Mutually Assured Destruction or Destruction. Asymmetrical use of a captured Nuclear weapon is surely a nightmare scenario, but a disarmament solution requires careful consideration.
Some who have read my criticisms of the Nuclear Industry may be surprised to find that I actually support the development of a reactor that addresses the issue of 70,000 tons of Pu-239 (and much more U-238) currently stored in reactor sites around America, simply because it's irresponsible for our generation to foist these issue onto later generations.
One of the core reasons I support the development of such a reactor because it is capable of utilising weapons grade plutonium as fuel creating an impetus for disarmament and, hopefully, slowly defusing the asymmetrical weapons threat.
Unfortunately, because there is no geologically sound Nuclear waste dump in operation it's totally inappropriate to discuss building a new reactor facility until a proper containment facility is available. Yucca mountain is not a suitable site because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available.
We need something made of granite. The only human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years is Mt Rushmore, so it has to be an engineering project of that scale, because the logistical problems of transferring the 70000 odd tons of Pu239 to the spent fuel containment facility are so involved that you want to get it right the first time and only do it once.
Even doing that will probably take 30 years to complete, but there is more to it than that.
I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor as a potential solution and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last the thousands of years it will take to use that fuel. If you are going to build reactors then do it properly and build a Terra-watt scale nuclear reactor facility the belly of a massive granite mountain with an attached waste facility and chomp up all your remaining plutonium or end all commercial nuclear activity altogether.
Why? Because Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because said technology (material sciences) are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor that has a life span that matches the geological time frames of the fuel. This exposes the facility to all the issues associated with de-commissioning reactor sites every 4 decades or so. A reactor design that lasts at least 1000 years and is a closed loop, i.e. the plutonium goes in and nothing comes out (except electricity and possibly hydrogen) and avoids all the energetic costs associated with mining, enrichment and de-commissioning/demolition of the reactor.
As long we are producing plutonium and there is no where for it to go we will have a Nuclear Weapons threat and this is the price we pay for opening that pandora's box.
I don't hide the fact that I don't like the constant failure of the Nuclear Industry. But I'm also being realistic. I realise that the only way out of this mess is a well thought out and designed project because we have no other choice due to the nature of the materials. It entails redesigning the entire industry, and it's a long term solution. A well designed and secured facility resistant to attacks even from orbit because that's the type of 21st century threats it would have to face.
But it has to be done properly, and I don't think privat
My workstation has additional connections to two mixing desks with eight channels - and that's just the inputs. There is also my auratone, two vu meter sets, the subwoofer output apart from both screens, both monitor speakers have power cables. There is also the control surface.
I found that learning how to braid cables really neatened things up. Three way and four way braids really make the cables look nice and neat. For me I also got two four channel desk mounted usb hubs.
As much as possible all cables are hidden and my set-up looks very neat, but it's never enough. I have mounted power boards on the back and underside of my desk, which is a dial up height adjustable. I keep refining the set-up, finding new way to hide cables when things start looking messy to me again. screw on cable ties, cable organisers and velcro straps also keep things under control.
I do. See for example the IPCC 4th assessment report, working group 3, chapter 4 "Energy Supply". In particular 4.3.2 pp. 269-270 "Nuclear Power", and also the summary graph Figure 4.19 on page 283, which compares the lifecycle CO2 emissions per unit energy of different primary sources.
The conclusions reached in that chapter are based on Vattenfall and they build nuclear power plants so it's not surprising the results favor nuclear power. Whilst they are the best run nuclear reactors in the world and an example of what a *baseline* nuclear program should look like, U.S reactors fall dreadfully short.
The work of Vattenfall *and* Storm van Leeuwen and Smith, upon which that chapter cites as references, both use the same method to calculate energy consumption funded by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy and are used in 80 odd industry sectors. The exceptionally detailed work of Dr Phillip Smith, Nuclear Physicist and Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen (MSc) (Stormsmith.nl), who both work in the nuclear industry and have specialisation on energy system analysis, is mostly ignored in the IPCC report. They have no vested interest in the outcome whilst Vattenfall does.
Their criticisms of Vattenfall include "Process analysis leads to a large underestimation of the total construction energy requirements when labor and supporting activities of the construction are not included".
One thing that is not immediately obvious is that the primary greenhouse gas from the Nuclear industry is not Carbon Dioxide but Chlorinated Fluro-Carbons (CFC114) a greenhouse gas 20,000 times more potent than C02. Whilst it's equivalent effect is slightly over 8 megatons of C02 more potent is the destruction this compound causes to the ozone layer and it's eventual effect on Phytoplankton which creates more breathable oxygen than the Amazon.
If that wasn't serious enough, long term it's not radiation but radioactive isotopes that will eventually make it into the food chain via bioaccumulation. As the hidden cost of carbon is imposed on our generation in the form of a Carbon tax, so we pass on a cost to future generation forced to have to deal with radioactive isotopes and other environmental externalities. Wouldn't it be better to develop a longer term strategy wrt Nuclear power than we currently have that actually addresses the very real problems the industry has?
This isn't surprising at all, when you consider the extreme energy density of nuclear fission.
Which is only relevant if you use the energy density of the enriched isotope and currently PWR use 0.3% of the available energy density. This brings us back to Storm van Leeuwen and Smith whose analysis was to asses the net energy return of the Nuclear industry. For example, for the expected 300TWh's output of a new AP-1000 (low side Vattenfall, high side Storm/Smith) energetic estimates for construction of a nuclear power plant is somewhere between 11TWh and 35TWh, energy cost for demolition around 55TWh to 70TWh, that's around a third before you start. Yet you still have to factor dismantling and clean up of the core alone 5.6TWh's - 16TWh's. They talk in Peta-joules but I've done the conversions to put it in a frame of reference that will be easier to understand.
Using a conservative energy expenditure of 1528Kwh per ton of rock (containing Uranium) you have to process 500 tons of rock, that's 763500Kwh's, to produce one kilo of Uranium. Assuming an extremely optimistic extraction efficiency approaching %50 AND assuming you have a high grade ore that's roughly 763Gwh's per ton and you need 160tons for your first core. Even before enri
There were two accidents so far. One caused no deaths and little damage and the other was the result of outdated Soviet RBMK reactors.
What? I don't think so and I haven't even begun to dig. How much research did you do before making that statement? There were two catastrophic eventsso far. And Chernobyl wasn't *because* of the reactor it was *because* the administrative personnel conducted a test out of engineering spec (at 250Mw instead of 750Mw) *after* they xenon poisoned the reaction.
And you haven't taken into account accidents in the other stages of the Nuclear Industry. So just how many of those accidents do you include?
With modern safety technology, such accidents are *practically* impossible
So in other words, they're unlikely, but still possible. Specifically which 'modern safety technology are you referring to?
we'll almost certainly have none until the last fission reactor shuts down and we all switch to fusion power.
But your not certain, your 'almost certain'. It concerns me that your statements seem to be more 'Pro-Nuclear' rather than 'Responsible Nuclear Advocacy'. Your arguments, fixated on the reactors instead of the industry as a whole, suggest you should educate yourself about the *entire* industry before engaging in this debate any further as you have been unable to actually *answer* any of the arguments I have presented to you.
I am 'almost certain' you will find that exposure to radioactive isotopes will not cause immediate death, but will trigger cancer that will take some years to express itself. I am also 'almost certain' that if there is another catastrophic Nuclear event it will be end of the Nuclear power industry. A shame really because I'm 'almost certain' that advancing the Nuclear Industry could help us deal with the stockpiles of pu-239 and du-238 we have.
Do you know what a ASP is in relation to a Nuclear Power plant? What a Basis Design Issue is, how many are acceptable in a nuclear power plant and how they are found? Or how many recommendations were made by which industry bodies for SNUPPs that actually made it into the design for the AP-1000?
Because if you can't I'd suggest that you don't know as much about Nuclear reactors as you think you do.
Coal releases more radioactive waste than nuclear. Citation here.
Coal releases more radioactive waste than nuclear power stations in normal operation, however just one accident makes up for all plants because of the massive amounts of radioactive isotopes released. If you had read my post and the article properly you would see that I am talking about the entire Nuclear Industry and *it's* externalities.
All radioactive isotope should be controlled no matter where it comes from. Your statement tries to deflect the responsibility the Nuclear industry should be taking for *their* externalities as the coal industry should also do.
There are plans and ways to deal with this, and techniques that greatly lessen the amount of waste from a plant - but none of that matters because people overly afraid of "radiation" refuse to allow any progress in the matter.
Yucca is not a geologically stable spent fuel containment facility, and even the NRC labeled it as 'inappropriate to contain Nuclear Waste'. When Dixie Lee Ray was the head of the Atomic Energy Commission he proclaimed that the disposal of nuclear fuel would be "the greatest non-problem in history" and would be accomplished by 1985, yet here we are in 2009, over twenty years past that date and still there is no spent fuel containment facility anywhere. The closest anyone has come is the Swiss and even their project is a multi-decade test project and extremely expensive.
Nevada only got it at Yucca because one of their representatives didn't show up. So why aren't Nuclear supporters motivated enough to lobby for it in their state, have you? And who do you think should pay for it? If the Nuclear Industry can't solve this most basic issue what business do they have building any *new* reactors?
What specific techniques are you referring to that 'greatly lessen the amount of waste from a plant' and how do you define greatly? 10%, 20% 50% less?
Or you simply build a totally sealed nuclear reactor and bury it on the spot when it's done. There are plans that make that safe as well, meant for third world nations. But I guess it's easier to literally leave them powerless.
I simply don't think you have thought that through. What material should be used to contain the spent fuel in the reactor core for the 25000 years while it decays? What about the activated isotopes from the core like Iron 90 or Cobalt 55 in the triated water, just let them leach into the water table? Should we not plan for that because it's Not In My Generation?
It's not I than am confused about "radiation and radioactive", it's the people against nuclear power that treat them one and the same.
This statement makes no sense. Lethality of radiation is controllable, lethality of a radioactive isotope in the environment is not controllable. The Nuclear Industry releases radioactive isotopes into the environment and this medication won't change that or the fact that people who ingest radioactive isotopes *will* contract cancer.
That scary-looking number is masking that at that efficiency level it still far ahead of solar or wind when you factor in building and maintaining equipment.
So I should start to factor in Net energy return into this argument. The amount of energy to extract Uranium from the rock, the energetic cost of enrichment, the energetic cost of decommissioning the reactor safely and the energetic cost of the *as yet to be built* containment facilities? What about the characteristic of Nuclear energy to continues to consume energy *after* it has produced energy? What about energetic cost of mine site remediation, energetic cost of U-238 storage?
The typical Solar Panel today achieves between 10% and 15% conversion. Solar parabolic trough plants have been built with efficiencies of about 20%. Up to 600C, steam turbines, standard technology, have an efficiency up to 41%. One proposal for very high temperatures is to use liquid fluoride salts operating between 700C to 800C, using multi-stage turbine systems to achieve 50% or more thermal efficiencies.
Solar thermal also does base load power.
And of course nuclear energy is a constant source of power that works in any conditions at any time, further reducing the need for hellishly complex power storage solutions.
As opposed to hellishly toxic elements that are leaked into the environment and you have no way of knowing if they have wound up in the human food chain. Should we also compare the 'hellishly complex' enri
I can't understand how anyone at the time could look at all six landing on the moon as anything short of amazing as opposed to mundane. It sure says a lot about the differences of the times. I look at the landing sites and think that everyone of those is as important as the first moon landing. I wonder if the attitude towards the moon program would have been then if they'd have known how complacent and cynical people would become.
Back then they had all the promise of what the future would be like. Who knows maybe in another forty years time the world will be they way the thought it would be forty years ago.
How sad that we have wasted so much on petty struggles.
Consider this - with an effective "cure" for radiation, it ceases to become a bogeyman and people will be a LOT more comfortable
Well there is a difference between radiation and radioactive, so I'll address your points with the goal of clearing any misunderstanding.
with clean, efficient nuclear power stations nearby.
It's the entire Nuclear Industry that releases radioactive isotopes into the environment. Mining, enrichment, the reactors themselves and as yet no long term plan to contain spent fuel. ALL radioactive isotopes emit some form of radiation which is a cause for cancers. ALL radioactive isotopes 'Bio-concentrate' in the food chain and can be ingested. The amount of radioactive isotopes released into the environment is proportional to the activity of the Nuclear industry, so the likelihood of exposure increases over time. All radioactive isotopes analogue nutrients in the body so (for example) plutonium 'looks' like iron to the body is a potent cause of leukemia as the isotope decays - which will generally be longer than a human lifetime.
efficient nuclear power stations nearby.
How are Nuclear power plants efficient when PWR's only use 0.3% of the fuel?
It takes out a large leg from the alarmists that try to stop them from being built.
This 'potential' medication will only give Nuclear armed states the capability to inoculate their populations against a nuclear strike. So this medication actually *increases* the potential for a nuclear engagement because one side may feel they have the upper hand wrt protecting their population. This changes nothing about Nuclear Industry practices and will not stop you from developing cancer from ingesting radioactive isotopes.
A Nuclear bomb releases a lot of radiation *at the time*. The Nuclear Industry, including reactors, release a lot of radioactive isotopes which emit radiation *over time*.
NASA spent hundreds of millions on the Apollo Program only to record over them due to a "tape shortage" ?
My uncles and my father all watched the Apollo 11 Moon landing *LIVE*. As they were in Australia they were getting the feed slightly before the U.S did. I have no doubt that the moon landing happened but the three of them have all told me the same strange story about when they watched the moon landing.
I can't say exactly when, but they heard Armstrong, a man known for his calm under pressure, say in an excited voice:
"Huston, Huston: There is something large and suspiciously* white moving off the crater ri.."(* may have been "brilliantly")
the transmission was cut off and they were left wondering what was going on . I have no doubt the moon landing occurred, but the conspiracy may be concealing information about something much stranger. I'm not claiming to know the truth, but is anyone surprised when the government covers things up to comfort us anymore? Whilst I believe the majority of UFO sighting can be explained by high speed intelligence reconnaissance aircraft and UFO sightings were a convenient cover for their operations, a small percentage of UFO sightings may actually be *Unexplainable*.
What doesn't add up here?
That the original recording of the most significant event in modern history have been "lost" at all. Maybe NASA can quite honestly say 'We don't know where the tapes are" because the Air Force or the CIA has them. All we have to do is see how other sightings of UFO's recorded by military officers are treated. Perhaps the story of faked moon landings is misinformation/misdirection to distract from the real conspiracy? What's the availability of all the other moon landing tapes? Was there really only one recording of the first landing?
I don't know, but I don't buy the 'Whoopsee, silly us. We lost the recordings of the most significant event in modern history' explanation. The only way to be sure is to see and hear the recordings of the original moon landing in it entirety from separation of the LM and CM to the docking of the LM to the CM. As it's is a significant piece of human history and surely nothing about the mission's activities were classified, I should be able to, even just to connect to what was achieved all those years ago.
If I ever got a chance to meet Armstrong or Aldrin and without pushing for details I would ask "Respectfully Sir, When you landed on the moon did you witness anything you are not allowed to discuss?", I might not get an answer but at least I would get to look into their eyes as I asked.
Now some Slashdot reader must have a powerful enough LASER beam around in order to shoot at the moon. Could this good Samaritan please test if those mirrors are really there and report back to us so we can close this case ?
Even though I know it won't be enough, Mythbusters shined a laser at the moon. Of course any committed moon hoaxer will say 'hey you just faked the computer output' to that I would say
Old fashion TTL chips are still available. Five dollars worth of TTL chips, some LEDs for output indicators, some breadboard sockets can help students understand how logic gates such as AND, OR, NAND, NOR work.
Well, there is one extremely low carbon footprint technology that we know works and scales well.
Unfortunately due to mismanagement and the characteristics of the Nuclear industry as a whole, release of radioactive isotopes into the environment is unavoidable. Whilst, generally, external exposure to radioactive isotopes may be harmless the process of 'Bioconcentration' (outlined in Principles of Ecotoxicology) allows inevitable ingestion of radioactive isotopes via the food chain where the radioactive element becomes a potent source of cancer, depending on the nutrient the isotope analogues, in the body. For example, when ingested Pu-239 analogues iron and is a potent trigger for Leukemia.
Much the same way our generation has to deal with a carbon dioxide externality in the form of carbon tax, future generations will have to deal with a radioactive isotope externality proportional to the amount of radioactive isotopes the Nuclear Industry releases. Unless, of course, practices within the nuclear industry are improved.
Too bad the people who oppose it do so without offering any real alternative besides the "renewables" that we've been waiting decades for or the prospect of a lower standard of living.....
Your argument presumes that it is a polarised debate, pro vs anti but there is a pragmatic point of view as well that should be framed as 'Responsible Nuclear Advocacy'. The proposition of 'a lower standard of living' implies a Not In My Generation means to dealing with the, very real, issues the Nuclear Industry has. Acknowledging those and starting with a geologically sound spent fuel containment facility (which Yucca Mountain is not) is the first step to moving this industry forward.
Whilst I think that development of Nuclear Power is necessary to deal with pu-239 and u-238 (yes I am talking about an IFR style reactor - but let's not go into that now), realistically it will take 50 years of infrastructure planning to implement a properly functioning industry. This is a ideal opportunity to develop and standardise the Nuclear industry for the next several hundred years with designs that take into account all of the engineered redundancy and safety facilities the Nuclear Industry recommended for itself some 25 years ago. Before you mention the AP-1000, this reactor fails even the most basic test of ratio of containment volume to thermal power (actually below that of today's PWRs) increasing the risk of containment over-pressurization and failure in event of a severe accident.
Even doubling alternative energy research budgets would take 1/7th of the nuclear research budget, so there is serious scope for shortening the wait for the 'alternatives'. They are quite underdeveloped technology (solar, wind, geothermal, wave) so wouldn't it be wise to increase the funding to develop them and not have all our eggs in one basket? They have shorter development times between generations than nuclear and don't need artificial insurance constructs like the Price-Anderson act to make them insurable.
If we are going to have a Nuclear Industry V2.0 why not develop one that is based on solid engineering principals instead of compromised to be affordable to capitalise. In the meantime if we invest heavily in undeveloped, low externality, energy solutions like solar, wind, geo-thermal and micro-generation there will be enough energy *available* to carry out such an infrastructure project properly. America, for one, is rich in these 'alternative' resources and would be foolish not to utilize them.
Cats are just not efficient enough to drive a specie into extinction.
They don't need to be, many species already have enough pressure put on them already by human activity. So, in a sense I suppose you are right as irresponsible cat ownership is a human activity.
However wikipedia outlines the science in which a Heirisson Prong study found that cats *are* indeed the cause of the species decline of native mammals.
I have seen large feral cats. By large I mean a ball of muscle over 20kgs, it's hard to believe that they would have any difficulty eating anything they want to. Especially in Australia where cats are an introduced species and the native animals do not have a predator response to them as they would to a Dingo (Australian native dog), fox or feral dog. Dog species are the only thing vaguely close to being a predator for a feral cat.
Try petting a mean rottweiler; I've seen dogs bite their own owners.
My neighbor had a mean black rottweiler. It used to get out *all* the time bailed all my other neighbors (and me) on our own lawns from time to time and left massive turds on the lawn, and it stank when I opened the door in the morning - thanks neighbor.
I took to spraying it with the garden hose, and when it growled at me I'd growl right back.
Eventually everyone in the street got fed up with the dog getting out all the time. The dog turds, that we were gathering up anyway, were collected and deposited in said rottweiler owners letterbox.
Very soon after the dog was not seen about as often, I guess there are some messages you just can't send via email.
If you want to see what non-domesticated looks like, have a feral cat in your house for an hour or two. Or a feral dog.
Indeed. In Australia I have met some feral animals, like cats, on hunting trips and they are scary animals. Fortunately I was armed and under instructions from the owner of the property to destroy these animals when ever I had the opportunity as they attack the farmers livestock.
They also decimate native species in Australia as many animals, especially cats, are dumped by people who no longer want the animals - an especially selfish act. Well over 500,000 species of animals are now extinct in Australia because of, mainly, feral cats who become very effective hunter when left to their own devices.
People who want to own cats should have outdoor enclosures, which are available commercially, as even domesticated cats are very effective at killing wildlife.
Still, the worst feral animal I've met is a feral human. They seem to be impossible to domesticate and are extremely dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
Mutually Assured Destruction or Destruction. Asymmetrical use of a captured Nuclear weapon is surely a nightmare scenario, but a disarmament solution requires careful consideration.
Some who have read my criticisms of the Nuclear Industry may be surprised to find that I actually support the development of a reactor that addresses the issue of 70,000 tons of Pu-239 (and much more U-238) currently stored in reactor sites around America, simply because it's irresponsible for our generation to foist these issue onto later generations.
One of the core reasons I support the development of such a reactor because it is capable of utilising weapons grade plutonium as fuel creating an impetus for disarmament and, hopefully, slowly defusing the asymmetrical weapons threat.
Unfortunately, because there is no geologically sound Nuclear waste dump in operation it's totally inappropriate to discuss building a new reactor facility until a proper containment facility is available. Yucca mountain is not a suitable site because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available.
We need something made of granite. The only human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years is Mt Rushmore, so it has to be an engineering project of that scale, because the logistical problems of transferring the 70000 odd tons of Pu239 to the spent fuel containment facility are so involved that you want to get it right the first time and only do it once.
Even doing that will probably take 30 years to complete, but there is more to it than that.
I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor as a potential solution and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last the thousands of years it will take to use that fuel. If you are going to build reactors then do it properly and build a Terra-watt scale nuclear reactor facility the belly of a massive granite mountain with an attached waste facility and chomp up all your remaining plutonium or end all commercial nuclear activity altogether.
Why? Because Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because said technology (material sciences) are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor that has a life span that matches the geological time frames of the fuel. This exposes the facility to all the issues associated with de-commissioning reactor sites every 4 decades or so. A reactor design that lasts at least 1000 years and is a closed loop, i.e. the plutonium goes in and nothing comes out (except electricity and possibly hydrogen) and avoids all the energetic costs associated with mining, enrichment and de-commissioning/demolition of the reactor.
As long we are producing plutonium and there is no where for it to go we will have a Nuclear Weapons threat and this is the price we pay for opening that pandora's box. I don't hide the fact that I don't like the constant failure of the Nuclear Industry. But I'm also being realistic. I realise that the only way out of this mess is a well thought out and designed project because we have no other choice due to the nature of the materials. It entails redesigning the entire industry, and it's a long term solution. A well designed and secured facility resistant to attacks even from orbit because that's the type of 21st century threats it would have to face.
But it has to be done properly, and I don't think privat
My workstation has additional connections to two mixing desks with eight channels - and that's just the inputs. There is also my auratone, two vu meter sets, the subwoofer output apart from both screens, both monitor speakers have power cables. There is also the control surface.
I found that learning how to braid cables really neatened things up. Three way and four way braids really make the cables look nice and neat. For me I also got two four channel desk mounted usb hubs.
As much as possible all cables are hidden and my set-up looks very neat, but it's never enough. I have mounted power boards on the back and underside of my desk, which is a dial up height adjustable. I keep refining the set-up, finding new way to hide cables when things start looking messy to me again. screw on cable ties, cable organisers and velcro straps also keep things under control.
The conclusions reached in that chapter are based on Vattenfall and they build nuclear power plants so it's not surprising the results favor nuclear power. Whilst they are the best run nuclear reactors in the world and an example of what a *baseline* nuclear program should look like, U.S reactors fall dreadfully short.
The work of Vattenfall *and* Storm van Leeuwen and Smith, upon which that chapter cites as references, both use the same method to calculate energy consumption funded by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy and are used in 80 odd industry sectors. The exceptionally detailed work of Dr Phillip Smith, Nuclear Physicist and Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen (MSc) (Stormsmith.nl), who both work in the nuclear industry and have specialisation on energy system analysis, is mostly ignored in the IPCC report. They have no vested interest in the outcome whilst Vattenfall does.
Their criticisms of Vattenfall include "Process analysis leads to a large underestimation of the total construction energy requirements when labor and supporting activities of the construction are not included".
One thing that is not immediately obvious is that the primary greenhouse gas from the Nuclear industry is not Carbon Dioxide but Chlorinated Fluro-Carbons (CFC114) a greenhouse gas 20,000 times more potent than C02. Whilst it's equivalent effect is slightly over 8 megatons of C02 more potent is the destruction this compound causes to the ozone layer and it's eventual effect on Phytoplankton which creates more breathable oxygen than the Amazon.
If that wasn't serious enough, long term it's not radiation but radioactive isotopes that will eventually make it into the food chain via bioaccumulation. As the hidden cost of carbon is imposed on our generation in the form of a Carbon tax, so we pass on a cost to future generation forced to have to deal with radioactive isotopes and other environmental externalities. Wouldn't it be better to develop a longer term strategy wrt Nuclear power than we currently have that actually addresses the very real problems the industry has?
Which is only relevant if you use the energy density of the enriched isotope and currently PWR use 0.3% of the available energy density. This brings us back to Storm van Leeuwen and Smith whose analysis was to asses the net energy return of the Nuclear industry. For example, for the expected 300TWh's output of a new AP-1000 (low side Vattenfall, high side Storm/Smith) energetic estimates for construction of a nuclear power plant is somewhere between 11TWh and 35TWh, energy cost for demolition around 55TWh to 70TWh, that's around a third before you start. Yet you still have to factor dismantling and clean up of the core alone 5.6TWh's - 16TWh's. They talk in Peta-joules but I've done the conversions to put it in a frame of reference that will be easier to understand.
Using a conservative energy expenditure of 1528Kwh per ton of rock (containing Uranium) you have to process 500 tons of rock, that's 763500Kwh's, to produce one kilo of Uranium. Assuming an extremely optimistic extraction efficiency approaching %50 AND assuming you have a high grade ore that's roughly 763Gwh's per ton and you need 160tons for your first core. Even before enri
That's what ya get folks
For Makin Whoopee
thankyouthankyouthankyou!
Well Hal, once upon a time...
I think the binary measure might clear up the differences.
I think I just had a geekgasm.
What? I don't think so and I haven't even begun to dig. How much research did you do before making that statement? There were two catastrophic events so far. And Chernobyl wasn't *because* of the reactor it was *because* the administrative personnel conducted a test out of engineering spec (at 250Mw instead of 750Mw) *after* they xenon poisoned the reaction.
And you haven't taken into account accidents in the other stages of the Nuclear Industry. So just how many of those accidents do you include?
So in other words, they're unlikely, but still possible. Specifically which 'modern safety technology are you referring to?
But your not certain, your 'almost certain'. It concerns me that your statements seem to be more 'Pro-Nuclear' rather than 'Responsible Nuclear Advocacy'. Your arguments, fixated on the reactors instead of the industry as a whole, suggest you should educate yourself about the *entire* industry before engaging in this debate any further as you have been unable to actually *answer* any of the arguments I have presented to you.
I am 'almost certain' you will find that exposure to radioactive isotopes will not cause immediate death, but will trigger cancer that will take some years to express itself. I am also 'almost certain' that if there is another catastrophic Nuclear event it will be end of the Nuclear power industry. A shame really because I'm 'almost certain' that advancing the Nuclear Industry could help us deal with the stockpiles of pu-239 and du-238 we have.
Do you know what a ASP is in relation to a Nuclear Power plant? What a Basis Design Issue is, how many are acceptable in a nuclear power plant and how they are found? Or how many recommendations were made by which industry bodies for SNUPPs that actually made it into the design for the AP-1000?
Because if you can't I'd suggest that you don't know as much about Nuclear reactors as you think you do.
So I don't get to say 'Ding Dong, DRM is dead, DRM is dead' yet?
Coal releases more radioactive waste than nuclear power stations in normal operation, however just one accident makes up for all plants because of the massive amounts of radioactive isotopes released. If you had read my post and the article properly you would see that I am talking about the entire Nuclear Industry and *it's* externalities.
All radioactive isotope should be controlled no matter where it comes from. Your statement tries to deflect the responsibility the Nuclear industry should be taking for *their* externalities as the coal industry should also do.
Yucca is not a geologically stable spent fuel containment facility, and even the NRC labeled it as 'inappropriate to contain Nuclear Waste'. When Dixie Lee Ray was the head of the Atomic Energy Commission he proclaimed that the disposal of nuclear fuel would be "the greatest non-problem in history" and would be accomplished by 1985, yet here we are in 2009, over twenty years past that date and still there is no spent fuel containment facility anywhere. The closest anyone has come is the Swiss and even their project is a multi-decade test project and extremely expensive.
Nevada only got it at Yucca because one of their representatives didn't show up. So why aren't Nuclear supporters motivated enough to lobby for it in their state, have you? And who do you think should pay for it? If the Nuclear Industry can't solve this most basic issue what business do they have building any *new* reactors?
What specific techniques are you referring to that 'greatly lessen the amount of waste from a plant' and how do you define greatly? 10%, 20% 50% less?
I simply don't think you have thought that through. What material should be used to contain the spent fuel in the reactor core for the 25000 years while it decays? What about the activated isotopes from the core like Iron 90 or Cobalt 55 in the triated water, just let them leach into the water table? Should we not plan for that because it's Not In My Generation?
This statement makes no sense. Lethality of radiation is controllable, lethality of a radioactive isotope in the environment is not controllable. The Nuclear Industry releases radioactive isotopes into the environment and this medication won't change that or the fact that people who ingest radioactive isotopes *will* contract cancer.
So I should start to factor in Net energy return into this argument. The amount of energy to extract Uranium from the rock, the energetic cost of enrichment, the energetic cost of decommissioning the reactor safely and the energetic cost of the *as yet to be built* containment facilities? What about the characteristic of Nuclear energy to continues to consume energy *after* it has produced energy? What about energetic cost of mine site remediation, energetic cost of U-238 storage?
The typical Solar Panel today achieves between 10% and 15% conversion. Solar parabolic trough plants have been built with efficiencies of about 20%. Up to 600C, steam turbines, standard technology, have an efficiency up to 41%. One proposal for very high temperatures is to use liquid fluoride salts operating between 700C to 800C, using multi-stage turbine systems to achieve 50% or more thermal efficiencies.
Solar thermal also does base load power.
As opposed to hellishly toxic elements that are leaked into the environment and you have no way of knowing if they have wound up in the human food chain. Should we also compare the 'hellishly complex' enri
I can't understand how anyone at the time could look at all six landing on the moon as anything short of amazing as opposed to mundane. It sure says a lot about the differences of the times. I look at the landing sites and think that everyone of those is as important as the first moon landing. I wonder if the attitude towards the moon program would have been then if they'd have known how complacent and cynical people would become.
Back then they had all the promise of what the future would be like. Who knows maybe in another forty years time the world will be they way the thought it would be forty years ago.
How sad that we have wasted so much on petty struggles.
So you admit it's a fake then...
Well there is a difference between radiation and radioactive, so I'll address your points with the goal of clearing any misunderstanding.
It's the entire Nuclear Industry that releases radioactive isotopes into the environment. Mining, enrichment, the reactors themselves and as yet no long term plan to contain spent fuel. ALL radioactive isotopes emit some form of radiation which is a cause for cancers. ALL radioactive isotopes 'Bio-concentrate' in the food chain and can be ingested. The amount of radioactive isotopes released into the environment is proportional to the activity of the Nuclear industry, so the likelihood of exposure increases over time. All radioactive isotopes analogue nutrients in the body so (for example) plutonium 'looks' like iron to the body is a potent cause of leukemia as the isotope decays - which will generally be longer than a human lifetime.
How are Nuclear power plants efficient when PWR's only use 0.3% of the fuel?
This 'potential' medication will only give Nuclear armed states the capability to inoculate their populations against a nuclear strike. So this medication actually *increases* the potential for a nuclear engagement because one side may feel they have the upper hand wrt protecting their population. This changes nothing about Nuclear Industry practices and will not stop you from developing cancer from ingesting radioactive isotopes.
A Nuclear bomb releases a lot of radiation *at the time*. The Nuclear Industry, including reactors, release a lot of radioactive isotopes which emit radiation *over time*.
You can see the shadow of the lander inside the crater wall. Great landing site though to be so close to a crater.
My uncles and my father all watched the Apollo 11 Moon landing *LIVE*. As they were in Australia they were getting the feed slightly before the U.S did. I have no doubt that the moon landing happened but the three of them have all told me the same strange story about when they watched the moon landing.
I can't say exactly when, but they heard Armstrong, a man known for his calm under pressure, say in an excited voice: "Huston, Huston: There is something large and suspiciously* white moving off the crater ri.."(* may have been "brilliantly")
the transmission was cut off and they were left wondering what was going on . I have no doubt the moon landing occurred, but the conspiracy may be concealing information about something much stranger. I'm not claiming to know the truth, but is anyone surprised when the government covers things up to comfort us anymore? Whilst I believe the majority of UFO sighting can be explained by high speed intelligence reconnaissance aircraft and UFO sightings were a convenient cover for their operations, a small percentage of UFO sightings may actually be *Unexplainable*.
That the original recording of the most significant event in modern history have been "lost" at all. Maybe NASA can quite honestly say 'We don't know where the tapes are" because the Air Force or the CIA has them. All we have to do is see how other sightings of UFO's recorded by military officers are treated. Perhaps the story of faked moon landings is misinformation/misdirection to distract from the real conspiracy? What's the availability of all the other moon landing tapes? Was there really only one recording of the first landing?
I don't know, but I don't buy the 'Whoopsee, silly us. We lost the recordings of the most significant event in modern history' explanation. The only way to be sure is to see and hear the recordings of the original moon landing in it entirety from separation of the LM and CM to the docking of the LM to the CM. As it's is a significant piece of human history and surely nothing about the mission's activities were classified, I should be able to, even just to connect to what was achieved all those years ago.
If I ever got a chance to meet Armstrong or Aldrin and without pushing for details I would ask "Respectfully Sir, When you landed on the moon did you witness anything you are not allowed to discuss?", I might not get an answer but at least I would get to look into their eyes as I asked.
Even though I know it won't be enough, Mythbusters shined a laser at the moon. Of course any committed moon hoaxer will say 'hey you just faked the computer output' to that I would say
aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think the shuttle is awsome but where else is it going to go?
You beat me to it, MOD PARENT UP!!
Unfortunately due to mismanagement and the characteristics of the Nuclear industry as a whole, release of radioactive isotopes into the environment is unavoidable. Whilst, generally, external exposure to radioactive isotopes may be harmless the process of 'Bioconcentration' (outlined in Principles of Ecotoxicology) allows inevitable ingestion of radioactive isotopes via the food chain where the radioactive element becomes a potent source of cancer, depending on the nutrient the isotope analogues, in the body. For example, when ingested Pu-239 analogues iron and is a potent trigger for Leukemia.
Much the same way our generation has to deal with a carbon dioxide externality in the form of carbon tax, future generations will have to deal with a radioactive isotope externality proportional to the amount of radioactive isotopes the Nuclear Industry releases. Unless, of course, practices within the nuclear industry are improved.
Your argument presumes that it is a polarised debate, pro vs anti but there is a pragmatic point of view as well that should be framed as 'Responsible Nuclear Advocacy'. The proposition of 'a lower standard of living' implies a Not In My Generation means to dealing with the, very real, issues the Nuclear Industry has. Acknowledging those and starting with a geologically sound spent fuel containment facility (which Yucca Mountain is not) is the first step to moving this industry forward.
Whilst I think that development of Nuclear Power is necessary to deal with pu-239 and u-238 (yes I am talking about an IFR style reactor - but let's not go into that now), realistically it will take 50 years of infrastructure planning to implement a properly functioning industry. This is a ideal opportunity to develop and standardise the Nuclear industry for the next several hundred years with designs that take into account all of the engineered redundancy and safety facilities the Nuclear Industry recommended for itself some 25 years ago. Before you mention the AP-1000, this reactor fails even the most basic test of ratio of containment volume to thermal power (actually below that of today's PWRs) increasing the risk of containment over-pressurization and failure in event of a severe accident.
Even doubling alternative energy research budgets would take 1/7th of the nuclear research budget, so there is serious scope for shortening the wait for the 'alternatives'. They are quite underdeveloped technology (solar, wind, geothermal, wave) so wouldn't it be wise to increase the funding to develop them and not have all our eggs in one basket? They have shorter development times between generations than nuclear and don't need artificial insurance constructs like the Price-Anderson act to make them insurable.
If we are going to have a Nuclear Industry V2.0 why not develop one that is based on solid engineering principals instead of compromised to be affordable to capitalise. In the meantime if we invest heavily in undeveloped, low externality, energy solutions like solar, wind, geo-thermal and micro-generation there will be enough energy *available* to carry out such an infrastructure project properly. America, for one, is rich in these 'alternative' resources and would be foolish not to utilize them.
They don't need to be, many species already have enough pressure put on them already by human activity. So, in a sense I suppose you are right as irresponsible cat ownership is a human activity.
However wikipedia outlines the science in which a Heirisson Prong study found that cats *are* indeed the cause of the species decline of native mammals.
I have seen large feral cats. By large I mean a ball of muscle over 20kgs, it's hard to believe that they would have any difficulty eating anything they want to. Especially in Australia where cats are an introduced species and the native animals do not have a predator response to them as they would to a Dingo (Australian native dog), fox or feral dog. Dog species are the only thing vaguely close to being a predator for a feral cat.
My neighbor had a mean black rottweiler. It used to get out *all* the time bailed all my other neighbors (and me) on our own lawns from time to time and left massive turds on the lawn, and it stank when I opened the door in the morning - thanks neighbor.
I took to spraying it with the garden hose, and when it growled at me I'd growl right back.
Eventually everyone in the street got fed up with the dog getting out all the time. The dog turds, that we were gathering up anyway, were collected and deposited in said rottweiler owners letterbox.
Very soon after the dog was not seen about as often, I guess there are some messages you just can't send via email.
Indeed. In Australia I have met some feral animals, like cats, on hunting trips and they are scary animals. Fortunately I was armed and under instructions from the owner of the property to destroy these animals when ever I had the opportunity as they attack the farmers livestock.
They also decimate native species in Australia as many animals, especially cats, are dumped by people who no longer want the animals - an especially selfish act. Well over 500,000 species of animals are now extinct in Australia because of, mainly, feral cats who become very effective hunter when left to their own devices.
People who want to own cats should have outdoor enclosures, which are available commercially, as even domesticated cats are very effective at killing wildlife.
Still, the worst feral animal I've met is a feral human. They seem to be impossible to domesticate and are extremely dangerous.
Dogs have masters, Cats have servants.