Slashdot Mirror

We will be irradiated less by nuclear power plant run by PHBs than inhale smoke from fossil fired power plants or breathe water from hydro if they are run by the same people.

Nuclear is safest method (and certainly safest proven method) of energy production: http://www.externe.info/ (that's European Commision published research)

as all insurers, who assess risks for a living, have cautiously decided already.

It's more related to effects of low doses of radiation. Or rather to the fact we don't really understand where's the threshold at which radioactivity damages cells faster that they can repair themselves. It's very hard to assess the effects of radioactivity given a single case. Does the fact you can insure yourself against anal probing by aliens make it a real possibility?

NP, which can render a large portion of land uninhabitable for a long period of time

Look at radioactivity in polluted areas near Fukushima and then look at radiation levels in Ramsar in Iran. Calling them uninhabitable is going a bit over board (which press loves to do)... Even if we consider the amount of land made unarable by this event, it compares favourably to, for example, hydro, let alone solar. It isn't as bad as you're trying to paint it.

They are profitable because all R&D, waste management and risk insurance are shouldered by the public

Because big Oil has no subsidies? Try 21 billion dollars of "no subsidies". Because air pollution by coal fired plants have no effect on population? Try 10% lung cancer increase in incidence rate in 10 mile radius around power plant. Look at Mercury contamination in USA by the same industry (and see how many rivers and how much land is unusable for food production because of this). Those are not shouldered by the public?

The fact that you're not able to acknowledge that simply shows how blinded and deluded by your fanatism you are.

You belittle yourself by name calling and it won't make me "dense" no matter how you try. I spent considerate amount of time researching the topic of energy safety and conclusion is simple: all energy sources have effects on population (kill people) or environment (make land uninhabitable/unarable, some even do this without accidents). The one with smallest effect on both population and environment is nuclear. It's not the conclusion of "just some random guy on the Internet", read ExternE report: http://www.externe.info/expoltec.pdf

And yet you don't include any estimates of the externalities. But "trust us, they're huge".

Because they're a pain in the ass to find and they're still not entirely complete to my satisfaction. ExternE did a good study of external costs and I would also recommend Internalization of the external costs of global environmental damage in an integrated assessment model. The glaring omissions that I see with these studies benefit fossil fuels by being omitted. Costs such as security of energy supply still have not been properly quantified or internalized, and these costs are inarguably huge. Studies that attempt to include climate change costs are remarkably conservative to avoid criticism. If the moderate concerns about climate change turn out to be well-founded, we'll be facing astronomical costs associated with that problem. And that's ignoring the suffering of over a billion people.

"And so, therefore, we'll be forcing you to buy higher-priced, inferior energy from politically-connected rent seeking alternative energy companies. Our self-serving estimates for externalities of our favored energy companies are low."

Or, if you bothered to read the studies, lower-priced energy. Where in the world did you get "inferior energy" from? I must have missed that in my high school physics class. Was it right between chemical and kinetic? Or were you trying to argue a straw man and claim that my argument is that we don't need base load power? That's utter bollocks. I'm a big fan of nuclear power, as well as ongoing research into energy storage. In the end, we desperately need better storage mechanisms, and it'd be awesome to see things like Power Tower able to provide base load power from solar alone.

I also find it pretty amusing that you're trying to accuse the environmental movement of favoring big, evil corporations. Seriously? Who's rent-seeking? The companies that manufacture windmills, all the companies manufacturing and researching solar tech? Are it those evil people who make double-paned windows? Maybe it's the evil bastards who retrofit homes with better insulation. Yeah, must be them. Gold-digging bastards will stop at nothing to conserve energy and make a profit!

It's pretty easy to decide these things when you get to use unlimited, unsupported, variable fudge factors. It's amazing how the answers always turn out beneficial to you and your point of view.

It's pretty easy to decide these things when you get to ignore all external costs simply because they're difficult to quantify. It's amazing how the answers always turn out beneficial to you and your point of view.

Now we've gotten the mudslinging out of the way, perhaps we can get back to having an intellectually honest discussion.

---

Do you at least acknowledge that we don't have an infinite supply of fossil fuels? If so, then surely we agree that at some point in the future we will have to switch to a renewable/sustainable model. The only serious disagreement we should be having, then, is over when that point is, and whether we should try to make the switch before we get there.

I would be interested in seeing how the true costs per kw/h compare.

There is a very thorough EU study comparing the external costs; the summary table is here.

I would be interested in seeing how the true costs per kw/h compare.

There is a very thorough EU study comparing the external costs; the summary table is here.

Even if true (which I very much doubt) coal and oil is only a minor source of air pollution. Things like pesticides are far more significant. Here in CA, the San Joaquin Valley is one of the most polluted areas in the state, partly because of the large amount of agriculture.

Maybe agriculture is locally significant in terms of air pollution, but, globally, there's no contest.

This EU press release is not a scientific study, but it accurately interprets this massive EU research study. And, yes, it does say 300,000 premature deaths from air pollution per year across the EU, and overwhelmingly that is from the burning of fossil fuels. And not all of those deaths are old people (a fair and often neglected point). A US study on the topic suggested the average loss of life from a premature death from air pollution is roughly 10-15 years. On top of that, there's also the massive problem of air pollution contributing to kiddies getting asthma.

As for your points about California's local geography and the potential effects of wind turbines and the like, that's a reasonable point about the local situation in one of the more densely populated and most car-saturated places on earth. But that's why you do environmental impact statements before any development, including wind turbines.

An interesting analysis, and while I agree w/ that nuclear power would be far preferable to coal, (and without discussing further viability issues), I would just like to point out that wind power in the US should not be ruled out offhand. From the abstract of the 1993 Wind Energy Potential in the United States study by D.L. Elliott and M.N. Schwartz (which supercedes the 1991 study cited):

Good wind areas, which cover 6% of the contiguous U.S. land area, have the potential to supply more than one and a half times the current electricity consumption of the United States. Technology under development today will be capable of producing electricity economically from good wind sites in many regions of the country.

So yes, in theory, wind power could meet our power needs (but not w/o being coupled with advanced battery technologies.

Even cost per kWh, Wind does ok. From a March 2004 briefing published by the World Nuclear Association on The Economics of Nuclear Power, shows a present day cost of about 3.7c/kWh. A recent AWEA analysis of the The Economics of Wind Energy [PDF] places the cost/kWh for a 51MW wind farm at between 2.6-4.8c/kWh depending on wind speed. Even if we account for backup power and double the cost, we're not doing too badly either way.

Coal is at about 3.3c/kWh, but when calculating in the external costs "to put plausible financial figures against damage resulting from different forms of electricity production for the entire EU" as done in the decade long EC ExternE studies. Total cost of both nuclear (avg'ing 0.4 euro cents/kWh) and wind (0.1-0.2 ec/kWh) end up beating the snot over coal (4.1-7.3 ec/kWh).

Regardless, I agree with Lovelock. We really need to dump fossil fuels now.

ExternE - Externalities of Energy. A research project of the European Commission.