug your car into your home, but instead, you will come home and plug your home into your car". We need to go full throttle on developing renewable sources to generate all the electricity we will need for generating all the hydrogen or whatever other medium we end up using for base power.

If you ask me, the number one threat to renewable energy truly going mainstream is that large multi-national powers can't monopolize it, centralize it, and require all of us to be dependent on them for it. Renewable energy is fundamentally decentralizing and that is threatening to those who like to have the money funnel into their pockets. The only reason nuclear is still on the table is because there is soooo much money to be made! Luckily, it seems that the nuclear option is becoming very unpopular on it's own, while the "impossible" is becoming more and more plausible with renewable energy.

If some 800 utilities across the US can offer "green up" style renewable energy options to their customers for a small up charge, then I think it's time we all get 100% behind assuring our Leafs are being charged with electricity that funds renewable expansion, it really is a great way to help the EV revolution fuel a renewable energy revolution!!!

the solution comes up every morning!
g

 

[evnow]

That is a wild opinion ....

Huh ? I suggest reading up before making such assertions.

 

[evnow]

Finding good ways of storing electricity for base power is going to be a lot easier than finding nearly eternal ways of storing nuclear waste, particularly in a politically and geologically unstable world.

That is because you are still thinking about gen3 - not lftr.

 

[planet4ever]

I agree that in the long run heavy dependence on today's nuclear power will be bad for our planet, and that we should strive to move away from it. But we have some truly dire short to mid term problems which are forcing our hand.

• Nuclear waste is not nearly so much of a problem in the short term as coal plant tailings.
• Burning hydrocarbons of any sort at the rate we are currently using them will, I believe, make our planet nearly unlivable within a century. (I know, that may be an extreme attitude, but pretending that man-made climate change is a hoax is also an extreme attitude.)
• Mid term, we are running out of hydrocarbons that can be utilized at any kind of reasonable cost. Nuclear will become a clearly less expensive alternative.
• Wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources have a huge future potential, but they can't be ramped up quickly enough to get around the first three points.

Yes, we have learned that some nuclear plants designed more than forty years ago had inadequate safeguards, and were placed where no nuclear plant should ever have been built. But if someone came to me tomorrow and offered me the choice of a newly designed nuclear plant or a newly designed coal plant two miles from my home, I would have no hesitation in replying, "Nuclear."

Incidentally, I actually participated in a sit-in fifty years ago to try to prevent the construction of a nuclear plant. At the time I had no inkling of the possible import of stopping nuclear. Today my electric utility gets 20% of its power from nuclear and has one of the lowest carbon emission ratings around. I'm glad our sit-in failed.

Ray

[I am not a member of any pro-nuclear advocacy group, nor have I ever been employed in, or paid by anyone in, the nuclear industry. I'm just a citizen of the earth, concerned about its future.]

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Nuclear maybe clean energy but does not use renewable fuels. We are simply delaying an identical scenario down the road.

Ramp up time is huge. Upfront costs are huge

Maintenance is much higher...labor etc. And there are more and better solar storage solutions coming out every day.

I think the speed of innovation will outrun the 15 years it takes to build. A nuke

 

[Herm]

Nuclear maybe clean energy but does not use renewable fuels. We are simply delaying an identical scenario down the road.

Ramp up time is huge. Upfront costs are huge

Maintenance is much higher...labor etc. And there are more and better solar storage solutions coming out every day.

I think the speed of innovation will outrun the 15 years it takes to build. A nuke

Sheez.. the Chinese are building them, by the score, in 5 years.. why 15 years?.. why not a canned pre-approved failsafe design?. Two 1350MW ABWRs plants were built in Japan that only took 4 years, in 1996 and 1997.. modern plants are assembled out of modules built elsewhere.

There is enough fuel to last for a long long time before fusion or thorium reactors take over. We dont need 100% nuclear power and neither do we need 100% solar, neither is practical and a mix is good.

 

[AndyH]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFsQmQEnH4c[/youtube]

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Check out todays headline
www.theolympian.com

 

[Herm]

Check out todays headline
http://www.theolympian.com

You need to provide a link and quote lots of text, since the story will disapear soon.. the only thing of interest I could find was this:

http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/20/1693786/man-urinates-in-water-city-flushes.html

"PORTLAND, Ore. – Call it the big flush.
Because a 21-year-old man was caught on a security camera urinating into a city reservoir, Oregon's biggest city is sending 8 million gallons of treated drinking water down the drain.
Portland officials defended the decision Monday, saying they didn't want to send city residents water laced, however infinitesimally, with urine.
Public health officials say, however, that urine is sterile in healthy people and that the urine in the reservoir was so diluted - perhaps a half pint in millions of gallons - that it posed little risk.
Some people in the city, in the suburbs and around the world called the flush an overreaction, especially since animals such as ducks contribute waste routinely and, sometimes, die in the water."

 

[Herm]

You guys are being ninnies.. you dont like nukes, no mountain top stripping and no drilling in the Antartic.. not much left when the wind stops blowing and your Leaf sits uncharged. Next you will start bleating about lipo fires, sheezz drink some strong coffee and man up

Some good news, smaller, safer modular nukes are in the news again:

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2011-06-17/tva-plans-be-first-build-small-modular-reactors?v=1308350318

"CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. --- The Tennessee Valley Authority signed a letter of intent to become the nation's first electricity provider to build small modular reactors.
Spokesmen for the nation's largest public utility and Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Energy subsidiary Generation mPower in Charlotte, N.C., said Friday that the letter signed in late May outlines plans for building up to six mini reactors at TVA's vacant Clinch River site in east Tennessee.
TVA spokesman Terry Johnson said the utility is pursuing possible development of a single small reactor to start operating by 2020. He said the small reactors each could support about 70,000 homes."

more details here:

http://theenergycollective.com/dan-yurman/43216/hyperion-build-small-modular-reactor-savannah-river

 

[jwatte]

I used to be defending fission nuclear power, more as a least-evil solution than a really good solution. However, what Fukushima has taught me is that, even in civilized, non-totalitarian states, the profit motive will trump the public safety motive, and the government will not be allowed to enforce sufficient safety for any eventuality. And eventualities do happen, no matter what we want to think. When the public safety risk is literally millions of people and entire counties devastated and unusable, no profit motive in the world should be allowed to take that risk. There is no way that TEPCO could pay "reparations" for that damage, nevermind that "reparations" aren't sufficient to compensate for a life with cancer, or a lost child, or a family farm poisoned beyond usability.

Less than two hours south of where I live, within driving range of a Leaf, there is a US power plant built *on top of a faultline*. There are two fault lines in the area, and the last several times we've seen activity there, the power company claimed that the activity was "in the other fault" and that the fault they've constructed atop is "dormant." I guess any fault is "dormant," until it wakes up with a big earthquake. Would that plant stay safe after a 8.5 earthquake? I doubt it -- and we're talking about up to 10 million people affected, and real estate including all of Silicon Valley! The risk simply is not worth it, period -- but what can one guy, or even one small people movement, do against an entrenched political and economical power?

I hope there will be help. Fusion reactors seem like they would be a lot safer. If we worry about explosions, then put them in the desert. (In fact -- why don't we do that for nukes, too?) Co-locate fusion reactors with PV solar, to share infrastructure, even!
For storage, very large flywheels may be a practical way of storing energy that does not use toxic metals in batteries that wear out. For even greater scale, use the electricity to separate water into hydrogen gas; then use fuel cells or just plain hydrogen-based engines to power generators to get it back. I'm sure we'll come up with even better systems in the future, but we have to keep investing in weaning ourselves off the big risks -- oil from unstable dictatorships in the third world, and nuclear fission that can poison vast areas for all practical future.

End rant